[Kombisaurus]

lol Jules and Matthew. Maybe the forum should be called EVILtalk?

Here's an interesting Open Letter from Luminous Landscape to Leica that discusses their vision of the future of the M-series Rangefinder and its alternatives, such as EVIL/MFT cameras.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays...tter.shtml

Personally I don't get swept away by the whole Leica thing, but I do understand why some people do. I agree that there is something special about some of their lenses, but I don't think they have a monopoly on "magic light". There's something special about Holga and Diana optics too...

Sorry if this is a bit of a thread hijack, but from the open letter I particularly agree with the statement about all current digital cameras being stuck in the film era when it comes to metering and exposure. Most of us know how to expose to the right and then correct levels in post, but often we don't do it because it makes things a bit of a pain. However, any camera that uses Live-view already knows the dynamic range within the entire image and could do this automatically and invisibly, exposing for and storing the "exposed to the right" image internally but displaying the "corrected" image on the LCD. I also don't know why sensors have to have a single ISO limitation and think this is a fim mind-set. Ideally every pixel could have its own ISO, but if not then at least introduce ISO zones in the same way that AF zones or Metering zones work. This would not only optimise noise and dynamic range but also allow the possibility for varying exposure levels within a single shot - the camera could be using the Live-view image as a blueprint to do many things with the final exposure.

[matthew]

Personally I don't get swept away by the whole Leica thing, but I do understand why some people do. I agree that there is something special about some of their lenses, but I don't think they have a monopoly on "magic light". There's something special about Holga and Diana optics too...

Yesterday I saw some photos that were taken with a Fujifilm Instax 200 camera. (These are the instant cameras that look a little like a pool toy and cost about $100, with film being around $1 per exposure.) They come across as a bit of a polaroid/lomo cross, but have a really interesting look and could be a lot of fun.

I'm still befuddled by Leica, and honestly I haven't liked any of the ones that I've handled. (I have to consider the possibility of that being a subconscious wallet-preservation reaction.) I've also been distinctly unimpressed by the viewfinders on a couple of them as well. I have no idea which models, because they all kind of blend together. I've played with the M9 a bit, but that was the only model I know for sure, and I don't remember any specific impressions of it. (At least, none other than "I get to the SD card how???") There's just so much psycho-photographic weight to the whole thing that I don't want to get involved in. But almost against my will, I'm on the verge of knowing the difference between an elmar and an elmarit.

The World of Zeiss seems so much simpler by comparison. It's a modern camera and lens lineup, with none of the presumptions and properness of their compatriot. There's only a couple of duplicated focal lengths (35, 50, & 85mm), but they have such different characters that there's no way to confuse them. And the whole idea of lenses with character is almost charming in its retro appeal. I've decided for certain that my next lens is going to be a Zeiss 35mm f/2 in ZM mount, for the Zeiss Ikon camera that I'll be buying at the same time. I think a 50mm f/1.5 as a second lens would complete my kit, which will give me three lenses - Zeiss humour - and I'll shift a lot of my personal photography over to film.

Sorry if this is a bit of a thread hijack, but from the open letter I particularly agree with the statement about all current digital cameras being stuck in the film era when it comes to metering and exposure.

There's a lot that could withstand updating - because the other problem is that digital cameras are stuck in the computer age. The manual for my D700 is 400 pages long, with massively complicated options and yet I still can't figure out how to get it to work the way I want it to. I literally lose count when I try to total up its buttons and switches. The way complexity piles onto itself makes me think of Mark Twain's quip: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

[matthew]

...but I have to confess that a few days ago, I was thinking about what my hypothetical perfect digital camera would be, and it came out sounding a lot like an M9.

[Toad]

...but I have to confess that a few days ago, I was thinking about what my hypothetical perfect digital camera would be, and it came out sounding a lot like an M9.

The only real problem that I have with the M9 is the price of it and everything associated with it. Is it really as good as a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon DSLR?

[Toad]

Kombi:

Any update on the 14-140 on the GF-1? My wallet is getting itchy...

[matthew]

From what I hear, yes, the M9 is at least as good as the 5D.2 or the D700, and possibly better. (Quite definitely twice as expensive, thought.) And as always, there's some real advantages to the lenses, which are also a little on the `spensive side.

I played with an M7 today, and yes, it's a pretty nice camera - not $5000 worth of nice camera, at least not to me, but that's why they created Zeiss. Next month there's a change in the tax system that will be to my advantage, so I'll be placing an order fairly soon.

... you guys with your GF1+14-140 talk - I couldn't wait to get a 20/1.7 for my GH1, and it hardly ever leaves the camera. Life's funny.

[Toad]

Well let's see - if I was to get an M9, I would need.(in US $)

Camera body: $7000
24mm F2.8 $4000
50mm F1.4 $3700
90mm F2.0 $3700

Gosh - $20K seems like a lot to pay and not even get a real long range telephoto out of the deal. I would have expected the lenses to be autofocus for that price as well - but the M9 doesn't support autofocus. I guess I am just not the target audience.

[shuttertalk]

Wow, at that prices I can't help but think one would become a gear enthusiast rather than a photography enthusiast! :/

[Toad]

... you guys with your GF1+14-140 talk - I couldn't wait to get a 20/1.7 for my GH1, and it hardly ever leaves the camera. Life's funny.

Don't get me wrong. I love the 20mm - but I *know* how much I love my 18-200 on the D200 - so I am pretty sure that I will want the 14-140 (virtually the same range when you do the math) as well.

What I find with telephoto zooms is that its not the distance away from the subject so much as the angle. Sometimes to get the *right* angle on a shot, you have to move way back from the optimum photo position. So - to get the angle and still not have to crop 80% of the photo away, you need the range of a telephoto. In this way, the 20mm can be quite limiting. I expect that it would continue to be my primary street / low light lens - but its nice to have options as well. If there were a faster auto-focus zoom out there with less range - I would seriously consider that as an alternative to the 14-140 - but there isn't. I need the autofocus - my old eyes just aren't up to manually focusing every shot.

[Kombisaurus]

Any update on the 14-140 on the GF-1? My wallet is getting itchy...

Hey Toad. The lens arrived on Monday but I only got a chance to take it for a spin today.
I've written my initial thoughts in a seperate thread so as to not get this thread any further off-track.

CLICK HERE to read about it!

[matthew]

Jules, that's exactly what happens. :/

Rob, don't forget that with a 90mm lens on a Leica, you're composing with just a tiny little part of the frame, and getting precise composition - or focus - is dodgy even with a perfectly adjusted rangefinder. (Unless, of course, you get a Leica customized with the .85 magnification, which isn't a huge loss since you'd need an external finder for the 24mm lens anyway.)

In this way, the 20mm can be quite limiting. I expect that it would continue to be my primary street / low light lens - but its nice to have options as well. If there were a faster auto-focus zoom out there with less range - I would seriously consider that as an alternative to the 14-140 - but there isn't.

I completely agree, and that's ultimately why I'm not 100% convinced that I'd sell the 14-140 from my kit. If the 45-200 was better, or if there was a better/faster tele option that in the 50-150mm range, I'd happily get it instead. For me, once I added a longer or wider lens to my first SLR, I never really went back to the standard zoom range. The 7-14 and 20 does almost everything I want, but occasionally a telephoto is vital. The old Nikon 135/2.8 that I bought as a small(er) replacement for the 14-140 isn't quite what I'm looking for, and it's also quite heavy, but maybe the Zeiss 35/2 and 50/1.5 on an adapter will be enough of a telephoto for me. When I'm in New York this fall, I'd love to have both the Ikon and GH1 systems, and leaving the 14-140 at home would account for half the weight of the film camera and its two lenses.

...and I got to handle a Zeiss Ikon with the 50/1.5 today - it's absolutely my next camera.

I like your write-up, and I'll try out the GF1+14-140 again tomorrow. You might have me convinced.

[Don Schaeffer]

I have been to addiction rehab and I no longer create needs (ha ha). Anyway, what I want next is a new body for the lenses.

[Pavel]

Don, I just need a new body (or go on a diet and exercise more). Lenses? I do not need lenses.

[Don Schaeffer]

Just buy one!

[shuttertalk]

I wonder if EVIL/MFT is the new DSLR?