Monochrom M - lenses and future ?

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apparently missing here is the brutal reality that between a Leica lens and a Leica body lies a human photographer and an antique focusing system.

There is a reason why a lot of photographers (pro and not) in their 40s seem to be slouching toward Sony A7 models - if you can't focus it, it doesn't matter what your lens or sensor is doing. If you can't hold a camera still, it doesn't matter what your lens or sensor is doing. 

I'm pretty sure that of the 13 M and LTM lenses I currently own, at least 10 will do over 40mp. But the problem that I see coming (and I am already seeing it at 24mp) is that for a lot of lenses 50mm and up (or fast 35s and up), meaning pretty much anything that is not APO,  the focusing mechanism of an M camera is only actually correct at one shooting aperture (among say wide-open and three stops down from that). Whether it is accurate from 1m to infinity is a question of how closely the helicoids run to spec. That is an inherent, provable problem that can be mitigated by more and more expensive, large, heavy, and more highly-corrected lenses and tighter and tighter mechanical tolerances, but it cannot be corrected for the millions of lenses that are already out there. At least not on the M system bodies. Not if you want to use more than one lens. So it is correct that yes, your sensor will not drag your lens down or vice versa. The problem is the mechanical aspect.

There is also the problem of human eyesight and motor skills. For decades people talked about "circles of confusion" and "effective base length." The M system had known mathematical and perceptual limitations with focusing since.... forever (like "effective base length"). Moving the MP to 42 from 24 and pixel peeping reduces the acceptable circle of confusion and puts more demands on this ancient system of levers, pivots, prisms, and springs. And the user. Spoiler alert: human eyesight is not better since Ms have been invented. Spoiler alert 2: if you can afford a $8,500 body, it's highly likely that you do not have the eyesight of a 30-year-old - just like how people who buy $25k stereo amplifiers are no more likely to hear 18khz sound.

Spoiler alert 3: Leica knows this. You've seen the facebook adds for the SL "maximize the potential of your M lenses," right? That is very much aimed at the fact that TTL focusing is the only way to focus every lens at every aperture. And they can't cede this to Sony and Techart, a combination which allows you to autofocus things like the 75/1.4 M perfectly,  even with off-center subjects, regardless of aperture, at what, 61mp now?

[fotografr]

10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Indeed, and the M10R will be optimized just as the M10M was optimized. 

If by "optimized" you mean sharing some basic technology the way auto makers Incorporated power steering and brakes in all vehicles post development, then that's true. The M10M shares the same improved shutter, viewfinder and body size as the M10. If, however, you are still contending as you initially did that the sensor of the M10M is essentially a counterpart to the S3 sensor, that's where we disagree. I've read nothing here or anywhere else to support that notion, but I have read statements from Leica and several reviewers that both the M10M and S3 sensors were developed from the ground up specifically for each camera, rather than the shared technology you keep insisting exists.

[Jeff S]

Nicci explained it at a macro level. I don’t like most car analogies. It’s a sensor... cut from same wafer, with same pixel pitch... that’s all. The rest is built from there... not the same resulting chip. Although the M10M and M10R apparently passed under the same certification, suggesting a common sensor. I may not understand the technical nuances, but I do understand basic math and economies of scale required to survive in a declining industry.  This doesn’t negate the Leica ads; it adds to the story.  For me, that’s a good thing.

Jeff

[fotografr]

1 hour ago, dante said:

Apparently missing here is the brutal reality that between a Leica lens and a Leica body lies a human photographer and an antique focusing system.

There is a reason why a lot of photographers (pro and not) in their 40s seem to be slouching toward Sony A7 models - if you can't focus it, it doesn't matter what your lens or sensor is doing. If you can't hold a camera still, it doesn't matter what your lens or sensor is doing. 

I'm pretty sure that of the 13 M and LTM lenses I currently own, at least 10 will do over 40mp. But the problem that I see coming (and I am already seeing it at 24mp) is that for a lot of lenses 50mm and up (or fast 35s and up), meaning pretty much anything that is not APO,  the focusing mechanism of an M camera is only actually correct at one shooting aperture (among say wide-open and three stops down from that). Whether it is accurate from 1m to infinity is a question of how closely the helicoids run to spec. That is an inherent, provable problem that can be mitigated by more and more expensive, large, heavy, and more highly-corrected lenses and tighter and tighter mechanical tolerances, but it cannot be corrected for the millions of lenses that are already out there. At least not on the M system bodies. Not if you want to use more than one lens. So it is correct that yes, your sensor will not drag your lens down or vice versa. The problem is the mechanical aspect.

There is also the problem of human eyesight and motor skills. For decades people talked about "circles of confusion" and "effective base length." The M system had known mathematical and perceptual limitations with focusing since.... forever (like "effective base length"). Moving the MP to 42 from 24 and pixel peeping reduces the acceptable circle of confusion and puts more demands on this ancient system of levers, pivots, prisms, and springs. And the user. Spoiler alert: human eyesight is not better since Ms have been invented. Spoiler alert 2: if you can afford a $8,500 body, it's highly likely that you do not have the eyesight of a 30-year-old - just like how people who buy $25k stereo amplifiers are no more likely to hear 18khz sound.

Spoiler alert 3: Leica knows this. You've seen the facebook adds for the SL "maximize the potential of your M lenses," right? That is very much aimed at the fact that TTL focusing is the only way to focus every lens at every aperture. And they can't cede this to Sony and Techart, a combination which allows you to autofocus things like the 75/1.4 M perfectly,  even with off-center subjects, regardless of aperture, at what, 61mp now?

All very good points, however, left out of the discussion are the aesthetic aspects of image making--the content, use of light, composition, lens bokeh, color rendition, b&w tonal qualities, and so on. If ones only goal was to have the sharpest image on the block, one that could be pixel peeped to 200%, then Sony would be the way to go. I hope photography doesn't devolve to the point where our final judgement is based on how sharp our photos are. In my opinion, Leica will survive--even with users who have failing eyesight and less than steady hands--because there is a unique look that comes with Leica glass and because the M cameras are just plain more fun to use. In more than 35 years of using M cameras, I have never handed one to another fellow enthusiast and had them say, "Nah, don't like it." On the contrary, they marvel at the feel of the camera in their hand and the sense of mechanical perfection at clicking the shutter.

I have a good friend who is a fellow pro who jumped from Nikon to Sony a couple of years ago. I helped him secure an M9 and version two 50mm Summicron a few months ago. He still shoots with the Sony when doing assignment work but when he's just out and about on his own the M9 is constantly hanging from his shoulder. He is absolutely smitten with the camera.

Edited March 8, 2020 by fotografr

[UliWer]

The very first version of the 50mm Summilux is regarded by many with good reasons as a lens not up to modern standards - being 60 years old. It is only gradually better than the 1:1.5/5cm Summarit, which was designed in the early thirties; in 1963 it was improved by a new design which lasted until 2004 when it was replaced by the modern Apo. asph version of the Summilux. 

Just an example taken at f/2.8 with this "bad" old lens:

You may see the full frame here:

And now a crop taken from the part were the Summilux - even the modern one - becomes much weaker than in the center. You may calculate, what size the full frame would have if you enlarged it to the size the crop represents (I am too bad at maths...):

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!

Does this really ask for new lenses 60 years more modern?

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by UliWer

[shirubadanieru]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

The very first version of the 50mm Summilux is regarded by many with good reasons as a lens not up to modern standards - being 60 years old. It is only gradually better than the 1:1.5/5cm Summarit, which was designed in the early thirties; in 1963 it was improved by a new design which lasted until 2004 when it was replaced by the modern Apo. asph version of the Summilux. 

Just an example taken at f/2.8 with this "bad" old lens:

You may see the full frame here:

And now a crop taken from the part were the Summilux - even the modern one - becomes much weaker than in the center. You may calculate, what size the full frame would have if you enlarged it to the size the crop represents (I am too bad at maths...):

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!

Does this really ask for new lenses 60 years more modern?

 

 

lux v1 is my favorite 50mm lux more than enough (also no distortion like v2 lux, and to my eyes, better rendering).

M10M & Old lens go well together

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, the rangefinder has actually been a good experience.  At over 50 with glasses, I really like just watching two images overlay and pressing the shutter.  It is much easier than using vision correction on an SLR and hoping what I see in focus is what is really in focus.  I have not yet had trouble with the Summilux 75 and Noctilux 1.0 (v1) on the M10M.  I do take more time to focus carefully wide open, but that was the same with film and those lenses.  The M10 series has much better viewfinders than the previous M's for those of us with corrected vision.

I agree that there is a finite limitation, but that has typically been focal length for purposes of focusing and the rangefinder.  I would also say that anything over 30 megapixels either needs really well done image stabilization, or a tripod to ensure absolute stability for maximum use of pixels.  For me, the M system has always been a move around and shoot camera system, not a tripod system.  So far, even with a very small amount of movement at 100% viewing, I have printed 13x19 shots that appear sharp because the 40 megapixel image is downsampled, i.e., it uses less than 100% of the pixels.

What I believe Leica has done is issue these manual focus Nocti and Sumilux lenses for 75 and 90mm that probably make manual focusing without some sort of EVF essentially impossible for today's tolerances.  Just my opinion, no facts to back that up and I have not tried those lenses.  

If you are skeptical, just think about film.  Film has long had over 40 megapixels of resolution (grain) in the low speed films, and film shots have been really sharp for ages on these same lenses.  The APO 50 on film is stunning and the MP cannot use and EVF.

Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.

[fotografr]

19 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

For me, the rangefinder has actually been a good experience.

Same goes for me, partly because I enjoy the process almost as much as the result. I get a great deal more pleasure and satisfaction out of making a good image with an M camera than from one, like the new Sonys, that do virtually everything except compose the shot.  I want to get a good result but I also want to feel like I had something to do with it. I don't see myself ever getting away from the M experience.

I also don't feel at any disadvantage using some of my older Leica lenses with the new, high MP cameras. So far, the lenses that worked well on the MM1, M240, M246 and M10 work even better now on the M10M--and I'm not generally a tripod shooter.

Edited March 11, 2020 by fotografr

[davidmknoble]

1 hour ago, fotografr said:

I also don't feel at any disadvantage using some of my older Leica lenses with the new, high MP cameras. So far, the lenses that worked well on the MM1, M240, M246 and M10 work even better now on the M10M--and I'm not generally a tripod shooter.

The first shots on my M10M were using the Noctilux 1.0 version 1, the Summilux 75 and the Elmarit 90 f/2.8 - all Mandler lenses, non ASPH.  The results were outstanding.  So, I agree, older lenses, at least first generation pre ASPH, seem to do really well on the M10M.

[Jeff S]

On 3/10/2020 at 6:29 PM, davidmknoble said:

If you are skeptical, just think about film.  Film has long had over 40 megapixels of resolution (grain) in the low speed films, and film shots have been really sharp for ages on these same lenses.  The APO 50 on film is stunning and the MP cannot use and EVF.

 

Puts just wrote about placing the APO 50 M on an M7, and achieving roughly double the line pairs achievable on modern high MP sensors.  Of course, he's still on his anti--digital campaign.

https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/cc09d2ec7dfec842fb93ae33007521a4-156.html

Jeff