Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.  

 

 

Nor do I. Leica has stated that 'upgrading' of the S-sensor to less than 60+ mp, from the current 37.5 mp, make little sense. With the recently released TL2 (24mp in 1.5 crop sensor), Leica has a high-quality, high-res sensor in house.

 

I would think that the S-system is high on the list for an increase in mp, followed by the SL. I, for one, would welcome higher mp in both systems, although I am a very happy and relatively acyive user of the SL (and a happy but less active user of the S).

[mls1483]

Good lenses improve on good sensors but also do bad ones.

 

Back to the initial question:

1) The M would be very difficult to focus with a high resolution sensor. Maybe the rangefinder hits a barrier here, because mis-focussing would deteriorate any improved picture resolution of a better sensor. But do M  pictures need higher resolution?

2) The SL has a fast and exact AF and the world's best large and high-resolution viewfinder for MF. IBIS could be added. Thus, there is no reason why the SL should not get a high resolution sensor one time. Beware the fact that the SL was introduced in 2015.

[Jared]

I agree with mls1483.  On a rangefinder camera I see no benefit to a higher resolution sensor.  There are just too few situations where my focus is accurate enough, my depth of field large enough, and camera and motion blur are controlled well enough for me to benefit from more resolution.  I'd much rather see IBIS get incorporated into future 'M' cameras than see higher megapixel counts.

 

The SL is different, though. With accurate contrast detect AF and good image stabilization it's more likely that users would see real resolution gains.  For my photography, those gains wouldn't matter at all--I don't make large prints and I rarely choose to crop very much.  I'm quite happy at 24 megapixels, but I wouldn't object if the next iteration of the SL had more.  I wouldn't upgrade if that was ALL it had, but I wouldn't avoid the camera either or consider Leica was caving in to the megapixel pressure of others.  Frankly, as read noise approaches zero in most of these cameras there just isn't much of a downside to smaller and smaller pixels as long as you have the storage space and the CPU/GPU horsepower for editing.  

 

As has been pointed out once or twice along the way, I suspect Leica has a couple of concerns.  First, I don't think they want the SL to have a higher megapixel chip than the S.  It would hurt sales too much.  One can point out the advantages of medium format--better control over depth of field, higher full well capacity leading to potentially wider dynamic range, etc..  It won't matter.  Too high a percentage of Leica's customers (or any brand's customers) don't understand the tools all that well or simply purchase off spec sheets.  Having a higher megapixel count in the SL would hurt the S.  So an upgrade in resolution to the S is almost certain to precede an upgrade in resolution for the SL.  

 

The next problem, of course, is sourcing the chips.  You've got the eccentric micro lenses for the M10.  I don't know whether those exist in the SL as well, but at a minimum you would need the thinner filter stack.  I don't know that Sony would be interested in accommodating those kinds of "features".  So Leica would need to find someone with the ability to make a higher resolution chip at a reasonable price for their comparatively low volumes.  And it would have to be a chip that was amongst the leaders in other areas--dynamic range, read noise, thermal noise, etc.  I suspect there aren't a lot of options.  

[pico]

[...] The M would be very difficult to focus with a high resolution sensor.

 

I do not understand that at all.

[wildlightphoto]

The next problem, of course, is sourcing the chips.  You've got the eccentric micro lenses for the M10.  I don't know whether those exist in the SL as well, but at a minimum you would need the thinner filter stack.  I don't know that Sony would be interested in accommodating those kinds of "features".  So Leica would need to find someone with the ability to make a higher resolution chip at a reasonable price for their comparatively low volumes.  And it would have to be a chip that was amongst the leaders in other areas--dynamic range, read noise, thermal noise, etc.  I suspect there aren't a lot of options.  

 

 

I suspect this is the biggest issue.  Leica doesn't have the economy of scale that CaNikon or Sony have.

[almoore]

The M would be very difficult to focus with a high resolution sensor...

No, it really wouldn't.

 

I've no idea why the introduction of the SL has led so many people to falsely believe that the focus accuracy of the M is lacking, but the myth seems to be gaining traction.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, it really wouldn't.

 

I've no idea why the introduction of the SL has led so many people to falsely believe that the focus accuracy of the M is lacking, but the myth seems to be gaining traction.

 

Dunno about that, Al.

 

Why would higher resolution make focussing more difficult on a rangefinder?  For the same reason that accurate focussing has become a bigger issue in digital than it was in film (and it isn't just emulsion thickness).  Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations - also, there is an argument that higher resolution from more pixels means smaller pixels, which make shooting technique more disciplined (see Ming Thein's article some months ago).

 

SL has more accurate focussing than the rangefinder mechanism because it has a better EVF, simple as that.  No myth.  Just fact.  The rangefinder is less accurate because (1) it is dependent on fine and accurate calibration of a mechanical focussing verification mechanism in the camera and the setting of the lens, (2) what is shown in the rangefinder is unrelated to what is captured on the sensor, and (3) you can magnify the subject to 3x and 6x using the SL's excellent EVF.

 

You can say you can also use an EVF with the M, but that is not the core M functionality (which I believe the poster was alluding to) and the EVF on the M isn't a match for the EVF built into the SL.  The M10 has a better optical rangefinder than previous M cameras, but in all honesty I think the traditional optical rangefinder is pretty much at the limit of its capability for accurate focusing.  I love it on my Monochrom and my M-A, but I don't know how much I would love it if the M went to 75MP ...

Edited November 1, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[pico]

[...] Why would higher resolution make focussing more difficult on a rangefinder?  For the same reason that accurate focussing has become a bigger issue in digital than it was in film (and it isn't just emulsion thickness).  Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations - also, there is an argument that higher resolution from more pixels means smaller pixels, which make shooting technique more disciplined (see Ming Thein's article some months ago) [...]

 

John, these posts made me feel young again, as if we were back in the digital vs. analog argument age, but we know digital has won within its scope so the feeling has passed. Darn.

 

You wrote, "Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations". Is not  magnification really the crux of the matter?

 

I try to find my prejudiced perspective and so far I think my view considers only the print or contemporary monitors as real. I admit to wondering how wrong I will be in a future I will never experience if/when we have large, maybe wall-size true high resolution displays. We have already gone through similar technological leaps. Remember the 19th century 8x10 contact prints? Sucked, eh? They were what they could be. We are where we can be. It's almost intimidating to imagine how outmoded my view might become after my lifetime. (Does anyone really care?)

 

But for now, to be realistic, I will keep as a way-point: "Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations". Consider - do we print or live in 1:1 views we cannot present? The later is okay, but abstract in everyday work.

 

Fair enough?

Edited November 1, 2017 by pico

[almoore]

Dunno about that, Al.

 

Why would higher resolution make focussing more difficult on a rangefinder? For the same reason that accurate focussing has become a bigger issue in digital than it was in film (and it isn't just emulsion thickness). Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations...SL has more accurate focussing than the rangefinder mechanism because it has a better EVF, simple as that. No myth. Just fact. The rangefinder is less accurate because...You can say you can also use an EVF with the M, but that is not the core M functionality...I think the traditional optical rangefinder is pretty much at the limit of its capability for accurate focusing. I love it on my Monochrom and my M-A, but I don't know how much I would love it if the M went to 75MP ...

It's Andrew.

 

When we moved from the film to the digital era, there were very serious focus issues that became apparent, but those issues weren't related to shortcomings of rangefinders. In the early days of digital both Canon and Nikon maintained that if lenses worked well with film they'd work well with digital. The experiences of users showed otherwise, primarily in that any issue of lens misalignment would be brutally magnified by a digital sensor (largely because of that lack of emulsion depth you reference). Pretty quickly, Canon and Nikon acknowledged the issues and began redesigning their lenses for the digital age, not just to alter the angle at which the image hit the sensor but to ensure tighter long term alignment. Leica had their own enormous challenges to overcome, but accurate focus wasn't one of them.

 

Do you really believe that the sensor in the M10 is so lacking in resolution that you can't assess whether or not focus is spot on? If an image is in focus on a 24MP sensor then it will still be in focus on your notional 75MP sensor. Yes, people 'pixel peep' now, but a lot of us were grain peeping in the film era and had no trouble in ascertaining whether or not our film Ms were perfectly calibrated.

 

If you primarily want to use a Noctilux wide open all of the time, you'll probably get a higher hit rate using magnified view with an EVF, but in the M's comfort traditional comfort zone rangefinder focus is certainly accurate enough to cope with a higher resolution sensor.

 

I like and use EVF cameras, but it's not because of any difficulty focusing Ms.

Edited November 1, 2017 by almoore

[IkarusJohn]

John, these posts made me feel young again, as if we were back in the digital vs. analog argument age, but we know digital has won within its scope so the feeling has passed. Darn.

 

You wrote, "Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations". Is not  magnification really the crux of the matter?

 

I try to find my prejudiced perspective and so far I think my view considers only the print or contemporary monitors as real. I admit to wondering how wrong I will be in a future I will never experience if/when we have large, maybe wall-size true high resolution displays. We have already gone through similar technological leaps. Remember the 19th century 8x10 contact prints? Sucked, eh? They were what they could be. We are where we can be. It's almost intimidating to imagine how outmoded my view might become after my lifetime. (Does anyone really care?)

 

But for now, to be realistic, I will keep as a way-point: "Higher resolution means more pixel peeping and more cropping expectations". Consider - do we print or live in 1:1 views we cannot present? The later is okay, but abstract in everyday work.

 

Fair enough?

 

True.

 

If photography is less about presenting what you've framed, and more about framing a part of what you've captured; and perhaps that is the future.

 

Andrew (sorry):

 

Do you really believe that the sensor in the M10 is so lacking in resolution that you can't assess whether or not focus is spot on? If an image is in focus on a 24MP sensor then it will still be in focus on your notional 75MP sensor. Yes, people 'pixel peep' now, but a lot of us were grain peeping in the film era and had no trouble in ascertaining whether or not our film Ms were perfectly calibrated.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with the sensor in the M10 - the sensor has nothing to do with the focusing of a rangefinder, and that is the problem,  The rangefinder mechanism has nothing to do with the sensor - if your M cameras and lenses have maintained tack sharp calibration without adjustment, then I salute you.  

 

I also agree that an image in focus on a 24MP sensor should be equally in focus, or out of focus on a 75MP sensor, but the tolerances are tighter.  What might appear to be acceptable focus on a 24MP sensor (or 10MP sensor, for that matter) may well be far from acceptably sharp on a 75 MP (or 37.5 MP) sensor, and that does not seem to be just a question of pixel peeping.

 

That was certainly my experience of both the A7R and d800e (both had 37.5MP sensors, didn't they?).  Achieving acceptably sharp images with both those cameras required considerably more care than on the 18 MP M9 camera.

 

Looking at this simplistically - your comment was that you didn't understand why the introduction of the SL made people think that the focus accuracy of the rangefinder mechanism was lacking.

 

Well, the rangefinder mechanism is a parallel focusing system, in that it does not read what hits the sensor; it approximates it using a mechanical link between camera and lens (stick with me).  We all know, I think that that accuracy can vary, and not just because of the focus shift that became more apparent in the digital age.  More problematically, with longer lenses, depth of field decreases, but the focus patch and the area covered by it remains the same.  Sure, the image is still either in or out of focus, but you're assessing a smaller area which covers a larger area of the final image.

 

Add to that the tighter tolerances of increased digital performance, and yes the optical mechanical coupled rangefinder mechanism does lack the focus accuracy that is on offer with the SL.  Leica upgraded the M10 rangefinder for the new 24mp sensor in the M10, I suspect with that in mind.

 

Granted, with greater depth of field from using smaller apertures, the effect is reduced, but the best plane of focus is still the best plane of focus regardless of aperture.  It will disguise less than optimal focus from using the rangefinder, but I'm afraid that what digital has brought us is pixel peeping, far higher resolution than traditional photography ever needed, and perhaps a change to what photography is.

 

If that is the future, then I doubt the optical mechanical coupled rangefinder plays a significant part in it.

Edited November 1, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[almoore]

if your M cameras and lenses have maintained tack sharp calibration without adjustment, then I salute you.  

I also agree that an image in focus on a 24MP sensor should be equally in focus, or out of focus on a 75MP sensor, but the tolerances are tighter.  What might appear to be acceptable focus on a 24MP sensor (or 10MP sensor, for that matter) may well be far from acceptably sharp on a 75 MP (or 37.5 MP) sensor, and that does not seem to be just a question of pixel peeping.

 

That was certainly my experience of both the A7R and d800e (both had 37.5MP sensors, didn't they?).  Achieving acceptably sharp images with both those cameras required considerably more care than on the 18 MP M9 camera.

 

Looking at this simplistically - your comment was that you didn't understand why the introduction of the SL made people think that the focus accuracy of the rangefinder mechanism was lacking.

 

Well, the rangefinder mechanism is a parallel focusing system, in that it does not read what hits the sensor; it approximates it using a mechanical link between camera and lens (stick with me).  We all know, I think that that accuracy can vary, and not just because of the focus shift that became more apparent in the digital age.  More problematically, with longer lenses, depth of field decreases, but the focus patch and the area covered by it remains the same.  Sure, the image is still either in or out of focus, but you're assessing a smaller area which covers a larger area of the final image.

 

Add to that the tighter tolerances of increased digital performance, and yes the optical mechanical coupled rangefinder mechanism does lack the focus accuracy that is on offer with the SL....I'm afraid that what digital has brought us is pixel peeping, far higher resolution than traditional photography ever needed, and perhaps a change to what photography is.

 

If that is the future, then I doubt the optical mechanical coupled rangefinder plays a significant part in it.

 

Taking the last point first, the rangefinder in the M hasn't played a significant part in the recent past, never mind the future. It's a niche, but no less valid a niche in the age of the M10 than it was in the age of the M6.

 

Regarding calibration, I've used a lot of M bodies and never had serious issues with the focus drifting, despite them spending a lot of time bouncing around in the overhead lockers of planes. My experience is that it takes a serious impact to knock the rangefinder out of alignment, the kind of impact that would also require repairs to an SLR or EVF camera. 

 

I totally accept that in absolute terms EVF cameras (it applies as much to Sonys as it does to the SL) have more accurate focus, particularly off centre, but that doesn't render the M too inaccurate for its traditional uses. 

 

I don't share your experience of finding digital cameras more difficult to focus as the resolution increases. I have Sony cameras with 12 and 42MP sensors and I find them identical in focus characteristics. Even a 12MP camera will comfortably show whether an eyelash or facial pore is in focus, and that plane of focus doesn't shift as the resolution increases. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by almoore

[mls1483]

True.

 

If photography is less about presenting what you've framed, and more about framing a part of what you've captured; and perhaps that is the future.

 

Andrew (sorry):

 

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with the sensor in the M10 - the sensor has nothing to do with the focusing of a rangefinder, and that is the problem,  The rangefinder mechanism has nothing to do with the sensor - if your M cameras and lenses have maintained tack sharp calibration without adjustment, then I salute you.  

 

I also agree that an image in focus on a 24MP sensor should be equally in focus, or out of focus on a 75MP sensor, but the tolerances are tighter.  What might appear to be acceptable focus on a 24MP sensor (or 10MP sensor, for that matter) may well be far from acceptably sharp on a 75 MP (or 37.5 MP) sensor, and that does not seem to be just a question of pixel peeping.

 

That was certainly my experience of both the A7R and d800e (both had 37.5MP sensors, didn't they?).  Achieving acceptably sharp images with both those cameras required considerably more care than on the 18 MP M9 camera.

 

Looking at this simplistically - your comment was that you didn't understand why the introduction of the SL made people think that the focus accuracy of the rangefinder mechanism was lacking.

 

Well, the rangefinder mechanism is a parallel focusing system, in that it does not read what hits the sensor; it approximates it using a mechanical link between camera and lens (stick with me).  We all know, I think that that accuracy can vary, and not just because of the focus shift that became more apparent in the digital age.  More problematically, with longer lenses, depth of field decreases, but the focus patch and the area covered by it remains the same.  Sure, the image is still either in or out of focus, but you're assessing a smaller area which covers a larger area of the final image.

 

Add to that the tighter tolerances of increased digital performance, and yes the optical mechanical coupled rangefinder mechanism does lack the focus accuracy that is on offer with the SL.  Leica upgraded the M10 rangefinder for the new 24mp sensor in the M10, I suspect with that in mind.

 

Granted, with greater depth of field from using smaller apertures, the effect is reduced, but the best plane of focus is still the best plane of focus regardless of aperture.  It will disguise less than optimal focus from using the rangefinder, but I'm afraid that what digital has brought us is pixel peeping, far higher resolution than traditional photography ever needed, and perhaps a change to what photography is.

 

If that is the future, then I doubt the optical mechanical coupled rangefinder plays a significant part in it.

[thighslapper]

..... my 5 cents ...... as far as I am concerned it is linear resolution that counts ......

 

like Leica I would not bother with small incremental changes ...... increasing by a factor of 1.5 (54mpx) or 2 (96mpx) would make a significant difference ...... when and if commensurate processing power in the camera keeps speeds and battery life at current levels. 

 

intermediate increases have more to do with selling new cameras than an increase in resolution that really makes a big practical difference (unless feathers are your main subject).....

[mls1483]

The rangefinder mechanism itself has been a quick and reliable tool - and also is a lot of fun btw. With WW lenses and hyperfocal focussing (or zone focussing) it is very accurate for strreet photography. And reportage has been the domain of the M.

 

The Leica production specifiactions are very demanding and exact alignement becomes more and more important. We are talking about microns - for a purely mechanical system! It is incredible what Leica is doing here.

However, the smaller the pixels get, the tighter the tolerances must be. In the end, there will be a limit reached for a mechanical system. In microscopy manufacturers have changed to piecos to achieve 10nm steps in focussing. For even higher resolutions on the nanometer scale (e.g. atomic force microscopy) piecos are mandatory for the scanners.

 

For street and reportage we feel comfortable with the rangefinder and 24MP - and this is actually all we need. Nevertheless, focussing the Noctilux, the 90mm APO Summicron or the 28mm Summilux (!), the EVP of the SL is much more reliable. Thus, for street and reportage the M is a magnificent tool; sports, actions and other genres, where we need long telephoto lenses, IBIS, high burst rates, high resolutions and so on, we may well leave to the SL or other cameras. In the end, shooting the M is also a philosophy: Small, portable, light, unconspicuous, unobstrusive - and somewhat enjoybly slowed down. 

[Paul J]

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread.

 

You can only speak for your own uses, not others. All I know is I definitely need more than 24MP and that is the main reason I have not bought and have no interest in an SL.

 

Those lenses are crying out for more resolution.

[Paul J]

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

 

 

No one has printed Billboard at 72dpi for at least 20 years.

 

Most large scale printing these days is assumed to be viewed at very close distance, such as a bus stop or instore.

 

It Varies from company to company but Cinema, instore, and your typical Bus Shelter 6 Sheet Billboard is generally 300dpi.

 

Your typical roadside 48 Sheet Billboard is anywhere between 300 and 500dpi but these days 500 dpi is most common.

[jaapv]

In that case I don't see how a bus-stop billboard is going to benefit from, say, a 50 MP sensor which will only yield a limited increase in linear resolution.

[Dominique1952]

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.

 

Let's say I'm a professional, Not a photographer but a director of photography. When I make a commercial film, we often work together, me and photographers. We use to speak about image quality and I never met any photographer saying : I need more than 24mpix. 

If the lens are good and the Leitz are damn good, who need 42mpix ?

[Irakly Shanidze]

No one has printed Billboard at 72dpi for at least 20 years.

 

Most large scale printing these days is assumed to be viewed at very close distance, such as a bus stop or instore.

 

It Varies from company to company but Cinema, instore, and your typical Bus Shelter 6 Sheet Billboard is generally 300dpi.

 

Your typical roadside 48 Sheet Billboard is anywhere between 300 and 500dpi but these days 500 dpi is most common.

 

Seriously? Tell this to my agency, they should make a note of it ))))

 

Lightboxes (same thing as the bus shelter) are printed at 300dpi, and I used to do those for jewelry stores with a 16mp digital back, 6x6'.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Irakly Shanidze

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[mls1483]

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread.

 

You can only speak for your own uses, not others. All I know is I definitely need more than 24MP and that is the main reason I have not bought and have no interest in an SL.

 

Those lenses are crying out for more resolution.

 

M lenses do yield high resolutions when put on a respective camera (e.g. Sony A7R2). However, M lenses are a compromise: Boundary conditions in design are small size and low weight, i.e. portability. This is needed for street phtotography and reportage. Nobody wants to carry around heavy equipment for a whole day. Moreover, M lenses are sharp already wide open and improve only little when stopped down (compared to others. Of course they do improve). And they are sharp from edge to edge, in contrast to Zeiss ZM or most Voigtländer VM lenses, which need to be stopped down considerably to give sharp edges and corners. M lenses also show little distortion mostly. Nevertheless, the M is a FF camera.

 

This comes at a price: No AF and no lens stabilization (most obvious for a rangefinder lens), but also vignetting and lots of CA for the fast Summiluxes and some others (especially wide open). Most M lenses are suffering from astigmatism (including the APO Summicron 50mm). There are also other abberations. 

 

The Summilux 28mm is a good example: Although it is very sharp and renders beautifully, many people gave it back to get the new Summicron 28mm. The Summilux 28mm is heavy and large, shows a lot of CA and vignettes strongly wide open (even more than the Zeiss Distagon 35mm ZM f/1.4). So it clearly shows the linitations of the M design.

 

With perfect correction of abberations, FF lenses tend to get very large and heavy. Look at the Zeiss Otus series. The Otus 28mm f/1.4 is sharp all the way to the edge, whereas the Summilux 28mm f/1.4 drops off considerably. But the Otus 28mm is also a brick. If you add AF, lenses get even heavier and larger.

 

This was the great illusion of the Sony A7 series: Small, portable cameras - but then came out the huge lenses (if fast and highly corrected). So Zeiss found the right compromise: Relatively slow lenses to keep size and weight limited. 

 

In a nutshell: M lenses do deliver high resolutions, but this was not the main intention. Others can sometimes do better.