What's your priority?

[hankg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So if you had a choice in the next M digital which would you pick.

 

1. 18-22MP, same dynamic range (about 8-9 stops), 1 more stop in ISO performance (good 1250 ISO).

 

2. 10-12MP, more dynamic range (12 stops), 2 or 3 stops more in ISO performance (good 3200 ISO)

 

With an available light camera where you are often presented with scenes where the light is beautiful, dramatic and way beyond the range of the sensor. I'll take dynamic range over any thing else. Resolution is adequate and image quality is already outstanding.

 

My order of priorities for improvements in a next sensor:

 

1. more dynamic range

2. better ISO performance

3. More resolution

 

This is about changes in the sensor not reliability, AWB consistency or 16 bit files. Curious about what forum members would value most for the next step up. What say you?

[jaapv]

I've never seen the sense in mega-megapixels, when the the 10 Mp resolution of the M8 allows one-metre wide prints without breaking up. As soon as sombody gives me commission to make a life-sized print of the Golden Gate Bridge, I'll change my opinion.

So, if pressed, the second option. But I feel no great need for a "better" digital M anyway - the camera is still better by a mile than I am.

Better DR, better High-Iso, hmm, might be nice, but would not cause me to run to the shop.

[Advertisement]

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

[ndjambrose]

I'd choose the same things as you, Hank. Better performance at high ISO would be a winner in my book.

[Shootist]

I'd have to go with 1 for sure and better high ISO, I find 1250 very usable and 3200 ain't that bad for B&W only.

I could also do with 12/14/16bit files.

But all of this will come with a new sensor that will have more MP but 18-22 aren't needed. Maybe 14MP but then you get into a smaller CoC of the sensor with the same size sensor.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Hank, I wouldn't expect to see these two choices as mutually exclusive, but I would like less noise at 3200 or even 6400.

[sean_reid]

 

My order of priorities for improvements in a next sensor:

 

1. more dynamic range

2. better ISO performance

3. More resolution

 

 

Ditto

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hope the next step-up will be as late as possible and with little improvements I haven't at all the idea to BUY one more camera in a number of years... and surely won't do it for some more ISO setting or so; I like M8 as it, and 10MP is ok for me.

[carstenw]

I would prefer a combination of both. I find 10MP borderline, but 12-14 or 16 would be great. That is a small enough jump that I expect to get improved ISO and dynamic range too, but perhaps not as much as you claim in the second choice.

[dpattinson]

Dynamic Range for sure, I want my tri-x exposure forgiveness back

 

(and a little better/more reliable elec-mech integration)

[Jamie Roberts]

Well, I think 1 & 2 go together. More dynamic range without lowered noise is sort of useless anyway.

 

The next priority would be to have a full frame M, even if there was only a slight increase in resolution. I'd love to be able to use my 35 as a 35 etc...

[Vieri]

Well, you could accomplish all of them by following the Nikon route with the D3: how about a 12 Mp FF sensor? That would have better DR, better high ISO, and add a couple Mp as well. Plus, solve the actual lack of Leica fast WA lenses. I know the microlense problem, corner problem, etc but I am pretty sure all these will be fixed at some point - that would make a M9 a worth upgrade to the M8 IMHO; as others said, I wouldn't rush to the shop for a M8 II or a M9 with marginal improvements as 1 stop better high ISO: if that would have to be the case, I'd rather have Leica working on fixing the actual M8 via FW...

 

Just my .02.

[Vieri]

Well, I think 1 & 2 go together. More dynamic range without lowered noise is sort of useless anyway.

 

The next priority would be to have a full frame M, even if there was only a slight increase in resolution. I'd love to be able to use my 35 as a 35 etc...

 

Jamie, it seems that we posted the same thing at the same time - you just beat me to it by a few seconds!

[hankg]

I'm in no hurry for an M9. Even if one were to appear in 18 months I expect I would squeeze at least 2 or 3 more years out of the M8. I ceratainly won;t be in line for the first batch of cameras:)

 

Yes full frame 12MP with wider dynamic range and ISO 3200 or 6400 sounds good to me.

[johnastovall]

Let Number 2 be the first priority...

[Printmaker]

I'm in no hurry for an M9. Even if one were to appear in 18 months I expect I would squeeze at least 2 or 3 more years out of the M8. I ceratainly won;t be in line for the first batch of cameras:)

 

Yes full frame 12MP with wider dynamic range and ISO 3200 or 6400 sounds good to me.

 

Me too. One thing that would be nice is a self cleaning sensor though. Oh yeah, a quieter shutter advance.

 

Tom

[marknorton]

I see ISO performance and dynamic range as being closely related; high ISO compromises dynamic range by raising the noise floor.

 

Priorities for me, in this order:

 

- larger sensor - reduced crop factor

- lower noise/better dynamic range

- higher resolution

- better AWB

- quieter

- some sort of focussing calibration function

- as thin as an M6/M7

- interchangeable bases to allow extended battery life/docking/wireless connectivity

[Daniel Ortego]

A main power switch that at least matches a three hundred dollar point-n'-shoot.

Regards,

[giordano]

I've never seen the sense in mega-megapixels

 

If the pixel spacing is much, much smaller than what the lens can resolve then (as far as I can make out) moiré and anti-aliasing issues simply don't exist, so mega-megapixels have their advantages. But maybe not with today's technology...

 

But I feel no great need for a "better" digital M anyway - the camera is still better by a mile than I am.

Better DR, better High-Iso, hmm, might be nice, but would not cause me to run to the shop.

 

Well said!

[Shootist]

Me too. One thing that would be nice is a self cleaning sensor though. Oh yeah, a quieter shutter advance.

 

Tom

I don't see a need for this. Any device that would move/shake rattle and roll the sensor to knock the dust off is only something else that can go wrong with the camera.

Doing a good sensor cleaning take all of 10 minutes.

I suspect that the next M# will be much quieter. On par with a M3 or M7.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Printmaker]

I don't see a need for this. Any device that would move/shake rattle and roll the sensor to knock the dust off is only something else that can go wrong with the camera.

Doing a good sensor cleaning take all of 10 minutes.

I suspect that the next M# will be much quieter. On par with a M3 or M7.

 

10 minutes in a clean space when you are not rushed. But when you're in the field changing lenses with the wind blowing 20 knots, you will find yourself cloning out the dust spots for hours later. I clean my sensor whenever I charge my batteries but I'd still like a little shake in the field.

 

You do have a point about mechanical things though - they will all fail at some point in time.

 

Tom