Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/13

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

Subject: [Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:21:20 -0500
References: <C6A888C2.52C32%mark@rabinergroup.com> <96FF42E3-35B3-4711-AF85-17EFD909B5AB@mac.com> <p06230901c6a90b407b71@[10.0.1.199]>

My desire for a digital back for my CM
has a lot more to do with nostalgia
and missing a long used and loved the tool in the hand
than practicality.

The same holds true for view camera work.
I really miss the slow methodical use of my view cameras.
Especially, the 5x7, 8x10 (and larger) ground glass days.
I imagine that I'd enjoy a digital back for my view cameras.
Yet, the reality is that I'd need new "digital," shorter lenses
and be looking at a tiny little ground glass image;
not that beautiful, 8x10, upside down vista of yore.

I'm hoping that a CFV back
will eventually turn up as an affordable toy
in the used market.

Everything I've read supports your statement regarding
the need for exceptional lenses
for high resolution, large sensor backs.
Investing in those backs
means investing in an entirely new system;
as opposed to bringing an old system
out of mothballs.

I also suspect that the crop factor
of a CFV back would soon show itself
to be a tad less fun than my "lust" may admit to.
36.7 x 36.7 is not even twice area of my 5D sensor.
This and the distinct possibility that even that back
may show my 40, 80 and 120 Zeiss glass
to be "less than" I remember (with film);
stops me from throwing $6K
toward lust and nostalgia.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist

On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:

> Unfortunately putting such a back on the old 500 series (or even  
> 2000 series) is a waste of pixels. A lot of the old Zeiss glass  
> just isn't up to the hi-res backs. Best bet would probably be to  
> get something in the 16 to 31Mp range. Nice clean lower ISO stuff,  
> as long as you don't put a 40 onto it, or expect top resolution  
> from some of the other lenses at less than optimum apertures.
>
>
> At 6:06 PM -0500 8/12/09, George Lottermoser wrote:
>> I too hope to some day hang a digital back on my Hassy cm
>> but we'll again only be using a fraction of our zeiss image circle
>>
>> Another interesting set of charts
>> comparing formats
>> and image circles
>> <http://www.stitchpix.com/image_circles.html>
>>
>> for your medium format drooling pleasure
>> <http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/new-backs/>
>>
>> the P65+ finally hits actual "full frame" 645
>> (tears and drool flowing freely)
>>
>> Regards,
>> George Lottermoser
>
>
> -- 
>
>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
>  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Reply from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)