Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/02/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Feb 25, 2014, at 9:32 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > OK lets see I've gone out and spent seven grand usd on a Leica M40 to > enable > my tens of thousands of dollars of Leica glass but wait! Its a bit heavy!! > I'll just have to LEAVE IT AT HOME and carry a camera two formats smaller > instead! Nobody can tell the difference right! > NOT going to happen. > And if nobody can tell the difference why am I so heavily invested in full > frame? > > By the way there is a format between 2x and 1x corp. and Its 1.5 crop and > remains the most popular selling of DSLR cameras and certainly gives more > bang for the buck than any other format and lits looking like mirrorless > soon too. Many of these cameras exist in systems where you can use your > full > frame glass on them. They are nicely just a bit lighter and smaller. They > don't seem like something which came out of a box of Cracker Jacks. And in > a > studio strobe or otherwise non low light situation especially where you can > use the lowest iso' s they really may not tell the difference so much. Like > on the beach. At high noon. > But to split that in half and go further smaller with the inane 4/3's > format > calling it comparable to the work of top full frame cameras is really too > much. > A really great use for a camera half half frame (2x crop) is to put in > your > jeans pocket like a Minox which it would hopefully be the same size as. Or > the same size more realistically of a Rollei 35. Which come to think of it > is a full frame camera. > In other words a near sub compact format sensor belongs in a near sub > compact camera body... Mark, imho, these considerations and issues remain secondary, it's all about the photo that you produce in a given situation. Steve > > > On 2/25/14 9:58 PM, "Jim Laurel (gmail)" <jplaurel at gmail.com> wrote: > >> My photography interests are pretty varied so I'm maintaining a complete >> Leica >> M9/M240 digital system, a Canon 5Dmk3 system, and a Micro 4/3 system with >> the >> Olympus OMD EM-1. We do a lot of diving and my wife insists on a >> full-frame >> system so she uses the 5Dmk3s, but I think she is slowly succumbing to the >> siren call of Micro 4/3 because it is getting increasingly difficult to >> tell >> the difference between our results underwater, not to mention that the >> many >> usability advantages of the EM-1 often make it easier to get the shot at >> all. >> It's no wonder they are currently outselling DLSRs by 6 to 1 for this >> application. I can choose to either use my EM-1 or our 2nd 5DMK3 body >> underwater, yet I choose the M4/3 simply because of usability, which is a >> huge >> asset in that environment. Quality is already good enough with the EM-5 >> and >> even better with the EM-1. Frankly, people are incredulous about the >> results >> we are getting with M4/3 underwater these days and many are rethinking >> whether >> the better IQ of full frame is really worth the incredible hassle and >> expense >> of getting it to some of the more remote diving destinations. >> >> I'm trying to do more landscapes these days, especially infrared >> landscapes. >> So when I have the luxury of working out of a car, and weight doesn't >> matter, >> I have started to use the 5dMK3 system again. In fact, I just added the >> 17mm >> and 24mm TS-E lenses to our kit for just this purpose. Also, we are >> preparing >> to do some landscape astrophotography and the Canon is simply the best >> tool >> for the job. >> >> With the advent of the Leica M240, the M system finally becomes truly >> viable >> for landscape work. The EVF means I can frame accurately and position >> things >> like grads properly. The R to M adapter makes it possible to use >> telephotos >> and focus them accurately. Unfortunately, it doesn't looks like it will >> ever >> be a suitable tool for landscape astro because none of the M wide angles >> (24 >> and wider) are well-corrected enough for coma to work well. >> >> The point of all this is horses for courses. If I'm on a dive trip, I'm >> shooting M4/3 both above and below the water. If it's nighttime >> landscapes, or >> landscapes where I can accommodate the weight and bulk, it's the Canon. >> If I >> were going on a long trip during which I was doing a lot of walking >> during the >> day and wanted the finest IQ, I'd go for the M240. If it is a long >> through-hike like 800km on the Camino de Santiago, which is a mix of >> candids, >> landscapes in all sorts of light in in all sorts of weather conditions, >> I'm >> taking an EM-5 or EM-1. And for everything else, general shooting around >> home, >> I'm usually grabbing the EM-1 just because of all the cameras I have at my >> disposal, none are as flexible, easy to use or as fun to use as the OMD >> EM-1. >> >> This argument that people have about full-frame vs APS-C vs M4/3 is >> ridiculous >> because each of those systems has its place. Of the three, APS-C probably >> makes the least sense IMO, because it occupies this nether world in which >> the >> smaller sensor doesn't bring any corresponding reductions in weight or >> bulk - >> the worst of both worlds. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information