Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The Panasonic 4/3 with the 17mm lens could not be a better fit for me. My preferred lens length is 40mm, I like pancake lenses that don't get in the way, the viewfinder is in the middle (I'm left-eyed), the lens is very sharp with nice bokeh, the lens is fast, the EVF works well in bright sunlight, and the raw files enlarge nicely with good resolution. Jeffery On Apr 15, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Richard Taylor wrote: > Micro-4/3rds cameras are certainly serious cameras, it's just a question > of what your needs or desires are. If I were a professional and needed to > satisfy editors who demanded full-frame quality, I'd have full-frame > camera, too. > > Regards, > > Dick > > > > On Apr 15, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: > >> You guys are only fanning the flames, man. He's gonna come over that >> hilltop >> like a lion now. >> >> What you're essentially saying is: this is a totally effing great -- >> stupendous -- step up from point and shoot digital pocket cameras, why >> it's >> so well done, it's almost if you close one eye just about as good as a >> good >> APS-C. >> >> Which is true. >> >> What Mark is saying is: this is not a serious camera because no amount of >> features or good technology can overcome its sensor size issues and if >> you're serious as an artist or a professional you should be talking about >> something else. >> >> Which is probably also true. >> >> Though, to do justice to the camera and to artists in general, a serious >> artist can make something lasting out of a stick and a rock. So the m4/3 >> cameras are at least good enough to make very good pictures with. Just not >> at big enough size/high enough res to pass muster professionally. >> >> I still expect to hear screams and broken bones in the dark of night >> however. >> >> Vince >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM, David Rodgers <drodgers at >> casefarms.com>wrote: >> >>> I bought a GF-1 because it seemed the most economical way for me to be >>> able to use some of my existing lenses -- which quite frankly were >>> gathering dust -- as well as replace a 5-year old Fuji P&S. >>> >>> Micro Four Thirds is better than I anticipated and it has rekindled my >>> interest in photography. I'm sure an EP-2 would have done the same. >>> >>> The image quality from micro Four Thirds format is pretty darn good. >>> Where it's lacking, compared to an FX format camera like the D700 is the >>> low light capability. Still, Micro Four Thirds is OK at 1600 and really >>> good at 400-800. Thus light gathering capability isn't a strength (OTOH, >>> after years of shooting Tri_X, it isn't necessarily a weakness either). >>> >>> Resolution is excellent for such small sized cameras. Image quality is >>> closer to an APS-C camera than a P&S, but camera size is closer to a P&S >>> than an APS-C camera. >>> >>> On top of all that there seems to be a lot of R&D surrounding the format >>> right now. That's resulting in good optics, good camera features, and >>> generally more options from which to choose. >>> >>> Dave R >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information