John Black wrote:
If Epson updated the RD w/ a current generation 12 MP sensor such as the one in Sony Alpha or Nikon D300, I think Epson would sell quite a few --- assuming the price point stayed at the $2k mark. That's still expensive for most people - and certainly relative to this thread where "P&S" implies affordability. 6 MP doesn't leave much room for cropping, but 6 MP from the RD is probably better than 8 to 10 MP from a current digicam.
I think that's right. If they updated it with the current Sony 12mp sensor it could do well at $2000. I would buy one. That's a lot better than $5000 for an M8. Mind you, Cosina would need to come out with a few new dedicated wide angle lenses for it. For me the 6mp wasn't worth the investment. My film G2 produces much better output, at for the volume that I would use it, its cheaper as well. But at 10-12mp the investment would make some sense.
John Black wrote:
Meanwhile, the newly introduced Canon G9 looks promising - at least Canon brought RAW back. My biggest gripe with the digicams is the extreme crop factor and resulting DOF. Creatively they are challenge (for me).
Yes, it's good that they included raw again in the G9. Bad move taking it out of the G7. But such tiny sensor is only good, IMHO, for non-critical recording of things or events, snap shots, etc. DOF is just one reason of many. However, a G9 type camera with an APS-sensor might be an interesting product (it doesn't have to be pocketable).
John wrote 6 MP doesn't leave much room for cropping, but 6 MP from the RD is probably better than 8 to 10 MP from a current digicam.
I agree strongly (probably a lot better, in fact, from the images I have seen from that camera), and I have been considering this camera for a long time. The lenses are where this one shines, for sure. A relatively fragile rangefinder mechanism is the main reason I have baulked—that and not having anyone here who can do that kind of maintenance.
I'm just back from a short week in Malaysia, bringing my E-1 with the 11-22 and the OM 100/2.8. It's not exactly pocketable, but none of the suggestions here are. Still, it's a very compact set, and the 100/2.8 is really tiny, so I had 22-44mm and 200mm eqv. in a rather small package.
The E-410 would have made the package smaller, but I would lose the rock solid build quality and the weather sealing of the E-1. When travelling like I do (night-trains, old buses, pickup trucks etc.), I find build quality at least as important as size, even if I only bring a very small backpack. The gear does get wet sometimes, it does get bounced around, and on occasions, it even has to do as a pillow or a table.
I agree strongly (probably a lot better, in fact, from the images I have seen from that camera), and I have been considering this camera for a long time. The lenses are where this one shines, for sure. A relatively fragile rangefinder mechanism is the main reason I have baulked—that and not having anyone here who can do that kind of maintenance.
This is probably a controversial statement..., but I think a good sharp lens with good micro contrast can add the value of a couple extra megapixels. In others words 8 MP with an average lens can be out-classed by a very good lens on a 6 MP camera assuming the sensors are of equal caliber. The sensor in the RD-1 had a very good reputation for low noise, but I don't know how the IQ stacked up - ie - whether there was a strong AA filter or not. I've been on the fence about the RD-1 for several months. It's probably a silly purchase, but I think with a pre-ASPH 35 summilux or the 4th revision summicron it could be a nice pocket camera (loosely speaking).
I bought Son's M8 a while back and that quickly added up to over $8k with a couple 6-bit lenses. I like rangefinders, but that much My other camera is a 1Ds2. Slap a lens on that and everybody around looks to see what you're up to. With the M8 nobody really noticed it. My wife even asked "why did you buy that old piece of junk?" I politely laughed and walked off before she began to ask too many questions The Leica 28/2.8 ASPH and 35/2 ASPH were amazingly sharp. With no AA (or a very weak one, whatever the case may be) on the M8, sharpness was a given. If the RD-1 can produce that level of sharpness, then its 6 MP would probably be on par with a 20D.
John, personally I do not find that position controversial at all. I owned a Leica D2, and a Panasonic LC1, just for that reason: a small, but very clean (at low ISOs) sensor, and a great lens. Both produced really great images, and (in my experience) definitely better than the Nikon D70—no matter what glass was in front of it.
And from what I read on the Leica digital forum, the members there who have an RD1 love its images—even those who have M8s. Lovely, but different. So, probably still worth thinking about, and the control surface is a great mixture of analogue and digital. I am going to keep thinking on this.
And the new G9? Small sensor, and 35mm EFOV on the wide end, if I recall correctly. Not a starter, for me, but IF it had a 24 EFOV lens, then I would consider it.
I had the RD1 with a leica 35/f2 version 3 (great lens) and it was very nice to use, especially because of the 1:1 finder. The output quality was very good for prints to 22x17 (the biggest I printed) and files had a very pleasing tonality and colour rendition. Green grass could look odd sometimes (an IR effect I think-I didn't use cut filters) but mostly colours looked right. However mine developed a shutter fault that couldn't be fixed so the question of their reliability and durability concerned me since Epson didn't appear to provide much service back-up.
I like the 5D 40/2 combo, although the Zuiko 40/2 seems to be hard to find. The alt. is the Zeiss 45mm but then you have mirror clearance issues. Has anyone compared the 2 lenses?
I just traded my 45 f2.8 amongst other gear for a 1D3. I never tested the CZ 45 against the Oly 40 because the Oly is certainly good enough, and there is no competition. The CZ may be smaller, but the Oly is wider, brighter and still tiny. Game over. The only downside to the 40 as far as I can see, is the big funky flare artefacts.
Just went through the review of the Olympus E-410 and it really looks good (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/)! I specially like the way it handles noise in Hi-ISOs (smooth, but not without detail). I think it would make an excellent pocketable DSLR! Not having a decent view-finder is a problem, but I think I would prefer the live-view for manual focusing. Any hands on experience about this?
Does any one know were to find used Olympus/Zuiko lenses in europe?
What about a Pentax K100D + Pentax AF pancake lens? Still to big and heavy?
srui wrote:
Just went through the review of the Olympus E-410 and it really looks good {snip}
I think it would make an excellent pocketable DSLR!
And what "pocket" are you going to put this in, and with what lens attached? It would require a pretty big pocket -- and even if you had a pocket big enough, it wouldn't be very comfortable walking around with that camera and lens in it.
"Is that an Olympus E-410 in your pocket or are you just VERY happy to see me?" ;-)
srui wrote:
Not having a decent view-finder is a problem, but I think I would prefer the live-view for manual focusing. Any hands on experience about this?
And the horrible viewfinder is indeed a problem. Live-view on the LCD is hardly going to be accurate enough for manual focusing, and far from an effective substitute for a decent viewfinder (especially for manual focusing).
...Olympus E-410...really looks good...like the way it handles noise in Hi-ISOs
Noise looks good, but these crops are so misleading, because it is really going to be put to shame by the 5D in that regard. And check out how it blows the highlights on the paperclip shot. Good value, yes, moderately lightweight, yes, but 'ultimate'?
brainiac wrote:
I just traded my 45 f2.8 amongst other gear for a 1D3. I never tested the CZ 45 against the Oly 40 because the Oly is certainly good enough, and there is no competition. The CZ may be smaller, but the Oly is wider, brighter and still tiny. Game over. The only downside to the 40 as far as I can see, is the big funky flare artefacts.
People often forget the Pentax 40mm F2.8 SMC-M. I just "tossed" one in as a body cap with the 1DII i sold, the buyer doesn't know it yet and probably won't know what to do with it. Great little lens, very cheap, but the 5-bladed aperture renders some REALLY goofy OOF highlights. No mirror clearance issues, solid construction, EXTREMELY small, and did i mention CUTE?
Lotusm50 wrote:
And what "pocket" are you going to put this in, and with what lens attached? It would require a pretty big pocket -- and even if you had a pocket big enough, it wouldn't be very comfortable walking around with that camera and lens in it.
"Is that an Olympus E-410 in your pocket or are you just VERY happy to see me?" ;-)
And the horrible viewfinder is indeed a problem. Live-view on the LCD is hardly going to be accurate enough for manual focusing, and far from an effective substitute for a decent viewfinder (especially for manual focusing).
From all the testimonies and samples I have seen, manual focusing with the E-410 is very usable. Certainly usable enough for its intended purpose (snapshots) and especially good for macro work. I have read a bunch of stuff (and seen a bunch of photos) on Japanese sites that is very encouraging regarding this.
No, it won't be anything at all like focussing a 5D + Ee-S. And no, Richard, the ISO performance will not match a 5D. But as a small, compact option in a multi-system setup, it has a lot to offer, especially since 4/3rds is even more adaptable than EOS and offers a distinctly different FOV to compliment FF. 5D + E-410 + all-kinds-of-glass sounds like a hell of a lot of fun, choice, versatility...
cogitech wrote:
From all the testimonies and samples I have seen, manual focusing with the E-410 is very usable. Certainly usable enough for its intended purpose (snapshots) and especially good for macro work. I have read a bunch of stuff (and seen a bunch of photos) on Japanese sites that is very encouraging regarding this.
But, as I said, the live-view LCD is not useful for manual focusing. As for the optical viewfinder, perhaps it is good enough for "snapshots", but that's not good enough for me, and I suspect a lot of others on this list. I think a lot of focusing errors with the E-410 might be mitigated to some extent due to the large DOF. I would find it surprising if all those experiences actually had tack-sharp images, but rather had sufficiently sharp for shapshot images with large DOF.
cogitech wrote:
No, it won't be anything at all like focussing a 5D + Ee-S. And no, Richard, the ISO performance will not match a 5D. But as a small, compact option in a multi-system setup, it has a lot to offer, especially since 4/3rds is even more adaptable than EOS and offers a distinctly different FOV to compliment FF. 5D + E-410 + all-kinds-of-glass sounds like a hell of a lot of fun, choice, versatility...
I actually don't think that manually focusing a 5D with the Ee-S is all that great either. Wide angles are particularly tough. I suppose I am just spoiled by years of using Contax film SLR's. The Brightscreen that I use on the 5D is better than the Ee-S.
Further, while the 4/3'rs is more adaptable (due to the short lens register), there is very little in terms of effective wide-angle lenses to adapt for use on the cameras. "All-kinds-of-glass", yes, as long as you don't use wide-angle lenses -- which would be quite odd for a compact travel camera. (and it's not really a sports camera, so what do you have left?)
An adapted 15mm lens can only give you an effective 30mm lens, and a 15mm lens from almost any system is large and expensive (even used). The size of an effective 30-32mm lens alone would defeat the purpose of the E-410 as a compact alternative, near-P&S, camera. And a viable, compact, 28-35mm effective focal length lens is essential for a camera like this in most of the uses we are talking about here.
Of course, this connects back to my long voice complaint about the Oly 4/3'rds system -- it doesn't really exploit its potential size advantage fully in the lens system, and they really should produce a few wide-angle and standard pancake lenses (like Pentax has done) to produce a truly compact package. Oly really needs to take a few pages out of their old Pen F and OM play-books. It would serve them well.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The prospective DP-1 or similar camera potentially offers more (we'll have to wait to see how much more), but it still is not "pocketable"
If the Sigma DP-1 isn't pocketable enough for you then you will have to get happy with small sensor compacts. You cannot have your cake...
Of course all this is theoretical, because I still do not see this camera any nearer to hitting the shelves a full year down the line.
My 'compact' remains the 350D and I have an eye on the Ricoh GRD - the only small sensor compact I like amongst the hundreds on the market.
kinda given up on DP1 myself, in any event, while it might have great IQ at low iso
any larger sensor perceived gains in iso performance seem a little lacking, so back to 4/3rds i go.
the 410 is about the best bet these days, a number of pros are using them as backups with fitted WA, with a larger tele lens on a larger format prime camera
i think Panasonic are up to something, since the launch of the new 4/3rds L10, it looks like its yet another sensor. And the speculation is that its actually a slightly larger sensor somewhat masked, perhaps a 3x2 sensor at around 20mm wide
could this be the notorious EVIL sensor, hence the camera might be soon to come
if anyone can do it, with their video experience Panasonic can. If they do, you can bet that they will make us pay for it, until the novelty wears off.
Hmm. I think we are getting caught up in terminology to some extent. Let's state clearly a few points about this thread:
1) This thread is not necessarily about a "pocketable" P&S, merely a compact one.
2) The DP-1 isn't "pocketable" enough for me, but it should be "compact" enough for me. Mind you, I am not looking for a "pocketable" P&S, and never indicated that I was. The DP-1, if we ever see one, might be limited by other issues, not by it's degree of "compactness" or "pocketability".
3) The DP-1 is not really "pocketable" and neither does Sigma make such a claim (or does anybody else, really). I was merely stating what is commonly and readily understood, given what the obvious definition of "pocketable" is.
For the time being (and unfortunately, it seems for the foreseeable future), my quality image-producing compacts are all film-based.
AdrianGB wrote:
If the Sigma DP-1 isn't pocketable enough for you then you will have to get happy with small sensor compacts. You cannot have your cake...
Lotusm50 wrote:
But, as I said, the live-view LCD is not useful for manual focusing. As for the optical viewfinder, perhaps it is good enough for "snapshots", but that's not good enough for me, and I suspect a lot of others on this list. I think a lot of focusing errors with the E-410 might be mitigated to some extent due to the large DOF. I would find it surprising if all those experiences actually had tack-sharp images, but rather had sufficiently sharp for shapshot images with large DOF.
LV is entirely useful for MF lenses, cant figure how you can claim its not. The OVF is widely different from the older poro mirror setups in generationaly older cameras
Lotusm50 wrote:
Further, while the 4/3'rs is more adaptable (due to the short lens register), there is very little in terms of effective wide-angle lenses to adapt for use on the cameras. "All-kinds-of-glass", yes, as long as you don't use wide-angle lenses -- which would be quite odd for a compact travel camera. (and it's not really a sports camera, so what do you have left?)
but then the WA lenses Oly offer are so good i cant see why you would want to use an alternative. What did you have in mind, Canon L WA ? (cough)
The 11-22 is one of the few lenses that photozone.de rate as Highly Recommended , the 7-14mm doesnt seem to have an equivalent as yet in any format. UWA is a 4/3rds forte
Lotusm50 wrote:
Of course, this connects back to my long voice complaint about the Oly 4/3'rds system -- it doesn't really exploit its potential size advantage fully in the lens system, and they really should produce a few wide-angle and standard pancake lenses (like Pentax has done) to produce a truly compact package. Oly really needs to take a few pages out of their old Pen F and OM play-books. It would serve them well.
i would agree a few more primes would be nice, in particular a tight WA small in size
Rob Riley wrote:
but then the WA lenses Oly offer are so good i cant see why you would want to use an alternative.
The point here, however, is compactness. Regardless of how good they may or may not be, if you are looking for compactness, which what this thread is basically about, the Oly wide angle zooms are not going to give it to you. The Oly 11-22mm zoom weighs 485 grams (over a pound) and its minimum length is 93mm (nearly 4 inches). It virtually doubles the size, weight and bulk of the E-410 camera removing any thought of compactness, or duty as a compact P&S. The Oly 7-14mm zoom is more than 50% bigger again in weight and bulk, so that's no help here either.
Lotus wrote: the Oly 4/3'rds system -- it doesn't really exploit its potential size advantage fully in the lens system, and they really should produce a few wide-angle and standard pancake lenses (like Pentax has done) to produce a truly compact package. Oly really needs to take a few pages out of their old Pen F and OM play-books. It would serve them well.
That's the problem in a nutshell. IF Oly had a really wide pancake, I would have bought it already. That is exactly what I want.
I do think the DP1 will be genuinely pocketable, though, having handled the GR. That prototype DP1 was not much thicker than the Ricoh GR, and the other dimensions are very similar to the GR, from memory. My reading of Adrien's comment is that he does think this is pocketable.
and (to Rob) for me, the 11-22 was way too large and heavy for the 410, and just right on the E-1—but that combo is *definitely* not my idea of either pocketable nor P&S!
No, I think that Lotus' point about the need for a small wide prime for this body is a pressing one, and if one were available, it would sell fast.
My other camera is a 1Ds2. Slap a lens on that and everybody around looks to see what you're up to. With the M8 nobody really noticed it. My wife even asked "why did you buy that old piece of junk?" I politely laughed and walked off before she began to ask too many questions 
