CCC Forum

Hi Steve

I'm glad to know that you are enjoying the Sigma cameras. The best of the bunch is probably the DP2M, mainly on account that it has a superb lens.

There is a lot to be said for sticking to one brand since, in theory at least, there is consistency between the rendering. Different manufacturers configure their cameras so there can be differences in colour, although post processing is also a factor. Personally, I tend to be brand agnostic, especially as I adapt lenses. My older manual focus lenses which were designed for film have ended up on digital bodies for which they were never intended. I also have tried my Canon EF lenses on the Sony A7, which is the only way I can shoot them on full frame. I always thought I end up with a Canon full frame body but it never happened.

The Leica T is an interesting choice. The Leica lenses are certainly excellent, although I have never liked the T body. It is an interesting concept, but I find it gimmicky. Kudos to Leica, though, for thinking outside the box and coming up with with an innovative way of operating a camera. I wonder if it persuaded those who could afford it to buy into Leica? Most Leicaphiles seem not like it and do not consider it a "proper" Leica. If I were to invest in the system, I would probably opt for the CL which looks to have better usability. I have deliberately avoided looking at it although those I know who own one speak highly of the camera.

SteveBudd wrote:My appreciation for other brands has been influenced by the very catholic tastes of Swedish You Tube jockey Mattias Burling of late, who also has a penchant for 'vintage glass' brought back to life on digital bodies.

Quite a few people, myself included, are into that. The most popular digital bodies seem to be the Sony and Fuji mirrorless models, although some adapt onto Canon DSLRs. That might change as the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless offerings become more popular and adapters become available. The one type of camera which is unsuitable are Nikon DSLRs. The F mount has a flange distance which is too long to allow lenses not designed for the mount to focus to infinity.

If you want to experiment, the various Helios 44 models are inexpensive since the Russians made them by the million and M42 adapters are cheap as well. The design dates back to the 1928 Carl Zeiss 58 Biotar, which the Soviets acquired as part of their WWII reparations. Just be cautious about any 44-7 lenses you see. They have a reputation of being the sharpest, albeit at the expense of some character* in their rendering, and are consequently the most expensive. Unfortunately, that has led to many on offer not being genuine due to the simplicity of attaching a fake nameplate to one of the earlier models. The 44-2 and 44M are the most suitable, the latter being preferable if you do want to bother with using the preset aperture control. Both will give the swirly out of focus rendering which some like, especially when mounted on a full frame camera.

SteveBudd wrote:Whether or not 'Leicaphiles' love or loathe the 'T' is a matter for them; like the plethora of Sigma haters I'm happy to plow my own furrow, whatever the rest of the world says or thinks. Personally, I like the minimalist operating controls and touch screen, along with the 'clean' styling - thanks for the CL mention, I see the attraction certainly. It's in the future, so we'll see.

Exactly the right response. Being a cross beiween a camera and an iPhone, I am sure that they are fun to use if you can get one for a good price. Leica outsourced production of the TL/CL lenses to an unnamed company in Japan, which means that you get Leica quaility but at a lower cost than if they had been manufactured in Germany.

* AKA optical defects.