jaapv Posted January 12, 2016 Share #41 Posted January 12, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Did you actually look at the results of the test linked to? And, just to put your perfect storm in perspective, I'll quote my full post, instead of your out-of-context snippet. 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...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Took Back my SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
biglou Posted January 12, 2016 Share #42 Posted January 12, 2016 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. You have here the results of the M9 with the same subjects. As M9 is very close to M240 regarding details capture this test could provide some information. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/M9/M9A.HTM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 12, 2016 Share #43 Posted January 12, 2016 How many more times is this subject going to be flogged to the point of death ? Let me guess... I'd say: until Leica comes up with a high resolution camera. The SL should have been that camera, also because the only native lenses (with 1 exception) are APS-C, which means 10 MP. As good as the SL pixels are, no one wants a 10 MP camera in 2016. A 40+ MP in the SL would have helped selling T lenses and convince new users to embrace the new system. Lack of technology or Market-myopia ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2016 Share #44 Posted January 12, 2016 Really? People are going to buy a full-frame camera to put APS-C lenses on? This is a new system. I'm sure Leica's priority is to expand the lens offerings rather than to enter into the mostly meaningless megapixel race. It won't happen differently because of some internet shouting. The S, the T, both new Leica systems, had/have their lens palette expanded steadily. This time it will be the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G. van Asch Posted January 12, 2016 Share #45 Posted January 12, 2016 I have looked at my M8/M6 digital and film results. At 10.5mb the M8 gives great results. The M6 film results are also very nice. With my new SL I bought a polarizing and UV filter. I am happy with the results with or without the filters and the 43.1mb pictures are super for me . I got Lightroom when I bought the new D-lux 109 for my wife and also tried it out. Now again I am using " Mac photos" for myself that is easier and the result for me is good enough. Sorry if I bother all experts and professional members but for me it's always "keep it simple". Gerjan van Asch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 12, 2016 Share #46 Posted January 12, 2016 Really? People are going to buy a full-frame camera to put APS-C lenses on? Why not. I use my APS-C NEX lenses on the A7R2 with better results than on the NEX6 I sold. I get around 20 MP, depending on the lens, and I am having fun with square format crops thanks to the FF sensor. If I had invested money in the T system, I would be utterly disappointed by the awful resolution these lenses give on the SL. Like I said several times, there's much more to MP than large prints and high density displays. And while we are at it, people trying to convince themselves that 40 MP on full frame require extreme shooting techniques, tripods, and super expensive hi-definition lenses, should say the same about all 16 MP APS-C cameras (including Leica T) because the pixel density is the same. Delusion, delusion, delusion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2016 Share #47 Posted January 12, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) CheshireCat, on 12 Jan 2016 - 17:29, said:Why not. 7015 reasons... They'll get a T. Maybe, if they happen to have a few T lenses... But M and R lenses are more likely candidates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted January 12, 2016 Share #48 Posted January 12, 2016 Obviously, higher megapixel cameras can resolve more fine detail than lower megapixel cameras. All the cameras in the discussion, and, frankly, all current production interchangeable lens cameras have a high enough megapixel count that for most images the difference in resolution will be small, even negligible. Doesn't mean it isn't there. That being said, I can't think of the last time that I couldn't make the print I wanted to make (with respect to size) because of not having enough megapixels. Soft images due to poor technique, yes. Missed focus, yes. Not enough depth of field, yes. Too noisy, yes. Motion blur, yes. Choosing the wrong lens/having the wrong composition and thus needing to crop way too much, yes. There are all kinds of reasons I can get stuck with making a smaller print than I would like. It's almost never because of camera resolution. I'm not going to pretend that higher megapixel cameras can't out-resolve my beloved Leicas under many circumstances. They can. I just don't care, because that's no longer a limitation in the technical quality of my photographs. Astrophotographers have to deal with this all the time. My current model astronomy camera costs even more than My Leicas, and it only has six megapixels! But my skies are never steady enough for me to benefit from smaller pixels at the focal lengths I use, and that's accounting for diffraction limits, extremely accurate guiding/alignment, use of adaptive optics, etc. I'd rather have better quantum efficiency, better cooling, and lower read noise in my Astro camera than more megapixels. I'll make better pictures that way. The same is now true (or nearly so) for my terrestrial photography. The megapixels are not what limits my technical image quality for, really, any of my real world photographs. It's the combination of ALL the factors that impact "sharpness". Sensor resolution is no longer near the top of the list for my requirements. Other photographers with different shooting styles making larger prints may have other requirements. I certainly wouldn't recommend my astronomy camera for someone headed out on an African safari even if the focal lengths requirements are similar. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 12, 2016 Share #49 Posted January 12, 2016 ... I'm not going to pretend that higher megapixel cameras can't out-resolve my beloved Leicas under many circumstances. They can. I just don't care, because that's no longer a limitation in the technical quality of my photographs. ... That's all that needs to be said on this topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 12, 2016 Share #50 Posted January 12, 2016 That being said, I can't think of the last time that I couldn't make the print I wanted to make (with respect to size) because of not having enough megapixels. Soft images due to poor technique, yes. Missed focus, yes. Not enough depth of field, yes. Too noisy, yes. Motion blur, yes. Choosing the wrong lens/having the wrong composition and thus needing to crop way too much, yes. There are all kinds of reasons I can get stuck with making a smaller print than I would like. It's almost never because of camera resolution. - Jared Ain't that the truth! Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 13, 2016 Share #51 Posted January 13, 2016 ..... That being said, I can't think of the last time that I couldn't make the print I wanted to make (with respect to size) because of not having enough megapixels. Soft images due to poor technique, yes. Missed focus, yes. Not enough depth of field, yes. Too noisy, yes. Motion blur, yes. Choosing the wrong lens/having the wrong composition and thus needing to crop way too much, yes. There are all kinds of reasons I can get stuck with making a smaller print than I would like. It's almost never because of camera resolution. I'm not going to pretend that higher megapixel cameras can't out-resolve my beloved Leicas under many circumstances. They can. I just don't care, because that's no longer a limitation in the technical quality of my photographs. .... Same here.....and I can say this about virtually every other technical aspect of my camera (or many alternatives), as well as lenses, these days. I expect that there are relatively few people, with very specialist requirements, whose photos suffer due to technical limitations of either cameras or lenses. These are glorious days for gear choices, and limitations for 99+% of photographers have not been equipment related.....and that's been especially true in the last 5-10 years, if not a lot longer. It's a wonder we ever shot with 400 ASA film, let alone used it at 250. But this is a gear oriented forum. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted January 13, 2016 Share #52 Posted January 13, 2016 Same for me with my car, since speed is limited i never lacked any horsepower or torque from my small engine. Maybe we should think about a way to bring back some equality between owners of digital cameras. A pixel limit would be probably too radical but an expensive annual tax on high pixel counts cameras could do the job and some Leica owners would feel better... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 13, 2016 Share #53 Posted January 13, 2016 Same for me with my car, since speed is limited i never lacked any horsepower or torque from my small engine. Maybe we should think about a way to bring back some equality between owners of digital cameras. A pixel limit would be probably too radical but an expensive annual tax on high pixel counts cameras could do the job and some Leica owners would feel better... Umm ... 24 MPixel is already a pretty high pixel count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 13, 2016 Share #54 Posted January 13, 2016 ................................ These are glorious days for gear choices, and limitations for 99+% of photographers have not been equipment related.....and that's been especially true in the last 5-10 years, if not a lot longer. ........................ This is certainly true except that it may be the case that the more technically accomplished cameras become, the more difficult it is for photographers with limited skills to find ways to distinguish their work from the oceans of similarly "good" photos. So the equipment-related limitations emerge not because the cameras aren't good enough, but because often we're not good enough for the cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 13, 2016 Share #55 Posted January 13, 2016 So the equipment-related limitations emerge not because the cameras aren't good enough, but because often we're not good enough for the cameras. This sounds like pixile dysfunction - photos remain soft despite increasing the MegaPixels count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 13, 2016 Share #56 Posted January 13, 2016 http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/01/nikon-launch-the-d5-the-most-powerful-digital-slr-in-the-companys-history/ 20Mp??????? This is just so........obsolescent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted January 13, 2016 Share #57 Posted January 13, 2016 Umm ... 24 MPixel is already a pretty high pixel count. Phase one has a new medium format back numbering 100MP (11608x8708) At the conservative value of 360 dots per inch (human eye can discriminate much more) it is possible to print with acceptably good quality up to 24x32 inches wich translates in 60x81cm. They do not claim more as i read here. Now 24 MP (5952x3976) with the same parameters gives: 16,53x11,04 inches wich makes a print measuring 28x42cm, 30x40 following the old photographic paper sizes So now it is up to anyone to see what they really need or want knowing that digital can be much less beautifully enlarged than good old film. 24MP or 20, the new professionnal Nikon, is good enough for A4 and up to A3 pages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 13, 2016 Share #58 Posted January 13, 2016 If you can't make a great photo, make it huge. I guess one needs to do something different with all this technology. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 13, 2016 Share #59 Posted January 13, 2016 Phase one has a new medium format back numbering 100MP (11608x8708) At the conservative value of 360 dots per inch (human eye can discriminate much more) it is possible to print with acceptably good quality up to 24x32 inches wich translates in 60x81cm. I have had a 35mm transparency blown to 3x2m for a customer in the past. The mathematics of print size are rather more complex than simply considering the discrimination of the human eye I'm afraid. Content is king . 'Quality' means different things to different people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted January 13, 2016 Share #60 Posted January 13, 2016 I have had a 35mm transparency blown to 3x2m for a customer in the past. The mathematics of print size are rather more complex than simply considering the discrimination of the human eye I'm afraid. Content is king . 'Quality' means different things to different people. I agree with you, this is true also with a drawing, some very small drawings convey an incredible sense of space and volume, the talent and content does transcend any medium limitation. That being said we are talking here of tools made in a competitive environment and many of us, if not all love this Leica brand for various reasons so it is justified and useful to compare with other makers and expose the true capabilites and limitations of Leica stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.