Jump to content

Pass by 24 megapixel pleas


Kamyar

Recommended Posts

Because Leica is smart and understands that quality of pixels is more important than number. Image quality suffers when high numbers of smaller pixels and jammed together. 24 megapixels is the ideal ratio for a full frame sensor. Anything more lowers pixel quality, is susceptible to camera shake, and leads to more diffraction at smaller f stops.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is correct in itself, and I’m often amazed at the apparent sharpness between a Leica’s 24mp and competitor’s higher megapixel counts, but time and technology marches on, with better dynamic range etc that can also be combined with higher megapixels.

 

The S and M and SL series share the same pixel sizes. I wonder if some of the current situation has to do with waiting for the S’s megapixels to increase first ....then the others (FF sensors) will be able to go higher?

 

I’d also guess that higher MPs are perhaps more likely in an SL (with highly accurate multi-focus points coming right off the sensor), rather than on a rangefinder M?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marginal image improvement in ideal conditions (unless severely cropping), with considerable technical disadvantages.

 

Some here need to print billboard sized images, where higher pixel density is required.  Most don't.  Pixel count is rarely the pressure point in image quality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not need to print for billboards, the maximum need for printing is finally 1 meter at 1.5 meters for the exhibition, so I want two SL models with a 24-90 lens and tl2 with multiple lenses and, of course, the conversion and use of Old mounts mount m42 and m39, what's your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1x1.5m, so 40”x60”, can be done with 24mp, but it is pushing it too far for my liking. The monochrom M 246 and 50 APO is an exception, in my view .... its equivalent resolution is much higher than a Bayer filter camera, and lack of artefacts mean it resamples more cleanly into big sizes like 60”x40”.

 

At that print size, for color, files I’ve taken off medium format cameras like an S 007 (or Hasselblad X1d ) are much more convincing and “realistic” and smooth, compared to 24mp full frame color camera.

 

In terms of megapixel wars, I am pretty amazed at just how much detail the S 007 and S lens combo can extract from its high 30s megapixels AND all with such a natural rendering.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because Leica is smart and understands that quality of pixels is more important than number. Image quality suffers when high numbers of smaller pixels and jammed together. 24 megapixels is the ideal ratio for a full frame sensor. Anything more lowers pixel quality, is susceptible to camera shake, and leads to more diffraction at smaller f stops.

 

 

24MP with or without an AA filter isn't enough when photographing fine feather detail with a Leica APO lens; aliasing and color moire often spoil the picture. (Sony a7II with Leica 280/4 APO R, Leica SL with 90-280 APO-SL or 280/4 APO R).  42 MP (Sony a7rII) almost completely solves the problem.  24MP is usually OK with a Canon L lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

24MP with or without an AA filter isn't enough when photographing fine feather detail with a Leica APO lens; aliasing and color moire often spoil the picture. (Sony a7II with Leica 280/4 APO R, Leica SL with 90-280 APO-SL or 280/4 APO R).  42 MP (Sony a7rII) almost completely solves the problem.  24MP is usually OK with a Canon L lens.

 

Are you interested in the a7riii, announced today?

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you interested in the a7riii, announced today?

 

Jeff

 

 

It has a few appealing features, notably the dual card slots (which the SL has) and a higher-resolution viewfinder.  The pixel-shifting feature for higher resolution only works with non-moving subjects and the improved AF doesn't interest me because I'm quite satisfied using manual focus (using Leica-R APO lenses on 42MP), so I'm only mildly interested.  I'd seriously consider it if I did not already have the a7rII.

 

I reserve the right to change my opinion once a lightweight 400mm or longer Zeiss APO or Sony G Master becomes available.

Edited by wildlightphoto
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marginal image improvement in ideal conditions (unless severely cropping), with considerable technical disadvantages.

 

Some here need to print billboard sized images, where higher pixel density is required.  Most don't.  Pixel count is rarely the pressure point in image quality.

 

BTW, billboard images are printed at the resolution of 72dpi. So, nothing more than 24mpix is required for that too :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, there was a thing called an Anti-Aliasing filter. It solved the Moire and artifact problems of very sharp lenses that weren't stopped down. But people who didn't understand about post-capture sharpening kept comparing unprocessed samples with and without AA filters, and so the manufacturers removed them. A great example of the technology made worse by "market" pressures.

 

--Matt

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, there was a thing called an Anti-Aliasing filter. It solved the Moire and artifact problems of very sharp lenses that weren't stopped down. But people who didn't understand about post-capture sharpening kept comparing unprocessed samples with and without AA filters, and so the manufacturers removed them. A great example of the technology made worse by "market" pressures.

 

--Matt

 

 

Combine a 24MP sensor with an AA filter, a Leica APO lens and a feather and I'll show you moire and aliasing.  Over-sampling is the best way to eliminate these artifacts.

Edited by wildlightphoto
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to something completely different... pictures....

 

The job was photos on alu dibond (called Butler finish), size 90x160cm.

-> The client asked for an example picture-> taken with the SL (with 24-90) and i got the job.

 

(Pixel) Size matters, but you have to think about final product if it is really neccesary.

 

For my jobs until now it was sufficient, may be in future there will be  a bigger SL  but who cares NOW?

So keep on wishing for the future and take good/ best photos now ;)

 

-my2cents-

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, there was a thing called an Anti-Aliasing filter. It solved the Moire and artifact problems of very sharp lenses that weren't stopped down. But people who didn't understand about post-capture sharpening kept comparing unprocessed samples with and without AA filters, and so the manufacturers removed them. A great example of the technology made worse by "market" pressures.

 

--Matt

 

Manufacturers removed them because pixel density has increased, and so aliasing is less likely to occur, with the same lens.

It would be foolish to remove the filter on a 10Mp FF camera, but it would also be foolish to retain it on a 40Mp FF camera, or a 24Mp APS-C one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Combine a 24MP sensor with an AA filter, a Leica APO lens and a feather and I'll show you moire and aliasing.  Over-sampling is the best way to eliminate these artifacts.

 

Oh yes, oversampling surely *is* the best solution. But if you're seeing aliasing, then the filter is a poor one. Granted, I've never tested them to failure.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'd like a 40+MP SL and an 80+ MP S as much as the next person. I just think AA filters were rejected for the wrong reasons. And I wish all my lenses were Leica APO :)

 

--Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a commercial photographer I am occasionally asked for high resolution files. 90% of the time the SL is fine. Sometimes it isn't. Maybe my clients could get away with 24MP files. But it's my job to supply what my clients WANT rather than try to educate them. I could shoot medium format but often require the use of TS lenses.

 

So I keep an A7R2 in the bag for the 10% of jobs I need it. I would dearly love to replace it with a high resolution SL. Then I'd have a more consistent workflow and file preparation. I'd only have one battery type to charge and one less camera to carry (currently I carry two SL's and the Sony).

 

I honestly think the only reason the SL isn't available in a higher resolution is that the sensor manufacturer doesn't offer it. The original SL was designed as a fast professional body rather than a D850 competitor. I don't buy the "ideal resolution" argument. We had that at 6, 12 and 16 MP already. Plus the lenses are clearly capable of much higher resolutions. Leica simply can't get hold of a high res sensor except from Sony.

 

Gordon

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Combine a 24MP sensor with an AA filter, a Leica APO lens and a feather and I'll show you moire and aliasing.  Over-sampling is the best way to eliminate these artifacts.

 

 

You are undoubtedly right, but I consider high detail bird photography to be a special case. There are other special cases as well, but they don't apply to the large majority of photographers. In the end, you have to use the tools that work for you. As for myself, I have no interest in nature photography and, thus, am quite happy with 24MP. If on rare occasions, I catch some moire on a piece of fabric, I just shrug and move on. I think that's what most people do. BTW, as should be clear, I am not a professional, so my requirements are less stringent than those who make a living from photography.

Edited by robgo2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are undoubtedly right, but I consider high detail bird photography to be a special case. There are other special cases as well, but they don't apply to the large majority of photographers. In the end, you have to use the tools that work for you. As for myself, I have no interest in nature photography and, thus, am quite happy with 24MP. If on rare occasions, I catch some moire on a piece of fabric, I just shrug and move on. I think that's what most people do. BTW, as should be clear, I am not a professional, so my requirements are less stringent than those who make a living from photography.

I am amateur also so don’t need megapixels but lot of shooters do, so I would advocate for significant sensor upgrade as it can be done. Of course there is long honoured tradition on LUF rationalising Leica being behind the competition especially in digital sphere so for every voice requesting advanced sensor there will be many declaring satisfaction with current offering.

 

I recently tried Nikon D850, which is 45Mp Camera, with cheap Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and picture quality is just fantastic, what impressed me most is that NEF (Nikon raw Format) file size, 14bit compressed lossless files are same size as SL DNG files, as well know SL only allows uncompressed raw. Memory may be cheap but less megabytes per image is sweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amateur also so don’t need megapixels but lot of shooters do, so I would advocate for significant sensor upgrade as it can be done. 

 

If you were a professional, you would not be advocating something that is unnecessary and expensive :)

Believe me, there is no need for more than 24 mpix in 35mm format except for some rare very special cases. Anything that needs higher resolution is a domain of Medium Format.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...