For entirely emotional reasons (I've used Olympus cameras since my original, then brand new, OM-1n, which I still have and which still works perfectly, through my E-1, which delivers 5 million lovely pixels per shot) - I *REALLY* hope there is an E-7 sometime ...
Biowizard: To those who are moaning that, for the US, $2.5bn is too much to send this incredible machine to Mars, I reply that this mission's costs pale compared to the $15bn that the UK has just spent to let people run around in circles for 2 weeks on a track. That's right: brilliant rocket science at 6 times less than the cost of a sports day.
This Mars mission is incredible, and of course they will be using older, proven, radiation-hardened tech rather than the latest-gee-whiz cameras that won't even work on Planet Earth for another 12 months, while Nikon corrects the firmware or Canon invents a better glue for its mirrors.
Stop whingeing, engage your brains, and open your minds to the incredible achievement that NASA's latest rover represents.
And consider: most of the electronics and hi-tech materials that make your latest gee-whiz toys work the way they do, WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST were it not for previous NASA missions.
Jeez, some of you guys just don't get it, do you?
Boky, more than a few of the nations competing in the Olympics ARE currently at war - and there's no ceasefire, even for these couple of weeks. Boys and girls running/jumping/throwing/swimming/etc fixes NOTHING. The Men With Guns And Bombs will continue their attrocities, no matter who can ride a BMX fastest in East London. Yeah, SAD. But TRUE. :-(
To those who are moaning that, for the US, $2.5bn is too much to send this incredible machine to Mars, I reply that this mission's costs pale compared to the $15bn that the UK has just spent to let people run around in circles for 2 weeks on a track. That's right: brilliant rocket science at 6 times less than the cost of a sports day.
lost_in_utah: I read through ALL of the comments. I think an intelligence test should be mandatory before a person is allowed to post on an online forum. The comments by some make me cry due to the extreme ignorance exhibited.
Agreed - most of the comments on this article were purchased directly from "Morons-R-Us" ... it's a pity most folks here have fewer brain cells than NASA's sensors have pixels ...
edu T: From the sensor makers, http://www.truesenseimaging.com/news-and-events/34-msl-landing:"MastCam-100 [based on a 1600x1200px sensor] can detect an object about the size of 2 golf balls from a distance of 1 km."Do these figures make any sense, even taking into account local (martian air to glass) refractive indexes and whatnot?Could they be relying on some kind of mechanical oversampling, namely by shifting the sensor by a fraction of the pixel pitch and then re-shooting?Or is it 2019 Esper tech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkcU0gwZUdg) came true in 2012?
That simply depends on the focal length of the lens, which you don't mention ...
Just been looking at some of the others - I think as a collection, they are brilliant: in fact, the first part of this entire, tired Olympics thing that has actually made me smile.
Klamar should be proud of this work, and any folks who think the images unprofessional or unpatriotic needs to chill out, and gain a little perspective.
Biowizard: Wow - at last we will be able to do feature films where each shot lasts more than 40% of the overall film, rather than the more normal 5-30 seconds per shot that any decent film uses. Woop. And without paying a special tax. Double Woop.
Maybe now, some day, I'll actually try shooting my first video fragment. Or, maybe, not. I still prefer decent stills.
I can't imagine that recording a "meeting" requires a full=frame DSLR in 1080p video mode. Surely a simple tethered 2Mpx webcam is all you'd need for that?
Wow - at last we will be able to do feature films where each shot lasts more than 40% of the overall film, rather than the more normal 5-30 seconds per shot that any decent film uses. Woop. And without paying a special tax. Double Woop.
It's coming soon ... heaven help us all ... the "mirrorless" iPhone with interchangeable lenses! But do we want it? NO!!!!!
There's a reason "DSLRs" work - and its no longer because the bodies were modified from film versions. Rather, it's why 35mm SLRs were SO much more successful in overall sales and market penetration than any other form of serious camera.
Yes, the 6x6 and 6x4.5 medium format Hasselblads, Mamiyas and Pentaxes gave even better resolution, depth of field control, and so on - but they were too "big" for most uses.
Yes, the 110 SLR (Pentax, remember it?) or even APS (where I have I heard that acronym of late?) SLRs appeared and then vanished like sparkle-dust: why? Too small. Too small to handle, too small to use, too small, period.
The 35mm is simply the "right" size to hold, adjust, plug things into, and shoot with.
So LONG LIVE the 35mm-sized DSLR! And away with these micro-sized system cameras. I already have an iPhone.
Biowizard: I have long beein waiting for a decent camera to be produced with a bare, monochrome sensor. For B&W work, especially when using deep filters (eg red to darken blue skies and accentuate clouds, or blue to do the opposite), such a camera will produce images of 4 times the resolution of images produced by a Bayer-filter camera. Plus, when shooting with pale or no filters at all, such a sensor will be between 3-8 times as sensitive to incoming light.
For those who prefer monochrome work, a camera like this is long overdue. Those hereabout who are sneering at the concept, are simply showing complete ignorance about how their "colour" megapixels are actually generated: by blurring, mixing and and interpolating. Not by recording.
Shame I can't affort the asking price ... but maybe Olympus will come out with something similar now that the precedent has been set.
(@Joseph ... "On the other hand, using software to separate colors gives you the advantage that all the pixels on the Bayer pattern are contributing to resolution.")
Only if those (physical) pixels can "see" the image, because it has the right spectral content!
Der Steppenwolf: Ehm Leica, 1935 just called and wants this piece of overpriced junk back...
Sadly missing the point ...
This is all very interesting. Re. @Joseph's comments about density, if it is true that the Bayer primaries are LESS dense/saturated than (say) my R25 and X0 filters of old, I find it hard to see how any modern camera could produce a "true" deep red, green or blue image. Wishy-washy R/G/B filters could only render wish-washy colour in the final image, and we al know that most DSLRs (especially Canon) can give Hockneyesque over-saturated results unless curtailed.
Must do some more research ...
I'm not so sure you're right, Joseph. My standard "25A" red Hoya filter has a filter factor of 8 (3 stops); my light green "X0" filter has a factor of 4 (2 stops). My guess is that normal bayer mosaics must be at least as dense as these filters in order to do their job properly, hence my guestimate of 3-8, with 8 being at the high end (25A) and 3 being near my green (X0).
As for resolution, taking 3 out of every 4 photosites out of an image converts (say) a 16MP colour image into a 4Mp B/W one. Yes, this is half the linear resolution, but only a quarter of the number of pixels. In other words, with perfect glass, in perfect conditions, this Leica should be able to record just over twice as many pixels in a red-filtered mono shot, than the Nikon D800E.
As for IR, didn't Leica have an issue with their first "M" digital cameras, that let in too much infrared, and required use of supplementary high-pass filters on all lenses?
Sadly I agree with your point about the Leica logo, Ivan - though the other reason for the expense is that this is unlikely to be a mass market camera, even inasmuch as the standard M9 is, and the smaller production run (or maybe even build-to-order) costs more!
Mssimo: I think leica should come out with three lens filters (RGB) So people with this camera can take 3 images and merge them like old times!
Hoya DOES make a set of R/G/B filters, which they call "POP" filters. I've used them both to make rainbow-fringed multiple exposures on Kodachrome 25 (anything that moves is coloured, anything that doesn't is normal, if you get the exposures right) ... I have also used them to make colour photos from three separate mono images taken through a CCD security camera. Much more fun than just giggling about in Photoshop!
nawknai: I always wondered why another camera-maker didn't think of doing this earlier.
No colour filter array means:
1. Images with far better detail and resolution. 2. Much greater light sensitivity, and consequently, far lower noise, and higher ISO capabilities.
3. I may be wrong, but an AA filter wouldn't be necessary to reduce moire, because moire would be minimal, or non-existent.
It was such a simple idea, but I guess it took Leica to release it.
It's an idea I've been talking about to my photographic friends for years. For anyone principally working in monochrome, this is a camera that is long overdue. Now I just hope Olympus follows suit with a $800 "Pen/Mono" camera for the rest of us.
Just wondering - does the Leica have a built-in IR blocking filter? If not, it would be brilliant for IR phtography.
I have long beein waiting for a decent camera to be produced with a bare, monochrome sensor. For B&W work, especially when using deep filters (eg red to darken blue skies and accentuate clouds, or blue to do the opposite), such a camera will produce images of 4 times the resolution of images produced by a Bayer-filter camera. Plus, when shooting with pale or no filters at all, such a sensor will be between 3-8 times as sensitive to incoming light.
Utterly fantastic - I have LONG been hoping someone would produce a high-quality camera WITHOUT a Bayer Colour Array - just think how much more light reaches the sensor, and how much higher the resolution will be without a pesky low-pass filter. And for those who want to get creative with colour, a set of Hoya "POP" filters or equivalent is all you'd need (as well as a a tripod and some patience) to get glorious colour, or false colour, and more!