Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light
From: sam <sam@osheaven.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:21:20 -0500
References: <152.29b08df6.2d4d03bc@aol.com> <00cd01c3e84d$f159b5e0$388a8418@symkeehx5nw8g8> <00ca01c3e866$fb720e10$6401a8c0@basecamp2win> <401C62A8.5000907@osheaven.net> <00fa01c3e876$0676f4b0$6401a8c0@basecamp2win>

Jim, thanks for the explanation. Is sensor dust something that can be 
apparant on the final image? I'm thinking that it would be difficult to 
clean the sensor in the field.

Sam S



Jim Laurel wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Teresa299@aol.com (Re: [Leica] Fw: [Large Format] Beth Keiser Shoots B&W 4x5 ForCampaign Coverage)
Message from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> ([Leica] digital in low light)
Message from "Jim Laurel" <jplaurel@nwlink.com> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Message from sam <sam@osheaven.net> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Message from "Jim Laurel" <jplaurel@nwlink.com> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)