SiOnara Posted August 6, 2015 Share #81 Posted August 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Digilloyd? Seriously? He's one hair's breadth from an ass. Strange but my M240 seems to take great photographs and quite easily. No point in blaming ones tools [emoji6] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Hi SiOnara, Take a look here Does the Q Portend the Death of the M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted August 6, 2015 Share #82 Posted August 6, 2015 Yes he does - for instance he made a lot of noise on the first Monochrom because he "discovered" focus shift using red filters and called for "further investigation". Informed criticism is good, it only makes a, or the next, product better, but simpleminded calling of POS for pilot error is not on for a serious reviewer, in my book. Falsum in uno falsum in omnibus, if you set yourself up on the pedestal of an authority. I recall this "shock horror" post very clearly. While it was termed "focus shift", more accurately what he had "discovered" was that by using a red filter, the depth of focus (i.e., the plane of best focus at the sensor) shifted because the red end of the colour wavelength is longer than the blue. When I read this, I thought "really"? But then I thought about colour shift generally, and decided he was probably right (in theory), and the same issue probably applied to film, but for the thickness of the emulsion providing some margin. Then, in practice, I found that it was really nonsense - maybe I don't take images requiring sharp enough focus, or perhaps I haven't looked. What I was fearing was the entire image being out of focus, but it wasn't. I decided at that point that DigiLloyd was a man who perhaps just didn't like the camera very much (which is okay, I guess, but an odd way of saying it). Quite why the Q, a fixed lens camera, would be the death of the M camera, a system camera with some of the finest lenses available (for size and price), I couldn't work out at all. Nice if he likes the Q, but about as likely to kill the M as the Rx-1 was to kill the A7 cameras ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 6, 2015 Share #83 Posted August 6, 2015 What I was fearing was the entire image being out of focus, but it wasn't. Of course it wasn't, but you won't get pixel-level sharpness with close subject and wide apertures. We all know Lloyd tends to be polemic, but guys, we all should take everything with a big grain of salt... which usually means: let your brain do its job Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 6, 2015 Share #84 Posted August 6, 2015 Of course it wasn't, but you won't get pixel-level sharpness with close subject and wide apertures. We all know Lloyd tends to be polemic, but guys, we all should take everything with a big grain of salt... which usually means: let your brain do its job Who said anything about pixel level sharpness "with close subject and wide apertures"? Depth of focus relates to the image side plane of best focus, and is measured in microns - I know it's Wikipedia, but it helps. If the focus shift was as dramatic as Lloyd lead us to believe, then the entire image would have been out of focus as the entire plane of best focus would not be projected onto the sensor. We're not talking about a bit of front or back focus, but the entire plane not hitting the sensor. There's polemic, and there's wild conjecture. I must say, I'm surprised that Erick says Lloyd is the best reviewer on the web - I'm not sure he's serious. I've read Lloyd a bit, and a lot of what he writes is useful, but his attention grabbing wild comments eventually tainted everything he had to say. Your route varies? Fine, but that does not spare him the scorn he often earns here. I'd rather read what the fruit and veg man had to say, if he got rid of that truly nasty website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 6, 2015 Share #85 Posted August 6, 2015 Here's what Lloyd actually says: So will the Leica Q kill the M platform? Yes if Leica makes other Q models with additional focal lengths and also fails to take the M platform forward. The M platform clings to multiple handicaps: Leica M240 with 50/1.4 Summilux It is simply not usable by some users (eyesight). The camera still crashes sometimes, requiring power off to recover, and losing the image. The optional M240 EVF is a toy-grade low-res optional wart atop the camera. Awkward. The M240 rangefinder is an anachronism used by some shooters, but entirely unusable by others (eyesight, framing, etc), and subject to mechanical tolerance errors along with grossly inaccurate frame lines and it is impossible to make a level image with wide angles using the rangefinder or absurdly expensive optical hot-shoe viewfinders. The M240 is larger, heavier and much more expensive. With only a few lenses, it quickly becomes a $20K to $30K system. The Leica Q sensor has superior dynamic range and color over the M sensor, with none of the color shading problems of the M wides. My field experience shows vastly more accurate metering with the the Q. I have to shoot on manual all the time with the M; with the Q I just shoot on aperture priority with minor exp comp adjustments. Leica M lenses simply are not as good as they could be versus a fresh approach to mirrorless. They are chock full of stale film-era compromises that need not be there with fresh designs for mirrorless. I would hold up the Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2 Distagon as a vastly superior lens as compared with Leica’s best (at 1/6 to 1/3 the cost!). Leica could do even better at double or triple the price the Batis. So where should the M body go? Introduce a smaller and lighter EVF-only ME (“M EVF”), with no rangefinder. This brings the cost down, usability up, size and weight way down. Maintain compatibility with M lenses, but offer all new MA (“M autofocus”) lenses with autofocus and leaf shutters that rock with a built-in flash utilizing the wasted space currently occupied by the rangefinder. These lenses can be new designs optimized for mirrorless and be made larger so as not to require such esoteric optical designs (no more concern in blocking the rangefinder). Raise the resolution and dynamic range of the sensor: 36 megapixels minimum, 14+ bits dynamic range. As they say in Russia, tough shitsky if those vaunted M lenses show their limits even more than they do now at 24 megapixels. This should all have been done a year ago. Source: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150721_2136-LeicaM-hit-by-LeicaQ.html Apart from the eyesight problem, much of this isn't new - it's a rehash of what has been written here for some time, and I have no doubt Leica is taking notice. What they won't be doing (I very much doubt) is taking guidance on their products from someone who doesn't use them, doesn't like them, and doesn't agree with their product placement. Photography is in a very dodgy place right now, thanks largely to the iPhone. For all Lloyd's love of Sony, they are apparently making no money from their cameras; wheres Leica ... I'm reminded of a recent article in Wired magazine - Apple does not have a majority market share in phones; actually, their market share is modest compared to Samsung and the Android based phones; but they are making the lions' share of the profit in the phone market. As for fixing the issues Lloyd identifies, Leica has actually been working on those, and the new M camera is not due for release until this year. But then, Lloyd probably knew that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 6, 2015 Share #86 Posted August 6, 2015 Again, we all must use our most powerful tool to filter other people's opinions. For example, I don't agree with the following points in Lloyd's post: - "Leica lenses are chock full of stale film era compromises": This is a ridiculous sentence, as film has much less compromises than current state-of-the-art digital sensors. As soon as digital sensors will be able to tolerate steep ray angles, Leica lenses will shine in a fantastic new light. Sony A7 lenses are huge because they need to work around sensor era compromises. - "built-in flash utilizing the wasted space currently occupied by the rangefinder". Rangefinder blockage would also be flash blockage. ...but I agree with most other points, even if I am convinced that the Q and the M are totally different cameras for totally different use cases. And no, photography is not in a very dodgy place "thanks to the iPhone". Photography has never been better. Now everyone can be a photographer, for cheap, and that is a good thing for photography and all of us (but some pros). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted August 7, 2015 Share #87 Posted August 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well then the Q is not for you. I consider this a flame post. By your own admission you handled a Q for 30 seconds. How can anyone take seriously impressions based on 30 seconds? Did you expect an M camera for less than 1/2 the price? In any event, I don't agree with your rapidly-reached conclusions. The viewfinder to be sure is not an optical one, but it is not "simply crap". It is a very good EVF, the best I have used. The focusing is not rangefinder focusing even in manual but it is quite accurate, despite your "feelings". Last, I don't know how a camera provides an "impression of personally creating a handcrafted photo". That's all in one's head. I have gotten some very good images from my Q and enjoyed it immensely. I still prefer my M-P (240) over almost anything else, but that does not mean everything else is a piece of crap and that one needs a Leica M to do any serious work. I feel similarly about my M system (M Monochrom and M-E with a quartet of rica lenses) and my X 113. I definitely like the Ms more, but every morning when I walk out of the house the D is usually the one in my bag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 7, 2015 Share #88 Posted August 7, 2015 Regrettably, Phillip has taken it upon himself to decide that my quoting Lloyd Chambers "breached copyright". In order to breach copyright, you really need to use someone else's material, unattributed, for purposes for which it was not intended. Cutting and pasting part of a public blog is not, Phillip, a breach of copyright when the purpose is to discuss that quote. And no, photography is not in a very dodgy place "thanks to the iPhone". Photography has never been better. Now everyone can be a photographer, for cheap, and that is a good thing for photography and all of us (but some pros). Agreed - more photos are being taken now than ever before. My comment should have said camera manufacture is in a dodgy place thanks to the iPhone. Anyway, this topic has become rather pointless, and I have no desire to turn it into moderation policy. Phillip can explain editing my post in private. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 7, 2015 Share #89 Posted August 7, 2015 In order to breach copyright, you really need to use someone else's material, unattributed, for purposes for which it was not intended. Cutting and pasting part of a public blog is not, Phillip, a breach of copyright when the purpose is to discuss that quote. Agreed, also considering Lloyd is getting a lot attention from this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 7, 2015 Share #90 Posted August 7, 2015 Yes, that's very true (nothing worse than not being talked about). I just read Erwin's post on the Q (from back in June) - I think he makes some really good points. Principally: The Q is very good but over priced The M needs a wake up call as the only camera not offering AF Now, I'm no fan of AF, but there is a point that Leica's premium price needs justification; and perhaps that justification is wearing a bit thin. Back in the days of the M3, Leica could bring together the innovations from other cameras into the first properly integrated package, with its very fine lenses. We still have the lenses, but in the digital age, they need to offer more than a brass body ... Having said all that, I'm also quite sure that Leica is well aware of all this. My expectation is that the gap between the X & Q fixed lens cameras and the M & T system cameras will get a bit of a shake up later this year - new system camera and re-defined M ... Hopefully that will include pricing. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 7, 2015 Share #91 Posted August 7, 2015 Depth of focus relates to the image side plane of best focus, and is measured in microns - I know it's Wikipedia, but it helps. If the focus shift was as dramatic as Lloyd lead us to believe, then the entire image would have been out of focus as the entire plane of best focus would not be projected onto the sensor. We're not talking about a bit of front or back focus, but the entire plane not hitting the sensor. For what it's worth, the couple of times I tried a red filter with a Monochrom (largely out of curiosity more than anything else) my experience is pretty much what you suggest wouldn't happen. The resulting image was simply not sharp. I tried focus bracketing but it didn't seem to help. I was using a B+W red filter and a current 35 Summilux. I have noticed that Leica's forthcoming filter set doesn't include a red filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 7, 2015 Share #92 Posted August 7, 2015 For what it's worth, the couple of times I tried a red filter with a Monochrom (largely out of curiosity more than anything else) my experience is pretty much what you suggest wouldn't happen. The resulting image was simply not sharp. I tried focus bracketing but it didn't seem to help. I was using a B+W red filter and a current 35 Summilux. I have noticed that Leica's forthcoming filter set doesn't include a red filter. Interesting - I might need to dust off my red filters and do some comparison. Any recommendations on a good subject, distance and aperture? I've got a tripod somewhere too ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 7, 2015 Share #93 Posted August 7, 2015 Interesting - I might need to dust off my red filters and do some comparison. Any recommendations on a good subject, distance and aperture? I've got a tripod somewhere too ... I was photographing a small building about 50-100 yards away. It wasn't dark so I was probably using F5.6 (it certainly wouldn't have been wider). I'll be interested to hear how you get on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 7, 2015 Share #94 Posted August 7, 2015 Regrettably, Phillip has taken it upon himself to decide that my quoting Lloyd Chambers "breached copyright". In order to breach copyright, you really need to use someone else's material, unattributed, for purposes for which it was not intended. Cutting and pasting part of a public blog is not, Phillip, a breach of copyright when the purpose is to discuss that quote. [...] Do you mean such cutting and pasting would be allowed without asking the author's agreement? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUF Admin Posted August 7, 2015 Share #95 Posted August 7, 2015 Hi, we moderators are still discussing this. Looks as if the laws about how much quote is allowed differ in Germany and the US. Please give us some time to clear this up - thanks! Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted August 7, 2015 Share #96 Posted August 7, 2015 The other day, thanks to the kindness and generosity of a friend I spent a whole afternoon shooting a Q. This morning, thanks to the kindness and generosity of the same friend, I took a couple of snaps with his M9. I really, really loved the Q, but you know what? The M will never die. The way it makes you shoot. The way it renders. It has this thing, this 'life' that nothing else quite touches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 7, 2015 Share #97 Posted August 7, 2015 The M will never die. The way it makes you shoot. The way it renders. It has this thing, this 'life' that nothing else quite touches. You should tell also which lens(es) you had mounted on the M9, because that is 99% of "the way it renders". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted August 7, 2015 Share #98 Posted August 7, 2015 Fair enough ... today it was the 75/2 and other days it's the 35/1.4, which is the lens I love most of any I have ever used on any camera. But I also feel like I have more of a 'sense of purpose' with the M9 than with the Q. Wishy washy, intangible, subjective nonsense, perhaps... But one day it will be mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 7, 2015 Share #99 Posted August 7, 2015 As it turns out, the quote I have removed did not violate German law. I have re-instated the quote and added a link to the source. I also apologise for the disruption of the thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted August 7, 2015 Share #100 Posted August 7, 2015 Doesn't matter what Lloyd or anyone else wants, begs for, likes, or demands. At this point Leica has long since locked down the specifications for what is to come next. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.