Alnitak Posted January 28, 2012 Share #21 Posted January 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) On a side note: Leica is overpriced. Lets admit it. SLR Magic is about to sell a 50mm f.95 lens for a fraction of the $11,000 Noctilux and from what I see on Steve huff's web page, this lens may outperform the Noctilux. It may be priced at $1,500 or so, but that is great news for artists and shooters, not collectors and people concerned with the name of the lens manufacturer. Hopefully we will see the camera I describe. Hey, maybe SLR Magic will consider making it. Maybe I will call them up! Don't fool yourself with wishful thinking. Apart from the fact that Steve's natural over enthusiasm lends itself to hyperbole, just look at the images. In particular, look at the wide-open shots taken by Ashwin Rao--the one of the woman reading a menu at streetside cafe is very illustrative. In all of the shots with OOF highlights you can see rather severe astigmatism (note the gull-winged shapes), spherical aberration (see the smearing of light in rays from the brightest lights) and significant spherochromatism. All much worse than the Noctilux f/0.95. What the Nocti demonstrates is that extracting the extra performance comes with a very steep price tag. Maybe its not enough for you and you're OK with the performance of the SLR Magic lens. That's a personal choice--but it has nothing to do with the price point of the Leica. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Hi Alnitak, Take a look here THE CAMERA WE NEED ! ANYONE LISTENING?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted January 28, 2012 Share #22 Posted January 28, 2012 I'm still waiting to see any high ISO pictures that people who needed the Canon 5D MKII were desperate for. I sort of think they all decided 100 ISO and a tripod was OK after all. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 28, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 28, 2012 Steve, I bought the 5D2 as a camera to use my R lenses with but not because I was desperate for good high ISO performance. In fact I exclusively shot macros at ISO 100 for the first 2 years and have only just started exploring higher ISOs. Here is a shot at ISO 3200 that was 2 stops underexposed because I was shooting on shutter priority and Auto-ISO in low light and the ISO maxed out. I increased exposure in ACR and resized for the forum in CS5; no NR or any other processing. I took this with a 5D2 and Leica 28-90/2.8-4.5 Vario-Elmarit-R so it meets forum posting rules. This is simply to show the 5D2's high ISO performance - I'm not suggesting it's good or bad. (Please don't shoot the messenger, Folks.) Pete. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/171498-the-camera-we-need-anyone-listening/?do=findComment&comment=1911724'>More sharing options...
jankap Posted January 29, 2012 Share #24 Posted January 29, 2012 What is meant by overpriced? Many people will never be able to buy a Porsche. Still Porsche is doing well. Can't the camera discussed in this thread simply be the next GXR-FF M-mount? Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 29, 2012 Share #25 Posted January 29, 2012 What is meant by overpriced? It's the adjective some people give to stuff they want but can't afford. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted January 29, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 29, 2012 Maybe I'm a fool, but I happen to like the M9 the way it is. All I want is the M body with an excellent sensor that will give me great IQ. And very high ISO is not a huge desire; I learned to easily live with 800 and 1600 ISO film if necessary (and apparently so did the rest of the world; historically speaking, extraordinary images are not lacking due to any supposed 'ISO issues.') I appreciate that the M9 is basically a film M, yet digital. I'd rather not even have the LCD screen (I could never chimp with film, so no reason to start now.) The classic M6 with a sensor would be fine with me. And I always thought that was the whole point of the M9: A Leica M camera that records digitally instead of on film. The evolution of the M has always been centered on its form factor and ergonomics. Just because there are all kinds of high tech electronic aids these days doesn't necessarily mean I want them (and need them.) The Fuji and Sony interest me but only as secondary cameras and not as Leica substitutes. I would drift away from Leica if they started to adopt a lot more electronics. Often we tend to get involved too much with the all the electronics as we witness the technological advances. I'd much prefer advances in basic IQ rather than things like focusing aids. And as far as prices go, well I wish Porsche would sell me their 997 Turbo S for 75k USD instead of 160k USD. But that's not going to ever happen. And yes, a Nissan GTR costs less, is equally quick, and has a lot more electronics that makes driving it a lot easier for most people. But in reality, those electronic aids are part of why the Nissan won't ever be as desirable to me as the Porsche. For me, the fundamentals of driving is the real attraction. And Porsche is having no difficulty selling their product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 29, 2012 Share #27 Posted January 29, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The best way forward would be to have Liveview on the LCD and the existing optical rangefinder. That way for those that don't want it they can just turn it off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted January 29, 2012 Share #28 Posted January 29, 2012 Don't fool yourself with wishful thinking. Apart from the fact that Steve's natural over enthusiasm lends itself to hyperbole, just look at the images. In particular, look at the wide-open shots taken by Ashwin Rao--the one of the woman reading a menu at streetside cafe is very illustrative. In all of the shots with OOF highlights you can see rather severe astigmatism (note the gull-winged shapes), spherical aberration (see the smearing of light in rays from the brightest lights) and significant spherochromatism. All much worse than the Noctilux f/0.95. What the Nocti demonstrates is that extracting the extra performance comes with a very steep price tag. Maybe its not enough for you and you're OK with the performance of the SLR Magic lens. That's a personal choice--but it has nothing to do with the price point of the Leica. Jeff I think the LoCA (SC for your purists) is better corrected on the SLR magic, and I'm seeing minimal SA. I do agree on pretty significant Coma and Astigmatism, but I'm not picking a winner between it and the Noctilux yet. I wonder how the SLR magic does stopped down to F.95? Calarts, maybe you are -- If you don't want to leverage any of the advantages of moving technology and digital (chimping, live view, movie mode, focusing aids, improved performance over film) you certainly don't have to, especially if they're offered. I think your argument falls apart when you bring up the ISO point -- the M9 vastly outresolves any 35mm film at all ISOs, and it's not even that good as far as 35mm digital goes. Clearly Leica has moved away from "digital film" or we'd have a 4MP sensor with a built in grain-dispenser that made it look like film at high-ISO. On the other hand, if Leica were going all digital they would have removed the now useless ridge on the front of the camera, which used to protect a now non-existent film knob. Leicas are Veblen goods. That doesn't mean they can't be modern, usable, even excellent cameras with classic build and operation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Verrips Posted January 29, 2012 Share #29 Posted January 29, 2012 If I were to design a camera right now, I would have a design layout similar to the Fuji X Pro 1, minus the optical viewfinder. i would also have the same EVF system Sony has in its NEX 7 with focus peaking. The camera would also be full frame with the ability to use all Leica M lenses with no problems and have superior high ISO and color (Fuji?). The price would be somewhere between $2,500 and $3000 USD. So why can't these knucklehead camera companies get their act together and build the camera I have described above? Whoever would make it could outsource Sony for the EVF and other companies to get the job done at a reasonable price. So what gives? It is pathetic that we still do not have something like this in 2012!!!!! If i were to create human on earth, i have the same as nowadays human, but without their dissatisfaction. The human would also be happy with all the small things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 29, 2012 Share #30 Posted January 29, 2012 ...That way for those that don't want it they can just turn it off. Heard this so many times before. Why should I pay for something I do not want or need? Why should I accept a product that has been given features that I neither want nor need? "Here's your new suit Sir." "Wait a minute, I didn't ask for three pairs of trousers... I don't want or need three pairs of trousers." "Well, you are paying for them Sir, but, tell you what, you don't have to wear them..." Yeh right. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted January 29, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 29, 2012 Heard this so many times before. Why should I pay for something I do not want or need? Why should I accept a product that has been given features that I neither want nor need? "Here's your new suit Sir." "Wait a minute, I didn't ask for three pairs of trousers... I don't want or need three pairs of trousers." "Well, you are paying for them Sir, but, tell you what, you don't have to wear them..." Yeh right. Regards, Bill Implying Leicas aren't Veblen goods. Or that any of the above mentioned features haven't already been developed/are in use on Leica cameras. Or that you love and want every feature on the M9P currently and nothing else. And by extension that you felt the same way about the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 29, 2012 Share #32 Posted January 29, 2012 Heard this so many times before. Why should I pay for something I do not want or need? Why should I accept a product that has been given features that I neither want nor need? Unless you commission Leica to build a camera just for you, you will have to accept Leica’s choice of features. (And I doubt that an M10 without live-view would be less expensive than a camera offering this feature as an option.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 29, 2012 Share #33 Posted January 29, 2012 ...Or that you love and want every feature on the M9P currently and nothing else. And by extension that you felt the same way about the M9. Erroneous assumptions... Never mind. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 29, 2012 Share #34 Posted January 29, 2012 Here is a shot at ISO 3200 that was 2 stops underexposed because I was shooting on shutter priority and Auto-ISO in low light and the ISO maxed out. I increased exposure in ACR and resized for the forum in CS5; no NR or any other processing. I took this with a 5D2 and Leica 28-90/2.8-4.5 Vario-Elmarit-R I can see your point Pete, a fine image (esp would be killer in B&W ), but did I trawl it out of you as a response, or is it an endemic way people are using their Canon? There are always exceptions to the rule that sod's law throws up, but I don't think that negates the overall trend. Lets think, if Canon made a camera only able to do 3200 ISO and above, would they sell it, other than for the few sod's who want to prove the rest wrong? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted January 29, 2012 Share #35 Posted January 29, 2012 Calarts, maybe you are -- If you don't want to leverage any of the advantages of moving technology and digital (chimping, live view, movie mode, focusing aids, improved performance over film) you certainly don't have to, especially if they're offered. I think your argument falls apart when you bring up the ISO point -- the M9 vastly outresolves any 35mm film at all ISOs, and it's not even that good as far as 35mm digital goes. Clearly Leica has moved away from "digital film" or we'd have a 4MP sensor with a built in grain-dispenser that made it look like film at high-ISO. On the other hand, if Leica were going all digital they would have removed the now useless ridge on the front of the camera, which used to protect a now non-existent film knob. Leicas are Veblen goods. That doesn't mean they can't be modern, usable, even excellent cameras with classic build and operation. I hear what you are saying. But I didn't imply I wanted a film camera replica in respect to IQ. But simply a replica to the film M's ergonomics and simplicity. The ergonomics and form factor is a primary reason I've owned Leicas all my life. It's not only IQ, but also the feel and 'tactile quality,' and the quick and easy use of the optical rangefinder. It's basic, it's simple, and it works. No, I don't want 'digital film' but I want 'film camera' feel and simplicity of use. And I would rather have a limited high ISO if it meant higher IQ. The ISO the M9 is capable of now is fine for me. It beats high ISO film, for certain. I have a D3s with quite a bit invested in Nikkor and Zeiss lenses. So far, it satisfies all my high ISO needs and 'leverages' all the tech I need. It's a specific camera for specific uses just like the M9. In the analog days I had both Leicas and SLRs. I don't think that's changed for most people even in the digital era. Utilizing specific tools for specific purposes is pretty common. I find the M to be a very easy and quick camera to use. I just personally don't want all the 'excess' electronic aids in the M camera. I don't want any more buttons or loads of choices I won't ever use. I want it kept simple (remember when a light meter in the M was considered heresy ) And that's only a personal preference, so there's no 'argument' on my end but simply opining an individual's preference (just like the original post in this thread is doing.) And Leica will go the direction they feel is best for their future, despite how I feel. Nothing about using older 'out-of-date' camera has ever kept me from making a worthwhile image. But to be sure, I'm no Luddite and I very much appreciate new technology. As much as I enjoy the tactile feel of the Porsche 993, I can also appreciate all the electronics and the navigation system of the modern 997 (now the 991.) But I'd be fine without those amenities, providing that the driving is still fulfilling. But ironically, the 993 is considered to be the last of the Porsches in respect to 'feel' and 'feedback.' All the current electronics and nannies that protect the driver has 'numbed down' the driving experience. And that's what I don't want to see happen to the M camera line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted January 30, 2012 Share #36 Posted January 30, 2012 Keep your eye out for whatever Olympus is doing with their "OM" digital revival. All rumors, but may include m4/3rds and larger sensors - with EVF in the "prism" hump. Meanwhile, to make use of the wonderful headline, here's the camera I want (and no, there is probably not enough market that I'll actually get it ). 25-megapixel, square sensor. (5000 x 5000). CMOS with "live-view," driving a 3" LCD on the top, with a built-in collapsible hood. Think of it as a Hassy 500C + CFV back, minus the SLR baggage (mirror and space for it to move). Or a Rollei TLR with a single "L." Or a Sony R-1 with a serious quality upgrade (and lose the side grip - not ergonomic for waistlevel work) http://www.a-digital-eye.com/SonyDsc-R1/sony%20r1%20top.jpg The LCD (plus hood) could pivot as in the R-1 - or not. I'm flexible about the lens mount. A shortish back-focus, and a 30mm x 30mm sensor, would allow adapting almost any 35mm-format lens ever made (those without aperture rings need not apply!) at roughly the original field of view (same image circle). Leica M, Leica R, Canon FD, Beseler Topcon Could even have AF - move the whole darn front of the camera around as did the Rollei 66: http://rollei.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Rollei-SL66.jpg But I could live with a different sensor size and dedicated set of lenses, or even a built-in zoom, so long as they could deliver 25 Mpixels of resolution. Bigger sensor = more "MF look" - background blur and such. It wouldn't replace my M9, by any means. Just a different way to view the world. Any takers? Any investors? Maybe I'll just build it myself...... effing awesome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted January 30, 2012 Share #37 Posted January 30, 2012 I prefer range / viewfinder focus and framing particularly for short lenses for many reasons I have mentioned in this forum. One which cannot be emulated by an EVF, no matter how good, is the ability to see what is just outside the frame. Wuth SLR's I sometimes use zoom for this. Other reasons for Leica do not need to be repeated again. However, there are some additional capabilities which cause me to keep large SLR's in my kit. Accurate focus with long lenses. Accurate framing around parallax for near / far ground juxtaposition. Fast autofocus for sports / wildlife (see long lenses above). While high ISO is fun, I do not need it very often. My fastest color film was 400. I think that a hybrid finder with frame / focus assist and confirmation could go a long way to relieving me of maintaining two systems. Autofocus is less important to me, but a mixed system (Nikon manual focus lenses still work on their Autofocus camera's) would be possible. The improvements in EVF mean that such a system could be built without mirrors and retrofocus lenses in the form favtor of an 'M'. I liked my M8's but was happy to see (and buy) the M9. IIIc's were fun but the 'M' system was a vast improvement, (not without controversy). Computers of the day were made of wood. I like my Leica's (since 1964) so much that I would want to be able to use them for missions that I cannot today. Regards ... H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted January 30, 2012 Share #38 Posted January 30, 2012 What is meant by overpriced?Many people will never be able to buy a Porsche. Still Porsche is doing well. Can't the camera discussed in this thread simply be the next GXR-FF M-mount? Jan Porsche plays in a very competitive market segment and prices its products comparatively or just slightly higher (10%) then competitors, be they of German, Asian, Italian or British make. Leica products, however, are being sold at extreme premiums. The best examples to illustrate that is with comparable products (i.e. not the M9, M7, MP), such as Leica lens caps, lens hoods, D-Lux5 versus Panasonic LX5, the external OVFs or EVFs for these two cameras and the enormous price differences. Leica and Porsche are not comparable at all when it comes to product pricing and strategy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted January 30, 2012 Share #39 Posted January 30, 2012 Keep your eye out for whatever Olympus is doing with their "OM" digital revival. All rumors, but may include m4/3rds and larger sensors - with EVF in the "prism" hump. Meanwhile, to make use of the wonderful headline, here's the camera I want (and no, there is probably not enough market that I'll actually get it ). 25-megapixel, square sensor. (5000 x 5000). CMOS with "live-view," driving a 3" LCD on the top, with a built-in collapsible hood. Think of it as a Hassy 500C + CFV back, minus the SLR baggage (mirror and space for it to move). Or a Rollei TLR with a single "L." Or a Sony R-1 with a serious quality upgrade (and lose the side grip - not ergonomic for waistlevel work) http://www.a-digital-eye.com/SonyDsc-R1/sony%20r1%20top.jpg The LCD (plus hood) could pivot as in the R-1 - or not. I'm flexible about the lens mount. A shortish back-focus, and a 30mm x 30mm sensor, would allow adapting almost any 35mm-format lens ever made (those without aperture rings need not apply!) at roughly the original field of view (same image circle). Leica M, Leica R, Canon FD, Beseler Topcon Could even have AF - move the whole darn front of the camera around as did the Rollei 66: http://rollei.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Rollei-SL66.jpg But I could live with a different sensor size and dedicated set of lenses, or even a built-in zoom, so long as they could deliver 25 Mpixels of resolution. Bigger sensor = more "MF look" - background blur and such. It wouldn't replace my M9, by any means. Just a different way to view the world. Any takers? Any investors? Maybe I'll just build it myself...... I hope you have the brand already registered and protected, it might work not only for cameras;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted January 30, 2012 Share #40 Posted January 30, 2012 Leica and Porsche are not comparable at all when it comes to product pricing and strategy. A Porsche 911 costs 50.000 Euro/seat. My Opel Omega costs extrapolated 5.000 Euro/seat. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.