filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
All Canon EOS lenses do this as well. I've never had the aperture go bad on 20 year old eos lens.
Sean Reids review?
- Thread starter dfoo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 8K
jsrockit
Moderator
Yeah, I have to agree. Seems very un-Leica like. It's as if they really thought people would only use it for B&W.
JonasYip
Well-known
My X100 adjusts constantly as I move from dark to light and back, whether in EVF or OVF mode. Barely audible though. My Olympus is binary: in low light it stays wide open but at a certain threshold of brightness it will stop down a little. It's a little louder than the X100 (er... at least with the Panasonic lens that's on there now...) but still not really particularly loud....
macjim
Well-known
I watched the first video and I'm not surprised that the focusing made a racket. If I was trying to photograph the blades of a propeller, or a human windmill (see the waving arm in the reflection), I think any camera with autofocus would sound the same. I hope that in normal use any noise wouldn't be heard. Any review I've read and that includes a few video reviews have never mentioned any problem so let's wait and see.
PS. I can testify to early adopters problems, I bought the Sony nex-5n and it had the clicking noise recorded in the video and I had to have it repaired under warranty so hopefully there won't be problems with this camera.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
PS. I can testify to early adopters problems, I bought the Sony nex-5n and it had the clicking noise recorded in the video and I had to have it repaired under warranty so hopefully there won't be problems with this camera.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I guess that Fuji makes cameras like nature makes bumblebees. Every aircraft engineer knows that the bumblebee can't fly.
I will just bumble along with my X100, never realizing how dissatisfied I should be with it, and the bumblebee will just keep on flying.
I will just bumble along with my X100, never realizing how dissatisfied I should be with it, and the bumblebee will just keep on flying.
AF was turned off in that video. That's just the aperture moving, not focus
kermaier
Well-known
Kirk Tuck reviewed the Leica 25/1.4 Summilux v43 lens on The Online Photographer and he mentions the aperture "chattering" on an Olympus body there as well.
CVickery
Established
I may be wrong, but I think the Canon EOS and Nikon lenses do something similar in liveview mode. I believe that they stop down the lens to the set aperture to show DOF on the screen. While this involves more than usual aperture movements, it's not like the mft bodies that are constantly opening and closing the aperture, seemingly to keep the light hitting the sensor in a relatively consistent intensity range. I don't believe that this aperture flutter is present in normal through the lens shooting since the brightness of the image in the viewfinder would be constantly changing. This would be the mode that your 20 year old Eos lenses would have been using for most of their life since liveview is a recent innovation.
I'm not trying to make more of this than it is...it's a question I have considered and I suspect that the modern lenses will be requiring repairs, much sooner than has been typical until now. Only time will tell though.
willie_901
Veteran
In fairness to everybody else, they did not require money from their readers.
Lflex
Lflex
Reichmann actually noticed the magenta cast but didn't disclose the finding in his M8 review.
When he and others were criticized for not noticing, he explained that he in fact noticed but had presented the finding to Leica - Leica had requested that he refrained from mentioning it - which he did.
This was his own statement published as a news item on his site on November 11, 2006.
He may have hidden the truth in the explanation quoted above but when I read the original review I certainly couldn't understand the implications of that and I was very disappointed to know that he didn't clearly disclose such an important finding.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
From memory, though, I believe he was operating under either a non-disclosure agreement or an ethical obligation to avoid negative comment about image quality on a pre-production unit. This because it gave/gives the equipment provider the opportunity to correct problems before general release or because pre-release cameras may not incorporate changes scheduled to be included in the general release (so negative comment may create an unfair "buzz" about a problem that won't exist in the general-release product).
In the particular case of the M8, Leica did go into general availability with a [problem|limitation {take your pick}] which in hindsight the reviewers of pre-release models should have made more obvious to both Leica and their readers. But it's a tricky subject where I don't think there's a really "right" answer.
...Mike
40oz
...
It's not like that means anything. I don't take money from advertisers but I'd hardly use that as proof I'm inherently unbiased.
Mr. Reid makes money off his site because of his connections to companies like Leica and Olympus. It doesn't matter if Leica AG cuts him a check or sends a box with three lenses inside. Do you think Sean Reid sees a box from Leica as anything other than a paycheck? The sending back is a mere formality - the income has been put in the bank already via an early article garnering hits and subscribers.
That said, I'm not invalidating his reviews, just pointing out that "no advertisers" is hardly "impartial to a fault." Not having advertising dollars merely makes you more beholden to what your subscribers like to hear regardless of the truth of the matter, just as if he was taking advertising dollars.
J. Borger
Well-known
Sean Reid deserves a lot more credit than he gets here.
His contributions to the discussion about Digital RFs from the early days of the launch of the R-d1 on to today have been valuebale and very important to lots of people.
Not only through his pay-site but perhaps even more through his numerous contributions on this forum and the Leica forum.
His contributions to the discussion about Digital RFs from the early days of the launch of the R-d1 on to today have been valuebale and very important to lots of people.
Not only through his pay-site but perhaps even more through his numerous contributions on this forum and the Leica forum.
Adanac
Well-known
From where I sit, Sean's writing only shows bias in one direction and it has nothing to do with maker / brand / or model, and everything to do with how he sees camera usability.
I'm a little surprised that so much "ink" has been spilled here discussing the chattering issue when that observation occupied so little of Reid's review.
For what its worth, I always felt that the constant chattering of the aperture blades had something to do with the early failure of my X100... the Sticky Aperture Blade issue. Maybe the chattering alone is not itself the problem but a combo of frequent if not constant movement and other physical factors - humidity, dust, the lubricants used, manufacturing tolerances, etc. - lead to potential failure.
Probably you can't convince me that this constant chatter does not induce more wear than would be the case if they only moved at time of exposure. More movement must lead to more wear and shorter time to failure. Maybe the period to failure remains very long... but given the SAB issue in the X100, I'm in the "show me" camp until the new lens range has aged somewhat.
Other cameras manage to adjust LCD and EVF gain without doing the aperture dance - Why must Fujifilm and others go down this route?
I'm a little surprised that so much "ink" has been spilled here discussing the chattering issue when that observation occupied so little of Reid's review.
For what its worth, I always felt that the constant chattering of the aperture blades had something to do with the early failure of my X100... the Sticky Aperture Blade issue. Maybe the chattering alone is not itself the problem but a combo of frequent if not constant movement and other physical factors - humidity, dust, the lubricants used, manufacturing tolerances, etc. - lead to potential failure.
Probably you can't convince me that this constant chatter does not induce more wear than would be the case if they only moved at time of exposure. More movement must lead to more wear and shorter time to failure. Maybe the period to failure remains very long... but given the SAB issue in the X100, I'm in the "show me" camp until the new lens range has aged somewhat.
Other cameras manage to adjust LCD and EVF gain without doing the aperture dance - Why must Fujifilm and others go down this route?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
+1 ++some more. If you don't want to pay to read his stuff then don't. If you don't think his comments are worth paying for, then don't pay.
I do, and I do. My choice.
...Mike
jsrockit
Moderator
I have no issue with what Sean Reid does at all. I just cannot pay for lens reviews... just seems wrong for my needs since I'd rather avoid buying things. Plus, I've always been the type that I have to try for myself. Some lenses people hate, I like and vise-versa.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I think it's condescending and insulting to criticize somebody for charging money for their work. Sean Reid's reviews are incredibly well-researched and thoughtful--nobody else anywhere is writing with such depth on these subjects.
Personally, I would rather read Sean's writing on a non-flash website with ads, and not pay. But he has to make a living one way or another, and this is how he's doing it. He seems to be succeeding at it, too. His having overlooked one thing in 2007 does not justify five years of snotty whining on the internet.
Personally, I would rather read Sean's writing on a non-flash website with ads, and not pay. But he has to make a living one way or another, and this is how he's doing it. He seems to be succeeding at it, too. His having overlooked one thing in 2007 does not justify five years of snotty whining on the internet.
jpmac55
Established
Well said.
It seems every time Sean reviews a camera eventually draws criticism for charging a yearly membership fee ($35. +/-). That usually leads to suggestions on a better business model. Then some name calling. Some miss the point that almost every camera site gets paid for their efforts through advertising. Half the time I read reviews and wonder who wrote this?
Camera's aside, Sean's detailed work with lens has saved me more money than what he charges. I've not purchased some lens, bought others mostly because of his findings. I don't read everything he writes but a smile usually appears when I see he reviewed a lens I have an interest in.
Anyway, I willingly suscribe to Sean Reid Reviews. Not sure Sean even advertises, mostly word of mouth as he prefers a less intrusive presence out here.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
It's also incredibly slow and unresponsive. But being a good writer does not make you a good web designer...;-)
