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: richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:54:43 -0700
References: <7ac27f4f0908122357i7d12480bmf8ee579e77294dad@mail.gmail.com> <394650.22545.qm@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <7ac27f4f0908130239y442c465ajf6d94bf1f6b55023@mail.gmail.com> <36172e5a0908130604q37ac2d8ai9ac46d87b9a2330c@mail.gmail.com> <7ac27f4f0908131212s12855b61t366ffc790ee8a30@mail.gmail.com> <36172e5a0908131425uac7d343ra6e61ab2e399c8d@mail.gmail.com> <7ac27f4f0908131439n6bb2c4adjf236b9e516ff049c@mail.gmail.com> <36172e5a0908131546i67a6a3dcq6af5485cbd378c9a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Geoff Hopkinson<hopsternew at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Richard, did you chip a tooth or dent the new car or something!! ;-) 
> Sheesh!
> Time for a nice relaxing cup ot tea ;-)

It's that $500+ (and climbing) vet bills for a rescued dog that some
idiotic f*cktard dumped on the street. May that bastards... something
equally as bad happens to them.

> Strong low pass filter is an objective description of a design decision,
> 'stupid bollock for having to fit a UV filter" is not quite ;-)

Sounds the same to me: criticism on some design decisions. Everything
is a compromise.

> In case you are interested I shall repost the comparisons from Raw
> conversions with different profiles and my particular camera. The target is
> the industry standard Colorchecker card that Adobe uses to produce the
> profiles for each new camera in Raw. The colour temperature was measured to
> be very close to 6500K too. Those are objective, measurable results. Its
> still valid to 'prefer' one result over another. On resolution, go and put
> your E3 on a tripod, use its native ISO, set your best zoom to give you the
> same magnification, (about 33mm to match a 50 on your M8), ?same
> distance and use the same aperture (say f4 to allow for the zoom being
> naturally slower). Pixel peep at 100%. Rinse and repeat with your M8.

I rather peck myself to death with toothpicks and do these sort of tests.

> On practical examples, I don't think I need to apologise. I posted 400+ in
> July. You have prints from my camera in your home (or your cat's litter
> tray??). What are you sending for the current print exchange cycle? Send me
> a great example from your E3 too? It is a fine dSLR system. I admire
> Olympus.

What do you think you have been seeing? :-)

Why are you trying to convince me that Leica is the best? :-) Have you
have your cup of tea?!!! Must be those vegemites.

-- 
// richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
// w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog:
http://rfman.wordpress.com
// book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963


In reply to: Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)