Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Probably, but I really haven’t noticed it. I can see the issue with such fine detail that you manage to capture with your excellent bird pictures, Doug, but then your needs are very specific.

 

I take Jeff’s point about printing big, but I discounted that as a big image requires a big viewing distance. Getting up close to a huge print is the analogue version of pixel peeping. My view is that mostly, this is a spc compairing exercise - most people won’t see a difference. I’m part of a large number who don’t find MP limiting, I don’t mind more MP, but I don’t want to end up with enormous files I don’t really need, or the discipline more MP seems to bring - I’ve said this before, but I found no real advantage in more MP with the D800e or the A7r, and considerable disadvantage in trying to make productive use of those additional pixels.

 

I’m sure more MP will come, and no one will remain happy ...

I would not deny that there are advantages to having greater resolution, but they just don't come into play for the vast majority of photographers. Those with a genuine need for very high resolution should buy appropriate cameras.

[Jeff S]

There are many variables beyond the camera that are important in a total print workflow from capture to display. I can start with my M8.2, M10, MM1 or even iPhone and produce great prints... or mediocre prints... for many different reasons. Even considering camera, lens, editing software, printer, paper, inks, display lighting and more (including a worthy pic to start), the most important tools remain between the ears. How boring it would be if our gear produced the same results.

 

Jeff

Edited November 10, 2017 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

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

[wildlightphoto]

I would not deny that there are advantages to having greater resolution, but they just don't come into play for the vast majority of photographers. Those with a genuine need for very high resolution should buy appropriate cameras.

 

 

Unfortunately the appropriate camera for me at this time isn't a Leica.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Here's my favorite example:

S1010215 1 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

That should be a 100% crop from an SL image taken and rendered at 24 MPx.

The Moire goes away when I take that sort of image with 39 MPx on a Phase One P45+ back.

 

scott

Edited November 10, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[robgo2]

There are many variables beyond the camera that are important in a total print workflow from capture to display. I can start with my M8.2, M10, MM1 or even iPhone and produce great prints... or mediocre prints... for many different reasons. Even considering camera, lens, editing software, printer, paper, inks, display lighting and more (including a worthy pic to start), the most important tools remain between the ears. How boring it would be if our gear produced the same results.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, everything that you say is true, but it simply reinforces my point. Great images can be produced from lower resolution sensors. However, sensor technology has improved significantly over the years, and there is a limit to the print quality that one can get from older, low MP cameras, especially if we're talking about 10 x ? or larger prints. For instance, I got some fine prints from my 10MP Pentax K10D back in the day, but they are not in the same league as what I now get from my SL and Q. Also, it should be noted that there is a bigger resolution difference between 10 and 24MP than there is between 24 and 42MP.

[Jeff S]

Jeff, everything that you say is true, but it simply reinforces my point. Great images can be produced from lower resolution sensors. However, sensor technology has improved significantly over the years, and there is a limit to the print quality that one can get from older, low MP cameras, especially if we're talking about 10 x ? or larger prints. For instance, I got some fine prints from my 10MP Pentax K10D back in the day, but they are not in the same league as what I now get from my SL and Q. Also, it should be noted that there is a bigger resolution difference between 10 and 24MP than there is between 24 and 42MP.

Indeed, but I was primarily responding to the comment that your friend wanted an M10 because he saw your prints. Maybe my post is better directed toward your friend.

 

Jeff

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you say that you see differences below 100% magnification, could you be more specific? For instance, even 50% magnification on a 42MP file is a very large image. How did the images compare when sized to fit on the 27 inch screen, which is larger than most of us ever print? Also, were the comparisons that you describe made with the exact same lens on both cameras? If not, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

Finally, what are the reasons that you require super-high resolution? My 10 to 13 inch prints from the SL and Q are gorgeous. I have a friend who is a truly superb photographer who could be showing in high end galleries, if he wanted to got to the trouble. He uses a Sony A7Rii, yet he continually raves about the quality of my prints. Partly because of his seeing the results from my cameras, he is now shopping for an M10 with its measly 24MP. 

 

For comparison I have used the same lens on two different cameras - 24/3.5 TSE II lens on 5D MkII (22 MP) and the same lens with Metabones adapter on my A7R (36 MP). Since the image resolutions of both images is obviously different, the magnification needed to fill the frame of the monitor screen is different - between 25-35%. Then I already see the effect of detailed structures as described in my earlier post. 

 

Reason for me to use high resolution are the following: First I love the better image resolution as lined out earlier in landscape but also in other fine-art based photography. Second, I do a lot of microscopy photography where better resolution of detailed structures at high magnification (> 100x) counts a lot. Where I don't need high resolution is exactly the area which is often mentioned here as reasonable: I never make large prints (with this I mean larger than 13x19"). 

 

For me the heart and the brain of any kind of digital camera are the sensor and the image processor. This is what I am willing to pay for when upgrading at some point to a new camera - other bells and whistles like AF, fps, etc are secondary for me. But again - I am not an event/wedding shooter where a camera would need to fulfill different requirements. 

 

High resolution is not everything - I shoot a lot of film (large and small format), but 35 mm film in situations where the B&W film latitude, contrast or other film-specific property outweighs high digital resolution. But for digital - high resolution and high DR it is for me at least. 

[mgrayson3]

This was taken with a 90-280 zoom at 200mm f/3.3 on a TL2.  That sensor has a pixel density of 54MP on FF or 84MP on an S-sized sensor (here's hoping!). The higher pixel density does not cure aliasing.

 

 

Best,

 

Matt (who would happily have a 54MP SL or 84MP S. I'm not arguing against resolution!)

[thighslapper]

presumably larger resolution sensors don't eliminate moire ...... they just reduce the pitch of the lines in the subject that will cause it ...... so it would still appear in the images above ..... just at an increased distance from the subject. 

 

if Doug takes his pictures from much further away does he still get the problem ..... ??? ..... or are we beyond the resolving power of most lenses to produce sharp enough images to cause it ????

 

(the explanations I have found on the internet are a bit hard to follow .....)

Edited November 10, 2017 by thighslapper

[robgo2]

Indeed, but I was primarily responding to the comment that your friend wanted an M10 because he saw your prints. Maybe my post is better directed toward your friend.

 

Jeff

 

I can assure you that my friend's editing and printing skills are exceedingly high, and he uses the same printer that I use--an Epson P800. For whatever reason, he seems to be experiencing a bit of Leica lust at the moment. Maybe he'll get over it.

Edited November 10, 2017 by robgo2

[Jeff S]

Either GAS or maybe he admires your photo/print skills.

 

Jeff

[wildlightphoto]

presumably larger resolution sensors don't eliminate moire ...... they just reduce the pitch of the lines in the subject that will cause it ...... so it would still appear in the images above ..... just at an increased distance from the subject. 

 

if Doug takes his pictures from much further away does he still get the problem ..... ??? ..... or are we beyond the resolving power of most lenses to produce sharp enough images to cause it ????

 

 

If I take pictures from farther away I don't get as much detail in my prints.  Oversampling (i.e., collecting more data than the lens can resolve) solves the problem.  This means more MP for a given sensor surface area.

[wildlightphoto]

This was taken with a 90-280 zoom at 200mm f/3.3 on a TL2.  That sensor has a pixel density of 54MP on FF or 84MP on an S-sized sensor (here's hoping!). The higher pixel density does not cure aliasing.

 

 

Correct, it does not cure aliasing, but it reduces the number of situations where it will be a problem.  The a7RII's 42MP doesn't cure aliasing either but it reduces it to a manageable level.  Or instead of using a Leica APO lens I could use a Canon L lens, problem solved.

[robgo2]

Either GAS or maybe he admires your photo/print skills.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, he does like my work, which gives my ego a boost, as he is a much better photographer than I and does not hand out compliments freely.