Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hoppy, With almost everybody an effective 400 ISO is no different in output than settings closer to 100. On the Canon sensors, even 1600 ISO doesn't seem to affect anything but the darkest shadows. The crop factor means that there is no fast 35mm equivalent which is an important focal length for many people. Also, for shooters like B.D. who habitually use a 28mm as their body cap they go from F2 to 2.8 and if they were already at 1600 there doesn't leave much room to shoot as they have before. I see this as interesting as up to now, we have been given better and better tools. Films go faster and better, lenses got faster and then faster and better. It is hard to believe that the 21 Biogon was the widest lens you could get in 1954 with the exception of some Hypergons for large format. As the MBA's keep the R&D focused on what will sell in sufficient quantities (12-24 at F4) instead of 10-40 2.8-3.5) we don't see the extremes like we used to. In the middle fifities you could buy an F1.1 lens for your NIkon from Nikon or Zunow. Zeiss brought out the superlative 21 Biogon. We had 75 F1.5's that were really good and 85 F1.5's that had charachter. Yes Canon is coming out with a 50mm F1.2 but they were doing that three decades ago. Olympus I think has missed the boat with their 4/3 system for many of us. If they had produced a 25mm F1.4 or a 50mm F1.4 then I think the Leica style shooters would have migrated in large numbers. Instead they made some really good long glass that was fast, but the sports shooters needed more frames per second and the wildlife people wanted/needed more than 5MP so Olympus languishes at under 3% market share in Japan and elsewhere. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 9/10/06, G Hopkinson <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > Don, > I don't think shooting at 800 to 1600 ought to be the routine thing, more > like emergency back up, accepting the lesser quality > because that's all the light there is. > I'd be wanting to operate at ISO 100 to 200 for lowest possible noise and > maintain the apertures as what I'd use for 35mm, One stop > or so below maximum. That's what we pay the big bucks for with Leica > glass. Of course large DOF is not always desirable either. > Or is my film mindset not valid in the newest sensors world? > I think it would be market suicide to make glass in M mount with an image > circle too small for 35mm. > No way Solms could afford to alienate their existing customer base in the > niche. They are never going to compete directly with the > huge Japanese camera and electrical goods companies. > > However, with their commitment to four thirds they still have an avenue > for dedicated glass for digital. Lots of Olympus and > Panasonic etc folks would be happy to consider Solms designs for their > four thirds cameras, in my opinion. Plus of course the > compact digitals shared with Panasonic. > > Regarding the expected crop factor which seems pretty certain, I thought > that the f2 28 asph (and the new 2.8?) fitted neatly into > the 35 slot, with the 21 or 24 working for around the 28 and the f2 or > f1.4 35 becoming the new 50. I'd be pretty happy with the > current 50's as lovely portrait lenses, I'm sure. I imagine those folks > with the Noctilux would be downright cheerful, using them > for available light portraits > > Cheers > Hoppy, > 2 Aussie cents worth. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org [mailto: > lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Don Dory > Sent: Monday, 11 September 2006 11:02 > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Leica] M8 lens dilemma > > Leica faces an interestin conundrum. If they bite the bullet and make > lenses for cropped sensors they will relcaim the small camera/high > performance position they held in the thirties and beyond. However, > thousands of Leicanistas will shriek in rage at being betrayed. So, in > all > probablity no F1.4 26mm lens or for that matter no 21mm f2 lens. > > On the bright side, the ability to shoot at 800 to 1600 ameliorates the > need > for fast lenses as far as capturing the image but we still have issues > with > limiting DOF intentionally. On the down side, I am going to have to bite > the bullet and acquire a 35 F1.4 as the 50mm perspective is the one I use > most. Possibly the C/V 40mm F1.4 with the crop the edges won't matter. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 9/10/06, Aram Langhans <dnaplasmid@compwrx.com> wrote: > > > > 35! 32! 37! What's a few millimeters among friends??? > > Aram > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:04:45 -0400 > > > From: Stan Yoder <vze2myh5@verizon.net> > > > Subject: [Leica] M8 lens dilemma > > > To: lug@leica-users.org > > > Message-ID: <45047DED.7050007@verizon.net> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > > > > > So what are yunz (Pittsburghese for 'you-all') planning to do for the > > > equivalent of a 35 on a film M? > > > > > > The 24 Elmarit-ASPH becomes a 32, and a 28 becomes a 37. > > > > > > Stan Yoder > > > The Burgh > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >