Thom Hogan's article presents the typical voluntarism or wishful thinking approach ("Leica has to find a way to implement my marvelous idea. They have engineers, isn't?") regarding viewfinder modification with superimposed images. But the truth is that it cannot be properly done!
It is like zooming viewfinders... it cannot be done with a fixed size rangefinder patch.
The viewfinder is all glass, with no air between the blocks of glass surfaces. How can you put a zooming viewfinder there?
Even external/accessory EVFs of high resolution aren't easily doable for Leica at this moment. Only Ricoh and Olympus were successful at this, and they presented their cameras a few weeks ago!
The black & white sensor idea is an old one. Leica did prospective surveys regarding this topic during the M8 years, but not substantial and real market exists for this. Michael Reichmann published, a few months ago, an article about a medium format back with B&W (no Bayer matrix) sensor (Phase One), and the theoretical advantages (resolution, dynamic range) were less than substantial in practical use. Do you think many people wants to bring a set of color filters for their lenses? The color and moiré problems of the M9 aren't so important.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...chromatic.shtmlI had planned to do some pixel peeping comparisons with a P45+ and a P65+. In fact I did them, setting up the shot on a heavy tripod firmly planted on concrete, 120mm Macro lens at optimum aperture, manual focus tripple checked with a 3X magifier, mirror lockup, eletronic cable release – the whole nine yards.
I processed the files, and examined them with and without optimium sharpening.
So why aren't the results here? Simply because I can't see any convincing difference in resolution or sharpness between them. Yes, the P65+ file is bigger and therefore will take more magnification. But between the Achromatic and the P45+ on which it's based I just don't consistently see anything to convince me that the non-Bayer Achromatic consistently offers sharper results.
This of course flies in the face of common wisdom, that the Bayer Array robs digital files or their inherent monochrome resolution. While that may be the case in the lab, in the real world, using the best shooting technique I know, I can't see it.
Mark Dubovoy doesn't agree, and Claus Mølgaard (Chief Technology Officer and Vice President R&D at Phase One) confirms it (same link):
Conclusion: The Achromatic back definitely has more resolution than a standard P45+ back. Compared to a P65+, however, the Achromatic back looses, but not by much.
You need to look carefully, and of course I have the advantage of the original files, so if you cannot see it in your computers, you will have to trust me that the P65+ has slightly superior resolution to the Achromatic back. I would say that the resolution of the Achromatic back is about 2/3 of the way between a standard P45+ and a P65+.
The point is: how much relevant in practical use are these differences... for a rangefinder (reportage) camera?
Kodak sensors for the Canon and Nikon mount reflex cameras were CMOS, were manufactured by other companies, without AA filters and (I think) with color filters by Kodak. The problem with those sensors was with the high ISO noise. In fact, you need very sophisticated (and expensive) CMOS designs for a good performance at high ISO values. CMOS architecture, by itself, isn't magic. This is a real problem for Leica (and Kodak) if they plan to develop a M camera with live view. Things aren't so easy! CMOSes is a natural way of evolution for the next M cameras, like live view and accessory EVF, because the technology is ready (not for Leica) and not so difficult to implement... in theory. But even considering this, it isn't straightforward to implement.
.
