Comments |
|
Austin, TX, United States
|
About us
|
Sitemap
|
Connect
|
Cool, now iPhoneys can start calling themselves "strobists" too.
People sure get worked up over small things.
jaygeephoto: Maybe what's need is a different level of forum. The discussion here often degenerates into schoolyard name calling. The very concept of high end medium format systems seems to be out of the reach of understanding of many who write in here. It's not about pixel count or fast focusing. It would seem to me that what Leica is trying to do here is create an easier to handle medium format system. Just as years ago the Pentax 6X7 offered an alternative to medium format roll-film camera of the time. Whether or not this proves to be a financially successful or accepted venture by Leica is anyone's guess. Having used a medium format system from Mamiya the results are no less than spectacular. Whith that being said, it's an ergonomic nightmare and does not come close to the robustness of say a Canon IDx/Ds or a Nikon D4. I applaud any one who is trying to make this format easier to live with.
This forum is just overrun with "desktop photographers". I'd say about 80% or more of the people who regularly comment on here just read specs from websites and draw conclusions from other so-called pros such as Ken Rockwell.
It's hard to have civil discussions here because if you try to correct someone they get offended and it just gets out of hand quickly. That's the internet for you.
But how do you explain to someone who moved from a COOLPIX to a D3200 the intricacies involved in using a MF setup? All they know is HIGH ISO and HIGH MP = PRO CAMERA!
The need for high ISO and fast AF isn't important when you spend 6 hours building and lighting a set for a big advertisement.
fastglass: I had a chance to use one & it's amazing.
If one can (1) afford it (I can't), & (2) isn't intimidated by using a camera system this expensive (I was), & (3) can appreciate what it offers (I do) - go for it.
Personally, I think it was a mistake for Leica to invest the resources they must have into a system this limited in it's appeal & affordability. Still, it is very, very impressive.
The M8 had some problems. The M9, not so much. They fixed most of the quirks of the M8 with the M9. So much so that they continue to sell it as the M-E. The M typ 240 is a whole different beast altogether. I only played with it for a minute, but it really is an incredible camera.
I may be biased though, because I honestly love my M8. The "problems" to most people are "characteristics" to others. My one and only beefs with the M8/M9 is how slow the read/write times are and the low-res screens.
But I digress. Leica M's and Leica S's are two completely different platforms and can't even be judged similarly.
fastglass: I had a chance to use one & it's amazing.
If one can (1) afford it (I can't), & (2) isn't intimidated by using a camera system this expensive (I was), & (3) can appreciate what it offers (I do) - go for it.
Personally, I think it was a mistake for Leica to invest the resources they must have into a system this limited in it's appeal & affordability. Still, it is very, very impressive.
Medium format digital systems are ALL limited appeal. They are not marketed towards the DP Review crowd. They are selling to high-end commercial photographers with unlimited budgets.
I'm sure the Leica team have done cost analyses and determined that it would be a profitable venture in one form or another.
fastglass: I had a chance to use one & it's amazing.
If one can (1) afford it (I can't), & (2) isn't intimidated by using a camera system this expensive (I was), & (3) can appreciate what it offers (I do) - go for it.
Personally, I think it was a mistake for Leica to invest the resources they must have into a system this limited in it's appeal & affordability. Still, it is very, very impressive.
" I think it was a mistake for Leica to invest the resources they must have into a system this limited in it's appeal & affordability"
That's Leica's business model. They have an $8000 camera that shoots only black and white and is pretty much out-spec'd in every way by even the cheapest DSLR as far as features and speed, yet it's been backordered for months. They thrive off of limited appeal and affordability. That's what works for them.
kkchiu215: As we may have seen the advertising photograph of Leica S2 system, it shown a long telephoto lens which I think may be a 400mn f/4. This lens is good for sport photography. With such a high shutter speed of 1/4090 second that not many medium format camera reach. I believe the S2 or new S is one of the best camera to serve this purpose.
Although standard 135mm film format is still the lead in sport photography with large range of auto focus and much longer long telephoto lenses.
I don't think you grasp the concept of medium format lenses properly. Just like APS-C has a smaller field of view than a full-frame sensor a medium format sensor has wider field of view. Therefore lenses that are telephoto on a full-frame are normal on a medium format. For example an 80mm lens is normal on medium format, 50mm is normal on full-frame, and 35mm is normal on crop sensors.
Another thing I don't think you realize is that medium format cameras like the S aren't meant to be used out in the field. These are studio cameras. They are designed to be used in controlled lighting (which is one reason why high ISO capability isn't a concern when it comes to medium format).
JDThomas: I find it amusing that people on this forum assume that no photojournalists exist that use Leica rangefinders.
I know a few PJ's that shoot Leica digital M's. Most of the ones I know personally cover the music industry. I happen to use a Leica M8 when I cover features about musicians or bands. I'm not a full-time "newspaper" PJ of old, but I don't know anyone who still is.
You won't find Leica PJ's by hanging out on the DPR forums all day arguing over what camera is better spec'd than the other.
I happened to run across some superb photos taken for a New Yorker article a couple of months ago. Shot with an M8 and a Summicron 28mm f/2 by Misha Friedman. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2013/03/slide-show-misha-friedmans-photographs-of-the-bolshoi.html#slide_ss_0=1
My point is, there ARE photojournalists out there using the Leica M system. You just have to get out of the camera forums and go look for them.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there...
JDThomas: I find it amusing that people on this forum assume that no photojournalists exist that use Leica rangefinders.
I know a few PJ's that shoot Leica digital M's. Most of the ones I know personally cover the music industry. I happen to use a Leica M8 when I cover features about musicians or bands. I'm not a full-time "newspaper" PJ of old, but I don't know anyone who still is.
You won't find Leica PJ's by hanging out on the DPR forums all day arguing over what camera is better spec'd than the other.
I happened to run across some superb photos taken for a New Yorker article a couple of months ago. Shot with an M8 and a Summicron 28mm f/2 by Misha Friedman. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2013/03/slide-show-misha-friedmans-photographs-of-the-bolshoi.html#slide_ss_0=1
There's also Bruno Stevens. Here's a quote from an interview with him:
" I was in Gaza last week and there was a big demonstration. All the other photographers were there, covering the same scene with their DSLRs, and you could hear the ‘brrrrrrr’ of their cameras shooting high-speed bursts. However, if you take a look at this week’s Newsweek, the picture of the event is mine—not because it’s so much better but because it’s different. I somehow captured the right moment. I really believe it’s because the M9, like its predecessors, is a camera for photographers that think. That’s really why the M system has been the system of choice for the great thinking photojournalists—people who shoot with their brains more than just their eyes. "
I find it amusing that people on this forum assume that no photojournalists exist that use Leica rangefinders.
I know a few PJ's that shoot Leica digital M's. Most of the ones I know personally cover the music industry. I happen to use a Leica M8 when I cover features about musicians or bands. I'm not a full-time "newspaper" PJ of old, but I don't know anyone who still is.
You won't find Leica PJ's by hanging out on the DPR forums all day arguing over what camera is better spec'd than the other.
I happened to run across some superb photos taken for a New Yorker article a couple of months ago. Shot with an M8 and a Summicron 28mm f/2 by Misha Friedman. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2013/03/slide-show-misha-friedmans-photographs-of-the-bolshoi.html#slide_ss_0=1
Holy Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! I think DP Review has FINALLY got a thread where EVERYONE agrees and nobody is arguing!
JDThomas: Sigma breaks a barrier and everyone is complaining that it's not full-frame. :)
Do you people actually read what's written or just skim it over for keywords? I was actually poking fun at the people who will be crying for VR on a fast lens.
But for you Sony/Pentax "magic VR" folks. Remember that the in-camera VR is less effective than the in-lens VR due to space constraints.
JDThomas: Sigma breaks a barrier and everyone is complaining that it's not full-frame. :)
Nevermind. Someone already brought up the "no VR" issue.
JDThomas: Sigma breaks a barrier and everyone is complaining that it's not full-frame. :)
I'm surprised nobody is crying about no VR!
I don't think people comprehend how big an 18-35mm f/1.8 would be for FX.
I have at least one DX camera at all times so I'll be getting one of these for sure. I'm sending an email to my Sigma contact first thing in the morning to see when they can send me a test copy.
Sigma breaks a barrier and everyone is complaining that it's not full-frame. :)
JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
Ok. My comment wasn't meant to start an argument about which lenses are sharper, what primes are better, etc...
ALL I was saying was that Nikon needs to update it's pro DX standard zoom to keep up with the resolution. The end.
JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
No point in even continuing this discussion. You are completely derailing it with wacky talk.
16-50 f/1.8? Haha.
JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
@yabokkie:
I have a D800. I also have a D600, a D700, and a D5200 as well as the D7100 at the moment. I write camera guides. I have a pretty good grasp on what gear I "should" use. I'm writing a guide for the D7100 right now.
@Reilly Diefenbach:
The 24-85 isn't a standard DX lens, nor is it a pro lens. I have a 24-70 that is pretty sharp wide open, but that's not the issue. 24-whatever isn't a particularly useful range for DX.
JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
The 17-55 WAS a good lens when paired with earlier cameras. It's STILL a good lens when stopped down to f/5.6 on the D7100.
Heck, it's not really that bad when the image is downsized to about 12MP (but then why buy a 24MP camera if you have to downsize to get the best performance).
Really my only point is that Nikon needs to redesign the 17-55 f/2.8 to keep up with their cameras. And they likely are.
JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
My reasoning is simple. I use my Nikons for work. I prefer the speed of AF and the convenience of a zoom. This way I get things done quicker and I get paid quicker. I pay top dollar for my Nikon pro glass and I expect it to be on par with the cameras I'm pairing them with.
I use my Leica for personal photography and art. I don't mind taking my time and manual focusing. I don't shoot if high ISO noise is a concern. I'd prefer a nice Zeiss lens for the Leica over one for the Nikon any day.
In any case, I was specifically talking about Nikon needing a standard DX zoom that can handle the D7100. As I mentioned the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is GREAT for the D7100 which really negates any need for me to buy a Zeiss MF lens for my D7100 anyway.