[LRflex] Re: IMPORTANT: Re: DMR Support
- From: William Abbott <wbabbott3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:47:47 -0800
Hi David,
You wrote:
> Leica are committed to the DMR and R10, for unlike the original
> Leitz family, they believe in the SLR, and understand the need to
> have a good, marketable SLR in their lineup, if the firm is to
> succeed.
Of late a camera manufacturer whose name begins with "S" has been
buying full page ads in the NY Times (not cheap!) to tout their auto-
focus SLR that uses all of their lenses because the auto-focus
function is in the camera body, unlike their competitors, who have
just a few digital auto-focus lenses available. Good selling point
and perhaps a lesson for us.
It seems to me that because Leica's crown jewels are their huge stock
of purchased lenses now in the hands of avid fans, it makes sense
that Leica-R auto-focus, when it comes (not if!), will have to be
built into the camera body or in a module that sits between
(virtually) any Leica-R lens and the body, a module as mentioned in
your subsequent post.
Perhaps the DMR v1.3 firmware will presage this change in some way.
What would "knock my socks off" would be such a module and the auto-
focus firmware for my DMR, even if it required a microprocessor upgrade.
Call me a dreamer... Okay, I'm a dreamer.
> Meanwhile, digital will continue to improve with each generation.
> <snip> Until digital cameras become close to that, film will still
> have the advantage. The problem is, other than a few advanced
> hobbyists and some of the pros, nobody cares!
You're absolutely right, IMHO. The evidence is before our eyes and is
overwhelming to me.
Every time I look at the exquisite (to me) color photos in The NY
Times' pages, which come from many sources world wide, I realize how
far digital photography has come in the newspaper (and commercial)
world. The sports page photos are especially striking.
The Associated Press and The Times both went all-digital some years
ago without degrading their 4-color printed image quality as far as I
can tell, and I can only assume many other newspapers and magazines
have done so.
Now don't get me wrong, I realize that a newspaper or magazine is not
a 16 X 20 or 30 X 40 photographic art print, but I have never made
any of the latter and never expect to, so that is not a show stopper
for me. My needs run infrequently to 5X7 and 8X10 prints max and, as
a practical matter for me, the DMR delivers just as well as film.
I have run a trial comparing an 8X10, made with wet chemistry from a
Kodachrome slide, to another 8X10, made digitally by Kodak's
EasyShare service, from a scan of the same slide. To the casual eye
there is no difference; I am sure there are differences that are
evident to a color print expert, but I am not a color print expert. I
urge you to try that test, once.
Re Kodak: I had my first digital x-ray a couple of months ago; you
may kiss the heretofore lucrative x-ray film and developer business
goodbye while you still can find it.
All my best,
Bill
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
