frank theriault wrote: > On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Don't forget the banding issue <LOL> >> >>I can understand Frank's comments, although he may have been very strong in >>his wording to make his point. But I agree - Leica should have been able >>to produce better results the first time around, but they may have been >>under pressure to release the camera with less than adequate testing. >>Still, they've had years to work on this. At one point Leica even said >>that a digital rangefinder was not even possible, but then the Epson came >>out - a few years ago. >> > > > Well, yeah, like I said, hyperbole to make my point... <LOL> > > But, as you said, Epson managed to do it a couple of years ago, and I > don't know that they had problems with fringing or banding or > whatever, and it cost a hell of a lot less. > > No wonder they're on the edge of bankruptcy... > > cheers, > frank >
The Epson has issues because of the short RF baseline, and it was overpriced as well (few want to pay $3000 for the 6.1MP sensor from the Pentax DSLR's stuffed into a Cosina Voightlander Bessa R2a). Epson hasn't sold all that many, but enough to keep it in production with minor updates. So far I've been unimpressed by both in-house Leica Digital offerings. The DMR is massively overpriced (the back costs $1000 more than an M8), and seems to have metering issues (Or the R8/9 meter just sucks, I suspect its simply a case of a meter optimised for slides not producing great results on digital). A Canon with a REOS adaptor produces notably better results with the same glass, and gives you a FF option for 1/2 the cost of the DMR alone. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
