madrigalmaster Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In my opinion a 40 megapixel resolution would have been the ideal and I would have been very interested in purchasing the system Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Hi madrigalmaster, Take a look here Resolution SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rramesh Posted October 26, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 26, 2015 There is a trade-off between high MP and number of frames/sec. The Canon 5DSR has 50.6 MP but only 5 frames/sec but the Canon 1D has 18 MP and 12 frames/sec. I think based on current technology the SL is optimal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 26, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 26, 2015 I think it simply comes down to Leica not having access to a higher pixel count sensor....I am sure Sony would provide one but that would make things. really funny....considering the A7 series..... a good reason for a lower pixel count is better high iso performance.....but 24 mix is a pretty good all around size..... the real issue why Leica would not want to give the SL 30 or 40 mix is that it would make the S look completely useless....it already is a strange system with not really top end mix, limited DR and not so good high iso along with high price..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 26, 2015 I think it simply comes down to Leica not having access to a higher pixel count sensor....I am sure Sony would provide one but that would make things. really funny....considering the A7 series..... a good reason for a lower pixel count is better high iso performance.....but 24 mix is a pretty good all around size..... the real issue why Leica would not want to give the SL 30 or 40 mix is that it would make the S look completely useless....it already is a strange system with not really top end mix, limited DR and not so good high iso along with high price..... I don't think so. Sony already sells sensors to Leica, and if Leica wanted more MP in their sensors, I'm sure they could obtain them without too much difficulty. Based on current technology, I think Leica has made a conscious decision that the best IQ with its lenses and its cameras in 35mm format is 24MP, and for the S, it's 37.5MP. Someone who knows the maths has pointed out that both sensors have the same sized pixels - I don't think that has anything to do with availability, or any sensitivity over Sony - Sony also sup[plies Nikon and many other camera makers. Speaking personally, I see the camera and the lens as a matched unit, so I try to make the best of each lens without too much cropping so I get the full benefit of the sensor and what the lens has to offer. I don't go in for extreme cropping, unless I have no alternative. As for resolution, I have no problem with Monochrom prints blown up to a metre on the long side (that's "only" 18MP) and similar sizes from the M Edition 60 (that's the M(240) sensor) - MP isn't a limiting factor in the same way that high MP brings complications of its own ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 26, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 26, 2015 I think IkarusJohn is right there. I believe it probably has more to do with sensor read out speed and the depth of the photosites. More pixels means you have to read and process more data off of the sensor for every frame captured, technologies like DFD which use live view sensor data also must read pixels and so it isn't just when you trigger the shutter, So more pixels wouldn't have allowed them to make as fast of a camera. Then there is is the other two factors. The obvious more pixels are smaller pixels which gather fewer photons. Thus less dynamic range or lower ISO. But there is also another downside which is the traces used to read the pixels off of the sensor. The ratio of area of semiconductor devoted to photoreceptors vs traces to read data goes down thus the efficiency of sensor in gathering photons goes down. So picking 24MP was one of those engineering tradeoffs. Camera speed as in FPS, AF speed, video performance, ISO performance, dynamic range vs resolution. Now that they have a fast 24MP camera, there is no reason once the initial sales pipeline is caught up, that they cannot release a 36MP or 40MP that strikes a different balance. Less FPS worse AF ... vs higher resolution. Having two models makes it a the choice of what's more important to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 26, 2015 I didn't understand any of that, Ben, but thank you. I did understand the bit about dynamic range and ISO performance, though, and it is consistent with the reviews that are coming out - better dynamic range, better detail in highlights and shadows, better ISO performance and better video. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted October 26, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would happily trade some high iso capabilities for a definition increase and better low iso performances. Tremendously high iso is only needed because the thing is huge and heavy and has to photography inside the drawer you left it in before going out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 26, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 26, 2015 So picking 24MP was one of those engineering tradeoffs. Camera speed as in FPS, AF speed, video performance, ISO performance, dynamic range vs resolution. Now that they have a fast 24MP camera, there is no reason once the initial sales pipeline is caught up, that they cannot release a 36MP or 40MP that strikes a different balance. Less FPS worse AF ... vs higher resolution. Having two models makes it a the choice of what's more important to you. Offering two substantially different versions of a camera would be a rather unusual move for Leica. As a rule, when Leica releases a new camera they are serious about it, confident that it will be able to hold its own for, like, the next 3 years. A much higher resolution sensor would require considerable changes to the image processing pipeline, especially for creating live view images and movie data and for contrast-based AF, all of which requires a sufficiently fast sensor read-out. You cannot just swap in a totally different sensor and expect that all that would suffer was burst-mode speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 27, 2015 What, like an M Edition 60, M(240), M-E and Monochrom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted October 27, 2015 Share #10 Posted October 27, 2015 But they have had always the same sensor as their sisters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 27, 2015 But they have had always the same sensor as their sisters That's true of the M Edition 60 and M(240) (while they have different firmware), but not the others. The M-E is a Kodak CCD sensor and the Monochrom has the colour filter array removed, and completely different firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 27, 2015 What, like an M Edition 60, M(240), M-E and Monochrom? Like I said: Leica doesn’t offer substantially different versions of a camera. The two monochrome versions are essentially an M9 or M (Typ 240) with the RGB colour filter array replaced by transparent filters, the M-E is a minor design-variant of the M9 etc.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 27, 2015 completely different firmware. The firmware is actually rather similar; I guess that 95% is identical code. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 27, 2015 Like I said: Leica doesn’t offer substantially different versions of a camera. The two monochrome versions are effectively an M9 or M (Typ 240) with the RGB colour filter array replaced by transparent filters, the M-E is a minor design-variant of the M9 etc.. Of course, I was just nitpicking. The hardware is effective the same, though how do you define the same? I agree that larger and smaller MP variants would be a headache for Leica, and what would they gain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 27, 2015 The hardware is effective the same, though how do you define the same? As far as the M system is concerned it is evident that the M9 introduced a hardware platform that was shared between the original M Monochrom, the M9-P, and the M-E – the rangefinder is the same, the electronics are largely the same etc.. The M (Typ 240) introduced a completely revamped hardware platform with a new sensor, new CPU, new buffer, new rangefinder etc., which again is shared between that model and the M-P, M Monochrom (Typ 246) etc.. Anyway, the message is this: Don’t expect a fundamentally different SL, with a higher resolution sensor, say, within the product cycle of the model just introduced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 27, 2015 Michael, I appreciate your efforts to define "same", but it really isn't that straightforward - bits go on, come off etc. I accept that the Kravitz and Safari editions of the M(240) are just paint differences, but it's a hard sell to say the M Edition 60 and M(240) are the same camera simply because they share body form, viewfinder sensor and processor - that would be like saying all M film cameras from M3 through to M7 are the same (with the exception of the M5). Similarly, are the M(240) and Monochrome (246) really the same? From your perspective, it's the same sensor, just minus the colour filter array and with a new transparent cover, and processor, but functionally it is entirely different - monochrome and far higher resolution, and the firmware is very different as well. But, I take your point, and I don't disagree with you. It's just "different" and "same" depend on varying factors if you're an engineer, manufacturer or user ... And, no I'm not advocating that Leica follows Sony's lead on this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 27, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 27, 2015 How much resolution do we need today? -- Time stamp: Mon Oct 26 19:47:58 CDT 2015 Location: 44.045081, -91.65209700000003 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 27, 2015 Share #18 Posted October 27, 2015 I didn't understand any of that, Ben, but thank you. I did understand the bit about dynamic range and ISO performance, though, and it is consistent with the reviews that are coming out - better dynamic range, better detail in highlights and shadows, better ISO performance and better video. Cheers John Sorry about that. Makes perfect sense to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 27, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 27, 2015 A much higher resolution sensor would require considerable changes to the image processing pipeline, especially for creating live view images and movie data and for contrast-based AF, all of which requires a sufficiently fast sensor read-out. You cannot just swap in a totally different sensor and expect that all that would suffer was burst-mode speed. There was a ... After that. You probably missed that. Basically more MP means more semiconductor area devoted to the traces needed to charge up and read the pixels and thus smaller pixels. Then you have more data to move across the data lines to the buffers and the processor. The buffer space you have gets cut into fewer chunks because each chunk is bigger. The processor needs to act on more MP and so it uses more cycles. More cycles means more time and more power. ... All of that being said, none of this is insurmountable. Sony, Nikon, and Canon all have shown it is possible to use different resolution sensors with basically the same processor with different firmware loads. I wouldn't be surprised if Leica did it because as they say when talking about investments: Past performance does not guarentee future results. ...but sometimes that is all the information we have to work with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted October 27, 2015 Share #20 Posted October 27, 2015 ... All of that being said, none of this is insurmountable. Sony, Nikon, and Canon all have shown it is possible to use different resolution sensors with basically the same processor with different firmware loads. I wouldn't be surprised if Leica did it because as they say when talking about investments: Past performance does not guarentee future results. ...but sometimes that is all the information we have to work with. Good point. The S with the same processor is able to do 3,5 p/s with 37MP, the SL with 24MP races up to 11 p/s. Thats the way the others do it probably too, accepting the lack of speed. The question may be does Leica have a source of an high res. sensor fitting in their hardware? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.