Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Oh, my freezer is stocked with a multi-year supply of film -- have no doubt. And I have to say, every time I run a roll of Delta 400, Neopan 400 or Tri-X past my "legacy" glass, I have a "Damn! That's What I'm Talking About!" reaction. But I also like the insta-view feature of digital and when I'm geeking out over the differences between a Sonnar and a Planar, it's great to have that instant feedback.
But film is great. No question. and I have never quiiiite got a B&W conversion for digital that's right (although Alien Skin 2 comes pretty close).
Ben Marks
But film is great. No question. and I have never quiiiite got a B&W conversion for digital that's right (although Alien Skin 2 comes pretty close).
Ben Marks
Yes, it's nice to have both...which is why I shoot both film and digital. The wides stay on the film cameras (except for a 35) the normals and and short teles work on either. I like this flexibility and it doesn't require a mortgage. 
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I agree. FF is a legacy concept much like the mirror box. There is no rationale for sticking with it (aside from existing FF glass). I think 35mm film (and the really the mechanics of analog photography) is losing its hold on digital imaging. Along the same lines, it's also a legacy concept to view the lens and the sensor as separate components. I think we're seeing a push in that direction--lens-to-sensor optimized systems like m4/3 (as willie points out) and the new Ricoh system (to really illustrate that concept).
/
gho
Well-known
No, in my opinion Micro 4/3 is not a substitute for an M lens on a native M system, but it is an interesting system in its own right.
A full format digital system with M mount would be the obvious solution for those who would like to use their lenses on a digital system. Or just use film.
However, I have tried the J8 successfully on Micro 4/3. It is quite useful for situations in which you would usually use 100mm. 100mm with f2 is not too bad.
A full format digital system with M mount would be the obvious solution for those who would like to use their lenses on a digital system. Or just use film.
However, I have tried the J8 successfully on Micro 4/3. It is quite useful for situations in which you would usually use 100mm. 100mm with f2 is not too bad.
Yammerman
Well-known
I've had my GF-1 for just over a week and it has astounded me. So small with buttons for all the functions I need, almost as good to use as my D300. It going to easily replace my D5000 as my small camera of choice. I think the manual focus zoom feature is brilliant and haven't missed the viewfinder at all. Today I used some M mount lenses and the results were excellent. I don't know if its there yet but this m4/3 system is a wonderful development and I'm really interested to see how it evolves.
I can see it wouldn't be for everyone but for me it's a perfect fit.
I can see it wouldn't be for everyone but for me it's a perfect fit.
cooltouch
Established
If a MFT camera maker comes out with a model that offers in-camera image stitching, such that wide-angle shots and even panoramics are literally as easy as 1-2-3 with a "normal" lens, then the biggest drawback to the system will have been eliminated, in my view. As it is, it's easy enough to do this in post processing, so it can already be argued, I suppose, that this limitation is already easy enough to get around. There is the depth of field issue, but one can't have everything
If I may make a comment based on history and human discovery: I have noted over a lifetime of watching trends in technological develpment that often very early on in the development of a technology, some innovator hits on an idea that works best, and which eventually, the entire technology develops around. Examples are abundant. Internal combustion engines using pistons and a crankshaft, the principal of sending information electronically, whether over a wire or wirelessly, whether digital or analog, the airfoil which uses the Bernouli principle to provide lift -- just to name a few examples.
I believe that way back some 80 years or so ago, when the 35mm still camera first started being developed, the originators got it right early on. They came up with an image format that was compact, yet large enough to provide good detail, and which could be utilized by very small cameras compared to everything else that was available. But more importantly, early on the 2:3 proportion, which worked out to 36mm x 24mm, was established.
The 2:3 35mm format has outlived all other formats smaller than 120 size, and it has done so for a reason. Not only is it the most flexible of all the smaller formats, but the format just fits right. In that respect, the originators got it right early on, which is my point. I note that, in one important way, modern technology has sort of moved full circle when it comes to viewing images: the new widescreen TVs have a format that is very close to 2:3, so if anything, future generations will be more comfortable with the 2:3 format than my generation, which grew up viewing images on the old-style TVs.
In this new day and age where there are many folks who have never even used film, well naturally I suppose, they feel less of a need to be bound by the 24mmx36mm format. I would counter that, even if we ignore the fact that there are many millions of legacy lenses in existence built for this format, which in itself should be sufficient reason for continuing with it -- even if we ignore that, I think we will find that, after casting about searching for new and more optimal formats for recording images, whatever we wind up with most likely won't be substantially different from what we have had for 80-some years.
So if it ain't broke, why fix it?
But if the decision makers in the industry do decide they need a different format, I would argue most strongly in favor of the proportion that lies at the very fundament of the universe and many, if not most, complex systems: phi -- otherwise known as the Golden Mean, an irrational number that is 1.618... and whose reciprocal is 0.618... the basis for the Fibonacci sequence, and which is a proportion that is demonstrated by the relationship between the parts to a whole, such that, in the case of a rectangle, the proportion of the total value of the two sides to the longest side is equal to the proportion of the values of the longer side to the shorter side. In terms of a simple line, it would be expressed more simply, but it's still the same proportion: divide a line into two unequal segments such that the proportion between the total length and the longer segment is equal to the proportion between the longer segment and the shorter segment. Put mathematically, it is (x + y)/x = x/y. It can also be expressed as phi = (1 + sqrt5)/2.
Phi is abundant in nature -- it is the proportion that produces the spiral in nautilus shells and spiral galaxies, it is the rectangular proportion that has been used in architecture for millenia. It's considered by scientists and artists alike to be the perfect proportion, and has certainly withstood the test of time. Thus, I would argue that if the format must be changed, it should be changed to phi, just so that it can be as perfect as can be.
If I may make a comment based on history and human discovery: I have noted over a lifetime of watching trends in technological develpment that often very early on in the development of a technology, some innovator hits on an idea that works best, and which eventually, the entire technology develops around. Examples are abundant. Internal combustion engines using pistons and a crankshaft, the principal of sending information electronically, whether over a wire or wirelessly, whether digital or analog, the airfoil which uses the Bernouli principle to provide lift -- just to name a few examples.
I believe that way back some 80 years or so ago, when the 35mm still camera first started being developed, the originators got it right early on. They came up with an image format that was compact, yet large enough to provide good detail, and which could be utilized by very small cameras compared to everything else that was available. But more importantly, early on the 2:3 proportion, which worked out to 36mm x 24mm, was established.
The 2:3 35mm format has outlived all other formats smaller than 120 size, and it has done so for a reason. Not only is it the most flexible of all the smaller formats, but the format just fits right. In that respect, the originators got it right early on, which is my point. I note that, in one important way, modern technology has sort of moved full circle when it comes to viewing images: the new widescreen TVs have a format that is very close to 2:3, so if anything, future generations will be more comfortable with the 2:3 format than my generation, which grew up viewing images on the old-style TVs.
In this new day and age where there are many folks who have never even used film, well naturally I suppose, they feel less of a need to be bound by the 24mmx36mm format. I would counter that, even if we ignore the fact that there are many millions of legacy lenses in existence built for this format, which in itself should be sufficient reason for continuing with it -- even if we ignore that, I think we will find that, after casting about searching for new and more optimal formats for recording images, whatever we wind up with most likely won't be substantially different from what we have had for 80-some years.
So if it ain't broke, why fix it?
But if the decision makers in the industry do decide they need a different format, I would argue most strongly in favor of the proportion that lies at the very fundament of the universe and many, if not most, complex systems: phi -- otherwise known as the Golden Mean, an irrational number that is 1.618... and whose reciprocal is 0.618... the basis for the Fibonacci sequence, and which is a proportion that is demonstrated by the relationship between the parts to a whole, such that, in the case of a rectangle, the proportion of the total value of the two sides to the longest side is equal to the proportion of the values of the longer side to the shorter side. In terms of a simple line, it would be expressed more simply, but it's still the same proportion: divide a line into two unequal segments such that the proportion between the total length and the longer segment is equal to the proportion between the longer segment and the shorter segment. Put mathematically, it is (x + y)/x = x/y. It can also be expressed as phi = (1 + sqrt5)/2.
Phi is abundant in nature -- it is the proportion that produces the spiral in nautilus shells and spiral galaxies, it is the rectangular proportion that has been used in architecture for millenia. It's considered by scientists and artists alike to be the perfect proportion, and has certainly withstood the test of time. Thus, I would argue that if the format must be changed, it should be changed to phi, just so that it can be as perfect as can be.
Last edited:
Yammerman
Well-known
If a MFT camera maker comes out with a model that offers in-camera image stitching, such that wide-angle shots and even panoramics are literally as easy as 1-2-3 with a "normal" lens, then the biggest drawback to the system will have been eliminated, in my view. As it is, it's easy enough to do this in post processing, so it can already be argued, I suppose, that this limitation is already easy enough to get around. There is the depth of field issue, but one can't have everything
If I may make a comment based on history and human discovery: I have noted over a lifetime of watching trends in technological develpment that often very early on in the development of a technology, some innovator hits on an idea that works best, and which eventually, the entire technology develops around. Examples are abundant. Internal combustion engines using pistons and a crankshaft, the principal of sending information electronically, whether over a wire or wirelessly, whether digital or analog, the airfoil which uses the Bernouli principle to provide lift -- just to name a few examples.
I believe that way back some 80 years or so ago, when the 35mm still camera first started being developed, the originators got it right early on. They came up with an image format that was compact, yet large enough to provide good detail, and which could be utilized by very small cameras compared to everything else that was available. But more importantly, early on the 2:3 proportion, which worked out to 36mm x 24mm, was established.
The 2:3 35mm format has outlived all other formats smaller than 120 size, and it has done so for a reason. Not only is it the most flexible of all the smaller formats, but the format just fits right. In that respect, the originators got it right early on, which is my point. I note that, in one important way, modern technology has sort of moved full circle when it comes to viewing images: the new widescreen TVs have a format that is very close to 2:3, so if anything, future generations will be more comfortable with the 2:3 format than my generation, which grew up viewing images on the old-style TVs.
In this new day and age where there are many folks who have never even used film, well naturally I suppose, they feel less of a need to be bound by the 24mmx36mm format. I would counter that, even if we ignore the fact that there are many millions of legacy lenses in existence built for this format, which in itself should be sufficient reason for continuing with it -- even if we ignore that, I think we will find that, after casting about searching for new and more optimal formats for recording images, whatever we wind up with most likely won't be substantially different from what we have had for 80-some years.
So if it ain't broke, why fix it?
But if the decision makers in the industry do decide they need a different format, I would argue most strongly in favor of the proportion that lies at the very fundament of the universe and many, if not most, complex systems: phi -- otherwise known as the Golden Mean, an irrational number that is 1.618... and whose reciprocal is 0.618... the basis for the Fibonacci sequence, and which is a proportion that is demonstrated by the relationship between the parts to a whole, such that, in the case of a rectangle, the proportion of the total value of the two sides to the longest side is equal to the proportion of the values of the longer side to the shorter side. In terms of a simple line, it would be expressed more simply, but it's still the same proportion: divide a line into two unequal segments such that the proportion between the total length and the longer segment is equal to the proportion between the longer segment and the shorter segment. Put mathematically, it is (x + y)/x = x/y. It can also be expressed as phi = (1 + sqrt5)/2.
Phi is abundant in nature -- it is the proportion that produces the spiral in nautilus shells and spiral galaxies, it is the rectangular proportion that has been used in architecture for millenia. It's considered by scientists and artists alike to be the perfect proportion, and has certainly withstood the test of time. Thus, I would argue that if the format must be changed, it should be changed to phi, just so that it can be as perfect as can be.
You should post more that was really very good. Like your plane photographs too.
count_zero
Established
Yes, I agree with phi being the optimal ratio also because your household window, door, refrigerator etc... are all in the same proportion. 2:3 is very close to phi and was probably easier to manufacture/measure camera frames back in the day, which is why industry settled on it.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Aren't modern hi-def TVs 16:9?
/T
/T
palker
Established
I've had mine a month
I've had mine a month
I agree.
If folks tried it and were willing to be open to liking what they saw I'm sure they would keep it. It offers potential that has been missing for a while. I have a Nikon F adapter and mount my fast nikon lenses on it, but for ease of use I usually have the 20mm kit lens. The whole thing fits in my pocket, which covers 'the best camera is the one you have with you'. I have a Leicatime wrist strap which is better than the standard neck strap, as it keeps the camera where it should be - in or very near to my hand.
Le Louvre:
Versailles:
Forrest Manual focus:
I've had mine a month
I agree.
If folks tried it and were willing to be open to liking what they saw I'm sure they would keep it. It offers potential that has been missing for a while. I have a Nikon F adapter and mount my fast nikon lenses on it, but for ease of use I usually have the 20mm kit lens. The whole thing fits in my pocket, which covers 'the best camera is the one you have with you'. I have a Leicatime wrist strap which is better than the standard neck strap, as it keeps the camera where it should be - in or very near to my hand.
Le Louvre:
Versailles:
Forrest Manual focus:
Yammerman
Well-known
Good shots Palker and thanks for the tip on the Leicatime wrist strap I just ordered one.
justins7
Well-known
I just got the GF1 and I am really excited about it. I bought a few "cheap" c-mount CCTV lenses, which are great and weird on the camera. With the Canon 13mm 1.5 lens and Voigtlander 28mm finder, it's almost a rangefinder. For the first time I am actually enjoying a digital camera.
There is no shutter lag, the shutter actually makes a physical noise when pressed (both of which were entirely missing from previous digital poin-and-shoot cameras I've owned), the body is solid and black, and the metering is excellent. I've gotten so used to my Leica M6 that, frankly, I find it a pleasure to use Aperture-priority auto instead of always manually metering.
By using manual-focus lenses it really feels like you are in control and the camera just offers the sensor, meter and shutter -- that's it.
Of course it's absurd that the wides vignette so much, but one can still get great shots out of these lenses.
Focusing with manual lenses is both stunning and awkward, in my opinion. It's fascinating to view the world through a vintage lens on the LCD screen, but I don't like to always shoot with the screen. I'm having trouble remembering that, after I move it to my eye it loses focus again.
Regardless, this camera has brought the fun and spontaneity back into digital photography for me. And there are a lot of people out there taking interesting shots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suddenlyhere/3968778440/in/set-72157622499293730/
There is no shutter lag, the shutter actually makes a physical noise when pressed (both of which were entirely missing from previous digital poin-and-shoot cameras I've owned), the body is solid and black, and the metering is excellent. I've gotten so used to my Leica M6 that, frankly, I find it a pleasure to use Aperture-priority auto instead of always manually metering.
By using manual-focus lenses it really feels like you are in control and the camera just offers the sensor, meter and shutter -- that's it.
Of course it's absurd that the wides vignette so much, but one can still get great shots out of these lenses.
Focusing with manual lenses is both stunning and awkward, in my opinion. It's fascinating to view the world through a vintage lens on the LCD screen, but I don't like to always shoot with the screen. I'm having trouble remembering that, after I move it to my eye it loses focus again.
Regardless, this camera has brought the fun and spontaneity back into digital photography for me. And there are a lot of people out there taking interesting shots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suddenlyhere/3968778440/in/set-72157622499293730/
KEH
Well-known
Interesting thread. I am a happy Lumix G1 user - the EVF is very good for manual focusing (just press 2 keys while bringing the camera to your eye, or focus without zooming), and the fold out screen is very good for candids such as this:
The camera is definitely an ugly duckling but extremely flexible, small and discreet.
It just may be that mirror-boxless interchangeable lens cameras are the wave of the future. As this thread and others show, it is certainly possible to do good work even with the current generation...
Just my 2c,
Kirk
The camera is definitely an ugly duckling but extremely flexible, small and discreet.
It just may be that mirror-boxless interchangeable lens cameras are the wave of the future. As this thread and others show, it is certainly possible to do good work even with the current generation...
Just my 2c,
Kirk
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Using legacy glass on m4/3 may be fun, but I don't think it would ultimately satisfying, at least when you need to shoot wide. I think we need to wait for two things:
There are two raisons d'etre for a traditional RF:
- fast wide primes made for m4/3 mount
- better viewfinder options
There are two raisons d'etre for a traditional RF:
- Quality of the glass
- The direct view
reala_fan
Well-known
palker
Established
Luigi
Luigi
You are welcome - Luigi is a great guy.
Thanks for the comments - but to be honest I was just snapping and seeing what the combo can do - like with all things new it takes me some time to get it into my head.
I have some extension tubes on the way so I can play at Macro with my Nikon glass, I've never tried that before and could never dream of doing so on the M8. I will try my D700 and the GF1 to compare the results.
Have Fun.
Luigi
Good shots Palker and thanks for the tip on the Leicatime wrist strap I just ordered one.
You are welcome - Luigi is a great guy.
Thanks for the comments - but to be honest I was just snapping and seeing what the combo can do - like with all things new it takes me some time to get it into my head.
I have some extension tubes on the way so I can play at Macro with my Nikon glass, I've never tried that before and could never dream of doing so on the M8. I will try my D700 and the GF1 to compare the results.
Have Fun.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Palker,
Just beautiful shots. Especially the landscapes. Love 'em!
/T
Just beautiful shots. Especially the landscapes. Love 'em!
/T
palker
Established
I like it
I like it
Thanks,
I'll try to keep posting images as I play with the camera.
I bought it to have in my pocket, and it is great for that - and whilst I'm playing with my legacy Nikon glass - it is with the 20mm 1.7 I'm using it the most.
I like it
Thanks,
I'll try to keep posting images as I play with the camera.
I bought it to have in my pocket, and it is great for that - and whilst I'm playing with my legacy Nikon glass - it is with the 20mm 1.7 I'm using it the most.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
I'll just add my vote for "yes, kind of" to the comments of others who like me use the Panasonic G1. I think the EVF works great, both for reducing the size and weight of the camera and for focusing RF lenses (and other manual focusing).
I briefly tried the EP-1 and didn't like it, partly for lack of the EVF. That's being rectified by the EP-2, I guess, but I am not sure why I would want an EP-2 or GF-1 when I would want to to use the EVF all the time. The G1 is cheaper, just as good for image quality, and very compact. Fits in the glove compartment, which is really excellent.
Like others I have noticed that corner quality is not great with wide Leica lenses. However, it's fine in my view with 50mm or longer lenses. I use the Panasonic lenses most of the time. However, here's an example of the camera's utility: I was in Africa once, shooting wildlife. One of my favorite lenses was a Canon 135mm f/2 L lens. More like a 180mm f/2 on the 30D I was using. Now I would use my G1 with a 90mm f/2 Summicron. Not a situation I expect to find myself in very often, I'm sorry to say, but that's what I'd use. Now that I think about it, that combination (or the 75mm Summicron) is something I should do more with.
There will be better m4/3 cameras down the road. (I'm also waiting eagerly for the 45mm f/2.8 and other Leica-designed lenses for the format.) However, the stuff is good enough so there's no need to wait. Do not expect it to be a poor man's Leica M for wideangle lenses, and you will not be disappointed.
Last edited:
Audii-Dudii
Established
IMO, "there" is now very, very close and while this (the first) generation of m4/3 cameras naturally falls a bit short of the mark in certain respects, I have personally voted with my wallet and now use a G1, GF1, and E-P1 as my primary digital cameras. In fact, were it not for the G1's articulating LCD, which I find useful on occasion, I'd almost certainly have sold it by now, as I can't stand its faux-dSLR styling and Liliputian-sized grip (which means I'm only able to comfortably grab it with two fingers).
That said, I'm not as enamored with the presently available m4/3 lenses (Panasonic's 20mm/f1.7 excepted, although I wish its focal length was a bit shorter) or using my handful of "legacy lenses" (except for some of the Olympus 4/3-format zooms, which are stellar performers), and I wait anxiously for the 12mm/f2.8 prime that Panasonic has promised to deliver next year.
Still, for my purposes, the only alternative to m4/3 is a medium-format 645 and that brings with it a whole host of other issues (not to mention a significantly greater cost), so all in all, I'm happy enough for now...
That said, I'm not as enamored with the presently available m4/3 lenses (Panasonic's 20mm/f1.7 excepted, although I wish its focal length was a bit shorter) or using my handful of "legacy lenses" (except for some of the Olympus 4/3-format zooms, which are stellar performers), and I wait anxiously for the 12mm/f2.8 prime that Panasonic has promised to deliver next year.
Still, for my purposes, the only alternative to m4/3 is a medium-format 645 and that brings with it a whole host of other issues (not to mention a significantly greater cost), so all in all, I'm happy enough for now...