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

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

Correct - I believe the poster (and some others) are mainly afraid of losing value vested in a then older digital M when a newer model comes along too quickly. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Martin B]

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.

I don't get why current (and older) M lenses should be limited just to this 24 MP FF sensor. To my knowledge all M lenses 50 mm FL and above work well adapted to current high MP FF Sony sensors - even the cover glass is too thick and optimized for (D)SLR lens types. So why should lenses then have an issue with a specifically for Leica M cameras made high MP sensor (with corrected cover glass thickness and micro lenses). Even wide M lenses will work with such design perfectly!

[Gregm61]

I believe the poster (and some others) are mainly afraid of losing value vested in a then older digital M when a newer model comes along too quickly. 

 

If they are, they're buying the wrong brand, LOL. Just need to stick with Sony/Nikon/Canon if that's the mindset. Buying any digital camera is a money-losing event beyond day 1.

[Martin B]

If they are, they're buying the wrong brand, LOL. Just need to stick with Sony/Nikon/Canon if that's the mindset. Buying any digital camera is a money-losing event beyond day 1.

 

Not always: Leica's used camera value is one of the highest to my knowledge. Even Leica's digital cameras go for a fairly high price many years after they were originally released - good example is the M9 which still costs > $2300 in the used market. This is a lot more value retention regarding the original sales price compared to any other camera brand. 

[pgk]

I don't get why current (and older) M lenses should be limited just to this 24 MP FF sensor. To my knowledge all M lenses 50 mm FL and above work well adapted to current high MP FF Sony sensors - even the cover glass is too thick and optimized for (D)SLR lens types. So why should lenses then have an issue with a specifically for Leica M cameras made high MP sensor (with corrected cover glass thickness and micro lenses). Even wide M lenses will work with such design perfectly!

 

Relatively recent lenses like the 21mm SEM will require offset micro-lenses to work well. So any new sensor will have to cater for this and other recent wide lenses too. Producing such a high MPixel sensor with offset micro-lenses isn't as easy as asking Sony to simply modify one of theirs (which from other posts, it has been suggested that they won't anyway). Perhaps if such a sensor was easy to source and the offset micro-lenses worked fine and the rangefinder could be made more accurate and IBIS fitted into an M body and more, Leica would go for it. Or would they? They have other models which are far more likely to gain from use of a higher MPixel sensor. Wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade them first?

[Martin B]

Relatively recent lenses like the 21mm SEM will require offset micro-lenses to work well. So any new sensor will have to cater for this and other recent wide lenses too. Producing such a high MPixel sensor with offset micro-lenses isn't as easy as asking Sony to simply modify one of theirs (which from other posts, it has been suggested that they won't anyway). Perhaps if such a sensor was easy to source and the offset micro-lenses worked fine and the rangefinder could be made more accurate and IBIS fitted into an M body and more, Leica would go for it. Or would they? They have other models which are far more likely to gain from use of a higher MPixel sensor. Wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade them first?

 

I agree that Leica needs to find a sensor manufacturer which is willing to adopt a sensor design which fits the rangefinder M lenses - I am sure it can be done but it will also likely come for a cost. I would love to see Leica going this route as you pointed out above and maybe even offering two new sensor based M models at the same time. Maybe Leica pushes the mirrorless EVF based route, and then the SL successor will be the preferred camera to upgrade with new sensor tech. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't get why current (and older) M lenses should be limited just to this 24 MP FF sensor. To my knowledge all M lenses 50 mm FL and above work well adapted to current high MP FF Sony sensors - even the cover glass is too thick and optimized for (D)SLR lens types. So why should lenses then have an issue with a specifically for Leica M cameras made high MP sensor (with corrected cover glass thickness and micro lenses). Even wide M lenses will work with such design perfectly!

There are a few more issues to be addressed. High density sensors are more prone to crosstalk, for instance, which is a problem with steep incidence angle lenses. There are no solutions - yet. I'm sure that Leica will implement higher MP sensors as soon as they are satisfied with the results - they like to sell cameras and get people to upgrade, you know.

[Jon Warwick]

I agree that Leica needs to find a sensor manufacturer which is willing to adopt a sensor design which fits the rangefinder M lenses - I am sure it can be done but it will also likely come for a cost. I would love to see Leica going this route as you pointed out above and maybe even offering two new sensor based M models at the same time. Maybe Leica pushes the mirrorless EVF based route, and then the SL successor will be the preferred camera to upgrade with new sensor tech.

I’m personally assuming that higher megapixels will be easier to incorporate into a “ground up” digital camera (like the SL), much more so than the M (which has to constantly worry about legacy lens design). In fact, I have every intention of moving from M to SL given my anticipation that the SL will be the more likely and better platform for Leica to have higher resolution in its FF offerings.....that, and having tried the recently launched SL 75mm Summicron, which to my eyes excelled for image quality at large print sizes and was better than anything I’ve got out of my M & 50 APO .....

[Gregm61]

Not always: Leica's used camera value is one of the highest to my knowledge. Even Leica's digital cameras go for a fairly high price many years after they were originally released - good example is the M9 which still costs > $2300 in the used market. This is a lot more value retention regarding the original sales price compared to any other camera brand. 

Sure they do, but $2,300 for a camera that cost $6-7,000 8 years ago is little different in terms of actual dollars to the $400 one could buy a Nikon D2X compared to what it original sold for. It's just a higher beginning cost, and 2-3 years from now that $2,300 camera is probably going to be getting close to a $1,000 to $1,500 camera.

 

The point is, no M9 10 years from now (other than maybe the collectible ones like Hermes, etc) is going to be selling for anything close to what one of the classic film bodies will still be worth. Digital cameras cannot be purchased with thought about what it's going to be worth in 8-10 years, but how much enjoyment you get out of it and, hopefully, are still getting out of it. I plan to still be using my M262 unless it just dies on me.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Gregm61

[Martin B]

Sure they do, but $2,300 for a camera that cost $6-7,000 8 years ago is little different in terms of actual dollars to the $400 one could buy a Nikon D2X compared to what it original sold for. It's just a higher beginning cost, and 2-3 years from now that $2,300 camera is probably going to be getting close to a $1,000 to $1,500 camera.

 

The point is, no M9 10 years from now (other than maybe the collectible ones like Hermes, etc) is going to be selling for anything close to what one of the classic film bodies will still be worth. Digital cameras cannot be purchased with thought about what it's going to be worth in 8-10 years, but how much enjoyment you get out of it and, hopefully, are still getting out of it. I plan to still be using my M262 unless it just dies on me.

Let's compare apples with apples - for a 8-9 years old digital FF camera still getting 40% of value back is awesome. Compare this to a 5D MkII released at the same time (for $2700) - you get less than 20% now for this camera (now you can get it for $500 used), pretty much half of what the Leica is still considered worth it. This is not even taking into account that the tech specs of the M9 are IMO far behind the sensor specs of the 5D MkII camera. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Martin B

[TG14]

Microlenses: what are they and where can i read up on them?

[lucerne]

Try this link. https://the.me/the-leica-m-max-sensor-explained/

 

Alternatively, Google "leica microlenses"

[Tailwagger]

If they are, they're buying the wrong brand, LOL. Just need to stick with Sony/Nikon/Canon if that's the mindset. Buying any digital camera is a money-losing event beyond day 1.

 

Amen. Partially inspired by this thread, I was just catching up on whats going on in the rest of the world and noticed rumors about the upcoming Fuji GFX 50R,  purportedly an X-Pro style 50MP MF for around $4K.  If true, both a pretty significant price drop against the original GFX and a bit of a challenge to the As and 800s of the world. Also noted Sony recently announced new 100MP and two new 150MP back lit sensors (one of which is monochrome).

 

The photo tech steam engine rolls on. Fueled by the crushed bones of last years bodies, no doubt.  Glad I got off at the Wetzlar station a couple years back.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Tailwagger

[Jeff S]

And a Hasselblad exec recently stated ....” Expect product announcements throughout 2018, with expansions of the H6D and X1D product lines, perhaps including cameras at price points below X1D to broaden the market”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markewing/2018/01/12/hasselblad-x1d-is-rated-the-worlds-finest-camera/amp/

 

Jeff

[Chaemono]

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.

 

 

Leica is already on the way to catching up in electronics but likely with the SL2. See here:

 

http://www.towerjazz.com/prs/2017/1030.html

 

Those who want more MPx in a Leica to replace their Sony cameras will have to buy the SL2 next year. The good thing about electronics is that at some point the speed of innovation slows downs. The α7R III has the same sensor as the α7R II. This gives competitors time to catch up. Judging from those G-Master Sony lenses, unfortunately (or fortunately for Leica) the same can’t be said about optics.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Chaemono

[Paul J]

IMO, what lets the M System down is lack of pixels. I want more, I need more, and I consider 24 too low. Others have implemented 40-50 in 35mm just fine.

 

But I also accept that Leica isn't, for what ever reason, able or willing to do it. As frustrating as that is, it's just the way it is and I use it where I can, which is, as a result, far less.

 

Combine this with removing functionality, dropping tethering and video and it's even less of a working tool so for me its days are numbered - That is really frustrating because I love the lenses and the camera.

 

If you want more resolution forget the M, move to another system. You will be forever disappointed when comparing to other systems. When contemplating the future of cameras I think something like the X1D is going to be far more relevant.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Paul J

[TG14]

IMO, what lets the M System down is lack of pixels. I want more, I need more, and I consider 24 too low. Others have implemented 40-50 in 35mm just fine.

 

But I also accept that Leica isn't, for what ever reason, able or willing to do it. As frustrating as that is, it's just the way it is and I use it where I can, which is, as a result, far less.

 

Combine this with removing functionality, dropping tethering and video and it's even less of a working tool so for me its days are numbered - That is really frustrating because I love the lenses and the camera.

 

If you want more resolution forget the M, move to another system. You will be forever disappointed when comparing to other systems. When contemplating the future of cameras I think something like the X1D is going to be far more relevant.

And when you use it, is it for work or play?

[TG14]

Just to add to the discussion, found this on youtube: 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chaemono]

Thanks for posting the video. At 3:15 he admits a major flaw in his argument, not using a magnifying glass.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Chaemono

[Steve Ash]

Thanks for posting the video. At 3:15 he admits a major flaw in his argument, not using a magnifying glass.

That is not a flaw but the fundamental and valid basis of his reasoning.

 

If this is your serious point of view what is the appropriate magnification ratio of the glass to be used?

 

Regards

Steve

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro