Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/13

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

Subject: [Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?
From: s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:16:59 -0700
References: <C6A888C2.52C32%mark@rabinergroup.com> <96FF42E3-35B3-4711-AF85-17EFD909B5AB@mac.com> <p06230901c6a90b407b71@[10.0.1.199]> <9C79D453-5D12-4581-962F-A8BF85C099E6@mac.com>

I'm nearing the end of a project with PN55.
I'm almost certain that my Sinar system, small as it is, will be junk  
within the next couple of years.
Though, I'm tempted to try a project with 4x5 Litho, developed in  
continuos tone chemistry. At best, it might stretch the useful life  
of the gear another 2-4 years.
S.d.


On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:21 AM, 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
> george at imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com/blog
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately putting such a back on the old 500 series (or even  
>> 2000 series) is a waste of pixels. A lot of the old Zeiss glass  
>> just isn't up to the hi-res backs. Best bet would probably be to  
>> get something in the 16 to 31Mp range. Nice clean lower ISO stuff,  
>> as long as you don't put a 40 onto it, or expect top resolution  
>> from some of the other lenses at less than optimum apertures.
>>
>>
>> At 6:06 PM -0500 8/12/09, George Lottermoser wrote:
>>> I too hope to some day hang a digital back on my Hassy cm
>>> but we'll again only be using a fraction of our zeiss image circle
>>>
>>> Another interesting set of charts
>>> comparing formats
>>> and image circles
>>> <http://www.stitchpix.com/image_circles.html>
>>>
>>> for your medium format drooling pleasure
>>> <http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/new-backs/>
>>>
>>> the P65+ finally hits actual "full frame" 645
>>> (tears and drool flowing freely)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> George Lottermoser
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>>  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
>>  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)