An uninformed opinion

Generally speaking, there are two types of lenses: those that are high quality and those that have character. A high resolution sensor benefits both. A corollary is that, generally speaking, there are two types of sensors, those that are high resolution and those that have fat pixels. Sensors with fat pixels benefit neither. Fat pixels are suppose to be better in low light. Unfortunately, cameras with sensors with fat pixels frequently have lousy high ISO image quality.
 
Here's a counterpoint. I have tried older Pentax lenses on a K1 along with modern Pentax Limited equivalents. No comparison. No comparison at all in the quality of the output. My dead, blind, grandmother could tell you which photos were taken with which.
 
Yup, there are pics of Hunt with a IIIc or IIIf around his neck. As I understand it he stood down from the final push to allow more oxygen supplies for the other two.

Please feel free to correct me if this is wrong.
 
Bill -- just to turn the question around (for fun), what are Leica's alternatives? They want to charge $10K for the beastie, so it has to do something that other cameras don't. I guess they could try selling a lot of less insanely-spec'd rangefinders at a lower price, but that doesn't seem to be their business model these days, and I don't know that they're wrong in terms of understanding where their market niche is. As an outsider, I would be interested to know how their current marketing strategy is paying off. In the 1990's there was a brief period when a new M6 cost about 2-3 weeks' wages (for me). There was a robust and dependable used market for M6's and a pretty good ecosystem of repair people who worked on them. Now I earn less and the cameras have shorter life-cycles, so a new one costs 8-10 weeks' wages and will be (guaranteed) obsolete within 5-7 years. Also, no one works on them, other than the mothership, so it's "pay-my-price, or there's the door." It's the product "upgrade/obselecencce" cycle that worries me more than the lack of specialized purpose. /rant off
 
Benjamin Marks said:
.......... If you were climbing a mountain, you might well want a Leica (miniature as it was for its day) because that was your lightest alternative. So 35mm's portability and ability to record in extreme environments became its hallmark. and LF was the domain of studio photographers (pace St. Ansel). .......
Click to expand...

Another aspect of LF is the ability to process each sheet and make some adjustments for the image you want to deliver in print. Zone System and all......

B2
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Here's a counterpoint. I have tried older Pentax lenses on a K1 along with modern Pentax Limited equivalents. No comparison. No comparison at all in the quality of the output. My dead, blind, grandmother could tell you which photos were taken with which.
Click to expand...

But is it in a way that matters? Will the older Pentax lenses ruin a great photograph? Nobody said there is no difference between lenses. Clearly some lenses are better than others. We are only saying that these high resolution sensors don't require the best of the best lenses as some people like to state on the internet. It isn't like these older lenses stop working at a certain megapixel.
 
I speculate that M10 was reaching the point where a design refresh was needed anyhow (as electronic components become obsolete), and Sony's 60 mp sensor was available at an attractive price, so it's sort of a "bonus" feature and a handy way of distinguishing M11 from earlier models - use or disregard the added resolution as you see fit. Big advantage of the added resolving power is reduced susceptibility to aliasing, which caused me some grief with M8 and M9.

As for Leica prices in general, I figure that their production is minuscule these days, maybe nowhere near what it was when the M9 was new. They probably don't see much point in offering an economy model for a market which simply doesn't exist right now.
 
If you read down to the appendix of this Roger Cicala article, you'll see that the whole notion of a higher-megapixel sensor “needing” better lenses or whatever is false. Improving any element's resolution improves the total system resolution (although not as much as you'd like if there's another element that's really awful):

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/
 
I see the "better sensor needs better lenses" argument as the photography equivalent to what the audiophiles went through over a decade ago; MP3 players started accepting FLAC and AAC, and people were excited about the improvement in sound, but ultimately, the whole system is going to be limited by whatever the bottleneck is - whether that's the headphones, the DAC, the files themselves, etc.

After a certain point, you find yourself hitting the inevitable law of diminishing returns, where you're investing more and more for ever less noticeable "gains". And the results might even sound - or in this case, look - as "good".

There's a reason vinyl sales are spiking, and while a good chunk of it is that it's a fashionable format again, that's not the only thing at play there.
 
There's a reason vinyl sales are spiking, and while a good chunk of it is that it's a fashionable format again, that's not the only thing at play there.
Click to expand...

People are rediscovering their love for clicks, pops, rumble, and hiss? Oh, well, sillier things have happened (particularly in photography...)
 
Bill Pierce said:
I’m not quite sure what the M11 is. If somebody does, I would really like to hear from them. Yes, really... Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
The M11, like all cameras Leica has produced over the last 30 years, are for the rich. People who demand the most expensive object money can easily buy. Usability and practicality be dammed it is all about the price tag... that is to say showing people you can afford the outrageous price tag, and still wrap yourself in Burberry scarves.
 
Putting aside the price, the M11 looks like the pinnacle of the M's evolution, with proper matrix metering, a refined rangefinder mechanism, a high resolution sensor that can downsample to lower resolutions and extend its dynamic range, better battery life, super quiet shutter, upgraded EVF and everything else that a person might want in a M body. As a M9 user for 12 years, the M11 looks very attractive when evaluated against the M9's limitations. High resolution when I need it, excellent dynamic range and low light performance at M9 resolution when I need it, a decent EVF for when I need precision focusing, live view for when I need to place the camera away from my face, etc.

Other cameras do many of these things: the Panasonic S5 which I now use as my primary hybrid (video and photo) camera for work does everything except 60mp in a single image, and has fantastic video capabilities, to boot. The Sony A7R IV not only has high megapixels but can shoot in downsampled lower resolutions, someone correct me if I'm wrong. But none of these cameras have the form factor, simplicity of handling, and ability to take full advantage of M lenses. Some M lenses work well with the S5, others do not.

The M11 is the best digital rangefinder on the market today, but this is a niche product in a niche market produced by a luxury goods manufacturer. I suspect that Leica understands that many M body users will not use the crazily expensive Leica lenses, opting for lower cost alternatives from Zeiss and Voigtlander, so they keep M body prices high to help shore up their profit margin and recoup costs.

The price, of course, is the entry barrier that will keep this in the realm of highly paid professionals who can write it off on tax, wealthy enthusiasts, or status seekers. It is disappointing, but my M9 is still producing beautiful images, so as long as it continues, it will repay my investment.
 
Dogman said:
I was looking at the Time magazine website the other day and featured were the photos of a Ukrainian photographer documenting to physical destruction and human suffering of the Russian invasion. The photographer (don't remember the name, sadly) was wounded in the fighting and there was a photo of him accompanying the article. Around his neck was a Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2D lens, both gear and photographer looking a bit worn. I smiled when I saw that. It's probably my favorite Nikon camera of all time. I use mine frequently and find it more than satisfactory for what I do. It's only 12 megapixels but it's 12 big fat megapixels that do the job.
Click to expand...

His name is Maxim Dondyuk. I saw the same photos on his IG feed. Last he was asking/looking for an SUV and drone to keep documenting the destruction.
 
ooze said:
His name is Maxim Dondyuk. I saw the same photos on his IG feed. Last he was asking/looking for an SUV and drone to keep documenting the destruction.
Click to expand...

Last year, I ran into a pro photog covering an event with his D700, a Panasonic G9 and Fuji X100 (I think the S version). The D700 was his main camera and he was still very happy with it. He had considered moving to Nikon Z or Panasonic S cameras, but the relative lack of lenses and their high prices made it prohibitive. If 12mp works for you, stick with it.

I just looked up Maxim's IG, it is very powerful series of images with descriptive explanations. His work is amazing and I'm in awe of the people who have the bravery to remain and document these events.
 
ooze said:
His name is Maxim Dondyuk. I saw the same photos on his IG feed. Last he was asking/looking for an SUV and drone to keep documenting the destruction.
Click to expand...

Thank you, ooze. He deserved to be named but my memory failed me at the time I posted.
 
Megapixels are important because they are useful in ways other than increased print sizes or cropping.

For sensors, data information content is the primary factor that affects perceived, technical image quality. Information theory shows sensor resolution (photo-site density) is one of two sensor characteristics that limit data information content. The other factor is the analog signal-to noise ratio before signal digitization.

Separately, increasing sensor pixel density decreases image aliasing artifact levels.

The M11 is one of the few consumer cameras that supports automated, sensor, photo-site binning. A photographer can decide if sensor resolution or sensor sensitivity is a priority during data acquisition. When lens optics, depth of field requirements (optical diffraction), shutter-times (camera motion, subject motion) or lack of subject detail limit resolution, invoking the sensor's photo-site binning feature can increase analog signal-to noise ratio. When print size, cropping flexibility or making full use of lens resolution 60 MP means perceived, technical, image quality can be up to 2.5 times greater compared to the M10.

The M11's cost or implementation of menus, features and controls could be unreasonable. But the M11 sensor's photo-site density can maximize image quality in two different ways.
 
Bill Pierce said:
... The most prominent new feature of the M11 is the 60 megapixel sensor, a sensor that allows big prints and/or cropping plus the potential to take advantage of lenses like the new Apo lenses ability to resolve fine detail. Indeed, in order to take advantage of the sensor you are going to have to have very good lenses. But, the combination of 60 mg sensor and the best of lenses is going to be demanding on more than just lenses. You will need to shoot at quite high shutter speeds or use a tripod. ...

... I'm not quite sure what the M11 is. If somebody does, I would really like to hear from them. Yes, really... Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
IMHO, the M10 was a huge step forward in Leica's vision of the digital M camera. I would view the M11 as much a leap forward if Leica had figured out a way to integrate IBIS. As you rightly point out, without IBIS you are limited, unless you use a tripod, in getting the resolution advantage when using slower shutter speeds (even 1/250 is probably pushing it).

So - setting the $9,000 price tag aside - until Leica figures out a way to integrate IBIS into their hi-res M bodies, I'll be content using my M10-P utilizing stitching, layering, and the "Enhance" option in PS.
 
Key question to me is whether rangefinder focus accuracy can be good enough for a high MPx body with a great lens. I'm tempted to trust more in mirrorless sensor-based AF, but I don't have comparative data. Can anybody comment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top