Rick Posted October 22, 2015 Share #1901 Posted October 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey you could just retire and I'll hire you since I had never heard of a 1st AC. BTY, is the 2nd AC the pusher? No, no, the pusher is an entirely different job. He keeps the cast happy. Another important job but a lot less stressful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Hi Rick, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
edwardkaraa Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1902 Posted October 23, 2015 No, no, the pusher is an entirely different job. He keeps the cast happy. Another important job but a lot less stressful. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1903 Posted October 23, 2015 The announcements of the T (product design) followed by the Q (ISO and EVF) and now the SL (versatility), has clearly demonstrated Leica's ability to innovate in the digital age and bring to market compelling products. I can only surmise that the next M will be both fantastic and desirable. Can't wait for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1904 Posted October 23, 2015 My hope is that because of the new SL and the coming new M there will be more M type240 on the second hand market so that prices will drop and I can buy one without thinking too much to use on the side of my m7 robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1905 Posted October 23, 2015 After being a beta tester for Leica with 6 M240, I will not be an early adopter at this stage. I like the M-P large buffer and stealth look. Perhaps some Q features will find their way into a new M, but my main hope is for improved EVF a la Q or SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foto2021 Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1906 Posted October 23, 2015 My main axe issue is that Leica's image quality presumably isn't advancing massively from one camera to the next (M240 to Q to SL?), partly because the predecessors were already excellent, but mainly this decision to not go up in Megapixels beyond 24mp - not ideal for those of us that like to print large at 300dpi! Build an M (heck, even an SL) with 40-50mp, and I'll be there ready to buy it. It would need a brilliant lens, but Leica already makes that with the 50mm APO. As a result, to maximise the body's high rez capability, I'd buy that lens too ...... I wonder if the disappointing 24 MP of the SL was carefully chosen to leave the 37.5 MP S as the uncontested flagship of the Leica Camera range? I mean you could hardly have a mirrorless camera with 36 MP (A7R) or 42 MP (A7R II) sensor when your top of the range DSLR has 'only' 37.5 MP, could you? I suppose I will now be attacked for suggesting that anyone "needs" more than 24 MP by the very same people who attacked me a few years ago when I suggested that there was a need for more pixels than the 6.1 MP Sony sensor that was fitted to so many DSLRs plus a digital rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1907 Posted October 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I didn't need (or even want) 36mp when I recently bought my Nikon D810, but I did need a new body with the same control layout as my D4. Having shot with the D810 awhile I have grown to appreciate the benefits of the higher resolution. When I started in photography I would "crop in camera". By that I mean achieve the composition I wanted when I took the shot. This approach served me well as I transitioned to digital with the early 2.7 mp bodies. With the D810's 36mp sensor I now have (through cropping in post) the ability to achieve tightly framed shots with my smaller & lighter lenses rather than my large & heavy ones. I greatly appreciate this as I no longer enjoy shooting with a heavy rig. As much as I enjoy the size, weight, and performance of my digital Ms - my longest lens is 90mm, which is as heavy a combination as I want to shoot with and often not long enough for some of my shooting. A 36mp M would resolve that nicely IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1908 Posted October 23, 2015 I wonder if the disappointing 24 MP of the SL was carefully chosen to leave the 37.5 MP S as the uncontested flagship of the Leica Camera range? I mean you could hardly have a mirrorless camera with 36 MP (A7R) or 42 MP (A7R II) sensor when your top of the range DSLR has 'only' 37.5 MP, could you? I suppose I will now be attacked for suggesting that anyone "needs" more than 24 MP by the very same people who attacked me a few years ago when I suggested that there was a need for more pixels than the 6.1 MP Sony sensor that was fitted to so many DSLRs plus a digital rangefinder. Isn't the S sensor larger than the SL sensor? So the pixel count isn't the only measure by which the S could retain its "flagship" status. I very much doubt that they chose 24mp for the reason you suggest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1909 Posted October 23, 2015 Isn't the S sensor larger than the SL sensor? So the pixel count isn't the only measure by which the S could retain its "flagship" status. I very much doubt that they chose 24mp for the reason you suggest. Good point. I would include that, if that 36/37.5MP camera was, e.g., a new M then it would reside nicely alongside the S with hardly any cross-model customer shift. Such is the difference between ORF and DSLR and their adherents' opinions/needs. Pixel counts are a straw man to drive sales. Pixel counts will go up simply because technology will let them, as is known by anyone who has sat at a computer more than once in the last twenty years. There's better places to spend technological capital. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1910 Posted October 23, 2015 Isn't the S sensor larger than the SL sensor? The pixel pitch of the S and SL sensors is identical (6 microns) so the higher resolution of the S is due to its larger size. One could say that Leica thinks that 6 microns is a desirable pixel pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1911 Posted October 23, 2015 The pixel pitch of the S and SL sensors is identical (6 microns) so the higher resolution of the S is due to its larger size. One could say that Leica thinks that 6 microns is a desirable pixel pitch. It's a trade off between noise and resolution. Make a pixel smaller, you get more resolution but more noise at high ISO. 6 microns is the middle ground. Sony dealt with this by making an A7S for high ISO and an A7R for resolution... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1912 Posted October 23, 2015 So maybe there will be two versions of the M next time round: M-O(VF) and M-E(VF) It's probably too tricky to get both in one body, so that would keep everyone happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1913 Posted October 24, 2015 So maybe there will be two versions of the M next time round: M-O(VF) and M-E(VF) It's probably too tricky to get both in one body, so that would keep everyone happy. It will the best solution Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1914 Posted October 24, 2015 It's a trade off between noise and resolution. Make a pixel smaller, you get more resolution but more noise at high ISO. 6 microns is the middle ground. Sony dealt with this by making an A7S for high ISO and an A7R for resolution... What is often overlooked, ff you down size an image from a high to a low MPixel camera, e.g. the A/RII to the size of A7s there is not much difference in noise, even at ISO 102400. If you don't belive, you can download the files from the dpreview site. So the only real disadtange of many Mpixels is file size and speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1915 Posted October 24, 2015 What is often overlooked, ff you down size an image from a high to a low MPixel camera, e.g. the A/RII to the size of A7s there is not much difference in noise, even at ISO 102400. If you don't belive, you can download the files from the dpreview site. So the only real disadtange of many Mpixels is file size and speed. I wonder why both Canon and Nikon's absolute top of the range models have relatively low pixel counts (18 and 16mp respectively). Is it just about speed? Is there no truth whatsoever in what we were told about larger pixels (or whatever we call them) having better light-gathering capabilities than smaller ones? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1916 Posted October 24, 2015 I wonder why both Canon and Nikon's absolute top of the range models have relatively low pixel counts (18 and 16mp respectively). Is it just about speed? Is there no truth whatsoever in what we were told about larger pixels (or whatever we call them) having better light-gathering capabilities than smaller ones? In principle the light-gathering capability depends only on the total area, so it does not matter if you have 4 small pixels with same area as one large. This is however is only true if the read out noise is negligle but the best most recent sensors have a read out noise of close to one electron. A second limit is the space in between the pixels, if it reaches a significant fraction of the total area, than reducing pixe size results in increasse noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1917 Posted October 24, 2015 In principle the light-gathering capability depends only on the total area, so it does not matter if you have 4 small pixels with same area as one large. This is however is only true if the read out noise is negligle but the best most recent sensors have a read out noise of close to one electron. A second limit is the space in between the pixels, if it reaches a significant fraction of the total area, than reducing pixe size results in increasse noise. Thanks for that. So would you say the Canon and Nikon preference for low pixel-counts in their top cameras is purely a matter of speed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1918 Posted October 24, 2015 So would you say the Canon and Nikon preference for low pixel-counts in their top cameras is purely a matter of speed? Canon's 5DS and 5DSR now have 50.6 MP. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1919 Posted October 24, 2015 Canon's 5DS and 5DSR now have 50.6 MP. Jeff I'm not a Canon aficionado and don't know the nomenclature, but I thought the 1 series was its top-of-the-range pro camera, with 18mp. Am I wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1920 Posted October 24, 2015 (wrong post sorry) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.