Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[FastFashnReloaded]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh, and by the way, you said that the AF system on the Sony R1 was "excellent"? I don't know... I can't get past the fact that the entire camera makes noises like a CSM-101 Terminator after it has been hit by a truck a few times.

 

Geex but that camera is loud.

[wlaidlaw]

The Contax G2 was NOT "hopelessly fussy". I had a G1 and a G2, and focus was generally just fine. The only times I had focus issues is when I was not paying attention.

 

Did you actually own one, or are you just, excuse my French, blathering on?

 

Certainly the line deserved better than what those fraking idiots at Kyocera did with the G and SLR Contax lines.

 

Dana,

 

Yes I had both a G1 and a G2 and all the lenses except the Hologon. I bought the G2 in an expectation of a marked improvement in the AF over the G1. I was disappointed in this feature and thought it spoilt an otherwise brilliant camera system. I had the AF re-collimated twice and even the repairer commented on how fussy it was. I gather that cameras varied considerably from correspondence on the Contax forums. On mine if you were taking in portrait and the image contained mostly verticals, as many portrait images of architecture do, focus would not pick up at all. You had to pick up focus in Landscape lock the focus and rotate the camera, while trying not to fire the shutter - try that with arthritic hands. I had been a Contax user since 1984 (or even earlier with my father's Contax IIa in the 1950's) and had used their SLR's (139Q, 167, RX & RTSIII) almost exclusively until I got the G1. My wife had a Yashica 230AF SLR, on which neither of us had any problems with the AF. For the last two years I had the G2, I left the Biogon 21 on it and used it at Hyperfocal distances.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Oh, and by the way, you said that the AF system on the Sony R1 was "excellent"? I don't know... I can't get past the fact that the entire camera makes noises like a CSM-101 Terminator after it has been hit by a truck a few times.

 

Geex but that camera is loud.

 

But you can turn the noise off and it is totally silent.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

I guess an illustration says more than a thousand words:

 

Michael,

 

I totally agree with your theory but I would maintain that a) the arc through which you are likely to be moving the camera is much smaller and the length of the radius is much longer. I am not suggesting that you use this technique at Macro distances. The net effect of these two changes would minimise the change in effective focus distance to in most cases, less than the DOF. If say, you have a radius length of 4 meters and are moving the camera through 3º of arc, what is the focus distance change - any mathematicians out there who can calculate this for me? I bet it is not a lot.

 

Wilson

[sdai]

But you can turn the noise off and it is totally silent.

 

That one is funny ... I wonder what people will say if Sony builds a camera making noise like a sexy T-X.

 

Desperate users of the doomed 4/3 cameras only need to make one right decision and the future is instantly bright ... buy something else.

[wlaidlaw]

 

Desperate users of the doomed 4/3 cameras only need to make one right decision and the future is instantly bright ... buy something else.

 

I wonder if the Leica lenses have a big enough image circle to cover a decent APS-C sized sensor. That is certainly the decision I would have made in leica's shoes so that if 4/3rds bombed like it looks as if it is going to, you at least would have a set of Lenses you could use in the future. Why would you buy a 4/3rds D3 when you can get 10-12MP APS-C on a D300, a 40D or the new Sony Alpha 700 for less money. The lens can only make so much of a difference. Backed the wrong horse I am afraid.

 

Wilson

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

- any mathematicians out there who can calculate this for me? I bet it is not a lot.

 

This will involve a lot of factors but Michael's illustration speaks a lot, especially when you shoot wide open ... I'm not a mathematician but here's some quick number crunch.

 

Suppose you're working with a 80/1.4 when the turning radius is 4 meters and the shift angle is 45 degrees ... then the resulting difference in DoF is about 11cm.

 

In another case, if you're working with a 400/2.8 when the turning radius is 100 meters and an shift angle of 10 degrees, the difference in DoF goes to about 30 cm.

[sdai]

I wonder if the Leica lenses have a big enough image circle to cover a decent APS-C sized sensor. That is certainly the decision I would have made in leica's shoes so that if 4/3rds bombed like it looks as if it is going to, you at least would have a set of Lenses you could use in the future. Why would you buy a 4/3rds D3 when you can get 10-12MP APS-C on a D300, a 40D or the new Sony Alpha 700 for less money. The lens can only make so much of a difference. Backed the wrong horse I am afraid.

 

The R lenses can work flawlessly on a 1Ds ... let alone the APS-C sensors. I would never care about the 4/3 stuff, they alway charge more for less.

[FastFashnReloaded]

That one is funny ... I wonder what people will say if Sony builds a camera making noise like a sexy T-X.

 

Desperate users of the doomed 4/3 cameras only need to make one right decision and the future is instantly bright ... buy something else.

 

Doomed, DOOOMED! Meh. I have an E-330 and and E-500, and they are excellent. So, by buy something else, you must mean CANON?! I'd rather shoot pix with a box Brownie.

[wlaidlaw]

The R lenses can work flawlessly on a 1Ds ... let alone the APS-C sensors. I would never care about the 4/3 stuff, they alway charge more for less.

 

I was thinking about the Leicasonic lenses not R - D3 stuff.

 

Wilson

[FastFashnReloaded]

Dana,

 

Yes I had both a G1 and a G2 and all the lenses except the Hologon. I bought the G2 in an expectation of a marked improvement in the AF over the G1. I was disappointed in this feature and thought it spoilt an otherwise brilliant camera system. I had the AF re-collimated twice and even the repairer commented on how fussy it was. I gather that cameras varied considerably from correspondence on the Contax forums. On mine if you were taking in portrait and the image contained mostly verticals, as many portrait images of architecture do, focus would not pick up at all. You had to pick up focus in Landscape lock the focus and rotate the camera, while trying not to fire the shutter - try that with arthritic hands. I had been a Contax user since 1984 (or even earlier with my father's Contax IIa in the 1950's) and had used their SLR's (139Q, 167, RX & RTSIII) almost exclusively until I got the G1. My wife had a Yashica 230AF SLR, on which neither of us had any problems with the AF. For the last two years I had the G2, I left the Biogon 21 on it and used it at Hyperfocal distances.

 

Wilson

 

I doubt seriously that the cameras, "varied considerably". However, if this camera was a lemon for you, I would have compared it to another one of the same make and model to see if the problem followed the body.

 

My fav of the two cams was the lowly "" G1, however, because I liked the size better. The G2 was a really really SOLID bit of metal. Kind of like hefting a titanium brick it was. If I could trust anyone to develop film properly these days I'd still have the cameras though.

 

Also, the vf, though small, didn't give me migraines like a certain Leica M6. Just don't understand why Leica can't put a little wheel beside the vf to compensate for different eyes.

[mjh]

The net effect of these two changes would minimise the change in effective focus distance to in most cases, less than the DOF. If say, you have a radius length of 4 meters and are moving the camera through 3º of arc, what is the focus distance change - any mathematicians out there who can calculate this for me? I bet it is not a lot.

With 3°, the effect will be negligible, but for other angles it might not. In mathematical terms, the backfocus is (d / cos (a)) - d, where d is the distance and a is the angle.

[sdai]

I was thinking about the Leicasonic lenses not R - D3 stuff.

 

I've seen a guy trying to mount the ZD lenses on a Canon 20D on a Chinese forum ... some image circles seem to be able to cover the 20D just fine while others don't. The search engine on that site doesn't work in the way it should, I'll post a link when I find it.

[sdai]

I was thinking about the Leicasonic lenses not R - D3 stuff.

 

I wasn't able to find the ZD lens test on the 20D but found another thread trying the ZD lenses on a Nikon D50. LOL

 

This guy used some brutal force feeding signals through the contacts so the ZD lens can focus at a fixed point.

 

Here's the ZD 50/2 macro on a E-400 (100% frame coverage downsized, no other PS)

 

 

Here's the ZD 50/2 macro on a Nikno D50 ... again 100% frame coverage downsized, no PS.

 

 

He also tried the 7-14 on the D50 ...

 

 

The original thread can be found here:

 

Trying Zuiko Digital lenses on a D50

[Likaleica]

I guess an illustration says more than a thousand words:

 

I guess I'm just dimwitted, and welcome enlightenment, but it seems to me that Michael's illustration proves his theory wrong. Let's assume the camera is tripod mounted, and the mount is directly over the film plane, so that rotation of the camera does not move the film plane appreciably. We focus on our subject, say the catchlight in a bird's eye. This is Distance A. We then recompose, moving the bird to the side of the frame. The distance from film plane to bird's eye has not changed. Michael's illustration shows the subject plane directly in front of the camera, and closer to it, but we are unconcerned about this distance, Distance B. We aren't focusing on that plane. The distance from film (or sensor) to eye remains the same.

 

Am I missing something?

[sdai]

We aren't focusing on that plane. The distance from film (or sensor) to eye remains the same.

 

But the film plane and the eye are now at an angle ... and the effect of DoF kicks in.

[EH21]

RE: AF with center points only and the focus and recompose problem. The guys that bought the H1/H2/H3 medium format with digital back are complaining that its not working for them either. Imagine spending $30,000 and more with the new AF lenses on a camera with an AF system that's pretty much worthless for a lot of shooting styles. You can read about it on other forums that discuss medium format digital. Hassleblad made a big advertising campaign over their new fast AF but the truth is that its not so useful. Why can they not include 40+ AF points like canon or nikon? Because they have a smaller number of customers and the cost to develop and add such a system would be huge when spread over a tiny number of units sold. So the same is true for Rollei and their pitiful 3 points AF system and others.

 

I can only guess the same would be true for Leica considering the size of their market. Developing a truly functional multipoint AF would be prohibitive and if forced by the market to add such a feature they will only be able to add what Hassleblad did - something to say they have it but not very useful. What a waste!

 

So in the end I sure wish you all will stop looking for AF and start asking for a bigger, brighter viewfinder instead.

 

Those of you that still are wondering about the focus/recompose problem just go out and try it! You will see that it is a real problem. Takes only like 3 minutes to shoot two shots.

 

Eric

[sdai]

I think you're worrying too much, Eric. The Olympus E-1 only has 3 AF points and that doesn't stop people from calling it a "professional" camera and there's just a lot of rave about it.

 

The frame coverage of your 6008 is so much bigger than 35mm coverage so the negative effect is obviously more pronounced.

 

I think AF is a rather mature technology now, even the Pentax K100D could have 11 points, and the Canon 40D makes all 9 points cross type ... let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst. LOL

[mjh]

We focus on our subject, say the catchlight in a bird's eye. This is Distance A. We then recompose, moving the bird to the side of the frame. The distance from film plane to bird's eye has not changed. Michael's illustration shows the subject plane directly in front of the camera, and closer to it, but we are unconcerned about this distance, Distance B. We aren't focusing on that plane.

But we should. At least if it’s a sharp image of the subject we are after.

 

The distance from film (or sensor) to eye remains the same.

That’s fine, but irrelevant.

 

Suppose you want to take a photo of a group of people, and you have all of them line up in front of your camera – in a straight line that is perpendicular to the optical axis. If you focus on some person in the middle, everyone else’s image should be just as sharp, right? But then, those at the extreme left or right are farther away from the camera than someone in the middle is. Shouldn’t you rather draw a circle with the camera at the center and have everyone stand on that circle? That’s what your theory predicts you should do, because only then would everyone be equally far away from the camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

But we should. At least if it’s a sharp image of the subject we are after.

 

 

That’s fine, but irrelevant.

 

Suppose you want to take a photo of a group of people, and you have all of them line up in front of your camera – in a straight line that is perpendicular to the optical axis. If you focus on some person in the middle, everyone else’s image should be just as sharp, right? But then, those at the extreme left or right are farther away from the camera than someone in the middle is. Shouldn’t you rather draw a circle with the camera at the center and have everyone stand on that circle? That’s what your theory predicts you should do, because only then would everyone be equally far away from the camera.

 

Michael,

 

You would the have to factor in something else. Is the lens field flat (plane) or curved. I believe traditionally Leica has gone for more curved focus fields that Zeiss has (or was it the other way round). How would this effect focus and recompose?

 

Wilson