Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sam, I made those comments in the context of low light photography. What's good: 1) For low light, you can change the ISO whenever you like, so in effect you always have high speed film in your camera. 2) At high ISO ratings (400 and above), the noise produced by the DSLRs I use (1Ds and 10D) is less obtrusive than the grain produced by film of equivalent speed. 3) At low ISO ratings, I am getting superior detail and less grain, particularly with the 1Ds. Shadow detail is better. Highlights, however, are a problem. 4) The ability to adjust exposure in the RAW image after the fact is a huge advantage for existing light. This combined with the new Photoshop CS "shadow and highlight" dialog gives the photographer alot of control. Adjusting a scanned TIF file (second generation) is not the same as having a RAW (first generation) file to work with. What's not: 1) They are LARGE and HEAVY compared to the Leica M. The 1Ds with the 70-200 mounted weighs almost 4 kg! 2) Though the EF lenses are very good, they are not nearly the equal of the M lenses, particularly against the light. Flare resistance in the new EF 16-35 f2.8 is very poor, though I have had good results with the EF 35mm f2 3) Sensor DUST is a continual problem 4) OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive for machines with such a comparatively short life cycle. - --Jim - ----- Original Message ----- From: "sam" <sam@osheaven.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light > I don't understand why you say digital outperforms film. In what way? > > Sam S - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html