retrofocus wrote:
Hahah, no, I didn't even know - that's more resolution than I even ever tried . Horses for courses of course. Already at 36 MP FF I see how Leica (and other M glass) shines, especially also vintage lenses. Film again gives me a different flair and look at low resolution with the same lenses. I enjoy both .
Double, triple duty! Never made much sense to me how the Really wavy MTFs of my Leica M lenses look so good in real life. Must be that secret Leitz/Leica optical formula we chatted about previously. But it is what it is and these lenses really do deserve the best sensor we can throw at them regardless of number of MPs.
Personally, I upgraded to each Sony FF camera model because of the overall evolutionary camera improvements. The increase in MPs was just part of the upgrade. Leica on the other hand chooses to keep the M10 form factor (very happy about that) but include higher resolution sensors in both the M10-M and now the R version of the same. As you wrote “ Horses for courses of course.”
pmeheut wrote:
Indeed but we are talking about an M here. 99% of the experience is choosing your lens, previewing your frame before even looking through the viewinder and so.
The ethos of the rangefinder is also about "zooming with your feet" and the famous quote: "if your pictures are not good, you are not close enough".
If you want to crop heavily enough to change focal length or feel the need to have "a 2nd lens of sorts", there are more obvious choices than a M.
I just mentioned it as an added benefit ... not intended to suggest it as a primary substitute. The point being, even if 24MP is sufficient, having some latitude with more MP isn't a bad thing. Not a necessity / requirement ... but, still not a bad thing either.
Lopping of 1/3 of the image to get to a 1:1 format for instance, the extra MP's aren't gonna hurt any.
"Join us for the unveiling of the next M10 family member!" (Live in 6 days July 16, 9:00 AM)
"Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, and Stefan Daniel, Global Director of Product Division Photo, are welcoming the latest member of the M10 family. This global event will be conducted in English."
40MP - 47MP. Any guesses on the what MPs for the M10-R ? I'm going with 40MP and maybe a little more up to 42-45MPs based upon the M10-M sensor ( I believe they can engage a few more MPs on the edges of the 40MP M10-M sensor if they decide to go in that direction for some reason. )
LBJ2 wrote:
2020, the Summer of new important cameras is about to descend upon on us. According to strong rumors/leaks which will come out of the gate first?
-Canon R5/R6 ( Rumor: July 9th)
-Sony A7sII Successor, apparently new model ( Rumor: this Summer, after Canon R5 maybe mid-end July)
-Leica M10-R ( Rumor: July 16th or a day or two sooner)
Update:
One down, two to go!
-Canon R5/R6 ( July 9th and Landed with a big splash. Looking like Canon got its roar back!)
-Sony A7sII Successor, apparently new model ( Rumor: this Summer, after Canon R5 maybe mid-end July)
-Leica M10-R (July 16th confirmed)
-Canon R5/R6 ( July 9th and Landed with a big splash. Looking like Canon got its roar back!)
-Sony A7sII Successor, apparently new model ( Rumor: this Summer, after Canon R5 maybe mid-end July)
-Leica M10-R (July 16th confirmed)
LBJ2 wrote:
"Join us for the unveiling of the next M10 family member!" (Live in 6 days July 16, 9:00 AM)
"Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, and Stefan Daniel, Global Director of Product Division Photo, are welcoming the latest member of the M10 family. This global event will be conducted in English."
40MP - 47MP. Any guesses on the what MPs for the M10-R ? I'm going with 40MP and maybe a little more up to 42-45MPs based upon the M10-M sensor ( I believe they can engage a few more MPs on the edges of the 40MP M10-M sensor if they decide to go in that direction for some reason. )
$8300 US. Hopefully it moves the M10 to second-tier "M-E" status with the corresponding drop in MSRP and second hand prices (so that I can eventually justify one).
A bit disappointed it is only a 2GB/10 frame buffer... I guess the M10-RP will address that.
I think Leica is wise that didn’t make big deal out of this announcement. Most of tradition M users will not care pixel much. Rest of features were not upgraded.
and knowing leica, I think they are gonna kick off new round of glass design that can meet this new resolution demand in the future start with two noct
zhangyue wrote:
Most of tradition M users will not care pixel much.
The comments in the LUF forum already tell otherwise. Similar to 2013 when Sony announced the first high MP sensor in the A7R, many were saying before that they have no need for such sensor. Now the majority has switched and use even 60 MP FF sensors......
rscheffler wrote:
$8300 US. Hopefully it moves the M10 to second-tier "M-E" status with the corresponding drop in MSRP and second hand prices (so that I can eventually justify one).
A bit disappointed it is only a 2GB/10 frame buffer... I guess the M10-RP will address that.
About that price $8295 US ( the actual numbers make me feel tiny bit better ha ha)
This can only tell us pixel is cheap and can be had for nothing
retrofocus wrote:
The comments in the LUF forum already tell otherwise. Similar to 2013 when Sony announced the first high MP sensor in the A7R, many were saying before that they have no need for such sensor. Now the majority has switched and use even 60 MP FF sensors......
That is better than all reasonable thinking which i am sure everyone can think of thousands reasons to not buy it or just Screw it, done that and be happy.
LBJ2 wrote:
About that price $8295 US ( the actual numbers make me feel tiny bit better ha ha)
retrofocus wrote:
The comments in the LUF forum already tell otherwise. Similar to 2013 when Sony announced the first high MP sensor in the A7R, many were saying before that they have no need for such sensor. Now the majority has switched and use even 60 MP FF sensors......
Yes, but I think it's different with a rangefinder. Focusing is not as accurate compared to using a EVF (with peaking, magnification, etc..) to take advantage of the 29% higher linear resolution. -- sqrt(40/24)
Plus, we don't know how the new sensor will perform in low light yet.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, but I think it's different with a rangefinder. Focusing is not as accurate compared to using a EVF (with peaking, magnification, etc..) to take advantage of the 29% higher linear resolution. -- sqrt(40/24)
Plus, we don't know how the new sensor will perform in low light yet.
Yeah, but for stationary or near stationary targets you can of course use the optional EVF and magnification to get focus precision and for moving targets everything has tradeoffs. The rangefinder might not be quite as accurate as the EVF but you will be able to get a moving target in reasonably good focus a lot more with the rangefinder than an EVF and the increased number of shots may give you a better chance of getting one with optimum focus than using an EVF with magnification. In practice I found I got more good shots with the rangefinder for things like street photography than with an EVF and magnification, and I am not even that good at rangefinder focussing (I never felt I got to be as good as I could). So the EVF had a higher percentage of goods shots, but the rangefinder has a great number of good shots (and not so good as well).
I find with AF I feel like I am hunting for the shot for moving subjects instead of composing it and anticipating it. I much prefer shooting a rangefinder, but for some subjects the advantage of AF really is there. I am not disputing that. I just enjoy the approach of rangefinder shooting more.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, but for stationary or near stationary targets you can of course use the optional EVF and magnification to get focus precision and for moving targets everything has tradeoffs. The rangefinder might not be quite as accurate as the EVF but you will be able to get a moving target in reasonably good focus a lot more with the rangefinder than an EVF and the increased number of shots may give you a better chance of getting one with optimum focus than using an EVF with magnification. In practice I found I got more good shots with the rangefinder for things like street photography than with an EVF and magnification, and I am not even that good at rangefinder focussing (I never felt I got to be as good as I could). So the EVF had a higher percentage of goods shots, but the rangefinder has a great number of good shots (and not so good as well).
I find with AF I feel like I am hunting for the shot for moving subjects instead of composing it and anticipating it. I much prefer shooting a rangefinder, but for some subjects the advantage of AF really is there. I am not disputing that. I just enjoy the approach of rangefinder shooting more....Show more →
Increasing MP is not a negative as long as high ISO performance was somehow maintained but to get the extra 29% resolution increase in our images, they will need to be critically focused.
I guess that the use of a tripod (since there is no shake compensation), Low ISO and EVF will be crucial for that to happen.
Perhaps a more noticeably advantage of more pixels will be less moire and false color.
IBIS is super useful. It expands the shooting envelope considerably. But my X1D and M10M have both shown that with good technique it is possible to take advantage of extra resolution without always needing a tripod or IBIS. I rarely shoot my X1D above 400 ISO, even handheld and the results are fine.
. Horses for courses of course. Already at 36 MP FF I see how Leica (and other M glass) shines, especially also vintage lenses. Film again gives me a different flair and look at low resolution with the same lenses. I enjoy both 
