[Leica] The rangefinder is back! - Olympus EP-1

[richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man)]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Mark Rabiner<mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:
> Hey thanks for calling me Mr. Rabiner but the size of the print is less 
> then
> half the story.
> Most of the story is while the rest of the world is moving up to 24x36
> format twice the length of 1.5 or 1.5 crop circle factor cameras they are
> shooting at iso 64,000 without a blink of an eye and printing them bigger
> than 8x10.

Well, it's kind of like Nocti-shots. Some people think it's the best
thing since slice bread, some people think it's nuts. Different
strokes for different folks. Some people like HDR shots, some people
like giant blow up of their ISO 215000 pictures taken with a
candlelight, but never forget that HCB used Tri-X and F8!!! Show me an
ISO215000 photo as memorable as HCB's then we can talk.

And most interesting photos are either taking at ISO400 or less,

or by an iPhone-who-cares-the-ISO.

Very few of us, even the esteemed LUGgers, print, let alone print at
anything larger than 8x10.

> With a sensor half the size of 1.5 (4/3's 2X) you're lucky if your can make
> a nice looking 8x10 at iso 400.

It depends on what you mean by "nice." Compare to a big neg, the 35mm
looks like crap, and you know that as a fact.

My E-3 shots, technical wise, hold up quite well to my friend's 35mm frame 
5D.

> Is that a 5 f stop difference?
> Like the difference between f 22 and f 2.8? ?A 15th and 250th?
> Your only trick is to use lower ISO's but with anti vibration stuff. It
> doesn't cut it.
>
> Think of a Rollei 35.
> Is digital really that far behind?
>

Yes, because sensor costs $$$ to make. A 4X sensor will always cost
more to produce. You can't beat the economy of scale.

> I think they can make a 24x36 pocketable digital camrea if they wanted to.
>

We can fly to the Moon if we want to, but we aren't!!!



-- 
// richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
// w: http://www.rfman.com
// b: http://rfman.wordpress.com