Sensor resolution in next Leica M

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ibis is nice to have, but I’d need more than that to buy the 12. There’s such a variety of small and fast lenses in the M world that it’s not as hard to manage low light and stability as it is with larger systems. 

[S Maclean]

in terms of resolution and Dynamic range there is no sense on making those a priotiy over other things like speed read, maybe rangefinder improvements etc.  The reason is that we already are wasting a large portion of the infomraiton gathered, because we can't see it all at once. Nor can most computers.

 

As an example toggle the HDR button in lightroom on certain pictures, (if you have an HDR screen to output) it is simply amazing what comes through, specially on the highlights. Blonde highlights in the sun, metal glimmers, sunstairs at night from light sources that remain defined...then toggle it off and it all feels....flat. it was great before, but now that you ahve seen the full dynamic range of a single picture you can't unsee it.

And yet, printers can't ptint it. Socail media can't post it, and many home and office computers can't display it.

So, until periferal technologies catch up I think the improvements could be more mechanical. Better weather sealing, optical rangefinder solution for close focus (after all, they did make the M 35 and 50 lux close focus for something....other than visioflex?)  Faster shutter speed (mechanical) much faster read for the electric shutter when used, A new and improved visioflex...or for some a hybrid evf in camera.  Swivel LCD Screen? 

Edited June 30 by S Maclean
spelling

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Kiwimac said:

Ibis is nice to have, but I’d need more than that to buy the 12. There’s such a variety of small and fast lenses in the M world that it’s not as hard to manage low light and stability as it is with larger systems. 

Several times, I chose a different camera (SL3, Q3) instead of the M11 due to the lack of stabilization in the M11. 

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, S Maclean said:

in terms of reolution and Dynamic range there is no sense on making those a priotiy over other things like speed read, maybe rangefinder improvements etc.  The reason is that we already are waisint a large portion of the infomraiton gathered, because we can't see it all at once. Nor can most computers.

 

As an example toggle the HDR buttin in lightroom on certain pictures, (if you have an HDR screen to output) it is simply amazing what comes through, specially on the highlights. Blonde hihglights in the sun, metal glimmers, sunstairs at noght from light sources that remain defined...then toggle it off and it all feels....flat. it was great before, but now that you ahve seen the full dynamic range of a single picture you can't unsee it.

And yet, printers can't ptint it. Socail media can't post it, and many home and office computers can't display it.

So, until periferal technilogies catch up I think the improvements could be more mechanical. Better weather sealing, optical rangefinder solution for close focus (after all, they did make the M 35 and 50 lux close focus for something....other than visioflex?  Faster shutter speed (mechanical) much faster read for the electric shutter when used, A new and improved visioflex...or for some a hybrid evf in camera.  Swivel LCD Screen? 

Increased dynamic range is primarily about reducing noise in the shadows, rather than enhancing detail in the highlights, which do come to the fore in HDR displays. 

[S Maclean]

53 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Increased dynamic range is primarily about reducing noise in the shadows, rather than enhancing detail in the highlights, which do come to the fore in HDR displays. 

Yes, yes, I know that, but if we keep taking detail for the shadows everything’s going to be flat as pie.  
 

AND, HDR displays and histograms are largely focused on the highlights .  
 

Anyway, yes. I love the m11 m for the j creased DR, I love medium format hasselblad even more for it, but that’s not where I would put my engineering power if I was  Leica right now. Not in the M system. 
 

I do fully expect a new Medium format system coming to Leica soon; and there I would definitely add MP count, DR and, hopefully , improve even on the x2d system portability and further optimize for L and M lenses. ( I use my M lenses to great effect on Hasselblad)

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

If IBIS is added to M12, then the mechanical shutter must be removed. This means that the M12 sensor must be stacked. Currently, the highest resolution stacked sensors are 50MP (Sony a1) and have a similar dynamic range as Leica M11.

Having a stacked sensor in an M would mean that they run up against the well-known incidence angle problems. 

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Having a stacked sensor in an M would mean that they run up against the well-known incidence angle problems. 

I guess it should be less of a problem than with FSI sensors (M10).

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

Yes, yes, I know that, but if we keep taking detail for the shadows everything’s going to be flat as pie

In high contrast situations, to avoid clipping of highlights, you may need to "underexpose" by two stops. Most of the image will be underexposed and needs to be lifted while compressing only the highlights. The resulting image should not be flat.

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I guess it should be less of a problem than with FSI sensors (M10).

Depends on well depth, pixel size and microlens design. Not saying impossible, especially on a high resolution sensor, but certainly a complicating factor. 

[Kiwimac]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

Several times, I chose a different camera (SL3, Q3) instead of the M11 due to the lack of stabilization in the M11. 

And this is really the point. 
 

Not every camera has to have every feature. If you want IBIS there are other cameras that have it. 

[S Maclean]

49 minutes ago, SrMi said:

In high contrast situations, to avoid clipping of highlights, you may need to "underexpose" by two stops. Most of the image will be underexposed and needs to be lifted while compressing only the highlights. The resulting image should not be flat.

Again, I know, but that’s IMO an example of technology driving the process, not the photographer.

if image is the goal you can just have AI do the work for you these days. Take a bad pic and ask it to edit it for you. I’m not against it, it’s just not my thing

Of all systems the M system is supposed to be closer to analog or film. Specially the monochrome cameras.  But somehow we are defaulting to taking bad pictures to fix later.  Ubderexpose 5 stops and you can recover and build a great shot…. But, guess what? You took a bad picture and relayed on technology to build a good one.

the amazing features of the M system are supposed to help us take the best picture on camera. Raw allows us to test that shot as a negative. A little dodging, a little burning, toning, etc.

But you wouldn’t underexpose a film role by 2,3 or 5 stops to then recover. You would try your best to take a good balanced pic and then work on touch ups to improve .

i think it’s great, for the odd pic, to be able to go crazy and recover, or filter, or use AI to process the noise etc etc… but we should not start taking bad pictures on purpose knowing that the computer will save it for us.  As Jon Nicholson said, that’s the camera and technology driving you, not you being in control of the camera 

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, S Maclean said:

Again, I know, but that’s IMO an example of technology driving the process, not the photographer.

if image is the goal you can just have AI do the work for you these days. Take a bad pic and ask it to edit it for you. I’m not against it, it’s just not my thing

Of all systems the M system is supposed to be closer to analog or film. Specially the monochrome cameras.  But somehow we are defaulting to taking bad pictures to fix later.  Ubderexpose 5 stops and you can recover and build a great shot…. But, guess what? You took a bad picture and relayed on technology to build a good one.

the amazing features of the M system are supposed to help us take the best picture on camera. Raw allows us to test that shot as a negative. A little dodging, a little burning, toning, etc.

But you wouldn’t underexpose a film role by 2,3 or 5 stops to then recover. You would try your best to take a good balanced pic and then work on touch ups to improve .

i think it’s great, for the odd pic, to be able to go crazy and recover, or filter, or use AI to process the noise etc etc… but we should not start taking bad pictures on purpose knowing that the computer will save it for us.  As Jon Nicholson said, that’s the camera and technology driving you, not you being in control of the camera 

With film negative, it is different as you cannot clip highlights. Clipping shadows is OK. I so often wish we had sensors that behave as negative film.

[S Maclean]

22 minutes ago, SrMi said:

With film negative, it is different as you cannot clip highlights. Clipping shadows is OK. I so often wish we had sensors that behave as negative film.

We do, close to it. That’s was the point on my comment on the HDR toggle in Lightroom.  Or whatever software I guess.  
 

but the technology is not mainstream yet in terms of monitor or printer rendering.  
 

which brings me full circle to my starting point. We have enough dynamic range and we have enough definition etc etc to meet the requirements of photography. More than enough actually.

we can keep expanding on it limitless ways, but it either results in bad photography and great technology to fix it, or great images that cannot really be printed or viewed on all media ( yet)

so we may as well improve on other areas that have better relevance to the “ethos” of M photography. 
 

yes, the camera allows you to work around actually photographing images and instead makes us manufacture images digitally, but that’s a users choice.

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

which brings me full circle to my starting point. We have enough dynamic range and we have enough definition etc etc to meet the requirements of photography. More than enough actually.

If that were true, then we would not need AI NR and/or exposure bracketing.

[S Maclean]

40 minutes ago, SrMi said:

With film negative, it is different as you cannot clip highlights. Clipping shadows is OK. I so often wish we had sensors that behave as negative film.

 

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

If that were true, then we would not need AI NR and/or exposure bracketing.

Why? 

[FlashAndPoof]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Leica has said that they could only add IBIS if the mechanical shutter is removed. The current sensor is too slow to be without a mechanical shutter.

Any chance you recall when or where they said this? Would love to read or watch more about it.

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, FlashAndPoof said:

Any chance you recall when or where they said this? Would love to read or watch more about it.

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2022/06/whats-really-new-about-m11-and-why.html

" But it isn't ruled out that the image stabilizer could be integrated into the M at some point, for example, if we would do without the mechanical shutter and so the necessary space would be available again. "

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

 

Why? 

Noise reduction and exposure bracketing are tools to increase dynamic range.

[S Maclean]

37 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Noise reduction and exposure bracketing are tools to increase dynamic range.

Yes and no.
 

Exposure bracketing is a fairly old technique.

Noise reduction should not be a tool to increase dynamic range “a priori” but rather to improve a fault after the fact.

we don’t need to share this view . Nor do I think my view is better, but it’s my view..

There’s a trap there. If you take a picture knowing it’s badly taking BUT, the AI noise reduction will recover the image . You’re not taking a picture, you’re manufacturing one through AI.  It’s ok. We all do it at times, but let’s not fool ourselves.  
 

The problem is people get addicted to that and just take crap pictures knowing the  AI algorithm, and templates etc etc will make it good. That too is ok, but it’s no longer “taking” a picture, it’s manufacturing one.

and that’s a step away from just…. Not even taking the picture and really having AI creating it.

all three scenarios are justifiable, I’m not judging. But, if you get a system like the M system to go back to a more analogue photography with the benefit of modern technology, don’t fall for them miss using that system to take pictures that won’t even be viewable until you process the shot out of them.

use the camera for your purposes, don’t let the camera or technology dictate your purposes.

i have nothing against technology advancements or even AI, I just, still, want to be the one taking the picture, not just pressing the button.

i, for one, can’t justify spending tens of thousands of dollars on Leica cameras and lenses and then taking technically bad pictures to have adobe fix them for me. I can spend less money and get the same results.

i do justify spending that money to serve my vision, improve my craft and challenge my technical knowledge.

Edited July 1 by S Maclean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

17 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

Yes and no.
 

Exposure bracketing is a fairly old technique.

Noise reduction should not be a tool to increase dynamic range “a priori” but rather to improve a fault after the fact.

we don’t need to share this view . Nor do I think my view is better, but it’s my view..

There’s a trap there. If you take a picture knowing it’s badly taking BUT, the AI noise reduction will recover the image . You’re not taking a picture, you’re manufacturing one through AI.  It’s ok. We all do it at times, but let’s not fool ourselves.  
 

The problem is people get addicted to that and just take crap pictures knowing the  AI algorithm es, and templates etc etc will make it good. That too is ok, but it’s no longer “taking” a picture, it’s manufacturing one.

and that’s a step away fro just…. Not even taking the picture and really having AI creating it.

all three scenarios are justifiable, I’m not judging. But, if you get a system like the M system to go back to a more analogue photography with the benefit of modern technology, don’t fall for them miss using that system to take pictures that won’t even be viewable until you process the shot out of them.

use the camera for your purposes, don’t let the camera or technology dictate your purposes.

i have nothing against technology advancements or even AI, I just, still, want to be the one taking the picture, not just pressing the button.

I'm not sure others are that interested in us continuing that topic.

P.S.: I really like your images on Instagram and the Smugmug page.

Edited July 1 by SrMi