«

The other day, someone asked me to look at a pair of 7x50mm binoculars
they had bought "on sale" from $50.00 to $10.00. Since I hate most
binos I've used below $500, (too many optical and mechanical
compromises) I figured what I was in for would be horrible. Sure
enough, in addition to just about the worst Chinese mechanics, they
used cardboard cones inside to effectively cut the lenses down from
50mm effective aperture to about 20mm. Why? Because the front lenses
weren't achromatic. The view was horrible.

But I started to wonder what we ever buy that isn't a compromise on
some level? Is a Nikon D3s a compromise? Sure it is. It's too large
and the converters in it are cheap and the dust sealing is low-
industrial grade. You want better? You have to jump the price up by
about 2x and go medium format, at least for the converters. Are the
medium formats compromised? Sure, the lenses are too slow and not
very good and the bodies aren't weather-sealed. So much so that some
firms looking for the best from these sensors have designed and have
had built one-off lenses for them.

By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
less, but with superior functionality and lenses.

How good should such a camera be made? Until the increases in quality
of function and optics only offer incrementally better improvements in
image quality and performance. That would be no-compromise.

Next time you pick up a camera, and handle it, ask yourself what could
be done to make it work better. A good place to start would be with
focusing. Is it truly a requirement that a DSLR be a HULK just to
have decent phase-based tracking focus or could they put that focusing
in a D5000 body? Could Nikon make a camera the size of the D3100 but
with a good body? Would you buy a flat, rectangular body size of a
D300 but with a FF sensor and an EVF? The best DSLR grip is on the
Olympus E-5. Could they put that style of grip on a better DSLR?
Could you buy DSLRs or other higher-end cameras with custom grips that
fitYOUR hands, like you can get with a $2000 competition handgun?

RichA <> wrote:
>By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
>at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
>less, but with superior functionality and lenses.


I'm glad you mentioned Leica. The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.

And it won't cost you $30k.

On Mar 2, 9:57*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.
>
> I'm glad you mentioned Leica. *The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.
>
> And it won't cost you $30k.

Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses. Hopefully,
their rear LCD display won't be as bad as the cheap ones on $200 point
and shoots, which the current one is. I love Leica though. They'll
sell you a $2000 optional sapphire screen for the cheezy LCD!!

RichA <> wrote:
>On Mar 2, 9:57*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
>> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
>> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.
>>
>> I'm glad you mentioned Leica. *The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
>> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.
>>
>> And it won't cost you $30k.
>
>Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses.


Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?

On Mar 2, 11:01*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?

It's the compromise between all possible lenses and the real world.
Just one of many that could be reached.

Vance

On Mar 2, 2:01*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
> >> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
> >> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.
>
> >> I'm glad you mentioned Leica. The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
> >> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.
>
> >> And it won't cost you $30k.
>
> >Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses.
>
> Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?

Most Leica shooters use primes, I figure 4 would be a bare minimum.

On Mar 2, 2:30*pm, Truman <88132...@mailinator.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:18:13 -0600, Truman <88132...@mailinator.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:38:23 -0800 (PST), Vance <vance.l...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?
>
> >>It's the compromise between all possible lenses and the real world.
> >>Just one of many that could be reached.
>
> >>Vance
>
> >Why do you say that? You'd just steal them and not worry about costs.
>
> >Not unlike how you steal photos from anyone. Like this photo from someone
> >else for example.
>
> >http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...P0Mg?feat=dire....
>
> >When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
> >"Vance Lear".
>
> >Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
> >someone else.
>
> >http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262
>
> >With this copyright notice also clearly stated at the beginning of that
> >page: "Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
> >Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."
>
> >I guess you fail to understand the meaning of the word "any".
>
> >Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.
>
> >You might as well steal all the lenses you want too. It's right up your
> >alley. Heck, you probably already do.
>
> Well, that was a silly thing for me to say. Whatever would you need lenses
> for when all you do is steal others' photography.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's okay, Sparky, you're a silly person. You're just keeping it
real and that's all anyone has a right to expect.

Truman, huh? Kudo's on the disguise, dude, I almost didn't recognize
you. I don't know tipped me off, just intuition I guess, but the
disguise is so good that no one else will notice and I won't tell.
(snicker)

Your 'Special Friend' (cue the Animaniacs theme),

Vance

Rich <> wrote:
>On Mar 2, 2:01*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
>> >> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
>> >> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.
>>
>> >> I'm glad you mentioned Leica. The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
>> >> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.
>>
>> >> And it won't cost you $30k.
>>
>> >Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses.
>>
>> Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?
>
>Most Leica shooters use primes, I figure 4 would be a bare minimum.


Several years ago, Leica conducted a survey of Leica owners to try to
establish - among other things - how many Leica lenses each owned. The
answer was on average more than one, less than two. I can't recall
the exact figure but I think it was less than 1.5.

For many people, the Leica experience is about picking the one focal
length you need and getting the best out of that lens. Most choose a
50mm as their first/only lens, although the 35mm is not far behind.

I know quite a few Leica users with two lenses. The most common
combination is 21mm/50mm with 21mm/35mm also popular. I have heard
that 21mm/90mm is also quite popular. Several people I know use three
lenses, 21/35/50mm or 21/35 or 50/75 or 90mm.

I don't know anyone else who uses the combination I have: 24mm, 35mm,
50mm and 90mm. I also have 21mm Zeiss and 15mm Voigtlander lenses. I
chose this selection because they suit the subjects I shoot.

Each of my lenses is among the very best performers in the Leica
range. For example, the 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M is diffraction limited
at f/2.8 in the centre and at f/4 across the frame, which is a sublime
optical achievement.

There is no need to stop down to improve its optical performance.
Indeed, when you stop down the performance gets slightly worse. No
better 24mm lens has ever been made - the newer 24mm f/1.4 is faster,
but not better, and the 24mm f/3.8 is cheaper but not better.

I have been tempted to sell my Leica gear several times in the last
couple of years, but its value keeps going up. The value of my lenses
has doubled since I bought them.

In article <>,
Bruce <> wrote:

> Rich <> wrote:
>

<snip>

> >
> >Most Leica shooters use primes, I figure 4 would be a bare minimum.
>
>
> Several years ago, Leica conducted a survey of Leica owners to try to
> establish - among other things - how many Leica lenses each owned. The
> answer was on average more than one, less than two. I can't recall
> the exact figure but I think it was less than 1.5.
>
> For many people, the Leica experience is about picking the one focal
> length you need and getting the best out of that lens. Most choose a
> 50mm as their first/only lens, although the 35mm is not far behind.
>
> I know quite a few Leica users with two lenses. The most common
> combination is 21mm/50mm with 21mm/35mm also popular. I have heard
> that 21mm/90mm is also quite popular. Several people I know use three
> lenses, 21/35/50mm or 21/35 or 50/75 or 90mm.
>
> I don't know anyone else who uses the combination I have: 24mm, 35mm,
> 50mm and 90mm. I also have 21mm Zeiss and 15mm Voigtlander lenses. I
> chose this selection because they suit the subjects I shoot.
>
> Each of my lenses is among the very best performers in the Leica
> range. For example, the 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M is diffraction limited
> at f/2.8 in the centre and at f/4 across the frame, which is a sublime
> optical achievement.
>
> There is no need to stop down to improve its optical performance.
> Indeed, when you stop down the performance gets slightly worse. No
> better 24mm lens has ever been made - the newer 24mm f/1.4 is faster,
> but not better, and the 24mm f/3.8 is cheaper but not better.
>
> I have been tempted to sell my Leica gear several times in the last
> couple of years, but its value keeps going up. The value of my lenses
> has doubled since I bought them.
>

I guess I have more than average, but I've been building my Leica
collection since 1983

4 bodies: IIIf (screw mount) M6, MP, CL

Lenses (there is some duplication between my screw mount lenses and my
M-series): 21, 28 35/2 Asph, 40C, 50, 75/1.4, 90, 135
Cosina/Voigtlander: 12mm, 15mm

I rented the 24mm once and really didn't like the results. I have 2 21mm
lenses -- 21/4.0 Super Angulon (Screw Mt.) and 21/2.8 Elmarit (M); and
my 28/6.3 is screw-mount and the first 28mm lens Leica made. It has
wacky MTF curves and is a lot of fun to use on the M6/MP with an
adapter. Fully coupled to the rangefinder.

Even though I have all sorts of other systems, from Minox 8mm to 8" x
10" view camera, Leica M remains my all-time favorite. If I ever get
serious about this whole digital thing I'll start out by renting an M9
-- or M10 if I wait too long.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:06:06 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Engineering design involves making choices.
> There are always compromises.
> Enjoy.


> BugBear

No compromise would be the ability to enjoy the nice people here
without having to put up with Rich.

--
from my Droid