Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/13

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

Subject: [Leica] Why a digital M
From: Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie)
Date: Tue Jul 13 12:26:53 2004
References: <r01050300-0921-EF431F01D4CC11D8B686424F2B679C48@[]> <1089743758.4790.15.camel@failsafe>

If I remember correctly Leica found that 10mp was required to equal 
35mm film. Certainly I see plenty of web sites deponstrating that the 
11 mpx Canon EOS1Ds is better than scanned 35mm film but inferior to 
scanned 120 film. The difference seems to me to be largely due to the 
absence of grain as far as I can see in the examples I have seen. My 
EOS 10D is much better at 1600 iso than any film I have used.

On 13 Jul, 2004, at 19:35, Feli di Giorgio wrote:

> So, why do people here want a digital M?:
> a) For professional reasons? Are you a PJ who needs to upload his pics
> from a war zone etc.
> b) Want to save on film and developing costs.
> c) It's the new thing.
> d) Convenience of not having to develop and scan film.
> e) Unless this thing is north of 14MP, it's not going to be better 
> than film and you're
> still going to have to deal with Bayer pattern smear and exposure 
> latitude only slightly
> better than slide film.
> Just curious.
> I understand that Leica probably needs a digital M to ensure it's 
> longterm survival,
> but personally I really have no need or desire for one. I'm not a 
> professional
> PJ, who's work demands the use of digital and I mainly shoot B/W, 
> which I prefer to
> develop myself. I sit in front of a computer all day at work and 
> getting away from
> electronics and shooting with my Leicas is cheaper than therapy. 
> So,right now I have a
> analog, full frame 20 megapixel camera, which is built like a tank and 
> does everything
> I want perfectly. Film gives me a simple, safe and archival storage 
> media. I have
> a Nikon SC5000 ED scanner, which acts as my analog to digital 
> converter and spits out
> digital files that are as good and better than any digital camera this 
> side of $10,000.
> So, why would I spend $5000 on a digital M, unless my lively hood 
> depended on it?
> Feli
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

In reply to: Message from george at (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Why a digital M)
Message from feli at (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Why a digital M)