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.
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!
Getting closer - my PERFECT all-terrain/submersible camera would have NO external ports/water ingress points ... all you need is INDUCTIVE charging and WiFi (or BlueTooth), and with a few magnetic reed switches or Hall Effect chips, you could build a truly, 100% watertight camera with NO weak points.
If only I could afford to buy a factory, I'd be RICH!!!
BaldCol: If only there was this much fuss every time a software developer brought out software with bugs in it.
There is - you're just on the wrong forum!
As the Yanks would say, "Jeez" ... but Jesus, what the he** (US **="ck", UK **="ll") is all this utterly pathetic and impotent ranting about Canon vs Nikon?
For Go(sh/d)'s sake, children, these are just brands of camera gear. And I have owned both, simultaneously, without disappearing in a puff of logic - at a time (which continues to this day) when OLYMPUS is my main preferred marque.
Stop this perpetual masterbation - they are just CAMERA manufacturers, and we can all buy or not buy their products as we choose. And if I want an Olympus SLR, a Nikon scuba camera, and a Canon compact, that's my prerogative. Anyone who dares say different, go buy some more Kleenex.
KonstantinosK: I wouldn't ever use sticky tape in the internals of such an upmarket camera. I would either live with the "flaw" (if I hadn't known) or I wouldn't buy it in the first place (if I had known).
Bald Col seems to think that everyone except itself (him/her? doesn't specify) is an idiot. A bit like, "The whole world is out of step except for me". Perhaps said person could actually CONTRIBUTE an opinion, rather than another slur on people whose opinions (s)he doesn't, apparently, comprehend?
Olgierd: A good solution is a simple solution. Why bother with something else if simple tape takes care of the problem. Plus it's inside the camera, means it's not changing aesthetic of 5D3 at all.
Perhaps a little too much testosterone around this forum for the general good ... if you want to think me and idiot, fine, that's your loss. And where, exactly, is the rest of this tape? Evidence, rather than loudmouth hot air might be a positive contribution. And of course, there are some great adhesive tapes ... but do we know this is one of them? With several camera bodies and lenses that I own from assorted "top shelf" manufacturers, there are all to many body coverings and suchlike that have worked loose over as little as 5 years - but which at least are all on the OUTSIDE, and so can be stuck back down. I wonder why these didn't use those "amazing" adhesives?
FACT: bodging with (even hi-tech) Gaffa is still bodging.
My only problem with this is the certain knowledge that most generic sticky tapes have a glue which eventually fails, either through drying out, moisture absorption or melting in the heat of sunlight. Furthermore, in the latter two cases, adhesive may seep its way into places where it is not entirely welcome - such as around the pentaprism.
Fine as a bodge, but a simple custom-moulded part would be much preferable here. Canon have cut a corner too far.
Daryl Cheshire: I dimly recall some Leica problem with the M8, a sensor which was too sensitive to IR and the solution was an IR filter which Leica supplied.
I don't know of any Nikon issues but I'm sure there are some.
I have a 5D Mk III and I'm not too fussed and I seldom use the display light. And I know that tape is used in many electrical devices.
On the other hand, Leica didn't ask you to fix the IR filter to your lens with Gaffa Tape. It came properly mounted and simply screwed into your lens!
Someone at Canon obviously works backstage in theatre ... you can fix ANYTHING with a little Gaffa Tape - even a £1595 DSLR body, it seems! :-)
Boris: I tend to agree.....most stuff I bought that was made/assembled/further processed (lol) in China was crapola....clothing, shoes, vacuum cleaner, coffee makers, many power supplies for charging phones...all crapola!
I did say, "verging on ...", and I'll sticlk to that. Why this assumption that Chinese workers can't do the same moronically boring assembly jobs than any other nation's production line workers? I'd go further: kudos to anyone, of any nationality, who is willing to work in a production line just to fulfill the purchasing desires of the rich in the first world.
Ibida Bab: Anything that says CHINA on it is crapola. Bottom line...
Speaks an ignoramus who probably thinks that iMacs, iPads and iPhones are somehow "American" ...
iPhone? iPad? ... c'mon, it's plain jingoistic and verging on racist to assume that "Made In China" means something is "crap[ola]". Blame the commissioning companies if corners are cut due to "lean" deals, not those fine souls or work every hour their God gives them so that YOU can get your "special" deals at your retail outlets.