M11 for me Posted February 7, 2018 Share #161 Posted February 7, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just a thesis: Could it be that with more MP cameras (i.e. 50mp) some cropping could easily done in PP for each frame and as a consequence less lenses will be sold. The 28mm does the job for 35mm and 35mm for 50mm and so on. We would just need 21mm, 28mm, 50mm and 90mm. Hm very clever, isn‘t it? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 Hi M11 for me, Take a look here Why not more pixels in the M camera?/ 36 MP {merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LocalHero1953 Posted February 7, 2018 Share #162 Posted February 7, 2018 Just a thesis: Could it be that with more MP cameras (i.e. 50mp) some cropping could easily done in PP for each frame and as a consequence less lenses will be sold. The 28mm does the job for 35mm and 35mm for 50mm and so on. We would just need 21mm, 28mm, 50mm and 90mm. Hm very clever, isn‘t it? What a ludicrous notion - that a Leica photographer would make do with one lens when they could have two (probably in the same focal length). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 7, 2018 Share #163 Posted February 7, 2018 Just a thesis: Could it be that with more MP cameras (i.e. 50mp) some cropping could easily done in PP for each frame and as a consequence less lenses will be sold. The 28mm does the job for 35mm and 35mm for 50mm and so on. We would just need 21mm, 28mm, 50mm and 90mm. Hm very clever, isn‘t it? We could get rid of all those frame-line thingies in the viewfinder too - it would be completely pointless having them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted February 7, 2018 Share #164 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) Maybe Leica should hire some of the contributors to this thread, it seems they have easy solutions available that Leica engineering has not been able to find in many years of work Let's be realistic, if the M10 is what is with its pro and contra there are reasons. robert Edited February 7, 2018 by robert blu 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 7, 2018 Share #165 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) As ever the fundamental point here is that there are those who want to drag the Leica M RF camera into the future by getting it to compete against other cameras when it has legacy issues which complicate doing so. And those who like the M RF because it represents a different way of doing things and goes its own way rather than trying to compete directly. I'm certainly in the latter camp and whilst some changes won't affect the M all that much, many could impinge on its usefulness and viability as an RF camera. As it currently stands its a fabulous picture taking instrument. Increases in light sensitivity and dynamic range would suit me far more than increases in MPixels and hopefully they will appear as the M evolves. Any evolution though, needs to be tempered with the requirement that the evolutionary steps reinforce its viability rather than undermines it. Edited February 7, 2018 by pgk 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted February 7, 2018 Share #166 Posted February 7, 2018 What a ludicrous notion - that a Leica photographer would make do with one lens when they could have two (probably in the same focal length). We could get rid of all those frame-line thingies in the viewfinder too - it would be completely pointless having them. As I understand my proposal earns a lot of prise. . . 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted February 7, 2018 Share #167 Posted February 7, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just a thesis: Could it be that with more MP cameras (i.e. 50mp) some cropping could easily done in PP for each frame and as a consequence less lenses will be sold. The 28mm does the job for 35mm and 35mm for 50mm and so on. We would just need 21mm, 28mm, 50mm and 90mm. Hm very clever, isn‘t it? It works. My Sony camera allows to use a crop mode which provides an approx. 50 mm field of view to an attached 35 mm lens. It is helpful if I want to take a photo and simply don't have a lens with me fitting the frame. In theory I could also take the photo with 35 mm and crop in PP later but it is sometimes better to take the photo directly with the adjusted field of view in the crop mode. Tricky part here is something else: better not forget to turn off the crop mode in the camera after the photo was taken.... I don't think that less lenses will be sold even if such feature is available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted February 7, 2018 Share #168 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) Maybe Leica should hire some of the contributors to this thread, it seems they have easy solutions available that Leica engineering has not been able to find in many years of work Let's be realistic, if the M10 is what is with its pro and contra there are reasons. robert I believe every camera company has its strengths and weaknesses - Sony for example is excellent regarding electronics but is weaker on the software and optics side (therefore the lens development with Zeiss) whereas Leica's strength is optics and camera built. This has to do with the history of the company itself - Sony started as a pure electronics/music company - Leica has never been in electronics but got its deserved reputation with optical systems for microscopes and later for cameras and lenses. So it is not a surprise to me that Leica is still a bit behind (but already improving!) with latest development in the digital sensor-based sector. There is nothing wrong with this, but I don't think the solution is to claim the status quo is sufficient or using the "Das Wesentliche" as excuse not to move forward. The M10 is in my opinion an excellent camera where the sensor was already improved compared to the M240 (M10 has much better dynamic range) - other things like video were left out in the M10 but this is not part of this discussion. I am sure Leica is on the right path to move itself more into the digital age and has many skilled employees thinking and developing in this area now. This said I am still enjoying my Leica M film cameras a lot - and I am fully aware that film does not provide the resolution which a newer high MP sensor provides. But film as different medium has other advantages over digital (and vice-versa!) which I select for specific situations. But when it comes to digital, for me the sensor is the heart of any digital camera, and that's where I am least willing to compromise. Edited February 7, 2018 by Martin B 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 7, 2018 Share #169 Posted February 7, 2018 [...] when it comes to digital, for me the sensor is the heart of any digital camera, and that's where I am least willing to compromise. As far as M cameras are concerned, the last thing Leica will compromise is not the sensor, i believe, but the rangefinder. Optical, electronic, hybrid, nobody knows so far but MP counts will remain moderate as long as the RF remains optical IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted February 7, 2018 Share #170 Posted February 7, 2018 As far as M cameras are concerned, the last thing Leica will compromise is not the sensor, i believe, but the rangefinder. Optical, electronic, hybrid, nobody knows so far but MP counts will remain moderate as long as the RF remains optical IMHO. I really can't see why one should not work without the other. I don't get at all your reasoning/excuse behind the low MP count to allow RF focusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 7, 2018 Share #171 Posted February 7, 2018 I really can't see why one should not work without the other. I don't get at all your reasoning/excuse behind the low MP count to allow RF focusing. Who wins will only be shown in the future but this has been an interesting discussion anyway . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 7, 2018 Share #172 Posted February 7, 2018 I really can't see why one should not work without the other. I don't get at all your reasoning/excuse behind the low MP count to allow RF focusing. https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/171132-rangefinder-focussing-accuracy-rule-of-thumb/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted February 7, 2018 Share #173 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) I was out for a city trip and looking at the pictures those of 18MP look a lot better in crisp detail than the 24MP ones. My conclusion: it is not about pixel count. It is about other aspects. [i do not cross out my MP needs some RF adj.] But look its just ahobby for me. I know I have an apple and apear with me . . . Edited February 7, 2018 by Alberti Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hteasley Posted February 7, 2018 Share #174 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) I am convinced that most who justify the current 24 MP FF sensor as being more than sufficient will upgrade to a higher MP sensor as soon as it becomes available in a M camera body. If I upgrade, it won't be because of resolution. No upgrading of M cameras with me has ever been for resolution reasons. M8: Was happy to be able to find an affordable digital Leica (used on ebay). Didn't like the IR issue. Loved it. M9: Fixed the IR issue, moved to full-frame, so lens matching in a bag with a film M was easier. Loved it. M240: Sensor corrosion of the M9, and months of waiting for a new sensor, encouraged me to just take advantage of the upgrade offer Leica was giving. Liked the idea of better low light performance, but were it not for the sensor issue, I wouldn't have upgraded to the 240. DIdn't want video, didn't like the increase in size. M10: Really wanted the film-M thin body of the M10 over the 240. Encouraged by reports of even better low light performance. I would have gone straight from M9 to M10, had the M9 lasted. Love it. Resolution upgrades are not what will make M cameras better. The mechanical nature of the rangefinder, and the mechanical coupling of the lenses, means focus accuracy can only be so good. It degrades over time, as well, so that you should have your camera and lenses collimated every so often (although I don't know anyone that does that regularly). As well, part of the M system is the ability to use wonderful old M and LTM glass easily. The lp/mm resolution of those old lenses isn't up to even the current sensor. Further, low light performance is often impacted negatively by excessive sensor resolution: smaller photosites mean fewer photons providing information per pixel, which means less accuracy per pixel. Physics becomes a limiting factor here. You'll notice that all the cameras that are targeting low light performance drop resolution instead of adding it. To get huge resolutions and great image quality, sensor size has to go up. Lo and behold, we're starting to see a lot of activity in the MF market, arguably initiated by the Leica S, followed by Fuji and Hasselblad producing new MF cameras in a DSLR size. Can the next M have more resolution? Sure. Will it help? I haven't taken an image with a digital M ever where I felt like it wanted for resolution, so that's not a driver for me. But really, all of this resolution hoo-ha is just pixel-peeping forum nonsense, and all the, "I want to crop excessively after the fact!" rationales just read to me as, "I didn't have a plan when I took the shot in the first place, and I am trying to find something worthwhile in a meh photo." Edited February 7, 2018 by hteasley 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 7, 2018 Share #175 Posted February 7, 2018 The trend to more pixels is socially irresponsible. Has anyone considered the consequences of running out of pixels? . 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hteasley Posted February 7, 2018 Share #176 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) The trend to more pixels is socially irresponsible. Has anyone considered the consequences of running out of pixels? . Thanks for this. We're on pace to reach "peak pixel" sometime around 2025. Japan's pixel reserves are being depleted at an alarming rate, and I don't hear anyone talking seriously about it. OMPEC (Organization of the MegaPixel Exporting Countries) needs to slow production, but they're too short-sighted in the face of the booming resolution market. Edited February 7, 2018 by hteasley 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 7, 2018 Share #177 Posted February 7, 2018 The trend to more pixels is socially irresponsible. Has anyone considered the consequences of running out of pixels? . Hello Pico, I think that you might be confusing the social responsibility of running out of pretzels with the social responsibility of running out of pixels. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 8, 2018 Share #178 Posted February 8, 2018 Thanks for this. We're on pace to reach "peak pixel" sometime around 2025. Japan's pixel reserves are being depleted at an alarming rate, and I don't hear anyone talking seriously about it. OMPEC (Organization of the MegaPixel Exporting Countries) needs to slow production, but they're too short-sighted in the face of the booming resolution market. I think you are unduly pessimistic. The technology of pixel mining and prospecting is still rather primitive. There are experiments to distill pixels from sea water, which would yield a virtually unlimited source. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 8, 2018 Share #179 Posted February 8, 2018 I think you are unduly pessimistic. The technology of pixel mining and prospecting is still rather primitive. There are experiments to distill pixels from sea water, which would yield a virtually unlimited source. Hello Jaap, Isn't there already a "virtually unlimited source" of sea water without distilling the pixels out of it? Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 8, 2018 Share #180 Posted February 8, 2018 Well, there is of course the concern about the effect of pixelless water on sea life, which hasn't been researched yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now