M Leica – Camera or Lenses?

Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder.

9 (45%)

Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses.

11 (55%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Voting closed: October 30, 2011, 08:03:58 am

[Erick Boileau]

Because, with a high enough resolution and sharp enough lens, you'd be able to use a 35mm sensor for things you'd previously require a MF back to shoot

only if you need it   , who need it ?
and no it will never replace a sensor twice larger

[shadowblade]

only if you need it   , who need it ?
and no it will never replace a sensor twice larger

Even if you don't need it, there's no harm in having it - particularly if there's a pixel binning option for those who are desperate to save disk space.

There's no technical reason it can't replace a sensor twice the size with the same megapixel count for almost every purpose, bar extremely thin DOF shots. The larger sensor's only advantage is twice as many photons per pixel. But to collect these photons takes twice as much time, if depth of field is to remain the same (you'd have to shoot at a narrower f-stop to achieve the same DOF). It takes a narrower f-stop before diffraction kicks in, but this is exactly offset by the narrower f-stop needed for the same DOF as a 35mm sensor. If you're shooting with an f-stop depth that isn't affected by diffraction (around f/5 on a full-frame 80MP sensor, or f/8 on a 54x36mm 80MP sensor) and can either increase your light source (e.g. flash) or lengthen your exposure time (tripod and non-moving subject) you can get a cleaner image from the MF sensor, although this is marginal at low ISO anyway. Other than that, you won't get any real advantage from the MF sensor. And, to top it off, f/5 on full frame and f/8 on a 54x36mm sensor (i.e. both just short of diffraction limited at 80MP) will give you exactly the same depth of field when shooting at focal lengths that give the same angle of view!

[Erick Boileau]

I give up

[Rob C]

The 35mm sensor requires more precise lenses, but it's easier to build a precise lens to cover a 35mm sensor (plus movements) than to build one to cover a MF sensor (plus movements).

Man, where were you some weeks ago when I fought a lonely corner stating exactly that in another thread to do with using larger format lenses on smaller cameras, the expectation of those suggesting it being that they'd get better results doing that because larger format lenses covered larger areas, but not understanding that the appearance of higher quality from the larger lenses was because of the lower magnification to reach the same size of print from both formats, not that the larger format lens was as good as the 35mm format lens within the 35mm format area and beyond.

Sometimes, like erickb, I too feel like giving up.

;-)

Rob C

[Jorge Recio]

99.99...% of photographers pro or not never print over A2

so, there is a lot of people that would want to print over A2

oops

[Sam Kanga]

Hello Michael,

I’ve been shooting for many years, so it’s been mostly film. Sadly, I cannot afford an M9, however, as more appear on the used market, chances are that I will have one sooner or later. I typically stay off the forums, however I do enjoy your site, and would like to contribute to this discussion.

To answer your question, yes, I do like shooting with a rangefinder, or perhaps even a small size camera for that matter, as most of my photography requires that I am quick and unobtrusive, and a small camera lends itself to that. It is certainly possible to shoot that way with a larger and noisier camera, the small camera just makes it easier (“chapeau” to the photographers who use larger cameras).

My goal is to find a smallish digital camera that will let me work as quickly and confidently as the rangefinders. I haven’t tried the Nex-7 in any real situation, and the X-pro1 apparently has slowish auto-focus (I only had a chance to play with it at the Fuji event in Toronto, so I don’t know about that).

One can be blazing fast with rangefinders – I only know the Leica Ms, but I’m sure the Zeiss are just as quick. With the simple Leicas, I can be fast, rarely miss a shot, and can’t think of 10 shots I’ve missed in 30 years due to focus. I've missed way more shots because I've not been prepared (the 8th deadly sin, I believe). Regarding lenses – they’re lovely! I really only go between my 50, 2 Summicron, 35, 2.8 Summaron (both probably from the 60’s) and occasionally the 28, 2.8 Rokkor. I guess I could really use the tri-elmar.

In the interest of keeping this response short-ish, I'll keep it at that.

Sam

[Pingang]

A Poll For Those Owning a Leica M8 or M9 Only

I'm working on an article on the future of rangefinder cameras. I have my own ideas, but I am therefore curious as to what you think.

If you own (or have owned) an M8 or M9, I'd like to know whether this is primarily because you like shooting with a rangefinder / viewfinder style camera, or because you want to be able to use Leica M lenses (including Voigtlander and Zeiss).

I have use probably each Leica M (except some special edition models) since M6 to M9, when using film it is more for the purity of fine color, sharpness of the lens, and of course the mechanical feel. Going to digital, it is more for the memory of using M and sometimes for personal pleasure - because I believe I have overall better tools to produce digital image.  In short, it is less arguable of Leica M might represent the best of 135 quality image using film than with M9 in digital era, and I personally don't believe Leica would ever reverse it. But will Leica stays, I believe it will, photography for many is not a job, it is fun.

Pingang
Shanghai

[davisline]

This is my first post. I have been Canon DSLR/L glass user since jumping back into photography about a decade ago. Several weeks ago I made the decision to join the Leica world - starting with a M9, 24mm/f3.8 and 50mm/f1.4 lenses. At 54, I decided to migrate to a lighter weight system without having to compromise on sensor size or glass quality.  I wanted to invest in a system that I could comfortably use well into retirement and lenses that will perform well as sensor performance expands. Purchasing the lenses was an easy decision (save the cost) however I pondered the M9 for some time. Would a M10 be released soon or would we see a full-frame Fuji or other mirrorless camera announced. Rather than wait I decided to start learning how to use a rangefinder now. So far, I am enjoying the rangefinder experience although I have to admit the LCD monitor and small histogram are disappointments as I expected. Thinking about the next full frame Leica rangefinder, I hope Leica makes higher ISO performance and iPhone-like LCD monitor (where precise focus and exposure confirmation are possible) as top priorities. My interest is landscape photography so precise focus (especially given my aging eyesight) and exposure confirmation are important to me. Other features might be a bonus but not at the expense of adding complication to the future camera's use. I hope Leica continues to manufacture outstanding glass and improves the rangefinder experience rather than give us another high pixel, feature laden DSLR-like camera. I hope Leica's business plan keeps simplification and quality as top priorities.

[DaveL]

M3; M4P

DaveL

prefer shooting with a rangefinder.

[georgl]

54MP on 24x36 would be quite interesting, maybe even ideal with current technology. It can lead to very sharp results under ideal conditions (tripod, best lenses), avoids aliasing/moire-issues and would allow for an interesting pixel-binning-mode like on the Phase One-backs to reduce file size and noise and still create decent sized images @13.5MP.
 

[Erick Boileau]

54MP on 24x36 would be quite interesting, maybe even ideal with current technology.
 

a nonsense

[georgl]

Nonsense?

Not necessarily - processing power and memory is no issue today anymore. The file size of 54MP doesn't compromise handling much.

But more importantly the fill-rate of sensors has increased (certain designs are close to 100%) so by increasing the number of photosites on a given sensor area the light-sensitive area is no longer dramatically reduced.

But the high resolution would have following advantages:

1. higher resolution under ideal conditions (combine a NEX-7 with an excellent lens on a tripod and you can imagine the potential of a sensor with 2.25x the size (full frame)

2. less IQ-loss due to aliasing or AA-filter

3. Higher quality downsampled files (maybe even in-camera) with higher per-pixel quality. In cinematography, the most successful professional camera uses 1.5x downsampling to compensate for the AA-filter, increase contrast below nyquist and decreases color-artifiacts due to bayer interpolation - just like creating a 24MP-file from a 54MP-source (6000x9000 ->4000x6000)

4. Possibility of pixel-binning and still getting decent output sizes (like 2x2 binning which would result in lower noise and/or higher DR 13.5MP files)

Therefore I think a cleverly implemented 54MP-sensor is indeed better than a 24MP-sensor, not just for pixel-peepers...

[Erick Boileau]

and diffraction ?
and for what do you need exactly so many pixels ?

[georgl]

With 4µm pixel-pitch (54MP on 24x36 or 24MP on APS-C) you would start notice diffraction with the very best lenses somewhere between f5.6-f8, but even diffraction-limited, the IQ would still be superior to the native 24MP-file, it could even be used (stopping down beyond f8) to avoid aliasing without the need of an AA-filter.

54MP (or 6000x9000) would be sufficient for flawless 76cm wide prints (@300ppi) - which would be nice for some of us indeed, altough I don't print all pictures this large, of course...

Long story short: A cleverly implemented 54MP-sensor (4µm) instead of a common 24MP-design (6µm pixel-pitch) would increase IQ and versatility. The only downside would be the higher effort in R&D. When you seriously can't handle the file-size with your computer, you can still use in-camera-downsampling and still yield superior IQ.

[Erick Boileau]

I really hope they will never do that

[georgl]

why not?

[Erick Boileau]

because for A2  you don't need so many pixels, it's heavy and un-necessary, and diffraction will be worst than it is now

[georgl]

In practice, diffraction is an issue of magnification (sensor size vs. output size), not the pixel-count!

One example: you have to make a 76cm-wide print and you use two cameras with identical MP-count but one is equipped with a 4/3-sensor (18mm wide -> 40x magnification), the other one with a 24x36-sensor (36mm wide -> 20x magnification). The 24x36-system can be stopped down two stops further at a similar level of diffraction.

But when you compare cameras with the same sensor size but different pixel count (we stick with the 24x36 24MP vs 54MP comparison) diffraction effects will be the same on both prints. On a pixel level, the 54MP-file will degrade earlier (let's say from f8 on) but this is compensated for by the higher pixel count. At the same stop, the 54MP-sensor will always result in a superior IQ compared to the 24MP-sensor.  Only the IQ-advantage over the 24MP-sensor degrades.

A hypothetical 24x36 camera with 54MP-sensor could also offer internal downsampling (e.g. to 24MP or 13.5MP) and would just behave like a camera with lower native pixel count. Most likely, the downsampled 24MP-file will be superior to the native 24MP-file. No disadvantages for the user whatsoever!

We have reached that level of technology now, we just have to implement it. No need for two cameras (like Nikon D3x vs D3s) - high-sensitivity vs high-resolution - anymore.

Yes, for a 300ppi-print (which is needed for a fine-art-print in demanding landscape-photography, not a portrait-poster viewed at several m distance...) A2 "just" takes 7000 pixels horizontally, A1 already 10000 pixels.

[Erick Boileau]

georgl  I know all that theory

but thanks for your answer

[jfirneno]

Looks like there may soon be another full-frame camera to attach Leica lenses to.  Rumor has it that Sony is developing a full-frame camera with an 18mm flange to sensor dimension (e-mount).  From all the buzz on the various Sony sites there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm.  Of course it's just a rumor, but stranger things have happened.  This would be a direct way of polling how many people want Leica just for their lenses.