Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JohnBrew on January 20, 2010, 09:12:06 pm
-
While I agree with many of Michael's thoughts for a future rangefinder, it is interesting that Leica cannot keep up with current demand for the M9 and S2. I suppose there are enough of us old farts who actually like the anachronistic qualities or at least don't find them to be a hindrance.
-
The whole idea and value proposition of owning a Leica in the digital age is derived, I think, from the traditional craftsmanship, superlative optics, compact design and analog approach. Taking away the optical rangefinder and replacing it with an EVF (hardly a satisfactory replacement at this stage of technology evolution) would be like driving a BMW with a computer screen instead of a windshield. I own a Canon 1Ds3, a Panasonic LX-2, Pentax 67 and just bought a used Leica M6 with a 35mm Summicron ASPH earlier this month. Why would I do that? Because I still like the look that film gives and the Leica produces an image that is almost as good as the MF Pentax, in a small compact form factor. I'd rather see a rangefinder developed that can adapt to a wider variety of lenses, than lose this important feature that hardly any other modern camera retains today.
-
An interesting subject. My first real camera was a IIIc, bought with painfully saved money in my late teens. Since then I have used most everything - Nikons, Hasselblads, Rollei, the first Praktiflex, Speed Graphic, View cameras, etc - ending with the M series Olyumpus - my favorite 35mm. I switched to Canon when they came out with the first stabilized lenses. Switched to digital with the Canon Pro90 IS. Present cameras - Canon M11, Pentax K10D, K20D, and K-x bodies with a modest lens collection, favorite being the 77LTD f1.8 (115mm 35mE). I used several Leicas until I fell in love with the reflexes.
I take exception to only ONE thing in Michael's list - and it is a VERY STRONG objection.
Leica should use the usual contrast CMOS digicam focussing system and use a full-flex live LCD similar to that on the M11. (though a full 180 degree fold out would be preferable since money would be no object). I do believe Leica has enough money to make two models - one as present for real purists, and one as I suggest.
Then the market can tell them which will sell.
Leica's usual top-of-the-line execution would make the LCD focus quite adequate, and the usual enlarged view would provide for super-accuracy when important.
Despite the enraged howls and whimpers of the purists - the LCD camera would be the one that sells - and will sell more and more by combining the legendary Leica quality and "feel" with a modern, easy to love view/focus system.
Bill Wilson
-
While I agree with many of Michael's thoughts for a future rangefinder, it is interesting that Leica cannot keep up with current demand for the M9 and S2. I suppose there are enough of us old farts who actually like the anachronistic qualities or at least don't find them to be a hindrance.
True, John - but I think Michael's (specific) point was that as us "old farts" (I am 80!) leave the scene the line will need new blood. Bill W.
-
I too strongly disagree with MR's desires.
Having gone through SLR's, DSLR's, MFDB, MF, Large Format... the M8/M9 is superb in handling. Lecia, please ignore the open letter and do not change anything of the fundamentals. Newer high-tech is not better than handling of a traditional camera. I am among those who simply do not like DSLRs because too many buttons, selections and electronics. And, that experience has been costly to me personally (also due certain ravings and opinions spelled out on internet). My M8 is a stark contrast to those high tech and is a wonderful camera, why? The M8 is SIMPLE. A camera should be simple to keep mind on photography. The suggested added electronic wiz bang would get between the image and me. No way.
I also do not have a "thumbs right", why? It would add bulk to the camera...
If I can give an open letter to Leica, it would be to keep the eye on photography as they have since the M1. I think more camera companies should take notice: It is not about the gear but about photographic capture.
Regards
Anders
----------------
Added: If Phase One and Leaf have the balls, they would develop a Mamiya 8 on same principles; either larger sensor to match FOV of Mamiya 7 lenses, or adding a 28mm.
-
All I want is better high iso, possibly a focus confirmation, and a wider viewfinder that would show 24 mm frame lines, but keep the current viewfinder model as well.
-
Hi,
I enjoyed Michaels article. Some comments:
To begin with I guess that I'm not really a Leica buyer and that relates pretty much to cost, on the other hand I really appreciate optical quality. I also read the article series on the M9 at http://www.diglloyd.com (http://www.diglloyd.com) a pay site worth every penny.
Although Michael really enjoys the M9 he admits that there are some issues with the RF concept. One of the issues is clearly focusing, the RF solution used on Leica has some practical limitations. In addition both Diglloyd and Erwin Puts have indicated that a viewfinder loupe is really needed for accurate focusing. The viewfinder concept does also not allow for exact framing.
In my view there is a need for a versatile high performing camera that can easily been carried around using very high quality lenses. Technology is around for a new generation of cameras. Interestingly, Leica's buddy Panasonic has most of the components, except a 24x36 size CMOS sensor. I would not really argue for an M10 along the lines Michael's lines, I would argue for a DL1 with much of the M9 gestalt implemented on todays best technology.
On the other hand, it would be possible to improve the existing M9 with the following features:
1) A live view, full frame sensor (even if this is a serious issue, as now one of Leica's buddies make such a sensor)
2) Contrast sensing focus indicator at arbitrary position on the sensor
3) An add on Electronic View Finder, preferably with a better physical layout than the ones from Panasonic and Olympus
4) This would be a rangefinder camera with an EVF capability
5) It would be possible to add a few contacts for driving AF and possibly have some new lenses sporting AF with internal motors
Best regards
Erik
-
I'd say, just add live view. That's it. The traditionalists will refuse to use it and people like myself for whom the rangefinder concept just doesn't work (for several reasons) will be able to compose accurately, focus easily, use polarisers, be able to see what we're shooting even with a 75mm lens, etc, etc.
I suppose I'm one of MR's 'under 30's' though only by 6 months. I cannot do what I do (for my walk around/travel work) with a rangefinder. Not without tearing my hair out. I could do it with live view and it would very happily replace my 5D and zoom lens and expensive tripod which I'm using at present for my work.
If the M9 would have had LV, Leica would have had me as a customer.
I really don't see that Leica will have an EVF though, not in this decade!
-
Everything Michael wants can be addressed with the addition of Live View and an accessory EVF to the M9. The direct viewfinder is the best thing about rangefinders. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
I don't think the difficulty of focusing on repeating patterns is that much of an issue. To know a Leica is to know how far away something is. You need to practice, though.
If I were to write an open letter to Leica, it would go something like this:
- Design a new direct viewfinder with field-compensating LCD framelines. This alleviates the clutter of multiple framelines in the viewfinder, as well as improves framing accuracy.
- The viewfinder should also be a lower magnification. This would provide better visibility of the most important focal lengths used on rangefinders: 35mm and 28mm. It would be unnecessary to have a higher magnification because...
- Lenses would be autofocus. Contax did it about 15 years ago. No more rangefinder, no more EBL. Autofocus goes hand in hand with the LCD frameline mask, which allows free movement of the focusing spot.
- Use the Leica CL/Minolta CLE/Zeiss Ikon body contour as your inspiration for the left side of the new camera design, but make the right side just like the Konica Hexar RF. You don't need a Thumbs Up on that camera.
- Stop fiddling with the rewind corner. It was just fine on the M3/M2/MP, but it's been a mess ever since.
PS
I've been whining about the lack of folding hoods over LCDs in P&S digicams forever!
-
I would agree with Michael's article that Leica need to become more relevant to today's photographers if they are to survive. The article missed two important developments, image stabilisation and video, which are now standard features on modern compact cameras. It's nice to have high quality optics and build quality, but a poor picture taken with the best quality is still a crap picture, better to be able to take good images with OK quality...something which many cameras such as the Panasonic GF1 are more than capable of achieving.
-
I wonder if an optical viewfinder in combination with with a transparent electronic overlay would work such, that information like focus confirmation (like the focus tool in Capture One) could be used inside the optical viewfinder.
Maybe it would be a technical challenge but not entirely impossible - would it ?
I recently had the chance to look through an M9 viewfinder and found the
distance measurement not really comfortable as opposed to the cut-image measurement
I was used to from my old Nikon FE or the microprism systems that existed.
The overlay of the images in the M9 viewfinder confused me.
But I would never want to omit an optical viewfinder.
The EVFs I had a chance to see through so far are horrible to my eyes.
-
I had an M8 and couldn't stand the inaccuracy of the optical viewfinder, especially with the 75mm lens, when it was stolen I bought a CFV back for my Hasselblad 503 and am now happy again.
I would agree in general with Michael's feelings about the M series.
I wouldn't want to see the loss of the optical finder but I see a big need for an EVF for accurate focussing and framing. Perhaps Leica could incorporate both in a new camera, side by side, rather
like the old III series Leica's (I think it was). Look in one finder for optical and the other for EVF. The idea of an accessory EVF is not elegant, and I personally don't think live view is important for this kind of camera either.
-
The issue with any current digital camera system DSLR, M8/M9 or MFDB is that it is still tied back to the film world. I love film, I still shoot with a lot of film but why do I need my digital camera to still have one foot in the film world?
I do not own a Leica Ranegfinder but if I did I would just buy a M7 and shoot with film rather than an M9. Michael is right in that Leica seems to want to keep everything the same as the the M7 but with a CCD instead of a roll of film.
Leica or some other camera company (Olympus? Panasonic? Sigma?) would be very smart to make a camera with a 35mm sized sensor that could take M series lenses and be smaller than a DSLR. Using Live View and/or an EVF. It would also not be very hard to make your own brand of lenses to work with the system that could be AF if you were Panasonic, Olympus or Sigma.
In a related note why doesn't Canon or Nikon make a DSLR without a mirror that uses live view and an EVF with the LCD screen on the back that flips out and turns. This could also be made much smaller and lighter than a regular DSLR and would make video much easier.
-
The $54 dollar question, is would you pay $5,400 to $8,000 for such a camera?
A lot of people always weigh into these discussions but few purchase (see every AFI, HY6 discussion in medium format).
The next question is does Leica make Jewelry or cameras? I use to think cameras, but sometimes when I see a presentation of all those little cameras on Red boxes with the guy with the sweater I think they might be selling Jewelry and professional photographers don't care about Jewelry.
I was at a store where the sweater guy was behind the counter and I showed him a fashion image from an M8 and he said "most people don't use the cameras for that". I replied if it was more stable and a little easier to use, maybe more people would.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/thumbs/th_006rr_beauty.jpg) (http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/thumbs/th_003rr_beauty.jpg)
Personally I don't care if Leica uses an EVF, or has live view, but from a professional standpoint I think it's important that they offer autofocus, secure tethering and a whole lot better quality control. Autofocus ain't perfect but try to shoot at anything moving with a 90mm on an m8 or m9 at 5.6 and
you'll understand quickly the need for autofocus.
I have an M8, love it, love the files, but can't use it everyday, or even for a full project because you just can't trust the thing not to move wb around, or jam or just do something silly. Will I buy an M9 . . . no . . . just because of these reasons. Would I buy a reliable M10 with autfocus . . . in a heartbeat, because with it's lack of aa filter, small form factor for traveling (especially with tougher airline restrictions), I think it would be a great medium format alternative.
As far as video, I don't see the point because Panasonic and Canon have that covered, you have to have two complete camera set ups anyway if you shoot a combination of stills and video and honestly why tie up an expensive camera to shoot video when a comparable panasonic cost about a buck fifty?
But we can all discuss this until we're blue in the face and I don't see any of it changing. Leica has taken the S-2 road for professionals and it's not the money it's the angst of trying and using any new medium format system, the wait for lenses, software, fine tuning, etc. etc. etc. I just can't see the $50,000 investment it takes to switch or for that matter I think the days of the $50,000 still camera are over.
BC
-
and I personally don't think live view is important for this kind of camera either.
That's the point though. Why should it remain just 'this kind of camera' when it can be so much more?
-
If Leica did that it would end up with a modern-day version of the M5.
Leica's success is dependent upon it playing Leica's game. If you want the next Leica to be a glorified Canon G11, then Leica will end up playing against Canon at Canon's game. Leica will lose.
Take the M9, add live-view and a plug-in electronic viewfinder and call it a day.
-
I recently bought a Leica M8, used it for a month, then sold it.
I really liked the image quality coming off the CCD, and the lenses.
But the difficult focusing is what made me sell the camera, I was missing to
many shots that I would have nailed with my other cameras. I lost interest in carrying the camera because of missed shots, despite the high quality body and lenses.
I probably would have improved my technique with time, but the focus patch on the M is quite small, and difficult to see in many of the shooting situations I find myself in.
I mentioned in a post a few months ago that a M with live view would be a very usable camera for certain types of shooting. Keep the optical rangefinder, but add live view for refining and nailing focus, and previewing depth of field.
-
leica said that the r-system solution isn't going to be an slr, so michael might get his wish after all, sort of.
i hope it has the sony f828's form factor. couple tweaks here and there...
(http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/mp8zoom/SonyBT.jpg)
-
Michael's idea is intriguing, and I agree that Leica could benefit from adding a truly "designed for digital" mirrorless system, even if it keeps the M9 and M7 product lines too. My one fear is that the current M-mount lenses themselves have too much historical baggage (OK, early 20th century, not 19th century).
I do not mean the lack of auto-focus; I mean the lack of the aperture stop-down mechanism used in lenses designed for through the lens focusing, which allows focusing to be done wide-open, with the lens then rapidly stopped to the selected aperture as part of the shutter release process. Without that, either manually stopping down is needed, or it might be a struggle to focus manually at high f-stops due to the with the dim, high DOF image given by the stopped down lens.
Is anyone here using M-mount lenses on an m4/3 body, and if so, how is the focusing? Am I too pessimistic?
P. S. One of the ideas I relay like is a detachable "modular" EVF, for several reasons.
One is being able to upgrade what is perhaps the weakest link in current mirrorless digital cameras and which is likely to improve rapidly.
Another is being able to reduce bulk at times by leaving it off (for those of us who are mostly happy with two-eyed rear-screen composing when there is no glare on the screen, like indoors)I suspect that the only EVF units small enough to fit in the body without adding a hump or significant bulk do not give adequate image size: EVF's have magnifiers, like SLR OCF's too.
A third is that a modular EVF could be used somewhat remotely with a cable, or at least moved around a bit, like on a tripod with the camera positioned very low.
A fourth is that such EVFs could be attractive accessories for DSLR's too, especially for video shooting where the OVF is useless.
-
Leica has always been out of my snack bracket so I'm not likely to buy one. I've lusted for the Leica quality since the mid 50's but ended up with the Contax 139 and AX during the late 70's. The AX was a monster in weight and size, but it did have 'in camera' focus that blundered along reasonably well but worked with all my Leitz lenses, and even provided a useful macro feature that really worked. Now there are digital cameras with 'in camera' anti-shake that works will all lenses. Why can't these processes be combined? It would be a God-send to those with many excellent lenses [Leica].
Another useful feature I've experienced was the split body of the Nikon 9** or 4500 series. A useful update might be a removable, bluetooth, hand-held device with a large live-screen and remote camera controls, great for tripod work when detached. All these technologies exist but can be updated. If the SLR and RF cameras are past their due-dates, why not design using the best of the best technologies. IMHO of course.
Thanks Michael for providing the food for thought.
-
With regret I sold my M6 after owning it for about 6 months. For professional work I was missing shots I could not afford to lose. Maybe the French have a gene the rest of us missed out on. As Cartier-Bresson and the rest so superbly demonstrated the Leica is at it's best as a hand-held street , dingy interior and theatre camera. What the M10 needs is live view, high ISO with minimum noise, in body image stabilization and auto sensor cleaning. Whether this could be achieved without increasing bulk I don't know, but Leica has demonstrated genius before. If they do it my order is in.
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
I've always been a price-conscious buyer, but once, just once, I splurged. I bought a Questar. I did this because it presented the best image to my eyes (past tense - the world has caught up). It was quirky and a bit difficult to operate, but it delivered the goods.
Michael says, "I wanted to use a system that offered the highest image quality possible combined with the smallest size and lightest weight." When you add the price tag, that's a compromise I am unwilling to make. For the price, the Leica had better make the highest image quality - period, paragraph. Until then, talking about features is fun, but pointless.
-
Take the M9, add a decent rear screen - Nikon's best will be fine (the existing one, at least on my M8, is a disgrace that shouldn't be on a $1000 camera, let alone a $6000 one) and live view, and you're done. This does require CMOS (D3x sensor?), but no major redesign.
Assuming you don't redesign the camera and lenses completely (e.g. autofocus on every lens), the rangefinder is ESSENTIAL to keep in addition to live view.
Even as a newcomer to Leica - I have a "loaner" M8 that arrived last week while I wait for my M9 that is still months away - I can already focus my Leica better than I can live-view focus my D3x without using magnification. With magnified live view, the D3x becomes an extremely precise focuser, but also requires a tripod. For handheld focus, a rangefinder is better than live view.
The real attraction of live view on a Leica is twofold, at least for me. One is to replace external viewfinders for very wide lenses (and permit very long lenses to be used at all), and the second is to provide ultra-precise focus on a tripod (with magnification).
Even if the M10 supports a hypothetical line of M-AF mount lenses (assuming they had motors in the lens, that wouldn't be all that hard to do - it's a matter of contrast AF in firmware plus a few electronic contacts in the body, which existing lenses would simply ignore), you STILL need the rangefinder - without it, you are stuck with imprecise live-view focus on all existing lenses, unless you are on a tripod and can magnify for accuracy.
I like the idea of digitally projected frame lines (possibly in a zooming finder, with finder zoom as an optional feature, much as you can switch on "wrong" frame lines on a current M). Zoom finders are not THAT hard to build - the old Contax G1 and G2 had a good one, and every zoom compact in film days had a lousy one. I don't know if there's a technical problem with putting a rangefinder in a zoom finder - if there is, forget the zoom finder. Digital frame lines allow the frame lines to move with focal distance, and are not a problem at all - Leica themselves already project shutter speed (and all sorts of companies project different sorts of reticles for different applications).
-Dan
-
The one thimg I haven't seen mentioned in this thread or in Michael's open letter is pixel count. I have an intuition that if they produce an M10, the key feature will be an up-grade to 24 MP. If they can pull that off with the IQ they are getting from the current sensor, (incl. no low-pass filter), that would be a real coup, possibly sustaining the market for the up-grade. This would put them in the same resolution horse-race as the best of the DSLRs, but besting them on IQ because of the absence of the the low pass filter and the quality of their lenses. Not to say that some of the other features suggested in the article and this thread wouldn't be good to have, but I think it remains to be seen whether Leitz would consider them sufficiently important.
-
I would be most interested in seeing a "blind" comparison of images taken under the exact same lighting conditions with the same focal length lenses and "processed" the same way in LR/PS and see if anyone can reliably tell the difference under normal viewing conditions (say Leica vs Canon vs Nikon). I've been around the block long enough to know that perception can be biased quite easily. Maybe Michael can host such an experiment in his studio. It would tempt me to come up to Toronto for a viewing. I suspect that as in the case of high or low end stereo equipment that it will be difficult to tell the difference. To me Leica's premium pricing has always been problematic.
-
My only comment is really somewhat sentimental. Why ruin everything by dragging it into this "Must have electronic viewfinder" era
Range finders are unique, Leica are a company that sells finely crafted tools to relatively few buyers, old hat or not..that's the way it was, and is.
Change is a dangerous thing for a company like Leica.
I see this demand for EVF's even on DSLR's, frankly, I don't care for them much. I want a clean view, and a non processed one is utterly essential. There will always be some asking for extras, histograms in the VF, enlarged areas for fine manual focus. But you miss the fun part here, and range finders are that in some ways, free from snazzy features and extra bits SLR users love so much. Why spoil a good thing??
-
I would be most interested in seeing a "blind" comparison of images taken under the exact same lighting conditions with the same focal length lenses and "processed" the same way in LR/PS and see if anyone can reliably tell the difference under normal viewing conditions (say Leica vs Canon vs Nikon). I've been around the block long enough to know that perception can be biased quite easily. Maybe Michael can host such an experiment in his studio. It would tempt me to come up to Toronto for a viewing. I suspect that as in the case of high or low end stereo equipment that it will be difficult to tell the difference. To me Leica's premium pricing has always been problematic.
Alan, I haven't seen the kind of comparison you are recommending - and indeed if properly structured it could be interesting; but it is a non-trivial exercise. One must define the approach, the parameters and the outcomes in a way that is both meaningful and scientifcally valid. It can be done, but having been involved in comparison exercises of various kinds in the past, I have no illusion about it being "easy" - takes time. So then there is really a question of how worthwhile it is. For those of us who have already "seen the answer", it's almost a non-issue - Leica wins. The images are sharper and richer off the card than what you'll get from a Canon 1DsMk3 with an L lens. The latter is no slouch - that's what I'm using, but on a not-apples:apples basis, from what I've seen, the Leica images are just better. And you would expect that; there's no AA filter, Leica's best lenses are superior, and the pixel pitch is moderately larger.
And Leica's pricing - at least for the body - is definitely not out of line with other high end digital imagers. Their lenses are expensive. Michael says they may have substantial margins - perhaps - but it may also be the case that their manufacturing and QC processes just end-up producing expensive lenses, because the good ones must be priced to recover ALL the costs of what goes on under the hood and what never makes it to market. So there could be a chicken-egg business here where the prices are high because the volume is low, and the volume is low because the prices are hgh because the best quality just costs more to make. Anyhow, yes, a 1DsMk3 vs Leica M9 vs Nikon shootout may be a neat idea for the benefit of those who haven't seen M9 images. Two closing thoughts, however: (a) it would be pretty useless trying to convey these differences using JPEGs on a computer display,and ( don't know whether there will be any takers for actually doing the work!
-
Why not a more radical design in the spirit of the Ricoh GRX?
I mean, Ricoh had a brillant idea: intechangeable unit; half way genius, half way silly to have included the lens in it;
but Leica could make it with of course interchangeable lenses and full frame.
This is perfectly adaptable without having to reinvent the wheel of M design and it would give it a UNIQUE position
in the market. It wouldn't be so hard for a brand like Leica, in fact not at all.
Imagine: You buy one time an M (x) body and you have an interchangeable unit sensor, like in medium format.
When a technology is obsolete, you just have to buy a new sensor unit so you have always the best with the same camera.
A camera for life, like its optics. That would be a winner!
You could have special units for special purposes, ones more orientated for movies etc...
I also agree: the electronic viewfinder is the future.
So, a modular Leica M ?
Fred
-
My only comment is really somewhat sentimental. Why ruin everything by dragging it into this "Must have electronic viewfinder" era
Range finders are unique, Leica are a company that sells finely crafted tools to relatively few buyers, old hat or not..that's the way it was, and is.
Change is a dangerous thing for a company like Leica.
I see this demand for EVF's even on DSLR's, frankly, I don't care for them much. I want a clean view, and a non processed one is utterly essential. There will always be some asking for extras, histograms in the VF, enlarged areas for fine manual focus. But you miss the fun part here, and range finders are that in some ways, free from snazzy features and extra bits SLR users love so much. Why spoil a good thing??
Exactly, and very well stated!
Why should Leica follow a rat race of adding new tech features? What they have is a much appreciated niche, and a well proven such. All they have to do is slight polish the same M scheme... adding some pixels and most important further improving sensor quality and image quality.
At current age of 'photography' the aim is for companies to sell us upgrades by adding electronic features that really do not lead to better photos, only snaps. Lecia follows a longer cycle, and one to lead us to good photos.
My M8? Far easier to use and focus than any DSLR I used. Albeit, some have preference for DSLRs, fine but when one understands a rangefinder it is a special tool which for its purpose cannot be beaten.
Regards
Anders
-
Hi,
One issue that always is with us is post processing. For instance, sharpening would be different with an AA-filtered image, but also other factors influence sharpening. Comparing different system with the same parameters is simply not correct.
Another issue is that achieving critical focus is not easy, with any system lacking live view.
Erwin Puts has published a comparison like the one you are talking about here:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html)
It may give some insight on the effort needed doing a comparison between the Lens-Camera-Sensor systems. There may be some objections to Mr. Puts's tests, but it goes with the territory.
Finally, it is very hard to compare images from different sensors on a computer screen. If the sensors are the same size, no problems but if they even are slightly different you need to rescale one or both. The resizing also has issues.
Now, pixel peeping is in a way a stupid exercise, the image you see in actual pixels on screen is a way real pictures are almost never seen. The best way to compare images from different cameras are probably fairly large prints. In my view the prints should be larger than A2 (16"x23") for a meaningful comparison.
Best regards
Erik
Alan, I haven't seen the kind of comparison you are recommending - and indeed if properly structured it could be interesting; but it is a non-trivial exercise. One must define the approach, the parameters and the outcomes in a way that is both meaningful and scientifcally valid. It can be done, but having been involved in comparison exercises of various kinds in the past, I have no illusion about it being "easy" - takes time. So then there is really a question of how worthwhile it is. For those of us who have already "seen the answer", it's almost a non-issue - Leica wins. The images are sharper and richer off the card than what you'll get from a Canon 1DsMk3 with an L lens. The latter is no slouch - that's what I'm using, but on a not-apples:apples basis, from what I've seen, the Leica images are just better. And you would expect that; there's no AA filter, Leica's best lenses are superior, and the pixel pitch is moderately larger.
And Leica's pricing - at least for the body - is definitely not out of line with other high end digital imagers. Their lenses are expensive. Michael says they may have substantial margins - perhaps - but it may also be the case that their manufacturing and QC processes just end-up producing expensive lenses, because the good ones must be priced to recover ALL the costs of what goes on under the hood and what never makes it to market. So there could be a chicken-egg business here where the prices are high because the volume is low, and the volume is low because the prices are hgh because the best quality just costs more to make. Anyhow, yes, a 1DsMk3 vs Leica M9 vs Nikon shootout may be a neat idea for the benefit of those who haven't seen M9 images. Two closing thoughts, however: (a) it would be pretty useless trying to convey these differences using JPEGs on a computer display,and ( don't know whether there will be any takers for actually doing the work!
-
Hi,
What Leica needs to do is simply enough to make cameras that earn enough money to keep the company afloat. This has historically been a major issue for Leica, they are essentially loosing money all the time. What's keeping Leica afloat to my best knowledge are rebadged Panasonics.
Obviously, M9 are selling very well but that may relate to a piled up demand for a FF digital RF-Leica for RF-Leica aficionados, once that market is filled what is going to happen? The S2 is a bold step in a new direction, I hope it will work out for Leica but I have some doubt. It's really a question of cost and benefit. For lovers of image quality cost may not be an objection, but I guess that in the professional market you need a return on investment. It may materialize in one of those ways:
- Customers pay more money because of higher quality
- Photographer can sell more pictures because of higher quality
- The tool is more efficient so productivity is increased (Photographer can sell more pictures because of better productivity.)
One of the great attractions of Leica is it's small size, another is their excellent lenses. One path for Leica to take may be to build a simpler camera, without rangefinder. The RF is a complex mechanical device needing a lot of workmanship. Replacing RF with an EVF may push cost down so Leica could sell about the same price as a lower cost full frame digital camera (like the Sony A 900 or the Canon 5DII). Image quality would be exactly the same as the M9, would that sensor be used. I don't think this camera should be called M9, it would be MD One (M-series Digital first model).
The idea with this suggestion is really that it's to eat the cake and still have it. The user base would be wider, more lenses would be sold, prices for old lenses would increase and no M-series aficionados would be offended.
Finally, just an explanation. Making a "live-view" only camera is much simpler than any other construct. The only thing that needs to be achieved is that the sensor is parallell to the focal plane of the lens. Even flange to sensor distance is less critical even if it may be desirable that infinity focus is at infinity stop. There is no mechanical linkage, relay prisms or pelicular mirrors for focusing.
As a side note. It seems obvious that critical focusing on the Leica is not really easy. Lloyd Chambers has done some extensive shooting with the M9 and had issues with focusing accuracy with the 70 mm lens. He also indicated that some of the Leica lenses did not achieve infinity focus at the infinity mark. Lloyd Chamber tested both Leica and Zeiss lenses and in some cases he found the Zeiss lenses superior (My understanding is that Zeiss has a focus on high MTF in the center of the image but allows more fall of on MTF in the corners. Leica lenses are better corrected in the corners but tend to have a complex field curvature, wavy, to achieve this. Zeiss also seems to have more focus on keeping flare down.)
Erwin Puts also indicated that a viewfinder magnifier is really needed to critically focus the M9.
Mr. Lloyd Chambers Leica pages are here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html) , this is a pay site but I'd suggest that spending a few dollars on excellent info is a good idea before shelling out seven grand.
Mr. Puts writing on the Leica is here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/ (http://www.imx.nl/photo/)
Mr. Puts is both a Leica expert and a Leica aficionado. He owns the first Leica M9 sold to a customer and has built his own Leica M8 which has "zero tolerance". His writing tends to be a bit complex but definitively worth reading.
Best regards
Erik
While I agree with many of Michael's thoughts for a future rangefinder, it is interesting that Leica cannot keep up with current demand for the M9 and S2. I suppose there are enough of us old farts who actually like the anachronistic qualities or at least don't find them to be a hindrance.
-
Hi!
This may be easier done than you think. It's just to download some relevant test images from one of the usual test sites like DPReview or imaging resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/), unfortunately, DPReview does not have a review of the M9 yet, and Imaging Review doesn't seem to test M-series Leica's. Both sites have well thought out subjects they photograph under controlled conditions. DPReview will publish test and samples on the M9. I really prefer Imaging Resource as a source of test images but they may not test the M9.
You can print the test images your self or send to a lab. Visiting Michael's gallery would be a great experience, for sure, but you would make your own prints and not send them to Michael for printing?
I think that Michael could do this test but he is also aware of the perils involved. Also I'd suggest that Michael prefers to use his stuff for taking real pictures in real conditions and let other sites do the testing in the lab.
Best regards
Erik
I would be most interested in seeing a "blind" comparison of images taken under the exact same lighting conditions with the same focal length lenses and "processed" the same way in LR/PS and see if anyone can reliably tell the difference under normal viewing conditions (say Leica vs Canon vs Nikon). I've been around the block long enough to know that perception can be biased quite easily. Maybe Michael can host such an experiment in his studio. It would tempt me to come up to Toronto for a viewing. I suspect that as in the case of high or low end stereo equipment that it will be difficult to tell the difference. To me Leica's premium pricing has always been problematic.
-
I would be most interested in seeing a "blind" comparison of images taken under the exact same lighting conditions with the same focal length lenses and "processed" the same way in LR/PS and see if anyone can reliably tell the difference under normal viewing conditions (say Leica vs Canon vs Nikon). I've been around the block long enough to know that perception can be biased quite easily. Maybe Michael can host such an experiment in his studio. It would tempt me to come up to Toronto for a viewing. I suspect that as in the case of high or low end stereo equipment that it will be difficult to tell the difference. To me Leica's premium pricing has always been problematic.
+1
Addendum: I'd like to have a PhaseOne P25+ and other MFDB systems added to that test (With downsampling to the same size like the Leica / DSLRs)
-
I would be most interested in seeing a "blind" comparison of images taken under the exact same lighting conditions with the same focal length lenses and "processed" the same way in LR/PS and see if anyone can reliably tell the difference under normal viewing conditions (say Leica vs Canon vs Nikon). I've been around the block long enough to know that perception can be biased quite easily. Maybe Michael can host such an experiment in his studio. It would tempt me to come up to Toronto for a viewing. I suspect that as in the case of high or low end stereo equipment that it will be difficult to tell the difference. To me Leica's premium pricing has always been problematic.
Alan,
An interesting test I found here (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness-28mm.htm) and here (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness.htm) seems serious enough to at least answer in part to your suggestion.
It is more a lens comparaison but it tells you a lot more about M capability. Now, as you said, a physical comparison in a gallery would be interesting.
Fred.
-
Keep things simple. Improve things without revolutions. Don't put all the eggs in the same basket. Etc.
I see the M10 very similar to the M9 but with a better LCD screen (not necessarily larger, but AMOLED and with more resolution), CMOS sensor (without AA filter and Kodak color filters), Live View, a rangefinder with a larger base (you can push the viewfinder to the extreme corner now), an improved viewfinder and a port for a clip-on electronic viewfinder (you can buy and use it... or not). That is all. Several of these changes may be introduced separately in several iterations of the M9 (M9.2, M9.3... whatever), before all of them configure a M10 camera.
I think a clip-on EVF is a great idea, but it does not exclude the optical viewfinder. The EVF would be mount on the hot shoe, just like the Olympus E-P2. Using a EVF you can frame and focus, if you want it. It would be an alternative to the optical viewfinder for "normal" focals (28-90) but the only option for extreme wide angles (16-24), tri-elmars, teles (135 or even longer), macro lenses, etc. At this moment you have to buy many accessory optical viewfinders and googles, if you have wide-angles, tri-elmars, macro lenses... etc... A simple EVF will perform all those functions, if you want it, or need it.
Leica may develop a different camera as a complementary (different) product. A cheaper and smaller M camera without optical viewfinder-rangefinder, keeping all the remaining elements the same. Call it a CL digital camera if you like it. Different size, materials and ergonomics... same mount. This EVF-only M camera is a really good idea, maybe not for the traditional M user, certainly not for me, but it would open many possibilities for the M system and new users... even if the lenses are MF lenses (from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer). Reichmann suggestions for assisted MF are really good ideas... specially for a system based on manual focus lenses!
-
Hi,
There are a lot of perils in lens testing. In the second test quite a few of the Canon samples are clearly out of focus. It is also a bit odd to put up a Leica prime against a 16-35/2.8 zoom that is known not to be a very good lens. That said, the articles are interesting. Pitting a 30 years old lens against new ones is also a somewhat odd enterprise.
Regarding the second test to me the Nikon image at f/1.4 looks less appalling than the Summilux f/1.4 and this applies also to f/2. The Canon images are not appalling but simple horrible at f/1.4. My own Minolta 50/1.4 is nothing I'd consider using at f/1.4 either.
One point I may point out that there are excellent lenses from Zeiss for the Nikon F and the Canon EOS.
Best regards
Erik
Alan,
An interesting test I found here (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness-28mm.htm) and here (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness.htm) seems serious enough to at least answer in part to your suggestion.
It is more a lens comparaison but it tells you a lot more about M capability. Now, as you said, a physical comparison in a gallery would be interesting.
Fred.
-
Hi,
One issue that always is with us is post processing. For instance, sharpening would be different with an AA-filtered image, but also other factors influence sharpening. Comparing different system with the same parameters is simply not correct.
Another issue is that achieving critical focus is not easy, with any system lacking live view.
Erwin Puts has published a comparison like the one you are talking about here:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html)
It may give some insight on the effort needed doing a comparison between the Lens-Camera-Sensor systems. There may be some objections to Mr. Puts's tests, but it goes with the territory.
Finally, it is very hard to compare images from different sensors on a computer screen. If the sensors are the same size, no problems but if they even are slightly different you need to rescale one or both. The resizing also has issues.
Now, pixel peeping is in a way a stupid exercise, the image you see in actual pixels on screen is a way real pictures are almost never seen. The best way to compare images from different cameras are probably fairly large prints. In my view the prints should be larger than A2 (16"x23") for a meaningful comparison.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, thanks for this post and the reference. They do underscore the key issues I and others have encountered doing comparisons. It is often difficult to normalize all the conditions for the reasons stated, and that is why I told Alan that it is a non-trivial exercise if one wants to get it right. Nonetheless, I'd maintain that done carefully and sensibly, it is an interesting and insightful comparison to make if one wants to satisfy one's curiosity. As for the necessary print size, here one gets right to the heart of the purpose. If one is trying to objectively determine which system has sharper detail and better luminosity, then yes, print up to the maximum native resolution of the image file at no less than 240 PPI from the printer driver. If one is trying to determine subjectively how these systems compare for prints sized to what I the photographer need thorugh the life-cycle of my camera, then use those dimensions, remembering that one often crops. So yes, comparisons are related to purpose and one needs to be very clear about that from the get go. The value of the objective test, is that you know - more or less - whatever the purpose, this is what the systems can do under the conditions for which they've been tested.
-
Hi!
This may be easier done than you think. It's just to download some relevant test images from one of the usual test sites like DPReview or imaging resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/), unfortunately, DPReview does not have a review of the M9 yet, and Imaging Review doesn't seem to test M-series Leica's. Both sites have well thought out subjects they photograph under controlled conditions. DPReview will publish test and samples on the M9. I really prefer Imaging Resource as a source of test images but they may not test the M9.
You can print the test images your self or send to a lab. Visiting Michael's gallery would be a great experience, for sure, but you would make your own prints and not send them to Michael for printing?
I think that Michael could do this test but he is also aware of the perils involved. Also I'd suggest that Michael prefers to use his stuff for taking real pictures in real conditions and let other sites do the testing in the lab.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not crazy about this approach. I think the surest way or doing good comparisons is to do all the work oneself from the bottom-up with the full res raw images at hand from all the systems being compared. This means aggregating some folks with the right stuff, laying out the parameters and doing the work. It's all doable, but it all takes time, so its a question of priorities.
-
I'm responding to multiple posts above. I saw the Ken Rockwell stuff a while back; given the source, I don't put much credence in it. I also saw the comparison between the M9 and Nikon D3 which was interesting in that the Nikon seemed to be better at certain things. I'm also familiar with all types of lens testing but those are what I categorize as "laboratory" tests and may or may not have anything to do with the real world. My original proposal was quite simple, same real life scene taken with a Leica, Canon, and or Nikon with the same focal length prime lens. To make this a true test, RAW files from all the shots would be blinded and given to a third party to process and print. The processor/printer would try to match prints regarding color, sharpening, etc. but no cropping of the image would be permitted. Mark's point about a standard size print to the maximum capability of the printer is what I had in mind. Prints would then be viewed and compared. We wouldn't be doing any pixel peeping though perhaps at a later stage files could be released for anyone who wanted to do this (I'm not terribly interested in looking at small sections of images to see details that are irrelevant to viewing prints).
Clearly there would be some time investment from the photographer(s) and the processor/printer. Maybe it never happens but it sure would be interesting to have the prints for comparison. Maybe there is a Leica/Canon/Nikon (pick 'em) mystique; maybe not.
-
I'm responding to multiple posts above. I saw the Ken Rockwell stuff a while back; given the source, I don't put much credence in it. I also saw the comparison between the M9 and Nikon D3 which was interesting in that the Nikon seemed to be better at certain things. I'm also familiar with all types of lens testing but those are what I categorize as "laboratory" tests and may or may not have anything to do with the real world. My original proposal was quite simple, same real life scene taken with a Leica, Canon, and or Nikon with the same focal length prime lens. To make this a true test, RAW files from all the shots would be blinded and given to a third party to process and print. The processor/printer would try to match prints regarding color, sharpening, etc. but no cropping of the image would be permitted. Mark's point about a standard size print to the maximum capability of the printer is what I had in mind. Prints would then be viewed and compared. We wouldn't be doing any pixel peeping though perhaps at a later stage files could be released for anyone who wanted to do this (I'm not terribly interested in looking at small sections of images to see details that are irrelevant to viewing prints).
Clearly there would be some time investment from the photographer(s) and the processor/printer. Maybe it never happens but it sure would be interesting to have the prints for comparison. Maybe there is a Leica/Canon/Nikon (pick 'em) mystique; maybe not.
Alan, we're on the same page both about Rockwell's testing and the kind of thing that would be interesting to do. But I don't think we need a third party to process and print. That should be done by the testers using totally transparent and replicable procedures that are identical as feasible for all shots. Where the third-party blind testing comes in is viewing the prints.
As an aside - my earliest experience with this sort of thing happened back in the late 1960s when I was teaching at the University of the West Indies in St. Augustine Trinidad. A plant biologist and I were on the Exec of the Faculty Club and we kept getting complaints about how we were stocking the bar. So we set-up a blind-tasting at the Faculty Club of rums produced in the various islands to see whether members knew what they were drinking and what brand they really liked best. It was VERY rigorously set-up as that guy knew how to do from his various technical experiments with pigeon peas - multiple replications, good statistical procedure - the whole nine-yards. It turned out that the cheapest stuff on the market - a brand called "VAT 19" produced in Trinidad, and which most club members turned-up their noses at - was by far the preferred drink. So beware, this can be a dangerous and disconcerting enterprise!
-
I'm responding to multiple posts above. I saw the Ken Rockwell stuff a while back; given the source, I don't put much credence in it. I also saw the comparison between the M9 and Nikon D3 which was interesting in that the Nikon seemed to be better at certain things. I'm also familiar with all types of lens testing but those are what I categorize as "laboratory" tests and may or may not have anything to do with the real world. My original proposal was quite simple, same real life scene taken with a Leica, Canon, and or Nikon with the same focal length prime lens. To make this a true test, RAW files from all the shots would be blinded and given to a third party to process and print. The processor/printer would try to match prints regarding color, sharpening, etc. but no cropping of the image would be permitted. Mark's point about a standard size print to the maximum capability of the printer is what I had in mind. Prints would then be viewed and compared. We wouldn't be doing any pixel peeping though perhaps at a later stage files could be released for anyone who wanted to do this (I'm not terribly interested in looking at small sections of images to see details that are irrelevant to viewing prints).
Clearly there would be some time investment from the photographer(s) and the processor/printer. Maybe it never happens but it sure would be interesting to have the prints for comparison. Maybe there is a Leica/Canon/Nikon (pick 'em) mystique; maybe not.
Alan, I agree about the Ken Rockwell testing in the way that it is neither rigorous enough nor practical as the real prints in your proposal. But I do think it is still interesting and gives in part a track ( that is why I wrote "in part" ) simply because it shows clearly that the M9 is at the very top of 35mm full frame.
That has been confirmed to me by owners in Spain, by Michael here in the forum that qualify as the best he has ever seen in this format in a post; as in my job I have the chance to see files from a wide range of cameras, it won't take too long until I can examinate closely M9 files in real world and how these handles upsampling etc... I do not own an M9 but may want and purchase one. In the Rockwell stuff, though many cautious about its credence, the M9 samples just impressed me.
It is possible that the optical resolution of this camera would be superior ( in terms of perception ) to anything available at the moment in 35mm, or that is simply a mystique. I have the feeling, for all the sources, that it might be the best 35mm in the current market.
Regards
Fred.
-
Hi,
Yes you are right of course, but for doing your own test you need to have access to the equipment. Also, folks at DP Review or Imaging Resource have a decent setup for testing and experience using it. Experience mean that pitfalls can be avoided.
On the other hand, I don't really feel that buying a M9 is about image quality, but much more about other factors like having a small high performance camera, enjoying the Leica touch and so on. My guess that image quality is included at this price level.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not crazy about this approach. I think the surest way or doing good comparisons is to do all the work oneself from the bottom-up with the full res raw images at hand from all the systems being compared. This means aggregating some folks with the right stuff, laying out the parameters and doing the work. It's all doable, but it all takes time, so its a question of priorities.
-
Hi,
This reminds me of a friend who used to have a Konica Autoreflex T. After mucho MTF-peeking he upgraded to a Canon F1 and a Canon FD 200/2.8 lens. The first roll of film he shot with new combo was clearly less sharp than the old Hexar 200/4 he had on his Konica.
I have made a similar experience when I upgraded my Scheider Componon 50/4 to a Rodenstock Rodagon 50/2.8 which was actually at least as sharp as the APO Rodagon 50/2.8 my friend had on loan from a lab.
Most recently, I bought a Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ZA lens for my Sony Alpha 900. In initial tests my Konica Minolta 28-75/2.8 was much sharper. I still use the 24-70/2.8 ZA, however. In real world shooting it works very well (with some issues in the corners at 24 mm and some reservations about 70 mm) but it's still a very nice lens. Is it better than the KM 28-75/2.8 at one fourth of the price? I don't know, but nor do I care.
Best regards
Erik
Alan, we're on the same page both about Rockwell's testing and the kind of thing that would be interesting to do. But I don't think we need a third party to process and print. That should be done by the testers using totally transparent and replicable procedures that are identical as feasible for all shots. Where the third-party blind testing comes in is viewing the prints.
As an aside - my earliest experience with this sort of thing happened back in the late 1960s when I was teaching at the University of the West Indies in St. Augustine Trinidad. A plant biologist and I were on the Exec of the Faculty Club and we kept getting complaints about how we were stocking the bar. So we set-up a blind-tasting at the Faculty Club of rums produced in the various islands to see whether members knew what they were drinking and what brand they really liked best. It was VERY rigorously set-up as that guy knew how to do from his various technical experiments with pigeon peas - multiple replications, good statistical procedure - the whole nine-yards. It turned out that the cheapest stuff on the market - a brand called "VAT 19" produced in Trinidad, and which most club members turned-up their noses at - was by far the preferred drink. So beware, this can be a dangerous and disconcerting enterprise!
-
MR touches on a sore spot for me wrt the current crop of DSLRs with live view: Why is there no peaking option? Having to zoom into 10x or however high to check focus is impractical. Precise, but impractical.
I also miss the Best Shot Selector of my Coolpix 995 - it was like having IS if you had the time to take the extra shots but weren't able to put up a tripod. It has the advantage over doing many shots that you don't fill up your card and aren't limited by buffer size. But that's just one of my pet features that I'll probably never see in SLRs.
-Lars
-
There's one further point in Mark's article I forgot to comment on - expose to the right (ETTR). Yes, it's time the manufacturers understood how to use their own equipment for optimal image quality. BUT - here's the catch. The way most of them are doing it now (and Nikon less so than Canon), they are trying to avoid having us clip highlights, because if those are gone and they held wanted detail, the photographer is s.o.l. I would call this the manufacturers's conservative approach to auto-exposure management. It becomes really problemmatic when this system conserves specular highlights in which there is no wanted detail and the rest of the image is vastly under-exposed. SO, what's the compromise: in my mind I agree with you that they should have ETTR as the default option. THEN, in those situations where the manufacturer's implementation of ETTR clips highlights with wanted detail, there would be a button to push programmed to revert the exposure calculation to the conservative approach. I think this would be really elegant.
-
Hi,
Most recently, I bought a Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ZA lens for my Sony Alpha 900. In initial tests my Konica Minolta 28-75/2.8 was much sharper. I still use the 24-70/2.8 ZA, however. In real world shooting it works very well (with some issues in the corners at 24 mm and some reservations about 70 mm) but it's still a very nice lens. Is it better than the KM 28-75/2.8 at one fourth of the price? I don't know, but nor do I care.
Best regards
Erik
1. Eric, have you got the prices in the right order? I think you are saying that the Konica is more expensive?
2. If you accept that the Konica is much sharper, what logical reason can you find to use the other instead? Why not rid yourself of inferior equipment?
3. 24-70mm/2.8. Do you think it acceptable that a lens with that description is actually only really good for a part of the range of focal lengths? I have voiced my own problems with a 24-70mm Nkkor before, and this seems yet another example of manufacturers' lies, where products are NOT up to the standard as advertised. If the lenses are performance limited to a much shorter actual range of focal lengths, I think they should be marketed as per the real range, not the imaginary one. I should imagine that in any other world there would be class actions going through the courts; perhaps that's what we need in order to bring a sense of rreality to the dream peddlers. And buyers. Maybe it's the imagined 'status' idea that permits this practice to continue unabated and even defended within the ranks of photographers.
Rob C
-
1. Eric, have you got the prices in the right order? I think you are saying that the Konica is more expensive?
Hi, no the KM is a fourth of the price of the Zeiss.
2. If you accept that the Konica is much sharper, what logical reason can you find to use the other instead? Why not rid yourself of inferior equipment?
Well I'm not sure that the KM is actually better in real life than the Zeiss. It was better in my initial tests at full aperture especially in the corners. After the initial test I made more shooting under real conditions and I didn't feel that the KM performs better than the Zeiss. Very few wide angle lenses are actually really sharp in the corners. There are also some other aspects than sharpness.
3. 24-70mm/2.8. Do you think it acceptable that a lens with that description is actually only really good for a part of the range of focal lengths? I have voiced my own problems with a 24-70mm Nkkor before, and this seems yet another example of manufacturers' lies, where products are NOT up to the standard as advertised. If the lenses are performance limited to a much shorter actual range of focal lengths, I think they should be marketed as per the real range, not the imaginary one. I should imagine that in any other world there would be class actions going through the courts; perhaps that's what we need in order to bring a sense of rreality to the dream peddlers. And buyers. Maybe it's the imagined 'status' idea that permits this practice to continue unabated and even defended within the ranks of photographers.
I have not seen any wide angle that is sharp to the corners except maybe some Leica lenses, the quite incredible Nikon 14-24/2.8 and some of the TS lenses for Canon and Nikon. Zooms tend to have more issues than fixed focals. I prefer to use zooms as I normally use almost all focal lengths, carrying and switching between a lot of lenses would be cumbersome.
Best regards
Erik
-
I wonder if an optical viewfinder in combination with with a transparent electronic overlay would work such, that information like focus confirmation (like the focus tool in Capture One) could be used inside the optical viewfinder.
But I would never want to omit an optical viewfinder.
The EVFs I had a chance to see through so far are horrible to my eyes.
This is the way forward for me. If they were to use a more indirect path for the viewfinder to allow a zoom mechanism to fill the eyepiece with the lens field of view box plus a little around it, and then project the area of focus on the image in real time using the peaking method Michael describes in his article, you would have the best of both worlds.
-
from Mike Johnston's site: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...r-to-leica.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/01/open-letter-to-leica.html)
Also: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...d-be-worse.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/01/leica-could-be-worse.html)
Mike.
-
Thanks for the link. I'm half way through http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...d-be-worse.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/01/leica-could-be-worse.html)
Great joy should be spread over two days.
-
Hi,
Michael Reichmann pointed out some stuff where a Leica M can be improved, e.q. the shape and dimension of the body as beeing a relic from the film days and that this is no longer an restriction in body design.
Then why was not mentioned that a 2:3 aspect 35mm sensor is also a relic from that same period and sould not be a limiting factor too in camera design.
Why should a sensor be 35mm and have a 2:3 appect (i don't see any reason, I grew up with medium and largeformat and have no connection to 2:3).
For the same reason we think it should be a 35mm sensor we also will reject body designs that not are recognizable as beeing a camera we have become used to for so many decades. I wonder how many years it took in the early 20century to get used to the switch from bellow camera's to boxed camera's....
Wasn't some years ago not a Sony 727 or 878 or something like that on the market, before Digital SLR came available, that was more shaped like a video camera? Didn't we all quietly think: how ackward, what a strange camera...... Mostlikely that design would now be great for the combined stills/video camera.........
-
What else other than 3:2 given that square is now practically dead and 4:3 is pretty much almost dead? In europe with the exception of the UK, 4:3 and 4:5 are ratios that just aren't useable in the real world. You won't find an 8X10 frame in Europe...
-
What else other than 3:2 given that square is now practically dead and 4:3 is pretty much almost dead? In europe with the exception of the UK, 4:3 and 4:5 are ratios that just aren't useable in the real world. You won't find an 8X10 frame in Europe...
it's not 2:3 specifically, the point is that we should not be to religious about sensor sizes and aspect ratio's that these 'should/need' to be as they always have been.
For me personally 2:3, 3:4, 1:1, 4:5 ratio's of camera, paper or frame : it doesn't matter to me.
I rarely compose my photographs into the apect ratio given by the camera, the paper to be printed on or the frame to put it in.
From a technical point of view I surely try to use as much of the sensor real-estate as I have and in retrospect looking at my photography 2:3 is less optimal for me then 3:4, 4:5 and 1:1.
That is were I'm coming from :-)
Of course YMMV.
I acknowledge that a given ratio, let's say 2:3 helps many how to compose a photograph, that they want to print to the same ratio as the paper they print on: if they are happy with that: by all means, carry on!
But for me it would be so limiting. Repeating myself, I noticed from a technical point of view would be better served with more square ratio's.
I wonder if others would also be served better if a sensor has not percee an 2:3 aspect ratio but more 3:4 or 4:5.....
oops, we are going off-topic....
-
it's not 2:3 specifically, the point is that we should not be to religious about sensor sizes and aspect ratio's that these 'should/need' to be as they always have been.
For me personally 2:3, 3:4, 1:1, 4:5 ratio's of camera, paper or frame : it doesn't matter to me.
I rarely compose my photographs into the apect ratio given by the camera, the paper to be printed on or the frame to put it in.
From a technical point of view I surely try to use as much of the sensor real-estate as I have and in retrospect looking at my photography 2:3 is less optimal for me then 3:4, 4:5 and 1:1.
That is were I'm coming from :-)
Of course YMMV.
I acknowledge that a given ratio, let's say 2:3 helps many how to compose a photograph, that they want to print to the same ratio as the paper they print on: if they are happy with that: by all means, carry on!
But for me it would be so limiting. Repeating myself, I noticed from a technical point of view would be better served with more square ratio's.
I wonder if others would also be served better if a sensor has not percee an 2:3 aspect ratio but more 3:4 or 4:5.....
oops, we are going off-topic....
The 2:3 aspect ration is pretty much a historical accident as Leica designed a small camera to use movie film stock rather than sheet film. Over the years there were cameras that used a variety of different size film (remember the Minox which I think used 8mm and was popular with the intelligence community). 35mm became the most popular and I guess because of this familiarity, digital adopted the same format. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just the way it happened. Because of this decision, sensor prices for this format are quite low relatively speaking. Movement to a different format will lead to higher initial costs as cameras are redesigned. Would the photography market be receptive to such a move? From my perspective, unlikely.
-
What else other than 3:2 given that square is now practically dead and 4:3 is pretty much almost dead? In europe with the exception of the UK, 4:3 and 4:5 are ratios that just aren't useable in the real world. ...................
Yea, except for the newest Phase One digital backs which are 4:3 and actually sell world-wide for quite a hunk of change.
-
I rarely compose my photographs into the apect ratio given by the camera, the paper to be printed on or the frame to put it in.
................................
I wonder if others would also be served better if a sensor has not percee an 2:3 aspect ratio but more 3:4 or 4:5.....
I agree with your first statement. Within the range of 3:2 to 1:1 it doesn't matter to me - I compose and print for the subject. Square may on average make less optimal use of the sensor than a rectangle, unless you're a photographer who happens to make mostly square photographs.
-
I agree with your first statement. Within the range of 3:2 to 1:1 it doesn't matter to me - I compose and print for the subject. Square may on average make less optimal use of the sensor than a rectangle, unless you're a photographer who happens to make mostly square photographs.
As resolution of cameras increases, format seems to be less of a concern.
A few years ago ephotographers that came from a 4:3 or 4:5 ratio, especially for verticals, strongly disliked a 2:3 ration of 35mm. Today I see less and less of that, I guess because cropping is easier due to higher resolution.
For commercial work, it seems that there is less talk about format then ever, or if there is client instruction it usually is shoot both, especially since the web is mostly a wide screen page.
I believe in a few years nobody will talk about camera format, because even today the only format my clients see is the size of a 24" or 30" monitor. Digital has changed how we perceive high quality imagery, how we proof and how we purpose the final image.
In a room full of people all staring at the monitor nobody has ever asked me is that 2:3 or 4:3?
But getting back to the Leica. I think they should just continue on with the M. It's a quirky specialty camera, has some great benefits, some some not so great, but it's unique in it's own way, down to the baseplate and the beauty of the camera is in it's simplicity.
I would hate to see it redesigned to coolpix style or worse a form factor of a video camera. Not for nostalgia but just for usability. If you've ever used a Canon xha1 video camera with it's dozen of combinations of manual knobs, push button controls combined with a complicated menu system you would think that picking up a Leica is a breath of fresh air.
But if this thread, resulting from Michael's article on Leica, is about the future of Leica, I think the one stumbling block of Leica (and all specialty) camera makers is the price relative to their Japanese competition.
It's been like this since the first 1ds and seems to continue. Even Panasonic and others have taken the 4/3's format into the Leica M territory with more features, less price.
From a professional, earn a living at photography standpoint, the only defining need for a camera is client expectations and right now the world of professional photography is in a transitional state, mostly because all traditional media is in a transitional state.
If Leica, or any specialty camera company is to thrive in today's world, the camera has to fill a needed niche. In a lot of ways I think the M series does this, the new S series I'm less sure of. In fact I find the S camera a confusing move by Leica, because it's an expensive medium format alternative in a world where medium format is about 4 current different frame sizes already and seems to be covered by the price point by two established companies.
But if the whole excersize of this thread is to offer Leica advice, the first thing I would say is make the cameras very robust, make the software stable and always offer a tethering solution regardless of camera format.
Last week we were shooting a celeb editorial and went from the Canons to the Leica for one set up. As I shot the room just fell silent because nobody but me could see. Now it wasn't a deal breaker and I only shot a small amount with the m-8, but the standard in most professional photography is to have every camera hooked up to a large monitor for review as once again the monitor is the camera format.
Then again even in the world of photos for money, not everything has to be hard edged, serious business, (though we do work in a hard, serious business), there is also a little wiggle room for fun.
If shooting a Leica is fun then it's probably worth the price.
In fact there is nothing wrong with having some fun. I was speaking to a publisher Friday night and we kind of came to the conclusion that the world is way too serious about everything and maybe we should every now and then open up and just do something that makes us smile.
Personally "I think" I see a historical look from my M-8 but that could easily be wishful thinking or just a romantic view of the past. Still there is something refreshing about a mechanical camera in today's touch screen world.
The Leica makes me smile.
JR
-
Yea, except for the newest Phase One digital backs which are 4:3 and actually sell world-wide for quite a hunk of change.
Yup, that massive sector of the photography market. What's the sales figures, are they up to 4 figures yet?
Oh and by the way I'm not a huge fan of 3:2, I personally don't like it much preferring 7X5 and 6X12...
-
Yup, that massive sector of the photography market. What's the sales figures, are they up to 4 figures yet?
Oh and by the way I'm not a huge fan of 3:2, I personally don't like it much preferring 7X5 and 6X12...
Oh yes, they are WELL into the 4 figures! Serious. But that's not the point. The point is that if these very high-end manufacturers are producing equipment which sells within its expected niche at these fancy prices, the format is anything but dead. It doesn't need to be mass-market to be alive and well. But perhaps more importantly, within a reasonable range of aspect ratios it's probably not an issue for most people who format photos according to the subject. Perhaps the main thing is which set of dimensions will utilize the most pixels most of the time, and that could vary a lot between users and subject matter, so this clearly seems like a situation where one size does not fit all - at least optimally.
-
I have little doubt Mark that the ratio of those sensors is due to one reason only, the legacy cameras they are being put onto. That a niche product selling in 4 figures uses a certain ratio is irrelevant when the vast majority of the industry is shooting with the 3:2 ratio on cameras produced in 6 figures per manufacturer...
Again, I don't like 3:2 (though I loathe 4:5 ) but looking from this vantage point, anything other than 3:2 is hanging on by its fingertips within the photographic industry as a whole.
-
Ben, tons of digital cameras on the market aren't 3:2. A number of formats will continue for a long time to come, but it's not important; what matters is how much of the sensor one can use.
-
Ben, tons of digital cameras on the market aren't 3:2. A number of formats will continue for a long time to come, but it's not important; what matters is how much of the sensor one can use.