Some Leica news

anywayz...

 

I just hope that the sensor is on par with today standards. The epson was released during the time the D70 and Rebel were out, yet they did it with the outdated poor performing noisy sony/nikon d-100 cell. Now the dmr is out and same thing, cameras that are three years old perform better with noise at higher iso. I just hope it's acceptable for low light work.

Grant, same deal with you. Pay your money or no more questions after this. I'd have to buy a new system to go digital until a digital M is available. I unloaded my 4x5 kit, Haselblad outfit, and all my Leicaflex/Leica R stuff a couple of years ago. Goodby Grant. Go shoot some pictures.

So Al is mod now? haha.

 

Don't feed the trolls when they go OT with subject changes.

 

Third responce in, starting it as usual, in a subject he knows nothing about and hates, "...and Brad and his cohorts will have no more excuses to avoiding buying Leica cameras."

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EL7C

let me trod on some m feet here, and call be anti henri gibson if you want, but aren't

all you m guys use to looking through a window with appoximate crop indicatiors?

and what is up with all those weird numbers .058, .072.

if you are going to commit to shoot digital you have to throw out that well worn mental rut

of using the 35mm format as the benchmark for angle of view..

if leica was going for the best possible optics it would design 3 to 4 lenses for the digital

m, not that what they have is not good enough, but they were designed for the 35 film

format. Using these small chips puts greater emphasis on the lenses can do. I would favor

them thowing out the narrow porportion of 35film.. it is a waste of precious pixels.. let the

folks who want the noisey grainy tri-x@2400 in diafine crop the more squarish rectangle

to emulate the old film shape. I would like it closer to a 5x7 proportion.

I hope they can put in an adjustable volume control on the electronic shutter too.. that

always seems to be a bone of contention.. maybe it could could be in stages.. silent, m3,

m6, and for those hermes types who like to be noticed, a r9.

having said all this I have an old uncle with a couple of m's he bought new in the late

fifties,

and am hoping he remembers me.

On a serious note, I think there is problem with the field of photography as it has

developed with fewer and fewer people having access to state of the art equipment.

when I started in photography, it did not take much to have gear that was as good as

the best pros not the quanity but I bought before I was 18 a nikon, hasselblad and 4x5

with schneider glass..

the current to do that in todays digital world would be 35,000. and believe me shooting

the cover of a national publication then was not much less than you get today. sorry for

the rant.

"I just hope it's acceptable for low light work."

 

That would be it's entire reason for existence, in my book. Who knows, though. Maybe

they'll take this opportunity to get rid of the now anachronistic cloth shutter and make the

flash sync something eye-popping, like 1/125, even...

me too Kevin. be nice to use them for work instead of just play. and even a faster shutter speed than 1/1000th

ah, cuz 1/4 second with a 35mm on a slr isn't really the same...sharpness...

with pix or text?

actually i can't, with pix. i have a hard time remebering even what film stock i scanned let alone what body it came out of.

man, after three years here, that's the first time i've been asked that...

and no, traded everything for gasp...digital...

yeah I would like to see those tests, I don't think me holding a m at 1/15th will be any

sharper than me holding my r9.. maybe someday I will have the luxury to prove it to

otherwise to myself.

Most rangefinders are good for 28 to 90mm. Wider than 28 and you need an aux. finder,

which are a PITA and slow down the whole process IMO (unless you're shooting at f/8

using hyper-focal distance to get it all in focus ... for which you sure don't need Leica

glass to get excellent pics).

 

A 75/2 will be around 100-105mm, a 50/1.4 will be around 70-75/1.4, A 35/1.4 ASPH

will roughly be a 50/1.4 ASPH on a cropped format. A 28/2 about a 40/2. And a 21/2.8

ASPH = a 28/2.8 ASPH (people lived with 28/2.8 for decades and most still do).

 

So, what's all the whining about? There it is: 28/2.8 to 105/2 without a aux. finder. If I

get

one (highly likely), it'll not be just to have one. It'll be to shoot weddings without carrying

around a freaking brick for 8 hours. Mag/News shooters aren't the only photogs on the

planet. How they set up the viewfinder is the big issue I'm waiting to hear about. That was

the downfall of the RD-1 IMO.

While still waiting for an answer to my last question (the doubt of being two markets in one person is starting to become slightly disconcerting...) I started figuring what a 1.5 crop factor of a digital M would offer me, at the _actual state_ of my humble choice of lenses, i.e. without having to spend any extra $$$$ on glass. Let's see: <p>

90x1.5= 135/2.8 M Hexanon<br>

75x1.5= 112/1.4 Summilux<br>

50x1.5= 75/2 Summicron<br>

50x1.5= 75/1.5 Canon<br>

50x1.5= 75/1.2 Canon<br>

35x1.5= 53/1.4 Summilux asph<br>

35x1.5= 53/1.4 Summilux pre-asph<br>

28x1.5= 42/1.9 CV Ultron<br>

21x1.5= 31/2.8 Elmarit<br>

12x1.5= 18/4.5 CV Heliar<p>

 

I think that's quite something to go out shooting with, with the 53 lux asph at the core sounding quite yummy and the 31 Elmarit being finally put to some good use, since my preferred range of lenses is 35-75, anyway.

i am retired.

and i only shoot film

Took you a while. But you're losing ground. Still waiting for my answer... G'night! ;-)

i have a few, but you probably wont believe a word I say now.

180x1.5= 270/2.8 Zuiko<br>

90x1.5= 135/2 Zuiko Macro (sweet!)<br>

50x1.5= 75/2 Zuiko Macro (ditto!)<br>

50x1.5= 75/1.4 Zuiko<br>

35x1.5= 53/2 Zuiko<br>

28x1.5= 42/2 Zuiko<br>

21x1.5= 32/3.5 Zuiko<p>

All on a Canon EOS 350D, which is a very good 8MP entry-level DSLR, IMHO. But handling an SLR is different from rangefinder-style shooting - and I happen to like both. Same applies to digital/film for me. Why make all that fuss? Horses for corses. :-) Cheers, I have to go to bed now - it's way past midnight here.

If this is true, Leica really is improving! Only 2 years behind time (Epson RD-1: 2004) and twice as expensive (RD-1: $3000)!

OK well, whilst Lutz goes to bed. May I just quickly step in and say (before I hit the sack here in the UK) it is so good to see G 4 posting superb pics again on the Leica forum. Check out the 'style' thread to see what I mean.

 

And a few N/NW from last night.

 

Great to see the level of debate have it's bar raised a notch as well by someone who shoots with his camera.

Well..., no I know it for sure - after reading this whole thread, that I will stick with film.

For me, the digiM will help save Leica and feed the bad-taste-heads and mass consumers with something they can place next to their XBOX360 etc.. sorry to say that but this whole digi-stuff in 35mm and above is just histeric for my taste. Actually is has no taste at all !!!

Todays sensors have several layers, which filter the light into the different colours and what we need is a flat sensor, where every pixel is able to identify all 3 colours !!! Everything else is just a tooooo big compromise. A chip that identifys colour like the human eye does - and I heard of a company doing just this in the silican valley.

Most didi-equippment will die in price, when the new sensors come out - because then you will have about 25mio pixel at the same file size as a 8mio pixel !!! Any questions ????

First thing on my mind is that there is no way I would buy a digital M with a crop factor but I started thinking what would make 1.5 crop digital M worthwhile. I came up with the tri-elmar. I allways thought that a 35-50-90 tri elmar would be great but knew that it is impossible to engineer one. Well with 1.3 or 1.5 crop factor Digital M I could have the Tri elmar of my dreams. IF the DM8 had a good performance at 1600 ISO, shooting the tri elmar at 5.6 in available light could be a really sweet system. Hmm.

Oh, I use digital SLRs for my more commercial output. And I love my Lensbaby... ;-) So, what about your portfolio, G4? <p>

CU, yawn...<div></div>

Since when does anyone care if a camera has 'good taste' or not? It is a box with a lens at one end and a light sensitive recording media at the other and some gubbins to control the exposure.

 

Good taste? What is all that about please? Either a photograph can be produced which conveys exactly what you want it to or it can't. Film, digital or woofle dust. Does not matter which.

 

"the bad-taste-heads and mass consumers with something they can place next to their XBOX360 etc."

 

You think people are tastefully arranging their Leicas in 'tableaux' with their other household objects dependant on whether they are film or digital? (Remember dear, the Digilux next to the xbox and the M6 on to the Steinway.)