Wolf96 Posted October 27, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) How much resolution do we need today? -- Time stamp: Mon Oct 26 19:47:58 CDT 2015 Location: 44.045081, -91.65209700000003 I have a NIKON D810 and my dealer told me that already a few customer gave back the camera because it is to difficult of making pictures. They are going for smaller resolution. I use my "OLD" D4 when i go to shout life music or don't like t use a tripod. I read that already people asking for 100 MP FF sensor and they are disappointed with the 24 MP of the new SL. I read that the new NIKON D5 will have ONLY 20 MP, then is the LS not so bad. Maybe LEICA is going the same way as Sony and bring out a 24 and later a 50 MP version. PS. I have done print with a 12 MP camera in the format 19x13 inch and they are great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Hi Wolf96, Take a look here Resolution SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cpclee Posted October 27, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 27, 2015 I've also gotten fantastic prints made at 19x13 using just 10mp or so. Unless you print super large or crop a lot, anything more than 20mp isn't going to be that useful. I have a NIKON D810 and my dealer told me that already a few customer gave back the camera because it is to difficult of making pictures. They are going for smaller resolution. I use my "OLD" D4 when i go to shout life music or don't like t use a tripod. I read that already people asking for 100 MP FF sensor and they are disappointed with the 24 MP of the new SL. I read that the new NIKON D5 will have ONLY 20 MP, then is the LS not so bad. Maybe LEICA is going the same way as Sony and bring out a 24 and later a 50 MP version. PS. I have done print with a 12 MP camera in the format 19x13 inch and they are great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 27, 2015 Maybe LEICA is going the same way as Sony and bring out a 24 and later a 50 MP version. Like I said, they probably won’t. 24 MP it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted October 27, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 27, 2015 How much resolution do we need today? -- From the perspective of someone that prints (and given 24mp unresampled is only about 20"x13" at 300dpi), I would prefer a higher resolution way more often than I'd need a speed of 11 frames a second. I've yet to get into photographing sports or race cars, however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted October 27, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 27, 2015 There is no reason to insist on no resampling. As the print gets larger you view it from a farther distance and the resampling is not visible. The obsession with ever more pixels is just that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcomarin69 Posted October 28, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 28, 2015 There is no reason to insist on no resampling. As the print gets larger you view it from a farther distance and the resampling is not visible. The obsession with ever more pixels is just that. have the impression that majority of people has never see a banner at 100 cms of distance. You can see every single dot of the printing! Anyways, half of the people or more do not print their pictures anymore and they are lost on the immensity of their cloud (feeling proud), Facebook time line or somewhere on the external hard drives waiting to be discover in 50 years when they are not longer here by an anthropologist or art hunters and found out that they were a geniuses B-p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rshseow Posted October 28, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) With very high quality SL zoom lenses covering 24 to 280mm, 24MP "resolution" is practical enough, for digital display or large print out. Because, a variety of "crop" and "perspective" can be done with the two SL zoom lenses, in-camera, for skilled photographers. A two-SL-two-zoom can be a convenient out-fit for said purpose. The same for video. So far, 24MP seems to be the sweet spot for still photography and 4K video in one camera body, until the auxiliary digital data handling/processing technologies advance further. Of course, individual style varies among photographers, the above may not apply to all, but for those who can embrace such work flow. For walk-about street photography with "stealthy" and "instaneous" experience, a M with M lenses is still the ultimate (when smart phone is not "desirable"). Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted October 28, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 28, 2015 Personally I'd much rather that manufacturers focus on improving color depth and tonality (where film still wins) rather than cramming useless pixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 28, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 28, 2015 Personally I'd much rather that manufacturers focus on improving color depth and tonality (where film still wins) rather than cramming useless pixels. I think that the reason that they haven't is because it is harder to do and harder to quantify for consumers than MP. Film has a nonlinear response. So do our eyes but it is entirely different. Digital sensors have a fairly linear response. It is very hard to make an imaging sensor with something like the light response curve that our eyes have and not even clear that is desirable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 28, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 28, 2015 With very high quality SL zoom lenses covering 24 to 280mm, 24MP "resolution" is practical enough, for digital display or large print out. Because, a variety of "crop" and "perspective" can be done with the two SL zoom lenses, in-camera, for skilled photographers. A two-SL-two-zoom can be a convenient out-fit for said purpose. The same for video. So far, 24MP seems to be the sweet spot for still photography and 4K video in one camera body, until the auxiliary digital data handling/processing technologies advance further. Of course, individual style varies among photographers, the above may not apply to all, but for those who can embrace such work flow. For walk-about street photography with "stealthy" and "instaneous" experience, a M with M lenses is still the ultimate (when smart phone is not "desirable"). Richard I agree with you except for one thing. The T users with TL lenses. If the camera had been around 36MP vs 24MP then the TL lenses would still be about 16MP like they are on the T rather than 10MP. I'm not sure I'll be happy with just 10MP and I'm not sure I'll be happy with the larger heavier lenses. If I could mount up my TL lenses when I wanted small size and weight and AF or my M lenses when I wanted resolution then it would be a slam dunk. I'm not sure that I have a need or use for the 24-90 standard zoom lens. I haven't seen it but I feel like it is too big and heavy. I regularly take my T with the 18-56 bike riding. I think the extra size and weight of the SL body with the 18-56 would be fine and maybe more sweat resistant. I'm not sure that I want to invest in any more TL lenses. If it weren't for the SL I'd probably snap up the 60mm Macro. When will there be a SL macro? I think the utility of the 90-280 is much more obvious to me. On the T it will be a nice powerful fast zoom. Then if I get a SL body later I can use it. So 24MP has left me flummoxed. While 36MP would have given me a clear transition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 28, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 28, 2015 For my photography, I've only rarely seen a print that would be improved if it were captured at some resolution greater than 24Mpixel. Many of my large format prints were made with 5, 6, 10 and 12 Mpixel cameras. 24 seems almost excessive. Gb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 28, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 28, 2015 to put things into perspective: if one needs a 20mpix file to get a satisfactory 16x20 print, that same person would need a 80mpix file to get a 32x40 print of the same pixel level quality...... the jump from 24 to 36 is noticeable when pixel peeping and comes in handy when cropping....42 or 50 mpix are a bigger jump and there is definitely a difference when printed large....but a weaker lens on a 50mpix dslr with limited DR probably takes away the mix advantage..... either way: a steady shot from a extremely high resolving lens on a 42 mpix sensor will be better for a detailed, larger print.....it is probably hard to beat the A7rII with one of the zeiss (35,55,90) or otus lenses when it comes to detail and DR.....i doubt any digital back would provide a better or more detailed image right now.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 28, 2015 to put things into perspective: if one needs a 20mpix file to get a satisfactory 16x20 print, that same person would need a 80mpix file to get a 32x40 print of the same pixel level quality...... the jump from 24 to 36 is noticeable when pixel peeping and comes in handy when cropping....42 or 50 mpix are a bigger jump and there is definitely a difference when printed large....but a weaker lens on a 50mpix dslr with limited DR probably takes away the mix advantage..... either way: a steady shot from a extremely high resolving lens on a 42 mpix sensor will be better for a detailed, larger print.....it is probably hard to beat the A7rII with one of the zeiss (35,55,90) or otus lenses when it comes to detail and DR.....i doubt any digital back would provide a better or more detailed image right now.... That assumes a shot taken in perfect conditions. A larger sensor, with larger pixels will achieve that perfect shot more regularly every time. Put another way, while my A7r and D800E both had the same pixel count as the S, I would expect the S would win every time when it comes to delivering files capable of large prints. Why? Larger format factor, larger pixels and less issues with shot discipline in achieving that high resolution image. You also seem to get better dynamic range and ISO performance - usable flexibility. I'm very comfortable with 24Mp in this format factor and with current technology. I could get sharp more detailed images on the D800E and A7r than I was getting on my Monochrom (with only 18MP), but only if I used a tripod and exposed for the best the chosen lens could provide, in perfect conditions. It's all very well citing numbers from spec sheets, but it's a case of diminishing returns. I am also not such an expert that I'm going to say Leica is wrong. The M9 reliably delivered more than film ever did, I love what the Monochrom and M Edition 60 deliver and I'm totally comfortable if Leica says 24MP is best for this camera with Leica lenses. I have never taken pictures as good with either of the other two cameras that I have with my Leicas. The only images I've printed large (so far) from digital files have been taken with the Monochrom. The numbers on a piece of paper don't tell even half the story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 28, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 28, 2015 That assumes a shot taken in perfect conditions. A larger sensor, with larger pixels will achieve that perfect shot more regularly every time. Put another way, while my A7r and D800E both had the same pixel count as the S, I would expect the S would win every time when it comes to delivering files capable of large prints. Why? Larger format factor, larger pixels and less issues with shot discipline in achieving that high resolution image. You also seem to get better dynamic range and ISO performance - usable flexibility. the problem the S has is seriously limited DR....the best camera to compare it to would probably be the 5Ds...although the canon would lack sharpness.... the A7rII with a good e mount prime will give you better detail, DR and much better high iOS then S....there is no question.... but in general i agree that 24mpix is a sweet spot for general application and should be good enough for most print sizes..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 28, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 28, 2015 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. Nonsense. They are almost the same camera. The firmware for the monochrome is a slightly modified (actually, a stripped-down) version of the M240 firmware, which basically does not perform demosaicing on the Bayer color array. If Leica knew something about software engineering, they would have made a unified-firmware for all M24x cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 28, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 28, 2015 From the perspective of someone that prints (and given 24mp unresampled is only about 20"x13" at 300dpi), I would prefer a higher resolution way more often than I'd need a speed of 11 frames a second. I've yet to get into photographing sports or race cars, however. About race-cars (or even simple moving subjects), CNET in their review reports that the AF with continuous tracking is only 7 fps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 28, 2015 Nonsense. They are almost the same camera. The firmware for the monochrome is a slightly modified (actually, a stripped-down) version of the M240 firmware, which basically does not perform demosaicing on the Bayer color array. If Leica knew something about software engineering, they would have made a unified-firmware for all M24x cameras. Sorry? Which bit is nonsense? I'm quite capable of talking nonsense on any number of issues. In the bit of my post you quoted, I commented "functionally it is entirely different". Now, I confess that I only have the M9 version of the Monochrom, but I understand the concept is the same - M(240) with the colour filter array removed, transparent cover glass added and software revised for the fact that the camera is now taking B&W images rather than colour. This affects the generation of the JPeg files, and the rather clever raw image on the LCD (which takes a slight delay to load) and the generation of the rather nice histogram. The menus are also very different in the options they offer, if the M(246) is the same as the CCD version Monochrom. Same software? Okay, if you say so. In terms of use, let's start from the perspective of taking photos - first, the images are black & white, second by removing the CFA the images show considerably greater resolution, better grey tones, richer blacks and all round an image which feels more like a medium format image and resolution than the standard M(240). My perception is that my CCD version of the Monochrom still provides greater resolution and smoother grey tones and nicer grain at higher resolution than the 24MP sensor in my M60. So, okay "almost the same camera" if you say so; similarly "slight modification" to the firmware, fine by me - I really have no interest in such details. But, as a photographer, if I pick up the wrong camera (hard to do), I get very different images out of each camera, and they're quite different quality images as well. Hmm, same camera. Right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 28, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 28, 2015 Sorry? Which bit is nonsense? I'm quite capable of talking nonsense on any number of issues. I had highlighted the specific bit of nonsense in red color This affects the generation of the JPeg files, and the rather clever raw image on the LCD (which takes a slight delay to load) and the generation of the rather nice histogram. It does not affect the generation of JPEG files, you just pass the luma channel to the JPEG encoder, no chroma channels. About the image on the LCD and the raw histogram, it is a nice functionality that they could (and should) have added also to the M240 color channels. No need for a separate firmware. In terms of use, let's start from the perspective of taking photos - first, the images are black & white, second by removing the CFA the images show considerably greater resolution, [...] . This has nothing to do with the firmware. It is obvious that if you remove the CFA you get a b&w image and a higher luma resolution. So, okay "almost the same camera" if you say so; similarly "slight modification" to the firmware, fine by me - I really have no interest in such details. Hmm, same camera. Right. Quite a different camera... artistically. But technically it is basically the very same camera, on a hardware and software standpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 28, 2015 All very interesting, but not the point I was making. Artistically? I should be so lucky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 28, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 28, 2015 If Leica knew something about software engineering, they would have made a unified-firmware for all M24x cameras. "In any software of sufficient complexity there is an unconditional transfer of control, a GOTO." I said that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.