Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[dantemi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sold my X1D for financing the M10 and, as I already said, I can’t be happier.

This morning I read this post

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2018/20180801_0734-Leica-EndOfTheMRoad.html

and honestly, though some remarks are grounded, I understand more what makes me appreciating the Leica M approach rejecting the continuous search for extreme details which, in my opinion, does not always result in a good photo...

What’s your thoughts?

[NDOC]

What’s your thoughts?

I think digiloyd doesn't like the M10. I also think that what he thinks is unimportant, because you already own an M10 and have been shooting with it.

 

The only important thing is to as yourself, as an M10 owner, "Is this camera satisfying my expectations?"

 

Don't worry if the M10 isn't giving digiloyd what he wants. His opinion isn't more important than your own.

Edited August 2, 2018 by NDOC

[lukedavidkellett]

The Leica M series is a VERY niche camera! It will always be financially out of the reach of the masses. The way I justify this is my Lab bill and film bill used to be $30k - $40k per year. This no longer exists and I invest this money (not all of it obviously) into the gear that I want to shoot and that inspires me. The Leica M10 and M system does this for me as does my Phase one setup for studio and advertising work. 

You don't buy a Leica on specs. You buy a Leica because you want to shoot with a Leica and CRAFT images. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by lukedavidkellett

[35mmview]

One thing I have learned since recently purchasing my first Leica is that I seem to have placed myself out on a very contentious limb.

[otto.f]

I think Lloyd Chambers is mixing things up. “The SL is the complete anti-thesis of the M.” Yes, so what? Leica has always had two lines: M, for M-photography, which is mainly photojournalism/streetphotography/etc. and formerly R, now SL, a systemcamera for most other types of photography with no boundaries in size and weight. What’s the problem with that? Mr. Lloyd seems to expect from camera’s that they inspire him for new styles of photography, alas that’s not in the package.

Mr. Lloyd doesn’t see any vision in the array of camera’s that Leica puts on the market these days. Well I’m glad that Mr. Kaufman came about 10 years ago and saved the company that was nearly dead, because that saved and delivered us the best lenses in the world. If Leica had gone bankrupt the second hand Leica products would have been priceless at the moment.

But indeed, the M240 was for me the start of the end of the M road. I sold my M10 last year and stick to my M9 now, because I feel that since the M240 the M is not a streetcamera anymore but some hybrid compromise between M and R. I use an SL alongside my M9, which is perfect because it connects every possible lens in a comprehensive system, perfect. If you find it too heavy or big, go to the CL, I don’t see any problem. The point and shoot series that Leica developed have helped it survive, great!

Throughout their history Leica has always produced non-sense luxury articles as part of their strategy to stay alive, so what.

Edited August 2, 2018 by otto.f

[dantemi]

Being the M10 my third Leica after the M7 and M240 (and having owned the nikon D810 and sony a7r2 in the meanwhile), I can say with no doubts that the M10 is all I need in terms of both versatility and simplicity. Mr. Lloyd’s remarks do not change my view, but it’s still interesting evaluating third parties views. Just to make an example, a 30 mp sensor wouldn’t add anything to my photography but would be anyway a welcome addition...

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lloyd Chambers wants more pixels, that's clear. He wants more pixels so he can blow landscapes up to a very large size, because of his failing eyesight.

He's not alone in his wishes for more pixels or in failing eyesight.

Pixels do not make great photographs though. I have an enormous book of Ansel Adams landscapes, bought cheap because the spine was broken and the bookshop wanted rid of it. I've seen some of his original prints. Adams' works do not rely on high resolution.

Look at any photography commonly considered 'great': hardly any of it relies on technically superb image quality (there are exceptions - Salgado); almost all of it relies on subject and composition.

Sure, in commercial work, for magazine and poster production, high resolution images with perfection in colour edge-to-edge are demanded. But they will not be remembered for that. If they are remembered at all it will be because of the image content.

The purpose of having cameras and lenses that produce the best image quality is so that the technique just gets out of the way, and you look through it, like a sheet of plain glass, to see what the photographer wants you to see. 

Lloyd Chambers is a head-banging sensor nerd, and it's what gives him his living. He is welcome to his views, as are all the others who want more pixels and spend their lives checking corner sharpness.

The rest of us are just delighted that Leica (and other manufacturers, including those of smart phones) give us so many devices that we can use to take photographs that will be recognised and valued for their subject, composition and story (valued by family and friends as much as by curators and posterity). 

 

JMO

Edited August 2, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[250swb]

I'm glad for Lloyd Chambers, his magically expanding house walls must be a great boon as his prints get ever bigger. But it's shame that once awesome images from 16mp are now junk and don't cut the mustard for 'quality'. Should he ever have a retrospective at the Guggenheim I imagine it will only include photos he took the day before using the very latest sensor. But I'd hate to buy an image from him only then to discover it's no longer 'good enough' because sensor technology has moved on since he took it. 

[jaapv]

My advice from experience  to Mr. Chambers would be to find a good optician. High quality spectacles beat more pixels any day.

Fortunately for him Leica has entered this market as well.

 

As for his argument about 8K displays: Red herrings come into mind.

With hardly any suitable content and at  6500 $ they are unlikely to be common for a while, and photographs are prints to most Leica owners.

 

Another point he misses is that the M11 is unlikely to stick at 24 MP. The CL already offers 24MP on APS-c at virtually the same image quality, similarly 20 MP on MFT by Leica's technical partner Panasonic. Extrapolate those pixel densities to Full Frame and you are at 40-50 MP.

 

In other words, one more reason to read more serious and knowledgeable sources.

[hteasley]

It seems more animus rather than serious observation. "I don't like the SL" means "Leica is failing"; it pretty much boils down to that. Other than them being profitable and have good systems covering a wide gamut of use cases, as well as good partners like Panasonic, then yes, they're a mess.

[Hello]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[IkarusJohn]

...

Another point he misses is that the M11 is unlikely to stick at 24 MP. The CL already offers 24MP on APS-c at virtually the same image quality, similarly 20 MP on MFT by Leica's technical partner Panasonic. Extrapolate those pixel densities to Full Frame and you are at 40-50 MP.

 

In other words, one more reason to read more serious and knowledgeable sources.

I’m not entirely sure that Leica has stuck st 24MP on full frame because they can’t offer 37.5MP or 50MP ... my understanding is they like 24MP for wider reasons. I also understood that like the A7S and the big Nikon and Canon cameras, technically it is easier to increase dynamic range and sensor performance with fewer MP ...

 

My own experience with more MP was a nightmare (A7r and D800e) - in each case, getting a decently sharp image, using all those extra pixels, hand held was a struggle in terms of technique and I gained absolutely nothing. I really don’t care if the next sensor says100MP on the tin - if it doesn’t increase dynamic range and I can’t use it effectively and reliably handheld, it goes in the resale bin.

 

I don’t give a toss about MP - 18MP on my Monochrom and 24MP on my SL is plenty. It has never held me back (I don’t print billboards, buses or anything like that, but I do print large quite happily).

 

So, a sensor with more usable stops and better overall performance, but I don’t care about MP one little bit. But then, I scan reviews, don’t really read specs or the manual. I do notice if the image isn’t “sharp” where I want it to be.

Edited August 2, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[Jon Warwick]

Back to the megapixel issue - 24mp is very low, and no, I don’t think Leica are wedded to it for full frame, as shown already by now cramming in a much higher density of megapixels into the small APS-C sensor on the CL.

 

It is that density that causes concerns with regards to hand-held shake and dynamic range.

But, despite the CL’s high density of pixels, I really don’t see many people complaining on the CL forum about either of those issues.

 

Presumably technology has moved on since we were marketed the 24 megapixel “sweet spot” for full frame. Based on the CL (and presumably a much higher megapixel S if it arrives), Leica now has technology in hand to provide a similar density of megapixels on the M or SL, which as Jaap notes would extrapolate into the 40-50mp range.

 

The SL (more than the M) also has the lens quality and off-sensor focusing accuracy to really exploit the 40-50mp too.

[strohscw]

We must not forget that higher pixel count brings a lot of other needs with it. We will need bigger storage, faster computer. I am sure that all Leica lenses are able to resolve enough for a higher pixel number, but I think to get a really sharp high pixel image you would need an image stabilisation like my Sony A7r ii has it,  very short exposure time or a tripod which is not what the M camera is intended for I think.

At the moment I really like the pictures I get out of my M10 and if I really need more pixels I adapt my Leica lenses to my A7r ii.

 

My 2 cent

 

Greetings

 

Wolfram

[mdemeyer]

Had the fortunate opportunity to see The Salgado exhibit in San Diego last year. Incredible work, but plenty of it was hardly what I would call “technically superb image quality”. Superb images and absolutely compelling, but I’d not say he relied primarily on technical superb image quality.

 

Not being critical of him in any way. I’m a huge admirer. Same for Adams. Vision combined with mastery of craft is an amazing combination.

 

“Look at any photography commonly considered 'great': hardly any of it relies on technically superb image quality (there are exceptions - Salgado); almost all of it relies on subject and composition.”

[onasj]

So often critics respond to someone wishing for more pixels (or other features currently not present in the M) with false choices.  Yes, having a masterful eye for composition, exposure, and other fundamental principles underlying photography is probably more important than the difference between 24 and 45 MP.  But it's a false choice.  You can have both!  Even with a Leica M, if the company chooses to allow us to avoid making an actual, real choice between high-resolution sensors and the advantages of the M system.  No doubt some will respond (in thought if not in words) that a high-resolution M is not possible for various technical reasons.  As someone in the technology industry, I simply disagree.  

 

Time will tell.

Edited August 2, 2018 by onasj

[jaapv]

It is probably possible but by no means easy. More pixels means more processing power-and the M10 (and M240) already struggle with heat management.

[colint544]

In the same way that publishers rely on books like Fifty Shades Of Grey in order to sell copies of Dostoevsky, and Porsche need their Boxster and Cayenne lines to be able to sell their iconic 911, how are Leica really any different?

 

A Leica M has always been an expensive, and niche model. The company seems to be doing well, and I daresay they sell every M10 they make. If they ceased production of their M variant cameras, they simply wouldn't be Leica any more. At best, they'd be a pale shadow of the former company.

 

I shoot with film and digital M cameras for my personal work, and there really isn't another camera that I find as compact and handy. I love, especially, the simple and useful distance scale on every lens. My M Monochrom Mk1 is *only* 18 megapixels, yet the detail and tones, especially at high ISO settings knock film for six. If that's your thing.

 

Leica resisted making a digital M for so long, the company almost went under. They argued that film was superior to digital. But now that digital, in most respects, has surpassed film, they offer the best of both worlds. In the form of an M camera. 

 

Strikes me that the company is doing everything right.

Edited August 2, 2018 by colint544

[LocalHero1953]

Had the fortunate opportunity to see The Salgado exhibit in San Diego last year. Incredible work, but plenty of it was hardly what I would call “technically superb image quality”. Superb images and absolutely compelling, but I’d not say he relied primarily on technical superb image quality.

 

Not being critical of him in any way. I’m a huge admirer. Same for Adams. Vision combined with mastery of craft is an amazing combination.

 

“Look at any photography commonly considered 'great': hardly any of it relies on technically superb image quality (there are exceptions - Salgado); almost all of it relies on subject and composition.”

I have never seen Salgado's work, in the print, not even in one of his books. In my post I was looking round for an example of photography where image quality / resolution was as important to the impact of the image as the subject matter and composition, and I naively assumed that Salgado's fitted the bill. I don't doubt you are right, and I certainly did not intend to denigrate his subject matter, composition and the important story he is telling.

 

As an interesting comparison with Salgado's landscapes, I visited 'Contemplation' an exhibition of landscapes by the well-known Buddhist monk and writer/speaker, Matthieu Ricard, in Arles last week (part of the Rencontre d'Arles programme). I had no idea he was such a good photographer. All printed in monochrome to large size, displayed in a purpose-built airy timber exhibition hall. Every one had a short philosophical quotation printed below (by other writers, not by himself). The images themselves, typically of Himalayan scenery, or of monastic life, were striking and reminiscent of Salgado, but the combination of the exhibition space, the images and the quotations was very impressive. To my eye, it was another example of the technical image quality being 'good enough' to allow the viewer to concentrate on the subject - I don't think the images were of exceptional resolution. Highly recommended. There's a book, but it is small format in comparison.

Edited August 2, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

Remember 10 years old threads (until right before 2009) here, why there can't be a full frame digital Leica and why there never will be one, ever?