Does SL need more megapixels?

[saxo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 32 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

A game of pure chance? Most M users find focusing pretty reliable.

congratulation!

I'm an M user since M4-P, probably I've not enough experience?

Focus 50 lux and nocti or 90 summicron or all 135 lenses, often all a game of pure chance to me with digital M, and don't forget to adjust  the rangefinder after a while. I need an EVF on top of the M. Looks ugly to me. I would prefer an EVF version of the M, and as long as it does not excist, I need an SL for these lenses.

Edited November 18, 2018 by saxo

[jaapv]

No problems here since 1976... I even managed to focus a 270 mm lens  (Apo-Telyt + 2x converter) on M cameras, but that was indeed a bit of a lottery. I would no classify it as daily use, though. Rangefinder adjustments few and far between, mainly after the camera got knocked about.

As a matter of fact, I get mroe OOF shots using AF.

[IkarusJohn]

So, calibration issues are a myth?

Don’t get me wrong, I love my M cameras, but to imply that focusing M lenses through a rangefinder is anything like as accurate as focusing through the EVF on the SL is a stretch.  No question the Noctilux and other lenses requiring accurate focus are far easier and far more successful with the SL than with an M camera ...

Edited November 18, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[jaapv]

No, they are not a myth, but far less prevalent than this forum would have you believe. Once adjusted properly, it is rare for a rangefinder to lose its calibration.

[IkarusJohn]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No, they are not a myth, but far less prevalent than this forum would have you believe. Once adjusted properly, it is rare for a rangefinder to lose its calibration.

Ah, but that’s not quite the point, though is it.  Focusing a difficult lens like the Noct on a rangefinder CAN suffer from calibraton issues and IS less accurate (consistently) than the EVF on the SL.

[Chaemono]

I must admit, I didn’t dare to contradict saxo and IkarusJohn here because they seem to have strong feelings about focusing with a rangefinder and I assumed that they are very experienced doing so. But I’d have to agree with Jaap on all points above, except for the Noctilux, the 75 that is (John is right). And here is why. I’m doing some dudes a favor over on the M10 board who want to see RAW file comparisons Z7 vs. α7R III vs. M10 with the same lens side by side. So, I have to take the lens of the Nikon put it on the Sony, take it of the Sony put it on the M10. You won’t believe it, but after looking through the EVFs of the Nikon and the Sony and trying to figure out whether their darn focus peaking is accurate or not, with magnification, using the rangefinder on the  M10 feels like a breath of fresh air at that moment. Just like Jaap said, I get the sense, maybe it’s an illusion, that I can focus faster and more accurately with the rangefinder  

But then, again, the resolution of the Nikon and the Sony EVF isn’t great. The S1R and the SL2, heck the SL already, will be different.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To be pedantic: the Noctilux is just as (in)accurate as any other lens, but you can see the inaccuracies more easily.

[Chaemono]

BTW, the Z7 came as a kit with the Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S (I think Nikon should add a few more letters to the name of their lenses to avoid any misunderstandings). I’ll try to post some Z shots with the kit zoom vs. SL + Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH later on. See if more than 24 MPx make a difference. 

[PeterGA]

I stopped using the Noctilux on M cameras as soon as I bought the SL - for obvious reasons to do with ease of focus and speed. I stopped using the Noctilux and the 50 Summilux as soon as I bought the SL 50 lux. - for the same reason. Being able to focus sometimes, is very different thing to actually nailing focus at speed - most of the time. If there were no benefits to autofocus - Leica would still be making predominantly manual focus cameras  - they aren't so I don't really understand what the debate is about. I'm hoping that the SL2 has better autofocus capabilities or at least in line with best practice as in Sony and Fuji for eye focus- makes it a lot easier to shoot faces quickly and efficiently. If the S2 continues with video and increases MP count to 40+- Leica will have to consider some form of in body image stabilisation or preferably ( again) like Fuji who is about to include  combination of IBIS and OIS in lenses in their top line cameras - including the 100MP SLR they are releasing in 2019.

Panasonic will be aware of the competition from Sony in video and stills - so the Panasonic release may give some insight into what Leica might announce - it isn't just about MP count anymore and hasn't been for a  few years now in so-called mirrorless camera offerings.

Edited November 18, 2018 by PeterGA

[saxo]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

... I even managed to focus a 270 mm lens  (Apo-Telyt + 2x converter) on M cameras, 

on digital M, thats what we talk about, fantastic! You seem to be a M master.

For me focus works fine with film M, bot not with digital M and fast lenses above 50mm. There I have a remarkable amount of OOF pics when shooting wide open in close distance, not infinity of course.

What is your secret?

[BernardC]

On 11/16/2018 at 1:08 PM, Agent M10 said:

This is a dilemma with the S007 now in relation to the SL primes. The 007 has 16-bit color and a larger sensor (same pixel pitch), but the SL now benefits from some optical innovations.

It's hardly a dilemma: try them both, see which one works best for you.

In the end it's never about pixel pitch and ray angles. It's about the images, and about how hard you want to work to produce those images.

[AndreaP75]

The SL definitely needs more megapixels to make justice of the lenses resolving power, and they could easily survive 2-3 more generation of sensor "upgrades". 

I also have no doubts that the Q2 and the SL2 will share the same new sensor. 

What I'm not so sure is whether a new M would actually need such an upgrade. I would rather prefer if Leica works on the same 24mpx sensor by improving dynamic range, highlight recovery, less or no banding and better ISO capabilities, for creating the ultimate travel, reportage, personal projects, low light system. On top of that, in a 3-4 years time frame, the technology should be ready for adding a hi-rez non-obtrusive EVF, right at the level of the optical rangefinder. A "layer" that comes and go, whenever is required. It won't take away the pleasure of optical rangefinder experience, but adding flexibility for fast focusing on frame side (non static) subjects.

By the way, I'm one of those who prefers rangefinder focusing over any autofocus system for central static / slow moving subjects, with lenses up to 50mm and regardless of the aperture. Such a EVF won't make the optical rangefinder obsolete, but will add extended flexibility for choosing the appropriate "manual focusing mode" based on the shooting scenario.

It would actually make a lot of sense for Leica trying to work on a product differentiation between the M and SL lines, now that the SL is more mature and complete.

And behind the sensor upgrade on the SL, equally important are phase detection AF and TTL / HSS integration with 3rd party studio strobes. That would easily gain the appeal of the pro market.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[thighslapper]

12 minutes ago, AndreaP75 said:

The SL definitely needs more megapixels to make justice of the lenses resolving power, and they could easily survive 2-3 more generation of sensor "upgrades". 

I also have no doubts that the Q2 and the SL2 will share the same new sensor. 

 

I'm a bit doubtful about that ...... the SL2 sensor will need to M lens compatible whereas they can stick anything in the Q as it's a fixed lens camera and the lens can be designed to suit whatever they use. 

[saxo]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb AndreaP75:

T..... I would rather prefer if Leica works on the same 24mpx sensor by improving dynamic range, highlight recovery, less or no banding and better ISO capabilities, for creating the ultimate travel, reportage, personal projects, low light system. ...

 same to me

[AndreaP75]

52 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

I'm a bit doubtful about that ...... the SL2 sensor will need to M lens compatible whereas they can stick anything in the Q as it's a fixed lens camera and the lens can be designed to suit whatever they use. 

Totally agree with you on the Q. In a way, it's an easier job. It'll be interesting to see which direction they will take for the SL, to which extent they'll be compromising with M lenses compatibility or if they will go for the best possible sensor for the native SL lens line.

[jaapv]

Retrocompatability has a very high priority with Leica. They pride themselves that nearly all Leica/Leitz lenses ever built can still be used on their newest cameras.

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb AndreaP75:

The SL definitely needs more megapixels to make justice of the lenses resolving power, and they could easily survive 2-3 more generation of sensor "upgrades". 

I would rather prefer if Leica works on the same 24mpx sensor by improving dynamic range, highlight recovery, less or no banding and better ISO capabilities, for creating the ultimate travel, reportage, personal projects, low light system.

 

The SL2 equally needs more DR, better Highlight recovery and ISO capabilities. The M10 is already well ahead here. Also, the resolving power of newer Karbe M lenses can easily survive 2-3 more generations of sensor "upgrades."

[AndreaP75]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

The SL2 equally needs more DR, better Highlight recovery and ISO capabilities. The M10 is already well ahead here. Also, the resolving power of newer Karbe M lenses can easily survive 2-3 more generations of sensor "upgrades."

Surely the SL sensor needs that improvement, but it's not something that I would take it for granted due to the higher density pitch of the new coming sensor. 

[AndreaP75]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Retrocompatability has a very high priority with Leica. They pride themselves that nearly all Leica/Leitz lenses ever built can still be used on their newest cameras.

Agree with you on this, and retrocompatability will always exist. I'm sure most of the M lenses will work fantastic on a SL2 as well. The point is whether it could make sense to separate the M and SL camera lines with different sensors to serve different purposes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

The SL2 equally needs more DR, better Highlight recovery and ISO capabilities. The M10 is already well ahead here. Also, the resolving power of newer Karbe M lenses can easily survive 2-3 more generations of sensor "upgrades."

Quite true. Even the CL is ahead in these.