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 meant to say 20/1.7, that 1.7 made me say 17. Jeffery On Apr 15, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Richard Taylor wrote: > Micro-4/3rds cameras are certainly serious cameras, it's just a question > of what your needs or desires are. If I were a professional and needed to > satisfy editors who demanded full-frame quality, I'd have full-frame > camera, too. > > Regards, > > Dick > > > > On Apr 15, 2010, at 4:15 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information