J A C S: Lenses?
@leiduowen. There's nothing wrong with your English or understanding of it.
@ JD Thomas. I'd like to know what is oddball or weird about these older Russian lenses? The 28mm Orion-15 is a copy of the Zeiss Biogon, as is, I believe, the 35mm Jupiter-12, the 50mm Jupiter-8 is a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar, as is the 135mm f4 Jupiter. Nothing oddball or weird about the Zeiss designs, then.
However, I do accept that they do not now come up to what we expect from a modern day lens and so their imaging characteristics may not appeal to all. But this is when using them on digital cameras and where I have found them something lacking, excepting the 35mm which i can't test on my A7 due to its protruding rear element. However, used with film, as my lenses were back in the day when only film was available, they proved to be exceptional performers using b/w negative stock and K25. I'm lucky in having acquired them in the 1970's and QC isn't an issue for me, as I know it can be for some units.
wherearemyshorts: "the rangefinder system will operate not with mirrors and prisms, as most rangefinders do, but with twin imaging sensors that overlay their images to produce the same dual image effect in the viewfinder."
Away go batteries done the drain. Battery life is bad enough on mirrorless cameras. Now another way to drain the battery.
Actually, the cam is a non-issue. The range of movement of the cam in an M lens is the same irrespective of the focal length. So, even though the distance a lens may have to be racked in and out will vary depending upon its focal length, the cam always moves by the same amount and, hence, why the cam follower, which is the arm which actually moves the range finder optics, always moves by the same amount to.
The limited range of movement of the cam follower is what determines the limited close focusing distance of a lens and will help to explain why telephoto M lenses can't focus as close as their slr counterparts and in which the focusing helicoid can have a longer throw. I hope this helps.
Franka T.L.: Unless there's something magical about that sensor I fail to see a point here
@JD Thomas. Assuming your command of English IS as good as you pontificate elsewhere, then you would realise what is meant when the word "magic" is used in this context.
I understand what Franka T.L. meant and it is this: the sensor would have to have some special and desirable characteristics, over and above what is presently available and which would, therefore, tempt buyers.
If it were merely "ordinary" what would its appeal be?
ottonis: I am sceptical because of two reasons:
In rangefinder cameras the VF is optical. Some people do really prefer to have direct optical view. This camera however is supposed to have an electronic rangefinder, which may turn off some potential customers.
Secondly, a FF sensor with a DR of 11 stops is quite mediocre as per today's standards.
So, the only truly compelling strength of this camera might be an affordable price that's not only much cheaper than LEICA but that also would compete with today's entry level FF cameras such as the A7 (mark I), which sells for a grand.
Anyways, competition is always a great thing, so let's sit back and see what this new gem will actually bring to the table.
MOST r/f cameras use optical range-finding, but not the Contax G series, which uses electronic.
As Graham Austin has already pointed out, the omission of 3G/4G connectivity seems to be a shot in the foot by Samsung. Only having a wi-fi connection seriously hampers its use by the very segment of the market that has made smart camera phones de rigeur: the ability to INSTANTLY share images with friends.
R Stacy: I'm not sure what to take from this article. Upgrade paths have always been a complex affair and something most of us have struggled with the last decade or so.
I can appreciate the pros and cons mentioned, and most folk will discover the differences and compromises of interest... hopefully before they lay out the big bucks.
Going to FF for the first time is still not exactly cheap, especially so if you don't have compatible lenses. Even with Sony's most excellent mirrorless FE system (and lens adapters) first thing you know you gotta have some of them also most excellent Zeiss lenses... (I know :).
What I read into the article is that many must view FF as an inevitable path they must take, as though it was the Holy Grail of digital imaging. But they can be mistaken in this belief. It is like when I am asked by people who I know are not into photography which DSLR they should buy. I say why a DSLR? And usually, the answer is something along the lines this is what they feel they need as they've read in photographic publications they are the best. It is only when we discuss what they want to USE the camera for that they come to the conclusion that the DSLR may not be for them.
And as for me? Well I use both formats in my Sony 5N and A7, but I am now asking myself the question: did I really need to go FF when I go over the 5N images?
victoria1: I shoot with a Canon 6D, having come from a 50D, which is a crop sensor. I changed for the sake of the better ISO performance. I found that 800iso on the crop sensor was too crunchy for me. Maybe other crop sensor bodies do it better, but I am much more satisfied with image quality of the 6D. But don't let them tell you that there is no noise at 1600iso because there is, and I try to keep my ISO at or below 400, usually by stopping down. But don't be put off 1600, just don't expect miracles but do expect better than from a crop sensor.
What I do miss, though, is the depth of field of a crop sensor. F5.6 or f8 used to be enough but no more, and lenses start to get a bit soft from f11, so I just don't get that sharp foreground and background in landscapes anymore; however, the upside is that putting the background out of focus is much easier with a FF sensor, so I play to its strengths, and with a fast, sharp lens, make sure I make the most of those creamy backgrounds.
You were doing fine until you introduced the small car analogy. :D)
There must be many, younger, photographers today, who have been reading a lot of nonsense when it comes to DoF. A few years ago, I even saw stated in a well-respected UK photographic magazine that DoF was dependent upon sensor size. What a load of codswallop. DoF is a function of the coming together of 4 optical features: focal length, aperture, distance focused on, and the circle of confusion adopted as a measure of acceptable sharpness.
So a 25mm lens on an APS-C body or FF will, if set to the same parameters, provide the same DoF. The sensor plays no part in DoF, except as you point out, it does provide different FoV's.
dash2k8: Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.
Anyone who only ever aspires to an APS-C body is not going to go far in photo (which is fine, since for some ppl, photography is just for fun). However, it's one thing to not be able to afford an FF system, it's another to be complacent and say "this is good ENOUGH." When that word appears, you know corners are cut and goals reduced. We should all aspire to FF bodies and beyond.
To clarify, I have nothing against ppl who shoot for fun. But I do have a problem with the words "good enough."
Perhaps Sony understands the market too well, people do believe that FF is a goal to achieve and so they pander to them. But if I can take a film comparison, Rolleiflex's and Hasselblads produced far better quality than 35mm film cameras, so why did the vast majority stay with 35mm? Surely we should all have used roll film cameras?
Third Eye Focused: My APS-C sensor easily produces high quality prints at A4 size even with some cropping. I do not want or need larger prints so I don't need FF. what matters is the end product ie the photograph and what you are going to do with it.
This is the very point that many ignore. Select the format based on the intended final use. Although one can't ignore the fact that even in your example, a FF sensor should still produce a noticeably superior image quality in less than ideal lighting conditions.
But where the subject matter and lighting don't stretch either format, either will do just as good a job.
A little tip for those who may be concerned about dropping the tiny screws inside the camera.
Before undoing the screws, place some black plastic electrician's tape, the sort that won't leave any sticky residue when removed, across the throat of the mount. Remove the screws, and then the tape so you can insert a flat headed screw driver to prise loose the mount as shown in the video. Place tape over the Fotodiox mount in the same aforementioned manner, position the mount and replace the screws. Remove tape. That's it, done.
40daystogo: Once the LX series ceases to be a true pocketable camera, then it is up against cameras that are fairly small but not quite pocketable, such as the Sony A6000 which has an APS-C sensor. If you use the stuido-compare function of the above review, you'll see the A600 blows the LX100 out of the water.
Maybe Sony doesn't, yet, have a low profile lens, but what gets overlooked, very often IMO, is the little Sigma f2.8/30mm. This is an incredibly sharp lens, at least in the first iteration, and in a Lens Rentals test on a Nex 7 outperformed the Leica f1.4/50 Summilux.
True, it doesn't have a very fast aperture, but at its 50mm equivalent focal length probably compares very favourably in aperture terms to the LX100 at the same focal length. I use the lens on my Nex 5N and can vouch for its optical performance.
Just compare the Sony Nex 6 at 1600 ISO to see how poor the Leica is. Compare the face images and see the noise in the Leica shot.
OK, so not everyone shoots at 1600 ISO all the time, but this is an indication of how far behind the competition the Leica is.
GRUBERND: The headshot of Sam Spencer is nice and has really amazing image quality. ;)
attomole: It seems to me Leica are not getting the best of the deal with Panasonic if they can't source a descent EVF, I don't mind them enveloping the lens performance WRT maximum apature settings but that should be clear in their marketing also
They make beautiful Camears and this is one. that also stand out as great desingn against any manufactured product what ever it is . Leica is benchmark for industrial design. but they need a better technology exchange from theier marketing agreement with Pana, and get Sony sensors for Petes sake!
As far as I can determine, the Visoflex has a staggering 3.7 million dots, by far the highest on the market at present. This beats Sony and Olympus by a large margin.
@ Citibox. There are sub-categories. This image was posted in the Natural Design category.
Glad to learn you were reasonably OK following your accident.
I was in Vianden for a few days last mid-December and have an image shot from almost the same point as your #3. The difference is the hills were covered in mist from about the level of the roof of the white building (the Cafe du Pont) in the centre of your shot, and the castle can only just be made out.
guyfawkes: Reading many comments about "equivalence" both here and posted elsewhere, there does seem to me to be one question I'd like to ask: what practical applications are there that one would need to know this?
For example, if one owns a FF sensor dslr, does one really need to know what the so-called equivalence is for DoF for another format? Or turn this around. Would anyone moving from an APS-C system to FF need to know? How on earth would this impact on images they proposed taking?
In my days with film, using anything from sub-min up to 5x4, equivalence never even entered the equation. Photographers simply worked within and knew how to use the tools they used. So why has it assumed a proportion totally out of kilter with its importance now we use digital cameras?
It very much smacks of pseudo science to me.
@ Great Bustard.
But this is the nub of the counter views expressed here of those such as I who find it all a bit of a nonsensical argument, however accurate the math may be. My response is so what? I use many format digital cameras, from the small sensor FZ200. LX7, APS-C to my FF A7, and my blissful ignorance of equivalence hasn't had any negative impact on my image taking one iota.
If it wouldn't help me to know what the equivalent DoF would be on my different film formats, why would it matter in digital terms?
The point is I can't see digital photographers using different format cameras and basing their images on achieving the same DoF.
"More specifically, Equivalence teaches us, among other things, that the reason FF has lower noise than smaller formats is because it *necessarily* must use a more narrow DOF for a given shutter speed in lower light."
First time I've read that DoF impacts on a sensor's noise floor. I thought it was pixel pitch. The bigger the better.
Mike FL: As far as I can see from all the posts that WHO wrote this article created LOT of confusing.
@Mike FL. in response to cm71td.
You've hit the nail on the head. How on earth did digital photographers manage prior to this subject suddenly making an appearance in dpreview a couple of years ago, I believe?
The subject itself seems to be of interest to those who seem more interested in the theory than any true practical application.
But its supporters are themselves guilty of the single biggest obfuscation and it arises here, using the FZ200 as the example.
f2.8/4.5-108mm (equivalent to 600mm at f15.5 (or f16))
If one is talking about equivalence, for the uninitiated won't know, it needs to be pointed out it refers to "DoF equivalent" for a true 600mm lens stopped down to f15.5, or whatever, so as to provide similar DoF as a true 108mm at f2.8. Many will assume it refers to a true reduction in the aperture TO f15.5 at its equivalent 600mm focal length, and thus severely affecting exposure. But this is not so. For DoF no, but for exposure it is still the same as f2.8/600mm.
No, it is not like asking what is the equivalent focal length. Equivalent focal length has a very practical application in digital imaging.
Depending upon how many types of digital camera you've owned, and indeed if you have ever used a 35mm camera, you'd understand. If you have never used 35mm then, understandably, this won't apply to you.
Digital cameras, from small compacts to FF, use a variety of sensors all with physically different sizes. If you check out the actual focal lengths of the lenses on a range of cameras you will likely see see a myriad of quite meaningless figures. On APS-C, for example, you will often see 18-55mm, on 4/3 it will be 14-42, and on small compacts you may come across really short focal lengths such as 4.5-13.5mm, 5.7-17.1mm. What do these numbers mean in FoV terms? How do the lenses "view" FoV. Is the wide end (in equivalent 35mm terms) 24mm, 28mm or 35mm? Without the very useful equivalence you have no idea of knowing.
@ Great Bustard. Thanks for replying.
I fully understand what you say. It is obvious to any intelligent photographer that DoF will be different with sensors (or film) of different formats in achieving the same FoV as the focal length of the lenses needed decreases as the format gets smaller. But what amuses me is that the subject of equivalence when related to aperture occupies so many column inches in articles. This was never so before digital cameras, and it has only in the past few years that its ugly head was raised, right here I believe in dpReview. How does knowing the equivalence aperture rating actually help me as a photographer?
When I used my 5x4 camera with, say, a 150mm Symmar at f8, at distance x, how on earth would it help me to know what aperture I'd need to achieve the same DoF on a 6x6 or 35mm camera with shorter focal length lenses? I'd stop the lens down or use camera movements, for 5x4, to get the DoF I needed on any format camera.