Epson Rangefinderimplications for Digital G

[darinb]

Am I correct that the new Epson digital rangefinder--which accepts Leica lenses--will take the ultra wides? Does that not mean that the problem with the Contax 21mm, etc is now solveable?

I'm still holding out for a digital G!

--Darin

Darin Boville
Fine Art Photography and Video

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[rickd]

Only if you're satisfied with a less-than full-format chip. That's one hurdle that appears to not yet have been solved for the rangefinder world.

OTOH, a small chip would finally give us a mid-range G telephoto!

--Rick

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

Only a couple products out there, rangefinder or not, have a full format chip -- and they are very expensive. The Epson-Cosina, like the vast majority of products has a less than full frame chip, that doesn't seem like a big disadvantage vs. anything at the moment (unless you are prepared to spend more than twice as much, and carry around more than twice as much weight for the full frame Canon or Kodak product (I'd count the ND as non-existant right now - but it too was more than twice as much). Seems to me the Epson-Cosina is a great start for rangefinders and if it is as functional as claimed, it will be competitive. It is also proof that digital can work for an interchangeable lens rangefinder format -- good news and cause for hope for all those folks (like myself) hoping and waiting for a difital Contax G (yes, a 6 MP, APS-sized sensor would be fine.)

 

[coodeville]

<font size="+1"><font face="courier new,courier"><font color="ff0000">I just checkedthe camera out. Looks real nice to me. So this isthe first digital to take use ofthe Leica lenses?

 

[robgo2]

Doesn't a less-than-full-frame chip reduce the effective resolving power of the lens being used? If so, won't Cosina, Leica and (someday) G owners lose one of the main reasons for using those lenses, i.e. superior optics? It is my understanding that Olympus took this fact into consideration when designing the lenses for the new half-frame E-1. The lenses supposedly have twice the resolving power of most 35mm lenses.

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

Of cource, that would be no different for ANY lens, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc with a less-than-full-frame sensor. The advantage that Leica, Contax G, and Voightlander lenses have in resolving power over ordinary SLR lenses remains (and could be argued is even more important).

 

[robgo2]

Lotus,

My point is that even superior lenses will perform less well when focusing on a smaller sensor, although they may hold a relative advantage over inferior lenses. This is where Olympus, which designed its E-1 lenses expressly for a smaller digital sensor, may actually produce a superior image. I realize that much of this conjecture is theoretical, as film is the limiting factor in image resolution even now. This means that the resolving power of our Zeiss lenses is overkill for the film we use. (There may be exceptions for all I know.)

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

We don't disagree, Robert. All lenses, superior or otherwise, will perform less well. My only point is that superior lenses will remain superior (all else being equal, like sensor size).

I didn't mention Olympus lenses for E-1 (or the E-20, which I currently have) becuase it is unclear how they would perform relative to lenses designed for 35mm film. There is the potential for them to perform quite well given they are designed to produce a smaller image circle. But since they are designed essentially like SLR lenses, they do not have resolution advantages than a rangefinder lenses enjoy. Further given the target market and the resolving power of the CCD chips anticipated by Olympus, Olympus might not have cared to design the lenses for ultimate resolution (since in use it would not be noticed) and put the money towards other lens attributes that might have a great impact on their anticipated use.

 

[rickd]

It seems to me that Zeiss could conceivably adapt their cine lenses for less-than-35mm format digital usage. They're supposed to be the best lenses Zess has ever made.

Anyway, I wouldn't not consider a less than full format digital G, but it would still be a letdown. I'd like my 16 to be a 16, and my 21 to be a 21. As I said earlier, the gains on the telephoto side would be nice, though.

--Rick

 

[skeeton]

I'd be quite happy with a Digital G3 in 4/3 format provided, Zeiss, like Olympus, redesigned there lenses for that format.

Stuart

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

Yes. A full frame sensor would be nice, but I certainly would be happy with a APS size or even 4/3 size sensor. I'm not sure a lens redesign is necessary -- but they might want to add an additional wide angle to give the equivelent angle of view of a 21mm lens with the smaller sensor size (another Biogon?). This would preserve some of the attractiveness of the G cameras -- the wide angle lenses.

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

Where do I put my name down for a digital G3? As and when (and if) they ever bring one out, I hope they have got their licence for Pictbridge printing standard sorted out. I am very disappointed that my new SL300R is not Pictbridge compatible, so I cannot print direct to the new generation of portable dye sublimation printers such as the Cannon CP300 or the Sony DPP EX5 without a PC in the loop. These would just great for going on holiday. Wilson

 

[stan_parry]

I just saw pictures of the Epson "M" series digital and it looks somehwat like a black Contax G2. I wonder how difficult it would be for Epson to market a Contax G mount version of this camera? Any thoughts? Check

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[jsmisc]

Hello Stan,
Wouldn't the electronic contacts and the auto focusing of the G lenses be a problem here? It's a lovely thought though but I understand that the Epson will be very expensive.
John

 

[stan_parry]

John, Yes, I don't really think it will work unless Epson made some internal modifications. I was just hoping something like this for the G2 could happen. Perhaps a digital back for the G2 is more realistic but still unlikely. I have a Digilux 2 and really like it, but I do miss using the

 

[jsmisc]

Hi Stan,
A digital back for the G2 would be lovely or a digital G3 to take our existing lenses. We live in hope.
How do you find the electronic viewfinder on the Digilux 2?
I tried to test one in a local shop but they wouldn't put batteries in it because then it would not be saleable as new and would be a demonstrator!
Cheers,
John

 

[stan_parry]

Hi John,

I bought the Digilux 2 on an impulse from a dealer I trust the day before a three week trip to Germany. Actually I traded an X-Pan system that I don't use anymore for it. I shoot mainly scenery and architecture, not people much or sports. I was a little dubious about the electronic viewfinder at first, but soon became comfortable with it. I shot mainly in automatic focus with spot metering. Also, with the large LCD screen I found myself even using the LCD. With either one you can get a grid pattern for architecture and the histogram, which I found useful. I found that with the larger LCD and the ability to zoom and crop in the camera, I had more confidence as to the results I was getting. I was surprised at the camera's effectiveness in low light cathedrals and even wide open, there appeared to be pretty good depth of field. If I were seriously using this camera for architectural stuff, I would slow down and use a tripod, but this was just a pleasure trip. I found the camera a real treat to use all around and was pleased with the results.

 

[jsmisc]

Hi Stan,
Thanks for that. It's interesting to hear an opinion from someone who has used the camera in real conditions. It sound pretty good. I had been wondering about it as I think it would be very convenient, having just returned from a holiday in Portugal carting a bag of lenses about.
Cheers,
John

 

[stan_parry]

Hi John, I would also check out the Panasonic version for about $300 less. I "think" it's identical and the all black version is very appealing. I haven't been able to determine if the menu system and features are the same, but I would assume they are. Other than online sellers, I cannot find a dealer who handles it in the San Francisco Bay

 

[jsmisc]

Thanks Stan, I will check out the Pansonic. I'll see if I can find some reviews.
Cheers,
John