Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >