Why not more pixels in the M camera?/ 36 MP {merged}

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=leica_m10&attr13_2=hasselblad_x1d&attr13_3=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8628009090398695&y=0.17910054674927467

Jaapv - I know I've asked this before, but have you ever used the higher pixel count 35mm cameras in any serious manner? I only ask because some of your replies just don't line up with my experience, and I wonder what actual experience you're bringing. It would be helpful to know this, because it could be a different perception of the same thing, but as someone who uses both the M10 and multiple Sony models side by side, often in the same shoots, I just think a lot of these points presented are just not reflective of my experience. The notion that a medium format sensor, for instance, is the default way to go when one needs more resolution disregards the benefit of the high res 35mm sensors - mainly the fact that they are 90% as good in many cases and offer much more flexibility in use, lens choice etc.

 

Assuming equivalent exposures and ISO, in my opinion there is a greater visible difference between an M10 and Sony A7RII print at a medium size than there is a Sony A7RII and a Pentax 645Z/X1D print. When you go MF, you give up some things that 35mm gives, and it doesn't always make sense to give that up. It depends on the work you do of course, but the 36-42mp sensors definitely occupy a sweet spot of robust files that yield good prints past past 24 inches - upto 50 or 60 inches depending on technique - (and exposure latitude) with a portable and faster, more flexible way of working. 

[jaapv]

Jaapv - I know I've asked this before, but have you ever used the higher pixel count 35mm cameras in any serious manner? I only ask because some of your replies just don't line up with my experience, and I wonder what actual experience you're bringing. It would be helpful to know this, because it could be a different perception of the same thing, but as someone who uses both the M10 and multiple Sony models side by side, often in the same shoots, I just think a lot of these points presented are just not reflective of my experience. The notion that a medium format sensor, for instance, is the default way to go when one needs more resolution disregards the benefit of the high res 35mm sensors - mainly the fact that they are 90% as good in many cases and offer much more flexibility in use, lens choice etc.

 

Assuming equivalent exposures and ISO, in my opinion there is a greater visible difference between an M10 and Sony A7RII print at a medium size than there is a Sony A7RII and a Pentax 645Z/X1D print. When you go MF, you give up some things that 35mm gives, and it doesn't always make sense to give that up. It depends on the work you do of course, but the 36-42mp sensors definitely occupy a sweet spot of robust files that yield good prints past past 24 inches - upto 50 or 60 inches depending on technique - (and exposure latitude) with a portable and faster, more flexible way of working. 

Yes, a D850, but up to A3 I could not really see an effect that could be ascribed to resolution. I did see better sensor behaviour compared to the M240, but I think the cause was the use of a back-lit sensorincreasing DR  and the fact that the more telecentric lenses allowed a different sensor design regarding the microlenses, giving less crosstalk and thus better microcontrast.

[pgk]

FWIW, my business partner has one of these 36MPixel Nikons. Currently we print up to nearly 30" x 20" for our Gallery from files from a variety of cameras including M9s, A7IIs, 5DIIs and his Nikons. Even at this print size there is indistinguishable technical differences in the prints - confirmed by the fact that we sell them based on image content and not, surprisingly to some here maybe, on what camera they were shot on. Larger prints have not been requested, probably because they require vast wall space to display. So from a purely practical point of view more MPixels aren't of substantial interest to us. I would trade opportunities and light for MPixels any day.

 

And on the idea that in camera stabilisation is needed for higher density, smaller, pixels in small high MPixel cameras, I'm extremely dubious because there are an enormous number of factors which influence what is recorded by the sensor. Just like target shooting (if I can bring such a topic in - I used to shoot precision small-bore many decades ago), there are ways of holding and operating a camera to minimise its motion. Learning to hold a camera correctly and breathe properly whilst squeezing the shutter release smoothly and cleanly can only help even if using stabilisation. The vast majority of my images are handheld and as crisp as could be desired. I see no significant difference using stabilisation on the A7II than not doing so in most images and find that using it is not a foolproof way of dealing with camera motion although it can help.

[mdemeyer]

+1

 

.... prefer a thin...

 

Good point. Lets not forget the high priority given by M users to have a digital body of the same thickness as the film M's. Well, we got it, thanks Leica Designers and Engineers, and I for one are happy with any other 'features' negated by this move. The 'back to the essentials' theme was very appealing and the sensor size sits well with this.

[lct]

Curious reluctance about IBIS here. Not everybody has steady hands and higher stutter speeds are not always available either. Nailing focus is more difficult with high res cameras of course and i don't see the point of buying expensive lenses to get blurry results at the end of the day. 

[jaapv]

Well, the point is obviously that as long as motion blur is confined to the diameter of the sensel (pixel), it will not be recorded. The smaller the sensel, the smaller the non-recorded motion blur.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not reluctance, I just don't find it useful. I have it on the A7II and it works ok, but if I'm honest I don't think it often helps much - in my experience.

[lct]

Well, the point is obviously that as long as motion blur is confined to the diameter of the sensel (pixel), it will not be recorded. The smaller the sensel, the smaller the non-recorded motion blur.

 

I have not the least idea about that but i do need IBIS when i use the A7r2 of my office and i have steady hands for an old fart.

[LocalHero1953]

IS and higher resolution would be nice, but neither are necessary for me, and there are consequences (larger files, or a larger body and heat dissipation requirements) that I would rather not have.

Sure, storage is cheap, and I am often upgrading my PC to cope with higher PP demands, but I don't want the hassle of doubling or more my storage and RAM, and increasing my backup speed when I don't need the pixels. 

I like IS on the SL, but I don't want to compromise battery life and body size on the M or CL.

If those problems can be solved, let's have both.

IMO the SL is where these technical features should be.

[Martin B]

Jaapv - I know I've asked this before, but have you ever used the higher pixel count 35mm cameras in any serious manner? I only ask because some of your replies just don't line up with my experience, and I wonder what actual experience you're bringing. It would be helpful to know this, because it could be a different perception of the same thing, but as someone who uses both the M10 and multiple Sony models side by side, often in the same shoots, I just think a lot of these points presented are just not reflective of my experience. The notion that a medium format sensor, for instance, is the default way to go when one needs more resolution disregards the benefit of the high res 35mm sensors - mainly the fact that they are 90% as good in many cases and offer much more flexibility in use, lens choice etc.

 

Assuming equivalent exposures and ISO, in my opinion there is a greater visible difference between an M10 and Sony A7RII print at a medium size than there is a Sony A7RII and a Pentax 645Z/X1D print. When you go MF, you give up some things that 35mm gives, and it doesn't always make sense to give that up. It depends on the work you do of course, but the 36-42mp sensors definitely occupy a sweet spot of robust files that yield good prints past past 24 inches - upto 50 or 60 inches depending on technique - (and exposure latitude) with a portable and faster, more flexible way of working. 

 

+1: Nothing to add here from my side, fully agree!

[01af]

Motion blur has only an indirect correlation to resolution. It has to do with pixel size. A higher resolution on a larger sensor will not lead to more motion blur, a higher resolution on the same size sensor will.

That's just nonsense.

 

The same motion during the same exposure time on the same-size sensor will lead to the same motion blur—regardless of the pixel count.

 

 

Well, the point is obviously that as long as motion blur is confined to the diameter of the sensel (pixel), it will not be recorded.

 

That's a common misconception which leads to all kinds of silly myths with regard to things like motion blur, diffraction blur, lens performance limits, depth-of-field, etc.

Edited February 6, 2018 by 01af

[jaapv]

And , pray, what is the misconception?

If the amount of motion blur is less than the size of one pixel, it will be recorded by one pixel and not be resolved. If it is larger than one pixel and thus activates more than one, it will be.

What has this to do with all the other concepts you mention?

[01af]

If the amount of motion blur is less than the size of one pixel, it will not be recorded.

And that's just plain wrong.

 

Just try it if you don't understand it. For better control, replace motion blur by out-of-focus blur—shoot something at infinity with the lens focused just short of infinity so that the circles of confusion's diameter for infinity is just short of the pixel pitch. Compare to a shot with proper infinity focus.

 

According to your theory, both shots should be the same apparent sharpness.

[jaapv]

Out-of focus blur is a gradient, motion blur a defined length. Different things.

[frame-it]

and its a defined length with different directions based on the objects

Out-of focus blur is a gradient, motion blur a defined length. Different things.

[01af]

Out-of focus blur is a gradient, motion blur a defined length. Different things.

 

Different things for sure, but both will affect image sharpness even at sub-pixel size.

 

Of course, the loss of sharpness caused by sub-pixel motion (or sub-pixel confusion) will be minuscule, and usually negligible for any practical intents and purposes. But upon close inspection at 100 % or 200 % view, it will be clearly visible.

 

By the way, some people also believe by the same misguided logic that pixels cannot record details which are smaller than one single pixel—which also is a misconception, and easy enough to prove.

 

[jaapv]

Of course they can record details smaller than a pixel, what they cannot record is a linepair smaller than a pixel.

[harmen]

Motion blur has only an indirect correlation to resolution. It has to do with pixel size. A higher resolution on a larger sensor will not lead to more motion blur, a higher resolution on the same size sensor will.

If this were the case, phone cameras would not get beyond 1MP. For the same angle of view, i.e., the same image being recorded, the physical size of the sensor plays no role. The only factor is resolution.

 

Even then, it should matter little when looking at a full print. Imagine (literally) taking the same photo, with the same amount of shaking with a 12mp and a 48mp sensor. Would motion blur look worse when printing the 48mp photo? Say the motion is just enough to cause a smear of one pixel wide on the 12mp. That means 2 in the 48mp. However, it’s the same amount of movement across the image in both cases. At a pixel level the motion is more visible, but is it at the full image size?

[01af]

Say the motion is just enough to cause a smear of one pixel wide on the 12 MP sensor. That means two pixels in the 48 MP sensor. However, it’s the same amount of movement across the image in both cases. At a pixel level the motion is more visible, but is it at the full image size?

No, of course not. When looking at the whole picture (at the same print size) then the impression of (minuscule) motion blur would be exactly the same in both cases. And the point is—it also would look the same in a picture from a 6 MP sensor (when printed to the same size again), even though the motion covers less than one pixel here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I find it very hard to understand how one pixel could be able to differentiate between a pinpoint dot and a stripe that is smaller than itself.