ross_wilson1

I got mine for xmas, I can confirm the quite noisey iso 200 setting at a print size less than

A4. But then what can you expect from a standard size sensor that's subdevided into even

smaller parts?!

 

So use it on 100 or 80 setting, that said noise ninja clears up the 200 iso noise quite

nicely.

 

On the bright side you get in the UK an extra years warranty (2 total), photoshop elements

3 full versions for mac and pc, and that lovely red badge. Also inherant in the camera's

design is the ability to reproduce really stunning colours that are very accurate indeed! I

think this was their primary concern, over noise even, and that suits me. It's got RAW too

which in effect nullifies this problem to a degree.

I hope the LCD on the real one has a little cover to silde across and conseal the screen and buttons. I think it would have a film advance too, if only to cock the shutter and not freek out all the current M users after every photo they take.

A man after my own heart, I hope it's tonnes of fun!

 

Fortunatley I'm lucky enough to have a girlfriend who has her heart set on getting a Bessa R3a kit from me this year. I find it far less painful buying things like that than tiny pieces of shaped highly compressed carbon.

 

Also she loves computer games, not playing them, watching me play them! I kid not.

Seriously, unless your opening lots of programmes and handling huge files you don't need to worry about fancy extras, buy what you can afford.

Just go out and buy the cheapest dell pc or anything actually, as long as it's new, they'll run everything fine and you can upgrade later if you want more speed etc.

A number of experts say that you need to double the resolution in order to make a noticable difference, see www.kenrockwell.com. Also the M digital is due out next year so they probably have their hands full with that.

 

If the camera is for fun I don't see the point in waiting, especially considering the tiny increase in pic size you'll get with 8mp. After all, the D2 is supposed to be pretty wicked in terms of image as is, plus a new version will cost even more.

 

Go get it now, I would, if by some chance a new one pops up you can sell it and just lose a couple of hundred, also think how long it'll take to become ready to buy after it's announced!

In today's age of massed produced, want it, got it, plastic blobjects that last a year or two and look and produce results that were never deigned to last, Leica are a god send.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm not a digital hater, but I don't see the logic of coming to a pinnacle of design for a medium i.e. 35mm film and then abandoning it for the green grass on the other side of the fence.

 

After using my M6 for about 3 months now, I picked up my Nikon FE and took a shot. It felt hollow and like the winder would snap off, even the shutter clunk felt and sounded cheap. I know this is not the case and I know the FE is better built and more reliable than its modern AF cousins but the Leica is really just so different in terms of build quality.

 

Since I've had the M6 my girlfriend and our friends think my photography has been a lot better, far more interesting. I'm convinced this has nothing to do with build quality but more so the rangefinder design. It doesn't attract attention, and I'm not talking about the attention of subjects but those of passers by. You know they think, oh look, a student (although I'm not) or ah a hobby photographer.

 

A weird analogy I think but you see a policeman with a pistol in his holster and you think "ah well" then you see one with body armour and an assault rifle and you think "bloody hell!". Don't think for a minute that heavily armed policeman could do the job of the other, policing a community with an assault rifle.

 

Back to build quality and another factor is you get people who'd spend ?100 on a pair of jeans and love them to death, think and feel the difference in all its refined detail. Then you'd get someone else who'd buy the same pair and even if they could feel a difference and even if they could afford them, still want five pairs at ?20 each just because it's in their programming.

I had a Black G2 kit for a while, so can't comment about the shinny silver camera syndrome that people get.

 

That said, don't think for a minute thieves are like magpies and only go for shiny things, they know smart black cameras are just as valuable.

 

If someone's going to mug you they're going to mug you. Forget the camera, just give it to them, and don't fret it in the first place. Just make sure it's insured, and instead worry about taking your pictures.

 

As for the batteries; well I'm not a pro, but I've never heard of any problems with the camera eating them, and I've never experienced any. Just take plenty and don't worry about it.

 

I mean no offence but if you were a pro you wouldn't ask and just take loads anyway, if you're an amature who takes a lot of pics then take loads of batts anyway too! It's much more worth while having a camera you love to use and an imaginary battery problem, than having a camera you've settled for that doesn't.

More info: Sony actually make some of the image sensors for Nikon DSLR'S, bear in mind

Sony were dealing with and manufacturing / designing image chips way before any of the

traditional camera manufacturers including Canon. Add that to the fact they use Zeiss

glass renowned the world over for its excellence.

 

The Sony is a great camera I'm sure, the package they offer is very appealing. The focal

length range is very, very useful. However the Sony is slower with its EVF, probably

focusing and for sure shutter lag, which make it a choice only for those subjects that hold

relatively still. You also miss out on collecting lenses for a system and lens speed and

choice. It's cheaper however, and there will always be something bigger, better and faster

soon enough anyway.

 

If you need speed and versatility get the canon. If you want something for everything and

to save a bit of money get the Sony. You won?t go wrong with either, but you may find

yourself wanting the extra function and design of the Canon if you buy the Sony. You

won?t be longing for anything the Sony has to offer other than a few more quids in your

pocket and its lovely looks.

What is accurate!? NOT the G2, I had one and bought an N1 because it was so inaccurate, the G2 is about 90% accurate, what's worse it's not symetrical around the frame, it's off to an angle. The N1 is still actually only 95% field of view and only the RTS3 top end Canon and Nikon's are 100%.

 

I like the rangefinder size though so I got an M6. But remember this; you can't see out side the finder in an SLR, you have to wriggle the camera to get an idea about what else might be in your shot. With a rangefinder, you see EVERYTHING that might be in you shot at once, so you just have to imagine your own frame lines.

 

To me that's a lot better than having to move the camera in a little circle to see what you might get and then forget as you recompose all over. That said SLR's are very different ways of shooting altogether, so dropping one for the other isn't always the right answer.

 

At the end of the day as of yet and god only knows why, you can't get a small camera with a bright finder (not like the G2 pin hole) and 100% of the frame or 100% accurate frame line. Yet I can retreive and send masses of information all over the world from my lap in an instant, create a vast virtual universe for with free 3D software on a magiazine that cost ?5 and put hundreds of hours of music into something the size of a note book. Hmmmmm.