Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nikon’s D5 is 20.8mp. Sony’s A9 is 24.2mp. Canon’s 1 DX II is 20.2mp.

 

The flagship models of thee marquee makers all have their resolutions at not more than 24mp. That should be telling. Some possible explanations: (1) higher MP counts entail other compromises, either in IQ or elsewhere; (2) higher MP counts is good marketing for the consumer market and nothing more; (3) the product lifecycle of the pro models is long and MP chasing is not viable.

 

Personally, I’d rather manufacturers to work on tangile IQ gains rather than chasing numbers. Fullframe has come a long way in many areas of IQ but tonality wise they still haven’t caught up with where medium format digital was 10-15 years ago at lower ISOs. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the tonality of the DMR (which really is a shrunken medium format back, being truly 16 bit and all) is yet surpassed.

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

Nikon’s D5 is 20.8mp. Sony’s A9 is 24.2mp. Canon’s 1 DX II is 20.2mp.

 

The flagship models of thee marquee makers all have their resolutions at not more than 24mp. That should be telling. Some possible explanations: (1) higher MP counts entail other compromises, either in IQ or elsewhere; (2) higher MP counts is good marketing for the consumer market and nothing more; (3) the product lifecycle of the pro models is long and MP chasing is not viable.

 

Personally, I’d rather manufacturers to work on tangile IQ gains rather than chasing numbers. Fullframe has come a long way in many areas of IQ but tonality wise they still haven’t caught up with where medium format digital was 10-15 years ago at lower ISOs. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the tonality of the DMR (which really is a shrunken medium format back, being truly 16 bit and all) is yet surpassed.

The cameras you listed are flagships for processing speed. They are not the flagships for IQ.

 

They are limited in resolution to allow for high fps shooting.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Nikon’s D5 is 20.8mp. Sony’s A9 is 24.2mp. Canon’s 1 DX II is 20.2mp.

 

The flagship models of thee marquee makers all have their resolutions at not more than 24mp. That should be telling. Some possible explanations: (1) higher MP counts entail other compromises, either in IQ or elsewhere; (2) higher MP counts is good marketing for the consumer market and nothing more; (3) the product lifecycle of the pro models is long and MP chasing is not viable.

 

Personally, I’d rather manufacturers to work on tangile IQ gains rather than chasing numbers. Fullframe has come a long way in many areas of IQ but tonality wise they still haven’t caught up with where medium format digital was 10-15 years ago at lower ISOs. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the tonality of the DMR (which really is a shrunken medium format back, being truly 16 bit and all) is yet surpassed.

 

This is exactly right.

1. Higher megapixel count equals smaller pixels equals higher noise to signal ratio. That's the compromise.

2. Doubling megapixel count does not mean 100% gain in resolution on a print. On the other hand, looking at a printof any size  from a comfortable looking distance (which is a distance allowing seeing the whole print without turning a head, or moving eyes from side to side) for any person with 20/20 vision will not discriminate between 24mpix and anything higher than that.

3. As all pro photographers understand this 24 megapixel limitation of a human eye, they do not fall for this gimmick and more interested in other usability features like body integrity, weather sealing, wifi/bluetooth remote control capability, etc.

[Irakly Shanidze]

The cameras you listed are flagships for processing speed. They are not the flagships for IQ.

 

They are limited in resolution to allow for high fps shooting.

Once again, there is no gain in image quality beyond 24mpix on a print. The only thing that really matters is a sensor size.

I have a 25mpix full frame 645 back and can clearly see the difference between 24mpix 35mm photo and 25mpix medium format. The difference is not in the amount of detail, but in plasticity of the image.

[mmradman]

Nikon’s D5 is 20.8mp. Sony’s A9 is 24.2mp. Canon’s 1 DX II is 20.2mp.

The flagship models of thee marquee makers all have their resolutions at not more than 24mp. That should be telling. Some possible explanations: (1) higher MP counts entail other compromises, either in IQ or elsewhere; (2) higher MP counts is good marketing for the consumer market and nothing more; (3) the product lifecycle of the pro models is long and MP chasing is not viable.

Personally, I’d rather manufacturers to work on tangile IQ gains rather than chasing numbers. Fullframe has come a long way in many areas of IQ but tonality wise they still haven’t caught up with where medium format digital was 10-15 years ago at lower ISOs. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the tonality of the DMR (which really is a shrunken medium format back, being truly 16 bit and all) is yet surpassed.

Telling what, that you sound just like another brand apologist. All three flagship cameras you listed are optimised for speed and high ISO, bear in mind that all three manufacturers also have 40+ Mp models optimised for resolution but increasingly speed as well. If you really want to see what latest digital camera can do I suggest you visit nearest shop and demo D850, maybe even Sony A7Riii, bit I am not fan of Sony.

 

If you are into video how about 4K utilising full frame sensor (no APS-C cropping), again check What D850 can offer.

 

Don’t take me wrong I am very happy with my 24Mp SL used in single shot mode affording only slow focus with my manual lens. But let’s be fair to those who r3ally need or want higher Mp camera or next refinement, bring it on Leica, give us moderate and high high Mp count options in full frame as your lenses deserve it. While you are at it consider firmware update to provide compressed lossless raw, maybe focus stacking similar to D850 or Pentax K1, how about dedicated flash system like Canon and Nikon. How about some long anticipated L mount primes and wide zoom.

Edited October 30, 2017 by mmradman

[mmradman]

Once again, there is no gain in image quality beyond 24mpix on a print. The only thing that really matters is a sensor size.

I have a 25mpix full frame 645 back and can clearly see the difference between 24mpix 35mm photo and 25mpix medium format. The difference is not in the amount of detail, but in plasticity of the image.

Assuming 300dpi what size print?

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Once again, there is no gain in image quality beyond 24mpix on a print. The only thing that really matters is a sensor size.

I have a 25mpix full frame 645 back and can clearly see the difference between 24mpix 35mm photo and 25mpix medium format. The difference is not in the amount of detail, but in plasticity of the image.

I don’t agree that there is no advantage to exceeding 24mp in print. At the same print size, downsizing the larger resolution images negates much of the pixel level noise advantage seen with lower resolution cameras.

 

At larger print sizes the difference can be quite obvious.

[pico]

The difference is not in the amount of detail, but in plasticity of the image.

 

What is 'plasticity'?

[Reciprocity]

3. As all pro photographers understand this 24 megapixel limitation of a human eye, they do not fall for this gimmick and more interested in other usability features like body integrity, weather sealing, wifi/bluetooth remote control capability, etc.

I really enjoy conversations about all aspects of photography and when the context of opinions is kept in check, people are generally more open to exploring them, myself included.

 

But when I go about my daily life as a photographer and see real tangible differences in prints, ads, large format interactive digital displays and especially large output decorative art for corporate clients when using cameras like the D850 and HD5-50c, I just can’t even begin to fathom how anyone can toss out absolutes like this one after the other.

 

You have your opinions based on your specific experience. I don’t think it is fair or even accurate to say the things you do when the whole of the photography world and indivudual needs and wants is now more diverse than ever.

 

The person who originally posted this topic is well within his or her right to want what they do. Why beat them and the rest of us over the head with your size fits all statements as some form of universal fact?

 

It’s one thing to share experiences and opinions. It’s another to be a burden and degrade the mutual respect that should come with the territory in moving such discussions along.

[Irakly Shanidze]

I really enjoy conversations about all aspects of photography and when the context of opinions is kept in check, people are generally more open to exploring them, myself included.

 

But when I go about my daily life as a photographer and see real tangible differences in prints, ads, large format interactive digital displays and especially large output decorative art for corporate clients when using cameras like the D850 and HD5-50c, I just can’t even begin to fathom how anyone can toss out absolutes like this one after the other.

 

 

If I remember correctly, H5D is medium format. As to D850, I have yet to see a print, which will convince me. Doing this quite successfully for more that 20 years makes me rely on my own opinion more than on anything, when it comes to photography. Like I said before, I am not coercing anyone into taking my side, just expressing my opinion and share my knowledge based on, as you rightfully noted, my specific experience ranging from shooting portraits for private clients to doing rather complex projects for multinational corporations. 

 

If something as inconsequential as my opinions and ways to express them degrade your respect, maybe it would be more constructive to work on its integrity then to accuse me of things?

[lx1713]

...

 

But if you want to keep smoking and getting high off the thought that the new D850 paired with top shelf glass is somehow inferior to either your SL system or several medium format systems in terms of going big for clients who need seriously big for POP displays and corporate decor, keep right on inhaling sir. 

..

In general, I do agree with your perspective but I think in weighing the effective difference in quality between 35mm systems and MF systems, it is generally not an efficient workflow to go for 50mp 35mm system rather than a 50mp MF.

 

The D850 is a great camera but when it comes to sheer image quality, is it better than a mf digital system?

 

Here, I'm not saying there's no place for a high mp 35mm system. I do want a higher mp SL to exist because of edge cases where resolution, great optics and great colours are needed but a MF is just too cumbersome. Where that extra image quality of MF 16 bit files cannot be appreciated or even reproduced.

 

With a 24mp, I am simply choosing; it does 99% of what my clients can appreciate. A better and simpler life. Less consumed with time wastage.

 

If I have a 50mp camera, the tendency is to capture at 50mp as a standard. That time lost becomes an unseen cost. My personal approach is not to juggle cameras but to juggle workflows where workflows are different time disciplines impact the outcome needed. Like it or not, to be comparable in image quality, a D850 and an S MF camera have the same time disciplines particularly because high quality corporate and commercial colour workflow needs the same setup in lights, production time, post, etc. OTH I have a sympathy for a smooth photographer-client interaction that MF may not deliver.

 

With regards to POP displays and corporate decor, in my experience, resolution is certainly sufficient. But the machines that produce these are not high end colour printers. They don't reproduce museum quality prints where sharpening and colour tuning are done at print stage, not at the photographer level. Not knowing your market, I'm just offering a perspective not to deny yours.

[lx1713]

 of edge cases where resolution, great optics and great colours are needed but a MF is just too cumbersome

 

My mention of edge cases : of course, if 90% of my work is in that arena, I'd pick a D850. That's the domain of a specialist after all.

Edited October 30, 2017 by lx1713

[wildlightphoto]

If I remember correctly, H5D is medium format. As to D850, I have yet to see a print, which will convince me. Doing this quite successfully for more that 20 years makes me rely on my own opinion more than on anything, when it comes to photography. Like I said before, I am not coercing anyone into taking my side, just expressing my opinion and share my knowledge based on, as you rightfully noted, my specific experience ranging from shooting portraits for private clients to doing rather complex projects for multinational corporations. 

 

If something as inconsequential as my opinions and ways to express them degrade your respect, maybe it would be more constructive to work on its integrity then to accuse me of things?

 

 

I suppose my 45+ years of experience pales in comparison with your 20 years.

[Irakly Shanidze]

I suppose my 45+ years of experience pales in comparison with your 20 years.

 

I think we've discussed your special case already. I totally agree with you about moire on feathers.

[wildlightphoto]

I think we've discussed your special case already. I totally agree with you about moire on feathers.

 

 

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.

[cpclee]

I can’t stand the “house look” of Nikon, Sony etc. What I think of when I see their files is the same thing I think of when I taste margarine: I want my butter. I understand this is totally subjective and you don’t have to agree with me.

 

Personally I stopped caring about resolutions when we hit 18mp or so. If I move up from my SL it will be for tonality and not resolution, and it would be for the S and not any full frame cameras which I consider, no offense, to be a down grade from the SL in this respect.

 

 

Telling what, that you sound just like another brand apologist. All three flagship cameras you listed are optimised for speed and high ISO, bear in mind that all three manufacturers also have 40+ Mp models optimised for resolution but increasingly speed as well. If you really want to see what latest digital camera can do I suggest you visit nearest shop and demo D850, maybe even Sony A7Riii, bit I am not fan of Sony.

If you are into video how about 4K utilising full frame sensor (no APS-C cropping), again check What D850 can offer.

Don’t take me wrong I am very happy with my 24Mp SL used in single shot mode affording only slow focus with my manual lens. But let’s be fair to those who r3ally need or want higher Mp camera or next refinement, bring it on Leica, give us moderate and high high Mp count options in full frame as your lenses deserve it. While you are at it consider firmware update to provide compressed lossless raw, maybe focus stacking similar to D850 or Pentax K1, how about dedicated flash system like Canon and Nikon. How about some long anticipated L mount primes and wide zoom.

[Reciprocity]

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.

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.

[wildlightphoto]

I can’t stand the “house look” of Nikon, Sony etc. What I think of when I see their files is the same thing I think of when I taste margarine: I want my butter. I understand this is totally subjective and you don’t have to agree with me.

 

Personally I stopped caring about resolutions when we hit 18mp or so. If I move up from my SL it will be for tonality and not resolution, and it would be for the S and not any full frame cameras which I consider, no offense, to be a down grade from the SL in this respect.

 

 

 

 

If you had a use for higher resolution, wouldn't you prefer the images retained the SL's look?  Personally I'd be delighted to have the option of using a 40+ MP SL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[cpclee]

I’m not saying the option of having 40+mp wouldn’t be great, just that isn’t the direction of biggest improvement for me, personally. But I can see that being important to others.

 

If you had a use for higher resolution, wouldn't you prefer the images retained the SL's look?  Personally I'd be delighted to have the option of using a 40+ MP SL.

[lx1713]

If you had a use for higher resolution, wouldn't you prefer the images retained the SL's look?  Personally I'd be delighted to have the option of using a 40+ MP SL.

 

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?