Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Please, Mark - you are too damn smart, and too insightful, to write, much less, believe your first couple of paragraphs. Leica aspirations? As in photosocial climbing? Sure it has Leica aspirations - it's meant to look like a Leica M. But it's not a Leica M - if this review is to be believed at all, it's an Olympus C5060 in Leica drag. And btw - I am NOT trying to make any sort of case for the Olympus - I am simply saying that it's pretty insane to pay $1800 for a name and a set of features that apparently don't produce any better images than a camera that costs about 1/3 as much. B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Mark Rabiner Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:17 AM To: leica-users Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Digilux 2 short hands-on test On 3/3/04 5:26 PM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote: > The C5060 is an excellent high-end P&S. It's viewfinder is nothing to > write home about, but beyond that, I have no complaints. Of course > it's nowhere near as 'cool' as the Digi2. But frankly, it doesn't > surprise me at all that it came out even with, or slightly ahead of > the digi2. That is, essentially, the point I've been trying to make > since the Digi2 was > announced- Hey, gang, it's an $1800! friggin point and shoot, with a > essentially the same tiny sensor the $500-700 point and shoots have. But > hey, it looks like a Leica - so it must be worth 3x what similar cameras > cost. ;-) > But this point and shoot has real camera aspirations and real Leica aspirations. I kind of think of it as being a Leica. Leica was plenty involved with it as I see it and glass for me is always the main thing. A Leica M or TLM or R and the glass that comes with it is a lot of money people have always thought to put an image on puny 35mm 24x36mm movie film. For all that money some like to spend it on Hasselblad and have it not all focused down like shooting light though a keyhole. 60x60mm or 70 or 90 represents some respectable acreage for imaging. (you need to set your Hasselblad to "record mode". So we're used to shelling out some extra money to be on the Leica wagon. But I think the best camera to use is the one you have now. That is always the case Now you (B.D.) have a C5060 which is not going to magically stop taking fine pictures when the D2 comes out. And the prints on your wall are not going to all of a sudden look crummy or otherwise unacceptable. I'm getting great images with a Digilux 1. I switch between a Nikon D100 with it's bunch of new Nikon glass and the Digilux with impunity and assert my privileged prerogative when nessesary! If I posted a shot with one of them for people to see on their monitors 768x1024 pixies (and I will of St. Louis and its Arch) in the next week no one is going to be able to tell which images came from the small sensor and which came from the bigger one. I've been working with those images over the past two days day and night. I'm sure it would be the same story with prints with a border on letter sized or 8x10 archival matte paper from something like a 2200. I think at A3 (11.7x16.5") the difference might start to show but a better printer could fool you with his or her 11x14's. I should know for sure from experience but I just donšt yet. I think you just clean up each channel separately. First NBC then CBS. Then ABC. That's what I've been doing and no more jpg's I got a 512 today and I'm a tiff kind a guy on that Digilux. Love the way that big monitor on the back of the camera just stays on! Like the light in my refrigerator. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland, Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/ - -- 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