flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.5 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark | |
Jman13 wrote:
That's all well and good, Flash, and I, for one, am glad that Leica is sticking to a core photographic experience for their users. And I know they are built well, and I know they are priced according to their precision and unique manufacturing.
But there is still a very large disconnect when you are touting your product to be the end all be all of photographic machines...and then the key part that makes the image in a digital camera, the sensor, is years behind the times in capabilities, and that premium still exists. Do you not see the disconnect here? Do you not find it odd that a camera that costs 1/8 what the M-E costs and has a sensor with 1/4 the area has greater dynamic range, color depth and signal to noise ratio? Don't you find that a bit disconcerting for a 'premium' product?
There will always be people who want to shoot with a Leica and nothing else. And there's nothing wrong with that. And, no doubt, the M9 and M-E with that phenomenal Leica glass will last for ages and are capable of amazing imaging capabilities. But this isn't a closed wall garden. There are other tools on the market, and if they don't recognize that, they AREN'T going to be around very long.
I feel that Leica choosing to put these sensors, which for their size, massively underperform compared to their peers (though current digital technology is ALL very good...and my main camera has a sensor that performs very similarly to the M9 as far as empirical measurements are concerned), is sort of a slap in the face. Because the sensor is the film, it's almost like they are saying "we know that people love to shoot with Portra and Velvia and T-Max and Provia and so on....but we've made our latest premium film camera, though it only operates with Kodak Gold 200!"
The point is, when making a digital camera...Leica is choosing to have everything extremely high end, and charge that way, with everything except the actual image sensor...which is one of the most important parts of a digital camera. It's that part of it that rubs me the wrong way. When the M9 was released four years ago, this sensor wasn't the best on the market, but it was decent. Releasing the same sensor in a camera in 2013, and claiming it's now the 'low cost' version, while still charging $5,500 is frankly arrogant. If anyone else tried that in the photographic industry, they'd be absolutely lambasted.
Imagine if Canon, instead of releasing the 6D with an incredible sensor, decided that since it was the 'low cost' full frame Canon, they'd just put the original 5D sensor in it (a sensor that is about the same as the M-E's sensor) but charged $2,500 instead of $2,000 (the same ratio as the M-E to the M). It would be the most flamed camera in history, but this is exactly what Leica is doing here.
Like I said, I have no doubt that Leicas are awesome to shoot with, and I know the mechanical and optical quality is there in spades. And I know for those who love shooting with a rangefinder, there's nothing better, and it's no skin off my nose if that's how you choose to shoot, or how you spend your money. More power to you. But I find it baffling that the repackaging of a 4 year old sensor (that was behind the times when it was released) into a new body, with minimal price drop consideration, is hand waved as insignificant by Leica shooters.
If Fuji were to release a rangefinder coupled camera similar to the X-Pro but with slightly higher build quality, and a full frame version of the current sensor, and do it for $2K? My guess is half the people who would considered purchasing a Leica will jump on that instead. And they're going to have a hard time competing when that time comes, because someone is going to do it, and it's not going to be that far in the future. That's all I'm really trying to say. I want Leica to succeed. I want them to be around to set the bar for excellence in construction and optics, so that others are continually striving for that goal. But doing things like this diminishes that legacy, IMO. They shouldn't try to compete with Canon and Nikon and DSLRs, but things are trending mirrorless, and these cameras ARE a threat to what Leica does, and if they pretend it isn't, it's not going to be very long before they're a lot like Kodak. ...Show more →
I firmly believe that the key component in making a digital image is the lens, not the sensor.
Firstly I never said the M was the ultimate camera. I don't believe in such a beast. I said a camera is the sum of its parts. Secondly the Kodak sensor in the M9/M-E was specifically designed to have a response as close to Kodachrome as possible. But it has a few more stops DR. A LOT of people think this is a good thing. For myself i don't care if a sensor is the best. I care if the sensor meets my needs and the overall package delivers what I want. I never shoot at over 800ISO (I have f1 lenses for goodness sake). I like the look of a CCD sensor compared to a CMOS and I like small tactile cameras. And I'm prepared to pay for it. A D800 with it's HUGE lenses and ISO 50million is useless to me. I do 95% of all my shooting at base ISO. And at base ISO the M9 is extremely competetive. My shooting partner uses a 1Dx so I'm doing direct comparisons all the time. At base ISO, which is where I shoot, I prefer the files out of an M9. You may have a different preference, but foir me the M9 sensor is the better sensor. And I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I'm not drinking the Leica Cool Aid either. I shot Canon Pro for 20 years. I made a decision based on my preferences.
I did have a 6 mont jaunt with a Sony a77. My shooting partner actually asked if I thought the camera had too much DR because the files took more work in LR than a 1Ds2 or the M9. See, not everyone thinks infinate DR is a good thing.
The D800 has less noise and as many pixels as a Hassleblad MF sensor at 10x the cost, currently. Hassleblad cameras use CCD's like most other MF cameras. Top usable ISO is between ISO400 and 800. Do you think they fret about that? I don't think so. The problem I see is that a lot of people assume that an M9 should compete in the same pool as a DSLR. Why? It isn't anything like a DSLR. It's a rangefinder design. And currently its the ONLY full frame rangefinder design in town.
Fuji are no where near making a FF XPro series camera for 2K. Sony make a fixed lens camera for close to 3K and want $500.00 for the viewfinder. IF fuji come out with a 35mm version of the XPro is isn't going to be anywhere near 2K. Not for several years at least. If Fuji do put a FF sensor into a camera now it'll be close to 4K and not built as well as an M and have a grand total of five native lenses to choose from.
The reason Fuji and other haven't made a FF camera close to the size of the M9 is because it just isn't that easy to do. The angles are far greater on a larger sensor. Leica developed the angled micro lens concept to counter act some of the issues with wide angle lenses. This is not a cheap simple fix. If it was, Fuji would have done it already. I seriously think you underestimate the complexity of putting a sensor that big into a camera that small that has interchangeable lenses. And I seriously think you underestimate how good the M9 sensor is at base ISO. The thousand or so images in the M8/M9 image thread don't seem to suffer because of the sensor in the camera.
Gordon
|
And I myself liked 14-45mm (without Leica brand name, but very obvious design copy of old 14-50 for 4/3).
(I would love to see Leica LE/LF lens like Zeiss ZE/ZF)