Lotusm50 wrote:
I can virtually guarantee you the Leica M10 will not have a Sony CMOS sensor. It may have a CMOS, but it won't be a Sony. Leica must be different and distinctive if it is going to justify its price. How can it to that if it has virtually the same sensor as Nikon, Sony, Pentax and other cameras, giving that same sort of look? No. It will be different, and in Leica's eyes, "better".
Sensor itself is "nothing". Its just BW device (pretty much like that one in Leica MM). What creates "look" is CFA/AA (or lack of it), electronics and their quality (how good is A/D, how good is final SNR). And of course firmware + software.
Bare sensor is like bare flat screen. Bare LCD isnt able to even cover basic sRGB gamut, but with proper electronics/filters/firmware it can become 105% aRGB Eizo.
16 Mpix sensor used in various cameras doesnt give same results. Especially when you consider that same 16 mpix is in Fuji X-Pro and in Sony NEX-5N or Pentax K-5.
And Leica is pretty capable even in this department, when they want..
Mescalamba wrote:
Sensor itself is "nothing". Its just BW device (pretty much like that one in Leica MM). What creates "look" is CFA/AA (or lack of it), electronics and their quality (how good is A/D, how good is final SNR). And of course firmware + software.
Bare sensor is like bare flat screen. Bare LCD isnt able to even cover basic sRGB gamut, but with proper electronics/filters/firmware it can become 105% aRGB Eizo.
16 Mpix sensor used in various cameras doesnt give same results. Especially when you consider that same 16 mpix is in Fuji X-Pro and in Sony NEX-5N or Pentax K-5.
And Leica is pretty capable even in this department, when they want.....Show more →
Sorry. But using the same sensor as lots of others just won't fly at Leica -- regardless how much they can process the output differently. And it just won't fly with Leica buyers who demand the best, demand distinctiveness and demand something they can't get elsewhere. Why on earth would they use a sensor that anyone else can get and is available in a run-of-the-mill consumer $2000 Sony when their product sells for $8000? No. It's not going to happen.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Why on earth would they use a sensor that anyone else can get and is available in a run-of-the-mill consumer $2000 Sony when their product sells for $8000? No. It's not going to happen.
So they can use their $4k lenses on a camera with more a good ISO 3200? I think a lot of Leica users would love to have the D800 sensor. Just like they wanted the D700 or the 5DII sensor.
kidtexas wrote:
So they can use their $4k lenses on a camera with more a good ISO 3200?
Not a good enough reason. They sold all they could with out that so other factors are apparently more important. What the camera does at 100-400 ISO is far more important.
Yeah, ok, whatever. Leica had a sizable group of customers champing at the bit for a digital M. Even a subpar camera with various issues (M8) sold reasonably well because people wanted to put their lenses on a digital camera. Same with the M9. Not really competitive in several areas (high ISO, LCD screen, strange workarounds with the red edge, loooong service times), but it is still selling well, because people want a full frame camera that they can put their M mount lenses on. Some may prefer the CCD look with it's color, etc, but some of that is also just rationalization. Many of us just want to use our M lenses on a full frame digital camera.
I know a lot of people who would be all over a Leica M10 with the D800 sensor. Better yet if it had Nikon reliability :P I'd be one of them. Heck a lot of people would be all over the mythical Sony Zeiss digital Ikon that used to be talked about more around here.
It's the lenses (mostly). That's why so many Leica users were still on film at the beginning of 2006. Some of it is the rangefinder experience - more compact, focusing method, etc. The M9 is the only game in town - that's why they sold boatloads of it. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who don't want better high ISO and a lot of the other features of the last TWO generations of Canon and Nikon's top cameras.
kidtexas wrote:
Yeah, ok, whatever. Leica had a sizable group of customers champing at the bit for a digital M. Even a subpar camera with various issues (M8) sold reasonably well because people wanted to put their lenses on a digital camera. Same with the M9. Not really competitive in several areas (high ISO, LCD screen, strange workarounds with the red edge, loooong service times), but it is still selling well, because people want a full frame camera that they can put their M mount lenses on. Some may prefer the CCD look with it's color, etc, but some of that is also just rationalization. Many of us just want to use our M lenses on a full frame digital camera.
I know a lot of people who would be all over a Leica M10 with the D800 sensor. Better yet if it had Nikon reliability :P I'd be one of them. Heck a lot of people would be all over the mythical Sony Zeiss digital Ikon that used to be talked about more around here.
It's the lenses (mostly). That's why so many Leica users were still on film at the beginning of 2006. Some of it is the rangefinder experience - more compact, focusing method, etc. The M9 is the only game in town - that's why they sold boatloads of it. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who don't want better high ISO and a lot of the other features of the last TWO generations of Canon and Nikon's top cameras....Show more →
Been away for the weekend and just got caught up on this thread. VERY entertaining and a broad range of subjects! I will say that I truly do not see (or notice) this Leica snobbery, elitism, etc which some posters eluded to... I do hear non-Leica users talking a fair bit about these traits but I do not experience it amongst actual Leica users. I choose to use my M8 as I enjoy the digital RF experience and form factor. I brought my M8 and NEX-5 camping this weekend and took hundreds of images with the Leica and not one with the Sony. For my shooting style, the M8 is the clear choice.
I'm with you Gary. All Leica users I know are not millionaires, they have to sacrifice many things in order to afford their gear, and they are a very friendly and helpful bunch. I also bought a GXR-M to use along my film RF cameras (Zeiss Ikon) and after a couple of sessions to familiarize myself with it, I have hardly used it. The RF experience is truly exceptional.
Yes Ed, I'd take a good old optical rangefinder over any EVF any day of the week.
I'd appreciate a live view option too though. I see the GXR M as a pretty good compromise and though I am no fan of EVF's and focus peaking it does work and I've learned to see past the quirkiness. However, I find that EVF's take a lot away from the feeling I am used to with optical viewfinders.
I know that getting accurate focus with an EVF may be easier. I know that pre-chimping, as Kirk Tuck puts it, may be the best way to maximize your output. But dammit, I just love a large optical viewfinder! And I do photography *only* for the love of it, not for the most efficient path to the results.
I know that getting accurate focus with an EVF may be easier. I know that pre-chimping, as Kirk Tuck puts it, may be the best way to maximize your output. But dammit, I just love a large optical viewfinder! And I do photography *only* for the love of it, not for the most efficient path to the results.
ick, nonTTL viewfinders bug me even more than autofocus.
carstenw wrote:
...And I do photography *only* for the love of it, not for the most efficient path to the results.
Exactly. This was the point I was attempting to make when comparing Leica to Rolex or Mercedes or whatever. With our road laws (somewhat analogous to print size constraints,) one can get from one destination to the other with a Camry and an S500 in a relatively similar fashion, but one is a much more enjoyable journey that is worthwhile, for some. I see Leica as a luxury brand, but I'm fine with it, and I don't think only wealthy people spend their money on such a thing. Nothing wrong with spending your money on something you enjoy, whether or not guys like me find it worth the price for the same experience.
Strangely, Leica is expert on miniaturizing things. You would think it would be the Japanese but nobody makes a full frame camera that small and nobody makes a medium format as small as Leica. Heck, the S2 is smaller than a D3x!
I know that the M9 is used by real photojournalists and fine art photographers. I'm curious if the S2 is used by many pros as well.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Strangely, Leica is expert on miniaturizing things. You would think it would be the Japanese but nobody makes a full frame camera that small and nobody makes a medium format as small as Leica. Heck, the S2 is smaller than a D3x!
I know that the M9 is used by real photojournalists and fine art photographers. I'm curious if the S2 is used by many pros as well.
I'm sure the S2 is used by quite a number of studio photographers. I mean lets face it, even the most unpopular, worst selling camera out there surely has to have a few people using it right ? (not that the S2 is of course)
I highly doubt you'd come across many photojournalist with one though. I've honestly never come across anyone with a M9 either. I have taken mine to various sporting events just for fun and used some of the photos but I think its pretty rare.
Maybe some PJ drives a Ferrari to their assignments as well, but typically seems to be a lot more Honda Accords with well over 100K miles on them lol
