Whenever the new M arrives, who's going to buy one?

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not really, but it doesn't change the argument - good sized pixels on a larger sensor will always beat smaller ones on a smaller sensor. Moving up in MP is best done by using a larger sensor.

I'm not saying that Leica will be able to avoid marketing pressure in upping the MP count, but from a photographic quality point of view it would make little sense.

 

Then how about the dynamic range of the sensor? I certainly don't want to fall behind with a new digital camera what my A7R already could do two years ago.....

[chris_tribble]

What didn't you like about the SL, Chris? I seriously considered buying one recently as a digital body for my M lenses (I no longer own any M digitals). The flexibility of the camera – the ability to use virtually any lens from any system – appeals to me, especially as a digital body for macro use. I don't mind the size or the weight for the uses I have in mind but I have decided against it for now because I know I will not like using the viewfinder (which I have tried). It's not so much that it is an EVF (which I don't like, however good it is cracked up to be) but that it is a through the lens view. I simply don't like using a reflex camera which, for me, is a more claustrophobic, more intrusive, way of seeing than a rangefinder. I find that I need to be able to see everything in focus when I'm composing a photograph. A rangefinder, for me, is like holding up a cropping frame in front of my eyes which, in conjunction with my brain (where I subconsciously visualise whats in and out of focus), I can more quickly establish the relationship between elements and frame the photograph. A reflex view like that of the SL makes me feel like I'm squinting through a telescope.

 

Wattsy  - It's a bit off topic, but a question that deserves an answer - though I think you've just answered most of your questions.  For me the problem with the SL were:

 

CAVEAT: I never bought the dedicated lenses as I have a good Canon setup that does their job, so I wasn't using it the way it was really designed to be used.  WITH SL lenses it just makes so much more sense.

 

With M lenses the CONS for me are:

1. Size and weight - It just doesn't slip in and out of the bag or belt pouch easily - the handle, the prism and the protruding eyepiece all get in the way..
2. The EVF in bright light - I kept on getting dazzle - and I don't wear glasses when shooting
3. The EVF with backlighting - uncontrollable blackout of foreground when shooting against the light (until pre-shooting pressure is applied)
4. Just the EVF - too much like looking at TV at the end of a tunnel...  I know it's really really good - but it's not a direct view of the world and what's around the image.  If I want to look down a tunnel at least my 100% Canon OVF let's me see things clearly ALL the time.
5. Focusing M lenses - focus peaking is a waste of time IMHO and having to zoom to get really sharp focusing (ok Jono - I know there are other arguments here) is so slow compared to manual on the M.  I know that AF is great on the SL with AF lenses - but this isn't my case.

PROS - there are plenty.  

1. IQ is great.  
2. Focusing with long M lenses can be super accurate
3. The experience with 21 and wider is also good
4. Shutter sound is very quiet
5. It's solid!

With the right lenses - or for someone who LIKES EVFs and doesn't have a good full frame DSLR already I think it's a brilliant camera.  (PM me and I can tell you more if you like).  For me, it didn't work.

Edited December 6, 2016 by chris_tribble

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Martin B]

Regarding the discussion if higher MP on a FF sensor are "needed" or not, here is my personal experience: I shot for many years with a 22 MP FF (full frame) sensor and upgraded later to a 36 MP FF sensor. This increase in resolution is very visible to me when comparing photos on my screen especially when zoomed in. The increase in MP is especially beneficial for landscape photos and macro shots. For portraits, I can still cope well with 22 MP on the same sensor format size. Higher resolution certainly makes sense when printing at larger sizes or when cropping is needed.

 

Medium format is certainly another excellent choice for higher resolution especially for film. But sensor technology has so progressed that a FF sensor can match medium format quality images and avoiding bulk of lens and camera gear.

 

With newer sensors higher resolution often comes as a freebie/given plus other additional - maybe even more important - benefits like dynamic range. I personally don't want to miss anymore the option to capture everything in one single digital file without need to bracket.

[jaapv]

Not really - too many pixels on too small an area will run into technical limitations. Both in the image creation by the sensor (more crosstalk less precision in positioning the Bayer filter and microlenses, more difficult to shape the microlenses (especially important for the Leica M!), more diffraction and CA by the smaller bayer filterlets, more CA by the microlenses, etc. not to mention the noise problems) and the image taking by the photographer - especially more sensitivity to motion blur.

Far better to keep the larger pixels and fit them on a larger area, thus build a medium format camera.

For those few photographers that really need more pixels there are plenty of offerings on the market, from Leica S, through Hasselblad and Pentax to Phase One, etc.

Over 90% of users will not see any improvement in their images with higher pixel count - rather the opposite if we read the comments on the Forums on Canon's 50 MP sensor-. The only thing that will increase are their bragging rights - and Credit Card debts.

 

Anyway, given earlier interviews with Leica officials, and knowing Leica's philosophy - I have a suspicion that they feel that 24 MP is some sort of sweet spot for a 24x36 sensor and that any substantial increase in pixel number (to  double linear resolution they would have to move to a 100MP sensor - 36 or 50 won't cut it) is higly unlikely - at the most a small marketing-cosmetic increase.

[Paul J]

Jaap, I can't for the life of me find one high res 35mm camera that isn't really good, most are indeed on par and in some regards better than their medium format counter parts. e.g. a74r2 and Phase P45+, aside from physiological differences in focal, colour, and tonal graduations. Even when comparing with their low resolution siblings (e.g. 5DS R v 5D mkIII) for what they are intended for they are indeed better and in some cases really not much worse off in other areas. To say 50MP won't cut it and we need to jump to 100MP for there to be any sort benefit is both untrue and funny.

 

In this day and age there is absolutely no reason not to have more resolution excepting the fact you just don't want or need it for some personal reason, or the manufacturer can't do it.

 

For the benefit of doubt can you point me to the high res 35mm camera find is the problem because the only ones I know of work very well. Canon 5DS R, Nikon D810, a7r 2, Pentax K1, Sony a99ii

Edited December 6, 2016 by Paul J

[jaapv]

I'll happily direct you:

 

\https://www.google.nl/search?q=canon+5+DS+R+motion+blur&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=metGWM8krKjzB-i7qIAE

 

And then consider that the M is meant primarily as a hand-held reportage camera.

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

no idea but I shall not buy it for only a better sensor, the sensor of the M240 suits me very well

Edited December 6, 2016 by siangue

[Paul J]

Sorry Japp, all I see is a link to the 5DS R. It works exceptionally well and is a very well designed camera and is significantly better in resolution that its 24MP sensor sibling and no worse in any other regard other than needing more careful technique in some circumstances. All is see is beginner error and lack of simple technique in the google link you've posted, issues that you can resolve quite easily with both technique and some higher ISO, something that is not an issue with modern resolution.

 

There are probably more photojournalists using Nikon D810's then there are using Leica M. Most people I know using the M are not using it for photojournalism so I don't see how that is relevant any longer.

[jaapv]

You don''t have to be a PJ to use a camera for reportage and travel.

Although the M is built to professional standards, it is certainly not aimed at the professional market.

I would say that its target customer base is the advanced amateur.

The point is that the undoubted motion blur problems of "small" high-res cameras are caused by them being used hand-held by whomever.

The reason is fairly obvious. If a pixel area is half the diameter, the amount of motion that will be invisible (i.e. within the pixel area) can only be half as large.

So a very high pixel count -implying a small pixel size-  is problematic for a camera intended for hand-held use.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Leica, please give me a class leading accessory EVF and processor to match on the next M and you'll have another sale or perhaps even two: pretty please.

 

Sad to say, but failure to deliver will have me looking elsewhere.

[Paul J]

But my point was that there are many photojournalists, reportage and travel photographers using the D810, Sony a7r2, Canon 5DS. They are using it despite the issues you think are a problem.

It is not specifically and solely aimed at the professional market, but they do market to it and there are countless professionals using it because it is otherwise an excellent and very suitable system.

I would say it's market or use is not defined, that Leica does not have the market share to do that, and it is aimed at who ever has a use for it.

Well my point is these so-called issues are non issues and are becoming even less of an issue as technology and design advances.

Yes, but that does not mean the motion blur is not there. If you interpolate the file up to your needed resolution of 50MP it will still be there just as much as a 50MP capture and the rest of the file will always be soft, all of the time.

It's an issue there on paper if you want it to be, but in actual, practical use it's a non issue, in my opinion and findings and there are countless others who feel the same.

[djmay]

I'll happily direct you:

 

\https://www.google.nl/search?q=canon+5+DS+R+motion+blur&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=metGWM8krKjzB-i7qIAE

 

And then consider that the M is meant primarily as a hand-held reportage camera.

I did not get the message M was primarily for hand-held reportage. I have been doing it wrong

Jesse

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Martin B]

Not really - too many pixels on too small an area will run into technical limitations. Both in the image creation by the sensor (more crosstalk less precision in positioning the Bayer filter and microlenses, more difficult to shape the microlenses (especially important for the Leica M!), more diffraction and CA by the smaller bayer filterlets, more CA by the microlenses, etc. not to mention the noise problems) and the image taking by the photographer - especially more sensitivity to motion blur.

Far better to keep the larger pixels and fit them on a larger area, thus build a medium format camera.

For those few photographers that really need more pixels there are plenty of offerings on the market, from Leica S, through Hasselblad and Pentax to Phase One, etc.

Over 90% of users will not see any improvement in their images with higher pixel count - rather the opposite if we read the comments on the Forums on Canon's 50 MP sensor-. The only thing that will increase are their bragging rights - and Credit Card debts.

 

Anyway, given earlier interviews with Leica officials, and knowing Leica's philosophy - I have a suspicion that they feel that 24 MP is some sort of sweet spot for a 24x36 sensor and that any substantial increase in pixel number (to  double linear resolution they would have to move to a 100MP sensor - 36 or 50 won't cut it) is higly unlikely - at the most a small marketing-cosmetic increase.

 

 

Motion blur with higher MP FF sensors is an issue, correct - but it can be solved technically through image stabilization when not using a tripod. The point I am trying to make is that the technology simply advances, and many other brands have a high MP FF sensors as standard in their DSLR or mirrorless lines. The discussion which MP amount is "useful" or "needed" started at the beginning of the digital age - I still remember posts in 2005 where people claimed that 8 MP on an APS-C sensor is more than ever needed. So even if we consider 22 MP as sweet spot for FF sensors, this won't be the end of what qualitatively can be achieved sensor-wise. And again, the dynamic range of the sensor (especially at low ISO) is another critical point, too.

[jaapv]

Possibly - but upressing will not create blur that is not there. And it is an issue as the users are complaining. Personally I couldn't care less. I am one of those types that can get a decent shot at 1/2 second hand-held but then I have been trained in the precision-holding of tools for over forty years. You cannot work under an operation microscope if you do not have a steady hand

 

We will see what Leica will do -nothing is impossible-, but as said, I would be surprised if Leica were to increase pixel count on the M into the 50 MP class. That appears to me to be more suitable for the SL concept, and even then they could take the position that more pixels are to be found in the S.

[jaapv]

I did not get the message M was primarily for hand-held reportage. I have been doing it wrong

Jesse

 

Lowres-1015799-2.jpg

Well they would not have provided a tripod screw if they did not want to provide the option.

[Paul J]

Possibly - but upressing will not create blur that is not there. And it is an issue as the users are complaining. Personally I couldn't care less. I am one of those types that can get a decent shot at 1/2 second hand-held but then I have been trained in the precision-holding of tools for over forty years. You cannot work under an operation microscope if you do not have a steady hand

 

We will see what Leica will do -nothing is impossible-, but as said, I would be surprised if Leica were to increase pixel count on the M into the 50 MP class. That appears to me to be more suitable for the SL concept, and even then they could take the position that more pixels are to be found in the S.

 

 

The motion blur is always there. Even on my M9 I see it. If you upres it, you see it more. But I can shoot in a way that makes it go away and the same standard applies to any camera and any resolution.

 

I see people complaining on here about how the M-D has "exposure issues" and their rangefinder "can't focus properly" because the patch disappears. And anytime you google the problems of these cameras, that is what you going to find. But in use you learn how to expose, and you learn to keep your fingers put and the problems disappear.

 

I don't think Leica is going to change the resolution at all, and that is the problem, mine at least. I think the M has been relegated to novelty niche heritage camera because they don't see the investment as worth it, and the SL is really the only camera I see has a certain future. A manual rangefinder is a difficult sell in this day and age where people have been lead down the path of automation, and have been marketed by other brands to fear or even develop a learned helplessness unless everything is done for them. That to me is a shame and where it does finally become directed at a more specific group of people because my needs dictate my uses and the time has come where I must unfortunately move on.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Paul J

[Martin B]

 

 

I don't think Leica is going to change the resolution at all, and that is the problem, mine at least. I think the M has been relegated to novelty niche heritage camera because they don't see the investment as worth it, and the SL is really the only camera I see has a certain future. A manual rangefinder is a difficult sell in this day and age where people have been lead down the path of automation, and have been marketed by other brands to fear or even develop a learned helplessness unless everything is done for them. That to me is a shame and where it does finally become directed at a more specific group of people because my needs dictate my uses and the time has come where I must unfortunately move on.

 

I believe Leica is getting the sensor from a third party company - it might have been Panasonic. Nothing would stop Leica to go with a different supplier (Sony?) or use the current supplier with newer sensor technology. I am fairly convinced that the M system would see an increase in sales if a more powerful sensor (however we might define this now) would be added for a competitive price.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Martin B

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The arguments against more resolution make me smile. The same people who said 12MP was more than enough are the ones sprouting that 24MP is the "sweet spot" today.

 

The simple reality is that the next generation sensor will have better resolution and improvements in DR, noise and microlens technology. A new sensor doesn't just have more resolution and no improvements in other areas.

 

Anyway, there are already several sensors that have high resolution and better DR and noise control than 24MP sensors. The D810, 5DIV and A7R2 all outperform the majority of 24MP sensors in every way.

 

If Leica want me to buy the next M it'll need at least 36MP. Even then I'll probably pass. I don't care about thinner although lighter would be nice.

 

The one thing that would almost guarantee I buy the next M would be IBIS (it'll never happen so I'm safe). I know it ain't resolution, DR or lens quality that's the biggest challenge for me to get the image quality I want.

 

Gordon

[Martin B]

The arguments against more resolution make me smile. The same people who said 12MP was more than enough are the ones sprouting that 24MP is the "sweet spot" today.

 

The simple reality is that the next generation sensor will have better resolution and improvements in DR, noise and microlens technology. A new sensor doesn't just have more resolution and no improvements in other areas.

 

Anyway, there are already several sensors that have high resolution and better DR and noise control than 24MP sensors. The D810, 5DIV and A7R2 all outperform the majority of 24MP sensors in every way.

 

If Leica want me to buy the next M it'll need at least 36MP. Even then I'll probably pass. I don't care about thinner although lighter would be nice.

 

The one thing that would almost guarantee I buy the next M would be IBIS (it'll never happen so I'm safe). I know it ain't resolution, DR or lens quality that's the biggest challenge for me to get the image quality I want.

 

Gordon

 

Or to say it in other words: a Leica M camera with Sony A7R II sensor and IBIS technology. This would be my dream, too, but I am afraid it is not going to happen....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

 

Interested to hear how others plan to act.

 

 

I plan to continue taking pics with what I have (M240) and not give much thought until a new camera exists.  And, even then, I'll await reliability reports and, if still interested, make tests shooting and using my own print workflow.  

 

In the meantime, I will be testing the X1D and GFX....for needs complementary to my M.  If a new M appears in that time (by mid-2017), fine; otherwise, vaporware.

 

Jeff