Rumors Panasonic announcement on October 17th

[Quentinquirelino]

That does not cannibalize Leica's sales, because it is a different lens mount.

E-Mount is as different lens mount as is L-Mount compared to M-Mount.

The GR was not hyped in the media. Still the demand is that high, that they sell it in Asia as a lottery.

High demand regarding the low production volume.

It is normal business risk for every entrepreneur. You are never sure how long demand will last. Nobody would be producing cameras in 2025, without this entrepreneurship. Look how sales crashed since 2012.

But the manufacturers, not only Panasonic, obviously are thinking it's not worth it.

I do not worry about profitability of Panasonic. I am concerned that Panasonic ignores specific products, which its customer base is demanding, because of "gentlemen agreements" between Leica and Panasonic.

Not only Panasonic is ignoring it. Also Nikon and Canon. And Sony took a decade to renew the RX1. Maybe you overestimate the demand or all the manufacturers are missing out.

If Panasonic wants to gain significant amounts of overall market share, they should release some cheap APS-C camera with L-Mount and a couple of cheap lenses for it. That's by far the biggest market.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

Back to the topic. I think a S1HII is not completely unrealistic. But I think the highest chances are just some software updates for the latest models.

 

[Mister Sloane]

I expect the long awaited and promised firmware update for the S5ii(X) and GH7.

Lumix Flow support and some other upgrades, like improved autofocus.

Might be the last real update for the S5ii(X)- I hope not though.

It looks like LUMIX Flow will be updated on 20 October.

There was a Reddit post a couple of days ago with screenshots that purported to be from Pansonic’s website, which showed this.

When I did a web search, in the results this came up: “What's New 20th Oct. 2025 LUMIX Flow 1.3.0 released (iOS/iPadOS/Android) ・Supports DC-S5M2,DC- S5M2X,andDC-GH7. ・Added UI display optimized for…”. Clicking on the link for the main LUMIX Flow webpage doesn’t have the information showing at the moment though.

 

[Nevyn72]

It looks like LUMIX Flow will be updated on 20 October.

There was a Reddit post a couple of days ago with screenshots that purported to be from Pansonic’s website, which showed this.

When I did a web search, in the results this came up: “What's New 20th Oct. 2025 LUMIX Flow 1.3.0 released (iOS/iPadOS/Android) ・Supports DC-S5M2,DC- S5M2X,andDC-GH7. ・Added UI display optimized for…”. Clicking on the link for the main LUMIX Flow webpage doesn’t have the information showing at the moment though.

Cool, thanks for the 100% conformation. But this also means a big firmware update for my S5iiX

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Back to the topic. I think a S1HII is not completely unrealistic.

I’m hoping for the S1HII as well.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

I’m hoping for the S1HII as well.

But to be honest, I haven't to high hopes for it. It's already known that Panasonic will roll out new updates from 20th October and the love stream on 17th is probably only a presentation for new features of the updates for current models.

 

[CharlesH]

This is a smart move by Leica. The rangefinder is tech that is way past its sell-by date.

Yes, this is actually a Leica I could be interested in.

 

[Babylonia]

That's not how diffraction works. Diffraction doesn't begin in lower aperture with higher pixel density.
Diffraction is always there and always is getting more present with stopping down the lens.

I know.

But higher pixel density actually helps to preserve details, because the edges of the airy discs gets resolved finer.

This theoretical approach is a too simplistic representation of the actual situation.
Those boundaries are already taken into account in reality.

Keep in mind to (as explained more early), you have to keep track by the real possibilities of what lenses can resolve itself.
To have benefit of 60 MP sensors, at least you do need lenses that can out-resolve the more tiny pixel dimensions.
Many / most lenses don't. Even used at more wide aperture values.
Not to speak of these "super" zoom lenses. Starting at low open aperture values.

At "pixel peeping" observation, an image is not sharp any-more in front and behind the actual field of focus.
If the the blur scattering due to out of focus areas is already larger than the pixel dimensions itself,
(keep in mind that happens already very quickly at high pixel densities - and at pixel peeping enlargement).
The effect of higher pixel density is already lost due to much greater blur outside the field of focus.

So only for the relatively very small areas that are still imaged sharply with a 60 MP sensor,
(using top nodge quality lenses), you "can" still have "some" benefit from it.

The reason many people are thinking resolution has a negative effect on diffraction limits, is that you can higher magnifying with it, without detail resolving is inhibited by sensor resolution but rather by diffraction. But you always can get better detail resolving with higher resolution.

No, that isn't true.
In my photography history, I've often shot on film, in formats up to 4x5 and 8x10 inch film sheets.
The resolution of film sheets itself exceeds far - far the limitations of lens diffraction.

It was always a matter of finding a balance between the most optimal technical camera settings (tilt/shift),
the aperture used, in relation to depth of field, and used case as for enlargement.
And importantly, the blur caused by diffraction of lenses.

Keep in mind that with technical camera lenses, aperture values can be set (for reasonable depth of field reasons),
that extend far the practical limits to maintain "any sharpness" at all, by diffraction reason of lenses ONLY.

E.g. most technical lenses in those days you can set apertures values as small openings up to F64
For 8x10 inch lenses even to F90

By every diffraction calculation list, everyone will be amazed how little sharpness you have left.
But in that time we didn't use a diffraction calculation list.
Just real practice. So for critical work trying to go no further than 1.5 - 3 stops below "full wide" opening.
Technical lenses full wide openings start at e.g. F4.5 - F5.6 - F 6.3
But also do have (still) one APO design "reproduction" lens - 480mm - starting at F 9.0

Judging the "positive" slide film sheets on a "light box", by use of a high quality offset printing magnifier,
which normally allows you to determine the "printing grid / dots". You can see every deterioration.

Today’s digital camera's:
Just a comparable story as within those old "vintage" history, as it comes to the practical usefulness by the effect of diffraction,
in relation to resolution / pixel size.
By practise, no matter what lens is used, in my experience using the Panasonic S1R = 47 MP
the drop-off in sharpness due to diffraction starts at about F8 - (F7.1 do have the better sharpness overall).

The advantage today is that you can "mask" many lens faults and errors by post processing algorithms,
to tweak images in such a high level, that you can have the "impression" (a human "perceptual" experience),
that you "think" to see more detail. But in reality isn't. The real boundaries also have been determined today.
These today software advantages, can help to still use more small apertures, like F 11 as for DOF reasons.
To have the impression it is not that different by "perceptual" experience, to the better detailed image done at F 7.1
Or maybe even a better real detailed image at focus point area made by using e.g. F 4.0 or F5.6
As that is the best performance of a lens itself.

The deterioration of sharpness by the effect of diffraction, and using more high pixel count sensors,
Lens factories are developing more fast lenses, e.g. starting at F1.2 or F1.4 at a more high quality level.
For the better aperture values about two stops aperture closed, to reach the best lens quality.
To meet as close as possible the borders by a more high sensor count.

Also if you look at other sensor formats, you will see much higher resolution densities. 60 Mpix full frame would be compatible with 16 Mpix m43.

I have to search to a diffraction calculated list, to see if this statement is valid. (I don't have it at hand now).
But I guess much of today’s M43 camera's / sensors are helped by today's software algorithms to "mask" errors.
-

 

[pdk42]

I know.



This theoretical approach is a too simplistic representation of the actual situation.
Those boundaries are already taken into account in reality.

Keep in mind to (as explained more early), you have to keep track by the real possibilities of what lenses can resolve itself.
To have benefit of 60 MP sensors, at least you do need lenses that can out-resolve the more tiny pixel dimensions.
Many / most lenses don't. Even used at more wide aperture values.
Not to speak of these "super" zoom lenses. Starting at low open aperture values.

At "pixel peeping" observation, an image is not sharp any-more in front and behind the actual field of focus.
If the the blur scattering due to out of focus areas is already larger than the pixel dimensions itself,
(keep in mind that happens already very quickly at high pixel densities - and at pixel peeping enlargement).
The effect of higher pixel density is already lost due to much greater blur outside the field of focus.

So only for the relatively very small areas that are still imaged sharply with a 60 MP sensor,
(using top nodge quality lenses), you "can" still have "some" benefit from it.


No, that isn't true.
In my photography history, I've often shot on film, in formats up to 4x5 and 8x10 inch film sheets.
The resolution of film sheets itself exceeds far - far the limitations of lens diffraction.

It was always a matter of finding a balance between the most optimal technical camera settings (tilt/shift),
the aperture used, in relation to depth of field, and used case as for enlargement.
And importantly, the blur caused by diffraction of lenses.

Keep in mind that with technical camera lenses, aperture values can be set (for reasonable depth of field reasons),
that extend far the practical limits to maintain "any sharpness" at all, by diffraction reason of lenses ONLY.

E.g. most technical lenses in those days you can set apertures values as small openings up to F64
For 8x10 inch lenses even to F90

By every diffraction calculation list, everyone will be amazed how little sharpness you have left.
But in that time we didn't use a diffraction calculation list.
Just real practice. So for critical work trying to go no further than 1.5 - 3 stops below "full wide" opening.
Technical lenses full wide openings start at e.g. F4.5 - F5.6 - F 6.3
But also do have (still) one APO design "reproduction" lens - 480mm - starting at F 9.0

Judging the "positive" slide film sheets on a "light box", by use of a high quality offset printing magnifier,
which normally allows you to determine the "printing grid / dots". You can see every deterioration.

Today’s digital camera's:
Just a comparable story as within those old "vintage" history, as it comes to the practical usefulness by the effect of diffraction,
in relation to resolution / pixel size.
By practise, no matter what lens is used, in my experience using the Panasonic S1R = 47 MP
the drop-off in sharpness due to diffraction starts at about F8 - (F7.1 do have the better sharpness overall).

The advantage today is that you can "mask" many lens faults and errors by post processing algorithms,
to tweak images in such a high level, that you can have the "impression" (a human "perceptual" experience),
that you "think" to see more detail. But in reality isn't. The real boundaries also have been determined today.
These today software advantages, can help to still use more small apertures, like F 11 as for DOF reasons.
To have the impression it is not that different by "perceptual" experience, to the better detailed image done at F 7.1
Or maybe even a better real detailed image at focus point area made by using e.g. F 4.0 or F5.6
As that is the best performance of a lens itself.

The deterioration of sharpness by the effect of diffraction, and using more high pixel count sensors,
Lens factories are developing more fast lenses, e.g. starting at F1.2 or F1.4 at a more high quality level.
For the better aperture values about two stops aperture closed, to reach the best lens quality.
To meet as close as possible the borders by a more high sensor count.


I have to search to a diffraction calculated list, to see if this statement is valid. (I don't have it at hand now).
But I guess much of today’s M43 camera's / sensors are helped by today's software algorithms to "mask" errors.
-

I think the following statements are true:

- The acuity of the final image will improve if the lens can resolve more detail (better LPPM)
- The acuity of the final image will improve if the sensor has more resolution (more Mp)
- The acuity of the final image will decrease with smaller aperture size (higher f-stop), due to diffraction

I believe these statements are independent of each other. In other words, you will get more acuity with a higher res sensor even with a "soft" lens or if the lens is stopped down to small apertures. Of course, the final acuity will be most affected by the weakest link in the chain; so in practical terms, you'll get the best acuity with a lens that performs well, that's not stopped down too far, and using a sensor with a high resolution.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

I think the following statements are true:

- The acuity of the final image will improve if the lens can resolve more detail (better LPPM)
- The acuity of the final image will improve if the sensor has more resolution (more Mp)
- The acuity of the final image will decrease with smaller aperture size (higher f-stop), due to diffraction

I believe these statements are independent of each other. In other words, you will get more acuity with a higher res sensor even with a "soft" lens or if the lens is stopped down to small apertures. Of course, the final acuity will be most affected by the weakest link in the chain; so in practical terms, you'll get the best acuity with a lens that performs well, that's not stopped down too far, and using a sensor with a high resolution.

Exactly!

 

[Babylonia]

I think the following statements are true:

- The acuity of the final image will improve if the lens can resolve more detail (better LPPM)
- The acuity of the final image will improve if the sensor has more resolution (more Mp)
- The acuity of the final image will decrease with smaller aperture size (higher f-stop), due to diffraction

I believe these statements are independent of each other.
In other words, you will get more acuity with a higher res sensor even with a "soft" lens or if the lens is stopped down to small apertures....

No they are dependent of each other.
A "soft" lens or a lens stopped down, within certain "border" levels, never shall be more detailed, by a more high resolution sensor.
As you never can conjure "extra" detail that doesn't exist.

 

[pdk42]

No they are dependent of each other.
A "soft" lens or a lens stopped down, within certain "border" levels, never shall be more detailed, by a more high resolution sensor.
As you never can conjure "extra" detail that doesn't exist.

You're wrong on this. The final MTF will depend on both the lens's resolving power and that of the sensor. A higher res sensor will deliver more detail from a soft lens than a lower res sensor (perhaps not by much, but it will). Look it up!

 

[pdk42]

Here's a quote from Roger Cicala at Lensrentals (who knows a thing or two about imaging systems):

I get asked several times a week if this lens or that is ‘capable of resolving’ this number of megapixels. Some people seem to think a lens should be ‘certified’ for a certain number of pixels or something. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works.

Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.

That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. MTF maxes at 1.0 because 1.0 is perfect. So let’s say my camera MTF is 0.7, and my lens MTF is 0.7, then my system MTF is 0.49 (Lens MTF x Camera MTF). This is actually a pretty reasonable system.

Now, let’s say I get a much better camera with much higher resolution; the camera MTF is 0.9. The system MTF with the same lens also increases: 0.7 X 0.9 = 0.63. On the other hand, I could do the same thing if I bought a much better lens and kept it on the same camera. The camera basically never ‘out resolves the lens.’

Reference: Lensrentals blog post - see the Appendix for the above quote.

 

[Babylonia]

You're wrong on this. The final MTF will depend on both the lens's resolving power and that of the sensor.

So "dependent" and not independent of each other. With what you wrote earlier.

A higher res sensor will deliver more detail from a soft lens than a lower res sensor (perhaps not by much, but it will). Look it up!

Up to a certain level - hence what I wrote "within certain border levels" -, the difference is too small to be of any practical use.
The disadvantages of more megapixels (larger storage, more powerful computer to process all the data, more noise levels),
are outweighed by the minimal small areas in a 3D scene picture that are slightly sharper at the point of focus, than just before or after the focus point.

That's the difference between "theory" and practical usage / experience by real life photography.

You and Lensrental inluding are talking about "MTF curves".
MTF curves are the result, and a readout from a flat 2D test wall with test patterns. What is being focused on.
And photographed this test wall 100% perpendicularly.
Even several manual focus adjustments are made to achieve the highest values, to avoid eventually minimal focus errors.
(E.g. focus shift, when doing a test by another aperture).

But MTF curves don't take into account e.g. field curvature.
Where the focus and highest sharpness of a lens at edges and corners are in front of, or behind the test wall itself.
And also certainly NOT the sharpness loss of image parts that are no longer in focus, by doing 3D scene photography.
Already starting this loss in sharpness when judging at "pixel peeping" level by image areas already a tiny bit in front or back of the focus point,
Not to mention photography where large aperture openings are used to separate the subject from the foreground and background.

Well, 3D scene photography is the most what people are doing in real life.
I think me myself - "today" by about 99%
Often using relative wide aperture openings, to get just "some parts" sharp.,
Most of the picture areas are "fuzziness" / out of focus.

If those "fuzziness" / out of focus areas "itself" are photographed by e.g. 24 MP - 47 MP - 60 MP
You hardly can see any difference, or maybe even not at all ?!
Only at the exact focus point, and pixel peeping - you shall be seeing the differences.
Till diffraction limits the real sharpness, and usefulness to be working by a 60 MP sensor evaporates quickly, by this kind of photography.

But in case if you are doing "100%" flat field photography, you can have a noticeable advantage by using a more high 60+ MP camera.
Still you certainly need to be using the "best lenses" for this job, and certainly using aperture values below diffraction levels.

In past I did reproduction photography from ART-work, paintings.
The biggest art-work was about 6 meter wide, and 5 meter high, bombastically painted "triptych" in the "old master painter" style.
(By 8x10 inch sheet film). The technical camera fixed on a "studio" column tripod about 125 kilogram,
plus an additional tripod with center column to support the front of the "camera rack". So a two point support.
-

 

[pdk42]

So "dependent" and not independent of each other. With what you wrote earlier.

No, you’re misunderstanding. The end result is indeed dependent on all of them. But each of them is independent of the others.

Up to a certain level - hence what I wrote "within certain border levels" -, the difference is too small to be of any practical use.
The disadvantages of more megapixels (larger storage, more powerful computer to process all the data, more noise levels),
are outweighed by the minimal small areas in a 3D scene picture that are slightly sharper at the point of focus, than just before or after the focus point.

That's the difference between "theory" and practical usage / experience by real life photography.

You and Lensrental inluding are talking about "MTF curves".
MTF curves are the result, and a readout from a flat 2D test wall with test patterns. What is being focused on.
And photographed this test wall 100% perpendicularly.
Even several manual focus adjustments are made to achieve the highest values, to avoid eventually minimal focus errors.
(E.g. focus shift, when doing a test by another aperture).

But MTF curves don't take into account e.g. field curvature.
Where the focus and highest sharpness of a lens at edges and corners are in front of, or behind the test wall itself.
And also certainly NOT the sharpness loss of image parts that are no longer in focus, by doing 3D scene photography.
Already starting this loss in sharpness when judging at "pixel peeping" level by image areas already a tiny bit in front or back of the focus point,
Not to mention photography where large aperture openings are used to separate the subject from the foreground and background.

Well, 3D scene photography is the most what people are doing in real life.
I think me myself - "today" by about 99%
Often using relative wide aperture openings, to get just "some parts" sharp.,
Most of the picture areas are "fuzziness" / out of focus.

If those "fuzziness" / out of focus areas "itself" are photographed by e.g. 24 MP - 47 MP - 60 MP
You hardly can see any difference, or maybe even not at all ?!
Only at the exact focus point, and pixel peeping - you shall be seeing the differences.
Till diffraction limits the real sharpness, and usefulness to be working by a 60 MP sensor evaporates quickly, by this kind of photography.

But in case if you are doing "100%" flat field photography, you can have a noticeable advantage by using a more high 60+ MP camera.
Still you certainly need to be using the "best lenses" for this job, and certainly using aperture values below diffraction levels.

In past I did reproduction photography from ART-work, paintings.
The biggest art-work was about 6 meter wide, and 5 meter high, bombastically painted "triptych" in the "old master painter" style.
(By 8x10 inch sheet film). The technical camera fixed on a "studio" column tripod about 125 kilogram,
plus an additional tripod with center column to support the front of the "camera rack". So a two point support.
-

None of those words change the basic point I made.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

So "dependent" and not independent of each other. With what you wrote earlier.

The resolution of the final image depends on the resolving capabilities of the sensor and the lens. But the resolving capabilities of the lens and the sensor are not dependent on each other. They are individual factors.

Up to a certain level - hence what I wrote "within certain border levels" -, the difference is too small to be of any practical use.
The disadvantages of more megapixels (larger storage, more powerful computer to process all the data, more noise levels),
are outweighed by the minimal small areas in a 3D scene picture that are slightly sharper at the point of focus, than just before or after the focus point.

With digital full frame we are still far from physical limitations, regarding resolution. As I said in a previous comment, look at smaller formats, like m43 or APS-C. The resolution of m43 has risen to about 25 Mpix, Fuji is building APS-C cameras with 42 Mpix. That would be up to about 100 Mpix on a full frame sensor, and both still benefits from the higher resolution. Not to talk about smartphones with even smaller sensors but even higher resolution.

That's the difference between "theory" and practical usage / experience by real life photography.

Well, practical useage is a different conversation.