semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'm glad Jono is here and I trust that he has donned his flame-retardant suit. Please stay, Jono; our bark is worse than our bite.
I did post some comments praising the files as well as noting their limitations, and I am surprised that Leica has posted performance "proofs" that are not in keeping with what we might expect from a marque as storied as Leica. I would have expected more formal images made (and especially, selected) with greater attention to detail and technical exactitude.
I did post some comments praising the files as well as noting their limitations, and I am surprised that Leica has posted performance "proofs" that are not in keeping with what we might expect from a marque as storied as Leica. I would have expected more formal images made (and especially, selected) with greater attention to detail and technical exactitude.
PeterG
Newbie
That was exactly what I was trying to say, you just said it so much better than I. Wag more - Bark less.
MCTuomey
Mentor
i hold the opposite point of view fwiw. because many of the files i produce and process aren't technically exact and often aren't "formal," i find these more casually made images more useful to assess. i'd like to see more and be able to work with them (too bad we've chased jono out the door). to each his own expectation and need.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Fwiw, MC, I don't need a $7000 camera to make technically imperfect pictures. That is evidence of my versatility as a photographer. 
MCTuomey
Mentor
good one, sem. but i don't have a $7K camera that's unable to offset my own stubborn deficiences. it's more like a $4k camera these days
CaptZoom
Established
This thread has been wildly entertaining (war if opinions) but not particularly interesting (because it keeps veering off topic). I think I'll join the foray
Jono- Thank you for sharing your experiences with the new M with us. To my knowledge, this type of access to a tester isn't granted by any other company and I'm grateful. I've a couple of questions that you may not be at liberty to answer but I hope that you do:
1- How's the weather sealing? How does it work with existing Leica M glass?
2- Please, affirm that Leica has preserved the simple and effective menu structure from the M9.
Leica- I'm thankful for releasing photos that haven't aren't polished and that don't fall into the the fodder released by Canon/Nikon and company. It's far more useful for me to see the typical shot from the camera than it is to see product of tens of hours of setup and post-processing. Anyone with good technique and patience can get a phenomenal photo capture from just about any new camera (with interchangeable lenses), and make a spectacular photo after taking the time (and having the skill) to properly post process the file. It is far more interesting to see how a camera/lens combo succeeds and more importantly how it fails in common usage. So thank you Leica for taking a risk and putting out relevant files rather than marketing driven drivel that tells me nothing about the camera.
The M as a status symbol. Well it obviously is that (if for no other reason than because of the price it commands as well as the price of the accompanying lenses). Once you get past that, you realize there is literally nothing else like a Leica M on the market. The d***** camera is quite literally in a class of its own. And I for one am glad it exists. After having wandered and fumbled along in CanonvilLe, using an M is like returning home. Everything is where is should be be, and just as importantly, there is nothing else (extra). For me, the M9 doesn't simply not get in the way, it disappears when I'm photographing (until the jarring experience of realizing the rangefinder's out of calibration- but that's a separate thread topic).
Apparent color moire in files is exactly that: apparent color moire. Just because the files excite the pixels in our monitors doesn't mean there's color moire in the file. Has any one made prints to confirm if the moire is actually there?
I think this is enough fuel for the fire. I may return to add more
Jono- Thank you for sharing your experiences with the new M with us. To my knowledge, this type of access to a tester isn't granted by any other company and I'm grateful. I've a couple of questions that you may not be at liberty to answer but I hope that you do:
1- How's the weather sealing? How does it work with existing Leica M glass?
2- Please, affirm that Leica has preserved the simple and effective menu structure from the M9.
Leica- I'm thankful for releasing photos that haven't aren't polished and that don't fall into the the fodder released by Canon/Nikon and company. It's far more useful for me to see the typical shot from the camera than it is to see product of tens of hours of setup and post-processing. Anyone with good technique and patience can get a phenomenal photo capture from just about any new camera (with interchangeable lenses), and make a spectacular photo after taking the time (and having the skill) to properly post process the file. It is far more interesting to see how a camera/lens combo succeeds and more importantly how it fails in common usage. So thank you Leica for taking a risk and putting out relevant files rather than marketing driven drivel that tells me nothing about the camera.
The M as a status symbol. Well it obviously is that (if for no other reason than because of the price it commands as well as the price of the accompanying lenses). Once you get past that, you realize there is literally nothing else like a Leica M on the market. The d***** camera is quite literally in a class of its own. And I for one am glad it exists. After having wandered and fumbled along in CanonvilLe, using an M is like returning home. Everything is where is should be be, and just as importantly, there is nothing else (extra). For me, the M9 doesn't simply not get in the way, it disappears when I'm photographing (until the jarring experience of realizing the rangefinder's out of calibration- but that's a separate thread topic).
Apparent color moire in files is exactly that: apparent color moire. Just because the files excite the pixels in our monitors doesn't mean there's color moire in the file. Has any one made prints to confirm if the moire is actually there?
I think this is enough fuel for the fire. I may return to add more
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
You don't need to make prints to verify the presence of color moiré. It is a certainty that without an antialiasing filter and with a sufficiently high-resolution optical system, and given a subject that has spatial frequencies close to the sensor's pitch (or a multiple thereof), a periodic color mosaic sensor (Beyer, etc.) will show color moiré. The math is well-understood, and it is inescapable.
Fuji has reduced — but not eliminated — the problem through the use of a color sensor with a more complex "pseudorandom" periodic sensor array. Other solutions include the Foveon sensor geometry and the use of an antialiasing filter. As others in this thread have pointed out, the Leica sensors trade some aliasing and moiré in exchange for sharp corners when one uses lenses with short distances between the sensor and the lens's rear nodal point. This is a reasonable trade-off because it allows the use of legacy glass and the design of new wide-angle lenses that have high performance but a compact physical size (and a rear element that fits within the M bayonet mount). It is a sound engineering decision but like many such decisions it is, nevertheless, a trade-off.
BNLee
Established
I think... We should take a look at some sample images taken by the infamous Sony RX1, A 99 and the Nikon D600... After all, all these sensors, including the new Leica M one is supposed to be made by Sony, right?...:angel:
CaptZoom
Established
Semi
I agree that color moire can occur with certainty given the parameters you sighted. It is however not a given that color moire displayed on a monitor is actually there in the file. And the only easily available method of bring certain is the print the image where your dealing with a significantly higher resolution than is available in monitors. Judging images on a (comparatively) low resolution device that necessarily limits the output (as compared to high resolution prints) is a bizarre practice that I don't understand.
I agree that color moire can occur with certainty given the parameters you sighted. It is however not a given that color moire displayed on a monitor is actually there in the file. And the only easily available method of bring certain is the print the image where your dealing with a significantly higher resolution than is available in monitors. Judging images on a (comparatively) low resolution device that necessarily limits the output (as compared to high resolution prints) is a bizarre practice that I don't understand.
mani
Well-known
marcoinhawaii
Member
well said.
BNLee
Established
The CMOSIS sensor will be interesting, made in Belgium with heavy Leica involvement in the design... Another step by Leica to control more component design and manufacture. The Maestro processor comes from their in-house work on the Leica S2 and S models.
douglasf13
Well-known
Interesting! Wikipedia says the Maestro (along with many other in-camera processors) is "based on" the Fujitsu Milbeaut. I have not found info on the degree Leica influenced the design of Maestro, nor who actually makes it or where.
However, there is this at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/leica-m/leica-mA.HTM
“Output from the new full-frame image sensor is handled by a Leica Maestro-branded image processor, as also employed by the company's S-system cameras. The inclusion of Maestro, says Leica, means that the entire image pipeline is under control of its engineers, allowing it to ensure images meet the company's standards.”
And, downloadable with this link http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_6988.pdf
Leica’s M brochure pdf file on p.15:
“The Leica M features a newly-designed high-resolution, 24-megapixel CMOS sensor in full 35mm format. In combination with the Leica Maestro image processor, originally featured only in the Leica S-System, the Leica Max 24-MP sensor generates the outstanding image quality of the Leica M. For the first time in the history of the digital M-System, every component in the image creation flow, from lens to image file, are Leica in-house developments. As a result, our team of engineers has successfully perfected the entire image creation chain for use with M- and R-Lenses without compromise, in order to exploit the full potential of these lenses.”
A few pages later the brochure shows a photo of the processor labeled MAESTRO with the Leica circular logo on it. So evidently they've put enough into it to call it their own...
georgl
Member
The sensor is actually only developed by CMOSIS in Belgium but made by STmicroelectronics in Grenoble, France.
I doubt that Leica Camera has any resources developing an ASIC, they propably just gave specifications to Fujitsu.
I doubt that Leica Camera has any resources developing an ASIC, they propably just gave specifications to Fujitsu.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The Maestro processor was developed by Fujitsu to Leica specifications and in collaboration. It was first used in the S2 and the use in the M was envisioned from the beginning.