- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Well obviously the "technology" will become obsolete. But that red dot, and what it stands for will last forever.
Wow... you've been well and truly brainwashed.
What exactly does it "stand for" ?
Well obviously the "technology" will become obsolete. But that red dot, and what it stands for will last forever.
lwe don't want to have some cheap Japanese name all over it.
Well, you know that, and I know that, but upper class twit of the year will never look beyond the outside appearance. That's why they make them so ugly.But I guess you're happy having a cheap Japanese name all over the sensor, AF, EVF and at least one of the flashguns then so long as it's not on the outside?
Well in some cases it stands for covering up the word Nissin.What exactly does it "stand for" ?
It depends. Would you prefer a Nissin flash, or a Leica branded Nissin?I am probably considered to be of the lower classes,
Well in some cases it stands for covering up the word Nissin.
If you use Leica rangefinders much, then you'd know better than to invest in a flash, irrespective of your plebeian credentials!It depends. Would you prefer a Nissin flash, or a Leica branded Nissin?
If you use Leica rangefinders much, then you'd know better than to invest in a flash, irrespective of your plebeian credentials!
I own a SF24 which happily sits in a cupboard somewhere, Occasionally I stick it on my DF when i'm trying to blow it up on the hotshoe.
If you use Leica rangefinders much, then you'd know better than to invest in a flash, irrespective of your plebeian credentials!
This is the problem. People buying cameras for the wrong reasons, and manufacturers responding accordingly. You can't blame them. They'll make what sells.
This mentality....
View attachment 48965
...drives this stupid evolution in cameras that pander to stupid amateur wants instead of actual needs. More professional cameras are sold to amateurs than professionals now, and the manufacturers are listening to whoever gives them money. You just KNOW the next Nikon camera will be a 50 mega pixel chunk of stupidity, and not something that actually serves to push photography forward because they HAVE to respond to Canon. The D800 was stupid in this respect too. Even the much vaunted Otus lenses can't out-resolve that sensor, so why push for 50MP? It's just a number now - meaningless in any photographic measure. What they should be doing, is developing larger formats, or higher sensitivity sensors, or even better lenses, but are they? No... they'll just embark on a silly arms race instead. Same with this Leica. It's designed to extract money from people, not push any boundaries. The more idiots buy this crap, the longer it will be before we see any real progress... progress that is actually possible now, if it wasn't for the fact that there's cash to be made by pandering to the one-upmanship of fools.
They're just tools!! Stop treating them like jewellery.
Leica aren't ahead of Canon or Nikon. Which is why they need Panasonic et al to do the hard work for them.Canon shooters wanted a higher mega pixel camera for landscape and portraits and they got it. That's just good business sense from Canon.
This Leica is 24mp which Leica must think is the sweet spot for sensor performance, so no arms race to 50mp here even though their lenses available are about the best on the market. The EVF and mirrorless will replace DSLRs one day and they are ahead of anything Canon or Nikon are doing in that department with a high specced camera and lens. To me that is innovation and progress, I don't know what your definition of progress is.
Much like Nikon/Oly/Phase1/Pentax/hasseblad etc using Sony sensors! - Everyones at it..Leica aren't ahead of Canon or Nikon. Which is why they need Panasonic et al to do the hard work for them.
They just design beautiful looking bodies. Oh, hang on a sec...
Except Canon.Much like Nikon/Oly/Phase1/Pentax/hasseblad etc using Sony sensors! - Everyones at it..
Yes, correct. If having everything in house is the prerequisite for buying a camera, then Canon should be top of the list! Oh and Fuji. Wait, Sigma too. + xyzExcept Canon.
Canon shooters wanted a higher mega pixel camera for landscape and portraits and they got it. That's just good business sense from Canon.
This Leica is 24mp which Leica must think is the sweet spot for sensor performance, so no arms race to 50mp here even though their lenses available are about the best on the market.
The EVF and mirrorless will replace DSLRs one day and they are ahead of anything Canon or Nikon are doing in that department with a high specced camera and lens. To me that is innovation and progress, I don't know what your definition of progress is.
Leica aren't ahead of Canon or Nikon. Which is why they need Panasonic et al to do the hard work for them.
They just design beautiful looking bodies. Oh, hang on a sec...
Are Nikon and Canon producing this new high spec full frame mirrorless camera and lens? No.
Well, yes, and there was my point!Yes, correct. If having everything in house is the prerequisite for buying a camera, then Canon should be top of the list! Oh and Fuji. Wait, Sigma too. + xyz
As for Panasonic, do Nikon shooters care that Sony make the sensors and have a close association with Fujitsu for algorithms and processors? I don't. It works and it produces great cameras.
You've missed my point. I said **Leica** aren't ahead of the game - they commissioned another tech company to do the hard work, all they did was provide a frickin ugly box to put it in, and a red dot.Are Nikon and Canon producing this new high spec full frame mirrorless camera and lens? No. Sony is much more innovative than Nikon and Canon right now and it looks Leica are as well with these new products in the past few years. As for Panasonic, do Nikon shooters care that Sony make the sensors and have a close association with Fujitsu for algorithms and processors? I don't. It works and it produces great cameras.
But that's my point. Nobody else cares who makes their camera components but the almost dream like description of Leica being the small man against the world of large production line manufacturers is what gets me.
The posts about Leica being Leica because of its heritage/essence/uniqueness just doesn't ring true when the major components of this camera and potentially lens is supplied by the large production line manufacturer, Panasonic. You can't have it both ways.
@UaeExile - The Plebeian part was in jest, check out the thread above it..! (The pleb was inferred as me)
@Sassafras- How do you use your flash with your M out of interest? Typically an M isn't the first camera i reach for in crappy light or for portraiture photography. I'm also not into holding an off camera flash whilst trying to focus and carry a camera with one hand, unless I wanted to mimic the whole flash in your face pre focused type technique- To add, the absolute statement is tongue in cheek, this is a forum after all.
I've worked it out- it's a camera for Porsche Cayenne owners.
If I see the quote, "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" alongside another unfocused "street" shot of a random bloke walking past Greggs I'm packing it all in :0)
You're agreeing with me and you don't realise it.
I know that. The point is, people are too stupid to realise that there's no advantage to having a 50mp sensor in a 35mm camera, especially when there are no lenses that can resolve enough detail to make use of it. Canon obviously just make what customers want. I'm not blaming manufacturers, If people want more resolution, they should be petitioning the manufacturers to make larger format cameras at reasonable prices, then they'd have lovely medium format cameras at sensible prices instead of paying £25k for one like at present. Upping the resolution of tiny little sensors is just crazy. If landscape photographers want more sharpness, then they should realise that the only genuine way to get that is to use a larger format. I mean.. 120 film can still kick that 50mp Canon into the weeds... it's time people stopped being idiots... you can't cram more MP into a tiny sensor and expect to keep reaping rewards. It's idiocy.
No argument re: resolution from me.. 24MP is indeed a sensible resolution for such a small sensor. My problem is charging £5k for it, when it's clearly not worth it, and people who are stupid enough to buy it because it has a bloody red dot on it. Waste of time and effort when if peopel demanded things that actually matter, then manufacturers woudl be forced to actually respond to them instead of investing in stupid cameras whose sole purpose is rinsing idiots of as much money as possible.
Not sure where you see progress here. Just another mirrorless camera. hardly pushing the boundaries of what's possible considering it's price tag.
Mirrorless will not replace conventional SLRs either... people have been saying that since they hit the market and there's no sign of it happening. Why? Because not everyone wants one. As you said at the start, manufactures make what people want, and most people don't want a mirrorless camera, so why should everyone stop making SLRs, when that's what the majority want?
You've missed my point. I said **Leica** aren't ahead of the game - they commissioned another tech company to do the hard work, all they did was provide a frickin ugly box to put it in, and a red dot.
I'm not here to make fan boy comments, just stating the facts and pointing out how ridiculous Leica look these days.
And then there's that Nissin flash. Come on, explain that! Leica are becoming a parts bin company - if they carry on like this their reputation will erode big time.
Oh and as for lenses, Canon (and Nikon etc) are making much better and less expensive lenses than the 24-90.
50mp sensor means Canon have to go back and make newer L lenses and even introduces new L lenses people want.
That is progress and in keeping with their 35mm credentials.
Digital medium format doesn't look appealing from setup, price, stable of lenses and is into an even bigger law of diminishing returns.
These high mp 35mm cameras are killing DMF, not making it flourish.
If they made it in the far east and churned it out and used the cheapest materials and were buying all their parts in bulk and logistics were cheap then the price could be driven down. But it is made in Germany by hand to high tolerances and uses expensive materials. It's difficult to get the price down to rock bottom if you are not benefiting from economies of scale like the Japanese brands.
The mirrorless camera is the future and this one looks at the cutting edge of them just now. Leica basically has the best lenses you can get and this camera lets you use them all without problems supposedly.
Nikon has an illustrious heritage too... as does Canon.
Let's be honest... it's this whole Cartier Bresson bo*****s isn't it... just admit it Leica people... I dare you![]()
50mp sensor means Canon have to go back and make newer (or refresh) L lenses and even introduces newly devised L lenses people want. That is progress and in keeping with their 35mm credentials. Digital medium format doesn't look appealing from setup, price, stable of lenses and is into an even bigger law of diminishing returns. These high mp 35mm cameras are killing DMF, not making it flourish.
If they made it in the far east and churned it out and used the cheapest materials and were buying all their parts in bulk and logistics were cheap then the price could be driven down. But it is made in Germany by hand to high tolerances and uses expensive materials. It's difficult to get the price down to rock bottom if you are not benefiting from economies of scale like the Japanese brands.
The mirrorless camera is the future and this one looks at the cutting edge of them just now. Leica basically has the best lenses you can get and this camera lets you use them all without problems supposedly.
A German one apparently.What kind of monumental cock do you need to be in order to want to spend over seven grand on a 35mm camera?
Because Nikon aren't pretending to be something they're not.Nikon have Sony sensors and Fujitsu brains, how is it any different? It is built to their specs and their know how and their target market.
What less expensive and much better lenses are these then?
I don't think the SL is a bad camera, but it is overpriced, especially if it's supposed to be for working pros.
But they won't, and even if they did, they'll never make one that can resolve enough to make use of a 50MP sensor, just as Nikon, or even Zeiss couldn't make one to even make the most of a 36mp sensor, let alone a 50mp one.
They're pandering to stupid people that think more mega pixels means a sharper image. Nikon got away with it, just, because at the time, there were lenses that could out resolve their current sensors (at the time), but 50MP is just stupid, and if Nikon follow Canon down this road, then it's a real shame as they could be investing that money in making real changes that actually matter.
It's not progress, as there are no lenses that can make use of that sensor, nor will there be.
Myth #4
It's pointless to add more pixels because lenses aren't good enough.
Reality: I have no idea where this one came from, because it's contradicted by decades of lens and camera test data. I'm going to cut through the morass of minutia-based arguments about pixel dimensions, filter geometries, and Airy disks and lay it out in very simple terms. A 16-megapixel 35mm-sized Bayer array sensor is going to resolve around 50 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). A 36-megapixel sensor will resolve around 75 lp/mm. Even mediocre 35mm lenses will hit 75 lp/mm at some aperture over some portion of their field of view. This is true of both fixed focal length and zoom lenses.
Decent (not at all exceptional) 35mm-format lenses can hit 75 lp/mm at just about all apertures and will do so over most of the field of view for at least one aperture. They'll show peak resolutions more like twice that. Really good lenses (not necessarily expensive ones) will be able to exceed 75 line pair per millimeter without even trying hard over most/all of the field of view and will have peak resolutions three or more times that.
Furthermore, until the lens resolution drops to only half that of the sensor, improving sensor resolution will produce an observable improvement in image resolution.
only because peopel are more concerned with squeezing more MP out of a tiny sensor. They're only expensive because of the low volumes they shift. If people realised that they can have all teh sharpness they want by using a larger format, then maybe they could sell more of them and reduce the price. You mentioned landscape photographers... well.. back when people weren't idiots, they realised that they needed larger formats. Nothing's changed, except people apparently.
I know... which is a shame, because they're vastly superior to anything you'll get from a toy format like 35mm. You sound almost pleased by this fact... why? You clearly are interested in sharpness, or you wouldn't have paid £3k on a lens... so why aren't you championing the cause for cheaper medium format? have you seen what som
ething like the IQ180 is capable of? Why wouldn't you want that for £5k? It's entirely possible if more people wanted it. Instead, you seem content to pay outrageous amounts of money on teeny weeny 35mm cameras that can NEVER achieve the same results.
Larger film/sensor = more sharpness. A fact you can't argue with.
Why not be more concerned as to why we can't have sensors with a native ISO of 6400 or higher. It's possible.. just not economically viable because for some bloody stupid reason, no one's demanding it. No... the dumb masses want mega pixels, because then they can upgrade to a camera that's got a bigger number than their peers for bragging rights.
****ing amateurs.
So it's made by hand... so? How exactly does that benefit you? Does it take better images as a result? Nope.
Brain washed. You're an ad man's dream you are. You will not be able to tell an image taken on that thing from an image taken on any other 35mm camera, and you know it.
It's not the future at all. Like I said... if all customers wanted one, then everyone would start churning them out and stop making SLRs. They aren't doing that, because of one simple fact - not everyone wants one. So long as people want SLRs, then they'll continue to be made.
Because Nikon aren't pretending to be something they're not.
If you don't know about Nikon and Canons top performing lenses you can't really don't know the subject you're commenting so surely about?