thighslapper Posted January 9, 2017 Share #61 Posted January 9, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) This might help illustrate why I'd prefer more pixels. From this photo (cropped from the full file, made with SL and 90-280 APO and processed to reduce the artifacts) a 100% crop (look in the circled areas; other areas show artifacts as well) ..... but surely this becomes a perpetually regenerated problem as much of nature is made up of components with a certain repetitive pitch ...... and that increased resolution just reveals another layer of structures which will still generate moire and ant-aliasing as they become apparent ... if the pitch related to the sensor pixel spacing is right. When we all have 500mpx cameras we will be moaning about moire on cropped images of lions fur at 200 mtrs at this rate. .... and bigger lenses and higher resolution sensors just allow folk to take photos from further away ... as they will tend to do as they are generally (not you, I hasten to add) lazy and take the easy option, so the same issue will be there. I can see your particular issues with birds, which are generally small and uncooperative ....but heh, if it was that easy we would all be doing it and your images wouldn't be regarded as exceptional examples of wildlife photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here Megapixels. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted January 9, 2017 Share #62 Posted January 9, 2017 This might help illustrate why I'd prefer more pixels. From this photo (cropped from the full file, made with SL and 90-280 APO and processed to reduce the artifacts) a 100% crop (look in the circled areas; other areas show artifacts as well) Tough subject, Doug. !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 10, 2017 Share #63 Posted January 10, 2017 ..... but surely this becomes a perpetually regenerated problem as much of nature is made up of components with a certain repetitive pitch ...... and that increased resolution just reveals another layer of structures which will still generate moire and ant-aliasing as they become apparent ... if the pitch related to the sensor pixel spacing is right. When we all have 500mpx cameras we will be moaning about moire on cropped images of lions fur at 200 mtrs at this rate. .... and bigger lenses and higher resolution sensors just allow folk to take photos from further away ... as they will tend to do as they are generally (not you, I hasten to add) lazy and take the easy option, so the same issue will be there. I can see your particular issues with birds, which are generally small and uncooperative ....but heh, if it was that easy we would all be doing it and your images wouldn't be regarded as exceptional examples of wildlife photography Couple of years ago Nikon launched simultaneously D800 and D800E models with 36Mp sensor, former was fitted with AA filter while latter had "bifurcation" or similar filter that was supposed to behave like no AA filter, only later D810 was launched without AA. At the time 36Mp was seen as the right sensor size that gets away with moire much better than 24Mp sensor in the predecessor Nikon D3x or successor Leica SL601 for that matter. If only D810 was fitted with option to fit interchangeable ground glass to enable precise manual focus I would be owing that camera long time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted January 10, 2017 Share #64 Posted January 10, 2017 ..... but surely this becomes a perpetually regenerated problem as much of nature is made up of components with a certain repetitive pitch ...... and that increased resolution just reveals another layer of structures which will still generate moire and ant-aliasing as they become apparent ... if the pitch related to the sensor pixel spacing is right. When we all have 500mpx cameras we will be moaning about moire on cropped images of lions fur at 200 mtrs at this rate. .... and bigger lenses and higher resolution sensors just allow folk to take photos from further away ... as they will tend to do as they are generally (not you, I hasten to add) lazy and take the easy option, so the same issue will be there. I can see your particular issues with birds, which are generally small and uncooperative ....but heh, if it was that easy we would all be doing it and your images wouldn't be regarded as exceptional examples of wildlife photography Resolution of lenses is limited by physics in the form of diffraction. I doubt the best optical systems as we now know them will increase much in resolution because the 280/4 APO is just about at the limit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 10, 2017 Share #65 Posted January 10, 2017 ah...... that is the one factor I conveniently forgot about ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 10, 2017 Share #66 Posted January 10, 2017 Resolution of lenses is limited by physics in the form of diffraction. I doubt the best optical systems as we now know them will increase much in resolution because the 280/4 APO is just about at the limit. Somewhat related, I think relation between resolving power of the lens and optimum sensor size was discussed before. Assuming we use a lens with resolving capability of 100 lines/mm (we know APO 280mm can do better) and assuming two pixels per line 35mm sensor would need to have 200 x 36 = 7200 pixel on long side and 2/3 x 7200 = 4800 pixels on short side giving total of 34.5Mp (or more) for recording all the 100 lines/mm lens is capable of resolving. I understand moire effect would also be greatly reduced hence removal of AA filter on high Mp cameras like D810. Leica S which has 45 x 30 mm sensor size could be 9000 x 6000 = 54Mp Mirrorless Medium Format which has 44 x 33 mm sensor size could be 8800 x 6600 = 58Mp - current & forthcoming Fuji / Hasselblad / Pentax MF are already 51Mp Definitely there is justification to demand cameras with Bayer mask to be with more Mp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 10, 2017 Share #67 Posted January 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Couple of years ago Nikon launched simultaneously D800 and D800E models with 36Mp sensor, former was fitted with AA filter while latter had "bifurcation" or similar filter that was supposed to behave like no AA filter, only later D810 was launched without AA. At the time 36Mp was seen as the right sensor size that gets away with moire much better than 24Mp sensor in the predecessor Nikon D3x or successor Leica SL601 for that matter. If only D810 was fitted with option to fit interchangeable ground glass to enable precise manual focus I would be owing that camera long time ago. This is quite common. Canon offers the 5Ds and 5DsR, two models only differing regarding AA filters. Some prefer the 5Ds while others swear that the 5DsR is much higher resolving. Usually it does not matter, because I do not always work perfectly clean (on a tripod) and most Canon lenses are far from 50 MP resolution anyway. (or only when stopped down a fair amount) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 10, 2017 Share #68 Posted January 10, 2017 This is quite common. Canon offers the 5Ds and 5DsR, two models only differing regarding AA filters. Some prefer the 5Ds while others swear that the 5DsR is much higher resolving. Usually it does not matter, because I do not always work perfectly clean (on a tripod) and most Canon lenses are far from 50 MP resolution anyway. (or only when stopped down a fair amount) Stopping down Canon or any other lens will only hit diffraction limit, reason more to use Leica for its excellent optics which depending on system can be also very compact like M and some R lenses. I think it was Canon that followed Nikon offering "same" camera with different AA filter option, D800/800E was introduced in 2012, it was replaced with D810 in 2014. Having said that both Canon and Nikon provide most comprehensive full frame and DX systems covering pretty much all applications and most needs providing one can live with it and afford it, market share is testament to that. >>>snip<<<. If only D810 was fitted with option to fit interchangeable ground glass to enable precise manual focus I would be owing that camera long time ago. In my earlier post I mentioned resolving power of Nikon D810 but not so good at focusing manual lenses (ignoring Live View), hence relevance to SL sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted January 10, 2017 Share #69 Posted January 10, 2017 Yes, that would be nice, but the 50MP camera would at the same time also be much slower, if it was using the same processor. So I think I rather wait for the next processor generations to get this resolution. And I rather wait for the 75MP or 100MP region. If I use a 50Mpx camera a tripod is even more recommended to achieve the high resolution and then, it doesn't bother me if the camera is a bit slower. Remember: if you increase the resolution even further, you will get problems (not only) with diffraction, e.g. at 75Mpx an aperture of 5.6 is the limit. But on the other hand, if you want to increase the resolution substantially, let me say twice, you need 4 times more pixels, therefore 100MPx. It would make no sense to change a 24Mpx camera for a 36MPx camera, if that would be the next step of Leica I wouldn't go for that body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 10, 2017 Share #70 Posted January 10, 2017 I started digital with 3 MP (and an unserious camera), then had 6MP (the finepix and later the Fuji "something" pro, a serious camera with Nikon lenses), which was a great achievement at that time. Later 12-14 MP with cropped sensors. And Latest the 24 MP/36MP generation with FF. So it was always about a factor 2 (in the last 18 years or so). I hope to slow down the change rate and wait for a bigger step next time. I wonder if I will succeed ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 10, 2017 Share #71 Posted January 10, 2017 I just wish there was more Megapixels. These lenses are screaming for it and it should have been 50, 24 is not enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 10, 2017 Share #72 Posted January 10, 2017 With a little patience this problem will be solved soon - it is only a matter of a few years. The lenses will last much longer, so no problem at all. Enjoy the thrill of anticipation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted January 18, 2017 Share #73 Posted January 18, 2017 Later today, the M10 will be officially announced, apparently with the SL sensor. An emerging rumour indicates that a mini-SL - or QL - may see the light later in 2017. If so, I would imagine with a 24 MP sensor. An updated SL will eventually come, possibly being announced in 2018 and be available for sale in late 2018 or in 2019. If so - and I have of course no idea whats going on, but - which sensor resolution is the SL-engineers presently discussiong to put into the SL2? Certainly more than 24 MB (based on the market expectations and also the new Hassey and Fuji 50MB bodies), so 36 or 50 MB? I am very happy with the current SL, but it would be very interesting to see the performance of the outstanding Leica and Zeiss glass (50 apo-m, lux-m, 50-sl, 90-280 SL, the optically best of the R-lenses, the Zeiss Otus-line, etc) on a higher-res sensor. But first of all - patience... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 18, 2017 Share #74 Posted January 18, 2017 Do we know if the supplier of the SL sensor (I forgot the name, but not CMOSIS) - something with Jazz - has a new sensor of 36 or 50 MP in its pipeline ? TowerJazz is the name. By chance I found this: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/150_megapixel_full_frame_sensor_announced/ So it looks as if they have access to "big" MP sensor technology. But I could not find any details about their pipeline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted January 18, 2017 Share #75 Posted January 18, 2017 There are - of course - high-res manufacturers out there (and Canon is supposedly selling their sensors for the first time), but it's hard to say what Leica will put into their bodies, also based on the apparently M10-specific sensor in the new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 18, 2017 Share #76 Posted January 18, 2017 The M10 looks nice, very slim. Unfortunately not in my budget. The backside looks very clean, as modern as the SL. And with WiFi there will be an app and remote control. But I hate that they linked it to facebook. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 18, 2017 Share #77 Posted January 18, 2017 There must be an "equivalent" resolution in Megapixels. So simply asked: How much is it ? With this description I have no idea. Maybe you ? More or less than 12-16 Megapixels ? Does anybody else have an idea ? It depends on what you mean by 'resolution'. If you want a 'real world' figure for actual, usable information on say 50 ISO 35mm transparency film then I would say that its around ~10 MPixels in terms of decipherable detail. This is based on some scientific work I undertook on small marine fish where a 12 MPixel camera undoubtedly had the edge over Fuji Velvia 50 using flash illumination. I could decipher specific identification details on 12 MPixel digital files which were simply too difficult to make out on the transparencies. But this is a figure for 'information' which is only one 'equivalent' and it is situation specific. Other requirements of an image may yield different equivalencies. Tricky isn't it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 19, 2017 Share #78 Posted January 19, 2017 I recall when the M(240) was released, doing similar calculations as Godfrey did above - the pixel density (I'm sure that's the wrong phrase, where's Olaf when you need him?) of the 24MP M camera (and the SL) is the same as the 37.5MP S camera. I have no doubt this is intentional on Leica's part. I don't see any gains for Leica holding the MP count down, so I assumed that the reasons were technical. Certainly, I saw no appreciable gains in image quality in my photos when I tried the A7r or the d800, and 24MP has never been a limiting factor. I should add that I don't aggressively crop, nor do I print the size of billboards expecting people to view the detail from a metre away. Coming from almost 50 years of film, I still find 24MP remarkable. That said, I'm sure Leica will increase MP count (starting with the S camera) as technology changes, and I will just go with the flow. What might interest me (irrationally, it has to be said considering what I've said above) is a 6x6 square format X1D. At the pixel density Leica has decided is best, that would mean a 100MP sensor - that would be very tempting, assuming that such a sensor would not require the same shot discipline the d800 required to get a sharp image. Handling the files would be no fun, I guess, but imagine ... a real digital 6x6 camera! I could never justify it, but it would be sooo tempting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 19, 2017 Share #79 Posted January 19, 2017 I recall when the M(240) was released, doing similar calculations as Godfrey did above - the pixel density (I'm sure that's the wrong phrase, where's Olaf when you need him?) of the 24MP M camera (and the SL) is the same as the 37.5MP S camera. I have no doubt this is intentional on Leica's part. I don't see any gains for Leica holding the MP count down, so I assumed that the reasons were technical. Certainly, I saw no appreciable gains in image quality in my photos when I tried the A7r or the d800, and 24MP has never been a limiting factor. I should add that I don't aggressively crop, nor do I print the size of billboards expecting people to view the detail from a metre away. Coming from almost 50 years of film, I still find 24MP remarkable. That said, I'm sure Leica will increase MP count (starting with the S camera) as technology changes, and I will just go with the flow. What might interest me (irrationally, it has to be said considering what I've said above) is a 6x6 square format X1D. At the pixel density Leica has decided is best, that would mean a 100MP sensor - that would be very tempting, assuming that such a sensor would not require the same shot discipline the d800 required to get a sharp image. Handling the files would be no fun, I guess, but imagine ... a real digital 6x6 camera! I could never justify it, but it would be sooo tempting! In my experience, a 35mm 24mp sensor can exceed the quality of 35mm film in most respects in most circumstances. At least, subjectively and in my no doubt inexpert hands it can. So by that debatable logic I wouldn't need a 6x6 100mp sensor to match the output quality of a 6x6 film camera, and something like the current 44x33 sensors will come close enough (perhaps 44x44 would be ideal) and represent a great compromise between extremely high quality, easy file management and sensible size and handling. For me, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 19, 2017 Share #80 Posted January 19, 2017 Ah, but there was just something about the 6x6 format ... A 100MP sensor is not an end in itself - I just extrapolated the pixel density of the Leica 24MP sensor out to the 6x6 format. But you're right; there's no justification for me in anything more than the current 35mm format sensor on the SL. Actually, the 18MP sensor on the Monochrom is just as good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.