Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use a fountain pen - does that qualify

Same here - a Pelikan Souverän and a Schaeffer Legacy 1 Black with oblique nib.

[IkarusJohn]

I love my Meisterstück, but it was a gift, so it stays on my desk. I use a Lamy fountain pen a lot as it writes really well, but if I carry it about it leaks, so it stays at my desk too. I have an old Pierre Cardin pen (don’t know who the maker was) filled with red ink for editing hard copy.

 

I’ve found the Pilot Capless (the nib goes in and out at the press of a button like a ball point) very good. I have two, and carry them about - for those, I use cartridges.

 

Like handwritten thank you letters, there’s just something about ink ...

Edited August 15, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[dkmoore]

While I understand that M lenses are adapted to many other system cameras, they still work best with Leica M cameras. Why would Leica release the 13k 75 Noct, 7k Thambar, 7k 28 Lux, 8k 50 APO (been around for a while now), and soon to be released 90 Summilux and 35 APO if they were planning to stop innovating the M series?

 

The resolution limits of the 50APO, 75 Noct, and 28 Lux has plenty of room to grow past the M10 sensor.

 

This tells me that the M has AT LEAST 1-2 more wholesale iterations before the end comes.

Edited August 15, 2018 by dkmoore

[Jon Warwick]

....

 

The resolution limits of the 50APO, 75 Noct, and 28 Lux has plenty of room to grow past the M10 sensor.

 

This tells me that the M has AT LEAST 1-2 more wholesale iterations before the end comes.

But that’s what I don’t understand ...... Leica produce lenses with market-leading resolution limits, but these are then compromised on a low resolution 24mp range of FF cameras.

 

Maybe it’s a question of time, and the megapixels will accordingly increase ....that said, there is apparently a very large chorus on this forum that say 24mp is a sweet spot, and they don’t need more than that ....

[IkarusJohn]

Actually, pretty much all current M lenses work just as well on the L mount cameras.

 

The M lenses historically had to be as close to perfect as possible as there was no possibility for in camera correction. The fixed lenses cameras (notably the Q) can have huge corrections for a close to perfect result - no one will notice. As the SL is effectively the only camera usung the SL lenses, corrections are easy in camera, and again unnoticed. The M lenses, not so much, even with the digital Ms as the camera makes minimal adjustment (distortion being the main one). This puts pressure on the lens design.

[dkmoore]

But that’s what I don’t understand ...... Leica produce lenses with market-leading resolution limits, but these are then compromised on a low resolution 24mp range of FF cameras.

 

Maybe it’s a question of time, and the megapixels will accordingly increase ....that said, there is apparently a very large chorus on this forum that say 24mp is a sweet spot, and they don’t need more than that ....

 

 

I think we will see a 36MP M or maybe even more than that for exactly the reasons you state.

 

Its all the rave to have an S and R model these days. Sony and Canon are currently doing this and Nikon is apparently following the trend.

 

Whose to say Leica won't follow.

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, pretty much all current M lenses work just as well on the L mount cameras.

 

The M lenses historically had to be as close to perfect as possible as there was no possibility for in camera correction. The fixed lenses cameras (notably the Q) can have huge corrections for a close to perfect result - no one will notice. As the SL is effectively the only camera usung the SL lenses, corrections are easy in camera, and again unnoticed. The M lenses, not so much, even with the digital Ms as the camera makes minimal adjustment (distortion being the main one). This puts pressure on the lens design.

 

I've read quite a few reviews (Jono & Reid) that would argue this point, even if ever so slightly. I think you are mostly right for 50mm and longer.

[pgk]

This puts pressure on the lens design.

 

And pressure on costs if you are trying to produce an optically 'perfect' lens of very small size.

[adan]

The M lenses, not so much, even with the digital Ms as the camera makes minimal adjustment (distortion being the main one).

 

This is not actually the case. The M digital cameras do not correct for distortion at all. At best, they ID the lens (EXIF data), and someone like Adobe may then be able to correct the distortion with a profile for a given lens, in post-processing.

 

The only corrections made in the M camera(s) is for vignetting, particularly the color vignetting (red edge, "Italian flag syndrome") from wide-angle lenses.

[lct]

[...] The M digital cameras do not correct for distortion at all. [...]

 

I would bet that they do, otherwise some OOC jpegs would look distorted. I will check with my 7a 35/2 when i have some time but this is true on the digital CL at least.

[jaapv]

You'll find that it is corrected by the postprocessing software, if at all. Use RawTherapee to check. Adobe products tend to implement the sidecar file.

[lct]

You'll find that it is corrected by the postprocessing software [...]

 

What about OOC jpegs then? Andy and you don't get it i believe but i may be wrong.

[Chaemono]

I agree with Jaap on out-of-camera JPEGs. But how about in-camera JPEGs?

[lct]

OOC jpegs means jpegs as is out of the camera IINW. Those files are corrected by all Leica firmwares i guess but again i may be wrong.

[adan]

But that’s what I don’t understand ...... Leica produce lenses with market-leading resolution limits, but these are then compromised on a low resolution 24mp range of FF cameras.

 

I'm afraid you've somewhat "drunk the Kool-Aid" here. What is the actual resolution limit of any given Leica lens - do you know? Which particular M lens are you hoping to use?

 

The only modern Leica lens for which I have seen actual tested resolution numbers is the 50 Summicron APO (an exceptional lens at an exceptional price) - 160 lppm. That one lens would benefit from more Mpixels - but it is the exception.

 

Leica themselves do not publish resolution figures, only MTF charts - which, as I said before, quit measuring at 40 lppm, far below the capabilities of even a 24 Mp sensor. Their lenses certainly are higher resolution than that - but how much higher? No data.

 

Leica M lenses usually are better then the competition at full aperture. They almost always are better or equal in a much smaller package. That does not mean they are better than the competition at "best" aperture, or if "size is no object" (e.g. the SL lenses) - or will actually resolve more detail on a 50 Mpixel sensor than they do on 24 Mpixels.

 

I have a 3200-ppi scanner - with a consumer lens (Epson). No matter how many pixels are put behind that lens, the resolution limit is about 1800 ppi (~35 lppm). I limit my scanning to that, because otherwise I'm just getting bigger files of the same somewhat-fuzzy details.

 

 

....that said, there is apparently a very large chorus on this forum that say 24mp is a sweet spot, and they don’t need more than that ....

 

Correct - the M line is designed for a market, not for the needs of this or that single photographer.

Edited August 15, 2018 by adan

[01af]

That one lens would benefit from more megapixels—but it is the exception.

 

That is in no way an exception because any lens would benefit from more megapixels.

 

[IkarusJohn]

This is not actually the case. The M digital cameras do not correct for distortion at all. At best, they ID the lens (EXIF data), and someone like Adobe may then be able to correct the distortion with a profile for a given lens, in post-processing.

 

The only corrections made in the M camera(s) is for vignetting, particularly the color vignetting (red edge, "Italian flag syndrome") from wide-angle lenses.

My mistake.

[Chaemono]

I'd like a 160 MPx M to go with my 75 Noctilux-M.

[pgk]

That is in no way an exception because any lens would benefit from more megapixels.

 

We've been here before. It will only benefit if the output requires it and there is some relevant data to utilise. For most images that are printed this is not the case. FWIW I have a very old photographic lens which I have played with on the A7II. It is not a sharp lens, hardly surprising because it was designed to cover whole plate not long after the photographic process was created, and I'm cropping just the somewhat sharper centre at 24MPixels. Increasing the MPixels for this lens will not have any benefit whatsoever, believe me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[scott kirkpatrick]

A quick way to se that almost all recent M lenses can resolve to better than 24 MPx pitch is to put them on a CL and see whether Moire appears in images that would stimulate it.  I've done that and it does. The CL's pixels are 40% smaller than the M10's and SL's.