Has the day of super high pixel counts passed

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was very interested to see that the newly announced flagship Nikon D5, has a relatively modest pixel count at 20.5MP. Has common sense at last arrived, with the realisation that massive pixel counts are mostly meaningless other than being a sales tool, when the majority of lenses cannot resolve to anywhere near that level and mirror slap, unless you go through the hassle of locking it up, reduces the effective resolution by anything up to 50%. Lens Rentals did a test of many of the more commonly used Nikon FX lenses and found that they could only resolve to around 17-20 MP. Leica has been criticised by some on the SL for sticking to the 24MP of the M240 series cameras but the announcement of the D5 confirms that they may have got it spot on this time.

 

I understand from my local camera superstore that sales of the Canon 5D S/R have been disappointing, so maybe the general public also have twigged that mega megapixels are not everything. I don't thing Canon's "left out too long in the sun and half melted" appearance helps either. The SL with its geometric form, is a far more handsome camera, with the Nikon somewhere in the middle. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[sillbeers15]

Precisely.

Sensor Pixel count is only half the story.

Optical resolution must support and exceed sensor resolution else only the weakest in the chain determines the score.

Read in one of the past Ken Rockwell's review on comparing a Leica M 28mm Summicron against Nikon & Canon's mid range zoom which the Leica lens came out best and it is also mentioned that Nikon & Canon only placed their resources in their cashcow (zoom lenses) in recent lens developments and neglected their prime lenses on optical improvement over the years.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I was very interested to see that the newly announced flagship Nikon D5, has a relatively modest pixel count at 20.5MP.

 

 

Seems like a fine compromise if you also get 14 fps (and if you need that -- I haven't tried out my 11 fps yet).

 

scott

[keithlaban.co.uk]

No. The D5 is not aimed at those who want or need super high pixel counts. That said, I've no doubt that Nikon and other manufacturers will continue to participate in the mega pixel race.

[wattsy]

The flagship single digit D cameras (like the single digit F cameras) are aimed squarely at the professional "35mm" market for whom simple MP numbers are a secondary consideration. I don't think this announcement says anything at all about the appetite in the market at large for higher pixel counts. The pixel peeping and other similar gear-fixated nonsense that goes on this forum suggests to me that it isn't the case that "common sense [has] at last arrived".

[wattsy]

I understand from my local camera superstore that sales of the Canon 5D S/R have been disappointing, so maybe the general public also have twigged that mega megapixels are not everything.

 

I think you'll find that camera sales right across the industry at large have been disappointing for the manufacturers. This will also include Leica.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It should all be about being 'fit for purpose'. The Nikon/Canon 'Pro' Camers are bulky, heavy cameras designed for a specific market. I happen to have and use a Canon 1DS3 for a variety of reasons mostly to do with opportunity to buy camera and underwater housing at a very good price rather than because of 'pro' specification. Before that I used a 5D2 which I have to say was more than adequate for the uses to which it was put. I have a friend who is an advertising photographer who has 'downsized' from dMF to dSLR because the files from the dSLR are more than adequate for his actual needs. I could go on.

 

I still use the M9 rather than anything newer and have to say that whilst a newer Leica would be fun I can't really see that for what use I put dRFs to, I would be gaining a 'significant' advantage. Upgading is costly and we have well and truly reached to point where most cameras abilities exceed the requirements of their usage (not for all but for most users). 

 

Common sense has prevailed to an extent, amongst some who like me are either not upgrading until we have, to or are buying lower spec equipment. The potentially reduced number of buyers of the latest hi-MP cameras will no doubt be a challenge to all manufacturers and it will be interesting to see how they deal with any resulting shift in purchasing. Perhaps Leica should revisit the 'camera for life' concept of modular upgrades to an existing body? Difficult but potentially possible and an innovative solution in what has become a saturated marketplace.

[thighslapper]

I suppose this leads to an interesting definition of pro and amateur photographer:

 

Professional Photographer - someone that buys just what he specifically needs to make money

 

Amateur Photographer - someone who buys what he thinks he needs to take better photographs 

[Manoleica]

With T, Q & SL Leica have tried to entice and have probably succeeded in pulling more photographers into the clan. Those already in the clan and remain well healed will always purchase the latest and greatest..(Leica or otherwise)... Will the newbies remain?

Leica ownership can be very frustrating...

[Guest JonathanP]

I think it just indicates there isn't one camera spec that is best for all types of photography. A landscape photographer would prefer higher MP and dynamic range* vs the higher FPS super AF for a sports photographer. In a maturing market I wouldn't be surprised to see more tailoring of designs to suite specific niches. Thankfully we don't all have the same requirements otherwise what would we argue about on the internet 

 

Jonathan

[* if you look at the rendering of a woodland scene from a Pentax 645z for example compared to a camera of 16-20MP its clear that there is a need for high MP cameras, even viewing at normal screen sizes]

[earleygallery]

I was very interested to see that the newly announced flagship Nikon D5, has a relatively modest pixel count at 20.5MP. Has common sense at last arrived, with the realisation that massive pixel counts are mostly meaningless other than being a sales tool

I understand from my local camera superstore that sales of the Canon 5D S/R have been disappointing, so maybe the general public also have twigged that mega megapixels are not everything. I don't thing Canon's "left out too long in the sun and half melted" appearance helps either. The SL with its geometric form, is a far more handsome camera, with the Nikon somewhere in the middle. 

 

Wilson

 

I'm not too familiar with the Nikon line up so I don't know who they're aiming this particular model at, but they offer a number of FF bodies, and some are 36MP - I don't think this camera is going to replace those models.

 

The Canon 5DS/R models are 'specialist' - I expect most people buy the bog standard 5D MKlll. As for the Canon Mr. Blobby looks, they may not be particularly attractive but the cameras do handle extremely well, IMHO.

 

But yes, it would appear that circa 20MP is where most of the market are at for FF bodies (at the present time).

[Paul J]

What is the obsession with ending pixel count in this forum? Pixelphobia is a strange phenomenon, IMO, I will never understand it. So long as other areas do not suffer extra pixels = extra IQ, better flexibility, better colour, better tonal graduations, finer detail, better files to retouch, more wow factor.

 

No. Nikon, Sony, Canon all offer 36-50MP, I would say the pixel race has just recently begun again. The D5 is aimed squarely at people who need 14ps at 3 million ISO, and need to be able to track a racing motorbike and make more than 10 frames at the highest possible resolution in a second for a burst rate of 200 pictures. When tech allows 40MP at 14fps the D___ will have it.

 

all I need is 1fps at 50-100 iso and the more resolution the better. The new Phase One XF100 is in my not so distant future, it's supposedly good for 6000+ ISO too, a revelation, and finally a resolution that is worth the upgrade from my existing 65MP outfit to 100mp.

[wlaidlaw]

I think it just indicates there isn't one camera spec that is best for all types of photography. A landscape photographer would prefer higher MP and dynamic range* vs the higher FPS super AF for a sports photographer. In a maturing market I wouldn't be surprised to see more tailoring of designs to suite specific niches. Thankfully we don't all have the same requirements otherwise what would we argue about on the internet 

 

Jonathan

[* if you look at the rendering of a woodland scene from a Pentax 645z for example compared to a camera of 16-20MP its clear that there is a need for high MP cameras, even viewing at normal screen sizes]

 

Medium format is a wholly different ball game with a far larger sensor area (up to 5.4 x 4.5cm in the latest "full frame MF" Phase One cameras). The areas are 25 sq. cm for full frame MF and 8.5 sq. cm for full frame "35mm". The pixel density for 75MP on MF is about the same as 25MP for small format cameras and thus only demands the same optical resolving power from the lens. Therefore super high lens resolution is not required like it is for 50MP small format cameras. If you are prepared to lug around the weight of an MF camera (as much the lenses as the body), you can of course take far more detailed photos than a small format. Similarly you can go the next step up and go to large format scanning back cameras and getting stunning detail - download some of the images from the Seitz website for their 6 x 17 cm scanning back camera. 

[Guest JonathanP]

Yes I do quite miss my Ebony 5x4 camera and Fuji quick loads, never could afford a scanning back (not sure it would have worked that well out in the field if there was a breeze)

 

Jonathan

[jrp]

Well phase 1 have just announced a 100Mpx camera, so the answer to the original question is "no".

 

Of course, if you are a photojournalist, where speed of operation matters more than being able to billboard your pics, or are only interested in web final delivery, then massive Mpx is less important.

 

That said, the coming 5K+ monitors will benefit from larger Mpx and even Nikon raised the pixel count from 16 to 20.8 in the latest iteration.

[wlaidlaw]

Well phase 1 have just announced a 100Mpx camera, so the answer to the original question is "no".

 

 

 

That is about the same pixel density as a 34MP small format full frame, if I have got my calculations correct. I would be surprised if even the latest Phase lenses can resolve to that detail across a 5.4 x 4.5 sensor. If you recall when Leica released the S series, they claimed that they had to really push the boat out to get the S series lenses to resolve to the level of the 37.5MP (3cm x 4.5cm) sensor on the S and that they were by some margin, the highest resolving MF lenses developed to date. Now this may have been marketing BS but there is probably a grain of truth in it. The S sensor has equivalent pixel density to a 24 MP small format full frame sensor. 

[Paul J]

True, but the brand new blue ring Schnieders have being designed with the 100MP sensor in mind and are said to go further in the future. Do bear in mind they have spent many, many years working on this design. Old lenses are reported to work mostly quite well, initial samples look favourable.

[pgk]

What is the obsession with ending pixel count in this forum? Pixelphobia is a strange phenomenon, IMO, I will never understand it. So long as other areas do not suffer extra pixels = extra IQ, better flexibility, better colour, better tonal graduations, finer detail, better files to retouch, more wow factor.

 

Assuming that is, that it is possible to translate the extra pixels into usable imagery. For a small, relatively light handheld system like the Leica rangefinder, factors such as motion and diffraction limitation come into play and limit what is possible is you are going to stabilise such cameras (with a heavy, rock solid tripod) and shoot very exactingly indeed. There is this thing called practicality. If you want a damped, heavy, tripod mounted camera then choose appropriately. Simply adding pixels to a small, handheld camera is going to result in hit and miss 'quality' and the suggestion that more MPixels result in better IQ, colour, flexibility etc is a far from accurate summation. Equipment needs to be 'fit for purpose' not simply loaded with esoteric specifications. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pgk]

True, but the brand new blue ring Schnieders have being designed with the 100MP sensor in mind and are said to go further in the future. Do bear in mind they have spent many, many years working on this design. Old lenses are reported to work mostly quite well, initial samples look favourable.

There are finite, optical limitations on lens design - physics - which can't be overcome simply because it is desirable to do so. The fact that you say that old lenses are reported to work quite well suggests to me that lenses are the limiting factor already.

[thighslapper]

..... you have to remember that 24mpx to 100mpx only doubles the image resolution (6kx4k to 12kx8k) ...... which is not exactly a quantum leap in my book .... and probably not worth the problems that go with it. 

 

there are some on this forum (..... yes, you know it's you ....) who think that more pixels solves everything, but there is a big difference between what is possible, what is needed and what is practical for ease of use....

 

and the usual excuse for more pixels .... cropping ......  is just another form of walking closer or using a longer lens. 

 

I suppose the end point to all this is a gigapixel Lytro ..... where you just poke it out the car window and crop and process for your focus point and DOF when you get home ....... or downloading what you want from the equivalent of HD streetview on Google and never actually leaving home ....