leica007 Posted September 26, 2008 Share #21 Posted September 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Photokina yesterday - emerged from its "cave" surrounded by bodyguards? [ATTACH]104817[/ATTACH] OMG, this guy is not a photographer or a point-&- shoot camera user, at best; I've never seen any SLR user holding camera like this with the left hand! Or may be one of those rich guys who loves hoarding Leica, but doesn't know how to click a good photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 Hi leica007, Take a look here S2 spotted 'on the loose'. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted September 27, 2008 Share #22 Posted September 27, 2008 OMG, this guy is not a photographer or a point-&- shoot camera user, at best; I've never seen any SLR user holding camera like this with the left hand! Must be sure the Red Dot is plain to see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steich Posted September 27, 2008 Share #23 Posted September 27, 2008 OMG, this guy is not a photographer or a point-&- shoot camera user, at best; I've never seen any SLR user holding camera like this with the left hand! With its superb AE and AF- isn´t the S2 the most sophisticated p&s in the world? Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted September 27, 2008 Share #24 Posted September 27, 2008 I like the size of it. The lack of size of it, that is. This is going to be hard to resist. Good marketing approach to release it before the R10. Clever Leica people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 28, 2008 Share #25 Posted September 28, 2008 Does anyone know if this is a mule, or if it actually works? I think it is a mule but it is a very expensive one. I certainly hope it does not have the same technical issues and huddles which the M8 owners have to jump over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 28, 2008 Share #26 Posted September 28, 2008 OMG, this guy is not a photographer or a point-&- shoot camera user, at best; I've never seen any SLR user holding camera like this with the left hand! Or may be one of those rich guys who loves hoarding Leica, but doesn't know how to click a good photo. Actually it may be some type of sheik. The guy facing the camera on the right looks a little middle eastern and the guy holding the S2 looks to be wearing some fine threads and has what looks like a natural tan. Could be that's the reason for the bodyguards. Could be he's putting in a order for a gold plated model and wanted to feel it before striking the deal. And what do you care who owns what Leica and why. A little jealous or resentful maybe? OMG get down off that high horse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 28, 2008 Share #27 Posted September 28, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) And what do you care who owns what Leica and why. A little jealous or resentful maybe? OMG get down off that high horse. i am in a good mood tonight, won't spoil it. but - shootist - i will 'shoot' you soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted September 28, 2008 Share #28 Posted September 28, 2008 Damn that's a nice suit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 1, 2008 Share #29 Posted October 1, 2008 It is a big camera... though not bad considering the large frame size. Compared to the D3/EOS 1dS III, the fact the vertical grip is optional is useful and pictures I've seen of it make it look less of an add-on compared to say, the D700. I'm actually surprised they can get a 100% viewfinder as small as that (making the rash assumption of course that it is 100%). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 1, 2008 Share #30 Posted October 1, 2008 But Mark you really can't compare it to a 35mm camera since it is not in really the same ballpark. Compare it to Contax or Mamiya which are about the smallest MF camera's currently on the market and it is much smaller. Although my Mamiya is smaller than a D3 in height. To me this is not really a middle camera more like a small MF. Even though it is billed as such. Not sure I totally agree with that naming , although really does not matter at the end of the day because it stands on it's own but I don't like the naming of it. Mid sounds like middle age to me, maybe to close to home. LOL 35mm DSLR MF digital camera system Maybe this should be classified like MF Integrated or something that sounds all in one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted October 1, 2008 Share #31 Posted October 1, 2008 Agree with Guy on this one(!). I can't fathom why folks relate digital formats to film sizes at all- e.g. "full frame" meaning the same size as half-width standard (70mm) cine film. Time to move forward and use the sensor size as the descriptor? Even 4/3 is pretty meaningless when you think about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 1, 2008 Share #32 Posted October 1, 2008 Time to move forward and use the sensor size as the descriptor? Even 4/3 is pretty meaningless when you think about it. I beg to differ. When you know what you're thinking about it is not meaningless. 4/3 is the ratio of a sensor not the size. 4 units wide by (X) 3 units high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 1, 2008 Share #33 Posted October 1, 2008 The issue I see just say in the MF digital format is everyone has different sizing of sensors and calling things like full frame that are really not 645 full frame. Now the new P65 is truly full 645 framing but Hassy used that naming on there back and it really was not true 645 framing. So size could be a issue when naming these. 35mm we all see as 24x36 from our film days but hell that has not held up with naming either we get 1.3,1.5 sensors and all that out of it. Seems like we are all over the place on naming and more to do with marketing than anything else. Maybe the best thing is just grouping them in a category , not sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmoore Posted October 1, 2008 Share #34 Posted October 1, 2008 I beg to differ. When you know what you're thinking about it is not meaningless. 4/3 is the ratio of a sensor not the size. 4 units wide by (X) 3 units high. there are 2 aspects to a sensor - its real estate dimensions in mm. and its pixel size.. I like seeing those two numbers..I can do the math to get the ratio..and while the ratio tells you something, it is just too vague without the other info.. I have a 4:3 camera... now that could mean a film rz67 or my digital iphone camera. . I call for dropping medium format in the digital forum as it pertains only to film now.. large format=film, med. format=film, small format=film.. just as we use to call the equipment by the size of the film they used lets use that to describe the digital cameras.. so lets call them by their sizes, in mm and pixel size.. and soon we will call them by the manufactures names as we become more familiar and they stay in the market place longer than 2 years. I think DMR is a good example, we all know this size and it isn't changing.. I think LPF will stick in time as well.. maybe when there is a S4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 1, 2008 Share #35 Posted October 1, 2008 there are 2 aspects to a sensor - its real estate dimensions in mm. and its pixel size.. I like seeing those two numbers..I can do the math to get the ratio..and while the ratio tells you something, it is just too vague without the other info.. I have a 4:3 camera... now that could mean a film rz67 or my digital iphone camera.. I call for dropping medium format in the digital forum as it pertains only to film now.. large format=film, med. format=film, small format=film.. just as we use to call the equipment by the size of the film they used lets use that to describe the digital cameras.. so lets call them by their sizes, in mm and pixel size.. and soon we will call them by the manufactures names as we become more familiar and they stay in the market place longer than 2 years. I think DMR is a good example, we all know this size and it isn't changing.. I think LPF will stick in time as well.. maybe when there is a S4. Well all I have to know first is it's ratio. I'm so use to 3/2 that 4/3 does not interest me at all. No matter what the dimensions and pixel count are. That is why I totally ovelooked the Digilux 3 when I was looking for a digital Leica. Saw 4/3 and said no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted October 1, 2008 Share #36 Posted October 1, 2008 I beg to differ. When you know what you're thinking about it is not meaningless. 4/3 is the ratio of a sensor not the size. 4 units wide by (X) 3 units high. Thanks for making my point so very well; four units by three units- so 4mm by 3mm or 4cm by 3cm or 4 inches by 3 inches, as I said, meaningless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted October 1, 2008 Share #37 Posted October 1, 2008 The issue I see just say in the MF digital format is everyone has different sizing of sensors and calling things like full frame that are really not 645 full frame. Now the new P65 is truly full 645 framing but Hassy used that naming on there back and it really was not true 645 framing. So size could be a issue when naming these. 35mm we all see as 24x36 from our film days but hell that has not held up with naming either we get 1.3,1.5 sensors and all that out of it. Seems like we are all over the place on naming and more to do with marketing than anything else. Maybe the best thing is just grouping them in a category , not sure. Absolutely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 1, 2008 Share #38 Posted October 1, 2008 Thanks for making my point so very well; four units by three units- so 4mm by 3mm or 4cm by 3cm or 4 inches by 3 inches, as I said, meaningless. You just don't get it. It is the designation of the format. the other info you are looking for is also included. And if it isn't then you are looking at the wrong camera maker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 1, 2008 Share #39 Posted October 1, 2008 I beg to differ. When you know what you're thinking about it is not meaningless. 4/3 is the ratio of a sensor not the size. 4 units wide by (X) 3 units high. Well, I guess we all have our own personal definitions Four Thirds System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted October 1, 2008 Share #40 Posted October 1, 2008 I like the size, considering how big the sensor is. It appears to be about as big as an R8 with winder? Maybe a little bigger than a D700? Very nice. I'm glad they stuck to the basic R8/R9 'Hunchback of Solms' design. The R8/R9 is very comfortable to hold with fist class ergonomics, it's only drawback being it is a little heavy for a 135 format camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.