[Leica] IMG: Contax T3 (WAS Re: D-Lux5 vs. DMC-LX5)

[shino at panix.com (Rei Shinozuka)]

Illustrative of Mark's volumetric efficiency argument:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/shino/techie/L8668063.JPG.html

D-LUX4 (about 40 mm^2 sensor area) vs Contax T3 (full frame 864 mm^2 
film area)

Leica M8, 65V @ f5.6

-rei


On 09/22/2010 01:32 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> To me the size of the hanging Chad needs to match the size of the camera.
> A sensor size the size of my pinky to me means a camera which goes in my
> front jeans pocket and it around the size of a credit card. If that's the
> case than to me that camera makes sense for when you want a camera that
> size.
> Its small formats in big cameras which bug me. The non mini 4/3's.
>
> --------------------
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> mark at rabinergroup.com
>
>
>    
>> From: Rei Shinozuka<shino at panix.com>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org>
>> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:20:39 -0400
>> To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] D-Lux5 vs DMC-LX5
>>
>> There doesn't seem to be much difference, analogous to the case of
>> D-LUX4 vs. DMC-LX3.
>>
>> Not to beat Mr. Rabiner to the punch, but my opinion is that in 2010,
>> $1,000 is too much to pay for a camera with a sensor the size of a
>> hanging chad.
>>
>> -rei
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/21/2010 09:02 PM, slobodan Dimitrov wrote:
>>      
>>> The only difference that I can find is that the Leica offering comes with
>>> Lightroom, which I already have.
>>> Anything else?
>>> S.d.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>      
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>