Kwesi Posted November 29, 2015 Share #41 Posted November 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Its not about print size. its about an improvement in the ability to resolve the amount of detail that is inherent in the current line of M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 Hi Kwesi, Take a look here Keep your 50 megapixel sensor and give us more DR!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Kilmister Posted November 29, 2015 Share #42 Posted November 29, 2015 Maybe I am a bit thick, but I am puzzled. Pease would you be kind enough to explain exactly what you mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 30, 2015 Share #43 Posted November 30, 2015 Its not about print size. its about an improvement in the ability to resolve the amount of detail that is inherent in the current line of M lenses. And what part of that detail can you put on paper? That is the limiting factor - plus the resolving ability of the human eye.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 30, 2015 Share #44 Posted November 30, 2015 I am not convinced that pixel binning is quite able to match natively larger pixels. Of course it cannot. The issue is well-overflow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 30, 2015 Share #45 Posted November 30, 2015 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. It is on the way. iPhone 6 already has auto HDR. It is not so good now, but will improve and the whole thing will migrate to prosumer cameras. (Try it using the $1.99 Pro HDR X app.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 30, 2015 Share #46 Posted November 30, 2015 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. It looks like a graphic from a spooky adventure game. Do they like it? Are they on acid? Can I covert? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share #47 Posted November 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It looks like a graphic from a spooky adventure game. Do they like it? Are they on acid? Can I covert? My client wanted to show the range lighting that they can do at events. This shot is one of a sequence of shots with different lighting set ups, and was shot with a 12mm lens that was cropped to straighten the verticals a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted November 30, 2015 Share #48 Posted November 30, 2015 Maybe I am a bit thick, but I am puzzled. Pease would you be kind enough to explain exactly what you mean. No you are not at all, my fault - sometimes being brief just doesn't help. What i meant to say is that there is a noticeable gain in detail when going from 24 to 36 MP on a 35mm sensor. I think its because there a more smaller dots (pixels) to draw the same image so fine details like bark on a tree or small text is more legible. This is actually a tangible difference. My gut feeling is that after 36mp diminishing returns begin to set in. I use the Nikon D810 sensor for architecture and its ability to resolve fine detail and retain dynamic range is remarkable. Nikon has it easy because its sensor is designed for an SLR lens which has an exit pupil much further away from the sensor than the Leica M240. The challenge for Leica is that in order to go from 24-36mp it has to design micro lenses on the sensor that are much smaller and yet at least as effective as the current M240's. This is no small feat but I do hope they are successful at it because it would be an improvement in image quality over the current sensor and at the end of the day that is the true mission of the M - unparalleled image quality. My wish for the next M is to have a 36MP sensor and an effective ISO range that starts at 50 and goes to 6400. Then they would have built not just the ultimate rangefinder camera but also the ultimate "film" to go along with it. Sorry for rambling on, hope that helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted November 30, 2015 Share #49 Posted November 30, 2015 And what part of that detail can you put on paper? That is the limiting factor - plus the resolving ability of the human eye.. Please see my explanation above, Although I am currently printing 24 by 36 inch prints with great detail from my M240 and 50/1.4 Asph combo, a 36mp sensor, all other things being equal will be a noticeable improvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted November 30, 2015 Share #50 Posted November 30, 2015 Kwesi, I appreciate your explanation and your helpful approach. It is all down to the boffin chaps at Leica now. Let's see what they come up with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 1, 2015 Share #51 Posted December 1, 2015 Please see my explanation above, Although I am currently printing 24 by 36 inch prints with great detail from my M240 and 50/1.4 Asph combo, a 36mp sensor, all other things being equal will be a noticeable improvement.Assuming that the per pixel acuity is the same. Interestingly Steve Huff, albeit in his usual overenthusiastic style, claims the SL @ 24 MP outperforms the A7RII @ 42 MP in this respect. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but it is a fact that the number of pixels is certainly not the only - not even the major- factor in the final print quality. In other words, all other things cannot be equal when you shrink the pixels to gain a higher number. Erwin Puts in his SL review: I have often noted that the number of pixels is more related to the size of the final print and not so much to the quality of the definition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted December 1, 2015 Share #52 Posted December 1, 2015 Assuming that the per pixel acuity is the same. Interestingly Steve Huff, albeit in his usual overenthusiastic style, claims the SL @ 24 MP outperforms the A7RII @ 42 MP in this respect. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but it is a fact that the number of pixels is certainly not the only - not even the major- factor in the final print quality. In other words, all other things cannot be equal when you shrink the pixels to gain a higher number. Erwin Puts in his SL review: Agreed, and therein lies the challenge for Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted December 1, 2015 Share #53 Posted December 1, 2015 I may well be shot down for this, however, it seems to be a popular myth that extra Megapixels means improved quality. (That seems like the 1960s myth that bigger engines made better cars. Then Minis won the Monte Carlo rally a few times and stuffed that idea.) Until someone can present a reasoned argument for more Megapixels I am happy with 24 MP. Lens quality is more important for me. P.S. If anyone wants to shoot me down then please be civil and don't make it personal. You are welcome to criticise my view but not me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted December 2, 2015 Share #54 Posted December 2, 2015 Assuming that the per pixel acuity is the same. Interestingly Steve Huff, albeit in his usual overenthusiastic style, claims the SL @ 24 MP outperforms the A7RII @ 42 MP in this respect. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but it is a fact that the number of pixels is certainly not the only - not even the major- factor in the final print quality. I used to be a resolution freak but I'm starting to understand the benefit of "good" (ie, "quality") pixels. I don't think smaller sensor cameras like the M240 can have simply more and more pixels crammed in. If a much higher MP count is needed, it probably needs a larger sensor. My brief use of an S007 proved this to me. "Only" 38mp, but WITH that flawless S glass and WITH that pixel acuity (pixels with room to breathe) and it is a remarkable combo. The MM was getting close'ish, but the S is perhaps the first digital camera (and only with 38mp) to produce an image quality in large prints where I say, you know what, that's it, that's enough. Similarly, I can believe Leica is extracting more res than many other "just 24mp" cameras too with the 240, Q, SL- or at least that impression is aided by getting better pixel acuity (further helped by truly no low pass filter etc) etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 2, 2015 Share #55 Posted December 2, 2015 Other examples are the M8 and DMR; both cameras managed to better the image quality of higher specified cameras of the time -actually there is not much to complain about today. Better microlens design, no AA filter. I have one meter prints from the M8 (10 MP) that can be viewed from close without breaking up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted December 2, 2015 Share #56 Posted December 2, 2015 No argument here but to simply say "stop" to improvements to sensor design which will inevitably go beyond 24 megapixels seems a bit odd to me. Leica continues to make excellent lenses for the M, some of which out resolve the M's sensor. No camera manufacturer today can ignore improvements in sensor technology and so most are partnering with sensor manufacturers, Leica included to gain a competitive edge. Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with the current M sensor, but to think or imply that Leica is satisfied with the status quo is misguided. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 2, 2015 Share #57 Posted December 2, 2015 No, they will be certainly be interested in developing their design further. The question is whether the development curve has flattened to the extent of diminishing returns. No matter how far sensor technology may progress, the biological limit of our eyes and brain will provide an immutable barrier in the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted December 2, 2015 Share #58 Posted December 2, 2015 For those who don't understand megapixel lust - I'm looking at one of my pictures on a monitor, I see something interesting in the background and zoom in. I notice next to this dog with a leopard skin coat a basket of vegetables. The basket is lined with a newspaper. I zoom in further. The headline is intriguing but the article cannot be read. If only there were more pixels. I assume those who don't want more pixels have not read the book "Powers of Ten" (perhaps they only saw the xkcd comic version "Powers of One"). Yes, I understand that more pixels means smaller pixels and unless something is done about it a worse image. But that is what engineers are for. They can't expect to earn a living by adding and removing levers, changing red dots into screws, selecting LCD covers from a catalogue, paint it green, scrape the paint off, reuse an old lens design, ... for ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted December 2, 2015 Share #59 Posted December 2, 2015 No, they will be certainly be interested in developing their design further. The question is whether the development curve has flattened to the extent of diminishing returns. No matter how far sensor technology may progress, the biological limit of our eyes and brain will provide an immutable barrier in the end. ----------------------- You should not worry, sensors are far, far away from exceeding eye and brain discrimination capacities. For instance i have no difficulty seing than my A7r discriminates much finer details than my much loved Leica M9 and this is plainly visible in prints even 30x40cm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 2, 2015 Share #60 Posted December 2, 2015 I'm not worrying. At normal viewing distances you will see no resolution difference in those prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.