There are yet again mistakes on technical details in the article. Michael, you may be a very good photographer, but you really are not proficient at writing about the digital technology
. I enjoy reading bits of your articles, but when you start talking about self-proclaimed experts
, you imply that you are an expert. You're not.
Among these is that since the luminance information is only being sampled from the green cells, there is actually less resolution available than one might think. About 2/3rds in fact
Luminance information is not sampled only from green cells, but from red and blue as well, unless one really wants to use some very simplistic demosaicing algorith. I don't know where you get the 2/3rds guestimate, as measurements disagree with that and give closer, or over 90% of Nyquist. By using the 2/3rds figure, you say that a Bayer CFA sensor only resolves as if it had 4/9th of the pixel count it has, ie. less than half. Or maybe you don't mean resolution when you talk about resolution, but pixel count?
You write on the monochrome sensor:
there is no possibility of either colour moire or related artifacting.
Moire is a form of aliasing and aliasing significant on this camera - it is visually more noticeable than in the regular M9 due to no color information fuzzying it to the brain.
Engineering a monochrome sensor equipped camera isn't simply a matter of removing the Bayer array. Though based on the M9 sensor, a significant amount of reengineering at the chip level was required.
This is utter nonsense. There is zero
engineering required for the sensor to enable removal of the Bayer CFA. I am sure the Leica marketing disagrees, but it really is as simply as not installing it in the first place.
I do enjoy reading some of the articles on this site, but the technical ones tend to be bad. Considering that there are lots of people who treat large profile web sites as authorative, it is, in my opinion, irresponsible to write text which might just as well have been written by a copywriter for Leica merketing. This last paragraph is such a piece.
It is my opinion, that you should restrict yourself into writing subjective entries instead of technology articles. I am sure this article of yours was proof read by people around you, either "experts", or people who don't want to hurt your feelings, but when the result is almost every tie a bunch of factual errors, it's more harmful than helpful for the society as whole.
You're right on something as well:
niche product within a niche
This is very true.
This is also the reason why it's more expensive that the regular one. Those who really want it don't care how much it costs. Leica M-series digital
cameras are quite obsolete when it comes to technology. They're all very, very
much overpriced for what it costs to make one. What they are is a fashion item. It can be used as a tool, and in some very limited cases might even still be the best tool (considering the lenses), but the price is because of the brand.