M9, last of the line?

[thrid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Larger, to allow more spectacular designs, and electronic coupling, to allow digital correction.

 

The problem with digital correction (removal of distortion etc), is that every time you perform such an operation you cut the resolution of the image in half, because you are performing a sub-pixel transformation.

 

A subpixel transformation occurs whenever a pixel is transformed by anything other than an integer value. Then you have to compute an interpolation between multiple pixels and your resolution is effectively cut in half.

 

Add this to the original Bayer pattern interpolation, which does not produce images with a lot of acutance to begin with, and you are looking at a soft image.

 

You are far better off taking care of these problem right in the lens at the moment of capture, if you are interested in the highest quality.

[jaapv]

I was thinking of third and higher order aberrations that cannot be corrected optically. The same with the tertiary and higher spectrum in Apo lenses.

[wlaidlaw]

Jaap:

 

You have hit on an important point.

 

The WATE appears free of this problem even at 16mm, but it is telecentric, (and a real zoom lens).

 

Perhaps a wider mount would permit a faster WATE ?.

 

Regards .... Harold

 

Some WATE's are OK but some WATE's are not free of red edge. Mine had quite bad red edge on the original FW. It is quite a bit better with the latest FW but still there. I will have to hang on until I can meet up with someone else with M9 and WATE to determine if it is a camera issue or an individual lens issue.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

That is a possibility, and Leica knows something about it:

 

Leica Camera AG - Rangemaster

 

.

 

Unfortunately, you can't be pointing lasers at people's faces.

 

The Contax G had a single horizontal phase difference detector, which could be very fussy on picking up a focus. It needed quite strong, clearly defined, vertical elements in the image before it would pick up a focus. When it did, it was extremely accurate. It had an illuminator for close up use in low light.

 

Wilson

[thrice]

Unfortunately, you can't be pointing lasers at people's faces.

 

Rangemasters use an eye-safe invisible laser.

 

Konica Hexar AF uses very accurate IR triangulation as well.

[jaapv]

But why should laser-triangulation be more accurate that visible light triangulation like the M rangefinder? The geometry is exactly the same, the mechanical/tolerance aspects are the same. The only uncertain feature in a properly set up (but that goes for other systems as well!) M rangefinder is the human interface, i.e. user error. To compensate for failing eyesight it needs just a small additional mirror system and contrast detection to produce exactly the same functionality as those laser systems. The only way to get a different principle is to read off the sensor, and that has its own problems. For one thing I highly doubt that that is as accurate as triangulation. One could also postulate radar rangefinding

[ohnri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using a CMOS sensor with a live view type function and optional contrast detection focus assist would be very accurate and would also allow for a fully electronic hotshoe viewfinder (similar to those available for the Olympus E-P2).

 

This would allow for any degree of telephoto or macro lens to be used without difficulty.

 

Such a camera would retain all the advantages and usefulness of RF focusing for those lenses where that is advantageous but would allow the use of a high quality EVF (Electonic View Finder) for telephoto and macro lenses or whenever desired.

 

That would allow the M10 to fully replace DSLR's for almost any shooting situation.

 

Leica would make a ton a money selling all the new glass.

 

200mm Summicron. 90mm true macro. Tilt/Shift lenses. 135mm Summicron. The list goes on and on.

 

They could sell a flash with the EVF built in thus mitigating the need for 2 hot shoes.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

 

That would allow the M10 to fully replace DSLR's for almost any shooting situation.

 

 

 

Best,

 

Bill

For the three hundred people who would buy it... DSLR users would take one look at the price and run for cover, Leica M users would take one look at the camera and throw their photogear into the nearest river...

[thrid]

I was thinking of third and higher order aberrations that cannot be corrected optically. The same with the tertiary and higher spectrum in Apo lenses.

 

It doesn't matter what you are trying to correct or how these problems were created optically. The point is that the moment you move a pixel of image data less than an integer value you cut the res in half. How much of a problem that is depends on how much data you are starting out with, your filtering algorithms etc.

 

Ultimately it is up to the user to decide if the resolution hit is worth taking to get rid of certain optical issues.

 

Personally I think the optical quality of the latest Leica glass is so high that this is almost a mute point.

[jaapv]

It is a secondary consideration anyway - the main point of my OP is that a larger mount gives more scope to the optical designer and that electric coupling would be more versatile than the current optical one, both points that Leica needs to consider as the current level, high and successful as it is, does have a defined lifespan in the market. In other words: at one point of time they will have to build new lenses and succesor cameras. The stagnation of M lens design in the 1980ies and 1990ies and to a certain extent up till about 2006 did not do the company much good. Just compare it to the current dynamics - Leica will have to keep that up.

[ohnri]

For the three hundred people who would buy it... DSLR users would take one look at the price and run for cover, Leica M users would take one look at the camera and throw their photogear into the nearest river...

 

Wrong on all counts.

 

DSLR users would be interested because of the added functionality. They could buy an M camera without fear of losing macro, etc.

 

Leica M users would love it because it would work EXACTLY like their current cameras. It would be a RF camera with an optical VF, just like now, please read the post.

 

It would also have the OPTION of an EVF for those times when that would be helpful.

 

Leica would love it because they would sell like hotcakes and it would open a new world of possibilities for lenses.

 

You want them to introduce a whole new system for the unproven possibility of using some wide lenses which now cause minor problems. That is the camera system that would cost a ton to develop and sell 300 units.

 

This camera with the optional EVF would open the door to a ton of new lenses.

 

Traditional users would have the exact experience they are already comfortable with.

 

 

Best,

 

Bill

[lct]

+1... if it worked.

[raizans]

that sounds like the r system solution.

 

it would be catastrophic for the m system.

[ohnri]

Seriously, if people want a boatload of new lenses then having an optional EVF will let Leica develop the type of glass that M fans such as myself only drool over.

 

Right now I am carrying my D3x with the amazing 135mm f/2 DC lens for a few portrait shots I am about to grab. There is no M lens that comes close to this one for what I want today.

 

If Leica made a terrific 135mm Summicron I would snap it up in a second.

 

But they never will because you can't focus it.

 

With the optional EVF using manual focus would be a snap (MF with the 135 is a piece of cake on my D3x).

 

You can bet I would be taking my tiny and lovely M with it's small 135 'cron with me today instead of my great big D3x with it's giant lens.

 

If you believe that Leica M cameras and their future depend on expanding the lens line and offering more choices then the best solution is the optional EVF.

 

True Macro from a Leica M?? You've got to be kidding me! No problem with an optional EVF!! Tell me you wouldn't love that option.

 

Remember, the M would retain it's rangefinder and optical VF as well. You lose nothing.

 

But wait, there's more ...

 

IF you RF gets out of alignment because of an untimely drop, NO problem! Just use the EVF until it is convenient to get a repair!!!

 

Best,

 

Bill

[ohnri]

that sounds like the r system solution.

 

it would be catastrophic for the m system.

 

Nope. Users who didn't want to use the EVF would never need to get one.

 

Remember, the usual optical VF and rangefinder would be fully retained.

 

All lenses now in use would work the same as always.

 

This would only add functionality and would be completely transparent otherwise.

 

It is nothing like an R system or an SLR.

 

Why would you even think it is???

 

Best,

 

Bill

[swamiji]

 

If Leica made a terrific 135mm Summicron I would snap it up in a second.

 

But they never will because you can't focus it.

 

True no 135mm Summicron, but they did make a lovely Elmarit-M 135mm 2.8. Works with Goggles, Visoflex III and Bellows II. A very versatile lens.

[adli]

True no 135mm Summicron, but they did make a lovely Elmarit-M 135mm 2.8. Works with Goggles, Visoflex III and Bellows II. A very versatile lens.

 

If it is so versatile, how come it one of my least used lenses?

[swamiji]

If it is so versatile, how come it one of my least used lenses?

 

 

There is no accounting for taste. However when I used it on the M8, I found it difficult, the goggles were a real pain. On the M9 it's much better, but I have to admit that I mostly use it on either the Bellows or on the Visoflex... That's where it shines.

 

P.S. f32 really helps in macro....

[thrid]

Seriously, if people want a boatload of new lenses then having an optional EVF will let Leica develop the type of glass that M fans such as myself only drool over.

 

Right now I am carrying my D3x with the amazing 135mm f/2 DC lens for a few portrait shots I am about to grab. There is no M lens that comes close to this one for what I want today.

 

If Leica made a terrific 135mm Summicron I would snap it up in a second.

 

But they never will because you can't focus it.

 

With the optional EVF using manual focus would be a snap (MF with the 135 is a piece of cake on my D3x).

 

You can bet I would be taking my tiny and lovely M with it's small 135 'cron with me today instead of my great big D3x with it's giant lens.

 

If you believe that Leica M cameras and their future depend on expanding the lens line and offering more choices then the best solution is the optional EVF.

 

True Macro from a Leica M?? You've got to be kidding me! No problem with an optional EVF!! Tell me you wouldn't love that option.

 

Remember, the M would retain it's rangefinder and optical VF as well. You lose nothing.

 

But wait, there's more ...

 

IF you RF gets out of alignment because of an untimely drop, NO problem! Just use the EVF until it is convenient to get a repair!!!

 

Best,

 

Bill

 

Oh, god. It's captain gadget.

 

Did I somehow accidentally log in to the Leica section of dpreview.com?

 

Someone call me up when the fanboys have cleared out. I'm going out to take some pictures with my woefully inadequate Leicas and coke bottle glass to take some out of focus pictures.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[swamiji]

I'm going out to take some pictures with my woefully inadequate Leicas and coke bottle glass to take some out of focus pictures.

 

Can I stop using Pin holes in duct tape and move up to coke bottle glass for my M9?