Jump to content

What do you want in the next digital M?


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40MP is really mostly necessary for me now. It's the only thing I need. 50MP would be a bonus but I can't see that happening. I have absolutely no problem hand holding with these resolutions.

 

 

40MP, what size print are you doing and whats your viewing distance??? :eek:

 

I shot a bill board ad during a TV commercial shoot with a Canon 20D (8 1/2MP) and it was printed on Bill Boards (48 sheet) posters all over the city. I had a Hasselblad ready to go but I was only given 30 seconds to do the shoot, between scene changes, so the Canon was quicker. As the viewing distance was so big the ad looked great.

 

 

 

Don't forget that to double you file size you need to increase your storage space, and your computer will 'slow down' as its moving more pixels around. For me 24MP is a sweet spot. Most of my prints are 10x8 or smaller or the shots are uesd on websites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

For my wish list, I feel that the M 240 has limitations designed in which I would love to have removed.

 

EVF - I need to be able to move the magnification patch around.

 

EVF and Flash - When the EVF is attached I cannot fire a flash/strobe. The PC socket which is on all the film cameras has been removed. PUT IT BACK!!! :mad:sT47u7u3Kz9ez5ih3SW5MoyFiZWVicUvP1iliWGaZoIPo1ltV0+nBaO5t+gUhrmGdrYelUUlBcXFnroa0iCHKTgkJialJOXEBuvxzQI5fbKQukdQkL+nvhTvZIjnZsvziykpCXPLzYb6FijU0lDaMhvMBAD5U19wj4FPxAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== It could be placed on the front of the camera beside the lens, opposite the lens release button. I know the Leica is an available light camera but sometime a flash is the only light available...

 

Bulb - Remove the 30 second limitation and have the black frame user choosable. I choose 'off'.

 

ISO - A higher and lower ISO settings. About 2 stops on each end should do it.

 

Oh, one last small thing. A bigger viewfinder as I ware glasses. I know this one is an easy design change... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I hope that don't add more megapixels to any future model as I find 24 just fine.

 

It is actually megasensels (sensor elements).

Your color M camera has:

- 12M green elements

- 6M red elements

- 6M blue elements

 

The output final image on a [future] 24M "real" pixels monitor needs 72M elements (24M red, 24M green, 24M blue) that are mostly wasted.

 

This basically means that if you shoot - say - a red subject, your M camera is actually a 6 MP device. Worst case, of course, but higher sensors densities make sense and will provide much better images.

If you don't want to waste storage space, the camera (or application) can perform pixel binning resulting in a very high quality smaller raw file with lower resolution but a crisper image with less noise and aliasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is actually megasensels (sensor elements).

Your color M camera has:

- 12M green elements

- 6M red elements

- 6M blue elements

 

The output final image on a [future] 24M "real" pixels monitor needs 72M elements (24M red, 24M green, 24M blue) that are mostly wasted.

 

This basically means that if you shoot - say - a red subject, your M camera is actually a 6 MP device. Worst case, of course, but higher sensors densities make sense and will provide much better images........

........................................

 

Isn't that comparison a little misleading though? Because a 6mp device would be subject to the same processes, and would still have only 25% of the working pixels relative to a 24mp sensor.

 

I don't think many people are saying they want what you call a "true" 24 mp camera. Rather, they are saying they are happy with the 24mps working as they do now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that comparison a little misleading though? Because a 6mp device would be subject to the same processes, and would still have only 25% of the working pixels relative to a 24mp sensor.

 

I just wanted to point out is that there is a big difference between pixels and sensor elements. The fact we are used to "true" pixels on our monitors makes us think our camera has more pixels than we need - but this is not the case, especially when we will be using 4K displays, let alone 8K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points:

 

1. Anyone with a 24 MP camera, ‘real’ pixels or not, can tell whether a 24 MP Bayer sensor meets his or her needs.

 

2. Given the limited resolution of our eyes, 6 million ‘real’ pixels are about what we can resolve from a normal viewing distance, so even in the worst case of a monochrome red or blue image will a 24 MP Bayer sensor be sufficient unless our eyes were glued to the LCD panel.

 

3. Higher resolution displays don’t change any of that unless they were really huge. A future display may resolve 32 million pixels but our eyes cannot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points:

1. Anyone with a 24 MP camera, ‘real’ pixels or not, can tell whether a 24 MP Bayer sensor meets his or her needs.

 

One thing is meeting one's needs, and another thing is enjoying a higher quality.

Often we don't know what we are missing until we experience something new.

 

2. Given the limited resolution of our eyes, 6 million ‘real’ pixels are about what we can resolve from a normal viewing distance, so even in the worst case of a monochrome red or blue image will a 24 MP Bayer sensor be sufficient unless our eyes were glued to the LCD panel.

 

It is not as simple as that. Your camera spreads pixels uniformly on the sensor, but when you look at a photo, your brain/eyes "select" the part of it you want to see at high resolution. That part will be projected into the fovea where the largest part of our 100M+ human eye "sensor elements" are.

 

3. Higher resolution displays don’t change any of that unless they were really huge. A future display may resolve 32 million pixels but our eyes cannot.

 

It actually depends on both the display size and the viewing distance.

You can certainly appreciate the 4x resolution difference between the normal iPad and the "retina iPad" having 3M real pixels (i.e. 9M primary-color elements).

My normal viewing distance from the 10'' iPad is not much lower than the viewing distance from my 27'' monitor when I inspect photos, and despite my monitor having 3.7 M pixels, it does not outresolve my fovea, therefore I wish my monitor had the same dpi as the iPad.

 

The solution is a large "retina monitor", and this is why Apple came up with the new "retina" iMac displaying about 15M real pixels (i.e. 45M primary-color elements).

 

Are 45M sensels enough for a camera then ?

No, I want more to be able to crop and still enjoy a "retina" image ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sticking a 100MP body on a tripod and cropping afterwards instead of composing will never be the Leica way hopefully.

 

The EVF has never been the Leica way either, nevertheless many of us now use it.

Cropping afterwards is helpful for different reasons, and it is actually composing a shot after it has been taken (less the fear of losing the decisive moment).

Cameras are just tools, and the only thing that matters is the final result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I know for a fact that Leica was considering an EVF even before the R series was discontinued.

 

It would be interesting if they could implement a hybrid one as Fuji did so one could easily switch between RF and EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is meeting one's needs, and another thing is enjoying a higher quality.

Often we don't know what we are missing until we experience something new.

There is a law of diminishing returns at work here. On my first 9" Mac screen I could easily discern individual pixels. On the screen of my two years old iMac I cannot – not from a normal viewing distance anyway –, and that’s not because of deteriorating eyesight. There is still room for improvement but you need to get closer and closer to the screen to appreciate it.

 

It is not as simple as that. Your camera spreads pixels uniformly on the sensor, but when you look at a photo, your brain/eyes "select" the part of it you want to see at high resolution. That part will be projected into the fovea where the largest part of our 100M+ human eye "sensor elements" are.

And that high-resolution area was what I was talking about. Peripheral vision has a much lower resolution of course, but when we look at features in an image we are scanning it with the fovea so that’s what determines effective resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget: You didn't increase the Photons on your chip, so more pixels on the same area meens less DNR and high Iso possibilities.

 

This generalization is usually false when upgrading to newer sensor tecnology. As a matter of fact, the D800 36MP sensor has better dynamic range and ISO performance than the Leica M 24MP sensor.

Even the A7S, with its modern 12MP sensor has a little better ISO performance than a D800 rescaled at the same MP. And at low ISO, the D800 image at 12MP is better, as it will contain more true spatial information per pixel.

I would definitely get a D800 over the A7S even if I had a target output of 12 MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...