audidudi Posted February 26, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted February 26, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Night shots are not bad either... Â You don't find the noisy sky at least a little bit objectionable? I don't mind some noise (unlike Mitch, who embraces it!) but I think some careful touch-up would improve things here. Just my two-cents worth, of course, so do with it as you please... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 Hi audidudi, Take a look here Much Under Rated Camera - D2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
steich Posted February 26, 2007 Share #22  Posted February 26, 2007 I like the D2 very much- I promised my girlfriend I would sell it as soon as I have my M8, just to get some of the money for the new camera. Now I have the M8, haven´t used the D2 for weeks, but selling it is still to come....guess why... Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 26, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted February 26, 2007 You don't find the noisy sky at least a little bit objectionable? I don't mind some noise (unlike Mitch, who embraces it!) but I think some careful touch-up would improve things here. Just my two-cents worth, of course, so do with it as you please... Â I don't mind it here, it gives some structure. But I agree, it could easily be removed, even selectively to preserve detail in the rest of the shot. Here are some more. Maybe you'll like them better: Â Â Â Â Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted February 26, 2007 Share #24  Posted February 26, 2007 Maybe you'll like them better  I didn't dislike your other photo, but Yes, I do like these. The results from my attempt at shooting a carousel at night using my LC1 were absymal. In fact, I ended up using my LX2 because I needed the OIS advantage to capture anything presentable.  Nice job! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted February 26, 2007 Share #25 Â Posted February 26, 2007 I like the D2 very much- I promised my girlfriend I would sell it as soon as I have my M8, just to get some of the money for the new camera. Â You're on a slippery slope there, Stefan! Once you let your girlfriend make you justify your camera purchases, there's no telling where this could lead... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designdog Posted March 6, 2007 Share #26  Posted March 6, 2007 The D2/LC1, like the D3/L1 are much misunderstood cameras. Here are some comments from an owner of the d2, LC1, and L1:  LC1/D2 -5mp is plenty. There are ways to blow up images with Photoshop (new version of Genuine Fractals for one) that give me excellent large prints at 300dpi -same with noise (Noiseware and others) -what other digicam has a fast/sharp lens like this?  L1/D3 -kit lens is outstanding with IS -viewfinder is better than reviewed -info on LCD is very convenient and helpful -2 mode buttons very helpful -Olympus just introduced some interesting 4/3 lenses -50mm f2 macro is quite good  IQ for both is really good. Analog experience is wonderful. Certainly not "me-too" products!  -ddog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted March 6, 2007 Share #27  Posted March 6, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) D2 is a VERY nice digital. Im buying one for my wife before our next trip if I can find one used and in great shape. Here are a few of mine from my old D2 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/17082-much-under-rated-camera-d2/?do=findComment&comment=191238'>More sharing options...
dugby Posted March 6, 2007 Share #28  Posted March 6, 2007 I shot these (and 50+ others, most of which I find equally attractive) alongside the trail running behind Larsen's beach while my girlfriend was sunbathing. The north end of Larsen's is a(n unofficial) nude beach  Sorry Jeffrey.... but we don't believe a word you've said here...!!!!  For proof of your word....we'd like to see these photos of your GF on THE beach....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 6, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted March 6, 2007 For proof of your word....we'd like to see these photos of your GF on THE beach....... Well, if you insist, just for a little bit ... and Yes, it was shot with my LC1 as well, although I've processed this image via my older Fujitsu notebook, which has an uncalibrated LCD, so don't complain about the colors, etc. (And in case you need proof I was there, those are my shoes on the left!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 6, 2007 Share #30  Posted March 6, 2007 Here's a better and somewhat more modest photo of her, also shot with my LC1 (according to the EXIF, it was shot at 28mm equivalent, f2.0, and 1/10 ... frankly, I'm amazed it's as sharp as it is!) and Yes, she whips my butt regularly at Scrabble... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/17082-much-under-rated-camera-d2/?do=findComment&comment=191416'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted March 6, 2007 Well, if you insist, just for a little bit ... and Yes, it was shot with my LC1 as well, although I've processed this image via my older Fujitsu notebook, which has an uncalibrated LCD, so don't complain about the colors, etc. (And in case you need proof I was there, those are my shoes on the left!). Â Â If I posted this of my wife, the forensic team would be wiping blood from my laptop.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 6, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted March 6, 2007 If I posted this of my wife, the forensic team would be wiping blood from my laptop.... Â Well, she's a "naturist," so this sort of stuff doesn't bother her at all ... but for discretion's sake, I won't leave it up for too long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted March 6, 2007 Â Â Â Didn't anybody notice?? This shot has very obvious IR contamination. Those fairy lights were white! And that on the Digilux2! And the window! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 6, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted March 6, 2007 Didn't anybody notice?? This shot has very obvious IR contamination. Those fairy lights were white! And that on the Digilux2! And the window! Â I think we need to file a class-action lawsuit against Leica and hold it responsible for committing these crimes against humanity! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted March 6, 2007 Share #35  Posted March 6, 2007 Well, if you insist, just for a little bit ... and Yes, it was shot with my LC1 as well, although I've processed this image via my older Fujitsu notebook, which has an uncalibrated LCD, so don't complain about the colors, etc. (And in case you need proof I was there, those are my shoes on the left!).  Jeffrey, gauging by the speed with which the administrators got to your post, they obviously don't believe you either....hahaha  Ok...we'll let you off the hook this time.....maybe if the evidence was posted in the People forum,...... it might have been considered ART, whereas here, it was a technicality....  PS.... all these beautiful D2 shots in this thread.......... I'm keeping mine as a backup / alternative to my D3/L1.  As I said previously, to me the D3/L1 is an all-day / every-day heavier camera, whereas my D2 is a part-of-the day / every-day light weight camera still capable of superb photos.  I think we will see the D2....as the all-time collectable digital camera from the "early naughties (ok....noughties)" era. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 6, 2007 Share #36 Â Posted March 6, 2007 Jeffrey, gauging by the speed with which the administrators got to your post, they obviously don't believe you either....hahaha Actually, I asked the administrators to delete the image as I didn't intend to post it here for posterity -- I'm not stupid, you know! -- but didn't realize you only have one hour to edit a post before it becomes writ in stone. As I said previously, to me the D3/L1 is an all-day / every-day heavier camera, whereas my D2 is a part-of-the day / every-day light weight camera still capable of superb photos. Although some might prefer the LC1/D2 to have a bit more heft, I find its form-factor fits me to a "T" as I can carry it around all day long in my hand with a strap around my wrist and not get tired. The L1/D3, on the other hand, does start to get annoyingly heavy-ish after a while and it's just ever-so-slightly too thick for me to get a comfortable grip on it. I hope I can improve matters somewhat by fitting it with the ultra-compact Voigtlander 12mm/f5.6 lens, but we'll see... I think we will see the D2....as the all-time collectable digital camera from the "early naughties (ok....noughties)" era. Hah! I doubt any digital camera will ever become truly collectible, as they're much more tools than objects to be admired. But just in case, I'm planning to hold onto my LC1, scruffy though it has become ... alas, magnesium alloy doesn't "brass" nearly as well as brass does. Who'd a thought? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designdog Posted March 7, 2007 Share #37 Â Posted March 7, 2007 Are you saying Voigtlander lenses can be used (with an adapter I assume) with the D3/L2? Â Please elucidate! Â -ddog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 7, 2007 Share #38 Â Posted March 7, 2007 Are you saying Voigtlander lenses can be used (with an adapter I assume) with the D3/L2? Not yet, anyway, but I do intend to find out. Voigtlander makes several lenses with a Nikon F mount, including its 12mm and 15mm LTM lenses, and these can be installed on an L1/D3 using an inexpensive Nikon->4/3 lens mount adapter. With the L1/D3's cropping factor of 2x, these two lenses offer fields of view similar to a 35mm format 24mm and 30mm lens, respectively, except that you're shooting with a 4:3 format instead of 3:2. Â However, because they were designed for use on a Leica rangefinder, which have a flange-to-focal plane register of nearly 18mm less than Nikon's SLRs, Voigtlander had to recess the lens quite a bit in its mount in order to achieve infinity focus . This means that on a Nikon F-body, the mirror must be locked up as the rear lens element extends far enough into the mirror box assembly to interfere with the mirror's ability to swing back and forth. Â The same is true for the L1/D3, except that thanks to the "Live View" feature, you can still compose and focus your images on the LCD when the mirror is locked up. If you allow the mirror to move when you fire the shutter, it will strike either Voigtlanders' rear lens element. However, if you hold the mirror in place with a finger or Q-tip when you fire the shutter, it doesn't move and better still, this doesn't seem to cause any harm to the camera body. Â As a result, I've decided to gamble that a piece of foam of the proper size and density placed between the mirror and lens will prevent the mirror from moving when the Voigtlander 12mm lens is installed, thus preventing it from causing any damage to either the lens or the mirror. Â Can I say it will work for certain at this point? No, I can't. Am I confident enough that I can make it work in this application to have spent $699 to buy one and see? Yes, I am. Mind you, unlike many people, I don't have any problem using the LCD instead of the viewfinder ... in fact, as a nearsighted, glasses-wearing, view camera user, I actually prefer using the LCD to the viewfinder, so this won't be any hardship to me. And given the fact that the Voigtlander 12mm lens is even shorter and lighter than the Contax 45mm/f2.8 Tessar I showed a photo of the other day, I believe this lens will potentially make the L1/D3 into a great walkaround camera. We shall see soon enough whether I'm correct or not! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designdog Posted March 7, 2007 Share #39 Â Posted March 7, 2007 Audidudi: Â May God be with you! Â I don't even like LOOKING inside my camera, much less fooling around with something that might hit the mirror! Â I think I'm going Super Takumur... Â -ddog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 7, 2007 Share #40 Â Posted March 7, 2007 I don't even like LOOKING inside my camera, much less fooling around with something that might hit the mirror! I'm an inveterate tinkerer with all things electro-mechanical, so this isn't a big deal. Getting the Contax N-series lenses I just purchased to work will be a much more challenging project, as I have to figure out how to make the electrically controlled aperture work after I figure out how to get the lens mounted on the camera body... Â I think I'm going Super Takumur... If you're referring to the 15mm screw-mount version, I was likewise tempted but they're fairly hard to come by these days and will almost certainly cost you twice as much (or more!) than the Voigtlander 15mm, which is quite a bit less expensive than the 12mm lens at just $459. Of course, its field of view is 30mm, not 24mm, so you pays your money... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.