andybarton Posted September 3, 2009 Share #101 Posted September 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know - is that better than the D-Lux 4 sensor? It must be, otherwise Leica wouldn't have gone down this route Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 Hi andybarton, Take a look here Leica M9 + X1: Fake or real?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
georg Posted September 3, 2009 Share #102 Posted September 3, 2009 The D-Lux4 has a 1/1,63"-toy-sensor which is three times smaller than a APC-C-sensor! And the little plastic lens of course, which adds additional "charme"... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted September 3, 2009 Share #103 Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) I can't see how this is any advantage over a D-Lux 4, to be honest. Or am I missing something? The D-Lux-4, which may or may not be a reasonable camera of its type, is still a tiny sensor P&S when all said and done. The emerging 'hybrids', such as M4/3rds and APS-C compacts have much larger sensors and should have higher base IQ, if the sensor advantage is backed up by the processor and lens. So, in theory at least, there should be no contest between the D-Lux-4 and this new Leica compact (GF1 or APS-C based) if it exists. I think those that should know were expecting any second camera to be available later than the M9, perhaps by the end of the year, but I suppose Leica could spring a surprise. The M9 seems a certainty, as does early availability (I expect to be packing plastic, for a deposit at least, on the 10th, assuming the specs live up to expectations:)). Edited September 3, 2009 by stevelap Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 3, 2009 Share #104 Posted September 3, 2009 The D-Lux4 has a 1/1,63"-toy-sensor which is three times smaller than a APC-C-sensor! And the little plastic lens of course, which adds additional "charme"... Snobbery's not dead, I see... Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rondeb Posted September 3, 2009 Share #105 Posted September 3, 2009 What about this little piccy from dpreview forum? 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! Quote 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/95231-leica-m9-x1-fake-or-real/?do=findComment&comment=1016709'>More sharing options...
rebelfocus Posted September 3, 2009 Share #106 Posted September 3, 2009 What about this little piccy from dpreview forum? One of the worst photoshops going around. It looks so fake! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share #107 Posted September 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What about this little piccy from dpreview forum? no...this looks pretty bad - just look at "9" - it's not the work of a smart graphic designer. leica always employs smart graphic designers, be it for their website, publicity materials, packaging , or , of course, products [in this case, product designers] Even the body cover [or whatever it is called ] looks like it's from an old M8 , not the latest M8.2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 3, 2009 Share #108 Posted September 3, 2009 The 9 is not even matched properly to the M.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 3, 2009 Share #109 Posted September 3, 2009 It is a photoshop fake - but the M9 will probably be indistinguishable from it anyway. Reminds me of the story of the literary historian who proved that Shakespeare's plays were not written by William Shakespeare, but by another poet - with the same name. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 4, 2009 Share #110 Posted September 4, 2009 It is a photoshop fake - but the M9 will probably be indistinguishable from it anyway. Reminds me of the story of the literary historian who proved that Shakespeare's plays were not written by William Shakespeare, but by another poet - with the same name. LAUNCELOT: Look, my liege! ARTHUR: Camelot! GALAHAD: Camelot! LAUNCELOT: Camelot! PATSY: It's only a model. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 4, 2009 Author Share #111 Posted September 4, 2009 The specs are now well known 'facts', and it's getting boring to follow this and other threads. So, what other info do we still need to know? may be we need more photos . Let's bet that the official price 'will' be leaked by Tuesday evening, if not earlier ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceflynn Posted September 4, 2009 Share #112 Posted September 4, 2009 jaapv. You have just proven to my satisfaction that if you were not a successful photographer, you could have been a typographer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceflynn Posted September 4, 2009 Share #113 Posted September 4, 2009 george, What evidence do you have that the lens in the Leica D-Lux 4 is made of plastic? Not that there is anything wrong with plastic lenses. Current university basic research in lens design involves lenses made of hundreds of layers of plastic, each with a slightly different index of refraction. I wish I could remember where I read that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 4, 2009 Share #114 Posted September 4, 2009 Jaap, as a retired typographer (type designer, in fact) I agree completely with you. The fake is so amateurish that it is actually funny. Ceflynn, when we speak of 'plastic lenses' we do usually mean 'plastic-mount lenses'. If optics made out of synthetics had been up to the job, then they would have taken over from glass long ago; remember that aspherical surfaces are easy to do in plastics. Synthetics are of course up to some jobs -- I am in fact reading my own text through synthetic aspherical optics -- first my progressive specs, and then the lenses of my eyeballs! Last, suggesting that it is 'snobbery' pointing out that the physical sensor size is relevant to its performance in capturing photons, is simply too silly for words. Mind your credibility, Bill -- I did not expect that from you. The old man from the Age of Evidence Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 4, 2009 Share #115 Posted September 4, 2009 WHEN the X1-rumors are true and Leica really made a compact camera with Leica-standards, bigger sensor and Solms-made-lens we will have to deal with these facts: - It won't have much more megapixels than P&S - It's lens won't most likely be faster than the f2.0 of the D-Lux4 - It will not only cost a few hundred bucks more, it will cost easily 2k$! Nobody ever manufactured such a camera (mid/upper-class electronics/lens in a small P&S) and it will be difficult for many people to peg it as something existing (is this the way you say it?). But due to the three things I've mentioned we would experience ever the same: It's so expensive, because it has a Leica-sticker on it! Where is my Zoom? No HD-Video? Mine has more megapixels! That's why it's important to differentiate it from cameras like the D-Lux 4, even if it sounds rough. And yes, most of the D-Lux 4 is made of plastic, even crucial mechanical elements und I'm sure some lens-elements (asphericals at least) will be too. Here are RAW-files for download: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/01/canon-g10-leica-d-lux-4-shootout-pt-4.html] The D-Lux 4 is a neat little P&S, but it's not a Leica. Let's see if the X1 is such a camera at all... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 4, 2009 Share #116 Posted September 4, 2009 Aside from closeups, an f/2 lens on a small sensor camera has not enough DoF to isolate subjects from the background/foreground. This is the main Achilles' heel of tiny sensors along with noise and associated problems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #117 Posted September 4, 2009 Aside from closeups, an f/2 lens on a small sensor camera has not enough DoF to isolate subjects from the background/foreground. This is the main Achilles' heel of tiny sensors along with noise and associated problems. To some Achilles' heel, to others a differentiating feature of P&S. Isolating subjects is just one of techniques, sometimes one wants everything in focus. As the trends show, also DOF and bokeh will eventually be moved to postproduction where they are more easy to control. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 4, 2009 Share #118 Posted September 4, 2009 Last, suggesting that it is 'snobbery' pointing out that the physical sensor size is relevant to its performance in capturing photons, is simply too silly for words. Mind your credibility, Bill -- I did not expect that from you. Rofl! Lars, if your pomposity didn't exist, we would have to invent you! Try reading Georg's post. I was reacting to the tone, and the words actually used... "toy", "little" and "charme" (sic). Regards, Bill The young man from the age of checking his facts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 4, 2009 Share #119 Posted September 4, 2009 ...As the trends show, also DOF and bokeh will eventually be moved to postproduction where they are more easy to control. Despite all my efforts i am totally unable to mimic optical blur in PP. My results look ridiculously artificial. Do you succeed yourself? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #120 Posted September 4, 2009 Despite all my efforts i am totally unable to mimic optical blur in PP. My results look ridiculously artificial. Do you succeed yourself? not even trying..yet. But given the progress in software it's a matter of a couple of years, I think. Face recognition, huh! smile recognition (!) sits on P&S today. That was a top secret, NASA budget technology only several years ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.