I've seen the future

[k-hawinkler]

The paper I mentioned is here:
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf

Thank you.

K-H.

 

[Woody Campbell]

Good review Woody, glad the NEX-7 pleases you ... after all, that's all that really counts.

Personally, my greatest hope is that Leica doesn't even try to keep pace with all the "Pocket Rocket" technology. A road less traveled has always been their charm, and they've never done very well when trying to please too many people ... it just leads to the inevitable direct comparison to other products that do please the majority, and cost a lot less.

They still have a unique product ... to toss out that uniqueness, without something equally unique that does the same thing, would be a grievous error.

IMO, the NEX-5, 5n, or 7, or any other such product to date is not the same as a rangefinder, especially a rangefinder of this caliber. They are simply alternative ways of seeing, that just happen to use M lenses if you wish.

BTW, one of your positives "seeing what the lens sees", is why I personally will never see these cameras as replacing a true rangefinder, and the rangefinder way of seeing the world around you.

Be well,

-Marc

Marc - my positive comment on seeing related to long lenses, where seeing what the lens sees may be preferable to a tiny frame. On the wides I prefer the Leica approach. I shoot wides most of the time. At this point I'm viewing the Nex-7 as a welcome (and fun and provacative) alternative, not a replacement - Leica is throughly imbedded in my working style. I also think that full frame is important so the lenses can fill their intended niches.

 

[jonoslack]

Marc - my positive comment on seeing related to long lenses, where seeing what the lens sees may be preferable to a tiny frame. On the wides I prefer the Leica approach. I shoot wides most of the time. At this point I'm viewing the Nex-7 as a welcome (and fun and provacative) alternative, not a replacement - Leica is throughly imbedded in my working style. I also think that full frame is important so the lenses can fill their intended niches.

HI Woody
When my NEX7 came along I felt exactly the same as you . . . focus peaking WOW (I still think it's splendid). But I found I was using the NEX when I would otherwise use an M9, and that the results and the experience, although very good, were not as good . . so for me it's back to the M9.

For longer lenses I'd rather the much faster focus of the A77, and let's face it, with larger lenses the body size becomes less significant (although the crop sensor may become an advantage).

Which is why, despite it's nice handling and excellent IQ, the NEX7 fell between two stools for me . . i.e. not as good as the M9 for wides, and not as good as the A77 / A900 for long lenses.

(I can see Marc grinning as I write this!).

 

[Paratom]

HI Woody
When my NEX7 came along I felt exactly the same as you . . . focus peaking WOW (I still think it's splendid). But I found I was using the NEX when I would otherwise use an M9, and that the results and the experience, although very good, were not as good . . so for me it's back to the M9.

For longer lenses I'd rather the much faster focus of the A77, and let's face it, with larger lenses the body size becomes less significant (although the crop sensor may become an advantage).

Which is why, despite it's nice handling and excellent IQ, the NEX7 fell between two stools for me . . i.e. not as good as the M9 for wides, and not as good as the A77 / A900 for long lenses.

(I can see Marc grinning as I write this!).

So Jono, but what does the A77 offer you over the A900?

 

[jonoslack]

So Jono, but what does the A77 offer you over the A900?

HI Tom
Interesting question that. It's actually a toss up, but here are some random thoughts:
A77
1. I like the EVF showing exposure WB etc. whilst shooting
2. I like the longer range the APS/c sensor gives me with lenses (I use M9 for wides)
3. It's smaller and lighter
4. I like the twisty LCD and live view
5. Focus peaking makes it easy to use Leica R lenses

A900
1. I like the optical viewfinder - especially in very bright light
2. The image quality is probably better at the ISO I usually use
3. FF sensor

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point, and perhaps it's a little off topic!

all the best

 

[fotografz]

HI Tom
Interesting question that. It's actually a toss up, but here are some random thoughts:
A77
1. I like the EVF showing exposure WB etc. whilst shooting
2. I like the longer range the APS/c sensor gives me with lenses (I use M9 for wides)
3. It's smaller and lighter
4. I like the twisty LCD and live view
5. Focus peaking makes it easy to use Leica R lenses

A900
1. I like the optical viewfinder - especially in very bright light
2. The image quality is probably better at the ISO I usually use
3. FF sensor

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point, and perhaps it's a little off topic!

all the best

I think your logic is excellent regarding the use of longer lenses Jono. Putting the superb 135/1/8 on a NEX just never worked for me at all.

As far as adding all the positives you list for the A77 and those of the A900 in comparison, that is why I have great hope for a A99 FF to replace one of my A900s, not both. I would also like to see exposure and WB in crappy lighting scenarios, and will accept a EVF for those applications even though I am not a fan. The objectives over-ride my personal likes and dislikes ... with the end results dictating all of it.

-Marc

 

[jonoslack]

I think your logic is excellent regarding the use of longer lenses Jono. Putting the superb 135/1/8 on a NEX just never worked for me at all.

As far as adding all the positives you list for the A77 and those of the A900 in comparison, that is why I have great hope for a A99 FF to replace one of my A900s, not both. I would also like to see exposure and WB in crappy lighting scenarios, and will accept a EVF for those applications even though I am not a fan. The objectives over-ride my personal likes and dislikes ... with the end results dictating all of it.

-Marc

Absolutely Marc - and a reason to keep away from the D800e until the dust has settled.
It's fine to have a solution which works NOW - so that there really isn't a need to make system changing decisions in haste. (buying and selling NEX cameras is not a system changing decision . . . moving from an M9 to a NEX would be!)

 

[Woody Campbell]

Absolutely Marc - and a reason to keep away from the D800e until the dust has settled.
It's fine to have a solution which works NOW - so that there really isn't a need to make system changing decisions in haste. (buying and selling NEX cameras is not a system changing decision . . . moving from an M9 to a NEX would be!)

Actually adapting the Nex as a second or third body isn't a system change at all for a Leica M shooter. It's buying exactly one body and one adapter. What you don't get is autofocus - I don't need it in good light and in poor light the Nex hunts badly enough that it isn't useful. The way my use of it may sort out is as an alternate body for poor light situations (still not a perfect solution - there's a reason why most people who shoot events use 5Ds or the like).

 

[KeithL]

Personally, my greatest hope is that Leica doesn't even try to keep pace with all the "Pocket Rocket" technology. A road less traveled has always been their charm, and they've never done very well when trying to please too many people ... it just leads to the inevitable direct comparison to other products that do please the majority, and cost a lot less.

They still have a unique product ... to toss out that uniqueness, without something equally unique that does the same thing, would be a grievous error.

I can understand this point of view, indeed I often hear it said.

I'd imagine it unlikely the M10 will bring fundamental changes to the M series concept that could alienate current M users. I think it more likely that any fundamental change will come in the form of an addition to the current Leica range.

That said I can't help hoping that the M10 does have the option to check critical focus and framing pre-capture. I hope they step up production so that it's possible to actually buy the lenses. I also hope they offer better servicing options for those in the UK...

etc…

 

[jonoslack]

Actually adapting the Nex as a second or third body isn't a system change at all for a Leica M shooter. It's buying exactly one body and one adapter.

No indeed Woody - I wasn't implying that it was . . but replacing an M9 with a NEX would amount to a system change.

What you don't get is autofocus - I don't need it in good light and in poor light the Nex hunts badly enough that it isn't useful. The way my use of it may sort out is as an alternate body for poor light situations (still not a perfect solution - there's a reason why most people who shoot events use 5Ds or the like).

I quite agree about the AF - in good light the rangefinder is better . . and in bad light the rangefinder is better too.
When I started to really compare the files at higher ISO, I didn't find the NEX files to be that much better - and although I really liked focus peaking (even in low light), losing the clarity the lack of AA filter confers to the images wasn't worth the candle either.
In the final analysis I couldn't find any situation when I wouldn't be better off either shooting an M9 - or an A900/A77.

 

[jonoslack]

I can understand this point of view, indeed I often hear it said.

I'd imagine it unlikely the M10 will bring fundamental changes to the M series concept that could alienate current M users. I think it more likely that any fundamental change will come in the form of an addition to the current Leica range.

That said I can't help hoping that the M10 does have the option to check critical focus and framing pre-capture. I hope they step up production so that it's possible to actually buy the lenses. I also hope they offer better servicing options for those in the UK...

etc…

I think you're quite right about the M10 - no change to concept - I'd also like to see options to check critical focus and framing. I don't think that'd spoil the concept.

As for servicing, I've been getting excellent service from Solms - i.e. stick it in a box and post it airsure to Andrea at Leica. It takes the same time to get there as it used to take to get to Milton Keynes, and they communicate well and seem to do the servicing and repair quickly and efficiently these days. (at least, that's what I've found).

all the best

 

[fotografz]

I can understand this point of view, indeed I often hear it said.

I'd imagine it unlikely the M10 will bring fundamental changes to the M series concept that could alienate current M users. I think it more likely that any fundamental change will come in the form of an addition to the current Leica range.

That said I can't help hoping that the M10 does have the option to check critical focus and framing pre-capture. I hope they step up production so that it's possible to actually buy the lenses. I also hope they offer better servicing options for those in the UK...

etc…

All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view. Fundamentally, that doesn't bother me at all, and will facilitate checking critical focus when desired. However, I'm not all that sure about the CMOS part ... so I secured a M9P in Chrome with hardened LCD for a durable, longer lasting M ... and will use a M10 in concert with it.

The lack of available lenses is frustrating to be sure, and I doubt that will abate anytime soon. I am after a 50/1.4 ASPH in chrome, and you'd think it was the Crown Jewels of England I was asking for.

-Marc

 

[KeithL]

As for servicing, I've been getting excellent service from Solms - i.e. stick it in a box and post it airsure to Andrea at Leica. It takes the same time to get there as it used to take to get to Milton Keynes, and they communicate well and seem to do the servicing and repair quickly and efficiently these days. (at least, that's what I've found).

Jono, many thanks, that's certainly reassuring.

 

[KeithL]

All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view.

Marc, thanks, live view would suit this M wannabe just fine, but I do understand your concerns about CMOS.

I guess time will tell.

 

[Woody Campbell]

All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view. Fundamentally, that doesn't bother me at all, and will facilitate checking critical focus when desired. However, I'm not all that sure about the CMOS part ... so I secured a M9P in Chrome with hardened LCD for a durable, longer lasting M ... and will use a M10 in concert with it.

The lack of available lenses is frustrating to be sure, and I doubt that will abate anytime soon. I am after a 50/1.4 ASPH in chrome, and you'd think it was the Crown Jewels of England I was asking for.

-Marc

Interesting strategy on the M9. I guess I should have mine done.

I'm using an M8.2 as a backup body. I may sell it and rely on the Nex as a backup. I also use the M8 for periodic binges of IR shooting. The Nex-7's IR blocking is too good for it to be useful for this. An IR modified Nex-7 might be outstanding - I'll check it out.

 

[Seascape]

All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view. Fundamentally, that doesn't bother me at all, and will facilitate checking critical focus when desired. However, I'm not all that sure about the CMOS part ... so I secured a M9P in Chrome with hardened LCD for a durable, longer lasting M ... and will use a M10 in concert with it.

-Marc

I am also concerned about the change to a CMOS sensor.
I keep looking at high quality images from CMOS sensor cameras, and they just don't seem to have that Leica CCD sensor snap and micro contrast. They appear to have this somewhat washed out look to the image.

I would love to buy a next generation CCD sensor in a M10, it just seems it isn't in the cards. So does the M9 become an instant classic ???

In a digital world you just assume that something better is just around the corner, I'm concerned that a M10 may have more features without improving IQ

 

[doug]

I am also concerned about the change to a CMOS sensor.
I keep looking at high quality images from CMOS sensor cameras, and they just don't seem to have that Leica CCD sensor snap and micro contrast. They appear to have this somewhat washed out look to the image.

That may be an artifact of the mass-market camera makers' emphasis on lowering noise at high ISO, not the sensor technology.

If the sensor's Color Filter Array (CFA) has sharp frequency cutoff for the red, green and blue filters less light reaches the pixel wells but there's less extraneous light from other wavelengths so the color distinctions are clearer. The disadvantage of this CFA is poorer noise performance at high ISO settings.

 

[jlm]

I added two more tiny screws, making three spaced equally around and pointed them so they get a good grip. working pretty good. i did the same thing about a renewed eye exam.

let me know

Thanks for the link. I've got an eye exam coming up and I'll order one once my prescription is updated. You're one of the few lucky guys in the world who has a major machine shop available to fix the "drops off of the camera" issue. How have you made out with it?

 

[Andrew Gough]

As someone who has tried M4/3 and the NEX system, I have chosen to look at it this way. Mirrorless is the future. I consider the M series to be mirrorless as well.

I have just picked up my first M camera today. The M9, in case you are wondering. I have a few M lenses that I bought for the NEX series camera's. I was very happy with the output from the 5N and the 7N is very good from 35mm up. I like wide angles, and the M9 will do that for me. Also, I like full frame bokeh/images from fast lenses. The noctilux is in my future, once I have donated a kidney :ROTFL:

The NEX is the perfect complement to the M series. You can stick your lens on it and shoot away, videos, stills etc... If you need AF, if offers two good lenses - 24 & 50mm so far. The body is smaller than the M, quieter, and with peaking it is very useful. I can even put my 80-200/4 R lens on it.

The NEX will replace my DSLR system. I am not 100% sure about RF focusing, ask me in a couple of weeks...

 

[k-hawinkler]

I certainly appreciate my M9 and my Nikons D3, D300, and pretty soon D800E. Having gained about a month of experience with my NEX-5N has been very educational and I am definitely keeping it, pretty soon joined by the NEX-7. As the latter has the highest pixel density and a crop factor of 1.5x, I expect it to be very useful for Tele-lenses, particularly very long ones for the extra reach and good performance in the center of the sensor.

Focus peaking has been a net benefit and I wish it was offered in future cameras bei Leica, Nikon, and Fuji as well.

K-H.