jaapv Posted January 20, 2014 Share #41 Posted January 20, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) And the jump in quality was not that big; a bit more cropability, a stop less noise and slightly nicer colour and contrast transitions. The resolution gain was nearly irrelevant, as was the resolution gain between M9 and M. For all intents and purposes and prints up to A3 the resolution of all three cameras is more than adequate. After that you will see some advantage between M8 and M although the M8 will still print nicely at A2, given a bit of postprocessing skill. 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!
luigi bertolotti Posted January 20, 2014 Share #42 Posted January 20, 2014 If you want to name it correctly it should be the iv-p.... Subtle reasoning.... (I checked... it matched at the 2nd try, counting M6 and M6 TTL as different models... iv-h iv-i... ) : but maybe the digital breed is such an advance that would deserve a new basic identification.. and could speculate on M8= v-a and so on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted January 20, 2014 Share #43 Posted January 20, 2014 t 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. It may well be all the camera you ever need, but will certainly not be all the camera you ever want. Looking back at the film world, there was the M3, M4 ... M7. Does the M7 take better pictures than an M3 did? Of course not, but it made certain pictures easier to get (TTL, no external light meter, etc.). Will the M240 replacement take better pictures? 98 times out of a hundred, no, but that doesn't mean you won't WANT it. As far as Leica lenses being up to the challenge... I wouldn't worry about it. There are still plenty of Leica users coupling an M240 to 1960's glass and enjoying the results--often preferring the older lenses to the more "clinical" look of the modern aspheres. The current lenses are among the best in the world. As a group, they probably ARE the best out there, at least for 35mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted January 20, 2014 Share #44 Posted January 20, 2014 There are some people in life who just want to live in the future & can never commit to anything. Fair enough, they can spend the rest of their lives not buying what is available now but dreaming about what may come out in time. With camera's I just like taking photo's with what I have rather than day dreaming. I don't bother arguing with them as their interest is not really in photography but future trophies. Photo taking time is being wasted on this thread, just let the day dreamers dream & they will be happy! If the day dreamers what to have a pop at this message then I'm not rising. I'm taking photo's, you just dream on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 20, 2014 Share #45 Posted January 20, 2014 ... will the current line-up of lenses be able to handle 36 MP ...? This is a pointless and totally irrelevant question. Lens performance is one thing, sensor resolution is another thing. They are independent from each other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 20, 2014 Share #46 Posted January 20, 2014 You want to know if your lenses will resolve ok on a camera that is not in existence for a couple more years, possibly more? Sure, i'll start a rumour about a rumour. No, you'll need to buy a new set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 20, 2014 Share #47 Posted January 20, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) If it helps at all I find that the native AFM lenses are superior to the M lenses on typ 480. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 20, 2014 Share #48 Posted January 20, 2014 You want to know if your lenses will resolve ok on a camera that is not in existence for a couple more years, possibly more? Sure, i'll start a rumour about a rumour. No, you'll need to buy a new set. But will the ones I have now hold their value? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 20, 2014 Share #49 Posted January 20, 2014 But will the ones I have now hold their value? no Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4X5B&W Posted January 20, 2014 Share #50 Posted January 20, 2014 I find my 35 year old 50 Cron V4 is absolutely fabulous on my M240. Had a 24" wide print made from a file, and as my printer said, the print needs to be bigger to show the resolution of the file and I agree. I only printed this image to see that it could be done. I have never printed my 4x5 images that large, and yes I'm running out of wall space Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted January 21, 2014 Share #51 Posted January 21, 2014 All of these cameras of mine produce(d) basically equivalent and terrific resolution at 24x36". I have no customer or personal demand for larger images. M2* Provia M3 Provia M7* Provia M8 M9* M (240) * now departed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted January 22, 2014 Share #52 Posted January 22, 2014 Jaap, guessing Leica began with an M3 as it had full shutter speeds and a rangefinder, a la the III c, d, f (and g which came later). Given the meaning of "M" the 3 is logical. The M1 proves the point and fine M2 is, the M 2 is...oh never mind. Still use Tele-Elmar 135 4.0 with great pleasure, and it dates from the late 1960s...when digital was not even a gleam in Leica's eyes . Based on that lens alone will not worry about our beloved lenses' future utility. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 22, 2014 Share #53 Posted January 22, 2014 Jaap, guessing Leica began with an M3 as it had full shutter speeds and a rangefinder, a la the III c, d, f (and g which came later). Given the meaning of "M" the 3 is logical. The M1 proves the point and fine M2 is, the M 2 is...oh never mind. Still use Tele-Elmar 135 4.0 with great pleasure, and it dates from the late 1960s...when digital was not even a gleam in Leica's eyes . Based on that lens alone will not worry about our beloved lenses' future utility. Ed As far as I remember, the M3 was named like this being a Messucher (rangefinder.... maybe they already envisioned a future Reflex=Spiegelsucher) with 3 focals managed in its viewfinder; this afaik has been reported even by Leica insiders... of course, the original significate of the number was abandoned in time (M2 was named with "2" being a little cheaper than M3... M1 has 2 focals in the VF, but M4 has four so as M5, but M6, by chance, six... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2014 Share #54 Posted January 22, 2014 You are right, Luigi. However, the iii g had an Messsucher, so they abandoned the original idea of the naming convention rather quickly after it was introduced. I just wanted to point out the silliness of customers using a label that differs from the one the maker uses in an attempt to protect a hallowed tradition that does not even exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 22, 2014 Share #55 Posted January 22, 2014 But will the ones I have now hold their value? History says that Leica lenses have hold their value very well... just a quick example on common 50mm lenses... US catalog of 1964 is this : 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! Purchasing power of US$ has gone like this (I take this figure for good in this context, being related to "M2/M3" ) : this would mean a cost that, for two common lenses like Elmar 50 2,8 and Summicron 50 rigid, today could be in the range of 270-330 $ and 6-700 $ around , respectively: and if you search for such lenses, in restored conditions at the usual international dealers, their current price is not far from the above values (even a bit higher, apparently.. but such computations are necessarly on the "gross" side... let's say that values are in the same magnitude order) Of course, this is not a proof for the future : but I am rather confident that if they keep their good brand & name a, say, Summilux 50 asph of these years won't be a crude piece of metal and glass 20 years from now. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Purchasing power of US$ has gone like this (I take this figure for good in this context, being related to "M2/M3" ) : this would mean a cost that, for two common lenses like Elmar 50 2,8 and Summicron 50 rigid, today could be in the range of 270-330 $ and 6-700 $ around , respectively: and if you search for such lenses, in restored conditions at the usual international dealers, their current price is not far from the above values (even a bit higher, apparently.. but such computations are necessarly on the "gross" side... let's say that values are in the same magnitude order) Of course, this is not a proof for the future : but I am rather confident that if they keep their good brand & name a, say, Summilux 50 asph of these years won't be a crude piece of metal and glass 20 years from now. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/220459-m11-typ360-with-current-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=2515495'>More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted January 22, 2014 Share #56 Posted January 22, 2014 They said that to me when I wanted to see my 5D1 with 24MP.... I was regularly making billboards in the early 2000s with 6MP and people still cant tell the difference between my 12MP 5D shot and the one I took with the 5Dmk2. There will be a time when we will say, What are you gonna to with 1GP, make billboards? Ah, billboards. I photographed a building model for the billboard that went next to the building site, using my M8 and the 75/2.0 . the resulting image was printed somewhere around 3-4 m wide and sat up about 5 m above the sidewalk. It looked great, at a viewing distance of 10 m or so. The real need for 36 MPx is for those images that will suffer nose prints from close viewing. And even if you don't fill someone's wall with them, urban landscapes and panoramas can be studied for the details that people recognize. I've been working on a panorama of Jerusalem seen from the top of the building which has replaced my 10 MPx billboard, using an older lens (Zeiss T* 38/4.5 on an SWC/M) with a 39 MPx digital back (P45+). There was a small improvement over my best efforts with M240 and the latest 35 Summilux FLE. And when I posted the picture, I got comments from a viewer who could locate himself on his bicycle under a bridge in the scene, based on a balloon in the sky that was only present on a particular day. So I'll be delighted to have an M[typ360] and can think of some subjects that will do it proud. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_w Posted January 22, 2014 Share #57 Posted January 22, 2014 Moore's Law - alternative version: More is always Better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted January 22, 2014 Share #58 Posted January 22, 2014 Ah, billboards. I photographed a building model for the billboard that went next to the building site, using my M8 and the 75/2.0 . the resulting image was printed somewhere around 3-4 m wide and sat up about 5 m above the sidewalk. It looked great, at a viewing distance of 10 m or so. The real need for 36 MPx is for those images that will suffer nose prints from close viewing. And even if you don't fill someone's wall with them, urban landscapes and panoramas can be studied for the details that people recognize. I've been working on a panorama of Jerusalem seen from the top of the building which has replaced my 10 MPx billboard, using an older lens (Zeiss T* 38/4.5 on an SWC/M) with a 39 MPx digital back (P45+). There was a small improvement over my best efforts with M240 and the latest 35 Summilux FLE. And when I posted the picture, I got comments from a viewer who could locate himself on his bicycle under a bridge in the scene, based on a balloon in the sky that was only present on a particular day. So I'll be delighted to have an M[typ360] and can think of some subjects that will do it proud. scott Scott, Some imagery begs to be looked at at the tip of your nose and it's always nice to be able to find ever more little bits of the scene as you look closer. You're correct here but, as pixel counts get higher "some" becomes an increasingly smaller portion of the whole. The biggest benefit I'm expecting is that as pixels die the camera's firmware can map them out and, being so small their loss is not noticed. The smaller the pixel the more that can die without issue. This would help to prolong the life of the camera; if the producer wants to use it for that purpose. Perhaps pixels could be grouped into super-pixels that are still no bigger than today's pixels, but I'm too lazy to imagine what the benefit of that might be. (I shoot just film but I enjoy the digital side as a sort of thought experiment.) There's lots of ways sensors can be improved but, and almost every electronic creation follows this path; whether you want it or not components continue to miniaturize. Pixels will too if only because they can, because for most consumers it's still the only buying metric they "understand". So your panoramas have a good future ahead. (As an aside, when I look at the photographs hanging in our house, some for which we've paid a pretty penny, and the images I intend to acquire, none of it could possibly be considered high resolution.) s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 22, 2014 Share #59 Posted January 22, 2014 Moore's Law - alternative version: More is always Better Especially taxes and prison sentences... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 30, 2014 Share #60 Posted January 30, 2014 This is a pointless and totally irrelevant question. Lens performance is one thing, sensor resolution is another thing. They are independent from each other. If the lens before the sensor only resolves 1 MP, then a 36 MP sensor will only resolve 1 MP. To answer the question, my rule of thumb is that lenses that cause color moire on a 18 MP sensor will benefit from a 36 MP sensor. Stopping down increases lens resolution, until diffraction kicks in, therefore a lens able to resolve - say - 18 MP at f/1.4, may easily resolve 36 MP at f/2. In any case, it must be noted that sensor resolution depends on subject color. Most people ignore, for example, that a 36 MP color sensor can only resolve a red subject using 9 MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.