How many megapixels in the next M?

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not share your need, what so ever, for more dynamic range and higher iso over 400, or 800, at the most. I need 60-80mp quite frequently.

 

I'd note that there already exist excellent options that satisfy that need, albeit larger and even more pricey ones than an M.  So the real question is there a need for these characteristics  in a FF rangefinder? Certainly it would be nice in some circumstances, to have MF acuity in a box 1/4 the size, but that strike me less like need and more like desire, given there are cameras that precisely match these specs. Personally, I've already found that handholding a camera with that much resolution can quite often range from being sadly dissatisfying to downright unusable. YMMV, of course. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

Nope, the S 007 is CMOS.  Time for you to reassess.  

 

Jeff

Thanks for the correction, but  no reassessment necessary.  Little interest in an S if for no other reason than its 2x3.

[Guest]

Back to the subject, I think a new M will be just about identical to the 240 but will incorporate RF to communicate with "Leica Glass ®" - These are akin to Google Glass that you can wear as an EVF on your face, you can communicate with the M using voice commands like "set ISO to 800", "white balance please" and of course "Take pic", you'd be able to set any setting by voice  The SL version will also allow "focus at 10 o'clock, "set speed 500" , "set aperture f5.6" etc.

Other than that I fully agree with Adli's post on the first page

[CYBORA]

Back to the subject, I think a new M will be just about identical to the 240 but will incorporate RF to communicate with "Leica Glass ®" - These are akin to Google Glass that you can wear as an EVF on your face, you can communicate with the M using voice commands like "set ISO to 800", "white balance please" and of course "Take pic", you'd be able to set any setting by voice  The SL version will also allow "focus at 10 o'clock, "set speed 500" , "set aperture f5.6" etc.

Other than that I fully agree with Adli's post on the first page

 

Leica wants M to be an almost pure experience , so don't expect to have Star Trek technology on the next M 

[otho]

More important is pixel pitch sensor factor, not megapixel. M240 have 6 microns pixel pitch sensor; old Sony A7R - 4,9 microns, A7R II - 4,51, A7S II - 8,4 microns. Generally speaking, many megapixel = smaller pixel pitch distance (not always, but usually).

[rscheffler]

I'm OK with 24MP, but wouldn't turn down 28 or 32, either.

 

Just get rid of the high-ISO banding as well as the drop in frame rate and buffer capacity when transitioning from ISO 1000 to 1250 and higher. I want to be able to shoot at any ISO at the same frame rate and with a deep enough buffer (for me). The M-P is probably good enough buffer-wise, so just eliminate the frame rate drop. I also wouldn't turn away 4fps or 5fps. It would make the camera a bit more versatile for my needs.

 

Considering the M262 and M-D variants, there's room in the M line for a 'mainstream' model that adopts popular technology such as improved live view, EVF, better video capability, higher frame rates, etc. The question is whether there's room for more than one sensor resolution? With the M262, M-D, M246 likely sticking around until at least the next M-P version, there will indeed be two sensor types, but not what some would want - two new sensor types.

[Printmaker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

New generation of M and SL should be 40 but I bet it won't be. When the S gets over it's increasingly embarrassing infancy of 37MP then we may see an increase, I guess. Until then, Leica will give us all sort of reasons why "we don't need more", which will then be read and referred to as gospel in this forum, until they can figure out how to make a decent high res camera.

 

I use a S2, MM and a M9. While there is a lot to be said for big fat pixils, the S camera really should be 80 - 100 MP and the M cameras should be 36 MP. There are a lot of us who make or supplement our livings with print sales. We need to print big and 37/24/18 limits the output size. Sure you can always rez-up but it is better IQ wise to have sufficient resolution at capture. If Hasselblad can do it, Leica sure can. If Sony can do it...

[JBond]

Back to the subject, I think a new M will be just about identical to the 240 but will incorporate RF to communicate with "Leica Glass ®" - These are akin to Google Glass that you can wear as an EVF on your face, you can communicate with the M using voice commands like "set ISO to 800", "white balance please" and of course "Take pic", you'd be able to set any setting by voice  The SL version will also allow "focus at 10 o'clock, "set speed 500" , "set aperture f5.6" etc.

Other than that I fully agree with Adli's post on the first page

 

I read your post and for a moment thought I had stumbled upon the "what would the Leica M be in 2050" thread

[jaapv]

I use a S2, MM and a M9. While there is a lot to be said for big fat pixils, the S camera really should be 80 - 100 MP and the M cameras should be 36 MP. There are a lot of us who make or supplement our livings with print sales. We need to print big and 37/24/18 limits the output size. Sure you can always rez-up but it is better IQ wise to have sufficient resolution at capture. If Hasselblad can do it, Leica sure can. If Sony can do it...

But you talking about the high-end photographic market. For general photography,-and that is where the bread and butter of camera makers comes from-  around or slightly over 20 MP is more than sufficient, with difficulties like motion blur kicking in if one gets seriously beyond that number. The D810 for instance  has frustrated quite a few experienced Nikon photographers by the technical obstacles the high pixel count presents. Even higher MP numbers would aggravate that effect.

[Tailwagger]

But you talking about the high-end photographic market. For general photography,-and that is where the bread and butter of camera makers comes from-  around or slightly over 20 MP is more than sufficient, with difficulties like motion blur kicking in if one gets seriously beyond that number. The D810 for instance  has frustrated quite a few experienced Nikon photographers by the technical obstacles the high pixel count presents. Even higher MP numbers would aggravate that effect.

 

Amen. IMO, we're already in the sweet spot. Push down noise, improve DR. More pixels is a double edged sword. I've no desire to be out shooting with my M and feel obligated to lug along a tripod. If one needs maximum resolution over all else, there are other, arguably better, options. 

[ECohen]

Back to the subject, I think a new M will be just about identical to the 240 but will incorporate RF to communicate with "Leica Glass ®" - These are akin to Google Glass that you can wear as an EVF on your face, you can communicate with the M using voice commands like "set ISO to 800", "white balance please" and of course "Take pic", you'd be able to set any setting by voice  The SL version will also allow "focus at 10 o'clock, "set speed 500" , "set aperture f5.6" etc.

Other than that I fully agree with Adli's post on the first page

 

 

Gosh I hope not....my Lexus voice command doesn't work and neither does my iPhone's

Talk about missing the decisive moment....over and over again    

"take pic"  ..........calling Tom Hick?

[IWC Doppel]

I think the pixel count will remain below 30mp but I'd be surprised if it staid the same with a new sensor.

 

Actually 28 is my punt with a genuine .5 to one stop ISO improvement and one full ev improvement in dynamic range. I'd like some genuine innovation with CMOS technology or adaption to the M needs, something that truly differentiates the M from other rangefinder alternatives.

[sblutter]

Since the M9 we've been pretty pixel-less in large prints and with a good print tech, very big.  MP wars are over, someone inform the marketing department.

 

I agree the next frontier is DR on both ends - which IS a story they can sell.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I would hope the M and SL will plan their upgrades as a family (even though the teams that write the firmware don't seem to be talking to each other).  I could see an M with the speed of the current SL, diminished attention to LV and video, and either 24 or 36 MPx, an SL that competes effectively against MF gear with its 36 MPx without sacrificing too much speed of operation, and finally a really sports-capable, 5K video SL still at 24 MPx.  The last one coming at the end of the next two years of upgrades, when there will be lots of lenses available for it, just as there are for Sony's two-branched full frame line.

 

scott

[Unbekannter Photograph]

In my opinion 24 MP is the optimum in FF-size. 

[Paul J]

I have finally decided that if the M is less than 36MP I have little choice than to reluctantly give up on Leica, for ***my*** needs.

 

I can no longer commercially sustain 24MP.

[Paul J]

I'd note that there already exist excellent options that satisfy that need, albeit larger and even more pricey ones than an M.  So the real question is there a need for these characteristics  in a FF rangefinder? Certainly it would be nice in some circumstances, to have MF acuity in a box 1/4 the size, but that strike me less like need and more like desire, given there are cameras that precisely match these specs. Personally, I've already found that handholding a camera with that much resolution can quite often range from being sadly dissatisfying to downright unusable. YMMV, of course.

I already use other cameras you are suggesting and yes, I personally ***need*** the M to be much more than it is. Perhaps I am in the minority though and my reasons for using the M, based not only but largely on lens aesthetics, are being greatly outweighed by the need for more resolution in my output to meet commercial demand and competition. The time for me has come to move on from a dream that Leica does not seem capable of, or interested in.

[tobey bilek]

It is going to get the SL or similar sensor.    Note the change in wides to accomodate it.  You don`t think they are making the change for users to put M lenses on SL ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

I'm struggling to think of what would make me want to splash out and upgrade from the M240.

Yes, I would like more DR and higher ISO, and the colours of the SL, but I would not upgrade for that (nor for more pixels). A better EVF would be good - if I used it, which I don't.

With the M9, I found the rear display too embarrassingly bad to show in public, the shutter was always too noisy and (sorry guys) I prefer the naturalistic CMOS colours to CCD technicolor. So I upgraded, but not immediately.

 

As a sort of typical, middle of the road sort of M240 user, I can't think what would make me sit up and check my bank balance. A truly silent shutter? Maybe, maybe not. A rangefinder that operates on a different, more accurate principle over a wider range of focal lengths? Perhaps. A much smaller body? Depends how much smaller.

 

It's a challenge for Leica: how to make this a camera that current users want enough to trade up for it, as well as new users.

[jaapv]

It is going to get the SL or similar sensor.    Note the change in wides to accomodate it.  You don`t think they are making the change for users to put M lenses on SL ?

They will always make the M sensor perform as optimally as possible with legacy lenses as well, a requirement that only exists in a limited way for the SL. The sensors will certainly not be the same. Not now, not in future.