[LRflex] SV: Re: Gross Stupidity?
- From: "Tim Bedsted" <Tim.Bedsted@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:51:09 +0100
David,
Congratulations. I believe the DM-R will make you an even happier photographer
than you already are.
I too have followed closely not only the results but also the feedback from
people who have used the DM-R for a while. The jury seems pretty unanimous: It
is a great tool!
As an analog photog I am still recovering from the Agfa,Konica and Nikon blow.
I simply can't get it into my mind that Nikon would want to stop all production
including its FM3a. Not to seak about that curious press release from Fujifilm
implying thta right now they are just hanging on with the tip of their nails.
By the way continuing your logic on boosting ISO. I could speculate that a 800
iso underexposed 3 times=3200 that takes you nearly to the limit of whare you
can go with the D20. Of course it remeians o be seen if that will also produce
good pictures:)
Happy shooting
Tim
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: leicareflex-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx på vegne af David Young
Sendt: on 25/01/2006 10:54
Til: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Emne: [LRflex] Re: Gross Stupidity?
G'Mornin' Douglas!
You said:
>Well David,
>The price is still stupid,
>
Indeed, it is. However, I confess, I have ordered it from Joseph Yao,
in Hong Kong. The price, after shipping, duties and taxes is still
nearly $1800 less than the Canadian price. Besides, nobody in Canada had
one to ship!
>your move very probably isn't. I'm hoping not. I've done some
extensive comparisons, with the help of
>Peter Werner (of this list) and Rob Stevens (Fred Miranda Forum), who
>have sent me a variety of .dng files which I could play with.
>
>
It was Peter's advice that finally swayed me. I have no doubt that the
DM-R is a magnificent piece of kit, but I want to use High ISO's when
using the Telyt w/400 & 2x converter, a combination I use a lot.
Unfortunately, the high ISO range is not a strong point in the DM-R,
though lower ISO performance appears to be outstanding. Peter suggested
that he underexposes by 2 to 3 stops and then corrects in "development"
and gets much better results that way. It seems to be true, and if it
is... ISO 400 underexposed 3 stops - ISO 1600 with better noise
characteristics.
Time will tell.
>Now we have someone who has both alternatives, 20D + Leica AND Leica +
>Leica.
>I'm glad I don't have to make the comparisons - I'd hate to find out
>which one is better/worse (and then have to tell people too).
>
>
At this moment, I think it is money well spent. After I've had it for a
while, we'll see!
--
David Young,
Logan Lake, BC
CANADA.
Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef
-- File: winmail.dat
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
- Follow-Ups:
- [LRflex] Was Stupidity - now dSLR marketing
- From: David Young
- References:
- [LRflex] Gross Stupidity?
- From: David Young
- [LRflex] Re: Gross Stupidity?
- From: Douglas Sharp
- [LRflex] Re: Gross Stupidity?
- From: David Young
Other related posts:
- » [LRflex] SV: Re: Gross Stupidity?
- [LRflex] Was Stupidity - now dSLR marketing
- From: David Young
- [LRflex] Gross Stupidity?
- From: David Young
- [LRflex] Re: Gross Stupidity?
- From: Douglas Sharp
- [LRflex] Re: Gross Stupidity?
- From: David Young