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

Tailwagger · February 16, 2018

I'm over the moon about the XH1, but everyone is being mighty cranky about same sensor same processor.

Fuji is in a larger, but not all that dissimilar boat to Leica's. X-trans distinguishes their offerings, but prevents them from moving in lock step with mainstream sensor development. For years they were hounded about producing a full frame X. When last I followed their forums, there was always a comparison or three between 16mp XTs this and 24mp SoNikoCans that. To some extent Fuji brought it on themselves with their somewhat inflated claims about the value of XTrans, but the comparisons, as always, focused on one aspect of the camera's worth rather than considering it as a whole. Pretty much the same thing as here.

Fortunately, having ignored that cacophony by remaining focused on 'inferior' APS-C, they managed to produce quite an extensive and powerful system in a very brief time. One that serves any number of photographers quite well despite the perceived failings of others. But I'm not surprised some voice their upset with what appears to be a very well considered offering. Likely they're the same sort of folks who whined about the 16-55 not having OIS despite a clear explanation as to why and so went on to demand IBIS. Now that they've got it, and their other gripe as well, serious video support, they have to complain about something else. Its to be expected. After all what fun would these forums be without controversy and occasional incivility?

@ndy_ellis · February 16, 2018

Fuji have done a great job I think. There must be 000's of people around who want to get closer to a Leica experience, are willing and able to spend on a par with high end mirror-less and SLR, but can't or won't stretch to Leica prices.

It is an eye-opener (if you'll excuse the pun) when I see the quality that some friends get of of the X100 series cameras.

Martin B · February 16, 2018

Fuji have done a great job I think. There must be 000's of people around who want to get closer to a Leica experience, are willing and able to spend on a par with high end mirror-less and SLR, but can't or won't stretch to Leica prices.

It is an eye-opener (if you'll excuse the pun) when I see the quality that some friends get of of the X100 series cameras.

Fuji makes without doubt great cameras but unfortunately made the business decision to leave out FF in their camera range. Current mirrorless options only contain APS-C or small medium-format. I have shot for several years with APS-C and did not like the smaller sensor size - I was glad when FF came along and upgraded in 2009 with my first FF DSLR (5D MkII). I have no intention to go back to a smaller sensor sized camera mainly because I am shooting a lot wide und ultra-wides where FF is definitely beneficial. Other than Leica, there is only one other option out there for FF mirrorless at this point - Sony. But Nikon is rumored to release soon its own FF mirrorless camera, too.

Chaemono · February 16, 2018

Fascinating.

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

pgk · February 16, 2018

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny thing is that although I know a lot of Canon users, I don't know anyone who is actually using a 50MPixel one. I know one Sony A7RII user but I've seen lens problems which have undermined its potential. And I do know high MPixel Nikon users, in fact several but talking to one today, its evident that whilst the higher MPixels are there, they are very rarely used. Oh yes, and I know at least one MF back user - high end work as you might expect. Which leaves us where? To be honest I don't know. I'm sceptical that most photographers need high MPixel cameras (myself included) but then need and want, as discussed elsewhere in the forum, have little to do with each other. Perhaps Leica will produce a high MPixel M camera - their modern lenses will at least show their capabilities if they do and can produce a suitable sensor. Whether it is relevant to do so remains to be seen.

Lonescapes · February 16, 2018

Fuji wides are fantastic. The Fuji 14 and the Touit 12 are excellent. The Fuji 16 is out of this world. Not sure what problems you're having getting good wide results on the Fuji system, but I haven't had them.

You're absolutely right that all the sensor engineering solutions that people previously said were impossible (compact FF cameras, higher pixel density) very quickly became possible, and to photographers' benefit.

However, you're making a really intense apples-to-oranges comparison by linking Canon users to Leica users. Just because both groups of photographers have claimed not to need more pixels doesn't mean they have a single flapping thing in common. Both systems have their charms. I have shot and liked Canon. I shoot and like Leica. But their gestalt is utterly, completely different, and while it makes perfect sense that Canon users would eat their words about not needing pixels, it makes far less sense about Leica users, particularly those who are partial to the M system.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Lonescapes

Martin B · February 16, 2018

Fuji wides are fantastic. The Fuji 14 and the Touit 12 are excellent. The Fuji 16 is out of this world. Not sure what problems you're having getting good wide results on the Fuji system, but I haven't had them.

You're absolutely right that all the sensor engineering solutions that people previously said were impossible (compact FF cameras, higher pixel density) very quickly became possible, and to photographers' benefit.

However, you're making a really intense apples-to-oranges comparison by linking Canon users to Leica users. Just because both groups of photographers have claimed not to need more pixels doesn't mean they have a single flapping thing in common. Both systems have their charms. I have shot and liked Canon. I shoot and like Leica. But their gestalt is utterly, completely different, and while it makes perfect sense that Canon users would eat their words about not needing pixels, it makes far less sense about Leica users, particularly those who are partial to the M system.

Regarding Fuji lenses, this is my point: even the wide angle lenses you mention seem excellent, they are still not the given FL in full frame format - the 14/2.8 is indeed working on the Fuji camera sensor as 21 mm lens. And this is the issue I referred to: try to shoot with 12 mm full-frame FL with a Fuji sensor....you would need a 8 mm rectlinear lens.

I did not compare the cameras made by different brands but very well so the FF sensors they released. I think this is a very suitable comparison when saying that there was a huge shift from Canon (DSLR) to Nikon (DSLR) with the original release of the D800(E) and later also to Sony (mirrorless). I don't think that Leica is in its very secluded ecosystem where Leica users are not looking outside the box and evaluate alternative technologies - it is very clear from this thread and others that many use in parallel other cameras, Sony high resolution FF cameras included. I just see one difference of Leica compared to other brands in business-terms ignoring pricing - Leica's product cycles are much longer.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Martin B

pgk · February 16, 2018

I just see one difference of Leica compared to other brands in business-terms - Leica's product cycles are much longer.

Yes, and they still produce cameras which are so similar to those that they produced in the 1950s that anyone familiar with an M3 could probably be up and running with a current dRF in minutes. Not so with other manufacturer's products I suspect.

February 16, 2018

The thing that I find most intriguing about this thread is that the 35mm Leica RF form is now expected to do what much larger medium format cameras did in the past...

Good point. Most of the film-M owners who shot Tri-X — and some like Alex Webb who shot Kodachrome 200 — wanted the "35mm aesthetic" and either were not interested in medium format film cameras or bought one for that aspect of their work. Today, you can essentially get a medium format look from a FF (35mm) digital camera: that doesn't mean everyone wants that, although the ones who do seem to want to convert everyone else also to that view: pace many of the posts in this thread.

Actually, my problem is roughing up M10 files and, when I get tired of that I shoot Tri-X with my M3 — or when I want really good color depth sometimes I shoot Portra 400.

_______________

Nowhereman Instagram

Martin B · February 16, 2018

Funny thing is that although I know a lot of Canon users, I don't know anyone who is actually using a 50MPixel one. I know one Sony A7RII user but I've seen lens problems which have undermined its potential. And I do know high MPixel Nikon users, in fact several but talking to one today, its evident that whilst the higher MPixels are there, they are very rarely used. Oh yes, and I know at least one MF back user - high end work as you might expect. Which leaves us where? To be honest I don't know. I'm sceptical that most photographers need high MPixel cameras (myself included) but then need and want, as discussed elsewhere in the forum, have little to do with each other. Perhaps Leica will produce a high MPixel M camera - their modern lenses will at least show their capabilities if they do and can produce a suitable sensor. Whether it is relevant to do so remains to be seen.

This is of course very subjective since the people we know are limited in size and also narrowed down on the preferred photo style(s): I know one who uses the 5DsR as main camera, two use the 5D MkIII (don't know anyone with the MkIV currently), two got the D850 as only camera body, two others continue shooting with the D810, three use Sony A7R II, one upgraded to the A7R III, two use the A7 II, one the A7S (don't know anybody with the A9). I know a few which shoot Fuji and Panasonic Lumix, and Sony APS-C based mirrorless systems. Others use still their first bought APS-C based DSLR. Clearly I observe a movement towards mirrorless systems in recent years.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Martin B

Chaemono · February 16, 2018

And now one of my favorites, amazing.

pgk · February 16, 2018

Clearly I observe a movement towards mirrorless systems in recent years.

I would agree - no doubt about this at all. In fact walking with two photographic friends yesterday was interesting: 1 x dSLR, 1 x Mirrorless and 1 x dRF (me obviously). All of us were happy shooting landscapes with our choices, which should tell us all something I suppose.

Martin B · February 16, 2018

Yes, and they still produce cameras which are so similar to those that they produced in the 1950s that anyone familiar with an M3 could probably be up and running with a current dRF in minutes. Not so with other manufacturer's products I suspect.

This is true, and I never questioned this. Again, this is outside of the sensor discussion and focuses more on the camera built and ergonomics including software.

Martin B · February 16, 2018

The thing that I find most intriguing about this thread is that the 35mm Leica RF form is now expected to do what much larger medium format cameras did in the past.

Just an additional comment to this: I don't want to confuse high MP FF resolution with medium format sensors. Independent on the resolution, the effects available with medium format are very different from FF specific size: the difference is more about DoF and maybe some medium-format related specific lens effects which might give medium format the edge. Difficult to say how much these differences can be seen in the current "small" medium format digital sensors - but certainly they can be seen in the larger film-based medium format photos.

Jeff S · February 16, 2018

And now one of my favorites, amazing.

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/

It might be easier to just add this to your signature line.

Jeff

Chaemono · February 16, 2018

This is my signature line and I like it better this way. I’ve added the TowerJazz BSI sensor announcement to it now.