M11 rumors : Leica in bed with Sony ?

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, SrMi said:

According to her bio, Vivian Meier did develop and print.

http://www.vivianmaier.com/about-vivian-maier/

She did leave a lot of unprocessed material, but not because she did not want to print.

Most of my prints are not on the wall. The print is the final step, IMO, hanging it on the wall is only optional.

 

surely at the beginning but later on, she did not even bother to develop any roll. She seems to enjoy more the act of shooting a photograph than viewing them later. But everything is only guesswork with Meier, she is dead now. You will never have an interview from her. 

[Mikep996]

Here's an idea... WAIT until the M11/its specs are announced by Leica.  It will save a lot of wasted electrons and mental stress agonizing/speculating/wishing/hoping, etc.  When it is announced, THEN  folks can complain about how Leica should have done something different.  And regardless of the specs, probably half the people will be upset, claim they'll never buy an M11...and then eventually will.  

 

[Advertisement]

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

[nicci78]

15 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Printing large is a good thing IMO.  Maybe we will see a resurgence of large size prints as a result of all the above.

With a 100+ mp sensor, APO glass would be near mandatory - and with a 60 mp sensor too, for that matter.  It could be that the megadollar APO lenses of the M line will be wise purchases - the 35 and 50 APOs and the 28 APO when it drops.  Fortunately I already have a copy of the 90 APO Summicron.

If a person is fortunate enough to own the APO lenses and a future M camera with 100+ mp, those tools will certainly inspire the committed image maker to live up to the capabilities of his/her tools.  In that way, Leica M cameras and lenses will help to make those who own them better photographers - which (IMO) is the whole point owning M cameras and lenses to begin with.

Leica strategy is simple : what a camera can do that a smartphone will never be able to do ? Print large and beautiful prints. 

So what Leica needs for the future : über resolving lenses and very very high MP counts camera. That's why the Akademie wants to hook us on very large prints. To sell us later their 100MP sensors and APO lenses.

BTW : even TL lenses are rated for 50% MTF on the corners for 60MP+ according to Karbe. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by nicci78

[Herr Barnack]

8 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

Here's an idea... WAIT until the M11/its specs are announced by Leica.  It will save a lot of wasted electrons and mental stress agonizing/speculating/wishing/hoping, etc.  When it is announced, THEN  folks can complain about how Leica should have done something different.  And regardless of the specs, probably half the people will be upset, claim they'll never buy an M11...and then eventually will.  

 

WAIT?? 

Blasphemy!  😳

Edited December 29, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

No photographer "needs" 100 plus MP, as we have only had 100 plus megapixels for a few years. I am not saying it is not useful, but it has quickly become a realm of diminishing returns

As much as I am for resolution, I don't think the M needs anything more than 50mp. 

Hi Stuart, a very interesting post as always.  Many thanks.  FWIW, as a 100mp owner, my observations would be ......

- I'm often fascinated just how much resolution is contained within well-executed 5x4.  IMHO it's taken a 100mp sensor for me to finally believe that it's broadly matched my 5x4 in terms of sheer resolution, specifically for 150cm / 60" wide prints.  At that large print size, given film's grain (even with E6 at ISO 100, mainly in the shadows), and problems of perfect execution of a field camera in outside weather, I often find it more reliable these days to capture "maximum resolution" with the 100mp camera.

- Beyond resolution itself .... it takes me some work to get 5x4 and 100mp to broadly "render" similarly in the final print, mainly I think due to the inherently very high contrast that is created by modern lenses on a digital sensor, and I find that aspect particularly needs taming down via filtration (at the time of capture ....eg, I'm currently using either Tiffen's Glimmerglass or Pro Mist) or via Photoshop (in post) to achieve a gentler look that I prefer ...but I think I'm getting there, reflected by me missing the 5x4 "rendering" less and less due to what I am starting to achieve in digital.

- In terms of your comment about diminishing returns for 100+ megapixels, I won't deny that I prefer the look of what I achieve with the GFX100S over my former SL2, but this is perhaps more a function of its dynamic range, mid-tones, color depth (and I like here the Fuji Camera profiles in ACR more than, say, Adobe's), and overall smoothness (to my eyes at least) that is possibly a hard-to-describe effect of a larger sensor.  But I would agree about diminishing returns in terms of resolution, ie, at 150cm, I have found the SL2 with its 47mp - in terms of fine detail capture - is certainly more similar than I'd envisaged to 100mp before I bought my GFX. Especially when comparing the 100mp to the SL2's high resolution mode (for more static subjects), the latter meaning no fine detail is inadvertently "lost" amid some of the minor mess (like moire or false color) that can occur from the Bayer array. 

- I couldn't agree more re the opinion that the SL is the much better tool for higher resolution sensors compared to the M's! Aside from the SL Summicrons being among the best lenses I've ever used (eg, better than my M 50 APO), for my personal use I find it easier to capture technically well-executed shots off a 100mp camera over (dare I say it .... even!) my former M240 when hand-held, given the former's focus accuracy / image stabilization / vibration free e-shutter / etc. 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[frame-it]

29 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

THEN  folks can complain about how Leica should have done something different.  And regardless of the specs, probably half the people will be upset, claim they'll never buy an M11...and then eventually will.

that's gonna happen anyway

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

what a camera can do that a smartphone will never be able to do ? Print large and beautiful prints. 

 

[AlanD]

9 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

I find it easier to capture technically well-executed shots off a 100mp camera over (dare I say it .... even!) my former M240 when hand-held, given the former's focus accuracy / image stabilization / vibration free e-shutter / etc. 

Have you tried your premium M glass with a premium M to GFX adapter?  You will be in for a pleasant surprise.

[jaapv]

All this talk about "sensors outresolving lenses is simply not true.  Roger  Cicala says  it better than I could:

Quote

Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.

That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. MTF maxes at 1.0 because 1.0 is perfect. So let’s say my camera MTF is 0.7, and my lens MTF is 0.7, then my system MTF is 0.49 (Lens MTF x Camera MTF). This is actually a pretty reasonable system.

Now, let’s say I get a much better camera with much higher resolution; the camera MTF is 0.9. The system MTF with the same lens also increases: 0.7 X 0.9 = 0.63. On the other hand, I could do the same thing if I bought a much better lens and kept it on the same camera. The camera basically never ‘out resolves the lens.’

 

[Kim Dahl]

That's probably right.  But I have a question.  How do you find out which MTF a camera has?  Is a Leica 240 0.49 and Leica M10 0.70.  How to calculate it?

[jaapv]

The point is that it is irrelevant. Any lens will improve using a higher resolving sensor, any sensor will improve using a higher specified lens. 

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, AlanD said:

Have you tried your premium M glass with a premium M to GFX adapter?  You will be in for a pleasant surprise.

The GFX cover glass is not only too thick for M-sensor-like performance, but it's spaced 9mm from the sensor. This spacing helps defocus dust, but it's hell on M glass. Most M lenses will start to lose sharpness before they even reach the edge of a 35mm crop on the GFX. An additional, if not larger problem, is every single M to GFX adapter does not give perfect hard stop at infinity. This is a huge problem for FLE lenses, but it still affects non-FLE. Even the Novoflex M to GFX adapter, which I own, is designed so that infinity is reached well before the hard stop, and it needs to be shimmed.

What I will say is you can get great images on the GFX with no adapter shimming if all you want to do is shoot a central subject wide open at close distance and don't mind some of the quirks that can still mean for FLE lenses. But for stopped-down shooting such as landscape at infinity, a lot of effort is required just to get less-than-perfect results due to the GFX sensor cover glass setup.

[Kim Dahl]

In that case, two 24 MP cameras such as the M240 and M10 must not affect the quality (resolution).

I fully agree there may be many other good reasons for switching - but not in terms of resolution.  ☺️
The advantage of switching to the M10r makes more sense on that occasion. Interesting. Tak ☺️

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The point is that it is irrelevant. Any lens will improve using a higher resolving sensor, any sensor will improve using a higher specified lens. 

Yes, and Roger’s remaining point (in the rest of the article from which you quoted) is that if either lens or camera is crappy (not a Leica issue), don’t waste effort getting a better lens to offset the crappy camera, or vice versa… replace the crappy part first… otherwise a waste of time and money.

Jeff

[jaapv]

Luckily Leica does not produce crappy cameras or lenses  

[Jeff S]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Luckily Leica does not produce crappy cameras or lenses  

Hence my parenthetical comment, “not a Leica issue”. 😏

Jeff

[Adam Bonn]

I dunno… the store manager of my local Leica AD has tried to convince me on multiple occasions that my summarits are crappy and that I should upgrade 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Jeff S]

Leica Miami has a established a petition to bring back the M Summarits (even though I’m sure they’ll be happy to sell you other stuff).

Jeff

 

[Adam Bonn]

34 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Leica Miami has a established a petition to bring back the M Summarits (even though I’m sure they’ll be happy to sell you other stuff).

Jeff

 

My 90/2.5 I got from an AD as NOS, I really rate it, compared to the v5 50 cron I had at the time it renders pretty similar and the tactile feel is on par. It’s just a shame that I hardly ever have a need for a 90 (I was also offered a 75 ‘rit NOS at the same time and I do wonder if I made the right choice… but I was just starting out with the M and I wanted 35/50/90 as the ‘classic’ set)

The T stop is a bit of joke, but I live in a predominantly sunny country!

My 35/2.4 is, on the whole, a little gem of lens.. drop the hood (which it only really needs for protection, flare is a non-issue) and it’s tiny. The focusing and aperture ring felt like crap (if the wind blows both would change) so I waited until the store warranty expired re-greased the helicoil, and performed a bodge (that I’m never going to go into on a public forum) on the leaf spring that handles the ball bearing for the aperture 

Net result = happy days

The 35 rit has a very tangible distortion, but the LR profile sorts it (to my eye anyway)

The pair cost me about what a mint penultimate model 35 cron goes for secondhand, and nearly four years later I’ve never really felt I made a mistake…

I also have a CV 35/1.7 which has the physical looks that even it’s mother would struggle to love, but it renders very nicely (colossal wide open vignette aside) and works well for when I want 35mm and a wider aperture.

In short (!) I’ve no beef with the summarits at all, and bar super shallow DOF they perform adequately well for my needs and somewhat limited budget.

(Frankly 90/2.5 is enough background blur for me and 35mm is never my first choice to obliterate a background, it’s a documentary FL… of course OMWV)

Maybe one day a 35 FLE, but not any day soon.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stuart Richardson]

9 hours ago, nicci78 said:

BTW : even TL lenses are rated for 50% MTF on the corners for 60MP+ according to Karbe. 

That's odd. Do you think he has ever used a 23mm Summicron? Mine was soft in the edges at 18mp on the T, let alone 60mp...

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

All this talk about "sensors outresolving lenses is simply not true.  Roger  Cicala says  it better than I could:

 

When I talk about a sensor "outresolving" a lens, I mean that there is no aperture at which the photo will appear sharp at 100% with that lens and camera combination. So you may gain extra resolution in the center, but the edges will be visibly soft...hence the lens is not sharp enough to take full advantage of what the sensor is able to provide. This is not the same as saying that it is a bad photo. Just that you are leaving potential resolution on the table, as it were. It is always helpful to have a lens that is sharp enough to render sharp, crisp detail all the way across the frame when paired with a sensor. That is why I am saying that an M11 with 60mp would be challenging, as finding sharp enough lenses to pair for it optimally would be an expensive endeavor.

Being crisp across the whole frame also helps with interpolation, should the file need to be enlarged. This is just my hands on experience as a printer. I agree that sensor and lens work together as a system, but I think it works best when the lens is as good or better than the sensor, at least when we are talking about resolution and sharpness. That is also one of the reasons why the S system and SL systems punch above their weight when it comes to image quality. Their lenses tend to be better than the average lenses of other manufacturers, so even if those manufacturers have more megapixels, they are not really using them all optimally. When it comes to tonality, the more resolution the sensor has, the better, and lens sharpness has little if anything to do with it.

I hope I am explaining it clearly, but I am probably not. I wish I could just bring you all into the studio and show you some massive prints where this is abundantly clear, but clearly that is not going to happen these days!

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Stuart Richardson