Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 6:37 PM -0800 11/5/01, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, Austin, come on. We're on a friendly basis and this flame is not
>> > necessary.
>>
>> Sorry you took it that way, but it wasn't meant as a flame, George, it's an
>> honest question. The person you were talking to below (and said not to
>> presume etc.) DOES design digital cameras...and is a senior scientist for
>> one of the top digital camera manufacturers now...and probably knows as much
>> if not more than most anyone on this subject. If you really do have more
>> experience than that, I'd really like to know.
>>
>> > The point is, to write off an entire use of a medium because of damn-near
>> > negligible points is a bit silly.
>>
>><Snip>
>
>To me we've got some of our friends (Jim) who design the stuff and would know
>what they are talking about we we've got other of our Lugnut friends (Johnny)
>who are getting stupendous results from digital.
>Me i see Jim's point but have seen many stupendous digital prints
>from an array
>of sources: scanners backs and digital cameras low end and high. Small prints
>maybe in some cases but how big do they have to be?
>
>I have a capitalist faith in technology overcoming all obstacles when there is
>enoght money in there for them.
>
>They'll design software to grab the garbled trashed digital data from an array
>of pixel grabbers or die trying!
>
>Lots of digital backs are being sold which fit on 4x5's or medium
>format cameras
>for catalogs. IT's here. It's happenin. We may be Leicalike low tech Geeks who
>are not much for it just like we're not much for AF but it's here.
>The kids are
>having fun with it!
>
I read everything that Jim writes because it's obvious to me he knows
what he's doing. I've had enough physics courses to appreciate the
stuff he's working on and its limitations at present. I also know
that whatever the limitations are at present they won't necessarily
be there in the future, but we're not there yet and the limitations
that Jim presents are still relevant.
I, as well as many other people on this list, have a digital camera.
It's not a high end camera, and I don't need or use it as such. It is
a handy recorder that doesn't need film and produces e-mail ready
images of sufficient quality in a minimum of fuss. If I push it, it
produces decent 5x7 images. Not good 5x7 images, just decent enough.
Extrapolation indicates that an SLR and 6MP 24x36 sensor would
provide decent, if not good 11x14's. It won't produce good 8x10's,
just OK ones that a $200 point and shoot camera will be competetive
with, even when dumb-down filters are used to make the SLR 6MP setup
work according to Nyquist's criteria.
It would be handy to have a back to snap on a Leica to allow us to
use most of our Leica lenses to produce digital images (don't even
thing of using your 21SA with a digital back), but a more reasonable
solution at present is to use a D30 with a 28-135 or 16-35; these are
compatible products that work at a certain level. They are good
products that produce reasonable pictures. Comparing them to present
day Leica products is unreasonable.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html