[Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

I know the feeling. I have various bits of old equipment around, and 
I would love to be able to use it again, including Hasselblad. But 
from everything I've been able to find out it would be mainly for the 
sake of nostalgia, and for that the price is awfully high.



At 9:21 AM -0500 8/13/09, George Lottermoser wrote:
>My desire for a digital back for my CM
>has a lot more to do with nostalgia
>and missing a long used and loved the tool in the hand
>than practicality.
>
>The same holds true for view camera work.
>I really miss the slow methodical use of my view cameras.
>Especially, the 5x7, 8x10 (and larger) ground glass days.
>I imagine that I'd enjoy a digital back for my view cameras.
>Yet, the reality is that I'd need new "digital," shorter lenses
>and be looking at a tiny little ground glass image;
>not that beautiful, 8x10, upside down vista of yore.
>
>I'm hoping that a CFV back
>will eventually turn up as an affordable toy
>in the used market.
>
>Everything I've read supports your statement regarding
>the need for exceptional lenses
>for high resolution, large sensor backs.
>Investing in those backs
>means investing in an entirely new system;
>as opposed to bringing an old system
>out of mothballs.
>
>I also suspect that the crop factor
>of a CFV back would soon show itself
>to be a tad less fun than my "lust" may admit to.
>36.7 x 36.7 is not even twice area of my 5D sensor.
>This and the distinct possibility that even that back
>may show my 40, 80 and 120 Zeiss glass
>to be "less than" I remember (with film);
>stops me from throwing $6K
>toward lust and nostalgia.
>
>Regards,
>George Lottermoser
-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com