Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

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

chris_tribble

By chris_tribble
in Leica M (Type 240 / 262)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

Trouble is that they don't - bigger is better still persists as a belief system despite all the arguments that illustrate that its not that simple :wacko: .

 

I have a DSLR with 22 MP FF sensor and upgraded to a sensor with 36 MP FF - it makes a huge difference in terms of resolution and level of detail. So yes, regarding such increase in resolution, bigger is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
harmen

harmen

Posted
Posted

When is more resolution more beautiful? Is it when making photos of finely patterned clothes or landscapes with interesting details? I find it hard to judge when looking at photos of subjects I'm not familiar with, so tend to be biased by my own photos. When looking at 6MP photos made with a Nikon d70 some time ago, even printed large, I'm usually not missing details. The color noise in dark areas can be a bit irritating though. I do notice that the glass used was of low quality, but that's more to do with distortion and clarity. Does anyone here use a 100MP sensor? What are the subjects that work now that didn't as well before?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

When is more resolution more beautiful? Is it when making photos of finely patterned clothes or landscapes with interesting details? I find it hard to judge when looking at photos of subjects I'm not familiar with, so tend to be biased by my own photos. When looking at 6MP photos made with a Nikon d70 some time ago, even printed large, I'm usually not missing details. The color noise in dark areas can be a bit irritating though. I do notice that the glass used was of low quality, but that's more to do with distortion and clarity. Does anyone here use a 100MP sensor? What are the subjects that work now that didn't as well before?

 

You can clearly see the difference when taking landscape photos - look at the detail in foliage, grass, or in architectural structures. You can also see the difference in detail when looking at portraits - but here you need to look at a 100% crop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chris_tribble

chris_tribble

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You lost me here. I don't need more than 24MP but i do need a faster body, a larger dynamic range, cleaner high isos and of course a competitive EVF. Hardly a minor upgrade to me.

Fully agree - and people seem to be forgetting that changing from M-240 to whatever comes next is not going to involve the full cost of purchase.  I've had my M240s since the first month the camera was introduced (March 2013).  By the time I sell them I'll have taken somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 images - say 18,000 frames per body.  In the days of film this would have represented at least 1000 rolls of film. I have no idea of current prices for Fuji Provia 200 slide film + Neopan 400 B&W + processing (my general stock back in the day), but I bet it's more than £5 per film.  So, say I get £2500 each for my two very clean M240 bodies and have to pay around £9,000 for two M10s, I'll still break even overall!

 

Me - I don't want more MPs.  I've compared output from my old Canon 5D2 and my current 5D3 and I don't feel any major benefit (though I do feel the slowing down in my workflow even with a reasonably powerful twin Xeon workstation + 48GB RAM).  I wan't exactly the same as LCT. Better handling, better low and high ISO, better EVF.  I've got my name down for two.  The M's are at the heart of what I do photographically. The Canon 5D III based system complements it well.  I don't have a need for medium format at present.  I've got a usable iPhone SE for snapshots if ever needed.  

 

I've still got my name down for two M10 bodies. It's proving interesting hearing what others are thinking.  Thanks  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

 

Me - I don't want more MPs.  I've compared output from my old Canon 5D2 and my current 5D3 and I don't feel any major benefit (though I do feel the slowing down in my workflow even with a reasonably powerful twin Xeon workstation + 48GB RAM).

 

The 5D MkII and the MkIII use the same or very similar 22 MP sensor.....main difference between those two cameras was improved AF of the 5D MkIII. Difference in sensor performance was marginal at best (reason why I never went with the MkIII).

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonPB

JonPB

Posted
Posted

To me, today's cameras are not limited by what they do well but rather by how gracefully they fail. Specifications will tell us how many pixels, how much light, how fast captures can be processed and stored, etc. But, for me, because all cameras are good enough, "more" or "better" specs are meaningless. I could certainly work with 50 or 100 million pixels per image, but I'm not convinced that this number would be a per se improvement over my current workflow. At present, my prints are resolution limited by the paper and size that I like to use, though the end result could still be improved by noise and tone averaging among additional pixels if their individual quality is high enough. So I'm open to better specs implying improved results, but I'm also open to "worse" specs leading to better results -- if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the recipe, then the proof of the camera is in the shooting and printing, not the specs.

 

What I'll be looking at is how it all comes together: pixels, camera processing, sensor package, lens, and tools for focusing and metering. Then I'll be looking at edge cases: high contrast subjects at high resolution, low contrast subjects across the frame, how noise renders at both high and low sensitivity, and how ordinary colors (e.g, foliage) [which ought not be an edge case, yet which still seems challenging for cameras to render convincingly] and unusual colors (e.g., gamut-pushing flowers) translate, and how all thses things vary from existing cameras. I expect the new M to adopt a thicker cover stack, moving closer to the SL, so I'll particularly want to see lens comparisons, such as with the two 28mm/2.8 Asph lenses. No one strength will win me over, and no one weakness will push me away, but rather the total sum of the kit must represent a substantial upgrade to make it worthwhile.

 

I'll also be looking for upgrades to services offered, particularly in the U.S. I'm a casual shooter, but I don't like needing to maintain two kits due to the months to get something back from New Jersey. Given the advantages I find in the M system, that is a compromise I will continue to make, but it essentially means that I will not buy any particular piece of kit until it has been on the market for long enough to evaluate durability and to ensure the service center can stock parts for repairs. If Leica USA service met the standards of those with more demanding workloads, I'd be much more likely to adopt gear as soon as it became available.

 

Ultimately, though, I've been consistently impressed with the compromises that Leica makes in designing its products. They don't seem to be driven by marketing sheets. Rather, whether the next M comes with 50 megapixels or 15, I'll approach it with an open mind and learn what I can about why Leica believes this new package to present a meaningful upgrade to its existing cameras. Until then, speculation is fun but is only useful insofar as it helps me evaluate my current workflow -- and reminds me that geeking out over kit is an entirely separate pursuit from photography.

 

Cheers,

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

It's not just about billboards. it's about optimising image quality. It's strange how people have no idea how pixels matter but argue against them.

 

Always glad to learn new things but this sounds like an ode to pixel peeping with respect. If you don't shoot billboards do you take photographs for viewers using some sort of magnification? Just curious really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pgk

pgk

Posted
Posted

More pixels good. Have you never seen the film Blow-up?

 

Of course. You never know do you ..... one day the ability to see fine detail may have unforeseen consequences ..... yet another good reason to stick to lower MPixels ;) .

Link to post
Share on other sites
wattsy

wattsy

Posted
Posted

More pixels good. Have you never seen the film Blow-up?

 

 

More pixels is not as useful as the technology that Harrison Ford had at his disposal in Blade Runner. I seem to remember he was able to not just zoom in seemingly endlessly (on a fairly small print) but could actually change the viewpoint to be able to see around corners. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
ianman

ianman

Posted
Posted

Ian, I think you've set up a false opposition here.

 

One of the reasons I have used M cameras for over thirty years is exactly because I am not a "gizmo geek". I love manual focus cameras and the simplicity and directness of the controls of an M, which make it the most rapid camera to use in most of the photographic situations that interest me. On top of which its lenses are magnificent little things.

 

Nevertheless I want it to be an exercise in modernity, not nostalgia. 

 

Agreed. But modernity doesn't have to mean, do what all the others are doing. Modernity doesn't have to mean use all the gizmos just because they exist.

 

 

I have absolutely no issues, quite the opposite in fact, with improved DR, better high ISO handling, a more accurate and reliable rangefinder, a quieter shutter and even more MP (without going OTT).

 
The problem is that with the M there is little real room for improvement, and in this day and age, people want more and more, and faster and faster, cheaper and cheaper... The (sad ? ) fact is that beyond improvements such as those mentioned above and the LED illuminated framelines, there is little room for improvement in the M. Now, mainly bloating features are the only way "forward" to satisfy the demands of these users.
 
With the M9, Leica reached a peak over which it is obvious, they are having trouble progressing. If anything it seems the M240 was, at best, a failure to be "modern", from what I have seen more than a few M240 users took a step back and went for the M262.  It's interesting that all the recent spin-off models have stripped away rather than added features... and it seems that they are quite successful commercially.
 
I am not saying at all that the modern features being discussed do not have their place in the toolbox of the modern photographer, as I have stated before, I can fully understand the situations where they are a godsend. But I don't think they have their place in the Leica M.
 

There are hundreds of cameras that do a far better job at being "modern" than the Leica M, including all other Leica cameras. So for all the people who, for their jobs or otherwise really need and rely on non-photographic related features in their camera, I have to ask myself, and more importantly, they should be asking themselves if they using the right tool for the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...