Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]See, y'all? Mark and I agree on something w.r.t. the M9!!! Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:35 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> Which means that the M9 is no improvement on the M8 in this sense-- >> its >> pixel density is just as high. >> >> Nathan > > You're right Nathan its bad news that the pixel pitch (size in > microns) is > 6.8 ?m pixel pitch with both the m8 and m9. > As the glow wears off this is going to near ruin the party. > The Leica M9 does not need to have super camera (Nikon D3x) specs. > It needs to be a shooting persons camera and have a lower pitch. > For higher signal-to-noise ratio and exceptionally wide dynamic range, > It has to be a Leica. Something which will get people to put down > their high > iso shooting full frame DSLR's and use it instead because its got > way better > glass and is a rangefinder camera. > > > So this 12 mp camera has to come out as I've been saying > With ISO's on the dial hitting close to the 100,000 digital mark. > Do they call that 5 digits or 6? > 5 zeros I guess. > > > > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information