Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/06/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I based my comments on the examples you provided Lawrence. I see a very visible difference between the two files. More than enough of a difference to cause me to forget about the "pocket" cameras. I'd rather have the "heavy" M hanging on my shoulder to provide me with a high quality RAW file, relatively precise viewing and focusing, than a "pocket" camera which, I know from experience, will disappoint me every time I'd wished it would not have. The moments I wish to capture photographically cannot be recreated later. I've tried to rationalize a pocket camera as a "sketchbook." But I've always come away feeling disappointed by file quality. I agree that it would be wonderful to have the digital equivalent of a Leica CL. Yet such a wish does not preserve a moment or further a vision or work flow. Obviously YMMV. And all that matters is that the gear you choose accomplishes the goals you've set for yourself. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote: > 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