Video mode on future M

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That Nikon will have 36MP in their future D800 is pure speculation. Before Canon's D1x was launched similar speculations went about the new 1Ds IV. That the pixel count would increase from 21MP (1Ds III) to 36MP - even higher numbers were dreamt of.. What Canon launched was 1Dx with 18MP - down from 21 MP but the fastest camera in the business....

 

If you really have read the Canon and Nikon annual reports you will see that, say, in 2006 the camera division of Canon had a turnover twice that of Nikon's camera division and a result three times as high. - Just to pick one year.

 

Unfortunately, I think you will be proven dead wrong on this ... but of course this thread will be forgotten by then.

 

The Canon Pro 1DX is a high performance 18 meg FF replacement for their 1D-IV camera AND the 1DsMKIII. I'd speculate it was unveiled in prep for the 2012 Olympics in London. Personally, the 1DX sounds not only sensible, but highly desirable. However, we have no idea what else is coming from Canon ... the higher meg mantel may fall to the 5D-II replacement, and be in competition with the FF 36 meg Nikon D800 which is reported to be smaller than the D700 it replaces.

 

The only barrier to meg count in a 35mm DSLR is the theoretical 4 micron pixel pitch threshold before diffraction sets in. That Sony has slightly breached that with a 3.9 micron 24 meg APSC sized sensor in the A77 and NEX7 is the subject of much discussion. However, 36 meg FF would not produce a pixel pitch below that 4 micron threshold. So, not only is it possible, it is probable.

 

What Canon or Nikon do, has little to do with Leica ... they are not Leica's competition. People that think they are, are not Leica's potential customers.

 

-Marc

[mmradman]

Why not go directy to the sources and read for yourself?

 

Nikon: Nikon | Investor Relations

 

Canon: Canon : Investor Relations | Financial Announcements

 

Thanks for suggesting.

 

My investment is into the pleasure of photography not businesses, so not interested into financial reports.

[AlanG]

No offense but it is obviously pretty ludicrous on its face to think that Sony is going to leave 24MP full frame (3 year old technology) and 24 MP APS size sensors at the top of the heap in terms of pixel count for 35mm full frame and smaller cameras. Why would Sony and all others want to stop the "pixel race?" And the pixel race seems to continue with MF backs too.

 

If Leica is going to use a cmos sensor in the M10 it will have to come from some outside supplier and Sony is certainly a top possibility. So if Sony has a 36MP sensor up its sleeve and can make its microlenses work with M lenses then I'd say Leica couldn't resist it. Since the Nex5n reportedly has such microlenses and good IR filtering that works with w/a non telecentic lenses, one doesn't have to be too bright to see the possible link-up. Perhaps there are other manufacturers that can make a suitable sensor for Leica but Sony is at the top of their game right now and unless there is some kind of contractual issue, that's what I'd expect to see.

[anupmc]

...

Have you read any of the annual reports of Nikon and Canon?

 

They show (and tell) that it is the expensive SLR models w/lenses that makes their profit. Not any PS. - Just imagine how many PS cameras you have to sell to make a similar gross profit as on only one 1Ds III.

 

...

 

Ok, why don't we take a look at their reports -- In the case of Nikon, where exactly did you find a breakdown of gross profit figures of the camera models within the Imaging Products segment? Take a look at their consolidated financial data for first half ended Sept'11-- while they show net income for the Imaging Product segment, nowhere do they break it down by camera segment.

 

I would love you to show me, because I'm genuinely interested to see the actual profitability of their P&S cameras.

[Olsen]

Ok, why don't we take a look at their reports -- In the case of Nikon, where exactly did you find a breakdown of gross profit figures of the camera models within the Imaging Products segment? Take a look at their consolidated financial data for first half ended Sept'11-- while they show net income for the Imaging Product segment, nowhere do they break it down by camera segment.

 

I would love you to show me, because I'm genuinely interested to see the actual profitability of their P&S cameras.

 

Nikon: 'Imaging' is cameras! For Canon; cameras is a part of 'consumer'.

 

Read the reports! Here they describe 'why' they make more (or less) money!

 

Look up the other camera brands and see how they are doing, and get even better filled in. I have.

[Olsen]

Thanks for suggesting.

 

My investment is into the pleasure of photography not businesses, so not interested into financial reports.

 

Same here.

 

But....

 

If one should invest in shares, invest in something you know something about. So, if one is interested in photography why not follow how the camera producers are doing?

[Sp12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olsen, I'm not seeing a breakdown of gross profit by market anywhere, nor am I seeing any convincing arguments against higher and higher pixel counts raised. Please help me.

[Olsen]

Olsen, I'm not seeing a breakdown of gross profit by market anywhere, nor am I seeing any convincing arguments against higher and higher pixel counts raised. Please help me.

 

I have read the financial statements of both Canon, Nikon - and others, for more than 10 years. You can't expect me to go through all that material 'just to show you' that that Canon and Nikon are making most of their profit on - especially, the FF-SLRs.

 

Tips: Read the statements and follow the profit of Nikon's 'image' division. Particularly right before and after they launched their first FF-DSLR...

 

Please note also, how large a profit of Canon's camera operation (now part of Consumer) did after they launched 1Ds. Through the years 2002 - 2007 they raked in 80% of the profit of the whole camera business...

 

Many seem to believe that it's in the PS that the profit is. But not so. Canon made huge profits, unparalelled in the business, on the 1D-series - and the D5-series. Much because it generates huge sales in lenses, flashes and other accessories. Reading through the archives of Canon and Nikon you will find a lot about this.

[mwilliamsphotography]

What does Canon's financial reports have to do with Leica?

 

Canon doesn't have a FF digital rangefinder, nor a medium format system ... and no lenses to compete with Leica ... so what's the point?

 

Leica doesn't make office copiers either.

 

What ever Leica does with the next M, it'll be what it is, and it'll either keep them moving along or it won't.

 

Meanwhile, we're here now ... making photographs with what we have.

 

No sweat.

 

-Marc

[mjh]

You can't expect me to go through all that material 'just to show you' that that Canon and Nikon are making most of their profit on - especially, the FF-SLRs.

As that statement is wrong – for both Canon and Nikon it is the entry-level and mid-range models that are the most profitable – I would be interested to know how you’ve arrived at that conclusion. (And no, the reasons you’ve given so far prove nothing of the sort.)

[Olsen]

As that statement is wrong – for both Canon and Nikon it is the entry-level and mid-range models that are the most profitable – I would be interested to know how you’ve arrived at that conclusion. (And no, the reasons you’ve given so far prove nothing of the sort.)

 

No. They are not! Read their reports!

 

Typical is Nikon. A late bloomer when it comes to profitability. Their sales & results almost doubled when they introduced their first FF- DSLR. Go figure: How can that be?

 

Sure. SLR cameras also generate lens sales which is very important for bottom line. Also small users/amateurs contribute to this. But investigating their sales/results it is FF-SLR that generates 'the most profit'.

 

And again: Read their reports! It is information available to us all!

[stunsworth]

Their sales & results almost doubled when they introduced their first FF- DSLR. Go figure: How can that be?

 

And again: Read their reports! It is information available to us all!

 

Awe, come on Olsen, save us the hassle of reading all of those reports and give us the sales and margins numbers for the different camera types. If it's all in there surely it can't be too difficult to copy and paste the figures?

[Olsen]

Awe, come on Olsen, save us the hassle of reading all of those reports and give us the sales and margins numbers for the different camera types. If it's all in there surely it can't be too difficult to copy and paste the figures?

 

No. There is no such break downs of numbers.

 

But read their comments of their financial statements. Here they often give the reason for a certain sudden growth of bottom line. Canon mentions spesifically the 1D-series and the 5D- and the wealth of additional sales of lenses & accessories that these models generate as the reason for their success. - You might have to go back a few years to see those comments, though.

[anupmc]

No. There is no such break downs of numbers.

...

 

Thank you for finally admitting that theres no such break down of numbers in any of the financial reports. And you know why? Because it's not in either company's interest to provide such breakdown (that a competitor may use to target). You really should be retracting statements like this one;

...They show (and tell) that it is the expensive SLR models w/lenses that makes their profit. Not any PS. - Just imagine how many PS cameras you have to sell to make a similar gross profit as on only one 1Ds III. ...

 

Because admittedly, they do no such thing (otherwise provide a quote/source please). It's merely inference by you to try and make a point about the direction that Leica should take.

 

Bringing this back to Leica, your suggestion that they should make the M more mainstream, feature and price wise, because "thats what sells". Leica is a boutique manufacturer, mainstream is not their target, never has been, and clearly their recent camera models and pricing strategy demonstrates that is not their target. Company growth can come from many areas, and is not merely about top line either. Investors are more interested in operating margins than mere top line growth and market share.

 

My point being there is a business justification to introduce video on an M. Now it may come about as a consequence of technology choices they make for a future M, who knows, but I don't for a second believe they would do it in the hopes that it opens new market segments for them. Not with the M anyway!

[vanhulsenbeek]

...... Now it may come about as a consequence of technology choices they make for a future M, who knows, but I don't for a second believe they would do it in the hopes that it opens new market segments for them. Not with the M anyway!

 

And that is exactly why it may happen, as some sources confirm. Plus, I am not so sure about the lack of of market segments. Full Frame Full HD with an M9 plus a wide angle Summilux or a tele Summicron may be unbeatable! Agreed: it will be very patient video, and certainly no GoPro stuff, but I can imagine that there will be interest.

[Olsen]

Unfortunately, I think you will be proven dead wrong on this ... but of course this thread will be forgotten by then.

 

The Canon Pro 1DX is a high performance 18 meg FF replacement for their 1D-IV camera AND the 1DsMKIII. I'd speculate it was unveiled in prep for the 2012 Olympics in London. Personally, the 1DX sounds not only sensible, but highly desirable. However, we have no idea what else is coming from Canon ... the higher meg mantel may fall to the 5D-II replacement, and be in competition with the FF 36 meg Nikon D800 which is reported to be smaller than the D700 it replaces.

 

The only barrier to meg count in a 35mm DSLR is the theoretical 4 micron pixel pitch threshold before diffraction sets in. That Sony has slightly breached that with a 3.9 micron 24 meg APSC sized sensor in the A77 and NEX7 is the subject of much discussion. However, 36 meg FF would not produce a pixel pitch below that 4 micron threshold. So, not only is it possible, it is probable.

 

What Canon or Nikon do, has little to do with Leica ... they are not Leica's competition. People that think they are, are not Leica's potential customers.

 

-Marc

 

No. The wavelenghts of light sets the limits. I am not an expert in this. I am sure others here are. I tried to look up a Kodak info page giving a good description of this, but can't find it.

[Olsen]

Thank you for finally admitting that theres no such break down of numbers in any of the financial reports. And you know why? Because it's not in either company's interest to provide such breakdown (that a competitor may use to target). You really should be retracting statements like this one;

 

 

Because admittedly, they do no such thing (otherwise provide a quote/source please). It's merely inference by you to try and make a point about the direction that Leica should take.

 

Bringing this back to Leica, your suggestion that they should make the M more mainstream, feature and price wise, because "thats what sells". Leica is a boutique manufacturer, mainstream is not their target, never has been, and clearly their recent camera models and pricing strategy demonstrates that is not their target. Company growth can come from many areas, and is not merely about top line either. Investors are more interested in operating margins than mere top line growth and market share.

 

My point being there is a business justification to introduce video on an M. Now it may come about as a consequence of technology choices they make for a future M, who knows, but I don't for a second believe they would do it in the hopes that it opens new market segments for them. Not with the M anyway!

 

You obviously have not spent any time reading Nikon and Canon's (etc) annual reports. -Which is understandable. - I have.

 

You are misunderstanding me if - or I have not made myself clear; Leica will still be a 'off mainstream and exclusive' camera brand with the improvements I suggest. Leica will be!

 

Leica's problem today is the average age of their current customers: Oldies like myself. 10 years from now (may be less!) we will not buy anytning more. 20 years; we are all dead. So, Leica has to make moves to appeal to younger customers. Now!

 

Leica also have to keep up with the times regarding 'technological shifts' that change the whole camera business. Like cutting out the mechanical shutters. - Which I am sure that Leica have to do, - like all the other brands: Because mechanical shutters won't be made anymore. Why make shutters if the shutter business can be solves with a software program? 80% of cameras sold today are without shutters. Leica: Why wait?

 

Then it is a question of 'how to get rid of the expensive rangefinder mechanism'. They have to. It is too costly to produce. If customers can be persuaded into believing that 'live view' is just as fine; that will be a walkover... To make a digital (solid state) viewfinder will cost a fortune. Just to develop it.

 

Video is the easiest thing to put into a M-camera. It will make it the most compact Full Frame digital video camera in the business. You and I (oldies) might not need it, but that might be a demand from younger customers. Video just might be a 'must' to recruit younger customers. - We don't like it - but they do... And, really: Video? - No big deal.

 

Then it is AF. My opinion is that Leica should go for it on their M-series cameras. - I understand that this is a touchy issue for the current flock of customers. But it is not a question of what we 'oldies' are used to, but what the next generation of customers and they want. It will not make the Leica M-cameras cheaper. Quite on the contrary. But the Leica M-cameras will be brought up to a technical standard that the younger customers just expects will be there. - It will also bring bonanza to lens sales. Which will be a good thing for Leica.

[pico]

36-55MP is nowhere close to where the upper limit of 24x36 sensors will get to. 200-300MP for higher resolution light field seems logical to me and I have no idea how to decide an upper limit.

 

I'm afraid I must disagree. Digital sensors of, say, 24 megapixels for FF are just about at their limit for a number of reasons. I predict a maximum effective or acceptable limit of 40 megapixels, and the improvement will not be linear, but only a fraction better and barely detectable for sensors of the same size.

 

Unless the current sensors can get the most of today's lenses, which they don't, I certainly would want higher resolution. 50MP is only about a 50% increase of resolution over 24MP

 

I agree that today's lenses are the limiting factor, and doubling the MP of the same sensor size will show no improvement whatsoever.

[... snip agreements ...]

 

And because of the Bayer pattern, there is some interpolation going on that can benefit from higher pixel counts. Reducing moire and edge aliasing is another benefit.

 

Bining (or Binning) is the term we used when combining data point translations into a single unit (pixel). Sometimes a lower pixel output looks sharper, depending upon the shape, contrast and there are factors rarely discussed: we see things the eye does not really detect. Consider a human hair on a white wall. You can see it at ten feet, however a dot of the same width is invisible. There are other examples and considerations, too.

 

[...]

 

I'd suspect that people who use their Leica's for landscapes will gladly upgrade to cameras that have more megapixels. The same kind of people who spend several thousand for each very high quality lens will easily be persuaded to see the need to buy a new body if that gives any quantifiable improvement. Leica won't leave this money on the table and they need to keep giving its base reasons to upgrade. Just like having the highest resolution lenses, having the highest resolution sensors fits in with their philosophy.

 

Higher resolution lenses are no longer the main factor for digital photography - diffraction and a whole new attitude about performance at wider f-stops are - when considering more dense sensors. I imagine a day when there will be an "F/5.6" movement.

 

I would bet dollars to donuts that few people here can truly see a difference in quality great enough to justify the very next great lens or FF sensor of greater pixel counts. That's not really why many buy Leicas. And I say that with respect.

[mmradman]

Same here.

 

But....

 

If one should invest in shares, invest in something you know something about. So, if one is interested in photography why not follow how the camera producers are doing?

 

I am curious about business performance but there is plenty of good information on the web without going to the source besides find reading accounting reports excruciatingly boring.

 

Just please don't say I should be interested as it may increase my financial wealth, I don't think it would make much difference

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mmradman]

As that statement is wrong – for both Canon and Nikon it is the entry-level and mid-range models that are the most profitable – I would be interested to know how you’ve arrived at that conclusion. (And no, the reasons you’ve given so far prove nothing of the sort.)

 

Let's postulate here for a moment what is going on.

 

Appearance of M9 caused massive surge in lens demand/shortage and growth in Leica sales & profits, paying dividend for the first time after a very long draught.

 

By the same token Canon & Nikon launching flagship models caused positive atmosphere in the market with consequence that demand across the brand range increased, hence bigger overall sales and profit.

 

What Olsen is saying is that following launch of desirable flagship cameras there was positive step change in sales/profits.

 

It seems it is creating the right buzz in the market that works for any manufacturer, makes sense. So maybe M9 or D3 or 1D are not most profitable per unit but it helps a great deal to shift other stuff.