Re: And the E-PL2 goes back

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Jan 30, 2011.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:23:29 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    : I really, really wanted to like this camera, but after two days of
    : tolerating it, it's going back to B&H. For starters, the IQ is not much
    : better than a Canon G12. Secondly, the controls are a nightmare. The
    : movie start button is far to easily pushed so I needed to reprogram it
    : to something else. The control wheel is VERY poorly implemented and when
    : using it you will, 99% of the time, invoke a command you dont' want. It
    : takes a very light a deft touch to use it as a wheel only (it doubles as
    : a "clicker" at four positions, so when you depress the wheel to turn it,
    : you usually click another function instead. It's absolutely maddening.
    :
    : The software they give you sucks, too.
    :
    : Onward and upward. The search for a decent compact camera continues.

    If I were a betting man, I'd say you're doomed to failure. It's very hard for
    me to see how someone who owns, and knows how to use, a 5D2 is going to find a
    compact camera that will satisfy him.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 30, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    otter Guest

    On Jan 30, 8:25 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On 1/29/2011 10:18 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:23:29 -0500, Bowser<>  wrote:
    > > : I really, really wanted to like this camera, but after two days of
    > > : tolerating it, it's going back to B&H. For starters, the IQ is not much
    > > : better than a Canon G12. Secondly, the controls are a nightmare. The
    > > : movie start button is far to easily pushed so I needed to reprogram it
    > > : to something else. The control wheel is VERY poorly implemented and when
    > > : using it you will, 99% of the time, invoke a command you dont' want. It
    > > : takes a very light a deft touch to use it as a wheel only (it doubles as
    > > : a "clicker" at four positions, so when you depress the wheel to turn it,
    > > : you usually click another function instead. It's absolutely maddening..
    > > :
    > > : The software they give you sucks, too.
    > > :
    > > : Onward and upward. The search for a decent compact camera continues.

    >
    > > If I were a betting man, I'd say you're doomed to failure. It's very hard for
    > > me to see how someone who owns, and knows how to use, a 5D2 is going to find a
    > > compact camera that will satisfy him.

    >
    > Maybe, but I'll keep trying. Can't tell you what a disappointment the
    > Oly was, though. I'm downloading a few raw files from a G12 today, and
    > I'll take a long look at them before writing it off.
    >
    > In the meantime, I'll lug the 5D II.


    I gave my G12 to my son for Christmas. It's much better than what he
    had before, so he's happy.

    I just wasn't using it, despite it being so much more "portable". I
    remember thinking "that's a cool shot, I wish I had my 5D2" several
    times. Still looking for something more portable with "knock your
    socks off" quality. Unfortunately, Leica is not an option for me.
     
    otter, Jan 31, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    Bowser Guest

    "Alfred Molon" wrote in message
    news:...

    In article
    <2011013020133099097-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck
    says...
    > I have yet to see a compact which will do much better than
    > I have
    > experienced with the G11.


    How about the Olympus XZ-1 with the F1.8 lens?

    ================================

    That does look pretty good. Having a fast lens is a big
    advantage for small sensor cams. I'd like to download a few
    RAW files but I can't handle them, yet.
     
    Bowser, Jan 31, 2011
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    N <> wrote:
    >On 31/01/2011, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>
    >> Later this year my wife and I are doing a tour round the Baltic coast,
    >> ranging from Berlin to St Petersburg and Narvik. Then we ar going to
    >> spend two or three weeks touring on Swiss rail. I've been beating my
    >> brains out trying to identify a more suitable camera than the D300.
    >> Every time I think I've found one I say to myself "18mm is not as good
    >> as 16mm", or "If I run into that I would very much regret not having
    >> the f/2.8 70mm~200mm". My wife is going to make a loud noise about the
    >> weight and bulk of the D300 (and I expect I will too, also) but I
    >> think that's the camera I'm going to end up taking with me.
    >>

    >
    >Why not pack a P7000 as well?



    Better to pack a Canon G11 or G12, or a Panasonic Lumix LX5. I have
    the Nikon P7000 and it's good, but still a little way behind the
    others I listed for image quality. Surprising, given that they all
    use the same Sony sensor.

    The P7000 is also some way behind the Canon G cameras for speed of
    operation.

    Given my time over again, I would probably choose the G12 instead of
    the P7000. Heck, I even have a Canon G9 which I prefer to the P7000
    except at higher ISOs.
     
    Bruce, Jan 31, 2011
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >No question, the M9 is absurd



    Absurd only to people who:

    (a) cannot afford it, and
    (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
    Leica M lenses.
     
    Bruce, Jan 31, 2011
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    me Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:48:30 -0500, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >That does look pretty good. Having a fast lens is a big
    >advantage for small sensor cams. I'd like to download a few
    >RAW files but I can't handle them, yet.


    Does your workflow allow the use of DNG? If so just use the Adobe DNG
    converter, no?
     
    me, Jan 31, 2011
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2011-01-31 12:43:36 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >> Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> No question, the M9 is absurd

    >>
    >>
    >> Absurd only to people who:
    >>
    >> (a) cannot afford it, and
    >> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
    >> Leica M lenses.

    >
    >I think for most of us non-pros the absurdity lies in the cost.
    >As a retired amateur, with my resources, my upper limit for a body
    >would be about $2000. With my current investment in a D300s with a mix
    >of Nikkor and third party glass, some DX and some usable on a FF, my
    >next upgrade is probably going to be a refurbished, or clearance D700.
    >The G11 (& I also have a FujiFilm E-900) can continue meet my compact
    >needs. If something mind-bogglingly superior comes along then I might
    >revisit those needs.
    >
    >The value and the quality of the Leica M9 & lenses is undisputed. The
    >damage buying one will inflict on my wallet is not. As much as I would
    >like one I cannot justify the outlay.



    Bowser clearly doesn't agree with you that "The value and the quality
    of the Leica M9 & lenses is undisputed". You're right, of course. In
    calling the M9 "absurd", he couldn't be more wrong.

    In the last couple of months, I've had some fun assembling a
    Nikon-based outfit on a small budget. Setting a budget, buying the
    best gear you can within that budget, then getting the best out of
    that gear is probably more satisfying than blowing $10,000+ on an
    Leica M9 plus a set of Leica lenses. You do great things with your
    D300, and long may you continue to get the best out of your outfit.

    The Leica M9 is not remotely "absurd". It is a superlative camera,
    and it's the only new camera body that can make use of the sheer
    excellence of Leica M glass. If I felt I could justify an M9, I
    wouldn't hesitate to buy one. I already have 15mm, 21mm, 24mm, 35mm,
    50mm and 90mm M lenses and they are crying out for a digital body.

    There will come a time when I buy an M9, or whatever succeeds it, but
    the Nikon "D800" and "D400" are my priorities for 2011. Plus
    replacing my car. I suppose I could buy an M9 and get to assignments
    on a bicycle, or take the train, or hitch a ride ... ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 31, 2011
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    otter Guest

    On Jan 31, 2:01 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On 1/30/2011 10:37 PM, otter wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I gave my G12 to my son for Christmas.  It's much better than what he
    > > had before, so he's happy.

    >
    > > I just wasn't using it, despite it being so much more "portable".  I
    > > remember thinking "that's a cool shot, I wish I had my 5D2" several
    > > times.  Still looking for something more portable with "knock your
    > > socks off" quality.  Unfortunately, Leica is not an option for me.

    >
    > No question, the M9 is absurd, and the little X1 is very nice, except
    > when you're waiting for it to focus. Not an option. I was going to take
    > a look at the G12, but based on your comment, I'll pass.
    >
    > It's not easy when you've been spoiled, is it?


    I was actually thinking along the lines of the S2, but that is out of
    the question, too.
     
    otter, Feb 1, 2011
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >It's just not worth the money.



    Translated:

    Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere near good
    enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely, both.
     
    Bruce, Feb 1, 2011
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:

    >On 1/31/2011 3:43 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >> Bowser<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> No question, the M9 is absurd

    >>
    >>
    >> Absurd only to people who:
    >>
    >> (a) cannot afford it, and
    >> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
    >> Leica M lenses.
    >>

    >
    >Overpriced. Nothing more than that.



    Translated:
    Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9.


    >And those nice lenses are wasted on a mediocre sensor.



    Translated:
    Bowser's skills are nowhere near good enough to exploit its amazing
    potential.


    >Nice jewelry, mediocre camera.



    Translated:
    Or, more likely, both.
     
    Bruce, Feb 1, 2011
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    Bowser Guest

    "Bruce" wrote in message
    news:...

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >It's just not worth the money.



    Translated:

    Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere
    near good
    enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely,
    both.

    ===========================================

    Actual meaning:

    I could, if I wanted to. But it's a terrible value given
    that a 5D II produces better images and is a much more
    capable tool.

    Assume what you want, but if you can produce a better image
    using an M9 than a 5D II, prove it.
     
    Bowser, Feb 1, 2011
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    peter Guest

    On 2/1/2011 6:22 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > Bowser<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/31/2011 3:43 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>> Bowser<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> No question, the M9 is absurd
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Absurd only to people who:
    >>>
    >>> (a) cannot afford it, and
    >>> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
    >>> Leica M lenses.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Overpriced. Nothing more than that.

    >
    >
    > Translated:
    > Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9.
    >
    >
    >> And those nice lenses are wasted on a mediocre sensor.

    >
    >
    > Translated:
    > Bowser's skills are nowhere near good enough to exploit its amazing
    > potential.
    >
    >
    >> Nice jewelry, mediocre camera.

    >
    >
    > Translated:
    > Or, more likely, both.
    >


    For the record. The translator represents the proposition that those who
    do not perform, bluster.


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Feb 1, 2011
    #12
  13. Robert Coe

    peter Guest

    On 2/1/2011 7:33 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Bruce" wrote in message news:...
    >
    > Bowser <> wrote:
    >>
    >> It's just not worth the money.

    >
    >
    > Translated:
    >
    > Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere near good
    > enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely, both.
    >
    > ===========================================
    >
    > Actual meaning:
    >
    > I could, if I wanted to. But it's a terrible value given that a 5D II
    > produces better images and is a much more capable tool.
    >
    > Assume what you want, but if you can produce a better image using an M9
    > than a 5D II, prove it.



    Don't hold your breath.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Feb 1, 2011
    #13
  14. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:43:36 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Bowser <> wrote:
    : >
    : >No question, the M9 is absurd
    :
    :
    : Absurd only to people who:
    :
    : (a) cannot afford it, and
    : (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
    : Leica M lenses.

    Yeah, that's me. Guilty on both counts.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 5, 2011
    #14
  15. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:22:22 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Bowser <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 1/31/2011 3:43 PM, Bruce wrote:
    : >> Bowser<> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>> No question, the M9 is absurd
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> Absurd only to people who:
    : >>
    : >> (a) cannot afford it, and
    : >> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
    : >> Leica M lenses.
    : >>
    : >
    : >Overpriced. Nothing more than that.
    :
    :
    : Translated:
    : Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9.
    :
    :
    : >And those nice lenses are wasted on a mediocre sensor.
    :
    :
    : Translated:
    : Bowser's skills are nowhere near good enough to exploit its amazing
    : potential.

    There's not a person alive who could reliably tell images taken with an M9 and
    the best Leica lenses from those taken with a D700 or a 5D2 and the best Nikon
    or Canon lenses.

    : >Nice jewelry, mediocre camera.
    :
    :
    : Translated:
    : Or, more likely, both.

    The M9 is like a Rolls-Royce. It's a fine product, but that's not why you buy
    it. You buy it to prove that you can.

    I'm not convinced that even Bruce entirely believes his fawning pean to the
    M9. I think I detect a note of humorous sarcasm in his uncharacteristic use of
    the terms "supreme excellence" and "amazing potential". ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 6, 2011
    #15
  16. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:04:56 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    : [The Leica M9 is] just not worth the money. It's a niche product without
    : even a decent tele option. What's the longest lens? 135mm?

    It's a rangefinder camera, isn't it? Unless it has a magnifying viewfinder and
    unusually accurate parallax correction, you probably wouldn't want to try to
    use a lens longer than 135mm.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 6, 2011
    #16
  17. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >The M9 is like a Rolls-Royce. It's a fine product, but that's not why you buy
    >it. You buy it to prove that you can.
    >
    >I'm not convinced that even Bruce entirely believes his fawning pean to the
    >M9. I think I detect a note of humorous sarcasm in his uncharacteristic use of
    >the terms "supreme excellence" and "amazing potential". ;^)



    I try to include some humour where I can, but the optical excellence
    of Leica gear is not related to its value as jewellery.

    It is true that there are many wealthy doctors, dentists etc. who see
    owning a Leica as a badge of something or other, and go on to us it
    take the usual execrable family snaps and record their upmarket
    holidays in the most boring possible fashion. However, it is also
    true that Leica M lenses achieve results that no other lenses can.

    You can pay quite a lot of money for Canon L or Nikon pro glass and
    the results are usually significantly better than those from
    consumer-grade zoom lenses. But almost all Canon L and Nikon pro
    lenses have the same weaknesses. Their main weakness is that, in
    terms of resolution and contrast, they perform much less well wide
    open than when stopped down. Most of these top grade Canon and Nikon
    lenses achieve their best results only when stopped well down,
    typically at f/8 or f/11, beyond which diffraction begins to affect
    the image quality.

    On the other hand, Leica M lenses tend to perform exceptionally well
    wide open. I have the Leica 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M which gives its best
    image quality in the centre at f/2.8 and across the whole frame at
    f/4. Stop down beyond that, and there is nothing to be gained in
    terms of image quality. The lens can be said to be diffraction
    limited at f/4. The same is true of other Leica M lenses, with the
    35mm and 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lenses being exceptional performers.
    Their performance peaks at around f/4 beyond which they are
    diffraction limited, but all of these lenses outperform anything that
    Nikon and Canon can offer from wide open right down to f/11.

    I suspect most people who read this forum don't have the slightest
    idea just how good Leica glass is, and don't care. They know that
    most lenses - regardless of brand - perform adequately at f/8 or f/11
    so they select one of those apertures and use it almost all the time.
    If they need to open up the lens to get the shot, they just accept
    that its performance drops off dramatically as they go wider than f/8.

    They aren't particularly interested in shooting wide open because that
    restricts depth of field, and we musn't do that, must we? The poor
    optical performance of their lenses when used wide open ensures that
    they won't be doing that very often. No matter that they deny
    themselves a whole range of creativity - they are perfectly happy with
    their mediocre snapshots taken at f/8 or f/11.

    So I am not in the least surprised when people criticise Leica as
    expensive jewellery. They don't understand what Leica lenses can do,
    because they believe they have no need to shoot wide open. They
    wouldn't ever get the best out of Leica glass because they would
    almost always shoot at f/8 or f/11, so they would have wasted their
    money.

    So Leica is not for people who take mediocre snapshots. They may as
    well buy cheap Cosina, Sigma, Vivitar (present day) and Quantaray
    glass and shoot at f/8 or f/11. Or spend some more money on better
    Canon and Nikon lenses to show off to their friends. Yes, there is a
    lot of snobbery even at this low level of ability.

    Of course the people who buy Leica as jewellery also tend to take
    mediocre snapshots ... but there are also those who recognise what
    Leica's optical qualities can do for their photography, and use those
    qualities to the full. Not that people who are happy with their
    consumer-grade gear would ever know the difference.
     
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2011
    #17
  18. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >In article <>, Robert Coe
    >says...
    >> It's a rangefinder camera, isn't it? Unless it has a magnifying viewfinder and
    >> unusually accurate parallax correction, you probably wouldn't want to try to
    >> use a lens longer than 135mm.

    >
    >But... in the era of EVIL cameras why do rangefinder cameras still
    >exist? Why would the M9 benefit from not having live preview (and a
    >high-res screen) and contrast AF?



    There is a very simple answer to that: the M9 would not benefit from
    having live preview (and a high-res screen) and contrast AF.

    People who use Leica M rangefinders want the simplest possible picture
    taking device with a traditional direct view finder, bright line frame
    lines and a traditional superimposed rangefinder spot that is
    mechanically coupled to the focusing mechanism. The M9 is designed to
    sell to that market, just like the M3 - M8 models before it. It is as
    simple as that.

    If you don't get it - and you obviously don't - then don't buy one.
    But please don't criticise something that you can't understand.
     
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2011
    #18
  19. Robert Coe

    Bowser Guest

    "peter" wrote in message
    news:4d47fe88$0$5646$-secrets.com...

    On 2/1/2011 7:33 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Bruce" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > Bowser <> wrote:
    >>
    >> It's just not worth the money.

    >
    >
    > Translated:
    >
    > Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere
    > near good
    > enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely,
    > both.
    >
    > ===========================================
    >
    > Actual meaning:
    >
    > I could, if I wanted to. But it's a terrible value given
    > that a 5D II
    > produces better images and is a much more capable tool.
    >
    > Assume what you want, but if you can produce a better
    > image using an M9
    > than a 5D II, prove it.



    Don't hold your breath.

    ==============================================

    the lack of a response says it all...
     
    Bowser, Feb 7, 2011
    #19
  20. Robert Coe

    Bowser Guest

    "Alfred Molon" wrote in message
    news:...

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe
    says...
    > It's a rangefinder camera, isn't it? Unless it has a
    > magnifying viewfinder and
    > unusually accurate parallax correction, you probably
    > wouldn't want to try to
    > use a lens longer than 135mm.


    But... in the era of EVIL cameras why do rangefinder cameras
    still
    exist? Why would the M9 benefit from not having live preview
    (and a
    high-res screen) and contrast AF?

    ====================================================

    Because then it wouldn't be jewelry.

    Honestly, for some people the concept can work. But some of
    us prefer to see exactly what will be in the frame without
    parallax errors and guesswork focusing.
     
    Bowser, Feb 7, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kracka

    Clock goes back exactly one hour

    Kracka, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    6,841
    Jerry G.
    Nov 23, 2003
  2. Ed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    556
    Toolman Tim
    Mar 2, 2006
  3. Alain's Studio

    Why after format it doesn't goes back?

    Alain's Studio, Jul 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    538
    Stewy
    Jul 26, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    332
    Enkidu
    Oct 22, 2010
  5. RichA

    Horrific new flaw in Olympus E-PL2

    RichA, Jan 20, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    815
    Bruce
    Jan 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page