lumix camera leica lenses image
Robby Lace
I want a digital camera that gives me the best point-and-click capabilities, and gives me the best quality digital photographs for around $300. I've looked at the Nikon Coolpix and some Sony and Canon camera's. Can someone that knows what their talking about give me some professional advice as to what camera would be best for me?
Answer
If you are really on a budget and want the best quality for the money, check out the P&S Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 which has more features than most pro DSLRs that require auxiliary lenses not even equal to the single initial full-range lense that comes with the FZ28. It is reviewed at:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/panasonic_fz28.html
It just came out on November 4, 2008.
It's an all-in-one 10.1 megapixel DSLR camera which includes (i) built-in image stabilization; (ii) HDTV quality video [Quicktime]; (iii) a 18x zoom [27 - 486 mm (35mm equiv.)] "Leica" lense for nature photography; (iv) up to 0.39 inch macro option; (v) up to 6400 ASA; (vi) takes up to 380 pictures per 120 min. battery charge; (vii) has a "burst speed" of 13 fps; and sells new for $270 at amazon.com.
Here's an actual handheld picture of the moon:
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/d5/c0/66b1810ae7a03f4d99e6c110.L.jpg
Good luck!
If you are really on a budget and want the best quality for the money, check out the P&S Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 which has more features than most pro DSLRs that require auxiliary lenses not even equal to the single initial full-range lense that comes with the FZ28. It is reviewed at:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/panasonic_fz28.html
It just came out on November 4, 2008.
It's an all-in-one 10.1 megapixel DSLR camera which includes (i) built-in image stabilization; (ii) HDTV quality video [Quicktime]; (iii) a 18x zoom [27 - 486 mm (35mm equiv.)] "Leica" lense for nature photography; (iv) up to 0.39 inch macro option; (v) up to 6400 ASA; (vi) takes up to 380 pictures per 120 min. battery charge; (vii) has a "burst speed" of 13 fps; and sells new for $270 at amazon.com.
Here's an actual handheld picture of the moon:
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/d5/c0/66b1810ae7a03f4d99e6c110.L.jpg
Good luck!
Is there actually much difference between Leica cameras with Canon and Nikon?
Andy
Leica cameras are so pricy, but how much different the quality of the photos are comparing with Canon and Nicon.
Answer
There are a few differences, not to say one is better than the other, just different styles.
The success of the Leica camera is really defined by 35mm film (referred to by some as the leica format), before the Leica came along people were using roll film cameras in 60 or 120 format which made the cameras massive.
Leica cameras accepted smaller rolls of film, but to get decent quality out of the smaller negatives required very high quality high resolution lenses.
Leica cameras are for the most part rangefinder cameras. Rangefinders are a bit different in use to an SLR, firstly you don't see through the lens, which can actually help with catching 'the decisive moment' as you can see the subject before it comes into the guidelines for that lens.
Leica cameras are also very well constructed with precision engineering and are made in limited production runs, all of which keeps the quality control and exclusivity up.
Rangefinder cameras, including Leicas, don't have a mirror and so can be very very quiet in operation, making them a good choice for social photographers. They are also more compact than SLRs making them less likely to attract attention and to fit in a pocket.
Rangefinders have their limitations: They aren't great with very wide angle lenses and terrible with telephoto lens over 135mm, although even 90mm is probably better.
SLRs have benefits in terms of accuracy in composition, TTL metering (if you filter a metered leica you need to adjust the ISO to compensate) and the sheer range of lenses that they can work with.
I am firmly an SLR user, but have owned a couple of compact Ricoh GR rangefinders which require a very different approach to photography and get results you just wouldn't try with a heavier less compact SLR.
If I were wanting to try a rangefinder then I would go for a Contax T2, which are currently stupidly cheap and have AF, AE and take superlative Carl Zeiss lenses, if you want a metered Leica M camera without the extreme expense look for a Minolta CLE, it had a 28, 40 and 90mm lens and although cheaper than contemporary Leicas, was actually the better camera to use.
If you want a digital rangefinder without the Leica cost then look for a used EPSON R-D1.
If you want a modern Leica experience then look for a used Panasonic Lumix DMC L-1, a kind of digital SLR/ rangefinder hybrid. It was exactly the same camera as the Leica DigiLux 3, and one of the nicest DSLRs to use, very similar layout to a manual film camera with shutter dial and aperture ring.
Failing that, it needs to be Leica.
But to answer your question, a Canon EOS 1D series or Nikon D3 series with the right glass will be as well engineered and as good optically as the Leica m8, m8.2 or m9, but it's more about the actual experience of using. They are very different beasts.
There are a few differences, not to say one is better than the other, just different styles.
The success of the Leica camera is really defined by 35mm film (referred to by some as the leica format), before the Leica came along people were using roll film cameras in 60 or 120 format which made the cameras massive.
Leica cameras accepted smaller rolls of film, but to get decent quality out of the smaller negatives required very high quality high resolution lenses.
Leica cameras are for the most part rangefinder cameras. Rangefinders are a bit different in use to an SLR, firstly you don't see through the lens, which can actually help with catching 'the decisive moment' as you can see the subject before it comes into the guidelines for that lens.
Leica cameras are also very well constructed with precision engineering and are made in limited production runs, all of which keeps the quality control and exclusivity up.
Rangefinder cameras, including Leicas, don't have a mirror and so can be very very quiet in operation, making them a good choice for social photographers. They are also more compact than SLRs making them less likely to attract attention and to fit in a pocket.
Rangefinders have their limitations: They aren't great with very wide angle lenses and terrible with telephoto lens over 135mm, although even 90mm is probably better.
SLRs have benefits in terms of accuracy in composition, TTL metering (if you filter a metered leica you need to adjust the ISO to compensate) and the sheer range of lenses that they can work with.
I am firmly an SLR user, but have owned a couple of compact Ricoh GR rangefinders which require a very different approach to photography and get results you just wouldn't try with a heavier less compact SLR.
If I were wanting to try a rangefinder then I would go for a Contax T2, which are currently stupidly cheap and have AF, AE and take superlative Carl Zeiss lenses, if you want a metered Leica M camera without the extreme expense look for a Minolta CLE, it had a 28, 40 and 90mm lens and although cheaper than contemporary Leicas, was actually the better camera to use.
If you want a digital rangefinder without the Leica cost then look for a used EPSON R-D1.
If you want a modern Leica experience then look for a used Panasonic Lumix DMC L-1, a kind of digital SLR/ rangefinder hybrid. It was exactly the same camera as the Leica DigiLux 3, and one of the nicest DSLRs to use, very similar layout to a manual film camera with shutter dial and aperture ring.
Failing that, it needs to be Leica.
But to answer your question, a Canon EOS 1D series or Nikon D3 series with the right glass will be as well engineered and as good optically as the Leica m8, m8.2 or m9, but it's more about the actual experience of using. They are very different beasts.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar