Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I already indicated in my post, Olaf has it 100% right. This particular misconception is widespread and it is an uphill struggle to combat it - especially when marketing departments like Nikon's tout "lenses optimized for our new high-resolution sensors", implying that everybody should trade in all their grotty old ones as they will suddenly be junk. Blathering nonsense.

That said, Nikon’s comments is not dissimilar to Leica’s comment on the 50 APO, ie, “This is the first lens ever to fully exploit the capabilities of modern high-resolution camera systems” .....

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/M-Lenses/APO-Summicron-M-50mm-f-2-ASPH

[jaapv]

I have always been wary - to say the least- of Leica's marketing department, as culminated in the Mini-M disaster...

 

You are completely right - the strength of the Apo-Summicron lies in the flawless edge and tonal transitions (two sides of the micro-contrast/resolution coin) on ANY sensor.

[01af]

That said, Nikon's comments is not dissimilar to Leica's comment on the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph, i. e., "This is the first lens ever to fully exploit the capabilities of modern high-resolution camera systems" ...

Well—that statement isn't entirely wrong ... well, as long as we take the word 'fully' with a large grain of salt.

 

Good lenses always exploit a given sensor's resolution capabilities better than poor lenses do.

[pico]

There are studies by Zeiss - on film-  that  lens resolutions over 80 LP/mm do not result in higher image quality.

 

Might that be due to the loss of resolution due to projection through an enlarging lens? A 100 lp/mm film image projected through a 100 lp/mm lens produces about 80 lp/mm, at best.

[adan]

This question is irrelevant. More pixels will always improve the resolution of the final image, behind any lens.

That's the usual mental short-circuit when people confuse lens resolution, sensor resolution, and image resolution. The latter is not equal to the minimum of the other two, but always a product of both the lens' and the sensor's resolution.

 

Prove this, please.

 

It is obvious that at one end of the scale, a flat piece of glass (or the classic "bottom of a soft-drink bottle") producing no image will not automatically produce detail just because a sensor of resolution X is placed behind it.

 

If a lens is soft enough to reproduce a distant picket fence as simply a gray bar (the pickets and gaps between them all blend together) - no amount of higher sensor resolution will magically reveal the individual pickets again. And at a long enought distance, even a Leica lens will reproduce a picket fence as a gray bar or blur.

 

There is a "continuum" of resolutions from 0 lppm to 10 lppm to 40 lppm to 80 lppm to 500 lppm or higher. If zero resolution won't produce an image on any sensor, where along that continuum does that change to infinitely-improving resolution with increasing sensor resolution? Are you saying that even an old Kodak box-camera lens (resolution ~20 lppm) will just keep looking better and better, so long as the sensor resolution keeps increasing? Does an intentional background blur get sharper and sharper with increasing sensor resolution?

 

Demonstration, please.

 

@jaapv: as a former Nikon user myself - a lot of their lenses are quite "grotty." (e.g. original 24-120 zoom) And a lot are very good or even superb.

 

The Zeiss research is 50+ years old - and indeed kicked off the rage to measure MTF instead of contrast and resolution separately. It figured into the design of the Nikkor 50mm f/2 and 50 Summicron R (1964) and M v.3 (1969).

 

It is (as with DoF calculations) based on an assumed "consumer" print size of 8x10/A4-ish or smaller, where high-contrast 40lppm "looks" sharper than low-contrast 80 lppm. Still applies for those, but for larger prints (or equivalent-size screen reproduction - pixel-peeping) the resolution demands scale directly with image size.

 

But I would agree that older lenses have often gotten a new lease on life on digital. It is not resolution per se, but overall contrast and edge contrast on Jello (film emulsion - which tended to hide the actual resolution). Example below, the oft-maligned 90mm TE thin at f/2.8, 100% pixels, M10. Quite a low-contrast image overall, (see first image) that doesn't "carve into" film emulsions as clearly as did the Zeiss 90mm Sonnar-G (or later Leica Elmarit). But as you always say - contrast is in the hands of the photographer, at least up to a point.

 

The 90 TE produces a high-resolution, low-contrast image, especially at f/2.8. It was just waiting for 40 years for digital to come along to shine.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pgk]

This question is irrelevant. More pixels will always improve the resolution of the final image, behind any lens.

 

That's the usual mental short-circuit when people confuse lens resolution, sensor resolution, and image resolution. The latter is not equal to the minimum of the other two, but always a product of both the lens' and the sensor's resolution.

 

If you can determine the MTF of each link in the chain then you can see if there is a theoretical advantage to be gained from more MPixels. The caveat is of course the output requirements, which can simply cut out any gain produced which is actually only visible at larger print sizes.

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - but once again, I think the number of MPs needs to be connected to print size.

 

Often on this forum, people say “24mp is enough for me”, but without any info to support why that is the case. All I can assume is many people don’t print, or simply print in small sizes.

 

If you print very large prints, especially where fine detail is needed like landcapes, then 24mp is pretty useless.

 

I admit this is coming from someone who is currently in the French Alps and carrying a 5x4 large format camera around, with negs that I will get drum scanned to 750mb so that the image opens at 60”x50” at 300dpi.

 

So maybe I have a quite different perspective of “resolution”.... what i do think is that images off my M240 are very unsatisfying in comparison!

In my experience the M10 holds up enough to not be a problem up to 28"x42"

This is a decent size, though not huge. 

I've said elsewhere, 24 mp is decent in most cases, but it is a little disappointing, especially coupled with the somewhat comparatively limited exposure range of the sensor. But anyone who's concerned with fine detail in landscapes usually isn't choosing an M because it was never really the first choice for high resolution rendering. That's why Lloyd's comparisons are goofy. He's using a tool in an area it doesn't excel at and then complaining about it. It's like complaining a 4x5 is too unwieldly to photograph sports. 

 

That said, 4x5 is pretty much bested by 50 mp digi MF cameras these days for practical purposes. The technical aspects are less often a problem, the lenses are generally better. Drum scanning film does not equal megapixels - at some point you're just scanning grain and outresolving the actual film. I used to drum scan my 35mm negs at 11000 dpi on a howtek, - 150 mp files! A D800 file still made a better more detailed print.

[PeterGA]

Loyd's views on gear are seriously eccentric and as has been pointed out in this thread fairly limited to his photographic biases. I think both he and the Ming bloke tried as hard as they could to smash the SL when it came out - I don't think I can take either of them seriously when it comes to Leica because of  their agendas . Ming makes nicer photos than Loyd -  I really like the border gimmick he uses it really makes images look nice on a 72DPI monitor.

 

For all its eccentricities (mainly the back of the mind worry of needing to have rangefinder adjusted) - the M10 in hand just feels 'right' and matched to Leica M glass - well it is magic. Leica understand the importance of 'feel' in hand and the quick move back away from a fatter 240 is testimony to a fine sense of understanding regarding the importance of ergonomics.

 

If people want autofocus and Leica glass - hard to beat the SL  and I look forward to its next iteration with 50 megapixels - so I can dump my XID.

 

The only 'improvement' I can see in M which I would embrace for my photographic biases - is an EVF instead of the rangefinder - but it would have to be a higher resolution than the benchmark EVF on the SL. Why? because off the chip focussing is just more accurate. I use my Noctilux on the SL because of this and also lets be frank a shutter speed of 'only' 1/4000th requires the use of neutral density filters in any daylight if one wants to use Leica glass wide open - and who doesn't?

[01af]

There is a "continuum" of resolutions from 0 lp/mm to 10 lp/mm to 40 lp/mm to 80 lp/mm to 500 lp/mm or higher. If zero resolution won't produce an image on any sensor, where along that continuum does that change to infinitely-improving resolution with increasing sensor resolution?

Never, of course.

 

There are no lenses with zero resolution ... neither are there lenses with infinite resolution. The same holds for sensors.

 

 

Are you saying that even an old Kodak box-camera lens (resolution ~20 lp/mm) will just keep looking better and better, so long as the sensor resolution keeps increasing?

Yes, indeed. Of course, from some point on, the improvements will become infinitesimally small so a human beholder's eye won't perceive them anymore. So, any further increase in sensor resolution won't make sense for practical purposes. Yet, there are improvements even if you don't care for them.

 

 

Does an intentional background blur get sharper and sharper with increasing sensor resolution?

Don't be silly!

 

No matter what the lens' quality is, a sensor with a less-than-infinite number of pixels will degrade the image projected from the lens. So as long as our sensors keep having finite pixel counts, the final image's resolution will always be lower than what the lens delivers. Of course, a higher pixel count won't enhance the lens' image. Instead, a low pixel count will degrade the lens' image more and a high pixel count will degrade it less. That's why switching from a low-resolution sensor to a high-resolution sensor always will improve the final image (not to be confused with the lens' image)—not by actively enhancing it but by cutting down the inevitable losses.

 

If the lens' image has poor resolution to begin with then a minuscule degradation won't make much of a difference to the beholder. But the degradation is there, whether you care for it or not. For a high-quality image, the same degree of degradation will be more obvious to the eye. So switching from a low-resolution sensor to a high-resolution sensor will make more of a difference for a high-quality lens than for a low-quality lens, that's for sure. And yet, a difference it will make in any case.

 

 

But I would agree that older lenses have often gotten a new lease on life on digital.

You don't say! And what do you think why this is?

[pgk]

You don't say! And what do you think why this is?

 

Because their imperfections are no longer masked by the imperfections of film. Whether they produce 'better' images as a result is, of course, a mute point.

[Utz Nagal]

Leica could pack a 48Mpixel sensor and a 5Mpixel EVF into the M11. An electronic shutter is also possible. The M10 is not the end.

[jaapv]

EVF? the end of the M is indeed coming!  More like a CL on steroids.. Wait a second.. That is the SL2

[mmradman]

Or recently rumoured Leica CM.

[01af]

EVF? The end of the M is indeed coming!

Think of the EVF as an integrated, in-body Visoflex which doesn't replace but complements the optical rangefinder.

 

It has been contemplated for the M10 but found infeasible, given current technology. It may become feasible in the near future.

[jaapv]

Who knows?  I shudder at the price increase.

[magixaxeman]

My first comment is about the chap who wrote the article... next time buy the right camera, its clear from everything you wrote that the Leica M is not for you, get a Novoflex adapter or even the AF adapter for M lenses and use your beloved Leica glass on the Sony A7RM3, you'll probably still find something to complain about but thats then Sony's problem and not ours.

 

Secondly - What defines an M camera? Thats right the rangefinder, with one exception if it hasn't got a rangefinder its not a Leica M. So if we have a rangefinder thats working well why on earth would we need a built in EVF? For most of us the only times we consider using one is if our lens choice is outside the normal 28mm - 135mm range for which our cameras have frame lines, if focusing long focal length lenses such as 90mm + ,for macro focusing or for using as a right angle finder to shoot low to the ground. With that in mind why go to the expense and weight penalty of building one in so you've got some kind of bastard hybrid of the fuji finder, albeit one that actually works properly, whats so wrong with sliding one on when needed and removing it when its not? which brings me neatly onto my last point..... 

 

If it ain't broken, don't fix it - I've seen a few people saying "oh I wish the M10 had this or that" (insert item required here) * - Well I've spent the best part of this afternoon laying here racking my brain to find what i'd like added and come up with nothing, I'm more than happy with the camera as it is, I love the simplicity and functionality & though I wouldn't go as far as the MD I certainly don't want more on my camera than its got, I have control of my 3 main parameters, ISO, shutter speed and aperture and the luxury of aperture priority mode if I wish, I don't need any more than that and would go as far as to suggest you shouldn't want or need more than that either, if you do then maybe you need to rethink your camera choice as I think the move away from the bloated M 240 to the slimmer and simpler/more traditional M10 is a move in the right direction.

So no I don't think its broken, I don't think it needs fixing, by all means Leica keep working on better sensors, better processors, battery technologies and of course primarily better image quality but at the same time stick to tradition and keep future M's lean and simple.

[kaisernchen]

I am not so sure the so-called optical/mechanical rangefinder is the only way to define the M camera albeit we all know what "M" stands for but it has limitations, as all technologies.   But it is also not an entirely bad idea to have a M mount M camera looks and functions the exact except rely entirely on EVF which can be secondary M camera for some, or primary M camera for some, or the classic hardcore M user won't touch it at all - but I personally would welcome such a camera to exist side by side to a classic M camera and may be lower cost somehow, but provides much more accurate focusing especially when using Noctilux lenses and telephone lenses and get rid of focus shift altogether and precise framing and etc. 

[willemr]

[...] but I personally would welcome such a camera to exist side by side to a classic M camera and may be lower cost somehow, but provides much more accurate focusing especially when using Noctilux lenses and telephone lenses and get rid of focus shift altogether and precise framing and etc. 

More (digital) functionality with a lower price... Like that's gonna happen. But you're basically describing the Fuji X-Pro2 with a Leica-look and an M-mount.

[adan]

01af - you still don't get it. Show us pictures that demonstrate your proposition. Evidence (from the Latin videre - to see).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

Because their imperfections are no longer masked by the imperfections of film. Whether they produce 'better' images as a result is, of course, a mute point.

 

What are flaws for one, are assets to another.