M360 (?) and lenses

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed smaller pixels introduce more problems, and even more with RF lenses due to the angle at which the light hits the microlenses in the corners.

 

As we have seen with the A7R, despite the lack of AA filter and the special offset micro-lenses, the camera has substantially more problems with RF glass than the 24 mp A7.

 

yes, but RF glass is a peculiar legacy design which new cameras, apart from the M9 and M240, are not designed for.

 

The Sony Zeiss 55mm certainly makes excellent use of the 36mp and its appropriate that Sony's sensor design objectives concentrate on different things from RF lens design.

 

I presume the next M will have more MPs and we won't know until then how the wide angle Leica M lenses perform.

 

However its interesting that I have read some reviewers commenting on already how the 24mp is showing up some of the lenses in the current range. I'll try and remember the review but I saw an analysis that showed the 28mm f2 ASPH faired less well using 24mp then 18mp and also the legendary 50mm f1.4 ASPH started to show some corner softness wide open that was not observable on 18mp

 

all very marginal though

[Advertisement]

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

[edwardkaraa]

yes, but RF glass is a peculiar legacy design which new cameras, apart from the M9 and M240, are not designed for.

 

The Sony Zeiss 55mm certainly makes excellent use of the 36mp and its appropriate that Sony's sensor design objectives concentrate on different things from RF lens design.

 

I presume the next M will have more MPs and we won't know until then how the wide angle Leica M lenses perform.

 

However its interesting that I have read some reviewers commenting on already how the 24mp is showing up some of the lenses in the current range. I'll try and remember the review but I saw an analysis that showed the 28mm f2 ASPH faired less well using 24mp then 18mp and also the legendary 50mm f1.4 ASPH started to show some corner softness wide open that was not observable on 18mp

 

all very marginal though

 

I certainly agree with all of the above, but still noteworthy that there is a serious limitation on the lens design in order to circumvent the problem. The 55/1.8 that I briefly owned, though a stellar performer, was as large as my Sonnar 85/2 (but luckily not as heavy).

 

The limitations on the lens performance with higher mp sensors are only theoretical, as the weakness goes away once you downsize to 18mp, and actually provoding with more detail to downsize from. On the other hand, the technical limitations of more mp as shown in the A7R are real and will not go away with downsizing, giving a clear advantage to the lower mp sensors.

[250swb]

Something else which occurred to me is that perhaps the APO 50 Cron ASPH was designed with a higher mp in mind?

 

A 1930's 50mm Elmar can surprise many people with the image quality it can produce on an M240, or even better an MM. I'm sure it would continue to surprise despite what we all now call its faults with 36mp. Sharpness (at the Elmar's best settings with an ideal subject and lighting) hasn't evolved all that much since the 1930's, but many of the faults have been designed out. The APO Summicron was made because it was possible to make it, not because it was necessary to make it.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

This linking of sensor MPs and lens resolution is a common misunderstanding. The quality of your image is the combination of the two.

A mediocre lens will always perform better on a better sensor, a superb lens will always beat lesser lenses on a ho-hum sensor. ( well, in the latter case there may be a point where the quality gain is no longer discernable).

 

The secret is in the balance.

 

And when motion blur and focusing errors come into play all bets are off, obviously.

[Photoskeptic]

As to shutter speed and higher mp bodies, it's all about balance for me. I can hand-hold my D800 with a Zeiss 50 Makro down to 1/15 sec. with sharp results*, tests I did after all the ballyhoo about why you couldn't do that. However, if anything heavier or longer is mounted all bets are off. The Zeiss 55 1.4 is particularly difficult to shoot at slow speeds hand-held and doubly so since I've developed tendonitis in my right forearm. It still doesn't stop me from street shooting with it as the results are stunning.

I've never had too big a problem shooting any M at slow speeds, but once again it's a balance thing. I remember when I had a 90 Cron in the days before digital - that one didn't balance too well and I didn't much care for it. The largest, in physical size, M lens I shoot today is a 50 Lux ASPH.

*I don't do any form of caffeine which, I believe, helps immensely .

[pico]

Indeed. Much good red wine and advancing years have conspired to render my hand not quite as steady as it once may have been.

 

Discuss Propranolol with your physician. I have essential tremor and discovered Propanolo's usefulness by accident as it was prescribed for hypertension. Two cures in one!

 

Aside: I'm preparing a brief on handholding cameras.

.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most of my hand-held photos from my 36-megapixel camera are unusable. The 24 megapixels of the M are the upper limit, for me at least.

If your hand-held 36-megapixel photos are unusable then so are your hand-held 24-megapixel photos. If your hand-held 24-megapixel photos are usable then so are your hand-held 36-megapixel photos.

[01af]

The Sony A7R for hand-held shooting only was a total disaster. Leica M (Typ 240) is giving me far better results.

And you really believe the reason was the two cameras' different megapixel counts?

[Herr Barnack]

Reading Lloyd Chambers' substantial work on Leica M, it is clear that the modern lenses at least, have already been designed with greater resolving potential that an M8, M9 or M240 were capable of fully exploiting...

 

As the wisdom of "horses of courses" forever holds, the same issues that arose with the α7R, and even M240 (namely, the need for very high shutter speeds and/or rigid mount to defeat shutter vibration) would apply to a hypothetical M360. Are you doing street shooting, portraits or landscape work? As they've done with the ME, a lower MP model will persist where a 4 meter print isn't a consideration.

I would think a 24x36mm sensor that has 24 MP, backed by Leica M glass should be enough to produce exhibit qualiry prints, as long as they are not life sized prints of barns, houses or castles. In reality, how big a print is truly necessary?

 

Hell, most photographers don't even bother to print these days...

[Paul J]

I sell prints in excess of 2m quite frequently. Commercial work is often printed much larger. So I find that 18 or 24MP is not (relatively) adequate in this day and age and I don't use my Leica in these circumstances. However, you chose certain tools for certain reasons and when those reasons are limited to relatively smaller sizes it creates issues. So for many reasons I want and need 40MP+ asap.

[james.liam]

I sell prints in excess of 2m quite frequently. Commercial work is often printed much larger. So I find that 18 or 24MP is not (relatively) adequate in this day and age and I don't use my Leica in these circumstances. However, you chose certain tools for certain reasons and when those reasons are limited to relatively smaller sizes it creates issues. So for many reasons I want and need 40MP+ asap.

 

To quote the Senor Danger's signature, "horses for courses".

[Paul J]

To quote the Senor Danger's signature, "horses for courses".

 

In this context it's irrelevant, IMO

[james.liam]

In this context it's irrelevant, IMO

 

 

??

 

If you need to print larger, as you report doing, a higher MP count camera is more relevant. This is what was meant by "different horses for different course".

[jaapv]

I sell prints in excess of 2m quite frequently. Commercial work is often printed much larger. So I find that 18 or 24MP is not (relatively) adequate in this day and age and I don't use my Leica in these circumstances. However, you chose certain tools for certain reasons and when those reasons are limited to relatively smaller sizes it creates issues. So for many reasons I want and need 40MP+ asap.

Which means medium format territory, right?

[Paul J]

??

 

If you need to print larger, as you report doing, a higher MP count camera is more relevant. This is what was meant by "different horses for different course".

 

Well I think the quote is irrelevant given that we're not talking about animals that are stuck with their physiology for the course of their life.

 

The technology is imminent and valid. It's not a different camera needed for a different application (horse for course) scenario. It's expanding the cameras usability outside of it's current limits to better suit the needs of it's users and possibly a wider group of users.

[Paul J]

Which means medium format territory, right?

 

At the moment, yes, only by necessity though. For several reasons, not by choice.

[colonel]

At the moment, yes, only by necessity though. For several reasons, not by choice.

 

 

What gear do you use, out of interest ?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pico]

All this hand-held photography at low shutter speeds puzzles me and conflicts with my experience so that I have to suspect that proponents have low expectations. I would not mind being wrong, but to date I have not seen evidence of such, and a Web presentation is not acceptable.

 

If a photographer has a heartbeat, and I presume we have no Zombies here, the chance of making a steady handheld photo at less than 1/15th of a second is one-in-ten.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pobble]

The Sony a7r works very well with long focal length lenses such as the Apo Telyt M 135 or Apo Elmarit R 180 where there is no issue with acute angle input to the sensor. It also works handheld if you raise the ISO so that you can expose a 1/2000 second or faster. I was astonished by the quality of the Apo Telyt which I've had for years. The M240's poor finder image quality and exceedingly weak focus peaking did allow either lens to show their superb image quality in hand-held applications.

 

The A7r's focus peaking and magnification features enable precise focus and reasonably rapid handling. The major downside is the shutter cycle noise, but that usually is not a problem using long focal length lenses.

[Likaleica]

If a photographer has a heartbeat, and I presume we have no Zombies here, the chance of making a steady handheld photo at less than 1/15th of a second is one-in-ten.

 

And even less at longer focal lengths.