"I would like to join the chorus one more time and say it's just like the old corny joke about the young out-of-towner who approaches one of New York's Finest and asks "excuse me officer, how do I get to Carnegie Hall?" The cop answered "Practice, practice, practice."

Har! Har! So that's why I wound up in Carnegie Hall as a paying customer and not the star attraction!!!

If there's one thing I've learned since my less than sterling piano lessons of yore, it's when one absolutely, fabulously loves to do something, than it transcends pedestrian practice and becomes play and not work.

Thanks for your encouraging words, Mike!

Dorothy

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Hi Peter,

The Digital Rebel is certainly affordable, but it is definitely not true-professional quality gear. It's very much a consumer piece, with the same plastic body as the consumer-level Rebel Ti 35mm SLR. The Canon EOS 10D, which is a D-SLR with the same chip as the Digital Rebel, is a step toward professional-quality gear. -->>>

Well I guess thats the same argument ppl uses for real broadcast gear vs. our feasily DV cameras.

I'm a happy user of both the EOS-1Ds and the Digital Rebel.

I love them both like children, and the Digital Rebel is a very good camera as well.. but something I like to use when I don't have the presure of professional shooting. It's good for a B camera in the sense that when I'm using the rebel I don't risk my larger investment into the 1Ds.

Robert wrote: 'i looked into the DIGILUX 2 before i got my rebel, DIGILUX 2 has a great glass, very nice range at 28-90, but the camera is nothing more then a rebranded Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 .

although there is no mirror slap, there also is no mirror, it pretty much an expensive point and shot with all manual function done through the lcd, including focus, so you still have to deal with on screen menus and functions, if anything the rebel can be used with less lcd menu fickling..'

Listen, I did describe myself as an old stick-in-the-mud. Perhaps that was wrong. I'm not so much sticking in the mud as swimming upstream, but someone's got to do it.

From what I've seen the important functions (focus, shutter speed and aperture) are all controlled by old-fashioned rings and dials. No messing with menus at all. If the Digilux 1 is anything to go by, the Digilux 2 will be more than a rebranded Panasonic - not that there is anything wrong with the Panasonics.

It also differs from most point-and-shoots in having an electronic viewfinder as well as the LCD screen. To me, an EVF seems better than a reflex mirror - you see what is going to be recorded. But that is just my opinion. How many video cameras use reflex viewing in preference to an EVF? (I remember using a reflex video camera back in the 70's)

As far as the brand image of Leica goes, it is best ignored. Leica make idiosyncratic equipment that offers an alternative to the mainstream. I have no wish whatsoever to persuade people to get Leica stuff, or that Leica is any 'better' (whatever that means) than others, just to make them aware that there is an alternative out there (and that it is not mis-represented). It's right for some of us - these are our brushes, not CNC machine tools.

Of course the most important thing is not whether you have a Leica or a Lomo - it is that you use it.

Best,
Helen

Helen wrote"...If the Digilux 1 is anything to go by, the Digilux 2 will be more than a rebranded Panasonic ..."

actually its the exact same camera, except the panasonic is all black and the leica is in its familiar fashion, both cameras are built entirely by panasonic, even the lenses...pretty much like the dvx100 with the leica lens

"this is not your fathers leica",
yes it does have a viewfinder, which features a 5x multiplier box and manual control

however...

the cameras' iso is only 100-400 with a very small and noisy 2/3 chip much too limiting, also shutter speed is limited to 8- to 1/2000

my feeling for the limitations are the small ccd, at 800iso it would have more noise then a someone who just paid $1,800 can stand

longtime leica film owners will feel disapointed jumping into the digital pool with this cam, and it's a shame too

thats why i said this was a glorified point and shoot, folks who want more range will look somewhere else, while yuppies that shop by brand will be the ones picking up this $1,800 cam

although you are right it doesn't matter what type of camera you have, it's what pictures you take.. :)

Funny how the mention of Leica sparks off anti-Leica feeling like no other camera make.

Apart from the cosmetic differences, the Digilux 1 has different firmware from the Panasonic. The images they produce look quite different. They are not 'the exact same'. This was deliberate policy by the Leica/Panasonic team to produce cameras for two different types of user. However, I'll admit that the similarities outweigh the small differences.

Any long-time Leica M owner who 'jumps into the digital pool' with any current camera will be disappointed if they expect the same performance: there is nothing quite like the M in a digital form made by anybody. They will not be disappointed if they are prepared to learn a new way of working.

As I said in my previous post, Leicas are not for everybody, they aren't the 'best', and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to buy one. It is a shame to see them and their users misrepresented.

Robert, can we agree to differ in our views? I know that I'm not going to change your mind, and I really don't wish to argue with you because I agree with you on much more than these minor details that we disagree on!

Best,
Helen
(just in case you were wondering - I've been using Leica M's since '77, so call me a yuppie brand-shopper. There was a time when my Leica kit was worth more than my house - I lived in a 'colliery row' in a mining village in Northern England. It's just a matter of getting your priorities right!)

"Funny how the mention of Leica sparks off anti-Leica feeling like no other camera make."

Well, I don't have a dog in this fight, since I don't have any anti-any-brand feeling and consider myself reasonably objective when iit comes to shelling out hard-earned cash for equipment, so i'll weigh in.

This new product, if Robert's specs are accurate, seems to be worth nowhere near the asking price, no matter whose name is on the front. You can go ahead and call it a Hasselblad or a Gowlandflex for that matter, and it will still have the same chip and ISO limits. etc. And a longtime Leica M user wouldn't even contemplate going down this road, they would not be fooled. But a newbie with money to burn might be taken in by the prestige of the name and be expecting the quality of the legendary M series. But isn't that a bit like if Rolls-Royce were buying Saabs and putting the boxy grille and winged lady on the front and selling them as Rollers?

As for EVFs, I'm happy to leave them where they belong, on camcorders. I've been using still cameras too long to accept anything but an SLR or a proper rangefinder.

It's time to get this thread back on topic folks.

One thing I haven't noticed us talking much about is that there is another motivation for considering an SLR like the Rebel--interchangeable lenses.

Why is this important? Well, it's pretty well known that digital electronics in general and specifically digital camera electronics are on a pretty steep technology curve, where they just keep getting cheaper and faster all the time. For instance, it wasn't so long ago that a 6.3 MP SLR for less than $1000 was unimaginable. But lens technology is on a much flatter trajectory, so the lens you buy today might be the one you strap onto the camera you buy to replace your Rebel three years from now. Actually, when I bought my 10D, the first lens I put on it was a three-year-old 28-80 zoom that I had.

As long as Canon keep coming out with SLRs that fit the whole catalogue of EF lenses (and the whole aftermarket of Canon-compatible lenses) as they do now, that glass you buy will be a good long-term investment and may actually hold its value better than the body.

That'a a good point Mike. If SLR lens compatability is a factor, Nikon is the clear winner. Canon's history isn't quite so good. If past performance for both still and video cameras is anything to go by, Canon are quite happy to change mounts completely.

Best,
Helen
(I still use my perfectly good T90 but have resisted 'upgrading' to a newer Canon because of the huge investment in new glass - because old Canon lenses don't fit new Canon bodies)

True, Helen, Nikon lenses fit back to "prehistoric" days, where Canon mounts have changed. My friend's AE1 has lenses that won't fit anything new.

Having said that, at this point in history when I was shopping for a digital SLR, I was already invested in the Canon EF mount on the film side, which is one reason why I didn't give the Nikon D100 greater consideration. My "non-digital" lenses and speedlight all transferred over to the 10D very nicely, whereas I would have had to buy all new if I had switched brands. Let's hope that Canon stick to their present mounts, now that the EOS family of systems is SOOOO popular.

Canon is a company with a clear commitment to being a leader in technological innovations. Their one and only major change in many years of lens mount design came as a result of that commitment. Nikon leveraged that change by reminding everyone that their mount had not changed. Several years later, now that the dust has settled, it is clear to me that Canon made the best decision and Nikon is still trying to figure out how to adapt new technology to an old infrastructure, imho.

Digital Rebel users or others considering stepping up to Canon DSLR bodies can rest assured Canon will not be changing lens mount design again soon, it will happen when technology justifies a significant change. Changing something this important does not sell more lenses as some suspect, it can alienate your customers who Canon understands have made a significant investment in their glass products.

Here is a list of the improvements the Canon lens mount change facilitated http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/lensmount.html

Helen,
I enjoy your informative responses very much. I think you may be someone that will understand this light hearted comment from me. After converting from Nikon to Canon systems one of the hardest things for me to get used to was using a lens that does not have an aperture ring! I still find my fingers habitually searching for that all important device that is no longer on the lens. Maybe it is just that my fingers are numb from the investment I made in Mike's great liquor company.

Steve

Absolutely true that Nikon's loyalty to an ancient lens mount is a bit of a millstone - well at least it is round. Aren't Canon on their third mount - FL, FD, EF?

I thought that the Digital Rebel has a 'modified' EF mount, so that the new range of lenses made/to be made for the D-R- wont fit the rest of the EOS line because the mirror will foul the rear of the lens. So if you want to invest in lenses, dont buy the 18-55 made for the D-R-?

Best,
Helen

Well I guess that is twice in 7 days I have posted responses with flawed information. Maybe one of my new years resolutions will be to just keep my mouth shut here unless I absolutely know what I am talking about.

I do not shoot with a Digital Rebel, I have 2 10D’s, EOS1n and an EOS3 and only “L’ series glass. I thought the new Rebel lenses were just cheaper construction to make them affordable for the consumer. I apologize for my poor information. Next time I will shut up or do the homework before pounding out a response.

Steve

Technically the mount didn't change. Many people are modifying the EF-S lens by cutting off the small plastic extension and using it on other models.

Nikon also changed their mounts several years ago. The newer G(?) series lenses won't fit on older bodies. Newer bodies (N80, N75, others ?) won't accept older lenses.

Canon made a wise decision in changing from the manual FL, FD mounts to the EF mount. The larger diameter lens mount enabled Canon to introduce USM and IS technology in 35mm bodies (both world firsts). Nikon had to spend considerably more R & D dollars to develop Silent Wave and VR technology because of their allegiance to the F mount. The delayed introduction of both technologies has cost Nikon both dollars and market share. Many consider this the fall of Nikon dominance in professional circles. Attend any major sporting event and you'll only see a few black Nikon tele's in a sea of Canon white tele's.

Thank you Jeff, that is exactly what I tried to say, only you said it better, and with the correct information, as usual. I am serious about being more careful about what I post.

Steve

It's easy to get confused about this stuff if you don't face it on a daily basis. I've got students all the time trying to figure lens issues out. I'm not even sure I'm 100% correct all the time, anymore.

I find keeping up with technology to be one of my greatest challenges. Especially when my job entails having to work in so many aspects of it these days. Video, audio, lighting, postproduction, projection and stills. Life was much simpler when all I did for a living was shoot stills 15 years ago. I am very much aware that I am now a jack of many trades.

Being a member of this community is a big deal to me, it helps me keep up with that technology curve.

Thank You Jeff, and Merry Christmas to all.

Steve