How many megapixels in the next M?

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I asked a friend how many pixels digital porn should have to get him interested. He said four.

[colonel]

This is one of those relaxing threads. Completely pointless but somehow calming to follow ....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

The next M sensor will likely be designed so it can be used without ND filter. That means low enough ISO and high enough shutter speed that even with the f/0.95 we stay within range. 

 

50 ISO, 1/8000 shutter speed. 

 

 

The M 262 and M-D 262 are different sensors than then M240 because they don't have to support Live View.

 

I hope the sensor will stay at 24MP, but I guess general market/reviewer demand makes Leica Camera AG consider more megapixels. They've resisted it in the Leica SL.

 

I hope they choose image quality over megapixels, and even the current available computer power has plenty to do with chewing the 24MP files.

 

 

 

Is this speculation Thorsten or do you know something we don't? :-) 

[Overgaard]

Is this speculation Thorsten or do you know something we don't? :-) 

 

 

Speculations and wishful thinking. I know it's a fight resisting the market demand for more megapixels, but so far they managed to resist it. But they do have to design a camera that is also relevant in 3 years and not only what people agreed six months ago was the right specs. 

[lik]

One thing I don’t quite understand: 

The M is a mature concept. Gradual improvements are always possible but not crucial for selling an M(240) and buying an upgrade M(xyz). 

A hybrid viewfinder? For electronic support there is the SL. 

ISO improvements? For high speed optics? 

A display with more megapixels? Joking? 

Faster shutter? Does an M-Photographer really need that? 

I have an A7RII (which I do not really like that much) that I use only for taking high-resolution landscapes a.o., usually with my Leica optics. And I know one thing from own experience: the resolution of the APO 50, the APO R 180, APO R Telyt 280/4.0 is better on the A7RII than on the Leica M. 

Why should it remain like this? 

Computer power and memory capacity are not a serious problem anymore. 

 

The real technical step forward would be a sensor with higher resolution because this would significantly improve images with the best Leica lenses. More than anything else this improvement could make Leica a Leica in this challenging environment. 

 

Such a sensor could later be incorporated into another SL. Also for the wonderful SL further improvements will be needed once. 

 

The market: 

Leica also must take into account this pixel-madness market and wondering where the decisive step forward would be.

 

Conclusion:

Why not keep the Leica M (240) in the portfolio complemented by a similar – maybe gradually improved – M(3something) with higher resolution?

 

The Leica photographer thinks more differentiated on pixels than the Canon Nikon Sony Pixel Hunter of course. But just because the Leica lenses are unique, no company could better test the market and open up with a Leica High Resolution that would not replace the M but complement the existing portfolio.

 

It would not be decisive when such an innovation would come - but if. 

One day after Leica brings such a camera on the market I’ll sell my Sony A7RII.

 

Viva la resolución!

 

Best regards

lik

[Neko]

One thing I don’t quite understand: 

The M is a mature concept. Gradual improvements are always possible but not crucial for selling an M(240) and buying an upgrade M(xyz). 

A hybrid viewfinder? For electronic support there is the SL. 

ISO improvements? For high speed optics? 

A display with more megapixels? Joking? 

Faster shutter? Does an M-Photographer really need that? 

I have an A7RII (which I do not really like that much) that I use only for taking high-resolution landscapes a.o., usually with my Leica optics. And I know one thing from own experience: the resolution of the APO 50, the APO R 180, APO R Telyt 280/4.0 is better on the A7RII than on the Leica M. 

Why should it remain like this? 

Computer power and memory capacity are not a serious problem anymore. 

 

The real technical step forward would be a sensor with higher resolution because this would significantly improve images with the best Leica lenses. More than anything else this improvement could make Leica a Leica in this challenging environment. 

 

Such a sensor could later be incorporated into another SL. Also for the wonderful SL further improvements will be needed once. 

 

The market: 

Leica also must take into account this pixel-madness market and wondering where the decisive step forward would be.

 

Conclusion:

Why not keep the Leica M (240) in the portfolio complemented by a similar – maybe gradually improved – M(3something) with higher resolution?

 

The Leica photographer thinks more differentiated on pixels than the Canon Nikon Sony Pixel Hunter of course. But just because the Leica lenses are unique, no company could better test the market and open up with a Leica High Resolution that would not replace the M but complement the existing portfolio.

 

It would not be decisive when such an innovation would come - but if. 

One day after Leica brings such a camera on the market I’ll sell my Sony A7RII.

 

Viva la resolución!

 

Best regards

lik

+1

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica already offers 4 versions of the current model - M(240), M(246), M(262) and M-D. I can't think why it couldn't add a higher MP count version (provided it can add the processing power, battery life and mitigate shutter slap and all the other technical issues the A7r and D800E suffered from).

 

Wouldn't interest me remotely, but I am not representative of target market growth.

 

What I don't understand is why a high MP count is so important, when the Nikon D5(20MP) and Canon 1Dx (18.1) have lower MP than the existing M(240). Surely retaining 24MP and improving noise, dynamic range and all the rest is more important? Isn't the A7S a highly reviewed camera, with "only" 12.2MP?

 

I appreciate that MP count is an easy concept to grasp, but does it really result in a better image? I'm not saying more MP is a bad thing, I'm just not sure it's all that important, and it brings complications of its own.

[Exodies]

What's the probability that 24M pixels is optimum?

[IkarusJohn]

What's the probability that 24M pixels is optimum?

Leica seems to think so.

[Exodies]

Maybe for Leica it's a question of cranking up desirability step by step over a range of cameras rather than providing maximum desirability with every release.

[pico]

[...] I appreciate that MP count is an easy concept to grasp, but does it really result in a better image? I'm not saying more MP is a bad thing, I'm just not sure it's all that important, and it brings complications of its own.

 

John, I am in accord. I do not know any rational person, be he/she an editor or critic who would speak less of a  lower resolution image of importance. Importance rules.

 

For this point in time let us watch the MB metric fanatics battle among themselves as the rest make meaningful images.

.

Edited July 16, 2016 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

My guess is the marginal return on more MP is less than improving other things. The problem is convincing the buying public of that.

[pico]

My guess is the marginal return on more MP is less than improving other things. The problem is convincing the buying public of that.

 

A benign challenge: "return on more MP is less than improving other things"

 

What other things, please. I think this can be a good turning point, John.

.

Edited July 16, 2016 by pico

[Exodies]

For example, a circular sensor

[pop]

I think there might indeed by a technical "optimum" for the pixel pitch of a sensor in an M type camera. The argument relies on the angle at which the light enters the pits close to the edge of the image. Narrowing the width of those pits might make the problem worse.

[pico]

For example, a circular sensor

 

That is interesting. Not. The geometry to support a  36x36mm circular image would lead to the medium format sensor, throwing away the rectangular capture. No?

[pico]

I would guess - from Leica's past behavior - that the next M will simply switch to the SL sensor.

 

Andy, just how many megapixels do you require to produce good images for your amazing magazine?

.

Edited July 16, 2016 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

A benign challenge: "return on more MP is less than improving other things"

 

What other things, please. I think this can be a good turning point, John.

.

How much time do you have? You could start with improved capture at the pixel level (I recall one manufacturer saying that it had reduced the gap between the bins or buckets or whatever they're called), better dynamic range, less noise, better processing, better battery life, faster buffer, faster frame rate, etc before we get to the critical issues of body size, availability of black paint and the importance of strap lugs ... Edited July 16, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Exodies]

That is interesting. Not. The geometry to support a 36x36mm circular image would lead to the medium format sensor, throwing away the rectangular capture. No?

36*36 would indeed be a larger format but the circle enclosing 36*24 would not.

Instead of throwing away pixels by absorbing them in black paint, fans of rectangles could set a menu option to discard them from the sensor.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Exodies

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

Leica already offers 4 versions of the current model - M(240), M(246), M(262) and M-D. I can't think why it couldn't add a higher MP count version (provided it can add the processing power, battery life and mitigate shutter slap and all the other technical issues the A7r and D800E suffered from).

 

Wouldn't interest me remotely, but I am not representative of target market growth.

 

What I don't understand is why a high MP count is so important, when the Nikon D5(20MP) and Canon 1Dx (18.1) have lower MP than the existing M(240). Surely retaining 24MP and improving noise, dynamic range and all the rest is more important? Isn't the A7S a highly reviewed camera, with "only" 12.2MP?

 

I appreciate that MP count is an easy concept to grasp, but does it really result in a better image? I'm not saying more MP is a bad thing, I'm just not sure it's all that important, and it brings complications of its own.

Hey John,

 

I am far more limited by MP than I am DR and High ISO with my M9.

 

The D5 and 1Dx2 are aimed at those applications which need predictive autofocus at 12fps, and ISO 3 million+ - low resolution is needed for this sort of camera processing. None of these features are relative to the M.

 

Higher pixel count obviously doesn't result in a better image but it really does result in better image quality in, for me, far more circumstances. People who need it, need it and they know who they are.

 

Sometimes you don't have control over print size and/or viewing distance, sometimes you don't have control over how your client needs to crop your image. Sometimes you do and you want to use certain lenses, or you just need to use a certain camera for the task at hand. Sometimes you are doing things creatively which need it.

 

I'm open to the fact that Leica, for what ever reason wants to keep the M at 24MP, but in my opinion it's a sales pitch and more to do with Leica's capabilities in creating one.