Keep your 50 megapixel sensor and give us more DR!

[John Ricard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not really a fan of shooting images there are grossly over exposed or grossly underexposed and then using dynamic range to improve the image.  I understand that there are situations where you don't have a choice but to shoot in bad light -like in the wedding photo posted in that link, but in my personal photography, I either use lights or I schedule shoots at a time of day when the light will be good.  If we had better dynamic range than we had today, it seems you could just set you camera to any random shutter/aperture combination -say 250/2 and just shoot indoors and outdoors all day and night long, and then just fix the exposures in post processing.  Seems like that would offer a lot of benefits to people who want to take photographs but don't have  desire to invest time in photographic education.  Not sure there would as many benefits for professionals willing to put time into their education and/or shoots.

[jto555]

This is a shot I did last month. It is a HDR of 6 images as my brief was to shot the lighting in the church. I get into these situations on a regular biases, so for me an extra stop of DR would save me some computer time.  If we had the extra range we can always limit it with a few sliders in our Raw processor.  For me, as the old saying goes "its better to be looking at it than looking for it".

 

 

The web conversion from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB has killed some colour and shadow detail.

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jmahto]

This is a shot I did last month. It is a HDR of 6 images as my brief was to shot the lighting in the church. I get into these situations on a regular biases, so for me an extra stop of DR would save me some computer time.  If we had the extra range we can always limit it with a few sliders in our Raw processor.  For me, as the old saying goes "its better to be looking at it than looking for it".

 

 

The web conversion from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB has killed some colour and shadow detail.

 

 

 

040.jpg

Excellent picture. Agree on more DR. I run into DR limits more often (however few) than pixels. But your picture has enough details which will require extra pixels if one wants to print big. If you hang it on the wall then it will draw people closer due to all the details (on the wine bottles).

 

(disclaimer: I am not into extra pixels myself since I neither print that big nor do extreme cropping).

[2wk]

I actually need a ton of resolution for some of my photography and usually have to stitch 3 frames to please the finnishers of some of my clients. This can be a bit of a processing pain for me and I am about to upgrade cameras (most likely to the 645z). I wish the SL was over 50mp as then I would seriously consider it. 

 

So while a lot of photographers are happy with 24mp I wish for more. But, wouldnt it be great if the SL had say 50+ mp that I could take advantage of and there was a sRAW (small raw) or something similiar in software that would allow for people to keep on shooting at 24mp forever. I know I would use that mode when needed as well.  

[A Almulla]

I'm on a fence when it comes to DR and ISO.

 

Sometimes I want more DR and an other times I wish for better ISO. Other times I prefer a punchy, contrasty image with less DR.

 

Its all about the end product and how satisfied you are with your capture but over the past two to three years I find being restricted to be invigorating.

[jto555]

I'm on a fence when it comes to DR and ISO.

 

Sometimes I want more DR and an other times I wish for better ISO. Other times I prefer a punchy, contrasty image with less DR.

 

Its all about the end product and how satisfied you are with your capture but over the past two to three years I find being restricted to be invigorating.

I agree with you but you can add punch, contrast and reduce the DR in processing. You cant really add more DR. As for a higher ISO, yes please!!!

[Loren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greater ISO would do wonders. Not only for the ability to shoot in lower light conditions, but it leads to improvements in dynamic as you increase ISO above it base.

[Schrödinger's cat]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833

http://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-series-thin-filter-legacy-lens-upgrade/

excellent !  Thank you sir.

[Photoskeptic]

Having used M digitals since the M8 came out I always questioned why we need so many mp's. (But that didn't keep me from the upgrade wagon!) Since I bought a D800 and currently have a D810 with Zeiss glass I'm not wondering any more.

As someone earlier said the mp challenged bodies are terrific for bw and they will print about as large as you need. I find my M-P perfectly adequate but it really could use more mp for landscape, imo. That's not why I bought it, but just saying...

I also think Leica shot themselves in the foot commercially (well, maybe only slightly grazed) when they limited the new S to 37mp.

 

I find it interesting that several well-known bloggers have tested the new Canon and it seems a good case for the DR crowd in that even with all those mp's the camera has failed to measure up to the D810 because the Canon lacks DR. I know two fellow photogs (one a pro and the other an advanced amateur) who bought the Canon and sent it back. So I suppose it is tests such as the ones of the Canon which leave me a bit conflicted over which I would prefer if I had to chose.

 

But some of us are never satisfied...I have an ALPA sitting in the closet waiting for the rumored Sony FF 100mp medium format chip .

[sdk]

36-42MP is probably the sweet spot for the current state of CMOS sensor technology, a good sensor design capable of delivering good dynamic range, good sensitivity, and high enough resolution for my landscape work. 50MP might be going too far for 35mm size sensors to have good DR and high SNR, with only a modest increase in linear resolution over 24 or 36MP. The Canon 50MP cameras have only 18% more resolution than a D800/D810, while the Nikon 36MP bodies are 24% more res than Leica Typ 240 cameras and, the Sony A7rII has about 34% more resolution. To really get significantly larger print capability, you would need to stitch, or go to something like a Phase 1 80MP medium format system, which adds 74% more resolution, and so would allow nearly double the print size of a 24MP camera at the same print DPI. At some point 72-100MP super high res 35mm size sensors might be practical, but it seems like some leap forward in sensor technology would be needed to allow similar DR and sensitivity to the Sony sensors of the D800/D810 and A7r/rII series as they exist now, but perhaps Canon and Leica can catch up soon.

 

I love the landscape results from my D800E, and mostly shoot Zeiss Lenses on that camera. My Leica M-P is quite nice too, but could be improved on all three basic qualities of a sensor (DR, sensitivity, and res), but I am much more willing to carry the M-P around as a general purpose camera or on a mountainous hike. The D800E with two-three lenses and a monopod is quite a heavy load (especially if one lens is the 135mm/2 Apo Sonnar).

My wishlist for the next Leica M:

 

1) c.36-42MP sensor.

2) Improved DR, SNR at all ISOs.
3) Improved EVF accessory, with higher resolution, more selective focus peaking, and much lower lag time after an exposure.

4) Shutter release lag time in general reduced, <25ms in classic mode, <100ms when using EVF or live view.

5) Longer time exposure capability for night and astrophotography.
6) "P" version available at release of the next flagship M body series. I'll wait if I have to, but would rather not.
7) Same form factor with Rangefinder.
8) Optional availability of viewfinder higher and lower RF/VF magnifications. I'd love a 0.58X finder for wideangle work.

Which is not to say the M-P Typ 240 isn't a fine picture taking tool. It is. It could be quite a bit better though.

[Jon Warwick]

I am sure that if you compared two full frame 10x8 inch prints side by side, one from say a 45mega pixel Sony A7R ii and one from a 24mega pixel A7 ii, that most people would strugle to tell the difference. As for large prints, how many of us really print large? 

 

i dont disagree with any of that.  10x8 inch is small, and differences are imperceptible.  For 24"x16", in fact, i'm 100% happy with M240 prints. And for web-only-based stuff, I actually often use an iPhone.  It's practical, MP demands on a screen are minimal, and the iPhone images looks fine.

 

But i print, and i print larger. Hence the reason for megapixels.  At 300dpi, digital without enough MPs falls off a cliff resolution-wise and starts to look fake / plastic'y.  My background is film, where enlargement worked more gracefully (one would get more and more grain as the enlargement increased, but it was still pleasing.  Digital doesn't respond to v. large enlargements in quite the same graceful way). I agree that cramming endless pixels into a small surface is not a great idea, however.  I'm seeing the larger sensor from the S (increasingly so) as my solution for higher res and higher image quality for large prints -- test prints to 50-60" wide are mesmerisingly good -- and i'm likely to buy the S as a solution to my needs. 

[jaapv]

It seems to me that the primary purpose of the M is being neglected by some posters in this thread.

Yes, tons of pixels are very usable for landscape, on a tripod etc., and a high pixel count can certainly be desirable in that case. However, these cameras have always been -and still are- primarily reportage and travel cameras.

For those disciplines an  extremely high pixel count can be more of a hindrance than a help, as shooting is handheld and in dynamic situations, often at not-too-fast shutter speeds, or wide open making focus more critical. That is where the difficulties with high resolution images manifest themselves.

I think, that given the camera concept, it is quite reasonable that Leica decided to stay at 24 MP.

[sdk]

Leica AG should be perfectly capable of making both 24MP and higher resolution models. They don't have to be constrained to only satisfy the PJs and travel photographers. The M-P 240 is actually a darn good landscape camera, especially with the Really Right Stuff Arca Swiss compatible base, but something higher-res, and with better EVF/LV would be even better. 

[Rick]

Ansel Adams worked with 7 usable zones.  That means 7 stops.  Ectichrome had 5.6 stops.  Todays sensors have 12 or more stops.  

 

Rick 

[jaapv]

sdk, on 25 Nov 2015 - 23:55, said:

Leica AG should be perfectly capable of making both 24MP and higher resolution models. They don't have to be constrained to only satisfy the PJs and travel photographers. The M-P 240 is actually a darn good landscape camera, especially with the Really Right Stuff Arca Swiss compatible base, but something higher-res, and with better EVF/LV would be even better. 

Forums are complaining that they have too many models as it is.

[Mornnb]

It seems to me that the primary purpose of the M is being neglected by some posters in this thread.

Yes, tons of pixels are very usable for landscape, on a tripod etc., and a high pixel count can certainly be desirable in that case. However, these cameras have always been -and still are- primarily reportage and travel cameras.

For those disciplines an extremely high pixel count can be more of a hindrance than a help, as shooting is handheld and in dynamic situations, often at not-too-fast shutter speeds, or wide open making focus more critical. That is where the difficulties with high resolution images manifest themselves.

I think, that given the camera concept, it is quite reasonable that Leica decided to stay at 24 MP.

The M can be many things, not just reportable. Digital has dramatically increased its abilities.

However if many megapixels bother you, Canon for example had a medium raw mode just for this problem. Leica could implement similar.

[jaapv]

Grandmothers and sucking eggs come to mind... Of course an accomplished user can take the camera out of its comfort zone and still get good results. In fact, Leica encourages this by offering Visoflexes and such. That does not change the primary purpose, though.

 

I am not convinced that pixel binning is quite able to match natively larger pixels.

[Kwesi]

It seems to me that the primary purpose of the M is being neglected by some posters in this thread.

Yes, tons of pixels are very usable for landscape, on a tripod etc., and a high pixel count can certainly be desirable in that case. However, these cameras have always been -and still are- primarily reportage and travel cameras.

For those disciplines an  extremely high pixel count can be more of a hindrance than a help, as shooting is handheld and in dynamic situations, often at not-too-fast shutter speeds, or wide open making focus more critical. That is where the difficulties with high resolution images manifest themselves.

I think, that given the camera concept, it is quite reasonable that Leica decided to stay at 24 MP.

Although I agree with most of what you say, I am not convinced about the last sentence (My Bold). There is a marked difference in rendering of details when you move from 24 to 36MP. The challenge that Leica faces in going to 36MP is how to implement the Microlenses and get at least as good edge definition.

Personally i would like to see a 36MP sensor and an ISO range of 50-6400 for the next M. The Maestro 2 processor should be able to handle the data quite easily. In my opinion this would truly set the M apart from the rest of the Leica line up.

[pgk]

I am sure that if you compared two full frame 10x8 inch prints side by side, one from say a 45mega pixel Sony A7R ii and one from a 24mega pixel A7 ii, that most people would strugle to tell the difference.

My undergraduate project was a comparison of a Leica based system and a Minolta based system by MTF and 10" x 8" print. The Leica MTF was higher but the 10" x 8" prints were indistinguishable. 10" x 8" prints are not as a good comparison for high MPixel systems either. More <+MPixels are only relevant if they are needed for very large prints. I don't find 18MPixels limiting myself - and I'd suggest that its extremely rare for most photographers to need images for high magnification. increased DR would be far more useful IMO.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter Kilmister]

Having regularly produced prints of 18" x 12" I agree with Paul (pgk) that it is probably unnecessary to go beyond 24 megapixels ... unless you want to produce really huge posters.

Even with a magnifying glass it is impossible to see any aberrations in the prints I have had made.

 

Perhaps I have missed the point of market demands for more and more pixels. It is enough of a problem storing loads of 25 Mb files without increasing their size. Perhaps if I used a medium format camera it might make sense but then I don't want to carry around a suitcase full of camera equipment unless I can afford to hire a porter ... which I can't.