back alley
IMAGES
you put way too much stock in leica and ignore the reality of a very nice panasonic image maker.
aizan
Veteran
"Moving on, we've been looking at the feedback since the G1 was announced, and we've got a lot of questions from our community, some of which we'd like to cover here.
First up; there's a lot of demand for a smaller Micro Four Thirds body - more 'rangefinder' style than faux DSLR. It's not really a question, it's more just telling you what they want. But do you have any comment?
(mock surprise) I didn't hear anything about such a request? This is news to me!"
awesome. sounds like we have some goodies on the way.
First up; there's a lot of demand for a smaller Micro Four Thirds body - more 'rangefinder' style than faux DSLR. It's not really a question, it's more just telling you what they want. But do you have any comment?
(mock surprise) I didn't hear anything about such a request? This is news to me!"
awesome. sounds like we have some goodies on the way.
ampguy
Veteran
Tuolumne
Veteran
ampguy
Veteran
Perhaps
Perhaps
I've never said the G1 wasn't a nice image maker (I do stand by that the kit lens purple fringes), I'm saying that many people care about the process. I'm aware that most of my lower end cameras do noise reduction and who knows what else, but I wouldn't want that in my film cameras, DSLRs, or a $700 4/3 camera, without an ability to override it.
Perhaps
I've never said the G1 wasn't a nice image maker (I do stand by that the kit lens purple fringes), I'm saying that many people care about the process. I'm aware that most of my lower end cameras do noise reduction and who knows what else, but I wouldn't want that in my film cameras, DSLRs, or a $700 4/3 camera, without an ability to override it.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Yeah, that was my assumption. I don't disagree with Bill, but I think these guys will sell anything that sells. DPReview's own take on the G1 was sort of interesting. Their main criticism was that the G1 wasn't radical enough. Why have a "prism" bulge, with no prism? Why have a camera that looks like a DSLR, that isn't actually? I do think it will take some time for the design potential of something like this to be fulfilled. But, for the sake of argument, why not have an M9 without an RF mechanism? I know, I know, traditionalists would hate it. But goodbye front- or rear-focus problems and hello cross-brand lens platform with great IQ. Panasonic's G1 did not have to be Leica compatible, but it is, in a gross sense. I will be interested to see where this niche of a niche goes.
Ben
Ben Marks
Tuolumne
Veteran
kuzano
Veteran
Bill is correct.
Bill is correct.
The total number of those requesting a rangefinder style, let alone a real range finder focus system do not constitute anything near a market force.
Furthermore, the "faux hump" on the G1 is a market force decision absolutely.
Both Olympus and Panasonic found out the hard way that "it isn't a serious camera" according to the market when they intro'd the E-300 and the L-1. Successor camera's in both camps had prism tops, and it wasn't because of any failing of the side mounted mirror system. Camera's without humps don't sell to buyers enthusiastic for interchangable lenses. No Hump-No Buy.
Leica and Epson already demonstrated the high cost and limitations of using a rangefinder mechanism in a digital camera. Size, space needed for electronics, sensor size must be crop and price... body alone $2000 to $6000.
Bill is correct.
The total number of those requesting a rangefinder style, let alone a real range finder focus system do not constitute anything near a market force.
Furthermore, the "faux hump" on the G1 is a market force decision absolutely.
Both Olympus and Panasonic found out the hard way that "it isn't a serious camera" according to the market when they intro'd the E-300 and the L-1. Successor camera's in both camps had prism tops, and it wasn't because of any failing of the side mounted mirror system. Camera's without humps don't sell to buyers enthusiastic for interchangable lenses. No Hump-No Buy.
Leica and Epson already demonstrated the high cost and limitations of using a rangefinder mechanism in a digital camera. Size, space needed for electronics, sensor size must be crop and price... body alone $2000 to $6000.
aizan
Veteran
i don't think this is a niche of a niche. it's just going to be a p&s with a normally sized sensor. how many people bought those back in the film days? like...everyone?
Graham Line
Well-known
I'm with Bill. Can't see a company devoted to mass-market electronics choosing an expensive mechanical system for focusing. The Kobayashis (or is it Koyabashi -- the Voigtlander guy) of the industrial world are few and far between.
ampguy
Veteran
I did in the other thread
I did in the other thread
There are images on this site as well, but it's such a known issue, I'm not going to go searching for examples.
I did in the other thread
There are images on this site as well, but it's such a known issue, I'm not going to go searching for examples.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Barely..(but not really.. I don't see any and even if I did.. I don't view photos in that way)
But then again....like people who claim a lens "flares horribly".. Chromatic aberrations are sort of easy to avoid if you just don't point the lens in the direction of the sun
or you use a flash powerful enough to override the sunshine... Dave
aizan
Veteran
purple fringing isn't a lens aberration...or is it? i thought it was when photosites are overexposed. *shrug*
Roger Hicks
Veteran
. . . and an expensive, complicated, mechanical coupled rangefinder?
Yeah, right. Joe has the truth of it. Oh: and it's Kobayashi.
Tashi delek,
Roger
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Although I really cringe at referring to Wikipedia for some information (after all, ANYONE can update the damn thing!!) they do provide some good insight into the phenomena:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
Just google that term and you'll find a ton of sites that want to discuss the purple fringing aka chromatic aberration....
Cheers,
Dave
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Here's the funny part. I looked at an E-300 and the reason I couldn't buy one was the awful, awful, awful viewfinder (at least for manual focus -- hump or no hump). Ditto the Pentax K100 (or whatever it was called) and the Canon Digi-Rebel. Perhaps I should say that it was my aging eyes that couldn't focus with the durn things. M8/5D/D3? Tasty.
Ben
bmattock
Veteran
All M42 manual focus - all of it. All taken with a Pentax *ist DS. Subjects all moving quickly, demanding work to find and keep focus. It was challenging but not impossible.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157613838182964/
I have a third-party split-image viewfinder installed. One of the cheap Chinese ones they sell on eBay. I have not had a problem, and I'm 48, with terrible eyes - bad nearsightedness, astigmatism in both eyes, and color-blind, and now I wear bifocals too. Still not a problem. But to each their own.
Wiyum
Established
But they did that exactly with the Panasonic LX3. And they liked it enough to market their own version, the Leica D-Lux4. And people seem to love both cameras. Is "interchangable lens" the sticking point, do you think?
Avotius
Some guy
Wonder when the thought that a rangefinder mechanism is expensive came around? Seems I remember hundreds of film rangefinder models were made and they were all not that expensive and even had a lens that came with the body. Maybe they just forgot or it is too much trouble to remake.
That said I don't think we will see any kind of new rangefinder focusing camera until the M9 whenever that will be.
That said I don't think we will see any kind of new rangefinder focusing camera until the M9 whenever that will be.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Bill, my hat's off to you. I like the picture. I did own a digi-Rebel for a little bit and while I did occasionally get an image in focus with my Nikon primes plus adapter, it was the unpredictability of it that drove me bananas (the "challenging but not impossible" part of your post). I can use a Pentax screw-mount 50/1.4 wide open on a Nikon D3 and nail focus every time (no infinity focus, but that's another story). For my part, I just couldn't hack it with the smaller focusing screens. My point was that you can have a focusing "hump" and still have a product that not everyone will want.
Ben