Jump to content

New Leica M 240 follow-up in 2017 : The speculations.


Paulus

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think this is an interesting supposition, but it largely hangs on whether or not you believe providing more MPs, 4k EVFs and the like are necessary conditions for being considered state of the art. Given in the mainstream market there are so many arts involved that are either tangential or irrelevant to a manual focus RF camera, most would probably never confer such a title on a new generation of M regardless of what underpinned it. But state of the art is just one state of many. It says little or nothing about it's relative value to either those that precede or follow it. What really counts is not what makes the tool state of the art, but rather the art one is able to practice with it.

 

The M resides on a island of its own.  Regardless of what many might see as insurmountable deficiencies, it continues to differentiate itself by conferring the ability to compose the shot while seeing beyond the frame.  I've come to embrace that single capability as crucial and requisite, regardless of whether the implementation is optically based or otherwise. But its no news that this is not a universally held view, nor, given how most go about approaching photography, should it be.  So while the next gen M might not rise to more general notions of state of the art, when held up against my more limited set of requirements, by definition, it almost certainly will be.  

 

 

So much better put than I ever could  :)

Edited by ianman
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there's the question of picture quality, and I do reject the suggestion that there's not much difference between a 24mp 36x24 sensor and a 50mp 44x33 sensor. Paired with comparably good lenses, there is a visible difference in the output. Whether it matters to you is up to you, as are all the other differences, some of which will be critical to some and irrelevant to others.

 

Sure there's a difference in sensor sizes/MP, and a disciplined workflow (from shooting technique to displayed print) can reveal those distinctions.  And improper technique might show off faults. [iQ also depends on many other technical aspects, as we know, e.g., AA filter, etc, etc].  But my point is that those distinctions are not nearly as huge as they were in the film world where, for instance, my favorite format was 6x7, i.e. 60x70 mm.  That would make an interesting digital sensor....not to mention huge camera with honking lenses.  

 

The smallest common MF film format was 6x4.5 (60x45mm), but while I liked those dimensions and aspect ratio, I never fell in love with a camera using that format.  And in the end, it's mostly about finding the right camera, which for me has as much or more to do with things other than sensor size.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there's a difference in sensor sizes/MP, and a disciplined workflow (from shooting technique to displayed print) can reveal those distinctions. And improper technique might show off faults. [iQ also depends on many other technical aspects, as we know, e.g., AA filter, etc, etc]. But my point is that those distinctions are not nearly as huge as they were in the film world where, for instance, my favorite format was 6x7, i.e. 60x70 mm. That would make an interesting digital sensor....not to mention huge camera with honking lenses.

 

The smallest common MF film format was 6x4.5 (60x45mm), but while I liked those dimensions and aspect ratio, I never fell in love with a camera using that format. And in the end, it's mostly about finding the right camera, which for me has as much or more to do with things other than sensor size.

 

Jeff

You're absolutely right about the other important factors. But all other things being equal (not possible of course, but a means of comparison) a bigger sensor will be more likely to give a better result than a smaller one, though depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve.

 

I don't think it makes sense any longer to equate sensor sizes with film sizes. Cameras like the Fuji are not in any way incapable cameras and almost certainly are now used regularly in serious applications that we wouldn't have dreamed of using a similarly-sized film camera for.

 

I feel that the digital-age use of "full frame" for the 36x24 sensor is a helpful point of reference for many people and anything larger, such as 44x33, is doing the equivalent of what the smaller MF cameras did (or do) and so "MF " is a useful if non-traditional designation.

 

It doesn't really matter what we call them though. It's how we use them that counts, obviously.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there's a difference in sensor sizes/MP, and a disciplined workflow (from shooting technique to displayed print) can reveal those distinctions.  And improper technique might show off faults. [iQ also depends on many other technical aspects, as we know, e.g., AA filter, etc, etc].  But my point is that those distinctions are not nearly as huge as they were in the film world where, for instance, my favorite format was 6x7, i.e. 60x70 mm.  That would make an interesting digital sensor....not to mention huge camera with honking lenses.  

 

The smallest common MF film format was 6x4.5 (60x45mm), but while I liked those dimensions and aspect ratio, I never fell in love with a camera using that format.  And in the end, it's mostly about finding the right camera, which for me has as much or more to do with things other than sensor size.

 

Jeff

The Mamiya 645 E was quite nice, though ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right about the other important factors. But all other things being equal (not possible of course, but a means of comparison) a bigger sensor will be more likely to give a better result than a smaller one, though depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve.

 

I don't think it makes sense any longer to equate sensor sizes with film sizes. Cameras like the Fuji are not in any way incapable cameras and almost certainly are now used regularly in serious applications that we wouldn't have dreamed of using a similarly-sized film camera for.

 

I feel that the digital-age use of "full frame" for the 36x24 sensor is a helpful point of reference for many people and anything larger, such as 44x33, is doing the equivalent of what the smaller MF cameras did (or do) and so "MF " is a useful if non-traditional designation.

 

It doesn't really matter what we call them though. It's how we use them that counts, obviously.

 

The proof is in the testing for me....shooting and making prints using my own workflow.  All the specs (and marketing) in the world won't change that.  So I think you're right that film/digital comparisons don't make much sense at this point....I'll see for myself, camera by camera....same as I did in film days.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But all other things being equal (not possible of course, but a means of comparison) a bigger sensor will be more likely to give a better result than a smaller one, though depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve.

 

It doesn't really matter what we call them though. It's how we use them that counts, obviously.

 

Form factor and usability can negate the 'image capturing quality' part of a camera's performance very easily. The mythical 'better result' is not only about sensor, MPixels or suchlike. Its really about the ability to take the photograph that you want to. Something theoretical discussions all too often ignore.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Form factor and usability can negate the 'image capturing quality' part of a camera's performance very easily. The mythical 'better result' is not only about sensor, MPixels or suchlike. Its really about the ability to take the photograph that you want to. Something theoretical discussions all too often ignore.

 

Yes, I entirely agree.

 

And I hope no one would interpret my comments on the X1D compared with the M and SL in any other way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...I don't think it makes sense any longer to equate sensor sizes with film sizes.  Cameras like the Fuji are not in any way incapable cameras and almost certainly are now used regularly in serious applications that we wouldn't have dreamed of using a similarly-sized film camera...

 

While I generally agree, there is at least one aspect, depth of field, where size does matter.  One of God's little pranks laid against photographers is the irony that smaller sensor, more portable cameras best suited for street or action where subject isolation and layering is important, suffer overly deep DoF, whereas when using large format cameras, where we are trying to capture every last grain of detail, we often are forced to expend lots of energy to overcome the loss of it.  Having been raised by someone who wouldn't consider shooting anything smaller than 2.25x2.25, its only recently that I've begun to full appreciate the rightness of FF for the flexible compromise it represents in this regard. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I generally agree, there is at least one aspect, depth of field, where size does matter.  One of God's little pranks laid against photographers is the irony that smaller sensor, more portable cameras best suited for street or action where subject isolation and layering is important, suffer overly deep DoF, whereas when using large format cameras, where we are trying to capture every last grain of detail, we often are forced to expend lots of energy to overcome the loss of it.  Having been raised by someone who wouldn't consider shooting anything smaller than 2.25x2.25, its only recently that I've begun to full appreciate the rightness of FF for the flexible compromise it represents in this regard. 

 

 

I've never been a fan of shallow depth of field for subject isolation (the one Leica lens that I sold that I have never missed is a Noctilux) so one part of the compromise doesn't apply to me, fortunately.

 

I have finally worked out my precise strategy for camera ownership for the coming year. I think maybe a separate thread is called for, so we can squabble amongst ourselves, I mean exchange ideas in a constructive fashion, about how we each think we'll respond to the marvellous opportunities technology is opening up for us, and the amazing choices that are now available to us.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Big thanks to both Rick and John for providing interesting and thoughtful reading. And Rick, I don't think it should be a problem if you and John disagree on many things, you both make excellent points... that's called a discussion.

 

One thing I would like to say is that even if John - and others, myself included - believes that the current (OVF/RF) M has reached the end of the line, I don't see that as a problem at all. An end ok, certainly not a dead-end. The wheel hasn't had any major developments in recent years, yet it's still pretty useful and sells well  :)

 

 

I know.  I won't be able to help myself from correcting him when he is wrong.   :D 

 

RickLeica - I want one! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my hit rate on predictions is 100% - I can't recall getting a single prediction right.  But then, I can't recall Rick ever being right. About anything.

 

But, the real pleasure is getting out with an M camera and a couple of Leica's best lenses.  Whatever Leica releases next, I will be very happy with what I have.

 

Cheers

John

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I alone in wondering what the word, "Ha!" actually means? Some parts of the world use this expression which means something to themselves but nothing to the receiver.

Please explain because it is pointless to broadcast a message that means nothing to the recipient.

Edited by Peter Kilmister
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I alone in wondering what the word, "Ha!" actually means? Some parts of the world use this expression which means something to themselves but nothing to the receiver.

Please explain because it is pointless to broadcast a message that means nothing to the recipient.

Yes, you're alone.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I alone in wondering what the word, "Ha!" actually means? Some parts of the world use this expression which means something to themselves but nothing to the receiver.

Please explain because it is pointless to broadcast a message that means nothing to the recipient.

 

 

Peter,

 

There are three very related expressions.  You have the Ah!  The Ah Ha!  And, of course the Ha Ha!

 

They are all expressions of that cognitive leap.  That point at which you understand something without your mind having quite connected all of the dots.  

 

We have the Ah!  Religious.  The proverbial leap of faith.  Then there is the Ah Ha!.  Eureka.  That point in science when a discovery is made but maybe not quite yet understood at the conscious level.  And then there is the Ha Ha!  Humor.  Much like the previous two, this is the moment you get the joke before the totality of the cleverness has set in. I believe this is the one you struggle with?  :D 

 

The Ha! is just the short version of the Ha Ha!  The verbal equivalent of the emoji  :D.  Feel free to interchange these wherever I use them.

 

 

Rick

Edited by Rick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...