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

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It has to do with the lens/sensor relationship. If the lens can't outresolve the sensor, more MP in the sensor only delivers better marketing not photos. Its the reason why so many Sony users dump the Sony lens and go for the high-end Zeiss lenses instead. I think Leica feels 24MP in FF on the M is a sweet spot. Not so true same is true for the S/SL/Q/TL range, where I believe over time bigger more MP sensors will be adopted, especially as the SL lenses fill out.

[jaapv]

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 sensor quality available for a rangefinder system If you want "better" i.e. whatever marketing spiel rings your bell - or even genuine need, you won't find it and will have to look for other camera systems. It is a moving target. By the time sensor designers/makers have developed a rangefinder/legacy lens sensor to the current best specifications, "simpler" designs for mirrorless and DSLR will have moved to a next level.

[Martin B]

You get the best sensor quality available for a rangefinder system If you want "better" i.e. whatever marketing spiel rings your bell - or even genuine need, you won't find it and will have to look for other camera systems. It is a moving target. By the time sensor designers/makers have developed a rangefinder/legacy lens sensor to the current best specifications, "simpler" designs for mirrorless and DSLR will have moved to a next level.

 

This is very likely, I agree. That's why I also agree that the SL might actually be the better potential choice here compared to the latest M. Even I suspect that the M11 certainly will come with better resolution than 24 MP but very likely with less than other brands offer with the same sensor size at this point. 

[Martin B]

It has to do with the lens/sensor relationship. If the lens can't outresolve the sensor, more MP in the sensor only delivers better marketing not photos. Its the reason why so many Sony users dump the Sony lens and go for the high-end Zeiss lenses instead. I think Leica feels 24MP in FF on the M is a sweet spot. Not so true same is true for the S/SL/Q/TL range, where I believe over time bigger more MP sensors will be adopted, especially as the SL lenses fill out.

 

My (quite modern) 35 mm and above M lenses are certainly not out-resolved by a 36 MP FF sensor.....I am using these kind of combinations all the time for digital. 

[pgk]

Its the reason why so many Sony users dump the Sony lens and go for the high-end Zeiss lenses instead.

 

I have been surprised just how good some of the relatively cheap Sony lenses are on the A7II. The 50mm f/2.8 macro is very good and even the 28mm f/2 produces highly detailed images. Add the W/A convertor and apart from the very corners, images are better than acceptable. But these use electronic integration and are new designs produced for digital sensors and I assume are optimised to operate at their best with the sensor. Value for money-wise they are extremely good. Contrast this with the Leica M wides on the Sony cameras - not so good. Pure optical excellence versus integrated design is a difficult trick to pull off and only Leica have done so effectively to date with their own lenses on their own cameras. FWIW the SL will be the interesting model to watch. A future, higher MPixel sensor on a Leica camera which utilises M adapters may either innovate or come with caveats.

Edited February 8, 2018 by pgk

[sblitz]

I have been surprised just how good some of the relatively cheap Sony lenses are on the A7II. The 50mm f/2.8 macro is very good and even the 28mm f/2 produces highly detailed images. Add the W/A convertor and apart from the very corners, images are better than acceptable. But these use electronic integration and are new designs produced for digital sensors and I assume are optimised to operate at their best with the sensor. Value for money-wise they are extremely good. Contrast this with the Leica M wides on the Sony cameras - not so good. Pure optical excellence versus integrated design is a difficult trick to pull off and only Leica have done so effectively to date with their own lenses on their own cameras. FWIW the SL will be the interesting model to watch. A future, higher MPixel sensor on a Leica camera which utilises M adapters may either innovate or come with caveats.

Key point is the electronic integration. As you push above 25mp, the sensor picks up much more and, for example, IBIS becomes a requirement. In other words, moving to much higher MP sensor on FF or MF essentially moves the camera much further away from the optical version of light falling on sensor rather than film. The whole process becomes an increasingly electronic/programming one, integrating lens and sensor, and I believe that moves one away from the M and into the SL/CL/Q realm. And Leica is building there, keeping up the market, so to speak.

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Contrast this with the Leica M wides on the Sony cameras - not so good.

 

I don't agree with this as general statement from my own experience here - some wider M lenses actually work very good even with the unmodified Sony high res FF sensor. It takes some digging online in tests and reviews to figure suitable lens options. The Leica Wate lens for example works supposedly well with Sony FF cameras (I never tested this one). Faster wide M lenses in general work better - from my own experience below 35 mm range, several CV lenses do extremely well like the CV 21/1.8 and the 28/2 M lenses. Also as general rule of thumb I recommend to stay away from Leica f/2 based ASPH lenses on Sony sensors - whereas faster f/1.4 ASPH lenses work well again due to a larger pupil entrance. 

[Alberti]

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

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

I don’t get that

[pgk]

..... whereas faster f/1.4 ASPH lenses work well again due to a larger pupil entrance. 

 

Its the position of the exit pupil that determines the angles of incidence with the sensor. As most sensors have a limited angle which they can efficiently operate with, as the angles become more extreme, problems occur. So lenses which have exit pupils close to the sensor work worst with sensors which have no offset micro-lenses. Lenses like the legacy Super-Angulon (I have one) are not good on any (including Leica's) sensor. Lenses like the 21 SEM work well on the M sensors but not so well on other sensors. I haven't revisited the lens diagrams, but I'd expect that lenses with longer distances between exit pupil and sensor work well on most  sensors - I expect that these are the ones you are referring to.

[pgh]

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.

I don't think anyone is expecting miracles. Personally, I would welcome a better dynamic range that at least competes with Fuji aps-c sensors. I understand the physical challenges with regards to higher MP - the dynamic range is something that should be immediately improved imo. Right now the sensor is "less than" not just because of resolution, but also because of the dynamic range and low light capabilities. In decent, even light, it's wonderful, but Leica has never been about finding optimal lighting. 

[frame-it]

i don't think the nikon D810 with 36MP had IBIS

Key point is the electronic integration. As you push above 25mp, the sensor picks up much more and, for example, IBIS becomes a requirement. In other words, moving to much higher MP sensor on FF or MF essentially moves the camera much further away from the optical version of light falling on sensor rather than film. The whole process becomes an increasingly electronic/programming one, integrating lens and sensor, and I believe that moves one away from the M and into the SL/CL/Q realm. And Leica is building there, keeping up the market, so to speak.

[pedaes]

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.

 

The M10 took things out ( eg video,large battery) and is in huge demand. Hopefully the next 'upgrade' is a long way off.

[pgk]

I don't think anyone is expecting miracles.

 

I think that its all about compromises. For example there are those who think that new camera models appear far too frequently and that older dRFs should be supported for decades. And there are those who want updates with higher specifications and incorporation of innovations as soon as possible. Leica must be having fun trying to satisfy such divergent demands.

[frame-it]

or "Leica must be having fun NOT trying to satisfy such divergent demands."

 

they might be amused at this thread....and suddenly surprise everyone with a press release of something.

 

I think that its all about compromises. For example there are those who think that new camera models appear far too frequently and that older dRFs should be supported for decades. And there are those who want updates with higher specifications and incorporation of innovations as soon as possible. Leica must be having fun trying to satisfy such divergent demands.

[pgk]

or "Leica must be having fun NOT trying to satisfy such divergent demands."

 

they might be amused at this thread....and suddenly surprise everyone with a press release of something.

 

You might well be right .

[jaapv]

The M10 took things out ( eg video,large battery) and is in huge demand. Hopefully the next 'upgrade' is a long way off.

Why "hopefully"? There is no obligation to buy into the newest.

[Luke_Miller]

This may be a "be careful what you wish for" situation.

 

As many may recall Leica's position at the dawn of the digital camera age was that a digital M was not technically feasible.  My understanding is this was because of the extreme angle of light hitting the surface of the sensor at the edges and corners created by the Leica film era rangefinder lenses.  Over time Leica developed a micro-lens solution to re-route the light so it could be read by the sensor's photosites at the edges and corners that resulted in the cropped sensor M8.  That solution was improved to allow development of the full frame M9, M-240, and M10 bodies. 

 

I believe Leica is limited in its ability to field M sensors due the fact that they are a small customer with unique sensor requirements.  Most likely too small to get the interest of technology-leading sensor manufacturers.  And so must employ boutique sensor makers who lack access to the latest (and proprietary) sensor technology.   If Leica comes to believe its customers well and truly want state of the art high resolution sensors in its M series bodies it has a path to achieve that goal.  It can do what Canon  did when Canon entered the digital age - obsolete all the film era lenses and create a new lens mount for its digital cameras.  As long as Leica continues to support its legacy lenses on the digital Ms I believe it will be technology-limited in sensor performance.  But if it abandons those lenses (like Canon) it can then develop new lens designs that work on sensors available from the technology leaders.

 

We asked for a thinner M and got it - but at a cost.  Now we ask for modern, high-resolution sensors.  Be careful - we just might get them.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Luke_Miller

[jaapv]

My (quite modern) 35 mm and above M lenses are certainly not out-resolved by a 36 MP FF sensor.....I am using these kind of combinations all the time for digital. 

And justly so. There is no such thing as lenses being out-resolved by sensors and vice-versa. A better lens will always perform better on the same sensor, a better sensor will always perform with the same lens. It is not a weakest-link situation.

[jaapv]

I don't agree with this as general statement from my own experience here - some wider M lenses actually work very good even with the unmodified Sony high res FF sensor. It takes some digging online in tests and reviews to figure suitable lens options. The Leica Wate lens for example works supposedly well with Sony FF cameras (I never tested this one). Faster wide M lenses in general work better - from my own experience below 35 mm range, several CV lenses do extremely well like the CV 21/1.8 and the 28/2 M lenses. Also as general rule of thumb I recommend to stay away from Leica f/2 based ASPH lenses on Sony sensors - whereas faster f/1.4 ASPH lenses work well again due to a larger pupil entrance. 

The key word being "some". It depends on the design. Leica strives to do better and come close to "all".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Martin B]

The key word being "some". It depends on the design. Leica strives to do better and come close to "all".

 

I don't disagree with this - Leica better should since it's in the same ecosystem regarding camera and lenses. I am fine how a variety of M lenses also works outside this ecosystem - the price to pay is that not all of them work as well. But for now I can easily live with this since I got the ones for my usage which work well .