M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another thing is that experts agree that their sensors are amongst the best on the market for the purpose intended, so you are really barking at ghosts. 

Oh cmon! What is this?

This is like saying experts agree that Leica is the best true digital rangefinder on the market. It's true because it's the only one that exists. It is no indication that it is good.

 

Saying that the sensors are "amongst the best on the market for the purpose intended" is just fallacious. Leica M's use full frame sensors. Their sensors are not "amongst the best on the market. They're serviceable for most scenarios and for most users but compared against the best out there they have plenty of very demonstrable shortcomings.

I get that Leica M design makes the sensors more challenging to implement, but that is no excuse for the SL, and I don't see any experts agreeing that Leica have among the best full frame sensors on the market generally. I don't buy the argument that we should only compare them against other Leicas, which is what this line of thinking suggests as a logical conclusion. 

[Martin B]

Oh cmon! What is this?

This is like saying experts agree that Leica is the best true digital rangefinder on the market. It's true because it's the only one that exists. It is no indication that it is good.

 

Saying that the sensors are "amongst the best on the market for the purpose intended" is just fallacious. Leica M's use full frame sensors. Their sensors are not "amongst the best on the market. They're serviceable for most scenarios and for most users but compared against the best out there they have plenty of very demonstrable shortcomings.

I get that Leica M design makes the sensors more challenging to implement, but that is no excuse for the SL, and I don't see any experts agreeing that Leica have among the best full frame sensors on the market generally. I don't buy the argument that we should only compare them against other Leicas, which is what this line of thinking suggests as a logical conclusion. 

 

I am normally quite direct and outspoken, but I didn't dare to say so . This said, I read tests about the Leica M10 sensor on dpreview.com, and it was quite good regarding dynamic range - not the best but on the market but better than others. Where it is lacking is in resolution - and opinions here will differ if a higher MP should be implemented or not (we made our viewpoints clear about this earlier, no need to repeat). I will be honest - if the M10 would be available for $2999.99, I would get one. This I would see as a fair price for the technology in it and a few hundred bucks added for the Leica brand name. Just my 2 Cents 

[jaapv]

Oh cmon! What is this?

This is like saying experts agree that Leica is the best true digital rangefinder on the market. It's true because it's the only one that exists. It is no indication that it is good.

 

Saying that the sensors are "amongst the best on the market for the purpose intended" is just fallacious. Leica M's use full frame sensors. Their sensors are not "amongst the best on the market. They're serviceable for most scenarios and for most users but compared against the best out there they have plenty of very demonstrable shortcomings.

I get that Leica M design makes the sensors more challenging to implement, but that is no excuse for the SL, and I don't see any experts agreeing that Leica have among the best full frame sensors on the market generally. I don't buy the argument that we should only compare them against other Leicas, which is what this line of thinking suggests as a logical conclusion.

 

there are full frame sensors for many purposes If you would put a “top” Nikon DSLR sensor in an M10 the results would be sh!t. That is the fallacy in your thinking.

[Martin B]

there are full frame sensors for many purposes If you would put a “top” Nikon DSLR sensor in an M10 the results would be sh!t. That is the fallacy in your thinking.

 

They would be - because the cover glass which Nikon uses is much thicker than what Leica needs to use for the rangefinder lenses. So simply swapping sensors from one brand to another doesn't work just because of this (okay, between DSLR cameras it would work to some degree even there the flange distance is different, too). I am surprised you didn't know. 

[jaapv]

Huh? I just told you.

You apparently disregard your own knowledge by trying to put Leica sensors down and comparing to other brands.

It is not just the filter stack thickness, BTW. That is the easy part. The microlens design is even more important, as is the well depth of the sensels.

[Martin B]

Huh? I just told you.

You apparently disregard your own knowledge by trying to put Leica sensors down and comparing to other brands.

It is not just the filter stack thickness, BTW. That is the easy part. The microlens design is even more important, as is the well depth of the sensels.

 

Sure, I absolutely compare Leica sensors to other brands - something wrong with this?! I do the same with other brands - I mentioned earlier that I already criticized Canon for their lack in FF sensor technology in 2012 when high MP FF was just getting implemented by Nikon in the D800(E). It was fun - all the excuses why high MP aren't needed etc etc and seeing now all these who put me down for my opinion using themselves 42 to 50 MP FF sensors (more than even I have currently ). I feel sometimes here like in this 2012 mode with the difference that Leica's FF sensors are already pretty good in DR (I stated this above if you read my post?) where Canon's sensors still lag behind competition. This said I am well aware that not everybody would make use of this kind of high MP/high DR sensor - all I ask is for understanding that some can make use of it and are not satisfied with just 22 MP in 2018. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those users move to high-MP cameras and do not troll forums of brands that offer other types of cameras. You could just as well go to a Canon forum and lambast them for not building an M type rangefinder camera.

Pixel count does not equate sensor quality. On the contrary, the more the pixel density mounts, the more the difficulty of maintaining quality increases.

[Chaemono]

Which makes me think that Leica must be up to something big sensorwise. Eagerly awaiting June 14 when according to Dr. Kaufmann we‘ll hear about more “opportunities” for the L mount. The trolls must feel the pressure to rachet it up a notch here.

[jaapv]

Whether it will be in pixel count, maybe. I would not be surprised if it were something completely different, but who knows?

Leica will have to join the marketing race at one point, but hopefully will not attempt to be a front runner.

 

As to MP count, I really question the sense. A high density sensor needs more precision in positioning the Bayer filter, more precision in the shaping and positioning of the microlenses, more on-sensor noise reduction, more in-camera noise management and processing power, less well depth to combat cross-talk, etc. None of this will be helpful for final image quality, although huge advances have been made.

At the moment about 40 MP appears to be doable ( the CL and MFT sensors are pretty good)

 

100% crops do not represent the final result. There is much more before one views the print.

I think that @ an A2 print, everything else being equal, a  Summilux asph 50 mm on an M10 will be clearly superior to the same print from a Canon 50 MP camera with the 50/1.4 L IS USM.

Heck, it is pretty hard to beat the DMR (10 MP, "vintage" noise performance) on A3...

Having said that, medium format will blow everything from an 135 sensor out of the water. Large pixels...

 

To avoid any misunderstanding: I do realize that some (professional) applications do require higher pixel counts. The simple fact is that Leica does not build cameras for that market. Well, they do own Sinar.

 

I should think that the SL would be the first camera to receive a modest increase as technology permits, and maybe the S.

[Jeff S]

 

I should think that the SL would be the first camera to receive a modest increase as technology permits, and maybe the S.

Unless Leica dumps the S, or otherwise no longer views it as the flagship for IQ, then I’d expect the S to set the stage first for the Leica MP crown.

 

Jeff

[jonatdonuts]

I think it's important to revisit Leica's history of the M. If we go back to the film days, the M3 (and before it, the barnack) was essentially a compromise on quality - reducing the film size (sensor) from large format to 35mm so that it could be squeezed into a well built, compact, and intuitive body with great lenses. In terms of absolute image quality, the M was never the best available, but it was incredible for its size. This made it perfect for its intended purpose: street and documentary photography. 

 

For its intended purpose, I think many would argue that the M10's sensor, like most other cameras nowadays, has reached the point of overkill. Many street and documentary photographers don't really need more than 24 megapixels, nor do they need more than the wide latitude of dynamic range that it currently offers.

 

And there have been world class photographers that have taken award winning images today with far lessor cameras. In terms of technology, we are all spoilt by what's available. 

 

I am sure that, for landscape and fashion photographers, more megapixels would be appreciated. But this was never the intended purpose of the M. There are and have always been better solutions out there. In the 1950s it was the Hasselblad 500c medium format, while today it can be Phase One or sony's / canikon's megapixel monsters. 

 

In all honesty, I am more concerned with the M's market. Its current user base appear to be a relatively small mix of passionate hobbyists, wealthy collectors, and seasoned photographers who are married to the M's way of operation. Given its price tag, and the millennial generation's preference for instant, automated results, there are less young photographers picking up an M. The M will always remain a niche product, but I am not sure that the current business strategy will be sustainable in 10-20 years time, when we will not have as many older M shooters around to inspire the younger generation. In this respect, I would argue that it may be beneficial to bring the M11's price tag down AND release a true digital CL (or far cheaper version of the M 262) as a way of bringing in the younger photographers into the M way of shooting. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by jonatdonuts

[Martin B]

I think it's important to revisit Leica's history of the M. If we go back to the film days, the M3 (and before it, the barnack) was essentially a compromise on quality - reducing the film size (sensor) from large format to 35mm so that it could be squeezed into a well built, compact, and intuitive body with great lenses. In terms of absolute image quality, the M was never the best available, but it was incredible for its size. This made it perfect for its intended purpose: street and documentary photography. 

 

For its intended purpose, I think many would argue that the M10's sensor, like most other cameras nowadays, has reached the point of overkill. Many street and documentary photographers don't really need more than 24 megapixels, nor do they need more than the wide latitude of dynamic range that it currently offers.

 

And there have been world class photographers that have taken award winning images today with far lessor cameras. In terms of technology, we are all spoilt by what's available. 

 

I am sure that, for landscape and fashion photographers, more megapixels would be appreciated. But this was never the intended purpose of the M. There are and have always been better solutions out there. In the 1950s it was the Hasselblad 500c medium format, while today it can be Phase One or sony's / canikon's megapixel monsters. 

 

In all honesty, I am more concerned with the M's market. Its current user base appear to be a relatively small mix of passionate hobbyists, wealthy collectors, and seasoned photographers who are married to the M's way of operation. Given its price tag, and the millennial generation's preference for instant, automated results, there are less young photographers picking up an M. The M will always remain a niche product, but I am not sure that the current business strategy will be sustainable in 10-20 years time, when we will not have as many older M shooters around to inspire the younger generation. In this respect, I would argue that it may be beneficial to bring the M11's price tag down AND release a true digital CL (or far cheaper version of the M 262) as a way of bringing in the younger photographers into the M way of shooting. 

 

There are some very good points mentioned therein - I agree fully with the history and where Leica came from and making the 35 mm format to a new standard. I also agree that 22 MP is more than enough for street photography - hey, I am doing street photography with 35 mm B&W film which has even a lower resolution than 22 MP and works fully fine. For sceneries and landscapes....not so much (even it still works - that's what we were normally using until 2012). For film, I switch to medium or large format here and in digital terms to a 36 MP FF sensor (which is already not the best anymore either from what is available in FF terms but still ok for me here). Horses for courses. 

 

Also agree regarding the M market. Price tag of Leica cameras is a biggie and will become an issue for regular users who compare brands and tech out there (like me and who was accused to be a troll just because of this!). 

[jonatdonuts]

Agreed. And Leica are in a little bit of a pickle here when it comes to pricing. The M is intricately mechanical, constructed of high end materials, and hand made for a relatively small user base. Its manufacturing costs are therefore very high to start with. At the same time, Leica has successfully used this high end pricing strategy to its advantage, as it reinforces the M's reputation of quality, exclusivity and prestige. 

 

Leica may feel that lowering the price may undermine the high standard of build that they have set themselves, as well as the sense of prestige they have built. A lower priced true digital CL would solve this problem (and I suspect, sell very well, particularly amongst the younger generation), though historically it has negatively affected the M sales. It's a difficult and fascinating problem, though I would argue its one that the current leadership is more than capable of addressing. On the whole, Kaufmann has overseen very good business decisions and innovations with the X1, M9, Q, Summarit line of M lenses, and I would argue, M10, simply by staying true to its soul. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years...

 

There are some very good points mentioned therein - I agree fully with the history and where Leica came from and making the 35 mm format to a new standard. I also agree that 22 MP is more than enough for street photography - hey, I am doing street photography with 35 mm B&W film which has even a lower resolution than 22 MP and works fully fine. For sceneries and landscapes....not so much (even it still works - that's what we were normally using until 2012). For film, I switch to medium or large format here and in digital terms to a 36 MP FF sensor (which is already not the best anymore either from what is available in FF terms but still ok for me here). Horses for courses. 

 

Also agree regarding the M market. Price tag of Leica cameras is a biggie and will become an issue for regular users who compare brands and tech out there (like me and who was accused to be a troll just because of this!). 

[Jeff S]

There are some very good points mentioned therein - I agree fully with the history and where Leica came from and making the 35 mm format to a new standard. I also agree that 22 MP is more than enough for street photography - hey, I am doing street photography with 35 mm B&W film which has even a lower resolution than 22 MP and works fully fine. For sceneries and landscapes....not so much (even it still works - that's what we were normally using until 2012). For film, I switch to medium or large format here and in digital terms to a 36 MP FF sensor (which is already not the best anymore either from what is available in FF terms but still ok for me here). Horses for courses.

 

Also agree regarding the M market. Price tag of Leica cameras is a biggie and will become an issue for regular users who compare brands and tech out there (like me and who was accused to be a troll just because of this!).

If 22MP is adequate, you must be elated with the additional 2MP in the recent digital Ms.

 

Jeff

[Mantice]

Jaapv ARE YOU KIDDING ME, "trolls"?

 

Yes I'm one of those in the transition of moving in to Canon going back to deal with complex huge ugly heavy technical-bug-loaded AF-sucking DSLR, only because Leica isn't progressing.  Do I want to?  NO!  Leica are so good in some areas like focusing with wide-angle and I still feel reluctant to move on, but if I want the best image quality & usability overall - yes I must move on.

 

You think you guys just have all the god given rights to bash all others who don't settle for less and are just asking for improvements?  All I see are/were die-heart Leica fans and photographers speaking about what Leica can do better.  I do however agree that you maybe right in one point - its a waste to exercise feedback in this form because it is not "universally" accepted or cared.

 

And before anyone reply, relax, in a month I will be out and totally silenced and everyone will be happy!!  BTW the "troll" being accused to may just be a ex-Leica die-hearts, just saying...

[tgdinamo]

Jaapv ARE YOU KIDDING ME, "trolls"?

 

Yes I'm one of those in the transition of moving in to Canon going back to deal with complex huge ugly heavy technical-bug-loaded AF-sucking DSLR, only because Leica isn't progressing.  Do I want to?  NO!  Leica are so good in some areas like focusing with wide-angle and I still feel reluctant to move on, but if I want the best image quality & usability overall - yes I must move on.

 

You think you guys just have all the god given rights to bash all others who don't settle for less and are just asking for improvements?  All I see are/were die-heart Leica fans and photographers speaking about what Leica can do better.  I do however agree that you maybe right in one point - its a waste to exercise feedback in this form because it is not "universally" accepted or cared.

 

And before anyone reply, relax, in a month I will be out and totally silenced and everyone will be happy!!  BTW the "troll" being accused to may just be a ex-Leica die-hearts, just saying...

 

100% agreed. 'Troll' accusations are ridiculous and completely uncalled for.

[Martin B]

Jaapv ARE YOU KIDDING ME, "trolls"?

 

Yes I'm one of those in the transition of moving in to Canon going back to deal with complex huge ugly heavy technical-bug-loaded AF-sucking DSLR, only because Leica isn't progressing.  Do I want to?  NO!  Leica are so good in some areas like focusing with wide-angle and I still feel reluctant to move on, but if I want the best image quality & usability overall - yes I must move on.

 

You think you guys just have all the god given rights to bash all others who don't settle for less and are just asking for improvements?  All I see are/were die-heart Leica fans and photographers speaking about what Leica can do better.  I do however agree that you maybe right in one point - its a waste to exercise feedback in this form because it is not "universally" accepted or cared.

 

And before anyone reply, relax, in a month I will be out and totally silenced and everyone will be happy!!  BTW the "troll" being accused to may just be a ex-Leica die-hearts, just saying...

 

Addendum: 3 Leica analog M cameras, 3 Leica M lenses, 4 additional M lenses from other brands make me obviously a troll. Interesting. This said, I have a PhD (or better German Dr. rer. nat.) and worked in sensor-related glass coating technology in R&D. And at least I am also posting photos here in this forum which I took.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Martin B

[Martin B]

If 22MP is adequate, you must be elated with the additional 2MP in the recent digital Ms.

 

Jeff

 

I state corrected   

[harryzet]

ill wait for the m17 at 275.000 euro

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[StS]

Browsing through this discussion, I might have overlooked some points, however the wish-list for an M11 appears to be rather short - memory card and battery access has been mentioned (the base plate is discussed since the M8, so unlikely to change), an electronic frame-line selection and some want more pixels.

 

With the length of time I keep my cameras, it is very unlikely I will buy an M11; for the base-plate, I can live with it, but I can see, why there is a group, who does not like it. Whatever sensor Leica are planning in the future, after having spoken to photographers, who use the 42 MP Sony and reading reviews, I personally would appreciate to have at least a 20 MP-ish choice, since this appears to be the feasible limit for a hand-held camera - I'm aware that there are different views, so maybe Leica can offer two sensors in future.

More important to me is to keep compatibility to legacy lenses, since some of them offer a quite unique look, which can't be found in modern lenses (imperfections can be quite charming). Not sure about the international edition, the german April edition of LFI runs an interview with some Leica people explaining, why they made their sensor this way.

 

Coming to the frame selection - I could imagine a solution, where the mechanical lens detection over the cam is done by microswitches rather than mechanically. If the bit code of modern lenses is detected, it can display one single electronic frame. In case this code is missing, the traditional pair of frames could be displayed.

 

Diopter adjustment has been mentioned and would be appreciated by me as well.

 

What I would like to keep is the current form factor and camera balance (just spot-on perfect), the re-introduced frame selector and the current operation concept.

 

Stefan