Has the day of super high pixel counts passed

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Paul, 

 

I am not 100% convinced on this. Before I bought my M240, I gave serious thought to motoring on with my M9 and buying a MF camera and digital back instead of the M240. I was offered an ex-demo but hardly used Contax 645 kit with a number of lenses at an attractive price and a refurbished Phase 50MP back. Before I plumped for it, I hired a 645 with a Leaf 45MP back. Now the Contax 645 lenses had a pretty good reputation for image quality if a less good one for reliability. I was frankly disappointed with the end results of my test, mostly taken on a tripod with the standard 80mm Planar and 120mm Makro Planar lenses. As a comparison I used my M9 on the same tripod with a 50mm ZM Planar and 75mm Summarit. The 45MP shots from the Contax were little better than the 18MP shots from the M9 in the centre of the image and the M9 was sharper in the corners. Similarly I have a very recent R mount Hartblei tilt shift lens based on the latest Pentacon MF lens. Its contrast and resolving power are about equivalent to a mid 1950's Leica small format lens. Unless Schneider have made a huge leap in MF lens design (and where would they get the R&D money to pay for that), I am sceptical about their claims on resolution. 

 

 

Wilson

[pgk]

..... 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 for landscape photographers relatively easy to produce with a 4 image stitch for static and stable subjects - if that is the output requirement really requires this.

[Paul J]

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.

It's the same argument time and time again based on what we know, or rather don't, but it's more a case of just what we have to work out. Quick question - do you actually shoot with high res cameras? Your arguments tend to come from someone without the experience of working with them, and more from reading blogs and forums written by people don't know what they are doing.

 

Yes it is an accurate summation - for one, better colour is down to the more dense sampling with a Bayer CFA. The shot noise, plus read noise, in the zones of less exposure constitute a random brightness sample in one color band per pixel position. That means the more random an average sample is, the less accurate the demosaicing will be, and the less accurate the resulting color. This is one reason why deep shadows gain a magenta cast (there is a relative under sampling of Red and Blue noisy samples, but they get interpolated to fill in the missing pixel positions). Larger Red and Blue blotches are the result. A higher resolution sensor offers more of those random samples, and they are like all larger sampling quantities getting closer to the real mean value for those locations (larger sample quantities produce smaller standard deviation).

 

Flexibility is an obvious one once you've experienced it. Shoot with high res cameras and you will quickly discover them. Commercially it's a no brainer.

 

Creatively it opens doors. Work with it and you will see.

 

A lot of photographic problems are solved by throwing more light at it, this is one of them and it's quite easy to do, albeit at the expense and challenge of learning something new.

[jaapv]

Whilst there is certainly something to be said for using high-MP cameras (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx?#alexia) , I doubt whether my photography would benefit, and I doubt that I am the only one. I cannot see how it would translate into print in my case.

[Paul J]

Paul, 

 

I am not 100% convinced on this. Before I bought my M240, I gave serious thought to motoring on with my M9 and buying a MF camera and digital back instead of the M240. I was offered an ex-demo but hardly used Contax 645 kit with a number of lenses at an attractive price and a refurbished Phase 50MP back. Before I plumped for it, I hired a 645 with a Leaf 45MP back. Now the Contax 645 lenses had a pretty good reputation for image quality if a less good one for reliability. I was frankly disappointed with the end results of my test, mostly taken on a tripod with the standard 80mm Planar and 120mm Makro Planar lenses. As a comparison I used my M9 on the same tripod with a 50mm ZM Planar and 75mm Summarit. The 45MP shots from the Contax were little better than the 18MP shots from the M9 in the centre of the image and the M9 was sharper in the corners. Similarly I have a very recent R mount Hartblei tilt shift lens based on the latest Pentacon MF lens. Its contrast and resolving power are about equivalent to a mid 1950's Leica small format lens. Unless Schneider have made a huge leap in MF lens design (and where would they get the R&D money to pay for that), I am sceptical about their claims on resolution. 

 

Wilson

I still use the M9, it's hard to beat. Next step up for me is 65MP and has been for longer than I've owned the M9. The M9 filled a big gap in my experience. I had the P45 for a while and loved it but the extra that the P65 gave was a real clincher. Looking at the 100MP Phase samples I finally see a leap in IQ that I'm ready to upgrade to.

 

Still, 45MP you will see exceptional differences when you increase to a 2-3m print, or crop. Compare 18MP and 45MP at these sizes and, well...there's no comparison. The 18MP file has fallen apart. But still, a trained eye will see the differences in colour and tonality even in smaller images, it's up to you and your clients if you justify or see it.

 

also working with the Phase One P45+ files (39MP) were far more maleable than the 18MP Leica ones. The extra dimension and depth in them is unquestionable.

[Paul J]

jaapv, on 06 Jan 2016 - 17:42, said:jaapv, on 06 Jan 2016 - 17:42, said:

Whilst there is certainly something to be said for using high-MP cameras  ( https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx?#alexia ) , I doubt whether my photography would benefit, and I doubt that I am the only one. I cannot see how it would translate into print in my case.

Happy new Year Jaap

 

I think once you've used it for a while you would find it difficult to go back, you might also find a lot more uses for it than you might imagine.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

thighslapper, on 06 Jan 2016 - 17:14, said:

..... 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 .... 

Predictable if nothing more.

 

Walking closer? Thanks i'll keep it in mind...

 

Think it solves everything? That's a little dramatic, no?

 

You take your low MP camera and find something else to object to. I'll take the well designed high MP with better IQ and be on my way. Solved.

[jaapv]

Happy new Year Jaap

 

I think once you've used it for a while you would find it difficult to go back, you might also find a lot more uses for it than you might imagine.

Same to you For the time being I am not changing my name to Alexia

[pgk]

It's the same argument time and time again based on what we know, or rather don't, but it's more a case of just what we have to work out. Quick question - do you actually shoot with high res cameras? Your arguments tend to come from someone without the experience of working with them, and more from reading blogs and forums written by people don't know what they are doing.

I rarely wish to push my credentials however.....

 

As it happens I have experimented with resolution limits for scientific purposes. In the course of my experimentation it became clear that with 20+MPixels the really detailed and useful resolution for my application was already declining at f/11 to f/16. Boost the sampling rate higher and wider apertures will limit the resolution. My application looked at identification requirements and needed fine, low contrast detail and images were shot with flash. My conclusions are that increasing resolution is not possible without using wider apertures (mirrors theory and is hardly rocket science now is it?). So bigger formats with higher MPixels will be fine provided you shot at optimum apertures. Unfortunately as a working photographer with over 30 years experience I KNOW that aperture selection is far more important for other reasons than obtaining maximum resolution.

 

And as it happens there are ways of significantly increasing resolution (as are used in astronomy) but none rely on simple, single sampling of the image. We live in very exciting times with digital imaging but trying to evade the laws of physics by using the simple expedient of increasing MPixels is not the solution to ever higher resolution and most certainly not with hand held cameras like the Leica rangefinder. The web is full of old wives tales with regard to photography and there are many self appointed gurus who spout forth with little or no technical background (which is where I come from). I find it frustrating when simplistic solutions are offered to complex problems and fundamentals of optics and physics are ignored. 

[@McLeica]

Highest pixel count + best glass + fab handling + longest battery life + best case + extraordinary strap + fastest AF + perfect sized bag x bad photographer (squared) = bad photo.

[@McLeica]

Whilst there is certainly something to be said for using high-MP cameras (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx?#alexia) , I doubt whether my photography would benefit, and I doubt that I am the only one. I cannot see how it would translate into print in my case.

 

Have you got a barn and 3 clean sides? 

[thighslapper]

Still, 45MP you will see exceptional differences when you increase to a 2-3m print, or crop. Compare 18MP and 45MP at these sizes and, well...there's no comparison. 

 

 ....... give us a break ........ how many on the forum print to 2-3m ? 

 

.... and the difference between 18mp and 45mp is only a linear increase of about 35%.

 

you may find for your applications this gives 'exceptional differences', but for most of us mere mortals it may just result in a transient frisson of excitement in the gonads after pixel-peeping before the dawning realisation that more pixels hasn't really resulted in any decrease in the amount of crappy photos you take. 

 

..... and when we get into areas of 'better colour' we are entering a very subjective realm indeed .......

 

This subject comes round year after year and always polarises opinion ...... and in the intervening time most (for and against) have ended up with higher Megapixel cameras by default ..... 

 

I'm not swimming against the tide ...... I'm just not convinced that the benefits are as yet worth ditching 24mp .....  which seems to be the current 'sweet spot' as far as the rest of the technology goes at present. 

[AlanJW]

There is something to be said for a lot of megapixels when as a practical matter you can neother get closer nor use a longer lens.  Last week we went whale watching off of San Diego.  We saw 16 whales (it is migration season), but the boat is not allowed to approach closer than a few hundred yards.   I used my D800e and Nikon's 28-300mm lens (which is not one of their best).  Nearly all of the whale shots needed heavy cropping but the 36mp allowed for files good enough for a vacation book I will construct.

 

Having said that, 36mp is more than is normally needed, but the megapixel race will continue. The reason has little to do with technical capabilities or image quality.  It has to do with marketing.  The camera business is highly competitive and the camera companies are constantly trying to figure out a way to achieve enough product differentiation to separate themselves from the pack.  Except for professional sports photographers, FPS is to me just another marketing metric.  Leica has the advantage of already-loyal customers (like yours truly), special brand recognition, and build quality.  They don't need to go beyond 24mp and I am perfectly happy with the current 24mp sensors.  But I'll wager that any new M will have a kick up in Mp, because Leica is not immune to the same pressures felt by the other.

[LocalHero1953]

 ....... give us a break ........ how many on the forum print to 2-3m ? 

Quite!

And I had to upgrade my PC when I switched from the M9 (18mp) to the M240 (24mp), both RAM and storage. I don't want to do the same again unnecessarily.

 

It is not very clever to suggest that those who have not used higher pixel sensors don't know what they're missing. Like many others I have seen and admired high pixel images on screen and in print and, like many others, value those images on criteria other than pixel count.

 

I don't doubt that many photographers and their clients appreciate and demand higher pixel densities. For me, other issues are more important, and more pixels would create other problems.

[Jeff S]

This Ctein* article, and its various links to his earlier articles, purports to shoot down many 'myths' espoused here...  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html   (Note comments section as well.)

 

BTW, the Canon 5DSR was a niche camera to start (as Ctein mentions, some need MP, most don't)......it was never intended as a replacement to the 5D III, which is expected this year.  Rumors suggest that the 5D IV might be issued in two versions to meet different audience needs, not necessarily distinguished by MP.

 

I think the trend isn't so much more MP, but more options by more brands, even at a time when the industry is struggling.

 

[*Ctein (pronounced 'kuh-tyne') is a physicist, photographer, printer (until recently dye transfer), author and frequent contributor to TOP.]

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

Probably not, because higher megapixel counts are so marketable, just like more horsepower or more miles per gallon. 

[Paul J]

....... give us a break ........ how many on the forum print to 2-3m ? 

 

.... and the difference between 18mp and 45mp is only a linear increase of about 35%.

 

..... and when we get into areas of 'better colour' we are entering a very subjective realm indeed .......

 

This subject comes round year after year and always polarises opinion ...... and in the intervening time most (for and against) have ended up with higher Megapixel cameras by default ..... 

Do you expect me to take this seriously?

[thighslapper]

Nope

 

'Perception. Not perfection'

 

When your old and grumpy you're allowed to wind people up. 

[wlaidlaw]

This Ctein* article, and its various links to his earlier articles, purports to shoot down many 'myths' espoused here...  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html   (Note comments section as well.)

 

 

If a twelve year old displayed the level of mathematics in that online photographer article in any maths exam, it would be a fail. There are a number of basic errors in it. 

 

The SL sensor has 6000 pixels along a 36mm length, which equals at the most basic level 166 pixels per mm. So in order to have perfect lens resolution you need 166 line pairs per mm, so that light or dark or any stage between can be detected for that pixel. This is at about the level for current top class lenses like the best Leica/Zeiss/Nikon/Canon prime lenses and possibly the 24-90 zoom, if Leica's sales blurb is to be believed. The Canon 5DS sensor is nearly 9000 pixels along a 36mm length which is 250 pixels per mm. Nothing other than specialist photo micrography lenses currently attain 250 lp/mm at the centre of the image let alone in the corners. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pgk]

If a twelve year old displayed the level of mathematics in that online photographer article in any maths exam, it would be a fail. There are a number of basic errors in it.

Well I just skimmed the article and I'm completely unimpressed. 'Sharpness' is what exactly? So full of vagueness and relying on decades of data. Really?