Why M240 users will (not) switch to M10

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sure been using 6MP and 12MP cameras for many years with no problem at all. Some clients ask for more resolution though. 24MP is not really enough then.

[IkarusJohn]

Sure been using 6MP and 12MP cameras for many years with no problem at all. Some clients ask for more resolution though. 24MP is not really enough then.

 

 

Can you explain that?  What do you mean by clients, and for what purpose do they ask for more resolution?

 

Aerial or astrophotography, I get.  But if the image is going into print, and not aggressively cropped, when is 24MP not enough?  I ask this sincerely - I pixel peep images when processing them, and I'm amazed at the detail - detail which would never show in a print (most recently, pictures of birds, complete with fine and complex feather detail).  In another post recently, the question was asked about moiré on the railing on a bridge (can't remember who posted it) - it was invisible in the whole image.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but MP sounds like cubic inches, top speeds and 0-60 acceleration times in cars - utterly pointless, save for bragging rights.

 

PS - If I am wrong in this, why do so many top of the line professional camera systems have such modest MP sensors?

Edited January 23, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

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

[Paul J]

Top line professional systems are 50-100MP and there are many many many reasons why megapixels are needed.

[mmradman]

If more MP helps to eliminate moiré, then it will be a technological advance that will come with time (I'd be surprised, though - I thought lower MP sensors like the Sony A7s were less prone to moiré).

 

What I still really don't buy is that more MP is inherently more desirable, other than for pixel peeping. I don't want to trigger another discussion on the detail, but there is an ideal viewing distance for looking at an entire image which would suggest that such resolution is wasted, unless you're aggressively cropping (which goes agains the grain for me).

This is an old story. Mainstream APS and FF cameras for use by Joe public were fitted with AA filter to eliminate moire which could be more easily induced when shooting regular patterns (fabrics, mesh type patterns etc) with Bayer mask lower resolution sensors of the day.

 

As MP count grew point in development was reached when first Nikon and than Canon were bold enough to remove AA filter from the sensor stack, Nikon D810 springs to mind and before that D800E which had "bifurcation" filter which was supposed to work like no AA filter but it was a bit of a bodge job. Of course medium format sensors were designed for use by different kind of photographer and mostly had no AA filter (I think).

 

Of course Leica was bold from the beginning and took the risk with no AA filter in order not to compromise sharpness, from DMR to M8, and later S and SL.

 

Edit, recently discussed on SL forum, http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268049-megapixels/page-4

Edited January 24, 2017 by mmradman

[IkarusJohn]

PS - If I am wrong in this, why do so many top of the line professional camera systems have such modest MP sensors?

 

 

After writing this, I started to doubt myself, so I had a quick look at the Nikon & Canon websites (convenient, top level professional 35mm systems):

• Nikon D5 - 20.8MP 
• Canon EOS-1DX MkII (their "flagship professional camera) - 20.2MP

Now I appreciate that there may be other issues with these cameras (speed of AF, burst rates etc), but the fact remains that for the top of the line professional 35mm DSLR cameras, high MP doesn't seem to be the driver ... and I guess these meet client needs?

 

I'm not comparing medium format monsters like the new PhaseOne with the 100MP digital back.  We're talking handheld, 35mm cameras, and rangefinders at that ...

 

PS - Mladen, we cross posted.  I am familiar with that story, having had an M9 from 2010.  My question was more about using more MP to combat moiré, not the use of AA filters etc.  I must confess I don't go looking for moiré in my pictures, but I haven't been bothered with it for years (at least, not since I sold my D800e).

Edited January 24, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Paul J]

If you do some research though you will see that most professionals using 35mm, who aren't PJ and/or Sports, are using D810 and 5DS R over the 1Dx and D5.

 

1Dx and D5 have a feature set based on 14fps with AF tracking and half to one million ISO. That is something a very small percentage of Professional users need and it's predominantly PJ and Sports but Canon and Nikon have not been able to produce a high res sensor of these specs.

 

Then there is the new Sony a99 II which has these specs and is 42MP. I can't imagine there are too many D5 and 1Dx users that wouldn't want 40MP and super high ISO and 10+ frame rate if they could.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Paul J

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After writing this, I started to doubt myself, so I had a quick look at the Nikon & Canon websites (convenient, top level professional 35mm systems):

 

• Nikon D5 - 20.8MP 
• Canon EOS-1DX MkII (their "flagship professional camera) - 20.2MP

Now I appreciate that there may be other issues with these cameras (speed of AF, burst rates etc), but the fact remains that for the top of the line professional 35mm DSLR cameras, high MP doesn't seem to be the driver ... and I guess these meet client needs?

 

I'm not comparing medium format monsters like the new PhaseOne with the 100MP digital back.  We're talking handheld, 35mm cameras, and rangefinders at that ...

 

PS - Mladen, we cross posted.  I am familiar with that story, having had an M9 from 2010.  My question was more about using more MP to combat moiré, not the use of AA filters etc.  I must confess I don't go looking for moiré in my pictures, but I haven't been bothered with it for years (at least, not since I sold my D800e).

Horses for courses.

 

Nikon D5 and Canon counterpart are speed demons with burst rates exceeding 10fps, there are also slower high resolution cameras like D810 launched in 2014 and more recent Canon model with 50Mp.

[jaapv]

I was never one of the people who wanted a thinner body, certainly not at the cost of a battery with less capacity, some  even thought it was not an option, a thinner body. But in the threads, there were lots of people who wanted it. 

 

I hope all the people who asked for it, are happy now and buy the M 10 instantly.

 

I can recall some Nikon bodies and Leica R , who had a snmall battery. At least with them it was possible to put on a motordrive with more battery capacity. Maybe an option with the M 10 ? 

It would mimic the winder on the film cameras... I thought that the idea was to make the camera smaller...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lct]

Can you explain that?  What do you mean by clients, and for what purpose do they ask for more resolution? [...]

 

I won't talk without a lawyer!  My law office do legal photography from time to time. Some clients want small details, others want billboards but it's not my normal job. For small details there is no limit in resolution but i never went beyond 42MP so far. 24MP is for soccer mom photographers. Just kidding

[Paul J]

Do you guys think that professional photography is about prints? Let me put it this way a 300 dpi image with full bleed for a magazine spread of 11x17 is 72 megabite , 24 mpx sensor yields 68 megabyte file . So uncroped uncensored it is already not large enough,

Now enter euro size magazines you are already rezing up the image and loosing file integrity pixelating ,jagged edges ,

Bring in work for posters , bus stop signs , point of purchase material for auto manufacturers,

Do you guys have any Idea the cost of loosing 1 lot of a General Motors catalogue, is to the bottom line of a commercial studio.

I remember shooting a 3 lots of GM back in 2001 and decided to use my heilderberg topaz flat bed scanner because my drum scanner was down 5000 dpi. Vs 22,000 dpi the files were not large enough we thought we could slide it under the Radar. Needless to say I lost a 400,000 dollar contract

24 mpx is no whare near enough, and I have taken thousands of perfect hand held images with my d800e

36mpx is ideal for 35mm format

 

ps D5. And 1Dx are geared towards sports photographers you do not need the resolution for newsprint or web press they are lower MPx compromise for speed, you will hardly ever see them in a studio

This we can agree. I have handheld 35mm cameras that are 50MP and medium format cameras that are 100MP. No problems here. I don't like being tripod bound and rarely shoot with them. If I had a high res solution to shoot my M lenses and the results were as good the M I would be a happy man and wouldn't have much left to worry about. I would prefer it in an M body with a high quality EVF. Well that and hard tether, put it back Leica! USB 3 please. I would also have no reason to come to forum boards and annoy everyone with my requests.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Paul J

[IkarusJohn]

Horses for courses.

 

Nikon D5 and Canon counterpart are speed demons with burst rates exceeding 10fps, there are also slower high resolution cameras like D810 launched in 2014 and more recent Canon model with 50Mp.

 

 

Sure, I'm aware of those.  But my point was that the D5 and 1DX are professional cameras - by that I mean cameras used by professionals where clients pay for the output ...

 

Arthur, I started to respond to your post above, then saw that you'd posted again - I have no doubt at all that there are paying customers who want huge or detailed images, and there are fantastic systems for that; but is the M camera really the place for that?

 

If I wanted to take a picture of the detail your clients require, I'd also want the best lenses and the best sensor I could get, with the highest resolution.  Having bought my PhaseOne and 100MP data back, I'd be working very hard to ensure accurate framing (not an M camera's strong point), the best exposure for the image (you'd set the exposure on the best medium grey you could find and recompose?) and I'd be pretty sure to get the focussing just right (with the centre patch ...)

 

I appreciate that this discussion will keep going till we're all dead and buried.  My experience is that 18MP (on the Monochrom) is very nice, and has plenty of resolution; the 24MP of the SL is more than enough; and the 36MP of the A7R and D800E created nightmares all of their own.  I'm sure my technique could be improved, but a handheld SL and M camera with 24MP has not caused any such problems.  When Leica ups the S to 50MP and the M & SL to 36MP, I'm quite sure I won't complain; but I'm not complaining now either ...

 

Some of the best images in 35mm photography were taken on film, where the appeal was the timing, composition and the art of the photographer; not the resolution.  There's nothing about the M camera which seems to me to be a good choice for professional photography where resolution is the issue - I hope, for myself, that it never is!

 

PS - there's a subtext here which will probably get my ears bashed in, but it seems to me that the resolving power of the latest M lenses and the available sensor technology are really beyond what the traditional coupled rangefinder can deliver; but I'll keep that thought to myself, shall I?

Edited January 24, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Tailwagger]

The truth is that the 24MP in 35mm format is about the practical limit for handheld photography.  

 

Amen to that. My MF gear languishes these days for a number of reasons. Certainly lugging it all around is a burden, along with the setup time and the reality that without using a tripod the results are inevitably disappointing. If one does takes the care, the acuity of MF at 50mp can be breathtaking, but OTOH it often feels a bit of a parlor trick. More tool than talent, I suppose. The resolution is so high, that it all too often grossly exceeds human vision. When processing the result, its not unusual to discover little things in the frame that I had no idea were there. Not that thats completely without merit, but it feels rather odd to rely on a tool designed to capture what you're seeing, yet renders so much detail that you can't possibly have seen when you were composing the shot. In many respects, its far better to capture the essence than all the stark reality. FF 24MP feels like its in the heart of the Goldilocks zone with respect to resolution.   

[IkarusJohn]

... Get it a professional never takes family snaps,every image could be potential money

 

I'll ignore the backhanded comment (I'm sure it wasn't intended that way).

 

If you're concerned over your competition using a Hasselblad, why would you use an M10.  I'm not saying that medium format doesn't have advantages ...

[Fgcm]

Yesterday I had a close look to a silver chrome M10

The body is slimmer, but it weights the same as M240.

Still too heavy.

Probably this is due to the bras cover and bottom. Use alluminium!!!!

The viewfinder is slightly better, but I can say that the improvement is barely visible.

The ISO knob is a weird solution to a non existing problem.

Now you have to pull it up, turn and push it down.

The good old button on the back was faster.

This camera is not capturing as 240 was in 2013.

Franco

[lct]

[...] The truth is that the 24MP in 35mm format is about the practical limit for handheld photography. [...]

 

Will you still say the same when the SL has 50MP? The 42MP A7r2 can be used easily handheld thanks to IBIS (in-camera image stabilization). Not to say that hit rates are the same handheld as with a tripod of course but cleaner high isos allow for faster shutter speeds on modern cameras so all in all if there is a limit it cannot be below 42MP IMHO (no experience beyond).

[Paul J]

The only thing that more pixels need is more light or more sensitivity. All the new CMOS cameras out there that prove this is not a problem. To be perfectly honest and a bit blunt - if you aren't getting good results from a D810, 5DS R, a7r or Medium Format Camera, then you are doing some wrong and most likely shooting with too long a shutter speed and most likely your stance is too loose.

 

Pixels aren't always about commercial work or earning money. It's about better image quality and that includes family snaps what ever that is. I consider everyday life as a work of art, content for our art, so why wouldn't you treat it as such? The M has been up until recent times the best small camera in this regard that is permanently attached to my shoulder. The X1D may well indeed take that crown for some but I am not very interested in its lenses from what I have seen and from what I expect the rest to be either.

 

If the Hasselblad X1D had lenses like Leica M, I wouldn't hesitate to change. Canon or Nikon for that matter too. The Canon 50mm 1.2L is a very, very weak lens in comparison to the Noctilux.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Paul J

[LocalHero1953]

That was not a backhanded comment , and I am not in that business anymore, I am just saying how we are wired

If I still needed to make money behind the camera as of today my vacation companion would be a Hassy X1D

Frankly, it sounds like you have identified the solution to your needs, so I don't understand your angst. If you need that resolution, what have you been taking on holiday with you up till now? I assume it's not a Leica.

 

The M10 is never going to provide all the functionality that every possible user might want - Leica just has to match a certain level of functionality to a certain segment of its market, determined by what it can make and sell at a profit. The pro photographer who needs the resolution and other functionality that Artin and Paul J want is never going to be be in that segment. Why? Because that sort of pro photography is dominated by other brands who do it better. If Leica had any sort of track record there it would be worth them making the effort, but they are a niche manufacturer with a tiny foothold in that segment of the pro market - they're never going to bother.

[IkarusJohn]

Will you still say the same when the SL has 50MP? The 42MP A7r2 can be used easily handheld thanks to IBIS (in-camera image stabilization). Not to say that hit rates are the same handheld as with a tripod of course but cleaner high isos allow for faster shutter speeds on modern cameras so all in all if there is a limit it cannot be below 42MP IMHO (no experience beyond).

Almost certainly, if the experience is no better than the D800E and the A7R.

 

Don't try to misrepresent my position, LCT. I'm not opposed to more MP, provided it works. The one limiting factor to my cameras is not MP, nor does it limit my photography. More critically, I make no claim to know more about the topic than Leica. It is as important to me as the speedometer on my car - actually, less so.

Edited January 24, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[snooper]

Evolution is not to be discussed: I imagine Leica did some studies before lining up the M10 and they probably have good reasons to offer that specific product.

 

What bothers me, being a user of 240 and 246 in the same bag, is the idea of carrying 2 different chargers, 2 x 2 different batteries, 2 different EVFs, not mentioning the fact that diopters I use (150€ each!) are useless on the M10 and I would have to buy new ones.

 

All these extras (weight, objects, $$) make this evolution rather expensive, and trust on "investment" is downgraded: why would I buy the M10 if I have to change all that stuff again when they pull out the M11 ?

 

We had the same issues from M8 to M9, M9 to M240, while we never had this while going from M4-P to M6 to M7...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dunhoy]

The form factor is for me the most persuasive argument to switch however against this is the ludicrous price (as usual) so for now I am a non switcher - but should the MD or Mono appear in the M10 form I would swap in a heartbeat