jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Leica had the M240 sensor designed by CMOSIS to their own specifications. It was not an off-the-shelf product.
uhoh7
Veteran
I would not doubt it.
Also I think the evidence is now clear the M10 sensor structure as a whole does have fundamental differences from the SL, notably the CFA, which RAW analysis of color matrix from M10 DNGs suggest.
So I'm now of the belief there is more than algorithms between the SL and the M10, and I'd support your general contention the M10 is a "new" sensor in broad terms. The actual naked sensor could still be identical to SL of course with a new CFA, but I think it meets the criteria of Leica's claim which you have loyally supported.
Forgive my skepticism, and it's not the first time I've been wrong in a discussion with you: I must thank you again for waking me to the fact the M9 and M240 are essentially the same size, despite the misleading specs which are spread everywhere. I was a little stubborn there too, but I verified it and would have continued in the mistaken belief without your pointing it out. I've also been informed by many knowledgable posts from you on Leica related subjects over the years, thank you
It's a new sensor, both in output and at very least, the CFA, which is pretty fundamental, more so in my mind than the IR cut choice.
That is exciting.
Huss
Veteran
Remember this thread?
Remember this thread?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158215
"Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done. "
Ahh the sweet sweet taste of validation..
Remember this thread?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158215
"Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done. "
Ahh the sweet sweet taste of validation..
uhoh7
Veteran
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158215
"Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done. "
Ahh the sweet sweet taste of validation..
Jaapv is not excited enough to upgrade himself, from 240 to M10. Some secret info on Sean Reids site. Apparently even discussing Sean's opinion requires a subscription
He has been on about how a M6 sized digital M was going to be ugly and highly problematic for years. It's actually not ugly, it looks better than M9 or 240, has BETTER finder, and where is "the box"?
Or maybe that was all with idea of something smaller yet than M10, which many of us would love. But I don't really quite get the negative reaction.
ISO gain is huge. "Look" is nicer, though you can make it editing 240 DNGs. Profiles should be better. Only object reason to prefer 240 is video (really?) or battery.
What are we missing Jaapv?
Lss
Well-known
It's great that the M10 size suits you. Somehow I understood you really wanted a significantly smaller body, but perhaps it was just me.Ahh the sweet sweet taste of validation..
"About 2/3 the size of an M240. Leica should take note."
"Ask yourself why the full frame Q is so much smaller than the M?"
"So imagine the full frame Q with the interchangeable M lens on it."
"So why is the full frame Q thinner? Oh yeah, software that wasn't around in 2006."
"And how did Leica get it to work with a shorter register distance?"
"The RF coupling can be dropped if Leica decides to use a hybrid optical VF."
-->
"It was nice to see that Leica saw this thread, agreed with me, and made the new M10 smaller."
willie_901
Veteran
...Apparently even discussing Sean's opinion requires a subscription
Yes. It seems Mr. Reids' content is the magically exempt from the U.S. Constitution. Court precedents for Fair Use (a.k.a freedom of speech) do not apply.
Huss
Veteran
It's great that the M10 size suits you. Somehow I understood you really wanted a significantly smaller body, but perhaps it was just me.
"About 2/3 the size of an M240. Leica should take note."
"Ask yourself why the full frame Q is so much smaller than the M?"
"So imagine the full frame Q with the interchangeable M lens on it."
"So why is the full frame Q thinner? Oh yeah, software that wasn't around in 2006."
"And how did Leica get it to work with a shorter register distance?"
"The RF coupling can be dropped if Leica decides to use a hybrid optical VF."
-->
"It was nice to see that Leica saw this thread, agreed with me, and made the new M10 smaller."
Baby steps, baby steps. Wait until the M11 shows up..
raid
Dad Photographer
I would skip the M13 since the number 13 brings bad luck
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Somewhat so, but without the ergonomics, old school controls, and elegance of Leica.
Lss
Well-known
Considering my paycheck, I will probably have to wait for the M11.Baby steps, baby steps. Wait until the M11 shows up..
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Of course they don't. When you pay for his site you enter into a contract. That contract stipulates that you won't disclose the content. You won't find any court cases supporting a breach.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So far the only person to claim it is the sensor of the SL is Erwin Puts, and he is not a person to be discounted lightly.I would not doubt it.
Also I think the evidence is now clear the M10 sensor structure as a whole does have fundamental differences from the SL, notably the CFA, which RAW analysis of color matrix from M10 DNGs suggest.
So I'm now of the belief there is more than algorithms between the SL and the M10, and I'd support your general contention the M10 is a "new" sensor in broad terms. The actual naked sensor could still be identical to SL of course with a new CFA, but I think it meets the criteria of Leica's claim which you have loyally supported.
Forgive my skepticism, and it's not the first time I've been wrong in a discussion with you: I must thank you again for waking me to the fact the M9 and M240 are essentially the same size, despite the misleading specs which are spread everywhere. I was a little stubborn there too, but I verified it and would have continued in the mistaken belief without your pointing it out. I've also been informed by many knowledgable posts from you on Leica related subjects over the years, thank you
It's a new sensor, both in output and at very least, the CFA, which is pretty fundamental, more so in my mind than the IR cut choice.
That is exciting.
I presume he did indeed mean the naked sensor. It would not be surprising that the microlenses and IR filter are more biased to the use of M lenses than the SL. looking at images on the Internet I get the impression that the Bayer filter has been tweaked as well to approach the colour rendering of the M8 (filtered
) Not a bad thing at all.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Just a matter of adding up plusses and minuses. The M240 won out for my use.
Jaapv is not excited enough to upgrade himself, from 240 to M10. Some secret info on Sean Reids site. Apparently even discussing Sean's opinion requires a subscription
He has been on about how a M6 sized digital M was going to be ugly and highly problematic for years. It's actually not ugly, it looks better than M9 or 240, has BETTER finder, and where is "the box"?
Or maybe that was all with idea of something smaller yet than M10, which many of us would love. But I don't really quite get the negative reaction.
ISO gain is huge. "Look" is nicer, though you can make it editing 240 DNGs. Profiles should be better. Only object reason to prefer 240 is video (really?) or battery.
What are we missing Jaapv?
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Why not just use a film M or a Sony A7..and buy your self a Rolex...lol..
willie_901
Veteran
Turns out the Fujifilm OVF does use real optics. It's Reverse Galilean design incorporates prisms, mirrors and lenses.
Please note I am comparing Fujifilm's OVF to Leica's. But it is based on optics.
Fujifilm has never described its OVF as a rangefinder because it is not a rangefinder. And it is not a pure analog device as the connection to XF lenses is electronic. This means non-XF lenses rely upon real-time electronic window displays (spit-screen, focus peaking or visual inspection) projected on the OVF optics to achieve focus. Believe it or not, this works well. Just as a rangefinder patch is more challenging to use in very low light, the OVF manual focusing projections are too.
I don't have any way of knowing if Fujifilm's chips are "cheapos" compared to other brands.
Huss
Veteran
Just a matter of adding up plusses and minuses. The M240 won out for my use.
If I was in the market for a digital M now, the M240 would win out for me just because you can now get a like new M240 for under $3500, or a new M10 for $7K? Unless your thing is taking pics in a dark seedy bar the results are essentially indistinguishable.
'reds are better, skin tones are better..' is one of the selling pitches. I am not saying they are not but it's kinda like pixel peeping. Proper editing of a dng file will result in a fantastic image from the M240, that you would not know if it came from an M10 or M240..
The M10 will not take better pics. That's up to the photographer.
Plus it is too skinny for chunky lenses now..
Imagine that, for one M10 two like new M240s. And the same thing will happen to the M10 when the M11 comes out.
willie_901
Veteran
Except contracts require an exchange of value (usually money) to be valid. This is called consideration. Consideration means the other party compensates you in some significant, material way. Ask any attorney.
The subscriber benefits from the contract. They give the content creator money in exchange for access. This is straightforward.
Agreeing to forgo the right to fair usage would require a separate contact. The subscriber derives no benefit from surrendering their fair usage rights. The content provider benefits. But the content provider is also obligated to provide consideration.
Consideration - Something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or nonaction. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract.
So there are two issues.
Does surrendering their First Amendment Fair Usage rights plus paying a subscription fee bestow value for the subscriber?
Second, to what extent can Constitutional rights be suspended for consideration? For instance It is legal to enter into a contract with consideration to surrender one's right to vote, right of assembly, right to bear arms. etc.? If not, then how is free speech (fair usage) any different?