Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/16

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital Bessa, NOT
From: "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:06:51 -0500

B.D,
My point about price point versus performance was nuanced to the Leica
whiners.  You remember the posts from someone who thought they saw a bit
of dust in a newly acquired Leica lens and how awful that was.  Compare
that to paint flaking and finish coming off Cosina lenses and how the
finish sucked but the lens was still OK.  So if the Cosina works but
battery life is short or it needs six firmware upgrades in 8 months it
will be considered a success.  However, if the Leica isn't essentially
flawless we will hear endless comments about how could Leica charge
$XXXXXX and build such excrement.

Ability to shoot at ISO's beyond 400 is critical to anyone shooting
available light.  The Digilux 2 doesn't show any "noise" at 400 that is
noticeable hence my restrained comment.  My comment about underexposing
in RAW was a work around to use in really low light.  I wasn't saying
that in normal use you had to overexpose; in the digital realm that is
death.

16X20 results were in fact better than prints that Fuji had to
demonstrate NPS.  The 16X20's from the Digilux were produced from files
shot at 100, white and black point set in CS and output on an Epson 9600
all in a carefully calibrated system designed to test the output of the
camera without testing any other part of the chain.  As I assume that
Fuji tried to put their best foot forward on the prints displaying their
product the fact that the Digilux 2 and also the E-1 prints looked
better without CS massaging truly sounds the death toll of film.

The rest of the user interface of the Digilux 2 is up to potential
owners to evaluate.  The points I made were not to sing the praises but
to state that the design was acceptable enough that if the design
appealed to you then a potential user should in fact try the tool.

My estimated price of the Cosina product was a WAG.  Factors going into
the guess were relatively low production, no in house chip foundry, the
fact that Nikon was only going to make 20% of the D70's available as a
body with 80% going for $300 more including a $100 lens means that
Nikon's estimated cost of the D70 body is over $1000.

Last point about price, I talked with a portrait photographer who had
purchased two of the early Kodak DCS cameras at something over $23000
each.  No regrets, they had paid for themselves in a year doing charity
event portraiture with prints in minutes.  So if a tool does a job for
you, you have to evaluate price/performance for the job at hand.

Rather than discuss at cross purposes whether a tool is good or bad why
don't we have an adult beverage when I am in Boston sometime around
March 7th?

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com


I'm most amused by the assumption that this will be a $2000 dog, which
won't upset people as much as a $5000 Leica dud - I don't know about
you, Don, but I'd be pretty pissed off if I bought a $2000 lemon. But I
don't know where the $2000 comes from - I'd guess around $1000. We're
talking no lens, an already existing body, and less than a full-frame
sensor; look at the price of the Canon digital Rebel.

And while I'm responding to this one -
As to the comment yesterday about the Digilux II - what you've described
is a grossly overpriced dog - 400 iso with "acceptable" noise; to get
serious results you need to shoot raw and over expose by one to two
stops; an acceptable viewfinder; and a price tag of almost $2000? That's
an insult to consumers, not a Leica. Sure, it looks and feels like an M,
but read your own description, and then read what people have always
said about Leicas and quality - there is a world-class disconnect here.




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