«

Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> AKT wrote:
>> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
>>
>> : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...ujifS100FS.asp
>> : 2/3" sensor, 11MP, IS, 28-400mm zoom, compact and lightweight
>>
>> Very interesting indeed. I hope it will lead to a competitive reply
>> form Panasonic et al. Its weight is a negative. I would withhold any
>> judgment until they announce the price.
> I am currently dreaming of an bridge camera with a *very high
> resolution* (at least 2,5 mpix) electronic oled viewfinder.
> This one could be b/w, it would not hurt.
> It should also have a Leica compatible lens mount.
> Make it affordable and it is THE hit.

If by "HIT" you mean popular, what demographic
would buy it?

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
> Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>> AKT wrote:
>>> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
>>>
>>> : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...ujifS100FS.asp
>>> : 2/3" sensor, 11MP, IS, 28-400mm zoom, compact and lightweight
>>>
>>> Very interesting indeed. I hope it will lead to a competitive reply
>>> form Panasonic et al. Its weight is a negative. I would withhold any
>>> judgment until they announce the price.
>> I am currently dreaming of an bridge camera with a *very high
>> resolution* (at least 2,5 mpix) electronic oled viewfinder.
>> This one could be b/w, it would not hurt.
>> It should also have a Leica compatible lens mount.
>> Make it affordable and it is THE hit.
>
> If by "HIT" you mean popular, what demographic
> would buy it?
>
If it's not affordable, the pros.
If it's affordable, the amateurs.
If it's Nikon, everybody.


Laszlo

Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

> dj_nme wrote:
>
>> Leica R (SLR) or Leica M (RF) or Leica m39 (RF)?
>> Leica RF lenses I feel may be impractical for an EVIL (electronic
>> viewfinder interchangable lens) camera, as they are always stopped
>> down to taking apeture and could make the image on the sensor too dark
>> for contrast detection focusing and an EVF a bit dark or rather noisey
>> (as the image signal may need to be amplified for viewing).
>
> IMHO it should be based on Leica M to be able to use the available
> lenses. Taking aperture is not a critical aspect, since if you have not
> enough light to operate the viewer, you would probably have not have
> enough light for the picture either. The signal at continuous view is
> significantly better than on an instant picture.
> The sensors are quite sensible, up to night view...

You sound like you've never used DoF preview on a SLR camera, the
viewfinder becomes quite dark as the lens stops down to taking apeture.

> Regarding contrast detection focusing, autofocus and all those new
> features, one could be able to find a contact field keeping the
> compatibility with old Leica lenses without the modern gimmicks and
> enable AF, VR and more...

If you were going to make it only compatible with Leica M lenses, then
you have lost the possibility of incorporating apeture priority, AF and
a nice bright viewfinder (if the lens is stopped down to taking apeture).
If this was the late 1970's or early 1980's, then perhaps a manual-focus
only SLR styled camera would have slightly more than the proverbial
"snowball's chance in Hell" of appealing to a wide range of people.

> A 10 Mpix sensor, 2,5 Mpix B/W viewer with 1:1 center field upon
> activation, whouaw! That would have been an "evil" camera to bring the
> heaven to more than only me, isn't it?

With specs like that I suspect that you will only ever get to phantasise
about it.

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...ujifS100FS.asp
>
> 2/3" sensor, 11MP, IS, 28-400mm zoom, compact and lightweight
> --


Sadly for you this will not come even slightly close to what I can do with
my D-SLR, not in your wildest dreams will it get close to wide enough.

dj_nme wrote:
> Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

> You sound like you've never used DoF preview on a SLR camera, the
> viewfinder becomes quite dark as the lens stops down to taking apeture.
>
of course I did, else my first Pentax could not measure exposure.

>> Regarding contrast detection focusing, autofocus and all those new
>> features, one could be able to find a contact field keeping the
>> compatibility with old Leica lenses without the modern gimmicks and
>> enable AF, VR and more...
>
> If you were going to make it only compatible with Leica M lenses, then
> you have lost the possibility of incorporating aperture priority, AF and
> a nice bright viewfinder (if the lens is stopped down to taking apeture).
Only the legacy Leica M lenses would have this behaviour.

Add an electricl connector and let's build new AP-AF VR ultrasonic
lenses on this standard, breaking the old restrictions of mirror based
cameras.
If the picture taken is usable, then the the electronic viewfinder will
be bright enough.

> If this was the late 1970's or early 1980's, then perhaps a manual-focus
> only SLR styled camera would have slightly more than the proverbial
> "snowball's chance in Hell" of appealing to a wide range of people.
>
It must not be MF only. It should provide NEW & accept legacy lenses.
Then make it like Philips: mount and electrical specs are license-free.

>> A 10 Mpix sensor, 2,5 Mpix B/W viewer with 1:1 center field upon
>> activation, whouaw! That would have been an "evil" camera to bring the
>> heaven to more than only me, isn't it?
>
> With specs like that I suspect that you will only ever get to phantasise
> about it.
It was ever hard to be prophetic and right at the same time.

You are probably right.

Laszlo

Lazlo Lebrun wrote:

> dj_nme wrote:
>
>> Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>
>
>> You sound like you've never used DoF preview on a SLR camera, the
>> viewfinder becomes quite dark as the lens stops down to taking apeture.
>>
> of course I did, else my first Pentax could not measure exposure.
>
>>> Regarding contrast detection focusing, autofocus and all those new
>>> features, one could be able to find a contact field keeping the
>>> compatibility with old Leica lenses without the modern gimmicks and
>>> enable AF, VR and more...
>>
>>
>> If you were going to make it only compatible with Leica M lenses, then
>> you have lost the possibility of incorporating aperture priority, AF and
>> a nice bright viewfinder (if the lens is stopped down to taking apeture).
>
> Only the legacy Leica M lenses would have this behaviour.
>
> Add an electricl connector and let's build new AP-AF VR ultrasonic
> lenses on this standard, breaking the old restrictions of mirror based
> cameras.
> If the picture taken is usable, then the the electronic viewfinder will
> be bright enough.

Actually, if you went with the Leica M mount specs, then you could make
it a fourthirds sensor DSLR and not have a very bulky camera.
The Olympus Pen-F 1/2-frame 35mm film SLR cameras have an mount-to-film
distance which is only slightly longer than than Leica M.
Even at 27.95mm (Leica M mount-to-film distance), there is still plenty
of room for a flipping reflex mirror for a fourthirds sized sensor and
then you suddenly have a DSLR camera which could potentially be made
compatible with Leica M, M39 and Pen-F mounts (plus any other "oddball"
lens-mounts, as long as they were longer in mount-to-film distance than
Leica M).
If you still desperately wanted live-view, then the mechanism out of the
Oly E-330 (two EVF sensors: the main imaging sensor and a secondary
located up in the viewfinder) that way you could have both live-view on
the rear LCD (and maybe a secondary EVF somehow mounted into the focus
screen of the TTL viewfinder) and phase-detection focusing at the same time.
It just depends on whether you're desperately hell-bent on deleting the
option of an optical TTL viewfinder from the design.

Then there is IS (image stabilisation), which if you intend Leica M
compatibility would have to be the "moving sensor" type (as in Sony
Alpha AS or Pentax/Samsung OPS), which adds to the bulk (depth from
lens-mount to the back of the camera, mainly).

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
dj_nme
<>], who wrote in article <479befdc$0$9733$>:
> Actually, if you went with the Leica M mount specs, then you could make
> it a fourthirds sensor DSLR and not have a very bulky camera.
> The Olympus Pen-F 1/2-frame 35mm film SLR cameras have an mount-to-film
> distance which is only slightly longer than than Leica M.

I do not think that mount-to-film distance is relevant (unless Leica
mount prohibits any protrusion of the lens behind mount; does it?).

> Even at 27.95mm (Leica M mount-to-film distance), there is still plenty
> of room for a flipping reflex mirror for a fourthirds sized sensor and
> then you suddenly have a DSLR camera which could potentially be made
> compatible with Leica M, M39 and Pen-F mounts (plus any other "oddball"
> lens-mounts, as long as they were longer in mount-to-film distance than
> Leica M).

The idea of dSLR it a zombie; it does not know it is already dead. It
would be really dead the moment a good way to focus without a
secondary mirror is invented. (I'm pretty sure that already today cheap
EVFs are possible which are [in most usages] more convenient than
reflex-viewfinders. As Minolta A2 teaches us, even 1024x786x3 with
instant 2x/4x magnification would be better...)

Yours,
Ilya

On Jan 25, 10:05*am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com>
wrote:
> dj_nme wrote:
> > Leica R (SLR) or Leica M (RF) or Leica m39 (RF)?
> > Leica RF lenses I feel may be impractical for an EVIL (electronic
> > viewfinder interchangable lens) camera, as they are always stopped down
> > to taking apeture and could make the image on the sensor too dark for
> > contrast detection focusing and an EVF a bit dark or rather noisey (as
> > the image signal may need to be amplified for viewing).
>
> IMHO it should be based on Leica M to be able to use the available
> lenses. Taking aperture is not a critical aspect, since if you have not
> enough light to operate the viewer, you would probably have not have
> enough light for the picture either. The signal at continuous view is
> significantly better than on an instant picture.
> The sensors are quite sensible, up to night view...
>
> Regarding contrast detection focusing, autofocus and all those new
> features, one could be able to find a contact field keeping the
> compatibility with old Leica lenses without the modern gimmicks and
> enable AF, VR and more...
>
> A 10 Mpix sensor, 2,5 Mpix B/W viewer with 1:1 center field upon
> activation, whouaw! That would have been an "evil" camera to bring the
> heaven to more than only me, isn't it?
>
> Laszlo

Hi.

I'm in the market for a good camera. I want a DSLR - a D300 would be
nice.

But I'll likely settle for 'something like' the S100FS, not sure.

I must have:
I want a good camera to take to car, boat, plane shows, etc. Nature
shots (close-ups). I want something I can hang around my neck while
I go bike riding - ready to take awesome photos:

Light, single camera, digital (DSLR or not)
2 1/2 - 3" live LCD
CMOS or CCD sensor
Exp. bracketing (pref. 5 incs.)
a lens/focusing system with a rep. for razor sharp images
motion 640x480 min. 30 fps
Aperturre Pri, Shutter Pri
SD mem.

On sunny days, if there are puffy clouds in the sky, they need to come
out very good. Same with grass.

I use a tripod/steady surface religiously (except for motion flics)

Questions:
1) How would you have Fuji modify the S100FS, if it was up to your
wish list to make YOU buy it.

2) Seeing my requirements listed above, what would be
the first camera that pops into mind, to recommend, if not the S100FS?

I would pay up to $800 (no more except for tax), for a good such
camera. Please advise.

Thanks,
The Chimp

TheChimp wrote:
[]
> Hi.
>
> I'm in the market for a good camera. I want a DSLR - a D300 would be
> nice.
>
> But I'll likely settle for 'something like' the S100FS, not sure.
>
> I must have:
[]
> a lens/focusing system with a rep. for razor sharp images
> motion 640x480 min. 30 fps
[]
> Thanks,
> The Chimp

Requiring movies in a single camera rules out the DSLR.

The Leica lenses used on the Panasonic range of cameras have the
reputation of being amongst the best, if not the best, on non-SLR cameras.

David

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> dj_nme
> <>], who wrote in article <479befdc$0$9733$>:
>
>>Actually, if you went with the Leica M mount specs, then you could make
>>it a fourthirds sensor DSLR and not have a very bulky camera.
>>The Olympus Pen-F 1/2-frame 35mm film SLR cameras have an mount-to-film
>>distance which is only slightly longer than than Leica M.
>
>
> I do not think that mount-to-film distance is relevant (unless Leica
> mount prohibits any protrusion of the lens behind mount; does it?).

There is no prohibition on intursion into the body for Leica M lenses,
in fact the exact opposite: there are a few wide-angle lenses that
almost touch the shutter curtain on a film Leica M.
Unfortunately, these lenses can't be used on the Leica M8 because of
it's copal style vertical metal shutter which takes up too much space in
front of the sensor and would foul the rear lens element.

>>Even at 27.95mm (Leica M mount-to-film distance), there is still plenty
>>of room for a flipping reflex mirror for a fourthirds sized sensor and
>>then you suddenly have a DSLR camera which could potentially be made
>>compatible with Leica M, M39 and Pen-F mounts (plus any other "oddball"
>>lens-mounts, as long as they were longer in mount-to-film distance than
>>Leica M).
>
>
> The idea of dSLR it a zombie; it does not know it is already dead. It
> would be really dead the moment a good way to focus without a
> secondary mirror is invented.

There's the rub, there is currently no way of doing phase-detection AF
without mirrors (the AF sensor mirrors are located behind the reflex
mirror [which is actually slightly translucent] in a DSLR camera)
redirecting some of the image into the AF sensors.

> I'm pretty sure that already today cheap
> EVFs are possible which are [in most usages] more convenient than
> reflex-viewfinders. As Minolta A2 teaches us, even 1024x786x3 with
> instant 2x/4x magnification would be better...)

The Konica-Minolta Dimage A2 EVF is 640x480 (300k pixels), they arrive
at the large number of "pixels" by using Sigma's trick of counting every
sub-pixel (every R, G & B sub-pixel) and hence described the EVF as
having "900k pixels"
The A2's EVF didn't really teach us anything, except that it must have
been too expensive to use and was dumped in the later Dimage A200.

If the resolution of an EVF was good enough to not require focus
magnification, then it should be considered a true and viable
alternative to an optical TTL viewfinder.
Not before.

PS:
Please do not spam my email inbox with a duplicate of your reply.