Thein's words

[giellaleafapmu]

There is a clear benefit to a fixed (non-zoom) lens matched to a sensor. Both can be optimized. Add the fact that both the Coolpix A and GR are a stop slower than the Leica and it seems completely plausible to me.

This is a very common comment on fixed lens cameras but I am not sure that this should be the case. More or less at the beginning of the digital era we were told that one should have the rays of light to hit the sensor at small angle, unlike some of the old wideangle designs. Olympus designed the new (at the time) 4/3 standard with that in mind. For some time Leica told us that a FF to be used with M-mount lenses was not possible, among other thing, for this reason, then they come out with some design including an architecture of the sensor made exactly to overcome this problem. Now Leica talks of "flat pixels" and what not. Even Ricoh in their A12 module claim it is possible to "correct peripheral light and aberration". If anything of this is half-true I don't see why an interchangeable lens camera should be any worst than a fixed lens camera, even with oldish lenses. I can believe it is not possible to build a digital camera which works perfectly with all legacy lenses expecially the ultrawide ones but really at the price point of Leica there should be no excuse for not designing new lenses if anything need changes.

GLF

 

[Godfrey]

Y'all should go out and rent/borrow the cameras that you're interested in, shoot a bunch (enough with each body/lens combo for a total of 100) of interesting photos, print them all at full-truck, mix 'em up, put them all up on a wall, go away for two weeks doing some other assignment and when you come back live with them for a few weeks at about three to four feet of viewing distance and see which ones you really like.

Then, and only then, should you see if you can correctly assign the prints to the camera/lens combo. Guaranteed there will be surprises.

You might find out that you are buying a certain camera/lens for different reasons than you thought.

Don't have time for this? My answer would be that endless debates about the superiority of brand X over brand Y are pointless in the light of the simple fact that once you stop pixel-peeping and actually look at the photograph as a whole, it will become apparent that after a certain threshold has been crossed (and it was crossed a long time ago and at a lower price point than most people think), there is no gain to be had in the quality of the photograph.

Nor have the endless debates on reputation and published tech specs of various cameras and lenses ever, not even once in the history of mankind, produced a photograph. Good or bad.

Can't agree more. My camera interests are broad because different cameras see differently and I enjoy exploring that. So I have a bunch of different cameras and lenses, and juggle them a lot to see what they do.

But in the end, what X is "better" than what Y is completely irrelevant ... Take any camera, learn how it sees and how that relates to your photographic interests, vision, what-have-you. If you need a specific camera due to specific features or capabilities, buy that one and learn it. Then use it. That's the way to great photographs.

G

 

[Addy101]

I know this, I read that post of him, I was just surprised to read the sentence in a Blog of a photographer who is usually quite precise in his descriptions and who is both a fan and (I believe) a testimonial of Leica. Probably, all this is good news meaning that level is so high in all brands that there is really little difference between superexpensive Leicas and APS (and probably 4/3) cameras of most makers. Good news for us, maybe not so good for Leica... 😀

GLF

The lesson to be learned is just that, indeed. The Ricoh might not be quite as good, but it is at least good enough.... 😎

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Y'all should go out and rent/borrow the cameras that you're interested in, shoot a bunch (enough with each body/lens combo for a total of 100) of interesting photos, print them all at full-truck, mix 'em up, put them all up on a wall, go away for two weeks doing some other assignment and when you come back live with them for a few weeks at about three to four feet of viewing distance and see which ones you really like.

Then, and only then, should you see if you can correctly assign the prints to the camera/lens combo. Guaranteed there will be surprises.

You might find out that you are buying a certain camera/lens for different reasons than you thought.

Don't have time for this? My answer would be that endless debates about the superiority of brand X over brand Y are pointless in the light of the simple fact that once you stop pixel-peeping and actually look at the photograph as a whole, it will become apparent that after a certain threshold has been crossed (and it was crossed a long time ago and at a lower price point than most people think), there is no gain to be had in the quality of the photograph.

Nor have the endless debates on reputation and published tech specs of various cameras and lenses ever, not even once in the history of mankind, produced a photograph. Good or bad.

Come on, I think we all know this and no, we won't trade what we have to get that Nikon Camera hoping to get a better IQ than a Leica, this is a gear forum about RF cameras and Thein is a guy writing also quite a bit about RF cameras so we chat a bit. If every thread had to be written only after a careful test and/or your test not only this forum would be almost empty but we probably wouldn't have a life, nor take many photographs besides the tests. Of course, in the end I completely agree with you, we are now well beyond the point in which cameras matter, every photograph which is less than perfect is only our fault or sometimes for a lack of proper lighting tools (no, I am not speaking to sport photographers here...).

GLF

 

[redisburning]

just because the information isn't useful to you doesn't mean the same for the rest of us.

there are scientists, mathematicians and statisticians on this forum who enjoy the side of photography you are so quick to dismiss. you give me the impression that you are simply incapable of understanding the materials and rather come to grips with your own intellectual inadequacy you find it easier to simply attack the entire premise of this website and its community.

the words "troll" and 'idiot" are closely related and people like you Mr. Adams seem very eager to demonstrate that link for the rest of us. What have your posts added to this conversation, precisely? Ah, that's right, nothing. You have addressed neither Ming Thein nor his assertion wrt the Nikon A and the M9 / 28 Cron combination. Rather you have diverted the thread in a quixotian battle against a problem that exists only in your mind.

The rest of us, on the other hand, continue to enjoy the spirited conversation around here whether it be technical, artistic or off topic.

 

[Godfrey]

I cherish the spirited discussion about the technology of photography. Cameras have been a fascination for me most of my life.

What I don't cherish is the "this vs that" stuff. It smacks too much of the juvenile "mine is better than yours" stuff I hated in kindergarten, grammar school, and so on.

Whatever MT's opinion might be, I see nothing in his article that substantiates his opinion with facts and examples. So the whole "this vs that" discussion in this instance comes down to "do you agree with MT or not? and on what basis?" I've seen nothing of substance in the discussion so far that tells me a single thing factual thing about the relative performance of Nikon A to Leica M, all I see that's actually fact related is a bunch of back and forth about how one is much more expensive than the other, and opinion as to how a lot of other cameras are better than the more expensive one too.

If that's the conversation you want to have, go on and have it, but I think Mr. Adams is perfectly within his rights to express his opinion of the conversation, just as I am, when the conversation has so little of actual content to discuss other than "do you agree with Ming Thein?"

I don't, by the way. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by evidence, but I see none so far.

G

 

[willie_901]

Well, above ISO 640 the Nikon is bound to outperform the Lecia combination. At base ISO the situation might be quite different.

And it's not just low low-light perfoming either. The anlog dynamic range of the Nikon sensor is higher because signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range are directly related. It is difficult to get he most from a lens in terms of contrast and tonality as the signal-to-noise ratio declines.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I cherish the spirited discussion about the technology of photography. Cameras have been a fascination for me most of my life.

What I don't cherish is the "this vs that" stuff. It smacks too much of the juvenile "mine is better than yours" stuff I hated in kindergarten, grammar school, and so on.

Whatever MT's opinion might be, I see nothing in his article that substantiates his opinion with facts and examples. So the whole "this vs that" discussion in this instance comes down to "do you agree with MT or not? and on what basis?" I've seen nothing of substance in the discussion so far that tells me a single thing factual thing about the relative performance of Nikon A to Leica M, all I see that's actually fact related is a bunch of back and forth about how one is much more expensive than the other, and opinion as to how a lot of other cameras are better than the more expensive one too.

If that's the conversation you want to have, go on and have it, but I think Mr. Adams is perfectly within his rights to express his opinion of the conversation, just as I am, when the conversation has so little of actual content to discuss other than "do you agree with Ming Thein?"

I don't, by the way. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by evidence, but I see none so far.

G

Yep, I agree with this 100%. In fact, I hoped to hear from people who had used the two cameras for some time or maybe even to see some picture. I might have actually attracted by the "this is better than that" sentence in Thein's Blog which annoys Godfrey but I didn't expect this to become a Nikon vs Leica thread or a discussion on how people (in this case Thein) make money by "reviewing crap and in the end using the good stuff". I know a lot of members here have or had the M9, did anyone try also the Nikon? Impressions?

GLF

 

[Aristophanes]

Well, above ISO 640 the Nikon is bound to outperform the Lecia combination. At base ISO the situation might be quite different.

And it's not just low low-light perfoming either. The anlog dynamic range of the Nikon sensor is higher because signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range are directly related. It is difficult to get he most from a lens in terms of contrast and tonality as the signal-to-noise ratio declines.

These new Sony sensors really test the concept of ISO and base ISO entirely. They effectively have a base ISO on the spectrum up to 3200.

And since it's not really ISO anymore, we are talking about the read-out noise threshold because it is no longer a linear relationship.

 

[noisycheese]

Sacred cows die hard.

Most of the time, the usability of the camera will be far more important. At press, you'll be hard pressed to distinguish two camera/lens combinations. Anyone who says they reliably can is fooling themselves.

The definition of usability is the province of the user. And there are as many solutions as there are users.

Since the beginning days of digital, just like the beginning days of miniature format, folks have been finding that some smaller stuff, properly handled, topples the sacred cows.

Used M bodies for film next to Nikons for a while. Great stuff for some applications. Not great for others.

Use P&S, m4/3 and others next to DSLRs - great stuff for some applications. Not great for others.

Everything comes with some constraint or another.

And internet nonsense (such as Thien's unsubstantiated claim) springs eternal. 😀

 

[Aristophanes]

And internet nonsense (such as Thien's unsubstantiated claim) springs eternal. 😀

How is that any different from Leica's unsubstantiated marketing?

 

[Godfrey]

How is that any different from Leica's unsubstantiated marketing?

What unsubstantiated marketing are you referring to?

G

 

[Aristophanes]

What unsubstantiated marketing are you referring to?

G

By definition,all marketing is unsubstantiated.

 

[Godfrey]

By definition,all marketing is unsubstantiated.

So, in other words, your question ...

How is that any different from Leica's unsubstantiated marketing?

is exactly the same as "How is that different from Leica's marketing?"

To which the answer is, "Leica's marketing is marketing collateral, by definition part information and part psychological dressing. Ming Thein's claim is an unsubstantiated claim about performance, he provides no evidence to support it."

G

 

[noisycheese]

How is that any different from Leica's unsubstantiated marketing?

Thein's claim is a matter of his unsubstantiated opinion for which he offers no verifiable proof.

On the other hand, let's look at Leica's "unsubstantiated marketing" for, say, the M Monochrom -

Leica's Claims

* full-frame, 35 mm format digital camera;
* full native resolution of 18 megapixels;
* Active area approx. 23.9 × 35.8 mm, 5212 × 3468 pixels (18 megapixels). Infrared blocking filter for wavelengths
longer than 700 nm, no low-pass filter
* its sensor does not ‘see' colours;
* every pixel records true luminance values;
* Through-the-lens (TTL) metering, center-weighted at working aperture.
Center-weighted TTL metering for fl ash with system-compatible SCA-3000/2 standard flash units;
* histogram displays unprocessed and unmodified raw data;
* ISO 320/26° to ISO 10000/41°, selectable in 1/3 ISO increments, in aperture priority automatic mode (A) and manual
exposure setting, optional automatic control or manual selection. ISO 160 also available as a pull function.

[Source: http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_monochrom/ ]

Those statements are all supported by facts and are independently verifiable of Leica's claims; A person merely has to pick up a M Monochrom body and see for themselves...

 

[Aristophanes]

Thein's claim is a matter of his unsubstantiated opinion for which he offers no verifiable proof.

On the other hand, let's look at Leica's "unsubstantiated marketing" for, say, the M Monochrom -

Leica's Claims
[Source: http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_monochrom/ ]

Those statements are all supported by facts and are independently verifiable of Leica's claims; A person merely has to pick up a M Monochrom body and see for themselves...

From Leica: http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_new/

"It features a completely newly developed high-resolution full-format CMOS sensor that, in combination with its high-performance processor and the legendary M-Lenses, delivers outstanding imaging results. With Live View, video, and new additional focusing methods, it is also the M for photographers who do not wish to miss out on any of what modern digital technology has to offer."

Hmmmm.....

The processors as compared to the competition is hardly "high performance" and the sensor rates poorly compared to a consumer-grade Nikon like the D600 (or even a D5200).

"Outstanding" is marketing hyperbole, and, an opinion...from Leica.

One could make a verifiable, substantiated case, as many do, that Leica no longer keeps up in IQ because it uses substantially inferior imaging sensors.

But Leica uses words like this to insist that its purchasers do not "miss out".

Interesting choice of words.

So a third party like MT, who appears to have some degree of agnosticism, makes an informed opinion based on experience.

Because the LAST thing Leica wants is verifiable, substantiated tests.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Leica-M-Typ-240-vs-Nikon-D600

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/844|0/(brand)/Leica/(appareil2)/834|0/(brand2)/Nikon

I can't weigh MT's words on proof save for trust, but Leica....mmmm.......not looking so good when the numbers roll in.

Which means that Leica's "miss out" hyperbole may actually have less trust than Min Thein's.

Thus the persistence and popularity of third party reviewers.

 

[mfogiel]

The image quality of most digital cameras, is already many times beyond what is necessary to produce great photographs. What is lacking, are the great photographers.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The image quality of most digital cameras, is already many times beyond what is necessary to produce great photographs. What is lacking, are the great photographers.

Ain't that the truth. I have seen things comparing the sharpness of files from the MM to the Nikon D800. I can tell you that my MM is amazing in the DR and tone compared to say a Canon 5DIII. The B&W images and great low light performance from the MM make it more than enough camera for me and the way I work.

 

[Godfrey]

From Leica: http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_new/

"It features a completely newly developed high-resolution full-format CMOS sensor that, in combination with its high-performance processor and the legendary M-Lenses, delivers outstanding imaging results. With Live View, video, and new additional focusing methods, it is also the M for photographers who do not wish to miss out on any of what modern digital technology has to offer."

Hmmmm..... {snip}

Hmm indeed.

I trust Leica's specifications, just as I trust any manufacturers' specifications. I regard their marketing collateral as I do any other marketing collateral.

I don't trust any on-line reviewer's opinions or test results ... that information is at best supplementary to my personal use and experience with the products. It's mostly useful as entertainment as it fuels such amusing debates about nothing. ;-)

G

 

[Godfrey]

The image quality of most digital cameras, is already many times beyond what is necessary to produce great photographs. What is lacking, are the great photographers.

Pithy and succinct. There are some great photographers out there, tho. ;-)

G