Upcoming M10X with 47MP?

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 9.5.2019 um 10:32 schrieb budjames:

Why doesn't Panasonic just buy Leica and get it over with?

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

Ohhhh, please go and rinse your mouth with soap and water!  

[Advertisement]

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

[Paulus]

Am 14.5.2019 um 13:09 schrieb Peter Kilmister:

@budjames When you say you have printed to 16x20 there is nothing qualify the numbers. Imperial or Metric? 16x20 yards, feet, or inches (rods, poles, perches, fathoms, chains, furlongs, miles, leagues also possible!)? 16x20 mms, cms, kms? 

I once ordered a print done as 20x30 cms. When it arrived from the printer (part of Hewlett Packard) it was 20x30 inches!

If you paid for the 20*30cm I would not complain.... Imagine a print 20*30 nautical miles. Christo, where are you when we need you?!

[mdemeyer]

Reminds me of the Steven Wright joke:

”I’ve got a map of the United States.  The scale is 1” to 1”.   It’s really hard to fold.”

😁

[Likaleica]

Getting back to Colin's OP, after decades of a mild case of GAS (my wife would say severe case), I feel like the M10 (variant) is "my camera."  Since I got mine I have gone into numerous camera stores, including the Leica stores in NYC, Boston, Seattle, LA and SF, and walked out without any sense of desire for something new or different.  Same goes for lenses.  I actually try to make myself want something different but, other than a M10M (D-type) I just have no desire for anything else.  And if they don't make an M10M, my MM suits me fine (other than slow write speed).  

The M10 platform is perfect.  So the proposed models discussed in the Leica Rumors bit do not interest me.  In fact, they appear to be a de-evolution to me.   I definitely don't want more MPs.  

[Herr Barnack]

On 5/14/2019 at 7:47 AM, budjames said:

Sorry for assuming that "16x20" would be misunderstood as this is a standard print size in the USA. I meant to say 16" x 20" (inches).

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

I just wrapped up an exhibit of prints that are 16x24 inches and 24x36 inches in size.  The printed image quality of even the 24x36 inch prints is excellent, and I have a very critical eye for the image quality of my prints.  The shots were made with my first digital M, the M240.  IMHO, the 24mp sensor holds its own in terms of printed image quality at fairly large sizes.

The 47mp sensor in the Q2 (or M11 if it uses the Q2 sensor) would further refine image quality at those sizes, or allow us to print even larger than 24x36 inches with excellent results - but then again, most people don't print this large.  Hell, most people don't even print these days. 🙄

 

[Jeff S]

.... or allow for more cropping before printing.

Jeff

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.dxomark.com/leica-q-2-sensor-review/

Looking forward to using this sensor in the next M camera

[budjames]

On 5/21/2019 at 8:13 AM, Herr Barnack said:

I just wrapped up an exhibit of prints that are 16x24 inches and 24x36 inches in size.  The printed image quality of even the 24x36 inch prints is excellent, and I have a very critical eye for the image quality of my prints.  The shots were made with my first digital M, the M240.  IMHO, the 24mp sensor holds its own in terms of printed image quality at fairly large sizes.

The 47mp sensor in the Q2 (or M11 if it uses the Q2 sensor) would further refine image quality at those sizes, or allow us to print even larger than 24x36 inches with excellent results - but then again, most people don't print this large.  Hell, most people don't even print these days. 🙄

 

I think that the best benefit of a higher resolution sensor in the future M is the ability to crop higher and still maintain IQ. The Leica lenses make this very doable. 

I'm amazed with the IQ that I'm getting now with my M10 when I have to crop a lot because I did have a longer lens mounted at the time I took the shot.

Now that I have been shooting almost exclusively with my Leica and Leica prime lenses, I have learned to do without a zoom lenses. It has definitely sharpened my photo taking skills.

Regards,

Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Guest]

After introducing the Q2 to the table I think the M10x is a no brainier...............not sure we will see it in 2019 but it’s not far away. 

Neil

[Luke_Miller]

The current generation high-rez bodies have IBIS or optically stabilized lenses.  Not sure we will see either in a future M.  A high-rez body without stabilization is not a great choice for handheld low light photography due to the need for higher shutter speeds to avoid visible blur from camera movement.

[pico]

37 minutes ago, Luke_Miller said:

The current generation high-rez bodies have IBIS or optically stabilized lenses.  Not sure we will see either in a future M.  A high-rez body without stabilization is not a great choice for handheld low light photography due to the need for higher shutter speeds to avoid visible blur from camera movement.

I have not questioned Luke's technical information before but I must admit I'm stuck with the impression that apparent motion blur due to high pixel counts depends entirely upon degree of enlargement and to see the effect requires enlargements we very rarely use. I'm open-minded and should I ever get a FF camera with ~50MP I will likely find out. Until then, skepticism is in place.

Edited June 8, 2019 by pico

[luigi bertolotti]

44 minutes ago, Luke_Miller said:

The current generation high-rez bodies have IBIS or optically stabilized lenses.  Not sure we will see either in a future M.  A high-rez body without stabilization is not a great choice for handheld low light photography due to the need for higher shutter speeds to avoid visible blur from camera movement.

I agree : some M (with RF) and 50MP ca. sensor with an in body stabilization would be, imho, the real possible improvement on the M line… me too think that 24MP is a sort of "sweet spot"... but more room to crop wuold be appreciable ; a M with EVF only is a marketing nonsense : they have a FF EVF, named SL, and cannot understand why to list another…. M nostalgics like me love RF and, in case, have good choices from Leica to go elsewhere (CL / SL).

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[Kwesi]

32 minutes ago, pico said:

I have not questioned Luke's technical information before but I must admit I'm stuck with the impression that apparent motion blur due to high pixel counts depends entirely upon degree of enlargement and to see the effect requires enlargements we very rarely use. I'm open-minded and should I ever get a FF camera with ~50MP I will likely find out. Until then, skepticism is in place.

I have to agree with Pico here. Motion blur doesn't increase when pixel count goes up. On the other hand Image stabilization does make it harder to get a perfectly sharp shot. I agree its helpful at very slow shutter speeds but good technique sometimes wins.

[Jeff S]

As with most things photographic, different people are likely to have different experiences and to reach different conclusions, regardless of technical underpinnings. Techniques, conditions and output (screen, print, size, cropping, etc) vary.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Puts discusses higher pixel counts in a future M...

http://photo.imx.nl//blog/files/5881e09e81ef66eec972c389656deb7f-140.html

Jeff

[M11 for me]

Excellent article I find.

Just a bit of side-information: We can often read in this forum about doubts of people of being able to shoot pictures that are highly detailed and have a very high resolution and this based on sensors with high number of pixel plus handheld.  Puts claims again that this is only possible with a tripod.

[Luke_Miller]

23 hours ago, pico said:

I have not questioned Luke's technical information before but I must admit I'm stuck with the impression that apparent motion blur due to high pixel counts depends entirely upon degree of enlargement and to see the effect requires enlargements we very rarely use. I'm open-minded and should I ever get a FF camera with ~50MP I will likely find out. Until then, skepticism is in place.

The amount of visible motion blur in an image is determined by the number of sensor pixels that record it.  So a low resolution sensor with large pixels might contain the camera motion within a single pixel and it would be invisible at 100% view.  Alternatively a high resolution sensor, with smaller pixels, would record the same camera motion over several adjacent pixels.  This would make it very obvious at 100% view.  I use 100% view when sharpening and applying other edits, so I see it regularly.  And one of my primary uses of my high-resolution Nikon is for cropping (much like the Q2).  I prefer to reduce camera weight by using primes, which means that often I must crop to get the composition I want.  Cropping can bring the motion blur into view in the smaller, cropped image.

It is true that a 50% view (or smaller) of a high resolution image will typically mask minor camera shake and I occasionally use images with camera shake in web galleries where it can't be seen.  But I try to avoid, or at least minimize it. That means stabilized lenses, or shutter speeds of 1/2 x focal length or higher with the DSLR.

I regularly shoot my Ms in lower light situations and having to use higher shutter speeds in a high resolution M would limit my shooting.  Faster lenses would  reduce DOF and make focusing more of a challenge, but not affect the shutter speed issue which is driven by focal length.  I'm reasonably proficient in the use of flash, which is a solution, but Leica M flash performance tends to limit my use.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Luke_Miller

[Paulus]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Jeff S:

Puts discusses higher pixel counts in a future M...

http://photo.imx.nl//blog/files/5881e09e81ef66eec972c389656deb7f-140.html

Jeff

Does he really ? " If and when Leica will decide on an increase of the amount of pixel for the next generation of the M camera it will be somewhere between the 24 Mp of the current model and the ±65 Mp of the Leica S models. Not being in the position to being allowed to compete with the SL in future versions (let us assume 45 Mp) the final amount would be somewhere between 24 and 45: 34.5, which happens to be neatly between both extremes. " 

IMHO he only discusses,  that size in this comparison doesn't really matters. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dkmoore]

26 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Does he really ? " If and when Leica will decide on an increase of the amount of pixel for the next generation of the M camera it will be somewhere between the 24 Mp of the current model and the ±65 Mp of the Leica S models. Not being in the position to being allowed to compete with the SL in future versions (let us assume 45 Mp) the final amount would be somewhere between 24 and 45: 34.5, which happens to be neatly between both extremes. " 

IMHO he only discusses,  that size in this comparison doesn't really matters. 

 

Yes, really. Puts's hypotheses (from the article) is that the next M variant will have a 34.5 Mp sensor, which is larger than 24 Mp. This info is in your quote from the article...

 

[Jeff S]

31 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Does he really ? " If and when Leica will decide on an increase of the amount of pixel for the next generation of the M camera it will be somewhere between the 24 Mp of the current model and the ±65 Mp of the Leica S models. Not being in the position to being allowed to compete with the SL in future versions (let us assume 45 Mp) the final amount would be somewhere between 24 and 45: 34.5, which happens to be neatly between both extremes. " 

IMHO he only discusses,  that size in this comparison doesn't really matters. 

 

You left out all the important stuff... even he said the exact number was not important... the differences aren’t linear, and can’t be exploited anyway without careful tripod shooting.  You know, the point of the short article. 

Jeff