Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] For B.D.
From: richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard)
Date: Sun Apr 10 17:41:49 2005
References: <4dccee3d050410143621c3750b@mail.gmail.com> <000001c53e2c$8721f580$6401a8c0@dorysrusp4>

Something doesn't jive about this - the DigiluxII's sensor is smaller than 
the 4/3 sensor. I think it's just over 1" in diagonal (I'm sure less lazy 
people than I can find it on the dpreview site). So if the digilux's pics 
are better, than it has to be either

- better lens
- better software

By almost all accounts, including Erwin Puts', the Digital Zuiko lens are 
top notch, so is the difference than software?

At 05:22 PM 4/10/2005, Don Dory wrote:
>....
>Ok, accept the premise that the Canon guys had better computer geeks who
>were doctoring the images before sending them to print.  The DIMA guys
>did a comparison test of the E-1 against the Digilux II.  Same lighting,
>same model, same computer work, same printer: the end result was that at
>16X20 the Digilux II had a better image both in color, lower artifacts,
>and in total image quality.  It was close, looking at the images, but
>the Digilux did have the better image.
>...

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 


Replies: Reply from masonster at gmail.com (David Mason) ([Leica] For B.D.)
Reply from phong at doan-ltd.com (Phong) ([Leica] For B.D.)
In reply to: Message from masonster at gmail.com (David Mason) ([Leica] For B.D.)
Message from dorysrus at mindspring.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] For B.D.)