Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #121  Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Again, this is a seriously flawed attempt ... keep in mind the Panasonic 14-50 OIS is not designed to work on a E-510 natively.  the only thing flawed here, is your opinion which discounts everything else, same as always  One side note, I've seen test reports published in several German and Japanese magazines, the image quality of E-510 doesn't really stack up to that in the E-410, I suspect these funky features have some eerie play inside. LOL  what they dont have a russian version? would be helpful if you came up with even a shred of proof for your whacko claims im surprised you moved away from the box brownie and sometimes i think thats where you belong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Hi Riley, Take a look here Second member of LHSA the R10 is confirmed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stevelap Posted October 25, 2007 Share #122 Â Posted October 25, 2007 To get back on topic: To be honest I'm just glad that it seems to have been confirmed that there will indeed be an R10, that it will at least be full-frame and that there will be compatibility with existing 'R' lenses. Â All of these points were covered in David Young's account of the LHSA question and answer session with Herr Kaufmann, which is well worth a re-read. IS though was not mentioned specifically! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #123 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Your comment only shows your ignorance, Riley. Â Guess how much money I spend each year just to get these magazines, reports, books delivered to my door. Shipping alone ... that's between 1500-2000 dollars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #124 Â Posted October 25, 2007 All of these points were covered in David Young's account of the LHSA question and answer session with Herr Kaufmann, which is well worth a re-read. IS though was not mentioned specifically! Â Is David a Leica dealer? ... in general, I don't care about IS in the R10 ... it better not have it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 25, 2007 Share #125 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Ho hum, only 10 months of this friendly banter to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted October 25, 2007 Share #126 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Sorry sdai, I don't know of David Young, other than as the author of the comments that were used to start this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #127 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry sdai, I don't know of David Young, other than as the author of the comments that were used to start this thread. Â I'm curious too ... Stephen. What I find interesting is Leica seems to have a secret elite club like the Skulls and Bones and these folks always get tips and started "rumors" on the web. Â Can someone guarantee that I can talk to Hr. Kauffman or Mr. Lee if I join LHSA? 65 dollars a pop is peanuts. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted October 25, 2007 Share #128 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Show me some proof, Peter. Â Not here :-))) Â But you can try yourself, go to a dealer and try out the E510 (the E-3 will not yet be available) with some of the top 4/3 lenses. Maybe take the Leica 1,4/2, or the Olympus 2/14-35 and the you will get convinced! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #129 Â Posted October 25, 2007 But you can try yourself, go to a dealer and try out the E510 (the E-3 will not yet be available) with some of the top 4/3 lenses. Maybe take the Leica 1,4/2, or the Olympus 2/14-35 and the you will get convinced! Â I can finally understand your humor, Peter! LOL Â Where the heck could you try a 1.4/2 Leica or a Olympus 2/14-35? :p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 25, 2007 Share #130  Posted October 25, 2007 So you disagree with me when i suggest that FF + AF + IS is simple good sense Michael? No, not at all. All I was saying – all that I meant, anyway – was that electronic image stabilization won’t fly with digital still cameras. It’s fine for camcorders (while an optical image stabilizer would still be superior), but as it doesn’t combat motion blur, it would be useless in a R10.  As to the question whether AF and IS make good sense – I was wondering about all the agonizing over the issue whether Leica’s or anyone’s lenses would be good enough for a hypothetical 40 MP sensor. I am quite sure that existing R lenses would be up to the task, but the real problems lie elsewhere: autofocus is pretty much a must if you increase the megapixel count; manual focusing wouldn’t be good enough or fast enough to be practical in the general case. And there’s the issue of motion blur that gets aggravated by a higher resolution sensor, so an optical image stabilizer would be most welcome as an alternative to using a tripod or a high shutter speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 25, 2007 Share #131  Posted October 25, 2007 It doesn't matter, they could adopt sensor IS when they went for DSLR in 2005 ... why not? because they know IT'S NOT GOOD, IT IS A JOKE. If you held patents on lens-based optical image stabilization and had many years of experience in designing image stabilization systems with movable lenses – and I’d venture to say that Panasonic’s OIS is the best there is –, then what would you do? Throw all that away and start from scratch, developing a sensor-based image stabilizer? I wouldn’t think so.  But that’s not to say that sensor-based system aren’t any good. As a matter of fact, Sony’s (Minolta’s really, but who cares anymore) IS is excellent. Pentax’ IS isn’t as efficient, though, and I cannot say anything about the E-510 or E-3 yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 25, 2007 Share #132  Posted October 25, 2007 As to the question whether AF and IS make good sense – I was wondering about all the agonizing over the issue whether Leica’s or anyone’s lenses would be good enough for a hypothetical 40 MP sensor. I am quite sure that existing R lenses would be up to the task, but the real problems lie elsewhere: autofocus is pretty much a must if you increase the megapixel count; manual focusing wouldn’t be good enough or fast enough to be practical in the general case. And there’s the issue of motion blur that gets aggravated by a higher resolution sensor, so an optical image stabilizer would be most welcome as an alternative to using a tripod or a high shutter speed.  Hi Michael, I agree with your appraisal. My only experience with IS is with the in-body AS of a KM5D (6MP), which I got for my wife, who thinks it it too heavy:rolleyes: It does work fine with lenses up to 300MM (longest that I have) and it does add a "polish" to the images. As the MPs rise into double digits, reports of blurry hand held shot start to show up. I remember comment on the Mamiya ZD like this. We will soon enough have the Eos 1Ds MkIII as another possible lab experiment to see if "the finner the detail recorded, the more likely motion blur will become visable", is a valid idea. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #133  Posted October 25, 2007 But that’s not to say that sensor-based system aren’t any good. As a matter of fact, Sony’s (Minolta’s really, but who cares anymore) IS is excellent.  Michael, what has been tested with Sony/Minolta's in camera IS? at which focal lengths? and how does it compare to Canon/Nikon's optical IS? you probably knew about the answers already.  They may have done a great job based on their extensive experience on video cameras but for still capture, they have a long way to go.  I think we're focusing on different areas ... I don't care about handheld shooting in low light conditions in the range between 24mm and 200mm ... if I can use flash, then I use flash, if flash is not possible then I have these f/1.4 f/2.0 lenses and take the liberty to bump ISO settings.  What has Sony done with stuff beyond 200mm, 300mm ... ? absolutely nothing, blank, empty, no track record, before they can prove themselves, I can not say that I'd appreciate their effort wholeheartly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #134  Posted October 25, 2007 I am quite sure that existing R lenses would be up to the task, but the real problems lie elsewhere: autofocus is pretty much a must if you increase the megapixel count; manual focusing wouldn’t be good enough or fast enough to be practical in the general case. And there’s the issue of motion blur that gets aggravated by a higher resolution sensor, so an optical image stabilizer would be most welcome as an alternative to using a tripod or a high shutter speed.  Showing up late to the AF party, Leica has all the advantages to compare and learn from other companies' past experience, and then make their wise decision.  If Panasonic's OIS is really that good, I'd say ... let them use Leica's trademark for 10, 20 ... or even 50 years, in exchange for the optical IS unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #135 Â Posted October 25, 2007 It doesn't matter, they could adopt sensor IS when they went for DSLR in 2005 ... why not? because they know IT'S NOT GOOD, IT IS A JOKE. Â Showing up late to the AF party, Leica has all the advantages to compare and learn from other companies' past experience, and then make their wise decision. Â If Panasonic's OIS is really that good, I'd say ... let them use Leica's trademark for 10, 20 ... or even 50 years, in exchange for the optical IS unit. Â sure call me ignorant when you dont know shit from clay maybe you ought boost the magazines, reports, books budget by a few more grand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 25, 2007 Share #136 Â Posted October 25, 2007 I would welcome the option of in-camera stabilisation, but having heard from several people (read: owners) that the Canon 70-200s, both f/2.8 and f/4, are sharper without than with IS, I would rather not pay for such a feature. I prefer Leica's choice, and perhaps in-body stabilisation for an extra stop or two. A standard zoom with OIS would be okay, but I would not want it mucking with the optical quality of lenses like the Apo 280/4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted October 26, 2007 Share #137 Â Posted October 26, 2007 I would welcome the option of in-camera stabilisation, but having heard from several people (read: owners) that the Canon 70-200s, both f/2.8 and f/4, are sharper without than with IS, I would rather not pay for such a feature. I prefer Leica's choice, and perhaps in-body stabilisation for an extra stop or two. A standard zoom with OIS would be okay, but I would not want it mucking with the optical quality of lenses like the Apo 280/4. Â Also Canon's 300mm f/4 lenses: the non-IS version is sharper. I too would not welcome any mucking with the optical quality of lenses like the 280 f/4 APO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 26, 2007 Share #138 Â Posted October 26, 2007 Also Canon's 300mm f/4 lenses: the non-IS version is sharper. I too would not welcome any mucking with the optical quality of lenses like the 280 f/4 APO. Â Canon started working on IS in the 80s and officially released it in '95 with the 75-300/4-5.6 IS, the 300/4L IS also belongs to the first generation design and is long overdue for a change. Â The first gen 400/2.8L is a dude so there's the Mk 2, which is sharper than its IS cousin, this is also true to the 600/4L ... the 500/4 is an exception, which is above the 500/4.5. Â But Canon has achieved some breakthrough recently, the 70-200/4L IS is way above the non IS 70-200/4L, and it's one of the very few Canon lenses which are close to diffraction limited. Its sweet spot is reached around 135mm and the MTF chart is hitting roof at f/5.6. Â The 70-200/4 IS is certainly one of the very best telephoto zoomers money can buy in the market today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanyr Posted October 31, 2007 Share #139 Â Posted October 31, 2007 Wonder what this will mean for the R9 and film Leica SLRs. Traditionally, Leica does not manufacture the previous camera in the R line when a successor arrives. Does this mean the end of Film-SLRs from Leica? Â Is it possible that leica will incorporate the advances of the Digital R10, e.g. Autofocus in a Film SLR ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 31, 2007 Share #140 Â Posted October 31, 2007 Is it possible that leica will incorporate the advances of the Digital R10, e.g. Autofocus in a Film SLR ? Â Any idea of the sales figures of an high-end film SLR these days ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.