M360 (?) and lenses

[Photoskeptic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is wholly theoretical so bear with me...when Nikon introduced the D800 a genuine issue became which lenses could work with the high mp sensor and whether or not this sensor required a higher resolving lens design. Turned out it did but most of the existing Nikon lenses worked fine, however the Zeiss 55 1.4 really revealed what a more evolved (and tighter build tolerance) lens design could do with 36 mp.

So my query is that if Leica went to a higher mp sensor would the existing Leica lenses be up to the task? And I know that many have used adapters for Leica lenses on the current Sony 36 mp offering successfully - which may be the best indicator but I wanted to open a discussion on this (it's not too early, imo).

 

Something else which occurred to me is that perhaps the APO 50 Cron ASPH was designed with a higher mp in mind?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Likaleica]

Given the history of digital photography it probably is only a matter of time before we see another 30-50% increase in pixel density. Question is - when?

[Berth]

Would it be inconvenient to point out Nikon's just introduced top of the line DSLR, the D4s, has 16.2 megapixels? It seems they don't think more is better.

[james.liam]

So my query is that if Leica went to a higher mp sensor would the existing Leica lenses be up to the task? And I know that many have used adapters for Leica lenses on the current Sony 36 mp offering successfully - which may be the best indicator but I wanted to open a discussion on this (it's not too early, imo).

 

Something else which occurred to me is that perhaps the APO 50 Cron ASPH was designed with a higher mp in mind?

 

Reading Lloyd Chambers' substantial work on Leica M, it is clear that the modern lenses at least, have already been designed with greater resolving potential that an M8, M9 or M240 were capable of fully exploiting.

 

Would it be inconvenient to point out Nikon's just introduced top of the line DSLR, the D4s, has 16.2 megapixels? It seems they don't think more is better.

 

As the wisdom of "horses of courses" forever holds, the same issues that arose with the α7R, and even M240 (namely, the need for very high shutter speeds and/or rigid mount to defeat shutter vibration) would apply to a hypothetical M360. Are you doing street shooting, portraits or landscape work? As they've done with the ME, a lower MP model will persist where a 4 meter print isn't a consideration.

[Berth]

Reading Lloyd Chambers' substantial work on Leica M, it is clear that the modern lenses at least, have already been designed with greater resolving potential that an M8, M9 or M240 were capable of fully exploiting.

 

 

As the wisdom of "horses of courses" forever holds, the same issues that arose with the α7R, and even M240 (namely, the need for very high shutter speeds and/or rigid mount to defeat shutter vibration) would apply to a hypothetical M360. Are you doing street shooting, portraits or landscape work? As they've done with the ME, a lower MP model will persist where a 4 meter print isn't a consideration.

 

I suspect Nikon has discovered that not all pixels are equal, more apparently does not always translate into better resolution. I gather pixel size matters too.

 

Or sensitivity. There's been much discussion here about maximum ISO. That Nikon will go to ISO 409,600. That's what, 6 stops faster than a M240? Think of it as a Noctilux f/.015.

[Likaleica]

As the wisdom of "horses of courses" forever holds, the same issues that arose with the α7R, and even M240 (namely, the need for very high shutter speeds and/or rigid mount to defeat shutter vibration) would apply to a hypothetical M360. Are you doing street shooting, portraits or landscape work? As they've done with the ME, a lower MP model will persist where a 4 meter print isn't a consideration.

 

Exactly. The Apo-Summicron-M Asph resolves at 160 lp/mm and the M sensor resolves at 80 lp/mm (according to Erwin Puts), yet most photographers are using the camera hand held, which reduces resolution to around 20 lp/mm.

 

When I use my M8 and M hand held at reasonable shutter speeds I see no appreciable difference in resolution on the screen or printed. I do see a significant difference when mounted on a tripod, however.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without some dramatic change in Leica sensor tech (one is inevitably due sooner than later) a threshold of meaningful usability has pretty much been reached. A sweet spot of 18-24 for handheld use absent image stabilization while 36+ for tripod-based portraiture & landscape. The α7 with its electronic first curtain extends the range of this usability but there are limits.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[james.liam]

BTW, meant to write, "horses FOR courses"...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[edwardkaraa]

I doubt it that the next M will be 36mp. I'm just guessing but I think they will stick with 24mp for a while. There are many issues with 36mp sensors and M mount flange distance as we have seen with Sony A7 vs A7R.

[Jennifer]

I doubt it that the next M will be 36mp. I'm just guessing but I think they will stick with 24mp for a while. There are many issues with 36mp sensors and M mount flange distance as we have seen with Sony A7 vs A7R.

 

I bought the 36MP Sony A7R and regretted not getting the 24MP A7 instead. Though attracted to the fact that the A7R lacks the AA filter of it's sibling, the extra pixels are, IME, for the sort of hand held photography I mostly do, more of a hindrance than a benefit. Except for the most esoteric photography, involving major crops and/or poster size printing I'm doubtful most will find much use for the 36MP resolution.

[Likaleica]

I get that. Most of my hand held photos from my 36mp camera are unusable. The 24mp of the M are the upper limit, for me at least.

[Jennifer]

I get that. Most of my hand held photos from my 36mp camera are unusable. The 24mp of the M are the upper limit, for me at least.

 

Indeed. Much good red wine and advancing years have conspired to render my hand not quite as steady as it once may have been.

[jlindstrom]

I get that. Most of my hand held photos from my 36mp camera are unusable. The 24mp of the M are the upper limit, for me at least.

 

I came to the exact same conclusion. The A7r for handheld shooting only was a total disaster.. M240 is giving me far better results.

 

//Juha

[dpattinson]

I get that. Most of my hand held photos from my 36mp camera are unusable. The 24mp of the M are the upper limit, for me at least.

 

Having used a fair range of Nikons newer lenses on the D800E, the biggest difference in image quality for me comes from vibration reduction. The 70-200 VR2 lens I can hand hold down to 1/20'th of a second with VR enabled, wheras the new 85 f1.8G without VR I don't like to use below 1/250. I suspect that future Nikon primes will come with VR for this reason.

 

Clearly there is less of a problem with camera shake on a M camera where there is no mirror to slap around, so quite possibly they could go up to 36Mp without having so much of a problem. I think they might well consider in-camera vibration reduction if they do.

 

I find it hard to imagine that the new ASPH lenses would not be able to handle 36Mp resolution, I wonder if the more likely problem would be that very minor focus calibration issues would become more apparent given the increased resolution.

[Jennifer]

Having used a fair range of Nikons newer lenses on the D800E, the biggest difference in image quality for me comes from vibration reduction. The 70-200 VR2 lens I can hand hold down to 1/20'th of a second with VR enabled, wheras the new 85 f1.8G without VR I don't like to use below 1/250. I suspect that future Nikon primes will come with VR for this reason.

 

Clearly there is less of a problem with camera shake on a M camera where there is no mirror to slap around, so quite possibly they could go up to 36Mp without having so much of a problem. I think they might well consider in-camera vibration reduction if they do.

 

I find it hard to imagine that the new ASPH lenses would not be able to handle 36Mp resolution, I wonder if the more likely problem would be that very minor focus calibration issues would become more apparent given the increased resolution.

 

There's no mirror in the A7R either, albeit the shutter action is hardly subtle, and IME, especially with a VR free prime, there's a problem. I think I'd need some persuasion to return to 36MP resolution.

[colonel]

This is wholly theoretical so bear with me...when Nikon introduced the D800 a genuine issue became which lenses could work with the high mp sensor and whether or not this sensor required a higher resolving lens design. Turned out it did but most of the existing Nikon lenses worked fine, however the Zeiss 55 1.4 really revealed what a more evolved (and tighter build tolerance) lens design could do with 36 mp.

 

Lens resolving power does increase.

However the latest Leica ASPH designs are pretty much state of the art.

 

Note that it appears that new techniques in lens design are more easily acquirable today.

Just look at what small companies, like Samyang, can do, and what cheaper designs, like Nikons 1.8G series can do (the only real difference with the 1.4G series is the construction and nano and internal coatings for flare).

 

The pinnacle of this is really the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art. Its within spitting distance of the Otus for 1/5 of the price.

 

The bigger issue is diffraction at smaller apertures. When f8 is heavily effected you need to worry.

I reckon we are ok up to 60mp.

 

Remember that black silicon will have about a billion pixels when (if) they start to use it for sensors. I reckon that will change many things, e.g.no need for zoom lenses any more.

[mjh]

A 36 MP sensor would increase linear resolution by 22 percent which is hardly dramatic (if you want to relate sensor resolution to image contrast at spatial frequencies measured as Lp/mm, linear resolution is relevant). But unless crosstalk issues – that are exacerbated by smaller sensor pixels – are resolved, I doubt Leica would want to go that route.

 

Anyway, don’t worry about the lenses.

[mjh]

Remember that black silicon will have about a billion pixels when (if) they start to use it for sensors. I reckon that will change many things, e.g.no need for zoom lenses any more.

Black silicon sensors (Sensors | SiOnyx The Black Silicon Company) generally don’t excel at the number of pixels, and there is no reason why they should. Black silicon increases a sensor’s sensitivity (which is more of a problem than an asset in digital photography), not the number of pixels you could cram in a given sensor area.

 

Anyway, even if the number of sensor pixels did increase dramatically we would still need zoom lenses (or primes of different focal lengths).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[edwardkaraa]

A 36 MP sensor would increase linear resolution by 22 percent which is hardly dramatic (if you want to relate sensor resolution to image contrast at spatial frequencies measured as Lp/mm, linear resolution is relevant). But unless crosstalk issues – that are exacerbated by smaller sensor pixels – are resolved, I doubt Leica would want to go that route.

 

Anyway, don’t worry about the lenses.

 

Indeed smaller pixels introduce more problems, and even more with RF lenses due to the angle at which the light hits the microlenses in the corners.

 

As we have seen with the A7R, despite the lack of AA filter and the special offset micro-lenses, the camera has substantially more problems with RF glass than the 24 mp A7.

[edwardkaraa]

I bought the 36MP Sony A7R and regretted not getting the 24MP A7 instead. Though attracted to the fact that the A7R lacks the AA filter of it's sibling, the extra pixels are, IME, for the sort of hand held photography I mostly do, more of a hindrance than a benefit. Except for the most esoteric photography, involving major crops and/or poster size printing I'm doubtful most will find much use for the 36MP resolution.

 

I opted for the A7 because of exactly the same reasons, but still sold it one month later, because it didn't play well with my RF lenses.