Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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