Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

But it does. More so than what marketing metrics make it sound. It's not a case of adding a small amount more onto the image, it's creating more detail within the image and the more you have the better. You work with the best you have or your budget can allow.

 

The difference between 24MP - 50MP is a significant and noticeable amount more detail.

 

But sure, the more the better. This is why the 100 backs are so successful and popular and why the pixel march didn't stop at 24MP.

 

If you can't justify the difference or don't care about it then that is your opinion and decision.

[IkarusJohn]

... If you can't justify the difference or don't care about it then that is your opinion and decision.

But it isn’t just “our” decision, is it? It’s Leica’s, along with dropping tethering, removing the video option, dropping the flash on the TL2.

 

Taking the package as a whole - coupled rangefinder, compact, traditional size, manual lenses, 60 year old mount ... it’s hardly surprising that the M digital cameras don’t push the boundaries in terms of pixel count when the benefits are so limited (by number). Someone commented on another thread (maybe it was here) that Leica is not interested in upping the pixel count til it can achieve 75MP - not sure if it’s true, but I see the logic; considerable technical challenge not worth undertaking until there is a real advantage.

 

I suspect at that stage, 75MP won’t be a huge achievement, but it will be significant. I wonder how much of the traditional M camera will be left at that point - I sorely doubt it will have the rangefinder from the M10 ...

[mls1483]

I do agree. Although resolution increases with the square root, a 42MP image shows more detail than a 24MP. It is noticable, but you need to enlarge the print.

[jaapv]

But it does. More so than what marketing metrics make it sound. It's not a case of adding a small amount more onto the image, it's creating more detail within the image and the more you have the better. You work with the best you have or your budget can allow.

 

The difference between 24MP - 50MP is a significant and noticeable amount more detail.

 

But sure, the more the better. This is why the 100 backs are so successful and popular and why the pixel march didn't stop at 24MP.

 

If you can't justify the difference or don't care about it then that is your opinion and decision-

But 24--> 50 MP is just a 1.4 time increase in linear resolution. For your purposes you would need a much higher jump, say 100 MP for the time being, which puts you firmly in the MF class.

[Paul J]

But it isn’t just “our” decision, is it? It’s Leica’s, along with dropping tethering, removing the video option, dropping the flash on the TL2.

 

Taking the package as a whole - coupled rangefinder, compact, traditional size, manual lenses, 60 year old mount ... it’s hardly surprising that the M digital cameras don’t push the boundaries in terms of pixel count when the benefits are so limited (by number). Someone commented on another thread (maybe it was here) that Leica is not interested in upping the pixel count til it can achieve 75MP - not sure if it’s true, but I see the logic; considerable technical challenge not worth undertaking until there is a real advantage.

 

I suspect at that stage, 75MP won’t be a huge achievement, but it will be significant. I wonder how much of the traditional M camera will be left at that point - I sorely doubt it will have the rangefinder from the M10 ...

 

Well the decision is still there to use another brand as I have done for my high resolution needs. I've given up on Leica mostly except for fun and certain things where I can make it work.

 

I don't disagree about the jump to 75MP being more significant but 24MP, is IMO too low in this current market for certain things.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Paul J

[jaapv]

I approach this differently. Instead of clamouring for unsuitable gear to be adapted to my personal purposes, I use gear suited to my needs. But that is just me...

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But 24--> 50 MP is just a 1.4 time increase in linear resolution. For your purposes you would need a much higher jump, say 100 MP for the time being, which puts you firmly in the MF class.

 

 

60MP has been great up until recent times for Large scale print. I use 100 a lot more now though.

 

But so long as we're talking about it, the difference between 24 and 50MP in a very large print is a significant and noticeable difference and more than what a mere 1.4x linear increase might suggest.

[Paul J]

I approach this differently. Instead of clamouring for unsuitable gear to be adapted to my personal purposes, I use gear suited to my needs. But that is just me...

 

I don't think you've got your reading glasses on today Jaap.

[IkarusJohn]

Well, the M camera presents a challenge, which I enjoy; the SL does everything written on the tin very well; and the TL2 fits in my bag and my pocket if needs be, so I’m covered very well with a single system allowing me to make the most of Leica’s fabulous lenses.

 

If I needed 100MP, which a very small group does, I’d also have a PhaseOne, and I’d be very happy and very rich as I must be making huge sums from my photography. Now, where’s my RED phone ...

[Paul J]

It's a great ecosystem and the SL has definitely made it better.

 

I have lots of cameras and a growing amount but my favourite remains my M. I accept it as what it is.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Paul J

[mls1483]

Well the decision is still there to use another brand as I have done for my high resolution needs. I've given up on Leica mostly except for fun and certain things where I can make it work.

 

I don't disagree about the jump to 75MP being more significant but 24MP, is IMO too low in this current market for certain things.

 

75MP will be a huge challenge for a rangefinder camera - and even more for the photographer behind it.

[Paul J]

75MP will be a huge challenge for a rangefinder camera - and even more for the photographer behind it.

 

 

75MP in the same rangefinder will be more of a challenge, yes.

 

But just personally, I've found that higher megapixel cameras are harder to shoot is a bit of a myth and easily overcome. It will become even more easily overcome as sensors improve.

[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.

 

Although there are many M lenses which deliver very high resolutions, there are also many which do not.

 

Sony claims that all their E-mount lenses were designed with 100MP in mind. However, most of them are far away from resolving even 42MP.

 

Overall we are still lens limited - but the new lenses coming out are very impressive indeed. The Voigtländer APO Macro Lanthar 65mm f/2 (E-mount) is a good example.

[mls1483]

75MP in the same rangefinder will be more of a challenge, yes.

 

But just personally, I've found that higher megapixel cameras are harder to shoot is a bit of a myth and easily overcome. It will become even more easily overcome as sensors improve.

 

Indeed, the SL or the Sony A7R2 is very easy to shoot with EVF and mganification. In fact, more reliable than the M: The shallow DOF of the Noctilux wide open is no problem at all. But you have to concentrate nonetheless, it is less forgiving, I think.

 

The M is so popular for street because it is often used with a WA lens. You can easily shoot a WA hyperfocal. 

[IkarusJohn]

75MP in the same rangefinder will be more of a challenge, yes.

 

But just personally, I've found that higher megapixel cameras are harder to shoot is a bit of a myth and easily overcome. It will become even more easily overcome as sensors improve.

 

 

Leaving aside your "myth" comment (I haven't held let alone shot a 100MP camera), what is the sensor issue you refer to?  My understanding of the focusing issue is that as the pixel size decreases, the image becomes more susceptible to motion blur (the shutter slap on both my A7R and D800e drove me to distraction).  Focusing errors remain a problem, but the logic of why this matters with increased resolution is a bit thin.

 

How will sensor improvements make focusing more reliable?  I don't understand your point.

[jaapv]

I don't think you've got your reading glasses on today Jaap.

Quite possibly, Paul. It wouldn't be the first time... I thought I read you wishing for a 50 MP M camera.

I wished for the Video option  to be retained; when it wasn't I didn't buy an M10, but a better Video-enabled Panasonic.

[Paul J]

Leaving aside your "myth" comment (I haven't held let alone shot a 100MP camera), what is the sensor issue you refer to?  My understanding of the focusing issue is that as the pixel size decreases, the image becomes more susceptible to motion blur (the shutter slap on both my A7R and D800e drove me to distraction).  Focusing errors remain a problem, but the logic of why this matters with increased resolution is a bit thin.

 

How will sensor improvements make focusing more reliable?  I don't understand your point.

 

 

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.

[Paul J]

Quite possibly, Paul. It wouldn't be the first time... I thought I read you wishing for a 50 MP M camera.

I wished for the Video option  to be retained; when it wasn't I didn't buy an M10, but a better Video-enabled Panasonic.

 

Well in fairness to you I have been tipping over tables about more pixels in an M for a long time so I'm not surprised you would expect I'm saying that.

 

Did you go for the GH5? one helluva camera.

 

But no, I'm still not over it and quite cranky at Leica about no video and no tethering in the M and while you're at it make it 50MP! 

[jaapv]

Overall we are still lens limited - but the new lenses coming out are very impressive indeed. The Voigtländer APO Macro Lanthar 65mm f/2 (E-mount) is a good example.

That is simply not true. This is not a weakest-link situation, as the resultant resolution is determined by a combination of lens resolution and sensor resolution, which are two different parameters.

 

Lens resolution is linked to (micro) contrast, sensor resolution is determined by geometry.

 

Lens resolution is defined by lp/mm at a given contrast level, thus varying from 1 lp/mm at contrast 1% to many hundreds of lp/mm @ 100% contrast. Sensor resolution is a fixed value.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Well in fairness to you I have been tipping over tables about more pixels in an M for a long time so I'm not surprised you would expect I'm saying that.

 

Did you go for the GH5? one helluva camera.

 

But no, I'm still not over it and quite cranky at Leica about no video and no tethering in the M and while you're at it make it 50MP! 

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.