Is a 47 MB sensor coming soon?

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It all sounds like an ICM shooter's wet dream......

Edited March 8, 2019 by Ouroboros

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

16 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

The camera market is in decline and everyone interested in photography already owns a camera that is sufficient for almost any use.   So the camera makers challenge is to convince us that our current bodies are obsolete and must be replaced with the latest and greatest or we risk being made fun of due to the limitations of our gear.  I've read a lot of posts on different photography forums that make me think they are successful in this.

The camera market is in decline BECAUSE we have reached a technical plateau, and most people don't WANT, let alone need a camera with better technical capabilities to take photos that are more interesting to look at or say more than one taken with current equipment. Those here and on other forums who want the next Leica or other brand because it has more pixels or whatever are a declining species. The market for cameras is in decline despite there being more photos being taken (or at least they are more visible).

There will always be some people who need a technically better camera (e.g. commercial, scientific and technical photography), but I doubt it will be their images that we are looking back at in 50 years time. It will be the images that have something to say, that draw us in, that are intriguing.....none of which require 50mp or more! Talent and a good eye are more valuable than pixels, and far scarcer.

Edited March 8, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[AJ_]

I just downloaded a Q2 file from leica.com, 400MB (!) - 16-bits with one layer of filters. 

That's crazy. If I print all my images, maybe. But I mostly store them, look at them on my screen.

[sdk]

Oversampling the image from a lens will almost always give you a better result for a given print size. If you could print an M10 picture at 20x30" 300DPI and a similar shot from a higher MP camera at 558 DPI shot with the same lens, aperture and shutter speed, the 558 DPI shot will have the same diffraction blur, motion blur, and nearly identical signal to noise ratio, but it would have smother gradation, less moire, and slightly better recording of the finest details. However, you would need to observe the print from mere inches away, probably with a magnifying glass or loupe, to notice much difference. Reduced moire in fabrics or on buildings might be the most obvious improvement. Epson printers can produce remarkable prints at 720 dpi, so there is room for improvement beyond 47 MP for those who make large prints (and work on a tripod) but for most casual Q2, M or SL system users, even 47 MP oversampling is overkill.

Edited March 8, 2019 by sdk

[Peter Zapp]

Apart from the very first Leica and the Leica M3, all subsequent Leicas were technically behind the contemporary competition. Besides the rangefinder, using a Leica was a deliberate choice to disconnect yourself from the industry's never ending race for new features and selling points. 

During the larger part of their product life cycle, all Leica 4 to 10 were technically outdated. The current M10 is not perfect, but has less quirks than any Leica M before. M10's 24MP works. M9's 18MP CCD works and still has followers.

47MP in the pipeline is no reason to panic.

 

[derleicaman]

I for one am in no rush to "upgrade" to a 47mp sensor in my M camera. 24mp is more than sufficient for my needs and for the needs of the vast majority of users. But Leica is susceptible to the same market forces in the industry as other makers. Call it the "horsepower wars". More is always better. We've seen it happen in the auto industry, stereo gear and on and on. Megapixels are a marketing buzz word that the unwashed masses readily glom on to, and the marketing people convince you that you can't live without more of them.

I was initially very excited by what I had heard about the Q2, but the more I looked at the reviews, I am convinced the Q is just fine.

The cost of higher mp sensors are slower processing, both in taking and post processing, storage, having to upgrade hardware (computer), higher noise issues, and problems with camera shake compared to a lower res sensor, etc. No thanks. I for one don't need it.

I have routinely enlarged images from one of the prototype M8 cameras I had before Photokina 2006 to 24" x 36" without problem. The images are still amazing, and by the horsepower race school of thought, should not have been possible.

Here is one of them of the Dom and Hohenzollern Bridge in Cologne. Lo res here with the forum restrictions on image size, but the 24x36 print in my office, you can count every rivet on the bridge.

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!

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/8/2019 at 5:16 PM, jaapv said:

I'm sure that 47 MP  will sell M11 cameras, but I am puzzled by the photographic sense it would make on an M camera. It still wouldn't make it a preferred landscape camera - that field is covered by medium format and tripods...

Hardly a lock. You can easily handhold a Silvestri shift camera or a Horseman SW612P - and both were specifically designed to be so used. It’s been about 6 years since I’ve used one with a tripod.

But the weight and bulk of the M246 with a 28/3.5 PC Nikkor is considerably less than almost any shift camera. Results are quite good too. 

It actually works better than the same lens on a Nikon because the EV2 has a built-in horizon and can see through the lens and meter at f/16, shifted.

Dante

[pico]

39 minutes ago, dante said:

You can easily handhold a Silvestri shift camera or a Horseman SW612P

  I cannot easily handhold. It is good to have you here mentioning a camera probably unfamiliar to most.

Of course you are speaking from your personal experience, given your steadiness, tremor frequency (which we all have) and your expectation of outcome.  I am a medium and large format wide angle enthusiast and besides owning many, I have built my own from medium to 4x5" wide-angle cameras.

Best,

 

[howiebrou]

5 hours ago, derleicaman said:

More is always better. We've seen it happen in the auto industry, stereo gear and on and on.

Sometimes I liken Leica M’s to single ended tube amps. Expensive, yes, but very simple in their execution and they certainly don’t go chasing horsepower. Flea watt amps of 10W or less are still revered as much, if not more than the monstrous 300Lb solid state monsters. Ultimately this segment has survived because it has demonstrated the quality of its output. Hopefully Leica can continue to do so.

[Chaemono]

The only thing I’m thinking about right now is what a 47 MPx S1R/SL2 JPEG will look like when upsized to 100 MPx using ON1 Resize. I do it all the time with my 24 MPx M10 files (to about 42 MPx) and it’s amazing how much I can crop. Of course, the PSD files that ON1 creates to round-trip to LR are humongous. But who cares, I’ll just buy another computer. 

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, howiebrou said:

Sometimes I liken Leica M’s to single ended tube amps. Expensive, yes, but very simple in their execution and they certainly don’t go chasing horsepower. Flea watt amps of 10W or less are still revered as much, if not more than the monstrous 300Lb solid state monsters. Ultimately this segment has survived because it has demonstrated the quality of its output. Hopefully Leica can continue to do so.

Even Solid State. I run a Class A 2x20 W full Transistor amp - and it sounds great.

[pgk]

14 hours ago, dante said:

You can easily handhold a Silvestri shift camera or a Horseman SW612P - and both were specifically designed to be so used. It’s been about 6 years since I’ve used one with a tripod.

Well, you can but doesn't that rather defeat the precision purpose of their design? And handholding always introduces the potential for movement especially with a heavier camera.  Target shooters spend all their effort in trying to get any motion in the direction of the barrel inly. Its far from easy and even the best are not perfect.

[dkmoore]

On 3/9/2019 at 4:28 AM, Peter Zapp said:

Apart from the very first Leica and the Leica M3, all subsequent Leicas were technically behind the contemporary competition. Besides the rangefinder, using a Leica was a deliberate choice to disconnect yourself from the industry's never ending race for new features and selling points. 

During the larger part of their product life cycle, all Leica 4 to 10 were technically outdated. The current M10 is not perfect, but has less quirks than any Leica M before. M10's 24MP works. M9's 18MP CCD works and still has followers.

47MP in the pipeline is no reason to panic.

 

There are many examples of Leica technically leading the competition. I thought of a few just off the top of my head.

1. M8 was a professional mirrorless camera although slightly cropped. This camera came out way before the mirrorless boom started so arguably you could attribute the movement to Leica

2. M9 - I believe this was the first full frame mirrorless camera and now that is all the rage with Sony, Canon, Nikon, and everyone else all joining the club.

3. SL - viewfinder is still probably the best EVF although I hear the new Nikon EVFs are really good but I haven't compared. That is four years of EVF tech dominance

4. D-Lux 109 & 7 - Micro 4/3s sensor in a mostly pocketable camera. I've had my D-lux 109 for 4 years and it is still the best pocket/zoom camera that I am aware of.

Anyway, I guess my point is that Leica has been ahead of the competition in technical respects many times. This notion that they are behind is open to debate. I think what trips everyone up is that the M series uses a range finder and no auto focus, which I personally LOVE to use.

[Peter Zapp]

M8 required external UV filters.

M9 lacked life view, which made mirrors and optical rangefinders redundant. 

SL at the time lacked lenses.

D-Lux is Panasonic. 

[dkmoore]

5 hours ago, Peter Zapp said:

M8 required external UV filters.

M9 lacked life view, which made mirrors and optical rangefinders redundant. 

SL at the time lacked lenses.

D-Lux is Panasonic. 

Your argument is akin to saying the first car didn't have air condition and therefore it wasn't innovative. You can nitpick any first to entry. Leica was still industry leading, which is counter to your argument.

Leica's first attempt at mirrorless, the M8, smokes the first Sony mirrorless the NEX 3. Leica = 2006 Sony = 2013.

Whoops.

[steveclem]

Epsom Rd1= 2004 

[jaapv]

Yes, but the RD1 was a Nikon D70/100 squeezed into a Bessa R. Ingenious, but hardly innovative

[steveclem]

First digital rangefinder hardly innovative? 

If it had had a red dot on it you would have been jumping up and down. If it was that easy Leica would have already done it. If Cosina hadn't led the way how long would the world have waited to get a camera that needed filters to function correctly or offered the consumer a coffee stain lcd? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Not really. I was using a Voigtländer as well at the time, so there was no reason not to buy it, except that it didn't resonate with me.

Actually, by the time the RD-1 came out, the M8 was already well  into its development. Developing a digital rangefinder, from planning to introduction , takes four or five years. Still does. There was no leading of the way. The advantage  of Epson was tht they piggybacked on existing Nikon technology. That speeded things up considerably.

Leica decided to have Kodak develop a dedicated sensor. That, OTOH, slowed things down.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, steveclem said:

If Cosina hadn't led the way how long would the world have waited to get a camera that needed filters to function correctly or offered the consumer a coffee stain lcd? 

If it was so innovative where is the RD2? Its alright building a simple model piggybacked on other's technology, but quite another to produce a viable model with microlenses which led to more innovation and a successful range of models. I'd agree with dkmoore in that the M8 was the first viable 'professional' dRF (mirrorless') camera, which was his statement, even if not the first.