OT: A digital consistent with the RF spirit

[photogdave]

Most people can't - which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to spend more money for more pixels in a digicam - unless you want make prints and extra inch larger all around.
In the case of your Rebels though - the 8MP sensor coupled with the newer DigicII processor can deliver superior results in certain conditions.
Do a low-light shootout at 1600 ISO and you'll see what I mean. The 350D rocks in this situation!

 

[bmattock]

How is the focus point identification with M42 lenses? Is it accurate? Is it usefull?

Joris

I'm of mixed opinions. I am glad to have it - sometimes I don't agree with it. But it does not stop me taking the shot, so overall I'm glad it is there. Just a little red box in the viewfinder (I think it is red) and a stop-sign looking thing in the bottom of the viewfinder to tell me it thinks focus is good. Very often, we agree with focus is correct, so it is nice to have that second opinion.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[jaapv]

Most people can't - which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to spend more money for more pixels in a digicam - unless you want make prints and extra inch larger all around.
QUOTE]

I do not agree- I made comparison shots between the Digilux2 and film and everything looked the same -except for the resolution, even on the screen and on small prints.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15054&highlight=scientific

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

According to E. Puts (contain your moans), and I don't accept most of what he writes as gospel, the Olympus E-volt 300 (I think) is the SLR that comes closest to the good rangefinder spirit, or something like that. I've never held one, so I'm not sure.

I find my Canon 300D quiet, small, light, and with a prime and set with RAW or Jpeg Fine as discreet as any other rangefinder for "street" photo shooting. It's an SLR, though, and it has the incredibly annoying 1.6 crop factor (the perspective w/focal length x crop factor throws me off now). No shutter lag, specially if you set it to manual focus mode.

It's the best I can do in the meantime.

 

[justins7]

We seem to have this discussion every few months. THERE STILL IS NO DIGITAL CAMERA LIKE THE ONE WE ALL WANT! It’s the usual stupidity of the global market, which caters to the lowest denominator, takes no risks, and simply copies everyone else.
There IS a market for this camera. Professional photographers would LOVE to have a good-qulaity, small camera to carry everywhere. And the companies would save money by not having autofocus and flash.

 

[photogdave]

Most people can't - which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to spend more money for more pixels in a digicam - unless you want make prints and extra inch larger all around.
QUOTE]

I do not agree- I made comparison shots between the Digilux2 and film and everything looked the same -except for the resolution, even on the screen and on small prints.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15054&highlight=scientific

Not that I'm one of those last word kinda guys, but I wasn't talking digital vs. film, I was talking 6MP vs 8MP.
I agree about the Digilux 2 - very film-like prints, even up to 13x19"!!

 

[Gid]

Not that I'm one of those last word kinda guys, but I wasn't talking digital vs. film, I was talking 6MP vs 8MP.
I agree about the Digilux 2 - very film-like prints, even up to 13x19"!!

Check this out. Interesting view on megapixels.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

The camera you want is here now - the RD-1. The real issue with the RD-1 (notwithstanding QC) is the price. The price is a function of R&D cost and market size. The target market will always (certainly in the mid term) be relatively small even if all you guys switch to digital, therefore the price for this type of camera will be relatively high. Add Leica or Zeiss build and QC and you can see that higher prices are likely which in turn will limit market size. You just can't compete with a sub $100 combination that takes great shots especially if you've only got $100 (talking 35mm RF)

If all you want is manual everything, then, most of the budget or bargain DSLRs can be switched to full manual with dedicated controls for aperture and shutter speed. A lot of them will accept old manual primes where you have to use stop down metering - stick a meter on the hotshoe and you have all the manual function you want. The key issue tends to be size, but the pentax *ist DS and Canon 350D are quite small (for DSLRs). The olympus E1 is a fantastic camera - quieter than the RD-1, accepts OM lenses with an adaptor and can be set to completely manual operation. Also relatively small, but not compared to a 35mm RF.

Currently all the small digicams come with compromises - my partner has the leica D-lux 2 (panasonic LX1) lots of manual control, but no optical VF, tele lens with F4.9 widest at the long end and it just isn't the same as using an RF. The Canon A620 looks promising, has an optical VF, but only shows about 80% of the frame and has no parallex correction close in. Add small sensors and limited usable ISO range and you're hitting more compromises with these cameras.

In the short term if you want small size, great image quality and a steal of a price, then stick with film (I'm not factoring in film, developing and scanning costs).

Just some thoughts. It is great to dream though - 30 MP Canon P re-issue, $500 from B&H ........................... 😀

Regards

Gid

 

[photogdave]

Yeah, I've read Rockwell's article before, along with his other stuff. I generally think he's full of *&!t even though I agree with him about the benefits of film.
He unfairly compares digital JPEG capture to scanning his transparencies. He even says that he never shoots RAW! 😕
I think sometimes he's right but for the wrong reasons, and the way he dismisses full-frame sensors leads me to believe he's never really shot with one, or invested too much in Nikon gear to be open to the idea.
He's bang-on with his Mac vs Windows article though. 😉
Oops, OT again!

 

[Gid]

I think he's full of *%$£ too where I don't agree with him 🙂) To be fair, a lot of his stuff is deliberately contentious but he does have a sense of humour and there is some good stuff on his site if you're prepared to look for it.

The digital versus film debate will never go away, even when 30MP FF is standard in consumer P&S - its just like analogue versus digital recording - and when it is here we'll find something else to speculate, debate and dream about.

Some insightful person once said "happiness is wanting what you've got". I've seen some of the images you guys have produced with "budget" gear and if I'd produced them I'd be happy. Long live controversy!

Regards

Gid (hoping to run some film through my F1 soon)

 

[jaapv]

Not that I'm one of those last word kinda guys, but I wasn't talking digital vs. film, I was talking 6MP vs 8MP.
I agree about the Digilux 2 - very film-like prints, even up to 13x19"!!

No-no,my fault, I was not expressing myself clearly. What I meant to say is that the resolution difference shows even in small prints or on the low-res web images. If you look carefully you can even see it in the thumbnails.