The "crosover" concept DP1

[leonardobarreto.com]

sounds like a good concept: get a point-and-shoot, put a SLR size sensor, a good 28mm lens (you want it to be f2.8, but to make the camera compact reduce cost, go for f4) and you have a unique "crosover" machine.

This could be the take-alone-everywhere camera (sorry, M8 can't do that because it is too valuable)

If the IQ is as good as they say it is, it may be an interesting unique camera. I like the later design much more than the original proposal, specially the optical finder.

If they are smart they could have the same camera in 2 or 3 "flavors", for example, a 20mm", 28mm and a 50mm"

The one thing that I do not like of most point and shoot, including this one is that they have this delicate lenss telescoping out when on and in when off. I understand that this is so that they are small and "pocketable", but the idea of documenting anything with such an exposed lens... fortunately in this case there seams to be a hood-lens-protector that I would keep on all the time --if I had one.

 

[James Roberts]

If it looks like, and smells like, and shoots like....

Um, sorry--

This sounds like a point and shoot with a mediocre lens. Since even some of the best dSLRs are lens limited, I don't think this is a good idea at all.

The M8 is perfect for this as it is. If you want to keep the cost to image quality ratio down, might I suggest an M8 with a 28mm CV 1.9? That's going to be a lot less than a 1d3 with the equivalent glass, and a lot less conspicuous (same resolution).

Fast, compact, stealthy. And has the heart of a 1ds2 (or better) in a completely touristy--looking package.

Further, it's small, inconspicuous, and shoots like a dream. I'm telling you, I don't feel "exposed" with the M8 half as much as someone with a cheap zoom and a Digital Rebel (or equivalent) in "bad" areas at night.

As for it being too valuable to take with you--well, that's what insurance is for. Though I understand about, say, the beach with a dog and a three-year-old in tow

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

I think I posted to close to the Leica people, sorry.

What I mean is this: I have a P 25/Mamiya AFD, when I'm off my work I don't want to go about town with that even if I know that the images will be superb and it is properly insured and all.

I also don't have extra $8k after "maxing" up tree credit cards... so, of course this is my situation. In this scenario a relatively better performing range finder that sells under $1k --including lens-- is not so bad.

The best thing to do is to wait for two thing a) sample images, b) resale price

 

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

I've been thinking a lot about choices. I think that if we look at what we really don't use and sell the stuff off, we could end up bridging the gap to an M8. After all, most of the money put to an M8 is likely to be recovered. The loss will be perhaps the actual price of your crossover digicam. But then the M8 can also serve you as a professional camera in many circumstances and is really fitting for a guy like you.

I just hope that your New York clientelle pay you well!

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

The camera as an object of desire

Asher, It will be fitting ok. But now I think you have sailed in to a topic that I wanted to bring -probably comes up every now and then in this types of forums -- and it is about the camera as an object of desire. I confess to suffering to camerazing (my spell check program went: what?). I fall in love with cameras in the same way that with cars and motorcycles, airplanes, and any other machine where I could see the mind of the inventor and or the builder and finisher making everything work. My favorite program was Wings in the Discovery Channel where they talked in detail about different airships mostly from the two world wars.

So, as a photographer machines play an important part in the modus operandi. Sometimes I envy other photographers that don't seam to have this, like my friend Claudia Gordillo, a really good photo journalist from my native Nicaragua that worked with a Canon and some wide angles that her father gave her. She used this equipment as a taxi driver uses his car. Her main and only point was the image and the negative (she developed the Tri-X Pan like an italian chef, spent hours watching her contact sheets and enlarging.

Any way, the thing is: yes, the M8 is fitting and desirable, but Leicas have never convinced me, I guess because for me improving the IQ meant using larger negative size, and or believed that Nikons can do what Leicas do, or never had money for one. I always knew they were fitting -- but not for me --.

I'm only curious about the Sigma, not thinking about it or any range finder, what I just got is a Graplex

on eBay, it was a 50th b'day from my wife (I made the bidding) to go back to doing urban landscape on film, probably 4x5 after I convert this 2 1/4 in to a 4x5. I want to use only a 135mm lens, and tripod. The camera comes with this lens that was not listed but seams to be a schneaider 100mm 1:3.5 all for $138.20 dollars. I just love to compose on a 4 x 5 focusing glass, so I will do that on my time off.

When I finish paying for the P 25 -- if my New York clientelle pay well and fast -- I can put it on my back pack in the bicycle to decadent industrial locations...

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

No, I don't think I can embed an image from ebay here, but this is the link to where the camera is...

 

[Rob Riley]

i think most people with more valuable M8 or dSLRs have another smaller camera as a carry gun
the market does seriously lack alternate choices however

most of the small sensors wont cut it, even though a few have some nice features, the features on the 'other' camera will out range them. So what is required is a slightly larger than most compact design (point and shoot is quite derogatory) fairly limited lens maybe 28-90, or better 24-80 around F2.8, operable iso clean to 800. Limited menu design.

i figure that the revived 4/3rds seems to be up to it now, and they seem to have the idea that compact is good. Not beyond the realms of possibility for a cheap and cheerful fixed lens rangefinder with liveview, a hotshoe maybe, OVF and a conventional LCD, what about an aperture ring/speed dial, iso wheel and evf thumb wheel. Two card drawer and bottle opener

The ideal #2 camera, travel camera, streetshooter

 

[Mike Funnell]

The ideal #2 camera, travel camera, streetshooter

There was a place for the likes of a Leica CM, or Contax T2 or (earlier) Olympus XA in the pocket of people using SLR or RF cameras as their primary, back in the film days. For me, although they're useful, a small-sensor digital camera isn't a "2nd camera" in the same sense because of the very different rendering between smaller and larger sensor sizes (including the near inability to use selective focus). So I don't see why there can't be a place for a large sensor digital camera with a smaller form-factor and lower price-point than dSLRs and digital RF cameras.

I'd love to be able to use a "digital Leica CM" with large sensor (4/3rds or APS-C seem the practical sizes among the existing formats). Others have similar thoughts: there is at least some level of interest in the DP-1 at RFF and Mike Johnston has written previously about the "Decisive Moment Digital". I just don't know if the likes of us constitute enough of a market to justify the development costs.

Unless and until something like this comes along, I guess I'll have to keep using film if I want a pocketable large sensor camera.

...Mike

 

[Rob Riley]

indeed, marketing hate going to new places
the DP-1 will go like a rocket early on, unless they really screw it up

my personal take on those film rangefinders would be like the Minolta Hi Matic or Canonette

i had forgotten to add retro to the mix, that is VERY big in Japan particularly
and although acted on in the west, we havnt gone with that acute an association

 

[Mike Funnell]

My equivalent:



Its not quite as pocketable as the XA or T2 - mostly because the lens leaves it an awkward shape.

...Mike

 

[Rob Riley]

yes nice, there were lots of those 35mm rangefinders
pancake lenses around 40mm seemed very popular

a collapsible lens would lower the profile, which is what they attempted on DP1
at the cost of aperture for the 3 part lens

its possible that the relatively short register of some 38mm could be reflexed into the body
making it even narrower, i think Panasonics TZ1 and one of the Kodaks does just that
would probably lose the capacity for an aperture ring at that though

personally, i would try to keep the short lens on

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Not a rage finder, but a desirable size factor. The other desirable is lens system.

It is what Olympus is desperately trying to do now, but no near as small yet.

I think that if the reflex system got replaced by something electronic...

 

[Sean Reid]

The new Sigma is an interesting camera and one that I want to test. What I wish they would have done, however, is to go to a lens with a narrower FOV. For example, a 35mm (EFOV) lens is more of an "all-arounder" in my mind than a 28. I feel the same way about the Ricoh GR digital.

Cheers,

Sean Reid

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

they could have the camera with in 2 or 3 "flavors", same as other film like the Fujifilm, for example, the GW690III that is available with a standard 90mm f/3.5 lens or, other with a 65mm f/5.6 wide angle lens and then there is yet another model with 6 x 7cm format and a 90mm lens..

So, this are tree options. It would be really interesting a ccd with a long aspect ratio that may be manufactured with video cameras in mind for panoramic...

Or they could have two models one with a fast 20-45mm zoom and another with a normal to tele, then you use the two like a documentary photographer.

I think that it will all depend on how desirable is the IQ of this first fish that will evolve legs and walk to dry land. (I think that the Leica is a different animal all together in good or bad sense)

 

[Rob Riley]

The new Sigma is an interesting camera and one that I want to test. What I wish they would have done, however, is to go to a lens with a narrower FOV. For example, a 35mm (EFOV) lens is more of an "all-arounder" in my mind than a 28. I feel the same way about the Ricoh GR digital.

Cheers,

Sean Reid

the makers of most of those 35mm compact rangefinders seem to agree with you
but Im curious, what makes this the right FoV

 

[Rob Riley]

Not a rage finder, but a desirable size factor. The other desirable is lens system.

It is what Olympus is desperately trying to do now, but no near as small yet.

I think that if the reflex system got replaced by something electronic...

that looks like 4/3rds DNA
i didnt realise it was an SLR
the poro mirror assy is very similar

EVIL is coming, I think Panasonic will do it first

 

[Sean Reid]

There's no one "right" FOV. 35 is just a very useful FOV, not as wide as a 24 or 28, not as narrow as a 50. One could also argue for a 40, etc. But if a camera has a fixed lens I think it ends up being more versatile if that fixed lens is of a moderate focal length.

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

For a long time I only used 35mm on a rangefinder. Everything seemed normal. Then I moved to 50mm and the same feeling.

With the M8, for me the 28mm (x1.6 ie 44.8 if my math is correct), seemed perfect.

Except for extremes where really WA or tele lens is needed, for people photography, one simply moves in or out.

What's more important about the Sigma camera is it's potentially improved dynamic range and resolving power to go with a large sensor. The lens focal length is secondary.

The only particulars I'd like to know is how good is the flare protection and how easy it is to adjust the lens manually. For me these two factors arec critical.

Asher

 

[Rob Riley]

on the lens, I think maybe people chase the 1:1 with the image circle, 43+mm for film, choose your weapon

as to foveon images, heres a few gleaned from photographer Kendall Gelner


http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/76540651/original

http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/76124924/original

http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/77400934/original

http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/77400919/original

http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/77400896/original

http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/2583091#136097429-O-LB

 

[James Roberts]

For a long time I only used 35mm on a rangefinder. Everything seemed normal. Then I moved to 50mm and the same feeling.

With the M8, for me the 28mm (x1.6 ie 44.8 if my math is correct), seemed perfect.

Except for extremes where really WA or tele lens is needed, for people photography, one simply moves in or out.

What's more important about the Sigma camera is it's potentially improved dynamic range and resolving power to go with a large sensor. The lens focal length is secondary.

The only particulars I'd like to know is how good is the flare protection and how easy it is to adjust the lens manually. For me these two factors arec critical.

Asher

Asher--Your math is correct, but I think you're still shooting closer to a 35mm FOV on the M8

The M8 is a 1.33 crop, not a 1.6--so the 28mm lens on the M8 provides a (wonderful, IMO) 37mm FOV (thereabouts).

As for the Foveon, the the proof will be in the prints. We'll see.

I have a Canon G6 that I still like quite a lot. But it's not very good for critical work--too complex, too much to turn off, and the optical viewfinder is really not good enough for my aging eyes.

Still, when I'm going to the beach with kids around (my own trip), then that's what I take; if it were a professional shoot at the beach, it would be the M8--no contest.