New Leica SL has a 4mp EVF!

In article , android
wrote:

Sony even state the viewfinder resolution as 1024 x 768. Common
resolution on old laptops.

Confirming that: 1024 x 768 x 3 = 2359296, the number of dots claimed
by Sony.

Whatever happened to the term photosites?

These are emitters, not receptor, though.

Not necessarily...

yes necessarily. a photosite is what's on a sensor, not a display.

I thought that the term were quite adequate Foveon
and Bayer type sensors since the stacked sites of the Foveon generates
more information than the spread out sites in a Bayer pattern.

http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-photosite/

The photosite is found on the digital image sensor in the camera

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/photosite

1 Individual light sensitive element in a digital image sensor.

sensors. not displays.

On 22/10/2015 05:46, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

Sony even state the viewfinder resolution as 1024 x 768. Common
resolution on old laptops.

Confirming that: 1024 x 768 x 3 = 2359296, the number of dots claimed
by Sony.

Whatever happened to the term photosites?

These are emitters, not receptor, though.

Not necessarily...

yes necessarily. a photosite is what's on a sensor, not a display.

I thought that the term were quite adequate Foveon
and Bayer type sensors since the stacked sites of the Foveon generates
more information than the spread out sites in a Bayer pattern.


Never "X3" which was the claim - even under test designed to demonstrate
the "advantage".
http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-photosite/

The photosite is found on the digital image sensor in the camera

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/photosite

1 Individual light sensitive element in a digital image sensor.

sensors. not displays.

"Sensels" is a good term IMO for individual photosites in a (bayer)
sensor array.

In article , Me
wrote:

"Sensels" is a good term IMO for individual photosites in a (bayer)
sensor array.

not just bayer, but any sensor, however, since it's the same number as
pixels, it never caught on.

On 22/10/2015 11:36, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 03:59:39 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 23:49:25 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 21/10/2015 12:12, RichA wrote:
Will be interesting to look though it, even though I wouldn't spend
$12,000 on this with a lens, though I think the asking is worth it. The
camera looks like it's built like the proverbial tank.

It's not 4.4 megapixel - it's 1.47. The 4.4 million is "dots". On that
basis, a standard HDTV screen (1080x1920) has 6.2 million dots, and
UHDTV around 25 million dots.
The Leica can come with a kit lens, variable aperture, for about $5k.
$12,500 for an FX mirrorless system with only 24mp.

Don't equate mp count with overall value. Sony and Nikon both have low
pixel, high priced bodies.

The price would imply "Magic Pixels (R)" and that would be something
that Apple have in their patent portfolio, don't you think?
--
teleportation kills

Well, when Sony and the rest start machining bodies out of billet aluminum, in Germany, and making lenses as good as they can possibly be made, then Leica pricing won't see so high.

They could machine the cases out of unobtanium if they like, but unless
they figure out some way of ensuring that all the electronics to make
the thing work don't become obsolete, it's a hell of a price for a
disposable electronic consumer appliance.
The DPReview article mentions certain flaws/quirks with the electronics
in the camera they tested, slow buffer clearing and "card full" errors etc.
For that kind of coin, I'd expect perfection.
The "studio comparison" seems to show that the Nikon D610 easily
outperforms the Leica SL image quality, despite the $5,000 lens on the
Leica vs a $500 lens on the Nikon. The D810 and Canon 5DS/R completely
trounce it.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:36:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 03:59:39 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 23:49:25 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 21/10/2015 12:12, RichA wrote:
Will be interesting to look though it, even though I wouldn't spend
$12,000 on this with a lens, though I think the asking is worth it. The
camera looks like it's built like the proverbial tank.

It's not 4.4 megapixel - it's 1.47. The 4.4 million is "dots". On that
basis, a standard HDTV screen (1080x1920) has 6.2 million dots, and
UHDTV around 25 million dots.
The Leica can come with a kit lens, variable aperture, for about $5k.
$12,500 for an FX mirrorless system with only 24mp.

Don't equate mp count with overall value. Sony and Nikon both have low
pixel, high priced bodies.

The price would imply "Magic Pixels (R)" and that would be something
that Apple have in their patent portfolio, don't you think?
--
teleportation kills

Well, when Sony and the rest start machining bodies out of billet aluminum, in Germany, and making lenses as good as they can possibly be made, then Leica pricing won't see so high.

They should make them out of diecast aluminium alloy, the way Nikon
does.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Rich A wrote:

Me:
They could machine the cases out of unobtanium if they like, but
unless they figure out some way of ensuring that all the
electronics to make the thing work don't become obsolete, it's a
hell of a price for a disposable electronic consumer appliance.
The DPReview article mentions certain flaws/quirks with the
electronics in the camera they tested, slow buffer clearing and
"card full" errors etc. For that kind of coin, I'd expect
perfection. The "studio comparison" seems to show that the Nikon
D610 easily outperforms the Leica SL image quality, despite the
$5,000 lens on the Leica vs a $500 lens on the Nikon. The D810
and Canon 5DS/R completely trounce it.

On resolution, the D810 beats the much more expensive Nikon D4 and
D4s, but that isn't the whole story, is it?

He said "image quality", not "image resolution". Look at the studio comparison
shots:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/imag...ht&attr13_0=le
ica_sl_typ601&attr13_1=leica_q116&attr13_2=nikon_d 610&attr13_3=sony_a7_ii&at
tr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=j peg&attr16_0=50&at
tr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization =full&wid
get=1&x=-0.0036246476037053326&y=0.004001312868243624

The Leica SL doesn't really show ten times the performance, seeing how the 610
outperforms it easily in image quality.

--
Sandman

On 21/10/2015 17:34, android wrote:
[]
Whatever happened to the term photosites?

These are emitters, not receptor, though.

Not necessarily... I thought that the term were quite adequate Foveon
and Bayer type sensors since the stacked sites of the Foveon generates
more information than the spread out sites in a Bayer pattern.

http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-photosite/

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/photosite

The subject is displays, not sensors.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 21/10/2015 17:34, android wrote:
[]
Whatever happened to the term photosites?

These are emitters, not receptor, though.

Not necessarily... I thought that the term were quite adequate Foveon
and Bayer type sensors since the stacked sites of the Foveon generates
more information than the spread out sites in a Bayer pattern.

http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-photosite/

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/photosite

The subject is displays, not sensors.

Sure, but you referred to the term photosite.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
nospam wrote:

Whatever happened to the term photosites?

These are emitters, not receptor, though.

Not necessarily...

yes necessarily. a photosite is what's on a sensor, not a display.

I thought that the term were quite adequate Foveon
and Bayer type sensors since the stacked sites of the Foveon generates
more information than the spread out sites in a Bayer pattern.

http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-photosite/

The photosite is found on the digital image sensor in the camera

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/photosite

1 Individual light sensitive element in a digital image sensor.

sensors. not displays.

Yeas, photosites are found on sensors... Now you know.
--
teleportation kills

On 22/10/2015 10:23, android wrote:
[]
Sure, but you referred to the term photosite.

No, I did not.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu