M10 with Live View - I'm wrong to yawn about this ?

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

High ISO performance means

1) less blur with long lenses in low light

2) More depth of field in low light.

 

I can't see how the above would be undesirable.

Pete

 

I can't see how live view is related to high iso performance.

 

Many will be very much disappointed to realize that an M10 with live view will still not be able to provide the high iso performance of other systems.

 

The high iso performance of the M system is related to the use of an absorption filter instead of an interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass, as this would cause uncontrollable color fringes.

 

Regards,

Steve

[lars_bergquist]

When the M3 was launched in 1954 many people complained about the lack of a honest-to-God wind-on knob. The lever spoiled the camera. Whenever something new comes out, we have the usual complement of people who do not understand what it's good for, because they have never used it!

 

A M with live view would be a game changer for me, because …

 

• It would have to have a CMOS sensor with more speed.

 

• It would open the door to using all sorts of interesting lenses – macro, long teles – that

has been outside the M pale since the demise of the Visoflexes. An accessory EVF in the

shoe would in practice be a Visoflex IV.

 

• With adapters, many of these lenses do not have to be M lenses. They could be R lenses,

giving us the long sought 'R solution'. I have a drawer full of interesting Olympus OM lenses,

many of them very advanced macro optics, that were orphaned when I abandoned film.

 

You have to be a confirmed Opto-Luddite to deny that. But of course, everything went to hell in a handbasket when people abandoned God-fearing glass plates for those cockly newfangled films … Taking several pictures in a row is a heathenish proposition. Never did that in my life! One exposure in the morning and one in the afternoon is all a sane person would ever need.

 

The old man from the Age of Glass Plates

[mjh]

The high iso performance of the M system is related to the use of an absorption filter instead of an interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass

That would be news to me.

[lars_bergquist]

I can't see how live view is related to high iso performance.

 

Many will be very much disappointed to realize that an M10 with live view will still not be able to provide the high iso performance of other systems.

 

The high iso performance of the M system is related to the use of an absorption filter instead of an interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass, as this would cause uncontrollable color fringes.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

Nonsense. The absence of an AA filter increases detail reproduction and edge sharpness. It has nothing whatever to do with sensor speed, which is reduced by the Bayer filtering and by the intrinsic limitations of a CCD sensor.

 

The old man from the Film Age

[Stealth3kpl]

It is pretty simple really.

 

The Nikon F also was a classic but Nikon kept evolving the design.

 

I feel the idea is to make any camera as useful and versatile as it can be, not leave it as some kind of arbitrarily limited icon for Leica "purists."

 

 

Indeed, why would they call it an M10 if it's just the same as an M9?

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

I can't see how live view is related to high iso performance.

 

 

Regards,

Steve

 

It's not.

I'll modify my post:

 

An optional but high res EVF and live view would mean

1) The basic rangefinder would be untouched for those of us who need speed on the street.

2) Demand for rangefinder adjustment at Solmes may be reduced releasing resources there.

3) The EVF is in the pocket for when critical focus is required

4) Potential for R lenses (or other manufacturers' classic primes) to be used on the rangefinder, including long telephoto

5) fewer focus shift issues

6) Off-center focusing accurate

 

Incidently, for Luddites who don't see the point of improved high ISO performance, it would contribute to

1) less blur with long lenses in low light

2) More depth of field in low light.

 

I can't see how the above would be undesirable.

Pete

 

Hope that's clearer.

Pete

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pete, how would an EVF contribute to more depth of field? :confused:

As a matter of fact, in general focus accuracy on an EVF is considerably less than on a well set-up rangefinder.

[AlanG]

Pete, how would an EVF contribute to more depth of field? :confused:

As a matter of fact, in general focus accuracy on an EVF is considerably less than on a well set-up rangefinder.

 

He meant that higher ISO performance (not an EVF) would contribute to more depth of field in low light. He is talking about two separate features obviously.

 

As for the lower ISO due to the absorptive IR filter in the M...

 

Exclusive: Leica Interview – October 2011 • MegaPixel

-----------------------------------

Q: If you look at the DXOMARK results of the M9 you can see that the ISO marks are considerably lower than other full frame cameras. Do you see this as one of the major things you would like to improve in the next M version?

 

A: The reason why this is lower lies in the special circumstances of the M-System. It is quite complicated, but I will try to make it short: M-lenses hit the sensor in a flat angle, therefore they are the most compact on the market and older lenses are compatible with M8 and M9. This flat angle will not allow us to use interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass, as this would cause uncontrollable color fringes. Instead of, we use an absorption filter, which is not sensible to different light angles, but does filter much more of the visible light as interference filters, and therefore the signal from the sensor needs to be amplified much more which results in a lower light sensitivity. Of course, having a higher sensitivity of the sensor is an issue and we put a significant amount of effort in improving this.

[proenca]

And of course Porsche does make a four door with a motor in the front, and did so in the past too: the 928 (albeit with only 2 doors.) Today we know it as the Panamera and is sold alongside the 991 (the current 911 iteration.) I think it's conceivable that Leica could possibly sell a traditional M alongside any new M that has four doors and a motor in the front. The M9 could be slightly improved upon (like the way Porsche has done with the 911) but with a entirely new model available that appeals to the four door crowd.

 

(btw, I do realize some Porsche enthusiasts feel that it all ended with the birth of the 996. But 964 owners felt the same when the 993 appeared. Just like M3 owners feel about the M4. And the M4 owners feel about the M6. And so on...... )

 

small correction, Porsche fanatic and owner here : 928 is far from being the first front engined Porsche with 4 seats : 924 was the first one.

 

I agree with your ideia : I'm fine with a new model, along the M model and great if it could sport M lenses. Just like Porsche did - they created a new model and done with it.

 

If you turn a M into a video, EVF, Live View thing.. it stops being a M.

 

Like if you put 4 doors, 4 seats and a 5m lenght Porsche, its stops being a 911 - its still a Porsche but not a 911. Panamera is quite sporty but not a sports car.

 

964 to 993 was a design change and few tweaks here and there but the same idea, concept and even engine type. 996 was a complete redesign, chassis, and specially engine characteristics that still today separates the 911 heritage - pre 996 ( air cooled ) vs post 996 ( water cooled ). Whilst every iteration of the 911 post 996 are better cars indisputdely than its predecessor, some pre 996 cars still command very high values - to the extent that some 993 models are worth MUCH more than its 996 or even 997 equivalents ( and thats 2 generations / 10 years gap ! ) hope Leica introduces a funky full tech M camera and my M9 will be worth billions in a near future.

 

I just dont set my hopes too high on that

[Stealth3kpl]

Pete, how would an EVF contribute to more depth of field? :confused:

 

LOL

 

 

As a matter of fact, in general focus accuracy on an EVF is considerably less than on a well set-up rangefinder.

 

Mmmm, debatable. Also see point 2 in section one i.e. points relating to the use of an EVF.

 

Pete

[AlanG]

If you turn a M into a video, EVF, Live View thing.. it stops being a M.

 

 

So what? Things change. Call it an M+

[jaapv]

DXO Mark has been quite discredited. Contrary to their claim they do not measure sensor output, but camera output, including firmware cooking, making sensor comparisons based on their data meaningless. And comparing CMos with CCD this way makes no sense at all. Note that all digital backs get bad notes in DXO.

He meant that higher ISO performance (not an EVF) would contribute to more depth of field in low light. He is talking about two separate features obviously.

 

As for the lower ISO due to the absorptive IR filter in the M...

 

Exclusive: Leica Interview – October 2011 • MegaPixel

-----------------------------------

Q: If you look at the DXOMARK results of the M9 you can see that the ISO marks are considerably lower than other full frame cameras. Do you see this as one of the major things you would like to improve in the next M version?

 

A: The reason why this is lower lies in the special circumstances of the M-System. It is quite complicated, but I will try to make it short: M-lenses hit the sensor in a flat angle, therefore they are the most compact on the market and older lenses are compatible with M8 and M9. This flat angle will not allow us to use interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass, as this would cause uncontrollable color fringes. Instead of, we use an absorption filter, which is not sensible to different light angles, but does filter much more of the visible light as interference filters, and therefore the signal from the sensor needs to be amplified much more which results in a lower light sensitivity. Of course, having a higher sensitivity of the sensor is an issue and we put a significant amount of effort in improving this.

[mjh]

It should be noted that other vendors use IR absorption filters as well, sometimes combined with dichroic filters. The M8 and M9 aren’t special in that their sensors feature IR absorption filters. The use of absorption filters to reduce not just IR but also some of the red light is intentional.

[AlanG]

DXO Mark has been quite discredited. Contrary to their claim they do not measure sensor output, but camera output, including firmware cooking, making sensor comparisons based on their data meaningless. And comparing CMos with CCD this way makes no sense at all. Note that all digital backs get bad notes in DXO.

 

DXO being discounted by you or others is irrelevant in light of the fact that the lack of an absorptive IR filter was Stefan Daniel's explanation for why other FF cameras have better high ISO performance than the M9 has. He did not dispute that other cameras were better at high ISOs and thus he agreed that the DXOMark results reflect the problem accurately. Do you and others not believe him? But of course other sensors may also simply be faster than the one in the M9. Additionally, since Mr. Daniel said that the M9's signal needs to be "amplified much more" to compensate for this filter, it makes me wonder what the actual base speed of this sensor really is.

 

So yes if you slip the best current FF CMOS into the M, if it uses the current IR filter, it will have its speed reduced somewhat compared to those that use a dichroic filter. If you want to know exactly how much this will be, ask Mr. Daniel.

[swamiji]

So what? Things change. Call it an M+

 

If the M becomes just another me too camera, then the M will cease to be. A small company Leica cannot survive if it cannot distinguish it self from the other brands. Other companies make cameras with EVF/Live View/Video much cheaper. Nobody else is making a Digital Rangefinder.

 

Now that being said, lets not confuse Live View with EVF. Live View is kind of a given with CMOS as is Video (not to mention high ISO). So as it has been mentioned in the media by several interviews of Leica top people. It will happen someday.

 

The question is how Leica will continue to make the M unique with EVF, Video and Live View? If EVF replaces the Rangefinder, then the M will lose it's uniqueness. It will be just another mirror-less camera. If the M+ has both, then it's up to the buying public to decide. The consumer has been conservative in the past. The buying public rejected the M5, while embracing SLR's, but then accepted the M4-2. But who knows, it's a different world now since the M5 was rejected by the consumer.

 

Your right, Things Change. Companies go out of business. It's a tough world, and Canon, Nikon, etc. are in it to win. Leica has to be careful, creative, and think differently than the rest of the pack if it's to survive. The MM is an example of thinking out of the box.

 

There is more at stake here than just whether we have a Visoflex or "R" replacement, and I am certain Leica knows it as well. Remember Leica also has to sell it's image in order for it to sell product, it sells to photographers collectors, and others. I am afraid that we photographers may be a minority at this day and age.

[01af]

DxO Mark has been quite discredited.

The whole DxO Mark nonsense was, and is, meaningless from the beginning. I never understood all the hype about it. As far as I am concerned, it never had any credit at all.

[AlanG]

 

There is more at stake here than just whether we have a Visoflex or "R" replacement, and I am certain Leica knows it as well. Remember Leica also has to sell it's image in order for it to sell product, it sells to photographers collectors, and others. I am afraid that we photographers may be a minority at this day and age.

 

They had no reason to make a digital camera with that philosophy.

 

Then maybe they should look into expanding their range of collectibles to other things than just cameras. Maybe figurines or something.

 

I'd rather a camera be "me too" than "me not." I can't believe that Leica is scared. They simply have to develop the technology they need.

[AlanG]

The whole DxO Mark nonsense was, and is, meaningless from the beginning. I never understood all the hype about it. As far as I am concerned, it never had any credit at all.

 

 

And that makes what Mr. Daniel said incorrect?... Simply because the questioner referred to DXOMark? You really are completely sidestepping the entire point.

 

So if you know so much about the filter and the sensor... according to you, does the IR filter in the M reduce the sensitivity necessitating additional signal amplification or does it not?

[01af]

And that makes what Mr. Daniel said incorrect?

No, it doesn't

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CalArts 99]

small correction, Porsche fanatic and owner here : 928 is far from being the first front engined Porsche with 4 seats : 924 was the first one.

 

A small correction, I actually never said it was the first but simply that they made one in the past: "And of course Porsche does make a four door with a motor in the front, and did so in the past too: the 928 (albeit with only 2 doors.)"

 

964 to 993 was a design change and few tweaks here and there but the same idea, concept and even engine type. 996 was a complete redesign, chassis, and specially engine characteristics that still today separates the 911 heritage - pre 996 ( air cooled ) vs post 996 ( water cooled ). Whilst every iteration of the 911 post 996 are better cars indisputdely than its predecessor, some pre 996 cars still command very high values - to the extent that some 993 models are worth MUCH more than its 996 or even 997 equivalents ( and thats 2 generations / 10 years gap ! ) hope Leica introduces a funky full tech M camera and my M9 will be worth billions in a near future.

 

I just dont set my hopes too high on that

 

The 993's value has remained relatively high but with a somewhat small market of potential buyers who often are interested in the car primarily due to its mythology. (I have a wide body 993 and certain versions of the 993 fetch more than others.) But certain versions of the 996 (the Turbo with the Hans Mezger derived block) and 997 are still worth more in actual resale. I think it's sort of like the M3 mythology in the Leica world. The M3 is seen as the apex of Leica's skills as the 993 is sometimes seen in the Porsche world. Although there are hardcore 911 and 964 owners who do think the 993 was too 'modernized.' Just like some Leica fans feel about LTM over M mount, etc..

 

But the reality is that if the 996 wasn't mass assembled and produced along with a liquid cooled motor and its quasi-dry sump (except for the M96.76 turbo motor with true dry sump), Porsche would have ceased to exist. With a liquid cooled motor more performance could be developed and Porsche could keep up with the competition. Despite all that's 'wrong' with the 996, it saved the company.

 

Today we still have the '911' but with a incredible amount of performance and things we would have never dreamed about such as PDK. To be sure, rowing your own gears is incredibly satisfying but you have to admit that PDK performance is pretty amazing. And it's faster on the track.

 

But if a 911, 964, 930, or 993 and 993TT is one's vision of what Porsche is all about, then you can always buy them used. Same with M3/2/4/5/6/7/8/8.5. And yes their value have remained pretty good, with all things considered.

 

Leica is really in the same kind of position that Porsche was with the 993. It needs to stay alive. I'm expecting new Ms to be liquid cooled and with PDK. And I'm guessing that they will be just as enjoyable to use as the current M9/M9-P. Like Porsche, Leica certainly knows its heritage and yet clearly understands it needs to be viable in the modern world.