Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th. A 35mm 18MB M9. It should resolve at least as well as a 645. Would anyone care to stretch that to 6x7?

I guess I missed the memo which announced 35mm full frame is now medium format. How on earth would an 18MP 35mm FF sensor "resolve at least as well as a 645" - apart from Leica magic?

You will see ;-)

Oh, come on, I'm already excited about the S2, now this At least M9 (supposedly) wouldn't require a second mortgage...

I guess you did miss the memo. Read Michael's articles on the print quality available from 35mm sensors. Read what other people are getting for prints. These are not the 11x14 or even 16x20 long held to be 35mm film maximums. People are printing 30x40 and larger, in the same arena formerly reserved for medium format film.

We've been at that level of quality for a few years already; it's just coming out as a rangefinder, finally.

I'll believe it when I see it. There's much more to IQ than megapixels and unwieldy print sizes (30x40, really?). Not to mention my skepticism with Leica, given their atrocious track record with the M8 debacle.

any details? or just the usual m9 rumor? a FF 18mpix m9 sounds like a dream to me....

This sounds like wishful thinking, particularly the 18MP, which is too low to be credible for 24x36mm format these days. Kodak, the most likely sensor supplier, is using 6 micron pixel pitch in its latest high end sensors, including that for the Leica S2, and that gives 24MP. Other sensor suppliers like Dalsa, Sony and Panasonic are likewise at 6 microns and below in all their recent camera sensors.

Actually, in the interest of pixel density, 18mp is already a stretch.

Not a single digital camera sensor maker agrees (22MP is the current minimum in 24x36mm format), so why should I believe that? Do not bother talking about per pixel performance while ignoring the fact that number of pixels also affects visible noise levels and such. (for comparison, 35mm film has billions of very low grade "pixels", in the form of silver halide crystals.)

But there are two reasons why 18mp would make sense: (1) it would not threaten to cannibalize Leica's own 39mp and *extremely* expensive S2 (as a 24mp CCD with M glass might do); and (2) the whole raison d' etre of M is street shooting, in which high ISO capability is prized...imagine an M CCD with the the ISO response of a D3 and 18mp...

The street shooting raison d'etre of the M series was founded well before you could even get fast film (hence the early design of fast lenses). But the advent of using very high ISO's as a raison d'etre for an M9 would equally ruin the other 'street' raison d'etre of the Leica M and its lenses, shallow DOF. Unless of course Leica have designed a new ultra fast shutter?

I for one appreciate the ability of the D3 to make photo's from nothing, on days to dark to see, and make the pro's life easier. But I abhore the idea of all Leica M9 photo's being made to resemble bright daylight on the dullest of days. Give the kids a toy and they will use it, and all we get are high ISO clinical demonstrations recording what the world isn't really like, and which conversely is the strength of the Leica M as it is now, the 'raison d'etre' if you like.

Source?

The 18 megapixels are indeed strange, because they match a 6,8µm pixel-pitch. But the new CCD-architecture by Kodak has a 6µm pixel-pitch which would result in 24MP. Always remember: we're talking about pixel-pitch, not pixel size! As I was told by Kodak, the actual sensitive area of the pixels has barely changed over the last architecture-generations (9µm, 6,8µm, 6µm), only the gaps between those areas became smaller!
The 6,8µm-architecture was introduced in 2004 and the new generation (introduced with the H3DII-50 and now S2 with microlenses) seems to be superior to the previous generation regarding noise and DR (just like DALSA).

There are lots of strange comparisons Digital vs. Film, most of them with horrible film-processing. Some claim a 35mm Velvia is similar to their 11MP 1ds, some compare it to their 6MP D100 and other claim 3MP as digital aquivalent...

Velvia has 80lp/mm at a realistic contrast of 1:1,6 which would result in about 24MP at 35mm. But film also has grain and contrast slowly decreases with higher frequencies and additionally has to be multiplied with the scanner-MTF. But from my own experience, clearly visible >10MP are not a serious problem with well-processed 35mm-scans (which would result in about 25MP in 645 and 45MP in 6x7).

I've tried it carefully with my M8, the files are clean but don't contain more information than a properly done, oversampled, denoised and sharpened professional scan. Occassionally I still like to put some Velvia/Ektar (Dynamic Range of up to 15 stops!) in my MP and pay for the scan, but mostly I stay with B&W (Imagelink HQ, only 25ASA but bloody sharp!)

Here's a properly scanned 6x7 slide (even when f16 might cause slight diffraction and Provia isn't as sharp as Velvia!): http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/

Try to get that amount of detail with any 35mm-digital-solution...

Just because you have a high ISO capability doesn't mean you're required to use it.

Tripod usage and careful focus with live view would be the only option to tap into such a resolution in 35 mm format... doesn't make any sense to me in a rangefinder camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

Agreed. If I can take a tripod I can take an slr and it will also be once heck of a lot cheaper than this M9 will be.

This is the first time I've read a confirmed date. From which source?

....then you don't get rangefinder photography...it's not just about resolution and format...I know it has been said many times before but the sense of freedom that rangefinder photography brings to street shooting is really something special..you do feel like you are in the scene...it's not for everyone and you do only appreciate a rangefinder re: street photography but it is very much unlike a dslr. Hopefully if the rumours are true, the rumoured price of $US8000 will reduce slightly once all the hype dissipates...that is, if the rumours are true (and if there are no problems this time round!!).

An 18mp ff (problem-free) rangefinder...bring it on!

I probably wasn't clear enough. My point is that there will be no practical image quality difference between 10 and 18MP considering all the things that will typically go wrong with focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard

Come on Bernard, if you want a 20 by 30 inch print 10 mp isn't going to be as good as 18mp (all things being equal)

Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.

Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.

Cheers,
Bernard

No, I'm saying if all is done equally badly or equally well.

I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality. Sure when working with app. between 1.2 and 5.6 Liveview is helpful, but I never missed it before when doing landscape work. Can I proof that ? No, not until Leica actually sells a M9 ^^

Why would you think the image quality would be better? All sensors are the same size and of good quality, so if quality lenses are used, all should be the same.

CCD, no anti alias filter, better lenses.

This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...

Leica voodoo.

If I had a dog, he could beat up your dog, if they were the same size, or maybe the same weight. What about length of teeth?

BTW, the upcoming 9/9/09 M9 announcement was tentatively announced on the leica forum a couple days ago. My only point in posting this was that for those of us waiting for a digital version of the "Texas Leica," this might just be it. Didn't mean to start an argument about historic versus current technology or how to count pixels.

M

the m8 files at 160 and 320 have almost the detail of 22mpix canons...not quite, but pretty close....and since we are talking ccd detail, a FF 18mpix m9 (ccd) would easily top the canons and nikons in terms of resolution....
leica had a hell of a time fitting a smaller chip and it tok them years to really resolve the whole color shift issue....i just don't see how they can fit it in now....i would not mind the camera being thicker but the leica freaks were complaining about the m8....making the body as slim as possible AND fitting the sensor AND working out the color issues (with the light hitting the sensor at these extreme angles) seems a lot to ask....

unlike the S2, this one i would be in line for...recession or not.....

also: leica is opening stores now? the first one is in palm beach...i heard they had one in moscow...but here as well? i guess things are going well!

You might have oustanding vision and a remarkable ability to focus accurately and quickly with a manual lens, but then your abilities are IMHO far above average.

Having compared pretty extensively hand held/manual focused images shot with a D3 and D3x (about the same pixel count ratio), I don't see how that could be true in average. Sure, the M9 would deliver better images now and then when the focus has been hit perfectly by chance in bright daylight conditions at low ISO, but not in a repetitive fashion. There are in fact rare cases when I managed to focus with perfect accuracy the D3 itself with MF... Thom Hogan has written pretty extensively about this, and his view is that getting the max out of a D3 even with a tripod is already pretty challenging for many shooters.

Anyway, let's stop this here, I might be wrong and that would be good news for all the M series users.

Cheers,
Bernard

...again...why you would use a Leica M system for landscape work is beyond me....personally, I'd be carrying a light tripod/dslr/tilt&shift lenses....
...but to create quite large prints of street scenes with a camera as small as an M (instead of using a Mamiya 7 for example, which is too big for this type of work-YMMV), would be terrific!

...choose the right tool for the job!...if that tool ever exists!

Someone did a refit with an M8 shell and a piece of glass, the size of a 24x36 sensor, and showed that the camera would indeed have to be a tad thicker. So, the Mamiya 7 is a bit bigger than an M, too.

On 1, the idea that a company would try to help one product by holding down the performance of another makes no sense in a competitive market place: if a company can make a product that takes sales from another of its products but abstains, other companies will take those sales instead by not hobbling their competing products, so the company will be even worse off. Leica has to give such a camera the best sensor it can get hold of.

On 2, you do exactly what I warned against: rehashing the misguided dogma that having slightly fewer, slightly bigger pixels on the same sensor size will give better image quality at high ISO speeds when judged sanely, by looking at equal sized prints. Anyway, if Leica stays with Kodak Full Frame type CCD's, it will not be in the hunt for high ISO performance against today's best CMOS (or MOS) sensors. It would do better to showcase the quality of its lenses by offering high sensor resolution.

P. S. Bernard's comment on 18MP being more than one can likely make much use of in hand-held rangerfinder style photography makes me think that this "street photography" will naturally move to new, smaller formats with more moderate resolutions, say 10 or 12 MP, just as Leica moved photography to the new, smaller 35mm format long ago. But Leica has lens investments to protect ...

"I probably wasn't clear enough. My point is that there will be no practical image quality difference between 10 and 18MP considering all the things that will typically go wrong with focusing."

When they stay with the 6,8µm-pixel-pitch (18MP FF) focusing won't be more demanding than with the M8.

The M-rangefinders are manual cameras, which makes focusing on moving objects very difficult but careful focusing is actually quite easy when you get used to it. The M focus accuracy also doesn't depend on focal length (unlike any AF/MF-SLR) - it's about as precise as a SLR with focal lengthes below 90mm (given the standard viewfinder magnification) but actually more precise with the the normal & WA-lenses.

I don't think there are many camera-systems available with higher per-pixel-quality than the M8+M-lenses, and a FF would increase sensor-size by 80% and bring us a mre sophisticated sensor-architecture (the one from the M8 was introduced in 2004).

Handheld, 50Asph and I could even focus these objects (seeing that they still weren't infinity):
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Oh come come, on the release of "M8" there were claims of 5x4 quality, a FF M9 must be pushing those 10x8 users, we can only guess at the "S" results,, 11x14 maybe even 20x24! all in camera you can hold in one hand.

Kevin.

The more expensive the camera, the greater the hyperbole on the internet as people try to justify their purchases.

Closely followed by not citing a source for the information on the non-existent camera

There's certainly the possibility that it could be a rather nice camera for someone like me who prefers the look of a phase back to a cmos based dslr. Whether it will pan out we will see but it's very interesting to me as I love the look I get from my P21 but I hate hate hate the weight and ergonomics of it all. (and also I always shoot equivalent of a 28mm lens which I also hate Mamiya's offering).

If the image quality were D3x standard (or above), it could be a very interesting alternative for certain uses - it would not be hard to put a live view focus feature in as a complement to the rangefinder (exactly as the D3x has 51 point AF PLUS live view focus) - my question is whether Leica will be too conservative to do that? A small, light camera with superb glass that printed 24x36 inches would have its appeal (it could also use a lighter tripod than a big DSLR, and have no mirror slap). It would actually be more of a replacement for "Texas Leicas" than for earlier M cameras, because it would, as Bernard points out, require more careful focusing than a film Leica, BUT it would have image quality that would have required 6x7 cm from a film camera (exactly what a Mamiya RF gave). If someone (probably not Leica) got really creative, it would even be possible to construct a rangefinder/ live view camera that had a tilt/shift sensor! Of course you'd have to use the live view to see the effect of movements, but no mirror opens that possibility.

-Dan

If I'm correct the source was a French camera dealer that put it up on their site, then quickly removed it, there has also been talk of a German site that was taking pre-orders for Sept.
The French site wether it was a deliberate mistake or genuine mistake we will never know, it did by all accounts look promising. I hope it does turn out to be true and I hope the M9 is everything a Leica "M" should be and fills a bigger niche than the M8. It will have it's compromises and knockers that don't see the point of a RF or a range of manual focus fast lenses that can be used wide open. It will be expensive for its paper spec, which to most will mean it is overpriced, others will just say it's being undervalued by those that "don't get it" and so the fors and againsts will disappear up their own backsides arguing it's worth again. No doubt others will just get on with it and not care about its weaknesses and exploit its good points.
I have a romantic notion I would buy one but I know in reality there will be other things to spend my money on.

Kevin.

I think live-view would be really great for a RF-camera like the M9 but it's unlikely that we will see this technology in the M9, maybe in future models (they already said that they won't come up with a regular DSLR anymore but an EVF-solution). The reason is simple: the fill-rate and overall IQ of todays full-frame CCDs (the new 6µm-generation from Kodak and Dalsa seem close) is unsurpassed (if you don't believe it, just take a look at some P40+/P65+/H3DII-50-samples). The downside is the low speed (about 120MB/s is the maximum data output of their four channel sensor which results in 1.5fps @ 37,5MP and a little over 2fps @ 24MP) and the power consumption/heat that makes live-view really difficult.

that is exactly what i love about the m8....the files really remind me of the P20...great back but i much prefer the much smaller size/weight and handling....and actually focus is easier on the m8 then on anything with a P20....and of course making that a P21 is even better!

If an M9 has the IQ of the M8, but full frame 35mm, I'll buy it and use it in place of my RZ/Aptus 54s for digital editorial.

(1) What are you talking about? Haven't you heard of the D300, the D90, the D70, the D5000? All of those Nikons (and a similar string of Canons) are helping some Nikon products by holding down the performance of others. Same with almost every expensive product you can think of, from watches to cars. You've heard that there is a Boxter and a Carrera and a Turbo? If a 24mp CCD camera selling in the neighborhood of $10,000 and using the best glass in the world was available, and challenged the quality of what is going to be the most expensive system in the world -- probably $50,000 for starters -- don't you think there might be some cannibalization, as happened when the D700 came out and D3 sales dropped?

(2) There's a big gap between 24mp and 18mp, and generally, full-frame lower-megapixel cameras (the 1DIII, the D3) have better high ISO response than the high mp ff products. My point being that giving up some possible resolution for higher ISO response would be a decent trade, if that trade was available.

(3) Bernard always knows what he's talking about, but he's also a guy who makes very careful, studied landscape shots. A street photographer may take 200 shots in two hours. Something a little out of focus? That's okay, it's part of the aesthetic. Some of them don't work at all? That's okay, toss them, which is what happens with most street photos. And some of them will be exquisitely focused. I mean, how many of HCBs shots do you know? He was a guy who shot for decades, one of the best photogrpahers in the world, and I doubt that anyone but a student of his would recognize the equivalent of more than one shot a year, or so. That's street photography. You don't get a lot of keepers, and that's fine. An 18mp M with D3 ISO and a 75mm lux would be a dream. If you like Ms.

Regarding point 1, companies design products to suit markets, which includes product differentiation. You don't want low end products stealing from high end ones. Years ago I worked for a UK company that made expansion cards for its computers. They had 16KB and 32KB units. Both had the same memory chip inside, but the 16KB one had some pins disabled to restrict the accessible size to 16KB. Why do that? Well, they needed a range of products to suit the market, and it was more profitable to sell two units, one priced low, one priced high, than one 32KB unit priced low, or priced high and alienating users who want 16KB. Using the same chip in both reduced costs as they could increase the purchase orders and hence bulk discounts on the memory chips, and simplified design as there was really only one chip. Nikon could easily add proper MLU to the D90. So why don't they? Product differentiation.

On (1) Those are differentiated on production cost as well as performance, which makes perfect sense: models that cost less to make than other models in exchange for lower performance level can profitably be sold at a lower price, serving a different market segment.

What makes no sense is a design choice to impair performance of a new product without reducing the cost of making the product, at least not when a rival can make a competing product for similar cost without that performance impairment. This often actually increases costs: once there is a market for the higher resolution option, designing just it is cheaper than designing both it and the lower resolution option. And Kodak has a current 6 micron cell design.

Sensors of the same size with fewer, bigger photosites are not significantly cheaper to make, so opting for lower resolution in a new sensor design for the sake of deliberately lower IQ makes no business sense. New sensors with more, smaller pixels do sell at a higher price, as in the Sony A550 vs A500 or A380 vs A330, but that is a matter of the market putting a higher value on the new higher resolution sensor, not higher production costs. Using lower res. sensors in the A230 and A500 does make those models cheaper for Sony to make because they are old designs, with production lines already in place, so for a while it is cheaper to keep using those lines than retool for the news sensors. But the cost/benefit analysis is quite different when one talks about designing and putting into production a new sensor with lower resolution. The only time that new designs have lower resolution is for the sake of high frame rates models like the EOS-1D series, D1, etc.


Didn't we go through this before with all the claims and arguments that the Canon 5DMkII would have a new sensor of lower resolution than the 1DsMIII to avoid stealing sales from the latter?


On (2), do I have to say it a third time? I have seen no good evidence or arguments for the frequent claim that fewer, bigger pixels on the same size of sensor using the same basic sensor technology gives better IQ when images are compared fairly, displayed at equal size. Calculations of per pixel S/N ratios and related DR calculations do not predict the results of such comparisons because more pixels allows printing at higher PPI which reduces visible noise levels, potentially offsetting lower per pixel S/N measurements. I wonder how the Nikon D700 and D3X compare at equal print size and equally high ISO, as an example of two equal sized sensors using the same basic technology but different pixel counts.

On (2), do I have to say it a third time? I have seen no good evidence or arguments for the frequent claim that fewer, bigger pixels on the same size of sensor using the same basic sensor technology gives better IQ when images are compared fairly, displayed at equal size. Calculations of per pixel S/N ratios and related DR calculations do not predict the results of such comparisons because more pixels allows printing at higher PPI which reduces visible noise levels, potentially offsetting lower per pixel S/N measurements. I wonder how the Nikon D700 and D3X compare at equal print size and equally high ISO, as an example of two equal sized sensors using the same basic technology but different pixel counts.
[/quote]
I wouldn't say it a third time. I wouldn't have said it the first time. That you have seen no evidence for a proven fact does not mean it is not a fact. I have seen the differences in different sensors. Having used a D700, p21, and 5d Mk2, I am in a position to corroborate the current explanation of the relationship of pixel density to noise and pixel number to print resolution.

Dpreview has a good explanation as well as listings of pixel densities on new sensors. The 700 is 1.4. Do the math; look at 40x60 prints; shoot all at 800 and higher. You will see.

MAS

Interesting, MAS. Are you saying that if you shoot the same scene with the D700 and 5Dii, and make 8x10, 20x30, and 40x60 prints of the shots, the D700 has considerably less noise in the pictures at all sizes? How does the detail of the D700 stack up to the 5Dii at 40x60?

At high ISO, yes-substantially less noise with D700. At 40x60, the 5D MK2 is noticeably more detailed.