wparsonsgisnet Posted July 7, 2009 Share #41 Posted July 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not necessarily relevant, tho we might like Kodak to survive: Their stock is selling below 3 US$ and they have not cut their dividend. That results in a dividend yield of about 18%. The fact that they haven't cut their dividend means they have money rolling in. so, perhaps they will survive. They DO make a nice sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Hi wparsonsgisnet, Take a look here Any truth... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fotografr Posted July 7, 2009 Share #42 Posted July 7, 2009 Canon sensors are phenomenal. A customized 5DII-based sensor in an M9 would be fantastic; hopefully not a pipe dream. That's very much a matter of opinion. I also use the 5D MkII for certain shoots where the M8 is not feasible, and I much prefer the look of the M8 images. The Canon images are smooth, sharp and relatively grain free, but have a definite digital look. The M8 images have grain issues at high ISOs, but that camera produces the most film-like, richly textured images of any digital camera I've seen or used. If Leica loses that advantage, they will also lose a lot of us who share this appreciation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #43 Posted July 7, 2009 I must agree. If Leica were to use any CMos sensor in the M9 I would be very wary of buying one and really would need to be convinced by actual results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted July 10, 2009 Share #44 Posted July 10, 2009 I'm a bit of an outsider here, but I've followed this thread with interest. A friend asked my to review the hundreds of captures I made with his M8 & 2 of my lenses. I enjoyed using the M8 & the images were very nice. I remain steadfast that the DMR's results are superior. But given that, I think the M8 is far superior in any measure one might like verses all the high end Canon & Nikon offerings. John Thawley's image are very nice, but are emblematic of the differences between the "digital" look Brent mentioned and the unique signature of the M8 & DMR. No doubt a large measure of this difference comes from the optimization that was engineered by Leica & Kodak in collaboration. The Leica lenses do improve results on the Canon, but aren't as rich in color or definition & most importantly to me, the bokeh is not even close. The real advantage of the Nikons & Canons is the very low light images that can be made. They don't have the same depth & dimensionality as the DMR at iso 100-200, but once you push the iso to 400, the DMR spews garbage. Now that the R system is near digital death, I'll have to look at all alternatives. For film, I'll never need to stray from my R glass & R8's, but the future looks cloudy for a Leica SLR system that's not 20K. When I look back at the iconic imagery that set me on the path of discovering & falling in love with image taking, I'm lost as to how Leica put itself in such a compromised position. After having set such a high standard & providing the tools that shaped generations' notion of the visual world, they haven't a real solution. They have not reinvented themselves & I'm not sure they believe they have to do that. I fear the worst. The latest series of missteps, misinformation & lack of any hint of a real alternative on the horizon doesn't give much to feel good about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.