Video mode on future M

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We're already at the resolution limit of 35mm lenses/sensors with 18-21MP... Bumping it to 24-36MP won't help things any, I'd say. There's a reason MF still exists.

 

I just read the Nex 7 review at DP Review. It seems to me that the Sony 50mm 1.8 lens that covers full frame would do quite nicely on a 55MP full frame sensor. (I can't speak of corner sharpness.) So I have to figure a number of other lenses would as well.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

Many existing lenses are not really up to current sensor requirements (I know, I have some). Lenses from Leica and some of the newer designs from other manufacturers are extremely good, but, in case no-one has noticed, they are not cheap. My prediction is that building higher MPixel sensors is inevitable as a marketing exercise. Providing good enough lenses to make use of those sensors and doing so at a viable retail price will be the real trick. Possibly advances in manufacturing capability will enable this, but then there are the questions about usability. As the fine detail which can be captured increases so too will all the problems associated with ensuring that nothing (vibration, focus accuracy, technique, etc.) prevents this happening.

 

I come back to a more basic argument, which is to question why we want more than 18MPixel in a small compact '35mm' body? In practical terms it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me because I cannot see its application other than for a very, very few users. I can see that cameras are needed which do feature high MPixels, but in order to use all their capabilities, surely a body like that of the S2 is a more effective one. The M body remains what it originally was - a highly portable, high quality camera, but it was not a medium format camera and the levels of output being discussed are most certainly in what would have been considered a being in medium format territory and may well require a similar technique to ensure that they utilise their capability (tripod for example). Just because something might be possible in the future does not mean that it will be useful or really usable.

 

On the question of a video mode, well, I suppose one might be useful provided it is accepted that the camera might be viable as a video notebook rather than a serious video camera - purely because the ergonomics are completely wrong (I have used the 5D2 for tv work and its awkward, the M body would IMHO be substantially worse). Personally I would see a video mode in the same light as the 'snapshot' mode - it may have a few adherents but might essentially be included for specifications sake.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I am convinced that we will not see 24 x 36 mm sensors with more than 24 million pixels.

 

Like a broken record. A buggy-whip stubbornness, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary...LOL!

 

However, there are also good reasons why it may not benefit many, other than the camera marketers and those that measure their photographic prowess in terms of technical hardware. Some photographers with specific demands will benefit, but I think they will be a small minority.

 

As mentioned, MFD is an excellent example of this in action. IMO, MFD peaked at 40 meg for more spontaneous use ... or at least versatile use that includes some spontaneous applications of MFD cameras.

 

With MFD, beyond 40 or maybe 50 meg, it becomes more and more difficult to effectively extract the additional resolution. At 60 and 80 meg, everything you do becomes an exercise in perfect technique and locked down execution, or you end up with about the same effective IQ as a 40 meg camera.

 

Multi-shot MFD cameras are somewhat different. The "locked down" mentality is a given ... nothing can move ... camera or subject ... and the controls are all remote computer/software activated including firing, shutter speeds and aperture, plus mirror up/stop down is automatic and actual shots are delayed until everything settles down. Most of these cameras are used in studio with strobes, so contrast control is more a matter of lighting. The net of using these backs is no moiré and incredibly accurate color.

 

The MFD lenses have been undergoing a transformation as the meg count accelerated. P1 now has Schneider digital based optics to replace the aging film based lenses from Mamiya, and Hasselblad has been revamping their H lens line-up for a while, AND began using software corrections as part of their total system integrated concept (even for the newer HCD lenses like the 28 and 35-90). The HC50-II, 120-II and 150N are all redesigned versions to keep up with the increasing demands of higher resolution backs. For users, squeezing a bit more IQ out of MFD is a very expensive undertaking.

 

If the M ever goes to some high meg count, like 36 meg FF, it'll be interesting to see if any benefits are actually realized, and at what price in other performance characteristics.

 

-Marc

[AlanG]

I totally agree that many if not most photographers will not need higher resolution. But this works against Leica not for it as it takes away one of Leica's selling points. However some of us do a lot of our work very locked down shooting still objects using a tripod mounted camera and electronic flash for instance. A lot of this kind of work once was shot on 4x5 and nobody at that time said that commercial photographers didn't need all of that "quality." It was standard and assumed by our clients. Many of my images end up as large displays in sales centers and other places often up to 10 feet across. And with the wide adoption of large format printing, this is more common in commercial photography than some may think.

 

What has been happening in recent years is higher levels of quality have been moving down to smaller and smaller cameras. Consider that a lot of people are using an M9 and other 35mm digital cameras for things that typically were not in the purview of the world of 35mm film cameras. A Nex 7, if it had a good range of lenses, would now suit the needs of many working and enthusiast photographers.

 

I think from Leica's perspective they'll have to make sure that their future FF models are producing higher resolution and better overall image quality than a smaller moderately priced camera such as a Nex 7 or its equivalent of the time. At some point, if not now, there probably will not be enough difference in image quality between the two for that to be the deciding factor for anyone who is not a Leica enthusiast. I'm not sure how Leica would reconcile that situation other than appealing more to the luxury buyer, but leaving out features such as video will probably not be selling points to typical photographers either.

[jaapv]

Because Leica does not sell on image quality per se, but on camera concept, this should not be an issue.

[mjh]

I wouldn’t claim that nobody needed more than 18, 21, or 25 MP since evidently some people do (for certain tasks). The question is whether we need a digital M to support this level of resolution. Canon seems to think they can replace a 21 MP camera by an 18 MP model without alienating their professional customers and I’d say they are right. There is a market for higher resolution cameras but not every camera needs to offer that resolution.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because Leica does not sell on image quality per se, but on camera concept, this should not be an issue.

 

It will be an issue if you can't get enough new people to buy into the Leica concept. And other new attractive concepts have come along recently and more will surely appear in the future.

[AlanG]

I wouldn’t claim that nobody needed more than 18, 21, or 25 MP since evidently some people do (for certain tasks). The question is whether we need a digital M to support this level of resolution. Canon seems to think they can replace a 21 MP camera by an 18 MP model without alienating their professional customers and I’d say they are right. There is a market for higher resolution cameras but not every camera needs to offer that resolution.

 

I think the idea behind the 1DX has little to do with replacing the 21MP 1DsIII. It is to step people up form the 1DIV, stay competitive with Nikon's new D4, and perhaps become an additional body for a 1DsIII shooter. I also expect to see a higher res Canon DSLR net year for those who need it. Otherwise all of the work that Canon has been putting into their latest lenses seems kind of restricted.

 

As I said in my other post, I think the smaller APS cameras will be more competitive with the M9 than the top DSLRs from Nikon or Canon. To that extent, the higher pixel count of the Nex 7, smaller size, overall image quality, and high performance will draw away some customers from the M9.

[pgk]

To that extent, the higher pixel count of the Nex 7, smaller size, overall image quality, and high performance will draw away some customers from the M9.

I am really getting bored with this assumption that a completely different type of camera is a competitor to the M. So please read my next statement; the M is a rangefinder, the Nex is not. Its pretty simple really, or at least I think it is. The Nex cameras do not interest me because when I want to use a Leica it is because I want to use a rangefinder. What is difficult to appreciate about this? The performance of the 5D2 is also extremely high and it shoots pretty decent video too. But again to me it is not a competitor because it is a dSLR (I have 5D2 and M). IMHO if the Nex draws customers away from the M then it will not be because of image quality or cost, but because they either have a fundamentally different requirement which the Nex fills better, or perhaps, just perhaps because they are interested in the next, best thing.

 

And lastly, I no longer use EOS 1D series cameras because they are way too heavy - in fact not far off medium format camera weight ........

[jaapv]

It will be an issue if you can't get enough new people to buy into the Leica concept. And other new attractive concepts have come along recently and more will surely appear in the future.

 

Well, currently the concept seems to be doing just fine despite any number of today's one-day-wonder cameras flooding the market:rolleyes:

[giordano]

Well, currently the concept seems to be doing just fine despite any number of today's one-day-wonder cameras flooding the market:rolleyes:

 

I just feel frustrated because one component of the concept is now "more than Giordano can afford".

[jaapv]

Well, yes - I have that feeling with many products..

But in four years time, the M10 will have sold better than expected, many users will be upgrading to the M10-2 and the M8 forum will still have quite a number " I'm so happy with my new M8 and which lens" threads.

[pico]

Good discussion but circular, IMHO.

This thread has just worn me out and forced me to a decision.

 

The M9 will be my last 35mm format camera. I might even get another.

In the meantime, I will shoot MF and hire the scanning to a good pro processor.

And print 4x5 wet.

 

And learn more from here: "Making Digital Negatives" Information

 

Now, off for the daily exercise.

Be well,

Pico

[mjh]

I think the idea behind the 1DX has little to do with replacing the 21MP 1DsIII.

It is marketed as the replacement of both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and the EOS-1D Mark IV, so according to Canon that was the idea.

[AlanG]

It is marketed as the replacement of both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and the EOS-1D Mark IV, so according to Canon that was the idea.

 

I do understand that is the concept from the selling point of view to consolidate the two models. But I doubt if many 1DsIII users are going to switch over to using it as a "replacement." Perhaps as an addition. Anyone needing high resolution will likely wait and see what else Canon offers in 2012. It certainly has been Canon's pattern in the past to bring out higher res models periodically. And Nikon sold quite a few D3 cameras and then dropped the higher MP D3X on photographers. They'll probably do the same thing with the D4.

 

I do think that the Nex 7, some other current cameras, and ones in the near future, will be competing more and more with the M9 and future M models as they encroach further on various aspects that made Leica Ms attractive to photographers. Even if they are not rangefinder cameras. The rangefinder/optical viewfinder is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Both methods of viewing and focusing have advantages for photographers to balance against cost, size, performance, image quality, versatility, features, repair support, and other factors. That does not mean that sales of M cameras will necessarily slip. Leica can expand its market despite this competition. Leica has somewhat of a captive market, but I think they go forward at their peril if they take it for granted.

 

There are only so many photographers who want a rangefinder so badly and can also afford the M system price. I expect to see Leica with an APS EVIL system for the upper "mainstream" users and the Nex 7 is a model for this.

[mjh]

I do understand that is the concept from the selling point of view to consolidate the two models. But I doubt if many 1DsIII users are going to switch over to using it as a "replacement."

Well, after more than four years the EOS-1Ds Mark III is getting a bit long in the tooth, no?

 

I do think that the Nex 7, some other current cameras, and ones in the near future, will be competing more and more with the M9 and future M models as they encroach further on various aspects that made Leica Ms attractive to photographers. Even if they are not rangefinder cameras. The rangefinder/optical viewfinder is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

On that point I have to disagree. I believe that these days the M’s market consists mostly of die-hard rangefinder afficionados. It’s a market big enough to keep Leica busy and at the same time it’s a market Leica wouldn’t want to alienate.

 

That does not mean that sales of M cameras will necessarily slip. Leica can expand its market despite this competition.

At least Leica could add live-view to the M10. It wouldn’t be overly intrusive (you wouldn’t even notice it unless you used it) but it could increase the M’s versatility like an electronic Visoflex. Even then this wouldn’t be about increasing market share necessarily. Rather the new EVIL system might be the wedge to drive into that market share pie chart.

[AlanG]

Well, after more than four years the EOS-1Ds Mark III is getting a bit long in the tooth, no?

 

True, but I for one will not be replacing my 21MP camera with an 18. I bought the 1Ds when it first came out. Then when the 1DII came out I bought it as a back-up despite it not being full frame. I barely used the 1DII. If the 1DsII had been available at the time, I never would have bought the 1DII and sold it after buying a 5D. (I lost about $3000 on that one.) They repeated this same thing strategy through the 1DsII, the 1DIII, the 1DsIII. It stopped with the 1DIV and an upgraded higher res model has been in a holding pattern for some reason.

 

Since I feel I am on to their strategy, just because they say it replaces the 1DsIII does not mean I'm going to be sucked in and think there won't be a higher res camera around the corner. Likewise I don't see a 16MP D4 replacing the 24MP D3X for users who need high res.

 

I do agree with you entirely that the Leica should not alienate its rangefinder market base and should keep making rangefinder models. This could even be a growth strategy. But that doesn't mean that some photographers who previously would have bought an M are not going to buy something else instead, despite the lack of a rangefinder. It will depend on the entire package and the photographer's needs. I want a Nex7 and I have next to no need for one because there are numerous things very appealing about it.

 

I've proposed live view and a clip on EVF for the M for years and mostly been shot down every time I brought it up until recently. That is precisely what I mean by the effects of competition in the market and it seems to be changing the views of some people here too. Once I looked through the EVFs on the newest Sonys I could see this would change some stubborn minds about EVFs.

[Guest srheker]

True, but I for one will not be replacing my 21MP camera with an 18. I bought the 1Ds when it first came out. Then when the 1DII came out I bought it as a back-up despite it not being full frame. I barely used the 1DII. If the 1DsII had been available at the time, I never would have bought the 1DII and sold it after buying a 5D. (I lost about $3000 on that one.) They repeated this same thing strategy through the 1DsII, the 1DIII, the 1DsIII. It stopped with the 1DIV and an upgraded higher res model has been in a holding pattern for some reason.

 

Since I feel I am on to their strategy, just because they say it replaces the 1DsIII does not mean

 

Yes, from the beginning the APS-H EOS1D models were followed by a higher resoultion sibling but slower 1Ds with full frame sensor.

 

But there is a slight difference with the EOS 1Dx: It has a the same sensor size as the 1Ds-Series and it is faster than any 1D before.

 

 

Today I prefer the EOS 5DII over the 1DsIII most days (as long as it's not raining) as it may have the slower fps but this is largely compensated by the fact that the 5DII is much faster when it comes to storing RAW-Files on the card. The 1DsIII freezes from time to time and I'm not doing reportage work and not sports.

 

So for me, a camera that is freezing after less than 10 frames is quite worse than 3 MP less resolution. Anyway the output at, say, 800ASA upwards might be even that much better that the 3MP less are marginalised.

 

The question is: will Canon feel obliged to beat the Nikon D3x's resolution.

 

 

For the most photographers work 18MP will be as sufficient as 21MP.

 

If I could wish for an improvement for my M9 it wouldn't be 21 MP but better High-ISO performance!

 

So maybe the EOS 1Dx is a smart move...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M