Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Dick Roadnight on April 22, 2010, 10:04:59 am
-
The Leica M9 ¿no zoom available, not pocket-able, expensive?
Leica X1 No zoom
Leica V 20 no raw, no socket for external flash?
Leica D-lux 4 ¿only feasible option worth considering?
What else is there?
I have a Leica D-Lux 3, but I would like to be able to use my compact with external flash.
-
Canon G11.
The Leica M9 ¿no zoom available, not pocket-able, expensive?
Leica X1 No zoom
Leica V 20 no raw, no socket for external flash?
Leica D-lux 4 ¿only feasible option worth considering?
What else is there?
I have a Leica D-Lux 3, but I would like to be able to use my compact with external flash.
-
Panasonic GF1 with interchangeable lenses; micro 4/3 sensor
or Olympus EP2
Just a hair larger than the Canon G series---but much easier to shoot in M or AP, interchangeable lenses, and better image quality.
-
The EP-2 is real nice. Forgot about that one.
Panasonic GF1 with interchangeable lenses; micro 4/3 sensor
or Olympus EP2
Just a hair larger than the Canon G series---but much easier to shoot in M or AP, interchangeable lenses, and better image quality.
-
this is the ultra compact with the brains of Canon G11 - Canon S90 - tiny raw-capable camera.
LR3 gives great results from RAWs and perfect CA correction which is necessary in wide angle range.
very comprehensive manual controls.
I bought this for my wife as a tiny, light and mighty little gadget, though I ended up playing with it more than she does:)
-
The EP-2 is real nice. Forgot about that one.
So is E-PL1 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42511) at significantly lower price, you gain a built-in flash and lose some mostly marginal features to limit cannibalization, and it has excellent build quality. Just skip the kit lens - the Panasonic is much better on most metrics except size and weight, although much more expensive.
I'd recommend checking out samples from S90 and other similar compacts before buying one - I wasn't happy with the IQ and went for the E-PL1.
-
The Leica M9 ¿no zoom available, not pocket-able, expensive?
Yay! I rarely get to answer a Leica question on this section of the forum even though we are Leica dealers.
There are in fact three zoom lenses depending on how you define "zoom". A 16/18/21 and a 28/35/50
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tri-elmar.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/wa-tri-elmar.shtml)
The M9 is an outstanding camera. If you haven't held it in your hands and shot with it for a while it's a VERY different camera than most.
Whether it's worth the money only you can decide.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
The Panasonic GF1 and Oly E-PL 1 don't have a finder, though, but the Leica is very tempting.
If only it wasn't so grossly overpriced .
-
The Panasonic GF1 and Oly E-PL 1 don't have a finder, though, but the Leica is very tempting.
If only it wasn't so grossly overpriced .
The GF-1 has an optional EVF (electronic viewfinder) that attaches to the hotshoe. Oly is similar
-
Canon G11.
I just got an S90. It is basically a G11, in a tiny tiny case, with a smaller battery and less (too few, really too few) buttons and a mess of a scroll wheel.
It's a bit of a kludge to use, but it can do those compact camera things like macro with large depth of field or quickly making a readable image of a full sheet newspaper, it can shoot RAW (!) comes with DPP, has a real wide but not much of a tele, can do some video, can do decent hi-ISO, and by the way, did I say it has a kludgy interface but it is really really small?
Doug's favorite Leica M9 is a *real* camera, no doubt about it; it is quite competitive with any 35mm dSLR, at least those I use. However it is useless for those compact camera tricks like macro, cannot do video, won't fit into any of *my* pants pockets and last not least costs real money.
If anyone here has a suggestion better than
Edmund
-
The Leica M9 ¿no zoom available, not pocket-able, expensive?
Leica X1 No zoom
Leica V 20 no raw, no socket for external flash?
Leica D-lux 4 ¿only feasible option worth considering?
What else is there?
I have a Leica D-Lux 3, but I would like to be able to use my compact with external flash.
I thought I wanted a compact to, the idea is appealing a camera with you all the time. I got a Richo with an electronic viewfinder and lots of manual controls. I never use it, to small and fiddley to make it enjoyable. I would rather take my Canon with just the 35mm f1.4, I find it easier, quicker, more predictable, more versatile and cropped still better than the zoomed pocket camera results. I would rather have a M9 with one lens than a P&S with a zoom.
Kevin.
-
The Leica M9 ¿no zoom available, not pocket-able, expensive?
Leica X1 No zoom
Leica V 20 no raw, no socket for external flash?
Leica D-lux 4 ¿only feasible option worth considering?
What else is there?
I have a Leica D-Lux 3, but I would like to be able to use my compact with external flash.
you have a bad case of Red Dot Fever!
there are a lot better compact digital cameras out there than what they make. m9 excepted, but thats another kettle of fish.
agree with GF1 and S90 and EP2. all excellent.
-
I've tried several, and the only one that's stuck for more than a few months is the GF1 -- I've head it now for over 6 months, and even added a second body converted to IR and a total of 5 lenses. The basic camera with the very good 14-45 kit lens mounted, fits inside an MF lens slot in your bag. Battery lasts forever, maybe 600 frames. Awesome little camera with excellent image quality and control layout.
-
Why not the modular Ricoh GRX with A12 unit ?
Not kiding.
Also, despite it's slow in operation, the sigmas DP are really interesting and worth a look anyway. I've heard that the latest versions (x) have improved a lot.
Foveon is a nice alternative to have.
-
Canon S90 gets a big thumbs up.
most of the time you don't need much manual control anyway, but when you need it the S90 has it too.
I had a GF1 and found the image quality was much poorer than an APS-C camera, and not much better than my S90 and way too bulky (the S90 fits into a jeans pocket)
be careful the small buttons though...
-
Doug
I understood that the 28-35-50 M9 lens is no longer available. Could you clarify your post please.
Babak
-
Canon S90 gets a big thumbs up.
most of the time you don't need much manual control anyway, but when you need it the S90 has it too.
I had a GF1 and found the image quality was much poorer than an APS-C camera, and not much better than my S90 and way too bulky (the S90 fits into a jeans pocket)
Really? I'm surprised. I've been slipping my GF1 on a belt pouch or into a fleece pocket for a few months, and I've been rather impressed with its image quality. Maybe we're shooting radically different subjects (or printing to large sizes, maybe? I hardly print, and never to larger than A3). I've noticed there's more noise in dramatic skies than I'm used to from 5D or H3DII-31 but it looks quite organic and grain-like, and responds well to LR3B2 or Aperture noise removal.
Certainly the image quality is a bit down on my old 5D, but really from such a tiny camera the differences seemed remarkably small. I wouldn't say the GF1 is without flaws (you do need the optional finder or shooting in bright sunlight is very much guesswork, and it isn't quite as pocketable as a true compact) but in terms of image quality bang for small size buck, I was really impressed.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
The Leica M9 ¿no zoom available, not pocket-able, expensive?
Leica X1 No zoom
Leica V 20 no raw, no socket for external flash?
Leica D-lux 4 ¿only feasible option worth considering?
What else is there?
I have a Leica D-Lux 3, but I would like to be able to use my compact with external flash.
well what's your definition of "Compact" or just how compact do you need.
I have the S90, it's really small and I can take it to formal dinners and such with no issue, C1 does a great job with the raw files (I never shoot Jpegs even for snaps)
My Personal camera is the Panasonic GF-1
I think the GF-1 and EP1/2 are really great camera's
If you need one in between maybe the G11
I've had all tree at one point and for me the G11 was redundant so it went away.
Just note that the the GF-1/EP1/2 with a prime is actually not that much bigger than the G11 in reality.
The Lumix 20/1.7 is also great and at F2.0 produces very nice shallow depth of field.
As for the M9, well to me that's a whole other system and whole other kettle of fish...
Also as a x-owner of a sigma DP-1 I do have to say that the camera produces really beautiful files, but it's definately not a easy, take along, capture the moment kinda camera ( to me ).
good luck.
am
-
the camera produces really beautiful files, but it's definately not a easy, take along, capture the moment kinda camera ( to me ).
Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.
Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?
-
Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.
Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?
I have the panasonic gf1 (I think that's what it's called) the thing that looks like a rangefinder and you use the lcd.
I used it on a project, along with a Leica M-8 and the files are good, equal to the Leicas, almost dead equal.
The things it does well are somewhat astonishing, face recognition, change the view to 4:3 etc, different picture looks.
The things it does bad, or as you would say the experience is just miserable. The menu on the camera takes a full day to learn and it's not intuitive.
The view of what you see vs. what you get can be variable and overall it's so damn small it takes nothing to hit the wrong button or switch.
I really believe it would take a full week of shooting to get to the point where it doesn't require a moment's hesitation to decide what you want to do with it.
It also has one of those dreaded zoom lenses that when you change the focal length the f stop changes. I bought the 40mm pancake lens, but don't really use it, though it does go to 1.7
Now on the other hand the Leica M8 I have is just the opposite. It's dead ass simple, move an f stop, move a shutter focus and take a picture.
Trying to figure out the crop lines on the leica is not easy, longer lenses make the view tiny, but overall as far as the taking/making a photograph the leica is a real camera.
I'd get an M9 if I thought i would use it more.
But as far as pocket cameras there is nothing out there that matches the Terry Richardson Yashica, at least nothing I know about.
BC
P.S. I also looked at the Olympus EP something camera and though the focus was awful, the camera is beautiful. Didn't buy it though, but now kind of wish I did.
-
Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.
Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?
gwhitf:
I can only speak for my own experiences, but I do love the little compacts.
yes I have shot images that I love and use with these cameras. I have prints out of a G10 that hold up very well, (raw in C-1)
all the little ones do have some a little to unbearable shutter lag, But the GF-1 is very fast, I think you may like it.
as far as actually using them, I used a GF-1 to shoot some street photography of fans and crowds on the street when I was in Vancouver for the Olympics, This was a paid Assignment for a Magazine (4 different assignments in total). There is a big benefit to using this camera as no one thinks twice about what your up to, while one would never get the same reaction when you stick a D3x with a 24-70 and a SB900 in their face. (even though that kit was sitting in my think tank back at the hotel).
I pretty much always have my GF set so Raw, Aperture priority and the only thing I change around on the fly is ISO. so not much menu diving or worrying about different set ups and such.
good luck and hopefully you'll find one that you can enjoy.
am
-
BC and all
While I would love the thought of a Leica m8/9 with a lens or two, part of the appeal of the compacts is that they are cheap.
I for one would have a hard time leaving a M# in a bag under my towel to go for dip while at the beach for example, while do this regularly with a S90.
losing a G10 or S90 or GF-1 is never pleasant but a lot more forgiving on the wallet.
Part of the equation of compacts is that they are no good if you can't take it with you in case it get's lost/stolen/broken/wet/ too big and heavy and....
and for everything else there is canon nikon phase hasselblad and assistant and production people.
am
-
I think it's great that the micro 4/3 as developed a new (and needed) category between P&S and DSLR. From what I have seen, I am impressed with the image quality for such a small little camera (GF1, EP-2, etc). These are $600 - $1,200 category products, while the quality P&S category is more of a $300 - $500 level.
I've considered an S90, but every time I look at some files at pixel level, I am unimpressed. And I mean at ISO 50, not 400. I don't know that file quality for a camera that small will ever be close enough to a DSLR to rise above consumer P&S for any subject matter that is at all demanding.
I could easily handle the file quality from a GF1. And P&S to me doesn't mean it has to fit in my pocket necessarily. I think if it does, there will always necessarily be an image compromise I may not be comfortable with. But as long as it is small, like a GF1, so I could wear it around my neck or even have it stashed in a little pouch around my waist or something. Just so it is smaller, lighter than a DSLR. maybe a different category than a P&S then.
But I wonder about the price points of these products also and if that $300 - $500 price point will eventually include micro 4/3, which seem to be necessary to get any "real" quality out.
I think this will be a more and more crowded category (I'm looking forward to that).
Samsung is doing some interesting things at micro 4/3 and true P&S levels. Especially like the idea of a 1.8 - 2.4 lens. Just wish that was stuck on a 4/3 micro instead of the 1-1/7:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022005samsungex1.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022005samsungex1.asp)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SamsungNX10/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SamsungNX10/)
And Sony will also be joining -
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022103sony2010.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022103sony2010.asp)
By later this year, there will be a wealth of fun choices.
Right now, with price not an obstacle, the GF1 and EP-2 seem the best bets unless you want an actual "pocket camera".
Steve Hendrix
-
Hello,
I vote for the EP2 with the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens- quite unbelievably good. I've made NICE prints up to A3+ and they look like they were done with 6x6 cm film and a Rollei TLR or something like that; with the electronic viewfinder, the experience of composing is precise, studied and accurate. They are stunning when you consider what they were done with. I also have the "Leica" 45mm macro and it is excellent, but the 20mm is in a class all it's own. The kit lens zoom that comes with the EP2 is good, but it doesn't have that edge of a truly fine lens in my opinion. How about this picture shot at night in times square out the window of a taxi with the 20mm at f1.7 and ISO 1000? The results produced with a more studied approach are that much better ...
I do carry the camera, nearly all the time, and if I were doing a documentary style book project would use it very seriously. Lot's of fun!
Neil
-
BTW
here is a bit of GF1 love by Mr. Bruce Dale
http://vimeo.com/m/#/8842694 (http://vimeo.com/m/#/8842694)
-
...anti-GF1 considerations, to balance this topic.
Someone pointed the DP1 and I think it's a nice (with some downsides) alternative to introduce also a Foveon in the gear.
But today I'll go for the Ricoh GRX with the A12 module.
Both cameras are fixed lens but they give outstanding IQ. Specially the GRX, file quality is above the MFT without reservations.
Low-light is as good as what you'd get with a Leica. There are extended proof on line about these facts.
I'm really impressed by the body design, buttons implementation etc...
And the interface is just what you want a camera to be, for my taste.
I find the GF1 very good but looks boring (or maybe the pink colored). The Olympus EP1 or 2 is design the way only italians knows how to do these things, but I hate the controls, paying for silly art filters and it shines under certain outdoor conditions when sun is low in the sky. Very accurate for the Riviera cost or Monaco avenue.
These MFT don't have discrete shutter either, and that's something that really anoys me, specially they're EVILS.
I'd rather choose a Leica X1, a GRX and even a DP1 or 2 and a M8-9.
-
Thank you all for taking the time...
I value your opinion, as quality means something different to MF users.
I had a Rollie 35, which was a great little, camera - pocketable, and the same quality as the Nikon I used on my world trip in the mid seventies.
There will never be a pocket camera that will match an H4D-60, and I would ideally like the pocketability of something with a fully-retractable-lens camera, and I had thought that the GF-1 would be too bulky, but it seems as if it will be the best compromise.
-
I think the S90 could be really nice for us, if the controls were done properly; the compacts don't seem to get the design quality of the SLRs and this is what hurts them most. File quality is actually decent on the S90.
Edmund
-
Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.
Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?
I use this little sigma DP1s with a voigtländer viewfinder. the 28mm viewfinder is very bright but distorts a little. the camera is then set to "monitor off" and to manual focusing (via a tiny wheel). when you don´t use the AF there is not too much shuttlerlag. you have to wait between the frames taken (while the cam wrights) but that doesn´t bother me. you just take one picture at the time.
the files are very good and sharp and have a nice grain to them at higher iso - and very smooth at iso 100 because of the large sensor they use. think of old 6 mp mediumformat quality - i prefer it to the old 5d. the lens is on of the sharpest wides i have seen.
used with monitor off and no AF it´s just like shooting an old slow rangefinder-fimcamera. you get them with a 28mm or a 40mm lens (35mm-aqui.).
here in germany the sell them over ebay off rather cheap at the moment (200 euro or so).
stefan
-
When it comes to shooting with P&S cameras, I believe it's just a state of mind.
I guess I get this, in theory, but in practice, there's nothing worse than having a lame camera with you, when you see something worthwhile. Inversely, why would I take a photograph of something with a substandard (lazy) camera? I find, when I shoot with those little P/S lazy cameras, I get home, and process the files, and think "Why did I think that was worthwhile?"
Maybe it's just me.
To me, keep it simple -- find your camera that works for you, and just carry it. In my world, I just can't image "A scenes" and then "C Scenes". Why bother photographing "C"? Just stand there, enjoy it, and keep walking.
It's kinda like Alec Soth, shooting a scene with an Almost645, when in truth, he shoulda' shot it with that 8x10. It doesn't hold a candle.
-
As one who makes his living with MFDBs, and after years of owning/trying various P&S cameras, searching for the right combination of image quality, size, & convenience, I can only say that the M9 is for me at least, the ultimate answer for an everyday camera. I love this camera - the optics, the build, the color engine, the ease of use - it's as close as you can get to MF quality in a small, pocketable camera. And if I want to carry extra lenses, I can carry the camera and 4 lenses/batteries, charger, etc. in an simple canvas 7x11x4 shoulder bag. Yeah, I have the 28-35-50 as well. The issue is the price, not only the camera, but the lenses. Yet they can't build them fast enough...
-
I guess I get this, in theory, but in practice, there's nothing worse than having a lame camera with you, when you see something worthwhile. Inversely, why would I take a photograph of something with a substandard (lazy) camera? I find, when I shoot with those little P/S lazy cameras, I get home, and process the files, and think "Why did I think that was worthwhile?"
Maybe it's just me.
To me, keep it simple -- find your camera that works for you, and just carry it. In my world, I just can't image "A scenes" and then "C Scenes". Why bother photographing "C"? Just stand there, enjoy it, and keep walking.
It's kinda like Alec Soth, shooting a scene with an Almost645, when in truth, he shoulda' shot it with that 8x10. It doesn't hold a candle.
I think we just do what we can do that's practical. Most of us see opportunities every day where ever we go to capture something that resonates with us often unexpectedly. I'm standing in the checkout at Publix and there's just something about the cashier as we're talking - I really want to take her photograph, but I'm not going to carry my Canon 5DMKII around my neck every time I go into the grocery store or when I'm driving to work, or...
So, to me, the question is what can I always have with me, that is unobtrusive enough where it wouldn't be a hindrance carrying it, yet gives me enough quality to make it worthwhile. I think the micro 4/3 do this - at least from the quality standpoint. It would be nice if they could also be as compact as say, a Canon S90, but I don't know if that can ever happen because it seems to come down to sensor size.
Steve Hendrix
-
Found this link: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/ (http://www.seriouscompacts.com/)
Maybe it helps.
Cheers.
-
Found this link: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/ (http://www.seriouscompacts.com/)
Serious Compacts. Isn't that like Military Intelligence?
-
Most of the greatest images I have ever seen had nothing to do with uber image quality.
John,
I noticed a similar thing at a museum show of William Christenberry. Before he'd do a painting of one of his "southern barns" he'd go out with, literally, a Brownie camera and photograph as reference for the painting. Later, he'd go back with a "real camera" and rephotograph the same barn, and he'd show that as a photograph. (He'd show sculpture, photographs, and paintings, all mixed in one show, but all with the same content).
In the show I saw, he also displayed the reference print that he shot with the Brownie, next to the print with the real camera. Invariably, side by side, the Brownie print had much more feeling and atmosphere than the real camera, (don't know what, probably a Hasselblad or Rollei or maybe even 4x5). It was very informative to me, standing there looking at both of them, side by side -- the Brownie print was maybe 5x5", and the real camera print was maybe 24x30 or so, but I preferred the Brownie version every time.
http://www.pacemacgill.com/williamchristenberry-45-8.html (http://www.pacemacgill.com/williamchristenberry-45-8.html)
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to fantasize about driving around the country and photographing with one of those little cameras, but to me, they offer no real mojo, atmosphere, or advantage. They seem to be just a bad version of a 5DMarkII, ie nothing special.
Maybe if there was a Tischy point and shoot, or a Brownie Digital, or a Lomo that was half good, they might be interesting.
As far as that Feaverish blog, I sorta agree with you, and I never thought I'd say this, but I'm kinda sick of a million versions of topless young girls at ASA 1000, backlit. There must be a school somewhere that pumps out these photographers.
Agree with you about Uber too -- I start thinking about the P40+ or the H4D, and then I start thinking about the money, and the asterisks (**), and my film Hasselblad seems just fine.
** I have a friend who had a great line once: "Why is it that every single Medium Format Digital camera/back always has at least one asterisk by it?" As in, you know you gotta plan for some kind of workaround when you use it.
-
John,
I noticed a similar thing at a museum show of William Christenberry. Before he'd do a painting of one of his "southern barns" he'd go out with, literally, a Brownie camera and photograph as reference for the painting. Later, he'd go back with a "real camera" and rephotograph the same barn, and he'd show that as a photograph. (He'd show sculpture, photographs, and paintings, all mixed in one show, but all with the same content).
In the show I saw, he also displayed the reference print that he shot with the Brownie, next to the print with the real camera. Invariably, side by side, the Brownie print had much more feeling and atmosphere than the real camera, (don't know what, probably a Hasselblad or Rollei or maybe even 4x5). It was very informative to me, standing there looking at both of them, side by side -- the Brownie print was maybe 5x5", and the real camera print was maybe 24x30 or so, but I preferred the Brownie version every time.
http://www.pacemacgill.com/williamchristenberry-45-8.html (http://www.pacemacgill.com/williamchristenberry-45-8.html)
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to fantasize about driving around the country and photographing with one of those little cameras, but to me, they offer no real mojo, atmosphere, or advantage. They seem to be just a bad version of a 5DMarkII, ie nothing special.
Maybe if there was a Tischy point and shoot, or a Brownie Digital, or a Lomo that was half good, they might be interesting.
As far as that Feaverish blog, I sorta agree with you, and I never thought I'd say this, but I'm kinda sick of a million versions of topless young girls at ASA 1000, backlit. There must be a school somewhere that pumps out these photographers.
Agree with you about Uber too -- I start thinking about the P40+ or the H4D, and then I start thinking about the money, and the asterisks (**), and my film Hasselblad seems just fine.
** I have a friend who had a great line once: "Why is it that every single Medium Format Digital camera/back always has at least one asterisk by it?" As in, you know you gotta plan for some kind of workaround when you use it.
Well, this is interesting.
Actually I share your thoughts. The fact is that these clinic perfect outputs we have now is made at its best with MF. Everything else on the market are bad versions of the same clinic look. That is why I've never been able to like the files of smaller formats than MF, they are just overpushed bad clones.
Our eyes are educated now but the day we're in front of an old print, feel that something's wrong, it's just human. It vibrates. Digital does not. It's precise, unforgiving but it just does not have this organic aspect.
It's ridiculous in a way that we use sofwares to make the pics more "unperfects". In C1 I often look at the 70's look style for example.
Remember that in Fine arts, I was broke all the time and the only gear I could afford was a Russian 6x6 Lubitel: Fantastic camera! Not kidding.
Print 2 meters portraits with it...no hassle of 100% magnification etc...
If it was not for the flexibility and costs I would not use digital cameras.
-
I guess I get this, in theory, but in practice, there's nothing worse than having a lame camera with you, when you see something worthwhile. Inversely, why would I take a photograph of something with a substandard (lazy) camera? I find, when I shoot with those little P/S lazy cameras, I get home, and process the files, and think "Why did I think that was worthwhile?"
Maybe it's just me.
To me, keep it simple -- find your camera that works for you, and just carry it. In my world, I just can't image "A scenes" and then "C Scenes". Why bother photographing "C"? Just stand there, enjoy it, and keep walking.
I do two radically different sorts of photography. My commercial work is fetish images of beautiful women. I shoot these with a Hasselblad H3DII-31.
The other sort is "captured fleeting moments of light", usually in the mountains. I've been a keen hill-walker and mountaineer for 25 years.
The requirements of these two different sorts of photography are radically different. Just how different I found out on a recent photo trip to Norway. I took both the Hasselblad and my GF1.
The weather conditions were challenging. Driving rain and think mist above the cloud-base around Bergen, and snowstorms in Finse. For the latter, I literally had three 30-second windows in the entire day when the sun momentarily broke through the clouds and transformed the landscape from virtual whiteout to something much more interesting.
For me, the speed of action of the GF1 put it streets ahead for my "fleeting moments" photography, especially in the challenging conditions. The Hasselblad was in my rucksack. I didn't really get it into position in time in one of the three 30 second windows. The GF1 was in a small pouch clipped to my walking rucksack chest strap. It was *right there* when the light suddenly changed, or when I found an interesting thing to shoot in a rainstorm.
And whilst the quality of the Hasselblad shots is indubitably better when you can use it to get the shots, the GF1 with 40mm f/1.7 lens is sharp, the noise at low ISO nicely controlled, the noise at high ISO pleasantly organic and grain like and overall the quality very comparable with my old 5D. And the camera can be effortlessly clipped on without thought, whereas taking the Hasselblad into the mountains is a major decision to load oneself up with 5-10 kilos (depending on lenses) in addition to ice axe, crampons, snow shoes, water, food, extra clothes, and whatever else.
So... the Hasselblad is just the ticket for my fetish work. The GF1 is just the ticket for the mountains. (And, parenthetically, my 7D is good if I think I'll need video or want a long focal length for anything close up). Cameras are just tools, with different strengths and weaknesses, so it is just a matter of finding the one which seems best suited to the situation.
I'm fully of admiration for people who cart MFDB or view cameras around the mountains, but it isn't for me, as it turns out. But a GF1 on my chest strap? Absolutely!!
Cheers, Hywel.
-
The Hasselblad was in my rucksack. I didn't really get it into position in time in one of the three 30 second windows.
There's another asterisk, right there.
-
There's another asterisk, right there.
I'm not sure what you mean?
Cheers, Hywel.
-
I agree the GF1 is a very interesting 'quality compact'. It'll be interesting to see what Sony comes up with on may 11.
There's already been an official announcement saying this new Sony NEX line will be APS-C size compacts with interesting specs.
Lots of speculation too:
http://sonyalpharumors.com/ (http://sonyalpharumors.com/)
-
Im' facing the same dilemma... The GF1 doesn't fits in my pocket... a Panasonic Lumix LX-3 or Leica D-Lux 4 or even a S90 fit !
If it doesn't fit in my pocket, then i can go with my Canon 5DII and a voigländer Ultron 40... (i know, it's not a zoom...).
(http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/news/0/472/voigtlander-ultron-40mm.jpg)
The LX-3 isn't any more available from a lot of shops... maybe an LX-4 or D-lux5 are on the way !
(http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/38/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx3.jpg)
-
Doug
I understood that the 28-35-50 M9 lens is no longer available. Could you clarify your post please.
Babak
There is no such thing as "no longer available". But it is true that it's no longer made new.
One can still find this lens in rental or in used inventory.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Im' facing the same dilemma... The GF1 doesn't fits in my pocket... a Panasonic Lumix LX-3 or Leica D-Lux 4 or even a S90 fit !
If it doesn't fit in my pocket, then i can go with my Canon 5DII and a voigländer Ultron 40... (i know, it's not a zoom...).
(http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/news/0/472/voigtlander-ultron-40mm.jpg)
The LX-3 isn't any more available from a lot of shops... maybe an LX-4 or D-lux5 are on the way !
(http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/38/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx3.jpg)
That's exactly my thoughts.
First I was tempted by the GF1.
If I could get a M9, a gf1 would be nothing but a backup.
But then it does not fit in my pocket, and as I will get the EVF for sure, I realised that the size of the camera is more or less the size of a little dslr with pancake...I had the pentaxes primes from film age, so get the smallest pentax possible: the KX. Do not regret the choice at all. At least, I can use a decent viewfinder for about the same size of a mft with EVF. IQ is a step better, specially in low-light.
The GF1 makes sense IMO if you already have a Leica. (as backup).
The Canon 90 seems not bad as a true pocket camera, like the ring idea.
-
The size of your pocket has priority? Your pocket doesn't make images; choose the better camera, not the better pocket. Try buying trousers - that'll be pants if you live in the USA - with bigger pockets.
I think it makes sense some cases. If I follow your idea, then the choice is clear: Leica M9. Best possible IQ in a smallest possible format.
GF1 as backup with big pants and S90 as pocket camera.
-
I think the S90 could be really nice for us, if the controls were done properly; the compacts don't seem to get the design quality of the SLRs and this is what hurts them most. File quality is actually decent on the S90.
Edmund
Edmund, I've been looking reacently for the S90 as a pocket camera. Would you recommend it?
Thought the wheel was well implemented but you seems to notice some issues in terms of design.
Thanks.
-
Edmund, I've been looking reacently for the S90 as a pocket camera. Would you recommend it?
Thought the wheel was well implemented but you seems to notice some issues in terms of design.
Thanks.
Yes, this camera is good quality-wise. The one thing which it doesn't do well though is close-up macros, at least at first attempt for me. Also this camera doesn't have a long zoom reach.
I went to a store and photographed newspapers on the floor with various compacts. When I hit the S90, the images were sharp, so I bought it.
Basically this thing has the same quality as my first Nikon D1x dSLR.
The back wheel needs braking by some sticky tape or else it will move and ruin your shots.
You really need patience or a japanese upbringing to figure out which control is buried where. As an example, if the camera is in its default program mode, the menu items which allow you to switch on Raw are disabled.
Actually I do own an M8, but this is not a compact; by modern standards it is a slow camera which needs to be used carefully and gives superb results. You won't make fast tele shots at F4 with an M8.
Edmund
-
Yes, this camera is good quality-wise. The one thing which it doesn't do well though is close-up macros, at least at first attempt for me. Also this camera doesn't have a long zoom reach.
I went to a store and photographed newspapers on the floor with various compacts. When I hit the S90, the images were sharp, so I bought it.
Basically this thing has the same quality as my first Nikon D1x dSLR.
The back wheel needs braking by some sticky tape or else it will move and ruin your shots.
You really need patience or a japanese upbringing to figure out which control is buried where. As an example, if the camera is in its default program mode, the menu items which allow you to switch on Raw are disabled.
Actually I do own an M8, but this is not a compact; by modern standards it is a slow camera which needs to be used carefully and gives superb results. You won't make fast tele shots at F4 with an M8.
Edmund
Thanks very much for these usefull infos Edmund.
M8? Happy owner! Love the M series. That is what Leica knows best.
Regards.
-
Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.
Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?
Some of the most popular shots in my A3 print portfolio were taken some years back with a 2.1MP Ixus II, I have had a variety of small cameras and regularly get great shots with them. Ones I would have missed with a larger less handy camera, in fact many the time I've used a pocket camera despite having a larger camera in my backpack as they are so nice and easy to use.
I currently have a Ricoh GX200 which has some really nice ergonomics and ideas that I miss on other cameras. Small sensors aren't the best quality, but that's not always the most important thing. I like the quality the Ricoh camera produces for street shots. Fooled some pro-film types on here a while back who thought images from this camera were film and ironically used them to say how you couldn't do such shots digitally.
-
I just got an S90. It is basically a G11, in a tiny tiny case, with a smaller battery and less (too few, really too few) buttons and a mess of a scroll wheel.
Odd comment as that's the feature that many people are very enthusiastic about about with regard to this camera. A friend sold his 450D and bought one of these instead and loves it. Transformed his photography too - for the better.
-
Serious Compacts. Isn't that like Military Intelligence?
No.
You seem to not get compact cameras. They are much better than larger cameras in some situations, just like large cameras are better in other circumstances.
Besides it's the photographer that is 'serious', not the cameras!
-
Our eyes are educated now but the day we're in front of an old print, feel that something's wrong, it's just human. It vibrates. Digital does not. It's precise, unforgiving but it just does not have this organic aspect.
Depends how you use it!
-
The back wheel needs braking by some sticky tape or else it will move and ruin your shots.
Yes, I have had more than a few under-exposed shots because the back wheel had rotated, applying an exposure correction...
Don't know if it is a design issue or a quality control one, but the result is annoying for sure.
Other than that it is a very nice camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some of the most popular shots in my A3 print portfolio were taken some years back with a 2.1MP Ixus II, I have had a variety of small cameras and regularly get great shots with them. Ones I would have missed with a larger less handy camera, in fact many the time I've used a pocket camera despite having a larger camera in my backpack as they are so nice and easy to use.
I currently have a Ricoh GX200 which has some really nice ergonomics and ideas that I miss on other cameras. Small sensors aren't the best quality, but that's not always the most important thing. I like the quality the Ricoh camera produces for street shots. Fooled some pro-film types on here a while back who thought images from this camera were film and ironically used them to say how you couldn't do such shots digitally.
Love the man with the cigarette!
Well, yes, Ricoh to me has something special: they know how to make good design for photographers.
Always loved their german style interface implementation. The GRX, despite exotic, would be a great choice, but I'm looking now for something smaller.
Considering the S90 and the GX200 is also high on my list.
-
Depends how you use it!
Yes, you are right. It's possible to acheive. Should have written :"...does not have naturally this organic aspect".
But it's possible to overcome this fact with digital.
Agree.
-
always G9, then 5D2w/50 1.4 or Fuji GA645zi depending
-
The size of your pocket has priority? Your pocket doesn't make images; choose the better camera, not the better pocket. Try buying trousers - that'll be pants if you live in the USA - with bigger pockets.
I guess that the question is when are such cameras used.
As far as I am concerned I'll always bring my D3x is I intend to take pictures that day.
The compact camera is used only in these occasions where I am somewhere without an intention to take pictures, but an opportunity shows up that I want to capture. Compactness is key because without it I won't even bring the camera in the first place.
Those considering a M9 are probably thinking about different applications, there is no way I would want an M9 in my bag at all times because of its significant weight, anything but compact size and hefty price. This is what drove me towards the S90.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Odd comment as that's the feature that many people are very enthusiastic about about with regard to this camera. A friend sold his 450D and bought one of these instead and loves it. Transformed his photography too - for the better.
I was trying to say that the S90 is very, very good, in a tiny case, but it has some ergonomic issues, which can partly be cured by liberal use of gaffer tape
Edmund
-
I was trying to say that the S90 is very, very good, in a tiny case, but it has some ergonomic issues, which can partly be cured by liberal use of gaffer tape
Yes, that rear wheel is much too loose on the S90. It feels as if it will move all of the time at the slightest touch, frequently messing up the settings. Such a nice little camera otherwise.
-
We will try a used Panasonic G1 body with the 20mm/f1.7 Panasonic Pancake. Not a real compact, but at least with a somewhat decent (electronic) viewfinder. And the G1 will be also the startup camera for my daughter.
-
Hmmmm, sounds very familiar. I have the Canon G10 with built in zoom and seldom use it. I will take my IR modified Canon with my 35 1.4 prime or my M9 with the 35 f2 Summicron. Eleanor
I thought I wanted a compact to, the idea is appealing a camera with you all the time. I got a Richo with an electronic viewfinder and lots of manual controls. I never use it, to small and fiddley to make it enjoyable. I would rather take my Canon with just the 35mm f1.4, I find it easier, quicker, more predictable, more versatile and cropped still better than the zoomed pocket camera results. I would rather have a M9 with one lens than a P&S with a zoom.
Kevin.
-
I think I am now about to buy Panasonic Lumix:
GF2, 20mm f1.7 and 14-42
GH2, 14-140mm
This combination give me:
compact with interchangeable lenses
reasonable video (web site)
excellent low-light performance
the ability to use my Nikon mount lenses (including the Novoflex 400 and 640mm, and Micro-Nikkor 200 IF)
The ability to use my existing 4 Metz flash guns in TTL mode. (scouting shots for MF)
Ability to use with studio flash -e.g. set-up shots.
Is there anything else on the market (short of an M9)?
-
For little cameras i've gone back to film – the best idea of my life. Everytime i pick up the scanned film with layout prints I imagine myself sitting at the computer and downloading the lifeless images that always look too sharp, too flat and too clean and applying curves, adding grain and trying to get it to look like the film i just picked up from the lab.
For me, digital is work, film is play. When I hold a FM3a in my hands I feel like Helmut Newton Jr.
I just bought a black Contax G2 with three lenses, cost me about as much as a Leica lens hood – I'm gonna freak some art director out one day and do one of those David Bailey, balls of steel, things and just shoot one roll of film with the Contax and toss him the film and say "done" - then I'm gonna pull out a Bolex and scream at the client to get off my set.
I know I wont, but I think that's the reason I started taking pictures – those cool cameras. Imagine the guy in the film "Blow Up" on top of the model with digital camera chained to a compter with a firewire cable, all tangled up and five clients watching the monitor shaking their heads in disagreement.
Or in the park with a little digi cam, trying to see the LCD screen at arms distance while taking that picture... and going back to his studio and opening up "files" and zooming in to 200% on a "computer", instead of that mojo, magic dark room scene.
Face detection!
Dennis Hopper would NEVER have made the photos he made with a digicam. After opening the first "file" he would have picked up his maschine gun and used that ugly plastic button cam for target practice.
But I digress, the little Yaschika is a great little pocket camera.
-
For little cameras i've gone back to film
I think it can be frustrating trying to get a decent image out of a compact camera file after using a quality MF camera - I liked the Rollie 35 I had in the 1970s!