Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think there are a couple of things worth saying here. It is expecting too much to have prime lens levels of distortion in a high zoom ratio lens. It is expecting too much to get M levels of quality out of a sensor less than half the size of a Minox negative. It is completely unreasonable to imagine ever having an optical zoom viewfinder at almost any price which matches the M viewfinder. These are simple facts of mechanical engineering production at domestically acceptable prices. A M like camera with interchangeable prime lenses is unlikely ever to be sold as the market would be too small to recoup development costs. If there ever is a sensor technology compatible with M lenses I would buy immediately! As far as obsolescence is concerned the arrival of newer items which have a higher spec will not make the object you own work any less well (only be worth less). If the results are good enough when you buy it they still will be when a better item arrives. It is also true that often prices go down simply with cheaper manufacturing methods, so apparently equivalent items come on sale at a lower price but the construction is tacky. My experience would indicate that any P&S digital is pretty compromised in one way or another and is unlikely to satisfy somebody used to an M in almost every way. There are digital SLRs which produce pretty acceptable results at A4 printing size, are reasonably nice to use (but nothing like as satisfying as an M) and reasonably light (when fitted with primes). My digital equivalent to M with 75 f1.4 is a DSLR with 50 f1.4 - similar weight, not as nice to use, since I am happy with it my only concern as far as obsolescence is concerned is long term reliability and availability of spare parts. cheers Frank On Saturday, January 31, 2004, at 11:45 am, Michiel Fokkema wrote: > > I couldn't agree more with Nathan. For me also the EVF is a drawback. > I use Leica's especially for the outstanding VF of both the M and R8. > As Nathan, I looked through the EVF of the Digilux 2, and believe me > it has nothing to do with M or R VF's. > I also use Leica's for the outstanding quality of the lenses. The few > pictures > Http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/45964.html?1074971082 > that were shown on the Leica forum a few day's ago made me expect the > worst. I see severe barrel distortion what makes the camera for me > almost unusable. I hope it has something to do with prototyping and > that Leica will solve this in the real production. > In this case i must agree with B.D. Just because it has a red dot I > seem to be the only one who sees the distortion. Paying that much > money for an average digicam is outrageous. > I think that the digital technology has not yet fully matured. This > implies that any digicam you buy now will be outdated within, at the > most, two years. For me therefore a long live robust build quality is > not nescecary yet. If I'm going to buy a digicam in the near future it > will be the panasonic or an Olympus or Sony. When the digital > technology has matured I'll probably go for the quality build of > whatever Leica is available by then. I hope the R digiback will give > that quality. With the digiback I'm sure I will have at least the same > optical quality as with film. > > Best regards, > > Michiel Fokkema > > Nathan Wajsman wrote: > >> Mark, >> I own six Leica bodies (2 CL, M6, M7, R8, SL) and 5 R lenses and a >> total >> of 7 M/CL lenses, 4 of which are Leica. So my devotion to and >> investment >> in the brand is beyond question. The only 35mm non-Leica I own is a >> Voigtlander Bessa R2 which plays third violin in my M outfit. I am >> willing to spend outrageous amounts on new Leica lenses because I >> enjoy >> using them and I can see the difference in my negatives and slides. >> But...when it comes to digital, it is a different story. I have no >> overriding need for it but have been thinking of getting a digicam to >> have my own experience and make my own assessment. If I were to buy a >> digicam, it would have to be light, the size of an M, so I am not >> interested in a DSLR. When the Digilux 2 was announced, I was not >> scared >> of the price; I was prepared to accept that if I wanted Leica quality >> in >> the digital world I would need to pay a higher price than for a Canon >> or >> Olympus. But when I handled the Digilux 2 I concluded that Leica had >> missed the boat. They are asking several hundred Euro more than Canon >> or >> Olympus are charging for the comparable G5 and 5060W models, and what >> do >> you get for this? A Leica lens, OK, and somewhat better handling. But >> for me to pay this kind of price difference for a digital Leica I >> would >> need to see more of Leica's strong points in the camera. >> Specifically, I >> would want an optical viewfinder, coupled to the focusing mechanism, >> and >> of a quality at least comparable to that on my CLs. Instead, I get a >> garish electronic viewfinder which I found totally impossible to use >> for >> any fast action. >> So, in this case I agree with BD: for your extra $1000 you get a >> slightly better lens, the red dot and not much more. I am sticking to >> film for now. >> Nathan >> Mark Rabiner wrote: >>> You've decided not to go Leica in your digital choices BD. And so >>> have >>> others. And I do some digital nikon. But the digital options Leica >>> has are >>> viable and it would seem to make sense that there would be some on >>> the lug >>> who have been picking those options as this is the Leica users group >>> and >>> people come here to talk about the Leica products theyıve chosen to >>> make >>> pictures with. >>> > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html