I reverted to my d700, mostly beacause the rf-patch is a bit small and i tend to use 85mm and 105mm quite often, which makes me non-rf-friendly. If i had been more of a 35mm-man, I think i would have forgiven the slow electronics and the other quirks, it is a nice camera.
ulrikft2 wrote:
I reverted to my d700, mostly beacause the rf-patch is a bit small and i tend to use 85mm and 105mm quite often, which makes me non-rf-friendly. If i had been more of a 35mm-man, I think i would have forgiven the slow electronics and the other quirks, it is a nice camera.
Yes, as I understand longer lenses aren't exactly a rangefinder's forte. Although I'm very fond of my 85 & 100mm Zeiss glass, I also like wide and ultra wide lenses. Not that I would ever think of abandoning those lenses and my DSLRs but it does put a limit on the situations where a rangefinder can serve as a full DSLR replacement.
Edit: I suppose I should post an image as we continue to pretend that this is an image thread
denoir wrote:
Yes, as I understand longer lenses aren't exactly a rangefinder's forte. Although I'm very fond of my 85 & 100mm Zeiss glass, I also like wide and ultra wide lenses. Not that I would ever think of abandoning those lenses and my DSLRs but it does put a limit on the situations where a rangefinder can serve as a full DSLR replacement.
If the price weren't as high as it is, I would jump on a M9 + 35 1.4 anyday as a walkaround/everyday-camera. I think I would love it to bits. As a poor student, that is less practical as the price is ... high :P
It's impressive that you as a student already managed to have an M9 - especially as I think prices used to be higher. When I was a student not all that many years ago a P&S was a serious investment for me
As for the M9 + one prime, I don't know. If you can live with the crappy AF, an X1 makes more sense there (or alternatively NEX or GF1) due to size. The M9 is only small compared to a pro DSLR but it is definitely not a pocket camera. A small DSLR such as the Canon Rebel (550D) is not much if any larger than the M9. The greatest savings should be when you have multiple lenses.
denoir wrote:
A small DSLR such as the Canon Rebel (550D) is not much if any larger than the M9. The greatest savings should be when you have multiple lenses.
This would seem to be the case, but the size difference is bigger than you realize--mainly because of the lenses. I tried that route in my quest for a small portable travel camera, and it just didn't flow--if you want fast, high-quality glass it's just not small in the DSLR world.
BTW, you might find my thread of October 2009 of interest--I posted a bit of a story on why at that time I had started using the M8, and I discuss the size issue there.
Also, here's a few shots of the 5DII with the 35/1.4L and the M8.2 w/ the 35 'Lux for comparison. While the digital Rebels are smaller than 5DII, the lens doesn't shrink, and in reality the Rebels aren't that much smaller:
jhapeman wrote:
This would seem to be the case, but the size difference is bigger than you realize--mainly because of the lenses. I tried that route in my quest for a small portable travel camera, and it just didn't flow--if you want fast, high-quality glass it's just not small in the DSLR world.
Yes, I tried to put together a compact system with my old 350D (Rebel XT) but it did not work out
rsolti13 wrote:
This talk is really getting me thinking about changing my lineup to incorporate an M9.....these boards are going to get me divorced
I guess this is why I am un-married, so I can spoil myself. Maybe in a few years I can be less selfish and have a woman and kids. At that point, I will probably still shoot the M6 and really be able to grasp what you said.
On another note, I am selling a couple of cars to do something else with that money...I sure do hope I don't get tempted by that M9. I keep telling myself to be smart. On a positive note, costco developing, only $1.40!
Maybe the M8 will find its way into my hands again. Until then, I will sit back and enjoy all the stuff you guys create.
It should, with a bit of patience, be possible to pick up an M8 for about the same price as a used D700. The lenses are trickier, but Zeiss lenses are a nice compromise between performance and price.
denoir wrote:
Perhaps, but take this into consideration - in your Zeiss/Nikon/Hasselblad test thread people had some difficulty recognizing the Zeiss. And Zeiss rendering is definitely not subtle plus if the people here can't see it then most likely nobody can as people here are very interested in different rendering styles.
Yes, but given enough shots, and real processing (remember that I basically just exported the shots), the Zeiss character would come to the fore. The Nikkor 105 is no slouch in any case.
Anyway, you missed my real point: I find the Zeiss look overkill, *on an M*. Zeiss punch combined with a CMOS sensor, and its flat colours and soft rendering (AA) is a perfect match. One compensates for the other. However, contrasty and punchy Zeiss lenses on a CCD sensor with brilliant colours and no AA filter is almost too much of a good thing. Perhaps you don't agree, but there is at least a point here.
I could not even specify what would be characteristic of a Leica rendering style.
Take a good Canon lens (35L for example), make it a fraction the size, improve the colour, make it of metal, remove the copious CA and double lines in the boke, make it sharp into the corners, and voila: a Leica.
You have to consider that few people here do photography full time - we squeeze it in when we can. So often the closes thing to a thematic project we get is when people post their travel/vacation photos. Boris' recent Iceland & Faroe Islands threads are excellent examples.
Thematic photos are a question of choice, not time. I doubt many people here have less time than I for photography, but I still have a long-term project on the go, and another two on the way.
I personally like the eclectic nature of the photos we see here
Me too! But I am a techie. And many of the shots posted here would not work any other place.
IMO, no question on the best portrait lens: The 75mm f/1.4 Summilux. Perfect combination of sharpness and slight softening from spherical aberration that makes for a great portrait. I think I've posted this here before:
Nice shot Luka! Just arrived in Bangkok
Beautiful shots Jeff! ..... amazing the rendering.
My favourite lens, is the 50/1.4 Summilux Asph, followed by the 90 Summicron AA.
Jeff I spent my budget on lenses, for now so don't further tempt me with the 75 Lux.
Rod, nice portraits. The one thing that the good portrait lenses share, IMO, is some old-fashioned spherical aberration to give a bit of glow--and hide the blemishes, especially on the ladies. My wife prefers those lenses to the 90mm AA, which is so sharp it renders every wrinkle with detail:
