Jump to content

Time to face the sensor problem


lburn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb Artin:

I have had no problem focusing some of the most difficult lenses with the M11 rangefinder. It is very accurate you can see my samples on the image thread,

most of my lenses are Summilux shot wide open 75 mm Lux I get more the 75% hit rate without Viso shooting restless grand kids. In dim light 

I have had nearly a dozen M bodies over the years film and Digital and none have been sent in for adjustment.  Lenses yes but never a body. 

In summary: you already gathered a lot of experience with the M11 and you have a hit rate of 75% with the 75mm Summilux with the 60 MPx by using the rangefinder.

Congratulation!

I think, I should change my optician. I use an M since the M4P appears on market in the early 80s. I sent quite a few lenses to Leica for readjustment during the days of the M9. Since I use the Z7 instead, no lens was sent back by me and the accuracy of focusing is very good, but I can't tell a percentage hit rate.

I would appreciate a focusing aid by the sensor.

 

 

 

Edited by saxo
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rosuna said:

The important thing about the Nikon Z9 is that they no longer put the mechanical shutter. It only has some protection with a set of curtains. That indicates that Nikon already has a fully functional electronic shutter. Leica will be late, of course, in three to four years. The electronic shutter of the M11 shows the so-called rolling effect with moving subjects. Now they are using the 60MP sensor which Sigma had been using for some time, which is undoubtedly excellent, but the innovation is no longer in the BSI (back-illuminated) sensors, taken for granted, but in this revolutionary Nikon camera and electronic shutters.

Sending the mechanical shutter to hell will greatly reduce costs, but it will also allow, accompanied by more powerful processors, the camera to "build" the image from several shots with extremely short shutter times, for "taking out" detail from the most illuminated parts, and others shots with longer exposition times for the shadows. The collection of exposure times will be chosen by the camera, like on mobile phones, based on an analysis of the scene. It will no longer make sense to take "one" photo at 1/250th of a second. An image will be built from several shots more or less automatically instead.

I know that this is totally foreign to the photographic experience accumulated during two centuries, but it is what explains why many mobiles are capable of offering surprisingly good images, easy to obtain and more than competitive compared to those of an expensive camera, and therefore what explains why the photographic industry is suffering so much, in my opinion.

This is the only way to follow and the Japanese are pursuing it. Leica puts more magapixels and larger batteries into the M, and that is OK, but the SL or CL cameras must to go beyond that quickly. 

M11 has a fully functional electronic shutter, but with slow readout, like most other cameras. Only Z9 an A9 cameras use stacked sensors which allow much faster readout. Having a Leica M camera without any real shutter sound would likely ruffle many feathers. I think one can get used to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adan said:

Are you talking about adding electronic overlays in the optical viewfinder?

It should be possible to replace the mechanical frame line projection masks with a LCD mask ( especially easy now post M9, with the frames LED backlit ).

The LCD frames can then be both parallax and magnification corrected ; inclusion of e.g. 75 on 50 could be user optional ; addition graphics such as histogram possible ; support for sensor crop magnification possible ; support for 40mm possible; in OVF horizon and guide lines possible etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 12:11 AM, lburn said:

Presumably everyone who buys the M11 will want to use it at full resolution (60MP) at least some of the time. 

Not really.

I do not care so much about maximising resolution (I never print large bill boards).

Everything above 20MP is good enough for me.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, discussions of shutter sounds predate M11 by decades.  Edition 60 was complemented on its in-steel chime.  Hasselblad X1D debuted with a 45mm lens whose central shutter clock was so disconcerting that folks compared it to a garden scissors and it was a major turn-off for many.  It was not repeated in other XCD lenses.  The M9 sound is really interesting, I like it as a retro addition but apparently it caused a stir in its time.  The current obsession is probably caused by a deliberate focus on the shutter sound as a differentiation point of M10-P.  Jono remarked that a real shutter sound of the M10 is more conducive of a model shoot as others can hear it.  Which is not useful when you are in a club shooting jazz, especially when there’s a nominal no camera policy.  In any case this point proved important to non-musicians as well.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 6:43 PM, Artin said:

Like I said before,  those hiding the so called purist camp will always find some excuse while clutching their M8 and M9. I have seen this same bull crap for the past 10 years. The shutter sounds wrong , files are too big, the colour is not Leica. It’s too fat, it’s too skinny. I like the base plate , I hate the base plate.

while all they have to say is good camera but I don’t need it thank you. That’s it the End 

Speaking for myself, I have no need for IBIS if I don't drink too heavily before photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s always nice when Andy takes the time to explain what many of us have experienced.

Motion blur has always been an issue in some form, whether from subject movement, camera movement or the mechanical operation inside the camera.  If I wanted a reliably sharp landscape image with my 503cx, I always used a good tripod (removing camera movement) and I raised the mirror (reducing mechanical movement to the leaf shutter).  This was using 6x6 film, which was very high resolution - if I wanted a sharp image, critical for most landscapes, this was an essential approach.

As Andy also pointed out, the Nikon D800e had terrible shutter shock - even at 36MP, getting sharp images was hit and miss.  The reason, it seemed, was a combination of small pixels and a poor mechanism.  Conversely, Leica seems to have managed the combination of the mass of the camera and a shutter mechanism which reduces the risk of motion blur from the camera mechanism, if you’re careful.  Many will recall discussions about avoiding particular shutter speeds on some cameras.

I’m happy for those who get no motion blur from their high resolution cameras.  It hasn’t been my experience.  I have, however, been able to get reliably sharp images from the 24MP APS-C TL2, the 24MP M10-D and the 50MP X1D II.  The first has an electronic shutter, the second a focal plane shutter and the third leaf shutters.

As for IBIS, I’d rather not.  If Leica can produce a camera where there is little or no in camera motion blur, then that is my preference.

When I look at the current M line up (M-A, MP, M11), I do hope that Leica fills the gap with a digital M that is less of a show-pony for those who don’t really want or need in camera cropping (pointless), 60MP with pixel binning (little more than making a technological point for spec-readers), electronic shutters, multi-point live view metering, EVFs and all the other gubbins.  That’s not to say they shouldn’t make such a camera, but many here appreciate cameras with no meter, and for whom auto-focus is the devil’s work.  M cameras have alqays filled that gap, with manual focus lenses with no electronic connection to the camera, and cameras with the least controls possible - shutter and ISO.

The digital M cameras have really matured.  How about all that maturity in an M camera that just does what M cameras have always done?  Aperture, shutter speed, focus with the very good OVF.  Some will say blah blah blah purist.  Well, back in the day, the meter in the M5 was sacrilege, live view, video and EVF was a step too far, and now we have electronic shutters, and demands for IBIS.  What next? Yet, the refined and deceptively simple M camera endures.  My expectation is that an M11 based model, with an OVF, a good sensor (don’t care how many MPs), a shutter with centre weighted metering (and none of the rest of the things making many hot and bothered) would sell like hotcakes.

Just remember that Leica still makes the M-A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit of IBIS is obvious (to me) at slow to normal (same as focal length) shutter speeds. I can check it all the time on my Sony bodies, you know the plastic things folks :Dbut it is more visible at high resolution. If i were interested in the M11 i would not use it at 60MP of i would use faster shutter speeds but i would not complain as the lack of IBIS has been well documented on the LUF.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 22 Stunden schrieb FrozenInTime:

It should be possible to replace the mechanical frame line projection masks with a LCD mask ( especially easy now post M9, with the frames LED backlit ).

The LCD frames can then be both parallax and magnification corrected ; inclusion of e.g. 75 on 50 could be user optional ; addition graphics such as histogram possible ; support for sensor crop magnification possible ; support for 40mm possible; in OVF horizon and guide lines possible etc.

...and not to forget about adding a focus peaking functionality to that semi-transparent(?) LCD frame in the OVF as you suggest, with that to become actually a hybrid EVF/OVF.  i believe a super-fast razor-sharp aperture-adjusted minimal-DoF focus peaking system would really help a lot solving issues with nailing a shot just at the right focus.  as we all know a lot can go wrong during the decision making process while choosing the correct distance on a lens, for reasons that are not even always under our control.  in the film days using silver grains of all sorts of shapes and sizes being off a bit didn't mean so much, but nowadays these clean little digital squares called pixels are simply less forgiving...

whose eye lashes did i want to catch here ?  or was i perhaps focusing on both persons' eyes  ? (my example is actually non-optimal as image size was downscaled to 1000px)

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

It should be possible to replace the mechanical frame line projection masks with a LCD mask ( especially easy now post M9, with the frames LED backlit ).

The LCD frames can then be both parallax and magnification corrected ; inclusion of e.g. 75 on 50 could be user optional ; addition graphics such as histogram possible ; support for sensor crop magnification possible ; support for 40mm possible; in OVF horizon and guide lines possible etc.

Why faff with all this masking complication within the OVF, besides who is going to develop it for Leica, Panasonic/Sigma? Just go one more radical step and embrace EVF as principal viewfinder.  Looking forward to either M11’s-EVF or M12-EVF.

While at it follow market leaders A1/Z9, even R3, adopt stacked sensor with electronic shutter and fast readout. Next dispense with mechanical shutter, use space to accommodate IBIS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is an issue at all. I have an A7RIV and have had many image stabilized camera bodies. What the IS does is compensate for situations where you just can't support the camera the way you'd like, or when you can't employ a high enough shutter speed, or for lazy technique. The lack of IS is just as apparent on a Fujifilm X100V which is at 24mp I think (I have one, but it's not on my desk right now) as it will be on the M11. Those people used to 4 or 5 stop compensation for sloppy technique on their stabilized cameras (myself included; my A7RIV's phenomenal autofocus and stabilization can make me very, very lazy) will notice the lack of stabilization immediately and decry the capabilities of the camera. If I've set my MP or my M10-P down for a while, I always have to reacquaint myself with the camera and let my body remember how to shoot deliberately. This includes all aspects of manual photography. It comes back quickly enough, but there are certainly some missed shots even on good days. It's why I still shoot Ms. You have to work for it. So, no, I don't think sensor resolution vs IS is an issue at all. My two cents. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want my M to do what I tell it and not a thing more. Focus off? My fault. Poor exposure? My fault. Shaky image? My fault.

A 60 megapixel image won't have more shake blur than a 6 megapixel image, but you'll be able to see it more clearly in the high resolution version. Seeing it, you can gauge the degree to which it affects your future photos more reliably, so you can make more informed decisions regarding aperture, ISO, tripods, etc. etc. etc. That's why I like manual operation, even when I mess up: I learn something that can make my next image better than it otherwise would have been.

I have nothing against automation. I'm glad all those other cameras are available and sometimes I shoot something other than an M because I want those features. But I mostly shoot M because it is optimized for manual shooting. If it adds cost and a point of failure without adequately improving the camera's core ergonomic quality, then I don't want it.

In the words of other people talking about other things: Leica M: "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Pretty much everything else: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

IBIS is great. IBIS works. IBIS makes getting sharp photos easier. I would buy an M that has IBIS in a heart beat.

But....

I wouldn't buy an M that's 4-5mm thicker. The flange to sensor plane distance in the M makes IBIS very difficult without a significant increase in depth. Sure Sony do it but their flange distance is LESS than an M so the camera can be thinner with an IBIS mechanism.

I can hold my M10R to about 1/30th and then print to A1. I have good/excellent technique that I learned when I shot medium formay film handheld at weddings. Technique that was hammered into me by the people I learned from. I know a few who can handhold a lower speeds than me but there's likely some sort of physiological differences making up the difference. We all tremor at slightly different amounts. I know basically how slow I can go on each of my cameras. Then I use some sort of support from then on.

The thing is that all camera systems have compromises and limitations. To get the M experience I'm prepard to accept that IBIS is unlikely. If that's too much then there's the A7R4, with all the compromises than camera brings.

There is no perfect camera system. 

Gordon

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...