AlanG Posted August 31, 2007 Share #41 Posted August 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) For what it's worth from where I sit. You can keep live view. Live view in an M8 type camera would allow for the possibility of attaching an optional small electronic viewfinder. I think this would radically increase the versatility of the camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Full frame Leica, Canon and Nikon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 31, 2007 Share #42 Posted August 31, 2007 I would be extremely happy with a very clean ISO 800 and a very good 1250 after that to me i just don't need , some do but i need light i just add it. YMMV Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted August 31, 2007 Share #43 Posted August 31, 2007 If Canon or Nikon come close to matching the quality of Leica lenses then I would begin to worry. - If I tell you that Canon's 16-35 mm 2,8L II on a 1Ds II gives far better results than M8 with a WATE, what do you think then? Sure, WATE is a formiddable lense. So is the half the price Canon version. And the 1Ds II just runs away from a M8. So, Leica hangs in a pritty thin string. The price of the two combined instruments is just too close for Leicas comfort. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 1, 2007 Share #44 Posted September 1, 2007 I would be extremely happy with a very clean ISO 800 and a very good 1250 after that to me i just don't need , some do but i need light i just add it. YMMV I would be happy with a clean 640/800. I would like to have 3 stops of margin for works in low light conditions (and Summiluxes, of course). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted September 1, 2007 Share #45 Posted September 1, 2007 The formidable power of Canon in the new digital camera field should not be underestimated. While Canon and Nikon were about the same size back in 1999 each with a turnover of 'about 220 - 250 BY (BillionYen) of their respective camera divisions, with a operating income of 'about' 25 BY, Canon is now way ahead: Canon's 2007 camera division estimates: Turnover 1161 BY, operating profit 318,5 BY Nikon's 2007/08 imaging division estimates (ends 31. march 2008): Turnover 510 BY, operating profit 62 Actually, Canon's turnover per 1. half of 2007 is higher (520 BY) than what Nikon estimate they will have sold per 31.March next year. And the rest of the business? They are so small both in turnover, - and especially operating profit that it is fair to say that Canon combs home more than 80% of business total profit.... Well. Finally, Nikon seems to have the camera it should have had up their sleaves 5 years ago when Canon launched 1Ds. But it will be a long up hill struggle to win back a 50/50 position as they had with Canon back in the good old analogue days. Yesss, the figures above are comparable. They include only 'camera' and 'imaging' divisions for Canon and Nikon respectively. Nikon's include scanners. Canon's do not, but include video with about 4%. And Leica in all this? They would fit nicely into Nikon's men's room. Or as a paper weight on Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai's desk. Something to think about, he? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 1, 2007 Share #46 Posted September 1, 2007 I think you've already got the Olympus 18/3.5 shift, no? If that existed, we'd all grab one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 1, 2007 Share #47 Posted September 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) - If I tell you that Canon's 16-35 mm 2,8L II on a 1Ds II gives far better results than M8 with a WATE, what do you think then? I think you are doing something wrong in processing your files then. And Leica in all this? They would fit nicely into Nikon's men's room. Or as a paper weight on Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai's desk. Yes? Leica are a small niche manufacturer. So what's new? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdewitt Posted September 1, 2007 Share #48 Posted September 1, 2007 Well, the Kodak sensors for medium format don't have the speed or high ISO performance we are looking for in a 35mm system, and if we want liveview and other fancy features, as well as possibly some microlens shifting even in an R10, then it will take some real development time. All those years when I was perfectly happy with ISO 50... I'd be perfectly happy with that speed today, too. In a 35mm system. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted September 1, 2007 Share #49 Posted September 1, 2007 I think you are doing something wrong in processing your files then. No. I compare the RAW files of both cameras in P1. But - Even the jpg of Canon 1Ds II looks decent compared to the DNG. Even Canon's 16-35 mm 2,8L II looks decent at full 2,8 aparture compared to Leicas 4,0. Even the true 16 mm corners look OK compared to Leicas 21 mm crop. Cropped down to about 21 mm and aparture 4,0 the Canon lense looks better than the WATE/M8 combo. Far better... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 1, 2007 Share #50 Posted September 1, 2007 Even Canon's 16-35 mm 2,8L II looks decent at full 2,8 aparture compared to Leicas 4,0. Did you ever use the original version of the 16-35? If so do you feel that the new lens is much better? Perhaps most people, including I, are only familiar with the performance of the older lens. I just noticed that DxO now supports the new 16-35 II. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 1, 2007 Share #51 Posted September 1, 2007 If that existed, we'd all grab one. You guys are hypercritical ... LOL To be frank, I'm not familiar with Olympus's products ... never got interested. When Guy mentioned about a 18mm PC lens I thought it was the one he had which is 24mm actually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 1, 2007 Share #52 Posted September 1, 2007 Live view in an M8 type camera would allow for the possibility of attaching an optional small electronic viewfinder. I think this would radically increase the versatility of the camera. Running a sensor the size of that in the M8 OR ANY OTHER large-sensor camera would lead to serious problems with overheating, from hideous noise to near-meltdown. You can't have live view unless you are content to carry along a Thermos flask with liquid nitrogen. Military helicopter and airplane-mounted FLIR (Forward-Looking Infra-Red) systems can use that solution in order to have a useable signal-to-noise ratio. I cannot. The old man from the Eyeball Age Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 1, 2007 Share #53 Posted September 1, 2007 Lars, did you miss the Digilux 3, 1D mark III, and D3? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 1, 2007 Share #54 Posted September 1, 2007 Lars, did you miss the Digilux 3, 1D mark III, and D3? No. These cameras have small size sensors. They have less problem with heat dissipation. But they are still not famous for good signal/noise ratios. Can you name one camera with a cropping factor of 1.5 or less which has a live viewing mode? Correct me if I am wrong. Olympus uses a separate small sensor in the finder system to obtain live viewing! The old man from the Age of Film Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted September 1, 2007 Share #55 Posted September 1, 2007 Did you ever use the original version of the 16-35? If so do you feel that the new lens is much better? Perhaps most people, including I, are only familiar with the performance of the older lens. I just noticed that DxO now supports the new 16-35 II. No. I have just tried the old 16-35 mm 2,8L and found it mediocre with soft corners and a lot of CA cosing about in the treetops, - and I have read tests and so forth. (I still have the old 17-35 mm 2,8L lying about: Awfull!) My 16-35 mm 2,8L II is 6 months old and better than my 24-35 mm 2,8L on comparable focal lengths.... I bought the same day as I bought my M8 & WATE. What is the most amazing with the 16-35 mm 2,8L II is the price. It makes you want to smell it and test if it is rotten. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 1, 2007 Share #56 Posted September 1, 2007 ...Can you name one camera with a cropping factor of 1.5 or less which has a live viewing mode?... Nikon D300? http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 1, 2007 Share #57 Posted September 1, 2007 Lars, I deliberately chose three cameras with live view and three different crop factors: 2x, 1.3x, and 1x, ie. FF. Two of these three cameras satisfy your criterion. Technology has moved on, and it is now possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 1, 2007 Share #58 Posted September 1, 2007 Carsten, all three models you've chosen use CMOS or variantion of MOS type sensor, these cameras consume much less power ... could be as much as 10x less thus heating and its coherent problems will be much less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgs Posted September 1, 2007 Share #59 Posted September 1, 2007 ...as far as the M line of products is concerned, nobody really knows how to build a rangefinder camera with a 36 x 24 mm sensor, so until that particular problem is solved (if it ever gets solved), there will be no 36 x 24 mm digital M.... The solution could be an Auto-Focus FF M with "life view" included, where the Range Finder is only the second choice. Or is this technical impossible? Regards Georg Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 1, 2007 Share #60 Posted September 1, 2007 The solution could be an Auto-Focus FF M with "life view" included, where the Range Finder is only the second choice. Or is this technical impossible? Regards Georg Still has the register distance problem, or would lose its size advantage.However, it would probably not sell... Maybe the cheaper Panasonic variant would. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.