Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/09

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

Subject: [Leica] why users love it
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Fri Mar 9 12:23:16 2007
References: <B47E951D-AE2C-4ED7-B928-AD6AC6290117@mac.com> <6785C65F-624F-4249-998E-7B10DA60F5BD@comcast.net> <F83D6FD4-E596-4D96-92AE-B1DF3DB840D3@mac.com> <45F0B983.3090106@waltjohnson.com> <C712DB96-6686-466E-8D08-F8244B4C0B04@mac.com>

George

Oh, I see. It all starts to make sense now. I still wonder why someone 
would love a 5000 dollar M8. Perhaps it might look good next to a 
machine  costing *much *less but to me that misses the point of making 
comparisons. You have every right to love whatever your heart desires. 
If you admitted to kissing a cow in your neighbor's pasture I'd 
certainly not find fault.  If you started talking about how we all 
should love to kiss cows rather than pretty girls I have to take exception.

Moo ving right along

Walt

Lottermoser George wrote:
> My concern, in this thread, does not involve money. Simply, as the 
> subject says, "why users love it."
>
> When I began to explore digital - a long, long, long time ago - back 
> in the mid to late 80's - starting with an early Olympus P&S - it has 
> been a constant comparison of digital capture files to drum scanned 
> film exposed with Zeiss, Schneider and Leica lenses. Owning 10 
> different digital cameras; the Canon 20D and 5D with Leica R glass 
> were the first to deliver something even close to drum scanned film. 
> The Leica DMR and M8 actually hit a higher water mark in terms of 
> rendering fine detail. In my opinion they actually sit in a place 
> between the 5D and medium format backs (in the 10 - 16 mpixel range) 
> in terms of color rendition - skin tone, dynamic range, and fine 
> detail. They're surpassing drum scanned film of similar ISO and size. 
> Yes. They cost more than other cameras but not significantly. The 
> highest end Canons cost more. I'm not familiar with Nikons. However, 
> it's my understanding that the D200 has the same chip and software as 
> Nikon's more expensive bodies (could be wrong).
>
> Re: Money: In terms of achieving image print quality; it's not just 
> the cost of a digital or film body or back. One must consider the the 
> cost of scanners and/or scanning services; printers and/or printing 
> services; time and storage in handling files of various sizes (even if 
> I could afford it; do I really want a 30 mpixel back for my work?)
>
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george@imagist.com
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Walt Johnson wrote:
>
>> 1300 for the D200 Nikon, 4800 for an M8. The Nikon seems to do quite 
>> well for itself. Why not compare the M8 with something in the same 
>> price range?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] why users love it)
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] why users love it)
Message from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] why users love it)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] why users love it)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] why users love it)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] why users love it)