New Leica SL has a 4mp EVF!

In article , android
wrote:

[]
Sure, but you referred to the term photosite.

No, I did not.

Sure you did! EOD.

he didn't.

*you* did.

no. check that that was written...

if you insist.


In article , android
wrote:

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 21/10/2015 12:20, Me 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?

In article , android
wrote:

The subject is displays, not sensors.

Sure, but you referred to the term photosite.

no he didn't. *you* did.

sure he did... check the quote.

he didn't. you did.


In article , android
wrote:

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 21/10/2015 12:20, Me 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?

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

[]
Sure, but you referred to the term photosite.

No, I did not.

Sure you did! EOD.

he didn't.

*you* did.

no. check that that was written...

if you insist.


In article , android
wrote:

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 21/10/2015 12:20, Me 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?

But that was not that what was replied to.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

The subject is displays, not sensors.

Sure, but you referred to the term photosite.

no he didn't. *you* did.

sure he did... check the quote.

he didn't. you did.

I have answered that in a reply to a similar post of yours. You should
really get your parotitis fixed!


In article , android
wrote:

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 21/10/2015 12:20, Me 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?
--
teleportation kills

On 22 Oct 2015 08:27:08 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=leica_sl_typ60 1&attr13_1=leica_q116&attr13_2=nikon_d610&attr13_3 =sony_a7_ii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=j peg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=50&attr16_1=100&attr16_ 2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.0036246476037053326&y=0.004001312868243624

or http://tinyurl.com/nryjygz

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 23/10/2015 02:56, Sandman wrote:
In article , RichA 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.

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

Sandman:
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

What I see from the 610 is lower contrast,

Nope.

similar resolution

What?? Are you saying the 24MP Leica has similar resolution to the 24MP Nikon
D610? What scientific evidence are you basing this on??

and less saturated colour.

Uh, no again.

From the 610, worse edge chromatic aberration
and on the resolution targets on the lower right edge,

D610 has less chromatic aberration in the example.

(where the
little 3-line hash marks continue to diminish in size, you see a
saw-tooth pattern from the Nikon on the small details.

And on the bigger ones, you have heavy fringing by the ten times more expensive
Leica, where (virtually) none is on the D610.

The Leica is also much fuzzier overall. The Sony A7 beats them all hands down in
every aspect. I have newfound respect for my A7 now.

Take a look at the patterns in the extreme corners, raw with the Leica.
Presumably the in-camera jpegs are corrected and in that case no
correction applied to the raw files by ACR, but wow - that's extreme CA.
OK - the Leica lens is a zoom, but it's a $5,000 lens.

In article , Me wrote:

Sandman:
And on the bigger ones, you have heavy fringing by the ten times
more expensive Leica, where (virtually) none is on the D610.

The Leica is also much fuzzier overall. The Sony A7 beats them all
hands down in every aspect. I have newfound respect for my A7 now.

Take a look at the patterns in the extreme corners, raw with the
Leica.

Yeah, that's what I did, the D610 is killing the Leica.

Presumably the in-camera jpegs are corrected and in that case
no correction applied to the raw files by ACR, but wow - that's
extreme CA. OK - the Leica lens is a zoom, but it's a $5,000 lens.

Indeed. :/


--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , Me wrote:

Sandman:
And on the bigger ones, you have heavy fringing by the ten times
more expensive Leica, where (virtually) none is on the D610.

The Leica is also much fuzzier overall. The Sony A7 beats them all
hands down in every aspect. I have newfound respect for my A7 now.

Take a look at the patterns in the extreme corners, raw with the
Leica.

Yeah, that's what I did, the D610 is killing the Leica.

Presumably the in-camera jpegs are corrected and in that case
no correction applied to the raw files by ACR, but wow - that's
extreme CA. OK - the Leica lens is a zoom, but it's a $5,000 lens.

Indeed. :/

I think that it's safe to say that both the SL and the A7 is trounced by
the Canikan competition at high ISO. Have a looksie:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/imag...ylight&attr13_
0=leica_sl_typ601&attr13_1=sony_a7&attr13_2=nikon_ d610&attr13_3=canon_eos
6d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3 =raw&attr16_0=12500&att
r16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normaliz ation=full&widget=1&x=-
0.0036246476037053326&y=0.004001312868243624

http://tinyurl.com/nvmv9j2

The Leica has an obvious and expected edge here over the Sony though...
--
teleportation kills

In article , android wrote:

In article
,

Sandman:
And on the bigger ones, you have heavy fringing by
the ten times more expensive Leica, where (virtually) none is
on the D610.

The Leica is also much fuzzier overall. The Sony A7 beats them
all hands down in every aspect. I have newfound respect for my
A7 now.

Me:
Take a look at the patterns in the extreme corners, raw with the
Leica.

Sandman:
Yeah, that's what I did, the D610 is killing the Leica.

Me:
Presumably the in-camera jpegs are corrected and in that case no
correction applied to the raw files by ACR, but wow - that's
extreme CA. OK - the Leica lens is a zoom, but it's a $5,000
lens.

Sandman:
Indeed. :/

I think that it's safe to say that both the SL and the A7 is
trounced by the Canikan competition at high ISO.

Who talked about high ISO?

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

In article
,

Sandman:
And on the bigger ones, you have heavy fringing by
the ten times more expensive Leica, where (virtually) none is
on the D610.

The Leica is also much fuzzier overall. The Sony A7 beats them
all hands down in every aspect. I have newfound respect for my
A7 now.

Me:
Take a look at the patterns in the extreme corners, raw with the
Leica.

Sandman:
Yeah, that's what I did, the D610 is killing the Leica.

Me:
Presumably the in-camera jpegs are corrected and in that case no
correction applied to the raw files by ACR, but wow - that's
extreme CA. OK - the Leica lens is a zoom, but it's a $5,000
lens.

Sandman:
Indeed. :/

I think that it's safe to say that both the SL and the A7 is
trounced by the Canikan competition at high ISO.

Who talked about high ISO?

I did!
--
teleportation kills