DMC-L1: Why it is a SLR and not a Rangefinder

MarkM6

Is it just me or any one of you looking at the DMC-L1 and wonder why Panasonic made that to be a SLR?

What are the adventages of making a crop-sensor, 14-50mm mounted, Rangefinder-looking body a SLR?:scratch

Will that body eventually become the Leica Digital-M? If it is, I hope it get's thinner like my M6...

ziggy53

Mark,


The advantages of SLR over rangefinder are significant and most purchasers feel they outweigh the advantages of rangefinder over SLR. The fact that the camera is digital is almost inconsequential.

The physical similarity to a rangefinder is curious, but I doubt that it has a major impact on sales. This is still a niche camera, and it will always have a niche market.

It sounds like you really want an exact copy, digital version, of the Leica M6. Remember that you would miss several important improvements of modern dSLRs if it were too similar. The Panasonic DMC-L1 is very similar to the Olympus E-330 EVOLT, and those similarities are what form its "character". The Epson R-D1 is more to your wishes, it would seem.

ziggy53

marlof

4/3 is not about crop sensors, it's a full frame sensor. What's the difference? A crop sensor crops an image out of the exisiting imaging circle a lens creates. A full frame sensor uses the full imaging circle. The four thirds system sensor is just not the same size as 35mm film, and it gives a different FOV than 35mm film, but when used with a lens created for the system, it's a full frame sensor. A very small one indeed, so there are always those that worry that on this small size, a sensor will never be as good as the larger Canon full frame sensor. Which is a bit similar to the situation when 35mm film was introduced next to the larger formats.

Furthermore: Leica has stated they're still developing a digital M, next to the lens for the Pana 4/3 body (which may or may not end up as a Leica body as well). So if you prefer the view through a rangefinder (where you're not limited to the DOF of the brightest aperture setting, but see things like the human eye would see it), there might be hope for you, next to the Epson RD-1.

Justiceiro

ziggy53 wrote:

Mark,


The advantages of SLR over rangefinder are significant and most purchasers feel they outweigh the advantages of rangefinder over SLR. The fact that the camera is.

ziggy53

That really depends, ziggy. The advantages of a rangefnder seriously outweigh the advantages of an SLR, if you happen to be looking for the particular strengths that a rangefinder has.

For street and and a lot of doc, I think rangefinders can't be beat. That's why I still keep around, and still use, my electro 35. SLR's are bulky, obvious, and in a real sense to "complex" for quick street action. They are also loud as hell, at least my 20D is.

The epson RD-1 is both good and bad. First, its pretty much all manual, which I like. I especially like the cocking lever. Nice touch. have a feeling that I would work a little harder as a photographer with this in my hand, because SLR's can make you lazy. That's something I notice when using the Electro 35.

The bad is this; first off, its very expensive for a APS-C digital sensor, 6 mp camera. Rangefinders are made for the street, and the street needs wide angle, so given that the 5D is about the same price, but full frame, you get get wider much cheaper with the 5D.

The RD-1 platform is very nice. The body is great, looks well made, and is very very beautiful. Why is it wrapped around a sensor like this? Really, someone who can afford a panoply of Leica glass could pay the extra $500-$1000 for a better sensor, don't you think?

I get the feeling that this might be designed for the Leica collector, rahter than the serious shooter. Then again, I don't know. Never shot one, likely never will, as it's too expensive for me and the people that I know. Nevertheless, I really really lust after an RD1. Really.


What I would like to see is Voightlander/Cosina stick a digital sensor in their R3A. That looks like a great camera. Or perhaps canon could come out with a digital canonet. They used to make great rangefinders.

wxwax

A marketing ploy to set themselves apart from the crowd, I would guess.

That live MOS sensor sounds fun, if only the screen would flip out.

I do have a question: when the supersonic dust filter is activated, do you hear a sonic boom?

marlof

I have the SSWF in my E-1 as well. It came with earplugs, and I always use them. May be that's why I've never heard the sonic boom. But I've also hardly seen any dust bunnies either (only recently (after 7 months of usage) when I had to change lenses in a very dusty environment, I had four images containing them; a following lens change and restart cleaned the sensor enough so no dust bunnies are currently showing).

Justiceiro

Why Leica stopped being relevant in the 1970's
Also known as "How Success can ruin a Company."

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_616.html

For another case study see Kodak's famous "Hey, lets put all our investment into film tech, so we can be the number 1 film producer of the 21st century!" marketing strategy.

wxwax

marlof wrote:

I have the SSWF in my E-1 as well. It came with earplugs, and I always use them. May be that's why I've never heard the sonic boom. But I've also hardly seen any dust bunnies either (only recently (after 7 months of usage) when I had to change lenses in a very dusty environment, I had four images containing them; a following lens change and restart cleaned the sensor enough so no dust bunnies are currently showing).

wxwax

Justiceiro wrote:

Also known as "How Success can ruin a Company."

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_616.html

For another case study see Kodak's famous "Hey, lets put all our investment into film tech, so we can be the number 1 film producer of the 21st century!" marketing strategy.

I think that's a bit harsh. I've been reading about Kodak's emphasis on digital for many, many years now. I think one of their issues is that they were a film company, not a camera company. So the transition is doubly difficult, because they don't have a strong camera heritage.


That being said, they're a powerful presence in the entry-level category. They have a handle on ease-of-use, especially with printing.

MarkM6

I would argue...

ziggy53 wrote:

The advantages of SLR over rangefinder are significant and most purchasers feel they outweigh the advantages of rangefinder over SLR.

Ziggy, If there were a number of lenses in it's line I would say that DMC-L1 is better to be a SLR. Perhaps, Leica have a long-term agreement with Panasonic to keep developing lenses for that camera. Who knows; those lenses may be useful for next R-Line...

Why I love a rangefinder is;
1) people get a lot less "camera shy". I pointed my D200 (now sold) and people have the look of "wonder" in the pictures....
2) I've never used the DOF preview even when I had that N90 back in the days.
3) So quiet.
4) So compact.
5) More forgiving(?)
6) The meter is more precise (especially in low light) (is that because the light coming through the lens doesn't need to split to enter the viewfinder???)

The person who bought my D200 asked what kind of pictures I take. My answer to him was, "I like my pictures to be exacty how I remember seeing them in person." By the way, what "kind" is it?

If Canon decides to make a FF Rangefinder with Leica mount... they might as well buy Leica GmbH!...

How much I wish Canon to be like the Bill-of-Microsoft and believes "only paranoid wins"... and enter every sector of business.

P.S. RD-1??? For that price, I would rather get a 5D.

Justiceiro

wxwax wrote:

I think that's a bit harsh. I've been reading about Kodak's emphasis on digital for many, many years now. I think one of their issues is that they were a film company, not a camera company. So the transition is doubly difficult, because they don't have a strong camera heritage.


That being said, they're a powerful presence in the entry-level category. They have a handle on ease-of-use, especially with printing.

I understand where your coming from wxwax. Perhaps I am a bit harsh, but I have an emotional investment in Kodak (my Dad worked for the chemical side of the business for 30 years, and I had summer jobs at the TN plant during college). But getting into this here would definitely be hijacking. Perhaps I will start a love.hate thread about Kodak.

ziggy53

wxwax wrote:

... I think one of their issues is that they were a film company, not a camera company. So the transition is doubly difficult, because they don't have a strong camera heritage. ...

The curious thing is that Kodak invented the single-use-but-reusable camera. They made it so simple, "you press the button, we do the rest," and that marketing approach revolutionized the industry of photography.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/

The very name, "Kodak", is derived from the sound of a camera's shutter.

So they started as a camera/film company, but changed their marketing emphasis to film, and then they couldn't change direction quickly enough. I think the "Titanic" suffered from much the same problem.

How's that for harsh?

ziggy53

wxwax

ziggy53 wrote:

The curious thing is that Kodak invented the single-use-but-reusable camera. They made it so simple, "you press the button, we do the rest," and that marketing approach revolutionized the industry of photography.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/

The very name, "Kodak", is derived from the sound of a camera's shutter.

So they started as a camera/film company, but changed their marketing emphasis to film, and then they couldn't change direction quickly enough. I think the "Titanic" suffered from much the same problem.

How's that for harsh?

ziggy53

Not bad. If you haven't already, read this thread about Kodak by Justiceiro. It's very good.