How many megapixels in the next M?

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The next M will have 24 mp, unusable ISO 50,000, and will feature an auxiliary EVF with 4 mp. Whatever you're smoking guys, I would advise you to quit

 

Good advice, I join though will continue to enjoy my pipe...

[Advertisement]

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

[harmen]

The d-lux (109) sensor plays a trick somewhat like the square sensor mentioned above: it's larger than is needed for a 2:3 image and can take other ratios using an optimized area within the full image circle. Images can be 4112 x 3088, 4272 x 2856, 4480 x 2520, and 3088 x 3088.

[Giulio Zanni]

As the trend is to move from 36 mp to 50 mp, the next M should have at least 36 mp  , assuming that by that time the S will have 50 mp.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

As the trend is to move from 36 mp to 50 mp, the next M should have at least 36 mp  , assuming that by that time the S will have 50 mp.

 

The difference between the two will almost certainly be linked.

[pgk]

As for the question of professional or amateur camera, I have always maintained that if there is a distinction -which is debatable-, the M is aimed at the high-end amateur market, not at the professional one, despite being as good as it gets for some professional applications. Putting it into the hands of high-profile "users", including well-known photographers is just a marketing exercise.

 

With all due respect to this statement, ALL current cameras can be used professionally. The distinction is not about the camera but about what one does with it. And for that matter ALL camera manufacturers use the 'professional' market to increase the profile/kudos of their products. More 'pro' model camera are owned by amateurs than professionals - otherwise their market would be too small and unsustainable.

[jaapv]

Yes Paul, isn't that what I am saying? I noticed in a video in the war photographers thread that quite a few were using smartphones. Not that they were behaving professionally otherwise.

 

Now this is a professional camera:

 

 

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!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A round sensor in a hexagonal chip wouldn't waste much silicon

Chips have square sides. A hex would waste the difference.

[Exodies]

Square chips have square sides. Chips of other shapes are different. I'm not saying the change to circular sensors will be trivial; but it would be a worthy task for the next Barnak.

[mjh]

Square chips have square sides. Chips of other shapes are different.

As long as sensor pixels are organised in rows and columns, the natural shape of the sensor will continue to be rectangular. Fuji once employed SuperCCDs with a honeycomb pattern of pixels, but still there were rows and columns of pixels and thus a rectangular sensor shape.

 

I'm not saying the change to circular sensors will be trivial; but it would be a worthy task for the next Barnak.

The original Barnack repurposed existing film stock.

[Exodies]

My pixels are hexagonal, hence no wasted silicon (besides, the cost of the sensor includes any unused area; it ain't cheap).

The output is rows of varying length, instead of rows of equal length. Given the total number of pixels, the length of each row can be calculated when formatting the image for a rectangular computer screen.

If repurposing is a key criterion to make it a Barnack then consider it as repurposing the circular output of the lens.

[pgk]

If repurposing is a key criterion to make it a Barnack then consider it as repurposing the circular output of the lens.

 

Obviously the solution is for lens designers to come up with lens designs which produce an oblong or square, as opposed to round, image 'circle'. Answers are usually simple enough if you think laterally. The alternative is to produce all focal lengths as 'fisheye' lenses thus utilising the entire image within the image circle and then use software to produce whatever de-distorted crop is required - a bit like dealing with distortions in existing lenses but rather more so.......

 

( ).

[Exodies]

That may be a solution but I can't imagine what the problem is. My solution is to solve the problem of camera orientation and free up the available rectangles. Discarding light from the lens' circle just because cine film was rectangular is barbaric.

[mjh]

Even when only a rectangular crop of the image circle gets actually used, that doesn’t mean you could reduce all lenses to a rectangular shape without affecting lens speed and, probably even more importantly, the bokeh. Only a couple of lenses at the rear end of the lens assembly could be rectangular. On the one hand this would reduce flare, but then these lenses could not rotate, probly creating some mechanical issues.