[LRflex] New Year and new camera
- From: pwerner <pwerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:30:54 +0100
Do not forget to look at the Panasonic G1, it is not a SLR in the strict
term of the word, It
can use both Leica M and R glass. There are heated discussions going on in
other fora, sush as
the Leica Camera forum
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/73949-dreaded-com
parison-thread-g1-m8-2-a.html. Whoever bought one seems enthusiastic and
reviews are generally very positive.
Best,
Peter
----------------original message-----------------
De: "David Young" dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:10:17 -0800
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>At 27/12/2008, you wrote:
>
>Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all!
>
>I have been reading a lot of posts regarding digital alternatives on this
list, and
>since I don't want to hold my breath any longer for a dR10 or what have
you, I am considering the
>adaptive road. This is where the new camera comes in. Now I don't have much
experience in the
>digital domain since its inception. I had a Minolta 7 and now a Canon
A570is (hardly hard core
>digital equipment).
>
>The thing is I cannot seem to get away from Leica glass whether it's M or
R. I do also use my
>Contax or Nikon AF system once in a while (depending on event or use). But
it's the glass that has
>kept me with Leica this long with film. Now, I have read people on this
list use
>Olympus/Panasonic 4/3 system or the Canon system. All the photos look
great, but I would probably be able to
>live with a 1.6x factor compared to a 2.0x factor. I only, for a moment,
thought about the M8,
>but I seem to like the SLR more so than the rangefinder (though it depends
on the event or use
>again).
>
>I would think some of you would have tried the available routes to get to
where you're at
>now, so I just want to draw on a little bit on your experiences. My starter
route is the Canon
>XSi. I don't think the screen is user exchangeable as with the more pro
like models. Was this a
>deal breaker for your decision to settle on the system/rig you now use? Is
it difficult to
>focus without a split screen? The Catz Eye screen seems to be recommended
by most folks.
>
>David, you seem to be set on your Olympus E3 system and Doug has been using
a DMR for his
>wildlife photos. It seems the stop down metering caused you to either go
dedicated digital with
>another system or to succumb to a digital R body. I take it there's no in
between for you?
>
>Sorry for the long post after lurking all this time.
>
>Take care all,
>Gary E
>
>Good Morning, Gary, et al.
>
>Sorry to be so long in chiming in to this conversation, but we have been a
way, for a
>holiday, family "rebellion", skiing in the Canadian Rockies. Got back last
night and now wading
>my way through hundreds of emails.
>
>My thoughts on your dilemma?
>
>1) The R8 or R9 with DMR is, I'm sure, the nicest combination. Until it
failed, and Leica
>was unable to replace it (a long story), it was the best image cutter I'd
ever used. I don't
>think Doug will argue that point.
>
>2) Prior to owning the DMR, I'd owned a Canon 20D. Afterwards, it was the
30D. Although
>the Leica glass performed, as always, I was never happy with the images
captured by the
>Canons. They never seemed to have the fine detail which I got out of the
DMR. They suffered the
>mentioned exposure problem, with stop down metering and did not balance
well, in my hand, though I
>admit, the lighter bodies were nice!
>
>3) I was in a store, about to buy a couple of AF lenses for the 30D, when I
tried the E3, and
>within 30 minutes, walked out with it, 2 lenses and a 2.4 converter,
instead. I couldn't be
>happier.
>
>First of all, the Leica lenses and E3 play well together. Stop down
metering works as
>you'd expect.
>
>Secondly, the in-body stabilization works very well, and makes my older,
Leica lenses
>IS lenses!
>
>Third, the finder is the closest thing to the R8's finder I've seen ...
brighter and
>crisper than the 20D & 30D finders. Very easy and very accurate for manual
focusing...
>something which cannot be said for the 20 & 30D Canons.
>
>Fourth, the body seems, for me, to be "right", and balances well with the
Telyt 400/6.8.
>(With the IS, it can be hand held, in a pinch, and work very well! - see: [
>http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/Whitetail.htm)
>
>Fifth: Some people complain about the myriad of buttons on the E3, and when
I first saw
>it, I agreed. But I must admit, I find them well enough laid out that it is
very rare to
>accidentally change a setting (a common problem with the R8) and yet the
access to the most used
>features is much faster than through Canon's menu system.
>
>Lastly, the investment is substantially lower. My E3, with two lenses (both
very good,
>I might add) and the 1.4x converter cost about half what I paid for the
R8+DMR.
>
>So much for the advantages. Now the drawbacks.
>
>You mention that you might be able to handle a 1.6 crop factor, but not the
2.0 crop
>factor. That's up to you. If you shoot a lot of w/a, then the 2x factor is
a problem. Your 21mm SA
>becomes a 42 (almost "normal") lens. I solved this problem first with
Canon's 10~22 mm lens (a
>very nice optic) and later with the Olympus 12~60 zoom, which equates to
the FOV of a 24mm lens
>... wide enough for me.
>
>OTOH, if you shoot long, as I do, the 2x factor is a huge advantage. When I
shot with the
>DMR, I regularly used the 2x converter with the 400 Telyt, when shooting
small birds. This
>meant, a max f-stop of 13.6, wide open! With the 2x advantage, I can shoot
with nearly the same
>FOV, without the converter, and at f6.8. Not an insubstantial difference,
in low light! In a
>pinch, I add the OLY 1.4 converter, behind the Telyt, and the combination
works better than the
>much older, non-APO, Leica converter & Telyt.
>
>Noise, at low ISOs is indistinguishable between the DMR/Canon/Oly e3
bodies. But, at
>ISOs higher than 640, noise is a bit higher than with the Canons, but equal
to, or slightly
>better, than the DMR - depending on the exact ISO. As I come from the film
era, where higher ISOs
>meant "grain", I can live with the noise, which is, at every ISO, less than
the grain of
>equivalent films. Besides, heavy noise suppression also blurs the fine
detail ... for me, a
>problem with the Canons. More importantly, because I can shoot at an
effectively wider
>aperture, I can use a lower ISO!
>
>My conclusions?
>
>As I am not a rich man and given the meteoric drop in value of all digital
products
>(compared to their film equivalents), it is unlikely that I will ever
invest in a new, Leica,
>digital product again. (I say this, not having seen the 9.2 Diesel.) But,
if a 14mp, Oly E4 were to
>appear on the market, tomorrow, I'd buy one so fast, it would make your
head spin!
>
>Oh, yes... one last point. Last February, I dropped my 80~200/4 Vario on
the ice, and
>sent it for repair. It was returned late, last October. In August, I
suffered a stone chip in
>the middle of the front element of my 12~60mm Oly zoom. I sent it to
Oly-Toronto, and it was
>back in my hands, 8 days later, including shipping, both ways. Turnaround,
at Oly, was
>
>
>David Young,
>
>Logan Lake, CANADA
>
>
>Limited Edition Prints at: www.furnfeather.net
>
>Personal Web-site at: www.main.furnfeather.net ->
>http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/Whitetail.htm]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
