Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/10

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

Subject: [Leica] For B.D.
From: dorysrus at mindspring.com (Don Dory)
Date: Sun Apr 10 17:22:22 2005

David,
I will stand by my lemon comments.  At PMA 2004 Olympus was really
pushing the E-1.  At their stand they had a famous photographer shooting
models and then printing the images out, at 11x14.  They were pretty
fine: at the Canon booth they were pushing the 20D, same deal with
photographer and model, but they were printing out 16x20 and 20X30.
Much better image quality at 16x20 than at brand O.

Ok, accept the premise that the Canon guys had better computer geeks who
were doctoring the images before sending them to print.  The DIMA guys
did a comparison test of the E-1 against the Digilux II.  Same lighting,
same model, same computer work, same printer: the end result was that at
16X20 the Digilux II had a better image both in color, lower artifacts,
and in total image quality.  It was close, looking at the images, but
the Digilux did have the better image.

This in no way degrades the Olympus effort, but they really need to come
up with the E-II really soon now, with an improved sensor.  The sensor
in the Evolt isn't it however.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
Of David Mason
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:36 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] For B.D.

Did you "try the sensor" though? I mean did you look at the images and
just laugh at that pitiful sensor size? Somehow I doubt it. Those
other points are all good points but have nothing to do with what you
originally said.

On Apr 10, 2005 5:11 PM, Don Dory <dorysrus@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David,
> Actually, I have tried to like the E-1.  It just doesn't work for me.
> :() I like the size, the lenses, but operationally and viewfinder wise
> it just doesn't float my boat.  Of course, the only DSLR's that do are
> the D2X and the 1DsMkII viewfinder wise.
> 
> Don
> dorysrus@mindspring.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
> Of David Mason
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:44 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] For B.D.
> 
> I'm just curious - have you actually tried that "lemon of a sensor
> size" yourself?
> 
> On Apr 10, 2005 1:38 PM, Don Dory <dorysrus@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Feli,
> > Olympus is trying to turn the lemon of a sensor size into lemonade
by
> > creating fast glass so that 800ISO at F2 is the same as 1600 as
F2.8.
> > With the emphasis on limited DOF in the fashion world I give them a
> fair
> > chance of pulling it off.  Naw, the soccer mom shooting soccer or
> > football will not be able to keep enough in focus at F2, and there
are
> > some really good lenses from independent manufacturers that are 2.8,
> > quite good, quite cheap, and in the other guys mounts.
> >
> > Again, I think Olympus is in a niche market with the 4/3 system.  A
> very
> > good system that only a few people will appreciate. :(
> >
> > Don
> > dorysrus@mindspring.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
> > [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On
Behalf
> > Of Feli
> > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 11:40 AM
> > To: Leica Users Group
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] For B.D.
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2005, at 5:07 AM, B. D. Colen wrote:
> >
> > > Boy, there's a shocker!:-) There's only one problem with all of
it,
> > and
> > > I say this as an Olympus whore -
> > Shocking, isn't it? ;-)
> >
> > >  thus far, the smaller sensor does seem
> > > to translate into more noise at higher isos. It may well be that
> this
> > > can be overcome, but there seems little question that at this
point,
> > > the
> > > Canon DSLR's provide the lowest noise levels.
> >
> > And that right there is my problem with the 4/3 system. I simply
don't
> > think
> > they will be able to get the noise levels down, given the size of
the
> > chip,
> > especially above 800asa. Both Nikon and Canon are struggling to keep
> > things clean with the slightly bigger APS size. It a shame because
it
> > looks
> > like a very nice system They  recently announced a 14-35mm (35mm
> > equiv: 28-70mm) f2.0 and 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) f2.0.
> > No one else is making fast glass like that.
> >
> > feli
> > ________________________________________________________
> > feli2@earthlink.net                     2 + 2 = 4
> > www.elanphotos.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



Replies: Reply from masonster at gmail.com (David Mason) ([Leica] For B.D.)
Reply from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] For B.D.)
In reply to: Message from masonster at gmail.com (David Mason) ([Leica] For B.D.)