 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Leica, on the 4/3rds lenses
"Our goal is clear: to provide the best lenses available to the FourThirds market. This quality will have an appropriate price". The lenses are designed and developed by Leica at Solms, and manufactured in Japan, using Solms QA processes. >"Our goal is clear: to provide the best lenses available to the >FourThirds market. This quality will have an appropriate price". The >lenses are designed and developed by Leica at Solms, and manufactured >in Japan, using Solms QA processes. So? They need the money. Leica will not be making any 4/3 sensor cameras.  Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>"Our goal is clear: to provide the best lenses available to the >>FourThirds market. This quality will have an appropriate price". Stupidly expensive! >"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >>>"Our goal is clear: to provide the best lenses available to the >>>FourThirds market. This quality will have an appropriate price". > >Stupidly expensive! Quality has a price. May you need a second job? Signature"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing." John C. Keats American Writer 1924-2000 >>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Quality has a price. May you need a second job? For a lens that only works on a 4/3rd sensor? Like putting $500 tyres on a yugo. >>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >For a lens that only works on a 4/3rd sensor? Like putting $500 tyres on a >yugo. Like Canon owners buy EF-S lenses which will only work on the 1.6 crop. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Like Canon owners buy EF-S lenses which will only work on the 1.6 > crop. nope. if you are planning to go full frame then the ff lenses will also work. If you find 1.6 adequate then stick to EF-S. EF-S is only really necessary to people who desperately need wide angles. compared with buying a lens whose quality far outperforms the ability of the sensor - if all the leica hype is to be believed. > nope. if you are planning to go full frame then the ff lenses will also > work. If you find 1.6 adequate then stick to EF-S. EF-S is only really > necessary to people who desperately need wide angles. That's bad advice. Canon will orphan the EF-S lenses. Canon has an established history of abandoning lens formats. Rob >>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >For a lens that only works on a 4/3rd sensor? Like putting $500 tyres on a >yugo. If the lenses do cost as much as equivalent FF-supporting lens, either their pricing model is "creative" or the lenses are far better. Lets hope the latter. Lens production costs rise rapidly with element diameter. -Rich > If the lenses do cost as much as equivalent FF-supporting lens, > either their pricing model is "creative" or the lenses are far better. > Lets hope the latter. Lens production costs rise rapidly with element > diameter. > -Rich The Oly 35-100 f2 is larger, heavier and more expensive than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. Its image quality is equivalent, certainly no worse, it is faster, to make up for the shortcomings in sensor size, as far as depth of field goes, but it doesn't include IS. So, at least in this case, the first part of your supposition, creative pricing, seems to be the outcome, rather than it being far better. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The Oly 35-100 f2 is larger, heavier and more expensive than the Canon > 70-200 f2.8L IS. Its image quality is equivalent, certainly no worse, it is > faster, to make up for the shortcomings in sensor size, But one stop better speed isn't enough to compensate for noise performance of the actual sensors in the Oly DSLR:s, relative to a current Canon, is it? > as far as depth of > field goes, but it doesn't include IS. I thought that would be Panasonic's contribution to the 4/3 consortium. Instead, they made their own body. Strange priorities... Jan Böhme >> The Oly 35-100 f2 is larger, heavier and more expensive than the >> Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. Its image quality is equivalent, certainly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jan Böhme 4/3 image stabilised lens from Leica: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022608leica14-50mm.asp Panasonic tend to use Leica lenses. Must be back to the start of the thread. David >>> The Oly 35-100 f2 is larger, heavier and more expensive than the >>> Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. Its image quality is equivalent, certainly [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >David At first I thought Olympus might be worried this would cut into sales of the 14-54 (their "pro" lens) but that Leica will probably cost 2x as much if not more. -Rich >>> The Oly 35-100 f2 is larger, heavier and more expensive than the >>> Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. Its image quality is equivalent, certainly [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Panasonic tend to use Leica lenses. Well they use lens with the word, Leica on them. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ [] >> Panasonic tend to use Leica lenses. > > Well they use lens with the word, Leica on them. Which in the case of the FZ20 versus S2 IS show that the Leica lens is better than the Canon lens, so the name probably does mean something in that case. David > Which in the case of the FZ20 versus S2 IS show that the Leica lens is > better than the Canon lens, so the name probably does mean something in > that case. It's a simple case of envy. Well known that Canon "L" series lenses are mostly good, but their standard lenses are sharp as marshmallows. These folks would love to have a Leica lens for their cameras. Rob >> Which in the case of the FZ20 versus S2 IS show that the Leica lens is >> better than the Canon lens, so the name probably does mean something in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mostly good, but their standard lenses are sharp as marshmallows. These >folks would love to have a Leica lens for their cameras. Many do have Leica lenses on their full frame Canon bodies. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>> Which in the case of the FZ20 versus S2 IS show that the Leica lens is >>> better than the Canon lens, so the name probably does mean something in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Many do have Leica lenses on their full frame Canon bodies. And many do not, thanks to Canon's decision to make the reflex mirrors longer than they need to be, presumably in order to deter owners from using some Leica R, Zeiss (Contax) and Pentax Takumar (M42) lenses. I am considering having my 5D's mirror modified so I can use more lenses from these manufacturers. It's not so bad with the EOS 1Ds Mk.II because the mirror apparently isn't quite as long. >>>> Which in the case of the FZ20 versus S2 IS show that the Leica lens is >>>> better than the Canon lens, so the name probably does mean something in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >lenses from these manufacturers. It's not so bad with the EOS 1Ds >Mk.II because the mirror apparently isn't quite as long. As you noted just shave the mirror down... Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >As you noted just shave the mirror down... Just? ;-) >>As you noted just shave the mirror down... > >Just? > >;-) Well you can shave down the back of the lens. http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/leica_19mm_mod.html Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > As you noted just shave the mirror down... More admirable advise :( What do ya figure Johnny Boy, a 5" angle grinder or maybe go after it with a hammer and chissel? > "I have been a witness, and these pictures are > my testimony. The events I have recorded should > not be forgotten and must not be repeated." > > -James Nachtwey- That's quite an uplifting message you're quoting there. Do you ever find yourself thinking Mr. Nachtwey aught to spend less of his time hanging around with dead people? It's no reflection on you: we still see you as an intellectual type. LOL >> As you noted just shave the mirror down... > >More admirable advise :( > >What do ya figure Johnny Boy, a 5" angle grinder or maybe go after it with a >hammer and chissel? If you ever read the FM alternate lenses group you would know there are people do this and will do it to your camera. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/294233/1 Read it and learn something. Or any number of discussions of it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shaving+Canon+5D+mirror&btnG=Google+Search Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>> As you noted just shave the mirror down... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Or any number of discussions of it. So to get good WA performance you just have to: Buy another makers optics Get an adapter Trim the mirror so it will clear Use it in stop down metering mode manually Where can I buy one of these great cameras! SignatureStacey >>>> As you noted just shave the mirror down... >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Trim the mirror so it will clear Problem here is you don't know what effect that will have on the integrity of the coatings on the mirror. A first surface mirror could have its useful life reduced drastically by doing this. >Use it in stop down metering mode manually > >Where can I buy one of these great cameras! >>I am considering having my 5D's mirror modified so I can use more >>lenses from these manufacturers. It's not so bad with the EOS 1Ds >>Mk.II because the mirror apparently isn't quite as long. > > As you noted just shave the mirror down... By how much? Has anyone here done this? SignatureJohn McWilliams ~A Serenity Prayer~ "God, grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference." >>>I am considering having my 5D's mirror modified so I can use more >>>lenses from these manufacturers. It's not so bad with the EOS 1Ds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >By how much? Has anyone here done this? People have done and do it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shaving+Canon+5D+mirror&btnG=Google+Search Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>>>I am considering having my 5D's mirror modified so I can use more >>>>lenses from these manufacturers. It's not so bad with the EOS 1Ds [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shaving+Canon+5D+mirror&btnG=Google+Search I didn't ask for an empty Google reply URL. One post, unintelligible. I asked if anyone reading this NG had done it. Then I can judge by who replies whether the info is square on, crap, or somewhere in between. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>>I am considering having my 5D's mirror modified so I can use more >>>>>lenses from these manufacturers. It's not so bad with the EOS 1Ds [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I asked if anyone reading this NG had done it. Then I can judge by who >replies whether the info is square on, crap, or somewhere in between. You don't have that quality of people in this news group. http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/170814.html?1130698840 Here. If you don't know who Guy Mancuso it's your loss. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/294233/0 Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >> If the lenses do cost as much as equivalent FF-supporting lens, >> either their pricing model is "creative" or the lenses are far better. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >part of your supposition, creative pricing, seems to be the outcome, rather >than it being far better. Kind of odd when you consider the front lens on the Olympus needs only to be 50mm across to provide 100mm at f2 versus the Canon 200mm at f2.8 which requires a front lens 72mm across. In the case of Canon versus Olympus, we could also be talking about economies of scale given it's unlikely Olympus will produce even 1/10th the number of 35-100mm lenses compared to Canon's 70-200 lens. -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.