What do you want in the next digital M?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3200 is not low iso for the M240. I rarely go higher personnally.

[colonel]

3200 looks very good to me. I haven't seen any banding in shadows unless the exposure is raised significantly. Perhaps I am just mistaking regular noise but banding is often just regular noise as opposed to more random noise which people tend to call analogue or film like

[CheshireCat]

3200 looks very good to me. I haven't seen any banding in shadows unless the exposure is raised significantly. Perhaps I am just mistaking regular noise but banding is often just regular noise as opposed to more random noise which people tend to call analogue or film like

 

Examples here:

 

M240 Full Res Samples - FM Forums

[colonel]

Examples here:

 

M240 Full Res Samples - FM Forums

 

Wow, he pushed it 5 stops (actually to the end of the lightroom slider - which is just past the event horizon for Lightroom) and found some regular noise in the darkness. Shock horror! I am amazed anything was left

After 4 stops there is a tiny level of regular noise.

 

Pretty good performance from the sensor. And apparently that was a prototype camera !!!

I consider it nuts to push beyond 1 stop, although I think I did 2 stops on one occasion.

[jaapv]

And on one of the early prototype cameras too . Later cameras, as Jono remarks later on in the thread, were corrected for this.

[trickness]

The only reason I mentioned banding at 3200 iso is because I've personally experienced it, shooting indoors in (not good) artificial light. If someone else hasn't experienced it, good for them.

 

As an M6TTL user who eventually moved to pro Nikon bodies (D2X, D3s, now D4) who has an M-P 240 which I love dearly, I'll say it again: there's banding at 3200 iso under certain situations. And I'm generally not thrilled with noise levels much beyond 2000 ISO on the M either.

 

In MY ideal world, an $8000 M should be the ultimate low-light camera, or at the very least capable of competing head to head with a $2800 consumer DSLR body in this regard, let alone a $6000 pro DSLR. That's what I'd like to see in the next digital M - screw all the special editions and fetishizing and give the camera a no-excuses sensor and OS.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm. For many low light is but a miniscule part on their work and it can in majority be covered by using fast lenses and moderate high ISO.

Performance in more regular situations is of more interest, as evidenced by camera makers producing specialized low pixel count high ISO cameras.

I might add that apparent high-ISO capability is often more a matter of in-camera noise processing than of sensor design.

Leica prefers to leave as much of the processing to the user as they can.

[trickness]

Hmmm. For many low light is but a miniscule part on their work and it can in majority be covered by using fast lenses and moderate high ISO.

Performance in more regular situations is of more interest, as evidenced by camera makers producing specialized low pixel count high ISO cameras.

I might add that apparent high-ISO capability is often more a matter of in-camera noise processing than of sensor design.

Leica prefers to leave as much of the processing to the user as they can.

 

With respect, this sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't spent quality time shooting with a pro-DSLR body. I agree that the trendy 102,000 ISO settings of Nikon are ridiculous and not usable except as a curiosity. But I have 1.4 Nikon glass (and a 50 1.4 Lux), and I see noise and artifacts in low light M shots at 3200 iso that don't appear until 9600 iso or higher on the D4. I shoot only RAW and have noise reduction and sharpness controls turned off wherever possible.

 

If you ever come to NYC, would be happy to go out and shoot a little with both cameras, then come back and look at the RAW files on my iMac before any post-processing is done.

 

Again, as the thread is titled "What do you want in the next digital M?" - I'd like the next M to be able to go toe-to-toe with my D4 in real world iso, ideally with even better DR. One can wish.

[mjh]

The engineers at Cmosis haven’t been idle since they had designed the sensor for the M (Typ 240). Obviously the sensor in the next M will incorporate a few years worth of improvements and the sensor in the new S already shows some of these.

[colonel]

With respect, this sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't spent quality time shooting with a pro-DSLR body. I agree that the trendy 102,000 ISO settings of Nikon are ridiculous and not usable except as a curiosity. But I have 1.4 Nikon glass (and a 50 1.4 Lux), and I see noise and artifacts in low light M shots at 3200 iso that don't appear until 9600 iso or higher on the D4. I shoot only RAW and have noise reduction and sharpness controls turned off wherever possible.

 

 

 

If you ever come to NYC, would be happy to go out and shoot a little with both cameras, then come back and look at the RAW files on my iMac before any post-processing is done.

 

 

 

Again, as the thread is titled "What do you want in the next digital M?" - I'd like the next M to be able to go toe-to-toe with my D4 in real world iso, ideally with even better DR. One can wish.

 

 

 

well my little cheapo Sony A7S has a ISO DXO MARK of 3702 and the heavy expensive D4 has 2965. Plus I don't remember any Nikon lens I could use at f1.4.

 

ISO performance is only one parameter

 

I remember the M9 being quite far behind its peers on ISO performance, but it slapped their bottom at base ISO for clarity. I enjoyed shooting the M9 and the challenge but the M240 has lifted things so far.

The M240 is also rock solid reliable. Plus f1.4 and 3200 is more then enough range for me. I expect I will miss at least the next generation.

 

Saying all of that,sensor improvements are always welcome and like you I will gladly use them when they come out. I do feel though with ISO we are entering a curve of diminishing returns.

[jaapv]

With respect, this sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't spent quality time shooting with a pro-DSLR body. I agree that the trendy 102,000 ISO settings of Nikon are ridiculous and not usable except as a curiosity. But I have 1.4 Nikon glass (and a 50 1.4 Lux), and I see noise and artifacts in low light M shots at 3200 iso that don't appear until 9600 iso or higher on the D4. I shoot only RAW and have noise reduction and sharpness controls turned off wherever possible.

 

If you ever come to NYC, would be happy to go out and shoot a little with both cameras, then come back and look at the RAW files on my iMac before any post-processing is done.

 

Again, as the thread is titled "What do you want in the next digital M?" - I'd like the next M to be able to go toe-to-toe with my D4 in real world iso, ideally with even better DR. One can wish.

Wrong - he has....They have Nikon pro bodies outside New York, you know. And I wouldn't use an iMac - I prefer Eizo screens on my MacPro.

However, you missed my point completely. I was saying that high-ISO performance is rather irrelevant for many photographers, and that the M provides plenty for a large percentage of normal use. Given that, the M need not be an ISO monster, the performance under say 3200 is far more important, and that it delivers in spades. Should I want to go and shoot in the dark, I will take a tripod, or a specialized camera.

[trickness]

Wrong - he has....They have Nikon pro bodies outside New York, you know. And I wouldn't use an iMac - I prefer Eizo screens on my MacPro.

However, you missed my point completely. I was saying that high-ISO performance is rather irrelevant for many photographers, and that the M provides plenty for a large percentage of normal use. Given that, the M need not be an ISO monster, the performance under say 3200 is far more important, and that it delivers in spades. Should I want to go and shoot in the dark, I will take a tripod, or a specialized camera.

 

 

Bit surprised that as a moderator of this forum, you're arguing and correcting in a thread asking for people's individual opinions.

 

Again, I'm new here, so I apologize for misunderstanding the thread title "What Do You Want In the next digital M", I didn't realize it actually meant "Post here to have a Mod correct you about what you want in the next digital M, because you should want exactly what he does and of course only his perspective matters."

 

And I can say with confidence that my "heavy, expensive" D4 has NEVER shown banding at anywhere near 3200 ISO. So again, in deference to the posted titled of this thread, MY hope is that this is improved in the next digital M.

[rscheffler]

I also see slightly banding in my M240 ISO 3200 images. It's not always obvious, but it's usually there if you look for it. That said, I typically stick to 1600, or most of the time to 1000 and lower to keep the 3fps advance rate. It would be great to just be able to set it to whatever ISO without any banding whatsoever.

 

Additionally, in the next model I'd like to see Leica:

 

- Eliminate the fps drop to ~1fps and corresponding buffer reduction at ISO 1250 and higher.

- Eliminate the strange black point setting at ISO 1000 and lower that results in greenish shadow values when files are pushed relatively hard in post. The greenish cast becomes evident sooner as the ISO increases, but disappears at ISO 1250 and higher.

- Deep M-P buffer as standard on the base model, or significantly faster write speed to memory card, so long as it doesn't result in weird file degradation/banding as was the case with the M9.

- Higher fps rate (maybe 5 fps) as a custom function option.

- Dedicated flash sync port without need for a MF grip.

- Much shorter live view/EVF blackout after exposure (surprise me and eliminate it).

- Longer than 60 seconds bulb exposure and figure out some way to allow manual selection of a specific shutter speed duration longer than 8 seconds without having to rely on Bulb mode.

- Eliminate the sliding scale of shorter maximum time exposures as ISO increases.

- Eliminate or significantly minimize the black frame subtraction exposure necessary after long exposures. Canon (and I assume others) figured this out some years ago.

- An electronic shutter release, or wifi via smart phone shutter release (and remote access to some camera controls) option.

- Figure out an EVF solution that does not occupy the hotshoe.

- A bounce and swivel flash similar in size, or even a bit smaller than a Canon 430EX type flash.

- 1/8000 second shutter speed.

- Fully electronic shutter option.

- Faster start up and wake from sleep time.

- Electronics that are as robust as and competitive with current mainstream Japanese camera brands.

 

That said, I'm sure, with it being Leica, that there will be a few endearing quirks as a minor tradeoff for any significant improvements.

 

The above list may seem extensive, but wish to state I do like my M240 and like it considerably more, in terms of operational functionality, than my M9. Leica is definitely moving in the right direction relative to my wants and needs. Some of the above points are more nitpicks and could live without them. Most frustrating for me is the fps rate drop above ISO 1000 and the relatively meager buffer depth

[pop]

Bit surprised that as a moderator of this forum, you're arguing and correcting in a thread asking for people's individual opinions.

 

Again, I'm new here, so I apologize for misunderstanding ...

 

Several members here have stated that they do not share your concern about that particular problem. One of them happens to be a moderator. Being new here, you may not have realized that even moderators are allowed to hold and voice opinions of their own. You will see when a moderator is "moderating" and not taking part in the general discussion. Most moderators use another typeface or color when they do that, much as I am doing right now.

[jaapv]

Nor has this MEMBER argued against wishing to have improved ISO on the next M - it is quite likely to have that. He has merely pointed out that this will probably be of minor concern to quite a few users.

[bocaburger]

I too am sure the next M will have better high-iso performance, thanks to new technology adopted by whoever they choose to buy their sensors from. Likewise and for the same reason, I expect a new EVF with more pixels and faster refresh rate.

 

Neither of those would impress me as much as some innovation from Leica itself. Such as an overall reduction in the bloat, back to the dimensions of an M4. Such as a self-cleaning sensor. And a remapping utility. (Although neither of the latter would be Leica innovations, merely adopting what other cameras have had for ages now). I would like to see them finally abandon the separate baseplate. I would like to see them put an adjustable diopter on the eyepiece. I would like them to remodel their repair service so they turn things around in the same time frame as Nikon and Canon and provide loaners when needed...and not just to vocal loyal supporters who show up in person at Leitzpark

[jaapv]

I'm not sure whether you will get all your wishes, especially the form factor seems to be near-impossible, given that the sensor/motherboard assembly is many times thicker than film, but maybe there will be some clever design tricks, who knows?

As for the pixel-mapping, it seems to me that the cameras that have this feature are always the "lesser" ones. Like the D800 does not have it either. I wonder if there is a reason for that .Maybe it is simply not good enough for pro-level cameras?

I quite like the idea of sending a DNG to Leica and getting an updated firmware in return to map the sensor in-camera.

The adjustable viewfinder dioptre is one of the things that Leica puts in their non-rangefinder cameras. Could it be that it is incompatible with the rangefinder system? Somebody with a deep knowledge of optics should delve into this. It would be a nice feature for sure.

[FrozenInTime]

Outstanding high ISO performance is the one thing will tug me away from my M9 and M9-P.

The MM has shown me that ISO 5000 is invaluable - if I can have this in color with good noise and dynamic range, without banding, I would be very happy.

It seems the M.240 is one generation away from this.

[JimKasson]

H

I might add that apparent high-ISO capability is often more a matter of in-camera noise processing than of sensor design.

Leica prefers to leave as much of the processing to the user as they can.

 

I disagree that Leica is light-handed on in-camera raw processing. Let's compare with the D4, since it's already been mentioned, and I've tested the M9, M240, and the D4.

 

The D4 performs no lens corner corrections. The M240 does, and does them in camera. What's more, the only way that I've found to turn them off is to turn off lens detection, and that means that the lens model is not written to the EXIF file. Corner corrections are necessary with some Leica M-mount lenses designed for a sensor stack thickness of zero (film). I would prefer that Leica follow Hasselblad's lead and let them be performed in post, where far more computer processing power and flexibility are available. However, I'd like the post processing to be open-source, unlike Hasselblad.

 

Both the D4 and the M240 subtract the black point in camera. I would much prefer that that operation were done in post, and not just because it makes testing hard. It can be performed with greater precision in post, and adjusted for each image. Nikon and Leica are actually headed in opposite directions on this one. The M9 did no black point subtraction in camera, allowing the black point to vary as the ISO know was adjusted. The M240 not only does the subtraction in-camera, but does it wrong at low ISOs, giving rise to the "green shadows problem", which can't be fixed in post without special software. Nikon is going in the opposite direction. The D810 does not perform black point subtraction in camera, although it does a few other things in the raw processing that I don't like.

 

Neither the D4 nor the M240 do any spatial filtering at short shutter speeds (other than the M240's lens corrections). So neither of them artificially pretty up the noise.

 

Both the D4 and the M240 remap bad pixels before writing the raw data. I would prefer that to be done in post, with the bad pixel map being part of the metadata, so, as better algorithms are developed, old images can be improved.

 

Both the D4 and the M240 do black-frame subtraction for long exposures. I think that is an operation better performed in post. Thankfully, both camera allow this feature to be turned off.

 

Jim

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

Outstanding high ISO performance is the one thing will tug me away from my M9 and M9-P.

 

The MM has shown me that ISO 5000 is invaluable - if I can have this in color with good noise and dynamic range, without banding, I would be very happy.

 

It seems the M.240 is one generation away from this.

 

 

I remember when I used ISO 5000 on the MM, it is good but still noisy and not as good, in terms of noise, as an M240 3200 file converted to B&W

 

I would disagree with that assessment.

I find 3200 on the M240 as usable as that on the A7 or RX1 and better then the D800E. The A7S can do the same with 6400 or 12800 depending on the circumstances but is 12mp let us not forgot.

 

3200 is my benchmark top end these days although I rarely use it.

 

Would I like the M type 2x0 with 60mp and as good light performance as the A7S. Sure I would. But when it gets there it's still not a cert that I would upgrade. Great but not essential ....