lxcellent: Can someone please explain the 28mm lens choice by Leica? It seems so counter to what they have done in the past. I would expect a 35mm or even a 50mm. In fact, isn't easier to design an optically perfect 50mm than 28mm? It seems like Leica could have gone with a 50mm and one could add a screw on adapter to make it wider or more tele. (Which I realize is sacrilege for Leica.) What am I missing folks? The 28mm seems so unusual.
You've just answered what was going through my mind: why not shoot normally at 28mm and crop to one's personal taste in post processing? This way one would have far more control over the crop position within the frame. This wouldn't be the case if the sensor was being cropped.
I see now that the crop lines within the EVF replicate what one can do with a Leica M, film or digital camera, and select alternative frames to check composition irrespective of the actual focal length of the lens attached. Trouble is, with the Q, one can not then select the appropriate lens to maximise the pixel count of the sensor. Still, for those who relish what a 28mm lens can give them, this still looks like a great camera for them.
It is still priced above my level, but I do like all the controls that are built into the lens, and not the body.
Pat Cullinan Jr: The price is OK, but the lugs stick out too much, so I'll pass on it.
I can't believe what I have just read. You buy cameras based on what their lugs look like, so you'll pass on anything else the camera has to offer?
guyfawkes: A genuine question: I wonder how the Sigma Foveon sensor which eshews the Bayer filter too, would compare in pure image terms when set to b/w mode?
Clearly, in pure resolution terms it won't equal the M246, and the Leica lenses will undoubtedly be superior, but in view of the unique architecture of the Foveon sensor, would this not be the nearest competition to the M246 than any other digital camera using the Bayer sensor?
Just a thought. Any views, guys?
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the I-R site. That is a truly impressive image of Grand Central Station, isn't it?
I use a Sigma f2.8/30mm (the earlier design with the ribbed manual focus ring) on my Nex 5N and it is indeed a good match and sharp. About two weeks ago I thought I'd dip my toe in the water to judge for myself what the Foveon sensor was all about. True, I've gone for the first DP1 and its f4 lens isn't as good, it seems, as the later f2.8, but as for overall imaging, I can get a feel for what it is all about. I can definitely see differences in how it renders. And I like how it does it.
So now I have a direct replacement for my Ricoh GR1 film camera and with the convenience of being digital.
As regards B/W imaging, I am experimenting with RAW conversions, and the in-camera setting, which is jpeg only. Could be an interesting few days ahead.
captura: The older 30mm DN DX version with it's serrated barrel provides a much higher IQ (overall rating) and sharpness compared to this new sleek ART version, according to DxO rankings. Certainly on any Sony APS-C body and probably on M43 too.
46mm Panasonic matched filter threads permit the use of tiny Panasonic 'G' ultra-wide or fisheye adapters, on the Sigma 19 mm version only.
I would concur. I have the older model and this is a great match for my Sony 5N. It is a very sharp lens and pulls out amazing amounts of detail.
A genuine question: I wonder how the Sigma Foveon sensor which eshews the Bayer filter too, would compare in pure image terms when set to b/w mode?
dccdp: This is the weirdest justification for snobbery I've ever read.
Just face it: if there really is a practical value to this type of camera, the market will request it, and other companies will start make it in volumes so that in two years such tools will be sold at affordable prices. But I'm afraid this is not about practical value, and this kind of tool is not really needed by photographers or artists. This is only a collector piece, it's about snobbery, and about throwing away money just to get a fabricated feeling of being special and unique. They might as well have printed a limited edition stamp with "Monochrom" written in gold letters on its face, and the effect would have been the same.
When you go to an art gallery, you don't care what brand of paint has the artist used. You just look at the painting and value its message.
@ Venture-Star. The requirement for the CD format to play a complete classical work was the wish of the head of Sony who wanted to listen to Beethoven's 9th Symphony uninterrupted. This was something impossible with an LP disc. In fact, it wasn't until Decca released the recording with Ansermet and and his OSR orchestra that it was possible even to get the work onto one LP. But this still entailed a side break.
Loreno Heer: It is funny how people here are apparently so upset about this camera. Fact is, it will be sold, a lot. It is a great camera to work with and it is fun to use. If you never used one maybe you should try before giving your oppinion. Many stores give you one to tryout for free for a few days. By the way, the statement in the article: "255 shades of grey" is wrong. As far as I know the sample-depth is 14-bit (maybe even 16) which would equal to 65536 shades of grey.
Not sure where the UK price of £12,750 comes from, unless it includes a lens, but the body only price is widely advertised at £5,750, inclusive of 20% sales tax.
Andrew Elliott: On Flickr, when I search for B&W images made with a Leica, about 8 times out of 10, I guess correctly the ones taken by the M Monochrom.
You really need to see the printed images from the M Monochrom to really understand how good its output is.
I recently bought a Canon Pro-1 printer, it has 5 monochrome inks. Then I bought some Canson Baryta Photographique paper, A3+ size, very nice paper.
On printing a converted Canon 5d Mk3 B&W image taken with a Sigma 35mm f1.4 lens… and then printing the ‘same’ image taken with the M Monochrom with a Summilux 35mm f1.4 lens (both at f8, ISO 100 on the Canon and ISO320 on the MM, Sekonic 758 metering the light, same look achieved in Lightroom), the MM just looks lot better. As one might expect if you know what is going on, technically.
Despite all the hype on the internet, I don’t see how the M Monochrom v1’s output could be visibly improved with the Monochrom V2, at least not at the lower ISOs, where I hang around.
all the best
You highlight what many, most, overlook. It is no good viewing an image from an MM and printed on a normal inkjet printer/paper. This will kill any advantage it has. A dedicated printer and proper paper are a given.
Bervilat: Sony, please make an A7M with 36 Mp for 1/4 of the price of this and lets compare!!
No, no, no. :D) But make it 24mp and it would be a yes, yes, yes.
I'm not knocking you, but from what I've read having 36mp poses too many problems trying to hand hold it and get sharp images. This was the reason I opted for the A7. I applaud your sentiment!
Digiman69: While not a change lense system and with an APS-C sized sensor Sean Reid - Reid Reviews clearly demonstrated at low iso there's a B&W alternative. The Foveon Merrill's generation extracting in monochrome mode through the Sigma SPP a nearly pure monochromatic file thanks to the Foveon sensor architecture and absence of any Bayer filter.
I did wonder about this. Despite owning too many digital cameras for my own good (dear, oh dear, which one to take out today?) just last week I got a used DP1 out of curiosity to see what the differences in rendition will be.
I can't get my head around whether it is a 14mp or nearly 5mp camera, but the theory behind the sensor and how it captures colour looks very convincing, and so far there is definitely something about its colour rendition that sets it apart and which I like very much.
Thanks, Digiman69, for this impulse to give it a go.
Tungsten Nordstein: 'a switch from the previous CCDs to 24MP CMOS sensors, and thus the introduction of live view'
So, live view was not possible in cameras before CCD?
I believe this is correct. Live view in an slr needed to be able to use the sensor, ie contrast detect, to focus. Dslr's used phase detect at the time and their sensors couldn't use contrast detect as was common in all consumer point and shoots. The Panasonic LC10 was, I believe, the first dslr to have a proper implementation of live view and this used a Mos sensor, which Panasonic labeled a LiveMos. I understand it is in the way a CCD and CMOS sensor read data that differs, so live view is better served by CMOS, and now all dslrs use them.
guyfawkes: Some lovely images, but they do seem to stretch the meaning of the word "garden".
If one were to view these images without our thoughts being directed to what the title of the whole competition was, would "garden" come to our minds? I very much doubt it.
IMHO, only image #2.
OK, you got me! :D) I'll have to see if I can get to it when it goes on tour.
Some lovely images, but they do seem to stretch the meaning of the word "garden".
J A C S: Lenses?
@leiduowen. There's nothing wrong with your English or understanding of it.
@ JD Thomas. I'd like to know what is oddball or weird about these older Russian lenses? The 28mm Orion-15 is a copy of the Zeiss Biogon, as is, I believe, the 35mm Jupiter-12, the 50mm Jupiter-8 is a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar, as is the 135mm f4 Jupiter. Nothing oddball or weird about the Zeiss designs, then.
However, I do accept that they do not now come up to what we expect from a modern day lens and so their imaging characteristics may not appeal to all. But this is when using them on digital cameras and where I have found them something lacking, excepting the 35mm which i can't test on my A7 due to its protruding rear element. However, used with film, as my lenses were back in the day when only film was available, they proved to be exceptional performers using b/w negative stock and K25. I'm lucky in having acquired them in the 1970's and QC isn't an issue for me, as I know it can be for some units.
wherearemyshorts: "the rangefinder system will operate not with mirrors and prisms, as most rangefinders do, but with twin imaging sensors that overlay their images to produce the same dual image effect in the viewfinder."
Away go batteries done the drain. Battery life is bad enough on mirrorless cameras. Now another way to drain the battery.
Actually, the cam is a non-issue. The range of movement of the cam in an M lens is the same irrespective of the focal length. So, even though the distance a lens may have to be racked in and out will vary depending upon its focal length, the cam always moves by the same amount and, hence, why the cam follower, which is the arm which actually moves the range finder optics, always moves by the same amount to.
The limited range of movement of the cam follower is what determines the limited close focusing distance of a lens and will help to explain why telephoto M lenses can't focus as close as their slr counterparts and in which the focusing helicoid can have a longer throw. I hope this helps.
Franka T.L.: Unless there's something magical about that sensor I fail to see a point here
@JD Thomas. Assuming your command of English IS as good as you pontificate elsewhere, then you would realise what is meant when the word "magic" is used in this context.
I understand what Franka T.L. meant and it is this: the sensor would have to have some special and desirable characteristics, over and above what is presently available and which would, therefore, tempt buyers.
If it were merely "ordinary" what would its appeal be?
ottonis: I am sceptical because of two reasons:
In rangefinder cameras the VF is optical. Some people do really prefer to have direct optical view. This camera however is supposed to have an electronic rangefinder, which may turn off some potential customers.
Secondly, a FF sensor with a DR of 11 stops is quite mediocre as per today's standards.
So, the only truly compelling strength of this camera might be an affordable price that's not only much cheaper than LEICA but that also would compete with today's entry level FF cameras such as the A7 (mark I), which sells for a grand.
Anyways, competition is always a great thing, so let's sit back and see what this new gem will actually bring to the table.
MOST r/f cameras use optical range-finding, but not the Contax G series, which uses electronic.
As Graham Austin has already pointed out, the omission of 3G/4G connectivity seems to be a shot in the foot by Samsung. Only having a wi-fi connection seriously hampers its use by the very segment of the market that has made smart camera phones de rigeur: the ability to INSTANTLY share images with friends.
R Stacy: I'm not sure what to take from this article. Upgrade paths have always been a complex affair and something most of us have struggled with the last decade or so.
I can appreciate the pros and cons mentioned, and most folk will discover the differences and compromises of interest... hopefully before they lay out the big bucks.
Going to FF for the first time is still not exactly cheap, especially so if you don't have compatible lenses. Even with Sony's most excellent mirrorless FE system (and lens adapters) first thing you know you gotta have some of them also most excellent Zeiss lenses... (I know :).
What I read into the article is that many must view FF as an inevitable path they must take, as though it was the Holy Grail of digital imaging. But they can be mistaken in this belief. It is like when I am asked by people who I know are not into photography which DSLR they should buy. I say why a DSLR? And usually, the answer is something along the lines this is what they feel they need as they've read in photographic publications they are the best. It is only when we discuss what they want to USE the camera for that they come to the conclusion that the DSLR may not be for them.
And as for me? Well I use both formats in my Sony 5N and A7, but I am now asking myself the question: did I really need to go FF when I go over the 5N images?
victoria1: I shoot with a Canon 6D, having come from a 50D, which is a crop sensor. I changed for the sake of the better ISO performance. I found that 800iso on the crop sensor was too crunchy for me. Maybe other crop sensor bodies do it better, but I am much more satisfied with image quality of the 6D. But don't let them tell you that there is no noise at 1600iso because there is, and I try to keep my ISO at or below 400, usually by stopping down. But don't be put off 1600, just don't expect miracles but do expect better than from a crop sensor.
What I do miss, though, is the depth of field of a crop sensor. F5.6 or f8 used to be enough but no more, and lenses start to get a bit soft from f11, so I just don't get that sharp foreground and background in landscapes anymore; however, the upside is that putting the background out of focus is much easier with a FF sensor, so I play to its strengths, and with a fast, sharp lens, make sure I make the most of those creamy backgrounds.
You were doing fine until you introduced the small car analogy. :D)
There must be many, younger, photographers today, who have been reading a lot of nonsense when it comes to DoF. A few years ago, I even saw stated in a well-respected UK photographic magazine that DoF was dependent upon sensor size. What a load of codswallop. DoF is a function of the coming together of 4 optical features: focal length, aperture, distance focused on, and the circle of confusion adopted as a measure of acceptable sharpness.
So a 25mm lens on an APS-C body or FF will, if set to the same parameters, provide the same DoF. The sensor plays no part in DoF, except as you point out, it does provide different FoV's.