Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm sorry but I'm not ready to drink the Kool-Ade. I looked at Tina's high-ISO mottled, purple horrors and I looked at this test: http://homepage.mac.com/xrogers/page1/page1.html Maybe different people have varying definitions of resolution, but looking at Clyde Rogers's samples, there is detail and definition in the complex areas of the ISO 3200 5D shot (e.g., the field in the center of the frame) as opposed to mush in the M8 ISO 2500 shot. Granted, in real-world, handheld use the difference in rendered fine detail is likely moot. But the M8 photos are going to require more noise reduction in post processing no matter what. Aside from its ability to use M-mount lenses, I have yet to see a functional advantage to the M8 over the EOS 5D. The disadvantages are glaringly obvious to me. And for the record, I make my living with my cameras, even if I don't brag about my earning power. rs Subject: [Leica] Tina said what?! From: red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) Date: Mon Dec 18 06:58:46 2006 I made the initial comment. If you want "PROOF", Go look at the pictures and see for yourself. The difference was slight, but it was there. If you believe it was not there, well, it is the USA and you are entitled to your opinions. I did not review the Ninja treated ( whatever that means, does, or otherwise modifies the images) images. Remember that any image, when modified by wither software or other means, loses something and gains something. It is always a tradeoff. And I still want to know where ( how?) those new pixels come from, and where the old pixels go..... Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net ______________________________________ Robert Schneider Photography Lexington, MA 781.646.5525 (office) 617.777.2139 (mobile) rob@robertschneider.com www.robertschneider.com www.schneiderpix.com photoblog: luab.blogtog.com