The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

THE NEW LEICA M Press Release

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Dave,

I do agree that I also would prefer ONE hybrid finder, if it is really perfect for both (optical & electronic image viewing and distance measurement), but as you said, this perfect technology (implementation) seems not to be there yet. And this is the reason I prefer the dual solution we see today.

Peter
 

Paratom

Well-known member
....

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!

....
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.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I will eagerly await to hear any "disadvantages of a CMOS sensor". :watch:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Hi 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
Jono

OK Leica has a major major event ...Photokina 2012 ..the big one ..new M . And the most critical attributes of the new product aren t ready ? Nothing on the performance of the new sensor ..because its pre production ? Was this a big surprise to anyone . Incredible . World Press available ..massive coverage and we talk about EVF (thats no better than the sub $1000 M4/3 cameras use ..oh yes its the same one ). How about that new rubber hand grip ?

The move from CCD to CMOS is THE story ..so where are the samples to evaluate ?

Here are my key points :

1. CCD to CMOS is the story and it will be months before we can even decide if its desirable to "upgrade " because the development team missed the deadline.

2. Updating the M from 2006 technology is great ....I am excited about the new screen ,the new battery , the faster,larger buffer , the ability to use larger cards and probably a few I missed . These make the camera much more usable .

3. LV is an highly desirable new capability because it allows for critical focus off the sensor . A given on any current CMOS body . EVF and focus peaking useful capabilities . Credit given but Jeez thats not the story of the new M .

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 .

I can t really think of another consumer product where the essence of the value proposition can be so fully distorted by talking about the features of the add ons . Its always been about the small superb form,the wonderful lenses , the CRF experience and the beautiful IQ .

They did a beautiful job with the Mono introduction but on the new M ... we have no basis other than our blind devotion (speaking of me) to the brand .

So when I see long discussions about the new "R" ..and not any on the transition from CCD to CMOS ...then I add a few facts and a point of view . Nothing more than that .

Roger

Just to be clear ..the problem is we don t know anything about the change from CCD to CMOS and the other discussions are a little too much hype .
 

Hosermage

Active member
Roger, I agree. Nothing else matter if CMOS isn't at least on par with CCD IQ. But as you say, since there are nothing to examine at this time, we'll have to trust that Leica knows that, and what we can talk about is all the other stuff, with "if the IQ is good" echo in the back of our minds.

Edit: btw, I hope Leica takes the time to get it really right before they release any samples since I'm not in a hurry to part with my M9 :D
 

edwardkaraa

New member
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 .
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.
 

Biglou

New member
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.
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.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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 ;)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
But how are they refining the CMOS? There is some speculation that ISO is being improved over color accuracy which is not actually an improvement but a compromise. Certainly the money is there to invest in CMOS. But Pentax have shown the CCD can be equal to a point with CMOS. There is still room for CCDs to grow.

BTW, I don't think there are any special qualities to a CCD over a CMOS--both pixels are color blind and if they use the same Bayer array, then the color output is identical. Where CMOS is making great strides is in noise and the ability to control individual photosites as well as including other features on a chip like phase detection.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
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. ...
+1

I already know exactly how I'll use this camera. And have all the lenses I want for it. I just need the M body and a spare battery, and I'm set.

21, 25, 28, 35, 40, 50 ... rangefinder
50 macro, fast 85, 105 macro, 200 macro, 400 macro ... EVF
90/4, 135/4.5 ... rangefinder or EVF

A compendium body. The lenses above are an amalgam of Leica, Minolta, Voigtlander, and Nikkor RF and SLR lenses. My favorites from all the years, and a couple of new favorites. :)
 

edwardkaraa

New member
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.

I can assure you my Ricoh GXR M mount has never seen a tripod in her life. I shoot all the time at working aperture, handheld, and about 60-40 ratio of focus peaking to magnified view.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
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 .

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 .
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 ;)
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.

I do not agree that CCD has reach the end of the line in terms of IQ improvements yet ... Dalsa has recently announced a large CCD with improved photographic imaging characteristics.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about extremes here, CMOS has proven to be more effective for high ISOs, but in general I still see nothing from any current CMOS camera that supports the notion that CMOS has pulled ahead of CCDs for image characteristics ... the creative aspect of look and feel.

That said, I'm sure the M CMOS will deliver a unique look in concert with the lenses ... from there on, it is simply a subjective call not an absolute.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 .
I do not find the difference between SLRs and Rangefinders to be solely as you describe Roger.

The overwhelming aspect of a rangefinder for me is that it forces concentration on the content ... what the photo is about, not what it looks like.
Which leans toward a certain type of photography and away from others. To that end, you see no effect of wide angles, or long lenses, no DOF, only the subject matter to be dealt with using emotionally based anticipatory timing honed with practice looking, seeing and feeling. Less distractions from directly connecting with the subject. Others are sure to disagree, and I say shoot with what you feel comfortable with and I'll do the same.

So, except for a few rare instances I feel zero need for an EVF, or Live View when shooting an M ... nice that you can for those occasional times, but I wouldn't have cared less if they had not been there.

-Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I will eagerly await to hear any "disadvantages of a CMOS sensor". :watch:
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.
 

Biglou

New member
" 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 . "

Your experience validates what i was anticipating, possible use but not as convenient and universal as some would think.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
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.
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,...
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
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 ;)
Thomas

This was not my point ..CCD or CMOS . The existing CCD set the standard for FF image quality when the M9 was introduced. NOt so much that the resolution was better but that it produced a color fidelity and tone separtion ..when matched with the M lens ..set the std for most die hard M users .

Time marches on and the NEW is presented as the best M ever with a new CMOS sensor that allows all the latest gadgets . Is the new sensor better ..no one knows because they weren t ready for Photokina . Do we have any examples where a similar size CMOS is better than the same size CCD?

Do you know of any existing 25mp cmos sensor thats better than the M9 ?

Leica now gets digital ..really ? How long did it take to get the S2 color right after the spat with Phase ? 6months ? Now I have a new sensor supplier ...with what kind of track record? E.g. This isnt Dalsa .

I am not discounting the desirable capabiities of evf,lv,video ...mirrorless focus peaking etc.. But unlike the Mono where everthing was professionally compared...the New M is an unknown .

Just trying to keep this as a balanced persective .
 
Top