nugat Posted December 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Panasonic GF1 Photography by Jim Radcliffe With an aching heart I undersign the above comments and opinions. My m4/3 set up is growing and does all and more than my M8 for a fraction of the price. My last trip to Cuba was touch and go: M8+RD1 or E-P1 + GH1. The latter prevailed and I am happy with the outcome. The 20/1.7 and 7-14 panny glass on the two respectively was all I needed. I wish someone (Epson? Voigtlander?) made a full frame body taking M-mount glass with no issues at the wide end and an EVF like the Epson on EP2 or Panny on GH1. Focus assist, eg. audiovisual confirmation of contrast detection maximum achieved via manual, would be all I need. M9 does nothing for me. An M10 would need to come out by 2011 and answer all my needs and outdo EP3 and GF2 by then. Fortunately my MP, CL and M6 stay to work with all the fine glass. Hopefully Fuji stays in the slide film business... (or worse ,there are still labs around). Of course these are totally subjective and personal feelings about the state of affairs and are not meant to disparage all those happy with M8 and M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 Hi nugat, Take a look here Another one abandons digiLeica for m4/3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jsrockit Posted December 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 13, 2009 I just can't get past the lack of classic controls (shutter speed dials, aperture dials, etc) on most digital cameras... that is why I still like Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted December 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 13, 2009 Hey... whatever works for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 13, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 13, 2009 Yes but why wanting and EVF for digital and a rangefinder for film? This is not clear to me. If you think than the M9 is too expensive, OK i can understand that of course. But otherwise, what is the difference between an M6 and a M9 basically? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted December 14, 2009 Yes but why wanting and EVF for digital and a rangefinder for film? This is not clear to me. If you think than the M9 is too expensive, OK i can understand that of course. But otherwise, what is the difference between an M6 and a M9 basically? I would think that EVF on digital and rangefinder on film is only natural?? Electronic pick up device feeds electronic viewfinder, 100% optical path makes optical VF natural, no? So M6 makes perfect sense, and M9 is a strange hybrid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 14, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 14, 2009 I would think that EVF on digital and rangefinder on film is only natural??Electronic pick up device feeds electronic viewfinder, 100% optical path makes optical VF natural, no? So M6 makes perfect sense, and M9 is a strange hybrid. All serious digital cameras are strange hybrids, because they all still deploy mechanical parts like shutters. No matter if Leica or not, camera makers should - at least for their top offerings - try to deliver the best viewfinders available. It seems that companies like Nikon, Canon, Leica, and many others still agree that electronic viewfinders aren't up to the task yet. I'm sure electronic viewfinders are the future, but it remains to be seen how long it will take until they are ubiquitous in pro cameras. Furthermore, one defining feature of rangefinder cameras for many has always been that you can see through the viewfinder things that happen outside of the frame. It is probably not impossible to replicate that with an EVF, but the current technology doesn't allow it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted December 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Furthermore, one defining feature of rangefinder cameras for many has always been that you can see through the viewfinder things that happen outside of the frame. It is probably not impossible to replicate that with an EVF, but the current technology doesn't allow it. Unless you really want to go wide, which is supposed to be the RF forte...And if you go tele, the famed VF becomes near useless without a magnifier. Good for the standard f-length though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 14, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 14, 2009 Unless you really want to go wide, which is supposed to be the RF forte... Not for me. I almost always use 35mm or 50mm lenses. And I suspect that the vast majority of the iconic rangefinder photos of the last century were taken with these focal lengths. And if you go tele, the famed VF becomes near useless without a magnifier. That's the age-old SLR-vs-RF argument. You obviously have to decide whether you want to look through the lens or not - both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't really have anything to do with EVF vs. OVF except for hinting at the fact that EVFs are the naturals enemies of SLRs, not of rangefinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 14, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 14, 2009 I would think that EVF on digital and rangefinder on film is only natural?? Electronic pick up device feeds electronic viewfinder, 100% optical path makes optical VF natural, no?... Well not at all, at least for me. I use my digital RFs the same way as my film RFs so my creteria remain the same. I would not pay for an M with EVF at any price for the simple reason that it would not be a rangefinder any more and i like rangefinders, be them analogue or digital. YMMV needless to say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashrafazlan Posted December 14, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 14, 2009 Until they can produce a fullframe (relative to 35mm film) m4/3 sensor, i'm sticking with my M8 and D700. Heck, i'd be happy if they manage to reduce it to 1.33x. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted December 14, 2009 Until they can produce a fullframe (relative to 35mm film) m4/3 sensor, i'm sticking with my M8 and D700. Heck, i'd be happy if they manage to reduce it to 1.33x. When first 36x24mm Leica cameras appeared, the then cognoscenti were saying: "Until they can produce a full 10x8 or at least 6x9 inch Leica I'm sticking with my 30kg view cameras." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashrafazlan Posted December 14, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 14, 2009 When first 36x24mm Leica cameras appeared, the then cognoscenti were saying: "Until they can produce a full 10x8 or at least 6x9 inch Leica I'm sticking with my 30kg view cameras." Yeah, sure..but the leica's had the option of fast, wide lenses. Tell me where I can get a small, fast (f2 minimum) 12/14mm lens that should translate to a standard 24/28mm focal length on current m4/3 sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted December 14, 2009 Yeah, sure..but the leica's had the option of fast, wide lenses. Tell me where I can get a small, fast (f2 minimum) 12/14mm lens that should translate to a standard 24/28mm focal length on current m4/3 sensors. E-bay. Many c-mount cinema lenses (Angenieux, Kern Switar, Cosmicar, Wollensak etc go between 5.8mm and 16mm and f1.2-1.8 and sell for 50-500$ This one is even 0.7, but I know, 25mm! not wide enough! And too expensive at 600$. http://cgi.ebay.pl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280401716701#description C to 4/3 adapter is 30-50$. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 14, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 14, 2009 Many c-mount cinema lenses (Angenieux, Kern Switar, Cosmicar, Wollensak etc go between 5.8mm and 16mm and f1.2-1.8 and sell for 50-500$ Let's not forget that you started this thread with a link to an article from Jim Radcliffe who gave up the M8 for MicroFourThirds explicitly because he didn't want to focus manually. Now you're advocating to enter the Brave New World of this system with adapters and lenses that were made for entirely different cameras and which have to be focused manually? Well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted December 14, 2009 Let's not forget that you started this thread with a link to an article from Jim Radcliffe who gave up the M8 for MicroFourThirds explicitly because he didn't want to focus manually. Now you're advocating to enter the Brave New World of this system with adapters and lenses that were made for entirely different cameras and which have to be focused manually? Well... The gentleman above asked me a simple question, I gave a simple answer. Don't put into my mouth advocacy of C mount, manual focus and Al-Quaida by association. Jim Radcliffe did not want to focus manually, but I am NOT Jim Radcliffe. I don't mind an occassional manual job. But JR also writes: "The money I had tied up in my M8 and two lenses was hard to justify when I looked at the output of the camera and what I was getting on a day to day basis from it. $2600 for the body (used), $1895 for one lens, $1,000 for another lens, not to mention the IR cut filters.. it was a lot of money and I did not feel I was getting the output or the personal enjoyment from using the Leica M that I desired. I hated to part with it because there really is nothing like a Leica.. but sometimes the brain must overrule the heart." My brain makes me happy with the 20/1.7 and 7-14/4 on my 4/3 gear. The gentleman above demands 24-28mm wwith speed below f2.0. Tough call. Hope he knows what he is talking about: the 24 mm summilux on his M9 must be his daily bread. Good for him, I can't spill 5 grand on a piece of glass as of now. But I am confident I can take all pictures I need with the gear I have. IMMHOO. Finally, I can always get the 14-35 /2.0 zuiko if I feel I really must have AF at the fast/wide end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 14, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 14, 2009 Don't put into my mouth advocacy of C mount, manual focus and Al-Quaida by association. I didn't put anything into your mouth, I was just responding to what you had written. I was hoping that you actually meant what you said. I am NOT Jim Radcliffe. Again, it was you who started this thread, pointed to Jim Radcliffe's article, and quoted from it. If you don't agree with what Radcliffe says, why bother? I hope you don't make it a habit to celebrate every photography article you don't agree with with its own thread. Finally, I can always get the 14-35 /2.0 zuiko if I feel I really must have AF at the fast/wide end. You can of course buy it, but according to this list, you won't have AF on Panasonic MicroFourThird models. Tough luck... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted December 14, 2009 I didn't put anything into your mouth, I was just responding to what you had written. I was hoping that you actually meant what you said. Again, it was you who started this thread, pointed to Jim Radcliffe's article, and quoted from it. If you don't agree with what Radcliffe says, why bother? I hope you don't make it a habit to celebrate every photography article you don't agree with with its own thread. You can of course buy it, but according to this list, you won't have AF on Panasonic MicroFourThird models. Tough luck... Thanks for your research work. Should have told you I also have Olympus bodies. Thank you for the deep psychoanalysis and deconstruction work on my post. The real meaning of my words slowly comes to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 14, 2009 Share #18 Posted December 14, 2009 Thanks for your research work. Yeah, I was wondering what the whole idea of (Micro)FourThirds "system" means if Olympus lenses only really work on Olympus cameras and Panasonic lenses only really work on Panasonic cameras. But maybe that's just me. Should have told you I also have Olympus bodies. You already told us about your E-P1. So, the camera is 370g and the lens is 915g, not to mention the adapter. I bet that looks and feels kind of funny. And the list price is 2800 Euros here in Germany. Didn't you just talk about expensive lenses above? Oh, sorry, seems I'm putting words into your mouth again. I'm outta here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted December 14, 2009 Share #19 Posted December 14, 2009 Ladies; please! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 14, 2009 Share #20 Posted December 14, 2009 Yeah, sure..but the leica's had the option of fast, wide lenses. Tell me where I can get a small, fast (f2 minimum) 12/14mm lens that should translate to a standard 24/28mm focal length on current m4/3 sensors. You could try the Panasonic 7-14mm, which is equivalent to a 14-28mm lens, on an Olympus EP-2 body. OK, its f4 but presumably as you want something so wide then narrow DOF isn't on the agenda, but the EP-2 does have Image Stabilisation good for three stops, so f4 isn't a problem unless you want to stop action. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.