or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Digital Cameras/Photography
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digital Cameras/Photography - Page 2

post #16 of 66
Quote:
You're thinking of the DMC-LC1, which has manual camera-style controls and an even faster lens (f/2.0-2.4) with a 28-90 zoom.  That one is really nice but costs as much as an entry-level DSLR with a decent zoom lens, though the Panny is cheaper than the Leica-badged version.  Personally I'd get a DSLR to use with my legacy lenses, or the Epson R-D1 rangefinder (uses Leica mount lenses), before dropping $1K+ on the DMC-LC1/Digilux.
I am thinking of buying a digital myself but cannot bear to not use my Lecia M6 or Contax G2, and my trusty T-VS (the first and in my opinion the best). I am/was considering the Panasonic DMC LC1 (over the same Leica due to the cost) or the Sony DSC V3. My one qualm about the Panasonic/Leica is the lack of an ISO 800 setting (which I use for taking flashless shots inside buildings), and the size of the thing compared to other digitals, also the price is quite a bit for a 5MP camera. On the plus side the camera is very intuitive and nice to hold. The Sony has almost everything that I would want, but the lenses (Zeiss Vario Sonnar) is not as good as the Leica Vario Summicron. Retro: That Epson beastie is almost double the price of the Leica, how can you justify that?
post #17 of 66
Quote:
Retro: That Epson beastie is almost double the price of the Leica, how can you justify that?
That's easy: I don't have the cash for either, so it's only theoretical. But if I had cash to spend on cameras now, I'd rather have an R-D1 (APS sized CMOS chip, ISO up to 1600 with low noise, interchangeable lens) than the LC1 or Digilux (small-format chip, fixed zoom lens). I love to do selective-focus, narrow-DOF photos, which you can't effectively do on a small-format digital. Plus, imagine the ability to put classic LTM glass in front of a 6MP chip--or use a Noctilux at ISO1600 on an APS-sized chip.
post #18 of 66
Quote:
Good info so far guys... any opinions on monopods? I doubt I'll be using a tripod much, and therefore don't want to be lugging one around (especially in Tokyo, upon my return) I was thinking that perhaps I could practice my monopod technique and maybe that would be an acceptable middleground. Good idea or bad idea?
Tokyo always strikes me as a singularly bad place to use a tripod. It's a street photography paradise because of the density, but the density means tipped tripods as well. And even though some tripods can fold down really small, I like to get as compact as possible when taking the subways or trains. I'd try testing the limits of your handheld technique and the camera's IS capabilities. If you plan on doing a LOT of night shooting you probably need more than technique and IS, so a monopod sounds like a good idea. There are some monopods that have (short and flimsy) folding "emergency" tripod legs, which makes them a lot more stable than a normal monopod--not stable enough to prop a camera and walk away, but steadier than a one-point monopod. I keep telling myself I will try one of those someday.
post #19 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Tokyo always strikes me as a singularly bad place to use a tripod. It's a street photography paradise because of the density, but the density means tipped tripods as well.
thats what I was thinking... plus, I hate hauling too much crap around.
Quote:
There are some monopods that have (short and flimsy) folding "emergency" tripod legs, which makes them a lot more stable than a normal monopod--not stable enough to prop a camera and walk away, but steadier than a one-point monopod
Let me know if you see one online anywhere, I've never seen these at any of the local retailers...
post #20 of 66
Try here for all things photo related. B and H JJF
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Try here for all things photo related. B and H JJF
Agreed. B&H is great. Here's the kind of monopod I was talking about: Bogen (maybe someone else makes a cheaper one?)
post #22 of 66
One can always purchase a digital back for a Hasselblad camera. They cost $20,000 each. Bogen makes the best tripods, and supports.
post #23 of 66
Thread Starter 
If I had $20,000 I wouldn't be using it to buy HALF a digital camera. (I'd probably buy a Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich instead)
post #24 of 66
Quote:
If I had $20,000 I wouldn't be using it to buy HALF a digital camera. (I'd probably buy a Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich instead)
Those types of things are usually bought by professionals who use film, and want to see the picture instantly. $20,000 isn't enough for that virtuous food product. How does one even search for these items, I wonder.
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Quote:
(Tokyo Slim @ 17 Nov. 2004, 7:03) If I had $20,000 I wouldn't be using it to buy HALF a digital camera. (I'd probably buy a Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich instead)
Those types of things are usually bought by professionals who use film, and want to see the picture instantly. $20,000 isn't enough for that virtuous food product. How does one even search for these items, I wonder.
Well I suppose if you are settling on HALF a camera you can settle on a third of that sandwhich... Or the Polaroid version of it which is going for 5 bucks on ebay as well... JJF
post #26 of 66
Quote:
Quote:
(T4phage @ 17 Nov. 2004, 10:07) Retro: That Epson beastie is almost double the price of the Leica, how can you justify that?
That's easy:  I don't have the cash for either, so it's only theoretical. But if I had cash to spend on cameras now, I'd rather have an R-D1 (APS sized CMOS chip, ISO up to 1600 with low noise, interchangeable lens) than the LC1 or Digilux (small-format chip, fixed zoom lens).  I love to do selective-focus, narrow-DOF photos, which you can't effectively do on a small-format digital.   Plus, imagine the ability to put classic LTM glass in front of a 6MP chip--or use a Noctilux at ISO1600 on an APS-sized chip.
According to specs, it uses a CCD chip, like almost all other digitals. Also, ISO equiv. of 1600 sounds impressive, but a huge problem is that it starts of at an ISO equiv. of 200... Imagine the noise... But I do agree with you on the temptation to use all those M mount lenses on a digital....
post #27 of 66
Quote:
According to specs, it uses a CCD chip, like almost all other digitals.  Also, ISO equiv. of 1600 sounds impressive, but a huge problem is that it starts of at an ISO equiv. of 200... Imagine the noise... But I do agree with you on the temptation to use all those M mount lenses on a digital....
I stand corrected on the chip type. But I wouldn't judge the noise until I see samples. From memory of past research I think the D100 and *ist-D use the same chip size with the same ISO range, and I don't remember seeing many noise complaints about those cameras. The larger SLR chips have lower noise than the small-format consumer digicams. That's one reason I would really like a digi-SLR--reduced noise. I'd rather have a low noise 6.1MP than a noisy 8MP. If the noise is low at 200, the only issue for me on the R-D1 would be the top shutter speed of 1/2000 preventing wide open shooting in daylight.
post #28 of 66
Quote:
Quote:
(retronotmetro @ 17 Nov. 2004, 7:46)
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4phage,17 Nov. 2004, 10:07
Retro: That Epson beastie is almost double the price of the Leica, how can you justify that?
That's easy:  I don't have the cash for either, so it's only theoretical. But if I had cash to spend on cameras now, I'd rather have an R-D1 (APS sized CMOS chip, ISO up to 1600 with low noise, interchangeable lens) than the LC1 or Digilux (small-format chip, fixed zoom lens).  I love to do selective-focus, narrow-DOF photos, which you can't effectively do on a small-format digital.   Plus, imagine the ability to put classic LTM glass in front of a 6MP chip--or use a Noctilux at ISO1600 on an APS-sized chip.
According to specs, it uses a CCD chip, like almost all other digitals.  Also, ISO equiv. of 1600 sounds impressive, but a huge problem is that it starts of at an ISO equiv. of 200... Imagine the noise... But I do agree with you on the temptation to use all those M mount lenses on a digital....
LTM mount is actually a screw thread mount which is not the mount for the M series.
post #29 of 66
Quote:
LTM mount is actually a screw thread mount which is not the mount for the M series.
Yes, but you can get LTM-to-M bayonet adapters pretty inexpensively. They even preserve RF coupling and bring up the framelines in the M viewfinder. If you don't have the cash for new M-mount lenses (raises hand) they are a great way to go.
post #30 of 66
Quote:
Quote:
(LabelKing @ 20 Nov. 2004, 12:00) LTM mount is actually a screw thread mount which is not the mount for the M series.
Yes, but you can get LTM-to-M bayonet adapters pretty inexpensively.  They even preserve RF coupling and bring up the framelines in the M viewfinder.   If you don't have the cash for new M-mount lenses (raises hand) they are a great way to go.
Yes, the cameraquest sells them. Although LTM lenses aren't exactly cheap as well. From a couple hundred to the thousands. Sometimes one sees an M-Mount Summicron for cheaper than a Barnack mount Summicron.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Digital Cameras/Photography