Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Howdy Frank Yes, the still camera sensors still need a mechanical shutter but AFAIK they can be cycled faster than any shutter can and a shutter without a mirror box can cycle faster than a shutter with one. Not sure if that's up to digicam refresh rates which I assume must be at least 24fps but I'm sure it's close. Also, I'm betting that at some point the soft switched ccd technology used in digicams will be able to produce photographic quality results. Some of the dual purpose cameras are already producing near-good results, appatrantly without a mechanical blinder. At least they have follower lcds wich I guess means there is no mechanical shutter. Yes, the lenses need a longer back focus but they still come out more compact than the equivalent slr lens because they don't have to accomodate the auto aperture. If the main selling point behind SLRs was that you could focus and compose TTL I can imagine it must have taken a lot of effort to force the majority of pros to shift away from RF and accept the idea that lugging a huge FTN around was somehow better! But that argument just doesn't hold up anymore. I have a 1V that can focus on textures I can't even detect through the finder! Then, there's the portability factor. You said it yourself. The 1ds is way too big. If the results you get from it can be duplicated on something the size of a far more easily aimable M, pros will start abandoning the SLRs very quiclky after having to tote one around all day for years! Then there's the VF. Without having to worry about focus, they can make VF brighter and bigger and parallax is a no-brainerThey can even implement zoom VFs if they want! Finally, there's the price thing. You can alwayts make a cheaper RF. I have seen a few tv glimpses of photographers shooting politicians and celebs and I think I'm starting to see more of the better digital RFs and less 1dses though I haven't looked carefully. Bottom line for those trend setting folks is, why carry an assualt rifle when you can carry a sidearm! See Ya Javier >From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> >Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Canon, Leica and German goods >Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 08:15:18 +0000 >MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) >Received: from server1.waverley.reid.org ([192.147.236.5]) by >bay0-mc1-f7.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 2 >Jan 2006 00:15:42 -0800 >Received: from server1.waverley.reid.org (localhost.waverley.reid.org >[127.0.0.1])by server1.waverley.reid.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id >k028FNhL040346for <summarex@hotmail.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:15:42 -0800 >(PST)(envelope-from lug-bounces+summarex=hotmail.com@leica-users.org) >Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com >(smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com[217.12.12.197])by server1.waverley.reid.org >(8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with SMTP idk028FJer040340for <lug@leica-users.org>; Mon, >2 Jan 2006 00:15:20 -0800 (PST)(envelope-from Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com) >Received: (qmail 79741 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2006 08:15:18 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO >?192.168.0.10?)(frank.dernie@btinternet.com@86.139.249.255 with plain)by >smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2006 08:15:17 -0000 >X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Z3TmmkSEdPtfpLB7P/ybN8= >References: <BAY103-F23BE16189A540ED73EF6FEC72A0@phx.gbl> >X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) >X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.4 >X-BeenThere: lug@leica-users.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 >Precedence: list >List-Id: Leica Users Group <lug.leica-users.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>,<mailto:lug-request@leica-users.org?subject=unsubscribe> >List-Archive: <http://leica-users.org/pipermail/lug> >List-Help: <mailto:lug-request@leica-users.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>,<mailto:lug-request@leica-users.org?subject=subscribe> >Errors-To: lug-bounces+summarex=hotmail.com@leica-users.org >Return-Path: lug-bounces+summarex=hotmail.com@leica-users.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2006 08:15:42.0593 (UTC) >FILETIME=[B94A8710:01C60F74] > >I don't agree. The sensors used in digicams are of a different type to >those used in better quality cameras - including the Epson rangefinder. >The continuous scanning types are like the ones used in video cameras. >Also, for short depth of focus lenses - ie not the zooms used on most >digital SLRs autofocus can be relied on to focus on the wrong thing IME >and need a manual adjust anyway to get, for example eyes rather than wing >tip in focus. I use autofocus when I need A picture rather than THE >picture. >Secondly if the problem of creating wide angle lenses for digital sensors >is as described then WA lenses for digital will always be very big with a >very long back focus, so there will be no benefit for a rangefinder layout >as the space for a mirror would be no problem in such designs and if it >wasn't in the camera body it would be in a longer lens mount. >You are using a similar argument to that used by Leica in the late 50s and >60s where they felt that the optical superiority and compact dimensions of >a rangefinder made it a better photographic tool than an SLR for most >purposes. I happen to agree, personally, but the market certainly did not >and SLRs rapidly outsold rangefinders. >Frank > >On 1 Jan, 2006, at 19:34, Javier Perez wrote: > >>Yup >>I think eventually they will. >>Too bulky and not necessary since AF sensors can now focus better than >>the human eye! >>But mostly because they can double as digicams. >>javier > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information