james.liam Posted June 20, 2015 Share #41 Posted June 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Couldn't agree more with jvansmit. Carried my MM along with a Ricoh GR on a trip to Istanbul; inconspicuous and silent enough to draw but minimal attention from impoverished Syrian refugee street beggars or brutish Islamist police about Taksim Gezi Park alike. The deliberations about respected Erwin Puts' methodology is a bit like the arguments of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Is a stop and a half or two worth all the extra money? Decide for yourselves. Bigger question is why isn't there a more dramatic improvement than is evident. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Hi james.liam, Take a look here erwin says MM-I is better at low to medium ISO than MM-II. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dante Posted June 22, 2015 Share #42 Posted June 22, 2015 That the "MM-I is better at low to medium ISO than MM-II" is not what I took away from the article. I took away the idea that there is no quantum leap in performance, and that's about it. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share #43 Posted July 11, 2015 That the "MM-I is better at low to medium ISO than MM-II" is not what I took away from the article. I took away the idea that there is no quantum leap in performance, and that's about it. Dante To take away? The guy didn't exactly use allegories ,he made tests then wrote down the results and put them on his website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.