Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/02

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

Subject: [Leica] Re:Leica D200
From: dcm at pobox.com (David C. Mason)
Date: Wed Nov 2 06:41:27 2005
References: <25229337.1130876375153.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20051101222836.85761.qmail@web34013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9b678e0511011817t5259faafh22546ead6ce19f6f@mail.gmail.com> <22c93b290511011820w4d858415y5e29adb71240c186@mail.gmail.com> <4dccee3d0511011821l57442bdel966db4cbdcc3af9f@mail.gmail.com> <002b01c5df70$d6e65e40$1ae76c18@ted>

I suppose if there were actually a negative the whole "full frame"
thing would make sense to me but honestly 35mm was a random size and
any CMOS/CCD is a random size. Its just photos.

As to lenses, I think its interesting that Sigma and others are
picking up some of the slack in fast, wide lenses these days. The
other interesting thing is how good they have become. I tried out the
30mm 1.4 sigma and when I got home I was really amazed how good it
was. There was a time that those third-party lenses were cheap both in
price and in quality - now... well, I think they are closing the gap.

I also love my Nikon 20mm - very good lens and I don't ever take an
SLR into super-dark situations so I don't care that there isn't a 1
after the f/ - it is also fairly inexpensive for a new Nikon lens.


Dave


On 11/2/05, Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote:
> David C. Mason offered:
> > If it takes great photos who cares if its full frame or not?<<<
>
> Hi David,
> How true!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I mean most of us have used any number of different size cameras over the
> years so who needs a full frame whatever!
>
> I started with a 35mm kind of P&S as it would be called today, in reality a
> little plastic box an "Argus A2" given to me by my wife 54 years ago! Still
> have it. And her! ;-)
>
> When I became a pro we had to use 4X5 Speed Graphic's as news 
> photographers,
> went to  Rolliflex, a Meister Korelle single lens 2 1/4, fabulous camera,
> Argus A3 I think it was, used a Contax lll for some time, wonderful camera
> with a 1.5 lens. I thought it was the greatest camera and lens as I could
> shoot in almost no light at all at f 1.5. :-) Then came Leicas and been 
> that
> way for as close to 45 years as it can be.
>
> Now playing more with a Leica digi 2 and the 20D. Seems all of them were
> different shapes and sizes, but it never was a problem as we made use of
> whatever size the film was and seemed to get some rather fine "snaps" on
> occasion. ;-)
>
> So today whether it's a some what frame, full frame, king size or whatever
> one ends up with, hell just forget about it and use the tool in hand and
> ones photo life will be fine.:-)
>
> Besides most of those full frame monsters of today at a price more than a
> half a year's worth of food, one might as well go back and shoot a 4X5 
> Speed
> Graphic! One full frame at a time! ;-)
>
> ted
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>


Replies: Reply from dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
In reply to: Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (feli) ([Leica] OT: Nikon D200)
Message from zoeica1 at yahoo.com (Chris Williams) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from wooderson at gmail.com (Matt Powell) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from dcm at pobox.com (David C. Mason) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)