k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Thank you.The paper I mentioned is here:
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf
K-H.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thank you.The paper I mentioned is here:
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf
Marc - my positive comment on seeing related to long lenses, where seeing what the lens sees may be preferable to a tiny frame. On the wides I prefer the Leica approach. I shoot wides most of the time. At this point I'm viewing the Nex-7 as a welcome (and fun and provacative) alternative, not a replacement - Leica is throughly imbedded in my working style. I also think that full frame is important so the lenses can fill their intended niches.Good review Woody, glad the NEX-7 pleases you ... after all, that's all that really counts.
Personally, my greatest hope is that Leica doesn't even try to keep pace with all the "Pocket Rocket" technology. A road less traveled has always been their charm, and they've never done very well when trying to please too many people ... it just leads to the inevitable direct comparison to other products that do please the majority, and cost a lot less.
They still have a unique product ... to toss out that uniqueness, without something equally unique that does the same thing, would be a grievous error.
IMO, the NEX-5, 5n, or 7, or any other such product to date is not the same as a rangefinder, especially a rangefinder of this caliber. They are simply alternative ways of seeing, that just happen to use M lenses if you wish.
BTW, one of your positives "seeing what the lens sees", is why I personally will never see these cameras as replacing a true rangefinder, and the rangefinder way of seeing the world around you.
Be well,
-Marc
HI WoodyMarc - my positive comment on seeing related to long lenses, where seeing what the lens sees may be preferable to a tiny frame. On the wides I prefer the Leica approach. I shoot wides most of the time. At this point I'm viewing the Nex-7 as a welcome (and fun and provacative) alternative, not a replacement - Leica is throughly imbedded in my working style. I also think that full frame is important so the lenses can fill their intended niches.
So Jono, but what does the A77 offer you over the A900?HI Woody
When my NEX7 came along I felt exactly the same as you . . . focus peaking WOW (I still think it's splendid). But I found I was using the NEX when I would otherwise use an M9, and that the results and the experience, although very good, were not as good . . so for me it's back to the M9.
For longer lenses I'd rather the much faster focus of the A77, and let's face it, with larger lenses the body size becomes less significant (although the crop sensor may become an advantage).
Which is why, despite it's nice handling and excellent IQ, the NEX7 fell between two stools for me . . i.e. not as good as the M9 for wides, and not as good as the A77 / A900 for long lenses.
(I can see Marc grinning as I write this!).
HI TomSo Jono, but what does the A77 offer you over the A900?
I think your logic is excellent regarding the use of longer lenses Jono. Putting the superb 135/1/8 on a NEX just never worked for me at all.HI Tom
Interesting question that. It's actually a toss up, but here are some random thoughts:
A77
1. I like the EVF showing exposure WB etc. whilst shooting
2. I like the longer range the APS/c sensor gives me with lenses (I use M9 for wides)
3. It's smaller and lighter
4. I like the twisty LCD and live view
5. Focus peaking makes it easy to use Leica R lenses
A900
1. I like the optical viewfinder - especially in very bright light
2. The image quality is probably better at the ISO I usually use
3. FF sensor
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point, and perhaps it's a little off topic!
all the best
Absolutely Marc - and a reason to keep away from the D800e until the dust has settled.I think your logic is excellent regarding the use of longer lenses Jono. Putting the superb 135/1/8 on a NEX just never worked for me at all.
As far as adding all the positives you list for the A77 and those of the A900 in comparison, that is why I have great hope for a A99 FF to replace one of my A900s, not both. I would also like to see exposure and WB in crappy lighting scenarios, and will accept a EVF for those applications even though I am not a fan. The objectives over-ride my personal likes and dislikes ... with the end results dictating all of it.
-Marc
Actually adapting the Nex as a second or third body isn't a system change at all for a Leica M shooter. It's buying exactly one body and one adapter. What you don't get is autofocus - I don't need it in good light and in poor light the Nex hunts badly enough that it isn't useful. The way my use of it may sort out is as an alternate body for poor light situations (still not a perfect solution - there's a reason why most people who shoot events use 5Ds or the like).Absolutely Marc - and a reason to keep away from the D800e until the dust has settled.
It's fine to have a solution which works NOW - so that there really isn't a need to make system changing decisions in haste. (buying and selling NEX cameras is not a system changing decision . . . moving from an M9 to a NEX would be!)
I can understand this point of view, indeed I often hear it said.Personally, my greatest hope is that Leica doesn't even try to keep pace with all the "Pocket Rocket" technology. A road less traveled has always been their charm, and they've never done very well when trying to please too many people ... it just leads to the inevitable direct comparison to other products that do please the majority, and cost a lot less.
They still have a unique product ... to toss out that uniqueness, without something equally unique that does the same thing, would be a grievous error.
No indeed Woody - I wasn't implying that it was . . but replacing an M9 with a NEX would amount to a system change.Actually adapting the Nex as a second or third body isn't a system change at all for a Leica M shooter. It's buying exactly one body and one adapter.
I quite agree about the AF - in good light the rangefinder is better . . and in bad light the rangefinder is better too.What you don't get is autofocus - I don't need it in good light and in poor light the Nex hunts badly enough that it isn't useful. The way my use of it may sort out is as an alternate body for poor light situations (still not a perfect solution - there's a reason why most people who shoot events use 5Ds or the like).
I think you're quite right about the M10 - no change to concept - I'd also like to see options to check critical focus and framing. I don't think that'd spoil the concept.I can understand this point of view, indeed I often hear it said.
I'd imagine it unlikely the M10 will bring fundamental changes to the M series concept that could alienate current M users. I think it more likely that any fundamental change will come in the form of an addition to the current Leica range.
That said I can't help hoping that the M10 does have the option to check critical focus and framing pre-capture. I hope they step up production so that it's possible to actually buy the lenses. I also hope they offer better servicing options for those in the UK...
etc…
All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view. Fundamentally, that doesn't bother me at all, and will facilitate checking critical focus when desired. However, I'm not all that sure about the CMOS part ... so I secured a M9P in Chrome with hardened LCD for a durable, longer lasting M ... and will use a M10 in concert with it.I can understand this point of view, indeed I often hear it said.
I'd imagine it unlikely the M10 will bring fundamental changes to the M series concept that could alienate current M users. I think it more likely that any fundamental change will come in the form of an addition to the current Leica range.
That said I can't help hoping that the M10 does have the option to check critical focus and framing pre-capture. I hope they step up production so that it's possible to actually buy the lenses. I also hope they offer better servicing options for those in the UK...
etc…
Jono, many thanks, that's certainly reassuring.As for servicing, I've been getting excellent service from Solms - i.e. stick it in a box and post it airsure to Andrea at Leica. It takes the same time to get there as it used to take to get to Milton Keynes, and they communicate well and seem to do the servicing and repair quickly and efficiently these days. (at least, that's what I've found).
Marc, thanks, live view would suit this M wannabe just fine, but I do understand your concerns about CMOS.All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view.
Interesting strategy on the M9. I guess I should have mine done.All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view. Fundamentally, that doesn't bother me at all, and will facilitate checking critical focus when desired. However, I'm not all that sure about the CMOS part ... so I secured a M9P in Chrome with hardened LCD for a durable, longer lasting M ... and will use a M10 in concert with it.
The lack of available lenses is frustrating to be sure, and I doubt that will abate anytime soon. I am after a 50/1.4 ASPH in chrome, and you'd think it was the Crown Jewels of England I was asking for.
-Marc
I am also concerned about the change to a CMOS sensor.All indications point to continued optical rangefinder, but use of a CMOS sensor in the M10 along with Live view. Fundamentally, that doesn't bother me at all, and will facilitate checking critical focus when desired. However, I'm not all that sure about the CMOS part ... so I secured a M9P in Chrome with hardened LCD for a durable, longer lasting M ... and will use a M10 in concert with it.
-Marc
That may be an artifact of the mass-market camera makers' emphasis on lowering noise at high ISO, not the sensor technology.I am also concerned about the change to a CMOS sensor.
I keep looking at high quality images from CMOS sensor cameras, and they just don't seem to have that Leica CCD sensor snap and micro contrast. They appear to have this somewhat washed out look to the image.
Thanks for the link. I've got an eye exam coming up and I'll order one once my prescription is updated. You're one of the few lucky guys in the world who has a major machine shop available to fix the "drops off of the camera" issue. How have you made out with it?