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

[Hannes Lummes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Raw files from the Canon, transparency and loupe/microscope/scan - I tried! I was looking at fin ray numbers on dorsals of small fish. They could be made out on the 12MPixel files from the Canon but not on the Velvia transparency.

Yes. But film does not create moire or false color details. It is difficult to compare film and digital, but the ideal would be that sensor does not restrict the result, lens and technique only would.

[Advertisement]

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

[lucerne]

PGH

So you want the larger mp sensor in the M body., and to continue the philosophy of high IQ in a small package. The purpose of my enquiries is to establish if such a request is truly representative of the M community, or whether there is an opportunity’ for compromise through the use of another Leica body. Thanks for your input.

Edited March 3, 2018 by lucerne

[blacksinner]

well if you want higher megapixel then you can always go to other brand though. Leica will not use higher megapixel for several reason. higher megapixel means smaller pixel pitch. with small body like M, it will be very hot because of processing. even with 24MP M10, its getting very hot under load. even only with LV on for some time, the body is noticeably hot.  i don't think they have the capability to go even further for now. if they make M version collaborate with Panasonic then i think its a suicide for leica. so i think this higher megapixel not gonna happen very soon.

[Printmaker]

Printmaker.

 

That’s an honest and revealing answer. Thanks. You aren’t fixated on the idea of the M body and sensor being updated, but higher mp in SL. You would be happy with a larger body if the sensor met your technical requirement.

 

Have I interpreted your response correctly..

 

Well yes. I love my M10 as is and 24 MP is perfect for most of my work. Going to 36 MP would make the M10 (M11) even better. Most of the prints I sell are 10x15 matted to 16x20 or 13x19 matted to 18x24. But I do get orders for much larger prints where 36 MB would be better. If a SL2 was offered with higher resolution, I'd get in line.

 

It is true that you need a reasonably powerful computer but my MacBook Pro can cope with 36 MB without slowing down. My iMac 5000k does fine with 300 - 600 MB files. Storage is an issue but nothing that extra drives can not fix.

 

What I'd like to see is a SL2 with a sensor in the 36-48 MB range and a new S with a 50 or 100 MB sensor. Keep the M at 24 MP so that camera shake is not a problem. The M is, after all, best as a hand held camera.

 

When I was referring to huge 300-400 MB files I was speaking about shooting art and printing reproductions where detail, color and dynamic range are of utmost importance. In this instance even the 37.5 MB of the Leica S2 was a disappointment.

 

But my wishes may never happen. Leica knows its customers and is slow to change. M cameras may stay at 24 MB for the foreseeable future as it just might be the sweet spot for most of their customers. I'm sure they are not all that concerned about loosing a sale or two to Hasselblad. After all, back in the day, there was an IQ difference between 35 mm and MF that we all accepted as part of the photo game.

[pgh]

PGH

So you want the larger mp sensor in the M body., and to continue the philosophy of high IQ in a small package. The purpose of my enquiries is to establish if such a request is truly representative of the M community, or whether there is an opportunity’ for compromise through the use of another Leica body. Thanks for your input.

For me, the only Leica is the M.

Every other compromise is better executed elsewhere and already has been for years.

 

As someone who shoots at 35mm focal length pretty often, I find the Sony Rx1RII to be probably the closest thing to a perfect digital solution out there. The image quality is one of the best that exists, and it is smaller and lighter than an M. It's not perfect, but in many respects it does what an M does, but does it better. The whole not changing lenses thing, and the pop up EVF that blocks some flashes, and the short battery life are all quibbles I have with it though. The leaf shutter though, what a bonus. Somehow, I still prefer using the M over the Rx, but just barely. After all, the Rx is easier to carry around. 

[pgk]

Yes. But film does not create moire or false color details. It is difficult to compare film and digital, but the ideal would be that sensor does not restrict the result, lens and technique only would.

 

My comparison was for scientific purposes, information capacity if you like, which is where film and digital can be compared. Otherwise I agree in that they are sufficiently different to make other meaningful comparisons difficult. I've seen huge variation in the 'ascribed' MPixel equivalent for 35mm film - mine was based on actual information need, nothing else, but seems more objectively valid than most.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film has notably more fine resolution than digital. It's not until around 40MP that digital surpasses it.

[pgk]

Film has notably more fine resolution than digital. It's not until around 40MP that digital surpasses it.

 

Why let facts get in the way of belief?

[Paul J]

Why let facts get in the way of belief?

 

I believe your facts aren't very factual.

 

Zeiss could be wrong though.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Paul J

[pgk]

I believe your facts aren't very factual.

 

Zeiss could be wrong though.

 

So support your thesis.

[Paul J]

So support your thesis.

 

 

I need to support my thesis, but others should take your word as gospel?

[pgk]

Forget it Paul. Believe what you will. Its not worth the effort.

[Paul J]

Forget it Paul. Believe what you will. Its not worth the effort.

 

Lol. I thought so.

 

Here's Erwin Puts test of the M8 and M7

 

He has made this test with a Epson V700. A drum scan would have a lot more resolution.

 

It is clearly visible that even a 100ISO film has more reproduction capabilities than a 10 Mp sensor, specifically at major enlargements. Film holds fine detail to a larger extent than digital does and can indeed reproduce this detail in print (at least at 15+ enlargements). Other experiments (see the Zeiss site) indicate that the differences between a 12 Mp and a 24Mp sized sensor are less significant than often assumed. 

So we need at least a 40Mp sized sensor to visibly surpass the 100ISO film emulsion properly exposed and printed on paper. 

When will we see the Mxx with 37.5 Mp sensor? Only then are we able to surpass the quality of the film emulsion at bigger enlargements or finer reductions of the scene.

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!

Edited March 3, 2018 by Paul J

[pgk]

In this case Puts is wrong - its that simple. In the real world we do not photograph test charts, we photograph subjects under variable conditions - and unfortunately they are usually less than ideal. My comparisons were to do a job which was actually about identifying small, similar fish by counting fin rays, the whereabouts of scales and other small details and not to determine what is it is possible to achieve under ideal test conditions. In any case it should be obvious from simply comparing well produced prints that film grain quickly destroys many fine detail, especially of similar tonality and colour and this is a fundamental problem if contrast is not high and colour separation is subtle.

 

Obviously I cannot post images because by scanning or copying transparencies another MTF cascade is introduced. However I can assure you that the 12MPixel sensor produced far greater clarity where it was needed than Velvia 50 transparencies, even when they were illuminated and I examined their detail under a low powered dissection microscope.

 

So as far as I am concerned fine grain 35mm transparency film is not as effective as a 12MPixel sensor for real world information production. Under controlled and ideal conditions it might wel be possible to extract more data from film but is that really relevant?

 

And FWIW I recently printed up some transparencies and I have no problem with them pictorially. In fact they do print very well, but trying to ascribe a MPixel rating for them is relevant only if you understand what it is that you are comparing.

[Paul J]

In this case Puts is wrong - its that simple. In the real world we do not photograph test charts, we photograph subjects under variable conditions - and unfortunately they are usually less than ideal. My comparisons were to do a job which was actually about identifying small, similar fish by counting fin rays, the whereabouts of scales and other small details and not to determine what is it is possible to achieve under ideal test conditions. In any case it should be obvious from simply comparing well produced prints that film grain quickly destroys many fine detail, especially of similar tonality and colour and this is a fundamental problem if contrast is not high and colour separation is subtle.

 

Obviously I cannot post images because by scanning or copying transparencies another MTF cascade is introduced. However I can assure you that the 12MPixel sensor produced far greater clarity where it was needed than Velvia 50 transparencies, even when they were illuminated and I examined their detail under a low powered dissection microscope.

 

So as far as I am concerned fine grain 35mm transparency film is not as effective as a 12MPixel sensor for real world information production. Under controlled and ideal conditions it might wel be possible to extract more data from film but is that really relevant?

 

And FWIW I recently printed up some transparencies and I have no problem with them pictorially. In fact they do print very well, but trying to ascribe a MPixel rating for them is relevant only if you understand what it is that you are comparing.

 

Sure, Paul. Sure. Everyone is wrong except you and your magic fish. 

[jaapv]

Puts isn't always right either...

[Paul J]

Puts isn't always right either...

He is on this.

[pgk]

See Post 450.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Martin B]

I am doing both - shooting film and also enlarging B&W film based negatives to make prints. A bit unfortunate that the resolution difference in this discussion is abused by some to justify lower MP FF sensor usage - that's all what is behind. But I have to agree from my own experience that a 35 mm negative does not have the resolution of a 36 MP FF sensor. Just two weeks ago I took the same photo with Fuji Velvia 100F slide film and with my Sony A7R at ISO 100 from the same spot. Both photos were taken with the same lens (CV 21/1.8 M-lens) and correctly focused, same aperture used. The slide film positive was scanned with a Plustek 8200i scanner at 3200 dpi. I cropped the similar area of the original photos at 200% magnification. 

 

Slide positive at 200%:

 

Digital photo (36 MP FF) at 200%:

Edited March 3, 2018 by Martin B

[Herr Barnack]

 

Why not more pixels in the M camera?

 

I wonder how many people who work in Leica R&D at Wetzlar are following this thread and laughing their asses off...