Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- no law that says that DSLR shooting must involve lugging around 3 2.8 zooms the size of one pound Yuban coffee cans and weighing as much as two Speed Graphics. People just hate to ruin their image by not walking around with one of those monsters transforming their camera into a metal munching monster. They want to look like big time pros. Then they want to be a gentleman photographer and trade systems. Why not just leave the hulking glass at home? Leica M glass by the way even if they are amazingly non bulky are amazingly heavy. A person who wants to be a lean and mean photographer and work more elegantly with a smaller camera bag filled with more than three compact Leica nuggets each one feeling like that were made of lead or uranium can end up with their back in a sling just as quick. By the way I go out shooting I almost never any more have a second lens with me. A lens which weighs into the pounds I can leave at home. I'm more happy with ounces and even more with grams. Ok here it is the 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G which weights 194.1 grams. .4 of a pound. I often use a lightweight 5omm 1.8 or that cheap normal zoom I was just writing about which weights about the same. Or a 24 2.8 which looks the same but is a bit heavier. - a D700 which is quite heavy but I'm not turning it into a monster with a hulking chunk of ridiculous glass they are just not necessary. The D600 out now is 760 G, vs., 1,074 G. of the D700 which is about the same as the D800. The Leica M vs. Nikon D600: 680 vs. 760. That's 2.8 ounces Put a cute fixed lens on a D600 walk out the door and you're a gentleman photographer and no one knows you're not a millionaire. Me I'm a thousandaire. I buy my pants at Kmart. They look just like Dockers if your not staring at the label. On 1/28/13 4:00 AM, "Mark William Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > Welcome to the LUG John Owlett I'm kind of with you on the use two lens not > one idiot lens working scenario. > For some reason most of the top people spurn normal zooms altogether > conservative 35 - 70mm a bit hard to find now to the idiot ones from ultra > wide to 300 or whatever. > > Its the wide to ultra wide zooms which seem to have captured the top > photographers practical imagination. The one which almost never comes off > the camera. > And the traditional tele zoom - some variation of the long time 80-200. > I read and see that they use wide and tele zooms and leave their normal > zooms at home if they even own one. > > Me I never met normal zoom I didn't like. Mainly the cheap light ones which > are miraculously against all common sense; sharp. I don't own a bulky fast > or idiot version yet.... > Zooming a great thing to do. > I have a 60 macro on my camera right now and its too cold to take it off. > As much as I love to be able to zoom when I used a fixed lens I forget all > about it. > > > On 1/27/13 6:36 PM, "John Owlett" <owl at postmaster.co.uk> wrote: > >> May I use this thread, on which I do have a little knowledge, to emerge >> from >> lurking and introduce myself? > > I am a dinosaur amateur photographer, having >> neither digital camera nor cellphone. First love was a Rolleiflex TLR; >> more >> recently manual-focus Nikon has been the main medium. > > But the World turns, >> and digital cannot be avoided forever. Which brings me here. > > Mindful of the >> 40 lp/mm limit on amateur photography (with a prime lens, a lightweight >> tripod, and 160 ASA colour print film) only a full-frame sensor will do. >> And >> full-frame DSLRs are heavy: I want something as light as the 25 oz of my >> F3/T; >> but from Nikon, even the D800 weighs 35 oz with battery and memory >> card. > > Hence the attraction of a 21 oz digital Leica M rangefinder. > > Needless >> to say, if anyone has any information or opinion they think will be >> useful, >> I?d be most grateful. > > On Wednesday 23 January 2013, at 01:18 EST, Mark >> Rabiner wrote: > >> To me it really would not make sense for a company I have to >> say I certainly >> respect, Nikon to have their step up lens (from a basic kit >> lens) be a >> looser. If they can make a bottom of the line lens be a solid >> performer then >> why would the totally blow it for people who want to spend >> some real extra >> money and get some glass with more functionality.? > > I?m not >> sure that the 24-120 really is a step up lens. Granted, you can use it as >> one, but I see it as being a specialist lens for people who want to use >> just >> one lens from wide-angle to portrait length. (For which it is a far >> better >> choice than the 28-300.) > > If someone wants to step up from a 24-85 kit lens, I >> would hope they would consider using two zooms: adding the new 70-200 f/4 >> to >> a >> 24-85 kit lens would be a huge improvement. > > If they decide they want a better >> standard zoom, then the 24-70 f/2.8 is far better than a 24-85 kit lens, >> and >> only 50% more expensive than the 24-120. > > If 50% more is too much, then using >> prime lenses would also be far better than a 24-85 kit lens; a set of >> three >> f/1.8s -- 35m, 50mm, and 85mm -- would cost significantly less than a >> 24-120. > > If, after all that, they decide that their needs are best met by a >> 24-120, then fair enough. It?s a specialist lens aimed at specialists >> like >> them. > > Mark also wrote: > >> If you cant shoot Leica than Nikon is not such a >> terrible way to fly. > > Quite so. Though I am considering the converse: if you >> cannot lift a Nikon DSLR system, then Leica might be the best way to >> fly. > > Later, > > Dr Owl > > ---------------------------- > John Owlett, Southampton, >> UK > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See >> http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/