RichyjV: Hmm, I need a much bigger wall to be able to hang a good print of this on in order to actually get a decent return on all that detail. Given a single 36mp image makes a pretty great 3ft x 2ft print, I'm guessing this would look good 10 meters long or something, where the detail would become more interesting than that actual shot as a whole. In the meantime for regular sized rooms I think a smaller print with better composition is preferable. I love that area for high mountain shooting, but this isn't an especially interesting view of it.
Aside from the undoubted technical merit of such a venture, it really doesn't do it for me as a small size image, and the weirdly lightened bits of the sky in the left quarter of the image are really a no-no.
On top of that the shadows cast from various bits of mountain point in different directions - something pretty much unavoidable when it takes that long, unless you shoot for a few minutes per day, but its one of the limitations of the technique.
If that were correct and assuming Mont Blanc is not as high as Mount Everest ;) then you would see like what you would see in real life, detail down to the millimeter level.You obviously don't. Just zoom into the pano.
This is ridiculous and hyperbole by the authors.
To explain:A full spheric panorama taken with a 70D/800mm combo (what the authors did) has a native resolution of 1494 Gigapixels. Assuming they only recorded the quarter part nearer the horizon, we end up with 374 GP, very close to the reported image size. I.e., that 365 GP panorama should be razor sharp at the pixel level, given the effort of the project.
But it is not. E.g., zoom into Mont Blanc summit, a complete mess of sharpened softness.
I'll call the project an epic fail.
However, I still like the website and panorama. But 1/4 quarter the resolution (1/16 of pixels, #shots and capture / processing time) would have done the same. Except for the missing hyperbole, of course.
martindpr: What is the purpose of having a B&W camera in the XXI century?
Shoot color and then desaturate! Or let me guess: If you have a B&W project, you leave your D810 (or your 5D3/5Ds) at home, go buy one Leica and do the job 100% better than you would have done it with your D810??
"brings the black-and-white-only concept up to date", they should have said "brings the date back to the old black and white concept"
@RichRMAI think the reason for 3 chip CCD camcorders is another one.Mostly, 3 chips are cheaper than a single, bigger one with 4x the surface. Esp. in the early CCD days with low yield.
And you can live with a smaller image circle and focal length of course.
Additionally, the required trichroic prism is cheap for the small camcorder sensors and doesn't have the massive color aberration problem emerging when scaling the entire idea up to a larger sensor.
If color accuracy would have be on *any* importance, camcorders wouldn't severely compress the information in the color channels as much as they all do.
What you call "professional video camera" are better camcorders really. True professional equipment (Arri, Red etc.) all use Bayer sensors.
The luminance resolution of a Bayer sensor is full (e.g., 36MP) while the color resolution is half (e.g., 9MP). Color subsampling is fairly common in movie recording too, even if full color resolution is captured (film, 4k subsampling). Because the human eye can't see it anyway. Combine that to whatever number you like, but resolution certainly isn't the point of this Leica. After all, its color resolution is nil.
However, getting rid of the color filters increases the camera sensitivity. I'd guess by about one stop. If you think this isn't huge, you would have to go full medium format to have the same sensitivity. By sensitivity, I mean noise levels.
Therefore, I can only hope Leica combines the M with a class leading sensor like the A7s or A7 at least. Otherwise, I can't really see its point.
tecnoworld: As far as AF is concerned, this seems a different camera! Wow, zone af is simply great. It nails focus constantly on still subjects, even in low light and backlit situations!!! I'm excited.
I'll try it with my daughter at the beach as soon as the sun comes back, but is seems ultra precise and fast. Well done!
Too bad they did not implement more new requested features, but this is a very good 'second start'.
Dpr should definitely retest the camera and improve the rating to at least 90% now.
> Dpreview ... are like dinosaurs
I agree but it isn't DPR's fault. Photography actually once was a hype and now isn't anymore. The interest shrinks and implodes to the hard core of photographers, people who mind about photography.
All others will move or haved moved on. To the next hyped topic. Like life logging or whatever will come. People like yourself who think cameras are just computers will move on anyway.
falconeyes: The problem of shutter-induced blur in VR systems has a long history.
Interesting, vendors (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Pentax) don't more seriously test their products against it.
Here you find an in-depth study of the same problem for the Pentax K-7 camera which actually got translated to Japansese to be discussed in the engineering dep.-> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html
Pentax eventually solved the issue for their K-5 update.
Wrt mirror effects: if your results are consistent then you have an interesting finding. I.e., if you used no tripods and checked you are not seeing shutter press effects -- did you try timed exposures too? It may be that the VR group does indeed react to mirror motion which do not dampen out hen the shutter opens. However, that's not normal.Normally, the delay between mirror and shutter is long enough (I measured 18ms for one camera model) to eliminate averse effects of mirror motion for image sharpness. If this isn't the case, then the camera firmware isn't well calibrated (delay too short for the given mirror dampening) or there is some other flaw.
I believe I have seen retesting and added review pages after substantial firmware updates here at DPR. Don't remember exactly which ones it was. Anybody?
BigOne: Two things seriously amuse me with this little foeble. One, people saying they pay for "German quality" when they pay $7,500 for a camera that barely has more features than a 1970's washing machine. And second, Leica KNOW about this problem, but instead of delaying the sales to solve the problem for their very rich customers, they issue this crutch of a bulletin to wave it in the faces of those who didn't read it and bought a Leica in a store that didn't get this memo. Good job, Leica! Keep it up.
"the T strikes me as perhaps the most successful attempt yet to marry modern smartphone design with physical camera controls"
The above is from DPR's preview of the Leica T touch interface and software. Seems like Leica can do software better than Asian competitors too ...
Elliot H: Apple, buy Leica.
Leica isn't for sale, it's delisted and no public company.
falconeyes: The real message here is that a crash of the Photos app can corrupt the library.
That should never happen with a well designed app (hint: transactional safety).
I think that's a real advantage with LR: not only did I never see a corrupted library after a LR crash (I've seen quite a few after fresh major releases). But because it is an SQLite database file, it could be repaired using SQLite tools. And then, LR really cares to keep backups of that file (of course, Time Machine does the same).
To understand how serious this is: Just imagine an application crash would leave your file system emptied ...
It is hard to accept Apple released such a poorly designed piece of software. Apple seems to have changed a lot recently.
Iliah, you are correct. Except that wrt serious problems ... malformed EXIFs can be malicious in online service uploads or browser embeddings. So, image processing library be better hardened against such attempts and the current Leica bug just helps with that.
Jono Slack: Please NoteThis is NOT just Photos - it's the CoreFoundation RAW processing in Yosemite 10.10.3 and 10.10.4 which means that it does the same with Aperture Libraries.
Also worth mentioning that it was pointed out here: http://www.slack.co.uk/2015/Elliott.htmlat the end of April when the camera was launched.
Apple are on the case - and hopefully it'll be fixed soon, in the meantime if you have this problem, the only solution is to delete the Leica DNG files from the hard drive - in which case the Library will load again.
Thanks for the additional info, also further down.
As Jono Slack just wrote above, Leica may be overstating the problem.
It seems that the library is NOT destroyed. It rather fails to load properly until the evil DNGs are removed from the filesystem. After doing so, the library loads again. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it corrupted (or at least easily repairable). Of course, Apple could still have avoided this by not crashing when seeing unexpected EXIF ...
EDITJono was faster in reporting the same just here now :)
@Iliah Borg, you are a responsible software engineer and I am glad they do still exist :)
To prevent programs from crashing is possible in the first place (aka exception handling, LR does crash too though, esp. LR6 when using OpenGL). And to prevent library file corruption is possible too (transactionally safe and/or journaled writing of data). Both is a de-facto industry norm in professional software engineering. E.g., our company never shipped software to clients not incorporating both technologies. If only to avoid the cost of support ...
You are correct, Apple should reply to Leica's claim. Because Apple not adhering to said standards is rather shocking news.
In the red dot forum, the Leica citation contains this as well:
"the library will crash continuously on loading. This may cause the Apple Photos library to be destroyed."
Sounds like they tried it out and experienced this issue for real.
The real message here is that a crash of the Photos app can corrupt the library.
falconeyes: The Pro line of Olympus lenses are a good example that large mm aperture-diameter lenses for smaller sensors are expensive to make.
The 7-14mm is probably meant to match the Nikon, but in equivalent terms, it is 14-28/5.6 for Olympus vs. 14-28/2.8 for Nikon. I wonder if Olympus couldn't have made it F2.0 to match F4 lenses at least. OTH, the Olympus already at that aperture isn't much cheaper than the Nikon (which is expensive indeed).
The 16mm F3.6 equivalent prime is nice but expensive too.
@Fri13, I think you make a very common mistake in thinking here.
The terminology should NOT be "same aperture diameter in mm gathers same amount of light". Because then you are right, it may be spread differently.
The terminology should be "same aperture diameter in mm gathers same amount of light coming from WITHIN the field of view". Because FoV is what covers the sensor, it is thus obvious that the same amount of light is passed onto the total sensor surface. And it is what equivalence uses as the exact terminology. Like focal length and fstop are pairs to be used together, FoV and aperture diameter in mm are such a pair as well.
Light coming from WITHIN the FoV doesn't know anything about a camera's sensor when it hits the lens, And light coming from outside the FoV doesn't contribute to the image by definition. At a given distance, probability of light from within the FoV to hit the lens is proportional to the lens aperture surface. And that's all already to be understood.
I have to approach my subjects to a meter to get that isolation, but it certainly works and I like the effect. Not every person's head will benefit from the distortion, but quite a few women liked their big eyes this can produce.
I even shoot 20/1.8 wide open (10mm F0.9 in Oly terms), e.g., cars and bikes, for the drama this yields when combined with a blurred background.
The Olympus lens can't do that, so I agree with an above poster that an F4 lens would have done just as great. Because such lenses are used hyperfocal in many use cases anyway.
As requested, here you have an image reference:http://gallery.falklumo.com/LumoArt/Night/i-PjxbsMN/0/XL/DSC_1638-XL.jpg
@yslee1, I like your response, it is very well worded :)
The point I tried to make is that I'd actually like to use a sharp wide angle zoom in the 14-28mm range w/o bringing my big FF body. E.g., for street pgotography. But I like the subject isolation I can get from my current 14-28, it is really nice with WA subjects were isolation is difficult to achieve otherwise. Even the prime isn't that fast, given there are 14/2.8 and 24/1.4 (equiv.) primes out there.
I accept that Olympus shooters may not care. But for a Pro lens, I would have preferred a bit less restriction of artistic freedom when bringing a µFT body. I don't know if i'd call a WA lens "Pro" if it doesn't allow a decent subject isolation. When most customers of pro photographers associate this single feature with Pro. Ridiculous, but true nonetheless.
Of course, for landscape, the Oly lenses are just the perfect tools, I would not deny that.
The Pro line of Olympus lenses are a good example that large mm aperture-diameter lenses for smaller sensors are expensive to make.
beavertown: Budget users should forget about Nikon from now on. This lens makes the Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime lens look exorbitant.
The Nikon lens had 7 rounded blades introduced years ago. Moreover, it still has the superior optics with aspheric and seven elements. Making Nikons Nifty Fifty adequate for high rez bodies. The Nikon has a bargain price too, who cares about hundred bucks difference with a DSLR?