dwbell Posted January 24, 2013 Share #141 Posted January 24, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) We can learn nothing by such diminished images. Sorry, but I am an Olde Pharte who grew up with the print. These impressionistic opinions based upon digital screen presentation are unacceptable. When a very expensive Leica's output is presented in a format in which a far less expensive 4/3rd can do better then you have to know that the format is seriously compromised. When bandwidth improves, and when we have far more capable monitors, then presentations of images might become equitable. At this moment that is impossible. . I agree, but what percentage of Leica digital M images do you think ever get printed? So, for the majority (see the images forum, and monochrom image loving thread) a comparison, whilst flawed in absolute terms, is valid I guess? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Hi dwbell, Take a look here new 'official' M240 pics up!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 24, 2013 Share #142 Posted January 24, 2013 What's a print? Give me a good (or bad) DNG file. No need for genius photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted January 24, 2013 Share #143 Posted January 24, 2013 Comparing M9 jpeg web images to M (Type 240) jpeg web images is like comparing the Porsche 997's to the new 991's by driving around on my neighborhood streets. Only when I get some properly exposed, detailed DNG's that i can actually work with... and perhaps print... can I begin to make an objective evaluation of the M files. Until then, all this hand-wringing seems a waste of time and emotion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 24, 2013 Share #144 Posted January 24, 2013 ..................... I mean, what would be the real world market for a $7000 M10 with 32 MP CCD when canon releases a 50MP camera, which has access to all the tilt and shift lenses for landscapers etc...and which pros can use in the same system as their 5DIII? None. I don't think that's remotely true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 24, 2013 Share #145 Posted January 24, 2013 Comparing M9 jpeg web images to M (Type 240) jpeg web images is like comparing the Porsche 997's to the new 991's by driving around on my neighborhood streets. Only when I get some properly exposed, detailed DNG's that i can actually work with... and perhaps print... can I begin to make an objective evaluation of the M files. Until then, all this hand-wringing seems a waste of time and emotion. Nnnnnya.... poor analogy. I've done exactly that and you can tell the difference. 100mm length increase on wheel base and 40mm extra width on the front track make a big difference even at town speeds. Not to mention the 991 is ground up brand new with much more refined designed. But we digress... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share #146 Posted January 24, 2013 Nnnnnya.... poor analogy. I've done exactly that and you can tell the difference. 100mm length increase on wheel base and 40mm extra width on the front track make a big difference even at town speeds. Not to mention the 991 is ground up brand new with much more refined designed. But we digress... I've driven both as well, and the analogy is fine. the point is that one doesn't truly find the difference in electronic steering, chassis balance, and/or characteristics of cars like this at 20mph......but much more thorough when compared on a track or on a winding road.... those changes in length or dimension do not lead to revelations at 20mph through a town. nor do they make a "big difference" by any means... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 24, 2013 Share #147 Posted January 24, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nnnnnya.... poor analogy. I've done exactly that and you can tell the difference. 100mm length increase on wheel base and 40mm extra width on the front track make a big difference even at town speeds. Not to mention the 991 is ground up brand new with much more refined designed. But we digress... How many megapixels does the 991 have? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted January 24, 2013 Share #148 Posted January 24, 2013 I think the analogy is good and have long since seen parallel's between Porche / Leica and M / 911 The question for me is "For my style of driving and use will I see the difference and will electronic steering lose feel and do I need a reversing camera" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted January 24, 2013 Share #149 Posted January 24, 2013 I mean, what would be the real world market for a $7000 M10 with 32 MP CCD when canon releases a 50MP camera, which has access to all the tilt and shift lenses for landscapers etc...and which pros can use in the same system as their 5DIII? None. If it's no bigger than an M and the lenses are "M" sized count me in. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 24, 2013 Share #150 Posted January 24, 2013 And if it's a rangefinder, it hits the spot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1JB Posted January 24, 2013 Share #151 Posted January 24, 2013 If it's no bigger than an M and the lenses are "M" sized count me in.Pete Couldn't agree more. I will never lug around a dslr and lenses again. If the image quality of the M holds up to that of the M9 the live view and evf focusing will open up a host of new add ons to be purchased from Leica including macro and other lenses. It seems that like the m4/3 camera the lens is close enough to the sensor to allow for the use of adaptors and evf focusing. Look at the beast on page 20 of the M brochure and you understand what the M introduces - the very best in a small rangefinder with the M lens line up and a beast with an adapter and other lenses if that's what you want that day. DSLRs won't be able to match the Leica size advantage and certainly not the rangefinder element which I've grown to love. Unfortunately the way Leica has gone about anouncing the camera without adequate photos to be fully evaluated from dng through the printing process creates some anxiety about the ultimate quality of the image quality and potential lingering issues with the camera itself. Oh, and threads like this one lol. I'm excited about the M once it's introduced and sorted out by the early adapters. For now I'll chalk up the bizarre way photo files are dribbling out as simply typical Leica. Don't even get me started on how they handle firmware and the implications for a camera like the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 24, 2013 Share #152 Posted January 24, 2013 I'm confused now between Leica and Porsche. Does the 911 have a rangefinder? Does the new M have a longer chassis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2013 Share #153 Posted January 24, 2013 The grapevine tells me that any concerns about image quality are totally unfounded... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 24, 2013 Share #154 Posted January 24, 2013 I've driven both as well, and the analogy is fine. the point is that one doesn't truly find the difference in electronic steering, chassis balance, and/or characteristics of cars like this at 20mph......but much more thorough when compared on a track or on a winding road.... those changes in length or dimension do not lead to revelations at 20mph through a town. nor do they make a "big difference" by any means... Again, we agree to disagree. I get my higher performance feedback on the Nordschleife, but I can tell you which one I'm driving at 30km/h. Semantics probably. Stay happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share #155 Posted January 24, 2013 Again, we agree to disagree. I get my higher performance feedback on the Nordschleife, but I can tell you which one I'm driving at 30km/h. Semantics probably. Stay happy. well there is 'aesthetic' feel and there is 'performance' feel.....and then i suppose there would be 'psychological' feel (just knowing you are in a different car).....i suppose a combination of those things could result in you being able to differentiate 2 highly tuned vehicles at that speed; however for general purposes a similarly powered 997 and 991 under a certain speed will demonstrate many similar qualities. now if you told me about a 964 or 993 vs. a 991----obviously i would agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 24, 2013 Share #156 Posted January 24, 2013 I actually think there are interesting parallels between the 991 and any new camera, especially a Leica M. They have to satisfy the traditionalists, yet can't ignore the march of technology. It's fundamentally a "flawed design" by not being mid engined, which would be Rick's complaint about a digital camera still being formed around two spools and a film plane. It needs to be more efficient in terms of fuel economy (high ISO?) yet retain or better exceed previous model performance. Amazingly they created (in my opinion - which will be challenged) a car that can do it all. Every day driver, with low rev range auto transmission and economy, or flat out near racer when in super sport mode with manually activated PDK gear shifts that are lightening fast, way faster than any manual box. Yet, you have a group of owners who scoff the automatic shift. It's not "real driving", it's "taking away control from the driver". The increased length upsets traditionalists as does the lower rake on the wind screen. I suppose the take away is, that they simply can't live in the past. They have to keep moving, and so does Leica. If the MP was "it", can't be better. Then the company would simply have to keep creating them until saturation and the only income would be in spares and service. But, of course, that can't be the case. So they press on, develop, research, break new ground, upset traditionalists but hopefully attract new customers and, hopefully like the 991, create something of a small marvel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 24, 2013 Share #157 Posted January 24, 2013 Has no-one found a way to bring Patek Philippe watches into the thread yet?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted January 24, 2013 Share #158 Posted January 24, 2013 I have a Nikon D800E as well as an M9P now, and find the M9P a bit weak in comparison to the new Nikon for landscape work. Especially with winter scenes and wideangles like the 28mm Elmarit ASPH and 24mm Elmar ASPH I am finding unacceptable color shifts in the corners where the snow is discolored to the red at the bottom left corner and cyan at the other 3 corners. The flatfield correction of the built in lens profiles is not correcting the problem and I have been spending a lot of time in post-processing correcting the problems. With the 28mm/2 Zeiss Distagon ZF.2 lens, the D800E produces gorgeous files with clean, accurate color that needs little correction. This lens does need to be stopped down more than the 28mm Elmarit to get sharp corners, and has some chromatic aberration (that is easily fixed in post), but it’s almost as good as the 28mm Elmarit and Summicron for actual photography. That’s entirely due to the M9 series’ flaws, as the final image is the sum of the effects of the whole system. Hopefully, the Type 240 M camera will have much more even color performance across the frame with wideangles. From the description of the new sensor’s aspheric microlenses, it sounds like it might do much better than the M9 series. I may still wait for a digital M that has resolution on a par with the D800E before replacing my M9P. As for these sample images, I want to see more pictures, preferably from a production camera with 28mm and wider lenses, before making up my mind about the M Type 240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 24, 2013 Share #159 Posted January 24, 2013 Has no-one found a way to bring Patek Philippe watches into the thread yet?? It's not the raw dollar cost of the 911 that brings the parallel. It's the combination of requirement to adhere to tradition and of engineering excellence. Cost is relative, we're in a forum discussing a camera whose cost would make most people vomit on the spot. So to highlight an expensive car as being different to that, relatively, is folly. I could talk about the iMac in a similar context. At it's top spec a cool half the price of the M240 . Relatively more than the equivalent home built PC, so I'm told. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share #160 Posted January 24, 2013 I actually think there are interesting parallels between the 991 and any new camera, especially a Leica M. They have to satisfy the traditionalists, yet can't ignore the march of technology. It's fundamentally a "flawed design" by not being mid engined, which would be Rick's complaint about a digital camera still being formed around two spools and a film plane. It needs to be more efficient in terms of fuel economy (high ISO?) yet retain or better exceed previous model performance. here's my thinking: MP = 993 (the last hurrah) M8 = 996 (controversial, not oil (air) cooled any longer, not film any longer) M9 = 997 (the acceptable water cooled 911 and the acceptable digital?) M = 991 (the next generation) that almost works, doesn't it!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.