jsmisc
Well-Known Member
I hadn't thought of the idea before but a nice compact 4/3 high quality Contax would be very nice - with ultra fast lenses because of the DOF problem you note. I suppose it would depend upon who manufactured it and the sensor used and so on and of course Zeiss would have to arrange a partnership as Leica has with Panasonic. I doubt if Cosina is up to it but you never know. I can see that Sony might not be too happy and Zeiss obviously have a close relationship with them not only for the Alpha but all the compacts which have CZ lenses.
(Could Sony revive Contax if brand name issues could be resolved?)
Your discussions in 2002 must have been very interesting but that's the trouble with digital; it is all full of uncertainties. It's fine for someone who can experiment with all that is on offer and no doubt great fun. But for those of us who have to consider such an investment very carefully, it is less easy; the more so because we never really expected to have to make a decision like this and were perfectly happy with our film cameras which never really needed replacing despite the best efforts of the manufacturers. Digital with its short lfe cycle must be heaven for them .
In fact if it was not that scanning is such a tedious pain and in order to contribute to a libary you do have to be digital, I would stay with film and the known quantity. When you consider the quality of film and that new improved films are still being produced e.g.the new Provia 400 which is eagerly awaited, the quality which is available relatively cheaply through film is outstanding.
Even taking into account film and processing costs, film may still be better value than digital since many, many films can be used and enjoyed before the cost of a brand new digital system has been reached. And film cameras are now excellent value. Even the superb Nikon F6 is much cheaper than a top of the range digital.
Still, convenience is king and one has to move with the times.
Perhaps the answer is to go 4x5! That still has the edge (unless maybe apparently we are talking a megabucks/pounds Hassie) but none of the convenience.
Sorry if I have gone off topic again.
Best,
John
(Could Sony revive Contax if brand name issues could be resolved?)
Your discussions in 2002 must have been very interesting but that's the trouble with digital; it is all full of uncertainties. It's fine for someone who can experiment with all that is on offer and no doubt great fun. But for those of us who have to consider such an investment very carefully, it is less easy; the more so because we never really expected to have to make a decision like this and were perfectly happy with our film cameras which never really needed replacing despite the best efforts of the manufacturers. Digital with its short lfe cycle must be heaven for them .
In fact if it was not that scanning is such a tedious pain and in order to contribute to a libary you do have to be digital, I would stay with film and the known quantity. When you consider the quality of film and that new improved films are still being produced e.g.the new Provia 400 which is eagerly awaited, the quality which is available relatively cheaply through film is outstanding.
Even taking into account film and processing costs, film may still be better value than digital since many, many films can be used and enjoyed before the cost of a brand new digital system has been reached. And film cameras are now excellent value. Even the superb Nikon F6 is much cheaper than a top of the range digital.
Still, convenience is king and one has to move with the times.
Perhaps the answer is to go 4x5! That still has the edge (unless maybe apparently we are talking a megabucks/pounds Hassie) but none of the convenience.
Sorry if I have gone off topic again.
Best,
John
, but it seems to me it was 1K or more. And given the quality of the Oly lens, that's a hell of a price dif. BUT - If IS buys you two stops of usability...