Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't know about totally effing great, but I have seen a lot of good images taken with these cameras. Good enough to put slide film out of business. And the camera can be carried around without a lot of fuss with no need to fill one's pockets with film. It looks enough like a cheap camera that one won't likely get mugged for it (it's safer to just steal one's sister's point and shoot to buy a rock of crack). Have you seen the results of a raw image from one of these little cameras? It could just make a believer out of you. Jeffery On Apr 15, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: > You guys are only fanning the flames, man. He's gonna come over that > hilltop > like a lion now. > > What you're essentially saying is: this is a totally effing great -- > stupendous -- step up from point and shoot digital pocket cameras, why it's > so well done, it's almost if you close one eye just about as good as a good > APS-C. > > Which is true. > > What Mark is saying is: this is not a serious camera because no amount of > features or good technology can overcome its sensor size issues and if > you're serious as an artist or a professional you should be talking about > something else. > > Which is probably also true. > > Though, to do justice to the camera and to artists in general, a serious > artist can make something lasting out of a stick and a rock. So the m4/3 > cameras are at least good enough to make very good pictures with. Just not > at big enough size/high enough res to pass muster professionally. > > I still expect to hear screams and broken bones in the dark of night > however. > > Vince > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM, David Rodgers <drodgers at > casefarms.com>wrote: > >> I bought a GF-1 because it seemed the most economical way for me to be >> able to use some of my existing lenses -- which quite frankly were >> gathering dust -- as well as replace a 5-year old Fuji P&S. >> >> Micro Four Thirds is better than I anticipated and it has rekindled my >> interest in photography. I'm sure an EP-2 would have done the same. >> >> The image quality from micro Four Thirds format is pretty darn good. >> Where it's lacking, compared to an FX format camera like the D700 is the >> low light capability. Still, Micro Four Thirds is OK at 1600 and really >> good at 400-800. Thus light gathering capability isn't a strength (OTOH, >> after years of shooting Tri_X, it isn't necessarily a weakness either). >> >> Resolution is excellent for such small sized cameras. Image quality is >> closer to an APS-C camera than a P&S, but camera size is closer to a P&S >> than an APS-C camera. >> >> On top of all that there seems to be a lot of R&D surrounding the format >> right now. That's resulting in good optics, good camera features, and >> generally more options from which to choose. >> >> Dave R >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information