Upcoming M10X with 47MP?

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I enjoyed Puts's article. Most of which was about image resolution as it relates to sensor size. I do wish the same lens had been used on both Nikon Z cameras which would have helped him to better draw a conclusion regarding the image resolution benefits of a future (45mp?) M sensor.

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

It’s a conundrum, isn’t it?

I’m reasonably sure many in Leica would prefer to keep the next M to 24MP, and to deal with things like dynamic range, colour balance, high ISO performance etc.  But they will undoubtedly feel pressure from the consumer market to at least trail the MP race - who would buy an M with “only” 24MP?  The photographic press would scorn such a camera ... or would they?  Slamming the camera on DPReview would hardly be a negative!

[Edax]

As Erwin "puts" it: "One would assume that when doubling the number of pixels on the sensor, the lp/im would also double".

Eh no, the lp/ih would be multiplied by the square root of 2...

Taking this into account, the numbers presented for the Nikon Z7 are impressive.

 

[Kwesi]

would you mind explaining that in not too technical terms?😀

[Mark II]

Yes, Puts dresses up a fairly basic concept of area vs linear length in superflous terminology to make it sound like he is making some kind of fundamental discovery. Of course linear resolution only increases as the square root of pixel count - this is just basic math, not sensor design. It is why small increases in the number of pixels usually do not make a huge difference to printable sizes etc.

I for one would very very much like more resolution. However, the optimal pixel count is something that only Leica can know, as the sweet spot depends on many many different engineering parameters, from lens behaviour, through the micro-lenses and sensor toppings, and not least the ability to pull all those pixels off the sensor and do something useful with them.

Those worrying about motion blur or diffraction with a higher resolution sensor should take solace from the fact that if you print a 50MP image at the same size as you would print a 24MP image, the blur will not be visible. It is only when you try to print larger or pixel peep that you would see any such problem, so you loose nothing aside from disk space (negligible even with a high resolution sensor).

And while we are at it can we please have a genuine hardware ISO 100 please (or even ISO 50)...

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Mark II

[Edax]

Number of pixels equals number of pixels along width times number of pixels along height. 

Increase both number of pixels along width and height by square root of two; then total number of pixels is doubled.

Number of pixels along height multiplied by square root of two could multiply resolution also with square root of two; 

measured resolution of Z7 divided by resolution of M10 seems to be 2822/1931 (1.461), square root of relative number of pixels is square root of (8256x5504/5976x3984) equals 1.38. so resolution of the Z7 increased more than expected from the number of pixels.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pixels are fine but other aspects also need addressing:-

Lossless compression for RAW files, specially for future camera fitted with higher resolution sensor.

LENR

Increasing minimum shutter seed, 1/8000 mechanical would be nice and shorter for electronic shutter.

Allowing long exposure like SL601, up to 30minutes or longer but with LNER.

Improving on time delay of external EVF.

 

 

[Peter Kilmister]

Is this now reaching into fantasy land? 24MP is better than analogue film. Unless you carry a tripod around and set it up for every shot then what is the point?

Mobile phones reached this point some years ago. They could get smaller and smaller. Now they could be about the size of a thumbnail. What's the point?

Ergonomics comes into play eventually. Let sleeping dogs lie or laissez faire as the French say.

Improve the product in other ways but don't over egg the pudding. 

[LBJ2]

Along with many, many other photographers, I've been shooting Sony 42MP FF handheld for some years now. No issues, no worries, no extra care. Same handling/settings as I would with my 24MP cameras. You'll hear the same from Nikon Z shooters at 47 MP and Panasonic S1r Togs, same with 47.3MP Q2 shooters too. 

 

[mmradman]

Maybe Z7 have shakes induced by shutter but IBIS is great help. Perhaps next M can have ibis as z7 is not much bigger than M, and perhaps not as Z7 have EVF above main deck while RF is integrated in the M camera. Time will tell.

[250swb]

12 hours ago, Kwesi said:

I enjoyed Puts's article. Most of which was about image resolution as it relates to sensor size. I do wish the same lens had been used on both Nikon Z cameras which would have helped him to better draw a conclusion regarding the image resolution benefits of a future (45mp?) M sensor.

From my own rough and ready comparisons between my M10 and Z7 using Summicrons (with a Novaflex adapter) the sensor of the Z7 is noticeably the more impressive for it's expansive tone. Of course the Z7 also has in body stabilization so concerns about hand holding a higher pixel camera are neutralised and presumably this will be the elephant in the room if Leica don't finally introduce it in the M11 or SL2. The scary thing for Leica in the future is that the Z7 has been released with a kit 24 - 70mm f/4 zoom that in side by side prints pretty much equals all my Summicrons in like for like settings. I'd bought the Z7 as a more flexible camera for my Leica (and other lenses), but I'm finding it's only the faster and character lenses that are getting a look in, otherwise the kit zoom rules. That said a 50mm Summilux on the Z7 is the pinnacle, the best resolution and image quality I've ever seen in a camera I've owned.  

[Knipsknecht]

Since many years Leica M cameras are niche products. Therefore I don't think it's necessary for the "M-Line" to join the "resolution battle" with companies which are aiming at different customers who like to take part in this race. For the SL-line it's something different. Here Leica will have to join the battle.

For the M-line I would like to see an improved 24MP sensor, maybe with some development towards better dynamic range, maybe ISO 50 and better high-ISO capabilities. I would call it refinement. Combine this with the silent shutter of the m10-P and maybe (just maybe!) even the ability to switch between rangefinder and evf (you know - Fuji-like).

Things like these are in my opinion much more useful than 47MP (or even more).

[mmradman]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

From my own rough and ready comparisons between my M10 and Z7 using Summicrons (with a Novaflex adapter) the sensor of the Z7 is noticeably the more impressive for it's expansive tone. Of course the Z7 also has in body stabilization so concerns about hand holding a higher pixel camera are neutralised and presumably this will be the elephant in the room if Leica don't finally introduce it in the M11 or SL2. The scary thing for Leica in the future is that the Z7 has been released with a kit 24 - 70mm f/4 zoom that in side by side prints pretty much equals all my Summicrons in like for like settings. I'd bought the Z7 as a more flexible camera for my Leica (and other lenses), but I'm finding it's only the faster and character lenses that are getting a look in, otherwise the kit zoom rules. That said a 50mm Summilux on the Z7 is the pinnacle, the best resolution and image quality I've ever seen in a camera I've owned.  

I am currently using M246 and Z7 with kit zoom plus Novoflex M-Z adaptor for cross platform lens compatibility. 

As of today only M uniqueness worth considering  is the RF and dedicated Monochrome.  Let me elaborate; Z7 is very small yet easy to operate, also  packed with IBIS which provides handheld low ISO shooting in modest light.  Compared to likes of SL601 or latest full frame Panasonic the Z6/7 is similar in size and weight to the M body.  In addition Nikon kit zoom is lightweight and smallish lens, perhaps not Leica quality but combined with dedicated camera with high resolving sensor it is difficult to beat. 

Maybe Leica can concentrate on things they do well despite irritating normal users, special editions 😉. 

[hteasley]

History has always made fools of people who say, "No one needs more than X (RAM/resolution/ISO/CPU speed/whatever)". But, in the case of 24mpix resolution for still photographs, I'm not sure it's wrong. I mean, there will always be vertical markets that do benefit from that improvement, but for the most part, anyone that wants to print less than mural-sized, and wants to appreciate the print with anything other than a loupe, 24mpix can keep just about everyone happy.

The Q2 strategy of "big resolution that helps cropping from the wide lens" is a way that things are going to go for some cameras, but it ties you to the optical features of wide lenses, no matter your cropped composition. So I'm not a fan of that.

And the mechanical nature of the M rangefinder means you can only get so accurate. I think 47mpix is wasted on an M. The mechanical-optical rangefinder, manually-coupled lenses,... demanding photographers get their M cameras and lenses collumated every couple of years, and I don't think most users do that. So we're already likely losing resolution much of the time.

I dunno. I just see better places to improve the M. If IBIS would work in an M body, that would be a thing. If ISO can improve, that's another thing. Better battery life. Wifi startup time that isn't measured with a calendar. Hybrid EVF could be interesting, if it is far better than the X100f. Not necessary, but could be interesting.

But more resolution? I see real diminishing returns there.

Edited June 10, 2019 by hteasley
typo

[Kwesi]

I think we have to accept that Leica will increase the resolution of the next M. Up till now, this has been in tandem with  the Q and SL. Will the need for micro lenses on the sensor allow 47mp? Only Leica knows. For me, the most important feature in the next M is the ability to react to that decisive moment by bringing the camera up to my eye without having to wake it up from sleep first, press down on the shutter, and make the shot.

[MarkP]

I WANT MORE DYNAMIC RANGE

[mmradman]

6 hours ago, MarkP said:

I WANT MORE DYNAMIC RANGE

At what ISO?

[Guest]

Well perhaps a 47 megapixel sensor, or something like that is in the M's future, but for me like quite a few others here that's of no interest, I certainly do not need to have to deal with all the extra storage needs that such a sensor imaging at 47 megapixels resolution per shot would require, nor having to again upgrade any computer power to deal seamlessly with it all.

Comparing with the new Q2 going to 47 megapixels? Well perhaps there is some justification for that for those who'd use that camera's facility to crop to 35mm and 50mm focal lengths, but I never did that with my Q1 so even though the newer Q has a few enhancements there's not enough reasons to change up that camera either. If one uses the Q2 as an everyday walk-around "snapshot" camera the mind boggles as to how to handle 200+ images each at 47 megapixels at the end of the day.

So for me 24 megapixels is good enough for an M. I can and do print to full A2 size and larger without any visible degradation of the image, I wouldn't say no to improvements in DR to the present sensor, a better buffer,  better battery life and an access door base to change out the battery and SDHC card like on the Q and SL plus less reliance on the Foto's App for the M10-D and a few other minor things but all in all the M10/M10-D's that I have are just fine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[satijntje]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb MarkP:

I WANT MORE DYNAMIC RANGE

Then get a X1D!

[LBJ2]

9 hours ago, MarkP said:

I WANT MORE DYNAMIC RANGE

I agree. I don't think anyone wants just more pixels.