Leica s Sensor Strategy ???

[jrp]

The other obvious point is that those who print pictures, and so need the resolution, are in a significant minority.

I remember the extra care that was required when shooting to get from 12Mpx to 24Mpx, less than a decade ago. A 36+Mpx camera really needs a tripod, unless you also have IBIS or OIS (and the latter leads to lower image quality any way) and processing larger than 24Mpx files on the road is impractical, if running the laptop on battery.

For street / walkabout, the SL is ideal as it provides a choice between the heavier flexible lenses with AF, or the light M lenses. In both cases they provide great image quality, particularly considering the weight. Being able to use Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses also helps. I am not sure that the primes for the SL are going to help me if they are going to be heavy, although the Summicrons are supposed to have even better image quality.

For me a bit more dynamic range, and better low light performance would be more valuable than more Mpx.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Marc,

I am not talking about acuity, but about avoidance of fake detail.

This is really simple, if the lens projects an image detail that is smaller than the pixel it cannot be resolved properly. Let's think about a cable against dark background. A good lens may project an image which is about 5 micron wide. The cable is reflecting white, but the that white light may hit a red, blue or green pixel. A demosaicer cannot handle it correctly. I am living at the seashore, and I see that effect all the time on sailboat rigs with the P45+, but the A7rII is not immune either.

The Leica M8 has essentially same sensor as the M9, but cropped down to 1.3X crop. So aliasing on the M9 and the M8 would be the same, when using same lens at same distance.

The M (typ 240) has microlenses that mitigate the problem to some extent.

Here is another example, shot on the P45+:

Thanks Erik.

Unfortunately your sample comparison is a little flawed. There is an obvious lighting difference between the two images ... especially hitting the sign.

BTW, I am not arguing that certain combinations do not produce better acuity ... I'm saying that in many cases, for many people, acuity is not the driving force of their imagery.

However, even using your notion that "more is better", I've had experiences with CCD crop frame sensors (Leica M8) which for all practical purposes out-performed modern FF CMOS sensors with 4X the resolution in terms of "image qualities" (as opposed to pure image quality)

Here is a hand-held M8 casual snap-shot (no big deal), which printed flawlessly to 21.5" high on a 17"X22" paper for our Christmas party that year. This was shot in 2008 and I'd speculate that my current wonder-camera couldn't express it any better.

View attachment 122591

Back to the subject ... some people approach photography with an artistic mindset and some approach it in a more technical manner. Technical matters seem to dominate these days of constant change ... perhaps to the detriment of individual creative development?

I can't recall the famous photographer who commented on all the technocratic photographers who prattled on and on about this minutia verses that new gadget, and never moved forward ... (notably while he soldiered on with his old gear and made images that altered how people saw the world forever.

As usual, to each their own.

- Marc

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Marc,

I am not talking about acuity, but about avoidance of fake detail.

This is really simple, if the lens projects an image detail that is smaller than the pixel it cannot be resolved properly. Let's think about a cable against dark background. A good lens may project an image which is about 5 micron wide. The cable is reflecting white, but the that white light may hit a red, blue or green pixel. A demosaicer cannot handle it correctly. I am living at the seashore, and I see that effect all the time on sailboat rigs with the P45+, but the A7rII is not immune either.

The Leica M8 has essentially same sensor as the M9, but cropped down to 1.3X crop. So aliasing on the M9 and the M8 would be the same, when using same lens at same distance.

The M (typ 240) has microlenses that mitigate the problem to some extent by using more of an area sampling than point sampling.

Here is another example, shot on the P45+:
View attachment 122597

It shows extensive moiré on the George Washington portrait, but if you look at the 'E' within the red frame you can see that the hatch pattern is not resolved but replace with a lower frequency hatch pattern. This is a case of monochrome aliasing and it cannot be removed.

The image below is shot on the Alpha 77 having 3.8 micron pixels, with same focal length and shooting distance.

That image has none to very little aliasing and it resolves the hatch pattern on the 'E'.

Now, the aliasing on the P45+ is caused by the pretty sharp lens out resolving the sensor. We can reduce the resolution of the lens by stopping down to f/16 and let diffraction play it's part. We can apply quite a bit more sharpening to get back acuity, but we cannot really restore detail. (*)



So, why don't we see this that often? I don't know. In my medium format work it used to be an iissue, mostly seen on sailboat rigs against dark background, rippled water and naked tree-tops. Fine detail that approaches sensor resolution. If you take macro shots of that 1$ bill you would not see any of that, as the sensor resolves all detail. These shots were taken 50X focal length.

Using small apertures, like f/16 pretty much eliminates the problem, focusing errors and camera vibrations may play their part.

My argument is mostly that a good lens needs a matching sensor.

Nothing of this is new, the basic theory was developed by Harry Nyquist in the 1928. It is extremely well known.

This video discusses it in some detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrW-8u2ukbk&ab_channel=ArthurHakhverdian

The video is about motion, but the problem is essentially the same in stills.

Best regards
Erik

(*) It could be argued that detail below the extinction frequency can be resolved using adequate sharpening.

Thanks Erik.

Unfortunately your sample comparison is a little flawed. There is an obvious lighting difference between the two images ... especially hitting the sign.

BTW, I am not arguing that certain combinations do not produce better acuity ... I'm saying that in many cases, for many people, acuity is not the driving force of their imagery.

However, even using your notion that "more is better", I've had experiences with CCD crop frame sensors (Leica M8) which for all practical purposes out-performed modern FF CMOS sensors with 4X the resolution in terms of "image qualities" (as opposed to pure image quality)

Here is a hand-held M8 casual snap-shot (no big deal), which printed flawlessly to 21.5" high on a 17"X22" paper for our Christmas party that year. This was shot in 2008 and I'd speculate that my current wonder-camera couldn't express it any better.


Back to the subject ... some people approach photography with an artistic mindset and some approach it in a more technical manner. Technical matters seem to dominate these days of constant change ... perhaps to the detriment of individual creative development?

I can't recall the famous photographer who commented on all the technocratic photographers who prattled on and on about this minutia verses that new gadget, and never moved forward ... (notably while he soldiered on with his old gear and made images that altered how people saw the world forever.

As usual, to each their own.

- Marc

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Marc,

I don't think that art and knowledge contradicts each other. Just for instance, Ansel Adams used to be a great artist but he was also deeply knowledgeable about technology like characteristics of developers and sensivity curves of paper and film. All the well known Zone System was based on that.

Personally, I never stated I was a great artist. Some of my photography is here: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/ those images are decorating our offices.

I am an engineer for living and my photography is decidedly uncommercial. Being an engineer it is natural for me to look into why things are and who things work. So I have learned a few things since back in 1970 I got my first SLR.

Most folks in science feel that knowledge is worthwhile to share. And just to say, without sharing knowledge we would not have any photographic gear at all.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Erik.

Back to the subject ... some people approach photography with an artistic mindset and some approach it in a more technical manner. Technical matters seem to dominate these days of constant change ... perhaps to the detriment of individual creative development?

I can't recall the famous photographer who commented on all the technocratic photographers who prattled on and on about this minutia verses that new gadget, and never moved forward ... (notably while he soldiered on with his old gear and made images that altered how people saw the world forever.

As usual, to each their own.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

Thanks for your sharing Erik, and I sincerely mean that. Discussing the science of photography is obviously valuable, and essential if one even wants to make an image.

I do recall being fascinated by how Life Magazine's technical department created devices to accomplish a staff photographer's vision. It was science in the service of creativity.

However, the question that this thread brings to light is how deeply one needs to know the science behind something, verses being aware of the results enough to weigh it against creative objectives and personal techniques used to accomplish those objectives?

Setting aside marketing reasons, did Leica have to increase meg count for most real world applications, or were they be better served improving other areas of performance? For some reason they have chosen to not participate in the meg wars, and have been criticized for retaining a 37 meg S sensor and introducing a 24 meg SL, in the face of much higher meg MFD sensors and 36, 43 or 50 meg 35mm sensors. Previous posts on this thread indicate varying opinions which depend greatly on the photographers creative objectives.

The art verses science debate:

Ansel Adams is always trotted out in these sorts of discussions because he was a pioneer in grasping the science of photography, and to many was also a great artist. In the days of film and dark room work, I learned a lot from attending his lectures, talking with him personally, and using his books. But once I achieved the understanding I needed, I moved on to other aspects of photography as an expressive tool.

My point is that most accomplished photographers have enough understanding of how it works ... it is a means to an end, not the end itself (unless you are a mechanical or optical engineer actually designing this stuff).

So, when I do more advanced seminars, I tend to focus on helping people grow their creative perspectives, and assume they grasp the mechanics either by study, and/or actual intuitive experience.

What often amazes me is the amount of photographers who adhere to the science so doggedly they stifle their own growth creatively. They are the ones who ask me how I technically accomplished something as opposed to those who ask how the hell I thought of that idea. It is as if creativity is a direct result of better science. IMO, this mentality fuels the leap from one Lilly pad to the next in the search of the Holy Grail, where more is better and so will my photos.

It is tantamount to some bystander at a shoot quipping "That is a nice camera! You must take great photos", which I'm sure many of us have heard.

How this relates to the subject of this thread is quite clear to me. Some photographers find the S and SL more than enough for their creative objectives and how they go about making images, (I'm one of them). The S change from CCD to CMOS brought a few improvements and expansions in ISO which some desired, (I'm not one of them). As far as the S is concerned, I suppose it depends on whether you see it as a scaled down MF camera or an up-sized 35mm DSLR. I subscribe to the latter over the former. More meg would just make it even harder to use in certain circumstances.

It's all an act of illusion anyway ... well discussed in my good friend Irakly Shanidze's recent book in which which I wrote an endorsement for him. As a trained scientist, Irakly understands the science a lot more than most, but is far more focused on creative expression which his work clearly demonstrates.


https://www.amazon.com/Photography-...92380&sr=8-1&keywords=book+by+Irakly+Shanidze


- Marc

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

This assumes that one strives for acuity at the expense of character. Selecting a lens for how it renders is a subjective call made by the artist. Some lenses, but not many, deliver both.

Likewise, a sensor that delivers the least noise may not be the objective of all photographic endeavors. There is a whole world of images were striving for measurable perfection is not the primary goal ... content and character is.

For example, one of my favorite cameras was the Leica M9 which I deliberately shot at ISO 640 in all forms of light. I liked the noise structure of the M9 @ 640 when I made prints. It was similar to the character of film in how it rendered.

Personally, I've always prized what images subjectively look like creatively over whether they meet certain photo nerd criteria. This extends to whole systems where "like/dislike" of results in the aggregate is based primarily on some form of consistent success to my eye. Intuitive, holistic reaction weighs far heavier than analytical study of the parts.

I'm not knocking opposing points of view, I deal in acuity when doing certain commercial assignments, so I get it. I just do not think it is the primary driver of photography as a whole.

Similar in thought is the choice of systems which match creative objectives. For example, if one is interested in decisive moment images which strive to utilize the unique quality of still photography as freezing incredibly small slivers of time, then less responsive tools are not desirable.

In many respects, Leica has adhered to "look" over "prevailing specifications".

If Leica were to submit to the Sony Borg, it would be a sad day IMHO.


- Marc

As technology makes progress on a day to day basis, this is an important discussion that is all too often forgotten or even avoided. With all their technological marvel, fantastic DR, high ISO capabilities and corner to corner sharpness, much of the test winning camera gear available these days deliver perfection at the cost of character and attractive rendering. With dpreview ruling the photographic world, this is an understandable development. Camera and lens manufacturers do after all have to make money from the mainstream markets. Luckily, there are still suppliers like Leica and Zeiss, and also some interesting Asian startups, who understand that photography does not equal reading MTF charts.

I'll choose a portrait shot with a great lens on 35mm Tri-X any day over that ultra sharp, noise free and super boring result that many of the current super cameras and lenses offer. If I could afford Leica, the M9 would be the most likely candidate, but since I can't, I've dusted off the D2Xs and F6 plus some ancient lenses from yesteryear. It's very satisfactory, as were the monies I received when I sold the D700 and D810

 

[Paratom]

Funny, I just did exactly the same thing, using the same reasoning...rather than "beta test" the M10. Headed to Santa Fe next week for some R&R - just me and the new 262.

So far I really enjoy it. The lighter weight, the even simpler menues, and the quiet shutter. (I like M anyways)

 

[Paratom]

As technology makes progress on a day to day basis, this is an important discussion that is all too often forgotten or even avoided. With all their technological marvel, fantastic DR, high ISO capabilities and corner to corner sharpness, much of the test winning camera gear available these days deliver perfection at the cost of character and attractive rendering. With dpreview ruling the photographic world, this is an understandable development. Camera and lens manufacturers do after all have to make money from the mainstream markets. Luckily, there are still suppliers like Leica and Zeiss, and also some interesting Asian startups, who understand that photography does not equal reading MTF charts.

I'll choose a portrait shot with a great lens on 35mm Tri-X any day over that ultra sharp, noise free and super boring result that many of the current super cameras and lenses offer. If I could afford Leica, the M9 would be the most likely candidate, but since I can't, I've dusted off the D2Xs and F6 plus some ancient lenses from yesteryear. It's very satisfactory, as were the monies I received when I sold the D700 and D810

I also agree that just looking at the technical numbers and 100% crops doesnt lead to anything.
IMO it is most important to look at real world images. In this regard, when I browse through my images from last year I often find images from the S stand out, also images from the M with the 50APO stand out (for my eyes). Thats what counts for me, besides if I enjoy using a camera, if I feel a camera is an "extension" of my hand or if it feels like a "difficult" tool. Best thing if I can forget the camera and just focus my mind on the subject.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I also agree that just looking at the technical numbers and 100% crops doesnt lead to anything.
IMO it is most important to look at real world images. In this regard, when I browse through my images from last year I often find images from the S stand out, also images from the M with the 50APO stand out (for my eyes). Thats what counts for me, besides if I enjoy using a camera, if I feel a camera is an "extension" of my hand or if it feels like a "difficult" tool. Best thing if I can forget the camera and just focus my mind on the subject.

The 50 APO seems to be an outstanding lens, and it should be, given the price and the fact that Leica markets it with formulations like "The world’s sharpest standard lens" and "Highest performance and unique design". If somebody gave me a red one and a suitable body, I'd promise not to buy any more photo gear for the rest of my life :lecture:

 

[airfrogusmc]

For the few Leica fan boys left .....whats up with Leica s sensor strategy ? Rumors about a new Leica M10 all point to using the same 24MP sensor as the SL and Q . While this may be great in getting higher volume purchases of sensors .....it doesn t seem a compelling (to upgrade) improvement.

Much was expressed about Leica s choice of 24MP for the SL which was a often speculated as “necessary to avoid competition with the S “. Don t get me wrong I have the M240,SL,Q and they all produce terrific image quality at 24MP but they are not better than my Nikon D810 and probably my Nikon D5 (20MP) .

The S 007 was a disappointment to most all my friends that use the S system. How could they not increase the MP ?

I do appreciate that its not all about how many pixels the sensor has ......fat pixels can produce very special results . But you only have to look at the files from the new Phase 100MP system to see the advantage . (I do realize that the physical size of the sensor also plays into the image quality ).

Leica appears to have created a “log jam” in there sensor progression ......S (37.5) ,SL,Q,M (24) .

Before its asked (Do you really need more megapixels ? ) yes if they can improve the image quality ,allow greater flexibility in cropping and support printing large . AND Leica needs a bigger better story to convince photographers to upgrade .

Maybe this is a RANT and not so much of a question .......

I dunno the original MM at 18MPs is compared to a 36MP color camera and the new MM is compared to a 48MP camera.

My M 262 is plenty of MPs for what I do and I'm a full time working pro.

 

[algrove]

The MP discussion to me is dependent on what one does with your images. Do you often crop? 24MP for web images is mostly overkill. However a 24MP sensor can have its limitations for those who regularly print larger than say 16x20 or 17x22 expecially if sizeable crops are often made. Often times I crop a lot once home when I see something that I missed while capturing an image and/or where I should have been closer to the main subject or used a longer lens.

IMHO those that do not print and only use the web or monitor for viewing/posting images do not need FF nor high MP cameras.

 

[Godfrey]

The 50 APO seems to be an outstanding lens, and it should be, given the price and the fact that Leica markets it with formulations like "The world’s sharpest standard lens" and "Highest performance and unique design". If somebody gave me a red one and a suitable body, I'd promise not to buy any more photo gear for the rest of my life :lecture:

heh heh heh ... One of those would look so nice on my M-D body. :toocool:
Sadly, the 50APO is about three Trump Towers above my current pay grade.

G

 

[Shashin]

The MP discussion to me is dependent on what one does with your images. Do you often crop? 24MP for web images is mostly overkill. However a 24MP sensor can have its limitations for those who regularly print larger than say 16x20 or 17x22 expecially if sizeable crops are often made. Often times I crop a lot once home when I see something that I missed while capturing an image and/or where I should have been closer to the main subject or used a longer lens.

IMHO those that do not print and only use the web or monitor for viewing/posting images do not need FF nor high MP cameras.

I have made great 60x40 inch exhibition prints from 24 mp files. I do not see a limitation to print size.

 

[uhoh7]

Basically for FF like M today there are three state of the art sensor flavors, not counting monochrome.

1) the 24 which we see in the M and A7ii and SL. Great all around. Not going to clog your machine and plenty rez for all but the hugest prints or smallest crops.

2) the 42ish, like A7rii. I include all the highest rez here, like the Canon 50mp etc. I'm shooting this sensor this week on the RX1rii and it is incredible I must admit. Uncompressed RAWS are 80mp but you can't believe the flexibility with highlights and shadows etc. This really should be an option for future M cameras. Why not, if you already have choices like monochrome? Put a grand premium on that version to finance the extra work in setting it up.

3) the 12mp high ISO sensor, like A7s and Nikon DF. These, I feel, are a critical option in the future, and a low light M would put the camera in more professional bags.

One M body (we need another smaller one too) and three color sensor choices.

As to how far behind Leica is.....I still find the 18mp M9 files extremely clean, they edit well, and good to 800 ISO:


L1055981-2 by unoh7, 135 Elmarit WO ISO 800

At base ISO they are better than my Sony 24mp.

The MP count of a sensor is only one parameter, and it's value is situational. Beyond that, you've got the Lens factor. Sony is shedding users right now for that reason, and many are flying to the new Fuji XT-2 with APS-C, for a less quirky better design, consistent lens manufacture, and better JPGs


3 by unoh7, on Flickr

the one on the left is the best

I hope Leica is not making choices for fear of competing with their MF line. Not smart, since it's a whole other flavor, and often big pixels are better than smaller ones

I suppose a mirrorless S model would not be considered because it would compete with the SL? The new Fuji MF is going to add some pressure there, but again, Leica has the glass like nobody else, at both sensor sizes.

I just wish there was some more Barnack in the current Leica thinking. A very small tough M back in addition to the classic M6 style would be so useful and might not be so expensive to make with far eastern resources.

PS: the real "threat" to S:
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/17/fuji-gfx-50s-shooting-handheld-medium-format-mirrorless/

and speaking of Barnack it's worth a mention: what it the most powerful FF platform for 35mm FL?


L1055951 by unoh7, on Flickr

Nothing can best this little thing right now, not the A7rii, because it does not have a 35 option which can compete with the lens on the RXrii. Sensors are the same. Has plenty of handling and design flaws but goes in your pocket and will beat every other FF body in the world at this FL.

Even has a Leica price

 

[glenerrolrd]

My POV is that the MPS are an important part of the capture quality possible in an image . The pixel quality,sensor filtering/macro lenses ,in camera processing and post processing conversion and profiling are all important . All of these need to work together to create the best possible capture quality .

No place do I know a more complete solution that the Phase One XF/100MP system . I use this as a benchmark of possible performance ....not as the end all system for it has tremendous trade offs in size,weight,cost and skills required to get the best . Its not for me or for most any of us on this thread ....just too much for both our needs and such a huge commitment of time and money . But in discussion of image quality its a good reference .

As a point of reference I grew up in the printing industry and my fathers clients printed the Linholf calendars and the Hasselblad moon walk ....so I feel pretty certain I know exceptional image quality when I see it . I ve also printed extensively both analog and digital .

One thing that has stayed consistent is that the larger(dimensions not MP) the sensor (used to be negative), the better the image quality . This shows up in tone separation as well as the ability to make enlargements .

Certainly the MP are important if you are making very large prints ...but it can be argued that few really do make very large prints . I find that its more than just large prints that benefit from higher MPs (all other factors being balanced ) .

I have taken the same subject ..The South Florida Fair in West Palm Beach with three different systems . The Leica S2 (37.5 CCD) ,the M 240 (24 CMOS) and the D800E /D810 (36MP CMOS) . For the Nikon system I converted 6 Leica R lenses (19 thru 100) using the Leitax mounts . So I would say the lenses were all Leica and evenly matched . The S system images where noticeably better image quality ...visible at MBP screen size ....the Nikon captures where not quite as good and relied a little more on image contrast to render fine details and the M 240 while excellent was a notch down . The aesthetics where different and the sensor size and MPs contribute to their uniqueness. (All three systems where custom profiled using a Passport color checker and processed in LR ). The M is a heck of a lot more fun to use than the S or the D810 ...especially if you work with two bodies out like I do.

If you haven t take a look at some of digillyods high resolution tests ..be sure to set the DL site to provide a retina presentation . Take a look at the Phase one website for the 100MP .

In the end its of course what works for your type of photography and really what pleases you . So if 24 MPs is enough for your work ...then its enough .

 

[airfrogusmc]

The MP discussion to me is dependent on what one does with your images. Do you often crop? 24MP for web images is mostly overkill. However a 24MP sensor can have its limitations for those who regularly print larger than say 16x20 or 17x22 expecially if sizeable crops are often made. Often times I crop a lot once home when I see something that I missed while capturing an image and/or where I should have been closer to the main subject or used a longer lens.

IMHO those that do not print and only use the web or monitor for viewing/posting images do not need FF nor high MP cameras.

It's not a photograph until its printed. My last exhibit where all 18 X 12 prints. Most of what i shoot professionally is also printed. I have some images in a stairway of a hospital client of mine that are 36 X 54 and they are really stunning. And I crop but I do try and get it right in camera. It's a rangefinder so there is usually a little cropping most of the time.

 

[D&A]

I think we can all agree that the number of pixels required to print very large (greater that 36" on the short side), is also dependant on the subject matter being photographed. Back in 1999/2000, I printed a 24x36" print from the original Nikon D1 (2.7mp), which was a close up portrait. With careful handling of the file with the somewhat crude post processing software available back then, it printed up beautifully. Even back then I was extremely critical and examined the entire print at very close range.

If I tried doing the same but with a complex, distant landscape that had tons of minute detail and printed as large with that D1, it would have been a major fail using my criteria of what is acceptable in a print that large and views with a critical eye.

So when we judge if we have enough pixels to print large, among various criteria, subject matter is paramount, so generalizations are difficult.

Dave (D&A)

 

[vieri]

I think we can all agree that the number of pixels required to print very large (greater that 36" on the short side), is also dependant on the subject matter being photographed. Back in 1999/2000, I printed a 24x36" print from the original Nikon D1 (2.7mp), which was a close up portrait. With careful handling of the file with the somewhat crude oost processing software available back then, it printed up beautifully. Wven back then I was extremely critical and examined the entire print at very close range.

If I tried doing the same but with a complex, distant landscape that had tons of minute detail and printed as large with that D1, it would have been a major fail using my criteria of what is acceptable in a print that large and views with a critical eye.

So when we judge if we have enough pixels to print large, among criteria, subject matter is paramount, so generalizations are difficult.

Dave (D&A)

Dave,

this is a very good point, one that - while it might seem obvious - is often forgotten in discussions like this. I do landscape, so I have the good fortune of being able to frame exactly as I want about 90% of the times (sometimes cropping is made necessary by the geology of where I am together with the focal lengths I have in my bag). At the same time, however, I sell large Fine Art prints of my work. I understand that my needs are perhaps those of the 5% of camera users, if that; however, while by not cropping much I am able to use all the Mp that my cameras offer (M users need more cropping due to the RF non-perfect framing, this is why I don't use a M for my landscape work), I also welcome any extra Mp that I can get. For my work, 50-60 Mp would be the sweet spot; however, the S 007's 37.5 Mp combined with the great S glass do, for the moment being at least.

What is really needed, for my work, is serious long exposures in the S. I use the SL when I need to go longer than 1 minute, but I loose resolution in doing so, and 24 Mp is really at the lower limit of what I am comfortable with for my prints. So, as it has been said, Mp is just another parameter when choosing a camera system; a very important one, but not the be-all-end-all.

Best,

Vieri

 

[Shashin]

I print large, up to about 175x175 inches. There is no magic to printing large (there is skill, however). I have not found the type of subject is an issue. I have printed landscapes, portraits, microscopy images, and astronomical images from digital cameras and film scans of all formats and resolutions for museum exhibitions with picky clients. I still have yet to find any reason to say that print size is somehow limited.

 

[Speedgraphic]

AF Motors – Leica has said that it will replace the motors any time they fail. So that's a nonstarter in my book. Rarely do you see a manufacturer do anything like that these days.

Old Mirror Camera – I prefer an OVF as do others. I understand that Hasselblad's new X1D (is it even shipping yet?) has an EVF that isn't close to Leica's SL. Some of the forum posts say that its refresh rate isn't the best, isn't good, whatever. As for the Fuji, well, all I could find is that it comes with an "accessory EVF" that has "lots of resolution."

Last-Gen Sensor Performance – I guess you didn't bother to read the link in my post. That's too bad because I think it smacks down the idea that Fujifilm and Hasselblad have oh-so-much better sensors than Leica does. I couldn't even find any specs on the Fuji, except that it's supposed to have 51MP whenever it begins to ship. And 50MP v. 37MP? You should have read the article. Kudos to Leica for resisting the Sony Borg.

I really don't get all this criticism about cameras and manufacturers. Sell your stuff and buy something else. It actually is that easy.

Oh wow they replace the motors for free. I guess it's fine that you're without one of your uber expensive lenses for 3-6 months with no guarantee that it gets fixed. Check the Leica service thread on this very forum. The fact that they don't charge you for their shoddy construction is literally the least they can do.

You can't cite yourself when it comes to sensor performance and call it case closed. Fujifilm and Hasselblad DO have a better sensor in every visual and measurable way. I've used that sensor in a 645z. It's phenomenal and I can't wait to see what Fujifilm can do with it. They know a thing or two about color and their lenses are almost always world class.

The pixel count and refresh rate of the SL's EVF don't mean much when it has poor contrast, and you still have to zoom in for fine focus. The Fujifilm EVFs even with their lower tech specs offer more accurate color and a pretty wonderful magnification. I haven't used Hasselblad's so I have no idea, but I'd rather use the XT2 EVF over the SL's any day. It's either just overrated, or more likely, poorly implemented by Leica. You might prefer a regular view finder but as resolutions get higher it's going to be more and more important to accurately focus and reduce vibration. OVFs just make this harder on the user.

Back to the OP Leica's sensor strategy is a bit like Toonces the Driving Cat. First an APS-H sensor that required special filters, then a FF CCD that corrodes all on it's own, then a pretty decent CMOS sensor but with performance that couldn't quite match the D700 in low light (bad banding), and now a generally improved CMOS that STILL has banding in low light. For the S, MFD buyers really do look at sensor performance when considering their cameras. Why would anyone consider an S over an H6D-50c, X1D, or GFX? Why wouldn't someone who was interested in "the best" just pick the Phase One? Why wouldn't someone who was budget conscious choose a 645z, or GFX? If someone is seeking a premium experience why wouldn't they wait for the X1D? The Leica doesn't fit in anywhere, outside of people who just MUST own a Leica.