Comment in a mag review of Leica lens

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Rich, Sep 17, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    First paragraph; 75mm f2 Summicron review:
    "This lens is all brass, aluminum and glass,
    no plastic." Obviously, Leica hasn't seen
    the utility in using plastic in a $2600 lens.
    How deluded can they be?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Sep 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Dick Guest

    Obviously they are not as enlightened as Olympus et al :)

    Dick
     
    Dick, Sep 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Stacey Guest


    How much does that thing weigh? I have no problem with plastic camera parts.
    If you do, go buy a Leica M6 and leave us alone!
     
    Stacey, Sep 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I do. But then I don't have to buy a Leica to avoid them, do I?
    All that a lightweigh camera ever achieves is the ability to transmit
    more body shake, so you'll ruin more photos.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Sep 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Rich

    Stacey Guest

    You tell me. I look at the images a camera produces, not what it's made
    from. If the 50-200 zuiko has plastic in it, I really don't care all I know
    is it works great for me

    BTW if you notice the leica lens is manual focus so it doesn't have to be
    concerned with the weight of the moving parts of the focus mechanism.
    Actually lighter lenses mean I don't have to haul as much weight around and
    anyone concerned with image quality should be using a tripod anyway. I shot
    this at 1/30 handheld so I don't think the plastic in the zuiko 50mm F2
    caused this shot to be ruined do you?

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/wasp.jpg

    And while we're on the subject, where are some of your shots? You seem to be
    so obcessed with "Quality", you must have taken some KILLER images to need
    a solid metal camera with A+ optics..
     
    Stacey, Sep 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Except that more than one person has seen this lens break at the
    plastic part. Not too good for $1200.00. You could put great optics
    in a cardboard tube, but why do it?
    Heavens, how did we ever cope, 15 years ago?
    It's a great shot, no doubt. But an E-300 and the 50mm lens have some
    weight, I'm sure, about 800gms. Plus, the E-300 is in large part
    metal, especially the internals. The SP-500UZ is mostly plastic and
    weighs only 385g. Guess which one will take the better shot at a
    slower shutter speed? Damping, the act of nulling out vibration is
    often achieve by adding weight to something. The higher frequency
    body or hand tremors will be better supressed by the E-300/50mm combo
    than the SP-500UZ.

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/46913065
     
    Rich, Sep 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Rich

    Stacey Guest

    Actually they don't break, a few have a problem where they unscrew
    themselves.. The people this has happened to said they can't see any parts
    that are broken.

    I'm not a big fan of AF but very few people would buy a manual focus dSLR.
    Did you not notice this is a dSLR forum?
     
    Stacey, Sep 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Rich wrote:
    []
    No, a lightweight camera may mean that you actually get the photograph
    because you didn't leave the camera at home. In fact, a person may
    actually shake more when holding a heavy object for an extended period of
    time.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Rich

    RichA Guest

    Sorry, but camera weigh has never meant I left the camera at home.
    If I felt that way, I'd carry a pocketable 5 megapixel job.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Sep 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Rich

    RichA Guest

    Using the SP-500UZ was merely an example as I don't know how light the
    E-500 is yet.
    But there is no point in debating what is universally true; Light
    weight DSLRs can result
    in shots ruined more often by tremor motion blurring or mirror slap
    than heavier cameras. It all depends on various factors such as
    weight, severity of "mirror slap" and the propensity of the shooter for
    hand tremors.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Sep 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Rich

    Stacey Guest


    Then you've never owned a medium format or large format camera have you? As
    much as I like the 50-200 zuiko lens, there are times when it stays in the
    car just because I don't feel like hauling it with me. If the 40-150 had
    the optical sharpness of the 50-200 wide open, I'd have bought it even at
    the same price to save the weight.
     
    Stacey, Sep 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Rich

    westin Guest

    Perhaps just realistic about the tooling cost, which might well
    increase the price of a low-volume item even further.
     
    westin, Sep 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I did own a medium format, but at the time, I was shooting black and
    white and a 35mm with Tech-pan turned out better images than a medium
    format with 100ASA black and white from Kodak or Ilford. I never shot
    Tech-Pan in medium format, I figured it would be too hard to develop
    uniformly.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Sep 20, 2005
    #13
  14. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Trust me, I know people who buy high end optics (not cameras) and
    they will not put up with plastic. Part of the reason goes to
    aesthetics, but part is functional.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Sep 20, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.