charles.K wrote:
I sure that if Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji or Oly, came up with a FF body, that would accept M lenses, and worked without IQ compromise, there would be a massive following, and I know I would jump at the opportunity too. My hopes were on the Fuji X Pro, having pre ordered the system, but then cancelling the order once the real evaluations were coming in. I think the Fuji X Pro, is a great system, and hopefully with the next versions, the issues have been improved, and so is the NEX systems too.
.
Let's dream that someone puts a D800E chip into an M10 body with an Apple retina display EVF, and that it is priced by a korean marketing guy!
Mescalamba wrote:
M10 should have Sony CMOS sensor. Even tho live-view is possible with CCDs, its near impossible to have full-frame with video capability and CCD sensor.
I can virtually guarantee you the Leica M10 will not have a Sony CMOS sensor. It may have a CMOS, but it won't be a Sony. Leica must be different and distinctive if it is going to justify its price. How can it to that if it has virtually the same sensor as Nikon, Sony, Pentax and other cameras, giving that same sort of look? No. It will be different, and in Leica's eyes, "better".
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes the supply and demand is a lot more stable with those lenses. But I also belive they sell a lot more than the Leica in the same price range. There are so many pro's using them at sport shooting. Just turn on your TV any weekend and you will see those big lenses at every fotball game. And together that makes thousends of lenses just at those games
It's certainly not for Nikon, the last bunch of VR supertele's are still in limited availability. IIRC Canon does better, but only because they've been doing higher volumes steadily due to their domination of the sports shooter market for more than 15 years, they had the production capacity for these lenses which even Nikon lacks.
Total production volumes for the super-tele's (400/2.8 and longer) is very low. A lot of those lenses you see at games are in fact loaners or rentals from CPS, NPS or a rental firm, so you're seeing the same lenses at different games. And those lenses last for years, outside of the serious pro's most don't upgrade unless they absolutely have to. At least one of the more exotic Canon's, the 1200L, is believed to have had a production run under 100 units over 10 years, with only one owner of more than 2 copies other than Canon (Sports Illustrated apparently bought two).
The stereotyping in this thread is simply amazing. Given then that Leica buyers are good looking, self-obssessed, narcissistic collectors with more money than sense, I must add then another stereotype, just to keep thing balanced, most Canon mid-top camera buyers are so fat and ugly the bottom half of their belly is rolling out of their shirts and their back is breaking from a LowePro backpack full of Ls. Their cheap, white nylon shirt is yellow stained around the armpits from the effort of carrying all that stuff when trying to be a tourist. All that while wearing those comfortable beige shorts and trainers with white socks.
Enlightening.
May 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
mawz wrote:
It's certainly not for Nikon, the last bunch of VR supertele's are still in limited availability. IIRC Canon does better, but only because they've been doing higher volumes steadily due to their domination of the sports shooter market for more than 15 years, they had the production capacity for these lenses which even Nikon lacks.
Total production volumes for the super-tele's (400/2.8 and longer) is very low. A lot of those lenses you see at games are in fact loaners or rentals from CPS, NPS or a rental firm, so you're seeing the same lenses at different games. And those lenses last for years, outside of the serious pro's most don't upgrade unless they absolutely have to. At least one of the more exotic Canon's, the 1200L, is believed to have had a production run under 100 units over 10 years, with only one owner of more than 2 copies other than Canon (Sports Illustrated apparently bought two)....Show more →
Not that many can be loaners with the same lens at different games. Because all the fotball games in Europe goes at nearly the same time and the same day in 25 different countries. And I'm talking about many hundreds of games at the same time every week.
panos.v wrote:
The stereotyping in this thread is simply amazing. Given then that Leica buyers are good looking, self-obssessed, narcissistic collectors with more money than sense, I must add then another stereotype, just to keep thing balanced, most Canon mid-top camera buyers are so fat and ugly the bottom half of their belly is rolling out of their shirts and their back is breaking from a LowePro backpack full of Ls. Their cheap, white nylon shirt is yellow stained around the armpits from the effort of carrying all that stuff when trying to be a tourist. All that while wearing those comfortable beige shorts and trainers with white socks.
panos.v wrote:
The stereotyping in this thread is simply amazing. Given then that Leica buyers are good looking, self-obssessed, narcissistic collectors with more money than sense, I must add then another stereotype, just to keep thing balanced, most Canon mid-top camera buyers are so fat and ugly the bottom half of their belly is rolling out of their shirts and their back is breaking from a LowePro backpack full of Ls. Their cheap, white nylon shirt is yellow stained around the armpits from the effort of carrying all that stuff when trying to be a tourist. All that while wearing those comfortable beige shorts and trainers with white socks.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Not that many can be loaners with the same lens at different games. Because all the fotball games in Europe goes at nearly the same time and the same day in 25 different countries. And I'm talking about many hundreds of games at the same time every week.
And most of those games will get little coverage, mostly with the non-exotic lenses (plenty of 300/2.8's or 70-200/2.8's with TC's). The real monsters will be at the big games, of which there's only a few a week. Your typical local press will have access to a few super-tele's, but most of the low-level press isn't shooting with them unless they're covering a major event, and then it will usually be loaners unless you're talking a major publication.
Real Madrid, or Bayern or Man U will bring out the exotics, Everton isn't going to unless they're playing one of the big boys.
May 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
mawz wrote:
And most of those games will get little coverage, mostly with the non-exotic lenses (plenty of 300/2.8's or 70-200/2.8's with TC's). The real monsters will be at the big games, of which there's only a few a week. Your typical local press will have access to a few super-tele's, but most of the low-level press isn't shooting with them unless they're covering a major event, and then it will usually be loaners unless you're talking a major publication.
Real Madrid, or Bayern or Man U will bring out the exotics, Everton isn't going to unless they're playing one of the big boys. ...Show more →
You must be joking. Only a few games a week. There are ten big games going on on my TV just now. And that's only the English league. And there are 20 more in the Spanish & Italian leagues in a one hour. And then you have at least 10-15 other countries also. Every game have big guns. Even the small Swedish league not ranked among the top 20 in Europe have plenty of big guns in the games.
Actually I could see a bit of the Everton game just now because they show the goals from all games in the half-time. And there where at least 30-40 big guns that I could see. And they won also. To say Everton and similar teames have little coverage is just ridiculous. They send the Everton game live in more than 50 countries around the world also
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You must be joking. Only a few games a week. There are ten big games going on on my TV just now. And that's only the English league. And there are 20 more in the Spanish & Italian leagues in a one hour. And then you have at least 10-15 other countries also. Every game have big guns. Even the small Swedish league not ranked among the top 20 in Europe have plenty of big guns in the games.
Actually I could see a bit of the Everton game just now because they show the goals from all games in the half-time. And there where at least 30-40 big guns that I could see. And they won also. To say Everton and similar teames have little coverage is just ridiculous. They send the Everton game live in more than 50 countries around the world also...Show more →
Only a few games a week are going to bring out the real super-tele's. Only the larger venues are big enough to require them in the first place and there's how many of those large venues? And frankly you seem to be defining Big Game quite different than I am. There are maybe 10 big English teams, where big is defined as serious competitors for the title at the national or European level and they certainly don't play every day. Similar numbers for Italian or Spanish leagues and maybe the French or Germans, the smaller countries are bush leagues for the most part. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's a big game. Same thing over here for the major sports, any given day there's usually 5 hockey games or Basketball games and a similar or larger number of baseball games on (in season of course), they're not usually big games either and those are for sports with significantly lower numbers of teams getting coverage (the minor leagues here get a lot less coverage than for Soccer in Europe, due in part to how success can promote a team in some Euro leagues). Of course coverage will be higher right now given that titles are being clinched (also the Everton game is against Newcastle, so it's a fairly major game between more notable non-Major teams).
What you're also missing is that there's going to be a bunch of 300/2.8's at any game with moderate or real coverage, which look a lot like the real exotics from a distance (Frankly, they look identical, just smaller). Also consider this issue? Who is sending 40 guys to cover Everton? There aren't 40 publications that are going to publish pictures from that game and while some are no doubt stringers, I think you're overstating the numbers by a fair bunch. I dug up a stream of Everton's 4-4 tie against Man U last month and I was seeing 10-15 photogs, with what looked like a mix of 300's and a few 400's.
mawz wrote:
Only a few games a week are going to bring out the real super-tele's. Only the larger venues are big enough to require them in the first place and there's how many of those large venues? And frankly you seem to be defining Big Game quite different than I am. There are maybe 10 big English teams, where big is defined as serious competitors for the title at the national or European level and they certainly don't play every day. Similar numbers for Italian or Spanish leagues and maybe the French or Germans, the smaller countries are bush leagues for the most part. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's a big game. Same thing over here for the major sports, any given day there's usually 5 hockey games or Basketball games and a similar or larger number of baseball games on (in season of course), they're not usually big games either and those are for sports with significantly lower numbers of teams getting coverage (the minor leagues here get a lot less coverage than for Soccer in Europe, due in part to how success can promote a team in some Euro leagues). Of course coverage will be higher right now given that titles are being clinched (also the Everton game is against Newcastle, so it's a fairly major game between more notable non-Major teams).
What you're also missing is that there's going to be a bunch of 300/2.8's at any game with moderate or real coverage, which look a lot like the real exotics from a distance (Frankly, they look identical, just smaller). Also consider this issue? Who is sending 40 guys to cover Everton? There aren't 40 publications that are going to publish pictures from that game and while some are no doubt stringers, I think you're overstating the numbers by a fair bunch. I dug up a stream of Everton's 4-4 tie against Man U last month and I was seeing 10-15 photogs, with what looked like a mix of 300's and a few 400's.
It is obvious that you do not know or understand how big football is here in Europe. Every football match in the first league in any European country will have a lot of super teles covering it. And there are a lot more than 40 magzines and papers that will show pics from Everton and the other Premier League teames every week
Most photographers will use the 400/2,8 lens
