[LRflex] Re: Neil's RF vs Digicam Comments
- From: Bob Palmieri <rpalmier@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:22:16 -0500
Neil -
(Apologies for the detour into rangefinder discussions..)
Do you currently own (and shoot with on a regular basis) an M??
All of the tradeoffs that I find are related to the designers'
prioritization of teeny size and automation. These are precisely the
areas in which a digital rangefinder can offer some relief.
In the low-light conditions which I encounter frequently, the digicams
I've used don't focus where I want them to. In fact, they usually hunt
around and then lock on infinity.
I haven't tried the 28-70 you mentioned, but can definitely believe
it's quite good in the areas of flare and distortion (distortion should
largely be correctible by software-based pixel re-mapping with probably
minor image quality loss anyway). Are you referring to a nice big
reflex lens? If so, this is a different ball game. And for my uses,
21mm (or equivalent field of view) is my standard wide. I haven't seen
that on a digicam.
Unacceptable low light performance is not really a design choice. It's
another byproduct of the teeny little sensors. The technical reason is
that those leetle photosites don't create much voltage in response to a
few photons, so the gain on the amps needs to be cranked up. Some
progress may be apparent of late, but at the moment you can't find any
digicams that will do what a 20D will at 1600 & 3200. Fancy
gaussian-detection software-based noise reduction certainly can and
does help, though. Here are some 20D snaps from last week; those with
black backgrounds were shot at ISO 3200 by the light of the proverbial
single candle:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/ken_carolyn
The selective focus thing is another byproduct of small sensors. Its
sorta like trying to get shallow depth of field out of a Minox...
In short, the designers of the digicams have done their jobs quite
well. Small size and automatic features sell cameras to the masses.
The potential market for a digital M is basically those folks who
currently (or 'till recently) use film-based M's on a regular basis.
Which is just not really all that big (or young) of a group.
Your basic points, however, remain true. Compacts with zooms are more
versatile and convenient for most users. M's are great machines for
enthusiasts of available darkness, precise planes of focus,
inconspicuous shooting and wider fields of view.
Bob Palmieri
On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Recently, you wrote:
>
>> From: Bob Palmieri <rpalmier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:59:12 -0500
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> IMO, RF cameras make more sense in the film world than in the digital
>>> world. For one thing, there are a lot of compact digitals with zoom
>>> lenses and EVFs which would be more versatile and convenient than
>>> an RF.
>>>
>>
>> Versatile and convenient for some, but...
>>
>> The RF focuses on what you want and takes the picture when you want.
>>
> A digicam focuses on what you want... whether it takes the picture when
> you want is a design choice. I agree that it is annoying to have
> unpredictable time lapses between the pushing of the shutter button and
> the actual capture. This isn't an issue for dSLRs, and needn't be one
> for
> dZLRs.
>
>> Primes instead of zooms usually mean less flare and distortion.
>>
> I used to think that, as well, but I was really quite pleasantly
> surprised
> by the performance of my 28-70. It convinced me that modern lens design
> has overcome those limitations sufficiently that I can't imagine
> purchasing a prime in that range as a replacement.
>
>> So far, those little digicams have looked lousy in low light without
>> flash (recent developments may be changing this) and the teeny sensors
>> make selective focus almost impossible.
>>
> Low light performance is another design choice. There isn't any
> technical
> reason why the performance of a "little digicam" can't be exactly the
> same
> as, say, a 20D. I'm not sure what you mean by "selective focus" being
> impossible.
>
>> You can't get really wide fields of view with those things and retain
>> acceptable levels of quality.
>>
>> A digital M could potentially change all this.
>>
> Isn't that largely a matter of sensor size? If Leica used the same
> sensor
> as in the DMR, I'd expect the same limitations to apply to a digital M.
>
>> This doesn't mean it's the right thing to do from a business
>> standpoint, though...
>>
> I agree with you on this!
>
> Neil
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
> Archives are at:
> www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
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:
