Should I buy an M?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dynamic range is such a thing. The M240 has a dynamic range of 13.3 Ev (DxO) (not counting HDR techniques) which is about on par with standard mid-range B&W film and about double that of slide film, so there are no worries there.

The DR of printers is about 4-5 Ev, which makes using  the  higher DR of the sensor fully rather senseless, unless one compresses the range heavily in postprocessing, which destroys tonal values..

What it would offer, however, is a wider latitude in exposing, making life easier.

 

Most DR complaints come from people not understanding the difference between negative film and a sensor/slide film.  Negative film has a gentle roll-off in the highlights and an abrupt stop in blocked shadows, slide film and a sensor are just the other way around,  gently sinking into the noise floor of the shadows and a  sharp cut-off in the highlights. This calls for different exposing techniques.

[Mornnb]

 

The DR of printers is about 4-5 Ev, which makes using  the  higher DR of the sensor fully rather senseless, unless one compresses the range heavily in postprocessing, which destroys tonal values..

 

All landscape photography involves compressing the dynamic range because you're always dealing with a massive dynamic range. The sky at sunset is always much bright than the land. Likewise for architecture, one is dealing with shadows at street level and bright buildings, or interiors with bright daylight visible outside windows. These are much bigger problems than tonal values.

Dynamic range of the sensor is hence a huge concern for landscape and architecture and is the primary way to compare cameras, but is not very important for most other photography.

At 13.3 Ev the M240 out performs Canon bodies at 11.5 Ev but does not out perform Nikon or Sony bodies which get up to 14 Ev. However I would note that the M240 is generally cleaner and less noisy in the blacks and shadows, it's a great performer for dynamic range compression.

[jaapv]

Well, the Zone System was of course developed with just this point in mind and even then it only comprised of nine Ev stops. If we compare prints that Ansel Adams made over time of the same negative it is clear that he was picking sections of the total dynamic range of his films and not compressing.

[IkarusJohn]

at 24MP the M is about on par with 35mm film. There is some question if a 36MP sensor in a 35x24mm size really exceeds the capabilities of current lenses for resolving detail. At that point, maybe you really do need medium format. Or maybe every lens needs to be built to the same standards as the APO-Summicron 50mm? 

 

A number of assumptions there I don't follow:

• 24MP on a par with film - doesn't that depend on the film used?  I can scan film (and the level of detail will depend on the resolving rate at which I scan it), and I can quickly reach the limit of the detail recorded, for example, on Kodachrome 64, whereas an image taken with my M9, at 18MP, contains far more detail.  At normal viewing distances, without cropping, both contain more detail than I can see with the naked eye.  My point is that the quest for greater resolution is limitless, unless to bear in mind what the eye can see, full frame at normal viewing distances.

• 36MP is likely in an M camera - I'm not saying that you're promoting this idea, just picking up the point.  My experience with both the A7r and the D800E is that 36MP in a small package does create issues of its own - shutter slap being but one telling example.  Getting a crisp, high resolution image does require good technique, care and an understanding of shutter speeds to avoid.  For normal viewing distances, I preferred the output of my 18MP M9.

• A 36MP M camera, or 50MP M camera, would be desirable - if Leica could make such a camera work, it would put its S cameras in a very strange place.  While I'm quite sure that Leica can shoehorn a 100MP sensor into an S body, what would be the point.  The S camera is supposed to be usable handheld.  Surely you'd need a tripod, and a strategy to deal with all the unhappy S camera owners whose pro medium format cameras are being out-resolved by the lesser M cameras ...

• There is an issue with sensors out resolving lenses - from what I read, the modern lenses have greater resolving power than their forebears and they can bring out the best in modern digital sensors.  However, is this really an issue (particularly when many get great pleasure out of using legacy lenses with modern digital M cameras).  I can think of few images that I like and have caught my attention because of the resolution.  Subject matter, composition, and exposure, yes - resolution, rarely.

I agree on dynamic range and ISO, but what is more critical to my mind is getting rid of the things you read about here - banding, lock-ups, the quality of the EVF, start up times etc.  Time would be well spent perfecting what is there rather than Leica chasing their tail in a pointless technology battle.  M cameras are for taking pictures at full frame for normal view, preferably printed for the really good images.  For that, the existing camera is almost perfect (if you can live with the flaws).

 

Cheers

John

[Manoleica]

The digital M's offer great images, though only if the shooter understands photography. Those who repeatedly pontificate about purchasing an M either do not have deep enough pockets or are somewhat lacking in the photographic skills to master an M.. Let's be honest if you can't "see" the picture no camera (be it a $100 P&S or a $12k set up) can help you..

[skinnfell]

I suppose if you are able to wait to the end of the summer, there MIGHT be announced a marginally better camera than the M240.

Which in turn you would have to wait another 3-6 months to get your hands on. And perhaps you should wait another six months or so to get a model with all the bugs ironed out. And perhaps you want to get a used or refurbished one in order to save some money, in exchange for another 6-12 months of waiting.

 

I am sure the sony is a great camera, but manual rangefinder photography is something completely different.

You either don't get the point and hate it or you love it so much that you would never photograph another way. 

 

The "is it worth it" comes down to two sums which you must weigh against one another:

 

1) how much is (potentially) two years of photography worth to you 

2) how many pictures will be dramatically improved with the future, unreleased camera.

 

As the first responder said, anything digital is instant depreciation, whereas in the film world you have little or no depreciation of the equipment itself, but continous costs of film, processing, scanning, etc.

 

If you are an avid shooter like myself, who shoot about 10 000 frames (at least) per year. And lets say I own the camera for three years before upgrading (30K frames), to a total loss of half the price of the camera, that comes down to about a dime (ten cents) per frame. Not bad in my opinion. Even at a keeper-rate of one out of a hundred, thats still only ten bucks per keeper. (IE shots that are good enough to print or display)

 

Now if you are a sporadic shooter, you can do the math and perhaps owning a Leica makes no sense whatsoever.

 

But in the end, anybody who owns uses a Leica clearly put photographic enjoyment above fiscal sanity.

 

I am not sure if that made any sense but then again I am a photographer not an economist.

[Mornnb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A number of assumptions there I don't follow:

• 24MP on a par with film - doesn't that depend on the film used? I can scan film (and the level of detail will depend on the resolving rate at which I scan it), and I can quickly reach the limit of the detail recorded, for example, on Kodachrome 64, whereas an image taken with my M9, at 18MP, contains far more detail. At normal viewing distances, without cropping, both contain more detail than I can see with the naked eye. My point is that the quest for greater resolution is limitless, unless to bear in mind what the eye can see, full frame at normal viewing distances.

Agreed. Most estimates place 35mm slide film at equal to about 15MP. 36MP is getting close to MF film quality.

 

 

*

 

• 36MP is likely in an M camera - I'm not saying that you're promoting this idea, just picking up the point. My experience with both the A7r and the D800E is that 36MP in a small package does create issues of its own - shutter slap being but one telling example. Getting a crisp, high resolution image does require good technique, care and an understanding of shutter speeds to avoid. For normal viewing distances, I preferred the output of my 18MP M9.

36MP is not difficult at all you just need to ensure correct focus and keep shutter at about 3x focal length.

 

 

 

• A 36MP M camera, or 50MP M camera, would be desirable - if Leica could make such a camera work, it would put its S cameras in a very strange place. While I'm quite sure that Leica can shoehorn a 100MP sensor into an S body, whatwhat would be the point. The S camera is supposed to be usable handheld. Surely you'd need a tripod, and a strategy to deal with all the unhappy S camera owners whose pro medium format cameras are being out-resolved by the lesser M cameras ...

• There is an issue with sensors out resolving lenses - from what I read, the modern lenses have greater resolving power than their forebears and they can bring out the best in modern digital sensors. However, is this really an issue (particularly when many get great pleasure out of using legacy lenses with modern digital M cameras). I can think of few images that I like and have caught my attention because of the resolution. Subject matter, composition, and exposure, yes - resolution, rarely.

I agree on dynamic range and ISO, but what is more critical to my mind is getting rid of the things you read about here - banding, lock-ups, the quality of the EVF, start up times etc. Time would be well spent perfecting what is there rather than Leica chasing their tail in a pointless technology battle. M cameras are for taking pictures at full frame for normal view, preferably printed for the really good images. For that, the existing camera is almost perfect (if you can live with the flaws).

 

Cheers

John

At the moment the problem is the lenses out resolve the bodies. Lensed like the 50mm Summilux and 50mm APO are capable of producing way more resolution than 24Mp. The quality of Leicas lenses is a real argument for having an M with 50MP. Otherwise the ability of the lenses is being wasted.

For a $6500 camera I would expect Leica to fix all the existing issues, plus being able to provide the best and one of the highest resolution full frame sensor available.

[IkarusJohn]

I suppose if you are able to wait to the end of the summer, there MIGHT be announced a marginally better camera than the M240.

Which in turn you would have to wait another 3-6 months to get your hands on. And perhaps you should wait another six months or so to get a model with all the bugs ironed out. And perhaps you want to get a used or refurbished one in order to save some money, in exchange for another 6-12 months of waiting.

 

I am sure the sony is a great camera, but manual rangefinder photography is something completely different.

You either don't get the point and hate it or you love it so much that you would never photograph another way. 

 

The "is it worth it" comes down to two sums which you must weigh against one another:

 

1) how much is (potentially) two years of photography worth to you 

2) how many pictures will be dramatically improved with the future, unreleased camera.

 

As the first responder said, anything digital is instant depreciation, whereas in the film world you have little or no depreciation of the equipment itself, but continous costs of film, processing, scanning, etc.

 

If you are an avid shooter like myself, who shoot about 10 000 frames (at least) per year. And lets say I own the camera for three years before upgrading (30K frames), to a total loss of half the price of the camera, that comes down to about a dime (ten cents) per frame. Not bad in my opinion. Even at a keeper-rate of one out of a hundred, thats still only ten bucks per keeper. (IE shots that are good enough to print or display)

 

Now if you are a sporadic shooter, you can do the math and perhaps owning a Leica makes no sense whatsoever.

 

But in the end, anybody who owns uses a Leica clearly put photographic enjoyment above fiscal sanity.

 

I am not sure if that made any sense but then again I am a photographer not an economist.

 

Perfect sense to me.  Especially this bit:

 

 

 

But in the end, anybody who owns uses a Leica clearly put photographic enjoyment above fiscal sanity.

[bencoyote]

Most DR complaints come from people not understanding the difference between negative film and a sensor/slide film.  Negative film has a gentle roll-off in the highlights and an abrupt stop in blocked shadows, slide film and a sensor are just the other way around,  gently sinking into the noise floor of the shadows and a  sharp cut-off in the highlights. This calls for different exposing techniques.

Hmm I'll have to meditate on this. I grew up on this side of digital. 

 

Honestly i can live with the current ISO and a lux lens - it doesn't limit my art. However, adding a few more bits to the DR would give me more latitude. I'm not complaining with what I've got though, it is just the limit that I run up against most frequently.

[Manoleica]

Whoever started this Post has hopefully purchased a Leica, going forward maybe we will see some images! These ramblings remind me of Soapbox Corner, Hyde Park, on a Sunday morning...

[erl]

 

At the moment the problem is the lenses out resolve the bodies. Lensed like the 50mm Summilux and 50mm APO are capable of producing way more resolution than 24Mp. The quality of Leicas lenses is a real argument for having an M with 50MP. Otherwise the ability of the lenses is being wasted.

For a $6500 camera I would expect Leica to fix all the existing issues, plus being able to provide the best and one of the highest resolution full frame sensor available.

I'm definitely no expert here, but I will suggest that lens use could be compared to HiFi gear or fast cars (again ), in that it is not the extreme end of performance that is the optimum, but rather the effortless output somewhere below that top point. ie. performance without strain.

[Manoleica]

In other words "Torque" (steam engine power)

Surely the point is:- with Leica lenses we can and do use the extremes (wonderfully so) and for that we dutifully pay a premium..

50mp, can you imagine the file sizes, how many computers will be able to PP without slowing to a crawl and or freezing up?

[pop]

Angle of incidence.

 

Since the sensor is not a dimensionless plane but an array of what amounts to tubes, using M lenses on a digital cameras poses a number of issues. As can clearly be seen, some of those issues are just about solved in the most recent iteration of digital Ms, some not even that. Vignetting and crosstalk between sensor elements comes to mind, expressing themselves in dark corners and color shifts across the frame.

 

Increasing the number of pixels in an otherwise unchanged sensor will obviously make those tubes narrower, thus exacerbating the issues. You'd have to optimize the sensor stack for a particular range of angles of incidence, making the camera useful for a narrow range of lenses only, yielding a new kind of "special edition".

[Manoleica]

Wonderfully explained, make mine a double on the rocks and line 2 more up....news update:-

the new M-P246 & 250's are nicknamed "Venom"

Well it's my Friday ()

[ebf]

Whoever started this Post has hopefully purchased a Leica, going forward maybe we will see some images! These ramblings remind me of Soapbox Corner, Hyde Park, on a Sunday morning...

 

Still considering, but really grateful with all the answers here so far

[jaapv]

 These ramblings remind me of Soapbox Corner, Hyde Park, on a Sunday morning...

REPENT, THE END IS NIGH !!

 

Translated: get rid of that Nikon and get a Leica before money runs out...  

[bencoyote]

A number of assumptions there I don't follow:

• 24MP on a par with film - doesn't that depend on the film used?  I can scan film (and the level of detail will depend on the resolving rate at which I scan it), and I can quickly reach the limit of the detail recorded, for example, on Kodachrome 64, whereas an image taken with my M9, at 18MP, contains far more detail.  At normal viewing distances, without cropping, both contain more detail than I can see with the naked eye.  My point is that the quest for greater resolution is limitless, unless to bear in mind what the eye can see, full frame at normal viewing distances.

• 36MP is likely in an M camera - I'm not saying that you're promoting this idea, just picking up the point.  My experience with both the A7r and the D800E is that 36MP in a small package does create issues of its own - shutter slap being but one telling example.  Getting a crisp, high resolution image does require good technique, care and an understanding of shutter speeds to avoid.  For normal viewing distances, I preferred the output of my 18MP M9.

• A 36MP M camera, or 50MP M camera, would be desirable - if Leica could make such a camera work, it would put its S cameras in a very strange place.  While I'm quite sure that Leica can shoehorn a 100MP sensor into an S body, what would be the point.  The S camera is supposed to be usable handheld.  Surely you'd need a tripod, and a strategy to deal with all the unhappy S camera owners whose pro medium format cameras are being out-resolved by the lesser M cameras ...

• There is an issue with sensors out resolving lenses - from what I read, the modern lenses have greater resolving power than their forebears and they can bring out the best in modern digital sensors.  However, is this really an issue (particularly when many get great pleasure out of using legacy lenses with modern digital M cameras).  I can think of few images that I like and have caught my attention because of the resolution.  Subject matter, composition, and exposure, yes - resolution, rarely.

I agree on dynamic range and ISO, but what is more critical to my mind is getting rid of the things you read about here - banding, lock-ups, the quality of the EVF, start up times etc.  Time would be well spent perfecting what is there rather than Leica chasing their tail in a pointless technology battle.  M cameras are for taking pictures at full frame for normal view, preferably printed for the really good images.  For that, the existing camera is almost perfect (if you can live with the flaws).

 

Cheers

John

My point was a bit more subjective than literally technical. For standard near range viewing, printing 35mm negatives is fine up to about 17x22" paper. To go above that film photographer friends of mine have told me that it requires some special techniques. I'm sure some 35mm negatives can be printed above that size just fine while others cannot. My understanding is that is a rule of thumb practical limit.

 

With 16MP files, like I get from the Leica T and my m43 gear, I find that the practical limit for printing is about 13x19" and that is kind of pushing that. I've never used the M9 and have no experience with 18MP files. However, I can say that the 24MP files from the M240 are fine at least up to 17x22" and maybe more. 

 

I also know a couple of people who have bought the A7r and have used Sony and older 35mm lenses on them and they suggest that it seems to show up imperfections in the lenses. I also now suspect that 36MP has a tendency to expose weaknesses in their techniques. However, maybe things like moving beyond the old rule of thumb of a shutter speed of 2x the focal distance to 3x the focal distance may help but the point is while 36MP is doable it requires some special care the way that 24MP does not. 

 

In the end, 24MP is at least on par with 35mm film. The case that we need to move beyond that to 36MP for something like the M has not been made to me especially considering the additional issues it introduces with older and possibly current lenses, shutter speed, shutter shock, sensor readout time, power consumption, file size... So I don't feel a need for Leica to improve the camera in that dimension.

 

With nice fast Lux lenses, I don't seem to run up against the high side of the ISO limit with the M very often so while this may be nice, I'm not chomping at the bit for it.

 

The thing that I do hit all the time seems to be the dynamic range limit and I have to frequently work around that limit to maintain detail in the shadows without noise while not losing any graduations in the highlights. One of my old film photographers has several palladium prints of her own and a few she's traded with other photographers for and the deep smooth graduation across is something that I am envious of. One in particular I know was taken with a film Leica. Then there is that medium format look which is hard to quantify, the deepness of it if. My understanding is that it has to do with the depth of graduation in the color tones. So if there is one thing that I could add to the hardware of the Leica M is more of that depth and breadth in the color palet. 

[IkarusJohn]

All good. The technical limits you're hitting don't bother me. The limits to my photography are more fundamental - remembering to take the lens cap off, focus and composition. The very best (for me) photographs taken were by photographers with far more limited equipment than mine. 

 

As Ansel Adams famously observed, there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. 

[otto.f]

 So if there is one thing that I could add to the hardware of the Leica M is more of that depth and breadth in the color palet. 

That I agree with (although the colors aren't always right)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bencoyote]

Maybe my final thought on this topic, my friend and I were discussing this and the challenge for a company like Leica. How do they keep up with the march of technology and the saturation of a niche market and do so within the design ethos of minimalism. Also on our minds is sustainability vs. churn and consumption. It seems like the M 240 is a good enough product that the world isn't clamoring for the next generation. Just maybe some bug fixes in the firmware.  So what is Leica to do, how do they make money?

 

1) They already provide CLAs. Make that an increasing part of their business model.

2) The form factor is basically static and well loved. Nothing has to change there.

3) The build quality is excellent and much of it is mechanical. Those mechanical bits probably could last most of a lifetime with periodic service. Instead of making a new model, design internal upgrades to the current model. i.e. replace the sensor and the logic board and maybe the display.

 

This would:

1) Protect the investment customers make in their current camera.

2) Be sustainable because less would need to be manufactured.

3) Give them a higher volume on the new bits for their next generation of cameras.

4) Potentially reconnect them with customers with whom they haven't had contact with in a while.

5) Allow them to continue to use much of the same tooling. (They probably get most of this benefit anyway.)

6) Keep their older cameras off of the market so that they don't need to compete with themselves in a niche market.

 

Bill McKibbon makes an argument very much like this in his book Eaarth. He essentially says that endless consumption is unsustainable and we need to reorient our economy such that rather than relying on consumption and churn our primary economic activity needs to shift to support and maintenance. For a manufacturer like Leica, I could see them positioning themselves on the vanguard of this almost as a PR move but also as a survival strategy for a small to medium sized company with a comparatively tiny R&D budget. It sort of reminds me of something that I read in a book on Leica (maybe the Leica Compendium) that part of the reason that they stuck with film so long was that they didn't really have the R&D budget to plunge into digital in a big way until they were recapitalized by Kaufman.