Aristophanes
Well-known
No, I did not generalize at all like that. Nor did I name-call.
There are different markets for Leica but the company itself has made it very clear who they primarily target as the main buyer and who they use for sales. it ain't dentists anymore.
I made it very clear that the data I use is DxO which controls for these parameters in their blended scores.
mlu19
Established
So after 10 pages of discussion, I gathered that you
1. See Leica sensors are inferior due to test metrics
2. Disagree with Leica's business direction
3. Disagree with Leica's marketing strategy
I'm just wondering if you're feeling the same towards Apple as well, specifically their laptop and desktop lines.
1. See Leica sensors are inferior due to test metrics
2. Disagree with Leica's business direction
3. Disagree with Leica's marketing strategy
I'm just wondering if you're feeling the same towards Apple as well, specifically their laptop and desktop lines.
Ranchu
Veteran
Blended scores, well. I wonder what that looks like. Two cameras that score a perfect 6 look the same? Haha.
Berth
Member
Hey, I'm trying to lighten the tone here, sorry. I didn't say you said I was a fashionista. I said that your posts present a syllogism. That syllogism can be offensive, depending on whether one wants to be considered a fashionista. Not a term often associated with an unsightly 60 year old, but I can dream.
Anyhow, you were addressing RFF members, some of whom, like me, own Leica digital M's, so premise 1 is sound:
1. I have a Leica dRF.
You have stated variously that buyers of Leica digital M's are fashionistas, schmucks, etc., so premise 2 is sound:
2. Leica dRFs are for fashionistas.
So, it follows, as the night the day,
3. I am a fashionista.
It just kinda flows from your odd rant, but thank you.
I guess that would put me in the 'schmuck' role. I'm not very pretty, 72, and just dumped a highly rated 21mp CMOS DSLR with AF, 1080 video, live-view, and a 3" 920,000 pixel LCD for a 18mp Leica CCD dRF with none of those things.
Unless the OP is the humorless schmuck.
Corran
Well-known
Okay, well whatever...it was pretty clearly implied. I'll just leave you with a quote, one that happens to be in your signature:
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.
Good day.
Berth
Member
Think Vitamix blender, throwing in a half-pound of Kobe beef, truffles, beluga caviar, a mandarine orange, a scoop of ice cream, a couple of stalks of organic asparagus, and finishing it off perhaps with some dungeness crab. There you are, a fine dining experience.
Aristophanes
Well-known
DxO says that Leica's chosen sensors are inferior:
"The Leica M9 achieves the lowest score among measured full-frame sensors."
Lots of $$'s for worst-in-class.
I think Leica, to continue with its engineering pedigree, needs new suppliers. The Leica T says they may have sourced their UI and screen tech well. The weak link appears to be sensors.
Yes, the homogenization of photo output between pro and amateur both in equipment and content may have actually compelled Leica into more and more of a fashion item than a pro tool just pursue Blackstone's ROI. They risk getting themselves into a cycle of being solely associated with conspicuous consumption and luxury store retail placement and less with technical prowess.
Apple consistently supplies consumer-priced models and products. Leica definitely does not (and the quasi-relationship with Panasonic hardly counts).
Takkun
Ian M.
You're still here? It's over. Go home.
Seriously, I still don't understand why this thread is continuing on these lines. I think we're all pretty aware of the shortcomings of the Leica sensor. Is the point that we should stop buying them?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Answer: no.
SNR is straightforward to measure. Kodak CCDs have since at least the early 2000's had relatively poor SNR characteristics. Even 12-14 years ago Sony CCDs had considerably superior SNR to competing Kodak CCDs.
The current Sony CMOS sensors are greatly superior to the Sony CCDs that we were using for scientific imaging in the early 2000's.
If you really want to get into it we can dig up the spec sheets for the various devices.
x-ray
Veteran
1) in actual use paying no attention to test metrics I can honestly say it is inferior but this doesn't mean it can't make fine images because it does. It's no less good than cameras like the Nikon D2x as an example. Just as an example the D2x produced excellent images at the time it was introduced and satisfied many professional applications. Compared to the D800/e, D4s, 1Dx and most other current cameras it's inferior. That doesn't mean it didn't and still can't make superb images.
2 & 3) Leica and apple do what the have too to survive and grow. My opinion as a longtime professional apple and Leica user, I believe both have forgotten their pro base that built the company. I don't care how they advertise, I just care how their products integrate in my work. Both have lost touch with the pro market. Unfortunately the pro market is shrinking and couldn't support either like it on e did.
I'm an apple user still but very likely will have a custom windows machine built once again when I replace my Mac Pro unless apple sees fit to improve on maverick. They need to get over the idea of thinking they know better what we need than we do.
Leica, I'll never spend anymore money on Leica products. I'm sad to say they don't stack up to other cameras such as my D800 and Hasselblad digital. Their lenses are fine but without a good body they're worthless.
Just my personal perspective.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm not putting down anyone's photography and I've not looked at all the posts but I've not seen any images here that would strain even an entry level Nikon or Canon DSLR with a decent lens. Most entry level DSLRs have better noise and dynamic range.
I bought a Nikon D3100 two years ago to take on vacation for casual shooting. I don't carry my work gear on vacations because I don't want the bulk and weight and I'm not on assignment, I'm on vacation. Honestly I doubt that you could tell the difference in 8x12 prints from my M9. You might even say the low light shots are better.
I bought a Nikon D3100 two years ago to take on vacation for casual shooting. I don't carry my work gear on vacations because I don't want the bulk and weight and I'm not on assignment, I'm on vacation. Honestly I doubt that you could tell the difference in 8x12 prints from my M9. You might even say the low light shots are better.
x-ray
Veteran
I think we have to keep in mind that Leica is a totally different company now compared to when I bought my first M2 in 67. Then Leica was a family business still driven by pride of workmanship and producing the finest equipment available. Sure they wanted to make money but there was more to a business of this kind at that time. Today leica is owned by an investor who's sole purpose is to make the most profits with the least expense. It's just business in the 21st century. The idea is to produce the highest priced product at the lowest cost of manufacturing. I have no doubt there are people within Leica that still are driven by quality but at the investor level it's not important as long as we believe it's the best and continue to shell out our hard earned cash. Advertising and promoting the past history of Leica have created what we've bought into.
PKR
Veteran
Salgado was with Magnum for quite some time. Many of the best (IMO) have left, he among them.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2K1HZOQGVJ6QIE
from Mike Johnston at TOP:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/05/price-is-relative.html
Ranchu
Veteran
I'm talking about before the amps, ccd's have better snr than cmos do before the amps. Do they have that in the spec sheets? I'd be curious.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
No, what you get on the spec sheets are the output characteristics. And while it was once true that CCDs had better SNR prior to the preamp stage, that gap has been closed or eliminated over the last decade. CCD R&D is moribund and has been for a long time. CMOS is where the action is.
Ranchu
Veteran
I still prefer the way they look, moribund or not. That phase one P20 is beautiful. For digital.
Ranchu
Veteran
And if they don't break it out on the spec sheets, how do you know it's better? Are you just assuming?
PKR
Veteran
I still prefer the way they look, moribund or not. That phase one P20 is beautiful. For digital.
I don't know the P20 but know the old P25 fairly well. It lives on the back of a Sinar P with a Rodenstock Digital on the front. The files are very detailed ... blah .. blah. But, often need the tools in C1 to clean up "stuff". No AA filter on the P25.
I think today the Nikon D800e on the back of the Sinar, or a PC-E on the camera would give that very expensive Phase package ($19K -new lens- used back circa 2008) a run for the money. Stuff changes. The D800 / e is a landmark sensor. CMOS = less heat than CCD = better S/N on long exposures. Just better overall technology.
Stuff changes.
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/main/products/lenses-for-digital-photography/
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/Perspective-Control/index.page
http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2006/05/review-studiotoolstm-stsmodel.html
Ranchu
Veteran
I didn't really care about the detail, though zooming in was fun, it was the beautiful color I liked. Nikon has been bad at that for a long time. The worst in digital, imo.
PKR
Veteran
That's what post production is all about - any kind of color you might want. Those backs really need Capture One for the Moire tool if nothing else.
Playing with cameras and computers is fun etc. If there is money for quality in post, folks like Mark and his crew fix stuff..
http://g10capture.com/
This is the world of renting anything the client needs to produce the image. Phase One rentals are just down the freeway.. anything we want. Plastic on file.
Otherwise 12 MP is just fine for most stuff.