Jeff S Posted February 10, 2015 Share #761 Posted February 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) See how easy it is to say that without all the it long winded I am right and you are wrong goofy discussions that took the OP's post way off tangent? See, you weren't paying attention. There was no right or wrong, just a matter of preference regarding megapixels and why one of us wants more and one doesn't. Try to keep up. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted February 10, 2015 Share #762 Posted February 10, 2015 There are always good reasons to ask for more resolution but problems arise when the camera becomes slower, bulkier and more difficult or less handy to use because of that. As much as i like it, the M240 is yet too fat, too heavy and too slow compared to film Ms and it is not normal that some of us waste their time and monies in sending in again and again bodies and lenses to get them properly calibrated. This is not a good trend my friends. There are other cameras than rangefinders for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted February 10, 2015 Share #763 Posted February 10, 2015 I like your contributions to this forum. On this occasion I find it quite perplexing though because it doesn't seem you know wether you are coming or going. On one hand you say you want the M to remain limited, yet on the other you tell me my 60MP is outdated. Paul, I (and most others watching from the sideline, surely slapping hands on foreheads or at least chuckling by how this thread went so out of hand over a one simple bullet point in many peoples wish-list for a future pie-in-the-sky-Leica) see how this all got hung up. Let's make one thing clear from my perspective to prevent any further ridicule or confusion: I am not against higher resolution per se, as I doubt is any of the people arguing for future Leica M bodies to have their sensor resolutions kept reasonable by current technical standards. It is simply that I (and those others arguing in the same direction) are pretty practical and realistic about expectations for the next digital Leica M models. For me more resolution is not a tabu, it is simply very, very, very way down at the bottom of a long list of things I would like to see improved first. To add to reasoning against raising resolution on the Leica M as we know it today, many points on that very list way higher up, some of which among my top ten wanted changes interfere, even directly compete technically with any further raise in resolution. I simply find a higher dynamic range MUCH more important on any future digital M. I find better high ISO performance MUCH more important than any further improvement in resolution (we are not talking about the ability to push ISO past 12800, any competent digital camera can do this these days - I am referring to better colors, smoother tones, better pixel quality without files falling apart at higher ISO, about more usable dynamic range when shooting at ISO 3200 and above, …). I find SPEED and RESPONSIVENESS of the camera MUCH more important than any raise in resolution (please don't argue that Nikon, Canon, Sony, … have achieved this with their higher resolution sensors - we deal with the Leica M still with an entirely different packaging and have a camera manufacturer at hand who deals at MUCH lower unit quantities to depreciate expensive R&D on such improvements. I find reduction in size of the future Leica M MUCH more important than raising it's sensor's resolution (we all know how well these two points play against each other, right in combination with battery life, …). I am one of the people who argue fervently for a reduction in size back to Leica MP dimensions at all costs. I find it most important to keep, even IMPROVE the full optical, mechanical rangefinder focussing mechanism of the Leica M - my personal argument here is that we should not settle with the current 0.68x digital M finder, but should see an improvement back to historical different offerings in finders, even to an offering of a larger 1:1 finder (which is only possible in dedicating additional packaging space to the viewfinder - away from sensor electronics and battery compartment). That list can go on and on, which is why I feel so strongly about the argument about resolution on the Leica M. I have used digital M's since the Leica M8 and have lived through the regular use and work with the different files and workflows since the M8. I have experienced with wide open eyes what the small difference in filter thickness does to pixel quality between M8 and M9, I have experienced how wonderful the only 18MP sensor of the Mono outperforms larger sensors in print and holds to incredible enlargements. For my own needs the current, Leica M resolution is absolutely sufficient. I am not arguing against higher resolution and it's benefits - I am using a current high end Nikon DSLR system next to my Leica M gear for it's better characteristics where the Leica M falls short (I have long been a Nikon guy before using my first Leica). I use medium format gear with different mostly film based systems as well, as I run a Leica S system for it's inherited advantages over the Leica M. If in any Leica digital an argument could be made for pushing resolution, it surely should not at all be the Leica M, which is beautifully streamlined for it's very purpose. Continue to push resolution with new sensors in the Leica S - go ahead (this is surely needed to keep competing with digital MF offerings), although personally the 37MP in the S2 sensor is absolutely sufficient for my purposes and any future update on the S system by me would surely not be because of a lack in resolution. Push resolution with other Leica offerings as potential direct competitors to the often cited Sony cameras. The Leica M is very last camera NOT be entirely gutted out. I am a person who lives for technical improvement and cutting edge tech - my full time occupation demands this - I do also observe the long history in still imaging and see how the camera industry topples over and over again, re-inventing the wheel for a gadget that has seemingly reached user interface perfection many decades ago - the black box, historically holding film. The Leica M to me exemplifies the most perfect incarnation of that black box for the purpose the M system works so well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 10, 2015 Share #764 Posted February 10, 2015 This whole MP nonsense is just that - nonsense. I would absolutely hate to see the Leica M pressed into an area of work other cameras are much better suited I also would love my iPhone to have 100 MP in the next iteration so my advertisement studio business can finally take off you know. The good thing though when the digital Leica M system will finally be messed up The megapixel measure-bator-game does nothing good to the Leica M. It doesn't belong here. Higher resolution? No thanks. Since when exactly has become carrying the proper camera gear to landscape locations so much of a nuisance that we want all of our tiny gadgets to replace them? Was it since we drive our automatic transmission SUVs to Starbucks to pick up our Iced Vanilla Soymilk Latte before dropping in at the pedicure salon before heading out to the local camera brand fan club meeting? Or is it really that nowadays where every kid is a photographer we need to blow up every trivial shot we do to billboard size to distinguish ourselves and need our tiny cameras to provide the resolution to do so? Why is it that the moment someone expresses their wish of keeping a product changing into something else ridiculed as druids trying to keep mankind from evolving? This is nuts. Paul, if those 60MP photographs of yours worked so well in museums and galleries with people commenting on the great detail from it's high resolution sensor, why not keep using those type of cameras (60MP btw is way, way outdated nowadays) and stop drooling over a fantasy where you could squeeze those sensors into something entirely else, breaking it in the progress? You know, toasters are for toasting sliced bread - they work marvelously at that one simple task. Sure you could build a 40" flatscreen into them to also watch the news while waiting for your bread to pop, but will it not be inconvenient to squeeze that abomination into a small kitchen? … grabbing my staff and robe to be going back into my cabin in the woods now … Erm...you've certainly changed your tune. Thanks for the clarification. I guess you had a bad day or something. This could have been avoided if you hadn't called my needs nonsence in your opening line. Did you really think I meant — I want a camera with more resolution at the sacrifice of everything else? C'mon man. I want most of these things you are asking for too. It's clear we all have different priorities though, that is OK too. It doesn't make either nonsense or some sort of suv driving, starbucks drinking, clueless kid. I would take the M9 as it is now, DR, ISO, slow buffer (but obviously no slower at the expense of higher res), it's quirks and if it had the same IQ but 50mp, or even 40 for now, I'd be a very happy man. It's a great camera and at base ISO where I mostly use it, it's hard to beat. I'm not losing hope. They pulled a rabbit out of the hat with the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted February 10, 2015 Share #765 Posted February 10, 2015 Leica made its success through simple recipes, very good, small and simple cameras with excellent lenses. If we translate this now what i would like is a 37mp sensor Leica M, no vibrations, silent, no video and microphones, no need for ultra high iso over 3200 but high DR and image quality. Outstanding EVF too with 10x easy magnification. Reactive and fully protected from dust and water drops. No more and no less. This is clearly within the possibilities of conservative actual technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 10, 2015 Share #766 Posted February 10, 2015 I guess I'm the only person who wants better video on the next M. At this point I'm probably shooting 3 - 5 different corporate talking head videos a week. Everyone wants a quick video to send out to employees instead of just another email. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted February 10, 2015 Share #767 Posted February 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) If i may ask, why then not use a real video camera when you need to record videos ? A swiss knife is a useful tool to have in one's pocket but it will not replace the real tools. Leica could also sell two versions, with and without video but it would probably be more costly for the numbers they produce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 10, 2015 Share #768 Posted February 10, 2015 A swiss knife is a useful tool to have in one's pocket but it will not replace the real tools. A swiss knife able to replace real tools would not fit in one's pocket. Big downside. An M camera with decent hardware and software to improve video would just cost a few bucks more to produce. No downsides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #769 Posted February 10, 2015 If i may ask, why then not use a real video camera when you need to record videos ?Because it is more practical not to switch tools in the middle of a session. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted February 10, 2015 Share #770 Posted February 10, 2015 You are certainly right for a videographer but downsides for photographers only are quite obvious. Here are some, more pricey, a little bigger size in order to accomodate for mics etc... openings in the shell for mics, more complicated. Not being an expert i can also only imagine that some optimisations would be different for photo or video so having the option of photo only, optimed and cheaper makes sense. From what i saw videographers using Canon DSLR have an array of different accessories, steady etc and do not use the camera for stills. Two different worlds except of course exceptions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 11, 2015 Share #771 Posted February 11, 2015 You are certainly right for a videographer but downsides for photographers only are quite obvious. No downsides for photographers only. You don't need the extra accessories, you don't buy them. You want high quality video ? No need for accessories. You want also high quality audio ? Plug in your hig quality mic. Two different worlds except of course exceptions. Not at all. Video is photography. 30 times per second Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted February 11, 2015 Share #772 Posted February 11, 2015 I could (almost) agree and accept your arguments but since this thread says " What do you want in the next digital M " i will stick with my description. I don't need any contacts where to plug mics, maybe some water will eventually get inside and my camera will fail at the worst moment. I also don't need a button for video, you get me. Nonetheless i hope both of us will be happy with the next M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 11, 2015 Share #773 Posted February 11, 2015 FYI-- The video in the M(240) is somewhat limited -- by file size. I ended up using it about a week ago instead of my regular videocam. The file size limit means that after 10 mins and a little bit the video just stops. This did leave me with holes in the video .... If Leica is serious about a video capability, there should be an automatic switch to a second file when the file-size limit is reached. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 11, 2015 Share #774 Posted February 11, 2015 FYI-- The video in the M(240) is somewhat limited -- by file size. I ended up using it about a week ago instead of my regular videocam. The file size limit means that after 10 mins and a little bit the video just stops. This did leave me with holes in the video .... If Leica is serious about a video capability, there should be an automatic switch to a second file when the file-size limit is reached. The file-size limit is a feature of the FAT filesystem that SDHC cards use, which has a hard limit of 4GB maximum file-size. SDXC cards use the exFAT filesystem. The file-size limit is 16 exabytes, which should be enough for most types of use If the M240 follows these filesystem restrictions is beyond my knowledge though. I do know that the M240 uses exFAT when you format an SDXC card however, so there is no reason for it to stop recording anytime with a SDXC card inserted into the camera. Unless Leica has hardcoded a file-size limit in their firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 11, 2015 Share #775 Posted February 11, 2015 Have u used sdxc in M240? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 11, 2015 Share #776 Posted February 11, 2015 The file-size limit is a feature of the FAT filesystem that SDHC cards use, which has a hard limit of 4GB maximum file-size. There are multiple reasons to limit the video file size: 1) Obsolete filesystem (like FAT). 2) Work around the infamous videorecorder tax (max 30 mins). 3) Avoid sensor overheating. Good cameras split recordings into multiple files, and have a sensor temperature probe to warn the user first, and then stop recording when the safe temperature range is exceeded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 11, 2015 Share #777 Posted February 11, 2015 All "cameras" that do video, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. have recording time limits set somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes because if they record longer than that the camera becomes classified as a camcorder and those have higher import tax rates. To get around the file size limits, my Sony will automatically keep recording to a new file. One ten-minute take might be four .MTS files. However, it will kick off, hard stop, at 29 minutes. My Canon camcorder will manage files the same way, but it will keep recording for hours until the memory card is full. The only time the 30-minute limit becomes an issue is when recording long presentations/trainings/conferences. Normal interviews or promotional shots rarely go more than 10 minutes per take. Anyway, to answer someone's question about why I wouldn't just get a video camera for interviews, I currently use the Leica M lenses on an NEX-6, and the image quality and detail completely blows away our Nikon system. Why wouldn't I just want to carry one system? I'm not making cinematic masterpieces, I'm filming executives with shallow depth of field and adding a little background music. I don't need accessories like steadicams and sliders and mic mounts -- I don't even really need an HDMI out. I just need solid 1080p video, preferably at 60fps. So yes, in the next M I'd like better video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 11, 2015 Share #778 Posted February 11, 2015 So yes, in the next M I'd like better video. ...using the H.264 codec, with selectable "IPB" and "I" modes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 12, 2015 Share #779 Posted February 12, 2015 If the M240 follows these filesystem restrictions is beyond my knowledge though. I do know that the M240 uses exFAT when you format an SDXC card however, so there is no reason for it to stop recording anytime with a SDXC card inserted into the camera. Unless Leica has hardcoded a file-size limit in their firmware. A limitation to 4 GB video files is pretty common; for example, the new Canon EOS 5DS shares the same limit. It has nothing to do with the file system used but is enforced by the firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted February 12, 2015 Share #780 Posted February 12, 2015 mjh, Would you have any idea if making two versions of the next M, one more video oriented and (for me and some others) photography optimised and austère like the monochrom makes any sense ? OK, i formulate differently, does the adjunction of video adds a lot to production cost of a camera or very little ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.