Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/12/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK
From: rgacpa at gmail.com (Robert Adler)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:25:51 -0800
References: <D9C01005-E718-47B4-B7DD-F25EA3716979@mac.com> <592833333.14716580.1356895625999.JavaMail.root@cds036> <CA+yJO1A+QxSzgW6PTb0fAqdd-Bfe4GqcJVNZhU7ENk=9zMM6PA@mail.gmail.com> <72E3BA90-2255-40F9-8D46-98DFC82A248B@gmail.com> <CAJ3Pgh4NDyw4MQoumRS5FgnVp9EMQCu=NSg8jaz-+XW0jLz+8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAsXt4OFyT3015VPr_taAOiZ=XrT0poh+i+E=Yw0Vmym=-MgPw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3Pgh4ph=HG5O3poEP=NGT1WQVRxRFuq4-sZUpqHSQ3R9gMLA@mail.gmail.com> <69B24C2D-DA31-45F1-80EF-1BA980384753@gmail.com> <CAJ3Pgh4J1GO4qCoF4sgCFzC78YKiEgT94sr2mXkRJyZsFcutMA@mail.gmail.com>

I really look forward to you sharing your thoughts on this when it arrives,
Paul. I hope you will.
All the best of health and happiness to you and yours in the new year,
Bob

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Paul Roark <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob,
>
> >  The key to Leica being so superb is, in my opinion, the great optics as
> well AND the beautiful engineering of the lens mount that keeps the lens to
> sensor distance superbly accurate.
> >
> > ... I found that the Hasselblad lenses mounted on the 500 series did not
> have this tolerance capability. ...
>
> I'm skeptical that the current Pentax 645D, which has a sensor that is
> only 44 x 33 mm, in combination with the Rollei SL66 lenses and the
> third party focusing mount, has the ability to deliver the resolution
> that the Leica M optics and mount do.  It might beat the M9, but the
> new M cmos may be a different story.
>
> I find that depth of field and the red pixel noise are usually my
> limiting factors with the M9.
>
> In weighing the alternatives, the pros and cons of the various near
> term options, I can't make any decision until I see what the M cmos
> red-filtered corners look like.  Having those amplifiers at the base
> of the pixels could be a major improvement, and the increase in MP
> doesn't hurt either.  So, I wait and hope the M cmos actually pulls it
> off.  If it does, I suspect the Pentax-Rollei alternative will be a
> moot issue.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Bob Adler


In reply to: Message from abridge at mac.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (TED GRANT) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from lluisripollquerol at gmail.com (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from rgacpa at gmail.com (Robert Adler) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from rgacpa at gmail.com (Robert G Adler) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)
Message from roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark) ([Leica] a "pro-hobbyist" evaluates an M9 . . . ICK)