From: DanP on
On 13 May, 21:26, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!
>
> >What is the point? It would only make sense if they make the lenses
> >small as well and that affect IQ.
>
> The Leica M9 full frame compact camera accepts lenses that are
> absolutely *tiny* by the standards of DSLR lenses, yet their image
> quality is unsurpassed.

Point taken.

DanP
From: DanP on
On 14 May, 21:44, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 May, 21:26, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!
>
> > >What is the point? It would only make sense if they make the lenses
> > >small as well and that affect IQ.
>
> > The Leica M9 full frame compact camera accepts lenses that are
> > absolutely *tiny* by the standards of DSLR lenses, yet their image
> > quality is unsurpassed.
>
> Point taken.
>
> DanP

I am still scratching my head and thinking smaller lens diameter means
less light captured.
So the FF sensor has to struggle and compensate for the small lens.

Don't get me wrong, Leica M9 does it but if I had that kind of money
to spend I would buy a Nikon D3s.
And then maybe I would buy a M9 just to have the best compact money
can buy.


DanP
From: DanP on
On 14 May, 22:09, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:

> Go look up the term, "telephoto compression"then come back.

Being the troll he is talking to him about anything is pointless.


DanP
From: Bruce on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I am still scratching my head and thinking smaller lens diameter means
>less light captured.
>So the FF sensor has to struggle and compensate for the small lens.


The trouble is, your mindset is based around retrofocus lens designs
that need to clear the reflex mirror in a DSLR.

Leica lenses do not have that constraint. Because there is no mirror,
the rear element of the lens can be much closer to the sensor. The
lenses can be much smaller for the same focal length and maximum
aperture.

While many Leica lenses are still retrofocus lenses, the absence of a
mirror means that there are far fewer compromises in their designs.
The result is that not only can Leica lenses be smaller, they can also
perform better than DSLR lenses. And they do.

The drawback is that , because of the very high quality, the low
production volume and the fact that all Leica equipment is largely
manufactured by hand, the lenses are very expensive to make. They are
priced way beyond the reach of most photographers.


>Don't get me wrong, Leica M9 does it but if I had that kind of money
>to spend I would buy a Nikon D3s.


Don't you mean a D3X? The D3s is only 12 MP. D3X has 24 MP.

The Leica M9 has 18.5 MP but the absence of an AA (blurring) filter
over the sensor means that it offers greater ability to capture detail
than any current 24 MP DSLR.


>And then maybe I would buy a M9 just to have the best compact money
>can buy.


I wish I could justify an M9, or was affluent enough to buy one
without thinking about the price. But I cannot, and I'm not, so it
means that my Leica lenses still have their images captured on film.

I'm tempted to sell the lenses, but they keep going up in value. They
are each worth about twice what I paid for them four or five years
ago. While I am very happy with my Nikon gear - D700, D300, Kodak DCS
Pro 14n and fourteen assorted Nikkors - none of the Nikon lenses, even
the fixed focal length lenses - is up to Leica standards. But they
are good enough for what I do.

From: Bruce on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:18:38 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>On 14 May, 22:09, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Go look up the term, "telephoto compression"then come back.
>
>Being the troll he is, talking to him about anything is pointless.


Is he a troll or just someone with particularly strong opinions who
repeats it whenever an opportunity arises?

It does no harm to remind DSLR users that their choice of equipment
brings with it several drawbacks. In particular, macro work with an
APS-C or full frame DSLR can be difficult because of the extreme lack
of depth of field.

In macro work, a smaller sensor offers genuine advantages because of
the greater of field that is available. And while small sensors don't
offer the same image quality as APS-C and full frame digital, they are
not so far behind - they are much improved over the small sensors of
only 3 or 4 years ago.

The same guy also had a useful contribution to make recently when we
were discussing cleaning DSLR sensors. Putting aside his perfectly
valid point that compact P&S and bridge cameras don't need their
sensors cleaned, he pointed out that some methods of cleaning DSLR
sensors could induce a static charge on the sensor causing it to
attract dust. I found his contribution useful and constructive. It
caused me to consider different methods of sensor cleaning for the
Kodak DCS Pro 14n I recently bought, whose sensor is a dust magnet.

Unfortunately, his defensive approach often precludes a more detailed
discussion, but calling him a troll is not strictly accurate, because
he does have a contribution to make.

He is far more useful to the newsgroup(s) he posts to than some people
who relentlessly accuse him of trolling, but themselves have very
little useful information to offer.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: Nikon Raw 64 bit codec
Next: Good news for shills...