Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Dante, I don't personally think that the person who uses a Nikon D3x would consider it as an alternative to a M9, more a complement, at least I do. I don't think that Leica need to address this as a matter of self preservation. Perhaps Zeiss and Cosina need to address it though. They have profited greatly from Leica, in as much as I bet there are at least 50 photographers using their lenses on Leica bodies for every one using their own body. Correcting the Kodak radial shift in software is relatively trivial. Compensating for the light fall off and change in IR filter in software less so. I have looked into it a bit and you would have to sacrifice about 4 stops of dynamic range in order to give margin for the correction. I really don't think there are enough old-style incompatible lenses out there to make any real impact on Leica survival in terms of sales volume, and I would not be surprised to find that the cost of writing software to make a correction many users would find an unacceptable compromise would a) cost more than any extra profit made by the extra handful of cameras sold as a result and b) result in still more criticism for the loss of dynamic range which some people will find unacceptable and not realise is inherent in the lens not the camera. I buy Leica mainly for the lenses. I would not buy an M9 to use cheaper lenses. If Super WA on a budget is the requirement a CV lens on a Bessa body with film is the economical answer. Cheers, Frank On 21 Dec, 2009, at 00:42, Dante Stella wrote: > Frank: > > You're right that Leica has no obligation to do it. > > Despite the lack of a legal or moral imperative to do so, I think you'll > see Leica address this issue as a matter of self-preservation. People > like wide-angle lenses (as is evidenced by the explosion of wide-angle > lenses on the market), and not everyone is going to shell out $13K for an > M9 and a WATE. So should Leica forego all of the money as people start > bailing for, say, the Nikon D3xs and the 17-35 Nikkor? My suspicion is > that Leica will find a way to make every last Super-Angulon, Biogon, > Heliar, etc., work so that it can keep its M9 volumes up. > > Kodak addressed radial shifts on the SLR/x series by having users shoot > test exposures at a couple of apertures - and the camera itself did the > computations on a one-time basis and created profiles (like Cornerfix but > without involving a computer). Since this technology (and programming) > has been out there for something like 6 years, it's surprising that it > didn't make it into the M8 and M9. > > And the cat has long been out of the bag - bending the laws of physics > using signal processing was already done in the M8 and is already done to > a high degree in the M9. > > Regards, > Dante