john_graham3

I can't speak for the R6.2 but I had an R5 briefly and it had some major shutter release travel and a surprising bit of shutter lag to boot.

<i><b>It would have been a big set back if they had introduced a 6 mpix when that was the fashion</i></b></p>Right. Much better to introduce a 10 mpix with a 1.3x crop when 12-16 mpix with a 0.0x crop is the--I hesitate to use the word "fashion" even though this is a Leica discussion after all--standard among over-$2K digitals. Of course I'm biased as a Canon guy. If I were a Nikon guy stuck with 10-12 mpix and 1.5x crops the Leica might not seem so underwhelming.</p><i><b>10 mpix seems to satisfy 90% of the market</i></b></p>10 mpix satisfies 90% of the market because that's all they can afford. If Nikon sold a D216 with 16 mpix for $2000 how many people do you think would buy the D200 for $1700?</p><i><b>To me this confirms that the Leica management have their finger on the pulse. Do you agree?</i></b></p>It seems the jury is still out as to whether Leica even has a pulse.</p><i><b>Does it matter if it's not full frame if the lenses are available for the application? Nikon don't offer a lens range to meet the needs of the low light wide angle shooter, Leica will.</i></b></p>It won't matter to those who buy one, and those who it matters, won't buy one. OTOH if it was full-frame, I doubt there would be a contingent of buyers who would gripe that it didn't have a crop factor. Yeah, no doubt Leica will offer some extra wide lenses to make up for the crop. Another $3000 or so on top of the cost of the body and you're all set huh. </p><i><b>If it is full frame, boosted dynamic range, half the weight and bulk of it's competitors and no more than the price of a Canon 1Ds MkII, can it fail ?</i></b></p>Well, it for sure won't be full frame, Leica has said so. Based on the DMR (I had the dubious pleasure of using one for 2 weeks while a pal borrowed my 5D and 2 zooms to take on vacation because it was lighter than the DMR and his eight primes)the dynamic range should be great. High-ISO on the DMR was noisier than my 5D or 1DS-Mark II though the crop factor didn't really bother me. But then, the M is often chosen as a low-light wide-angle camera where ISO noise and the crop might pose more of an issue. That said, I have to concur that it can't fail because for folks that have a slew of M lenses the only alternative is the RD-1 which unless Epson has a secret new model ready to unveil, is going to be severely behind the Leica in just about every way, and is not cheap unto itself. That, and you know a bunch of people are going to buy one just because it's a Leica.

Oh, wow, Rolleiflex. That brings back memories. I can't think of two more well-crafted cameras, in the old-world sense. Even if you don't care a hoot about gear you've got to admire how these things were built. But for extended travel? I think no matter which one I picked, I'd end up using that "good point-and-shoot" backup more than either.

I've got both. The 5D is a little cleaner noise-wise above ISO 800 but otherwise the MkII is superior (detail and dynamic range). I suspect the 5D's lower high-ISO noise is a result of signal processing, not a better chip. I wonder if Canon couldn't bump up the MkII's high-ISO noise reduction to the 5D's level with a firmware upgrade (not that they would, if they could sell a new body instead).

Aw heck. Now I'm going to hear "Purple Haze" in my head the rest of the day.

Looks like AWB let you down just a little, might want to try a custom WB next time, unless you have a color meter or want to fool with color temp on your own. Both the fill flash and color casts are fixable in post-processing.

Um, well April 1 is less than two weeks, definitely not the same thing as waiting for the 5D to be replaced. If I had just bought one and hadn't used it and could still return it and buy it back in 2 weeks for $300 less I'd do it in a heartbeat. If the store has a 14-day no-questions-asked return policy, the ethics ball is in their court as to whether they will re-sell it as new or demo.

Thanks guys for everything. I checked and I can get a new USA IS from B&H for $1199 which is only $350 more than that used non-IS after I figure in CA and local sales tax vs shipping. I get IS, a closer focus, plus peace of mind. The discontinuation date of the non-IS is just a bit too close to that 10-year mark. If it were mint and $500 I'd probably chance it though. Now watch, my IS will probably be the one lemon in a million :*(

I would expect 11 years of trouble-free service from it too...if it were new. However as I mentioned, it's not, and though the glass looks good and it doesn't look like it's been beat to heck and everything works fine, there's obviously no way I can know how much life is left in this particular one. The store gives me a 90 day warranty so that's ok too. It's just that if next January it develops a glitch and Canon tells me "sorry we no longer have part # xxxxxx so your lens is unrepairable" I'm out almost $800. I could get a brand-new USA-warranty IS from B&H for $1149, so you see my dilemma.

Bob, um, the IS a completely different optical formula with twice as many elements and a much closer focus so I think it might be a long shot if any of the glass is interchangable, and I know the IS has a locking hood whereas the non-IS doesn't, and also that the tripod collars are different. The IS has a different switch panel and pretty sure it must have a different CPU chip. The barrells look different too in pictures. So maybe the rear lens flange and the plastic lens caps are in common but I can't imagine what else. I'm not really worried about if I drop it down a flight of stairs, insurance would cover that. I'm just concerned if the electronics (AF, diaphragm) goes belly up. Does Canon service things up until they run out of parts or do they have a set time limit after which they just refuse to service it?

 

Jon, if I send it to Canon for a checkup how much does that cost? If it's a couple hundred bucks I may as well just pony up the rest of the way for the IS model.

Hi guys. I am contemplating getting a used 300 f/4 (the non-IS)which

is in nice but not mint shape outwardly but I have no way of knowing

how much it has really been used. I gather that this model was

discontinued in 1998 or so. What I'm wondering is (and Canon's

service line is of no use here, all they say is they still service it

"at this point") how long does Canon USA generally service their

products after they've been discontinued, before they give out with

the "parts no longer available" spiel? The price on the lens is good

but not such that I'd consider it disposible if something went wrong

say a year or two from now. Thanks if anyone has had any experience

in this area.