pop Posted January 10, 2016 Share #21 Posted January 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The most straightforward explanation raises from the fact that many caneras blur the image before it even reaches the sensor. Hence, it is possible for a camera with fewer pixels to exhibit more details in the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Hi pop, Take a look here Took Back my SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
biglou Posted January 10, 2016 Share #22 Posted January 10, 2016 The most straightforward explanation raises from the fact that many caneras blur the image before it even reaches the sensor. Hence, it is possible for a camera with fewer pixels to exhibit more details in the image. OK, this i understand and agree. It does not contradict the obvious (and demonstrated) fact that, all other things equal, a sensor with more pixels will discriminate finer details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 10, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 10, 2016 OK, this i understand and agree. It does not contradict the obvious (and demonstrated) fact that, all other things equal, a sensor with more pixels will discriminate finer details. "All other things equal" is the key phrase, at least within the order of magnitude that's being discussed here. Not only the blurring filters are to be considered, but the noise reduction applied to the signal, the crosstalk between pixel sites, the physical depth of the pixel well and possibly even quantum mechanical effects (for very small sites). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 10, 2016 Share #24 Posted January 10, 2016 "All other things equal" is the key phrase, at least within the order of magnitude that's being discussed here. No. The obvious key phrase is "All other things properly done", which is implicit in any technical discussion. And all other things are properly done in both the Leica S and the Sony A7R2, so they can render much higher detail than the Leica SL. If I say that a Sony engineer on a Ferrari can go faster than Leica engineer on a tricycle, you will probably argue that this is not "true to fact" because there are other important factors to consider, like: the Ferrari may be stuck in quicksand; the Ferrari may have been refueled with water instead of gasoline; the Sony engineer may not have the keys of the Ferrari; the tricycle can be inside a Lamborghini; et cetera. So yes, Philipp, in some conditions a Leica engineer with a tricycle may go faster than a Sony engineer in a Ferrari. Hope this makes you happy ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 10, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 10, 2016 Some cameras include an AA filter. That is a filter which sits in front of the sensor and which actually blurs the image. Of two cameras with sensors with the same resolution, the one with the filter will resolve fewer details than the one without. Some cameras apply noise reduction to the raw image. Noise reduction results in details being removed from the image. Of two cameras with sensors with the same resolution, the one with noise reduction will resolve fewer details than the one without. Some sensors are more sensitive to the angle at which the the light arrives at the sensor. It has been commented here fairly often that the sensors which are more sensitive to that angle of incidence tend to somewhat blur or smear the edges of the image when "difficult" lenses are being used. Of two cameras with the same resolution, the one which is more sensitive to that angle will resolve fewer details in the corners than the other one. Hence, when comparing the ability of two cameras to render fine details, simply comparing the number of pixels or the density of pixels provided by the sensor will not allow any predictions as to the details you can expect in the image. Carry on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 10, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 10, 2016 Carry on. No need. You are clearly deluded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 11, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 11, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Somewhat reluctantly I returned my new SL today. Having been an M user for a long time (first one was an M3 double stroke which I still have and use along with an M4 and M240) I thought it would replace my DSLR equipment. Not so. I used on successive days the SL with the available AF zoom and my Nikon D810 for similar photos -- portraits, indoor scenes, snow skiing, flash.... I concluded that the Nikon produced images (especially with the remarkable 50mm AF f/1.4 and the 28-70 f/2.8 AFS) quite comparable to the SL except the images in large enlargement (approx 20x30") showed substantially more fine detail than the SL, more like my Hasselblad. While this is not the most important variable, when coupled with the few AF lenses available for the SL and its somewhat irritating button arrangement, I kept the Nikon. My Leica love is undiminished. I will hope for a M240 replacement with the wonderful display of the SL. Could you post pictures of the prints you made at 20x30 to show the substantially more fine detail in print from the D810? Tangentially, the Nikon 50/1.4 is not considered by many to be remarkable. If, you are placing such a large emphasis on fine detail, your decision of the Nikon 50/1.4 is not a good choice. The current Summilux on your SL would have been much better. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout By the way, the new SL Summilux 50 is supposed to be the best yet. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share #28 Posted January 11, 2016 I must have an unusual example of the Nikon 50. I have the M Summilux Asph 50 and it is a great lens indeed. I will post some pix of the detail in the large prints when I return from Pakistan. In Germany now en route. Guns are more critical than cameras where I'm going! I hoped I made clear that fine detail was not the only variable. The absence at this point of a variety of lenses is at least as important. Best wishes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 11, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 11, 2016 You could have a great example. I had 2 Canon 50/1.4 that were terrible. The third was actually good. Had I not had the Summilux 50 to compare to, I would have had no idea that there could be that kind of sample variation. As to my question about your prints, I have the M240 and print up the 44" on my printer and I'm not sure if 36MP would make much difference, but I have never compared. I'd be curious to see what the difference looks like. I like the SL but, I'll also wait for more native lenses. The Nikon and Canon stable of lenses is just so fine. Look forward to seeing some pictures of Pakistan. Are you shooting the M240? What sort of thing are you shooting on this trip? Have a safe trip. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 11, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 11, 2016 If you are placing such a large emphasis on fine detail, your decision of the Nikon 50/1.4 is not a good choice. The current Summilux on your SL would have been much better. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout According to that test, the Nikon 50/1.4 is about the same as the Zeiss 50/2 (an awesome lens). Oh, and a 50/1.4 lens can be stopped down if you really care about details. That test simply proves that the Summilux 50/1.4 is a super-awesome lens and wasted on an obsolete 24MP sensor. And it better be, as the price is quite higher than other awesome lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinj Posted January 12, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 12, 2016 No. The obvious key phrase is "All other things properly done", which is implicit in any technical discussion. And all other things are properly done in both the Leica S and the Sony A7R2, so they can render much higher detail than the Leica SL. If I say that a Sony engineer on a Ferrari can go faster than Leica engineer on a tricycle, you will probably argue that this is not "true to fact" because there are other important factors to consider, like: the Ferrari may be stuck in quicksand; the Ferrari may have been refueled with water instead of gasoline; the Sony engineer may not have the keys of the Ferrari; the tricycle can be inside a Lamborghini; et cetera. So yes, Philipp, in some conditions a Leica engineer with a tricycle may go faster than a Sony engineer in a Ferrari. Hope this makes you happy ! With apologies to Michael Reichmann, I would say the Leica SL has "24 Fxxxing Megapixels" so it will have far more detail than any other camera, even those with higher resolutions. This is because of several variables, most notable one being the red dot that extracts higher detail from the atoms of the scene being captured. * https://luminous-landscape.com/100-fxxing-megapixels-phase-one-xf-camera-reaches-100-mp-early-hands-one-report/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted January 12, 2016 Share #32 Posted January 12, 2016 Some cameras include an AA filter. That is a filter which sits in front of the sensor and which actually blurs the image. Of two cameras with sensors with the same resolution, the one with the filter will resolve fewer details than the one without. Some cameras apply noise reduction to the raw image. Noise reduction results in details being removed from the image. Of two cameras with sensors with the same resolution, the one with noise reduction will resolve fewer details than the one without. Some sensors are more sensitive to the angle at which the the light arrives at the sensor. It has been commented here fairly often that the sensors which are more sensitive to that angle of incidence tend to somewhat blur or smear the edges of the image when "difficult" lenses are being used. Of two cameras with the same resolution, the one which is more sensitive to that angle will resolve fewer details in the corners than the other one. Hence, when comparing the ability of two cameras to render fine details, simply comparing the number of pixels or the density of pixels provided by the sensor will not allow any predictions as to the details you can expect in the image. Carry on. Really? The OP compares the SL to his D810. The D810 has NO anti aliasing filter. Since you will, no doubt, argue that you were being general I will say this. Nor does the A7RII or the Canon 5DSR. The only 40+ MP 35mm sensor with an AA filter, currently available new, is the 5DS. The 50MP sensor from the 5DS will resolve more detail than the SL, regardless of the AA filter simply because tests shows it does. So there is no currently available 40+MP sensor that the Leica SL will out resolve regardless of AA filters and noise reduction. Additionally the current 50mm DSLR lenses from all the major manufacturers don't have angle of incident issues on their respective cameras. It wasn't like the OP was complaining about a 50mm Summilux on a A7mkII. Leica lens, Leica body. Nikon lens, Nikon body. The SL sensor, while very good has neither the resolution or the dynamic range of the Sony sensor in the D810. The Nikon 50mm 1.4 may not be an Otus but it's a fine lens. And you have no idea of the OP's shooting parameters or environment. You seem, to me, to be being argumentative just for the sake of it. I doubt any of the esteemed participants of this thread required you instruction on the function or effect of an AA filter or noise reduction algorithms, just as I am confident that the OP is telling it how he sees it. The SL don't have the best sensor or resolve the most detail of current 35mm sensors and camera from the "cheap seats" like Nikon can and do make some exceptional gear that regardless of cost, some people will prefer to Leica. Such is life. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 12, 2016 Share #33 Posted January 12, 2016 Really? The OP compares the SL to his D810. The D810 has NO anti aliasing filter. Since you will, no doubt, argue that you were being general I will say this. Nor does the A7RII or the Canon 5DSR. The only 40+ MP 35mm sensor with an AA filter, currently available new, is the 5DS. The 50MP sensor from the 5DS will resolve more detail than the SL, regardless of the AA filter simply because tests shows it does. So there is no currently available 40+MP sensor that the Leica SL will out resolve regardless of AA filters and noise reduction. Additionally the current 50mm DSLR lenses from all the major manufacturers don't have angle of incident issues on their respective cameras. It wasn't like the OP was complaining about a 50mm Summilux on a A7mkII. Leica lens, Leica body. Nikon lens, Nikon body. The SL sensor, while very good has neither the resolution or the dynamic range of the Sony sensor in the D810. The Nikon 50mm 1.4 may not be an Otus but it's a fine lens. And you have no idea of the OP's shooting parameters or environment. You seem, to me, to be being argumentative just for the sake of it. I doubt any of the esteemed participants of this thread required you instruction on the function or effect of an AA filter or noise reduction algorithms, just as I am confident that the OP is telling it how he sees it. The SL don't have the best sensor or resolve the most detail of current 35mm sensors and camera from the "cheap seats" like Nikon can and do make some exceptional gear that regardless of cost, some people will prefer to Leica. Such is life. Gordon Indeed, my argument applies to the general case, for the simple reason that it has been introduced into this thread: It may seem obvious to some, but it is false to fact. The question becomes straightforward as soon as you compare specific cameras or configurations, as the resolution and other properties can be measured. However, as any engineer will tell you, measurements can turn out to yield wrong results, too, but I don't think this applies to this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted January 12, 2016 Share #34 Posted January 12, 2016 Better see with your own eyes... Images here seem to indicate that pixel number seems to be the main factor for the size of details recorded. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-ii/sony-a7r-ii-image-quality.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 12, 2016 Share #35 Posted January 12, 2016 According to that test, the Nikon 50/1.4 is about the same as the Zeiss 50/2 (an awesome lens). Oh, and a 50/1.4 lens can be stopped down if you really care about details. That test simply proves that the Summilux 50/1.4 is a super-awesome lens and wasted on an obsolete 24MP sensor. And it better be, as the price is quite higher than other awesome lenses. No, the test doesn't actually say or prove any of those things you state. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 12, 2016 Share #36 Posted January 12, 2016 The problem is that more MPixels and what can be resolved by them is a game of optimising things. By optimising everything, including subject matter, it may be possible to show that with X camera using Y lens and with everything optimised then there may be a marginal increase in detail under specific circumstances over a camera with fewer MPixels - at times, perhaps, possibly, maybe. Unfortunately I don't spend my time optimising stuff like this when I'm out in the real world taking photographs. I choose settings which suit the subject matter and these are almost invariably, to some degree, a compromise. That is what photographic technique is all about. You have to ask questions such as whether depth of field is more important than use of the optimum aperture (for its resolution) and what shutter speed will enable this whilst freezing motion sufficiently, and so on. This topic has cropped up before and will again; there are the exponents of ever increasing MPixels and those of us who actually think that for the vast majority of requirements we have more than adequate equipment already. I happily sit in the latter category and have to say that most of the comparisons so beloved of equipment testers leave me bored witless as they are invariably of bland subjects that I wouldn't shoot and all too often show differences of no consequence in real world image taking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2016 Share #37 Posted January 12, 2016 Better see with your own eyes... Images here seem to indicate that pixel number seems to be the main factor for the size of details recorded. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-ii/sony-a7r-ii-image-quality.htm A very interesting link; thank you. To me it shows a few things, though. Firstly, of course, that the A7RII is an amazing camera and the winner, but so are the other ones in the comparison. The results of all cameras in the test are far beyond the photographic needs of the vast majority of photographers. Something else that is clear, however, is that Philipp is right. The mere pixel count results are influenced by things like noise performance, noise reduction, contrast, colour rendering. See the higher ISO comparisons to the Pentax 645, the places where the D810 loses out against the Sony, the results of the Canon, etc. A pity the SL and S are not in this test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 12, 2016 Share #38 Posted January 12, 2016 Better see with your own eyes... Images here seem to indicate that pixel number seems to be the main factor for the size of details recorded. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-ii/sony-a7r-ii-image-quality.htm To me this merely shows that all the cameras 'tested' are extremely good. Viewing an image from any of these hung in a gallery I can't for one moment think that anyone would suggest that it would have been better if shot on .... [a different camera]. I'm not sure precisely what is illustrated here either - the camera's physical capabilities or the software processed image, or both. My view is that its no longer about which camera (around 20MPixel or over that is) in 99.999% cases, its about which camera and lenses the photographer likes using and is comfortable with. We are straying into photophile territory more and more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 12, 2016 Share #39 Posted January 12, 2016 How many more times is this subject going to be flogged to the point of death ? Until there is a large demand for 30"x40" prints or widespread use of home LCD panels with 5k+ resolution then the current sensor resolution and performance from 18-36mpx is more than enough for 99% of sane human beings..... ....... and that assumes you spend your life viewing images with your nose touching them. Those with technical needs for high resolution use other formats, static cameras and low iso. The SL currently fulfils my requirements and despite playing with higher mpx cameras they do not tempt me ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 12, 2016 Share #40 Posted January 12, 2016 Something else that is clear, however, is that Philipp is right. The mere pixel count results are influenced by things like noise performance, noise reduction, contrast, colour rendering. That is quite obvious, but for these factors to make a 24MP camera resolve more than a 40+ MP camera, you need a "perfect storm". Which means that Philipp 0.1% right and 99.9% wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.