Oh, and thanks again to all who have been contributing to this thread, I'm going to put my name on the pre-order list this week, although I'll need to handle one in person before I pull the trigger.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Well, I'm not saying that higher resolution is necessarily the key factor in better B&W work and I don't know that Lloyd is either. But higher resolution (due to the absence of the CFA) is the key (if not only) selling point of an M246 (since that's the only difference between it and an M240). So an assessment of the validity of that selling point is certainly relevant.
Ehh, the key selling point of the M 246 against the 240 is that is has a monochrome sensor which means you have to work with an all b&w workflow and having a different approach when planning/creating the image.
The key selling points of the M 246 against a Canon or Nikon or Sony are that it:
* Is a monochrome camera
* Has a rangefinder viewfinder.
* Takes M-lenses natively
This is all very clear to anyone that has used a digital M. Resolution? Sure it is important but it is not the key selling point for the M system.
I feel that this brand will always be a source of frustration and depression for some guys. I really don't get it. Just live and let live. Just forget that Leica exists and your life quality will improve a lot
And I would like to add that Leica cameras are crap. All other brands are better. All of them, including Lomo. So here, I said it. And we Leica users are a bunch of idiots. So what else do you want guys?
The intro to LLoyds article is already pretty biased and makes me not want to read any further. He mentions that the M is an "aging, defunct platform" and the M246 has "...baked in (B&W) boredom". Please don't tell me he will also now have a donate button to help support his growing family....
joakim wrote:
Ehh, the key selling point of the M 246 against the 240 is that is has a monochrome sensor
Right, that's what I said. You do know that it's the exact same sensor except with the CFA removed, and that the only difference between an M246 image and a b&w-converted M240 image is therefore something like a one-quarter increase in measured resolution, right?
I promise, you don't have to educate me about the M system. I am talking about the whole experience of working with a monochrome range finder camera, not the numbers and facts from the data sheets.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Well, I'm not saying that higher resolution is necessarily the key factor in better B&W work and I don't know that Lloyd is either. But higher resolution (due to the absence of the CFA) is the key (if not only) selling point of an M246 (since that's the only difference between it and an M240). So an assessment of the validity of that selling point is certainly relevant.
I sold my M9p for an MM. The reason for me was not the higher resolution. Not al all. If it was 12 mpix compared to the M9's 18 I still would have bought one.
The reason for me to buy one is because I like to use color filters again, because the output of the MM is stunning, because it feels different using an B/W camera compared to color camera.
Its all about the use of the camera.
Higher resolution is a nice addition, but certainly not the selling point of the monochrom. I
Lee Saxon wrote:
Right, that's what I said. You do know that it's the exact same sensor except with the CFA removed, and that the only difference between an M246 image and a b&w-converted M240 image is therefore something like a one-quarter increase in measured resolution, right?
That's one of the differences...so the M246 has the resolution of a ~36-37mp bayer camera. So what's Lloyd saying? A 50mp camera out resolves a 36mp camera? Seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not the only reason to buy any particular camera IMO.
Also, in addition to the resolution increase, the M246 sensor is more sensitive to light due to the elimination of the filtration effect of the CFA.
A combination of these two differences mean that the M246 will be a couple of stops ahead of a B&W converted M240 image.
The 5Ds may be able to produce superior images in some respects, but I'm not buying one. My hard earned cash just went for a M9M, looks like more fun to me
I really like what I'm seeing from this camera. Very nice color rendering, more pleasing looking than what I get from the various Sony cameras. For my taste that is.
Lee Saxon wrote:
...it's the exact same sensor except with the CFA removed, and that the only difference between an M246 image and a b&w-converted M240 image is therefore something like a one-quarter increase in measured resolution, right?
To my eye, both of the monochrom cameras have superior noise characteristics (to the equivalent color M model), which I believe to be the result of avoiding the processing that is necessary to interpolate the CFA as well as the increased sensitivity due to removing the filter itself. Similarly, I see moire as far less of an issue with a native B&W camera than with a color camera that has been interpolated and subsequently processed into B&W. Conversely, B&W cameras lose the ability to correct lateral CA.
Of course, I'm nitpicking the word "only," although I suspect Lee is referring solely to resolution here, in which case I agree. :-)
Perhaps more on topic, the Q has made me hold off on buying an M 240 in hopes that something like it will be released with an interchangeable mount in the next few months. The Q gives me hope that Leica has figured out how to gracefully handle everything that happens after light hits the sensor, and perhaps it'll now be confident enough to release an M-mount, Q-finder camera to tackle the mid-market.
Back off topic: Canon got high resolution. Sony got quiet shutters. Leica got fast autofocus. Everyone's got great products, and we haven't even reached September yet. What a great time to be a camera geek.
ryankarr wrote:
If only people could stop using sweeping statements on things related to personal choice, the internet would be a much more relaxing place.
Saying one camera is globally "better" than another camera is a ridiculous statement, as it's the users experience and requirements that determine what "better" is. There's a big difference between "The 5DSR has higher resolution than the MM246" and "The 5DSR is better Monochrome than the MM246". One of those statements is correct, and one is inflammatory.
Are you guys messing with me? I specifically said twice that I was only saying saying the first of those statements and several different people are reacting like I said the second. I was only talking about the relative resolution of 50mp CFA vs 24mp no-CFA. I don't even like Canon or the 5D3.5 as I call it. Take it easy.
Anyway, back on topic, I really cannot get over how it's possible for this product to be priced this much more aggressively than the M line. Are there as-yet-unforseen corners cut? And most interestingly, will the Q-based ILC line we're all imagining truly come to pass and will it be as aggressively priced? Depending on the answer to these questions I may yet become a Leica camera owner (I'm already a believer in the lenses). Charlie, don't have a heart attack.
Perhaps they are lowering their margins in hopes of attracting new customers. Prices are simply less inflated than the rest of Leicas inventory. The price of the Q is potentially just a glimpse into that. Given the initial price of the RX1 the Q's pricing is spot on IMHO.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Are you guys messing with me? I specifically said twice that I was only saying saying the first of those statements and several different people are reacting like I said the second. I was only talking about the relative resolution of 50mp CFA vs 24mp no-CFA. I don't even like Canon or the 5D3.5 as I call it. Take it easy.
Anyway, back on topic, I really cannot get over how it's possible for this product to be priced this much more aggressively than the M line. Are there as-yet-unforseen corners cut? And most interestingly, will the Q-based ILC line we're all imagining truly come to pass and will it be as aggressively priced? Depending on the answer to these questions I may yet become a Leica camera owner (I'm already a believer in the lenses). Charlie, don't have a heart attack....Show more →
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fair amount of Q parts outsourcing/manufacture outside of Germany. I have not read anything concrete, but would not be surprised if the lens is primarily made in Japan. Certainly enough of the camera is assembled in Germany to warrant the made in Germany designation, true for pretty much all Leica products, from my understanding (i.e. a lot of sub-assembly in Portugal).
The biggest cut corner is probably uncorrected lens performance - the significant amount of distortion. A tradeoff in favour of smaller size and lower cost to manufacture.
I wouldn't necessarily call any of this cutting corners, though it could potentially undermine aspects of Leica's brand image for some if indeed the Q is the result of significant 'offshore' components and if future lenses continue the trend of software correction (IMO it's the future direction all brands/systems will take).
Leica hopefully will consider lessons from the T system when it comes to pricing. I.e. that it will be difficult to sell 'kit zooms' for $2000 a piece.
If such a Q system appears, the system will very much be a collection of electronic devices like any other modern mirrorless system. Therefore lenses will likely be judged as much against other FF AF systems as against anything else from Leica. It will be a blurring of what currently separates Leica M from other mirrorless systems, and as a result, will be under a lot more scrutiny in respect to performance, price and the ever subjective aspect of value. But who knows. Leica could very well believe it's a unique, high-value product that will justify a price in the M system neighbourhood.
I can certainly see doing what it takes to build an actually-competitive product hurting Leica's reputation with the types of people who buy Hermes Edition M's and never take them out of the case, but I'm 100% confident it's in Leica's best interest anyway.
It's not about where it's built. QC is about time and resources; it can be done almost anywhere. Some people say Cosina's Zeiss lenses have better QC and consistency than Leica's. If the lens is made in Japan (as more than a few other components surely are as it's basically the only place to get them), that worries me not at all.
davewolfs wrote:
All Lloyd has said is that as a result of the higher MP in the 5DSR it is capable of producing superior quality Monochrom results.
Now take that same sensor and put it in a 240. If that happened does it defeat the purpose of the 246?
As others have stated part of the MM experience is the difference in workflow. Maybe it is, I don't own one.
I think when you are truly limited by black and white output only. Your mindset changes.
I haven't done the math on the 5DsR vs M246, but I'm sure Lloyd has, and he's probably right. I'd still buy an M246 over a 5DsR, simply because it FORCES me to use BW. Whereas any other instance, I'll just use color. That and I much prefer RF cameras.
I'm not a black and white person, I really love looking at black and white images, but I hate taking them. So I think a tool like this would be good for me. But since I can't get a handle on black and white shots, it's easier/cheaper for me to shoot the occasional black and white film as a learning tool.
Also for my kind of work, I'd sooner keep the lower MP camera.
What's the one things that's missing right now from any camera manufacturer..
Good quality FAST AF lenses. No matter how you slice it, nothing beats the M glass.
So all Leica has to do, is take M glass quality, mix it with a fast and accurate AF (the Q meets those specs) and give the body very good ergonomics (half stops all around, shutter dial, aperture ring). And I think there's really not much more you could ask for.
I would still own my M gear, and I will still buy whatever RF body comes out next. Because I love RF cameras.
I would just take to using the Q-interchangeable for times when I couldn't be bothered to focus with my RF.
Will it cause some owners of M cameras to jump ship? Yep, but Sony did that to Leica already. So what does Leica have to loose? They might very well steal back Sony customers who were originally Leica customers.
We all know my dislike for Sony sensors, but my dislike for FE glass, and ZA glass is also strong.
But to be fair, I don't like the olympus panasonic that much, and even the Q as fun as it is to use.. I'm still not convinced that I like it over M glass. In fact, I really don't think I do, it's just hard to tell because I don't often use the 28 Summicron-asph or 28 Elmarit-asph.
Oh and I like the look/size/shape/feel of the M.. So hopefully Leica will keep M styling, because it just looks cool around the neck. Much cooler then the T styling or anything else out there. And yeah, this matters to me
So, just got back from a shoot where I brought the Q finally.. I did use it for a few shots, and I have to say, there really isn't anything to be annoyed about. The things my wife mentions on her blog, and the things I've mentioned on here aside.. It's a pretty good camera that gives pretty stellar results.
adamdewilde wrote:
So, just got back from a shoot where I brought the Q finally.. I did use it for a few shots, and I have to say, there really isn't anything to be annoyed about. The things my wife mentions on her blog, and the things I've mentioned on here aside.. It's a pretty good camera that gives pretty stellar results.
Wishing Leica has a 75mm version
Now that would get me drooling. Recently I took a couple of portraits of my wife with the Voigtlander 75/1.8, mostly at apertures between 2.0-2.8. Hitting focus on the eyes with focus and recompose, while taking into account both focus shift and back focus due to recomposing, requires a certain level of finesse that I would prefer to simply bypass via face detect AF, or at the very least the ability to move the AF point off-centre.
