Alberti Posted February 24, 2018 Share #401 Posted February 24, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Although this thread is not a poll, - I think I m part of the unsilent majority of long term users that says 'enough is enough'. To say it differently, Leica M0 or M11 is not used in a market of professionals, like fashion, advertisement market. Where pixels count (and bulkiness is no problem). Let them use a MF digital! For some wedding photohtaphers it might be a secondary camera for discrete shooting, something special, a footprint or signature. But that is not a big market share. - Or, Leica users do in general not have a purpose for that high pixel count (bill board sized enlargements). - Or, where many appreciate the quality of the image (remember those CCD aficionados - the M9 laggards) they would all immediately buy a CCD/Maestro combo that might surpass the M10 in several subjective and objective parameters, but not in pixel count; these people think that is not where they might want to go. And yes the M240 is quite good, as is the M9 and I have only given the M10 a thought for ergo (better viewfinder; maybe more saturated/deep images like the M9, though I still have doubts; lighter). High pixels: not for me at all. Why do M9 users have a "hangup" about their camera? Because it hase something unique. Not being low pixels. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 Hi Alberti, 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!
blacksinner Posted February 24, 2018 Share #402 Posted February 24, 2018 maybe leica doesn't have the tech yet. even in M10 is quite hot and even shut down because of overheat. the evf lag is still not acceptable in modern days. if the ask help from panasonic like the SL then maybe it can happen. more megapixel, and everything in SL maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2018 Share #403 Posted February 24, 2018 Leica has a long-standing technical cooperation agreement with Panasonic. All the technology is available - just not applicable in a camera that has to combine sixty-year old design parameters with present-day technology. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 25, 2018 Share #404 Posted February 25, 2018 Although this thread is not a poll, - I think I m part of the unsilent majority of long term users that says 'enough is enough'. To say it differently, Leica M0 or M11 is not used in a market of professionals, like fashion, advertisement market. Where pixels count (and bulkiness is no problem). Let them use a MF digital! For some wedding photohtaphers it might be a secondary camera for discrete shooting, something special, a footprint or signature. But that is not a big market share. - Or, Leica users do in general not have a purpose for that high pixel count (bill board sized enlargements). - Or, where many appreciate the quality of the image (remember those CCD aficionados - the M9 laggards) they would all immediately buy a CCD/Maestro combo that might surpass the M10 in several subjective and objective parameters, but not in pixel count; these people think that is not where they might want to go. And yes the M240 is quite good, as is the M9 and I have only given the M10 a thought for ergo (better viewfinder; maybe more saturated/deep images like the M9, though I still have doubts; lighter). High pixels: not for me at all. Why do M9 users have a "hangup" about their camera? Because it hase something unique. Not being low pixels. Professionals are using it in fashion etc. And I think you will find those, like me, who are, are feeling very cut off by many decisions with the M because we've being using them for years and things have stalled and/or things have been removed like tethering. That is awkward when one is invested in a whole system of lenses etc. I think it has more to do with the entire portfolio. I've been saying for years that the M and everything else, more recently like the SL, isn't going to exceed the pixel count of the S. So until the S goes to 60 or more, we're unlikely to see the M and SL and everything else move either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrr101 Posted February 26, 2018 Share #405 Posted February 26, 2018 I can understand that this debate goes on and on because few things are really clear cut on those subjects I would like to share hands on experience that should contribute to the debate and show that, apart simple and basic facts, there is no obvious conclusion 1/ I have made a 2 meters by 80 cm (80" X 32") very detailed print from a picture taken with a Fuji X-Pro2 (APS-C, 24 Mpixels) with the 55-200mm lens (very good quality but by far not the most expensive tele zoom) and it was the picture of a large bird (cygnus) taking off from water It needed some pixel-pumping in PP to arrive at such a large size, It shows 2 things: a/ you can do a lot of things when you start with "high quality" 24 Mp (the sensor and the lens must be good or very good) b/ motion blur is a non issue if you can increase ISO so as to be able to increase shutter speed 2/ I have made another 2 meters by 80 cm (80" X 32") very detailed print from a picture taken with a Fuji Gfx50 (51 Mp, 4:3 format, digital "medium format" : 44mm X 33mm sensor) and a 30 years old lens for 35mm film (105 mm Ais Micro-Nikkor 2.8 closed at f/8) The 4:3 format means that not so many pixels were used to obtain a 2.5:1 format picture; actually around 25 MPixels are used for the final picture A Sony A7R2 could have taken the same picture This time, very simple and straightforward PP, no sharpness issue whatsoever This also shows 2 things a/ More than "high quality" 24 Mp to start with are really useful, if only for cropping and simplifying PP b/ (again) motion blur is a non issue if you can increase ISO so as to be able to increase shutter speed (the subject was a sunset with little light, taken with a lens closed at f/8, with a handheld camera) Hope this helps Guy 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 27, 2018 Share #406 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) You can make a decent print from 24MP or 12MP for that matter, but that is only relevant to individual prints. As a professional your work is judged by editors, creative directors, clients etc. at 100% on a monitor and it is compared with your competition - who ever is also shooting for that client. It's no mystery. If you're shooting 24MP and the other guy is shooting 50MP then the difference is clear. Rationalising that "24mp makes a decent print" makes absolutely no difference to them and you aren't likely to get a chance to make that argument anyway. Clients just want as much as they can get because that makes them look good, even if it is overkill for their needs. 24MP is too low. Edited February 27, 2018 by Paul J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 27, 2018 Share #407 Posted February 27, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the early days of digital, Getty had prescribed lists of cameras which were 'professional' enough - this has relaxed because its image content which is far more important. Anyone who is still fixated on 'needing' MPixels simply doesn't realise that content is far more important than file size once file size is sufficient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 27, 2018 Share #408 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) In the early days of digital, Getty had prescribed lists of cameras which were 'professional' enough - this has relaxed because its image content which is far more important. Anyone who is still fixated on 'needing' MPixels simply doesn't realise that content is far more important than file size once file size is sufficient. Stock is something else, they cater for all kinds of budgets and photos are chosen at face value. Most will be submitting on cameras that surpassed their minimum requirement long ago. In other segments, Apart from stating the obvious, it's otherwise irrelevant in this day and age and a bit naive to think your content is enough. A photographer is not even shooting for these clients if content isn't there to begin with. Content is just a given and a base level requirement in the first place. Get booked on content and then dropped for your image quality? No thanks. Edited February 27, 2018 by Paul J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted February 27, 2018 Share #409 Posted February 27, 2018 I understand some photographers need more MP. Amateurs or professionals. What I do not understand is why they need more MP in an Leica M which is a camera with very specific characteristics. Targeted to specific segment of the market. There are other cameras in the market which offers more MP, Leica and not. If a pro needs more MP to satisfy his client (again I understand it) he needs to select the right tool, unfortunately it's not an M ! Just my idea... robert PS: the same applies for the desire of an integrated EVF ... 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 27, 2018 Share #410 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) Leica in FF is being reduced to the M system here. Let’s just get all the b!tch!ng and moaning in before Leica announces a 40+ MPx FF sensor at this year‘s Photokina. And they have the lenses to go with it. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/ http://www.towerjazz.com/prs/2017/1030.html Edited February 27, 2018 by Chaemono Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucerne Posted February 27, 2018 Share #411 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) Chaemono Can’t we just be allowed to wait and see? Your post is pure speculation except you say you have been told that the number of megapixels will be 40. You mention that on every product thread. That’s not an official announcement by the manufacturer. While we wait, perhaps you could explain the relevance of yet more linked comparison images that aren’t related to a new sensor and have no qualitatiive value to a web viewer. Edited February 27, 2018 by lucerne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgh Posted February 28, 2018 Share #412 Posted February 28, 2018 even if that were true, if it's not in an M, or the size of an M, it's not an innovation I'm interested in because Sony already has it beat and for far less $$. The SL users can go for it, but this isn't a thread for SL users. To me, that camera makes little sense for any reason other than the brand. Leica in FF is being reduced to the M system here. Let’s just get all the b!tch!ng and moaning in before Leica announces a 40+ MPx FF sensor at this year‘s Photokina. And they have the lenses to go with it. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/http://www.towerjazz.com/prs/2017/1030.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 28, 2018 Share #413 Posted February 28, 2018 So, here is why I am not really anxious for the Leica 'M' to increase in megapixel count. It's all about circles of confusion for me and the practical limitations of focus accuracy with a relatively short, mechanical rangefinder baseline... First a little background information. Here are the various pixel pitches on a full frame camera (36mm x 24mm) for some existing megapixel counts: 24mp --> 6 microns 36mp --> 4.9 microns 42mp --> 4.3 microns 50mp --> 4.1 microns Those numbers are rounded, but they will work for our purposes. If you take the original Zeiss requirement for an acceptably sharp circle of confusion size, it was something like d/1750 where d = diagonal of the format (42mm for full frame) That would generate an acceptable circle of confusion for an A4 print at 25cm viewing distance (essentially, the eye's limit of resolution would be the same as the circle of confusion) of 24 microns for a full frame camera. That's already 4x the pixel size of a 24mp camera, but what the heck, perhaps the Zeiss standard (which was aggressive in its day) is now outdated. Maybe our expectations are now higher. Let's assume we want the CoC size to correspond to the pixel size. I'll ignore diffraction effects for now... Using the formula 'Dn = (sf^2)/(f^2+Nc(s-f))' and the formula 'Df = (sf^2)/(f^2-NC(s-f))' for calculating the 'Near' and 'Far' distances for subject depth of field where: s = subject distance f = focal length c = acceptable CoC (pixel pitch) N = focal ratio What do we see when we plug in various values? For a 24 megapixel camera? For a 90mm lens and a subject distance of 2m shooting wide open at f/2 (Summicron) the total DoF is 11mm For a 75mm lens and a subject distance of 2m shooting wide open at f/2 (Summicron) the total DoF is 16mm For a 50mm lens and a subject distance of 2m shooting wide open at f/1.4 (Summilux) the total DoF is 26mm For a 35mm lens and a subject distance of 2m shooting wide open at f/2 (Summicron) the total DoF is 73mm What about if you jump to, say, a 42mp camera with its 4.5 micron pixels? 90mm DoF is 8mm at 2m subject distance 75mm DoF is 12mm at 2m subject distance 50mm DoF is 20mm at 2m subject distance 35mm DoF is 58mm at 2m subject distance How much of your typical subject is going to reside within the critical focus zone? Given the focus accuracy of a rangefinder? Even with a 24 megapixel 'M' let alone a 36 or 42 megapixel 'M'? OK, maybe you're not shooting portraits. Frankly, most portraits don't need ultra high resolution, anyway. Let's pick a slightly longer subject distance of 5m and stop down till we are starting to lose sharpness in the center of the field due to diffraction. That's where the spot size due to diffraction (Airy disk diameter measured at the first minimum) is the same as the pixel size. For a 24 megapixel full frame camera, that's about at f/4.6. For a 42 megapixel full frame camera that's about at f/3.4. Obviously, in the real world we don't start seeing diffraction effects at quite those apertures since our lenses aren't perfect and the Bayer interpolation robs us of some resolution as well. Still, technically diffraction is starting to matter as you stop down below those focal ratios. So let's pick f/5.6 for the 24 megapixel camera and f/4 for the 42 megapixel camera for a reasonable balance between DoF and center resolution... What do we get at 5m subject distance at f/5.6 on a 24 megapixel camera? 90mm --> 290mm DoF (from roughly 4.9m to 5.1m) 75mm --> 420mm DoF (from roughly 4.9m to 5.2m) 50mm --> 950mm DoF (from roughly 4.7m to 5.4m) 35mm --> 1390mm DoF (from roughly 4.4m to 5.8m) And what about if we upped the megapixel count to 42 and dropped the aperture to f/4 or so to avoid diffraction? 90mm --> 110mm DoF (from roughly 4.95m to 5.05m) 75mm --> 160mm DoF (from roughly 4.9m to 5.1m) 50mm --> 360mm DoF (from roughly 4.8m to 5.2m) 35mm --> 730mm DoF (from roughly 4.7m to 5.4m) That's pretty tight. Especially at shorter subject distances (2m or less). I'm not going to go so far as to say there would be no benefit at all to a rangefinder camera with more megapixels, but it's certainly not going to be of universal benefit. I suspect that for the vast majority of the pictures I take (won't speak for anyone else), the odds of my perfectly "nailing" focus--within the tolerances I listed--even for a 24 megapixel camera are not all that high. Maybe for subjects beyond 4m where the DoF is fairly sizable even with the lens wide open. But for subjects in the 2m to 4m range? Where I suspect most of us do the bulk of our shooting with 'M' cameras? Heck, for a portrait with a 75mm f/2 Summicron on the existing 24mp camera I've only got about 8mm on either side of focus to play with before the CoC starts to grow beyond a single pixel. That's barely enough to cover the eyes alone if my subject isn't square to the camera! And that's assuming I nail the focus. With a 42mp version of the M10 that would drop from 8mm to 6mm on either side of the point of focus. Maybe for landscapes? Not sure. If I use my 21mm SEM at f/8 set at the hyperlocal distance for 24 megapixel camera (indicated distance of about 9.2m), I would get everything from 4.6m to infinity and I wouldn't be giving up much to diffraction. On a 42 megapixel camera with that same 21mm SEM running at f/5.6 (since diffraction would likely be significant with the denser pixels at f/8), the hyperfocal distance is around 17.5m instead of 9.2m giving me everything from 8.8m to infinity assuming I want the DoF to reside within a CoC of one pixel. Frankly, to get the most out of that 42mp camera when shooting a typical landscape I would often need to combine separate exposures at different focus distances. Otherwise I'm either giving up resolution to DoF or to diffraction. Lots of numbers here, I know. And no pictures to look at and say, "Oh, I see what he means." And some of us already have practical experience with higher megapixel cameras which I certainly don't want to discount since I don't. I just know that with 24 megapixels I'm already at the point that to be limited by the camera's resolution rather than other factors I need: - An aperture of f/8 or less to avoid noticeable softening form diffraction; frankly, it's f/5.6 or less on my best couple lenses at the center of the field - A high enough f/stop that I'm not losing resolution to spherical aberration and other lens defects (generally at least one stop closed down from maximum) - A shutter speed of at least 1/2x focal length for consistently sharp images, and even then I am usually taking multiples and choosing the best if it's a static subject - Focus exactly right within a pretty narrow range - A subject that doesn't need more depth of field (or at least not much more DoF) than my calculations above indicate - A low enough ISO that I don't need to apply significant luminance noise reduction or I'll just be throwing away the hard won resolution - A subject that will stay still long enough for the chosen shutter speed Personally, based on the above, there are a lot of things I'd look for in my next 'M' before I would look for higher megapixels. I'm happy at 24mp. Offer me an 'S' at 50mp, though, and I might have a different opinion. The math all changes. A 50 megapixel medium format has 5.2 micron pixels which is about the same density as a theoretical 32 megapixel full frame camera. That wouldn't be a bad compromise on performance and usability. Of course, I'd need a new computer to deal with those larger files... 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 28, 2018 Share #414 Posted February 28, 2018 Chaemono Can’t we just be allowed to wait and see? Sure you can. ...While we wait, perhaps you could explain the relevance of yet more linked comparison images that aren’t related to a new sensor and have no qualitatiive value to a web viewer. It's my signature line. I like it better this way. Your post is pure speculation except you say you have been told that the number of megapixels will be 40. You mention that on every product thread. I'll mention what I think is relevant to the discussion. As this threads moves on for the next six months, I'll keep mentioning it and include my signature line, of course, so that new readers who join can be informed. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/ http://www.towerjazz.com/prs/2017/1030.html 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 28, 2018 Share #415 Posted February 28, 2018 Lots of numbers here, I know. Jared The problem in this thread is the same problem that goes on elsewhere. A few want to inflict their unreasoned views on the rest of us regardless of the theory and reasoning behind why what we have is actually already pretty good and 'fit for purpose'. For some of us increasing MPixels is not where we would like to go, but the bigger the number the better according to some, and therefore we must all obey the call of the MPixels because to not do so is to use inferior and incapable equipment. I would much rather have lower noise, viable higher ISO, greater dynamic range and so on, than more MPixels (though none currently limit what I can do with my RFs). Trying to get the M camera to do the job of an old medium format film camera still makes little sense to me especially as there are alternative solutions out there already The M is a rangefinder suited to specific applications but unsuited to many others. Why this is so difficult to grasp baffles me. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 28, 2018 Share #416 Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) I understand some photographers need more MP. Amateurs or professionals. What I do not understand is why they need more MP in an Leica M which is a camera with very specific characteristics. Targeted to specific segment of the market. There are other cameras in the market which offers more MP, Leica and not. If a pro needs more MP to satisfy his client (again I understand it) he needs to select the right tool, unfortunately it's not an M ! Just my idea... robert PS: the same applies for the desire of an integrated EVF ... When the M9 came out 18MP was quite a lot. It was enough when Canon and Nikon Users were on 18MPish too. It was easily the right tool. The M is a perfectly valid tool with some of the best lenses in the business. They render in a way that is very unique and it becomes a part of your work an process. To suggest "just use another camera" is only relevant to the last model where things like tethering have been dropped and development in pixel count etc has been too slow. But people have been using the system for years and have invested a very large sum into in it with lenses bodies etc. To the tunes of tens of thousands of pounds. While I personally use other cameras, for some it's really not as simple as "just use a different camera". That is very costly proposition in many ways more than purely financial. A once happy and loyal user base should be looked after - not dismissed and not told to buy an SL if you want tethering. It's unacceptable. Edited February 28, 2018 by Paul J 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 28, 2018 Share #417 Posted February 28, 2018 "Just use another camera" is not the same as "ditch the M system" What is the problem of using a dedicated camera, which needs not be prohibitively expensive, for specific work? It has always been like this. Carrying an M camera next to a Nikon SLR was standard for PJs, for instance. Using an R camera next to an M for wildlife was the basic procedure, etc. I have never heard a carpenter say: "I must replace my hammer because I need a screwdriver to turn this screw". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 28, 2018 Share #418 Posted February 28, 2018 ..... for some it's really not as simple as "just use a different camera". That is very costly proposition in many ways more than purely financial. Ummm. I could buy an entire and excellent system from another manufacturer for the price of a new M body. The costly proposition financial argument is not a sound one. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 28, 2018 Share #419 Posted February 28, 2018 A once happy and loyal user base should be looked after - not dismissed and not told to buy an SL if you want tethering. It's unacceptable. Hmmm... Leica has told their customer base to buy an SL/R camera for non-rangefinder use since the early 1960-iesas the concept of the M is a handy reportage and travel camera. Tethering and studio use are not really part of that concept. I get the impression that the level of customer unhappiness is quite low nowadays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 28, 2018 Share #420 Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) "Just use another camera" is not the same as "ditch the M system" What is the problem of using a dedicated camera, which needs not be prohibitively expensive, for specific work? It has always been like this. Carrying an M camera next to a Nikon SLR was standard for PJs, for instance. Using an R camera next to an M for wildlife was the basic procedure, etc. I have never heard a carpenter say: "I must replace my hammer because I need a screwdriver to turn this screw". No, I entirely agree. And that is what I do. it's just that the M's use has become far less than what I would like and often really need. At this point I would even be OK moving to the SL but at 24MP it's the no different. Edited February 28, 2018 by Paul J 1 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