Whenever the new M arrives, who's going to buy one?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My above answer also applies here - any Sony Exmor FF sensor with thinner glass cover optimized for the M mount lenses will suffice. If the lens - sensor glass cover is optimized, you can use easily a 42 MP FF sensor with 10 mm lenses what Voigtlander just demonstrated with their new ultrawide E-mount lenses optimized for the sensor stack (with thicker glass) in the A7 series cameras.

 

Are you referring to A7 cameras modded by Kolari Vision? Just curious.

[Paul J]

My above answer also applies here - any Sony Exmor FF sensor with thinner glass cover optimized for the M mount lenses will suffice. If the lens - sensor glass cover is optimized, you can use easily a 42 MP FF sensor with 10 mm lenses what Voigtlander just demonstrated with their new ultrawide E-mount lenses optimized for the sensor stack (with thicker glass) in the A7 series cameras.

 

I hear a very mixed bag of reviews about the Kolari mod, especially related to what it does with colour. Maybe Leica would have a better chance of getting it right but it is, otherwise, irrelevant - leica will do what they do and using a Sony sensor may not be one of those things. It is also possible that Sony doesn't want to sell Leica sensors.

[Martin B]

Are you referring to A7 cameras modded by Kolari Vision? Just curious.

 

In my above post I didn't - the new ultra-wide Voigtlander E-mount lenses are optimized for the original A7 series sensors (unmodified). If you want to get optimum performance from a CV 12/5.6 lens in M-mount, yes, then you are better off with a Kolari-modified sensor since this M lens is not optimized for the thicker Sony sensor stack.

[pgk]

My above answer also applies here - any Sony Exmor FF sensor with thinner glass cover optimized for the M mount lenses will suffice. If the lens - sensor glass cover is optimized, you can use easily a 42 MP FF sensor with 10 mm lenses what Voigtlander just demonstrated with their new ultrawide E-mount lenses optimized for the sensor stack (with thicker glass) in the A7 series cameras.

 

Interesting but I see this stated in the specs from Voightlander: "Electrical contact: Exif data transfer from lens to camera body for lens correction" .....

[Martin B]

I hear a very mixed bag of reviews about the Kolari mod, especially related to what it does with colour. Maybe Leica would have a better chance of getting it right but it is, otherwise, irrelevant - leica will do what they do and using a Sony sensor may not be one of those things. It is also possible that Sony doesn't want to sell Leica sensors.

 

Which logical reason keeps you from excluding Sony sensors within Leica cameras (leaving aside potential issues that Sony might not want to sell to Leica for whatever reason or price related reasons). If a thinner glass cover is on top of an Exmor sensor optimized for M-mount lenses, there is no problem.

[Martin B]

Interesting but I see this stated in the specs from Voightlander: "Electrical contact: Exif data transfer from lens to camera body for lens correction" .....

 

The new CV lenses transfer the EXIF data to the camera via contacts. There is no other correction done - the Sony A7 cameras have no automatic lens correction tool for the RAW files.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there is no problem.

 

 

apart from the colour issues, the highlights blowing out prematurely, the crossed curves on severe contrast and the long exposure problems with hot pixels? 

[Martin B]

apart from the colour issues, the highlights blowing out prematurely, the crossed curves on severe contrast and the long exposure problems with hot pixels? 

 

Long exposure issues with hot pixels is indeed an issue with the A7R II camera from what I read (I still have the A7R and no experience with the A7R II). Not sure where this issue is coming from - it seems more to be a control issue of the camera with the sensor itself, but I am not an expert here. I don't understand what you mean with color issues - if you relate it to vignetting, this is all excluded with the A7R II sensor and can be overcome in the A7R by using thinner sensor glass (Kolari modification). I am not aware of any other color issues. From my > 2 years of using the A7R with MF lenses, I have never had an issue with blown highlights (you simply avoid clipping which I find easy to do). I never even heard or have seen  what you state about "crossed curves" - the only thing I see is a huge benefit which allows me to push shadows if needed. I rarely even need to bracket with my A7R - one shot is mostly enough to get the whole tonal range in post processing.

[lct]

[...] apart from the colour issues, the highlights blowing out prematurely, the crossed curves on severe contrast and the long exposure problems with hot pixels? 

 

Not sure what experience you have with A7 cameras modded by Kolari Vision but i have one of those (A7s mod) which has significantly more DR than my M240. Blown highlights is something i have never got with that camera so far. Never got hot pixels either. Colorwise the blue saturation needs to be reduced indeed but it's not worse than the red oversaturation of the M240. Now the A7s mod is a 12MP camera with large pixels and i have never used wider lenses than 21mm on it. FWIW.

[Paul J]

Thanks for the info. I really wanted a high res option for the M so did a lot of searching. I read enough accounts to put me off it entirely, one person said it effectively ruined their camera too, leaving it with pixels that looked like fireflies. Don't have the links but I'm sure you will find it when googling.

[pgk]

The new CV lenses transfer the EXIF data to the camera via contacts. There is no other correction done - the Sony A7 cameras have no automatic lens correction tool for the RAW files.

 

Well, the manufacturer states otherwise - a claim which might well require explanation under the UK's trade descriptions laws if it was to be made within the UK. There is a clear distinction between simple data transfer and lens correction.

[lct]

Lens correction with FE lenses i don't know but with M lenses obviously not.

[LocalHero1953]

That "the SL is so much better at it" is to my mind an indictment if the lack of development of the M.

 

John, I'm sure you remember that my concern when the SL was announced was not so much it's own characteristics but that it would lend both credence and fuel to what in my mind is a mistaken notion that the M should become some sort of purist's time-capsule of a camera whilst the really valuable development resources would be diverted towards the new camera. This us exactly what is happening.

 

The new sensor has been kept away from the M for long enough to create more than just the impression that the SL is the better camera, and the EVF has many erstwhile M enthusiasts declaring that the Noctilux (and other tricky M lenses) and the SL were "made for each other". If M lenses are easier to use on a camera that is not an M, something is wrong.

 

The upshot is that there's a real divergence between traditionalists and modernists and an unnecessary ditching of the potential for a truly capable, highly advanced and, importantly, small MF camera. And we shouldn't assume that all advances need be of the Swiss Army knife variety, and the SL has proved they don't need to be.

 

This is all fine if it's the best way Leica can come up with to maximise their returns on investment but I think it's a shame that they seem to be lacking the imagination to think of a better plan.

Peter, you've written similar things quite often, but I have lost track of where you have said what advances you would like in a future M, or which Leica should have made long ago? Can you point me to a thread/post, or explain further?

(I have no ulterior motive in asking, other than to understand your comments on the M, SL and X1D better).

[chris_tribble]

I've just been looking at Thorsten's interesting user report on the M-D-262 (http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M60-and-Leica-M-D-262-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-1.html).  In his discussion of the sensor he says:

 

 

What's obvious to the eye is that the Leica M-D 262 sensor has more vivid colors, and also that it can go about 1 stop higher ISO than the M 240 sensor.

From my understanding, it's logical that a sensor that has to be able to do video (Live View) will be busier than a sensor that has to do just one thing well. Hence, less noise and more concentration on getting the colors right in the Leica M-D 262 sensor.

If this is correct, it's potentially interesting.  Assuming that the M10 doesn't have video (and the compromises that appear to be associated with this) it could be a killer reason for going for the new M10.  A camera that is uncompromisingly optimised for still photography appeals to me enormously.  Yes, I've use the video on the M-240 from time to time.  However, the number of these occasions has been so small as to be trivial - and if the new M really does offer a measurable improvement on ISO performance and IQ across the ISO range, then my decision to get a one asap is further justified.

[Bill Livingston]

I would be slightly wary about some of the claims made in Thorsten's review. Much as I like to read Thorsten, there has been a few occasions when his thoughts or comments are shown to be the result of conjecture which prove later not to stand up to examination.

 

Unfortunately, I too lack the knowledge to be able to say anything regarding the comment on Live View and its impact on sensor performance with any authority, but there are many on here who could. 

 

My own feeling is it is likely to be untrue... at least for the reasons quoted... but I am willing to be proved wrong. 

[jonoslack]

My above answer also applies here - any Sony Exmor FF sensor with thinner glass cover optimized for the M mount lenses will suffice. If the lens - sensor glass cover is optimized, you can use easily a 42 MP FF sensor with 10 mm lenses what Voigtlander just demonstrated with their new ultrawide E-mount lenses optimized for the sensor stack (with thicker glass) in the A7 series cameras.

 

 

I don't think I agree with this Martin - As I understand it cover glass thickness is only part of the equation - micro-lens design is also important, and so is the well design for the photosites. Clearly the Kolari mod isn't a universal panacea - indeed, some lenses clearly perform better on the M240 than they do on the SL (the previous 28 summicron for example) . . others (like the 16-18-21 WATE) work perfectly well on Sony sensors.

 

The point about the new Voigtlander lens is that IT is optimised for the Sony sensor - not the other way around. Redesigning all the M lenses would presumably do the trick . . . .

 

One can imagine that if your answer were correct - then Leica would have used a Sony sensor - at least for the SL . . . but they didn't!

[Martin B]

I don't think I agree with this Martin - As I understand it cover glass thickness is only part of the equation - micro-lens design is also important, and so is the well design for the photosites. Clearly the Kolari mod isn't a universal panacea - indeed, some lenses clearly perform better on the M240 than they do on the SL (the previous 28 summicron for example) . . others (like the 16-18-21 WATE) work perfectly well on Sony sensors.

 

The point about the new Voigtlander lens is that IT is optimised for the Sony sensor - not the other way around. Redesigning all the M lenses would presumably do the trick . . . .

 

One can imagine that if your answer were correct - then Leica would have used a Sony sensor - at least for the SL . . . but they didn't!

 

The sensor glass thickness dependence is well described in a blog article from Roger Cicala from Lensrentals last year where he investigated the difference of sensor glass cover thickness on different cameras where the same sensor was used. The microlens impact is not a main factor here. You might want to check some other forums which discuss more in detail the impact of Kolari-modified Sony sensors and usage of M lenses. You will see that the big majority of M lenses performs extraordinarily well on such modified Sony mirrorless FF cameras.

 

I expressed above that the CV ultrawide E-mount lenses are optimized for the Sony sensor stack (especially for the sensor glass cover thickness) - maybe you misunderstood what I stated.

 

There might be many factors why Leica might or cannot choose a Sony sensor other than technical reasons. For many years Canon users demanded that Canon simply uses Sony FF sensors in their DSLRs as Nikon did - it never flew, and Canon is still struggling to match the Sony Exmor FF quality.

[IkarusJohn]

... There might be many factors why Leica might or cannot choose a Sony sensor other than technical reasons. For many years Canon users demanded that Canon simply uses Sony FF sensors in their DSLRs as Nikon did - it never flew, and Canon is still struggling to match the Sony Exmor FF quality.

 

 

But Leica isn't.

 

Leica specifies and designs for its S, SL, M and Q cameras.  It buys Sony sensors for the X camera, the TL.  Whatever Sony does for its cameras (and how Kolari modifies them) is down to them - I've been down that rabbit hole more than once, and it's not a process I will repeat.  From my experience, M lenses work best on the M & SL cameras, so I have those - they work very well together ...

[pgk]

You might want to check some other forums which discuss more in detail the impact of Kolari-modified Sony sensors and usage of M lenses. You will see that the big majority of M lenses performs extraordinarily well on such modified Sony mirrorless FF cameras.

 

I've had a look around the web and there is clearly some variance in people's experiences - its a difficult place to draw really objective conclusions from unfortunately. Leica's problem is ensuring that ALL current M lenses work well on a camera which is primarily (ie an M series camera) designed to take them. Which takes me back to my original point. Anything less that every current lens working well would not be good enough. They've been down the 'not quite perfect' route before and are obviously well aware of the criticism the imperfections attracted.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Martin B]

But Leica isn't.

 

Leica specifies and designs for its S, SL, M and Q cameras.  It buys Sony sensors for the X camera, the TL.  Whatever Sony does for its cameras (and how Kolari modifies them) is down to them - I've been down that rabbit hole more than once, and it's not a process I will repeat.  From my experience, M lenses work best on the M & SL cameras, so I have those - they work very well together ...

 

I still have to find the rabbit hole....I use all my Leica lenses with excellent results both on my Leica M film cameras and on my even unmodified original sensor-based Sony A7R with adapter. I don't believe at all in this urban myth saying that a brand A lens can only work well on a brand A camera. At least it does not go in line with my personal experience. And I am using different brand of cameras and lenses.