Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]For me, anything past about 12 mp is wasted anyway. If I need to make gigantic prints there is always Photoshop or plugins that extrapolate extra pixels. resolution has never mattered to me much, except in rendering texture. The D700 suits me fine. The thing I like best about Leica Ms is that the bodies are small, compact and simple and the view is direct. None of these SLRs are any of those things, but the D700 is the smallest and simplest. The D3 cameras make me feel like I'm working as a photographer again, with the sore shoulders and back to match. Marty On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:26 AM, <afirkin at afirkin.com> wrote: >> I only tested the A900 with 35, 50 and 85 mm lenses. ?I liked the way >> images from it in low or contrasty light looked like the scene I was >> photographing straight out of the camera, rather than like the scene >> taken in flat bright daylight, like the D700, Canon 5D and other very >> capable full frame cameras tend to, and the general film-grain look of >> its noise when it became apparent. >> >> But the lens range is limiting and I wouldn't buy one just on the >> principle that if I need to use a tilt-shift lens, or a 14 mm lens, or >> whatever, I can easily hire one for a Nikon, whereas I cannot for a >> Sony here in Australia. ?I can also easily mount a D700 on any of my >> microscopes with a Nikon built C-Mount adaptor, whereas I looked and >> as far as I can tell no such thing exists for the Minolta-Sony mount. >> Maybe it does, but I couldn't find one. >> >> Marty > > So Marty would you go D700 or cough up for the D3s/x. The x would > "emulate" the sony in file size. > > Alastair > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >