ty_mickan

Since my last post I've also purchased a DP3 Quattro and also decided to move the Sony RX1 on because I just had no urge to use it after shooting with the Sigma cameras. They really do suit my style of shooting and I don't find any of the oft mentioned drawbacks to be an issue for me, at least not enough to worry me.

Thanks guys, I ended uip getting both. I got the RX1 for AUD$700, and used A7's with no lenses are going for AUD$850. I pick up the Sigma on Friday. I think I can use LIghroom with the Sigma raw files nowadays. I had the original X100 and sold it after a few month - did not like the camera. I bought it, so obviously I thought I would. I never could put my finger on why I didn't click with it.

Hello Does anyone here have any experience with these two cameras? I am looking to get a camera (my Samsung S20 is my only current digital camera) and have narrowed it down to these two. I have previously owned an RX1 with the EVF and was mostly happy with it. I now really only shoot slow paced landscapes and objects, but a little flexability wouldn't hurt. However, there is a DP1M available at my local camera store that has me intrigued, and the image quality, at least at low ISO, is raved about. I shoot mostly B&W and I have also read that the Foveon sesnor is particularly well suited to this. I have also read that it is tedious to work with, but having owned Hasselblad, Pentax and Rolleicord (along with developing and scanning), I cannot see that the inconvenience could be that bad. I do prefer to work more methodically. Any input on the comparitive resolving power of these two cameras would be appreciated. I should say that the RX1 with EVF that I am looking to purchase is similar in price to the DP1 Merrill.

I have a Pentax Digital spot meter and a Sekonic incident meter, however I mostly use my iPhone with the MyLightMeter app. It is extremely accurate,and you have the advantage over other reflective meters that you can see the exact image on the phone that is being metered. You have the ability to zoom into zones (in the Pro version) to act like a crude spot meter also. It won't replace my Sekonic for fast paced paying jobs, but for a casual stroll with my Rolleiflex loaded with C41 or Tri-X, the iPhone is more than accurate. Hey, the app is free, so try it before you drop $$ on a dedicated meter.

As mentioned, it does depend on the style of your landscape. With the modern trend to put foreground objects with lead in lines, then hyperfocal may well be the best option. I rarely shoot this way, and as such, I aim for a lens size of around 4mm and use infinity focus. This will give the optimum for mid and far range sharpness, sacrificing foreground (if you have one). DoF - different formats?

<p>To me shooting Leica's was <em>always</em> about the rangefinder focusing (with interchangeable lenses). The fabled Leica image quality is exaggerated. I've owned aspherical and non-ashperical Summicron's and Summilux's, in 35mm, 50mm, 75mm - all M Mounts, and I have taken photos with $100 Mamiya MF lenses, and a $10 Petri Racer that are every bit as good. But if the <em>rangefinder</em> style photography particularly resonates with you, simply buying an autofocus camera that looks like a rangefinder may disappoint.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with repairers/manufacturer support, however there is a tremendous support group on the Facebook. It runs on XP, and it is best to just buy a cheap used laptop ($50) to use as a dedicated machine. I run mine however on a Windows 10 machine just using Oracle Virtual Box (still requires XP software). </p><div></div>

<p>I've owned the Nikon Coolscan 5000 the Canoscan 8800 something. I currently also own the Epson V700. All good scanners, but for 35mm I use the Pakon F135. I would not consider anything else after using one of these.</p>

<p>Mamiya 645 Super with 40mm and 80mm lens, and some Fuji Velvia. No need to worry about editing, so more time shooting. This kit could be had for $600. </p>

<p>I would not discount the EPL2 because of the viewfinder. The camera is still really fully functional without is, and you could add the EV at a later stage when your funds permit. I have owned a myriad of SLR's, including the Nikon D3, and I enjoyed my EPL2 more than any of them. I have just recently starting looking to repurchase one for times when I absolutely must shoot digital. They are smaller than an SLR, so you might be more inclined to have your camera with you more, they have amazingly sharp lenses (no retro focus required like an SLR), and have some fun art modes as well for times when you want try something different.</p><div></div>

<p>Why limit yourself to an SLR? I personally think that a fixed lens rangefinder would be an even better step towards a manual camera as a learning tool. Something like an Olympus 35 SP or a Canonet, or even cheaper like a Petri Racer/7s. Fully manual, no meter (at least usually one that doesn't work) to force you to learn to read light, fixed focal length to really focus your photography, will have a fast lens at low cost, light so you can take it with you everywhere, and cheap $50-150.</p>

<p>Rick, I think I will do that.<br> Ty</p>

<p>It might be an idea to get something like at Metz Hammerhead flash. You may find your camera easier to handle with one of these large flashes than a Speedlite attached to the hotshoe atop your camera. Ideally you would have an assistant who could simply hold a reflector over your should and then you could bounce the flash off that (it would act like a softbox, which tries to simulate natural light such as window light). Point the flash in the air outside is pointless - the bounce card is only there to get a little catch light in the eyes. Beginners would do this trying to mimic a pro who would do this only as a last resort, and only indoors with a moderately low ceiling. Point the flash at your subject and dial it down to suit your tastes. As others have said, you need to get your exposure to match ambient, maybe a stop down, and fill in with a little flash. On camera flash, built-in or Speedlite, will only get you so far.<br> All the best.</p>

<p>and...........</p><div></div>

<p>.........</p><div></div>

<p>.......</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the wonderful review Richard. I saw one of these cameras advertised at my local photo store, and read your review which convinced me that I wanted on of these cameras. When I went in to enquire (I'm on a first name basis with the manager, much to my wife's annoyance), he looked at me sideways and told me that I was mad to buy one! Unreliable, and poor build quality was his main concerns. After negotiating on a very nice medium format camera, he threw the little Racer in the bag at no cost. I immediately put a roll of Tri-X through it, not expecting much after the bad feedback, and was simply amazed at the results. Such a contrasty lens, and whilst it may not be the sharpest lens, it has such a smooth out of focus rendering. I'm hooked, and have hardly picked up any of my other cameras since.<br> <img src="/classic-cameras-forum/Test%20Roll%20-%20Petri%20Racer%20by%20Ty%20Mickan,%20on%20Flickr" alt="" /></p> <div></div>

<p>UV filters are for Leica M8's and film cameras. As said above, use your lens hood and lens cap. Marks on the front lens rarely affect the final image. It is the rear lens element that is most important to protect.</p>

<p>M4, 1.4/35mm Summilux, not as pretty as something like the 1.4/75 Summilux, but a lot more versatile.</p><div></div>

<p>Hyperfocal distance is an outdated technique for landscape use (zone focusing is very much useful technique),and it will usually yield mediocre results. it is a formula that was determined in the 20's by the company now known as Leica. It may have provided adequate results back then, with older uncoated spherical lenses, and 80 year old emulsions, but today it just doesn't cut it. We now use the latest emulsions and digital sensors, and normally now we discard the enlarger as well. All this adds up to a Circle of Confusion size that needs to be alot smaller than the 'international standard' of 1/30mm (for small format, and 1/1500 of the diagonal film/sensor size for anything larger). <em><strong>Usually</strong> </em>, for landscapes, infinity focusing will provide the best compromise. And there is always going to be a compromise. A lens size of around 4mm (give or take 1mm) will usually give the best results, whilst taming diffraction limited spot size. This applies to small, medium or large format. Actually the easiest way to decide on aperture is to assess a scene, decide what the smallest item is in the scene that you want to render acceptably sharp, and adjust your aperture size to the same size. at inifinity, everything that is the size of the aperture will be rendered with the same resolution, diffraction aside. To simply focus half way between the closest and farthest points of required 'sharpness' is not the answer either.<br> Hyperfocal Scene<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4122610111_1513189ef6_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Infinity Scene<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/4122611671_6d05259c95_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Hyperfocal Foreground<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4123380632_1377fe51dc_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Infinity Foreground<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2704/4122610905_406fea7933_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Hyperfocal Mid<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4122609825_30c10a2ce8_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Infinity Mid<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2502/4123382452_24ba891684_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Hyperfocal Far<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2783/4122609143_db42ef2b3f_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> Infinity Far<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2663/4122610445_caa34f0a7e_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br> It is hard to pickup on the original shots, and I haven't cropped in the far background, but the silo in either shot is rendered the same. Even though you may think that the inifity focus may render it sharper, diffraction has limited the spot size. The lens used here was a Leica-M Summilux 1.4/35mm ASPH @ F9.5, giving me a lens size of around 3.7mm. If I had have used F5.6, the diffraction limited spot size would have been smaller, however the foreground detail would have slightly suffered. The foreground was more important in this shot than the silo. I perhaps therefore could have used f11, which would have improved the foreground at the expense of the silo. If this were a critical shot, I may taken one shot at each of the two apertures.</p>

The ability for Nikon to build normal lenses as opposed to retro focus lenses would have to be the single biggest afvantage to an EVIL camera. This would mean a new set of lenses for owners. Manual focus is a superior way of focusing, if implemented correctly, for MOST types of shooting. It was suggested above that Nikon should make a cheaper variant of the Leica but why would one assume that the Nikon would be cheaper. The Pricing of their Dx series of cameras would indicate that pricing would be similar or more. So enjoy your DLSR's, they do a great job for their intended purpose, nothing drastic needs to change. Leica already make the best rangefinder, no need to re invent the wheel there, and there are plenty of large sensor EVIL cameras already available. Am I missing something here, or is this just want for wants sake?

<p>The main advantage of a mirrorless camera is the ability to use non-retrofocus lenses. Putting a bloated SLR lens on a mirrorless isn't much point. Of course, with the right adaptor, you could use a Leica or Voigtlander lens, but that isn't something that Nikon would normally promote. I'm not sure if the average prosumer DLSR user is ready to fork out a heap of cash for a new camera and a swag of normal lenses. I'd guess that the typical keen Nikon shooter would a fair amount of money tied up already in the SLR format.</p>

<p>modern aspherical lenses are very sharp, even zoom lenses, but are very clinical and in my opinion lack character. I traded my new Leica Aspherical lenses with old pre-apsherical lenses from the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, and haven't regretted it once.</p>

<p>Ah, you had me at 35, 50 & 85 primes!</p>

<p>Only you really know what images you shoot, and, therefore, only you can really decide. I can give you my thoughts, but those thoughts would only be based on my experience. My experience is that zooms, even the best, are too slow, too big, and unnecessary for most situations. My advice would be to simplify your photography, pare back your lenses to a 35, a 75, and a ultra wide if you must, and stick to fast apertures of 1.4 or even a 2.0. And use your feet! When you say that "sometimes I cannot get the shot", is that because you physically cannot step closer or farther away from the subject, or is it because you don't like the FOV for the given lens and/or the relationship of the foreground and background aren't to your liking?</p>