|
Come on, nobody is going to pay $8,000 for a "black and white" camera - it's Monochrome.
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Come on, nobody is going to pay $8,000 for a "black and white" camera - it's Monochrome. I am going to spend the day browsing Leica forums and see how people white knight this camera. It will be most entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
I'd buy a digital camera where the image didn't pass through a CFA or an AA filter but not for that much.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Not really seeing why you guys have to mock it. Sure, Leica is uber-expensive, but it is pretty awesome to bring out a pure black and white rig these days, has not been one since Kodak back in the 1990s. Should allow quite a bit more light to hit the sensor, and be damned sharp at the pixel level. Also, as for the "white knighting" part, this is not some massive fuckup on Leica's part, it is actually what a lot of Leica shooters have been asking for for years.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Guys. It's the ultimate in retro. You have to take three photos of things using a red, green and blue filter then merge them in post to make a colour photo. EDIT: $125 for a lens cap. Are you loving making GBS threads me?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
I'm sure it has its use. But I also wouldn't pay the price for an M9. Maybe if I had unlimited money, which some people do.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I'm sure it has its use. But I also wouldn't pay the price for an M9. I would buy an M9, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd spend nearly as much as the camera outfitting it with the lens I'd want. And my one really good Leica lens (DR Summicron) doesn't work on the M8/M9.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
HPL posted:EDIT: $125 for a lens cap. Are you loving making GBS threads me? Obviously you can't appreciate the ~*~gERmAn eNgInEeRiNg~*~ 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Anyone using the EM-5 with the 20/1.7 lens and has experienced banding at higher ISOs yet? Seems to be rather reproducible, according to this thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=41466000&page=1
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, guess what, my X100 started massively overexposing at smaller apertures. Haven't even had the thing for two weeks. What was the serial number on yours? Mine is a 21A and I've fired nearly 3000 shots with it, good so far (knock on wood).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Cacator posted:What was the serial number on yours? Mine is a 21A and I've fired nearly 3000 shots with it, good so far (knock on wood). It was a 13M one. Initially I debated just going E-M5 or NEX-7, but did not take long for me to really miss the optical viewfinder and the image quality of the X100 just floored me. Debating whether to replace it or get an X-Pro 1 + 35mm now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Local store had a sale so I got a Sigma 30/2.8 for my 5N. Has a lot of rattles but everything else is great.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Local store had a sale so I got a Sigma 30/2.8 for my 5N. Has a lot of rattles but everything else is great.  (I'm quite serious, look through the rear of the lens)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I had read about that before I went to look at the lens. I have a 50-200 OS (for Nikon DX) from Sigma too, and the stabilizer element is the same way, so I'm kind of used to it. I was more surprised by the aperture chatter, I didn't notice it in the store and at first I thought I had somehow turned menu-clicks back on in the camera.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Sure, Leica is uber-expensive,... Some Leica are more than uber-expensive: Leica camera fetches 2.16m euros at auction
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Here's something someone wrote on the internet at Christmas time in a thread about Leica that I thought was humorous: (to the tune of Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer) But do you recall, the most over-priced camera of all? BUM BUM BUM Leica the red-dot camera Costs a whole lot of dough If you ever see someone with one He'll be sure to let you know All of the other cameras With comparable image quality Aren't super cool and retro So gently caress your 2/3rds cheaper 5d. If you want to start with Leica You can try out the D-lux 5. Oh poo poo, are you loving serious? It's just a re-branded Panasonic LX-5? Oh well, I'm sure it worth it, Because of the extras it's got Like a non-pirated copy of Lightroom And a 500 extra dollars red dot.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
I bought a Leica because they were much cheaper than similar Nikon rangefinders.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Yeah, I am aware of the ND filter and leaf shutter limitations yada yada. But, if I set it to all manual, say f/11, and keep half pressing the shutter it either doesn't stop down at all, stops down some, stops down all the way to f/11, etc etc, all in the same light, producing massively differing exposures at the same shutter speed and ISO. It is definitely broken. Out of curiosity, do you know what the first two digits of your serial number was? Supposedly anything after November of 2011 has resolved the sticky aperture blade problem, so anything higher than '14' should be OK. I just sold the last of my DSLR gear and fear of the sticky blade is one of the only things that have me leaning more towards the OM-D before a purchase in the next few weeks 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
What if you use micro 4/3rds and Leica?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
What the OM-D has sticky blade issues now too?  e: I read the post wrong, nvm
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Bit the bullet and will be the new owner of an X100 tomorrow afternoon. I thought it was hyperbole from owners, but the camera is truly a joy to walk around and snap pictures with.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
I'm very strongly thinking of buying an X100. Is it best to buy it new in case I have issues with the AF (I've had weird dreams about this) as well as sticky blades?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:I'm very strongly thinking of buying an X100. Is it best to buy it new in case I have issues with the AF (I've had weird dreams about this) as well as sticky blades? Warranty is non-transferable in the US, buy it new. Inspect the serials if you can. I wouldn't worry about sticky aperture diaphragm, I'm just advocating prudence. You'll be covered for a year and from what I've read they'll send you a box, fix it, and mail it back to you within a few days. My warranty expires in thirteen days and I'm at roughly 3500 shutter actuations with no problems, if it helps.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
My last final exam is on wednesday and I can't wait to get out and shoot everything with my x100 that finally arrived but has been languishing on my desk, unloved.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
And in Bizarro Fuji world, they've just announced the WCL-X100 conversion lens that fits over your 35mm lens and changes it to a 28mm focal length. New X100 firmware update to change the frame lines and everything. And in uncharacteristic X100 fashion, it still works with your hood. I'm not sure who needed this or saw this coming but it's cool they're still supporting the camera. Bizarro! http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/accessories/lens/conversionlens/x100wideconversionlens/
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:And in Bizarro Fuji world, they've just announced the WCL-X100 conversion lens that fits over your 35mm lens and changes it to a 28mm focal length. New X100 firmware update to change the frame lines and everything. And in uncharacteristic X100 fashion, it still works with your hood. I'm not sure who needed this or saw this coming but it's cool they're still supporting the camera. God damnit, right after I finish my vacation using only the X100.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
I would have loved to see a 1.4x teleconverter to get a nice 50mm equiv. focal length rather than the wider angle, but really it's great to see Fuji still still bringing out the updates on a somewhat regular basis.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
I think Fuji plans on having the X100 as a top line model for a while. When they were in the DSLR game, they were not ones to come out with a new model every year. I think they will hold off on the X200 or whatever until there is some technology that will really make it an advance over the current model. My X100 is also approaching the 1 year mark and I've not had a single problem with it so far.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-to-announce-2-cameras-in-june-cr2/ Evidently, Canon is going to announce their mirrorless offering in June. I don't know if it came from Canon or that website, but the teaser photo suggests it will be like a Canon version of the OM-D, like an AE-D or something.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
You realize that photo is from an unofficial fan fiction canon camera, yes? http://davidriesenberg.com/archives/262
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
A buddy of mine has some OM lenses and I have my old HTC Desire smartphone and now I'm proposing to trade with him, perhaps with some money added or whatever. So the lenses he has are these: Zuiko 1:3.5 / 21 mm Zuiko 1:3.5 / 28 mm Zuiko 1:1.8 / 50 mm Zuiko zoom 1:3.6/35-70 mm Zuiko zoom 1:4/75-150 mm Any idea how much those are worth and if it's worth trading for them (and buying an OM > m4/3 adapter) I've read about it before but can someone explain how to convert the focal length and aperture for m4/3? Because the sensor is smaller the lenses effectively become half as wide and half as bright? How does that work? I'm especially interested in the 50 and the 21. As for what camera they will go on, the OM-D. I'm buying it with the 12-50 probably so the 35-70 will become a bit redundant yes? spankmeister fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
I'm only familiar with the 50mm specifically. My 28mm OM is 1:2.8 I think. I don't use the 28 much because my kit zoom is more convenient. The 50mm is worth like $40. The f/1.4 version is worth like double that. f/1.8 isn't bad at all though and far better than what most people can reasonably afford with modern lenses (of course you sacrifice auto-focus). The crop factor on Olympus sensors is 2x, meaning you simply double all the lenses' focal lengths to get their regular 35 mm film equivalents. edit: I keep posting it, but this is my favourite shot I took with the 50mm on an E-P1:  teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 21:26 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I'm only familiar with the 50mm specifically. My 28mm OM is 1:2.8.  1.8 is pretty drat good still.quote:The crop factor on Olympus sensors is 2x, meaning you simply double all the lenses' focal lengths to get their regular 35 mm film equivalents. Does a 50mm f3.5 35mm lens become 25mm f3.5 on m4/3? Or 50mm f7?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Yes I know but does that work the other way around? If you mount a lens made for the 35mm film format (AKA 'full frame') on a M4/3 sensor, in your example the 50mm lens, it "becomes" a 100mm lens equivalent with respect to the 35mm film format. It's not that the focal length actually changes, a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens no matter what format it's mounted on, but depending on the size of the format behind the lens (M4/3, crop sensor, full frame) it will have a different field of view. Crop factors only really make sense if you want to relate everything to the 35mm film format. I just use crop factors to understand what is the 'normal' focal length with respect to the format then go from there. For example, on the 35mm film format the normal is considered 50mm, correspondingly the normal focal length for the M4/3 format would be 25mm because it has a 2x crop factor. mes fucked around with this message at 22:19 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
powderific posted:You realize that photo is from an unofficial fan fiction canon camera, yes? http://davidriesenberg.com/archives/262 I didn't, which is why I literally wrote "I don't know if [the image] came from Canon".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:If you mount a lens made for the 35mm film format (AKA 'full frame') on a M4/3 sensor, in your example the 50mm lens, it "becomes" a 100mm lens equivalent with respect to the 35mm film format. It's not that the focal length actually changes, a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens no matter what format it's mounted on, but depending on the size of the format behind the lens (M4/3, crop sensor, full frame) it will have a different field of view. Right. I though that by "converting" m4/3 lenses focal lenght to 35mm equiv. you had to do the same for 35mm to m4/3 but the other way around. Turns out it's the same. (Makes sense, but it's hard to get your head 'round these things for the first time). So the aperture ratio (f-number) does not get multiplied by the crop factor? What does happen then because presumably you are only getting half the light the lens is putting out? Or is it just that your FOV changes and the same amount of light is hitting the sensor, only a crop of the FF image the lens produces?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Right. I though that by "converting" m4/3 lenses focal lenght to 35mm equiv. you had to do the same for 35mm to m4/3 but the other way around. Turns out it's the same. (Makes sense, but it's hard to get your head 'round these things for the first time). From my understanding, you're correct on the bold part. That's why old, fast primes are still desirable. e: To make it clear, the crop factor has nothing to do with the f-number.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Or is it just that your FOV changes and the same amount of light is hitting the sensor, only a crop of the FF image the lens produces? Correct. The focal length of a lens doesn't change no matter what size the sensor is. Only the field of view changes. It's easy to be confused because even people that sell lenses refer to things like "35mm focal length equivalent." It's just much easier to explain it that way. I guess they could say "field of view equivalent," but nobody really thinks about lenses that way. So it's easier even though it does also confuse people into thinking focal length is somehow influenced by the sensor size.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I didn't, which is why I literally wrote "I don't know if [the image] came from Canon". Sorry, didn't mean to be a dick. The rest of that concept is pretty swanky but it's annoying that CR threw it on the main article like that with no explanation--especially since it is very reminiscent of teaser photos Canon has shared in the past.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Just bought a EM-5 last night with the PanaLeica 25/1.4 lens and I'm totally blown away by it. Having a lot of fun with it so far! Here's a quick set of JPEGs I took of my friends after buying it. I only realised the in-camera NR is pretty horrible when I viewed them large on my computer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 23:54
|
|