Martin B Posted March 10, 2018 Share #81 Posted March 10, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Head scratch. If its ALL about the sensor and you own an r7iii, then... Strikes me that its not about the sensor at all, its about the system, form factor, lens family, controls, UI, menu system, etc. Sensor characteristics might be in there somewhere, but clearly its not everything as so many complaining about the lack of pixels in the M already have alternative cameras elsewhere that have filled that void. Camera itself is related to personal preference and also sensor performance. But I scratch my head when I see how much $$$$ some spend on Leica glass which is superior especially for high resolution but then defend 24 MP technology as best. If you prefer the lower MP FF sensor, then you could save a lot of money and stick to older or third party M glass which will be more than good enough on 24 MP. It is like buying a Ferrari but only driving it with 40 mph the whole time. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 Hi Martin B, Take a look here M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rpittal Posted March 11, 2018 Share #82 Posted March 11, 2018 The reason is that M is meant to be light and portable. Everything in its design revolves around this idea. I would understand an articulated LCD on the SL, but here it is like buying a tropical fish and then trying to make it climb a tree so it could sing with birds. Same with megapixels. Have you ever printed A0-sized photo? my issue with more pixels is the extra weight all those photons add to the memory card before I can download..... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted March 11, 2018 Share #83 Posted March 11, 2018 The Energizer bunnies keep going and going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onasj Posted March 11, 2018 Share #84 Posted March 11, 2018 Sorry— I should have been more clear. I love the Leica M system for all the reasons you describe below and more. For me, the only significant improvement that would instantly make me purchase an M11 is a state-of-the-art (or even state-of-the-art as of 2018!) sensor. Oh and perhaps fix the frame-lever-becomes-sticky issue, hard-to-raise ISO dial, and allow the focus assist button to itself trigger live view . But these are small compared to the sensor. Head scratch. If its ALL about the sensor and you own an r7iii, then... Strikes me that its not about the sensor at all, its about the system, form factor, lens family, controls, UI, menu system, etc. Sensor characteristics might be in there somewhere, but clearly its not everything as so many complaining about the lack of pixels in the M already have alternative cameras elsewhere that have filled that void. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 11, 2018 Share #85 Posted March 11, 2018 Camera itself is related to personal preference and also sensor performance. But I scratch my head when I see how much $$$$ some spend on Leica glass which is superior especially for high resolution but then defend 24 MP technology as best. If you prefer the lower MP FF sensor, then you could save a lot of money and stick to older or third party M glass which will be more than good enough on 24 MP. It is like buying a Ferrari but only driving it with 40 mph the whole time. Wrong. The common misconception of a weakest link situation, which this is not. A higher resolving sensor will give a better result for ANY lens, a higher resolving lens will give a better result on ANY sensor in general, without taking other factors in consideration, of course. With present day (well, in the design stage of the M10) technology a 24 MP full frame sensor is the optimum compromise for high-incidence-angle lenses. In the next iteration - who knows? Well, I guess Leica does. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted March 11, 2018 Share #86 Posted March 11, 2018 Wrong. The common misconception of a weakest link situation, which this is not. A higher resolving sensor will give a better result for ANY lens, a higher resolving lens will give a better result on ANY sensor in general, without taking other factors in consideration, of course. With present day (well, in the design stage of the M10) technology a 24 MP full frame sensor is the optimum compromise for high-incidence-angle lenses. In the next iteration - who knows? Well, I guess Leica does. Wrong. Many older lenses are being out-resolved by newer high MP sensors - the latest Exmor FF sensors are a good example. You can find many links online which describe lenses which are less suitable to be used on high MP FF sensors. So your statement that a higher resolving sensor will give a better result for any lens is incorrect. It's a weak excuse what you are saying about a 24 MP being the optimum - I am absolutely certain that you will defend the current status quo of Leica in the future no matter what kind of higher MP sensor it is simply by tweaking your argumentation. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted March 11, 2018 Share #87 Posted March 11, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) "Patience you must have, my young Padawan." "During 2017, we announced a partnership with Yuanchen Microelectronics for backside illumination manufacturing...will be ready for this mass production early second half of this year with multiple customers already having started their product designs.“ http://image-sensors...s-business.html I sense a lot of anxiety here. There is only another six month window left until Photokina 2018. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsuitus Posted March 11, 2018 Share #88 Posted March 11, 2018 Hm. Can you not cut in post processing? Considering that Leica reduces everything to the minimum then that feature is the least necessary. This is my opinion. I like to pair a small format digital camera with a large format film camera. I use the digital camera to scout locations, determine the composition, determine the correct exposure, and perform test shots. Pairing my Leica M10 with my Fuji 6x9cm medium format rangefinder works well because the two cameras have the same image aspect ratio. I would be happy if I could alter the M10 aspect ratio to match the aspect ratio of my 4x5 inch large format camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgh Posted March 11, 2018 Share #89 Posted March 11, 2018 (edited) Head scratch. If its ALL about the sensor and you own an r7iii, then... Strikes me that its not about the sensor at all, its about the system, form factor, lens family, controls, UI, menu system, etc. Sensor characteristics might be in there somewhere, but clearly its not everything as so many complaining about the lack of pixels in the M already have alternative cameras elsewhere that have filled that void. Ok ... I am not the quoted user but for me the sensor is very, very important - it's almost all about the sensor. The only thing of equal importance to me is lightness/portability. I am the photographer that would be thrilled if the iPhone made it to the point of replacing a separate camera. But, I make large prints, quite often and I shoot at various focal lengths, so this does not work yet. The "alternative" cameras are not alternatives if what you want is a system as small and nimble as the M. Lots of us own and use the Sony cameras already, we know the other options. The thing that this is about is not having to use another system. When it's all about the sensor - we have the Sony because of the sensor. Not because of endless bells and whistles they come with. Just the sensor - which means if Leica were to fix one thing - the sensor - we (well, at least some of us) could ditch those cameras. Personally, I want to simplify. I do not like owning superfluous gear and redundant lenses just so they mount on another body. My needs are simple - lenses of a few fixed focal lengths, a sensor that these lenses fit with, and the smallest combined mass possible for this. The solution would be a better sensor in an M specifically, since we know that the entire Sony system isn't gonna shrink. In short - for what we're talking about - these high mp alternative cameras are not alternatives to the problem at hand. At least not until smart phone manufacturers start implementing full frame sensors. Edited March 11, 2018 by pgh 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 11, 2018 Share #90 Posted March 11, 2018 Wrong. Many older lenses are being out-resolved by newer high MP sensors - the latest Exmor FF sensors are a good example. You can find many links online which describe lenses which are less suitable to be used on high MP FF sensors. So your statement that a higher resolving sensor will give a better result for any lens is incorrect. It's a weak excuse what you are saying about a 24 MP being the optimum - I am absolutely certain that you will defend the current status quo of Leica in the future no matter what kind of higher MP sensor it is simply by tweaking your argumentation. No defense - just a statement of facts - trying to twist reality to your personal wishes won't work. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulsydaus Posted March 12, 2018 Share #91 Posted March 12, 2018 I agree with those who’ve said any added features must retain the existing dimensions. Image stabilizing and dust reduction. This will bring it to M240 size. M12 will bring it back to M10 size. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 12, 2018 Share #92 Posted March 12, 2018 Wrong. Many older lenses are being out-resolved by newer high MP sensors - the latest Exmor FF sensors are a good example. You can find many links online which describe lenses which are less suitable to be used on high MP FF sensors. So your statement that a higher resolving sensor will give a better result for any lens is incorrect. It's a weak excuse what you are saying about a 24 MP being the optimum - I am absolutely certain that you will defend the current status quo of Leica in the future no matter what kind of higher MP sensor it is simply by tweaking your argumentation. Wrong. Sensor hasn’t yet been invented that will out resolve a lens. Poor argument. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12, 2018 Share #93 Posted March 12, 2018 Indeed. There is no Leica lens that resolves under 80 lp/mmm, many far more. The Internet posts that allege that a lens cannot be used on a high-resolving sensor are mostly by pilot error, i.e. motion blur or imprecise focusing, which are more critical as the sensor resolution increases. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted March 12, 2018 Share #94 Posted March 12, 2018 Ok ... I am not the quoted user but for me the sensor is very, very important - it's almost all about the sensor. The only thing of equal importance to me is lightness/portability. I am the photographer that would be thrilled if the iPhone made it to the point of replacing a separate camera. But, I make large prints, quite often and I shoot at various focal lengths, so this does not work yet. The "alternative" cameras are not alternatives if what you want is a system as small and nimble as the M. Lots of us own and use the Sony cameras already, we know the other options. The thing that this is about is not having to use another system. When it's all about the sensor - we have the Sony because of the sensor. Not because of endless bells and whistles they come with. Just the sensor - which means if Leica were to fix one thing - the sensor - we (well, at least some of us) could ditch those cameras. Personally, I want to simplify. I do not like owning superfluous gear and redundant lenses just so they mount on another body. My needs are simple - lenses of a few fixed focal lengths, a sensor that these lenses fit with, and the smallest combined mass possible for this. The solution would be a better sensor in an M specifically, since we know that the entire Sony system isn't gonna shrink. In short - for what we're talking about - these high mp alternative cameras are not alternatives to the problem at hand. At least not until smart phone manufacturers start implementing full frame sensors. The M10 and A7riii are within three grams of each other. You can buy a Sony and all the Loxias, marginally bulkier than their Leica equivalents, for less than the cost of an M10 and a 50mm Summarit. Seems like a simple, cost effective compromise to me for an extra 2-800 grams depending on how many optics you need. But I assume you've explored those options and aren't satisfied with that solution for reasons other than size and weight. Which suggest that there are other considerations you've either omitted or simply taken for granted. Regardless, let's be extreme for a moment. Is a 42MP sensor worth jettisoning lens compatibility for anything wider than say 28mm? Suppose a new sensor meant added draw that resulted in half the battery life, excess heat that forced slowing the buffer shunt to memory so you froze after 5 frames or the dreaded overheating message show up much more frequently. What if the MBTF on the cameras innards dropped to somewhere around 6 month after warranty expiration. Any one up for any of that? Suppose the solution to combat such issues was to introduce yet another body that was a few mm deeper than an M240? How about everything is exactly, exactly, exactly the way you want it, but the price of camera doubles? Now these are somewhat silly notions, but the key point is that few, if any, around here have the slightest understanding about what it takes to properly engineer an M and what the set of compromises and trade-offs are for each new generation, let alone in how many dimensions a change in sensor specification impacts the overall design. It's never about a single part, its about the sum of them. For any number of reasons with any follow on design all sort of things are forced to change. Recall the M240's video? It is, as you allude to, a system, and the funny thing about systems is that to be successful all the component have to be designed to correctly interact with each other across a wide range of interests and operating circumstance. You might be able to stuff a 600HP turbo V8 in a Golf, but the result wouldn't work very well and certainly not for very long unless all the underpinnings, drive train, brakes, shocks, springs, etc were redesigned and upgraded to match. It's hard to imagine Leica not moving up the MP ladder, but if, for whatever reason, it alters the fundamental character of the M, no one will be happy. So it simply isn't just about the sensor, its about the entire package, something I personally don't take for granted. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted March 12, 2018 Share #95 Posted March 12, 2018 So it simply isn't just about the sensor, its about the entire package, something I personally don't take for granted. Throws me back in time to 2012 when Canon enthusiasts said exactly the same when competition moved along and implemented the first 36 MP FF sensor into the Nikon D800(E) series. This argument came back over and over until Canon released the 50 MP FF based 5DsR in 2015. Suddenly everybody in Canon land was enthusiastic about having a higher MP sensor...the ones who defended most the status quo were the first buying the 5DsR. The same will happen in Leica land - the only difference is it will happen delayed. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12, 2018 Share #96 Posted March 12, 2018 The only difference is that both Canon and Nikon are DSLRs, exactly the same concept... Which DRF are you comparing Leica to? Nobody is denying that it is quite possible that both SL2 and M11 will be 36 MP. So what? I can already see the forum posts showing that the difference in real life is marginal, and the pixel-peeping ones claiming a vast improvement. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Posted March 12, 2018 Share #97 Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) I can already see the forum posts showing that the difference in real life is marginal, and the pixel-peeping ones claiming a vast improvement. Now lets bee fair here, even the term "real life" is a subjective use case scenario, not a one size fits all. At this moment, I am prepping a 24MP file from another camera to go to print to 24x36" for a client. I am going through the motions of increasing the file size in the raw conversion and then making sure the edges of detail look correct for print. If I were starting from a 36MP file, the whole process would come under less "enlargement" and the fine details would take on a more organic look to them making the finished product a fair bit better. In my experience, higher MP count sensors with optics being treated equally really show what they are made of in an actual print that is above what is native for said sensor at 300dpi. I rarely get print requests that are smaller than 16x20" so I am often doing image prep that is enlarging the raw file conversion so a 46MP or even a 60MP file going to anything above 20x30" shows up to the party with diamonds on. Now the tendency here might be to say my usage case is not average. I really have an issue with people claiming there is any kind of average at all because of how different people are inherently. Personally I don't find an issue in getting what I want out of the M10's excellent 24MP sensor. But I do find I get more out of higher MP count cameras when it comes to putting them to work for the reasons I bought them for in the first place and that is larger than native print sizes. Edited March 12, 2018 by Reciprocity 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted March 12, 2018 Share #98 Posted March 12, 2018 Throws me back in time to 2012 when Canon enthusiasts said exactly the same when competition moved along and implemented the first 36 MP FF sensor into the Nikon D800(E) series. It should also remind you that it took Canon three years to respond. Canon, per wikipedia, had nearly 200,000 employees in 2016. Leica, 1600. Do the math. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 12, 2018 Share #99 Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) It should also remind you that it took Canon three years to respond. Canon, per wikipedia, had nearly 200,000 employees in 2016. Leica, 1600. Do the math. Steve Jobs said, "A great programmer is worth more than 1,000 good programmers." Replace 'programmer' with 'engineer'. Depending upon Leica's structure it could be true for them, but they outsource, don't they. I can imagine their sensor and support electronic executives trying to convince outsources to buy into the Leica paradigm today. It might drive us crazy. Edited March 13, 2018 by pico 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeven Posted March 12, 2018 Share #100 Posted March 12, 2018 The M11 should/will be the same basic camera with some minor cosmetic/branding differences and $1000usd more in retail cost. It will sell well. 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