dazedgonebye
Veteran
Ok...were you furthering the point that we shouldn't discuss m4/3rds here?
I think a majority of RF shooters are not exclusively RF shooters and are open to discussion of all sorts of possibilities.
the key speculation at RFF on the Micro 4/3 system is whether or not Leica (and possibly others as well) will bring out a digital RF using the new mount. behind the scenes, there does seem a possibility of that.
Stephen
Ray Nalley
Well-known
Which would demand a new line of lenses. That wouldn't be bad thinking on Leica's part, because everyone would have to buy new lenses.
POINT OF VIEW
Established
Ok
Ok
I did not say RF ers are exclusive RF ers. I did ask what does a 4/3rds sys. have to do with a M8?
The 4/3rds glass has nothing to do with world class, M Leica glass. I hope that the M8 will stay a camera that offers a mount for M glass and M glass only. Regarding this subject, in RF forums there is a thread titled
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=27.
In that thread there are all sorts of conversations with folks that would like cheap DRF camera.
Ok
Ok...were you furthering the point that we shouldn't discuss m4/3rds here?
I think a majority of RF shooters are not exclusively RF shooters and are open to discussion of all sorts of possibilities.
I did not say RF ers are exclusive RF ers. I did ask what does a 4/3rds sys. have to do with a M8?
The 4/3rds glass has nothing to do with world class, M Leica glass. I hope that the M8 will stay a camera that offers a mount for M glass and M glass only. Regarding this subject, in RF forums there is a thread titled
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=27.
In that thread there are all sorts of conversations with folks that would like cheap DRF camera.
georgef
Well-known
georgef
Well-known
who would want what?...a small body with a very good sensor (that is the asumption anyway) that takes the great CV, ZEISS and LEICA glass for a fraction of the price of the M8? Me, me me!
....oh yeah, that also takes full 4/3s lenses including zooms? someone may call it an evolutionary step...hmmm
Ray Nalley
Well-known
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If it is 4/3's, wouldn't most of the great Leica glass become telephoto lenses?
POINT OF VIEW
Established
Call it what?
Call it what?
Actually, I would call it a cheap small DLSR Blasto 4000.
Call it what?
who would want what?...a small body with a very good sensor (that is the asumption anyway) that takes the great CV, ZEISS and LEICA glass for a fraction of the price of the M8? Me, me me!
...oh yeah, that also takes full 4/3s lenses including zooms? someone may call it an evolutionary step...hmmm
Actually, I would call it a cheap small DLSR Blasto 4000.
jky
Well-known
Ahh my thoughts exactly - it'll still be X2 crop rendering everyone's 35mm to a 70mm FOV wouldn't it? I really like the Oly E420 but what put me off was the crop factor and the tiny VF.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Yes, you're correct. Those have a 2x factor. So you would need a superwide 21mm lens just to get a normal field of view.
It's nice to dream, but using existing M-mount lenses on a Micro Four-Thirds system is an idea that doesn't make sense from a number of viewpoints.
However, a new line of Panasonic-made Leica-branded lenses for that format does make sense and could be quite exciting.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
A fast 35 or 40mm in m-mount might still make an interesting lens in m4/3rds. Mostly though, we'll have to hope Oly comes out with some fast primes to make this a system that serves some of the same functionality as the sort of DRF many of us would like to have.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Nothing at all...in fact, I think about buying one pretty much every day. But I think I'm going to wait until after Photokina to see if there will be a new M-mount DRF, with a higher-resolution sensor. If there is, and it's less than $2000, I'll save up for that. If there is, and it's more than $2000, I'll watch the R-D1 market collapse and then buy one for a thousand bucks.
How's that for a plan!
tmfabian
I met a man once...
4/3's format is useless to me. I don't want a sensor that crops my EFL even more than it already is.
I thought 4/3's was a half baked attempt to standardize the crop factor back when full frame was something that was hard to produce not this wonderful idea they're claiming it to be.
I vote no thank you.
I thought 4/3's was a half baked attempt to standardize the crop factor back when full frame was something that was hard to produce not this wonderful idea they're claiming it to be.
I vote no thank you.
tomasis
Well-known
tmfabian, indeed
If one wants fov 50mm. so one has to buy 24mm 2.8 which are generally expensive. So you cannot have 50 fov at f1.4
of course the 4:3 requires own lenses but they are still bulky as hell. Compare that with old Elmar 3.5
If one wants fov 50mm. so one has to buy 24mm 2.8 which are generally expensive. So you cannot have 50 fov at f1.4
of course the 4:3 requires own lenses but they are still bulky as hell. Compare that with old Elmar 3.5
georgef
Well-known
Isn't this assumption that smaller and simpler equals cheaper what makes the M8 seem overpriced to DSLR users?
By the way, the diagram I saw has no mirror, so I guess you mean a "DSL blasto 4000" LOL
jky
Well-known
If one wants fov 50mm. so one has to buy 24mm 2.8 which are generally expensive. So you cannot have 50 fov at f1.4
Right... and if you're a 35mm FOV user then you'll need roughly a 18mm focal length. Can't isolate a subject with that unless you're within arm's length. Nevertheless, it'll be interesting what comes out of this...
georgef
Well-known
georgef
Well-known
The argument about FOV I think is a little misplaced here: this is a new system; not like the M8 where your existing glass no longer is what you are used to. Remember, the 35 lenses were designed based on the size of the film, not the other way around. The speculation on whether the new system is better, worse, cheap, "plasticky" etc. almost feels like a knee-jerk reaction to the anouncement, since there is no concrete direction seen yet in terms of the quality of this system. I would not be surprised if OLY-SONIC is gauging photog response at this stage.
We may still be surprised; if a micro 4/3s body comes out that is built like the G9, with small, fast lenses and a good sensor, it may not "mechanically" be similar to rangefinders, but it sure does sound to me in line with the whole idea of using RFs.
We may still be surprised; if a micro 4/3s body comes out that is built like the G9, with small, fast lenses and a good sensor, it may not "mechanically" be similar to rangefinders, but it sure does sound to me in line with the whole idea of using RFs.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Focusing would have to be either scale or 'live view' in the absence of a coupled rangefinder. Scale is probably more accurate. Of course an ultra-fast wide lens would work superbly with 4/3 -- but what are the chances of a 21/1.4? And what would it cost if they did make one? Especially if it could cover full frame as well?
Does it make sense to ask for a camera body that needs lenses costing significantly more than the body?
Cheers,
R.
Does it make sense to ask for a camera body that needs lenses costing significantly more than the body?
Cheers,
R.
srtiwari
Daktari
I must be missing something in all this discussion about a focal length "multiple". If the sensor is smaller, and since this is a NEW system altogether, why can't lenses be manufactured so that they would be small enough to NOT require the "21mm F1.4" kind of (apparently difficult) design ? I would have thought smaller lenses would only add to the attractiveness of this whole system.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Subhash
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Subhash