steppenw0lf Posted March 8, 2016 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) How much better or worse are the others compared to the SL Sorry if this sounds nerdy: I am fed up of all the people comparing resolutions and saying things like 50 Mpixel is more than twice the resolution of 24 Mpixel. Comparisons are to be made linearly. Exactly the same as if you compare two maps. As the MegaPixels are spread all over a rectangle, always take the square root of the Mpixel to make a realistic (linear) comparison. This means: (In our egocentric world, 24 Mpixel is of course the point to start, so 100%) 24 Mpixel 1.0 (100%) square root of 1.0 36 Mpixel 1.22 (122%) square root of 1.5 plus 22% 42 Mpixel 1.32 (132%) square root of 1.75 plus 32% 50 Mpixel 1.44 (144%) square root of 2.08 plus 44% 20 Mpixel 0.91 (91%) square root of 0.83 minus 9% 16 Mpixel 0.82 (82%) square root of 0.666... minus 18% So despite all the marketing hype the differences are rather small. What do you think. Is this the reality ? And should we stop worrying too much about resolution ? Or am I a fool ... Stephan Edited March 8, 2016 by steppenw0lf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Hi steppenw0lf, Take a look here Comparing resolutions correctly. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
steppenw0lf Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share #2 Posted March 8, 2016 Admin, can you please fix the title. I do not know how. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted March 8, 2016 Share #3 Posted March 8, 2016 Sensors are nostly 3:2 and 4:3 ratio so 24Mp is 6000 X 4000 pixels, while typical 36Mp 3:2 sensor provides approximately 22% increase in linear resolution, not much but not insignificant either. Key attributes for reportage camera are good high ISO performance and decent frame rate, in that respect SL sensor is improvement on the current M sensor. In my experience there is no magic in Leica packaged electronics, all the magic is in the lenses. Stick R lens on Canon or Nikon DSLR and you see image improvement over the native lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 8, 2016 Share #4 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) I wholeheartedly agree. Most of it is hype. When cameras have processors fast enough, cards big enough and computers capable enough and screens with resolution enough to manage 96 mpixel images I will be tempted to take the plunge. Until then 24mpixel seems plenty to me. A2 prints ...... and even I have limited use for this size ...... are perfect from 18/24 mpixels. No doubt there will be those (yes, you know who you are ), will say the 36/48 or more mpixels give you greater flexibility to crop etc .... blah blah blah ..... but for me I can see little advantage in this incremental increase ...... double, yes, but less than that, why bother ? Edited March 8, 2016 by thighslapper Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 8, 2016 Share #5 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) How much better or worse are the others compared to the SL Sorry if this sounds nerdy: I am fed up of all the people comparing resolutions and saying things like 50 Mpixel is more than twice the resolution of 24 Mpixel. Comparisons are to be made linearly. Exactly the same as if you compare two maps. As the MegaPixels are spread all over a rectangle, always take the square root of the Mpixel to make a realistic (linear) comparison. But a 50MP camera DOES have twice the resolution of a 24MP camera. It has twice as many pixels resolving information. If you double the resolution and all other factors remain then the larger file will have double the surface area and display double the number of unique information points. The question is how doubling the resolution translates to the description of print size across a single dimension. What you're describing above is about how a two dimensional measurement (area) translates into increased image sizes across a single dimension measurement (linear) in the image output stage if the image ratio remains the same. Strictly speaking comparisons of output sizes should be made across two dimensions (surface area) rather than one because the measurement of camera resolutions is being made across two dimensions (i.e. 24MP=6000x4000 pixels). But as humans we like to have simple comparison metrics and so we create these *translations*. We do the same with sensor sizes. The issue is that in our minds we might think a 12" print is twice as big as a 6' print. It's twice as long but 4 times as big (assuming ratio remains the same), if you are feeling pedantic. The real issue is how different people interpret the statement "twice as big". And then we think our way is the right way. Next thing you know there's a 15 page topic on a photography forum. You could say "doubling the resolution will create a print that is 1.4x wider at the print stage if all other factors are the same". However I don't think you can say "doubling the resolution of the camera, doesn't double the resolution of the output" unless you carefully qualify the area vs linear differentiator. Gordon Edited March 8, 2016 by FlashGordonPhotography 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 9, 2016 Share #6 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I am fed up of all the people comparing resolutions and saying things like 50 Mpixel is more than twice the resolution of 24 Mpixel. I am not upset with the comparisons, as wrong as they are. Twice 24 Mpxiels (to use your nominclature) for resolution would be something like 570+ Mpx. What is the output? Squirt-jets prints? You know they diminish anticipated resolution to allow them to work. Edited March 9, 2016 by pico 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 9, 2016 Share #7 Posted March 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pixel resolution is an old argument. Seventeen years ago, I was enlarging a few negatives from my Nikon F3. While I did that, I pondered what I'd like in a digital camera. I was making 10x15 inch prints, a natural enlargement from 2:3 proportion negatives at 10x magnification, and it was well established that much more than a 16x24" print (16x enlargement) from a 35mm negative was simply a push too far for the format. So I figured it as 4000x6000 pixels would make a nice 250 ppi 16x24 inch print that would look identical to what I could produce with my Leica lenses on film and paper. That's why 24 Mpixel for a FF camera has always seemed just right—and it's proven to work just as well as I'd expected. I continue to print mostly 6x9, 9x12, and 10x15 inch image area and 24Mpixel gives me comfortable margin for cropping, etc, without compromising print quality. 24 Mpixel is way more than is needed for most online display, even in this age of 27" computer displays. Whether more pixels is better ... well, maybe for some purposes. A 22% increase in resolution is nice for extremely detailed and very large prints. But I think the vast majority of photographs printed are not pushing the limits of 24 MPixels at all. Why take on the extra storage and processing burden for no reason? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted March 9, 2016 Even if the sensor has 36, 42 or even 50 Mpixel, most of the lenses do not necessarily have the quality to reach this. Or have this capability only when stopped down to middle apertures. (Also not too much because of blur caused by diffraction.) Unfortunately the providers do not declare the level of detail their lenses can provide. That makes it so difficult to differentiate between high-quality and low-quality lenses. And also to compare mid-range to FF and to AF-C lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 9, 2016 Share #9 Posted March 9, 2016 Even if the sensor has 36, 42 or even 50 Mpixel, most of the lenses do not necessarily have the quality to reach this. Or have this capability only when stopped down to middle apertures. (Also not too much because of blur caused by diffraction.) Unfortunately the providers do not declare the level of detail their lenses can provide. That makes it so difficult to differentiate between high-quality and low-quality lenses. And also to compare mid-range to FF and to AF-C lenses. very true. And there's also a lot of subjects (portraits for example) that get little benefit from super high resolution sensors. Gordon 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted March 9, 2016 Share #10 Posted March 9, 2016 Even if the sensor has 36, 42 or even 50 Mpixel, most of the lenses do not necessarily have the quality to reach this. Or have this capability only when stopped down to middle apertures. (Also not too much because of blur caused by diffraction.) I'd be totally OK with enough over-sampling to eliminate aliasing in bird feathers. With the a7II's AA-filtere4d 24 MP and a Canon FD 300mm f/4 L lens I still get moire and aliasing. Not to mention the SL's AA-less 24MP with the 280 APO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 9, 2016 Share #11 Posted March 9, 2016 Or am I a fool ... If you are not a fool, by your own reasoning, you should have no problems using a 12 MP camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 9, 2016 Share #12 Posted March 9, 2016 Even if the sensor has 36, 42 or even 50 Mpixel, most of the lenses do not necessarily have the quality to reach this. Or have this capability only when stopped down to middle apertures. (Also not too much because of blur caused by diffraction.) Oh, most lenses do instead. Especially Leica lenses. You actually showed that the gap in linear resolution (i.e. lens resolution) is not that big compared to sensor resolution. So many nice expensive Leica lenses wasted on 24 MP sensors. So sad. Even many cheap lenses stopped down before diffraction limit can resolve 50+ MP, at least in the center of the frame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 9, 2016 Share #13 Posted March 9, 2016 The resolution of a lens is expressed in one dimension. When specifying print sizes, the two dimensions are usually named separately. I don't think I have ever seen anyone calling an 8" by 10" print an "80 square inch print". Reckoning the resolution of a camera by stating the number of pixels it delivers is possible but hinders the direct comparison to both the lens resolution and the print size. People are quite good at visually comparing linear sizes. They perform not as well when comparing areas. That's why bar and pie charts are easier to read than area charts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted March 9, 2016 Share #14 Posted March 9, 2016 What keeps getting forgotten in these discussions is that the Bayer array means that a 24MP colour camera only has 6MP of red and blue and 12MP of green pixels - the rest is invented by the camera/post processing software in the demosaic algorithms. For some subjects that doesn't matter, but for example I keep running up against this limitation in landscape photography with mushy colours on fine leaves etc. I would agree that if I could have 24MP of true RGB resolution then I would be very satisfied indeed. Its funny how people praise the Monochrome 246 for its superior apparent resolution yet at the same time defend the lower colour resolution of the M/SL as "well you don't need anymore". Perhaps we should just agree that everyone has different needs. Jonathan 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 9, 2016 Share #15 Posted March 9, 2016 What keeps getting forgotten in these discussions is that the Bayer array means that a 24MP colour camera only has 6MP of red and blue and 12MP of green pixels - the rest is invented by the camera/post processing software in the demosaic algorithms. For some subjects that doesn't matter, but for example I keep running up against this limitation in landscape photography with mushy colours on fine leaves etc. I would agree that if I could have 24MP of true RGB resolution then I would be very satisfied indeed. Its funny how people praise the Monochrome 246 for its superior apparent resolution yet at the same time defend the lower colour resolution of the M/SL as "well you don't need anymore". Perhaps we should just agree that everyone has different needs. Jonathan Not quite true. The 24 Mpixel spatial resolution is real. The color resolution is interpolated, as you suggest. A higher pixel count sensor, or a larger sensor, either with a Bayer matrix sensor doesn't do anything but give you more pixels with the same proportion of R, G, and B color interpolation. Maybe it ameliorates the mushy colors to some degree through sheer numbers of pixels, but there's a limit to how much improvement can be gotten that way. A Fovean sensor is one solution to having full color resolution, but has its own problems and limitations. An MM246 and three exposures through Red, Green, and Blue filters is another, but that's going to have its own problems and limitations. I certainly agree that different subject matter has different needs. If I were shooting those types of subjects, I'd probably want a technical camera or at least MF Digital to work with. A 35mm format camera was never the best suited for landscape photography as far as I recall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted March 9, 2016 Share #16 Posted March 9, 2016 Not quite true. The 24 Mpixel spatial resolution is real. The color resolution is interpolated, as you suggest. Yes, the colour resolution is what I'm trying to achieve. A higher pixel count sensor, or a larger sensor, either with a Bayer matrix sensor doesn't do anything but give you more pixels with the same proportion of R, G, and B color interpolation. Maybe it ameliorates the mushy colors to some degree through sheer numbers of pixels, but there's a limit to how much improvement can be gotten that way. Note quite true. There isn't a theoretical limit to the improvement that is achieved as pixel count goes up, other than hitting the eventual boundaries due to quantum physics, but we are a long way off that at present (of course there are other downsides to smaller pixels that will limit the practical upper limit but again we are also far from that at present). The benefit gained going from 24MP to 50 or 100MP is very much real. I certainly agree that different subject matter has different needs. If I were shooting those types of subjects, I'd probably want a technical camera or at least MF Digital to work with. A 35mm format camera was never the best suited for landscape photography as far as I recall. Agreed. I used to shoot 5x4 film and would love to get back to that sort of colour resolution - see Tim Parkin's study https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/11/the-mysterious-case-of-the-missing-berries-and-other-stories/ for why this matters in the real world. It would be nice if Leica gave us the choice - if there was a ~40-50MP SL using the latest backside illuminated Sony sensor I'd be running to my dealer to put down a deposit Again, the message is there isn't one right or wrong answer. There needs to be a choice of sensor, just as there was in the film days. Jonathan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 9, 2016 Share #17 Posted March 9, 2016 Note quite true. There isn't a theoretical limit to the improvement that is achieved as pixel count goes up, other than hitting the eventual boundaries due to quantum physics, but we are a long way off that at present (of course there are other downsides to smaller pixels that will limit the practical upper limit but again we are also far from that at present). The benefit gained going from 24MP to 50 or 100MP is very much real. Agreed. I used to shoot 5x4 film and would love to get back to that sort of colour resolution - see Tim Parkin's study https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/11/the-mysterious-case-of-the-missing-berries-and-other-stories/ for why this matters in the real world. It would be nice if Leica gave us the choice - if there was a ~40-50MP SL using the latest backside illuminated Sony sensor I'd be running to my dealer to put down a deposit Again, the message is there isn't one right or wrong answer. There needs to be a choice of sensor, just as there was in the film days. Well, the limit I was speaking of is that while jumping to 50Mpixel nets you more pixels, you still have only 1:2:1 ratios of RGB pixels. So the mushiness is ameliorated to some degree, but no matter how many bazillion pixels you have, color resolution still lags behind spatial resolution in any Bayer matrix sensor. "How much is enough?" is the only metric you can use as a rule as to when to stop. 24Mpixel produces fine results for my photography with a 35mm format sensor. For the kind of 4x5 film resolution results you're looking for, I'd want a bigger sensor and lots more pixels. I just don't believe that jamming way more pixels on a 35mm size format is the best solution. My buddy down south just acquired a 22 Mpixel back for his Hassy system. It's very interesting to see the difference between his images and mine with the SL. For what he wants to shoot, the Hassy is really nice (and would be better with 39 or 50 Mpixel too!), but it's awkward as heck for precisely the kinds of things that I like to shoot. So there is a choice in sensors, they're just not as accessible as the choices in film were in "the old days". We're always constrained by something, no matter what the technology. I think we're in complete agreement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 9, 2016 Share #18 Posted March 9, 2016 Numbers are mostly irrelevant. Compare and you will easily see. Get on a job where you client needs to crop them down significantly and your arse will depend on it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2016 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2016 I cannot see the big issue here -Yes all arguments for higher resolution are valid, but one would wish for doubling of linear resolution in that case. Which would mean a 96 MP sensor over the 24 of the SL - something that would not provide any quality at all with the present technology Like for the last century and a half, there is no substitute for square centimeters. So - Phase One is your game, not Leica in that case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 9, 2016 Share #20 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I cannot see the big issue here -Yes all arguments for higher resolution are valid, but one would wish for doubling of linear resolution in that case. Which would mean a 96 MP sensor over the 24 of the SL - something that would not provide any quality at all with the present technology Like for the last century and a half, there is no substitute for square centimeters. So - Phase One is your game, not Leica in that case. Really ? I think instead that ~100 MP full-frame sensors will be on the market in a couple years. And even current deniers will be quite happy. Edited March 9, 2016 by CheshireCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.