[Leica] Test of two cameras

[lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

The problem is that I like small cameras that I can carry with me at all
times. That way I can go about my life yet be able to photograph a scene
that takes my fancy. Most "good" cameras are either too large and heavy or
too expensive to treat casually. With the good stuff there is always the
worry about damage, loss, or theft. I think Leica started on the wrong path
with the M series. Although it was, and is a great camera, it is heavy and
won't fit in a pocket. Except perhaps an overcoat pocket. Apart from my
ancient IIIc carry camera, my favorite of the Leica ilk is the CL. Too bad
Leica didn't see fit to digitize it. I'd buy one in a second. No
viewfinderless cameras need apply.


The thrust of my test is that small, very pocketable cameras are catching up
to their bigger siblings in picture quality in normal conditions. View the
two Iron Dog shots in large size to see what I mean. The cheap Canon 780, a
$150 camera you can slip in a watch pocket takes pictures comparable in
quality to a much larger and costlier DSLR. OK, the Oly is not a Leica but
it is still pretty good.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Iron+Dog+_Oly_.JPG.html


http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Iron+Dog+_780_.JPG.html


Now if only Leica would get cracking on that digital CL.


Larry Z

- - - - -

Unless of course you happen to

"casually" capture a strikingly fine photograph;

which you'd then like to print

with maximum fine detail, dynamic range, post processing flexibility;

and a minimum of digital artifacts and chromatic aberrations.


;~)

or

;~(

depending on your POV


Regards,

George Lottermoser


On Jun 29, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:


No conclusions except that it's not necessary to carry the big

stuff around

to take casual pictures.