[Pepe Guitarra]

although the two cameras may physically be the same, or near the same, the software that drives them - the way the images are processed - is quite different. Leica may license out their lens designs to Panasonic, but they aren't going to share their software.

Also, my collapsible Summicron 50mm f2 ($500) is not the same as the Sumilux 50mm f1.4 ($4,500), or the Noctilux 50mm f1.1 ($10,200), or the other Noctilux 50mm f0.95 ($26,000). Howevere, I am happy with my Summicron 50/2 results. That is the good thing about Leica. The sumicron 50/2 was the king many years ago.

[Pepe Le Pew]

I believe they have a very quiet shutter.

*Chuckle*

[Clavius]

Also, my collapsible Summicron 50mm f2 ($500) is not the same as the Sumilux 50mm f1.4 ($4,500), or the Noctilux 50mm f1.1 ($10,200), or the other Noctilux 50mm f0.95 ($26,000). Howevere, I am happy with my Summicron 50/2 results. That is the good thing about Leica. The sumicron 50/2 was the king many years ago.

But isn't that the case with all brands then? I have a full set of Pentax SMC limited primes. The new HD range comming out doesn't suddenly make my SMC set any worse. Not that I'm comparing Leica to Pentax, but the same logic does apply.

[Imageman]

Ok


The reality is you have a small production run manufacturer of high quality premium equipment with the ability and customer base to demand high prices facing higher than normal R&D costs when moving into digital..


There are 3 reasons why the high prices


1 The equipment is made up to a standard not down to a price


2 The equipment is in some areas unique and cutting edge breaking new ground


3 The tradition has always been to charge high prices so its acceptable to charge more


The sensor issue they faced:-


With film, the incidence angle of light hitting the sensitive medium was of no consequence. But with digital, the short distance between lens and sensor is critical.


It means that closer than around 44mm from lens to sensor the light rays cannot enter the photosites efficiently and the image is corrupted. I am convinced that sigma is experiencing this issue, strange green colour casts appear with many wide angle lenses on their recent sensor due to angular light issues. The light rays just cannot efficiently enter the photosites at high angular incidences, and their lens to sensor distance is around 46mm


The problem is much worse for Leica the shorter lens to sensor distances of around 38mm force higher incidence rays to hit the sensor.


To overcome this problem Leica would have to abandon their traditional lens design and adopt a more conventional lens to sensor distance or create a new sensor design unique to them. They chose to design a new sensor so as not to obsolete their excellent lenses.


They created a unique sensor which accepts light at low angles and still registers an image correctly. The design they came up with is variable offset lensing with micro lenses not central to the photosites, but increasingly offset the closer to the sensor edge they are sited.


This unique sensor is more difficult to manufacture reliably and consistently compared to standard sensors which have micro lenses centrally positioned over all photosites. the cost is therefore higher


This high research and development cost and higher manufacturing cost has to be recouped from small volume sales hence the high prices.


N.B compact cameras with very much smaller lens to sensor distances are unaffected by this issue because sensor sizes in them are very much smaller reducing angular incidence.

[Nuff]

Ok


The reality is you have a small production run manufacturer of high quality premium equipment with the ability and customer base to demand high prices facing higher than normal R&D costs when moving into digital..


There are 3 reasons why the high prices


1 The equipment is made up to a standard not down to a price


2 The equipment is in some areas unique and cutting edge breaking new ground


3 The tradition has always been to charge high prices so its acceptable to charge more


The sensor issue they faced:-


With film, the incidence angle of light hitting the sensitive medium was of no consequence. But with digital, the short distance between lens and sensor is critical.


It means that closer than around 44mm from lens to sensor the light rays cannot enter the photosites efficiently and the image is corrupted. I am convinced that sigma is experiencing this issue, strange green colour casts appear with many wide angle lenses on their recent sensor due to angular light issues. The light rays just cannot efficiently enter the photosites at high angular incidences, and their lens to sensor distance is around 46mm


The problem is much worse for Leica the shorter lens to sensor distances of around 38mm force higher incidence rays to hit the sensor.


To overcome this problem Leica would have to abandon their traditional lens design and adopt a more conventional lens to sensor distance or create a new sensor design unique to them. They chose to design a new sensor so as not to obsolete their excellent lenses.


They created a unique sensor which accepts light at low angles and still registers an image correctly. The design they came up with is variable offset lensing with micro lenses not central to the photosites, but increasingly offset the closer to the sensor edge they are sited.


This unique sensor is more difficult to manufacture reliably and consistently compared to standard sensors which have micro lenses centrally positioned over all photosites. the cost is therefore higher


This high research and development cost and higher manufacturing cost has to be recouped from small volume sales hence the high prices.


N.B compact cameras with very much smaller lens to sensor distances are unaffected by this issue because sensor sizes in them are very much smaller reducing angular incidence.

Very good explanation, also why cameras like NEX are a lot cheaper. They have huge lenses to to avoid this issue all together. Still, since I'm primarily a film shooter, a leica would be very nice.
Leica's still have pretty bad vignetting on the digital sensor, even with the microlenses. That's why they also have a software solution to correct it.

Another aspect that I like about leica lenses, is extreamly low barrel distortion, something that's more important on film than digital this days (but it's still easy to correct in LR for both).
Compare the distortion for the 35mm lenses (taken from photozone) on FF cameras:
Leica 35mm f2: 0.3%
Canon 35mm f2: -0.95%
Canon 35mm f1.4: -1.5%
Nikon 35mm f2: -1.33%
Nikon 35mm f1.4: -1.64%
Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 on Nikon: -1.81%

Pentax APSC lenses similar to 35mm:
21mm f3.2: -1.97%

Is it worth it to you? Well, it seems that something like this isn't important to any lens manufacturer except Leica. They also make sure that the filed curvature is really flat, even if it means sacrificing the lens sharpness in the centre. But it is great if you are planning to shoot brick walls for sharpness tests

[Pepe Guitarra]

I think he also used the 24/3.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22155694@N00/9676161922/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22155694@N00/12799953153/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22155694@N00/12656517605/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22155694@N00/12656767144/in/photostream/

[Clicker]

Hand built well mostly some machinery is involved luxury goods.