ho_ho

How much will you pay for a R-D1 with/without warranty?

Will you consider to exchange with a M6TTL in good condition?

If so, what will the diff in $ ?

Then the lens will be a huge one.

28/2.4, external viewfinder, convertable to 21mm, right size and

weight, control dials for aperture (7 blade!) and shutter, but...oh!

1/1.8 CCD!

Why stop here, Ricoh? Why not have the 2/3CCD?

The following copy from PUTS (http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c011.html):

"We are all familiar with the fact that the sensor area in most D-SLR's is smaller than the traditional 35mm negative. This fact explains the correction factor for focal length (a reduction of angle of view would be a better description). But what is not often discussed is the fact that the reduction of the angle of view has the same effect as stopping down the aperture of the lens). In both cases the marginal rays are cut off and are no longer part of the image forming process. The net effect is this: if we have a lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 and reduce the angle of view, we get in fact the image quality of a lens stopped down to 4 or 5.6!"

 

By the way, I sold the 80~200L for 70~200/4 considered with size and weight, and feel comfortable with D30's ISO400 performance (now 10D). However, I miss the AF performance, even it's the ancient EOS1+80~200L/20~35L. It's the reason for me not to trade the 10D for 20D: I have to get the f/2.8s again, and cost too much!

 

Would 1D/mKII with f/4s be a waste?

Another factor specific for 20D: better AF with f/2.8 lens.

Is $750 a fair price? I can find lot of comparison between 10D &

300D/20D, but found much less for 10D vs 350D (esp. in AF), that's

why I have to ask for your help, as they (10D & 350D) are now similar

in cost.

 

Many thanks for your input!

4/3 is the system used by Olympus for their DSLR, which use a 17.4mm X 13.1mm CCD, a bit smaller than APS-size CCD used in RD-1. A brief comparison can be found through the link:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/

 

"MD" is the proposed Leica digital-M, which might appear at 2006.

"DM" is what I hoped Panasonic will produce: a Digital M-mount camera.

 

Sorry for the mislead.

Considering the light fall-off and high $ tag, the RD-1 is out of my

reach. The lens and image quality (from a 2/3" CCD) of Digilux 2 is

good enought for me, but the EVF breaks the deal.

 

Panasonic, as a development partner of the 4/3, and the "developer"

of Digilux, should have the "force" to make a DM (not a MD, with

highest mech. standard). I know that the 4/3 is a SLR system, but the

problem of back focus distance should be easier to solve than APS-CCD.

 

For the 4/3, 21mm would be the stardard lens, and 50mm should be the

longest focal length for such RF system, thus even the range finder

from Bessa is accurate enought. Meanwhile, most, if not all, leica M

user already got a 35mm or/and 50mm, which will become 70mm and

100mm. Therefore, just add a few "D-crons" like 14mm ($700?), 18mm

($600?), and 24mm ($500?) would complete the system with flying

colours.

 

It seems that after CL/E, Leica will not "buy-in" such a body.

However, if we can use leica lens on Ikon/Bessa, it should be good

for leica to provide the lenses, and let Panasonic to make up for the

body, like the case of Digilux/DMC-LC1.

 

How much would you pay? For a RF body, with M-mount, Bessa's range

finder, and a 4/3 CCD ?

 

Will the dream come true?

After my DRebel has gone, I'm waiting for the XT. However, the AF of

XT seems to perform just "as good as" the original Rebel, my "focus"

thus changed to 20D (as a user of the original EOS-1, I always miss

it's AF ability since D30).

 

Knowing that the 20D performs better, especially w/2.8 lenses, should

I change from the jolly good f4 zoom to a f2.8 fixed? (the 200/2.8

MkI would be even cheaper. Will there be any different in AF speed

between MkI & II? How about distance information?)

 

The 70~200/2.8(IS) should be a more sensible choice, but $ & weight

would be out of my reach.

 

Thanks in advance for your input to make up my mind!

I have both the RT & 18~55, and tried...

 

Result: negative

 

Reason: the mirror of RT, even fixed, is extended thus longer than those EOS-1s

I own both 50/1.4 & 100Macro and will buy the 60 if $ similar to 50/1.4... and of course will not buy if $ similar to 100Macro!

If memory works, the $ of a normal macro would be similar to a 1.4 normal (Search for the $ of Leica R, Contax, Nikon...)

 

As Bob said "Someone at Canon may be listening...", I do hope that it's truth. Pls, Canon, I like my 100 (indeed, I also own the 100/2) but feel a bit long on my 1.6x body, so I will buy the 60, with reasonable $. If the $ of 60 is set high, I would rather use the 100Macro as the "never affordable" 180.

It makes sense for Canon to have 3 or even 4 levels of DSLR to capture different market. But I don't feel good to get rid of the proven BP511 (as a status of different level?) to have the size down. To use the "original" battery might increase the length of the camera for a few mm (<5?) and the claimed weight are without the battery, which would not hurt the ad. at all. If it's necessary to concern the size to such extent, why don't use SD instead of CF?

At least it's good for me. The 50 Macro goes to 1:2, and the life-size convertor is quite expensive. However, I don't think that the new lens will be equiped with IS. I would sell my 100 macro, and even the 50/1.4, to have the new lens to go with the 17~40.

Pls! Pls let us know the truth! Which one from cron? I hope that the second one...

The "long" hood for 24L should fit both 17~40 & 16~35 (as they have the same "wide" hood supplied). It might be a bit tight at the beginning, but get well after a few trial.

I now use it on my 17~40 as permanent attachment (the "wide" hood is loose for me, and sold to a nice guy for his 10~22). I once tried the "long" hood on my brother's 16~35, and found no dark corner with my RT (I'm silly not to try on his 1Ds, don't ask me why, pls).

Before I own it, I never know I need it.

I used to use the 28~70L, which supposed to have same perforemance at 50mm with other starndard lenses.

Then I have a boy, and found the f2.8 not wide enought (in many way, especially when I still use film). It' not about quality, but speed.

Then the 50/1.8 come, which weight nothing at all, compared with the 28~70L.

Then, the L stay in dry box, the 1.8 gone and the 1.4 come (I can never afford the 1.0).

Now, no more film for my canon, but the 1.4 still stay at the camera most of the time, as time goes by, the boy growth up.

You've already tell the truth: it is a portrait lens.

It is jolly good to have a 1.4 portrait lens with such $ (consider the $ of Nikkor 85/1.4, the Zeiss, and the Leica). Of course, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is cheaper, but you might not change system because of just one lens.

Finally, the 28~70 have to go, for tax.

How old? ~2wk? The seller asking for 80% of what he paid. He also mentioned the reason to sell: not enought $ to step up to M. No matter the reason valid or not, I can wait...

I own one for 5yr. Except the noisy (compare to USM) focus, It's perfect. Practically flareless, small and light, really close-up (0.25X). It's be reviewed at "the 37th frame" with exceptional comment, compared to Leica, Zeiss, etc.

I'm not kidding! Someone selling the mentioned w/hood for me. What

would be the suitable $ ?

AFAIK, the AF speed of non-USM version would be slower than my MF speed. I own the USM one, and feel comfort with the handling for portrait. In terms of macro, as everybody stated, MF will be the choice, thus make the different insignificant. Therefore, the choice will be depended on you purpose. However, if the non-USM AFD gose wrong (will probably happen, if the previous owner "do" use it), it will cost you >$100 to replace.

The 35 is really nice lens optically. Be awared for the noisy AF compared with the 24 and 28.

As you already own 20 and 50, the 28 should be a more sensible choice.

However, if you are thinking of replacement, then the 24 (which I owned twice) will be quite nice.

To speak for zoom, the 17~40 is very nice, but might not be your cup of tea (considering size, weight, and $. F-stop, which should be the critical element, is not as important w/20D's clean iso800 file).

To cover the most, I will op for the 16~35. However, as you stated the specific usage, I will suggest 24~70 instead.

I once own only 20~35 & 80~200 for all application, but finally got the 28~70 for my friends' wedding. The 20~35 still in the bag every time, as the spare.

Indeed, 20 vs 24 would not be significant for most of us. If the press can cover nearly everything with only 20~35 & 80~200 during the "EOS-1 period", do we really need more?

Take the CM, shut down the flash and drop a roll of NPH (Tri-X will be even better) in. You will forget "zoom" in ten rolls, and thinking of M.

50/1.4. If you DO need to take close-up, save for the 100/2.8USM.

17~40 + 50/1.4 + 70~200/4 < 70~200IS (in terms of $)(AND similar in terms of weight!) with the clean iso800, might be the reason for people to get rid of IS. Remember to buy the "right" hood for the 17~40.