36 + Mp SL?

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No more snide than your reference to pixel phobia in an earlier post. I don't think I've read a thread on megapixels that doesn't descend to similar irrational arguments on both sides.

I think you have snide confused with matter of opinion. Pixelphobia is quite direct don't you think? Would you prefer the terms luddite? metathesiophobia? See, to me it seems these are a bit cliched and in this context not quite right given we're talking about a subset of technology, a technology within a technology, if you like. I mean, it's not like you are rejecting all technology is it! and metathesiophobia just seems a little relatively gloomy don't you think?

 

Given you are here reading, posting and engaging, it seems you may find it just as interesting, entertaining and compelling as the rest of us. But what I also find interesting is in your attempts to address our difference of opinion as being irrational, you've succeeded in the first known instance of the irrational use of the word irrational! Who'd of thunk! Bravo!

Edited March 16, 2016 by Paul J

[LocalHero1953]

I think you've made my point for me, Paul.

 

I visit some threads just in case someone has something new to say.

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

I read it the first time. But 2 x 24 million does not equal 96 million what ever way you want to look at it, or whose ever sales pitch and justification you read. In this case there really isn't more to numbers. Twice the pixels is twice the data. The amount that translates will depend on many things, but most losses will be mitigated with a quality and innovative design and this is most likely what Leica is taking longer to get right.

 

I really don't understand pixel phobia. The large majority here act hostile (you too surprisingly, must have been having a bad day in this thread ) as soon as someone mentions it, yet I heard the same arguments when people didn't need more than 5-8mp, yet everyone is blissfully viewing their 24Mp cameras and mobile phones at small sizes, and at a time when the cost of an 8TB hard drive is less than what a 500GB hard drive cost back then, and we can view our work on a 5K monitor.

 

The only thing I can honestly see that is more than numbers is the quality and innovation of the design of the camera housing it (and the truthfulness of the marketing department). I've used the 5DS R quite a bit lately and I have to say that the designs are certainly coming along and mostly showing promise. I use that camera with out thinking of it and the results are outstanding.

 

Lets have more MP with little to no cost in DR and ISO, in a well designed and innovative body that makes us unaware of the upgrade when shooting. And Leica, sssshhhhh don't tell the forum when you do it.

 

I think "pixel phobia" and "hostile" may be overstating it.  I can see why you might want the discussion reduced to that level, but I'm also not sure it is productive.

 

Sure, two times the number of pixels is twice the data (with a corresponding increase in file size and similar strain on technique); for me, doubling the pixels has considerably less than double the benefit.  It also has the surprising (for some) result that print size does not double, all things being equal.  That is why double the effective print size, all else being equal, does mean that a 24MP print, doubled in size is 96MP.

 

I'm all in for scorn and mockery when it suits, but I'm sure you're not suggesting my point was ever that 2 x 24 is 96 ...

 

I was perhaps intemperate with my first contribution to this thread (contribution may be overstating it), but it wasn't anything to do with "pixel phobia" (a silly concept, surely).  Like anyone else, when the next camera comes out with more MP I will just go with the flow.  Do I want it?  I don't think so.  Am I holding out for it? No.  Do I care about it? Not especially.

 

Why am I such a luddite and like many here not buying into your driving urge for more MP?

 

I (like you) started with film as a lad.  The detail and resolution of film is what I was raised with, and to be honest I was brought up with the concept that subject matter, composition, exposure and focusing made a good photo (pretty much in that order).  My first real digital was the M9 and its resolution blew the socks off anything I ever achieved with film.  It just isn't a driver for me (or for many here).

 

The reason for the maths you're so keen to misrepresent (no one has said 2 x 24 = 96, that was you reducing an argument you disagree with to the ridiculous) is that the end product for most (if not all) of our efforts is the print.  Doubling the number of pixels does not result in double the print size (on that, I'm sure there can be no disagreement), but also with the same DPI printer and other variables, doubling the file size does not result in double the resolution of the print at normal viewing distance.  All you you get is better pixel peeping on screen, more ability to crop, or a "modest" increase in print size (considering you've doubled the number of pixels).

 

My earlier scorn was purely to point out that I am tired of people misrepresenting this simple (call it simplistic if you like) point that there is more to photography than studying numbers on a spec sheet.  I'm not belittling your particular need for more pixels (which I don't doubt) - just pointing out that it is not universal and perhaps Leica knows what they're doing.  I was also, I think, pointing out that the Sonys of this World do the spec sheet thing, and apparently very well.  Silly old farts like me muddle along with less MP, less gadgetry, no IBIS and other gee wizardry thank you very much.

 

Last time I looked, photography was still about subject matter, composition, exposure and focusing.

Edited March 16, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Peter H]

............

 

Last time I looked, photography was still about subject matter, composition, exposure and focusing.

 

 

Well, I'm very close to that view, but I can understand those for whom the idea of fidelity is paramount and who translate that in a certain technical way. It does no harm, but I can't get excited about it and it feels to me like avoiding the really interesting and important questions about photography.

 

Photography is (always has been, I suppose) at a critical point. Paradoxically (at first sight) photography is burgeoning and evaporating in equal measure, and is part of a revolution in the way that we record ideas and exchange them. There are so many far more important issues than pixel counts that I feel that every time I take an interest in the topic, it's a symptom of my own idleness in ducking the more pressing questions.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

When I think about "SIZE", I think about the print area. Always have. So for me doubling the print size means doubling the resolution. I don't think that doubling the measurement along one axis is actually doubling the print size any more than i think that a 35mm sensor is double the size of a 4/3 sensor. No one just makes a print bigger in one dimension. If you make a print twice as long you quadruple it's size. If you say you double it's width, that makes sense to me.

 

Not every one needs more resolution. most photographers don't use the resolution they have. But that doesn't mean that some photographers won't appreciate or use an increase in resolution. We've been having the same debate since the 35mm/645 days. And the 10x8 guys still laugh at our puny formats....

 

Some people can resolve more detail than you and me. A teenager can resolve nearly double an average 60 year old. Where not all the same. I like it that way. So I think it's not really accurate to make blanket statements that start with, "no one needs....."

 

Gordon

[leicatraveller]

How large do you print? 24mp is sufficient for printing 40inchesx20inches with none to minimal interpolation so do you really need more pixels?

 

What about to print 40inches at 6400 iso ? a higher resolution sensor (like A7rII) will allow to downsize and give much better prints at high iso then for example a 12mp or 24mp camera ....

let's not think that all prints are done from files done at 100 iso on a tripod ;-)

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I think it's not really accurate to make blanket statements that start with, "no one needs....."

 

Agreed (did I ever say that?), but that is a whole other discussion.

 

Interesting comment on what "double" means in the context of print size.  Double the number of pixels similarly means little, unless the size of the pixels is constant (or at least their quality, whatever that means or however it is measured) - a like for like comparison is relevant, where raw numbers mean little.  But if one looks at a print, I would have thought that no one (other than an experienced printer) would look a a print with double the area and realise that meant an increase of 41% along the axis (in the case of a square print - I think that percentage is right).

 

I'm pretty sure most spec reading pixel peepers would assume double the size meant double the length and width (i.e., quadruple the area).

 

It is of academic interest to me only, as I don't think in these terms, and I don't take photos in a world where the resolving power of 35mm format is an issue - at least, not at 24MP which Leica prefers.  The more critical issue was to point out that increasing the number of pixels squeezed into a 35mm format sensor does not have the linear result most assume it does.  Granted, you and Paul J do - most don't.

Edited March 16, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hi John. No. It was a general comment only.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

Hi John. No. It was a general comment only.

 

Gordon

 

So it's not all about me?  Good to know!

 

John

[Joshua Lowe]

I think the OP already has something in mind based on the arguments and his purpose.

 

But we can buy a Sony A7RII (42MP), a Canon 5DSR (50MP) then forget about resolution, ISO, and everything else. Then hope we get the quality we wanted for our own purpose. If still not happy, we can go MF. The "want" will never end since these companies will keep producing increases in resolution as it seems to be the only camera characteristic that sell in the consumer market. But I still wonder why Sony is also pushing 12MP in one of their flagships. Same as Nikon which in fact has the D500 and D5 at 20MP, not following the trend set for their other models. Playing it safe? If hi-res does not sell, there is low-res. ✌

 

The A7S is for video.  By marketing it as a digital camera Sony avoids some sort of tariff - don't know if that tariff is Japanese, American, or EU.  But that's why.

 

That said, it does perform incredibly well as a still camera in very low light. 

Edited March 16, 2016 by Joshua Lowe

[almoore]

Sony's strategy of offering essentially the same body with the option of different sensors makes an awful lot of sense: A7 24MP affordable all rounder; A7S 12MP optimised for video and low light; A7R 42MP optimised for high resolution. Canon have followed their lead with the S variations of the 5D and there's every reason to believe that other manufacturers - including Leica - will head down the same logical path. 

 

 

 

 

[cpclee]

Yes and I think that strategy acknowledges the upcoming bifurcation in the camera buying market.  For the majority of buyers more pixels no longer make much sense.  The extra high pixel count bodies will be sold as specialist models for those who need / obsess it.

[Jeff S]

Yes and I think that strategy acknowledges the upcoming bifurcation in the camera buying market.  For the majority of buyers more pixels no longer make much sense.  The extra high pixel count bodies will be sold as specialist models for those who need / obsess it.

 

A more careful look, using Canon only as an example, will show that 'higher end' models differ in various ways apart from MP.....in terms dynamic range (noise effects), in weather sealing, in frame rates and AF capabilities, in video implementation and specs, and many other aspects.  Choosing one camera versus another is not as simple as choosing higher vs lower MP.  A 5DSR comes with various tradeoffs, as many reviews attest.  And most brands have more than two choices, even within the same format.

 

The good news is that there are choices.....within and between brands.  Some will pay attention to certain aspects.  Some may not care, or notice, or may have other considerations...budgetary or otherwise.  Room for everyone.

 

These are good times in photography...at least for consumers.  It's not clear (never is) which companies will meet demands (real or 'marketed') and adjust to changing conditions, and which will fade. This article, now a few years old, is just as true now....albeit with some of the players already shifting places...  http://petapixel.com/2013/06/11/whose-camera-will-i-buy-in-2018/

 

Jeff

[david strachan]

You mean: the perception of per pixel acuity.

I cannot disagree, as I can clearly see each and every pixel as a very well defined colored square in M8 images

 

Oh?  My eyesight must be going faster than I thought it was...

[CheshireCat]

Doubling the number of pixels does not result in double the print size (on that, I'm sure there can be no disagreement)

 

 

Actually, everyone should disagree, because this is false by the definition of print size.

As an example, check the L and the 2L: the 2L is double the print size of L, and has double the number of square mm, hence double the number of pixels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_print_sizes

Edited March 17, 2016 by CheshireCat

[thighslapper]

if we are going to be pedantic here then use of the term 'size' is hopelessly inexact and just leads to confusion and misinterpretation ...... 

[Peter H]

I am now thouroughly confused.

 

 

 

 

A farmer wouldn't try to double the area of a field by making it twice as long and twice as wide or he'd soon go out of business, subsidies notwithstanding.

 

So why do we need four times the pixels to double the print size?

 

If someone would explain I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks.

[jaapv]

Actually, everyone should disagree, because this is false by the definition of print size.

As an example, check the L and the 2L: the 2L is double the print size of L, and has double the number of square mm, hence double the number of pixels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_print_sizes

Couldn't we use the word "area" please?

[wattsy]

A farmer wouldn't try to double the area of a field by making it twice as long and twice as wide or he'd soon go out of business, subsidies notwithstanding.

 

So why do we need four times the pixels to double the print size?

 

 

 

I think, as Jaap, is suggesting, you (or others) are becoming confused by area and length. 

 

A lot of this discussion is somewhat moot because print size isn't determined solely by the number of pixels on the sensor. A 36MP 'full frame' sensor is the same physical size (36mm x 24mm) as a 12MP 'full frame' sensor and, whilst the nature of digital capture is different to film capture, it doesn't completely escape the constraints imposed by enlargement. A 24" x 16" print derived from each sensor will have the same enlargement factor and, whilst a more densely resolving sensor (high MP number), will likely offer the scope to print larger than a significantly less densely resolved sensor (low MP number), I don't believe the relationship is remotely linear (given the same lens and print method). 

Edited March 17, 2016 by wattsy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

I think, as Jaap, is suggesting, you (or others) are becoming confused by area and length.

Let's try to get the terminology right then.

 

 

As I understand it, print size is measured by area, not by length. A3 is twice the area of A4 for example, and is demonstrably twice the size because two A4s next to each other exactly match an A3 as we all know.

 

So if I want to double the size of a print, I need twice the paper and twice the ink. Twice the square inches and the mm. And twice the pixels. Don't I?

 

So twice the area is twice the size. Double the pixels is twice the print size.

 

Agreed?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Peter H