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

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for posting the video. At 3:15 he admits a major flaw in his argument, not using a magnifying glass.

This is a full disgrace. Without using magnifying glasses you could as well shoot with your mobile phone and the result on the iPad is stunning. By no means should you try to change to the 100% view. As a consequence you can say that the iPhone X is as good as the M10. Isn‘t this frustrating? And the rendering of the colors of the iPhone is so near the Codakchrome. :-)

Edited February 13, 2018 by Alex U.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

A magnifying glass? Seriously? Come on; you can buy variable zoom dissecting microscopes for a proper scrutiny of prints quite cheaply these days.

[Tailwagger]

Not to be contrarian, but the evidence presented for claiming 125dpi is sufficient for printing failed to account for one very important variable. Paper. Not all are created equal, nor react to ink in the same way.  It would be interesting to see something similar carried out across a range of papers (and other materials).   

[TG14]

Another youtube, this time from landscape photographer Thomas Heaton. By no means a scientific study, but in this video, he talks about one of his photos where he shot with a 50MP, printed very big and really appreciated the resolution. 

 

Time 5:44

 

 

I think these are one of those uses/style of shooting/times when many pixels is justified.

Edited February 13, 2018 by TG14

[Martin B]

Another youtube, this time from landscape photographer Thomas Heaton. By no means a scientific study, but in this video, he talks about one of his photos where he shot with a 50MP, printed very big and really appreciated the resolution. 

 

Time 5:44

 

 

I think these are one of those uses/style of shooting/times when many pixels is justified.

 

There are many more situations than just for large prints and/or landscape photography. I am convinced that all the naysayers here never used themselves a modern high MP FF sensor yet. As I mentioned earlier in a post, I was very surprised to see the clear difference in resolution between 22 MP (with AA filter) and 36 MP (without AA filter) already on my 21" LED screen. If I ever need cropping, I can still relatively easily do this my image coming from the higher MP FF sensor. Everything where details play a role - like in microscopy - the more resolution the better! 

 

All the reasoning by some saying that 24 MP is more than sufficient could be argued against that even 8 MP or less might be sufficient, too for certain web publishing purposes or smaller prints - but I doubt anyone would go back when already using the 24 MP. 

[Tailwagger]

...I am convinced that all the naysayers here never used themselves a modern high MP FF sensor yet...

 

I suspect thats not as true as you think. My personal experience with MF (645Z and D) convinced me that the resolution on offer was not necessary.  I left that arena (although I still have the D gathering dust) and went all in on Leica.

 

While enticing at times, on the whole I found all the extra resolving power odd and at times overly clinical. In examining results, I'd find all sorts of interesting details, many that I could not have possible seen while composing the shot.  I get how some can become enamored with discovering details in shots they never actually noticed where present when they pressed the shutter ant certainly there are times when I wish I could peer deeper into an image taken with my Ms.  But overall I have come to prefer a level of detail that more closely reflects how I see the scene.  To illustrate the sort of wonderment over artistic merit I'm referring to, a mere 40MP example from a half decade old 645D taken a few years ago.  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Detail from that shot. For orientation, the spider on the right is that tiny white spec at the plate intersection between bolt 4 and 5 (top down) on the right. But forget that spider.  Note the one under bolt four.  Intoxicating level of detail? Sure. Necessary level of detail? Not really. Does it elevate the photograph's merit (or lack thereof in this case)? Only, IMO, for curiosity value. 

 

 

Others certainly are free to see the value of such things differently.  I wouldn't reject an M with more MP, assuming the other positive traits remained intact, but neither do I expect, crave or demand, this level of detail. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think these are one of those uses/style of shooting/times when many pixels is justified.

 

But did you ask him whether he wanted to use a Leica M for the shots he'd taken? ( )

[lct]

[...] I was very surprised to see the clear difference in resolution between 22 MP (with AA filter) and 36 MP (without AA filter) already on my 21" LED screen. [...]

 

With less resolution and less acutance, due to its AA filter, your 22 MP camera had little chance to win obviously. You would be more surprised if you compared a 36 MP with AA filter to a 22 MP w/o AA filter. With the same M lenses i prefer my 12 MP Kolari mod A7s to the 42 MP A7r2 of my office by far. The culprit is the thick sensor stack of the A7r2 there. Leica cameras have not this problem as you know.

[pgh]

There are many more situations than just for large prints and/or landscape photography. I am convinced that all the naysayers here never used themselves a modern high MP FF sensor yet. As I mentioned earlier in a post, I was very surprised to see the clear difference in resolution between 22 MP (with AA filter) and 36 MP (without AA filter) already on my 21" LED screen. If I ever need cropping, I can still relatively easily do this my image coming from the higher MP FF sensor. Everything where details play a role - like in microscopy - the more resolution the better! 

 

All the reasoning by some saying that 24 MP is more than sufficient could be argued against that even 8 MP or less might be sufficient, too for certain web publishing purposes or smaller prints - but I doubt anyone would go back when already using the 24 MP. 

Seconded. When it matters, it matters. I believe some may have used the sensors, but it's different to own them use them regularly, to exploit them in one's work. IMO they changed my notion of what you can do with small cameras. For me, not much reason to buy an X1D (except the leaf shutter) when you can get so close to results with more lens choices in a smaller package for much less $$. I am not saying it's not worth it, it's a beautiful tool, but the difference between "35mm" and "medium format" has never been so small in a practical sense. Imagine if a 35mm negative held up so closely to a 645 or 67 negative as a d850 or a7rIII does to an x1d or gfx. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by pgh

[pgk]

When it matters, it matters.

 

But MOST of the time it does not. Horses for courses. If you really want a high MPixel '35mm' camera then there are a number available. But not an M rangefinder. FWIW we have never had such good cameras - at what point do we stop the constant upgrade? The forum seems divided to me - there are those who are content with current offerings and who seem to want longevity rather than new models, and there are those for whom Leica must compete at the top level and upgrade as needed. The two are probably incompatible.

[Martin B]

Seconded. When it matters, it matters. I believe some may have used the sensors, but it's different to own them use them regularly, to exploit them in one's work. IMO they changed my notion of what you can do with small cameras. For me, not much reason to buy an X1D (except the leaf shutter) when you can get so close to results with more lens choices in a smaller package for much less $$. I am not saying it's not worth it, it's a beautiful tool, but the difference between "35mm" and "medium format" has never been so small in a practical sense. Imagine if a 35mm negative held up so closely to a 645 or 67 negative as a d850 or a7rIII does to an x1d or gfx. 

 

I believe these days with modern sensors the main difference between digital medium and small format is just the aspect ratio of the taken image. Depending on the subject, the medium format frame ratio might be more appealing than the 35 mm one. I can see this being a benefit for example for portrait shots. This doesn't exclude of course the option that you can also crop in PP from 35 mm into a medium format based aspect ratio - but you will lose resolution (which might still be okay with > 40 MP FF sensors). 

[rpittal]

whenever I use my Nikon D850, and then my SL, I "worry" about the lower pixel count. Then I look at the prints I make (usually 12X18), see the fantastic postings of landscapes on LUF, and finally remember that I was one of the three people in the world that paid $8k for a Nikon D3X a few years go to go all the way up to 24mp and realize the emperor has no clothes. 

[Martin B]

But MOST of the time it does not. Horses for courses. If you really want a high MPixel '35mm' camera then there are a number available. But not an M rangefinder. FWIW we have never had such good cameras - at what point do we stop the constant upgrade? The forum seems divided to me - there are those who are content with current offerings and who seem to want longevity rather than new models, and there are those for whom Leica must compete at the top level and upgrade as needed. The two are probably incompatible.

 

I agree that the M rangefinder lives a bit by its tradition of long-life cycle of each version - and I can see why users foster this due to the money they have invested (especially in a digital M) camera. Shorter product cycles automatically leads to faster depreciation of the predecessor camera model. Not sure if this traditional sentiment still can be held up nowadays when competition becomes more and more aggressive in regard to specification, e .g. sensors. So far I admit it seems to work well for Leica Cameras, but with shrinking camera profit markets in general I wouldn't bet that this continues forever. Digital cameras are mostly electronics and this kind of stuff depreciates quicker and quicker. Leica's best way to compete IMO is by diversification (what they seem to start doing with collaborations with Panasonic and going into cell phone markets for example) which could include several M models with different specification for different preferences. Not sure if Leica has the resources to do this with M cameras which is a niche itself already. 

 

Leica's biggest struggle in upcoming years is to find the best way to bridge tradition with tougher markets in photography terms - I believe the started late but are getting a lot better in diversification and offering in parallel high end products to choose from (I guess price will always be an issue with Leica for regular consumers). It will be interesting to see how Leica continues to develop the M and the SL series - with similar sensors or having both of them going separate paths?

Edited February 14, 2018 by Martin B

[pgk]

Digital cameras are mostly electronics and this kind of stuff depreciates quicker and quicker. Leica's best way to compete IMO is by diversification.....

 

I actually think that Leica needs to be different to its competitors and ignore 'specification pressure' by trying to increase support times of models and decrease product cycles. Less models, longer lived and offering 'fit for purpose' specification might be a niche into which Leica could slot very easily - if the company decides to do so.

[jaapv]

Up to a point, that is what they are doing.

[Jeff S]

I believe these days with modern sensors the main difference between digital medium and small format is just the aspect ratio of the taken image. Depending on the subject, the medium format frame ratio might be more appealing than the 35 mm one. I can see this being a benefit for example for portrait shots. This doesn't exclude of course the option that you can also crop in PP from 35 mm into a medium format based aspect ratio - but you will lose resolution (which might still be okay with > 40 MP FF sensors).

The S, however, maintains a 3:2 aspect ratio.

 

Jeff

[Martin B]

I actually think that Leica needs to be different to its competitors and ignore 'specification pressure' by trying to increase support times of models and decrease product cycles. Less models, longer lived and offering 'fit for purpose' specification might be a niche into which Leica could slot very easily - if the company decides to do so.

Sometimes it proves to be good not to go with the mainstream, sometimes it can be disastrous (what happened with Kodak for example which decided to stick to film for too long when the rest moved all to digital). My personal feeling is that the old "fit for purpose" strategy needs to be revised and adapted for the company to survive in the long term. I might be wrong!

[Mr Fjeld]

Sometimes it proves to be good not to go with the mainstream, sometimes it can be disastrous (what happened with Kodak for example which decided to stick to film for too long when the rest moved all to digital). My personal feeling is that the old "fit for purpose" strategy needs to be revised and adapted for the company to survive in the long term. I might be wrong!

 

You're wrong Kodak was among the first companies to specialize in digital media. Their problem was that they didn't expand this knowledge to other areas as well as they didn't keep their "digital expertise" in-house and instead relied on out-sourcing etc. Kodak never understood change and relied on their marketing value rather than being industry driven. Look at Fujifilm which largely survived - and prospered, because of the willingness to use their knowledge other industries because they understood they had an asset with their knowledge in film chemistry. Hence they invested and expanded to other product niches such as cosmetics. Add to this, they also realized great revenues due to both developing and installing digital photo print kiosks in supermarkets and malls.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Mr Fjeld

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

I believe these days with modern sensors the main difference between digital medium and small format is just the aspect ratio of the taken image. Depending on the subject, the medium format frame ratio might be more appealing than the 35 mm one.

 

Given there's been little or no discussion of the 5DS, perhaps this perception is more a consequence of there being only a single source for all the high MP FF and MF sensors under discussion here, rather than anything inherent in the sensor size itself.  Regardless, IMO, there is a definite MF look, which I unscientifically think is more related to altered DoF and glass design than base format ratio.

[TG14]

I actually think that Leica needs to be different to its competitors and ignore 'specification pressure' by trying to increase support times of models and decrease product cycles. Less models, longer lived and offering 'fit for purpose' specification might be a niche into which Leica could slot very easily - if the company decides to do so.

 

It will be interesting to see where leica goes as a company. The leadership is going to be crucial, how the company measures itself and how its shareholders/stakeholders measures it.