Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Is 16.7 mp even required? My dealer showed me two well made prints on 13x19 paper of the same subject shot by a 6mp Canon 10D and an 11 mp Canon 1Ds. They were indistinguishable to me, and, I was told, to everyone else who made the same comparison. And they both looked stunning, by the way. So why 16.7mp? Is this just a marketing scam? When does it stop? -dan c. At 12:36 PM 21-09-04 -0700, Feli di Giorgio wrote: >On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 12:04, B. D. Colen wrote: >> Wow, you sure rack up those numbers fast...$1500 for CF cards? You can >> get a 1gig, 80x card for about $139 - call it $140. > >Considering that you can only get about 20 shots at full res on a 1GB >card (1024MB / 50MB = 20.48), I would think you would need at least 10 >of them. Would you go on a job with less than 10 rolls? A lot of >shooters tend to "machine gun" their subjects these days and pick the >"decisive moment" out of a sequence generated by a frame burst. Maybe >you want to run in a dual card setup where the RAW files go to one and >JPGS to another so you can transmit asap. > > > >> So even if you need >> four of them, that's $560, not $1500! And disk space? I just bought an >> external 250 gig usb2/firewire drive for $299. Where are you getting >> these numbers? :-) > >I would not trust a single drive system with a paying job. I would build >a mirrored array about 500MB in size, which would be failsafe short of >the building burning down. So, by the time you buy the drives, a case >and a raid controller plus software you are looking at a solid $1000 >bucks. $1500 may have been a little high, but you still have to figure >out a reliable longterm storage solution and that's not a backup on to >DVD/CD or tape. Maybe sending the frames to a film recorder as an >additional safety precaution would be a smart thing to do... > > > >> Yes, if you already have a fortune invested in an R system, and don't >> want to dump it, then it might make sense to go with the back...But if >> not...My point is that you were saying the full-frame Canon is >> expensive, when in fact it offers infinitely more in the way of both >> features and image potential than the R back, yet is virtually the same >> price as the R back. So if the Canon is over priced, what's the R back? >> ;-) > > >I never compared it to the R-back. To me that's a whole different >ballgame. And if I was a shooting pro I would have serious concerns >about using the R-back on a daily basis as my main or perhaps only body. >If I was using a camera which is entirely electronic and sensitive to >dust and moisture I would want as much sealing as I could get and that >means buying a pro level Nikon or Canon. > > >Feli > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >