Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, the GX8, which offers better stills capability whilst retaining the 4K video capability. And it looks like a rangefinder

Panasonic has been very smart in slanting their very similar pro-level cameras towards different user groups. Leica should study that business-case.

 

 

Thanks I will take a look!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

STOPPER: repeating my much earlier post, no publication has ever rejected my submissions

complaining of lack of resolution or sharpness. I am speaking of Tri-x images, also native M9

images.

 

Counter?

Edited November 1, 2017 by pico

[djmay]

I met with a client to review a 200cm x 133cm test print yesterday. I did the shot in the mountains with a S 006, on tripod with mirror up. The client put his face up close to the print. He was so pleased that he is now impatient to receive the final mounted print (I am also pleased ). Anyone on the forum, that is near Zurich, Switzerland is welcome to contact me to see the test print.

 

I do not think that I would be comfortable doing this with a FF sensor. I also think that this is about the limit for the S, if the viewer is able to get close to the print. If the print is to be viewed from a distance, I guess it is possible to go much larger.

 

I know a photographer, who produced an image for a client with Hasselblad with 100mp back, comprised of three frames stitched. The client then produced a print 20 meters long. The photographer said the result was excellent. I did not see it.

 

Jesse

Edited November 1, 2017 by djmay

[frame-it]

the gx8 should be nice with the 100-400 vario elmar

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2932805@N20/pool/

 

No, the GX8, which offers better stills capability whilst retaining the 4K video capability. And it looks like a rangefinder

Panasonic has been very smart in slanting their very similar pro-level cameras towards different user groups. Leica should study that business-case.

[lx1713]

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.

 

I had a couple of M8s that had rangefinder focusing issues. Calibrating it for 50mm & 75mm made it inaccurate for my 90mm and so one body was ok with 90 but the other for 50 and 75. I never explored the issue but maybe there's something to the resolution contention affecting rangefinder accuracy. The M8 was 10mp. Loved it to bits even though it was quirky. So now it's an SL to replace the M8.

[lx1713]

Yes the main issue is blur which is easily solved by increasing the shutter speed. So better high ISO goes a long way.

 

I recently had a project in a studio with very low light, shooting at 1600, handheld, with 100MP on a job that will be printed very large. The quality is jaw dropping. That was impossible with medium format not even that long ago.

 

Honestly, that sensor is so good you can almost pick any shutter speed and aperture you want and get a great image. The resolution is also insane.

 

 

Were you able to compare with say a 24MP M with a summilux at ISO 100? Or even a noctilux? vs the ISO 1600

 

I know that MF perspective and 16 bit files will have their effect but did you compare it? Thanks!

 

My inclination would be to pick a more malleable and colour rich ISO 100 file but a mf 16 bits file is quite an unknown factor here for me.

 

If you are in a studio, why not use strobes?

Edited November 2, 2017 by lx1713

[lx1713]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

According to my memory, I think you are talking about the printer resolution not the image resolution. A poster of 60 inch at 300 dpi would translate to a file of 18000 pixels laterally.

 

In the past, I'm suppose to deliver twice the LPI of the printer frequency. So if the output is 100LPI. It was 200 dpi or 200 pixels per inch. I hadn't have much arguments in recent years with my printers to trash this out. Maybe things have changed. This was CMYK printing not the stochastic methods that the inkjet use. That one is way smarter than I am.

Edited November 2, 2017 by lx1713

[almoore]

I had a couple of M8s that had rangefinder focusing issues. Calibrating it for 50mm & 75mm made it inaccurate for my 90mm and so one body was ok with 90 but the other for 50 and 75. I never explored the issue...

 

This thread is becoming awash with myths. Ms aren't calibrated for particular focal lengths or individual lenses. 

[almoore]

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...lenses, which need to be stopped down considerably to give sharp edges and corners...

 

Which Zeiss M lenses need to be massively stopped down to have reasonable edge sharpness? As far as I'm aware, the Zeiss lenses perform very similarly to their Leica counterparts, all sharp when closed down a stop and probably reaching maximum sharpness two to three stops down. The most noticeable difference between Zeiss and Leica lenses is that the former tend to be less prone to flare. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by almoore

[thighslapper]

lx1713, on 02 Nov 2017 - 05:11, said:

I had a couple of M8s that had rangefinder focusing issues. Calibrating it for 50mm & 75mm made it inaccurate for my 90mm and so one body was ok with 90 but the other for 50 and 75. I never explored the issue...

This thread is becoming awash with myths. Ms aren't calibrated for particular focal lengths or individual lenses. 

 

M calibration and lens construction was based on mechanics and tolerances which are no longer applicable to high resolution.

 

If you have half a dozen M lenses I can almost guarantee that they will not all be adjusted perfectly for near, infinity and mid distance (if they have floating elements). The M calibration mechanism is crude and fiddly .... and although Leica appear to have improved the method of calibration you are still left with mechanical tolerances more appropriate to the 1930's. 

[almoore]

M calibration and lens construction was based on mechanics and tolerances which are no longer applicable to high resolution.

You speak as if accurate focus isn't essential when using film. It is.

 

What are you suggesting, that if you have half a dozen lenses you require six individually calibrated bodies to ensure accurate focus?

[thighslapper]

You speak as if accurate focus isn't essential when using film. It is.

 

What are you suggesting, that if you have half a dozen lenses you require six individually calibrated bodies to ensure accurate focus?

no ...that's not what I said ..... from personal experience there is sufficient lens variability that the likelihood of being able to adjust the camera to work perfectly with multiple lenses is close to zero. If you have more than one M camera body (and at one stage I had 4) the situation is even worse. Lenses  and camera are adjusted to a tolerance..... not a fixed point, and there is sufficient variability that it can, and will, cause issues.

 

I have spent years self adjusting M bodies and sending lenses back to Solms/Wetzlar because they do not function perfectly. The RF sytem is inherently limited in its accuracy and although the mechanism has been improved on the M10 that still leaves the vagaries of lens calibration to contend with. 

 

It is the one major reason I have stuck with the SL and liquidated my M bodies. The M10 holds no particular attraction as a result. 

[mls1483]

Which Zeiss M lenses need to be massively stopped down to have reasonable edge sharpness? As far as I'm aware, the Zeiss lenses perform very similarly to their Leica counterparts, all sharp when closed down a stop and probably reaching maximum sharpness two to three stops down. The most noticeable difference between Zeiss and Leica lenses is that the former tend to be less prone to flare. 

 

First of all you have to differentiate between center and edge/corner performance. In the center they do indeed perform similar. You are correct, closing down a stop improves sharpness and the maximum sharpness is reached two or three stops down. However, at the edges and the corners, Leica lenses do perform better. They are already quite sharp wide open and improve when stopping down one stop, but further stopping down does not improve the sharpness any (significantly) more. I think the bavaviour of the Zeiss ZM lenses is due to focal plane bending. Zeiss themself confirmed this for the Distagon 15mm f/2.8. The Zeiss ZM lenses are all old calculations, except for the Distagon 35mm f/14. And the latter is breath-taking, indeed. It is extremely sharp and already very sharp wide open. Unfortunatley it vignettes a lot at f/1.4, but so does the Summilux 28mm. If Zeiss (Cosina) would re-calculate the ZM lens series, we might see some exciting lenses like the Voigtländer (Cosina) Ultron 21mm f/1.8, the Super Wide Heliar III f/4.5 or the APO Macro Lanthar 65mm f/2 (E mount). Cosina has issued some very nice lenses in the last few years. 

[jaapv]

60" @ 300 DPI = 18.000 pixels . I do not think that an increase from 24 MP (6000 pixels) to 50 MP (8500 pixels )  will have any significant impact on the result.

You would need a 240 MP sensor to print at native resolution.

[almoore]

If you have more than one M camera body (and at one stage I had 4) the situation is even worse. Lenses and camera are adjusted to a tolerance..... not a fixed point, and there is sufficient variability that it can, and will, cause issues...

I salute your indefatigability. If it wasn't working for me I'd have bailed out well before I'd spent the price of a three bedroom house in Sunderland.

 

Of course, M cameras and lenses are adjusted to a tolerance, but if both are within tolerance there'll be no major issue. I've only ever had a real problem with a single lens, a bog standard 50 Summicron that, for reasons no technician could explain to me, kept drifting badly out of tolerance. Eventually, after the fourth time I put it in for recalibration, Leica replaced the lens, despite it being out of warranty.

 

For decades, photographers have have been relentlessly hitting focus, day in day out, with Ms, and that hasn't stopped in the digital age. There are still professionals putting their trust in these cameras, and they simply wouldn't do that if they shared your unhappy experiences. I think most problems relate to two things that are unconnected to the accuracy - or otherwise - of the rangefinder: centre focus and reframing at wide apertures and lens focus shift.

 

The M is the only Leica camera that holds any attraction for me, and I'd be really disappointed if a growing online myth about its ability to focus accurately threatened its long term future.

Edited November 2, 2017 by almoore

[almoore]

The Zeiss ZM lenses are all old calculations, except for the Distagon 35mm f/14. And the latter is breath-taking...

It doesn't matter that they're relatively old designs. I've tried both of the slower Zeiss 35s and they're comfortably in the same sharpness ball park as my 35 Summicron across the frame.

[jaapv]

no ...that's not what I said ..... from personal experience there is sufficient lens variability that the likelihood of being able to adjust the camera to work perfectly with multiple lenses is close to zero. If you have more than one M camera body (and at one stage I had 4) the situation is even worse. Lenses  and camera are adjusted to a tolerance..... not a fixed point, and there is sufficient variability that it can, and will, cause issues.

 

I have spent years self adjusting M bodies and sending lenses back to Solms/Wetzlar because they do not function perfectly. The RF sytem is inherently limited in its accuracy and although the mechanism has been improved on the M10 that still leaves the vagaries of lens calibration to contend with. 

 

It is the one major reason I have stuck with the SL and liquidated my M bodies. The M10 holds no particular attraction as a result. 

If you have problems like this send the whole kit to a trusted third-party technician (DAG and Wil van Manen come to mind) and receive a perfectly adjusted set in return within a short time.

[Paul J]

According to my memory, I think you are talking about the printer resolution not the image resolution. A poster of 60 inch at 300 dpi would translate to a file of 18000 pixels laterally.

 

In the past, I'm suppose to deliver twice the LPI of the printer frequency. So if the output is 100LPI. It was 200 dpi or 200 pixels per inch. I hadn't have much arguments in recent years with my printers to trash this out. Maybe things have changed. This was CMYK printing not the stochastic methods that the inkjet use. That one is way smarter than I am.

 

 

60" @ 300 DPI = 18.000 pixels . I do not think that an increase from 24 MP (6000 pixels) to 50 MP (8500 pixels )  will have any significant impact on the result.

You would need a 240 MP sensor to print at native resolution.

 

 

No, image resolution - 6096mm x 3048mm CMYK 500dpi 2:1 is the actual specification. Yes, that is big.

 

Bear in mind most billboards are made up of negative space and copy too so the actual image often takes up a smaller area. A good agency designs for this in mind.

 

Yes, 50MP makes a big difference as opposed to 24MP. You see it straight away. The extra detail is there and that is what shows. I personally consider 50-60MP a minimum these days for large scale work. Low resolution shows.

 

The differences of these two sizes can be seen and compared mostly at 1m. Even an M9 and an S will look reasonably comparable (in critical ways) up to that point. But 24v50 - by 2m the 24Mp has relatively fallen apart and you see a lot more artifcats where as the 50MP keeps going. 100MP gives even more. We're getting a 150MP sensor in 2018.

 

There was a sudden leap in printing technology (and monitor resolution for that matter) but it's going to stabilise for a while until things catch up.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

You need 60mp for large scale work ......

 

Doug needs 42mp+ to avoid moire on bird plumage. 

 

You are both in a small minority where the extra pixels really make a big difference. I've no problem with that. 

 

I can print A2 at home.....  and even cropped 24mp images look exceptionally detailed...... although I then have prints which are really too big to stick on a wall once framed, so they usually end up in a drawer somewhere. 

 

Much as I will welcome more pixels if they come at an economic price with no downsides, I really don't need them to function perfectly well as an amateur photographer. 

 

I am not quite deluded enough (yet) to believe that more pixels will stop me taking crap photos 

Edited November 2, 2017 by thighslapper

[jaapv]

And  Paul is clearly not the customer that Leica targets. The X1D does, however.

Doug is another story entirely, his need is a not too large high MP sensor, with very long, yet reasonable compact lenses. That is the way Canon and Nikon are going. Again,  Leica does not cater for this, as the SL stops at 280...