Does SL need more megapixels?

[PeterGA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hopefully SL lens performance is no more compromised by the next iteration of the SL than it is in the current generation- Sl lenses are fantastic designs - but autofocus and optical excellence come at a cost - weight and size. It is of great utility and amenity to be able to use M lenses as well as L mount lenses on all of leica's apc and 35mm designs. I enjoy using the autofocus capability of SL lenses on my CL for the extra reach as one example. Similarly I prefer using the Noctilux/90AA  on the SL and even the CL than on my M10 (not liking the visoflex EVF much really) in comparison to the SL or CL EVF.

I think cross platform compatibility is a very good point of difference  and of high value to Leica photographers who use various systems for different purposes - but not if it comes at a cost to SL lens performance.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, sillbeers15 said:

I own both the SL & M10. I almost only use SL lenses on my SL body and had never bother to attach my R lenses onto my SL. I keep my M10 for my M lenses. This arrangement fits your urgument. So I am happy that the next SL & M optimises SL & M lenses respectively.

Now if next SL were to be optimised for M lenses, some customers would switch over to other L mount bodies if those L mount bodies serve the SL lenses better. Leaving next SL favoured and used by M lens users and some may not see the need for an M camera. Now that would be what I mean by SL cannibalising M sales, which I am certain Leica would avoid. Moreover if the next generation SL body does not optimise SL lenses better than the other L bodies, it is easy for existing SL users to switch over to other L mount bodies. Just continue to buy Leica lenses, would that be in favour for Leica? Eventually Leica would collapse M& SL into one body if the scenario of loosing SL sales takes place significantly. That would be the end of SL series just like R series. Technically, Leica can continue to make R lenses today but who would buy them? 

The flaw in the argument is that "optimizing for M lenses" does not necessarily mean "not optimized for SL lenses"  In fact, you can be d**n sure that the body that works best with both SL and M lenses will be the SLx.

And no, Leica would not collapse the M and SL bodies into one. The whole concept of the systems is totally different.

It would require a huge investment for Leica to start making R lenses again, as all R production components have been scrapped. 

It would not make sense anyway, as the world has moved on. You are right there. There is no reasonable demand for new manual focus SLR (AKA mirrorless) lenses.

[Brian C in Az]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

The Foveon sensor is an attempt to recreate a more than  century-old technology - three-layered film- in the digital age. Whether that is " the next step" is anybody's guess.

And a cell phone is just another step in advancements from Alexander Graham Bell's original concept.

So what's your point?

It makes sense to use layered technology to capture the various spectrums of light. Who cares if someone thought of the idea 100 years ago. Does not physics continue to build on Galileo's original ideas and theories?

[Brian C in Az]

2 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

Technically, Leica can continue to make R lenses today but who would buy them? 

If you look at the used market for R lenses, apparently, the rest of the world still likes and uses them even if you don't. The resale value of R lenses has steadily gone up in the past 3 years since the adapter market has matured and people are more comfortable using manual mode on their digital camera. If the used market continues, there is an opportunity for Leica to do a limited run on several favorite R lenses and increase profits.

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

And a cell phone is just another step in advancements from Alexander Graham Bell's original concept.

So what's your point?

It makes sense to use layered technology to capture the various spectrums of light. Who cares if someone thought of the idea 100 years ago. Does not physics continue to build on Galileo's original ideas and theories?

My point is that there are more dead ends than revolutions in this kind of development.

[sillbeers15]

7 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

If you look at the used market for R lenses, apparently, the rest of the world still likes and uses them even if you don't. The resale value of R lenses has steadily gone up in the past 3 years since the adapter market has matured and people are more comfortable using manual mode on their digital camera. If the used market continues, there is an opportunity for Leica to do a limited run on several favorite R lenses and increase profits.

I'll buy your point if you can successfully convinence Leica to do so.

 

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

The flaw in the argument is that "optimizing for M lenses" does not necessarily mean "not optimized for SL lenses"  In fact, you can be d**n sure that the body that works best with both SL and M lenses will be the SLx.

There is no flaw in my argument. In mathematical model, there can only be an optimization point and not two. I'm highlt technical & business oriented as part of my occupational hazard. I talk about priority on development effort and you fall into usual marketing ploy. Certainly Leica wants you to think about their glorious past and hand your money to them on new products.

There is no money to be made for Leica when all their customers continue to be happy about the old manual lenses, they know they have to get customers excited about new products. Their new bunch of SL lenses are indeed very good and why would they not want to captialize on that success? You can see clearly the departure on the focus and trend of the M10 D, totally emotional new product rather than technological in offering. What would M11 be? Certainly very different from SL2 I bet. Yes it can be sharing a same sensor but the other functional will differ.

I'm certain we all can see and agree that the SL lenses are optically superior over the M lenses ( I do not mean that the M lenses are no good. On the contrary they are lovely but different and I just love them on my M camera). How to take the next SL to optimize the SL lenses and also optimize the M lenses? Is there anything more to hardness from the M lenses? Do you see? I do not. So it beats me how can the next SL optimize on the M lenses than the current SL? I don't know what I don't know. Maybe you do!

 

[verwackelt]

Modern manual lenses like the Milvus 25 can be quite successful. Esp. wideangel lenses are not so difficult to focus manually and even when 1.4 fast, they are not too bulky without an autofocus.
Imagine a summilux 24 with additional AF...😱

[helged]

8 minutes ago, verwackelt said:

Modern manual lenses like the Milvus 25 can be quite successful. Esp. wideangel lenses are not so difficult to focus manually and even when 1.4 fast, they are not too bulky without an autofocus.
Imagine a summilux 24 with additional AF...😱

Not a Lux, but based on the SL-lenses offered so far, one can expect the SL 24 Cron to be optically spetacular.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, sillbeers15 said:

There is no flaw in my argument. In mathematical model, there can only be an optimization point and not two. I'm highlt technical & business oriented as part of my occupational hazard. I talk about priority on development effort and you fall into usual marketing ploy. Certainly Leica wants you to think about their glorious past and hand your money to them on new products.

There is no money to be made for Leica when all their customers continue to be happy about the old manual lenses, they know they have to get customers excited about new products. Their new bunch of SL lenses are indeed very good and why would they not want to captialize on that success? You can see clearly the departure on the focus and trend of the M10 D, totally emotional new product rather than technological in offering. What would M11 be? Certainly very different from SL2 I bet. Yes it can be sharing a same sensor but the other functional will differ.

I'm certain we all can see and agree that the SL lenses are optically superior over the M lenses ( I do not mean that the M lenses are no good. On the contrary they are lovely but different and I just love them on my M camera). How to take the next SL to optimize the SL lenses and also optimize the M lenses? Is there anything more to hardness from the M lenses? Do you see? I do not. So it beats me how can the next SL optimize on the M lenses than the current SL? I don't know what I don't know. Maybe you do!

 

Building lenses is not a simple mathematical model, I fear... There are at least four optimisation points: Size, optical design, mechanical design and price. Mutually exclusive most of the time... 

Anyway, in this case the trick is in enlarging the angle of incidence of the microlenses and making the exit angle from the microlenses as small as possible to enable the wide incidence angle of some M lenses and maintaining the result from the more telecentric lenses. Plus reducing crosstalk on the sensor. Not incompatible, as you seem to think.

Actually, the thinning of the sensor, copper sensor wiring, thinner filter stack and optimized microlens design will benefit SL lenses as well. The main drawback is that it calls for an eyewateringly expensive bespoke sensor.

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html

 

BTW, isn't selling products about marketing? Technology never sells on its own. For instance, (and I know this first hand) when the CD was introduced Philips research was already well aware of flash memory technology - and made the marketing decision to amortize their R&D for laser-read memory for a few decades before pushing the new technology.

[verwackelt]

yes optical spectecular of course. But the faster the lens with AF the more bulkier they get.
i like fast smaller manual focus-WA Lenses for hiking.

[helged]

14 minutes ago, verwackelt said:

yes optical spectecular of course. But the faster the lens with AF the more bulkier they get.
i like fast smaller manual focus-WA Lenses for hiking.

I find the M-Luxes too heavy/unbalanced on an M-body (but fine on the SL). For hiking with the M, when size and weight matters, I go with the 21SEM (plus, typically, a small 50mm and 90 Macro-Elmar-M).

[sillbeers15]

41 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Building lenses is not a simple mathematical model, I fear... There are at least four optimisation points: Size, optical design, mechanical design and price. Mutually exclusive most of the time... 

Anyway, in this case the trick is in enlarging the angle of incidence of the microlenses and making the exit angle from the microlenses as small as possible to enable the wide incidence angle of some M lenses and maintaining the result from the more telecentric lenses. Plus reducing crosstalk on the sensor. Not incompatible, as you seem to think.

Actually, the thinning of the sensor, copper sensor wiring, thinner filter stack and optimized microlens design will benefit SL lenses as well. The main drawback is that it calls for an eyewateringly expensive bespoke sensor.

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html

 

BTW, isn't selling products about marketing? Technology never sells on its own. For instance, (and I know this first hand) when the CD was introduced Philips research was already well aware of flash memory technology - and made the marketing decision to amortize their R&D for laser-read memory for a few decades before pushing the new technology.

I'm afraid you're totally confused about the discussion.

My discussion is about the next SL optimised for the SL lenses or M lenses.

So the discussion is mutually exclusive camera design predominantly over sensor design, pixel density, processor power and speed and sensor taking on AF job as CDAF which will be a very different on optimizing for M lenses in particular the wider angled lenses which the current generation sensor design has already catered for. So as my earlier argument goes that I'm net certain what else the new sensor can in particular cater for current M lenses ( optimize further).......therefore there is only one mathematical optimization we can talk about, that is how the new sensor can be designed to improve capturing what the SL lenses bring in micro contrast from the array of lights falling on the sensor surface producing higher IQ without necessary increasing pixel count within the same 2 dimensional space. You can perhaps highlight what is it that brings more to optimize the M lenses bring apart from the telecentric effect of the light faslling on the sensors arround the corner of the sensor which is already available in the current M & SL cameras since the M9some 10 years ago?

[jaapv]

I'm not confused. It is not SL lenses or M lenses; it is SL lenses and M lenses. That is the basic fallacy in your argument.

[Chaemono]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb sillbeers15:

...

I'm certain we all can see and agree that the SL lenses are optically superior over the M lenses ( I do not mean that the M lenses are no good. On the contrary they are lovely but different and I just love them on my M camera).

In many objective ways, yes, but in a couple of others not.

[sillbeers15]

3 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

In many objective ways, yes, but in a couple of others not.

I cannot argue on subjective matters.

[jaapv]

Size and weight are not subjective...

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb sillbeers15:

I cannot argue on subjective matters.

This is a very heated argument and I can sense your blood boiling. You're willing to run over everything that comes in your way. That's fine sometimes. We all have those moments. As long as we don't suffer from high blood pressure or don't forget to take out meds, it's good to let off some steam.

Back to topic, let's take the 75 Summicron-SL vs. the 75 Summicron-M, for example. The 75 Summicron-SL, to paraphrase Jon Warwick in #34 here https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/290560-i-purchased-the-752-sl/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3640984 ,"...seems clearer, sharper, [has] much less smearing, [has] less digital aberrations (like fringing),..." It controls the light better, doesn't flare, has that 50 Summilux-SL look that everyone wants (if one crops the 75 Summicron-SL image to blur the background enough, it's evident). Fine, but the 75 Summicron-M has a tiny bit smoother, more buttery bokeh. Look at the fence in the front. I can even see it in the OOF areas in the back. Now you may say, you can't see it, it's immaterial, etc. Well, then you are just being subjective. 😀

BTW, I had borrowed the 75 Summicron-SL to compare and gave it back. Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-nW5Qwt/i-KVSb6gr

SL + 75 Summicron-SL

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!

 

M10 + 75 Summicron-M

 

 And I'll do one more later on harmonious bokeh behind AND in front of the focus point with the 75 Nocitlux-M and the 50 Summilux-SL. As stated, I don't have the 75 Summicron-SL but I suspect that it would show equally nervous bokeh in front of the focus point as the 50 Summilux-SL does. Whereas the 75 Noctilux-M is smooth as a baby's bottom behind and in front of the focus point. That M lens is the best FF lens for sharpness and OOF rendering ever built, objectively.

Edit: Something went wrong with the editing and it can't be undone. So, you just have to read behind the lines. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sillbeers15]

10 hours ago, Chaemono said:

This is a very heated argument and I can sense your blood boiling. You're willing to run over everything that comes in your way. That's fine sometimes. We all have those moments. As long as we don't suffer from high blood pressure or don't forget to take out meds, it's good to let off some steam.

Back to topic, let's take the 75 Summicron-SL vs. the 75 Summicron-M, for example. The 75 Summicron-SL, to paraphrase Jon Warwick in #34 here https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/290560-i-purchased-the-752-sl/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3640984 ,"...seems clearer, sharper, [has] much less smearing, [has] less digital aberrations (like fringing),..." It controls the light better, doesn't flare, has that 50 Summilux-SL look that everyone wants (if one crops the 75 Summicron-SL image to blur the background enough, it's evident). Fine, but the 75 Summicron-M has a tiny bit smoother, more buttery bokeh. Look at the fence in the front. I can even see it in the OOF areas in the back. Now you may say, you can't see it, it's immaterial, etc. Well, then you are just being subjective. 😀

BTW, I had borrowed the 75 Summicron-SL to compare and gave it back. Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-nW5Qwt/i-KVSb6gr

SL + 75 Summicron-SL

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!

 

M10 + 75 Summicron-M

 

 And I'll do one more later on harmonious bokeh behind AND in front of the focus point with the 75 Nocitlux-M and the 50 Summilux-SL. As stated, I don't have the 75 Summicron-SL but I suspect that it would show equally nervous bokeh in front of the focus point as the 50 Summilux-SL does. Whereas the 75 Noctilux-M is smooth as a baby's bottom behind and in front of the focus point. That M lens is the best FF lens for sharpness and OOF rendering ever built, objectively.

Edit: Something went wrong with the editing and it can't be undone. So, you just have to read behind the lines. 

Thanks Chaemono.

On the contrary, replying in this forum has been fun moments for me to take my mind off work ( which is pressuring and at times blood boiling when things do not happen accordingly).

I just do not wish to be misrepresented and I like to stay objective. I know there are lots of emotional attachment on M lenses from other forum members. However observing the move from Leica on product development, they are anything but emotional. If the opposite is true, Leica would only produce M camera. SL series is mirrorless and has AF, other than allowing M and R lenses to work well there is nothing more. With L mount alliance I see further departure, that was why I wrote what I think as to share to all. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by sillbeers15

[jaapv]

Ummm... Leica has been producing the R series for a long time, as they recognize that the M cannot do everything. I think most users are aware of that fact as well.

BTW, there have been  R lenses that outperformed their M counterparts. Nothing new under the sun.