[LRFlex] Re: 20D Question
- From: David Young <dnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:34:37 -0800
At 2/11/2005, you wrote:
I have been following this thread on the 20D for some time now. I see
that Canon will son have the 1Ds Mark II out soon at a whopping $7999.
The Chip is full size and there are more mega pixels than we can count.
But the cost of the R9 and the new digital back is the same price as the
Canon. With this newfound love of the Leicanon, would you go with the new
1Ds or the Leica R9? I have been building up my collection of R lens for
a couple of years in anticipation of going digital. Now I am really
confused. If there is color fringing at the edges on a smaller sensor
will it be worse with a full size? I don't want to get into it about
costs right now. I want to be able to do very detailed macro work and
also to print large scenic photos (13x19).
The other concern is my age. I can still focus with a bright screen but I
need a lot of automation in other areas. It gets harder for me to
remember all the rules of good exposure as I get older.
Any and all serious discussion would be greatly appreciated.
Charles
Hi Charles!
As I see it, the Canon 20D (or successor) offers very good value for the
money. The DM-R will, I'm pretty sure, be better, as it's being made for
Leica by Imacon, the industry leader in med. format backs. Whether it's
enough better, for the price, is another question.
Like you, I've been anticipating going digital for some time... and I'm not
sure I really want to give up on Leica glass. Still, here's the breakdown,
as I see it.
20 D - Pros: Cons:
1) Cost. 1) L-series lenses as costly as
Leica Lenses.
2) Lighter. 2) No focus confirmation beep
w/manual focus
3) for wildlife shooters, the 1.6 lenses.
factor means a 400mm is a 3) 1.6 factor means tougher time
using w/a lenses.
640mm without having to buy A 21mm becomes almost a
35mm equivalent.
more lenses.
4) Autofocus!
DM-R - Pros: Cons:
1) Larger sensor/larger pixels 1) for wildlife shooters, the 1.37
factor means
means less "noise". a 400mm becomes "only" a
548mm.
2) For w/a enthusiasts, a 21mm 2) Cost.
becomes a 28mm instead of a 3) Both heavier and larger.
35mm (OK-33.6mm) on the 20-D.
3) No anti-alaising filter which
is said to reduce resolution.
Instead, it's done in software.
4) Higher pixel count.
Personally, I have been thinking of adding the 540/f6.8 Telyt to my
arsenal... mostly for the 2009 Solar Eclipse. For past eclipses, I've used
a Celestron C-90 spotting scope, which is a 1000mm/f11 when used as a
lens. The DMR + 2x converter would equal 400mm x 2 x 1.37 =
1096mm/f13.6. A 1200mm is considered perfect for this task. Not having to
buy the 560 (1120mm/f13.6 with the 2x) and being able to sell the C-90;
would pay for much of the difference towards the DM-R. (The difference of
f11 to f13.6 is not a factor in Solar work. Trust me!)
Gawd! I hate dilemmas!
Anyone else, with thoughts?
----------
David Young |"Is it ignorance or apathy?
Victoria, BC | I don't know and I don't care.'
Personal Web-site at:
http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr
Leica Reflex Forum web-page:
http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
