Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL will probably have 40+ MP soon or late but M cameras have never been made for billboard photography so it is not sure that the M11 will follow the same route at all. Little chance that it stagnates at 24MP though. Just a guess.

[Ernstk]

I don’t think 24mp is sufficient for me, given I like the flexibility to print large with an image quality that I deem acceptable.

 

If you make a very large print (say 50x33 inches), it may be that 40-50mp doesn’t record massively more “visible” fine detail compared to 24mp when you stand back to look at the print in its entirety.

 

But it’s pretty apparent that less resampling in post off a 50mp camera means less “blur”, higher acuity, less moire, less false colour, and more accurate tonal transitions.

 

All of those make it compelling to me to have a higher megapixel Leica full frame than 24mp.

 

Given the small sensored Leica CL is already 24mp, that should extrapolate to 40mp+ for Leica’s full frame sensors in the future.

 

I assume that will especially be the case when megapixels on Leica’s 35mm full frames aren’t boxed in for marketing purposes by Leica’s 37mp medium format S range.

 

I'd be interested in hearing how you managed to 'print large' in the past, before the advent of 24 MP sensors?

 

Ernst

[pgk]

I'd be interested in hearing how you managed to 'print large' in the past, before the advent of 24 MP sensors?

 

Medium and Large Format Cameras I'd guess. Some even had quirky things like movements to allow us to manipulate the image. But don't worry a 45~50MPixel M is the answer really . Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Jon Warwick]

Medium and Large Format Cameras I'd guess. Some even had quirky things like movements to allow us to manipulate the image. But don't worry a 45~50MPixel M is the answer really . Sorry, couldn't resist.

Exactly!!

Large format film still rocks for very large prints. When all the stars align and the negative is flawless, I print the 5x4” to prints sizes that are up to 70” wide and they’re utterly beautiful - ie, incredible tonal depth, resolution, and natural highlights shoulder, etc etc. It’s a LOT of work to use large format cameras, admittedly, but I find it 100% worth it when it all comes together.

Now - the “effective” resolution of the M246 is probably 40mp+, given it is such a lossless system without the Bayer filter. With obvious limitations, what comes out of the M246 is a lot closer to what I’m seeking (in terms of resolution and tonal depth) compared to the M240/M10. The highlight shoulder off an M246 (with a very harsh cliff) is pretty poor versus B&W film though, so I only like its rendering in muted light - but in the right conditions, I find its image quality by far the best within Leica 35mm full frame.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Jon Warwick

[Jon Warwick]

The SL will probably have 40+ MP soon or late but M cameras have never been made for billboard photography so it is not sure that the M11 will follow the same route at all. Little chance that it stagnates at 24MP though. Just a guess.

Now that I agree with - if one camera (SL or M) is more likely to have higher megapixels, I’d guess it would be the SL - ie, given the on-sensor focus accuracy, and the mind-blowing lenses like the SL Summicron primes.

 

If it wasn’t for the M246, I’d have already sold my M 50 APO ..... given I think the image quality is already higher from the SL + SL Summicrons compared to what I get from my M240 + M 50 APO ....despite both having 24 megapixels.

 

I’d love to know if this impression owes to the SL lenses alone, or whether it’s easier for the SL to crank out higher image quality due to less complex micro lenses across its sensor compared to the small Ms?

Edited August 8, 2018 by Jon Warwick

[mmradman]

My current Leica pair are M246 and SL601, SL replaced M240.

M246 especially with APO Summicron M 50mm is probably best camera+lens combination I ever used in my life.

The way I see SL601 attraction is ability to focus M or any other manual focus lens where I want it and how I want it. No interest in SL AF lenses or M10.

[StS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I remember some years ago Nikon had the smaller DX sensor D7000 with 16 MP, while the 24x36 FX sensor of the D700 had "only" 12 MP. I thought the Megapixel wars would have been over back then.

 

I'm assuming that nobody who uses or is in the market for a rather specialized tool like a rangefinder camera knows, that there are tradeoffs between amount of pixels and pixel size.

 

Stefan

[jaapv]

Now that I agree with - if one camera (SL or M) is more likely to have higher megapixels, I’d guess it would be the SL - ie, given the on-sensor focus accuracy, and the mind-blowing lenses like the SL Summicron primes.

 

If it wasn’t for the M246, I’d have already sold my M 50 APO ..... given I think the image quality is already higher from the SL + SL Summicrons compared to what I get from my M240 + M 50 APO ....despite both having 24 megapixels.

 

I’d love to know if this impression owes to the SL lenses alone, or whether it’s easier for the SL to crank out higher image quality due to less complex micro lenses across its sensor compared to the small Ms?

I think you'll find very little difference in complexity  between the microlenses of the SL and M. After all, the SL was optimized to work with M lenses as well.

[pgk]

 It’s a LOT of work to use large format cameras, admittedly, but I find it 100% worth it when it all comes together.

 

And here we have the conundrum. What we want is a hand holdable M type camera which delivers the 'quality' previously available to movement's cameras - but not the work nor the understanding of how these are used. So we go down the routeway of narrowing evolution in which photographs eventually will all look the same because that is what the technology (not us I hasten to add) will deliver. Personally (as readers may have gathered) I do not see the M as a 'do it all' camera - it already produces superb photographs (in the right hands) and want its technology to improve without appreciating its limitations is a bit like buying a supercar to drive on the open road (its possible but says much more about the driver than anything about their ability to drive).

[mmradman]

---snip---

 

I'm assuming that nobody who uses or is in the market for a rather specialized tool like a rangefinder camera knows, that there are tradeoffs between amount of pixels and pixel size.

 

Stefan

As long as M10 is as slim as M3 who cares over tradeoffs between pixel count and pixel size    

[StS]

True . But the M10 also delivers on the image quality side, at least to my taste.

 

And here we have the conundrum. What we want is a hand holdable M type camera which delivers the 'quality' previously available to movement's cameras - but not the work nor the understanding of how these are used. So we go down the routeway of narrowing evolution in which photographs eventually will all look the same because that is what the technology (not us I hasten to add) will deliver. Personally (as readers may have gathered) I do not see the M as a 'do it all' camera - it already produces superb photographs (in the right hands) and want its technology to improve without appreciating its limitations is a bit like buying a supercar to drive on the open road (its possible but says much more about the driver than anything about their ability to drive).

 

I think this is spot-on and summarizes the whole discussion here in a few sentences. There is actually nothing more to add.

 

Stefan

[dkmoore]

And here we have the conundrum. What we want is a hand holdable M type camera which delivers the 'quality' previously available to movement's cameras - but not the work nor the understanding of how these are used. So we go down the routeway of narrowing evolution in which photographs eventually will all look the same because that is what the technology (not us I hasten to add) will deliver. Personally (as readers may have gathered) I do not see the M as a 'do it all' camera - it already produces superb photographs (in the right hands) and want its technology to improve without appreciating its limitations is a bit like buying a supercar to drive on the open road (its possible but says much more about the driver than anything about their ability to drive).

 

 

I think the M produces superb photographs even in the wrong hands. Why do we have to handicap it?

 

Felt like nitpicking a little, I'll admit. But so many people on this forum make this comment and it makes me scratch my head.

 

Sure, a great photographer can create gallery prints using an iPhone, but it doesn't take a hall of fame, Leica professional, or 30 year veteran photographer to create superb imagery with any digital M.

[pgk]

I think the M produces superb photographs even in the wrong hands. Why do we have to handicap it?

 

Felt like nitpicking a little, I'll admit. But so many people on this forum make this comment and it makes me scratch my head.

 

Sure, a great photographer can create gallery prints using an iPhone, but it doesn't take a hall of fame, Leica professional, or 30 year veteran photographer to create superb imagery with any digital M.

 

Of course. Anyone can be a photographer. Just give them an M ......

[otto.f]

 

Sure, a great photographer can create gallery prints using an iPhone, ...

Is that so? I found the work of Nan Goldin for instance, made with a point and shoot camera, nothing more than a hype

[Tragg]

How about the 'end of the road' for this thread?

[willemr]

How about the 'end of the road' for this thread?

Way past the end if you ask me :-)

[wattsy]

Is that so? I found the work of Nan Goldin for instance, made with a point and shoot camera, nothing more than a hype

 

 

I think Paul was being sarcastic.

 

I think Goldin used an M camera for most of her well known photographs. Besides, I've always said that the M is the best point and shoot camera you can buy. Ok, you have to focus and occasionally fiddle with the aperture and shutter dial, but the M couldn't be any more simple to use. Basically, point and shoot.

[JTLeica]

Funny that people think the M will cease soon. It'll be here in a year, ten year and maybe 50 years. Its a style of photography and people seem to forget that its still the fastest and most reliable way to manually focus. EVF is more precise but its a darn sight slower.

 

I will also add that the M10 was sold out everywhere for nearly a year after release, not a sign of a redundant camera in my view.

[dkmoore]

Is that so? I found the work of Nan Goldin for instance, made with a point and shoot camera, nothing more than a hype

 

 

Yes. I have seen exhibits that I couldn't believe were shot with an iPhone. Check Nat Geo. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Really, it depends on what one means by "the end of the M road."

 

Does this mean the end of the M rangefinder concept? Well, that has been predicted since the 1960s, including the time Leitz Wetzlar shut it down themselves for a year around 1976 (demand, and a plan from Leitz Canada for cheaper production, revived it with the M4-2 in 1977-78). And the merge of Leitz and Wild Heerbrugg in the late 1980s. And Leica's financial crisis in 2005 (lost lines of credit and half its operating capital). Pretty much from the moment Nikon (1961) and Canon (1968, maybe as late as 1975 under the Bell & Howell brand) ceased making interchangable-lens RFs, the question was always "When will Leica quit, also?"

 

Ultimately, those followed the line from Mark Twain - "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated!" And in the meanwhile, the coffins lined up for companies that tried to compete with this unique product ever since (Contax, dead (twice); Zeiss Ikon, dead; Konica, dead; Minolta, dead; Cosina/Voigtlander cameras; dead, Epson R-D1; dead.) Still used by loyal photographers, of course.

 

Or does it mean the end of M development by Leica - the M10 will be around a long time, unchanging, but the pinnacle of the line?

 

I doubt that, also. The core M look and feel and operation will not change significantly, but there will always be room for technological improvements that make sense within that core product idea: backlit sensors, a hybrid viewfinder (not ready for prime-time yet, but in a few years?), more megapixels if/when the lenses can make use of them.

 

One of the core problems for Leica is that they can really only afford to contract for one "M" sensor at a time, unlike Sony or Canon, who can simultaneously produce three Alpha 7s or three 5Ds, each with different sensors, for different needs. With brief exceptions, such as the simultaneous M-E and M240, for a year.

 

It would be nice if Leica could produce both an M11r with 50 Mpixels for Jon, and an M11s, with 18 juicy-low-light clean ISO-50000+ Mpixels for me. And a vanilla M11 for anyone else. Not very likely in the immediate future, but once upon a time, any digital M was considered "not very likely." We'll just have to see.