Jump to content

Just About Had It - Modern cameras are fracking toasters.

FastFashnReloaded

By FastFashnReloaded
in Digital Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

FastFashnReloaded

FastFashnReloaded

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And I can't wait for an upgraded M so I can get a camera with decent lenses...

 

I've been thinking about the Olympus E-P1 for a month or two now, and really, really liked it - that is, until I saw the lens tests.

 

There is a line from a reviewer about the movie, "2010"... Let me see if I can remember it.

 

"How can a spacecraft (referring to the Russian spacecraft Alexi Leonov) from ten years in the future (of the movie 2001) look like it is twenty years older?"

 

Something like that anyway...

 

The E-P1 reminds me a lot of my Contax G1 and G2 - sans finder of course. However, the zoom lens that comes with it, although of the same approximate range and F-stop as the Contax zoom Contax G System , has tons more distortion. The pancake does nothing for me.

 

How is it that twenty years ago (or so) Contax could make a lens system for a new type of RF (made of titanium!) that didn't need correction in software, didn't have loads of CA, and with all the modern tech we have now, Oly can't? It's as if Apple had decided to make a new, tiny iPod for 2009 that had a black and white display and 10GB of memory and sold for $800.

 

Why can't manufacturers these days make a small camera with a zoom, a great set of primes, reliable and tough, with fast focus and a full frame sensor? If Contax could do it all those years ago, with by our standards primitive processors and electronics, why the frell can't it be done now?

 

This is exceedingly discouraging.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dana Kincaid

Link to post
Share on other sites
joppepop

joppepop

Posted
Posted

Didn't know it was so bad, others who have tested it seemed to think it performed well (the lens), maybe I recall it wrongly. Is it as it seems to be with the Dlux4, that everything is corrected in software, and if you shoot raw and not pre-process the files accordingly, they suffer from heavy distortion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
{snipped}

 

How is it that twenty years ago (or so) Contax could make a lens system for a new type of RF (made of titanium!) that didn't need correction in software, didn't have loads of CA, and with all the modern tech we have now, Oly can't? {snipped}

 

 

So say we all :)

 

Of course, the E-P1 still doesn't cost very much compared the Contax system (if you adjust for inflation over the last 20 years).

 

I also hear Oly is going to release a new EP-1 with a viewfinder. Then I could use my OLY Zuiko 21mm f2.0 as a 40mm normal fast lens and that would be sweet :)

 

But I agree with you. Bring on the M9!

Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFashnReloaded

FastFashnReloaded

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Didn't know it was so bad, others who have tested it seemed to think it performed well (the lens), maybe I recall it wrongly. Is it as it seems to be with the Dlux4, that everything is corrected in software, and if you shoot raw and not pre-process the files accordingly, they suffer from heavy distortion?

 

DPReview put up a lens review yesterday. Not impressive.

 

Of course it can be corrected in software, but you lose something... People are saying that you can't make a lens with minimal distortion because the back element of the lens is so close to the "film plane", but that's a load of hooey. :eek:

 

Used to be able to get "full frame" cameras for a hundred bucks, now the bloody things are thousands and last two years. It is a crock. :rolleyes: Once you have paid the Danegeld, it's hard to get rid of the Dane. And I should know, being a Dana.

 

It's reverse evolution.

 

 

- Dana

 

"Starbuck, what do you hear?"

 

Nothing but the rain.

 

"Then grab your guns and bring in the cat."

Edited by FastFashnReloaded
added more worthless drivel
Link to post
Share on other sites
dkCambridgeshire

dkCambridgeshire

Posted
Posted

 

How is it that twenty years ago (or so) Contax could make a lens system for a new type of RF (made of titanium!) that didn't need correction in software, didn't have loads of CA, and with all the modern tech we have now, Oly can't? It's as if Apple had decided to make a new, tiny iPod for 2009 that had a black and white display and 10GB of memory and sold for $800.

 

Why can't manufacturers these days make a small camera with a zoom, a great set of primes, reliable and tough, with fast focus and a full frame sensor? If Contax could do it all those years ago, with by our standards primitive processors and electronics, why the frell can't it be done now?

 

This is exceedingly discouraging.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dana Kincaid

 

But did Contax "do it" 20 years ago? IIRC the Contax 35-70 zoom lens for the G2 exhibits significant vignetting - and the vignetting was remarked upon in the AP review.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFashnReloaded

FastFashnReloaded

Posted
  • Author
Posted
But did Contax "do it" 20 years ago? IIRC the Contax 35-70 zoom lens for the G2 exhibits significant vignetting - and the vignetting was remarked upon in the AP review.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

 

I could give a rat's ass about vignetting. Ever seen, "Nosferatu"? Who cares if the corners are darker? How about "Battleship Potemkin"? "Frankenstein"! "Metropolis"! It is NOTHING.

 

Distortion is different. Distortion is bad. Distortion is WRONG. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted (edited)
Have you seen the Caprica pilot yet? :-)

 

I think there are going to be a lot of walking chrome toasters, but unfortunately, no Sixes. ;)

 

 

Alas, I'd settle for an 8 :) Actually, that is in no way settling. And I miss BSG too. A lot. Did you see this:

 

Obama Depressed, Distant Since 'Battlestar Galactica' Series Finale | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

Hmmm. In the spirit of the m9, which cylon was number 9? One of the final 5 anyway,,,

 

Caprica looks great too :)

 

Back on topic, I hate the pervisity of many of the wide lens distortions these days as well; it's not enough to have some barrel distortion; round the edges they're really horrific.

 

Mind you, on a small chip digital, I'm not sure how they build, say, a 7mm rectilinear lens without major compromises....let alone a 10x optical zoom that starts at 7mm. Remember Contax only needed to get the 21 right... same goes for the old Oly stuff. No-one even tried to build a 7mm lens...

Edited by Jamie Roberts
Link to post
Share on other sites
offshore

offshore

Posted
Posted
And I can't wait for an upgraded M so I can get a camera with decent lenses...

 

I've been thinking about the Olympus E-P1 for a month or two now, and really, really liked it - that is, until I saw the lens tests.

 

There is a line from a reviewer about the movie, "2010"... Let me see if I can remember it.

 

"How can a spacecraft (referring to the Russian spacecraft Alexi Leonov) from ten years in the future (of the movie 2001) look like it is twenty years older?"

 

Something like that anyway...

 

The E-P1 reminds me a lot of my Contax G1 and G2 - sans finder of course. However, the zoom lens that comes with it, although of the same approximate range and F-stop as the Contax zoom Contax G System , has tons more distortion. The pancake does nothing for me.

 

How is it that twenty years ago (or so) Contax could make a lens system for a new type of RF (made of titanium!) that didn't need correction in software, didn't have loads of CA, and with all the modern tech we have now, Oly can't? It's as if Apple had decided to make a new, tiny iPod for 2009 that had a black and white display and 10GB of memory and sold for $800.

 

Why can't manufacturers these days make a small camera with a zoom, a great set of primes, reliable and tough, with fast focus and a full frame sensor? If Contax could do it all those years ago, with by our standards primitive processors and electronics, why the frell can't it be done now?

 

This is exceedingly discouraging.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dana Kincaid

I would recommend laying off the sci fi for a while.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
biglouis

biglouis

Posted
Posted
And I can't wait for an upgraded M so I can get a camera with decent lenses...

 

I can understand waiting until September to see what Leica may (and also let's bear in mind may not) have for the DRF market but the basic contention that you need to wait for a decent camera is empirically nonsense. This forum abounds with incredible photographs from competent photographers using the M8. Your expectations of a mass market entry level camera are unrealistic as are your expectations that an improved DRF will improve your photography. It is the photographer and not the equipment that makes the difference.

 

LouisB

Link to post
Share on other sites
giordano

giordano

Posted
Posted
Sorry--I mis-communicated. I know they make them *now* (they have to so you have some kind of wide angle on a 50% cropped sensor), but they didn't back in the days that Contax made rangefinders :)

 

Oh yes they did - for 8mm and Super-8 ciné cameras. For example Kern made a 5.5mm f/1.8 Switar from the 1950s, and Schneider made a Leica-branded 6-66mm f/1.8 Optivaron in M mount for the Leicina Super.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stuny

stuny

Posted
Posted

In November there will be a new film as a sequel to BSG, called The Plan. We just received the Caprica disc and will get to it when we're done going through the Blu Ray comlete collection of BSC. We're 1/2 way through season 3. Frack!

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...