Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Why not go for the 16 mpixel model then? Do you notice much difference between the Canon and Leica lenses with your camera? best,simon jessurun,amsterdam > The Mark II is indeed 1.3, and 8 MP. The 20D is 1.6, also 8 MP. I lusted > after the Mark II but the price difference is very significant, and for > my needs the 20D is more than sufficient. However, if I were relying on > the camera to make a living, I would definitely go for the Mark II. > > Nathan > > B. D. Colen wrote: > > The 1D or 1Ds is definitely slower, but very few folks on this list are > > into sequence shooting, and for that they are doing, the full-frame body > > is probably plenty fast. And yes, the MKII is not full-frame - I believe > > it's 1.3, although it may be 1.5. But then the digiback isn't full-frame > > either. That was part of my point. > > > > My wedding partner recently made the jump from the 10D to the MarkII and > > it is quite a machine. Yes, it's big. But it's also pretty amazing in > > terms of capability. And when considering big, remember that you're not > > comparing these cameras to Ms, but to R8s with digital backs attached. > > ;-) > > > > B. D. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > > [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > > grduprey@rockwellcollins.com > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:36 AM > > To: lug@leica-users.org > > Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital Module R > > > > > > BD > > > > I would agree with you, but the Canon dealers, I have talked to prefer > > the > > 1D MK II over the 1Ds as they feel the 1Ds is slower to work with for > > every day type shooting and is better suited for studio work, and a > > better > > value for the dollar. Also from what I remember, only the 1Ds is full > > frame, the 1D MK II is the 1.5 factor sensor. > > > > Gene > > > > > > Let me make a suggestion to those of you who are considering an > > alternative to the Digital back... Thing seriously about either the EOS > > MarkII or the D1...Yes, they are infinitely more expensive than the D20. > > And, yes, you'll get great results with the D20. But IF you were or are > > planning to spend $4-6K on the digital back (and I mention the higher > > price because the dollar seems to be heading for the basement against > > the Euro, which means the price of the digi back has to be going up as > > we speak), you might consider the higher end Canons, which will be more > > likely to give you want you're looking for in terms of results. Frankly, > > the D20 might well provide an image as good as that the digi back will > > produce, but who knows. And I would suggest that the Mark II and the D1 > > or D1s will have better viewfinders than the D20 - but they may well not > > be up to R8/9 standards. (But then no SLR is. ;-)) > > > > Actually, the D1 or D1s is probably the way to go, because it will give > > you the fullframe 35 sensor, which seems to be what most people here > > want... > > > > B. D. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > -- > Nathan Wajsman > Almere, The Netherlands > > General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com > Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >