If the replacement for the SL were to use the TL2's pixel density?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think I am correct in my calculations that the area of the SL's full frame sensor is 2.25 times that of the TL2 (in round numbers). This should mean that were the SL's replacement to use the same pixel density of the TL-2, in theory it could have a 54 megapixel sensor - or have I gone wrong in my maths somewhere. Now this might be fine at the sensor level, assuming that heat generation did not become a problem, leading to increased thermal noise levels but I wonder if the Maestro II processor could handle that volume of data in an acceptable time frame. Might it be necessary to wait for a Maestro III processor to even maintain the 10fps that the current SL can manage. 

 

The other point is do we need 54MP. The same argument was brought up when the early full frame DSLR's went from 6 to 10MP and I don't see people complaining that the 24MP of the SL is too much. We would very quickly get used to having 54MP and wonder how we ever managed with "just" 24. From Leica's company perspective, the problem of doing this is that unless the S range received a similar hike, a  54MP SL3, could make the 37.5MP S range look unattractive to prospective new purchasers and jeopardise Leica's very considerable investment in this system, both bodies and lenses. 

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

As I wrote elsewhere, Leica cooperates with Panasonic on sensors, and Panasonic has introduced an excellent 20 MP MFT sensor not too long ago. Extrapolating to full frame this technology should be able to support an 80 MP sensor. Of course, problems like heat management, and the IBIS -the larger the sensor the bigger the mechanical demands- that needs to come with the high pixel count, may reduce the number, but 50 MP should be doable.

The bottleneck might be the Maestro processor. Even with its update it is becoming a bit long in tooth.

 

Afterthought - IBIS and heat might make it impossible to use a higher MP sensor in an M style body, the M10 appears to be engineered to the limit already. Is Leica prepared to let an SL have a higher pixel count than the M?

[steppenw0lf]

I think the addition of more lenses would be much more useful for me, than a 50 MP sensor. (I have the 5Ds available after all and know what I can expect from this increased resolution).

Probably it is due in about 1-2 years, leaving a lot of room to increase the MPs of the S series.

 

So I will wait until the end of 2018 or maybe even 2019 and assume that not only the sensors, but also the Maestro processors will make more progress.

The good news is that the SL lenses are ready for higher resolutions, whenever the new sensors are announced.

 

Actually there are other feature (like IBIS or PDAF) that would improve the SL considerably - and I would rather have an improvement in a single step, than in two or more steps. Maybe I can afford ONE new camera, but certainly not 2 or 3.

 

Nikon has only 36 MP as their top resolution - is this a problem ? Sony has 42 - not a lot more though everybody is full of awe (?!) (and the skin colors are awful). And Canon has 50 MP with slightly reduced DR.  (But they often get a beating for that, though their colors are fine and nobody really can see the DR difference - amazing).   They are all close together - if Leica could leapfrog them with a single step.

So I am not so sure if Leica has leapfrogging of the resolution as its main goal.

 

Take your time and wait until all critical components of technology (sensor, processor, memory, software, ...) are ripe for it.

 

 

Maybe you should buy a TL2 in the meantime and try if the results are what you expect. Smaller sensor .... has maybe made some progress. Would be interesting to see if it is now on par with the SL (as Fuji is claiming already for years).

 

There are companies that make a lot of fuss about their technology and sensors (Fuji, Sony), but strange enough I find their results not better than results of the "more mediocre" cameras. Actually I often find the colors of the CaNikon and Leica cameras (and Pentax ?!) clearly better.  (with less fiddling in LR).

[steppenw0lf]

The TL2 with the excellent 60mm apo macro lens is definitely worth some consideration.

It is even offering more depth of field than the equivalent 90mm focal length on the SL - and is generally regarded as a high quality macro lens. (in a compact format)

And deivery times are probably also much better. (Time until availability)

[wlaidlaw]

I am going to wait for the next significant update on the SL. Even though it is big and heavy, I have been delighted with the results with the 24-90 lens. I have found the 90-280 lens a step too far for me to carry and will part exchange it for the 16-35 when that comes out. 

 

For smaller format sensor digital I have an Olympus EP-5 MFT, which works very well, with remarkably good 5 axis IBIS. I have a 75-300 (150-600 EFOV) lens for that in addition to the 14-42 Pancake 3 lens. The longer lens does just fine for the few animal or long distance photos I take. It has remarkably good in camera JPEG processing, which I have to work really hard to better even slightly, with Capture One from its RAW output. Shadow detail extraction is really the only benefit of RAW from the Olympus. So not a customer for the TL-2. 

 

Wilson

[Irakly Shanidze]

Hopefully I will never see a 54 mpix SL ))

 

First of all, in more than 15 years of advertising and fine art photography I have never encountered a situation where I would have absolutely needed more than 25 megapixels. Some jobs I shot with S006 just because I had it. Ad agencies are brutal when it comes to image quality, and I have never had an M9, or P25 image rejected on technical grounds. 

 

Second, even if you absolutely unquestionably need it, do not forget that two-fold increase in resolution will have a pretty unpleasant domino effect: one of a sudden all your media including drives and SD cards feel too tight, Lightroom takes forever, GPU and CPU fans enter in a contest which one is louder...

[Irakly Shanidze]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The other point is do we need 54MP. The same argument was brought up when the early full frame DSLR's went from 6 to 10MP and I don't see people complaining that the 24MP of the SL is too much. We would very quickly get used to having 54MP and wonder how we ever managed with "just" 24. From Leica's company perspective, the problem of doing this is that unless the S range received a similar hike, a  54MP SL3, could make the 37.5MP S range look unattractive to prospective new purchasers and jeopardise Leica's very considerable investment in this system, both bodies and lenses. 

 

Wilson

 

 

This is not entirely correct. From Leica's company perspective, limitations of the human eye make it unnecessary to engage in the megapixel arms race. For any size of the image there is an optimal viewing distance. From this distance anything higher than 24 mpix in resolution looks no better than 24 mpix.

 

One may argue that higher resolution file allows for more freedom in cropping. Well, for these people both PhaseOne and Hasselblad have wonderful 100mpix solutions. For the humble rest of us a little bit more careful framing prior to pressing the damn button would do

[sillbeers15]

Hopefully I will never see a 54 mpix SL ))

 

First of all, in more than 15 years of advertising and fine art photography I have never encountered a situation where I would have absolutely needed more than 25 megapixels. Some jobs I shot with S006 just because I had it. Ad agencies are brutal when it comes to image quality, and I have never had an M9, or P25 image rejected on technical grounds.

 

Second, even if you absolutely unquestionably need it, do not forget that two-fold increase in resolution will have a pretty unpleasant domino effect: one of a sudden all your media including drives and SD cards feel too tight, Lightroom takes forever, GPU and CPU fans enter in a contest which one is louder...

I do not take pictures for a living. I however echo your argument. The benefits of return diminishes as the pixels per eq area increases. Granted as the economies of scale of higher pixel sensor drives production cost down due to demand & trend but this may not benefit the camera user on a linear scale like it used to be during the earlier phase, Is 24MP the right pixel density for a 36x24 area sensor? I'm not certain but logic tells me that it will hit a point now or sometime in the future that higher pixel count can only be purely for marketing ploy and the brainless consumer to embrace. It exactly the fact that no photographer will haul a medium format for wildlife in the wild even though the files will be awesome which I'm certain about but provided the scene of desire can be captured. However said the reverse can be true, like tempted to try out the SL2 + 90-280VE now that I hear that the AF has improved lots. The 280mm becomes equivalent to a 400mm on the APSC 24MP sensor

[scott kirkpatrick]

I think you meant TL2 + 90-280.  Jono mentions that he has tried it, but pictures made that way, if he showed them, haven't stuck in my mind.  The TL2 as a video platform seems weak.  I would think that putting the SX 80 R on a TL2 with the R to L adapter might produce some interesting results, but of course that would be MF, and I don't know how well the TL2 gives focus assistance.  Just thinking.  I'm far from sold, and not all that intrigued.  Upgrading my T lenses to TL2 level seems worth while, but that could be done by visiting a Leica store and asking nicely.

[Photon42]

We will see higher pixel count at some point, I am pretty certain. We have seen other "sweet spots" before, as Wilson pointed out. It is essentially dependent on client's demands. And these aren't necessarily driven by ratio only, but have quite some emotional slant. Cars examples required  ?

 

Speaking of cars and assistance systems - I am wondering if we will also see more improvements at this end. Olympus and others show IBIS being capable of taking pictures around one second hand held. AF systems nowadays try eye/face detection with sometimes really astonishingly good results. Demography probably tells that the average customer age is constantly increasing, making these little helpers even more important.

 

[...]

 

Afterthought - IBIS and heat might make it impossible to use a higher MP sensor in an M style body, the M10 appears to be engineered to the limit already. Is Leica prepared to let an SL have a higher pixel count than the M?

 

 

 

I was not aware there are body limitations to the M design, potentially limiting its pixel count. Maybe this is borderline to the topic of this thread, but I would like to understand the limitations a little better. is it body size dimensions and heat? And if yes, wouldn't that be limitations the normal technological progression would take care of?

 

Ivo

 

[sillbeers15]

I think you meant TL2 + 90-280. Jono mentions that he has tried it, but pictures made that way, if he showed them, haven't stuck in my mind. The TL2 as a video platform seems weak. I would think that putting the SX 80 R on a TL2 with the R to L adapter might produce some interesting results, but of course that would be MF, and I don't know how well the TL2 gives focus assistance. Just thinking. I'm far from sold, and not all that intrigued. Upgrading my T lenses to TL2 level seems worth while, but that could be done by visiting a Leica store and asking nicely.

You're right. I ment TL2

[Peter Branch]

......... IBIS and heat might make it impossible to use a higher MP sensor in an M style body, .............

 

Please enlighten me as to what IBIS stands for - thanks.

[meerec]

Hopefully I will never see a 54 mpix SL ))

 

First of all, in more than 15 years of advertising and fine art photography I have never encountered a situation where I would have absolutely needed more than 25 megapixels. Some jobs I shot with S006 just because I had it. Ad agencies are brutal when it comes to image quality, and I have never had an M9, or P25 image rejected on technical grounds.

 

Second, even if you absolutely unquestionably need it, do not forget that two-fold increase in resolution will have a pretty unpleasant domino effect: one of a sudden all your media including drives and SD cards feel too tight, Lightroom takes forever, GPU and CPU fans enter in a contest which one is louder...

This is a bit of BS. It's like saying, I've shelled out on the SL system and I'll be upset if there was something better out there too soon. In addition to SL, I shoot with H5D-50C and RAW files are 100+ MB each. And they offer fantastic flexibility in terms of DR, colour, skin tones and most importantly cropping, being 50 MP. And I don't sell the prints to advertising agencies, but get enormous personal satisfaction from work I can crank out. My LR catalog has 160,000+ RAW images, and I process everything on a 3 year old MacBook Pro. No fans are competing and all is zippy fast.

[meerec]

I think you meant TL2 + 90-280.  Jono mentions that he has tried it, but pictures made that way, if he showed them, haven't stuck in my mind.  The TL2 as a video platform seems weak.  I would think that putting the SX 80 R on a TL2 with the R to L adapter might produce some interesting results, but of course that would be MF, and I don't know how well the TL2 gives focus assistance.  Just thinking.  I'm far from sold, and not all that intrigued.  Upgrading my T lenses to TL2 level seems worth while, but that could be done by visiting a Leica store and asking nicely.

If that worked well enough, I'd be very tempted by the 400mm effective focal length out of the 90-280 APO ...

[wlaidlaw]

Please enlighten me as to what IBIS stands for - thanks.

 

IBIS = In Body Image Stabilisation e.g. Olympus EM-1, which has stabilisation in 5 axes. 

 

OIS = Optical Image Stabilisation (in lens) e.g. Leica SL

 

Wilson

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Peter Branch]

IBIS = In Body Image Stabilisation e.g. Olympus EM-1, which has stabilisation in 5 axes. 

 

OIS = Optical Image Stabilisation (in lens) e.g. Leica SL

 

Wilson

 

 

 

Thanks - is this taken from the sensor or is it gyroscope based?

[wlaidlaw]

Thanks - is this taken from the sensor or is it gyroscope based?

 

Peter, 

 

Both systems use piezo-electric angular acceleration sensors, often inaccurately called gyroscopic sensors, since there is no rotating element as used in conventional gyroscopes or rotating standing waves as used in the hemispherical resonant cavity gyros, that were developed for missile guidance. 

 

There are advantages to each system. IBIS can stabilise older lenses with no electronics. For example I have used my Leica 80-200 Vario Elmar -R with reasonable success on my Olympus EP-5, which has 5 axis sensor shift IBIS. It is claimed that IBIS can stabilise to a greater degree than OIS. The big advantage of OIS for auto focus cameras, which use contrast detection like the SL, is that the image is already stabilised when it arrives at the sensor, which especially in low light, makes the camera's job of detecting contrast easier. As Leica has improved its focus algorithms on the SL, it was noticeable recently that I could pick up focus in lower light with the SL and 24-90, than my brother could with his Sony A7 and the 18-200 lens. The Sony uses IBIS. 

 

Wilson

[IkarusJohn]

I appreciate I raised the issue of pixel density as a constant, but is it possible that, for our needs, the absolute number of pixels, regardless of format, is actually more critical?

[frame-it]

+1

 

i have a similar number of files in my catalogs...and 5DSR raw is 50-54mb..other cameras average 20-24mb each..lightroom only slows down with sony RX1R .ARW files, and that too since the latest update.

This is a bit of BS. It's like saying, I've shelled out on the SL system and I'll be upset if there was something better out there too soon. In addition to SL, I shoot with H5D-50C and RAW files are 100+ MB each. And they offer fantastic flexibility in terms of DR, colour, skin tones and most importantly cropping, being 50 MP. And I don't sell the prints to advertising agencies, but get enormous personal satisfaction from work I can crank out. My LR catalog has 160,000+ RAW images, and I process everything on a 3 year old MacBook Pro. No fans are competing and all is zippy fast.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jon Warwick]

I would welcome higher megapixels. Not just for higher resolution (which is all most people focus on) but also less moire, and potentially better tonality as the higher MP count potentially allows greater differentiation of similar colours.

I don't see why people are so scared of higher megapixels. I handheld a D800 when it first came out, it was absolutely fine in terms of handholding without shake and that is with a dslr and flappy mirror.

As for the computer argument and large files, I don't see that as an issue either. If you want laaaarge files, I often deal with drum scans off my 5x4 that are at 750mb....yes, the iMac is a bit slower, but even with those mammoth file sizes it seems fine.