Why not more pixels in the M camera?/ 36 MP {merged}

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I trust that everyone is responsibly recycling their pixels.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Michael Geschlecht]

Well, there is of course the concern about the effect of pixelless water on sea life, which hasn't been researched yet.

 

Hello Jaap,

 

I think that there has been some preliminary work done already on leopard sharks.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[TG14]

A mechanical RF mechanism has a finite accuracy. The 'point' of focus on which it is focussed actually lies between two planes which represent the tolerance to which it is able to operate. So if you try to use the RF to focus on the centre of this plane, it will provide an 'accuracy' which is actually only within these planes. 75/1.4/1.25, 90/2 and 135/3.4 lenses when used wide open are about at the limit of the RF's ability to provide 'accuracy' and these lenses can benefit from live view/focus peeking/whatever. However this starts to move away from the concept of RF photography. If you increase the MPixels of the sensor and thus the magnification at which you view an image the required accuracy increases meaning that discrepancies show more obviously.

That implies that in the RF way, the tolerance between these two frames will determine (or limit) the number of MP.

 

If the tolerance is low (bad) then having too many pixels will cause discrepancies to show.

 

And if the manufacturing process does not improve the tolerance, the MP does not or cannot be too high, otherwise the discrepancies will show.

 

Depending on where leica is on this improvement-of-tolerance path, the next generation of M's could be interesting.

 

Imagine if the market standard for full frames are, say extreme, 100mp, and because of the tolerance limitation, the M is still at 24mp, then leica must improve other aspects of the sensor or camera.

[hteasley]

Imagine if the market standard for full frames are, say extreme, 100mp, and because of the tolerance limitation, the M is still at 24mp, then leica must improve other aspects of the sensor or camera.

 

What is your purpose in driving the idea that M cameras must increase sensor resolution? It is nonsensical, and belies a lack of understanding of rangefinders, how they're made, and what they're good for.

[pgh]

What is your purpose in driving the idea that M cameras must increase sensor resolution? It is nonsensical, and belies a lack of understanding of rangefinders, how they're made, and what they're good for.

This kind of thinking will make sure the M doesn't survive.

I use the M because it's my favorite tool to use in the image making process, and right now the relatively inferior image quality is only a deal breaker for my work sometimes. If it gets to the point that other cameras have sensors that are drastically better and the M isn't advancing that's fine, but I won't buy one, I don't care if Leica sings all day about how it just isn't technically an easy thing to do. Alright fine then, kill it off and do it quickly so we can move on and stop hoping it will be able to hold it's on against the other full frame sensors that are half the price.

 

At some point if all the M is ever good for is a mediocre sensor and a shooting experience that is driven mostly by nostalgia (guilty) and refusal to adopt to new viewfinders (which, I might add, are actually totally functional and actually much more precise with both focus and composition) it's not gonna survive. The notion may be nonsensical to you, but it's not nonsensical in general. Content drives some images yes and maybe resolution doesn't matter for some photographers, but sometimes the content is in the detail. It would be great if that could be achieved using the preferred tool. You can't make decisions about what other people need for their work based on your own myopic view of what a tool should be good for. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by pgh

[hteasley]

I don't believe most of what you wrote. I've done wedding shoots with various cameras, and my clients haven't been any more pleased with 36mpix CMOS shots than they've been with 18mpix CCD shots. I shoot more than Leica, and am well acquainted with the M's virtues and flaws, but the idea that it is "relatively inferior" is nonsense. I said this in another thread, that if you look at the top 50 cameras (probably top 100) in DxO's sensor list, the capability differences between the best and worst of them is incredibly low. Image Quality, as a function of sensors capturing detail and light, has been essentially commoditized. It's now pretty much about camera features, utility, and lens characteristics.

 

The M is a tool that does not suit every purpose, nor can it. The worst thing you can do with it is try to make it something it's not. You'll note Leica removed features, from M240 to M10, and the M10 is more desired than the M240 was. It's virtues lay in the thing you see as needing to be changed: the optical rangefinder is the heart of the M. Framing and focusing can be done different ways, as is shown by the existence of all the cameras ever. But this is how the M does it. It has virtues that are not transportable to different ways of doing things.

 

But you know, Leica knows that. That's why there's the S, and SL. That's why there's the TL and CL. The CL might be what you would prefer, over an M. It does well with all M lenses, better than any Sony does, and makes spectacular images. But the stupid thing would be to make the M into an x100F. They know the M is a niche camera: they make film Ms still. They goddamned sell a digital M camera without a rear screen. Do you think they're about chasing the latest tech with the M line?

 

Future Ms will still use the M mount, with a mechanically coupled focusing system that will never become more precise than an electrically coupled TTL focusing system. Ever. That's not going to happen. So, stop telling them to update the one system they have that, by its nature, cannot deliver what you're saying it must. S or L mount cameras are there for that.

 

M cameras are perfectly capable of generating spectacular images. Doing so requires more of the photographer holding the camera than other cameras might. That's part of the attraction: the shooting experience with the M is unique. Better than any other rangefinder, and completely different from every non-RF camera.

 

The M has come close to dying before, and it may do so again. But Leica innovates all over the place, inside and outside the M line, and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing. Is there room for improvement? Probably. If they went back to an 18mpix sensor in order to have even better low light performance in an M11, I'd be down for that. I can do good things with 18mpx.

 

Is there a pressing need to make the M do what an A9 can do? Nope.

Edited February 8, 2018 by hteasley

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A modern M could have a faster EVF, a silent shutter, a wider dynamic range and, why not, an electronic rangefinder together with IBIS and a high-res sensor but so far we're stuck with basically the same RF as that of the M2 half a century ago. Even that of the M3 is more accurate due to its 0.91x viewfinder. Nothing to complain about, the prettiest girl in the world can only give what she has .

[pgh]

I don't believe most of what you wrote. I've done wedding shoots with various cameras, and my clients haven't been any more pleased with 36mpix CMOS shots than they've been with 18mpix CCD shots. I shoot more than Leica, and am well acquainted with the M's virtues and flaws, but the idea that it is "relatively inferior" is nonsense. I said this in another thread, that if you look at the top 50 cameras (probably top 100) in DxO's sensor list, the capability differences between the best and worst of them is incredibly low. Image Quality, as a function of sensors capturing detail and light, has been essentially commoditized. It's now pretty much about camera features, utility, and lens characteristics.

 

The M is a tool that does not suit every purpose, nor can it. The worst thing you can do with it is try to make it something it's not. You'll note Leica removed features, from M240 to M10, and the M10 is more desired than the M240 was. It's virtues lay in the thing you see as needing to be changed: the optical rangefinder is the heart of the M. Framing and focusing can be done different ways, as is shown by the existence of all the cameras ever. But this is how the M does it. It has virtues that are not transportable to different ways of doing things.

 

But you know, Leica knows that. That's why there's the S, and SL. That's why there's the TL and CL. The CL might be what you would prefer, over an M. It does well with all M lenses, better than any Sony does, and makes spectacular images. But the stupid thing would be to make the M into an x100F. They know the M is a niche camera: they make film Ms still. They goddamned sell a digital M camera without a rear screen. Do you think they're about chasing the latest tech with the M line?

 

Future Ms will still use the M mount, with a mechanically coupled focusing system that will never become more precise than an electrically coupled TTL focusing system. Ever. That's not going to happen. So, stop telling them to update the one system they have that, by its nature, cannot deliver what you're saying it must. S or L mount cameras are there for that.

 

M cameras are perfectly capable of generating spectacular images. Doing so requires more of the photographer holding the camera than other cameras might. That's part of the attraction: the shooting experience with the M is unique. Better than any other rangefinder, and completely different from every non-RF camera.

 

The M has come close to dying before, and it may do so again. But Leica innovates all over the place, inside and outside the M line, and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing. Is there room for improvement? Probably. If they went back to an 18mpix sensor in order to have even better low light performance in an M11, I'd be down for that. I can do good things with 18mpx.

 

Is there a pressing need to make the M do what an A9 can do? Nope.

That's fine, and it's true for your uses. I get it, your photos don't need alot of resolution, you're that type of shooter.

I have clients that demand 36 mp or more, now that they've gotten that for years from different photographers.

Also, the Leica sensor is relatively inferior compared to other sensors on the market now, that's not even up for debate. 

 

This whole 'trying to make a tool do what it's not supposed to do' ignores the fact that in the past years innovations have let photographers do all kinds of things with small format cameras that they were not 'supposed to do.'

 

The M does not suit every purpose, no, but as I've said before, the M was always about high image quality in a small body. Right now, they're only really 1.5 out of 2 because of the sensor. It's not inferior - it's relatively inferior. In that, it's not objectively bad at all - but it is definitely worse than most other slow working, small body full frame cameras on the market right now. It feels like a step back to 2011-2012 in terms of dynamic range alone. I'm not gonna get into about that any more because I've said it plenty and you can take it or leave it. Not everyone is shooting weddings - there are people who make large prints and/or need a better range of light to be able to work with for client or personal needs. For me, for my prints and for my clients when working on commissioned shoots the Leica M10 is good sometimes, but if it had a better sensor it would be the only tool I need. So that's the standpoint I come from. I am not a fan of collecting gear and having to schlep an extra sony kit on a shoot because the files of the Leica just won't cut it sometimes is pretty annoying. 

 

Nowhere do I insinuate that you can't make a spectacular image with whatever camera. You can do that with a Holga. That misses the point. If your particular photos don't need resolution and you're like Daido Moriyama or whatever then that's fine. There are other ways to use the tool though. And no one is trying to make the M10 like an A9, but it would be cool if it would at least have the dynamic range and low light capability of that sensor. No one here is asking for AF and video and 12 fps etc.

[Lonescapes]

You know, you can join me on the 246 bandwagon if you a want a Leica sensor that puts other sensors in its class to shame. So it's not really the case that Leica doesn't put envelope-pushing sensor technologies in its digital M bodies. It's just true that in this particular matter, as in all matters Leica, you get something niche, as opposed to something that is trying to compete with the larger manufacturers--because what would be the point?

[Martin B]

You know, you can join me on the 246 bandwagon if you a want a Leica sensor that puts other sensors in its class to shame. So it's not really the case that Leica doesn't put envelope-pushing sensor technologies in its digital M bodies. It's just true that in this particular matter, as in all matters Leica, you get something niche, as opposed to something that is trying to compete with the larger manufacturers--because what would be the point?

 

But sorry, is it too much to ask to get the best sensor quality on the market for > $6000 per camera paid for?! 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Martin B

[pedaes]

But sorry, is it too much to ask to get the best sensor quality on the market for > $6000 per camera paid for?! 

 

You get the best rangefinder on the market, and for many that is enough. It is what it is, if you see it as not delivering what you want or poor value, then simply pass on it. 

[Martin B]

You get the best rangefinder on the market, and for many that is enough. It is what it is, if you see it as not delivering what you want or poor value, then simply pass on it. 

For the best rangefinder on the market I have excellent film Leica M cameras - and yes, one reason for me to currently pass on the M10 is the not up-to-date sensor. I am also not in a hurry to upgrade at this point, so I can determine in upcoming years which brand/camera model fit best for my photography. 

[duoenboge]

But sorry, is it too much to ask to get the best sensor quality on the market for > $6000 per camera paid for?! 

Leica will never offer the best and the most up to date sensor on the market because Leica get the sensor from its competitors. And I think Leica is a to small company without the skills to develop her own sensor.

Imho the package you get buying a M and some M glasses is in this times not bad.

[jdlaing]

Leica will never offer the best and the most up to date sensor on the market because Leica get the sensor from its competitors. And I think Leica is a to small company without the skills to develop her own sensor.

Imho the package you get buying a M and some M glasses is in this times not bad.

No, they don’t.

 

Leica uses a custom sensor designed for them exclusively.

[LocalHero1953]

Leica knows its market reasonably well*. Like any target market it will have a frequency distribution with a lot of people in the middle with similar demands, and fringes with less common demands. I suspect high pixel large print images are not in the central group. Pros at the beck and call of clients who tell them to provide >36mp for commercial work have no choice but to obey, but they have never really been Leica's target market for the M, film or digital. If they lose some of those pros (which are only a part of the pro market in any case), I doubt they will lose any sleep. If they upset their core market for the M, then they'll be in trouble. Steps that could upset this core market for the M include abandoning the opto-mechanical rangefinder, replacing the M-mount with one that communicates better, abandoning the ability to handle legacy small wide angle lenses.......... Higher resolution sensors do not obviously pose risks to the core market, but I can understand that Leica will be conservative about changes that could affect it.

 

 

* There's a lot of argument by assertion without evidence in this thread. My fuzzy evidence for this statement is that Leica are still in business, they appear to be growing and they appear to be profitable - none of which are common among camera makers.

[frame-it]

designed by whom ?

No, they don’t.

Leica uses a custom sensor designed for them exclusively.

[pgk]

This whole 'trying to make a tool do what it's not supposed to do' ignores the fact that in the past years innovations have let photographers do all kinds of things with small format cameras that they were not 'supposed to do.'

IF you go through the forum carefully you will find that the M series cameras greatest assets are their lenses - stunning optics, beautifully constructed, small yet solid. The problem is that these lenses are also the M's Achillies Heel because the only information that many can relay to the camera is their focal length and model. Contrast this with their other (SL fit, etc.) and other manufacturer's lenses which are fully electronically coupled and you will quickly realise that pure optical prowess is competing against software integrated and optimised designs which are designed for digital sensors. The compromises involved in the Leica M rf system are not insurmountable I'm sure, but expecting them to keep abreast of the latest from much larger manufacturers is unrealistic. Innovation yes, miracles no.

[jdlaing]

designed by whom ?

Leica for one. There is no other sensors like the ones in a Leica body. They are designed around the lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

 the prettiest girl in the world can only give what she has .

 

He: "I get what I want when I want it."

She: "You will get what you want when I get it."

Edited February 8, 2018 by pico

[TG14]

If for whatever reason (e.g. physical limitation, core mkt, etc) Leica decides that the way to go is not the more-MP route, then it's got to bring something new to the table. Otherwise, the next upgrade is going to be difficult to sell.

 

They need to innovate and play to its strength. If lenses are the M's strength, then the next thing should be the sensor in the value chain.

 

Maybe the design of the M10 sensor is a step in that direction. 

 

The comparison with other sensors (from other brands) could than be Leica's DR/other unique sensor tech vs Other's high MP/and other generic sensor tech.