Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi George - I was a computer programmer/analyst back when the machines cost over $100,000 and PC's barely functioned. Your argument implies that the comparison is between two non-evolving kinds of equipment, just like mainframers argued that those little toy computers would never amount to anything. The P&S cameras are breaking creative ground at a clip that makes the pro digital cameras appear to be standing still - just like PC's did to mainframes. SImple P&S cameras today are miles beyond the pro digital cameras of only a few years ago. "High-end" computers of years ago were rapidly made obsolete by the "throw away" personal computers that advanced so quickly. Same thing will happen with the technologies being used in the P&S camera arena. Ignoring the comparison of a broad range of digital cameras today will be like thinking that COBOL will forever be the computer language of the future. I try to predict some of the future of digital cameras at http://northcoastphotos.com/Lympa-2006-04-30.htm and did a review about a year ago lamenting the lack of creative design in the area of pro digital cameras at <http://reviews.ebay.com/Olympus-C-8080-Rangefinder-Camera-vs-DSLR-Approach_W0QQugidZ10000000000004230>http://reviews.ebay.com/Olympus-C-8080-Rangefinder-Camera-vs-DSLR-Approach_W0QQugidZ10000000000004230 or http://tinyurl.com/en3wv I believe that many P&S innovations will make their way into the pro cameras; indeed some P&S style cameras may overtake the pro cameras, just as networks of little PC's took over mainframe computer rooms. So now is a great time to do some serious comparisons, especially since so many current pro cameras appear to be made as though they still should hold film and are like the mainframe dinosaurs that mostly disappeared. Gary Todoroff Datamaster Designs Eureka, CA 95501 707 445-8425 www.northcoastphotos.com At 12:08 PM 09/13/06, you wrote: >Hi Gary, > >How is it "meaningful" to compare a high end, extremely well built, >manual, precision range finder camera and its set of equally high >quality cammed lenses to automatic, essentially throw-away cameras >other than to say that they both take 35mm film and/or have digital >chips in them and/or will allow the making of a photograph? I don't >dispute that folks make comparisons. However, in my mind, that does >not make such comparisons "meaningful." I already have a pretty good >idea that any box with a hole in it will allow the exposing of film >and the formation of an image; and that autofocus, autoexposure, auto >film advance cameras are available within a price range of $20 - >$10,000. > >Of course the simplicity, precision, accuracy, build, and image >quality of a number of fine RF cameras can certainly be meaningfully >compared. But comparing a top shelf RF to a P&S has about as much >meaning as comparing a 35mm camera to a 4x5 camera. > >Regards, >George Lottermoser >george@imagist.com > > > >On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Gary Todoroff wrote: > >>George - the LUG has meaningfully compared M's to Yaschica T's, >>Ricohs, and other point and shoots. Meaningless comparison? I've >>compared my Leica M's to every other camera I've ever owned. >>Usually the Leica comes out ahead. But the Olympus E-330, which can >>also be used as a P&S, represents an advance in photography that >>eclipses almost anything the M can do, digital or not. I am >>extremely disappointed in Leica's approach to digital. > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information