Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Well said Dave.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I agree and finally put my name on the list. The onyl reason to put ifoff the list was if I will see any considrable disadvantage of the cmos-sensor or if I will run out of money until then.....
1. much faster processing
2. weather sealing
3. better LCD for review
4. Better high ISO
5. higher pixel count
. . . isn't this what everyone was asking for?
If you don't want the other stuff - well then, don't use it!
....
JonoHi Roger
I think it's about all of these things - there aren't any samples yet, because they aren't ready yet (is this unreasonable?). If you don't want to spend an arm and a leg on the EVF, then don't - buy an Olympus one (I'm guessing it'll work, just as it does on the X2).
Focus peaking will certainly allow users to better focus the 90-135 M glass and improve close focusing . . . and focusing in low light . . in addition you get:
1. much faster processing
2. weather sealing
3. better LCD for review
4. Better high ISO
5. higher pixel count
. . . isn't this what everyone was asking for?
If you don't want the other stuff - well then, don't use it!
Well . . . I occasionally like to do telephoto and macro - it seems to me that this allows me to do it with one, full frame, body - what's the grouch? Personally I prefer precise manual focusing on an EVF to an optical viewfinder anyway.
all the best
That is absolutely inaccurate. You focus at working aperture, and both peaking and magnified view will allow you to focus very precisely, even compensating for any focus shift that many large aperture lenses suffer from.4. The new "R" solution . Please . Has anyone pointed out what a lack of an auto diaphragm means in real shooting . I focus at f1.4 and then I stop down to f5.6 to expose by turning the aperture on the lens .
This could eventuelly succeed with camera on a tripod and slow work, not for quick photography or moving subjects.That is absolutely inaccurate. You focus at working aperture, and both peaking and magnified view will allow you to focus very precisely, even compensating for any focus shift that many large aperture lenses suffer from.
+1...
Personally I am happy about how this is solved in the M meanwhile. Was always proposing a built in hybrid finder, but meanwhile I think the 2 separate solutions make even more sense as each one can be optimized for its own strengths. ...
This could eventuelly succeed with camera on a tripod and slow work, not for quick photography or moving subjects.
Do you need an M and R lenses to photography as with a view camera ?
I am sure this new M will work, like a swiss knife.
The techniques are different and the usability will vary based on the type of subject that the photography is after . The lure of a SLR (from the beginning ) was the ability to really see the subject ..the brightness and contrast of the viewfinder was a major consideration .This could eventuelly succeed with camera on a tripod and slow work, not for quick photography or moving subjects.
Do you need an M and R lenses to photography as with a view camera ?
I am sure this new M will work, like a swiss knife.
The M CMOS IQ and imaging characteristics remains to be seen, and I believe we should be open-minded and a little patient about it to start, since it takes time to learn the shooting techniques and post work.Roger et altera!
I do not doubt a minute that today's CMOS - especially the one from the new M will be superior to the M8 and M9 CCDs. Simply because CCD reached the end of further refinement, whereas CMOS matured over the past 6 years. So much that I doubt any CCD can hold up against CMOS solutions from Sony and Leica at least.
WRT other changes, these needed to come and be implemented, otherwise no matter if CCD or CMOS they would not have sold too much new Ms in the future. Life View is a must today and opens big new applications to the M - and I am NOT talking about video at all.
I have high confidence that Leica have done and are doing their homework. They gained all this digital expertise over the past many years and meanwhile they start playing the instrument pretty well - finally we see Maestro in another camera as the S and more will follow (think X-series). Which proves where they have come so far.
But if you like and prefer so, stay with the old CCD solutions or get the M-E which is still the "old" M9 and you will be happy. No one really forces anyone to use such a revolutionary design as the new M
I do not find the difference between SLRs and Rangefinders to be solely as you describe Roger.The techniques are different and the usability will vary based on the type of subject that the photography is after . The lure of a SLR (from the beginning ) was the ability to really see the subject ..the brightness and contrast of the viewfinder was a major consideration .
The debate between the RF users and the SLR was always about who could SEE better . The SLR showed exactly what you would get even to the point of viewing DOF . The RF often gave a broader perspective ..outside the frame ...and could be superior in developing complex compositions . In both cases it was an absolute requirement to have excellent eyesight (corrected OK ).
Add in AF ...works and doesn t work . I shoot a D4 with Nikon G primes ...thats it a totally different league for accuracy of AF and still when I use a wide angle I check the focus on the screen to be sure the sensor point wasn t misplaced .
Now lets try any EVF in this class ( I understand the newer A99 might have the accuracy ) . Using a 135APO and 50 1.4 asph on a NEX 7 ..i tested to about 500 captures in all types of light . The slower the lens and the more I stopped down the grainer the screen looked . So I shot primarily wide open from a fishing pier near and far . Focus peaking on a Nex 7 was not nearly precise enough for the 135apo ..it would peak and I could miss the subject entirely at about 200FT . Zooming in did really help but I would have to practice a lot more do this on every shot . The 50 1.4asph was so much better ..the screen was cleaner ,the focus peaking very accurate at 1.4 and it was fast . But I had no visual confirmation that I had the subject precisely ..just the shimmering of the area in focus . It was great in dim light for sure .
I am not saying that FP isn t valuable and certainly a compliment to the RF....just that it is not a fair statement to call the M ..the NEW R solution . If you are happy focusing and VIEWING at F5.6 you are correct you can definitely make that work .
Maybe not a disadvantage but so far I have not owned any cmos-camera (including 5d/d3x/A900 for example) where I liked the IQ as much as that of the ccd-cameras I have owned/own (digital Sinar MF-back, S2, M8, M9,MM)I will eagerly await to hear any "disadvantages of a CMOS sensor". :watch:
If you look at a system as a whole thing, you have not used Leica lenses on the CMOS sensors (NEX-7 is APS-C, discount it) and other system lenses on the CCD sensored cams. So,...Maybe not a disadvantage but so far I have not owned any cmos-camera (including 5d/d3x/A900 for example) where I liked the IQ as much as that of the ccd-cameras I have owned/own (digital Sinar MF-back, S2, M8, M9,MM)
Is the IQ better? I cant say-but I know I prefer it.
ThomasRoger et altera!
I do not doubt a minute that today's CMOS - especially the one from the new M will be superior to the M8 and M9 CCDs. Simply because CCD reached the end of further refinement, whereas CMOS matured over the past 6 years. So much that I doubt any CCD can hold up against CMOS solutions from Sony and Leica at least.
WRT other changes, these needed to come and be implemented, otherwise no matter if CCD or CMOS they would not have sold too much new Ms in the future. Life View is a must today and opens big new applications to the M - and I am NOT talking about video at all.
I have high confidence that Leica have done and are doing their homework. They gained all this digital expertise over the past many years and meanwhile they start playing the instrument pretty well - finally we see Maestro in another camera as the S and more will follow (think X-series). Which proves where they have come so far.
But if you like and prefer so, stay with the old CCD solutions or get the M-E which is still the "old" M9 and you will be happy. No one really forces anyone to use such a revolutionary design as the new M