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

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe that Leica is a privately-held company and a labor of love

https://petapixel.com/2012/10/04/leica-the-little-privately-owned-engine-that-could/

[jdlaing]

Basically it’s a one man ownership of the majority of the company. He’s done pretty good so far.

[hteasley]

The funny thing about this discussion is that folks who want the resolution in the M are acting as if the M system is all that Leica does.

 

The M system has a lot of history, and a mechanical non-TTL mount system that won't ever, I think, allow for M shooters to reliably nail focus on 50+mpix images. They may raise it, but I'm betting it's a bit of a lost cause.

 

All the crying that Leica needs to innovate and take chances, they're doing that with literally every other system they're doing. S, SL, TL, they're all innovative and push in distinct directions. And then rando cameras like the X-U 113... they said, "We need an underwater APS-C camera with lens-mounted flash."

 

Stop acting like the pessmism of your desires for crazy resolution M cameras is some sort of hidebound reactionary position that we'll all look foolish for later. It's just mostly just realism about what the camera can likely do. The M10 is probably pretty darned close to optimal for a mechnical-optical rangefinder system.

Edited February 15, 2018 by hteasley

[pgk]

The funny thing about this discussion is that folks who want the resolution in the M are acting as if the M system is all that Leica does.

 

This is actually about the M system and is under the M10 banner so its hardly surprising.

 

I have little doubt that the SL will evolve in many of the ways that some seem to want the M to do - except that its unlikely that Leica will fit it with a mechanical rangefinder.

[robert blu]

Years ago, not many, Leica was going bankruptcy. Now Leica makes profit. It seems the management has done his job well.

 

If you think Leica is too conservative because of the Ms characteristics (or not up to your needs) Leica has more innovative cameras, the SL, S, T, M.

 

Before buying the M10 (which I absolutely love) I considered the possibility to use the SL with my M lenses and found it a larger but not too much compared to the M. But I love the rangefinder and went in that direction.

 

When working my boss always reminded me to distinguish the needs of our clients from their desires...

 

robert

[Martin B]

Years ago, not many, Leica was going bankruptcy. Now Leica makes profit. It seems the management has done his job well.

 

If you think Leica is too conservative because of the Ms characteristics (or not up to your needs) Leica has more innovative cameras, the SL, S, T, M.

 

Before buying the M10 (which I absolutely love) I considered the possibility to use the SL with my M lenses and found it a larger but not too much compared to the M. But I love the rangefinder and went in that direction.

 

When working my boss always reminded me to distinguish the needs of our clients from their desires...

 

robert

 

Not such difficult choice between M10 and SL since the same sensor resolution is currently offered in both systems - the more interesting question is which one would you have decided for (price aside) if the SL came with 42 MP and newer further DR-improved sensor? I bet you would have gone with the SL instead and made the rangefinder system less of a priority. I am fully convinced if Leica offered a better sensor in the SL, it would have negatively impacted sales of the M10. Possible that Leica will only use the SL to equip it with a modern FF sensor (let's compare apples with apples and stick to FF comparisons and not include medium format or APS-C sensors as you mentioned above in S and T models). But I really can't see a clear reason why not to add a higher MP sensor also in the M system - the whole focusing thing used as con reasoning does not make sense to me. I am pretty sure that the M11 will have a higher resolution sensor, but likely it won't be one equal to other FF competitors in the market either available at the same time.  

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The funny thing about this discussion is that folks who want the resolution in the M are acting as if the M system is all that Leica does.

 

No, that's not true at all. 

It's just that all of their other cameras have direct competition, there are options. For example, for me - why buy an SL when I can buy something for less that is similar in physical size and user experience, and has better IQ (seeing that IQ is something I'm interested in)? Some people have good reasons, yes, but the SL is pretty functionally similar to other mirrorless cameras out there for many.

 

When it comes to the M though, it's the only option. There seems to be something hard to understand about the thing that an M - in the form and experience that only the M can achieve - would be even better with a better sensor. It's not about getting a better camera for this or that. It's about the M, and wanting that form factor with more robust, higher resolution files. That's what this is about. The SL isn't the M. It may be quite nice, but the only thing I'm interested in that Leica does is the M. 

 

That said, with this line of thinking, the SL should have better sensor, because the whole 'system limitations' argument really flies out the window there with this system that was designed from the ground up for digital.  

 

The whole "50 mp is too much to practically use with focus and camera shake and all that" is really a stretch imo. Sure, it might be more difficult, but, um, Rolleiflexes, hasselblads, Mamiya 7s and Fuji 6x9 rangefinders have been used plenty over the years with great success, despite the much more critical manual focus required in all of these. They even have all been used successfully for street photography, despite their bigger size. Manually focusing a Sony isn't hard, and with liveview on an M, if you need it, you can use it, but you probably won't need it, because the depth of field rules will still apply. I don't disagree that less MP leaves more room for error, so maybe that's a good option to have, but it doesn't provide a good excuse for not having a high resolution.

 

The only excuse I buy right now is that the RF legacy design puts forth technical hurdles that aren't practical or profitable to overcome with Leica's current capacity. That's an excuse I buy, and I'm fine with it. It would be pretty great if they ever found a way to get past those limitations though, at least I know I'd be interested. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by pgh

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

I think with current technology 24 Megapixel is a great spot for a generalist full frame camera.

 

If you print DIN A 4 at 300 dpi, you need about 6 Megapixels for that. Thats easy to compute in the head: DIN A4 is something in the area of 30x20cm (or 300x200mm), and 300 dpi is a bit less than 10 pixel per mm. Thus we need 3000x2000 Pixel, or 6 Megapixel, for printing DIN A 4. Add a 50% margin for the fact that we're using Bayer color filters over our sensors, and one can print DIN A 4 with 12 Megapixels at maximum resolution. And with 24 Megapixel, DIN A 3 is perfectly covered.

 

They could make a high resolution M (and/or SL), but they would need access to the newest shenannigans to still reach good performance, i.e. good dynamic range, good high ISO, good color resolution. Something like the Nikon D850 sensor, with backlit technology and base ISO 64.

 

I doubt Leica has access to that plus I think it should then be a separate camera line, for people who want to focus more into resolution over having a good generalist.

[adan]

Yep - for me, the definition of a "good sensor" is "can produce clean unbanded ISO 32000 (or higher). I'd be perfectly happy if Leica went back to 12 or 16 or 18 megapixels to achieve that. The idea that sensor quality is measured by megapixels is so out-dated and "2008."

 

It is interesting that my best-selling pictures in the gallery thus far were all produced with a 10 Mpixel M8 (printed 14" x 21" on A2 - at about 180 ppi). Because the pictures were good, and no-one buying good photography cares that much about IQ and resolution (or Tri-X would not have outlived Kodachrome ).

 

If Leica were as big as Sony, they could produce M cameras for every taste - an M10R for those who want resolution, and an M10 for the generalists, and an M10S for me. But they are not, so they have to aim for the center of the market and make "a jack of all trades and a master of none." Because that will attract the largest market.

[Martin B]

Yep - for me, the definition of a "good sensor" is "can produce clean unbanded ISO 32000 (or higher). I'd be perfectly happy if Leica went back to 12 or 16 or 18 megapixels to achieve that. The idea that sensor quality is measured by megapixels is so out-dated and "2008."

 

It is interesting that my best-selling pictures in the gallery thus far were all produced with a 10 Mpixel M8 (printed 14" x 21" on A2 - at about 180 ppi). Because the pictures were good, and no-one buying good photography cares that much about IQ and resolution (or Tri-X would not have outlived Kodachrome ).

 

If Leica were as big as Sony, they could produce M cameras for every taste - an M10R for those who want resolution, and an M10 for the generalists, and an M10S for me. But they are not, so they have to aim for the center of the market and make "a jack of all trades and a master of none." Because that will attract the largest market.

 

C'on...I am not saying that the sensor quality is only defined by its resolution but it certainly is big part of it. In 2008, yes, the resolution maximum was at 22 MP for FF sensors. This was 10 years ago....now look at the D850, the A7R II/III, the 5DsR...all have modern FF sensors - given that some have pros and debits in areas like DR for example, but they all exhibit higher resolution. This variety of cameras wouldn't exist if there weren't demand.....people for example were leaving and switching to Nikon and Sony in quite some amount when Canon had no modern high MP FF sensor to offer for quite some time until the 5DsR came along. To compare this with film is not a fair comparison at all - this is the reason why I shoot with hig res FF sensor and film in parallel! 

 

Due to its smaller market cap it is likely what you are saying that Leica will not release different M cameras in parallel even I wish they would. Sony's strategy proves right seeing their success in this field having different models out for different usage and preference. Unfortunately in this case I will not upgrade to Leica M digital. 

[arno_nyhm]

just to answer the topicquestion and without reading, what everybody said yet:

 

"No. what for? but maybe i will change my mind within a few years or so"

[pgk]

Out of pure curiosity, what MPixels do people think will be enough for 35mm FF format?

[arno_nyhm]

Out of pure curiosity, what MPixels do people think will be enough for 35mm FF format?

 

there might be an easy fomula for calculating this. i think it is something like:

 

(year a.d. - 2000) x (what my cellphoneś camera delivers) x (what my neighbour thinks is minimum pixels for a 4by5 print) / (what my first camera delivered)

[Tailwagger]

How many MegaP? Pshaw. MegaP is so last century. We've had 20 MegaP in a 1/2.3" BSI sensor, 28mm sq., for a while now.  FF is 864mm sq, roughly 31x the area. Engineering concerns are for losers, fab is an easily solved problem, so AFAIC every FF camera on the market worth its sackful of Euros should already be at 2/3 GigaP.  Canon, Sony, Nikon, whoever, they're all sandbagging us so we have to keep upgrading bodies every year.  Total ripoff. As for Leica, with its quaint and impossible to focus RF system not to mention its woeful, lead from behind sensors, a conservative minimum acceptable level for next years M11 would run around 1/3 GigaP.  ( ) 

[Jeff S]

But they are not, so they have to aim for the center of the market and make "a jack of all trades and a master of none." Because that will attract the largest market.

Monochrom owners would disagree; a niche within a niche. The M market is relatively small even as a whole. But it’s still the core product.

 

That said, I think the market for a low MP M has passed. That would likely be a micro-niche. But I bet a high MP version (if feasible) would sell rather well, whether logical or not. That merely reflects the times...and the uncontrollable GAS for the latest and greatest M lens or camera.

 

Jeff

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

Out of pure curiosity, what MPixels do people think will be enough for 35mm FF format?

 

Well 12 Megapixel would already suffice for my photography. As I explained in my last posting in this thread, thats enough for DIN A 4 with 300dpi even if you take into consideration that the Bayer color filter will reduce effective resolution.

 

The question what amount of pixels you want for a certain sensor size, this comes down to the limit of physics. One such limit would be diffraction, another like that is shot noise. These are the hard limits you cannot avoid, no matter how much technology improves otherwise. Depending upon what level of quality you want in your signal, you cannot make these sources of errors too big. So at a certain point, for even stronger resolutions, you'll want a larger sensor; there is no way around that. But when that point is reached is hard to tell. The luminous landscape article about the Sony A7s already claimed that the 12 Megapixel full frame sensor had something of a medium format look to it that apparently gets lost with smaller pixel. So it could be considered that 12 Megapixel is already what you want for a small format sensor.

 

APS-C sensors are stuck at 24 Megapixel for a while now. A full frame sensor with the same pixel size would have about 53 Megapixels. I would say if you're happy with dynamic range etc of APS-C, thats the current limit of technology. But there are some new technologies out or at the horizont which could improve this barrier further:

- backlit -  about 30% better performance thanks to the pixels near the surface.

- lower base ISO - just collect more light for better SNR, like in the Nikon D810 and D850

- color splitter - proposal from Panasonic; other companies like Nikon have such patents too. Basically split the light into the three color channels in every pixel and measure them separately. This both no longer wastes light like the Bayer color filter does and measures the color in the pixel with higher precision, like its done by the Phase One Trichromatic back.

- organic sensors - apparently in development by Panasonic and Fujifilm, otherwise information is vague. it might be a bit like gallium arsenide for computers or unix as the general operating system for everyone : a clearly superior technology that never happened. Then again it might come out soon and whow us all with the improved performance.

 

None of these ideas can fight diffraction. Collecting more light gets lowers shot noise, but obviously this cannot be done indefinitely.

[pico]

If one truly needs more megapixels then he is either a great photographer, unlikely,  or just one wishing photographs would be better if only technology would relate megapixels to talent. It never will.

 

Technology has nothing to do with talent, aesthetics. Price-points, consumer pride, bragging rights, maybe.

Edited February 15, 2018 by pico

[Martin B]

If one truly needs more megapixels then he is either a great photographer, unlikely,  or just one wishing photographs would be better if only technology would relate megapixels to talent. It never will.

 

Technology has nothing to do with talent, aesthetics. Price-points, consumer pride, bragging rights, maybe.

 

So you are saying that every photographer who desires a higher resolution FF sensor has lack of talent??? What kind of excuse is this now, running out of reasons for defending the current stagnant tech? I expressed twice in earlier posts why higher MP sensors are beneficial for MY style of photography in some aspects - why is it so difficult to understand that needs are simply different? I can fully understand if somebody else desires for a different style a lower res sensor - there are good reasons to do so, too. But please try to see outside your (Leica) box that there are also good reasons to desire a higher MP FF sensor - well, honestly, I already make use of one since 4 years. And I shoot film in parallel as you know because one style does not replace the other. But there are situations where I definitely make good use of the modern FF sensor. This has zero to do with talent, advertisement or marketing. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Martin B

[jdlaing]

So you are saying that every photographer who desires a higher resolution FF sensor has lack of talent??? What kind of excuse is this now, running out of reasons for defending the current stagnant tech? I expressed twice in earlier posts why higher MP sensors are beneficial for MY style of photography in some aspects - why is it so difficult to understand that needs are simply different? I can fully understand if somebody else desires for a different style a lower res sensor - there are good reasons to do so, too. But please try to see outside your (Leica) box that there are also good reasons to desire a higher MP FF sensor - well, honestly, I already make use of one since 4 years. And I shoot film in parallel as you know because one style does not replace the other. But there are situations where I definitely make good use of the modern FF sensor.

 

Well, in a nutshell, Leica M digital is clearly not for you.

 

When you wrote to Leica what was their reply?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[olgierdc]

 

 

The question what amount of pixels you want for a certain sensor size, this comes down to the limit of physics.

 

We should start counting the photons in every pixel. With an ISO base and a 14 bit image, at least 2 ^ 14 photons are needed. The pixel lens must be perfect and catch every photon and the matrix can not have its own noise. On what pixel surface can we catch so many photons? Of course, the number of photons needed will increase with the increase of ISO.