1bwana1 wrote:
Currently the best record in the World by a huge margin.
I don't understand the obsession about Sony or whoever else is making a camera's sensor. Although not a direct analog, at it's core the sensor is the modern replacement for film. Although everyone had their favorite films, they were OK to put film made by just about anyone in their cameras. I say go with the best sensor available for that particular cameras use case and forget about who makes it, or where.
The focus on sensors is pretty easy to understand. Unlike film you pick the sensor once (when you buy the camera) and almost no one ever exchanges it for a different type of sensor. You are stuck with that sensor for the life of the camera. If it works well that makes the camera a lot better camera. If it doesn't work well, then the camera has significant limitations. If it corrodes and has to be replaced or partially replaced that is a major pain in the ass that takes the camera out of operation for months.
Many thought the sensor was a weak point on early Leica digital cameras and there were issues with both the M8 and M9 sensors. Even the M240 has a sensor that in some ways (base ISO dynamic range) didn't compete very well with other full frame cameras. In my view the M10 series started to have a sensor that was at least close to having the capabilitiy of other cameras on the market, and the M11 has a sensor that was arguably as good as any in any full frame camera. So, I think there is an understadable nervousness about whether Leica sourcing the sensor from a new source will provide a good sensor. I think they probably will, but we will have to wait to see what happens.
The new source provides both an opportunity to design a sensor more suited for a rangefinder--an off the shelf Sony sensor will never be designed specifically for the needs of a rangefinder camera--but at the same time poses a risk that the new sensor may come with problems, like the M8 and M9 sensors, or may not provide top imaging. We will see what Leica does with their new partnership. If could be a good thing, but a bad sensor pretty much makes that version of the camera a dud.
1bwana1 wrote:
I don't get why people want to pretend to themselves that they are shooting film when using a digital camera.
A lot of (digital) Leica shooters want a camera that looks like a film camera, feels like a film camera, handles like a film camera but that is digital.
As for the film vs. digital cost comparisons, to compare used find a nice used M11 for what, around $8-9k and you still save plenty. Or another way is to compare a new MP versus a new M11. The differences are still substantial, just not as large.
I develop the same way as 1bwana1 and find it fun at times, but not all the time. I started my serious photography in 1966 and developing Tri-X was my daily process. I still have my old stainless steel tanks and reels, but now prefer modern tanks and a change bag.
One can buy a lot of film princessing equipment for the price of an extra M11 battery for $240, not to mention a charger for $215.
SlowDriver wrote:
A lot of (digital) Leica shooters want a camera that looks like a film camera, feels like a film camera, handles like a film camera but that is digital.
I believe Leica realizes that very well.
I agree that a lot of people want a camera that keeps the M form factor to shoot their M lenses on. I agree that Leica realizes that very well. Leicas two best selling cameras the Ms and the Qs carry that through well.
Very few people want a camera with non functional controls and components that mimic film cameras. Even the M-D cameras which do attempt to give a more film camera experience through feature deletion don't have those. So I once again I agree that Leica realizes what its customers want and so doesn't make cameras with those non functional type of controls.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The focus on sensors is pretty easy to understand. Unlike film you pick the sensor once (when you buy the camera) and almost no one ever exchanges it for a different type of sensor. You are stuck with that sensor for the life of the camera. If it works well that makes the camera a lot better camera. If it doesn't work well, then the camera has significant limitations. If it corrodes and has to be replaced or partially replaced that is a major pain in the ass that takes the camera out of operation for months.
Many thought the sensor was a weak point on early Leica digital cameras and there were issues with both the M8 and M9 sensors. Even the M240 has a sensor that in some ways (base ISO dynamic range) didn't compete very well with other full frame cameras. In my view the M10 series started to have a sensor that was at least close to having the capabilitiy of other cameras on the market, and the M11 has a sensor that was arguably as good as any in any full frame camera. So, I think there is an understadable nervousness about whether Leica sourcing the sensor from a new source will provide a good sensor. I think they probably will, but we will have to wait to see what happens.
The new source provides both an opportunity to design a sensor more suited for a rangefinder--an off the shelf Sony sensor will never be designed specifically for the needs of a rangefinder camera--but at the same time poses a risk that the new sensor may come with problems, like the M8 and M9 sensors, or may not provide top imaging. We will see what Leica does with their new partnership. If could be a good thing, but a bad sensor pretty much makes that version of the camera a dud....Show more →
I was pointing out that it shouldn't matter who makes the sensor, whether it is done in house or bought off the shelf. Of course the quality of the sensor matters very much. That is a different discussion. I am hoping that Leica doesn't go backwards in sensor technology just to say they have an in house, proprietary, and unique sensor. It must offer something more that is measurable to be a valid endeavor in my opinion.
1bwana1 wrote:
Very few people want a camera with non functional controls and components that mimic film cameras
I remember reading about the fact that this not an option anyway: the need the space that such a mechanism would use.
Apr 22, 2026 at 07:41 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
1bwana1 wrote:
I was pointing out that it shouldn't matter who makes the sensor, whether it is done in house or bought off the shelf. Of course the quality of the sensor matters very much. That is a different discussion. I am hoping that Leica doesn't go backwards in sensor technology just to say they have an in house, proprietary, and unique sensor. It must offer something more that is measurable to be a valid endeavor in my opinion.
I think it does matter who makes the sensor and whether it is off the shelf or built with more design input from Leica. I think there are tradeoff to each approach. Buying it off the shelf from somebody like Sony means there is very little risk and the sensor will be top notch, but it also will have very little if any customization for the camera. Low risk, but very low chance the sensor is any better than in other cameras.
If Leica has more input in the design of the sensor it has more potential upside as they might be able to tailor the sensor for exactly what a rangefinder camera needs and doesn't need. It has more potential upside, but also more risk. Higher potential reward with greater risk.
I think there are two ways to read the progression of sensors from M8 to M9 to M240 to M10 to M11. I don't think there is any doubt that Leica has improved the sensor as they have brought out new cameras.
One way to read that improvement is that their sensors had a lot more issues than those in most other cameras at the beginning but over time they caught up and with the M11 they finally had a sensor as good as any out there for a full frame camera. This perspective sees the progress as being able to use a Leica M camera without any compromises regarding the sensor.
The other way to read the improvement is that Leica has been working hard to produce better sensors all along and they need further improvement as they bring out the next model. So how do they get improvement when sensors have mostly plateaued in almost all the major measureable parameters except scan speed, which arguably isn't that important for a Leica M camera. Although every model has a better sensor than the last adding a 67 MP BSI sensor with a slightly faster scan speed over the M11 sensor would be a wimper of an improvement. So, Leica needs to produce a significantly better sensor and the best way to do that is tailor it to the Leica M and participate in the development of the sensor. That seems to be the narrative and path that Leica has chosen. To me that is a high risk/high reward strategy. Let's see if they can pull it off.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it does matter who makes the sensor and whether it is off the shelf or built with more design input from Leica. I think there are tradeoff to each approach. Buying it off the shelf from somebody like Sony means there is very little risk and the sensor will be top notch, but it also will have very little if any customization for the camera. Low risk, but very low chance the sensor is any better than in other cameras.
If Leica has more input in the design of the sensor it has more potential upside as they might be able to tailor the sensor for exactly what a rangefinder camera needs and doesn't need. It has more potential upside, but also more risk. Higher potential reward with greater risk.
I think there are two ways to read the progression of sensors from M8 to M9 to M240 to M10 to M11. I don't think there is any doubt that Leica has improved the sensor as they have brought out new cameras.
One way to read that improvement is that their sensors had a lot more issues than those in most other cameras at the beginning but over time they caught up and with the M11 they finally had a sensor as good as any out there for a full frame camera. This perspective sees the progress as being able to use a Leica M camera without any compromises regarding the sensor.
The other way to read the improvement is that Leica has been working hard to produce better sensors all along and they need further improvement as they bring out the next model. So how do they get improvement when sensors have mostly plateaued in almost all the major measureable parameters except scan speed, which arguably isn't that important for a Leica M camera. Although every model has a better sensor than the last adding a 67 MP BSI sensor with a slightly faster scan speed over the M11 sensor would be a wimper of an improvement. So, Leica needs to produce a significantly better sensor and the best way to do that is tailor it to the Leica M and participate in the development of the sensor. That seems to be the narrative and path that Leica has chosen. To me that is a high risk/high reward strategy. Let's see if they can pull it off....Show more →
To me it only matters who made the sensor if the reliability and performance is different. It seems we agree at the present time the leader in both seems to be Sony.
Yes, there has been a plateau in senso technology the last few years. But there are real meaningful improvements in the known pipeline coming up. I just hope Leica doesn't give those up out of some misguided desire to claim a proprietary sensor. As we say in Italy, "vidremo", "we will see"...
I don't think the Leica M needs to have the absolute best sensor among all mirrorless cameras. That role probably belongs to the SL or Q series. The M is more about the shooting experience, the tactile feel, and the joy of using it rather than chasing the latest resolution or sensor technology.
Another camera that follows this same approach is the popular Nikon Zf. It was recently released but uses the older Sony IMX410 sensor, similar to what’s found in the Sony a7 III. That hasn't hurt its sales one bit. People are drawn to its beautiful design, tactile controls, and the overall enjoyment of shooting with it.
I believe the Leica M should stay true to its strengths instead of trying to become another high-tech flagship. Honestly, I wouldn't be scared if Leica moves away from Sony sensors. The M10 series didn't use Sony sensors and it's still beloved by many ... some even prefer it over the M11. I won't even mention the M9.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't think the Leica M needs to have the absolute best sensor among all mirrorless cameras. That role probably belongs to the SL or Q series. The M is more about the shooting experience, the tactile feel, and the joy of using it rather than chasing the latest resolution or sensor technology.
Another camera that follows this same approach is the popular Nikon Zf. It was recently released but uses the older Sony IMX410 sensor, similar to what’s found in the Sony a7 III. That hasn't hurt its sales one bit. People are drawn to its beautiful design, tactile controls, and the overall enjoyment of shooting with it.
I believe the Leica M should stay true to its strengths instead of trying to become another high-tech flagship. Honestly, I wouldn't be scared if Leica moves away from Sony sensors. The M10 series didn't use Sony sensors and it's still beloved by many ... some even prefer it over the M11. I won't even mention the M9. ...Show more →
a strong argument supporting your position can be made by those who prefer shooting with vintage lenses (like me)
1bwana1 wrote:
I was pointing out that it shouldn't matter who makes the sensor, whether it is done in house or bought off the shelf. Of course the quality of the sensor matters very much. That is a different discussion. I am hoping that Leica doesn't go backwards in sensor technology just to say they have an in house, proprietary, and unique sensor. It must offer something more that is measurable to be a valid endeavor in my opinion.
I for one would be very surprised if Leica moved away from Sony, knowing that it would entail a sacrifice in quality simply to save money.
anselwannab wrote:
I understand that we have to have a battery and electronics now that the camera is digital, but does it have to be auto wind? Talk about getting to concentrate on the decisive moment than to make people reset the shutter.
huh? you're suggesting that a digital M should stay on the picture just taken so as to allow multiple exposures
I must not understand your point. care to explain?
