ptpdprinter
Mentor
Film enthusiasts often claim that film has greater resolution than digital. Claims of film resolution have increased as sensor resolution has increased making it impossible for digital sensors to ever catch up. I don't doubt that film enthusiasts will claim that film resolution exceeds the resolution of the 60MP sensor in the M11. Maybe they are right, but I have to ask: how come film enthusiasts never ask whether rangefinder accuracy can be good enough for film with a great lens?
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
That's nonsense! Maybe if you're talking about large format film, then okay. But all other things being equal, the sharpest 35mm transparency film cannot out-resolve a 35mm format 24 megapixel sensor.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Well, supposedly Adox CMS II in 35mm format (admittedly not transparency film) has a claim of being a 400 megapixel equivalent:
https://www.analog.cafe/r/409200000-pixels-with-adox-cms-20-ii-c4k6
But, personally, I don’t care. At 16MP or 24MP with a Fuji X-system camera (not a rangefinder, admittedly either), it’s freaking more than good enough for me. That’s my personal subjective assessment of what I need from an image. I refuse to pixel peep or think that some unique hue from a 4-billion hue color palette from a ginormous sensor is going to make my photo better from an aesthetic perspective.
As well as... "The challenge of working with this film is managing its extremely high contrast and miserable dynamic range when developed in standard black and white chemicals at box speed. Usable contrast levels can be achieved when the film is shot and developed at 3 or 6 ASA/ISO, according to Adox."
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Sure - it’s not general purpose film and requires special processing to get a good tonal range. But my point was that it can offer high resolution in that case and it’s not nonsense. I’ve used Kodak Tech Pan developed in Technodol to get a very nice tonal range for landscape photos. It was as ISO 12 or so, but with a tripod, so what.
Maybe some people need 60 MP or can make use of it. For others, maybe 36 or 24 or 16 or less is good enough. For others though, it’s just measurebating.
I guess theoretically there is film that is super high resolution compared to todays top digital cameras, but when that film is not going to be used by the average film camera user, it is not a great comparison. That said, I did learn something from your post and thank you for that. It is also great that we have so many choices to fit everyone’s needs.
Hilmersen
Established
The film isn't made to be developed in standard developer, so I really do not see the problem. This is like saying that the raw-files from M11 aren't useable because you cannot open them in "MS paintbrush".....
I didnât have a problem with the developer part. I see it more like using a digital camera that only has iso 3 or 6 in order to get to 400mp. That is more of my point. Most people do not want to use a film with that rating. There is no problem, he did prove there are extremely high res films in 35mm. I just think the practicality is not there.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I don't know about that. I've used 6 ISO duplicating film a few times; it's a niche, but it's definitely a lot more viable than you'd think. And yes, the resolution is RIDICULOUS.
George. by Tony Gale, on Flickr
This was shot handheld, would you believe. And not even wide open - f/2.8 at 1/60 with a Summicron on a IIIg.
Yeah, you can't run and gun with it, and it's definitely useless on a dim day without a tripod, but it's definitely still a "practical" option if you're willing to work with it.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
So, is the rangefinder focusing up to the task?
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I know you're joking, but personally, I know I'm far more accurate with a high-mag Barnack rangefinder than I am with an SLR, focus peaking, or autofocus. I'm sure if I was using a .58 M-mount camera I'd struggle a lot more, though.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Yep, I tend to agree with you. Certainly better than an MF slr for me. Af on my last slr was hit and miss. Af on mirrorless can be good if you get the focus point right, but that’s time consuming and focus/magnified live view likewise.
there’s a lot to be said for a ‘simple’ rf patch
I did not say it was not viable (capable of working successfully; feasible.)... just that most film users do not do it (note I said most, not all). That is a fact.
Archiver
Mentor
Since shooting fast moving combat sports like boxing for the past few years, I've found that my ability to focus a 35mm f1.4 wide open on the M9 is adequate for the job, and that autofocus with even fairly recent cameras like the Panasonic G9 and S5 are more likely to miss. And forget about manually focusing with focus peaking for high speed sports, that's a real crapshoot at my current skill level. The only AF options that I think would be up to the task are pro level Sony, Canon and Nikon bodies.
cboy
Well-known
The M11 is more like a M10.5 since the new features hasn't been integrated wholly to the system. Case in point the awkward digital crop at 1.3x and 1.8x (it's no coincidence the same digital crop as the fpL Sony sensor) is not wholly integrated to the rangefinder. The crop framelines remain unchanged with same combined framelines as the M10. Surely one would expect that the framelines should change to accommodate, be it digital framelines if the current rangefinder tech can't make this provision. But instead one needs to use the new viewfinder or the LCD to use this option; further removing it from the core rangefinder functionality. This add-on capability is merely extending the functionality of the M/ APO M lenses been marketed as a 3 in 1 edc (triple resolution), rather innovating older and newer tech together
Imo I find this M iteration somewhat unfinished but necessary to keep with the 4-5yr product schedule.
But hey the rushed product cycle might be a thing of the past since the chip shortages and inflation are putting prices up; notwithstanding Leicas almost yearly price hike. News in of Sony is likely to increase prices up 3-31% as of April...
Perhaps a good thing as this consumerist mentality of photography shoved down our necks in is not so helpful in finding meaning in our photographs.
Or perhaps the best way to describe the M11 is that it trying towards a psuedo compact medium format.
Imo I find this M iteration somewhat unfinished but necessary to keep with the 4-5yr product schedule.
But hey the rushed product cycle might be a thing of the past since the chip shortages and inflation are putting prices up; notwithstanding Leicas almost yearly price hike. News in of Sony is likely to increase prices up 3-31% as of April...
Perhaps a good thing as this consumerist mentality of photography shoved down our necks in is not so helpful in finding meaning in our photographs.
Or perhaps the best way to describe the M11 is that it trying towards a psuedo compact medium format.
580/Q
200 frames a day
Bill,
I think these things (M11 et al) have become, in and of themselves, tautological objects. They exist because of the existence of the technology that they are made of. I know that sounds circular but I know of a lot of pros and amateurs alike that are using 12 to 24 mp cameras to great effect.
Doubtless so will a lot of pros and amateurs use insane resolutions to great effect - the medium format folks have been doing it for years!
But the point, for me, is, it no longer matters. What ever one uses, one will be constrained by the device, whether it is a paint brush or a camera. Whether it is not enough resolution or too much resolution. I fell away from the rangefinder after the M6 and fell back to the form factor around the Fuji X100 after a decade or so with SLRs.
I think the M11 matters to some and not to others. Sort of like the Oscars. Or designer handbags, a certain brand of car, whiskey, bespoke vs off the rack, etc., etc.,...
Quite apart from the technical image quality and the "what is it" question, is the cost. It's madness. I'm not poverty stricken by any means but I can't fathom spending that kind of money on what seems like a liability given "digital rot" and how much it might mean if it gets dropped...
I think these things (M11 et al) have become, in and of themselves, tautological objects. They exist because of the existence of the technology that they are made of. I know that sounds circular but I know of a lot of pros and amateurs alike that are using 12 to 24 mp cameras to great effect.
Doubtless so will a lot of pros and amateurs use insane resolutions to great effect - the medium format folks have been doing it for years!
But the point, for me, is, it no longer matters. What ever one uses, one will be constrained by the device, whether it is a paint brush or a camera. Whether it is not enough resolution or too much resolution. I fell away from the rangefinder after the M6 and fell back to the form factor around the Fuji X100 after a decade or so with SLRs.
I think the M11 matters to some and not to others. Sort of like the Oscars. Or designer handbags, a certain brand of car, whiskey, bespoke vs off the rack, etc., etc.,...
Quite apart from the technical image quality and the "what is it" question, is the cost. It's madness. I'm not poverty stricken by any means but I can't fathom spending that kind of money on what seems like a liability given "digital rot" and how much it might mean if it gets dropped...
ptpdprinter
Mentor
The M11 is not a tautological object. The M11 exists not because of the existence of the technology it is made of, but because Leica thought that some people would like to buy a rangefinder camera with a 60MP sensor for a whole host of reasons, and they could make some money selling them. If Leica thought that no one would buy an M11, they wouldn't have made it regardless of the available technology. Who cares if other photographers are using 12 to 24 megapixel cameras? Who cares if you can't fathom spending that kind of money on a camera because you might drop it? Neither you nor the photographers using 12 to 24 megapixel cameras are part of the equation. If you don't want one, don't buy one. Do you think everything you don't want to buy is a tautological object?
60mp is good for a 24x36" print at around 300DPI. That is hardly insane resolution. It is a normal print size for galleries and museums whom often go a lot bigger than this size. And the fact in can be in such a small camera now when in the past you had to carry a lot heavier equipment... how is that bad? The only question a potential buyer should be asking themselves is if THEY need it, not if anyone needs it. If you do not need it, then why would you be upset? Congratulations, you can buy a cheaper model! However, clearly, someone can use it. Leica knows because they deal with artists that can use it. Let's remember, pros come in all forms... Pro simply means you earn your living from photography. Some pros might not need more than 12mp because they are not printing large. That's ok. However, if you want to print large, 60mp just makes it a bit more fool proof.
580/Q
200 frames a day
Easy there, fella. I think you misunderstood. Or, more likely, my thoughts were not clearly expressed. My apologies if that's the case. But I'm detecting some heat in your response, and I'd like to diffuse that.
Bill asked for our thoughts. And I gave a response.
All technology is tautological.
All throughout recorded history, technology has shown no evidence of human involvement. Its capability grows exponentially regardless of human participation (Kurzweil et al). "Tautology" is a bit of a linguistic stretch, I'll admit, but "it is because it is" fits from the view that all tools exist, and they increase in capability and complexity and cost until there is no need for the tool -- because it has been replaced by another, which is really just the evolution of the technology without evidence of human interaction. The use of the tool is another matter entirely, which shows all the evidence of human interaction.
So then, the technology versus why or why not people choose a particular example of that technology are two separate things. A billboard, album cover, 6-foot wide platinum print, shot on 35mm film with an M6 on Velvia or any other stock will look different than if shot on an M11, or a Hasselblad digital back, or a Fuji X100 or a view camera. All tools constrain the user one way or the other. A chrome in 135 is limited by the format, emulsion, lens, etc., and the M11 is perhaps limited by lens, sensor size, need for a tripod, etc., (We can talk about the original ethos of the "small negative big print" concept being abandoned by Leica and Bill touches on that, but that is another discussion: one of applicability.) Ultimately, the choice is the photographer's. For personal choices that relate to the variation in experience. Their choice. Not yours, not mine. Hence my reference to 12-24 mp cameras. You're right: who cares, indeed?
Back to the specific technology in Bill's original post. .
So now you have a camera that demands lenses of even greater LPI. That's great! Eventually the lenses will be driven to standards that we can't even imagine and, in order to produce a market they will have to be priced so that we won't have to go to a lens rental outfit to use one like we do for cine lenses. This will drive design/manufacturing processes to far exceed the current standard. Sensors will eventually become as capable as the human eye with multiple ISO values in different areas of the sensor.
I most emphatically did not rule out people using it and making money with it. Or using it simply because they want to make photographs with it. Or simply obtaining one because they want to say they own an M11. I don't care. When I did this for a living in the late 70's to early 90's the ROI was always a factor. And, we spent a lot of money. If the M11 works for you, please buy it. That's the camera you should use. Use it. That's the camera for you!
As an aside, I'm not afraid of dropping anything. Quite the opposite. And, I've dropped everything - it's a natural occurrence if you are "active" with a camera. To paraphrase JSRockit, my life is far too rugged for an M11. It's not too rugged for an M3 or a D3 and and the Fuji gear that gets used a lot lately is easy to protect yet access. Further aside, I have zero faith in Leica's support post-purchase-- that's from personal experience. Again, a different discussion.
All technology is tautological when viewed from that perspective. Whether I purchase a specific piece or not is irrelevant. It is simply not a factor. I simply obtain the technology that is required to accomplish the task. There was no implication otherwise.
The M11 is way past good enough for most applications that a miniature-format camera is suitable for. "Most", being the operative word. What other people do is their business.
Best,
Shane
Archlich
Well-known
Leica will have no problem procuring like a M11-E with 24MP. And I say it really is on the horizon to fill each segment with different offerings so all of us can be happy.
Still remember the day Sony NEX-7 came out, an APS-C camera with 24MP. Seemed insane when we were still defending the D700's 12MP being "sufficient for any use". Far have we came.
Still remember the day Sony NEX-7 came out, an APS-C camera with 24MP. Seemed insane when we were still defending the D700's 12MP being "sufficient for any use". Far have we came.