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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are correct I should like an explanation of why Leica did not simply produce an autofocus version of the 50/1.4M lens to use on the SL? Instead they have built a large, heavy, complex design featuring internal focussing. Given the clamour for smaller lenses I don't see the logic in building a new design from the ground up if the existing design could be reutilised. There has to be a very good reason.

 

I can confirm what Martin B said above as far as my A7s mod is concerned but it is more difficult, hence expensive, to make compact lenses than larger ones obviously. The SL being itself bulkier than the M it was tempting to build lenses with less compromises than M ones i suspect, let alone the additional bulk required by AF. As for the Summilux-M it is indeed the best compact 50/1.4 ever IMO but it has significantly more field curvature than the M50/2 apo for instance so i'm not sure if its design would be the best for an AF lens like the Summilux-SL. Just a guess though.

[pgk]

I can confirm what Martin B said above as far as my A7s mod is concerned but it is more difficult, hence expensive, to make compact lenses than larger ones obviously. The SL being itself bulkier than the M it was tempting to build lenses with less compromises than M ones i suspect, let alone the additional bulk required by AF. As for the Summilux-M it is indeed the best compact 50/1.4 ever IMO but it has significantly more field curvature than the M50/2 apo for instance so i'm not sure if its design would be the best for an AF lens like the Summilux-SL. Just a guess though.

 

Thanks. Useful and relevant. But the problem persists. The requirement is for a higher MPixel M camera which has compromises. But I'm always unsure about statements as to performance of lenses (especially fast or wide) on different camera bodies. My own experience is that whilst many lenses work very well at f/8 or f/11, diffraction kicks in somewhere after f/11 depending on lens/camera. But use wides or fast lenses wide open and they often don't perform as well as they could for a variety of reasons. As ever its at the extremes that things show.

 

My personal opinion (for what little it is worth) is that at around 20MPixels, M cameras do what they were designed to do (produce high image quality in a small, hand-holdable, rangefinder package) very well indeed. Start boosting the MPixels and flaws may start to show, mostly due to the compromises in converting an old design to digital. I'm sure that Leica won't want to accentuate any shortcomings in their M lenses, but building such lenses to ever higher standards whilst maintaining their small size and mechanical construction may result in spiralling prices even for Leica. The desire for more MPixels is based IMO on the false assumption that we actually need more (and for those who insist on saying that they need to crop images I would suggest that more MPixels shouldn't compensate for sloppy shooting ).

 

And if you look at the underlying characteristics of M lenses, especially with regard to their low distortion, its obvious that they are exceptionally good designs which require little by way of adjustment in many ways but which do have compromises with digital. Contrast this with many 'digital' designs and its obvious that the design parameters are very different - for good reason although not always helpful in practice. Another example is that of macro lens changes. Modern IF are fabulous within their design parameters, but try using on outside these (ie with extension tubes) and they quickly become unusable. Older non-IF designs work far better over a much greater range but their design sucks in air and dust.

 

I'm happy with M cameras as they are and would much rather see a future design built without the compromises inherent in M cameras - a T with a rangefinder anyone?

[lct]

[...] My personal opinion (for what little it is worth) is that at around 20MPixels, M cameras do what they were designed to do (produce high image quality in a small, hand-holdable, rangefinder package) very well indeed. Start boosting the MPixels and flaws may start to show, mostly due to the compromises in converting an old design to digital. [...]

 

I agree about pre-digital lenses but would you say the same about the M50/2 apo? The latest M lenses are built with high resolution in mind i guess given that they are supposed to work well on the SL, even if they are not designed specifically for it, so i would not worry too much about that. Now i'm happy with the 24MP of my M240 and even the 12MP of my A7s mod i must say so i'm not the good person to convince of the urgent necessity to fill the M with MPs to the brim. I'd much prefer a faster and smaller 24MP body than another sluggish obesity (just kidding) but it's just me.

[pgk]

I agree about pre-digital lenses but would you say the same about the M50/2 apo?

 

Not tried it. Probably won't. Far too expensive and I'm more than happy with my Summilux - when it limits my photography I'll upgrade, but that's not going to be anytime soon .

[jonoslack]

 

If technologically possible, Leica would provide us a compact Q like body ( it may have hybrid VF to make the M lovers also happy ) having latest tech to make the geeks happy and a pure M to make M lovers happy. Unfortunately, we only have the bulky SL for the modern tech.

 

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

Best

[Peter H]

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range.

 

Best

So, no properly up-to-date M Jono?

 

That would be a shame because it would mean at some point I'd have to buy something else if I want the best of current technology. This would mean that Leica would, for some users at least, lose its unique appeal since other manufacturers are much more competitive in non-rangefinder products..

 

I was sorry when the SL was announced, because it seemed to spell an end to full-blooded development of the M. I still feel the same, possibly more so now. Sad, too.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

 

 

And what happens to the S line (even if not for you personally), Jono (other than, I suppose, lenses that work properly)?  

 

Jeff

[lct]

Simplicity does not exclude modernity hopefully.

[LocalHero1953]

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

Best

What the man said.

[LocalHero1953]

And what happens to the S line (even if not for you personally), Jono (other than, I suppose, lenses that work properly)?  

 

Jeff

Lenses that work properly!

Then I might be tempted, sometime before I die.

[Martin B]

If you are correct I should like an explanation of why Leica did not simply produce an autofocus version of the 50/1.4M lens to use on the SL? Instead they have built a large, heavy, complex design featuring internal focussing. Given the clamour for smaller lenses I don't see the logic in building a new design from the ground up if the existing design could be reutilised. There has to be a very good reason.

 

Off-topic - your question is unrelated to the point I made above regarding sensors. You are talking about a different camera type and potential AF of lenses which I never mentioned. 

[keithlaban.co.uk]

What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

 

Given those four choices I'd go for no. 3. An interchangeable lens Q with an industry leading EVF.

 

My M9-P would suffice as the simple, proper, rangefinder option.

[Martin B]

Thanks. Useful and relevant. But the problem persists. The requirement is for a higher MPixel M camera which has compromises. But I'm always unsure about statements as to performance of lenses (especially fast or wide) on different camera bodies. My own experience is that whilst many lenses work very well at f/8 or f/11, diffraction kicks in somewhere after f/11 depending on lens/camera. But use wides or fast lenses wide open and they often don't perform as well as they could for a variety of reasons. As ever its at the extremes that things show.

 

My personal opinion (for what little it is worth) is that at around 20MPixels, M cameras do what they were designed to do (produce high image quality in a small, hand-holdable, rangefinder package) very well indeed. Start boosting the MPixels and flaws may start to show, mostly due to the compromises in converting an old design to digital. I'm sure that Leica won't want to accentuate any shortcomings in their M lenses, but building such lenses to ever higher standards whilst maintaining their small size and mechanical construction may result in spiralling prices even for Leica. The desire for more MPixels is based IMO on the false assumption that we actually need more (and for those who insist on saying that they need to crop images I would suggest that more MPixels shouldn't compensate for sloppy shooting ).

 

And if you look at the underlying characteristics of M lenses, especially with regard to their low distortion, its obvious that they are exceptionally good designs which require little by way of adjustment in many ways but which do have compromises with digital. Contrast this with many 'digital' designs and its obvious that the design parameters are very different - for good reason although not always helpful in practice. Another example is that of macro lens changes. Modern IF are fabulous within their design parameters, but try using on outside these (ie with extension tubes) and they quickly become unusable. Older non-IF designs work far better over a much greater range but their design sucks in air and dust.

 

I'm happy with M cameras as they are and would much rather see a future design built without the compromises inherent in M cameras - a T with a rangefinder anyone?

 

I have doubt that you have gathered personal experience with a higher MP FF sensor by stating this above. You are saying there are "compromises" - I don't see where. This discussion and arguing reminds me at times 10 years ago when similar threads came up arguing that nobody needs more than 8 MP resolution. Guess what where this ended. M lenses are very capable of coping with a lot more resolution than 20 MP. What is even more important - and so far fairly ignored here in this thread even I mentioned it a few times - is dynamic range (DR). You don't know how useful it is if you didn't see it for yourself what difference it can make. I rarely bracket anymore with my high DR sensor. I consider it meanwhile even more important than just the resolution of the sensor. Most of the times both more resolution and higher DR go hand in hand together (an exemption is the A7S series with lower resolution but high DR). 

More resolution makes shooting not easier but in certain instances indeed more difficult. You can much easier see out of focus for example. 

[lik]

I already sold my M240 in order to be ready for the next M. I do now all work fast AF is useful with SL, landscape mostly with A7RII and Leica glass. 

A7RII shows definitely more details i.e. on my APO 50. But it's tricky - other (WA-)M-lenses show at least more contrast on SL. 

 

I trust in Leica to deal carefully with the MP-issues to enable best results out of Leica M-glass - in resolution and contrast. 

And I see the limits they have in sensor-development. 

But I also think Leica can't keep a successful M-System at 24 MP for about three years whereas others producers reach the 50 MP border. 

Meanwhile it is well known that MP - as long as other parameters do not suffer - really matters.

And Leica M-glass likes MP...

Maybe Leica provides progress in resolution for the SL - it would obviously cause less technical problems with WA-lenses of course. The very ambitious SL-Lenses underline a strategy like that. 

 

I'd like to have a high res 35mm camera from Leica - not necessarily 40 MP plus - best would be an M with 30 MP plus X, other innovations like ISO wheel are welcome but not in need. 

It's a pity - since landscape does not need AF and weight matters, a high res M would be the ideal world of landscape photography to me. 

 

I will make comparisons with APO 50, 28 and WATE (as far as I have the opportunity) on next M and on my A7RII, then I'll decide

- to buy the next M and sell the A7RII

- or keep the A7RII and give up the M-passion for the next few years - wondering all the time how Keith Jarrett would feel today playing a keyboard instead of Steinway (as he did in 60's and early 70's)

- and wait patiently for SL progress...

 

Life could be more fateful ....

[pgk]

More resolution makes shooting not easier but in certain instances indeed more difficult. You can much easier see out of focus for example. 

 

Especially with Rangefinder cameras because their focus accuracy is limited. Unless of course you use live view as many seem to choose to do. But then we are no longer discussing Rangefinder camera usage are we? The problem is the clamour for more MPixels in a package never intended to compete at the level that people want it to. No doubt Leica will increase MPixels - the customer is always right after all  - but I doubt whether this will actually do anything other than add MPixels and create more discussion of shortcomings - as has been pointed out resolution isn't everything. Complexity is difficult to fully discuss on the internet. Those of us who see little potential gain to be had from boosting MPixels in an already competent package will fortunately still be able to use Rangefinders .....

[jmahto]

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

Best

+1 with my assumption on M as follows:

Proper, simple RF shouldn't mean outdated sensor. I will expect top of the line sensor. Not necessarily in terms of MP but in terms of other qualities, DR, high ISO, low ISO and all. And if most M lenses do resolve that much MP then why not more MP. My experience with Nex-6 (which has pixel density of 36MP in FF term) is that most M lenses do resolve that much for sure.

[Martin B]

Especially with Rangefinder cameras because their focus accuracy is limited. Unless of course you use live view as many seem to choose to do. But then we are no longer discussing Rangefinder camera usage are we? The problem is the clamour for more MPixels in a package never intended to compete at the level that people want it to. No doubt Leica will increase MPixels - the customer is always right after all  - but I doubt whether this will actually do anything other than add MPixels and create more discussion of shortcomings - as has been pointed out resolution isn't everything. Complexity is difficult to fully discuss on the internet. Those of us who see little potential gain to be had from boosting MPixels in an already competent package will fortunately still be able to use Rangefinders .....

 

Look, I am not trying to convince you or others to go with a high MP FF camera - but I believe we both agree that it would be okay to have a M camera in the program which offers more MP/DR (maybe around 40 MP) and another which has 24 MP for example. This is the same alley Sony chose successfully for their customers in the A7/A7R and A7 II/A7R II series.  A street photographer certainly will choose the 24 MP over more resolution whereas a landscape/scenery photographer will choose the higher MP sensor. Depends on the application!

[lct]

The M will have more MPs than the SL when pigs can fly

[pico]

Simplicity does not exclude modernity hopefully.

 

I cannot, or will not keep up with Leica's 'improved' digital cameras.

Simplicity is paramount. Which brings up the topic of,

"Just how many pixels do we need?"

 

Or is that for a separate thread? Imagine minimalist in the digital age,

 

To put our view into historical perspective I recall a digital maven who claimed that 3mpx was all that was necessary in 1996 (or so), and it was true for monitors.

 

And do not overlook a paradigm shattering monitor technology which will make all of our so-called high-rez sensors primitive.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

It seems you could summarise that there are people who want more pixels and really want to upgrade to a 40MP M10.

Then there are the people that don't want more pixels and have generally expressed their lack of interest in upgrading to a new 24MP M10 because their M240 is already so complete and refined.

 

lol, too funny.