Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
StephenPatterson

No focus peaking???

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Harold I quite agree, and I apologise for my part

 

I'll stick to my guns here (with the exception of the NEX 6, which I don't know. In my books a shutter which requires you to use a shutter speed twice the focal length to ensure a sharp photo (not my words, but I agree) counts as catastrophic.

 

I think there is plenty of room for improvement In the A7, which is why mine is currently on eBay. I'm keeping the 24-70 and the excellent 55 f1.8 because I'm hoping there will be an A9 to use them on by the end of the year.

 

It's just that in their recent rush of cameras I feel that the NEX cameras aren't as good as micro 43, either with respect to features, or more specially with respect to choice of lenses.

 

BTW I haven't decided whether I'm buying a T yet, but I'm certainly keeping my EM1

 

Thanks.

 

Neither the Nex-6 or the A7 require twice the shutter speed. I think you are referring to the controversy over the A7R at 1/125 or perhaps the sensitivity of 36mp to stability. As I have not used the A7R I would not comment. I have used the D800E and, as with most DSLRs, always need a higher shutter speed then any CSC.

I can get pretty low with the A7, 1/60 usually sharp, 1/40 alot of the time.

The best slow shutter cameras I have used are the X-Vario and RX1 where I have got away with 1/20.

 

Not a fan of M4/3s at all, particularly IQ. Leave it at that.... The Nex series IQ and design objectives are my cup of tea

Edited by colonel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I've ever denied that some extra features would be good. I've simply contended that the lack of them is no kind of a deal breaker.

 

It would be more accurate to say that I chose m43 over the NEX: IBIS and weathersealing played a part in the decision, but the better native lenses was more relevant to the decision (the peerless 12-40 Zuiko and the wonderful 75f1.8 spring to mind).

 

Why would I have a problem with that? I said a few times that my primary reason for buying a Nex 6 was the compact 16-50 collapsible lens. There are many options and even more since I bought it 17 months ago. If I were buying today, the $524 price would be a big inducement to overlook lack of IBIS and weather sealing. I have been able to keep it under a coat in light rain and have two OSS lenses. I have adapters to use my old MF lenses on it but seldom do. Thus while IBIS may be the preferred way to go, I am ok without it. I bought the Sony 3 year extended warranty for it that includes drops and spills. So if it fails due to lack of weather sealing, they'll fix or replace it. (I originally expected to fly it in a quadcopter but now will probably buy a cheap and lighter Nex 3N body for that.)

 

Aside. Since I posted an acceptably sharp photo (sharp enough for me) at 100% made at the 50mm setting at 1/5th second, how do you come up with the view that the Nex 6 needs a shutter speed twice the focal length? I have shot as low as 1/2 second handheld and gotten nice results. I haven't used the A7r but surely examination of a 36MP image at 100% would turn up anything less than the best technique. In any case if one chooses the A7r over the T there would be very different reasons for that at play.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of M4/3s at all, particularly IQ. Leave it at that.... The Nex series IQ and design objectives are my cup of tea

 

Well Harold - if I'm looking for IQ then I'll use my M, but If I'm looking for something with a good design to go hiking in English weather - then the E-M1 or E-M5 are the cameras, and although the image quality of m43 was a little questionable a few years ago, these produce excellent quality images - certainly so close to the NEX as to make no practical difference.

 

Each to his own. . . . . But I really have spent a lot of time comparing these cameras - a LOT of time!

 

Why would I have a problem with that? I said a few times that my primary reason for buying a Nex 6 was the compact 16-50 collapsible lens. There are many options and even more since I bought it 17 months ago. If I were buying today, the $524 price would be a big inducement to overlook lack of IBIS and weather sealing. I have been able to keep it under a coat in light rain and have two OSS lenses. I have adapters to use my old MF lenses on it but seldom do. Thus while IBIS may be the preferred way to go, I am ok without it. I bought the Sony 3 year extended warranty for it that includes drops and spills. So if it fails due to lack of weather sealing, they'll fix or replace it. (I originally expected to fly it in a quadcopter but now will probably buy a cheap and lighter Nex 3N body for that.)

 

So - it's each to his own - so what's the necessity to slag off the Leica T with such consistent energy? So it's missing some things your NEX has . . . which is missing some things the Olympus has . . . . which is missing some things the T has.

 

pick your limitations and thus your camera . . . . but it's not ludicrous for someone else to come to a different conclusion . . . Is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so what's the necessity to slag off the Leica T with such consistent energy?

 

Can't help being energetic but considering the T, EVF, and two very basic lenses cost $6000 (maybe $7000+ after some batteries, case, strap and sales tax here) do I need to have more reasons to be perplexed by anyone buying it after a cost/benefit analysis? Yes, I know money grows on trees for some.

 

At something like $1000 for the body and maybe $400 -$500 for each lens and $350 for the EVF I could accept even those inflated prices as the red dot tax and the camera's stripped to the "essentials" marketing concept. But at this price you must really be committed to the idea of having fewer features as some kind of significant advantage. That makes little sense to me since most of those left off features are transparent in use anyway. Now if the lens were a 16-70 2.8 IS that miraculously was reasonably compact and made great quality images, it might be worth every penny.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Harold - if I'm looking for IQ then I'll use my M, but If I'm looking for something with a good design to go hiking in English weather - then the E-M1 or E-M5 are the cameras, and although the image quality of m43 was a little questionable a few years ago, these produce excellent quality images - certainly so close to the NEX as to make no practical difference.

 

Each to his own. . . . . But I really have spent a lot of time comparing these cameras - a LOT of time!

 

 

Me too, particularly the EM-1 and EM-5. Very disappointing IQ compared to APS-C, particularly Sony and Fuji, Noise even at base ISO !!!

The EM-1 particularly reminded me of a quote from trading places (displaying my age) - "all dressed up and no one to blow"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't help being energetic but considering the T, EVF, and two very basic lenses cost $7000 (maybe $8000+ after some batteries, case, strap and sales tax here) do I need to have more reasons to be perplexed by anyone buying it after a cost/benefit analysis?

 

People don't always buy 'stuff' purely on the basis of value for money. Otherwise who would buy a watch (hope the analogy doesn't offend) other than a £5 one from a filling station. After all it keeps perfect time, and what else could anyone want from a watch?

 

Leica can't compete, will never compete, on value for money. They're too small a company. Their attraction to purchasers lies elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People don't always buy 'stuff' purely on the basis of value for money. Otherwise who would buy a watch (hope the analogy doesn't offend) other than a £5 one from a filling station. After all it keeps perfect time, and what else could anyone want from a watch?

 

Leica can't compete, will never compete, on value for money. They're too small a company. Their attraction to purchasers lies elsewhere.

 

Well it is obvious that few would buy the T based on value for the money. How many times do I have to say it?

 

So Leica is depending on people to fall in love with it for other reasons that are not easy to explain but are mostly driven by marketing than by performance as a photographic tool.

 

That is my basic problem that Leica has gotten away from its original focus of making fine tools for photography at prices that were necessary to justify the quality of the product to selling luxury goods based on emotional appeals... whether the performance or craftsmanship justifies the price or not. (I used to shoot jewelry catalogs and ads.)

 

I can totally see why people buy watches and jewelry for the status and bling appeal. Many people with money like to show to others they have it. Plus it helps them identify each other. You have to examine a diamond pretty closely to tell if it's real. And a gold plated watch looks just like a solid gold one.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah - the Leica Luxus from 1929 was a pure photographic tool because it had snake leather and real gold plating - as Leica eschewed the luxury market back then....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah - the Leica Luxus from 1929 was a pure photographic tool because it had snake leather and real gold plating - as Leica eschewed the luxury market back then....

 

OK Leica has been selling stupid special editions for a while. Now I have lost all respect. How would you feel about a gold plated T? I know Hassy and Linhof made gold special editions too. I think that was pathetic and just a way to milk some money from collectors. It in no way contributes to the world of photography... and that is the only thing I care about doing with cameras. I am not into collecting and polishing them. I have no idea how much of Leica's resources went to these special editions and if there was a long range benefit to targeting collectors. I just want camera companies to concentrate on performance not bling.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me too, particularly the EM-1 and EM-5. Very disappointing IQ compared to APS-C, particularly Sony and Fuji, Noise even at base ISO !!!

The EM-1 particularly reminded me of a quote from trading places (displaying my age) - "all dressed up and no one to blow"

 

Then turn down the input sharpening.

Whatever - this thread has now gone around in a complete circle - I don't think I have anything else to contribute . . . . . . . toddle pip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OSS compensates for some camera shake...transparent in use. Why anyone would be against these is truly puzzling.

 

OSS is of very limited if any use to me because my support system (monopod + shoulder stock) steadies the camera enough that subject motion becomes the limiting factor, OSS adds several air/glass surfaces to the lens, under some conditions it will create weird bokeh effects, and is not immune from Murphy's Law. Not to mention the degraded optical performance numerous photographers noted when lenses with optical stabilization replaced older non-stabilized models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OSS is of very limited if any use to me because my support system (monopod + shoulder stock) steadies the camera enough that subject motion becomes the limiting factor, OSS adds several air/glass surfaces to the lens, under some conditions it will create weird bokeh effects, and is not immune from Murphy's Law. Not to mention the degraded optical performance numerous photographers noted when lenses with optical stabilization replaced older non-stabilized models.

 

I turn off IS when using a tripod. We all know that. I am not of the opinion that leaving off IS from the lens design is necessary to make a good lens.

 

We are kind of moving far afield from the likely user of a T shooting handheld with a kit zoom. Or for handheld video. They are not shooting with anything like what you use. Are you planning to hang a 400 on the T or something? Do you use a remote release when shooting with a long lens?

 

Anyhow, countless sports and nature shooters use long lenses that have IS and AF whether it is on or off at the time. (Handheld, tripod, monopod.) Whereas Leica MF non IS lenses are no longer made. Maybe the market has spoken despite what you think is best. And any optical criticism against IS does not apply to sensor based stabilization anyway. Leica could still choose to incorporate that in a future model This could explain leaving it off the lenses and would make a lot of sense for a camera that might be used with M and R lenses.

 

I can't see how any of this applies to leaving IS off a consumer level kit zoom. Considering the basic 18-55 costs $1750, what would a really great long lens for the T sell for? It won't likely happen but if it does it will be AF if not include IS too.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it is obvious that few would buy the T based on value for the money. How many times do I have to say it?

 

Well, you are by your own words 'perplexed' as to why someone would buy a 'T' after doing a cost/benefit analysis. All I'm saying is that there are other things to be taken into consideration than purely price and features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you are by your own words 'perplexed' as to why someone would buy a 'T' after doing a cost/benefit analysis. All I'm saying is that there are other things to be taken into consideration than purely price and features.

 

Yes if price is not a consideration, what does anything matter about it? They could sell a $100,000 solid gold diamond encrusted pinhole camera to someone I am sure. Yes since I look for value in my expenses, spending $6000+ for a very very basic 2 lens APS camera "system" is not something I would casually do. However cute it may be or fun to use. It only is a 28-70 (not even that wide it turns out due to the auto correction) equivalent slow lens and a moderate aperture 35 equiv. Is the prospect of shooting only with those lenses so compelling? Doesn't almost everyone here have those needs covered?

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This excerpt seems at the heart of the debate, i.e., not just too few features according to Alan, but too high of a cost for those limited features.

 

We're talking about Leica here. The cost issue, and cost/value equation, could be argued for virtually every Leica product, including every accessory. Old news.

 

One needs to either accept the Leica pricing strategy or not. Asking for more 'features' by those who don't accept the value equation is unlikely to sit well with those who already do.

 

And the beat goes on….

 

Jeff

 

Over 50 posts ago.

 

And the beat goes on….

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK Leica has been selling stupid special editions for a while. Now I have lost all respect. How would you feel about a gold plated T? I know Hassy and Linhof made gold special editions too. I think that was pathetic and just a way to milk some money from collectors. It in no way contributes to the world of photography... and that is the only thing I care about doing with cameras. I am not into collecting and polishing them. I have no idea how much of Leica's resources went to these special editions and if there was a long range benefit to targeting collectors. I just want camera companies to concentrate on performance not bling.
For a while? Since they built their first camera. So what? does that diminish the quality of their cameras somehow? Would you not buy a Mercedes because the sell a silly thing like a Maybach? Companies are in business to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For a while? Since they built their first camera. So what? does that diminish the quality of their cameras somehow? Would you not buy a Mercedes because the sell a silly thing like a Maybach? Companies are in business to make money.

 

I didn't say I wouldn't buy as a result.It does diminish Leica's image for me. I think the Maybach is a completely different model and not just an embellished Mercedes, but maybe I am wrong. Very high end cars are mostly sold as status items and because money is no object to some. I just bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland model and it is full of fancy electronic features, great 4X4 performance, a smooth quiet ride and a high end cabin with real wood and nice leather ventilated seats. Even this was more than I actually "needed" and I can't see what more I could want in such a vehicle. Still expensive to me at nearly $50K. So I wouldn't go for a Range Rover or Mercedes. I don't think driving a Jeep carries much status in the affluent Washington DC area. It is a very practical car for my needs or at least that's how I justify it. My friend is rich so he owns new Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Porsches, two or three at a time along with other vehicles. He always has to have the latest and greatest, but doesn't drive them very much. That is his thing and I know he just likes buying and owning them. Why I can't say.

 

If Leica wants to sell a camera based on polishing aluminum by hand and people respond to that, I'm good with it. But that is not the image of Leica that I ever related to. Their enlargers were nice simple tools. Did they ever sell any gold plated enlargers? Of course not because people can't show off an enlarger.

 

Do we buy our cameras to take photos or to show off? The eternal question.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we buy our cameras to take photos or to show off? The eternal question.

 

Collector editions are a separate category. People collect all kinds of stuff, usually not to show off, but to feed the addiction. In the case of Leica, those profits help fund all the other stuff and, for me, I'm thrilled with that as long as I like at least some of that other stuff.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Collector editions are a separate category. People collect all kinds of stuff, usually not to show off, but to feed the addiction. In the case of Leica, those profits help fund all the other stuff and, for me, I'm thrilled with that as long as I like at least some of that other stuff.

 

Jeff

 

Since the early 70s I've debated whether Leica's limited editions and Leica collecting in general was good or bad for the company. I have not concluded that it was a good thing. I believe it led to complacency and higher prices. I could be wrong. maybe that is the best they could do in that time period. The S system certainly demonstrates their newer capabilities.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...