Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/28

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

Subject: [Leica] The T Stops here
From: durling at cox.net (Mike Durling)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:09:00 -0400
References: <C8EF4EDA.5B71%mark@rabinergroup.com>

I absolutely agree that lower noise, smoother pixels and more dynamic 
range beats lots of pixels for the most part.  I think the way things 
are going before long we won't have to choose.

Mike D

On 10/28/10 4:01 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> Moore's law says computer stuff and we include digital cameras will get
> twice as good every year and a half and cost half as much.
> I don't think doubling the Mp's makes a camera twice as good.
> I've just about said the opposite. If I did think I needed 21 instead of 12
> mps shooing a Canon 5d Mark II  (same price as my D700 but with almost 
> twice
> the Mp's) instead of Mark R shooting with a Nikon D700.
> But some people want the S and some want the X.
> Some people want the high rez and don't care about high ISO's (the X) and
> other people want the opposite. The S.
>
> I'm pulling for the Leica M and S to be available with two Rez options like
> the Nikons and Canons. A high rez version for big bucks but low ISO's.
> And a lower rez version for street shooters who need to shoot fast indoors
> and at night.
> And I think there should be one in the middle. The "normal" body.
> That's three cameras making for more horizontal shelf space.
>
> Which is why there are 5 kinds of bite sized shredded wheat.
> I like the vanilla.
>
>
> --------------------
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> mark at rabinergroup.com
> Cars:   http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb
>
>
>
>
>> From: Mike Durling<durling at cox.net>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org>
>> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:15:04 -0400
>> To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] The T Stops here
>>
>> Very interesting analysis, Mark, and also a good article you linked to.
>> Its clear that neither sensor type is a-priori better than the other.
>> There are always trade offs.  For Leica cost is less a factor so they
>> concentrate on other areas.  Canon and Nikon are in a much more 
>> competitive
>> environment so they have to squeeze out the most bang for the buck.
>>
>> Pixel density is always a concern, but its a moving target.  Moore's law
>> says we double chip density every year and a half or two years.  That's
>> from a manufacturing point of view.  To some degree it seems that the 
>> newer
>> imaging chips can stand a higher pixel count with the same or better 
>> noise.
>> The D40 and D40x were not too far away from each other generationally, so
>> lower noise performance was the tradeoff for more pixels.  In the same 
>> vein
>> the Canon G11 got better noise performance than its older sibling the G10
>> which had more pixels.  It will be interesting to see how the new D3100 
>> and
>> D7000 compare with their elder brethern when they come out.
>>
>> Mike Durling
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] The T Stops here)