Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/01

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

Subject: [Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK
From: red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:44:38 -0800
References: <CD0884E6.2CBB%mark@rabinergroup.com> <B87C31DB15084DD6B2D4BD1CE004A041@billHP> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99EF7B7A5@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org> <00aa01cde880$3da6c550$b8f44ff0$@verizon.net> <CAF8hL-EcKTw0TuKGO570PUDv0UQreV6d9hBwXAkT4FLcn7rPtw@mail.gmail.com> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99EF7EEF2@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org>

Your comment is going to attract undue attention.

I am really tired of hearing how Digital is better/worse/same as Film.  MF
film is as good/better, worse than 35mm Film/Digital.  It is a moot point.

Small format Digital won.  No matter how you measure the sensor size......

And no,. I don't like it..... I am just being realistic.

Frank Filippone
Red735i at verizon.net


Sorry, I meant FF digital Leica rather than film

john

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I was thinking the same. As good as Leica's lens are, there's no way 
> that a properly adjusted Hassy cannot compete. It's 4 times the 
> negative size area and Zeiss glass is no slouch by any measure.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > You should have had the body checked out.....  If all 3 of the 
> > lenses on a single body are out of focus, then suspect the body 
> > first.  ( I thin I had mine adjusted for this.... they called it 
> > something like body length.....)
> >
> > If one lens is out, the others in, then it probably is the lens.....
> >
> > The lenses on a Hasselblad are scary sharp... if everything is 
> > working right.....
> >
> > Frank Filippone
> > Red735i at verizon.net
> >
> > When I scanned in my Hasselblad negs (FP4) taken on SWC/M, 50, 80, 
> > 150 C T* lenses (my last kit was CF 903 SWC/M, 50, 100, 180) the 
> > Superwide ones were the only ones which were really sharp at 
> > 3200dpi. The others I am quite happy to be using the Leica's instead of.
> >
> > John
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
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] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)