jaapv Posted January 20, 2014 Share #21 Posted January 20, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Other than the M11 as a motorway in the UK, it does not exist as a Leica camera yet.Nor will it ever. Leica dropped the numerical naming scheme after the M9. So - no M10, thus no M11. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M11 / (typ360) with current lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted January 20, 2014 Share #22 Posted January 20, 2014 The thing that puzzles me about questions like this is, what difference is it going to make to the final image? If you happen to take a great photo today with the camera/lens you have available, how could you take the same photo in X years time with a newer better camera or lens? OK if it's a test chart maybe you could do it, but who has a 30X40in framed print of a photo of a test chart on their wall? Do the great photos in history become ever more meaningless or worthless with every 'better' camera or lens that's introduced? Oh if only HCB had an MM and 50 APO!! If only Capa had a Sony A7. If only if only if only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 20, 2014 Share #23 Posted January 20, 2014 I would a hundred times prefer a sensor which solved the vignetting and Italian Flag problems of the current sensor and gave better performance at higher ISO than I would have a higher resolution sensor. True, the job of the sensor is to sample the image projected onto it by the lens, warts and all, but the errors introduced by the sensor are more important than any lack of resolution, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted January 20, 2014 Share #24 Posted January 20, 2014 I would a hundred times prefer a sensor which solved the vignetting and Italian Flag problems of the current sensor and gave better performance at higher ISO than I would have a higher resolution sensor. True, the job of the sensor is to sample the image projected onto it by the lens, warts and all, but the errors introduced by the sensor are more important than any lack of resolution, IMHO. If Samsung and LG can design and build a TV that can bend, it will be a matter of time before a camera will have a sensor that bends to suit the focal length of the lens. Samsung shows off its 85-inch curved TV that bends with the touch of a button (video) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 20, 2014 Share #25 Posted January 20, 2014 The thing that puzzles me about questions like this is, what difference is it going to make to the final image? If you happen to take a great photo today with the camera/lens you have available, how could you take the same photo in X years time with a newer better camera or lens? OK if it's a test chart maybe you could do it, but who has a 30X40in framed print of a photo of a test chart on their wall? Do the great photos in history become ever more meaningless or worthless with every 'better' camera or lens that's introduced? Oh if only HCB had an MM and 50 APO!! If only Capa had a Sony A7. If only if only if only. Right... great historical photos have a value that it largely indipendent from the gear used ; but I admit that for the amateur it can be someway different : I have reviewed, recently some prints in the 24x30 range made by me in the '80s... typically, taken from 30x30 enlargements from Rolleiflex Agfacolor negs... and I confess that my feel has been "well... could I re-take it now with the M... probably could be even better" ; but of course this has little to do with 24mp vs. 36 mp... I suppose this would be irrelevant for a 24x30 print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest countinglincolns Posted January 20, 2014 Share #26 Posted January 20, 2014 Nor will it ever. Leica dropped the numerical naming scheme after the M9. So - no M10, thus no M11. Whilst you're probably correct you cannot be certain. As i'm sure you're aware, Leica have trademarked M11, so there is the possibility the nomenclature will revert. I merely offered several possible names as a preemptive move knowing there are many pedants who frequent this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2014 Share #27 Posted January 20, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you want to name it correctly it should be the iv-p. I don't hold with the newfangled idea to call the M3 the M3 when there was a perfectly good naming convention with the iii-f and iii-g. They called it M3 when it was the first of the new series, forsooth! And brought out the iii-g after the M3 was introduced!. They even numbered backwards with the M2 and M1! How can you take a brand like that seriously? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest countinglincolns Posted January 20, 2014 Share #28 Posted January 20, 2014 I would say the current (and many older) range of Leica lenses are amongst the best in the world. Worrying about compatibility with a 36mp sensor is unnecessary. Also, do you really need to wait for 36mp? I am quite happy with 10/12mp cameras. My cameras can already produce exceptional images. Do you want to pixel peep of take beautiful images? What will the current M not "do" for you? I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not waiting for the next because i think it will have a 36mp sensor, just that i'm guessing it will. I'm hoping it will have a hybrid viewfinder and as far i'm aware the updated rangefinder mechanism poses no greater impediment than the previous mechanism. I was expecting a hybrid VF on the M240 and if this had been the case i would already be an owner. What the current M will not do for me is assure me i will never want another camera in the future. I'm set with my lenses, i know that for certain, but i'm not wealthy enough to shell out this amount of money on a camera that down the line i will want to upgrade. However in saying that, given that as far as i know i can currently get the M240 at a price cheaper than anywhere else in the world, it makes the purchase that little more tempting. As Ming pointed out in his article, A7R owners are faced with the issue of updating their glass to match the sensor. Whereas i know Leica lenses are superior to those offered by Sony, if i shell out x thousands on a digital body, i want to know that if i need it, the lenses are capable of optimizing the sensor. If they're not then i'll cash my chips and go for the M240, if they are i'll keep waiting, fingers crossed that the next M will meet my wish list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest countinglincolns Posted January 20, 2014 Share #29 Posted January 20, 2014 If the feature set of the M240 does not do it for you then you should not buy it obviously. But as for any notional 36mp successor, it will not offer MF quality because it does not have MF lenses/sensor/pixel size. Although it may have similar pixel quantity! You have an M7 with the most amazingly flexible sensor. If you are happy not to have the advantages of digital, stay with what you have and be happy! I don't think it's much of a stretch to expect a CMOSIS 36mp sensor from produced around 2015 to be comparable to a medium format sensor from 2011. I would expect an increase in sensor resolution to be coupled with an increase in pixel size and the benefits that go with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest countinglincolns Posted January 20, 2014 Share #30 Posted January 20, 2014 t And as I get older, I think I will no longer need anything better than what I have now, an 18 MP full frame camera. Well this is the position i'd like to be in. If film and its associated costs weren't so high in NZ i wouldn't be contemplating a digital body at all. But now i am i want to be sure that when i've bought one, it's all the camera i'll ever need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2014 Share #31 Posted January 20, 2014 Errr-- You are going to increase the pixel size, increase the pixel number and keep the size of the sensor the same? That is quite a geometrical feat, accomplished only by building a three-dimensional sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 20, 2014 Share #32 Posted January 20, 2014 How much of the entire sensor's surface is dedicated to actual sensor pits? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2014 Share #33 Posted January 20, 2014 if you don't have some distance betwee the pits, you will increase crosstalk and narrow the incidence angle. Difficult enough now on a short register sensor, virtually impossible if you increase the physical size of the pixels. Anyway, the resolution gain between 24 and 36 is marginal. A 24 MP sensor ia 4000x6000 pixels A 36 MP sensor is 4900x7350 pixels What is that going to bring you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 20, 2014 Share #34 Posted January 20, 2014 How much of the entire sensor's surface is dedicated to actual sensor pits? Assuming all pixel pits are squares with no gaps in between sensor area would be utilised 100%. As it is today pixels are circles, assuming circles touch and diameter of each circle equals base of the square than sensor area is utilised approx 78.5%. As Jaap said only way to fit more bigger pixels in set area is to go three dimensional – Foveon style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2014 Share #35 Posted January 20, 2014 We can safely assume that sensor designers have maximized the physical pixel size as much as possible, if only to increase sensitivity and reduce noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 20, 2014 Share #36 Posted January 20, 2014 if you don't have some distance betwee the pits, you will increase crosstalk and narrow the incidence angle. Difficult enough now on a short register sensor, virtually impossible if you increase the physical size of the pixels. Anyway, the resolution gain between 24 and 36 is marginal. A 24 MP sensor ia 4000x6000 pixels A 36 MP sensor is 4900x7350 pixels What is that going to bring you? Not much, about 22% increase in linear resolution. M9 to M240 was round 15% increase. Future 36Mp compared to 18Mp M9 is double pixels but only 41% linear resolution. Anyone wanting MP advice is read Ming Thein. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest countinglincolns Posted January 20, 2014 Share #37 Posted January 20, 2014 if you don't have some distance betwee the pits, you will increase crosstalk and narrow the incidence angle. Difficult enough now on a short register sensor, virtually impossible if you increase the physical size of the pixels. Anyway, the resolution gain between 24 and 36 is marginal. A 24 MP sensor ia 4000x6000 pixels A 36 MP sensor is 4900x7350 pixels What is that going to bring you? As you'll remember, when the M8 was released they said the M9 was impossible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 20, 2014 Share #38 Posted January 20, 2014 i'm anxiously awaiting the 400mp Leica M44. because the double digits MP race simply is not enough!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 20, 2014 Share #39 Posted January 20, 2014 As you'll remember, when the M8 was released they said the M9 was impossible. Do you recall reasons Leica said that at the time? I know the answer, I am asking you. M8 is 1.33 crop factor while M9 is full frame, size of sensor is independent from pixel count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest countinglincolns Posted January 20, 2014 Share #40 Posted January 20, 2014 Do you recall reasons Leica said that at the time? I know the answer, I am asking you. M8 is 1.33 crop factor while M9 is full frame, size of sensor is independent from pixel count. Yeah I'm actually 36 years old, I stopped playing games like that oooh maybe 30 years ago. The information's freely available on the internet My point is that no one can see what the future holds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.