Steve Ricoh Posted June 19, 2016 Share #181 Posted June 19, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The question: 'how many megapixels in the next M' is easy to answer. A: More than enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 Hi Steve Ricoh, Take a look here How many megapixels in the next M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted June 19, 2016 Share #182 Posted June 19, 2016 Am I pleased to see you read this or did I just put a canoe telephoto lens in my pocket? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted June 20, 2016 Share #183 Posted June 20, 2016 I would guess - from Leica's past behavior - that the next M will simply switch to the SL sensor. Still 24 Mpixels - but perhaps "better" pixels in terms of DR and noise and ISO and such. (Haven't seen much SL output to judge). But it somewhat depends on when Leica introduces the next significant M upgrade - if not this year, the whole 24x36 line (M, Q, SL) may get upgraded together to one totally new sensor. @Andy, How is the SL sensor different from the M240/M-P sensor? Leica's spec page on the SL list the sensor as a "24-MP-CMOS-Sensor." Regarding the M240/M-P, their page says "The Leica M features a newly-designed, high resolution, 24-Megapixel CMOS sensor in full 35 mm format – the Leica Max 24-MP sensor." Are those two different kinds of sensors? Thanks... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2016 Share #184 Posted June 20, 2016 Well, for one thing the M240 sensor is by CMOSIS and produced in France, the SL sensor is by TowerJazz and produced in Israel. That they happen to have a similar specification is because Leica ordered them that way. Not only motherboard and sensor are different, the microlenses are different too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 21, 2016 Share #185 Posted June 21, 2016 If anything, I would have expected more mp in the SL, and the current 24mp SL sensor in the next M. But I can see a few reasons why Leica might be reluctant to create this type of distinction between the two cameras, both technical and marketing. I feel that 24mp is perfect for the M and the way it is probably used by most owners, but if technological advances mean more mps will create superior results with the same lenses and shooting parameters, I'd be happy with that of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted June 21, 2016 Share #186 Posted June 21, 2016 More MP at limit conditions for a fixed sensor area, eg a one atom photon bucket, would definitely result in inferior images. Superior results would result from improved DR and sensitivity (ISO). Knowing the variables, the ideal number of MP could probably be evaluated using calculus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 21, 2016 Share #187 Posted June 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) More MP at limit conditions for a fixed sensor area, eg a one atom photon bucket, would definitely result in inferior images. Superior results would result from improved DR and sensitivity (ISO). Knowing the variables, the ideal number of MP could probably be evaluated using calculus. Are you saying we don't know the ideal number of mps? I could agree with that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted June 21, 2016 Share #188 Posted June 21, 2016 Are you saying we don't know the ideal number of mps? I could agree with that! Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't, that's for sure. Someone with appropriate knowledge and computer aided design is in a better place. Sensor design isn't done by wet finger guessing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 21, 2016 Share #189 Posted June 21, 2016 Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't, that's for sure. Someone with appropriate knowledge and computer aided design is in a better place. Sensor design isn't done by wet finger guessing. No, I appreciate that. I just wondered whether you meant we don't know, or it is unknowable, if you see what I mean....I think you've answered that now. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 21, 2016 Share #190 Posted June 21, 2016 That 50 MP CCD has a dynamic range of 69 Db. If I calculate correctly that is 12 EV values, which is less than the top CMOS sensors of today. It does not bode well for high-ISO performance, unless pixel-binning is used. How can binning work without lowering resolution/total pixels? Or at all when the issue is well overflow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2016 Share #191 Posted June 21, 2016 That is right, pixel binning reduces resolution, so it would only have full res at low ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 21, 2016 Share #192 Posted June 21, 2016 That is right, pixel binning reduces resolution, so it would only have full res at low ISO. ...and with an exposure which will not cause well-overflow. Correct? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted June 21, 2016 Share #193 Posted June 21, 2016 I may be wrong but I love 24 megapixels. More means less sometimes ... less room on hard disk for a starter. Please provide evidence of the value above 24 megapixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 21, 2016 Share #194 Posted June 21, 2016 I may be wrong but I love 24 megapixels. More means less sometimes ... less room on hard disk for a starter. Please provide evidence of the value above 24 megapixels. Please provide evidence of even twice 24 megapixels is a disadvantage with today's storage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 21, 2016 Share #195 Posted June 21, 2016 Please provide evidence of even twice 24 megapixels is a disadvantage with today's storage. Not sure I can provide evidence, but Ming Thein makes the comment that with many, smaller pixels it can be harder to capture a sharp image. His finding is that with more MP, you get smaller bins, which puts pressure on your technique. Certainly, that accords with my experience with both the D800E (I needed a tripod and cable release or raised mirror to get a sharp image) and the A7R (shutter slap made slower shutter speeds hopeless). It seems that larger bins make sharp images easier, but they provide less resolution when blown up or aggressively cropped. Not proof, but anecdotal evidence and direct experience that for 35mm full frame, using current technologies, 18-24MP is indeed a sweet spot. File size and storage is secondary, as you say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted June 21, 2016 Share #196 Posted June 21, 2016 Today's storage is limited. Hard drives fail. SSDs fail. We have to rely on the Cloud. There are severe limitations on Cloud storage unless money is poured at the Cloud. Currently I use Flickr and Google to store backups. How likely is it that they will remain free? I'd pay a reasonable sum for Cloud storage but it is not a bottomless pit. The more Megapixels the greater the problem. On a 20" x 30" print at 200 ISO I see no grain. So what else would I get with more pixels unless I want a 40" x 30" or larger print? Sense is to stay with an optimum resolution ... unless I am missing something really important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2016 Share #197 Posted June 21, 2016 Sense is not to use cloud storage - you lose it if your provider fails, or if you would lose your subscription for whatever reason - but to opt for multiple storage media, and off-site backup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted June 22, 2016 Share #198 Posted June 22, 2016 Please provide evidence of even twice 24 megapixels is a disadvantage with today's storage. Processed 645Z (51MP) raw files can result in a single photo running to 3/4 GB and beyond. LR is awful handling these files with anything less than 16GB and really 32GB is pretty much where you need to be. These files fill up an SSDs in nothing flat, and you need SSDs for obvious reasons when transferring. Xfering them to backup takes forever. Forget about carry any under $2K laptop along to do any significant processing in the field. Is it all doable? Of course, but there is no doubt that the back end hardware investment increases significantly and any network operations take a lot more time. There is real cost here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted June 22, 2016 Share #199 Posted June 22, 2016 Faster (much faster) shutter speeds will enable high pixel count sensors to take sharp pictures. If low light noise reduction can be improved and given that handling larger files is always improving there will be no need to stick at 24Mp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 22, 2016 Share #200 Posted June 22, 2016 Faster (much faster) shutter speeds will enable high pixel count sensors to take sharp pictures. If low light noise reduction can be improved and given that handling larger files is always improving there will be no need to stick at 24Mp. Perhaps, but I don't see the point, really. Better DR, wider effective ISO range (not just faster), better white balance and more reliable treatment with wides would interest me more. More data, not so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.