Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]2010-03-23-15:56:55 Tina Manley: > I can't imagine liking the viewfinder on the GF-1. I certainly understand that assumption. Recently, I've been tucking the GF1 in my bag to serve as a really-light-weight backup to my M9, and because with its funny half-size sensor, normals can act like short teles of improbable speed, and short teles can act like longer teles of improbable speed (with through-the-lens focusing). Like the "100mm" f/1.0, or the "150mm" f/1.4. Of course, focusing Leica lenses on this body this way (if you do it precisely by popping into high-magnification mode) is definitely slower than with an M, and actually, every time I've taken a picture encompassing the same field of view in the same lighting conditions with the GF1 and the M9, the M9 image has just looked better. Which is actually kind of reassuring. The M9 even seems to have over a stop better low-light performance, which may surprise those who like to take potshots at that aspect of the digital Leicas. So... I may eventually figure this is a losing proposition. But so far, I'm enjoying the GF1 as my "2x tele converter camera body", as well as as a body I don't worry about obsessively if I'm going somewhere to do something other than photography which will take my attention away from monitoring who's going near my camera bag. And the results can be decent. I've already shown this one, with the pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbm0/4420275979/sizes/o/in/set-72157623411271513/ This is with the 35mm Summilux ASPH: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbm0/4424241440/sizes/o/in/set-72157623411271513/ Here's that Noctilux-as-moderate-tele trick: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbm0/4428991832/sizes/o/in/set-72157623411271513/ Now... it's actually entirely possible that if I'd stood the same distance away with the same lens and cropped a comparable hunk out of an M9 picture, it might've looked even better (even though it would have slightly fewer pixels, given the differences in pixel density). For one thing, I'm finding the M9 reliably usable at ISO 1250, and capable of some success faster; the GF1 just has a train wreck faster than ISO 800, which in turn isn't nearly as good as the M9 at 1250. So... I certainly can't answer this question for anyone. If I have the time, I know I can be sure about precise focus and framing with the GF1, which is sometimes a win. Oh, and I've never owned or used the add-on one-eye finder; I just use the screen on the back. -J