Leica SL , 24MP FF Mirrorless Camera

[Pookeyhead]

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" ?

 

[stevelmx5]

lwe don't want to have some cheap Japanese name all over it.

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?

 

[frod]

I think it is particularly foolhardy to sink a lot of money into mirrorless right now... as much as I love my Fujis there is a clear deficiency in continuous focus that is only going to continue to be improved upon with newer sensor tech, and probably dramatically over the next 2-3 years. These things are going to lose their value pretty quick.

 

[ianp5a]

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, 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.

 

[ianp5a]

What exactly does it "stand for" ?

Well in some cases it stands for covering up the word Nissin.

 

[rich_]

I feel the history of the prestige & quality has a reasonable $ argument for the M models, where they are continuing with the original design & quality ethos from when the original M's were created (except now its a lot heavier and fatter).
It seems that the other camera ranges simply leverage the specialist popularity of the rangefinder the pricepoint associated with it.

I for one love the Menu system and simplicity of Leica digital cameras, I much prefer it to Sony, Nikon, Canon & Olympus (I haven't tried any other digital brands). I do think there is $ value there to benefit from the lack of complication.

I've owned the X2, M8, M9 and M240, with various magnifiers, flashes etc, so I do invest in the companies products. The X2 for me did nothing and the EVF was s***e, I also tried the Vario and the Q. I don't care who creates the components inside as long as they are of high quality.

I found for my needs I enjoy Leica rangefinders, but the other products in the business do not fit my requirements! Unfortunately I am probably considered to be of the lower classes, so hopefully my opinions don't muddy the correlations too much!

 

[ianp5a]

I am probably considered to be of the lower classes,

It depends. Would you prefer a Nissin flash, or a Leica branded Nissin?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well in some cases it stands for covering up the word Nissin.

Let#s try again...

What does the red dot stand for?

 

[rich_]

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.

 

[UaeExile]

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.

You really are a Leica shooter, aren't you?

 

[Sassafras]

If you use Leica rangefinders much, then you'd know better than to invest in a flash, irrespective of your plebeian credentials!

I've been getting it all wrong, using a flash with an M.

 

[rich_]

@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.

 

[Laudrup]

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.

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.

 

[odd jim]

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...

 

[rich_]

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...

Much like Nikon/Oly/Phase1/Pentax/hasseblad etc using Sony sensors! - Everyones at it..

 

[odd jim]

Much like Nikon/Oly/Phase1/Pentax/hasseblad etc using Sony sensors! - Everyones at it..

Except Canon.

 

[rich_]

Except Canon.

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

 

[Pookeyhead]

Canon shooters wanted a higher mega pixel camera for landscape and portraits and they got it. That's just good business sense from Canon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Laudrup]

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. 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.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Are Nikon and Canon producing this new high spec full frame mirrorless camera and lens? No.

Then clearly, that's not what their customers want. If it was, they'd be making it.

 

[odd jim]

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

Well, yes, and there was my point!

 

[stevelmx5]

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.

 

[odd jim]

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.

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.

 

[Pookeyhead]

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.

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

 

[stevelmx5]

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)

 

[Coyon]

I've worked it out- it's a camera for Porsche Cayenne owners.

 

[Sassafras]

@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 use it for street photography - so the flash in your face pre-focused stuff!

 

[Pookeyhead]

I've worked it out- it's a camera for Porsche Cayenne owners.

Very probably.

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)

Now't wrong with sharpness... just that more pixels on a toy format just isn't the way to go.

 

[Laudrup]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Laudrup]

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.

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?

 

[stevelmx5]

It will certainly be interesting to see how the ultra wide manual Leica lenses perform on the SL. Other than those delivering some smearing and colour issues on the original Sony A7x bodies (although better on the R2/S2 by all accounts) I believe all Leica lenses work fine on the Sony's as with most other lenses. I'm not sure what Leica can do differently though? It's still a 35mm digital sensor with a similar flange depth so I assume if anything it will be software correction as it has the benefit of knowing which Leica lens is in use.

 

[Pookeyhead]

50mp sensor means Canon have to go back and make newer L lenses and even introduces new L lenses people want.

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.

That is progress and in keeping with their 35mm credentials.

It's not progress, as there are no lenses that can make use of that sensor, nor will there be.

Digital medium format doesn't look appealing from setup, price, stable of lenses and is into an even bigger law of diminishing returns.

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.

These high mp 35mm cameras are killing DMF, not making it flourish.

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 something 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.

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.

So it's made by hand... so? How exactly does that benefit you? Does it take better images as a result? Nope.

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.

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.

 

[FruitFlakes]

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

I'll happily admit that one of the reasons that I picked up a (film) Leica was because my favourite photographers spoke highly of them. It wasn't high on the list but it did make me want to find out why they were so preferred by some.

I don't think the SL is a bad camera, but it is overpriced, especially if it's supposed to be for working pros. I think it should have been £3k, so a bit more than the D810/5D but much less than the 1DX/D4s money they're asking for. A Leica Q (which is also a 'proper' German made 24MP Leica with an excellent lens) is also about £3k as well, and actually kinda competitive in terms of value with Sony's RX1.

@stevelmx5 Sony's A7 bodies have a thicker sensor stack/glass cover which results in some blurriness in the corners even with normal lenses. Their native FE lenses seem to be designed with that in mind (scroll down to the subheading 'There is Glass in the Path): http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests

 

[hobodan]

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.

I think you lose credibility with your last quote - mirrorless is the future? Well if it is, you can be assured that Canon / Nikon will put an EVF into their cameras, but they have yet to do so. It's also unlikely they will get rid of the optical viewfinder, as it is by far a better and more natural way to use a camera - they would most likely incorporate an evf into a hybrid system if they ever felt an EVF was a serious tool.

Sure this new Leica looks nice, but to suggest it's going to brush aside the best from Canon / Nikon & Sony (zeiss) is optimistic at best - the former especially have well established systems and some high quality, affordable optics. I can't see why any professional would choose the Leica over the other systems I have mentioned? all newer lenses from Canon / Nikon / Zeiss have pretty excellent optics tbf.

You have to ask yourself, if it had Panasonic on it instead of the red dot, would you be so defensive? No.
Leica's M mount has history and proven quality and appeals to a niche market. This new system I don't feel will appeal to the same crowd - and I can't see a professional who wants excellent, proven tools to do his / her job choosing the SL over what's out there already, especially for the extortionate premium.

 

[Nawty]

So to try and change track slightly...

Is the MP war delivering on a consumer requirement or perpetuating an easily understandable upgrade path that the camera makers have made for themselves and they have created a rod for their own backs as they have set the benchmark that has reached its limits yet they have to follow anyway?

Or, is it that they don't have the imagination to communicate alternative benefits?

 

[redsnappa]

What kind of monumental cock do you need to be in order to want to spend over seven grand on a 35mm camera?

A German one apparently.

 

[odd jim]

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?

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?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't think the SL is a bad camera, but it is overpriced, especially if it's supposed to be for working pros.

I'm left wondering how it meets the needs of working pros. 11fps is nice, but I can't see it making waves amongst sports photorgaphers. The AF is meant to be fast, but again... (shrug). Considering the price you'd have to pay for lenses, I can't see it catching on amongst sports photogaphers. Actually, are there even any suitable lenses for that market?

As a studio camera it doesn't seem that great, and ergonomically, would be a pain... I mean, why hide the sync socket (essential to be accessible and ergonomically placed - preferably on the front of the camera) behind that massive rubber, hinged flap?... Oh yeah... to look nice. LOL

Sorry... I see nothing particularly tempting for professional photographers.

Then there's the whole mirror-less thing. Forgive me, but isn't the point of that to make cameras smaller and lighter? This thing weighs in at nearly as much as a D800 and is pretty much the same size.

The only pros you'll see using it are Lecia's pet pros that are paid to create that halo effect that trickles down into the wealthy amateur market.

 

[Laudrup]

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.

The road map for this 50mp camera is to update them all, so a Canon employee said anyway. What changes will actually matter?

It's not progress, as there are no lenses that can make use of that sensor, nor will there be.

This person disagrees:

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.

From http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html

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.

Canon and Nikon and Sony are, but Leica looks to have stopped at 24mp and it offers a medium format digital camera for those who need that. More mega pixels and dynamic range is something you can market and sell to people who have a lot of L or G lenses. You are in a niche of a niche trying to sell medium format gear.

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.

The IQ280 had a launch price of $43,990 just for the back and then you have to use the best tech cams and lenses of £5k to get the most from them. I can't see Canon flogging many of them even though they could make them. They could do a Canon version of a Pentax 645, but presumably they've looked at that market and thought thanks but no thanks. R&D and set up costs would take too long to amortize probably or there is no real demand.

I have 36MP and can use it indoor and low light, use it for wide angle landscape or astrophotography, bolt on a 400 and shoot football add a TC and go photograph small birds, it's the most versatile camera on the market. With digital medium format I'm hamstrung by too many factors. If I want more horsepower I take out the 10x8 which blows away digital medium format.

So it's made by hand... so? How exactly does that benefit you? Does it take better images as a result? Nope.

If the tolerances are tighter and it is checked more often it is going to be more expensive and you are going to get more cameras and lenses performing the way the manufacturer said they would. The pictures it takes are up to the person using it, but chances are you're going to be a lot more clued up on photography if you are spending this much on a camera and lens.

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.

They do make probably the best lenses, that's why they regularly come top in the lab tests on them. It doesn't say you can tell the difference between them but they are pushing the boundaries of optical designs which is a good thing.

As for mirrorless, it's the future. Smaller and lighter lenses made from silicon will most probably be the future too. You can't halt progress.

 

[Laudrup]

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?

What lenses by Nikon and Canon are much better and cheaper than that Leica one?