36 + Mp SL?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think that was the intent, Peter. It read to me as a match in tone to the post it was replying to which was cheeky but not harmful.

 

Maybe we need more smileys?

 

 

Gordon

[Peter H]

I don't think that was the intent, Peter. It read to me as a match in tone to the post it was replying to which was cheeky but not harmful.

 

Maybe we need more smileys?

 

 

Gordon

 

Actually it was Jared's previous, much longer post that set the tone, in which he dismissed the whole conversation about resolution and pixels as silly, which I think was a bit unfair to the people who were trying quite hard to sort out a few basic confusions about ideas fairly relevant to digital photography. 

 

But never mind, I don't want to prolong it any further. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jared]

My apologies for the mocking tone. The intent was lightheartedness, not derision.

 

I understand the desire to explore the theory, However, it seems strange to me that so much effort is spent on the theory with relatively few discussions about how that theory translates into prints, assuming prints are the real goal. I know far too many photographers (not necessarily on this forum) who want higher megapixels primarily because of website reviews and technical score with little effort made to determine whether that higher megapixel count ever results in a better print.

 

I was serious in my recommendation to try stitching together some frames to simulate a 100 MP image (or as close as you can easily get) and make a large print, then down sample and make another. Repeat till the technical image quality is noticeably inferior--till results strike you as a little soft or till the images don't seem to pop quite as much or till you can detect a difference with a magnifying glass--whatever is your personal standard for "that's how I want my images to look." Those who haven't done this exercise might be surprised. I won't even predict in which direction since personal standards vary so much. For me, ignoring the benefit of increased cropping potential, I was struck by just how large the print needed to be before I could tell a difference even with careful scrutiny (though no magnifying glass) between a high megapixel count and a relatively modest one.

 

Other factors often overwhelm what theory tells us should be true. Focus accuracy, motion blur, limits in depth of field, diffraction... These are often mentioned. You can't really even stop there. There's a huge difference in image quality between what I get from Costco (even when properly profiled) and what I can do at home on my Epson.

 

Please, everyone, try a test to determine not what you can detect on your monitor when blown up to 400% but what you really see in a real life print. Then draw your own conclusions as to how many megapixels you want or need in your next camera.

 

- Jared

[Peter H]

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

 

Other factors often overwhelm what theory tells us should be true. Focus accuracy, motion blur, limits in depth of field, diffraction... These are often mentioned. You can't really even stop there. There's a huge difference in image quality between what I get from Costco (even when properly profiled) and what I can do at home on my Epson.

 

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

 

 

 

I entirely agree, but as said earlier, in order to understand what we're talking about it is often helpful to first assume that all things are equal. Whilst acknowledging that they never are all equal and that all the variables you mention will probably have a bigger impact on the quality of your print than the number of megapixels on the sensor, it may be helpful to understand the effect of each of the variables in turn and in isolation, and mp is certainly one of many worth considering.

 

I would, however,  always recommend concentrating on the photo and particularly the idea behind it, above all else.

 

Few ideas cannot be communicated beautifully even with rudimentary equipment, though I do acknowledge that certain specialist images require specific technical qualities, but I believe that is a relatively rare occurrence. The gear behind the photo is only a limitation when you are sure it is the equipment rather than your technique or imagination that is preventing you from achieving the photograph that you feel you want.

 

In my case, whenever I am disappointed with my photos, it is never caused by inadequate equipment.

[Jared]

Certainly megapixels are worth considering.  Your premise, though, is that each variable can be considered in isolation and I do not think that is true.  The variables are too heavily convolved.  That is why I would advocate making actual prints to see what you are getting at each resolution with your technique and your camera and your paper and your subjects and your own standards.  It's not because the theory of optics doesn't work or that the manufacturers are out to trick us into buying new hardware; I just think it is impossible to look at something like "image sharpness" or "resolution" from first principles and expect to learn much about technical image quality let alone art.  Heck, photographers have struggled for decades to even define what constitutes a "sharp image" because of the number of different variables involved.  That's why I find the recurring debate over sensor resolution unproductive.  

 

- Jared

[CheshireCat]

Interesting how in 2016 many people are still thinking that print size is the only thing that matters for sensor resolution.

Yes, we got it: your wall-size prints are fantastic at 10 MP. No doubt, especially if you are over 60.

 

Now, can I have a 50 MP sensor, so I can avoid bringing my big and heavy 180mm lens to have more reach ?

Compact and lightweight excellence is why people buy an M. I say that more MP are part of this.

 

P.S. Fair enough, the SL is not an M, so feel free to make it big and heavy and "10 MP will be enough for everyone".   ... Enjoy your 10 Kg prime-quality zooms.

 

... And sorry for venting.

Edited March 19, 2016 by CheshireCat

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nothing wrong with using a higher megapixel count for cropping, but I'd prefer to use the "right" focal length in the first place just so I can visualize better through the viewfinder and so I can have a greater chance of nailing the focus and so I can get better control over depth of field.

 

- Jared

[steppenw0lf]

That is the proof that the iMac has 45 MP in terms of RGB spatial elements.

 

Rendered images from your 24 MP sensor do not profit from it because they have a lower resolution:

- Green channel resolution: 3000x4000 vs 5120x2880

- Blue channel resolution: 3000x2000 vs 5120x2880

- Red channel resolution: 3000x2000 vs 5120x2880

 

Interpolation of the Bayer matrix is creating fake pixels that were never recorded. That is your Harry Potter.

 

 

This is a proof: Take any image with 6000x4000 Pixels and display it on the iMacs Retina screen.

Obviously it is not possible, because the display has only 14.7 MegaPixel.

If you succeed you have proven it and everybody will applaud. If not stop this nonsense.

[pop]

Mount Everest is 29'000m high in terms of feet.

[CheshireCat]

This is a proof: Take any image with 6000x4000 Pixels and display it on the iMacs Retina screen.

Obviously it is not possible, because the display has only 14.7 MegaPixel.

 

Read again my previous post about per-channel resolution.

Then try to understand what bayer interpolation is, because clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

[CheshireCat]

Mount Everest is 29'000m high in terms of feet.

Wrong example. Cameras are calling "pixels" what actually are "sensels".

So saying that a camera ha 6000x4000 pixels (instead of sensels) is like saying that Mount Everest is 29000 meters high because 2/3 of these meters are interpolated

 

Read again my post about per-channel resolution, and good luck proving me wrong.

Edited March 21, 2016 by CheshireCat

[pop]

Read again my post about per-channel resolution, and good luck proving me wrong.

No need to do so. The  iMac display does not have 45MP, no matter what terms you use. Try to understand the language you're using. i.o.w. watch it.

[thighslapper]

Mr Cat ....... you are being deliberately provocative and attempting to confuse rather than clarify ..... and you know it ...... 

 

the 24mp Monochrom has a true 6000x4000 (a few less actually for the M) output that reflects exactly the light values for every pixel.

 

the 24mp SL also reads out values for each of the 6000x4000 pixels ...... but with the overlain 4x4 bayer array these values are manipulated to give colour information.

 

There is a loss in absolute accuracy of the measure of the light intensity, but the interpolation algorithms used return spatial accuracy that is very close to that of the unmosaiced array ..... as can be shown by comparison of SL mono conversions versus the native Monochrom images. The SL images lack the crispness and detail of the M mono images...... but not by much at all. 

 

Whilst the iMac Retina display has 3 separate colour generators per pixel, that doesn't generate 3x the spatial resolution ..... a pixel is still pixel (or sensel) however many elements are in it or on it. 

 

No matter what you stuff into a retina display you will never get more than 5120x2880 ..... and in fact Apple reduce this to 2560x1440 by default under most situations. 

 

The ultimate truth is that whatever number of Megapixels your camera has, it will always be perceived as 'not quite' enough ...... 

Edited March 21, 2016 by thighslapper

[Peter H]

So, now we know where we are, would it be a good idea to have a version of the SL with 36+mp?

[adli]

I would put it the other way around. If 36mp does not come at a cost regarding other qualities, i.e. ISO, it will not hurt to have more pixels, it only gives more oportunities.

 

So, now we know where we are, would it be a good idea to have a version of the SL with 36+mp?

[ramarren]

I would put it the other way around. If 36mp does not come at a cost regarding other qualities, i.e. ISO, it will not hurt to have more pixels, it only gives more oportunities.

 

 

Right. Just as I said before, (several times now ...) as long as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I'll take advantage of more pixels. Since I now have the SL and its 24 Mpixel, I don't think that moving to 36 Mpixel alone is enough of an advantage by itself to wrench the upgrade cost out of my pocket. Double the resolution while holding the current dynamic range and sensitivity, with upgrades to camera, card storage, and computer system performance necessary so that it continues to respond and work as it does now, and then I'll consider whether it's worth the price for my photography. 

[Steve Spencer]

Sure, I would love more pixels. It would help with moire and more resolution (and therefore cropping ability) would be nice, and as technology improves more pixels without more noise or other negative effects should not be a problem. I would expect the next SL in about 3 years will definitely be more megapixels (my guess is 36 or a bit more), but I am actually more anxious for the other improvements that are likely to happen--less noise, more dynamic range, better colour depth--than I am for the extra pixels. 

[rsmphoto]

Sure, I would love more pixels. It would help with moire and more resolution (and therefore cropping ability) would be nice, and as technology improves more pixels without more noise or other negative effects should not be a problem. I would expect the next SL in about 3 years will definitely be more megapixels (my guess is 36 or a bit more), but I am actually more anxious for the other improvements that are likely to happen--less noise, more dynamic range, better colour depth--than I am for the extra pixels. 

 

The S would have to be bumped up in res and DR before this happens of course. Can't imagine it any other way.

[adli]

Anyway, this discussion is only out of academic interest, as the SL is brand new and the next model with assumably higher mp count is in the range of  three years a head....

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[kaisernchen]

The logic was when there was a 6-million pixels resolution that some said rivals to the film, next come to 11-million pixels, then 16 million-pixels, and voices came up saying it is enough, but technology continue to push forward, and we arrive at 24, then 35, then 42, then 50, then more....

The world is ruled mostly by common sense, and the mass of market may not have, and they don't need to have true understanding about image quality and science behind it, their common sense tells them more is better, so the technology provides something new.  

In truth, a good picture is a good picture, does not matter how many megapixels it is, so it implies that it is therefore regardless the use of tool, because photography as an art is biased towards the photographer, not the tool, so the fine art market grows the way it is, and Instagram grows as it is.  

So mega pixels does not matter, and to such extend, the camera and lens really does not matter much as well.  People may defend 35 or 42 mega-pixels image is not necessary better than 24, as does the case of MP240 or SL, can we apply that 24 megapixels may not superior than 18, or 16 and so on.  The industry is driven by mass market, mostly have no clue about photography art so they use simple measurement they understand to determine what is better camera and so on, and eventually the camera company has to service them, professionals are nice but they are minor.

I think technically the technology can develop a sensor of higher resolution with better noise handling, dynamic range, and other aspects, and it is where the market is moving to.  Basically, IMHO, every camera introduce after 2012 (APS-C and so-called full frame models) are capable of making exhibition quality print, as evidence everywhere, but it does not make the development of technology stop, because pushing upward is their job they got paid for, demanded by non-professional mass market. 

I use SL and like it as a camera - albeit many area can be improved, but would not mind if Leica bring out a 36 or even 42 mega pixel model, that does not make the older model incapable, but I certain welcome a newer one. Let's be honest, do we really think Leica can stay at 24 for another 3 years?  Leica has to do what it has to do now, and has to do what it has to do later, between now and then, we are hearing just marketing message. 

 

B/K