Zapirian: Quick, lets put together a Photoshop action to imitate the bubble bokeh and sell it. Or even better an iPhone App to apply it to phone pics and sell it at 0.99 pence/cents.
I have an old Asahi Takumar which has the same bokeh. I tried and tried to develop a filter or retouching technique to minimize these distracting, ugly orbs and failed. If you find a way to create similar from a decently-corrected lens, let me know so I can make it reverse!
Terry Breedlove: Either there are many people posting without reading the article or they just can't understand anything they ever read.
@nathantw: Dunno why you took my reply as a negative -- I didn't mean it that way at all. You are correct, Scully came from Pepsico when I thought he'd come from General Mills.
I make mistakes from time-to-time, but I rarely get snarky after I do, and I meant my reply sincerely.
@nathantw: I thought he came from Generous Mills. Sorry for the mistake.
@E.J: Remember when Steve Jobs was replaced by a cereal-seller?
There is no substitute for a visionary at the helm. Of any company.
abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.
@kirk: I have all the old prime glass from 45mm - 200mm including a 75mm leaf shutter one, just saving up for a digital 645. Hopefully with a fullsize 56x41.5 mm sensor.
As it is now, a 645D is almost within reach. It's about the same price as a Leica Q.
Some history: Hasselblad went belly-up some years ago; its trademarks and assets were acquired by another company, who tried to market restyled Sony cameras to rich Asians in Hong Kong. Even with retailers in the mix, the plan was a failure and the CEO was replaced. The new CEO dissolved the design house and dropped the lines developed with Sony.
Now, let's translate some of the interviewee's other statements.
1. Hasselblad, whatever the previous CEO thought and acted on, is not a luxury brand, but it is a (high-priced) tool.
2, They are going back to their roots, starting with a brand-new aerial camera design, as their first product was also an aerial camera.
3. Perhaps they can convince the US to take their new camera to the moon again.
4. Let's ignore that Phase One has them on momentum and Pentax has them on price.
5. They have no other products in the pipeline.
6.. "This better work, or my career is s***".
Hugo808: Cometh the hour cometh the lens.
I was thinking the ohter day that I won't get rid of my Lumix compact because the wide angle macro feature gets such good results and SLRs don't have anything similar!
@_sem_: There's math involved here, and it is the same math for all brands: a 50mm lens needs 50mm in extension from the film plane to reach 1:1. Geometry says that at 1:1, all lenses (with exceptions for assymetrical ones) the subject will be in focus at exactly the same distance from the focal point (center) of the lens, or 200mm (50+50+100).
So all lenses of the same focal length will have the same image size and depth-of-field/focus with the same amount of extension.
If you want a bigger image size, as with normal or longer focal lengths, you need more extension. But in the case of wide lenses, smaller tubes work more dramatically.
The Canon lens you are talking about might rack out its own extended helical farther than most; all the above math assumes lenses are mechanically focused at infinity.
Note: some (zoom) lenses have an optical macro setting which changes the focal length, allowing closer focus without mechanical extension.
photo_rb: I take a bit of issue with the comment that this was caused by man-made construction. Perhaps, but it is easy and popular to automatically blame any tragedy like this on man. A few sites I visited did not come to that conclusion. From what I read, there were a combination of factors, primarily calm weather being responsible for low oxygen levels.
@ oselimg: So...start with a huge lie, then when proved wrong, go with a smaller one? Huff Po as a factual source? WTF?
@oselimg: "...caused the death of millions..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_Warhttp://military.wikia.com/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
In May 2012 the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry reported that there had been 250,000 injured since 2003
I was against the operation from the beginning, but I see no reason to exaggerate its cost in human lives.
I hope this corrects the error.
Suggestion for ILC focus tracking: Allow the user to manually focus on an object and the camera tracks focus on that object wherever it goes in the frame until the shutter is activated.
This, obviously, would be easier for a live-view digital display but not impossible on an optical finder, I believe.
What think y'all?
JEROME NOLAS: That was supposed to be "my" Ricoh! Maybe later.....rather this than Sony! Is it stabilized or not? Fix it!
Is a full-frame GR M-mount module in the works? I hope so. Used GR bodies are cheap now.
The photo provided seems to show a Hasselblad-branded 80mm f:2.8 lens mounted. I don't do much aerial photography, but I imagine this optic is a) unusually sharpb) designed to be used in arrays to be stitched together. There seems to be no mention of interchangeable lenses.
Are any DPR readers familiar with the needs of aerial photography?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: This camera is for those who used to shoot with a Leica M6 loaded with Kodak Tri-X and made the switch to digital.That is the ethos of the M Monochrom. If you fail to understand this, you'll miss the whole point of this camera and surely it is not for you.Having said that, I agree with what tinternaut wrote below about the camera's lifespan. Whereas the M6 was a mechanical camera build to last forever, the M Monochrom is a computer, albeit a luxurious and superbly well built one. I'm just not sure anyone will inherit one of these cameras. (Unless, of course, its owner happens to die in the next two or three years...) They're as prone to obsolescence as any other digital camera.
Tri-X developed in what? And for how long? I used to shoot with Tri-X when I absolutely had to. Tri-X was (in)famous for very bright images, especially skin tones. The out-of-camera jpgs from this Leica look more like they're from a 4 x 5 or bigger camera circa the 1930s or -40s with dark skin tones like a WWII English movie or WeeGee's work. Yes, the shadows are blocked (to my eyes) but the data is in the RAW to manipulate the final image as the photographer intended it if he so chooses.
Also plus 1 or 2 EVs of exposure bias may help in ooc jpgs.
princecody: The 246 shouldn't be more than $3,000 in reality.
@princecody: It may be that you don't know how hard very tight tolerances are to achieve. Measuring to 0.001 (one-thousandth of an inch) requires ordinary techniques and equipment. At 0.0001, advanced techniques are de rigeur: weighted pulls, observation of newton rings, etc. Leica's tolerances for lenses and rangefinders are probably an order of magnitude higher than that.
How much do you have to pay and keep an experienced, trained employee who is among the very few in the world who can reach these tolerances?
Is price even a consideration at this level?
Valen305: Just downloaded some dng samples and didn't like the rendering at all - the highlights appear to clip early and the midtones aren't as rich as I expected. The shadow detail is OK, but overall it renders like a panchromatic film emulsion on crack.
I did the same; the DNG crashed my fave developing program (Darktable) but opened OK in UFraw; there's hella shadow detail, the highlights are unclipped well and the rendition is soft (to my taste) and lovely. Had I the jack, I'd consider it even though I dislike rangefinder focusing. (There is an optional EVF, right?)
AbrasiveReducer: True, Voigtlander is one of the oldest names in photography, but as you (presumably) know Cosina, maker of current Voigtlander has no connection with the Voigtlander company.
Reminds me of when Kyocera celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Contax, a name they had purchased. They had banners and posters with a crest, lapel pins, the whole deal. Another case where a name was used to convey a legacy which did not exist.
Given that most people have never heard of Voigtlander until recently, I wonder what was wrong with "Cosina"?
"Cosina Voigtländer refers to photographic products manufactured by Cosina under the Voigtländer name since 1999. Cosina leases rights to the Voigtländer name from Ringfoto. Cosina Voigtländer products have included 35mm film SLR and rangefinder camera bodies, and lenses for the M39 lens mount (Leica screw mount), M42 lens mount, Leica M mount, and other lens mounts.
Ringphoto Voigtländer in Germany also produces some budget-priced items under the Voigtländer name, unrelated to Cosina."
Richard Schumer: Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.
Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.
The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.
How is it that Cosina (who makes Voigtlander products) can sell a 50mm M-mount f:1.1 for one-tenth of the price of a similar-spec Leica lens (f:/0.95)?https://cameraquest.com/voigt_5011.htm
How does their pricing affect Leica"s?
@Rstyga. I disagree about the cost of the RF on Leicas. My estimate was based on research on the web, where the consensus estimate was $2500. Understand, Leica's optical and mechanical standards for the RFs are doubtless similar to their (overpriced) lenses.
We can disagree in a pleasant manner.
Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.
AbrasiveReducer: The problem with pouring on exposure without clipping the highlights is just that. It's great when you have your D800 on a tripod, mirror locked up, and are meticulously focusing your Zeiss lens. You are crafting the perfect image.
In practice, when doing anything where time is not unlimited, setting the camera to just touch the right without going over will result in the exposure going over, and clipping. At least that's been my experience. Better to expose less and if unavoidable, pull up noisy shadows than try to recover highlights that don't exist.
Of course, I grew up with film, where 400 ASA was fast so I don't use incredibly high ISOs since they're too noisy.
@ RichRMA -- You're right; digital changes it all, though. Now my goal is to capture as much information (data) as possible and bring out what I choose in PP rather than to limit myself to the traditional 8 EVs film could capture with rolloffs at the top and bottom.