batmobile Posted February 8, 2015 Share #721 Posted February 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This does not have to a 'one' or 'the other' argument. It may well be possible for a reasonable compromise to be made. We all have different needs and we ought to recognise that, rather than dismissing one over the other. Technology is improving, so increasing pixel count may be possible at the same time as improving other performance parameters or at a minimum of not reducing them. I do not agree that the Leica M is all about photojournalism and street photography. They always were and will continue to be used far more for general scenic and travel photography than anything else (although mine have been used plenty for photojournalism/documentary). IMHO they excel at providing a reasonably lightweight, simple, hand-holdable, intuitive platform with superb lenses for tripod-free scenic and landscape work. I have no other camera that can produce such incredible 'stumbled across' scenics, without a tripod, as my Monochrom. Being able to shoot such images at 640 or higher without a second thought helps too! I don't think it accurately reflects reality to suggest that boosting pixel count will ruin the camera, or that the M system is not being used (or should not be used) for high resolution imagery. I for one find it an exceptional platform for this, precisely because carrying around massive bags and heavy gear is not something that works for me. Its the camera in my hand that gets the shot.... I will therefore select the best image quality possible within the limit of what I am prepared to carry around. A year ago I added the A7R to my kit and, great as it is, it is not a Leica M. Personally, I see no need for 50MP (and think it would be inadvisable at this stage), but 30-36 would hardly be big news now (even less so with the next generation) and the improved ability to crop and the noise benefits from down rezzing are well recognised. As long as it is well implemented, there are more advantages than disadvantages increasing the pixel count as long as the rest of the camera can keep up (the lenses certainly can, which is not something any other manufacturer can claim - a nice USP for Leica). Technology suggests this is more than achievable. Besides, one can just select 'MRAW' and get 18MP, 24 or whatever it is set to. Its all about personal perspectives, but lets recognise that there are lots of people who are legitimately and understandably using the Leica M as their high IQ platform of choice. Suggesting that a 50mp MFD camera is what a person should be using is ridiculous, because the manner in which they are used is completely different. This has an an enormous impact on the equipment we choose and why and the reduction in mobility and fluidity can have even more of an adverse affect on results than the loss of MP in the smaller system. The whole reason why the 35mm system arose in the first place has been mobility/convenience and ever since then efforts have been made to increase the maximum resolution possible. That has been achieved through lenses and film, but users of M6s and MPs have always been able to put an old lens on and sling in some traditional 400 speed film and develop in Rodinal if they wish. Nowadays we have SRAW and MRAW, along with post processing, to achieve those lower resolution/rougher results; however, to capture the largest possible market I expect Leica will have to aim to at least give users of the future M the option of higher resolution. Regarding noise, just compare a downsized D800 file with the D4S, or a A7R with A7S and there is not much in it. Times have moved on and its important to consider noise only at the print/image level. Sure, the next M could have a huge buffer and knock out 10fps with 24MP and be squeaky clean up to 6400, but something tells me that's no more in keeping with the 'M ideal' than a high resolution body. We have to be careful with tradition for the sake of it, because it holds as much risk of throughly dissuading the new buyer as it does retaining the long-time owner (plenty of whom I suspect also want more MP as an option). These are all opinions and mine are likely horrible to some others, but I do at least think it is legitimate. As an owner of 2 M6s, M3, M2, MP (once four, now one) and Monochrom I suspect it probably matters to Leica as well. While those who have no interest in more MP (and there are disadvantages to more, no matter what) also have completely understandable points of view, what we get is most likely going to reflect Leica's desire (and need) to sell camera bodies. IMHO we are therefore likely to see more MP no matter who argues what in this thread. More MP is progress, assuming we can remove the value judgment from the world 'progress'. Its just like evolution: its not personal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Hi batmobile, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted February 8, 2015 Share #722 Posted February 8, 2015 The individual cells on a sensor are not flat; in fact, they should be seen as small pits or wells. Even if the electronic part of the sensor stack was perfectly flat, the entire stack would still not be flat as there are lenses, possibly baffles and other paraphernalia on top. Increasing the pixel count by 50% will make those pits narrower but not shallower. Given that the angle at which the light from the lens arrives at the sensor (a) varies with lens architecture and focal distance and ( leads to visible artifacts which take much in-camera processing to alleviate, I personally don't believe that increasing the pixel count will lead to better pictures, at least not with the current crop of M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 8, 2015 Share #723 Posted February 8, 2015 pop, you may well be right. If so, that's something particular to M lens/flange distance design issues (as you say), but not necessarily something that Leica will not be able to make progress on. I remember 'Full-Frame digital M' being 'impossible' before 2009 and the M9 came as a shock to many for this reason. Similar issues were raised with the A7R, but that has not stopped Zeiss producing a very respectable 16-35mm which is actually much better at the wide end than 35mm. Now there is a 25mm f2 Zeiss in the works we hear. I fear that, rightly or wrongly, a failure to increase MP (whether by will or limitations) will lose Leica a lot of customers. To offer us anything, they have to stay in business and I understand (maybe incorrectly) that the M system is holding up weaker members of their system line up. I think an increasing MP count will remain part of the equation for the M, at least up to the 36MP point after which the print sizes that need more resolution are printed only by a minuscule minority of users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 8, 2015 Share #724 Posted February 8, 2015 I don't quite agree. Rather, I think a majority of M users use that system for the very reason that it allows them to use their legacy lenses. I also presume that this is the very clientele which values using their current lenses above yet another increase in the number of pixels, particularly if that would result in poorer imaging in the corners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 8, 2015 Share #725 Posted February 8, 2015 What the M needs is more dynamic range and much better high iso performance (no banding please!!). Some people might want 36 or 50mp, but it sounds like they don't realise that for hand-held photography as soon as you get into that resolution territory, you need VERY stable hands to pull off a sharp shot, and you need to seriously start bumping up your shutter speeds to 4x the focal length at minimum to be able to get pixel-level sharpness at all. 36-50mp is made for tripod usage. Some people might use the M for that type of photography, and that's fine, but that's such a minority of the users that I sure as hell hope Leica don't cater to those types of users. There are much better tools for those jobs out there. Heck, you can get a complete Pentax 645Z MF kit for about the same as a Leica M kit. And that 645Z will easily outperform ANYTHING that the M-platform can offer, as it easily trounces the D810, A7R, and so on, not only in resolution but also dynamic range and even noise/high iso performance (!). And if that's too cheap for you then just get a Phase or Hassy setup that uses the same sensor. So unless the next M receives some seriously good working IBIS system, I hope that the resolution stays where it is, cause I don't want all my shots to start looking very blurry simply because I'm handholding my compact walkaround camera (which is what the Leica was/is designed to be). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 8, 2015 Share #726 Posted February 8, 2015 This assumes an increase in pixel density will result in an actual reduction in measured (rather than relative) performance in the corners, rather than a lack of improvement. I would be very surprised if an increase in pixels were to have such a dramatic backward step, especially as there would be at least some countermeasures available to Leica. If older lenses see no improvement, the issue of excessive pixels is easily fixed with a lower MRAW option. Leica managed to go from 18MP to 24MP and measurably increase edge and corner performance, so perhaps similar magic is possible with the next step up? Guess we will find out in the next 12 months. Its far less interesting guessing what DSLR manufacturers will do (or even mirrorless for that matter) because they don't have the history, the long-term devoted fan-base or the peculiarities/restrictions of the M platform. I don't quite agree. Rather, I think a majority of M users use that system for the very reason that it allows them to use their legacy lenses. I also presume that this is the very clientele which values using their current lenses above yet another increase in the number of pixels, particularly if that would result in poorer imaging in the corners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 8, 2015 Share #727 Posted February 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This assumes an increase in pixel density will result in an actual reduction in measured (rather than relative) performance in the corners ... Please refer to my post preceding the one you quoted. Narrowing the sensor cells might indeed result in that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 8, 2015 Share #728 Posted February 8, 2015 I think some of your statements are a touch on the pessimistic side of accurate. I own a Monochrom, A7 and A7R and can very happily shoot my 35mm Sonnar on the latter at 1/90th and get razor sharp results, just as I can with 1/60th the vast majority of the time. Achieving well north of these speeds is very easy at low to medium ISO, for my purposes, most the time. When I am worried about noise induced by hiking the ISO to boost shutter speeds, I remind myself that those extra pixels mean that a downsized print once sees the noise diminished. It is untrue to suggest 36-50MP is made for tripod use from two perspectives: 1. The A7R is tiny and was clearly made to be handheld. Sony has sold a boat load of them precisely because they are so portable. 2. If you can routinely (in ones usage) obtain shutter speeds that are well above the minimum for sharp results hand-held, then clearly a tripod does not need to enter the equation. Not everyone shoots dawn, dusk and golden hour landscapes with their 36MP. Besides, you can still put a small camera on a tripod if you want to. While not as good as a 50MP MF camera, they are still significantly better than 16-24MP cameras. It does not always have to be about the very best. It can be about a balance of excellent attributes and compromise. On the issue of much larger and heavier cameras being much better suited to the task of high resolution photography, you are right. But you have to get them there. If this means on your back, over miles, or all day on foot, the balance of benefits gets reappraised pretty quickly. A 36MP 600g camera and 200g lenses plus tripod weighs a fraction of a 645Z, plus lenses, plus much larger tripod. Small cameras with lots of MP can be used for pretty well everything, meaning your investment in one system covers more bases. The problem in your analysis (IMO) is that you are assuming a very particular set of circumstances and assuming they apply to everyone in their usage. A lot of 36MP shooting gets done hand held and very successfully too. The fact that some people can and do produce blurry shots from such cameras is a different issue and not one that concerns those who avoid those schoolboy mistakes. Additionally, if Leica were to produce a 36MP camera without IBIS, do you still think your photos would all look blurry at marginal 36MP shutter speeds, were you to select the '20MP MRAW option'? You'd get your pixel sharpness right back. Its like looking at A7R files blighted by a case of mild shutter vibration. They are so annoyingly soft.... until you realise that they have the same resolution as an identical 24MP shot from a Sony A7. You can always downrez and win benefits, but going the other way isn't the same. I guess it will come down to Leica's assessment of what their potential market wants to see. My gut feeling is that the Nikon Df has sold poorly because more people want resolution than amazing high ISO. Strong A7S sales are mostly attributed to videographers. ... Some people might want 36 or 50mp, but it sounds like they don't realise that for hand-held photography as soon as you get into that resolution territory, you need VERY stable hands to pull off a sharp shot, and you need to seriously start bumping up your shutter speeds to 4x the focal length at minimum to be able to get pixel-level sharpness at all. 36-50mp is made for tripod usage. Some people might use the M for that type of photography, and that's fine, but that's such a minority of the users that I sure as hell hope Leica don't cater to those types of users. There are much better tools for those jobs out there. Heck, you can get a complete Pentax 645Z MF kit for about the same as a Leica M kit. And that 645Z will easily outperform ANYTHING that the M-platform can offer, as it easily trounces the D810, A7R, and so on, not only in resolution but also dynamic range and even noise/high iso performance (!). And if that's too cheap for you then just get a Phase or Hassy setup that uses the same sensor. So unless the next M receives some seriously good working IBIS system, I hope that the resolution stays where it is, cause I don't want all my shots to start looking very blurry simply because I'm handholding my compact walkaround camera (which is what the Leica was/is designed to be). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 8, 2015 Share #729 Posted February 8, 2015 36-50mp is made for tripod usage. Why ? 50MP is a 50% increase in linear pixel density over 20MP, so just use a 50% higher shutter speed and you will have the same level of per-pixel motion blur you currently have on your M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted February 8, 2015 Share #730 Posted February 8, 2015 Some people might want 36 or 50mp, but it sounds like they don't realise that for hand-held photography as soon as you get into that resolution territory, you need VERY stable hands to pull off a sharp shot ..... 36-50mp is made for tripod usage. I dont agree with this statement at all. I have handheld a Nikon D800 and 50mm lens. Shutter speeds in the 1/125 to 1/250 range for quite a lot of them. The result? Edge to edge sharpness at 100% view. None of them remotely looked unsharp (no shake), even when resampled to even bigger print sizes beyond the sensor's native resolution. More detail would be extracted with a tripod -- but that goes for any camera at any megapixel level. I expect a 36MP Leica M would perform even better than a D800 due to lower vibration / mirror slap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 8, 2015 Share #731 Posted February 8, 2015 What about an 50 MP sensor with optional pixel binning to 24 MP? Pixel binned 50MP would most likely be 12.5MP unless it was scaled in some way. That said, I suspect those 12.5MP would be very good and more than satisfy those who want high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted February 8, 2015 Share #732 Posted February 8, 2015 What about an 50 MP sensor with optional pixel binning to 24 MP? What's a pattern that could make that work with a Bayer CFA? I can't think of one. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 8, 2015 Share #733 Posted February 8, 2015 I must confess I did not think it through all the way, hardly my expertise . So the precise numbers are for the experts to fill in. If it were, as Ian suggests, 50 and 12.5 that would work just fine for most applications, I should think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 8, 2015 Share #734 Posted February 8, 2015 Regarding earlier comments about sufficient resolution, Mike Johnston's introduction (3rd paragraph) to this post seems apropos. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9, 2015 Share #735 Posted February 9, 2015 Ummm.. I fully agree on his comments on Coffee and have some ideas of my own. Especially grinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 9, 2015 Share #736 Posted February 9, 2015 Ummm.. I fully agree on his comments on Coffee and have some ideas of my own. Especially grinders. I'm sure the Bar is open for coffee. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALD Posted February 9, 2015 Share #737 Posted February 9, 2015 I dont agree with this statement at all. I have handheld a Nikon D800 and 50mm lens. Shutter speeds in the 1/125 to 1/250 range for quite a lot of them. The result? Edge to edge sharpness at 100% view. None of them remotely looked unsharp (no shake), even when resampled to even bigger print sizes beyond the sensor's native resolution. More detail would be extracted with a tripod -- but that goes for any camera at any megapixel level. I expect a 36MP Leica M would perform even better than a D800 due to lower vibration / mirror slap. I enjoy reading your opinions and agree with them. I completely understand your needs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 9, 2015 Share #738 Posted February 9, 2015 I think one of the more interesting innovations on the new Canon cameras is flicker detection. In this day and age where more and more interior lighting is being provided by fluorescent, SON (high pressure sodium) or LED lighting, I have found taking interior photos with the M240 and Noctilux, using ambient lighting rather than a flash, can become a bit of a lottery, unless you use longer exposures. Flickering is inherent in both LED, SON and fluorescent as opposed to incandescent lighting, where the flicker is minimal to non-existent. If you are using short exposures it is easy to get wrong exposures as if the lighting is all LED/SON/fluorescent, they will all go off and on at pretty much the same time with 50/60 hertz power supply, possibly slightly modified by hysteresis delay in any inductance in the lighting circuitry. Fluorescent is lightly less bad in that I understand there is a slight lag in the light output decay of the fluorescing coating on the inside of the tubes. The very few times I have taken video with the M240 in an SON lit environment, I have found I can get quite odd results. So I would like to see flicker detection/reduction in the next M but I suspect this comes under the "fat chance" category Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 9, 2015 Share #739 Posted February 9, 2015 I think some of your statements are a touch on the pessimistic side of accurate. I own a Monochrom, A7 and A7R and can very happily shoot my 35mm Sonnar on the latter at 1/90th and get razor sharp results, just as I can with 1/60th the vast majority of the time. Achieving well north of these speeds is very easy at low to medium ISO, for my purposes, most the time. When I am worried about noise induced by hiking the ISO to boost shutter speeds, I remind myself that those extra pixels mean that a downsized print once sees the noise diminished. It is untrue to suggest 36-50MP is made for tripod use from two perspectives: 1. The A7R is tiny and was clearly made to be handheld. Sony has sold a boat load of them precisely because they are so portable. 2. If you can routinely (in ones usage) obtain shutter speeds that are well above the minimum for sharp results hand-held, then clearly a tripod does not need to enter the equation. Not everyone shoots dawn, dusk and golden hour landscapes with their 36MP. Besides, you can still put a small camera on a tripod if you want to. While not as good as a 50MP MF camera, they are still significantly better than 16-24MP cameras. It does not always have to be about the very best. It can be about a balance of excellent attributes and compromise. On the issue of much larger and heavier cameras being much better suited to the task of high resolution photography, you are right. But you have to get them there. If this means on your back, over miles, or all day on foot, the balance of benefits gets reappraised pretty quickly. A 36MP 600g camera and 200g lenses plus tripod weighs a fraction of a 645Z, plus lenses, plus much larger tripod. Small cameras with lots of MP can be used for pretty well everything, meaning your investment in one system covers more bases. The problem in your analysis (IMO) is that you are assuming a very particular set of circumstances and assuming they apply to everyone in their usage. A lot of 36MP shooting gets done hand held and very successfully too. The fact that some people can and do produce blurry shots from such cameras is a different issue and not one that concerns those who avoid those schoolboy mistakes. Additionally, if Leica were to produce a 36MP camera without IBIS, do you still think your photos would all look blurry at marginal 36MP shutter speeds, were you to select the '20MP MRAW option'? You'd get your pixel sharpness right back. Its like looking at A7R files blighted by a case of mild shutter vibration. They are so annoyingly soft.... until you realise that they have the same resolution as an identical 24MP shot from a Sony A7. You can always downrez and win benefits, but going the other way isn't the same. I guess it will come down to Leica's assessment of what their potential market wants to see. My gut feeling is that the Nikon Df has sold poorly because more people want resolution than amazing high ISO. Strong A7S sales are mostly attributed to videographers. On the A7R and D800/D810 you should always stay at 3-4x the focal length in shutter speed if you want sharp results. This has been verified by countless high-profile reviewers out there. In regards to how Leica photography has been, where hand-held photography in low-light consists of very low shutter speeds (1/15, 1/30 on a 35mm for example) such a high resolution is not something you want, as it'll only amplify the results of camera shake. The Leica M was designed to be a hand-held walk-around use-anywhere-anytime camera, not a high-resolution monster. People used large format for that. If I really want high-res then I'd rather use my Hasseblad 503cm and do an Imacon film scan. Why on earth would I want 50 megapixels in my pocket for walking around at dusk when I have to use slow shutters speeds - hand held? The majority of the Leica users aren't exactly landscape photographers. It's mostly all hand-held, fast aperture, mixed light type of work, where many people even wash away details by shooting at a wide open aperture. 50 or 36 megapixels in these cases are a complete waste, and has more negative impact than positive. There are other things that are amplified with higher-resolution sensors too: Rangefinder and lens calibration for example. The more resolution you have, the more precision requirements are put on your rangefinder and lens calibration. If it's even slightly out of spec it will show. Now, I guess most Leica users will agree that this phenomenon isn't actually rare. You are talking about mRAW. I have no idea why. I can't even imagine Leica supporting it at all. We're talking about a company that doesn't allow you to move the focus point in LV/EVF mode here, which is a completely electronic software feature. Why on earth would they implement mRAW or sRAW? Anyway, my hope is still for a Leica M that uses a sensor similar to the Sony A7S. It's the best sensor I've ever had the pleasure of shooting with. Too bad that the rest of the camera isn't on par with the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #740 Posted February 9, 2015 I'm quite present, thanks, but admittedly not impressed by the trend to print bigger and bigger, or the tendency for bokeh frenzy, or various other current 'art' directions. Fortunately, for me, there is still lots of great work to see and admire….from current and past photographers and other artists. One needn't live in the past to find detail among the lesser interesting aspects of a great work. And the bigger the print, the farther away I stand. I am curious, though, if people already "always comment on the level of detail" in your work, what's the urgency about wanting more? Different strokes... Jeff Large artwork is not a trend. Take a walk through any national gallery and this very quickly becomes evident. I remember the first time I visited the Louvre; all those years I had being studying art, with small pictures in text books, as good it is, can not prepare you for the unmistakable and overwhelming awe you feel standing in front of the Raft of Medusa. The tiniest of details, the most minuscule of brush marks are right there, every mm is perfect. It's so enveloping that it puts you right there and you can feel yourself connected with the work artist. You also get the full sensation that time has been frozen — every minuscule brush mark was put there by Gericault and you finally get an appreciation of it all, you can feel it and a whole lot of others things speaking to you. It really sends your imagination into overdrive. That mostly sums up size for me. That is not to say every print I make is enormous, I love tiny prints too for some pictures, when the message is right. Printing photos large is not a trend, so many of the memorable exhibitions I've been to are monster prints. Technology is giving us the chance to work with bigger image spaces in digital and for many reasons, some of which I've listed above, I'm gobbling it up. In terms of bigger prints and standing back, sure I do that but I also want to get up close and breath it in, let it wash over me. I want to see and feel the detail. I want to be enveloped. You ask why I want more. Even 60MP is limiting, 80mp is better but the difference is not substantial. I will certainly upgrade at some point though. Even on a 70 inch print from a 60mp file you start to see see artefact, more so if you are shaping the image with certain processes, contrast, high radius sharpening. Interpolation is interpolation. It's a computer guessing and adding. It's not organic, it's not natural and you see it. I don't want that. However...60MP is a great size, I'm happy with it. I love shooting with a small camera, it lets you do things and go places you can't do with a big camera, but it's limiting what you can do with 18mp file. I want as much as I can get and now it is becoming technologically viable for it to happen in these small formats. That is really exciting. Also it's not just about big prints. People who book me for commercial work do so, usually, these days, from jpgs on their monitor. Sending books out is a thing of the past, it still happens, but not nearly as much as it did. When we are shooting, they are there watching my monitor. Shooting at high res blows people away and they come back wanting more. It gives them confidence in what you can do when you need to crop heavily after something has shot because the client needs it. It's really hard going back to lower res when you know what IQ you can have elsewhere. They don't even see the final output a lot of the time. You are booked on the quality of your work and it is judged and compared to work of others a monitor. But even at smaller sizes, you can just see the difference. Texture, in an image translates something special. The fineness of high resolution speaks something too. I invite clients to showings and they often say "wow, lets do massive prints on our next project". Wether you are bothered or not, photography is a viewer experience. I don't mean that negatively, some people really don't care about anything other than shooting, and that is fine. But displaying images is about creating an experience to say something. For me, big prints can be a big part of that. It's not about creating something satisfactory. It's about creating something amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.