Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
Fred, I fully agree with you. High MP has no consequence general speaking but it does give me headache of more space required for each my random snaps took. It is really depend on personal situation of how to use M system.
For high pixel and high DR and focus precision, you and I or others have Sony, Nikon or Canon systems. Leica is for street, travel and fun shooting system, I dont see the urgency from me to upgrade to 40+ sensor. To take advantage of New Noctlux or even 50APO M's high quality design at wide aperture, rangefinder focus even with 24M are not reliable to squeeze the final bit, then if you can't take advantage of either sensor or lens in this situation, the point become moot.
For stop down shooting or landscape stuff, I have no objection with more pixel but M is not the best system for that for a lot more money IMHO.
I don't see myself put high priority on IBIS on M either. E-shutter maybe helpful. Basically, I like M to be AS IS, keep it old school. Let others do the innovation part.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
As far as I’m concerned, if I have to put my Leica on a tripod I’m better off using my Sony A7R4.
genji wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, if I have to put my Leica on a tripod I’m better off using my Sony A7R4.
Same here. Likewise to external EVF.....Rangefinder focusing was the main reason I bought a Leica.
I would have preferred if Leica M bodies were kept at 24MP (large pixels) and instead have improvements to high ISO by adding dual conversion gain to their sensors. This could be a more noticeable improvement and a differential for Leica.
Let the SL line get super-resolution Sensor and EVF since it's not a rangefinder.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Same here. Likewise to external EVF.....Rangefinder focusing was the main reason I bought a Leica.
I would have preferred if Leica M bodies were kept at 24MP (large pixels) and instead have improvements to high ISO by adding dual conversion gain to their sensors. This could be a more noticeable improvement and a differential for Leica.
Let the SL line get super-resolution Sensor and EVF since it's not a rangefinder.
As always, preferences in photography are different from user to user. I am personally not interested in high ISO but would certainly benefit from a higher MP/DR sensor (would actually love if it has real low ISO 25 and 50!). As Steve Spencer pointed out correctly earlier, I am faster focusing manually with a rangefinder compared to focus peaking and magnification. Regarding handheld or tripod, I am mostly shooting my Sony A7R handheld with std focal lengths with very good results (the camera has mechanical shutter and no IS!). So I don't see why a high MP sensor in a Leica M camera would be a debit for me. The only stopper I see with the Leica M10-R is the price. Putting > $8K on the table for a digital camera is not gonna happen for me.
The higher resolution would definitely have an impact on (my) shooting technique. When walking around on sunny days, my default is ISO 200 1/500 f/8. But if I'm being lazy, sometimes I can see camera shake at 1/250 and 1/125 with a 50 requires more deliberate technique. So, yeah, IBIS would be helpful, but I doubt it will ever appear in M given how packed together everything is in the camera. It would be different if the lens flange distance wasn't 28mm and more around 20 or less, like Sony, Canon, Nikon. There's still a lot of 'dead' air between the mount and sensor.
Peter Karbe's answer to this would be: shoot everything wide open. The current generation M lenses only require stopping down for when increased depth of field is required. (He says this for all modern Leica glass)
I was drawn to Rangefinder shooting with the Monochrom line. As time has progressed I was starting to think of a obtaining a color body to complement the Monochrom. For shooting in colour I don't want to always bring my Canon when I am shooting the Monochrom. Sometimes it would be nice to have a color rangefinder so I can use the same set of lenses on both. Came close with the Limited edition Type 240 M+E.
Not much of a street or people I shooter mainly landscape and historical sites. I thoroughly enjoy the extra resolution of the M10M vs M246 and M9M.
On the other hand in lowlight the Monochrom has its advantages being able to shoot at higher ISOs before noise becomes a factor. I can't see an M10R 40MP sensor doing as well in lowlight situations vs a 24MP. In those situations I would lean towards an improved 24MP sensor for after dark shooting.
It would be nice if Leica could support both an improved ISO range with a lower resolution rangefinder and higher resolution rangefinder. Though I wonder if the Leica market is large enough to support two lines of color rangefinders.
Given my shooting interests I lean a little more towards the M10R's extra resolution.
rscheffler wrote:
The higher resolution would definitely have an impact on (my) shooting technique. When walking around on sunny days, my default is ISO 200 1/500 f/8. But if I'm being lazy, sometimes I can see camera shake at 1/250 and 1/125 with a 50 requires more deliberate technique. So, yeah, IBIS would be helpful, but I doubt it will ever appear in M given how packed together everything is in the camera. It would be different if the lens flange distance wasn't 28mm and more around 20 or less, like Sony, Canon, Nikon. There's still a lot of 'dead' air between the mount and sensor.
Peter Karbe's answer to this would be: shoot everything wide open. The current generation M lenses only require stopping down for when increased depth of field is required. (He says this for all modern Leica glass) ...Show more →
For those that watched the video...”are you sure you want to stop down?” 😎
retrofocus wrote:
As always, preferences in photography are different from user to user. I am personally not interested in high ISO but would certainly benefit from a higher MP/DR sensor (would actually love if it has real low ISO 25 and 50!). As Steve Spencer pointed out correctly earlier, I am faster focusing manually with a rangefinder compared to focus peaking and magnification. Regarding handheld or tripod, I am mostly shooting my Sony A7R handheld with std focal lengths with very good results (the camera has mechanical shutter and no IS!). So I don't see why a high MP sensor in a Leica M camera would be a debit for me. The only stopper I see with the Leica M10-R is the price. Putting > $8K on the table for a digital camera is not gonna happen for me. ...Show more →
Fast focusing with a rangefinder is one thing. Another is for your subject to be critically sharp and benefit from more megapixels.
High megapixel sensors require accurate (critical) focus + stability to show their benefits. The rangefinder camera lacks both requirements:
1) There is no shake reduction available (blur will be more apparent with more megapixels)
2) The rangefinder is not as accurate as EVF + magnification.
So, unless we glue the external EVF on it (for critical focus) + increase shutter speed to compensate for camera shake (giving us noisier images), the advantage of increasing megapixels is dubious. In other words, yes, 30% more resolution is always welcome but rangefinder focusing without any shake compensation (IBIS) may not allow shooters to take advantage of it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Fast focusing with a rangefinder is one thing. Another is for your subject to be critically sharp and benefit from more megapixels.
High megapixel sensors require accurate (critical) focus + stability to show their benefits. The rangefinder camera lacks both requirements:
1) There is no shake reduction available (blur will be more apparent with more megapixels)
2) The rangefinder is not as accurate as EVF + magnification.
So, unless we glue the external EVF on it (for critical focus) + increase shutter speed to compensate for camera shake (giving us noisier images), the advantage of increasing megapixels is dubious. In other words, yes, 30% more resolution is always welcome but rangefinder focusing without any shake compensation (IBIS) may not allow shooters to take advantage of it. ...Show more →
So, in that Peter Karbe video from last week that's floating around, he was asked about the relevance of the RF system at higher resolutions. IIRC, he said it's 'challenging' to use but didn't just mean in terms of mechanical RF accuracy/precision and calibration. In his opinion, the M is for spontaneous, handheld use and when shooting fast lenses wide open, there are a lot of difficult to control variables that come into play. The biggies are the need to focus & recompose due to the nature of the RF focusing system and 'micro' movements by the photographer and/or subject (i.e. leaning forwards or back a touch and thus shifting the plane of focus). He suggested shooting bursts and intentionally moving slightly to essentially focus bracket.
I haven't been following M10 Monochrom discussions on the web... has anyone read any complaints about greater difficulty to hit focus with the RF?
zhangyue wrote:
Fred, I fully agree with you. High MP has no consequence general speaking but it does give me headache of more space required for each my random snaps took.
Do you mean for long term storage space? If so, you could run your outtakes or less critical files through the Adobe DNG Converter app. It has a lossy conversion option that I've found can cut file sizes by half or 2/3 (depends on subject content). Chances you'll never touch those files again, but if you need to, they'll be very close to original quality. I did some casual tests of various files and found that it was very difficult to see a difference in properly exposed images. Files that need to be pushed in post did suffer a touch, but were still acceptable.
rscheffler wrote:
So, in that Peter Karbe video from last week that's floating around, he was asked about the relevance of the RF system at higher resolutions. IIRC, he said it's 'challenging' to use but didn't just mean in terms of mechanical RF accuracy/precision and calibration. In his opinion, the M is for spontaneous, handheld use and when shooting fast lenses wide open, there are a lot of difficult to control variables that come into play. The biggies are the need to focus & recompose due to the nature of the RF focusing system and 'micro' movements by the photographer and/or subject (i.e. leaning forwards or back a touch and thus shifting the plane of focus). He suggested shooting bursts and intentionally moving slightly to essentially focus bracket.
I haven't been following M10 Monochrom discussions on the web... has anyone read any complaints about greater difficulty to hit focus with the RF?
Do you mean for long term storage space? If so, you could run your outtakes or less critical files through the Adobe DNG Converter app. It has a lossy conversion option that I've found can cut file sizes by half or 2/3 (depends on subject content). Chances you'll never touch those files again, but if you need to, they'll be very close to original quality. I did some casual tests of various files and found that it was very difficult to see a difference in properly exposed images. Files that need to be pushed in post did suffer a touch, but were still acceptable....Show more →
For me rangefinder focus has a limitation in accuracy. The higher the number of pixels, the more this limitation will be noticeable.
This is amplified by rangefinder calibration, by the use of fast lenses, and when we recompose our shots. If you add more megapixels to a slightly blurred or miss focused subject, the benefits of having more pixels will become less relevant.
A solution would be to replace the rangefinder with a built-in EVF and add IBIS to the camera. That's what the Leica SL and Leica Q are for IMO.
Perhaps the new Leica M10-R 40MP sensor won't degrade high ISO performance in which case, there is nothing to lose, but for reasons I outlined above, not much to gain either.
rscheffler wrote:
I haven't been following M10 Monochrom discussions on the web... has anyone read any complaints about greater difficulty to hit focus with the RF?
Reflecting back I found hitting focus was more often associated with learning what adjustments I needed to make for my shooting flow to match the demands of a higher MP camera.
1. I no longer follow 1/focal length for the M10M and shoot at a faster shutter speed.
2. When shooting wide open I take more time making sure it is in focus through the RF. When in doubt I have the EVF to double check but if I am shooting any type of action no time to double check and either I miss the shot or hope I nailed focus. The 90APO is excellent as I normally nail focus with the RF. Whereas I don't always with 24 Elmar and 50 Lux wide open. I am very comfortable nailing focus with the Lux 50 at F2.8 and above.
3. Extreme lowlight is the biggest challenge with the RF. ISO 16000 and higher is just too dark to accurately focus. Though I found depending on the scene the EVF is just as difficult.
Overall I am satisfied with the M10M RF focusing as long as I know my limitations.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For me rangefinder focus has a limitation in accuracy.
I agree. Digital M offers many advantages: B&W and color in one camera, many ISOs and much better than film at high values, great colors.
And all this in a small rangefinder camera without too many buttons.
But with a film M, I could focus faster, did not need to be very precise, was able to use 1/4 sec with a 35mm. In fact, I still can as I use a M5 sometimes instead of the M10.
Lens/body calibration was less critical too with film.
So I wonder if 18 to 24 mpix is not a sweet spot and if going higher would be more hurdles than benefits.
An hybrid viewfinder, using the rangefinder most of the time and switching to an EVF when critical focusing is needed would be a interesting solution but I do not known when or even if we will get one.
“The M-System educates photographers. It’s like trying to write with a fountain pen. Using the fountain pen is not easy at the beginning. But once you’ve learned how to use it, you don’t want to write any other way." Peter Karbe
How I nail focus even action with a Rangefinder camera:
1. RF in good light and high shutter speed. Critical I wear my specs and viewfinder/rangefinder windows are clean, this works for me even at F0.95 with action for larger subjects like people. Leica M lenses focus tabs are a dream to quickly "feel" distance and pushing the tabs left for closer, right for distance estimate. * When I can't nail focus through the RF almost always I smudged one of the windows-- I carry the micro fiber with me everywhere.
2. Zone Focusing --this is magic re-imaged/re-discovered for me made SO, so much easier specifically with Leica M lenses' mechanical settings and again those focus tabs. Took me some practice over RF. Likewise, with the 35mm set to F8 and about 14/15' + ISO on auto, I can shoot all day just adjust shutter speed as needed or even leave shutter speed in auto too.
3. Sometimes I go back and forth between RF and Zone Focusing to check myself for stationary subjects.
4. For small targets like tiny figures on a test chart, I set RF at F2.8 and then open up to 1.4 and fire and YES, I use a tripod for this scenario.
5. Liveview is helpful when I have to hold the camera above crowds at an event. I also use the iPhone and Fotos remote app for awkward angles.
As far as higher MP M10-R goes, after watching THE video I think I am more than happy with the M10 24MPs for now. I am very curious to see how Leica marketing addresses current generation Non APO Leica M lenses on the higher MP M10-R. They didn't address this topic with the M10-M launch, so maybe the same approach. But then there's THE video, and can't forget what I learned in that video
LBJ2 wrote:
I am very curious to see how Leica marketing addresses current generation Non APO Leica M lenses on the higher MP M10-R. They didn't address this topic with the M10-M launch, so maybe the same approach.
I have never seen a debit of using older - even vintage - glass on a high MP FF sensor. I do this all the time very successfully when adapting RF and SLR glass even from the 1940/50s to my Sony A7R. This whole "sensor will out-resolve" glass is only theory from my experience.
retrofocus wrote:
I have never seen a debit of using older - even vintage - glass on a high MP FF sensor. I do this all the time very successfully when adapting RF and SLR glass even from the 1940/50s to my Sony A7R. This whole "sensor will out-resolve" glass is only theory from my experience.
Yes. I've done many of the same pixel peeping type experiments/tests too with older versus modern glass and high vs lower MP sensors heavy duty test charts as well as normal subject matter. (FWIW, I really dislike testing lenses and sensors) In the end, I think there is what you can technically measure ( very clearly presented in the video) and then what the human eye can see/perceive and then finally what characteristics one wants on display in a certain image e.g., crisp/sharp vs less crisp sharp.
FWIW and I think you mentioned this too. I expect to see more Leica M glass with APO technology coming. No rocket science required to deduce. But these new lenses prices will feel like we are buying rocket science. Otherwise our current glass both old and new will continue to deliver as we have all discovered on our own.
Jul 14, 2020 at 09:44 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
Same here. Likewise to external EVF.....Rangefinder focusing was the main reason I bought a Leica.
I would have preferred if Leica M bodies were kept at 24MP (large pixels) and instead have improvements to high ISO by adding dual conversion gain to their sensors. This could be a more noticeable improvement and a differential for Leica.
Let the SL line get super-resolution Sensor and EVF since it's not a rangefinder.
I agree totally with this point. Dual conversion gain, was IMO, the biggest thing missing from the Leica M10. And I also agree that high resolution when using a rangefinder is not something I really desire very much--it won't hurt (if the high ISO performance is there) because you can always downsize, but it won't help that much either. When I had the Leica M10, however, I loved it as a travel camera and there are times I want to shoot it off a tripod with the EVF as part of my travel photography and for those times I would have liked the higher resolution. All in all, however, I agree with you I would rather that Leica improved the high ISO capability on the Leica M 10R than gave us better resolution. Maybe they did both, which would be great, but if I could only pick one it would be the high ISO capability.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree totally with this point. Dual conversion gain, was IMO, the biggest thing missing from the Leica M10. And I also agree that high resolution when using a rangefinder is not something I really desire very much--it won't hurt (if the high ISO performance is there) because you can always downsize, but it won't help that much either. When I had the Leica M10, however, I loved it as a travel camera and there are times I want to shoot it off a tripod with the EVF as part of my travel photography and for those times I would have liked the higher resolution. All in all, however, I agree with you I would rather that Leica improved the high ISO capability on the Leica M 10R than gave us better resolution. Maybe they did both, which would be great, but if I could only pick one it would be the high ISO capability....Show more →
rscheffler wrote:
So, in that Peter Karbe video from last week that's floating around, he was asked about the relevance of the RF system at higher resolutions. IIRC, he said it's 'challenging' to use but didn't just mean in terms of mechanical RF accuracy/precision and calibration. In his opinion, the M is for spontaneous, handheld use and when shooting fast lenses wide open, there are a lot of difficult to control variables that come into play. The biggies are the need to focus & recompose due to the nature of the RF focusing system and 'micro' movements by the photographer and/or subject (i.e. leaning forwards or back a touch and thus shifting the plane of focus). He suggested shooting bursts and intentionally moving slightly to essentially focus bracket.
I haven't been following M10 Monochrom discussions on the web... has anyone read any complaints about greater difficulty to hit focus with the RF?
Do you mean for long term storage space? If so, you could run your outtakes or less critical files through the Adobe DNG Converter app. It has a lossy conversion option that I've found can cut file sizes by half or 2/3 (depends on subject content). Chances you'll never touch those files again, but if you need to, they'll be very close to original quality. I did some casual tests of various files and found that it was very difficult to see a difference in properly exposed images. Files that need to be pushed in post did suffer a touch, but were still acceptable....Show more →
Hi, Ron, yes, I meant about long term storage space as I shoot a lot and randomly I did the conversion of DNG for FUJI and Hasselblad X RAW files as those are quite large especially HSSY, but I am too lazy to convert all my backlog to compressed DNG and you may very right about I might never touch them
General speaking, I found myself don't need more pixel from any camera actually but that is just me. The quality of image was never how many pixels (after certain threshold of course, 24M is fine). I print less than 5 images each year.
You mentioned that you can see handhold problem with M before and I think I claimed I don't have such an issue. I still don't but I think it is mostly come from I am not analytic enough for casual M images,(serious ones I have tripod or I will watch out speed to guarantee the sharpness) . Until latest M10P, I feel I finally have a camera can last me longer than most digital cameras, unlike others, I don't seek high ISO performance, IBIS, pixel, I don't even seek more APO glasses for sharpness and cross frame correction if that means they need having another round of size, weight and price boosting. The DR is fine too if not the best as Sony or Nikon.
With a set of jewel like M glasses, I shoot and enjoy
Here are two with ISO 12500 50APO M and M10P. As a non bird or sport shooter, the high ISO performance of modern camera have long meet my requirement TBH. I really don't need more high iso performance than this.
I wish I could afford to jump into the "M" system, because I would jump all over this, but I just can't justify it. I am going to get the Q2 so at least I'll get the sensor and an excellent lens. I'll have to keep my XT3 for the longer stuff when I travel.
THe price of the M 10 is coming down. I picked one up new in box full warrarty from pop flash in Nov of 2018 for $5800. They were as low as 5600. I was late pulling the trigger. You might be able to get a gently used one of about the same price as a Q2.
(He says this for all modern Leica glass)
