Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.
Or wine classifications, with poor, average, good, exceptional, superior. With average and poor covering about 15% of vintages and 85% being better than average...
8x10 is not mid format… If we stay within the 135 to 120 format realms as implemented with digital sensors, 135 sensor cameras with large aperture lenses can duplicate practically all real life MF digital camera shallow DOF effects.
It is true that for smaller sensors three are no lenses fast enough to give as little DOF as MF and 135 formats do. In theory it would be possible, though, not worth it.
DOF depends on both the focal length/aperture, not sensor size alone. FOV is just the combination of sensor dimensions and focal length. MF does not have any special FOV compared to others. What comes to shallow DOF (usually people mean this rather than deep DOF) the fastest lenses are made for 135 sized sensors (some call them FF), so actually cameras like Nikon D800 series, new Sony and Canon at 50 MPix with 1.2 to 1.4 aperture lenses give more "Mid Format feel" than larger digital backs with slower MF lenses.
Besides, the paradigm has changed. In the old days bigger was better as film was film, but now the same is not true anymore, as sensors are not created equal and the IQ can not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore like in the past.
Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.
bernardly: That's why you're supposed to use RAW format.
If you just look at your JPEGs nothing happens to them, only if you open it in photoshop or similar, make changes and re-save it.
Of course DVD or BR keeps the files intact, because thy are read only. But so is any HDD if you just open files and do not save them making changes.
vFunct: de-haze = contrast adjustment.
De-haze is partly contrast adjustment, but largely also a smart engine which determines where the haze is in the picture, and applies the effect only to that area, not globally. It also corrects the colors (remove blue).
scrup: This will be my camera in a couple of years once the price comes down or if my M3 dies.
Laws of physics and optics… Camera itself can be relatively compact, but FF lenses cannot.
Slow prime without AF can be compact (Voigtlander and Leica are good examples), but after you make it 2 stops faster the diameter doubles, make it zoom and the number of lenses goes past dozen, and make it AF you need more complex mechanicals & motor to run them. So they get big and heavy.
Because people seem to prefer fast (preferably zoom) AF lenses to compact slow MF primes.
Which, by the way, can be adapted to this new camera, if one is after compactness, not modern convenience.
En Trance: And my question still remains. Is a serious photographer interested in using a camera that has a primary design objective of fitting into his wife's fanny pack??? I love the technology and specs, but I wonder about the design compromises resulting from the miniature packaging.
I have both Fuji mirror less and big Nikon DSLR cameras. While the Fujis are light to carry around, something like Nikon D4 has vastly better ergonomics and is easier/faster to handle even though/because it is bigger. And has separate assignable buttons for everything I might need. Not to mention over 1000 frames per battery, compared to paltry 200 with Fuji and electronic viewfinder.
So there are reasons why professionals prefer big DSLRs in certain situations despite their weight and size. I rather use D4 than my "spare" D800e, because it is bigger, and faster! And not for making an impression, but taking a picture, comfortably also with the vertical grip.
mediasorcerer: You dont buy this camera for practicality, you buy it to make fine art.[If your really into image creation]B&W images rock.
There are even more image creation possibilities when converting a color RAW into B&W. You can, for example, use "Wet Rock" effect which comes with NIK Silver Efex...
With this Leica there is no possibility to alter the tone mapping in post. Just general contrast and brightness adjustments are possible. If you want to adjust how the colors are converted, you must use a filter during to shoot. An anachronism right there, even if the camera is a marvel.
With normal color RAW to B&W conversion the color mapping adjustment possibilities are limitless. Which most photographers doing B&W find extremely useful. It is something that was not possible with film. And again not possible with Monochrom.
I find it strange that this aspect of monochrome sensors is not brought up in the discussion and reviews more prominently. While the sensor resolution is superb and the picture grayscale is beautiful, that's it what comes to post processing. That is a BIG point against this approach to B&W photography. With higher resolution color sensors the same resolution in B&W can be achieved, and all the B&W conversions adjustment possibilities are still there in post.
T3: It's certainly not an anachronism, any more than a Rolex watch is.
It does things like parallax errors. No other camera can.
aris14: Α jewel that practically all photography lovers would like to have.Last Leica's pix I saw were the pix from an X1 of a friend pro.There were kids portraits shot in BW (natural B&W) for his exhibition.A couple of those pix (circa 50) required a heavier retouch in PP than minimum, all done in LR.The result was awesome.To my opinion a fair to good pix can be PPed in various excellent BW conversion s/w for excellent results. I understand the way purist photogs approach, no matter if you can get even better results with PP from a color image. The only thing you cannot handle in PP is the quality of the lens, this very fine characteristics an excellent glass can deliver.
@ HowaboutRAW: Not really. The resolution remains the same.
BUT: monochromatic sensor, like the one on this Leica, puts out better resolution than a color sensor with the same pixel count.
So in s way you are right, but the wrong way around...
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.
Data is there to bring up shadows, but no color data to adjust the color mapping of the B&W image. That is the big, BIG issue with this specialist camera.
A Nikon D810 or similar 36 MPix color camera gives same B&W resolution AND the possibility to "filter" the final B&W conversion in all possible ways in post.
Alex Permit: How do you adjust tonality or color balance for different lighting (eg tungstun, daylight)? I guess its back to using color filters like in the old tri-x days?
Straight luminance (energy) recording would cause blue to be lighter than red. This could be easily corrected by a yellow tinted filter on the sensor.
This is just speculation, I do not know how Leica (or the sensor maker) has handled the problem. At least this would be a simple solution.
While the sensor puts out amazingly sharp photographs, sharper than a color one with the same pixel count, we loose all the post processing color mapping possibilities normal color RAW to B&W route offers. For me and many others that alone is a big enough reason not to consider this camera at all.
Looks slightly softer than Nikon D810 to me, also bit less DR. So no quantum leap here, and none was really expected. The difference between 36 and 50 Mpix is actually quite small, only 18% in linear resolution.
Still, Canonists have now finally something they can show in public again…
Is there really any reason to use MF backs anymore? IQ180 does not look any better either (bit better DR only).
babart: Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.
Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.
An example of workshop prices: I saw an advert for a 12 day workshop in just one location Eastern Tibet costing over $6000 not including the flights. After contacting a few local agencies the same package (sans instruction) would have cost about $400. In the end I ended up choosing private Land Cruiser with driver and interpreter for 16 days and 3500 km of travel, including couple of truly spectacular places seldom visited by westerners. That cost about $3000, and with more on board would have come to less than $1000/each. I hope the workshop instruction was worth $5000 for those who chose that easy route.
Cranny: I hope Fuji comes out with a FF version. Do we ever need more than 24MP?? If so a move to medium format might be a better option then stuffing more MP's in a crop or FF sensor. The new high res Olympus doesn't seem all that great to honest.
"full Frame" sensor is not the holy grail of sensors what comes to overall performance. Why would it be? Bigger would be even better, but very few, extremely few, are ready to pay the penalty in both size and price and slow use, you name it.
It would seem to me that APS-C size is actually now quite near the ideal sensor size what comes to image quality, price of the system, size & weight etc. Not FF anymore.
maxnimo: Why do they call it a 1" sensor when not even the diagonal is even close to 1" in length?
What is now called "full frame" sensor is the same size as 135 format film frame, 24 x 36 mm.
Why that should be called "full frame" is another question altogether, as traditionally 4x5 inch plate was "full frame" and all smaller cameras using film in rolls were more or less "miniature"...
lawamainn: Way too expensive, limited usage (fixed 23mm), low resolution.....Compared to, say, A6000, it seems pretty miserable! Why did Fuji make this camera?
16 MPix low resolution? I just have a show running where all prints are made from the same sensor files (X-Pro1 and X100s), and even in 50x70 cm prints are pin sharp. For wall sized prints some other camera would be better, but even then only a 50-80 MPix MF back would make visible difference.