[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ever since we got our first digital camera 11 years ago, the pre occupation with the specs (MP, zoom, sensor size, ISO, etc) has really cheapened the art form IMHO; sometimes i wonder if i'd be happy with a film camera(an old M maybe?)... where these additional attributes were of no concern.

The camera you're looking for is the Leica M9. Time to sell a kidney.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The camera you're looking for is the Leica M9. Time to sell a kidney.

… and your firstborn if you want a lens

[Phileas]

Another option, if you're willing to go the film route, is a 1970's rangefinder. Yashica, Canon, Olympus all put well designed, well specced cameras on the market that had one thing in common: Fast, sharp lenses.



I own a Yashica Electra with a 45mm f/1.7 lens that is an absolute pleasure to use and about as simple as they come. I love shooting with that camera. Here's an in depth review: Is The Yashica Electro the best deal in rangefinder photography? By Ricky Opaterny | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

If you're interested exploring that world, and it can be done on a very small budget, here's are two good starting points:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/yashica/electro-35.htm
Compact 35 Rangefinders

Enjoy.

PS: If you really want to show the world that you're serious about this stuff, get yourself a Contax G System Camera. Stunning Zeiss glass most of today's camera's can only dream of, with a fast, reliable rangefinder body.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/contax/g-system.htm



PPS: Every now and then I look at auctions like this and find myself severely tempted: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Exc-Contax-G2...#ht_8805wt_950

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

PS: If you really want to show the world that you're serious about this stuff, get yourself a Contax G System Camera. Stunning Zeiss glass most of today's camera's can only dream of, with a fast, reliable rangefinder body.

Honestly, i really dont want to "show" anyone anything. Im not trying to make any statement with the tool. All im looking for is a machine capable of recording images; images i can look at 10 years from now and not see any "technical" deficiency with.

Besides, the only people i know who have even heard of leica are friends who are professional photographers. Most of my peers are content with humongous DSLRs, i want something noone will notice, is small and light, simple and easy, and has outstanding image quality; a camera not a "gadget".

Example: I was looking at the pictures Norman Seeff took of Jobs in the mid 80s, and they look outstanding even today. And those images can be printed into posters!

BTW, this might seem stupid, but is there a "resolution" associated with film?

[Phileas]

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you're buying a camera to show off - the Contax G2 is genuinely one of the best rangefinder cameras ever made, with a fine set of glass. I'd love to own one myself.

You do sound to me like somebody who'd enjoy shooting film. I myself shoot at least one roll of Fuji Velvia at important occasions, like my children's birthdays. Reason? Longevity. I have no idea what electronic format we'll be using in 20 years time to store images, but I've got 30 year old film from when I got my first camera as a teen that I can scan just fine.

You can pick up a great little rangefinder on ebay for less than $100. Why not give it a shot, see if you like it? If not, back on ebay it goes.

Ken Rockwell has a great article on this: Film: The Real Raw

To answer your resolution question, read this: Film Resolution: The Pixel Count of Film
A 4x5 sheet of film, scanned in a top of range scanner, will yield over 2GB of data.

[subego]

His numbers are accurate but he's choosing ridiculous film to make the comparison.

Tri-X 400 has about 65lpmm, unlike that crazy Fuji he picked which is 300+.

35mm Tri-X tops out at under 4MP.

36mm x 65lpmm = 2,340 pixels across
24mm x 65lpmm = 1,560 pixels down
2,340 pixels x 1,560 pixels = 3,650,400 = 3.7MP


Film has much better color depth though, no question.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I have no idea what electronic format we'll be using in 20 years time to store images, but I've got 30 year old film from when I got my first camera as a teen that I can scan just fine.

I'm going to be more contrary and say this isn't a problem as long as you convert your RAW to Adobe DNG. JPEG is fine as it is.

JPEG is basically permanent at this point. There's no upside to leaving out JPEG compatibility. DNG is a little more niche, but if Adobe dropped out of vogue for some reason, coders would line up to provide conversion tools to the new flavor.

[Phileas]

Oh, he's choosing his facts carefully for sure.

But, that film is readily available and with a half decent 30 year old $100 camera you'll be creating images with a colour and detail depth that can be the equal, if not better, of a top of the range DSLR.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am no hard core "film is better" fanatic. 90% of everything I shoot is digital, with the remaining 10% shot on film partly for archival reasons, partly just because I enjoy fiddling around with old cameras, and partly because it keeps the skills alive - to this day I can tell you in pretty much any light what your exposure should be without needing to bother with metering.

I do occasionally bemoan the disappearance of the big old pro labs, where you could drop off ten rolls, go for a pint and a pizza and pick them up just the way you wanted them done, because they knew you and your shooting style from years of working together. I do miss the ritual of getting the sheets back, grabbing a lightbox and a loupe and checking the results.

Importing into Aperture doesn't have the same feel to it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

BTW, this might seem stupid, but is there a "resolution" associated with film?

Film has lower resolution that what you can get with film -- and the noise is much worse, too. I have had a ISO125 (Ilford FP4 Plus) b&w negative scanned at 16 MP, and the grain was »huge«. In the picture I chose to have scanned, the grain actually added to the photo, but still, I think if a digital camera showed this amount of noise, many posters in photography forums would deem it unfit for serious work

Ditto for resolution: modern high-end digital cameras have higher resolution than film. Nikon's D800(E), and I think you'd have to go medium/large format to get the same amount of usable resolution. If I remember correctly from tests in old photo mags I used to read, most low-ISO films I could get in usual stores have had a resolution of 100~150 lines per mm (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The simplest limitation are regular film scanners (I'm not talking about drum scanners) is resolution which hovers at around 3200-4000 dpi. At 4000 dpi you obtain 21.4 megapixels, i. e. about 150 lines per mm. However, this does not necessarily mean you have 21.4 megapixels of real resolution, depending on the film you use, you may very well have less. E. g. high-ISO film has much more pronounced grain (you can already see it clearly on 10x15 cm^2 prints). Film is much more sensitive, though: the resolution may depend on how the film was processed (incorrectly processed film is more grainy -- unless having more grain is your intention). The film needs to be properly placed in the photographic plane (some more expensive Contax cameras »sucked the film in« for optimal image quality) and with films, resolution isn't the only variable, it's also about ISO, color rendition and b&w vs. color.

So why didn't we see all this earlier? Well, most people used to print their pictures 10x15 cm^2 which at 300 dpi takes about 3 megapixels. That was also a reason why »lenses were better«: the optical system didn't have the resolving power to show optical flaws of lenses which are obvious when you use a 16+ MP sensor. Digital cameras nowadays make it much easier to get great shots. Much easier. We can change ISO at a whim rather than having to either finish a roll (cheap camera) or rewind film and use a different one (expensive cameras often had an option to leave a bit of film outside the cartridge when rewinding). Better not forget how many shots you already took on that particular roll

Personally, I think if you choose to shoot film these days, you're doing it because you want to take pictures slowly and deliberately.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Oh, he's choosing his facts carefully for sure.

But, that film is readily available and with a half decent 30 year old $100 camera you'll be creating images with a colour and detail depth that can be the equal, if not better, of a top of the range DSLR.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am no hard core "film is better" fanatic. 90% of everything I shoot is digital, with the remaining 10% shot on film partly for archival reasons, partly just because I enjoy fiddling around with old cameras, and partly because it keeps the skills alive - to this day I can tell you in pretty much any light what your exposure should be without needing to bother with metering.

I do occasionally bemoan the disappearance of the big old pro labs, where you could drop off ten rolls, go for a pint and a pizza and pick them up just the way you wanted them done, because they knew you and your shooting style from years of working together. I do miss the ritual of getting the sheets back, grabbing a lightbox and a loupe and checking the results.

Importing into Aperture doesn't have the same feel to it.

...and have them accidentally **** up a whole roll.

I'm actually with you on the difference in process, but I think you may be using rose colored lenses on the archiving front.

An archival scheme of which you can make infinite copies without any degradation seems to beat the pants off a scheme using a single unique physical object which requires handling and a mechanical process to make useful for anything other than archiving.

[Phileas]

@Oreo Cookie


It all depends on the resolution of the film. No two films are alike. Check Ken Rockwell's article and subego's rebuttal above.

Your Ilford FP4 delivers 110lpmm.

36mm x 110lpmm = 3960 across
24mm x 110lpmm = 2640 down

Final resolution at max scan = 10,454,400 pixels.

FP4 shot at rated sensitivity and properly developed should not deliver huge grain. Not in any way doubting your results, just a bit surprised.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by subego 

but I think you may be using rose colored lenses on the archiving front.

I don't know. I own several boxes of Victorian glass negatives, about 130 years old, in excellent quality. I'll wonder if there'll still be jpgs around in 2150.

But you're right, a huge part of shooting film today is just nostalgia. When it comes down to it, I really shoot film, occasionally, because I enjoy the process.

[OreoCookie]

I'm glad I got the resolutions right.

Originally Posted by Phileas 

FP4 shot at rated sensitivity and properly developed should not deliver huge grain. Not in any way doubting your results, just a bit surprised.

Yes, I suspect the film has been incorrectly developed, but since you cannot revert to the master and start developing the film from scratch, that's the material I have to work with.

I printed it as 60x90 cm^s, so perhaps that exaggerated the graininess a bit.

Here is a 100 % crop:

I'm not unhappy with the shot, quite the contrary, hand-held with a Nikon F80 and a 28-70 mm f/2.8 Tokina Pro SV zoom (damn good lens). The grain gives the shot more character. I'm just saying that if that (initially ~16 MP) picture came out of a modern dslr, people would declare it unfit for anything serious.

I really loved Ilford FP4 Plus, it was my favorite b&w film and I've used it to no end on my parent's Contax.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I don't know. I own several boxes of Victorian glass negatives, about 130 years old, in excellent quality. I'll wonder if there'll still be jpgs around in 2150.

But you're right, a huge part of shooting film today is just nostalgia. When it comes down to it, I really shoot film, occasionally, because I enjoy the process.

First off, when it comes to film-film, the only thing I really still want to get my hands on is a giant-format camera which uses glass plates. One does not truly comprehend the notion of detail and resolution until you see one of these.

Second off, don't archive in lossy formats. I know you know this, but I have to say it anyway.

Third, JPEG is never going away. It'll need to stay around merely for historical purposes.

I can't say that about DNG, as Adobe goes, so does DNG, but it's popular enough I'll have years to transcode it to the new flavor before utilities to do so become hard to find.

Make no mistake, there are a lot of dead formats out there, but that's an artifact of the infancy of computing. Formats like DNG (let alone JPEG) have reached the point where there are more people who could code a conversion utility than were actually using 3/4 of those dead formats put together.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm glad I got the resolutions right.

Yes, I suspect the film has been incorrectly developed...

Something's definitely amiss. You should have smaller grain on film that slow. That looks closer to 400/800.

[Phileas]

A friend of mine owns a large format camera. Not glass, just film. The detail is nothing short of incredible. I also really want to play with a giant Polaroid. I've seen samples that were just amazing.

[Hawkeye_a]

Just out of curiosity, do you guys find yourselves using an OVF/EVF(where you have to actually hold the camera up to your eye) on your compact (smaller than DSLR) cameras?

[subego]

I use an iPhone, so no.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Just out of curiosity, do you guys find yourselves using an OVF/EVF(where you have to actually hold the camera up to your eye) on your compact (smaller than DSLR) cameras?

Most compacts have no OVF/EVF, and the ones that do have very shitty ones. My current compact (a Sigma DP1) and my iPhone don't have either. To be honest, I don't like composing with the external lcd, the photos have a different feel. When I use my dslr, I feel like I've merged with my camera. With my compacts, it feels like the camera is something external.

Shooting with the X100s and other rangefinder-style cameras feels similarly natural to me with the added benefit that I can see a little »outside« of the frame I shoot so that I can anticipate shots a bit better.

[Phileas]

I've got a EVF for my Lumix GF1 that I use whenever possible, despite the fact that it's not all that great. Like Oreo says, it just feels better.

[Hawkeye_a]

Elmarit 28mm(Amazon)

Is that the same lens that's in the X2? Whats the deal with the price?

Cheers

[subego]

No. Different lens.

The sensor in the M is large, so you need a bigger lens to cover it all.

The larger the pieces of glass, the more difficult it is to properly grind into shape (more duds). The more duds you'll have, the more it costs in terms of time and materials.


The reason you would want that is the ability to get less depth of field. The bigger the sensor, the less you'll have in focus at any given f-stop.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Is that the same lens that's in the X2? Whats the deal with the price?

That's an M-System lens. Flagship material. Anything M-System costs a firstborn, an arm or a leg. Sometimes all three.

Oh, and that particular lens is considered a budget choice.

[Hawkeye_a]

Just realize the X2 has a 24mm Elmarit, and the one linked above is a 28mm.

This is the 24mm... Elmarit 24mm M(Amazon)

Cheers

PS>>You can get by just fine on one kidney right?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Honestly, micro four thirds is your camera if budget is at all a consideration. I'm somewhat confused that you don't seemed to have considered that format at all.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Just realize the X2 has a 24mm Elmarit, and the one linked above is a 28mm.

This is the 24mm... Elmarit 24mm M(Amazon)

Cheers

PS>>You can get by just fine on one kidney right?

That's not the same lens. The above lens is another M-System lens. Just because they are both called Elmarit, doesn't mean they are related.

Elmarit is a Leica trademark - Leica have been naming lenses since the 1920's. Examples are Summicron (the best of the best), Elmar, Noctilux and others.

Elmarit are popular lenses for the following focal lengths: 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 90mm. But a 24mm M-System Elmarit and a 24mm X2 Elmarit are two very different pieces of glass.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Honestly, micro four thirds is your camera if budget is at all a consideration. I'm somewhat confused that you don't seemed to have considered that format at all.

I realize that MFT is a step up from where I am (tiny sensor), and that APS-C is a step up from that, and above that is full frame. I don't want to take small steps when we're talking about this kind of investment; only to want to take another step in a couple of years. (Sort of trying to get ahead of myself ).

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Elmarit are popular lenses for the following focal lengths: 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 90mm. But a 24mm M-System Elmarit and a 24mm X2 Elmarit are two very different pieces of glass.

That begs the question, how would you tell them apart? (what physical specification of the 'glass'? diameter?) I understand the mounting systems would be different, obviously. Or are the names 'Elmarit', etc... just a way of denoting the 'grade'(quality) or the manufacturing process?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I realize that M43 is a step up from where I am (tiny sensor), and that APS-C is a step up from that, and above that is full frame. I don't want to take small steps when we're talking about this kind of investment; only to want to take another step in a couple of years. (Sort of trying to get ahead of myself ).

MFT and DSLR compliment each other. You won't stop using the MFT when you get a DSLR.

I know plenty of pros who have bought MFTs. They already have DSLRs but want the MFT for the compact size.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

That begs the question, how would you tell them apart? (what physical specification of the 'glass'? diameter?) I understand the mounting systems would be different, obviously. Or are the names 'Elmarit', etc... just a way of denoting the 'grade'(quality) or the manufacturing process?

Leica aren't going to put a lens that costs $5000 on a camera that sells for $2000.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Leica aren't going to put a lens that costs $5000 on a camera that sells for $2000.

Too good to be true eh?

Im just wondering what's the difference, apart from the mounting mechanism.

[subego]

The aforementioned bigger glass, probably better glass (and coatings), as well as better performance at the edge of the envelope.

Lenses are not as sharp when you have the aperture all the way open. This is a problem you can throw money at to make better.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Or are the names 'Elmarit', etc... just a way of denoting the 'grade'(quality) or the manufacturing process?

Yes, that too. The names indicate specific usage and/or quality and/or size of lens. The name/trademark never identifies any particular lens design, in fact, the same trademarks are used for all focal lengths, and even in different lens mounts.

Rather than retyping all the info, I am just going to copy it from Ken Rockwell's (opinionated) page here:

SUMMICRON: f/2

The SUMMICRON is the best lens made by LEICA — or anyone — in any particular era.

The SUMMICRON, at a fast f/2, is at least twice as fast as any professional zoom lens, and more than fast enough for any use in almost any light.

More important than high speed, the SUMMICRON offers the highest optical performance of any lens, and remains reasonably compact at the same time.

If you demand the sharpest lens for your LEICA, it is the SUMMICRON.

The SUMMICRON was first created in 50mm in 1953, followed by 35mm and 90mm in 1958 and 40mm in 1973. The newest SUMMICRON is the 28mm, created in 2000.

SUMMICRONs demand such high performance that these are the only focal lengths in which man can create them — today.

The SUMMICRON is LEICA's best lens for almost all photography: LEICA's highest optical performance with ample speed in a compact package. The SUMMICRON offers the best combination of performance factors. Every other LEICA lens give up something in return for a little more in just one area. For instance, the SUMMILUX offers more speed, but has to sacrifice size and weight and historically lower optical performance for that one rarely used stop of speed.



SUMMILUX: f/1.4

LEICA's f/1.4 SUMMILUX are ultra-speed lenses optimized for low-light photography. They are bigger, heavier and more expensive than the SUMMICRON, with slightly diminished optical performance.

The SUMMILUX are also very popular for general use, even though their optical performance laggs slightly behind the SUMMICRON.

The first SUMMILUX was the 50mm of 1959, followed by a new 50mm SUMMILUX design in 1961, whose optics remained unchanged until replaced by the 50mm SUMMILUX-M ASPH of 2004.

The 35mm SUMMILUX was created in 1960, and remained unchanged until replaced by today's aspherical versions born in the 1990s.

SUMMILUX of extreme focal lengths (21mm, 24mm and 75mm) have been created more for the desiccated vaults of collectors than to be carried in the pockets of real photographers. These extreme SUMMILUX are too big and heavy for true LEICA photography.



ELMARIT: f/2.8

The ELMARIT are popular lenses for the extreme focal lengths: 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 90mm. The ELMARIT has also come in 135mm super-telephoto.



ELMAR: f/4

ELMAR are tiny, high-performance lenses that embody all that is LEICA: high performance in the smallest possible package.

The ELMAR has also been created in f/2.8 lenses, for instance, LEICA's superb 50mm f/2.8 ELMARs.



NOCTILUX: f/1

NOCTILUX are oversized, special-purpose ultra-speed lenses designed originally for use in extremely low-light. Today, with advances in modern emulsions and "digital" capture, the NOCTILUX is favored mostly by rich collectors. It is too big and blocks too much of the finder for it to be of interest to photographers, for whom the SUMMICRON and SUMMILUX offer more than enough speed, without the size, weight, finder bloockage and increased distortion of the NOCTILUX.



SUMMARIT: f/1.5 and f/2.5

The SUMMARIT was born as LEICA's fastest lens in 1949, at f/1.5. It was replaced by the SUMMILUX.

When LEICA decided to introduce a line of cheap lenses in 2007, it recycled the SUMMARIT name for these f/2.5 lenses. No one buys LEICA based on price; people who buy LEICA demand the best, and thus most of today's SUMMARIT-M lenses remain unsold. Duh.



HEKTOR

HEKTOR was the name of The Prophet's dog, and was the name reserved for LEICA's lowest-performance lenses.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

That begs the question, how would you tell them apart? (what physical specification of the 'glass'? diameter?) I understand the mounting systems would be different, obviously. Or are the names 'Elmarit', etc... just a way of denoting the 'grade'(quality) or the manufacturing process?

It boils down to the basic economics of building lenses. Basically, you have to balance four factors:
(1) complexity
(2) quality control
(3) price
(4) weight

Obviously, a more complex optical design typically adds weight and makes quality control harder; plus, it also costs more. So not all Leica lenses are built equal: if you give Leica a certain budget, they can only do so much to give you a lens that meets the price and weight requirements. Quality control usually lies with someone else if they don't manufacture the lens themselves. Quality control is one of the reasons Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses are cheaper, although especially Sigma is making an effort lately to improve its quality control at the expense of higher prices.

The second story is that lens design has changed tremendously after the mainstream market has gone digital. Not only are most sensors smaller, digital sensors have different requirements than film. One of the most interesting consequences is, however, that many optical flaws (especially distortion and vignetting) can be equally well corrected in software. Fuji makes use of that with its X-mount lenses. This leads to simpler, lighter lenses which are also cheaper to make.

That's another reason why Leica can (and presumably does) the same thing here with the X2: instead of going with a lens design derived from its expensive M-series (which has its roots firmly in the film era), it goes for a lens that is optimized for a smaller sensor under the assumption that certain flaws of the optics will be corrected in software later.

[Phileas]

Indeed. Weirdly enough, while lens design has moved forward in leaps and bounds in the last 20 years, digital in camera processing has made much of that progress an optional luxury. Why spend millions to finetune a lens, when a couple of lines of code can just mask the flaw just as effectively?

[OreoCookie]

Purists will complain, but IMO whatever gets the job done is permissible. Some reviews test these lenses twice, once with and once without the automatic software corrections. I'm on the fence on this, because on the one hand you want to separate the optics from whatever is behind the optics and it is interesting from an academic point of view what properties the lens has. But on the other hand, the lens was supposed to be used only in conjunction with the automatic corrections.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I realize that MFT is a step up from where I am (tiny sensor), and that APS-C is a step up from that, and above that is full frame. I don't want to take small steps when we're talking about this kind of investment; only to want to take another step in a couple of years. (Sort of trying to get ahead of myself ).

Originally Posted by subego 

MFT and DSLR compliment each other. You won't stop using the MFT when you get a DSLR.

I know plenty of pros who have bought MFTs. They already have DSLRs but want the MFT for the compact size.

What sub said. You seem to be viewing your "scale" as some sort of Linear Path of Excellence; once you graduate to "full frame", then that's it, endpoint. I do not think it works, like you seem to think it works.

The other point is that you've essentially spent 3 pages obsessing over specs, whilst stating that you don't like the current obsession over specs in modern cameras; and then in the end, you didn't find (or could not afford) the idealized perfect camera, and got nothing instead. In the meantime, you could have spent a grand on a MFT with a fantastic lens or two, and been out taking pictures which almost certainly will not push the technical and subjective boundaries of what your new camera is capable of delivering.

(Assuming you're not a professional photographer. Similar to what sub also noted, the only two professional or semi-pro photographers I know [i.e. people or companies regularly pay them money to purchase their pictures] now own MFT cameras and shoot with them regularly when the situation permits; one of them recently vacationed to Europe with her MFT and a few lenses as her sole camera. I've talked to both of these people about cameras and I've seen their pictures and I know they're incredibly knowledgeable and capable of taking amazing shots in many different situations. I've taken it all to mean that I will likely never, ever encounter a situation in which my MFT is simply "not good enough" to properly capture the image I want; it's instead very likely that I'm the weakest link.)

I suggest simply buying a great camera - there are many out there now - and snapping away. Good luck.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I suggest simply buying a great camera - there are many out there now - and snapping away. Good luck.

This is really good advice.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The other point is that you've essentially spent 3 pages obsessing over specs, whilst stating that you don't like the current obsession over specs in modern cameras;

If the lack of zoom, benefits of a VF and quality of a lens is an obsession with specs, then sure. I think i've been trying to understand the language to analyzing the compromises, instead of just diving in and spending a couple of grand on what the first person suggests. I'm trying to see what would be best suited for my usecases (travel, family, street, landscapes). A big(and good) sensor and a sharp lens in a small box is what I know I want. The rest is just jazz.

A MFT is better than what I currently own, but an APSC is better. Considering I can afford either, if everything else(size, etc) is equal, why would I choose a MFT?(And i definitely do not want a system, just like i don't want an 'upgradable PC')

I dont need a new camera to start taking pictures, I can do that with what I currently own . I do have some travel plans coming up, and i'd like the best apparatus I can afford to capture those memories.

[Hawkeye_a]

June 11th, New Leica to be revealed.(via Steve Huff)

Boy am I glad I was so indecisive; even though chances are this will be priced out of range as well

EDIT>>it's kinda strange that i'm more excited about this than I had been for any Apple keynote over the past two years.

[Phileas]

Thing is, for most of the cameras discussed, the weakest link will be you, not the camera. Meaning, the quality of the images will be limited more by your talent than by the technology available.

I don't mean this to be in any way condescending or insulting, the same is true for the vast majority of photographers, myself very much included.

By all means, wait for the latest Leica or the next Fuji, but don't think for a second that this will result in better images.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I don't mean this to be in any way condescending or insulting, the same is true for the vast majority of photographers, myself very much included.

By all means, wait for the latest Leica or the next Fuji, but don't think for a second that this will result in better images.

QFT.

It's incredible what kind of cameras you can get these days. To be honest, my D7000 is almost without weakness. While my previous dslr had weak off-center AF points, the D7000 is faster than I need it to be, extremely accurate and reliable, the battery lasts longer than I need it to be (consistently >1000 shots, the record was ~1700 photos on one charge) and I can use ISO 3,200 without any hesitation. Whoever has used film and still remembers how ridiculous it sounds that people are bickering about the noise profile at ISO 6,400 will know what kind of achievement that is. The only thing I miss is a smaller form factor, but that's not the fault of the D7000, it is what it is, a dslr.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Thing is, for most of the cameras discussed, the weakest link will be you, not the camera. Meaning, the quality of the images will be limited more by your talent than by the technology available.

You fiend! Speak for yourself!

I wonder if this announcement will have something to do with Jonny Ive. I remember hearing that he was going to design something for them, or something to that effect.

[Phileas]

I just loaded my Yashica with Kodak Ektar 100. Time to grab some snaps.

[OreoCookie]

Ok, I got weak and visited my favorite photo store yesterday, and guess what, they had a display model of the X100s at a 20 % discount (95,000 ¥). I of course went for the full banana (leather case, lens hood), and I paid about as much as the full retail price of the camera!

Last night, I went out for dinner with friends and shot a few frames, and I must say the quality is amazing. I thought my D7000 handles high ISO values like a champ, but the X100s is from another universe. Most of the shots yesterday were taken at ISO 4000, and the amount of detail, the skin tones, everything is just impressive. The autofocus is spot on even when it's dark.

I'm still not fluent in the camera UI (obviously), but after a few tweaks, I got it to 90 %: I silenced all the sounds (come one, this is a camera for pros and semipros, we don't need artificial shutter sounds!), switched the AF to manual and figured out how to switch to the correct RAW format (first, I shot jpg, then RAW + jpg).

The only thing I'll probably get is a third-party battery -- or two.

[mattyb]

Pictures !!!!!! We want pictures !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

[angelmb]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - X Vario

[OreoCookie]

Happy to oblige
All shots have been taken at ISO4000. The first two are in-camera jpgs accidentally taken at lower resolution. The last one is a straight-forward RAW conversion with absolutely zero tweaks. The first two are taken at f/2, the last one at f/4. Click in the photos for a full res version.




I have had some more chances to shoot with the camera, and the more I use it, the more I fall in love. For instance, even when using the optical viewfinder, I get a brief image review for 0.5 s. That's enough to change the exposure compensation (I love that dial!) and take another shot. Focus so far has been very reliable and more than speedy enough.

I know that I will need to experiment quite a bit more: I want to dabble into manual focusing (I've read some people use manual focus in conjunction with the AF button -- that seems like a very, very interesting way to use the X100s). The size and weight feel perfect. Eventually, I will also buy a cable to use my SB-700 off-camera. Since the X100s has a leaf shutter, I can use the flash at all shutter speeds!

[subego]

Are the hangers actually for coats, or is that just a design motif?

I like that shot a lot BTW.

No problem shooting JPEG if you nail the exposure like you did.

[OreoCookie]

Thanks.
Yes, the portrait over dinner (the coat hanger is not just decoration by the way) was one of the first photos taken with the camera. Default exposure, default jpg conversion, nothing tweaked (with the exception of the lower resolution ). When I saw it appear on the lcd, I knew life was good and I made the right choice.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Leica Camera AG - Photography - X Vario

First thing that comes to mind for me is how slow the lens is. Really slow.