How many megapixels in the next M?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So it will be the new SL... Interesting. I willprefer the new M though. With or without auxiliary EVF. I don't think anybody saw the M4+Visoflex3 as encroaching on the R either.

[lct]

Indeed an EVF is an EVF. Never too late to discover the truth!

[Advertisement]

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

[Paul J]

Not really. The M system has always been about making the most of a lower quality (small format) medium. Essentially better holiday snaps and, for a minority of users, good quality reportage. When the need arises for maximum image quality, other cameras and other formats have always been preferred.

I said Maximum quality in minimum form ie. making the most of the compromise. I never said maximum quality, full stop - of corse there are other cameras for that.

 

But my point was that the M has never been about 12fps so comparing it to the D5 is pointless. It's about feeling and selecting a moment, taking it, and getting the best image quality that this paradigm allows.

[LocalHero1953]

I did noy say that the new M will have a "built-in" EVF but that it will have one. Don't repeat it please, i've just seen that in my crystal ball . If this EVF has the same quality as that of the SL, only significant difference will be bulk, speed, AF and the lack of rangefinder. No problem for photogs willing to acquire both cameras, but the rest of us will have to decide if we must pay + $2k for that. 

Fair enough, but my point remains: I don't see the M and SL as competitors to the extent that cannibalisation of sales would be a significant problem for Leica. Both are versatile cameras and overlap in usage territory. To my mind, though, they are so different that together they will expand the market rather than just add costs for a same-size market.

 

If I had to make a guess, it would be that the M will not get the SL's sensor, but will get a new sensor that leapfrogs the SL's in performance (with or without extra pixels), and I'm sure it will have a new, good, external EVF. I doubt Leica will lose much sleep over how people perceive the pixel numbers of M and SL.

 

As an SL watcher, to me there seem to be several groups of people who have preferred the SL over the M (given a choice of one or the other):

- Those struggling with the RF for eyesight reasons, and like the AF and MF focus assist tools of the SL.

- Those with a bunch of R lenses for which the SL makes eminent practical sense.

- Pros or, more likely, amateur pros (those who are essentially amateurs, but do weddings and other events, and portraiture, paid or otherwise), for whom AF, zoom and IS are valuable.

- I guess wildlife and sports photographers might go for the SL + the 90-280 zoom, but it is too early to say.

 

I don't see any of these groups being attracted back to the M by more pixels (perhaps the last??). But then only those in the first group would have been significant M buyers anyway.

Edited May 20, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[adan]

The M is NOT a fps camera. It is totally against it's ethos. Maximum quality, in minimum form, for the decisive moment is what it stands for. I would bet we would see extra MP before we see 12fps in an M.

 

Ahh - so Adox ISO 20 outsells Tri-X/HP5 among M film users? If "maximum quality" was really the goal, that would be true - but I don't think it is.

 

Personally, I would love it if Leica was large enough to support two Ms, one for quality (40 Mpixels) and one for speed (12 Mpixels, ISO 100,000). Like Sony or Nikon. They sort of halfway get there with the Monochroms. I would definitely take the high ISO camera over the "quality" camera.

[lct]

[...] As an SL watcher, to me there seem to be several groups of people who have preferred the SL over the M (given a choice of one or the other):

1 - Those struggling with the RF for eyesight reasons, and like the AF and MF focus assist tools of the SL.

2 - Those with a bunch of R lenses for which the SL makes eminent practical sense.

3 - Pros or, more likely, amateur pros (those who are essentially amateurs, but do weddings and other events, and portraiture, paid or otherwise), for whom AF, zoom and IS are valuable.

4 - I guess wildlife and sports photographers might go for the SL + the 90-280 zoom, but it is too early to say. [...]

 

1: The next M's EVF should solve their issue,

2: Ditto. I prefer using my Sony as it has a better EVF than the M240's but the next M should do it easily.

3: OK

4: OK

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In which case groups 1 and 2 will have to be subdivided into those who see an external EVF separate from the OVF as a good-enough solution and those who want an integrated solution.

[lct]

In which case groups 1 and 2 will have to be subdivided into those who see an external EVF separate from the OVF as a good-enough solution and those who want an integrated solution.

 

... and have nothing to do with rangefinders. 

[jaapv]

And why should Leica care whether the customer buys an SL or M anyway? Apart from the license fees to Panasonic of course...

[LocalHero1953]

... and have nothing to do with rangefinders. 

Of course. And nothing to do with pixels either.

But I suspect this is a discussion with little real difference.

[lct]

Significant difference in that AF lenses cannot be used on the M. Hard to amortize the latters if the SL doesn't sell.

Edited May 20, 2016 by lct

[LocalHero1953]

Significant difference in that AF lenses cannot be used on the M. Hard to amortize the latters if the SL doesn't sell.

I've lost track of what point you are trying to make.

This exchange started when you suggested that if the M got more pixels than the SL it would put the SL at a marketing/sales disadvantage.

Then you suggested that if the M got an external EVF of the same standard as the SL then they would be directly comparable.

I happen to disagree with you on both counts, as explained.

 

"If the SL doesn't sell?" You can make that comment about any product. I have no info on Leica's sales targets and actual sales for the M, SL or any other product. Fortunately, I'm not Leica and I don't have to worry about it.

 

If I were to speculate, it would be along the lines that Leica's investment outside the M line has been in a range of technologies that have come to market as the T, Q and SL, with some of the S technology being added as an afterthought. The development of machined alloy bodies, EVFs, the L mount, AF, IS and user interfaces would have taken investment across the board; the actual cameras on the market are a mix and match of these different technologies. So whether the SL is a success in its own ring-fenced right may be less important than the payback across all of the T, Q, SL and (maybe) S lines.

 

This leaves the interesting blue-skies speculation as to whether the new M will be added to the fold by giving it the L mount in a slimmer, machined alloy RF body, plus an L-M adapter that allows continued use of M rangefinder lenses

Edited May 20, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[Echo63]

I have a feeling Leica will keep the 24mp sensor.

Probably go with a newer, high DR high ISO sensor, similar to the SL.

 

I wont be buying one anyway (will wait till the -P version, if i do buy one) my M240 is still a great camera, and has taken some of my favorite pictures. Yes, it doesnt have the highest DR, or best high ISO, but it is enough for me, in the situations i use it.

If i need a high fps machinegun that see's in the dark, i grab my 1DX, but if i am going for a walk, or playing with my kids, or going for a drink with friends, the M comes with me.

[lct]

I've lost track of what point you are trying to make. [...]

 

So have i . The point i was trying to make is there is no chance to see the M with more mp that the SL. Zero chance, it'll never happen. I have a lot of bottles of cider in my cellar fortunately .

[LocalHero1953]

So have i . The point i was trying to make is there is no chance to see the M with more mp that the SL. Zero chance, it'll never happen. I have a lot of bottles of cider in my cellar fortunately .

I hope you're right. But only because I think 24MP is enough.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

If a 24MP camera wasn't enough to meet my requirements I wouldn't be using a 24MP camera now.

[pico]

Personally, I would love it if Leica was large enough to support two Ms, one for quality (40 Mpixels) and one for speed (12 Mpixels, ISO 100,000).

 

How about just one model with a menu option, call it decimate, that reads only every other line?

[Echo63]

How about just one model with a menu option, call it decimate, that reads only every other line?

Or do what fuji did with their early SLRs

High MP/standard DR or low MP/ Higher DR (from memory it was 12/6mp with the 6mp mode extending DR by 2 stops) selectable in the menu

From what i recall it had the ability to split the sensor, run half at one ISO, and the other half 2 stops different, then combine them both - two birds, one stone....

[Jon Warwick]

My complete and utter guess is that they'll keep the megapixels similar - perhaps given acuity and dynamic range benefits and lack of diffraction issues etc from larger pixels.

 

The same megapixel count would be a disappointment to me if it occurs ..... given I print very large, and I've tasted what a much "higher resolution" can deliver from testing an M246 and 50 APO. The resolution i see off an M246 is very very obviously ahead of the M240 for large prints, and the 50 APO extends that lead further. I'd personally like to see that in a color M too. Very large prints look unstressed and more natural as a result of this higher megapixel count.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jon Warwick]

The point i was trying to make is there is no chance to see the M with more mp that the SL. Zero chance, it'll never happen.

My guess is the opposite view....given I thought a key reason for restricting the SL to just 24mp was to market that camera as being fast as possible, ie, sacrifice "megapixels" for "mega-fast"?