What after M11 (Stefan Daniel's interview)

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would ibis implementation work on a rangefinder?  My limited use on stabilized systems when attempting a small recompose is the image sticks, I can not make a subtle change to composition, the camera wants to hold (stabilize) my non preferred framing.   So, how would a rangefinder handle this change in composition, it wouldn't know the sensor framing is sticky yet it would reframe the image as all rangefinders do, i.e. it will blindly go where I point it, leading to a non intended framing.  

 

[pgk]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Just a matter of resolution. High res cameras are more prone to motion blur due to camera shake at 1/f and slower shutter speeds. Less of a problem for you if you don't pixel peep nor print billboards.  

But this does beg the question as to why bother having the potential resolution in the first place😉.

[Advertisement]

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

[LBJ2]

1 hour ago, Knipsknecht said:

I would agree, but actually it depends on the situation:

Robert Capa - D-Day Omaha beach

Stunning D-Day imagery! Thank you for posting. I don't think I would have knowingly seen otherwise. Bookmarked! 

Robert Capa - D-Day Omaha beach

[charlesphoto99]

2 hours ago, elmars said:

My fast and spontaneous taken photos are often the best - even technically. And the M is the right cameras for this. 

So true. Way too much emphasis these days on making the 'perfect' image versus making an image with emotional impact, no matter the technical 'flaws' it may possess. To me, the M has always been about the 'magic' of discovering after the fact what was unseen while actually taking the picture. With EVF that serendipity has been shown the door. 

Ishmael Buttler (Shabazz Palaces) before his lecture at the Frye Art museum, Seattle. M9M. 

 

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!

[pgk]

The problem for ALL manufacturers is that digital cameras are becoming viably mature and convergent evolution has meant that they have all chased to specification goals. In order to evolve they actually need to diverge and become adept in specialisations. But that's not a model entertained by mass production. Leica may well have an advantage here, if that is they decide to use it. A mid-20MPixel camera similar to an M4 with a digital sensor would be a niche product, but a very capable one within its limitations. A ~10MPixel version of the current M cameras with an extremely sensitive sensor would make a great street camera although the rangefinder would need som thought inorder to be at all viable in very low light. There is plenty of potential for photographic equipment to become better although I rather doubt that it can do so whilst chasing a generals, mass market.

Edited June 6, 2022 by pgk

[Herr Barnack]

7 hours ago, tedd said:

Do people really miss having IBIS? If there is movement in the shot then it doesn't matter how good the IBIS, the shot will suck, and if there is no movement (or you want it for effect) then a small tripod or ledge is infinitely better than IBIS. The only time I have ever found it useful was with long lenses that don't suit an M anyway. I feel like either I'm missing something here or people want an M that isn't an M (probably drive one of those Porsche SUV's too). 

I suspect that some people love complaining more than they love IBIS - or M cameras, or photography itself.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, pgk said:

But this does beg the question as to why bother having the potential resolution in the first place😉.

I didn’t expect the M to get caught up in the MP (and tech) race; thought that might apply to their other systems. But they need a basis  to distinguish models and drive/sustain increased prices.  A slippery slope.

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

What would have made the digital M truly revolutionary would have been the implementation of a robust lifetime body like the M-P, but with interchangeable or upgradable sensor and cpu (either by user or factory). I realize this has been bandied about before, and there would be huge engineering hurdles, and I'm sure marketing and sales would have their own opinion. But imagine how amazing this would be. Though sadly I'm sure there's far too many M owners now that are ready to eat thousands of dollars even six months into the 11 by replacing it with an M11-P or M12 the day it's ready. Anyway, all just a fantasy...

[LocalHero1953]

58 minutes ago, darylgo said:

Would ibis implementation work on a rangefinder?  My limited use on stabilized systems when attempting a small recompose is the image sticks, I can not make a subtle change to composition, the camera wants to hold (stabilize) my non preferred framing.   So, how would a rangefinder handle this change in composition, it wouldn't know the sensor framing is sticky yet it would reframe the image as all rangefinders do, i.e. it will blindly go where I point it, leading to a non intended framing.  

 

I have no idea if it can be implemented in an M body or not - and it sounds like Leica are sure they cannot have current technology IBIS and a mechanical shutter in the M body. And electronic shutter tech would have to improve dramatically from now totally to replace the mechanical shutter.

I have used OIS in the SL and Q2 and IBIS in an Olympus MFT body, the SL2 and SL2-S. The only time I have noticed it adversely has been with the SL and the 90-280SL zoom mounted on a tripod when I forgot to switch it off - framing at 280mm was impossible. Any other time it has just worked unobtrusively.

We all have our favourite tech that we are happy with, and the tech "clamoured for only by naysayers and whiners who have never owned a M11" (that's a generalised quote, not from anyone in particular!). I would happily give up 30-40MP, the upgraded metering system, the add-on EVF and the odd-sounding shutter action in favour of IBIS, a faster (optional) electronic shutter and video. But that's just me.

[darylgo]

5 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I would happily give up 30-40MP, the upgraded metering system, the add-on EVF and the odd-sounding shutter action in favour of IBIS, a faster (optional) electronic shutter and video. But that's just me.

Leica a la carte or buy a controlling share from Mr. Kaufman 🙂

The idea of advanced tech has led me to Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, Hasselblad.....and others.  All for naught, I return to Leica M.  

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

(...)

I would happily give up 30-40MP, the upgraded metering system, the add-on EVF and the odd-sounding shutter action in favour of IBIS, a faster (optional) electronic shutter and video. But that's just me.

I love your willingness to give up mostly things that are not so great to begin with: Resolution compromised because there is no IBIS; upgraded metering system so far (pending future firmware updates) neutral/negative vs. M10; Visoflex = only needed because there is no built-in EVF; shutter action = don't think anybody including Leica ever claimed M11 was an improvement (unlike e.g. M10-P) ... So effectively agree not a big loss to trade all of those in 🙂

Noteworthy that some of your asks make the most sense when combined, e.g. video benefits hugely from IBIS ...

"Great" electronic shutter is still years away, may or may not arrive in M12 timeframe. Nikon Z9 seems to be one current leading implementation (no longer has mechanical shutter) [and there is a tradeoff in noise and DR, and it's still not 100% artifact free.

[lct]

59 minutes ago, pgk said:

But this does beg the question as to why bother having the potential resolution in the first place😉.

You mean besides what customers want? . Just kidding but how many people are prepared to pay Leica prices for a 24mp or 40mp camera nowadays? I don't know but marketing people at Wetzlar must have a good idea. Otherwise what common point is there between the M11, the SL2 and the Q2? They all allow for crop modes thanks to high MP counts. This alone can explain the demise of crop formats at Leica.  

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, lct said:

I don't know but marketing people at Wetzlar must have a good idea.

Lets hope they aren't thinking like Kodak then😆.

[hdmesa]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

...And electronic shutter tech would have to improve dramatically from now totally to replace the mechanical shutter...

No, Leica just picked the wrong (cheaper) sensor tech, going with BSI instead of stacked BSI. The sensor Sony puts in the A1 would work w/out a mechanical shutter. Nikon's Z9 already dropped the mechanical shutter. So the tech is here today, just not here today in a Leica. IMO, they didn't go with a stacked sensor on the M11 so as not to make the SL line look even further behind than they are.

[charlesphoto99]

Part of the problem is that Leica r&d doesn't seem able to be as nimble or up to date as the big players like Nikon and Canon. Most likely due to size and budget I would assume.

To me, the M11 is in the same place of the hierarchy as the M240 was - a transitional camera between two more established ones. I would imagine Leica will look at the repair/bug records of the M11, and then assess, beyond new 'features,' what to implement, change or improve in the next generation. 

[tedd]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing images, but photos can also be valuable for what they record i.e. the subject matter. Leica Ms have always been used for documentary, journalism, events, performance and social occasions, without the expectation that the images should be worthy of a gallery. 

Absolutely. Journalism, events, performance and social occasions all often have some movement though! I've had systems with IBIS before and never found it useful for either paid (weddings) or personal work in those situations, but obviously styles may differ. 

12 hours ago, lct said:

Just a matter of resolution. High res cameras are more prone to motion blur due to camera shake at 1/f and slower shutter speeds. Less of a problem for you if you don't pixel peep nor print billboards.  

I've heard this before. I always got the impression that if you cropped (or peeped) a 50mm lens to 135mm then obviously you would have to shoot at (minimum) 1/135, because you might as well be shooting a 135mm lens as far as the image is concerned. Or will a 50mm image made at 1/50 and kept at full res still show shake? Again, my understanding may be wrong, but I always also just took that as a very loose rule for acceptable shake, just like when shooting hyper-focal your subject is often not really in focus, but it is acceptable. I will grant that I can see the advantage of IBIS for this, though I'm still not convinced the M is the right camera to begin with if you're shooting longer than 90mm and having IBIS at the expensive of a mechanical shutter would be a mistake (at least with current tech). 

11 hours ago, elmars said:

My fast and spontaneous taken photos are often the best - even technically. And the M is the right cameras for this. 

I feel like there is a difference between being switched on and making a spontaneous image vs a photo taken in a hurry, but perhaps we're all on the same page but using different language here. 

9 hours ago, Knipsknecht said:

Yes, that‘s what I thought, too. But I am not sure if it would be a good step for Leica to produce - let’s say - a “M classic” line with mechanical rangefinder and electronic minimalisms, and at the same time a “M 2.0” line with EVF, IBIS, AF and all computational bells and whistles (say, some kind of full frame Fuji X-Pro3 on steroids). 
Personally I would welcome this step, but I doubt that Leica could do it and stay profitable. Maybe the re-newed alliance with Panasonic could be part of the solution.

This exists and the renewed L mount alliance is absolutely a part of it.

9 hours ago, Knipsknecht said:

I would agree, but actually it depends on the situation:

Robert Capa - D-Day Omaha beach

I've got that book. While I agree that the images are iconic, IMO the better images of the war are from his rolls that were not ruined by an impatient lab tech. I'm sure that RC would have much preferred that someone else did the processing..

Edited June 6, 2022 by tedd
Typo

[lct]

1 hour ago, tedd said:

I've heard this before. I always got the impression that if you cropped (or peeped) a 50mm lens to 135mm then obviously you would have to shoot at (minimum) 1/135, because you might as well be shooting a 135mm lens as far as the image is concerned. Or will a 50mm image made at 1/50 and kept at full res still show shake? Again, my understanding may be wrong, but I always also just took that as a very loose rule for acceptable shake, just like when shooting hyper-focal your subject is often not really in focus, but it is acceptable. I will grant that I can see the advantage of IBIS for this, though I'm still not convinced the M is the right camera

It is not a matter or right or wrong camera. When you use a camera sans IBIS at high resolution it is more prone to motion blur due to camera shake than a camera with IBIS or at lower resolution, be it a TTL or RF camera. With cameras sans IBIS, the rule of thumb of 1/f can work fine at low res but at high res better count on 1/2f or 1/3f. Some colleagues here prefer 1/4f but it depends on personal steadiness obviously. Not to say that it is impossible to do better, even oldies like yours truly can shoot at less than 1/f if needed but this is hit and miss then. See a 50mm pic at 1/20s with the M11 here. I'm still holding my breath whle watching it .

 

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, darylgo said:

Would ibis implementation work on a rangefinder?  My limited use on stabilized systems when attempting a small recompose is the image sticks, I can not make a subtle change to composition, the camera wants to hold (stabilize) my non preferred framing.   So, how would a rangefinder handle this change in composition, it wouldn't know the sensor framing is sticky yet it would reframe the image as all rangefinders do, i.e. it will blindly go where I point it, leading to a non intended framing.  

 

IBIS could be activated only when shutter is pressed fully.

[tedd]

1 hour ago, lct said:

It is not a matter or right or wrong camera. When you use a camera sans IBIS at high resolution it is more prone to motion blur due to camera shake than a camera with IBIS or at lower resolution, be it a TTL or RF camera. With cameras sans IBIS, the rule of thumb of 1/f can work fine at low res but at high res better count on 1/2f or 1/3f. Some colleagues here prefer 1/4f but it depends on personal steadiness obviously. Not to say that it is impossible to do better, even oldies like yours truly can shoot at less than 1/f if needed but this is hit and miss then. See a 50mm pic at 1/20s with the M11 here. I'm still holding my breath whle watching it .

 

Forgive me if I'm not understanding correctly, I would never claim to be one of the smarter folks on the Internet, but isn't the shake just more obvious because the 100% crop is tighter (like a longer lens) on a higher rez sensor? For example, say I had a 60mp M with a 50mm lens and a 24mp M with the same lens and the same settings. I make the same photo, do not crop and then export the files out at the same resolution for printing on the same size paper. Will the prints not look identical in terms of camera shake? Isn't the blur only visible because we are effectively changing the focal length via digital crop? So it makes sense that the shutter speed would need to be increased to take this crop into account? Isn't the high rez sensor is simply letting us see that blur, but not creating it?

A medium format film camera with a low-speed technical film was never more prone to this issue than a 35mm camera with high-speed film (larger difference in resolution than we're discussing in a digital M I would wager) as far as I can remember. But happy to be proven wrong 🙃

Edited June 7, 2022 by tedd

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

54 minutes ago, tedd said:

Forgive me if I'm not understanding correctly, I would never claim to be one of the smarter folks on the Internet, but isn't the shake just more obvious because the 100% crop is tighter (like a longer lens) on a higher rez sensor? For example, say I had a 60mp M with a 50mm lens and a 24mp M with the same lens and the same settings. I make the same photo, do not crop and then export the files out at the same resolution for printing on the same size paper. Will the prints not look identical in terms of camera shake? Isn't the blur only visible because we are effectively changing the focal length via digital crop? So it makes sense that the shutter speed would need to be increased to take this crop into account? Isn't the high rez sensor is simply letting us see that blur, but not creating it?

A medium format film camera with a low-speed technical film was never more prone to this issue than a 35mm camera with high-speed film (larger difference in resolution than we're discussing in a digital M I would wager) as far as I can remember. But happy to be proven wrong 🙃

I can only describe what i see on screen sorry. I've been comparing how my M11 and M240 behave with the same lens in the thread linked below. Hope you will find it interesting but this matter has been discussed elsewhere if i remember well so you may wish to do a search on the forum.