Why such a low-resolution LCD on S2?

[jgmb]

The S2 is obviously designed from the ground up to be a state-of-the-art camera in every respect and it looks like Leica has taken a no-compromise approach to designing this revolutionary new camera. But why have they chosen such a conventional resolution of only 460,000 pixels for their LCD display? The new standard among 3" displays is now 922,000 pixels (NIkon, Sony, and now Canon). I would think that with a 39 megapixel sensor, having a higher quality LCD would be beneficial for examining the extra detail. Is there any technical or practical reason why Leica chose to go with such a pedestrian LCD in a camera of this caliber? Perhaps if someone here is going to the Leica booth at Photo Plus Expo, they can ask?

Two other features I have not heard any mention of for the S2: sensor cleaning? and optical image stabilization? I understand that these are not important features for studio medium format cameras, but since the S2 is targeted for portable use in the field like a 35mm camera, would these not be beneficial?

[dfarkas]

Believe it or not, a 460K pixel LCD is a lot higher resolution than competing MFD backs. The Hasselblad H3DII-50 has a 3" LCD with 230K pixels. The PhaseOne P65+ has a 2.2" LCD also with 230K pixels. Leaf and Sinar don't list their screen resolutions, but from my personal experience I'd suspect they have even lower resolutions. I've seen the S2's LCD first hand and it looks clear, bright and sharp.

Regarding sensor cleaning, again, no competing MF system has this. Or, image stabilization for that matter. Not sure that the technology exists (yet) for a self cleaning 30x45mm sensor.

Remember that the S2 competes with other medium format systems. On that basis, the features and specs of the S2 are extremely attractive. And when compared to 35mm DSLRs, the image quality will be in a whole other league.

David

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks for the post David ..BTW - I love your blog

[stevelap]

Originally Posted by jgmb

....But why have they chosen such a conventional resolution of only 460,000 pixels for their LCD display? The new standard among 3" displays is now 922,000 pixels (NIkon, Sony, and now Canon)......Two other features I have not heard any mention of for the S2: sensor cleaning? and optical image stabilization? I understand that these are not important features for studio medium format cameras, but since the S2 is targeted for portable use in the field like a 35mm camera, would these not be beneficial?

You have a point re the state of the art concerning these technologies, certainly in the 35/FF dslr world, and they might be good features to have outside the studio.

But since for Leica IQ is everything, perhaps they consider that vibrating the sensor (or having to put something else in front of it to vibrate) might be detrimental in that respect. I don't know, just a thought. Or perhaps as has been said, the technology isn't there for them yet.

There is some time to go before the finished product hits the streets though, so perhaps some other features might make it into production. I would have thought that at least the higher resolution LCD would be possible.

[mjh]

Originally Posted by jgmb

sensor cleaning?

This hasn’t been a concern so far with medium-format cameras, although one might argue that sensors on detachable backs are easy to clean and that the S2 doesn’t have that advantage. Still, there is just one provably effective automatic sensor-cleaning technology on the market, namely Olympus’s Supersonic Wave Filter for the FourThirds system. The utility of the various automatic sensor-cleaning technologies for larger sensor sizes is dubious, and from what I hear, sensors still get cleaned manually. If Leica should add some vibrating filter or somesuch, it might earn them marks for buzzword compatibility, but have very little actual effect.

Originally Posted by jgmb

and optical image stabilization?

So far there is no image stabilization technology for medium-format cameras. Whether based on a movable lens group or a movable sensor, there will be a greater mass to be moved and thus a greater inertia to be overcome. Moreover, the lens group or the sensor would have to be moved over a longer distance. If Leica should overcome these difficulties, they would be the first to do so, but I wouldn’t count on it. Not in 2009 anyway.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by dfarkas

Believe it or not, a 460K pixel LCD is a lot higher resolution than competing MFD backs. The Hasselblad H3DII-50 has a 3" LCD with 230K pixels. The PhaseOne P65+ has a 2.2" LCD also with 230K pixels. Leaf and Sinar don't list their screen resolutions, but from my personal experience I'd suspect they have even lower resolutions. I've seen the S2's LCD first hand and it looks clear, bright and sharp.

Is this because MF (studio) photographers don't rely on the LCD screen as much as those photographers out in the field? No matter how many pixels are squeezed into a small LCD screen it is too small to really evaluate the final outcome.

[guy_mancuso]

Most of us do shoot tethered a lot. I really don't find that much value in the LCD quality except a image is there and the histo is correct. many will disagree and want 3 inch Nikon screens. Issue is real estate also for some backs. Phase this is a issue since it like the Leica S2 uses a 4 button push setup which i find better than any other back for it's simplicity. Others will argue that also. This is a big back and forth issue in the MF world about screen size. Of course I remember shooting without even a Polaroid back but I'm a old fart. LOL

[mjh]

Originally Posted by usayit

Is this because MF (studio) photographers don't rely on the LCD screen as much as those photographers out in the field? No matter how many pixels are squeezed into a small LCD screen it is too small to really evaluate the final outcome.

That’s why many medium-format photographers work in tethered mode so they can review the images on a big display.

[Gentleman Villain]

This thread just reminded me of how spoiled we photographers have become

My first digital camera was a 2 megapixel Kodak DCS 520...I bought it almost 10 years ago and it cost me $20,000

At the time, I was absolutely blown away just to have an LCD. I couldn't believe that it was possible to take a picture and review it immediately. During photo shoots...people would often ask me why I was looking at the back of the camera. It's kind of funny to think about it now...but back then...not many people had seen a digital camera and they weren't used to LCD screen previews. So they had no idea why I was always looking at the back of my camera. The 520 only had a tiny LCD screen that wasn't much larger than a few postage stamps. But once I got used to it....I could pretty confidently gauge my exposures within about 1/6 of a stop (with the added help of a meter)

Prior to purchasing the Kodak, I was forced to use polaroids like everybody else at the time.... I needed two camera bodies for a shoot. One body contained the film and the other body had the polaroid back. I also had an old polaroid camera that came in handy....

It's absolutely amazing the kind of cameras that are being built now...Ten years ago, I honestly couldn't have even dreamt of something like an S2...It really is amazing

[ptomsu]

The display resolution was also worrying for me. I only can think that this is just the case in the Prototype and the final product will show a display, which is fully satisfying the highest requirements of this camera.

Otherwise it would just be stupid

[lxlim]

Having a higher res screen is nice but I would rather the jpg embedded in the DNG file to be a faithful reproduction at 1:1 rather than a fuzzy one.

And 460K is fine with me if the screen is big and at 1:1 magnification the pixels show up clearly. My eyes don't have to work so hard.

Maybe scrolling is quicker.

[guy_mancuso]

This thread just reminded me of how spoiled we photographers have become

You said a mouthful. It amazes me how you can't do something these days with all this stuff when in the day you had NOTHING at all and guessing was your best friend and your meter was your wife. Today most don't even have a meter, still got that wife though. LOL

[jgmb]

From the responses so far, I guess the relevant technology standard depends on whether the S2 is viewed primarily as a medium-format camera in a 35mm body, or whether it is primarily a portable DSLR with medium-format image quality. My understanding is that Leica is trying to pull from both markets.

I sure didn't mean to come across as a spoiled photographer, far from it. I am very excited about the S2 and cannot wait to see what fantastic IQ it will be capable of.

But regarding the display resolution, I do realize it is far better than existing medium format cameras and I am sure quite adequate, but since when has Leica been satisfied with "good enough"? Why NOT put in a 922K 3" display when the technology exists? It surely cannot be a cost issue for this camera or a technical issue. I side with Peter, I think this is just a prototype and hopefully they will put in the best display available when the camera goes into production. After all, I think the S2 is the first camera to use OLED for the top display.

Regarding sensor cleaning and image stabilization, Michael made some very good points. Unlike the display, there might indeed be some technical issues with a sensor of this size.

[Gentleman Villain]

Originally Posted by jgmb

I sure didn't mean to come across as a spoiled photographer, far from it. I am very excited about the S2 and cannot wait to see what fantastic IQ it will be capable of.
.

We're all are spoiled dude I was just making a lighthearted comment about all of us and I hope you didn't think you were singled out. We're all a little spoiled...and it's nice to spoiled

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

You said a mouthful. It amazes me how you can't do something these days with all this stuff when in the day you had NOTHING at all and guessing was your best friend and your meter was your wife. Today most don't even have a meter, still got that wife though. LOL

heck yeah...that's the truth

Things were a bit slower and clumsier back then and maybe having that perspective is what keeps me in constant awe by the new technology. But ya know....some of our collective standards were a bit sloppier back then. For example, we could get away with a few more mistakes when it came to color. Nowadays, fine-tuning color correction in post is routine but back then we left a lot of color decisions (like pleasing skintones) for the printers to handle. We only really had to get it in the ballpark and then pass it off to the printers. And if something didn't come out right then we could always blame it on the printer and avoid responsibility LOL

[mjh]

Originally Posted by jgmb

But why have they chosen such a conventional resolution of only 460,000 pixels for their LCD display? The new standard among 3" displays is now 922,000 pixels (NIkon, Sony, and now Canon). I would think that with a 39 megapixel sensor, having a higher quality LCD would be beneficial for examining the extra detail. Is there any technical or practical reason why Leica chose to go with such a pedestrian LCD in a camera of this caliber?

The 3.0" displays in Canon’s top models EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS-1D Mark III sport a mere 230,000 pixels, and I hear those two cameras are not completely unusable. So I don’t think 460,000 pixels looks too shabby. Given that even higher resolution panels are now widely available, Leica might still change the specification, put it would be no big deal either way.

If the S2 should have a 921,000 pixel display eventually, each display pixel would represent roughly 11 x 11 image pixels (versus 16 x 16 pixels on a 460,000 pixel display). That’s still not enough for judging the sharpness of the image and would still require zooming in. For reviewing the composition, lighting etc., on the other hand, the resolution would be generous. Given that the resolution of a 3.0", 921,000 pixel panel is 267 ppi, I am not even sure you could actually appreciate the resolution from a typical viewing distance. For all practical purposes, the difference between a 460,000 and a 921,000 pixel display will be quite small.

[t024484]

The thing with pixels is a bit complex, because the definition of a pixel is not uniform.
The display of a Leica M8 is said to have 230.000 Pixels.
Each individual Red, Green or Blue lightsource is counted as a pixel.

A computerscreen calls the triplet of RGB one pixel. So a computerscreen pixel can display the whole gamut from white to black with all possible colors in between, which makes sense.

According to this definition the M8 has only 76.800 pixels.

Compared to the picture taken, and after demosaicing, a triplet in the LCD screen of an M8 covers 12*12 pixels in the original. A zoom factor of 12 (four steps 2*2*1.5*2) helps to go down to 1*1 in the original.

Having 460.000 pixels on the S2, should be regarded as 153.000 "real" pixels, and as MJH already mentioned, this covers 16*16 pixels of the original picture, which is easy to achieve in four steps,2*2*2*2.
More pixels on such a small screen can probably be hardly differentiated by the naked eye.

[khun_k]

Originally Posted by t024484

The thing with pixels is a bit complex, because the definition of a pixel is not uniform.
The display of a Leica M8 is said to have 230.000 Pixels.
Each individual Red, Green or Blue lightsource is counted as a pixel.

A computerscreen calls the triplet of RGB one pixel. So a computerscreen pixel can display the whole gamut from white to black with all possible colors in between, which makes sense.

According to this definition the M8 has only 76.800 pixels.

Compared to the picture taken, and after demosaicing, a triplet in the LCD screen of an M8 covers 12*12 pixels in the original. A zoom factor of 12 (four steps 2*2*1.5*2) helps to go down to 1*1 in the original.

Having 460.000 pixels on the S2, should be regarded as 153.000 "real" pixels, and as MJH already mentioned, this covers 16*16 pixels of the original picture, which is easy to achieve in four steps,2*2*2*2.
More pixels on such a small screen can probably be hardly differentiated by the naked eye.

I think, especially as a professional, we need to make sure when the shutter is pressed, the focus is secured, not to rely on checking the tiny LCD on the back all the time. The LCD is more useful for me to check the histogram, and the composition and overall lighting effect. I shot a lot of fashion work and I cannot stand to have to check the LCD to be sure the focus is good, not only I lost the connection with the model, I also lost the sequence of the work, to be able to focus good that's the basic for a professionals. The screen on my digital back today is good enough today and S2 will be more than that. But, better is always better, I don't mind a better screen of course.

[BJNY]

The S2's 3" LCD has the same specs as Nikon's and Sinar's (eSprit65) according to Maike Harberts at PhotoPlus.

640 x 480 x 3 RGB = 900,000+