Pass by 24 megapixel pleas

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I keep my response short here - I can say from my personal experience that the resolution difference between the 22 MP sensor in my 5D MkII is very obvious compared to the 36 MP sensor in my A7R. It was at the time the main reason I switched from Canon to Sony - due to the better sensor with more resolution. I never looked back since. 

 

So yes, I wish Leica also offered a high resolution FF sensor based camera (best for me to be in the M series). It is just a matter of time before this will happen since many manufacturers offer already above 40 MP FF resolution cameras these days. 

[BernardC]

I can say from my personal experience that the resolution difference between the 22 MP sensor in my 5D MkII is very obvious compared to the 36 MP sensor in my A7R.. 

 

The 5D2 has a very strong anti-aliasing filter. The difference between that camera and the 24 MP SL is also obvious, with the same lenses.

[wildlightphoto]

The 5D2 has a very strong anti-aliasing filter. The difference between that camera and the 24 MP SL is also obvious, with the same lenses.

 

 

The difference between the SL's 24MP without AA filter and the a7RII's 42MP without AA filter is also obvious with the same lenses.

[robgo2]

The difference between the SL's 24MP without AA filter and the a7RII's 42MP without AA filter is also obvious with the same lenses.

 

I think it should be made clear that the difference between 24MP and 42MP is only evident with pixel peeping at 100%. This translates into printing at very large sizes and/or cropping severely. At "normal" sizes, one would be hard pressed to see any advantage to the higher MP count.

[jaapv]

Yes, but Doug has a moiré problem, which shows up at any magnification. A higher pixel count is not really about more detail. Nobody can tell by a finished photograph whether detail has been obliterated, except in a direct comparison.

It is about microcontrast and aliasing.

[IkarusJohn]

Not quite - higher pixel count is entirely about more detail - hence Doug's moiré problem.  To be frank, Doug's particular needs are not really generally representative of Leica's customer base.  I have no doubt, though, that when higher pixel counts become technically easier, Leica will move to more MP like everyone else, but no one other than Doug, heavy croppers and pixel peepers will notice.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The TL2 (and probably the CL) at 24 MPx puts pressure on to move the SL up to a denser sensor, just to have something for everyone fresh in the product line.  But having to decide whether to move the S line up in capability first could make the decision harder and take longer.  Of course, Leica management may not think like ordinary product planners.  Perhaps direction comes from consulting an Essentials Oracle, and unless we inhale the same fumes, how can we predict what will come?

[Jeff S]

(Follow-up to John's post)...

 

And folks who print large.

 

For those who don't print, or pixel peep, an iPhone generally produces sufficient IQ.

 

Camera choices these days for me mostly relate to ergonomics, viewing and focusing, control interface and lens line. IQ has been good enough for some time for worthy pics, specialty photography aside. At least for me.

 

Jeff

Edited November 9, 2017 by Jeff S

[pico]

The higher the pixel count, the lesser the need for an anti-aliasing filter.

[LD_50]

I don’t see the TL2 or CL at equal resolution to the SL putting any pressure on the SL or S systems other than for (poorly done) marketing.

 

When I shot Nikon FX and DX, equal resolution would have been preferred between the systems. That way I get very similar images from each and I can choose based upon lenses, noise, DR, FOV and DOF requirements rather than output size.

[wildlightphoto]

Not quite - higher pixel count is entirely about more detail - hence Doug's moiré problem.  To be frank, Doug's particular needs are not really generally representative of Leica's customer base.  I have no doubt, though, that when higher pixel counts become technically easier, Leica will move to more MP like everyone else, but no one other than Doug, heavy croppers and pixel peepers will notice.

 

 

I would think that photographs with woven fabric would show the same problems.

[jaapv]

Not quite - higher pixel count is entirely about more detail - hence Doug's moiré problem.  To be frank, Doug's particular needs are not really generally representative of Leica's customer base.  I have no doubt, though, that when higher pixel counts become technically easier, Leica will move to more MP like everyone else, but no one other than Doug, heavy croppers and pixel peepers will notice.

Yes, of course, you will get more detail with a higher pixel count. But my point is that a viewer will never know how much detail was present in the first place, hence not miss it, unless you present a comparison image.

[jaapv]

I would think that photographs with woven fabric would show the same problems.

They do, but it is easier to mask in postprocessing.

[IkarusJohn]

I would think that photographs with woven fabric would show the same problems.

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 ...

[Martin B]

I think it should be made clear that the difference between 24MP and 42MP is only evident with pixel peeping at 100%. This translates into printing at very large sizes and/or cropping severely. At "normal" sizes, one would be hard pressed to see any advantage to the higher MP count.

 

Here I have to contradict - this statement is not true. I can see the difference on my 27" monitor easily below 100% magnification. It becomes obvious when looking at landscape photos and details in leaves, branches, trees. For portraits, it becomes very obvious when looking at face details at a bit higher magnification - 22 MP have zigzag lines whereas it remains smooth with 36 MP and above. 

 

I heard the same line of arguing in 2012 when Canon refused to compete in the high MP FF sensor area. Canon fanboys in forums all stated that more than 22 MP is not needed or only in special cases for printing large. And then more of them started switching to Nikon/Sony or later bought a 5DsR.....now most shoot with high MP sensors. It does make a difference - only case you won't see it much is for websize images. 

 

Regarding AA filter which was also mentioned in earlier comments: the lack of it DOES NOT create a lot more moire effects. It is another myth/excuse for low res sensors which isn't right. I had the AA filter removed when converting my 5D MkII to infrared, and gained some slight resolution increase - but I only once seen a moire effect with a bridge scaffold which I photographed in IR light. It was only visible at one magnification on screen and not on the print. With my A7R which also has no AA filter, I never had any issues so far regarding moire patterns. 

 

So my point is - many no-sayers to high MP FF sensors will be the first to upgrade when Leica makes one available. Especially newer Leica lenses easily outresolve the sensors which Leica currently uses in their digital cameras. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Martin B

[sillbeers15]

All things must be considered in perspective. Whatever it my be related to technology or investment, an important yardstick is the rate of return. Importantly is the returns to the more than 24mp will not be linear. Likely at 80/20 rule. So it goes the same for the next SL, say it is 50MP and fast but sells at $50k per piece. Will that work for you??? If your answer is a strong yes. Then there will be no doubt that the more pixel the merrier. Btw you should be able to flag down a Ferrari taxi any where on earth then, but be sure your credit card is sufficient to pay for your ride.

[Martin B]

All things must be considered in perspective. Whatever it my be related to technology or investment, an important yardstick is the rate of return. Importantly is the returns to the more than 24mp will not be linear. Likely at 80/20 rule. So it goes the same for the next SL, say it is 50MP and fast but sells at $50k per piece. Will that work for you??? If your answer is a strong yes. Then there will be no doubt that the more pixel the merrier. Btw you should be able to flag down a Ferrari taxi any where on earth then, but be sure your credit card is sufficient to pay for your ride.

 

$3K is my personal limit which I am willing to invest into any kind of new digital camera these days - so Leica is likely out of reach for me anyway. But for this price I am already getting the 5DsR with 50 MP and the A7R II with 42 MP and high low ISO DR. Return of investment is a good point - I am not a professional, so I normally jump over two digital camera generations at least every time before I consider buying a new one. Main reason that prices for advanced cameras started rising is less caused by the better sensor technology used but more so due to lower demand in cameras in general - manufacturers make up with higher price tags for a single camera because they sell less of them (in addition to the reason that Sony currently has a monopoly for FF mirrorless cameras in the given price range, too). 

[mgrayson3]

 

Regarding AA filter which was also mentioned in earlier comments: the lack of it DOES NOT create a lot more moire effects. It is another myth/excuse for low res sensors which isn't right. 

 

Here's a myth for you: Leica M9 (18MP). Not seen in 10 years with a Canon 1DsII (16MP)

 

[Martin B]

 

Here's a myth for you: Leica M9 (18MP). Not seen in 10 years with a Canon 1DsII (16MP)

 

 

Extreme example of fabric based moire effect . I had a few similar cases like this seen on my regular 5D MkII sensor with AA filter, too. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Martin B

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[robgo2]

Here I have to contradict - this statement is not true. I can see the difference on my 27" monitor easily below 100% magnification. It becomes obvious when looking at landscape photos and details in leaves, branches, trees. For portraits, it becomes very obvious when looking at face details at a bit higher magnification - 22 MP have zigzag lines whereas it remains smooth with 36 MP and above. 

 

I heard the same line of arguing in 2012 when Canon refused to compete in the high MP FF sensor area. Canon fanboys in forums all stated that more than 22 MP is not needed or only in special cases for printing large. And then more of them started switching to Nikon/Sony or later bought a 5DsR.....now most shoot with high MP sensors. It does make a difference - only case you won't see it much is for websize images. 

 

Regarding AA filter which was also mentioned in earlier comments: the lack of it DOES NOT create a lot more moire effects. It is another myth/excuse for low res sensors which isn't right. I had the AA filter removed when converting my 5D MkII to infrared, and gained some slight resolution increase - but I only once seen a moire effect with a bridge scaffold which I photographed in IR light. It was only visible at one magnification on screen and not on the print. With my A7R which also has no AA filter, I never had any issues so far regarding moire patterns. 

 

So my point is - many no-sayers to high MP FF sensors will be the first to upgrade when Leica makes one available. Especially newer Leica lenses easily outresolve the sensors which Leica currently uses in their digital cameras. 

 

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.