Mister E
Well-known
Mister E
Well-known
Bill, I've seen you say this before. I have never, in my more limited experience than you, found this to be an issue at all. Set my Leica to focus my longest/fastest lens properly and the rest fall in line. My scans are at much higher resolution than most were printing back in the day, so what gives?
paulcurtis
Member
No that wasn't the one. It was a website with a dark grey background not on a Leica blog! This is from memory though but i was pretty sure it was an M9 he was reviewing.
I will see if i can find it again...
EDIT: No i'm wrong that *was* the guy, just the one on his site, not the Leica blog. Let me read both again. I didn't originally say for sure but was asking for confirmation/asking a question not making a statement. But yes, it was the M8, my memory failed me. Not the M9.
But that M9 testimony was a Leica interview, and is about as shallow as you can get. I'd hardly call that a glowing testimony just some standard PR puff.
But are we saying the M9 has no moire or aliasing issues? Are we saying there are no shading issues with lenses really design for film? There are issues with the M9 in the way there are issues with all cameras.
cheers
paul
Last edited:
paulcurtis
Member
It used to be the case that CCDs had much better colour reproduction especially in the Reds. So at the time the M9 would have been designed there was a case for going in that direction. But one of the problems that CCD has is that it is quite easy to overload the pixels and cause bleed into the others- the highlight streaking issues.
These days there has been a lot more progress with CMOS and those issues are really non issues now.
Original CMOS had the electronics for each pixel inside the pixel covering some of the light gathering ability. (the 'fill factor'). Now designers are much cleverer and have put them on the backs, reduced them, designed around them and the sensitivity of CMOS is probably better than CCD.
I would lay good money that Leica will be CMOS next time...
cheers
paul
Last edited:
Adam_Shaw
Newbie
I can't agree about overloading CCD vs CMOS.
In both cases I see the alignment of the Bayer Filter to the sensor pixels themselves as much more important.
This is in my experience the biggest qualitative discriminator between a low cost sensor, and a higher cost one.
There are some really small companies, working in very specialised areas that produce sensors with a measured or certified alignment, but you can easily be paying 5x the cost of a regular sensor.
The electronic differences between CCD and CMOS are very well discussed in some papers by Dalsa (a provider of industry cameras) - these can be easily found by google.
Coming back to my point, if we consider a 10MP sensor, at 2/3" sensor size may have individual pixel wells of 5µm
The key is of course physically bigger sensors, but again we come back to design restrictions and the "system" size.
CMOS, as stated above, puts more of the electronics on the chip, and this is getting better all the time.
The last time around that I made a design choice CCD or CMOS, there was still a noticeable difference in the quality of the image. However, in the end we went CMOS due to pricing... more bang for the buck.
This was already two years ago though.
In both cases I see the alignment of the Bayer Filter to the sensor pixels themselves as much more important.
This is in my experience the biggest qualitative discriminator between a low cost sensor, and a higher cost one.
There are some really small companies, working in very specialised areas that produce sensors with a measured or certified alignment, but you can easily be paying 5x the cost of a regular sensor.
The electronic differences between CCD and CMOS are very well discussed in some papers by Dalsa (a provider of industry cameras) - these can be easily found by google.
Coming back to my point, if we consider a 10MP sensor, at 2/3" sensor size may have individual pixel wells of 5µm
The key is of course physically bigger sensors, but again we come back to design restrictions and the "system" size.
CMOS, as stated above, puts more of the electronics on the chip, and this is getting better all the time.
The last time around that I made a design choice CCD or CMOS, there was still a noticeable difference in the quality of the image. However, in the end we went CMOS due to pricing... more bang for the buck.
This was already two years ago though.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes - there is some aliasing from time to time, mostly with some raw converters like Aperture. C1 is nearly free and has an excellent moire filter as well. . Anyway it is a property the M9 shares with medium format cameras, as they are built without anti-aliasing filter too to avoid the loss of microcontrast and resolution an AA filter induces.
The fix, of course is not too difficult; use a proper raw converter like C1 and if needed do some simple pp.
I wonder what you mean by shading issues - it is the first time I heard of it. If you mean the red edge effect that a few - mostly third-party - wideangles produce, that is rather a non-issue. For instance my CV 15, which is one of the offenders, is corrected 100% in C1 by a one mouseclick application of an LCC profile. The firmware update of June 21st that will alledgedly correct this for Leica lenses is not needed as far as I'm concerned.
It is all smoke in the wind, not "issues"
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
Tell me if i'm wrong but when I look for nex 5 and leica glass then I see mostly the bokeh bubble producers. Should leica build a camera for that niche?
Live View is really great....for tripod. Just my point of view.
paulcurtis
Member
I'm not sure i understand your first question. Leica glass on a sony sensor can produce beautiful images, Nex or otherwise, wide open or stopped down. The new Leica cinema primes are amazing and they're mostly being tied to 2k sensors, not high resolution stills cameras. The quality of glass and design are exceptional as i stated.
Should they produce cameras at all perhaps? Like Zeiss perhaps they should concentrate on what they're best at. Camera technology is really quite commoditised these days. All the electronics and sensors level the playing field. Who here has a DLux? Why? It's the same as the Panasonic. That strikes me as Leica using their brand to make money. Nothing about quality there...
And Live View is a large electronic viewfinder. When shooting medium format looking down onto the large ground glass of years gone by seems pretty similar to looking down on a similar area of an LCD. Nothing new there.
cheers
paul
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Are you sure? as far as I know there are no 24x36 backlit sensors on the market due to the mechanical constraints imposed by the thin layers needed.
user237428934
User deletion pending
So why should Leica jump onto that train when the ideal camera for leica glass already exists?
I write this because I never understand the use of a af-camera with leica mf-lenses. Did this with a panasonic and it didn't work for me.
But that is just it... offers something different to the DSLR and nex. If you are indifferent to ergonomics and don't prefer a rangefinder, then you will never understand those of us who really love rangefinders and don't care for DSLRs. There are those of us who buy Leica because of the body as opposed to the glass.
I'm all for high ISO and a lower price tag, but changing the M into something more mainstream in order to fit people who already have many options on the market? I don't get it. There is only one digital M... there are tons of other solutions for those who want something different.
Last edited:
Lss
Well-known
Using the LCD screen to focus (and frame) is fine for certain limited applications. It really shines on the tripod, although digital on tripod typically lends itself to focus bracketing. But this is not really what a rangefinder user does most of the time, is it?
Anyway, as long as the interface does not get cluttered, the camera does not get bigger, and the price of the camera is not increased, I'd love to have TTL focusing/framing in addition to the rangefinder viewfinder. I'm not at all interested in replacing the rangefinder though, since there are several such cameras already available by many companies and I need/want a rangefinder to do what I like doing.
j j
Well-known
Why would including, for example, an LCD as good as those in the current batch of compact digicams upset so many folks?
Is this incarnation of the rangefinder perfect? Are the dimensions and clarity of the patch and the accuracy of the unit so impossible to better that Leica should not try?
What about the framelines? Would it be so bad if they lined up perfectly with the sensor coverage for the lens at the focus distance used?
Why would any of these things make an M less of an M?
Is this incarnation of the rangefinder perfect? Are the dimensions and clarity of the patch and the accuracy of the unit so impossible to better that Leica should not try?
What about the framelines? Would it be so bad if they lined up perfectly with the sensor coverage for the lens at the focus distance used?
Why would any of these things make an M less of an M?
paulcurtis
Member
Some very strong opinions here which shows how seriously people take their cameras, which is great.
So, what makes a rangefinder a rangefinder then? Just the focussing method? What is the essence that people are defending. I hope it's not the Leica name.
Because the mirrorless cameras embody a lot of what *i* think a rangefinder stands for - unobtrusive compact photography with excellent quality, uncompromising you could say.
As for CMOS vs CCD, yes you can get large CMOS, Dalsa quoted earlier do some very large ones. How about the PhaseOne backs? Sony is rumoured to have a FF version of their sensor too.
But the reason for replying in the first place is i think what the original article was pointing out for the most part was pretty fair. It would make the camera a lot better.
Tom says
>So why should Leica jump onto that train when the ideal camera for leica glass already exists?
I think Leica glass does well on whatever it's sitting on.
Technology moves on faster and faster. If Leica produce a camera that has some advanced high resolution electronic viewfinder that could practically see in the dark, instead of the original focusing method, would that no longer be a 'proper' Leica? The original article just seems to be suggesting that Leica evolve the M series and take advantage of technology.
I see comments in these forums all the time about missing focus, that's pretty standard on all cameras. The rangefinder method is a solution because of the size. But if we eliminate the rangefinder mechanics we can still have small compact lenses (that focus closer too!) and still have what i think a 'rangefinder' really stands for. Those mirrorless cameras may get there first. They lack the lenses right now.
cheers
Paul
cheers
paul
So, what makes a rangefinder a rangefinder then? Just the focussing method? What is the essence that people are defending. I hope it's not the Leica name.
Because the mirrorless cameras embody a lot of what *i* think a rangefinder stands for - unobtrusive compact photography with excellent quality, uncompromising you could say.
As for CMOS vs CCD, yes you can get large CMOS, Dalsa quoted earlier do some very large ones. How about the PhaseOne backs? Sony is rumoured to have a FF version of their sensor too.
But the reason for replying in the first place is i think what the original article was pointing out for the most part was pretty fair. It would make the camera a lot better.
Tom says
>So why should Leica jump onto that train when the ideal camera for leica glass already exists?
I think Leica glass does well on whatever it's sitting on.
Technology moves on faster and faster. If Leica produce a camera that has some advanced high resolution electronic viewfinder that could practically see in the dark, instead of the original focusing method, would that no longer be a 'proper' Leica? The original article just seems to be suggesting that Leica evolve the M series and take advantage of technology.
I see comments in these forums all the time about missing focus, that's pretty standard on all cameras. The rangefinder method is a solution because of the size. But if we eliminate the rangefinder mechanics we can still have small compact lenses (that focus closer too!) and still have what i think a 'rangefinder' really stands for. Those mirrorless cameras may get there first. They lack the lenses right now.
cheers
Paul
cheers
paul
I tend to think that those "Damned Laws of Physics" drove Leica into some of the decisions made for the M9 and M8. Considering the design constraint of being compatible with 80 years of legacy lenses, I'm amazed they pulled it off. It would be much easier if Leica changed the mount, or even went to retrofocus wide-angle lenses and announced older lenses could only be used to ISO 320 to allow for non-uniformity correction in software. But- they chose to make a digital camera that works like an M-mount camera, and is a reasonable size.
A new, higher resolution LCD means rewriting the firmware and modifying the main processor board for the video interface. That means more engineering and firmware development, Leica is a small company and the M9 is a relatively low-volume item. NRE has to be recovered per unit.
Framelines that follow the field-of-view with distance has been done mechanically, the Konica S2 and Zeiss Ikon finder made for Polaroid does it. Those are fixed-lens cameras. It would be easier to incorporate in a Hybrid finder, but we are back to a lot of NRE. That means cost per unit will go up.
It would be fun to have $10M to burn for this new DRF project. Anybody got a spare $10M for it?
A new, higher resolution LCD means rewriting the firmware and modifying the main processor board for the video interface. That means more engineering and firmware development, Leica is a small company and the M9 is a relatively low-volume item. NRE has to be recovered per unit.
Framelines that follow the field-of-view with distance has been done mechanically, the Konica S2 and Zeiss Ikon finder made for Polaroid does it. Those are fixed-lens cameras. It would be easier to incorporate in a Hybrid finder, but we are back to a lot of NRE. That means cost per unit will go up.
It would be fun to have $10M to burn for this new DRF project. Anybody got a spare $10M for it?
furcafe
Veteran
I think you're getting @ the main point of contention, i.e., whether the traditional optical rangefinder is the problem (as Bill Pierce succinctly put it) or if it still has some utility in the modern era. I'm personally in the 2nd category, as the M series optical RF is pretty much my ideal manual focus system (though I could live w/more accurate framelines, whether they're generated optically or electronically), but can certainly see how others might feel differently. I would be happy if the M10 simply refines the M9, i.e., improved high ISO performance, faster processor, improved metering, better screen, maybe live view for the occasional macro, etc.
Ideally, Leica could continue to make an optical RF M-type body for us purists & also offer some updated version of the traditional "rangefinder" concept for the more forward-thinking (I think the consensus would be for a full-frame X100 w/interchangeable lenses), but I doubt that's going to happen given the company's small size & resources. From a consumer price perspective, the good news is that an electronic RF/EVF would probably be considerably cheaper since an M-level optical RF is expensive & a significant part of the M9's high cost. I'm guessing Canon & Nikon would already have made such a product, but for the fact that it might cannibalize/supplant their existing dSLR platforms.
Ideally, Leica could continue to make an optical RF M-type body for us purists & also offer some updated version of the traditional "rangefinder" concept for the more forward-thinking (I think the consensus would be for a full-frame X100 w/interchangeable lenses), but I doubt that's going to happen given the company's small size & resources. From a consumer price perspective, the good news is that an electronic RF/EVF would probably be considerably cheaper since an M-level optical RF is expensive & a significant part of the M9's high cost. I'm guessing Canon & Nikon would already have made such a product, but for the fact that it might cannibalize/supplant their existing dSLR platforms.
Last edited:
j j
Well-known
Judging by several responses here, the rangefinder bit is the major point by far. The things I didn't mention were improved sensor, handling speed and review, use of all shutter speeds in manual mode and reduced price. These serve only to reinforce my point. Except for the rangefinder comments, his suggested improvements would change the camera neither into a P&S nor an SLR. Most of the article calls for incremental changes that would improve the camera and retain its essense.
What he has done is write in an aggressive tone to cause a reaction. That he has done very effectively. I suspect he is half teasing, but he is not a fool. He wants throughput on his (commercial) website.
j j, you wrote:
"Is this incarnation of the rangefinder perfect? Are the dimensions and clarity of the patch and the accuracy of the unit so impossible to better that Leica should not try?"
I guess I meant your points are minor, not his. The rangefinder is not perfect and can be improved upon in ways just like what you wrote... which is totally different than what digilloyd is asking for... i.e get rid of the mechanical rangefinder and give him live view, an EVF, and focus confirmation.
pawel glogowski
Member
They should improve LCD for sure. Its just very bad quality (low resolution).
10 times cheaper cameras have way better hi-res LCDs, that allow to check sharpness without having to zoom to 100% in order to see anything.
10 times cheaper cameras have way better hi-res LCDs, that allow to check sharpness without having to zoom to 100% in order to see anything.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.