ramarren Posted November 14, 2015 Share #141 Posted November 14, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is this still leading us somewhere, or is it just pumping around arousal about nothing LOL! I think it's about people waiting for the product to be real enough to say something objective and based in reality. Lots of opinion and conjecture satisfying fantasy success and disappointment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Hi ramarren, Take a look here interview with Dr. Kaufmann and CEO Kaltner on the SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted November 14, 2015 Share #142 Posted November 14, 2015 ... 9.) WIFI would make sense, Sensor cleaning not so much (that actually anyhow doesn't work anywhere else really well) ... I beg to differ. The automatic sensor cleaning in my E-1 has not once failed in its entire 12 year lifespan, same for all of the Panasonic and Olympus FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras I've owned. Not one dust spec in well past 100,000 exposures made over the past decade. And it looks like this is the same automatic sensor cleaning system that Leica has adopted for the SL, courtesy their relationship with Panasonic and their membership in the FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds consortium. Bravo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 14, 2015 Share #143 Posted November 14, 2015 I beg to differ. The automatic sensor cleaning in my E-1 has not once failed in its entire 12 year lifespan, same for all of the Panasonic and Olympus FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras I've owned. Not one dust spec in well past 100,000 exposures made over the past decade. And it looks like this is the same automatic sensor cleaning system that Leica has adopted for the SL, courtesy their relationship with Panasonic and their membership in the FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds consortium. Bravo! The glass cover of the micro four thirds is huge, so the dust sits further away from the sensor, making it so out of focus to be virtually invisible. Not saying the auto cleaning isn't effective because I'm sure it is, but shaking off sticky wet dust particles such as pollen would not be possible with vibrations alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 14, 2015 Share #144 Posted November 14, 2015 The glass cover of the micro four thirds is huge, so the dust sits further away from the sensor, making it so out of focus to be virtually invisible. Not saying the auto cleaning isn't effective because I'm sure it is, but shaking off sticky wet dust particles such as pollen would not be possible with vibrations alone. The FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds sensors are indeed optimized on lines different from what's required for M lenses, and have a thick sensor stack as a result. And the very very few mentions of dust in images, when you review all the various forums that host discussion around the brand, are indeed always to do with truly sticky crap that's gotten onto the sensor. (I've not had any issues like that despite very frequent, casual lens changing without thinking about dirt, dust, etc.) But who cares, really? The point is that the cleaning system and design of the camera makes dust on the sensor from casual and frequent lens changes not a worry at all, just like it generally isn't with a film camera. Isn't that the point? I don't see how you can interpret that as a negative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 14, 2015 Share #145 Posted November 14, 2015 I didn't mean to sound negative. I'm just stating the facts I guess my point is not to expect the SL cleaning system to be as effective because the much thinner cover glass will not hide the dust as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 14, 2015 Share #146 Posted November 14, 2015 I'll guess I will see about that. I'm hoping my camera will be here next week and I expect it will get a lot of use with a lot of lens changes... The Sony A7 has a similar mechanism and also stayed very clean... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 15, 2015 Share #147 Posted November 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have no desire whatsoever to educate you Must be my lucky day Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 15, 2015 Share #148 Posted November 15, 2015 The glass cover of the micro four thirds is huge, so the dust sits further away from the sensor, making it so out of focus to be virtually invisible. It would have to be much, much thicker to achieve that feat. No, the sensor cleaning method developed by Olympus is really quite effective; it was the first of its kind and as far as I can tell it is the best. My latest test of sensor-cleaning methods was a few years ago but the result was that the Olympus system removed more of the dust (that I had placed on the sensor) than any competing system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2015 Share #149 Posted November 15, 2015 Compared to the M9, the M240 has more color shading and even some lenses without color shading on the M9 have a noticeable one on the M240. Most Leica lens users won't notice the difference if they have the auto lens correction on, though this approach causes irreparable damage to the files in the borders... What do you mean by "color shading"? Vignetting, chromatic aberration or perhaps smeared corners? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 15, 2015 Share #150 Posted November 15, 2015 Must be my lucky day In the contrary, listening to people who know better than you can be for your own benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 15, 2015 Share #151 Posted November 15, 2015 It would have to be much, much thicker to achieve that feat. No, the sensor cleaning method developed by Olympus is really quite effective; it was the first of its kind and as far as I can tell it is the best. My latest test of sensor-cleaning methods was a few years ago but the result was that the Olympus system removed more of the dust (that I had placed on the sensor) than any competing system. I have no doubt about the efficiency of the system. I never used Olympus but the cover glass on my Sony A900 was 2 mm thick and dust specks showed as huge diffused circles that I needed 50-60 pixel radius cloning brush to remove them. I believe the cover glass on the Olympus is 4mm. You can extrapolate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 15, 2015 Share #152 Posted November 15, 2015 Compared to the M9, the M240 has more color shading and even some lenses without color shading on the M9 have a noticeable one on the M240. Most Leica lens users won't notice the difference if they have the auto lens correction on, though this approach causes irreparable damage to the files in the borders. I keep auto correction off, since I use ZM lenses and can see a huge difference between the M9 and M240. I haven't found this to be the case with any of my lenses. I'm using the same lenses (a mixture of Voigtländer and Leica from 1960 to current production) on the M-P that I did on the M9; by and large, the M-P files are significantly cleaner. The "irreparable damage to the files in the borders" is also something I have not seen at all. Perhaps Zeiss ZM lenses are different. I know the Biogon is, generally speaking, a terrible lens design for a digital sensor. The Planar design, on the other hand, seems to work very well according to reports. But I have only a little first hand knowledge of Zeiss ZM lenses ... I tried two, didn't like the build quality much, and returned them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 15, 2015 Share #153 Posted November 15, 2015 What do you mean by "color shading"? Vignetting, chromatic aberration or perhaps smeared corners? Color shading is purple color vignetting on the M240 or Italian flag on the M9. No relation whatsoever with CA or smearing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 15, 2015 Share #154 Posted November 15, 2015 What do you mean by "color shading"? Vignetting, chromatic aberration or perhaps smeared corners? This is color shading as demonstrated by using a Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 lens on an M9 body with no lens code selected: With the right lens code selected (I forget which one I found to work best for this lens) nearly all the shading disappears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 15, 2015 Share #155 Posted November 15, 2015 ... the result was that the Olympus system removed more of the dust If it were not full-frame then we would call it 'Crop Dusting'. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 15, 2015 Share #156 Posted November 15, 2015 I haven't found this to be the case with any of my lenses. I'm using the same lenses (a mixture of Voigtländer and Leica from 1960 to current production) on the M-P that I did on the M9; by and large, the M-P files are significantly cleaner. The "irreparable damage to the files in the borders" is also something I have not seen at all. Perhaps Zeiss ZM lenses are different. I know the Biogon is, generally speaking, a terrible lens design for a digital sensor. The Planar design, on the other hand, seems to work very well according to reports. But I have only a little first hand knowledge of Zeiss ZM lenses ... I tried two, didn't like the build quality much, and returned them. So basically the M has less color shading than the M9, the lens correction has no side effects, the voigtlander lenses have better build than the ZM, and the biogon lenses are terrible on digital sensors. Well noted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 15, 2015 Share #157 Posted November 15, 2015 Actually, my Biogon C 35 is a preferred lens on my Monochrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 15, 2015 Share #158 Posted November 15, 2015 It would have to be much, much thicker to achieve that feat. No, the sensor cleaning method developed by Olympus is really quite effective; it was the first of its kind and as far as I can tell it is the best. My latest test of sensor-cleaning methods was a few years ago but the result was that the Olympus system removed more of the dust (that I had placed on the sensor) than any competing system. I'm very interested to know your opinion about the claim that shifted microlenses are useless with M glass. It seems to contradict everything I know, but I'm willing to be open minded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 15, 2015 Share #159 Posted November 15, 2015 In the contrary, listening to people who know better than you can be for your own benefit. Indeed, but the problem is: you are not one of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 15, 2015 Share #160 Posted November 15, 2015 Indeed, but the problem is: you are not one of them. You said it is proven that shifted microlenses are useless. Would you care to teach us proven by whom and where? Can you link to the scientific research that proved 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.