Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Out of my personal curiosity because retaining the look is important to me.

I'm wondering if this remains true. Would lenses retain their imaging (look) quality when one uses 24mp and say 42mp from Sony, Canon? Are there differences that are objectionable to you with the lenses you have experience so far?

 

 

Comparing photos made with the SL and the Sony a7II (both 24MP) and the 280/4 APO on both cameras the SL has an edge in color richness but in most cases the difference can be made up in processing.  Comparing the Sony a7II and a7rII (24MP and 42MP respectively) the 42MP images will crop better without falling apart, will show much less moire and aliasing, and more useful detail can be coaxed out of the shadows.

 

First photo: a7II, 280/4 APO

Second photo: SL, 280/4 APO

Third photo: a7rII, 280/4 APO

Fourth photo: a7rII, 280/4 APO cropped from horizontal

 

 

 

 

 

[mgrayson3]

Lenses don’t lose their character at higher resolution. Lenses designed for higher resolutions frequently lose their character.

[Irakly Shanidze]

For those rare occasions where you need higher resolution, you'd rather use a medium format system instead of a high-resolution camera body for the superb lenses you already have?  I don't see the business sense of this reasoning.

 

Lenses that I already have are Contax 645. So yes, I'd rather use those on S006. Makes perfect business sense.

[Irakly Shanidze]

I just read an email in which out of 8 other photographers bidding on the job, I have been awarded a contract worth $12K for a national financial firm. I am not willing to go into the details on here but I will PM you about it because it has everything to do with using a high res 35mm based sensor tech with a long lens.

 

I think you will dig it. I’ll pm you shortly.

 

That tells more about technical illiteracy of a client (which he cannot really be held accountable for) than of quality of your deliverables. You most likely won't contest the fact that you would be able to produce the same results with a 24 megapixel camera

[wildlightphoto]

Lenses that I already have are Contax 645. So yes, I'd rather use those on S006. Makes perfect business sense.

 

 

 

This is a second system in addition to the SL.  The S(006) makes fabulous images but a high resolution body for your SL lenses would result in much less to carry and a much smaller capital investment.  I see a good business case for the second scenario, particularly if your need for the higher resolution comprises a smaller portion of your needs.

Edited October 30, 2017 by wildlightphoto

[wildlightphoto]

Here's a crop of the owl's eyes

 

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Comparing photos made with the SL and the Sony a7II (both 24MP) and the 280/4 APO on both cameras the SL has an edge in color richness but in most cases the difference can be made up in processing.  Comparing the Sony a7II and a7rII (24MP and 42MP respectively) the 42MP images will crop better without falling apart, will show much less moire and aliasing, and more useful detail can be coaxed out of the shadows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have used the Sony A7ii since it was first released, and it has given me some excellent images. But I find the SL is to be in a different league in terms of IQ. Images have better sharpness and detail (no AA filter), much better colors and just more pop overall. And, of course, my collection of M lenses perform so much better on the Leica, which is a matter of no small importance to me. Since acquiring the SL, my A7ii is gathering dust, and I am strongly contemplating selling my entire Sony system. I was never really tempted by the A7Rii, because I knew that 42MP were excessive for my purposes. I still feel that way.

[lx1713]

Comparing photos made with the SL and the Sony a7II (both 24MP) and the 280/4 APO on both cameras the SL has an edge in color richness but in most cases the difference can be made up in processing.  Comparing the Sony a7II and a7rII (24MP and 42MP respectively) the 42MP images will crop better without falling apart, will show much less moire and aliasing, and more useful detail can be coaxed out of the shadows.

 

First photo: a7II, 280/4 APO

Second photo: SL, 280/4 APO

Third photo: a7rII, 280/4 APO

Fourth photo: a7rII, 280/4 APO cropped from horizontal

 

 

 

Thank you for being meticulous and gracious in sharing this. It's very helpful. That aside, fantastic images!

 

While I've had great cameras before, I've never actually migrated the use of those lenses to other systems so thank you again!

[Irakly Shanidze]

This is a second system in addition to the SL.  The S(006) makes fabulous images but a high resolution body for your SL lenses would result in much less to carry and a much smaller capital investment.  I see a good business case for the second scenario, particularly if your need for the higher resolution comprises a smaller portion of your needs.

 

I see your point, but my main use for SL is actually video. For the rest of my work I manage to get away with M10, except for the high-end product work where S006 takes over.

The thing about using medium format for this sort of work is that it does produce a different look, which some refer to as "more expensive". This is a function of a sensor size, not a megapixel count. I used to get the same look from a 16-megapixel 37x37 Kodak back, and 4x6' light boxes looked awesome.

[Reciprocity]

Since you have literally been told nothing that is anything remotely what I told Wildlight in private, you don’t have the context.

 

I’m actually embarrassed for you that you even replied.

 

That tells more about technical illiteracy of a client (which he cannot really be held accountable for) than of quality of your deliverables. You most likely won't contest the fact that you would be able to produce the same results with a 24 megapixel camera

[pico]

I have been awarded a contract worth $12K for a national financial firm.

 

I trust that is your day rate.

.

[LD_50]

Since this thread is increasingly becoming personal rather than addressing the merits of increased resolution, I’m going to exit.

[pico]

Since this thread is increasingly becoming personal rather than addressing the merits of increased resolution, I’m going to exit.

 

Cop-out

[jdlaing]

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

Generally 50 dpi.

[thighslapper]

I think the only thing this rather grouchy 'discussion' illustrates is that no single camera system and lenses does everything that everyone wants. 

 

Those with any sense stop moaning and just find work-arounds or mix & match kit to achieve what they want photographically. 

 

Leica are perfectly entitled to choose the criteria they value for their products and if it doesn't match your expectations, buy something else ....

[IkarusJohn]

I don't believe for a second that Leica has decided to limit its 35mm format to 24MP for cussedness or just to be bloody minded.  Image quality seems to me to be a high Leica priority.  Their lenses are designed to provide the best image they can for the format and size, and their sensors are optimised for their lenses.  I like the output.

 

I have no doubt at all that if they can maintain image quality with high MP counts, and there are advantages which overcome the disadvantages of more MP, they will offer an SL with higher MP.  The fact that others offer higher MP isn't really the point for me.  To be perfectly honest, I couldn't give a toss - there are other reasons why I don't use Sony, Canon or Nikon (I don't bag them; I've tried them and they're not for me, and in the past I have explained why that is).  I understand Doug and others wanting more MP for what they do, and one day Leica may give them what they want.  If they don't, I'm very sure they will have good reason not to.

 

I don't really care, as even at 18MP, resolution ceased to be an issue for me - resolution will always be an issue for someone, surely.

 

To paraphrase Ned Kelly, such is life.

Edited October 30, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Reciprocity]

I trust that is your day rate.

.

 

Ha, not even pre-great recession when there were more ad agencies. I'm more of a $2-$3K kind of guy.

 

I gotta bow out of this one...it's a bowl of odd stew with a side of WTF bread. 

[wildlightphoto]

That tells more about technical illiteracy of a client (which he cannot really be held accountable for) than of quality of your deliverables. You most likely won't contest the fact that you would be able to produce the same results with a 24 megapixel camera

 

 

Reciprocity's use of a high-MP 35mm-format camera is entirely justified by the client's needs and would be extremely difficult if not impossible to duplicate with a medium-format system.  I believe his client will be very pleased.

Edited October 31, 2017 by wildlightphoto

[lx1713]

Lenses don’t lose their character at higher resolution. Lenses designed for higher resolutions frequently lose their character.

 

 

That's part of the reason why I self impose a limit on what lens I use on a format (film days was a little easier then) so I'm curious and grateful for the guidance.

I believe rightly or wrongly when a lens is designed with resolution as the key performing attribute, other qualities might suffer. Doug has moderated my outlook to a certain extent.

It's just easier for a mf system to deliver a high resolution comfortably.

But it's nice for a smaller format to give me more resolution but I didn't really look to it to deliver that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[robgo2]

Lenses don’t lose their character at higher resolution. Lenses designed for higher resolutions frequently lose their character.

 

This is a very interesting point, but I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate. I do agree that many of the latest generation of uberlenses tend towards rendering that might be described as flat, clinical and lifeless, but the reason for this is not entirely clear. Obviously, it has something to do with the design, but my sense is that it is related more to correcting for aberrations at maximum aperture than it is to achieving higher resolution. These new ultra-high end lenses are marketed for maximum performance wide open, and that is what testers and consumers seem to care about most. They crave sharpness across the frame and complete control of CA, SA and distortion at max aperture. Character and performance at smaller apertures are barely even afterthoughts. High quality lenses of earlier generations did not strive for the same kind of perfection, most likely because it was not feasible with the materials and technology of their day, but they do excel in other image qualities that many of us consider more important.

Edited October 31, 2017 by robgo2