What do you want in the next digital M?

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't understand the desire to handicap M in order to remain pure (whatever it means, it is already digital with fake bottom cover). If there is no LV, then a second camera body is needed for longer focal lengths. Not everybody is ready to buy another expensive body (SL) for infrequent use of long lens. I went from M9+Nex6 to mostly M240 only because M240 is much more versatile. (My Nex-6 is now used in very specialized role such as shooting birds, cloud timelapse or in a kayak).

 

I think a versatile future M along with a restricted feature M (MD like) does satisfy most M concept lovers. An EVF enabled modern M is not a threat to SL. 

 

As of high ISO capability, I am more and more convinced now that for most practical purposes (sharing on web, modest print size... even up to A3), ISO 3200 of M240 is perfectly good. Combined with fast glass you can shoot in 99% situations.

Yes, ISO 200 will give you less grain and more DR but the difference is so little in my usage that I don't hesitate to use ISO 3200. Of course, you have to be more careful in doing correct exposure to start with but I don't think exposure push in PP should be a crutch.

I shot the following two pictures last weekend, one using ISO 3200 and another at ISO 200 (I was hedging in case ISO3200 turns out bad). To me the ISO3200 pic was winner due to less vignetting and better DOF. The extra grain (not visible here) was so minimal in 1-1 zoom that I can happily ignore it. Most probably the grain won't even show up in print.

Having said that, will I welcome a new M with less banding? You betcha!  

ISO 3200, f8, 1/12

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

ISO 200, f2, 1/12

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Never got banding up to 3200 iso with the M240. How did you get it?

[pico]

I would like the M7, with its improvements to be discounted. Simple!

.

[Tailwagger]

Never got banding up to 3200 iso with the M240. How did you get it?

 

I get it by transgressing the warnings of Steppenwolf (the band).... 'God damn, God damn the pusher man'.  

[jmahto]

Never got banding up to 3200 iso with the M240. How did you get it?

Shoot night sky at 3200. Even a small lift will show you the banding in the sky since sky has no texture.

[jaapv]

Only if you underexpose. I quite agree, photoshop is not a substitute for proper exposure.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shoot night sky at 3200. Even a small lift will show you the banding in the sky since sky has no texture.

 

 

Do you shoot jpegs? Never got banding on raw files in such conditions. Now if you lift you are not at 3200 iso anymore. I would take my A7s for that.

[jaapv]

It is also a question of PS technique. Work in LAB, the L channel, and you will see far less banding and no smearing with noise reduction, or blend layers with split sliders for separating tones. Even the shadows/highlights command panel is better than the exposure slider in ACR. (assuming you come from raw and are in 16 bits)

[Jeff S]

I was writing in the context of using longer telephoto lenses.  I prefer the M240 for wide to 90mm lenses but longer than that range there is a real problem of size and weight of the lens. I agree that the SL is not very much larger than the M240 but really I would prefer the M to be a bit smaller and lighter though I appreciate that this may not be possible.

 

My experience is that longer tele lenses balance better on a more substantial camera (not like many of the current mirror-less models, e.g., Sony, etc).  The handling on the SL might serve better for the this purpose...better grip and EVF... than using a similarly long lens on an M, even if the M lost a few grams.  And the SL can better accommodate a range of 3rd party lenses via adapters.

 

But we're all different.  The only way to know is to try and compare.

 

Jeff

[jmahto]

Do you shoot jpegs? Never got banding on raw files in such conditions. Now if you lift you are not at 3200 iso anymore. I would take my A7s for that.

No I don't shoot jpegs.

 

First I want to say that I am perfectly fine with M240's ISO3200 performance (see my post #1278), however I can't say that banding is not there. At ISO3200, the banding is an issue in lifting any amount of shadow. I am trying to post unprocessed (simply imported in LR5 with Adobe standard profile) and 1 stop exposed crops. 

 

One can argue whether lifting exposure in PP for darker areas is legitimate exercise or not but fact of the matter is that once you are at ISO3200, your flexibility in PP is severely limited due to banding.

 

Unprocessed:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

One stop exposed in PP:

[lct]

Pushing by one stop is perfectly legitimate but it's like shooting at 6400 iso, right? 

[IkarusJohn]

I don't understand the desire to handicap M in order to remain pure (whatever it means, it is already digital with fake bottom cover). If there is no LV, then a second camera body is needed for longer focal lengths. Not everybody is ready to buy another expensive body (SL) for infrequent use of long lens. I went from M9+Nex6 to mostly M240 only because M240 is much more versatile. (My Nex-6 is now used in very specialized role such as shooting birds, cloud timelapse or in a kayak).

 

I think a versatile future M along with a restricted feature M (MD like) does satisfy most M concept lovers. An EVF enabled modern M is not a threat to SL. ...

 

I agree that an EVF M is no threat to the SL.  This isn't about threats to other cameras but what the M means, and where it goes.

 

If you want to use an M wider than 28 or longer then 90, use the clip on EVF.  Most M(240) users here seem very happy with that, and add-on viewfinders have been part of the M users' tool kit for over 50 years.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to do away with the optical viewfinder that is at the heart of the M camera.  If you do that, then a lot more than the baseplate comes under scrutiny.  With a blank sheet of paper, you pretty soon end up with an SL.

 

Conversely, if the M camera is all about the optical viewfinder, the sweet spot is 28-90 and many are very happy with that.  I'd hazard it's where most M photography happens (or most photography, if it comes to that).  For those occasions where you want to go wider or longer, then use the EVF.  It will presumably be better than the crappy Olympus thing Leica currently rebrands.

 

For me, I have zero interest in an EVF.  The M is about the optical rangefinder - not liveview, video or anything else.  The SL does it so much better.  Maybe that's just me, but thankfully Leica continues to make cameras like the Monochrom, the M-D and the M-A.  The heart of the M system is its own handicap, and turning it into something else spoils it, for me.  Oddly, I don't seem to be alone.

 

I use my SL a lot, but the Monochrom is in my bag most days.  I won't be buying another M - I love what I have and they will see me out, I'm sure.  The only camera I'm likely to replace if/when I wear it out, will be the SL, and I doubt that will happen ...

[jmahto]

I agree that an EVF M is no threat to the SL. This isn't about threats to other cameras but what the M means, and where it goes.

 

If you want to use an M wider than 28 or longer then 90, use the clip on EVF. Most M(240) users here seem very happy with that, and add-on viewfinders have been part of the M users' tool kit for over 50 years.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to do away with the optical viewfinder that is at the heart of the M camera. If you do that, then a lot more than the baseplate comes under scrutiny. With a blank sheet of paper, you pretty soon end up with an SL.

 

Conversely, if the M camera is all about the optical viewfinder, the sweet spot is 28-90 and many are very happy with that. I'd hazard it's where most M photography happens (or most photography, if it comes to that). For those occasions where you want to go wider or longer, then use the EVF. It will presumably be better than the crappy Olympus thing Leica currently rebrands.

 

For me, I have zero interest in an EVF. The M is about the optical rangefinder - not liveview, video or anything else. The SL does it so much better. Maybe that's just me, but thankfully Leica continues to make cameras like the Monochrom, the M-D and the M-A. The heart of the M system is its own handicap, and turning it into something else spoils it, for me. Oddly, I don't seem to be alone.

 

I use my SL a lot, but the Monochrom is in my bag most days. I won't be buying another M - I love what I have and they will see me out, I'm sure. The only camera I'm likely to replace if/when I wear it out, will be the SL, and I doubt that will happen ...

I agree that OVF is at the heart of M concept. I was referring to dislikes of LV in M. Clip on EVF or dual VF (optical and electronic side by side) is fine with me.

[jmahto]

Pushing by one stop is perfectly legitimate but it's like shooting at 6400 iso, right?

Of course yes. my point is that ISO 3200 limits PP flexibility due to banding becoming visible easily.

 

I also do recognize that Leica is not alone in this and it is a fact of digital sensor (I have seen hint of banding in Canon 5DIII at base ISO + shadow lift by couple of stops!!). That's why I am NOT complaining but at the same time do recognize that it is there and would welcome improvement. In fact current DR is enough for me. I would like better highlight rollover and less banding in dark. Maybe it is all related.

[lct]

Sure but remember how banding was with M8 & M9. It is not fair to say or imply that the M240 produces banding because it is not true. I read this sort of thing too often here. It is us who produce banding by pushing the camera out of its limits (nothing personal). When i don't want banding out of 3200 iso i use my A7s mod. Not sure if the next M will reach the Sony level but we should gain one stop at least hopefully.

[jmahto]

Sure but remember how banding was with M8 & M9. It is not fair to say or imply that the M240 produces banding because it is not true. I read this sort of thing too often here. It is us who produce banding by pushing the camera out of its limits (nothing personal). When i don't want banding out of 3200 iso i use my A7s mod. Not sure if the next M will reach the Sony level but we should gain one stop at least hopefully.

Glad you mentioned M9. Let me show you M9's high ISO shot of 2000 and push by two stops to equivalent 8000!! There is no banding.

 

Note: I still prefer M240 over M9 due to its high ceiling. However once you hit the high ceiling (3200), there is no room. In contrast, M9's decline above it's high ceiling (1600) was quite gradual. I will prefer the similar gradual decline for M240. Not sure whether it is CCD vs CMOS thing.

 

I accept that for proper comparison you need side by side test which I can't do. But my experience says that M9's shadow lift showed no banding.

 

These are all almost 1-1 crop

 

M9, ISO2000, No PP

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M9, ISO2000, +2 exposure in PP (LR 5) -- equiv ISO8000 no banding

 

M9, ISO2000, +2 exposure + NR in PP (LR 5)  equiv ISO8000

 

[lct]

I seem to perceive some banding here but my experience with the M9 was very limited so i rely on you on this. Thanks for sharing anyway.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bencoyote]

I don't understand the desire to handicap M in order to remain pure (whatever it means, it is already digital with fake bottom cover). If there is no LV, then a second camera body is needed for longer focal lengths. Not everybody is ready to buy another expensive body (SL) for infrequent use of long lens. I went from M9+Nex6 to mostly M240 only because M240 is much more versatile. (My Nex-6 is now used in very specialized role such as shooting birds, cloud timelapse or in a kayak).

 

I think a versatile future M along with a restricted feature M (MD like) does satisfy most M concept lovers. An EVF enabled modern M is not a threat to SL. 

 

As of high ISO capability, I am more and more convinced now that for most practical purposes (sharing on web, modest print size... even up to A3), ISO 3200 of M240 is perfectly good. Combined with fast glass you can shoot in 99% situations.

 

Yes, ISO 200 will give you less grain and more DR but the difference is so little in my usage that I don't hesitate to use ISO 3200. Of course, you have to be more careful in doing correct exposure to start with but I don't think exposure push in PP should be a crutch.

I shot the following two pictures last weekend, one using ISO 3200 and another at ISO 200 (I was hedging in case ISO3200 turns out bad). To me the ISO3200 pic was winner due to less vignetting and better DOF. The extra grain (not visible here) was so minimal in 1-1 zoom that I can happily ignore it. Most probably the grain won't even show up in print.

 

Having said that, will I welcome a new M with less banding? You betcha!  

 

 

I think that what I'm suggesting is not a crippled device but rather rearranging the template of what a digital camera is some 20 years after it seems to have solidified. The M-D made me really consider "how much do we really need a screen" and "what do we use it for". There are 3 things:

1. Moving through menus and settings
2. Reviewing shots offline or chimping
3. Live view for: macro, telephoto, or ultra wide.

• I would say that an EVF is probably better for live view and likely chimping due to how you hold the camera and the higher resolution.
• Menus and settings. I think that the M-D and to a certain extent the T and SL has demonstrated that much of this is not needed. What little there still is probably could be done more expeditiously with a smartphone where the UI and screen much easier to develop and change.
• And offline viewing of shots is much better done on something like a smartphone or tablet as well.

 

You don't lose any functionality! You don't have a crippled device. You have just moved the functions around. In exchange, you have made a simpler device. No gorilla glass, no sapphire cover plates, fewer buttons needed. fewer parts, simpler assembly. Probably more rugged, easier to water, dust and light seal... 

 

So to me at least it sounds at least reasonable to make something like the M-D but will take an EVF and has some connectivity feature that allow it to move the menu and offline review functions to an other device.

 

All that is more on the innovation front. If Leica wants to innovate around the M, which is something difficult to do with a minimalistic design, that may be something for them to consider.

 

However, if we are really talking about practical usability most of what I want is more dynamic range and something that better approximates bulb mode. Those are actual camera limitations.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jmahto]

I seem to perceive some banding here but my experience with the M9 was very limited so i rely on you on this. Thanks for sharing anyway.

 

post-28938-0-54773600-1465016198.jpg

That is most probably joint in the concrete floor. The tire barrier (wrapped in plastic sheet) has its own texture.

 

What I am showing is not unique to my old camera. M9's noise pattern is known to be more random than M240, even if noise ceiling is low.

 

I hear that SL's noise pattern is pleasing as well (I think Doug said that in SL forum in his review comparing with A7). I would welcome that in future M. It may not be worth upgrading (to me) if I get only one extra usable stop. The current ISO limit of M240 is working for me in most situations very well. I have thought about adding A7s many times but have not been able to justify. 

[jmahto]

I think that what I'm suggesting is not a crippled device but rather rearranging the template of what a digital camera is some 20 years after it seems to have solidified. The M-D made me really consider "how much do we really need a screen" and "what do we use it for". There are 3 things:

1. Moving through menus and settings
2. Reviewing shots offline or chimping
3. Live view for: macro, telephoto, or ultra wide.

• I would say that an EVF is probably better for live view and likely chimping due to how you hold the camera and the higher resolution.
• Menus and settings. I think that the M-D and to a certain extent the T and SL has demonstrated that much of this is not needed. What little there still is probably could be done more expeditiously with a smartphone where the UI and screen much easier to develop and change.
• And offline viewing of shots is much better done on something like a smartphone or tablet as well.

 

You don't lose any functionality! You don't have a crippled device. You have just moved the functions around. In exchange, you have made a simpler device. No gorilla glass, no sapphire cover plates, fewer buttons needed. fewer parts, simpler assembly. Probably more rugged, easier to water, dust and light seal... 

 

So to me at least it sounds at least reasonable to make something like the M-D but will take an EVF and has some connectivity feature that allow it to move the menu and offline review functions to an other device.

 

All that is more on the innovation front. If Leica wants to innovate around the M, which is something difficult to do with a minimalistic design, that may be something for them to consider.

 

However, if we are really talking about practical usability most of what I want is more dynamic range and something that better approximates bulb mode. Those are actual camera limitations.

 

I used to think till recently that no-LCD but smartphone configured (and through EVF) camera will be simpler and desirable. I hardly use my rear LCD while shooting and I thought such LCD-less camera will be ideal. Then I did some shooting last week on tripod (long shutter speed for flowing water) and realized that rear LCD is very handy for quick configuration changes. I had to change ISO to 200 from auto, turn on LV for framing, check the exposure etc.. I realized that this would have been hard without LCD. Trying to see the LV image in EVF or smartphone was too impractical in the middle of flowing stream. Now my thinking has changed. In a versatile camera, rear LCD and LV is a must. I think Leica is doing a good job in keeping rear LCD in mainstream M and getting rid off it in special models for narrower user base.