The hats are overdoing it, but I love these two pics, funny.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
"A Leica Won't Improve Your Photography"
A Leica Won't Improve Your Photography, article.
The other side of the coin. Good for me to read, at least. Compared to an SLR (which is much cheaper), there are several significant downsides to a rangefinder camera that are not immediately obvious. And the article is not from a Leica-hater, either, the writer owns a lot of Leica equipment.
Also, take note of the long comment under the article by David Dyer-Bennet, he knows what he's talking about.
Update: M Reichman has a first-hand impression of the M9.
The other side of the coin. Good for me to read, at least. Compared to an SLR (which is much cheaper), there are several significant downsides to a rangefinder camera that are not immediately obvious. And the article is not from a Leica-hater, either, the writer owns a lot of Leica equipment.
Also, take note of the long comment under the article by David Dyer-Bennet, he knows what he's talking about.
Update: M Reichman has a first-hand impression of the M9.
New Jobs keynote
Steve Jobs is back.
I'm becoming an organ donor today.
(Personally I think it should not require registration. What use has a dead person for his kidneys?)
I'm becoming an organ donor today.
(Personally I think it should not require registration. What use has a dead person for his kidneys?)
Quotes
The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.
-- John F. Kennedy
Some think it's holding on that makes one strong; sometimes it's letting go.
-- Sylvia Robinson
I think think both of these are really good.
-- John F. Kennedy
Some think it's holding on that makes one strong; sometimes it's letting go.
-- Sylvia Robinson
I think think both of these are really good.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A Tale of Two Lenses
Would you believe these two lenses have the same specs? 35mm, F:1.4. Mild wide-angle, big/fast aperture.
580g vs 200g.
(I got the pic from tOP.) Now, the Canon lens (which is excellent, I have it) is designed for a DSLR, which means that the optical design has to compensate for the fact that due to the mirror in the camera, the lens can't get as close to the sensor as it would naturally be. But I'm curious if this fact alone can justify such a huge size/weight difference. (Of course the quality of the Voigtländer lens is to be considered, I have not seen a comparison.)
Update: There's been cast doubt that the picture is exactly to scale. On the picture, the relationship is 1:4 in length, but the numbers given on the site are 1:3.
580g vs 200g.
(I got the pic from tOP.) Now, the Canon lens (which is excellent, I have it) is designed for a DSLR, which means that the optical design has to compensate for the fact that due to the mirror in the camera, the lens can't get as close to the sensor as it would naturally be. But I'm curious if this fact alone can justify such a huge size/weight difference. (Of course the quality of the Voigtländer lens is to be considered, I have not seen a comparison.)
Update: There's been cast doubt that the picture is exactly to scale. On the picture, the relationship is 1:4 in length, but the numbers given on the site are 1:3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)