[LRflex] Re: Neil's RF vs Digicam Comments
- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:23:30 -0500
Hi,
> From: Bob Palmieri <rpalmier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Neil's RF vs Digicam Comments
>
> Neil -
>
> (Apologies for the detour into rangefinder discussions..)
>
> Do you currently own (and shoot with on a regular basis) an M??
>
No... I've been a "hard-core" SLR shooter, since the '60s. ;-)
> 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 agree that autofocus can fail (not only in low-light conditions), but in
that regard it seems that you are building more of a case for manual focus
cameras than for a rangefinder per se. Interestingly, unlike my Nikon
digicam, I found the manual focusing methods of the Lumix FZ10/20 to be
quite workable, and even easier in low-light than an SLR because of the
EVF.
> 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.
>
I was referring to the Vario-Elmar-R 28-70. My only fleeting urges of
temptation for a prime in that range is for a faster lens. The zoom on my
Nikon is also a good performer, though it's no match for the
Vario-Elmar-R.
> And for my uses,
> 21mm (or equivalent field of view) is my standard wide. I haven't
> seen that on a digicam.
>
Wide angle limitations are largely the result of small sensor size. I
don't think that there would be much of a problem producing a camera with
a lense equivalent to a 21mm if there was enough of a market to warrant
it, as such lenses are available for dSLRs.
> Unacceptable low light performance is not really a design choice.
> It's another byproduct of the teeny little sensors.
>
Using teeny little sensors is the design choice I was referring to. ;-)
> 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.
>
I agree with you about the potential market for a digital M, from both the
perspective of who might be attracted to such a product and how relatively
few those purchasers are likely to be.
Regards,
Neil
------
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:
