BobYIL: Those criticizing buyers of Leicas should realize that for some people the "different" or "unique" could mean more than the "better".
As a post-script: yeah I can be a bit slow, but I just realized that this whole conversation about lens color happened in a thread about the Leica Monochrom... :)
cgarrard: Such a gorgeous camera..
I'd lust after it if it had a base ISO of 25, yes 25... even 50 would be enticing. Amazing to me that no digital manufacturer can see the use for even lower ISO's that we used to use in film.
That said base ISO of 320 would simply annoy me- price doesn't really annoy me as much as that.
Once you go above point-and-shoot compacts, the percentage area lost to wiring and insulation is small these days. Some more examples of minimum measured ISO by DxOMark: A7II, ISO 77; NX1, ISO 84; A5100, ISO 76; GH4, ISO 88; J4, ISO 94. So even the Nikon 1, with a crop factor of 2.7 (7.3 times smaller sensor area!), is only about a quarter of a stop behind 35mm-format in well-capacity per area.
fmian: Nice exposure and colors, but like others have said the market is saturated with this theme/look. The next step would be to carve your own niche and stand out from the crowd.Also, is it just me or do the horizons not look straight on some of these??
But he's not on the "market" with his photos. He's doing photography for his own pleasure and, I presume, to hang on his walls . If you take up, say, carpentry as a hobby and make your own table, it'll give you immeasurable pleasure to have it at home, and to eat on it with family and friends. This will be the case even if there are thousands of nearly identical tables you could have bought for a very affordable price (which would be much less than the value of the time you put in to make your own table, not to mention the cost of the tools). So, he's spent thousands on equipment, thousands on traveling, thousands of hours learning the technique and taking the photos and processing them, all for a result very similar to you can order for 20 bucks online. Maybe this will clue you in that "market value" is completely beyond the point here -- and this is true for the vast majority of the users of dpreview...
AbrasiveReducer: Of course this is just my opinion, but when you use a lens that's too wide for the subject, the perspective is so unnatural that the photo becomes about the lens, not the subject.
For example, the photo of the boardwalk looks like its from a camera brochure where they're trying to illustrate how extreme the lens is. But that's personal taste; some people like to shoot portraits with a fisheye.
16mm almost seems like a moderate wide angle these days, what with zooms all the way down 11mm now available... :)
I'm willing to believe you, but first I'd like to see that claim survive a double-blind test... Person A to take, say, 5 photos, each of them with 3 different lenses; person B to equalize colors in post not knowing which photo comes from which lens; persons C1, C2, ... , Cn to identify which is which. Again, would love to be proved wrong, but would be very surprised if the results showed any statistical significance in the ability to identify lenses...
HowaboutRAW: You are right that the color correction can never be perfect, as the lens transmission may not be constant within the frequency range of sensitivity for each pixel's color. But this non-linearity will always be much smaller than the non-linearity of the color filters in the sensor's array. Which means that, in practice, a good lens profile makes differences in color between lenses irrelevant and indistinguishable (even if it's kind of nice to have it right from the start). On the other hand, plenty of other aberrations can never be corrected digitally (lack of sharpness, harsh out-of-focus blur, longitudinal chromatic aberration, coma, etc.) In short: because of what now can and cannot be corrected, priorities have shifted for lens designers as the medium moved from film to digital. Leica lenses are excellent for film, and still very good for digital, but I believe there are now better (and cheaper, for those for whom that matters) alternatives in other systems.
The color of the lens is irrelevant in the digital age, just get your lens profile properly set up...
RichRMA: The issue is being taken seriously by the mfg? And here I thought a chronic 60% defect rate would be taken lightly.
RichRMA: of course it is. It's also easy to see how this might have happened (e.g. bad dust filter in a batch) and evaded quality control (e.g. they may test at f/8 and do only front facing imaging of the sensors, in neither of which it shows up). These cameras are astonishingly complex systems to design, manufacture and assemble. The real test is now: how quickly and thoroughly Canon will respond.
Every test says otherwise, on pretty much every parameter (resolution, chromatic aberration, distortion, corner shading, etc. -- even smoothness of background blur is ok, including transition area from sharp plane of focus) But there's that famous subjective "Leica look" which, unless you've done a blind test of identical images taken by someone else, I'll always suspect is just the natural and very human confirmation bias motivated by the price you've paid for it... I do think it's a very nice system to shoot with, for the compactness and for the way you work with a rangefinder, but, at this point, I don't think an optical quality advantage is there anymore.
SteB: As I've tried to explain on the forum, this is very uniform distribution, which is the opposite of random distribution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
If this was just random dust it would not be distributed like this. It could be dust trapped in the sandwich covering the sensor, but there would have to be something in the manufacturing process causing it to be evenly distributed. This is why I'm guessing a fault in the manufacturing process, for it to cause this uniform distribution.
Anyone who has studied distribution, randomness, statistics and probability in depth, will be aware that it is very unlikely that such a uniform distribution like this would be caused by a random fault like dust falling onto something. It could be dust again, but it would be dust formed by part of a process.
I'm fairly certain this will be fixed, once they discover what part of the manufacturing process is causing it.
It looks like the distribution has uniform density, but the locations of the spots are random and do not appear to show any auto-correlation. This is more consistent with dust than with stresses in the adhesion process. Maybe just a bad clean-room filter in a particular batch.
4 out of 10 in one model, 2 out of 10 in another. 6 out of 20, 30%.
Michael MacGillivray: This nonsense has gone far enough. Consumers should be in revolt with camera companies, almost across the board. I'm expecting bad news when I buy new gear and guess what? I'm buying less.
Two suggested articles for DP Review would be a comparison of both the quality control records of individual companies and their customer service. Taking it a step further, it would be great if customer service ratings and QC issues could become part of full reviews and scores, several months out.
Paul Boddie: Roger Cicala at LensRentals occasionally does this for lenses of which they have enough copies. Very interesting results (which show that some lenses do have much less sample variation than others).
Sounds like they had a clean room filter malfunction for a batch of cameras, and this probably was missed in their quality control protocols because it's only picked up at an angle or with narrow apertures. Given the damage similar issues have done to Nikon recently, I'd expect Canon to react quickly.
The Sigma 50/1.4 A is very clearly optically better than the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux, for less than a quarter of the price. On the downside, it's also more than twice as heavy...
I'd love to see a B&W sensor with a chessboard neutral-density micro-filter array: still most of the benefits of increased luminance resolution, lack of Moiré, and some increase in sensitivity, but with what should be a spectacular increase in dynamic range...
Adding: And there'd be no new technology to develop, all pretty much off-the-shelf parts (other than changing specs on the filter array). Would just need custom RAW-processing software, but this should be far simpler to write than the typical demosaicing software.
photo perzon: Translation: Panasonic soon at $ 799
...in fairness, I do think there would be a nice niche market for, say, a version of the GM5 or GX7 without a color filter array.
Zdman: sorry, but I'm pretty sure that's not right. ISO is based on capacity to store photons per unit area. Bigger pixels means less area is lost to the wiring and insulation between pixels but, beyond tiny sensors, this is not a major factor. Three examples I picked at random: D750, 7DII, GH4; minimum nominal ISO for each: 100, 100, 100; measured minimum ISO by DxOMark (which, as far as I understand, is based on highlight clipping, so a good measure of well capacity per area): 73, 94, 88.
eaa: Sadly the lava pics cannot be loaded/enlarged neither in Firefox nor in Safari.
Thanks, that works.
Chrome not working for me either.
jnd: I like the one with title like from eBay listing. However I'm really disappointed by the lack of DSLR selfie stick models. Can anyone recommend me light and durable one which can hold D810 + the new selfie friendly Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art?
Monopod with ball head...