A new land for Leica

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

If sensors allow for a fixed ISO setting (with no loss in image quality in adjusting exposure in post), is also adjusting depth of field in post becoming possible?  How far can this go?  Does future technology allow for a variable focus image?  We all prioritise achieving the best framing, focusing, exposure and aperture, but what if we had a lens and sensor combination which captured the ideal combination of all parameters, save composition and perspective, with a single variable lens and sensor?

I will always want the hunt for the perfect moment, the best angle, composition and perspective. That's what makes photography fun to me. But I can live well without setting ISO, aperture, exposure, framing and even depth of field and focus, if this could be done in retrospect.

It may seems a bit contradictory that I hate all kinds of auto settings, because they could have done many of these things already. But in a strange way, it is still not the same.

[IkarusJohn]

👍

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jankap]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb IkarusJohn:

If sensors allow for a fixed ISO setting (with no loss in image quality in adjusting exposure in post), is also adjusting depth of field in post becoming possible?  

Yes, the Lytro Illum. Have a look in the Rangefinderforum (thread: Point N Shoot 35mm cameras) and you can find examples. For instance the mouse (here at left) is shown with different DOF, using the same picture. The camera registers the depth of the object. So it can even be used as a stereocamera too.

Edited July 13, 2020 by jankap

[willeica]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

Having too many lenses only makes decisions harder. I strive hard to keep the number down. 😄

As a collector, I have loads of Leica lenses (probably well north of 50), but mainly very old ones which most people here would not use. My main user lenses are Summicrons and Summiluxes on Ms and Elmars, Summars, Summitars and Summarons on LTMs

 

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Lenses don't have to be big.

Precisely the point that I have been making. Most of your other points about Qs, SLs etc mean little to me as I have no interest in those cameras. You need to stand back from talking about particular models and look at the bigger picture.

 

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

They don't want to cannibalise SL2 sales

The main cannibalisation they want to avoid relates to lens sales. A camera that covered all focal lengths would cannibalise lens sales and I am not talking about so-called 'Bridge cameras'.

Maybe camera users just like buying lenses, just like I like collecting old lenses, but the interchangeable lens concept, which was pioneered by Leica for 35mm photography, is now 90 years old. I just have a feeling that replacing hardware with software has a long way to go before it is fully realised. Leica Ms will always stand outside of this as they are based fully on the 90 year old concept and will always be. 

William 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, jankap said:

Yes, the Lytro Illum. Have a look in the Rangefinderforum (thread: Point N Shoot 35mm cameras) and you can find examples. For instance the mouse (here at left) is shown with different DOF, using the same picture. The camera registers the depth of the object. So it can even be used as a stereocamera too.

And of course focus stacking is becoming quite popular in both Macro and Landscape photography. I've played with it and the results are very encouraging.

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

And of course focus stacking is becoming quite popular in both Macro and Landscape photography. I've played with it and the results are very encouraging.

The latest firmware for the X1D II has focus stacking - aren't had the time to try it yet ... static subject, tripod, remote shutter release etc.  So far, it seems the best results are to go from infinity back.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find that Photoshop has no problem. aligning shots. A tripod and remote release  are not mandatory. If the camera has post-focus it is made totally easy.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

13 hours ago, willeica said:

snip.....

Precisely the point that I have been making. Most of your other points about Qs, SLs etc mean little to me as I have no interest in those cameras. You need to stand back from talking about particular models and look at the bigger picture.

William 

What makes you think I'm missing the bigger picture? And what's the issue at looking at available technology and extrapolating where it might develop?

Gordon

[willeica]

4 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

What makes you think I'm missing the bigger picture? And what's the issue at looking at available technology and extrapolating where it might develop?

Gordon

To make it simple, I am talking about concepts and not camera models, particularly current ones. 

William

[pgk]

15 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Lenses don't have to be big.

If you delve into the history of photographic lenses you will find that wide-angle designs have always lagged behind others. They still do and part of the reason is physics. On digital cameras the lens produces light rays which need to project back into the camera as perpendicular as possible to the sensor in order to produce good corner performance. This basically means more complex optical designs which are bigger. So to combat this would require changes in sensor design allied to revised wide-angle lens design. Possible? Eventually perhaps, but evolution tends to take place incrementally rather than in sudden massive steps. So smaller wide-angle lenses may become possible as may many other of the discussed potentialities. But at the moment we have what we have and I can't see rapid shifts occurring in a shrinking market.

Technology can replace many human driven mechanisms but I would echo BlackBarn in that automating everything may be actually produce a rather dis-satisfying experience which yields too homogenous results. Those who want something different will have a choice though, of controlling everything as they take an image, or using technology to adjust images to suit there desire after they have been taken. I'm certainly in the former camp.

[jdlaing]

Physics? 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, jdlaing said:

Physics? 

Refractive index of glass. Initially wide views were produced by increased coverage. Later better glass of higher refraction allowed for wider angle on smaller formats. Recent innovations are ultra wide fast zooms. Wides have always lagged behind standard and long optics mostly due to their more problematic demands on glass types and complex design. We are now seeing fast wides being created - the combination of wide and fast is finally being sorted out.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 hours ago, pgk said:

If you delve into the history of photographic lenses you will find that wide-angle designs have always lagged behind others. They still do and part of the reason is physics. On digital cameras the lens produces light rays which need to project back into the camera as perpendicular as possible to the sensor in order to produce good corner performance. This basically means more complex optical designs which are bigger. So to combat this would require changes in sensor design allied to revised wide-angle lens design. Possible? Eventually perhaps, but evolution tends to take place incrementally rather than in sudden massive steps. So smaller wide-angle lenses may become possible as may many other of the discussed potentialities. But at the moment we have what we have and I can't see rapid shifts occurring in a shrinking market.

Technology can replace many human driven mechanisms but I would echo BlackBarn in that automating everything may be actually produce a rather dis-satisfying experience which yields too homogenous results. Those who want something different will have a choice though, of controlling everything as they take an image, or using technology to adjust images to suit there desire after they have been taken. I'm certainly in the former camp.

Me too. The idea of all cameras becoming like Lytro based technology would make me quit photography. It's not going to happen in my lifetime, thankfully, as Lytros exit from the consumer space showed.

Mostly I was referring to the current trend of enormous *mid range* lenses. From 28 to 105mm, I would give most of the credit to the Otus series which seemed to make it completely acceptable to have a 28mm lens weigh over a kilo. Or the SL 50mm 1.4 which is basically medium format sized. And the proliferation of super fast wide angle and short telephoto glass. The Leica 21mm Summilux or the Sigma 105mm 1.4.

Lenses can be small (a relative term, obviously) and good. The WATE is an example of a tiny zoom that's actually a good lens. So is the 90mm Summarit M. Or the 135 APO M. Yes we need to take into account for AF mechanisms blah blah, but it can be done. It is being done. The argument was that a 135 format sensor version of the CL would need SL sized lenses. This plainly isn't true. For the current SL lenses we have. They could all be smaller and for each of them there's another manufacturer doing exactly that. That's all I'm saying. Not tyring to defy any laws of Physics here.

Gordon

[Jeff S]

Counterintuitively, Roger Cicala found that wide zooms generally resolve better at the WIDE end, not the longer end.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

Jeff

[pgk]

9 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Counterintuitively, Roger Cicala found that wide zooms generally resolve better at the WIDE end, not the longer end.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

Jeff

Well, I suspect that; first, the widest end is where such zooms are most used, and second, the image is probably 'zoomed' by increasingly utilising a part of the central section of a formed image somewhere along the line, so it is not as good as the whole image - if that makes sense?

[willeica]

11 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Me too. The idea of all cameras becoming like Lytro based technology would make me quit photography. It's not going to happen in my lifetime, thankfully, as Lytros exit from the consumer space showed.

Again, we need to look beyond Lytro, which is just one particular innovation. If you like changing lenses I am sure that there will be plenty of cameras to do this with for many years to come, particularly the M which is resolutely in the 'old school' camp. In my own case, most of my favourite cameras (with the possible exception of the M3) were made before 1940. However, there seems to me to be a serious lack of innovation in respect of the possibilities for digital imaging. Most digital cameras with interchangeable lenses are still built on a basic model created in the era when 35mm film was king and when digital imaging and its possibilities could not even be imagined.

William

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

Again, we need to look beyond Lytro, which is just one particular innovation. If you like changing lenses I am sure that there will be plenty of cameras to do this with for many years to come, particularly the M which is resolutely in the 'old school' camp. In my own case, most of my favourite cameras (with the possible exception of the M3) were made before 1940. However, there seems to me to be a serious lack of innovation in respect of the possibilities for digital imaging. Most digital cameras with interchangeable lenses are still built on a basic model created in the era when 35mm film was king and when digital imaging and its possibilities could not even be imagined.

William

And what would you have them do differently?

And to think there has been no/little innovation in digital imaging is naïve.

Gordon

[jankap]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb willeica:

Again, we need to look beyond Lytro, which is just one particular innovation. If you like changing lenses I am sure that there will be plenty of cameras to do this with for many years to come, particularly the M which is resolutely in the 'old school' camp. In my own case, most of my favourite cameras (with the possible exception of the M3) were made before 1940. However, there seems to me to be a serious lack of innovation in respect of the possibilities for digital imaging. Most digital cameras with interchangeable lenses are still built on a basic model created in the era when 35mm film was king and when digital imaging and its possibilities could not even be imagined.

William

Very good observed. Canon RF has taken something to improve the distance measuring. Of course a Lytro takes pictures only.

But what do you want else? Looking back 70 years , would it make sense to revive the Leica M3? It is remarkable, that after 24mb and now 40mb the next goal will be 100mb?? Is that all?

[willeica]

40 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

And to think there has been no/little innovation in digital imaging is naïve.

I know all about the 'innovation' that has taken place. However, why do DSLRs and EVF system cameras still use same basic physical functionality concept as 35mm SLRs with interchangeable lenses? Do they need to be that way? What I am talking about is the physical design and concept of cameras for professionals and advanced amateurs which has remained pretty much the same for 60 years now.

7 minutes ago, jankap said:

Very good observed. Canon RF has taken something to improve the distance measuring. Of course a Lytro takes pictures only.

But what do you want else? Looking back 70 years , would it make sense to revive the Leica M3? It is remarkable, that after 24mb and now 40mb the next goal will be 100mb?? Is that all?

The M3 concept marches to a different tune, with manual use at its core. The latest episode or stage on that journey will be revealed tomorrow.

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 hours ago, willeica said:

I know all about the 'innovation' that has taken place. However, why do DSLRs and EVF system cameras still use same basic physical functionality concept as 35mm SLRs with interchangeable lenses? Do they need to be that way? What I am talking about is the physical design and concept of cameras for professionals and advanced amateurs which has remained pretty much the same for 60 years now.

William

I suspect the physical designs haven't changed much because we haven't changed at all (apart from there being vastly too many of us). We're still primarily a right handed species with opposable thumbs. Current camera design mostly just works. The same could be said for motor vehicles. We've been through the speed graphics, the rangefinders, the TLR's and the Nikon 990's and settled on the most common SLR design because it works. There are outliers like Leica M's but most people like DSLR design and handling.

Changing the physical operation to something different might just be trying to reinvent the wheel. Although for the majority, one might argue that it has in fact happened, with the development of the cell phone camera, which probably has more R&D thrown at it than traditional cameras.

Gordon