MarkM6 Posted January 13, 2010 Share #41 Posted January 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just my thought driving this morning. Do you think Leica missed an opportunity by not using the GF-1 as a platform? In my opinion, after seeing what Leica is doing with the X1; the 4/3rd Sensor's days are numbered... The only attractive factor going for 4/3rd sensor cameras are their ability to use other lenses with adapter (w/ external viewfinder for manual focus) just my opinion... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Hi MarkM6, Take a look here Panasonic GF-1 - Missed opportunity?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
h00ligan Posted January 13, 2010 Share #42 Posted January 13, 2010 What GF1 is still missing is a Leica lens system The first one is announced but not out yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 14, 2010 Share #43 Posted January 14, 2010 In my opinion, after seeing what Leica is doing with the X1; the 4/3rd Sensor's days are numbered... The only attractive factor going for 4/3rd sensor cameras are their ability to use other lenses with adapter (w/ external viewfinder for manual focus) just my opinion... wish i had a buck for every time ive heard that the difference between 4/3rds and APSC 1.6x is 0.52 of a stop the difference between 4/3rds and APSC 1.5x is 0.72 of a stop and FWIW, mFT looks more versatile a platform than X1 in a number of directions not that any of that should matter, use what makes you happy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted January 14, 2010 Share #44 Posted January 14, 2010 Could you possibly link to an equation that explains the difference in size compared to stop difference? I'd be interested in reading something about it - cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 14, 2010 Share #45 Posted January 14, 2010 pretty simple, ²log(sensor area ratio) people reduced this to the use of sensor diagonals, which doesnt represent differences in formats (3x2, 4x3, etc) adequately, nor does it reflect the actual areas of sensors involved. A user known only as Knight Palm, setup this table oh shoot, i made an error in the 1.6x sensor relationship that should be (-)1.94 - (-)1.38 = 0.56 not 0.52 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted January 14, 2010 Share #46 Posted January 14, 2010 Thanks, i'll review this in the morning when i'm more awake. I enjoy understanding the technical side of things and appreciate your posting the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted January 14, 2010 Share #47 Posted January 14, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Obsfucation alert. next will be MOS vs CMOS vs CCD vs Front or rear illumination vs pixel shape vs Raw processing theory. Lets simplify it Panasonic GF-1 = in camera digital lens correction. PMA Interview: Panasonic: Digital Photography Review "Your approach to lens design appears to have changed; there's now an element of digital correction built into the design. Do you consider the future of lens design to be partly optical and partly digital (using in-camera corrections)? And are there any compromises involved in digital aberration correction? Without the technology we've developed to allow digital lens corrections we simply couldn't make such lenses. In order to minimize the size and in order to maximize the performance of the lens we choose to use this technology. It's a digital camera, so it makes sense. We agree completely, we don't think it's an issue at all how you get the performance you want as long as the results are good, but to many purists this is hard to swallow. So when you're designing a lens now you're designing it partly optically and partly digitally? Yes. Of course we work closely with the lens engineers. But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap." Still an opportunity for Leica they just correct optically instead of activating the onboard processing via Leica branded lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
melonnmotion Posted January 25, 2010 Share #48 Posted January 25, 2010 I understand why Leica didn't do it. I mean, the use of M lenses on the GF-1 is a bit ridiculous for wide angle use... which is were Leica excels. They are just too expensive for the average consumer to buy for a $800 camera. uhmm $800 camera + Leica Noctilux for less than the price of an M9 Body! who would want that??? or $800 camera and full set of Voightlander glass for the price of an M9 body who would want that?? bit of food for thought... if taking pictures is more important to you than what you take your pictures with...? love Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted January 25, 2010 Share #49 Posted January 25, 2010 uhmm $800 camera + Leica Noctilux for less than the price of an M9 Body! who would want that??? or $800 camera and full set of Voightlander glass for the price of an M9 body who would want that?? bit of food for thought... if taking pictures is more important to you than what you take your pictures with...? love Anyone who uses M lenses with these u 4/3 bodies knows it isn't a fool proof option and is in no way comparible to the M8 or M9. Any lens you use doubles in focal length. A noctilux at 100mm... no thanks...plus that lens defeats the purpose of a small body anyway. I'm a firm believer that the best lenses for the u 4/3 cameras are the ones that are built for the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted January 25, 2010 Share #50 Posted January 25, 2010 Anyone who uses M lenses with these u 4/3 bodies knows it isn't a fool proof option and is in no way comparible to the M8 or M9. Any lens you use doubles in focal length. A noctilux at 100mm... no thanks...plus that lens defeats the purpose of a small body anyway. I'm a firm believer that the best lenses for the u 4/3 cameras are the ones that are built for the camera. Well, yes, but they don't do a 35mm f/2 (yet), nor a 50 f/1.4................ Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 25, 2010 Share #51 Posted January 25, 2010 half the fun is playing with alternate lenses Konica 40/1.8 and 57/1.2 are among my favourites Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted January 25, 2010 Share #52 Posted January 25, 2010 I like Riley's table. I have noted that the 2/3 inch sensor is well down the table of sensor sizes and therefore crop factors etc. The D2 has a 2/3 inch 5 MP sensor.It produces fantastic images....but not in low light, agreed. This forum is saturated with postings confirming what a great camera the D2 is, and it really is! My point is that a good well designed camera and lens can produce wonderful images so I don't think that the 2x crop 4/3 sensor is anywhere near dead yet. Oh and I don't own a 4/3 camera either, but I do own a full frame camera:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted January 25, 2010 Share #53 Posted January 25, 2010 Well, yes, but they don't do a 35mm f/2 (yet), nor a 50 f/1.4................ Gerry I guess I should have said that this set-up is fine for those who prefer telephoto lenses...then the GF-1 could even be superior to a M rangefinder. However, if you are into wider angles, you are better off with the stock 20mm or 17mm lens IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 25, 2010 Share #54 Posted January 25, 2010 Dont forget, due to the 2x crop factor, these lenses exhibit half the DoF they have on FF that can get pretty interesting on very fast glass to what amounts to longish FL to demonstrate from my E3 with Konica 57/1.2 at F2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
melonnmotion Posted January 27, 2010 Share #55 Posted January 27, 2010 I'm a firm believer that the best lenses for the u 4/3 cameras are the ones that are built for the camera. I agree with you the 20mm is a joy to use and i can't wait to use the 14mm f2.8 pancake when its out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted January 27, 2010 Share #56 Posted January 27, 2010 i can't wait to use the 14mm f2.8 pancake when its out Sounds great! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted January 27, 2010 Share #57 Posted January 27, 2010 I agree with you the 20mm is a joy to use and i can't wait to use the 14mm f2.8 pancake when its out I agree about the 20mm, its nice and fast as well as compact, but the 14mm is only half a stop or so faster than the zoom and you lose the OIS, so I'm not sure it will be such a 'must have' Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.