Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, being pedantic, it wouldn't be an "M" camera if it didn't have a rangefinder:-) OTOH a "M" mount EVF camera would be welcomed by many. Given the amortization of design, tooling and development cost over a relatively tiny production volume and shortage of other product turnover to finance it it could never be made anything like as cheaply as the Sony though. Would anybody buy an expensive M-mount EVF camera (other than we LUGgers)? >________________________________ > From: Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> >To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug at leica-users.org> >Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 15:14 >Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica lenses on Sony A7 > > >Bob Adler has stated that the dynamic range of the M far exceeds ( 2 stops?) >the M9, and closely approaches his Phase 1 MF back. > >But back to the main discussion.....? If the camera is applying corrections >to the image, rather than a computer, aren't the same issues at play?? To >theory, yes.? In practice, the microlenses take away part of the problem.... >As Adler's shot of the Caf? shows, even at 21mm, there is some vignetting >left, even on a M body. > >The sensor in the M9 ( and M8 and M) all have (M lens) tuned microlenses to >help with the vignetting...... You will not get these in a non-Leica camera >body. >Of course, the amount of need of vignetting correction is dependent on your >lenses... if you shoot a lot of 21mm, then it is handy that the microlenses >are there.? If you shoot at a minimum of 35mm, not so important..... and at >50mm and longer, not important. > >Personally, I do not find the vignetting issue a game killer.? You can >correct it.? You can live with it, and for 150 years, it was not only >uncorrectable, but desirable as part of the physical picture "frame".? And >again, it depends on your scene..... sometimes having the corners a bit >darker is a real annoyance..... sometimes it makes not an iota of difference >and adds to the ambience of the scene. > >The A7r is the camera Leica should be concerned with.... You may not call it >a RF camera, but it represents the best of the RF camera genre..... Small, >full featured, high resolution sensor (36MP), stealthy (? Not so sure yet, >but the M9 is no Rollei TLR either in the noisy department), has real >advantages in focus when in darkened lighting, reliable from the standpoint >of small number of mechanical parts to go out of calibration, and best of >all, it looks through the lens, and can use Leica (M or R) glass.? If the >focus peaking is good (jury is still out), it is a killer solution to the M >and many DSLR cameras. > >Leica, if you are listening:? The M Type 240 is going to have its lunch >eaten because of this camera and others that will follow it.? > >Go make an EVF only M camera.? The competition is changing the market...... > >Frank Filippone >Red735i at verizon.net > > >If you needed to increase the exposure in the main part of the field by say >two stops for every exposure and apply a colour correction you would >appreciate that the correction comes at a cost of dynamic range, tonal depth >and noise performance for example. It's happening in the corners for every >frame with wides on the M9. Does it matter in practice??? yeah no maybe >depends ;-) > >In the case of the M9, I can comment that the amount of correction with >wider lenses is quite significant to achieve the desired result at all. I >was a firmware tester for the system. > >The M is another discussion. I just recovered a few poor exposures that were >two stops or more under (albeit minimum ISO) with excellent >results...remarkable. >http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/153233601 > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >