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

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Simple solution: M11 & M11R & M11S - the latter two at 'premium' (   ) prices.

[Paul J]

This is still close enough to real world application.

I've drum scanned (and flatbed scanned) plenty of perfectly sharp, low ISO, negatives - at 11000 dpi. So, massive files. Practical resolution is different though. 

A 24 mp digital file makes a better print. Enlargement looks a bit different on the film, and the film might look better once a certain resolution is passed and the image is so big that the grain/noise becomes apparent, but at most sizes between say, 11x14 and 30x40 - if we're talking about resolution and how the print holds up - I will take the 24 mp digital file any day. It's not even a question - and I don't think 35mm film has been a viably competitive medium resolution wise (ephemeral qualities are a different thing) since the D700 and the 5D - because besides resolution the whole pain in the ass process of drum scanning, inversion (if negative) etc is rarely worth the trouble. I'm surprised this argument is even coming up. There are reasons to shoot 35mm, but resolution....I haven't heard that really argued for like 7 years now.

 

In short - your demo here is close enough to my scanning experience (that I did for years) that I'd say it's a good practical representation of the difference between the mediums.

No one is arguing a case to shoot 35mm film over digital, especially for the sake of resolution.

 

The discussion has only arisen because there was a claim that 12MP digital had more resolution than 35mm film. That is both incorrect and an oversimplification.

 

24MP is of course more sharp than 35mm film, but it's colour and luminosity resolution is actually quite comparable in optimal circumstances, which of course is a relative pain the arse to get

 

36-40 is exceeding it, so it's relevant to the conversation of increasing pixel count in the M.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Paul J

[Neko]

I´m sure technology will progress therefore I foresee an M model with higher mp count, broader DR, better high ISO capabilities, in body image stabilization..etc in the near future. Call me a dreamer...

 

 

No need to be insulting.

 

 

 

 

 Thanks Jaap! I agree 100%

Edited March 4, 2018 by Neko

[Martin B]

Simple solution: M11 & M11R & M11S - the latter two at 'premium' (   ) prices.

 

That's exactly the issue - the M10 is already for a premium price with only 24 MP.....look at the A7III and its price tag for 24 MP....hmmmm...maybe add another $1000 for the Leica brand name just for fun, and you are still far below the price for the M10.....

[Martin B]

 

The negative will be 24mm by 36mm in size, which is about 0.945 by 1.417 inches squared. Scanning this negative at a resolution of 3200 pixels per inch will yield an image of 3024 by 4535 pixels.

 

Your are comparing a scanned image of negative with not quite  14 million pixels to an image made by a sensor which has 36 million pixels. What is the comparison supposed to show?

 

 

There is no visible difference between a 35 mm negative scanned at 3200 dpi or at 6400 dpi - as Paul said a drum scan might still crank out a slight improvement in resolution but you will still see the difference in resolution compared to the 36 MP FF file. 

[pgh]

It is too much effort, but it would be interesting to see if those wishing for more pixels come

right back when their wish is satisfied, whining for the next step upwards.

 

That's the way they are.

 

Born complainers. Nothing is ever good enough. Must suck to be them.

You sound like a real nice, open-minded fellow, especially for Minnesota folk.

 

It might be a revelation to learn that there is a difference between complaining and desiring for more out of one's tool. It also might be crazy to know that generalizing everyone's reasons for wanting more resolution would make you wrong about many of those people. Personally, I have been happy with 40 mp since my first medium format digital in 2011, - and I've been happy to see the form factor shrink and the quality stay consistent - so it's not necessarily a never ending MP race.

Then again, part of what is cool about technology is that it changes what you can do with one's work. No one ever shot a Leica M for large prints, but that's in the realm of possibility now. Just because it wasn't before doesn't mean it shouldn't be going forward. If 100 mp becomes attainable in a small form factor, the possibilities expand, so why would one not want that if it suits their work?

 

The way an M was used 10 or 20 or 30 years ago isn't the only way it should be. Nothing wrong with art and technology evolving. Some people make great work with old technology and need nothing more, some people make great work exploiting new technology - technology that could come to the M (Even if it is 5-10 years behind the competition). It's not an either/or proposition, and the M doesn't have to be either. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by pgh

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's exactly the issue - the M10 is already for a premium price with only 24 MP.....look at the A7III and its price tag for 24 MP....hmmmm...maybe add another $1000 for the Leica brand name just for fun, and you are still far below the price for the M10.....

 

You are not expecting a 'budget' camera from Leica are you? Seriously?

 

This whole thread has become a bit barmy if you ask me.

[Chaemono]

What is barmy to some comes across as fresh to first time readers. It’ll keep going and going.

 

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

 

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

Edited March 4, 2018 by Chaemono

[Luke_Miller]

I can't help but notice that camera makers who create high resolution (36 mpx and higher) 35mm format digital models, have only one such model alongside several lower resolution bodies.  So the camera makers seem to believe that while there is a market for high resolution models, many, if not most, buyers opt for the lower resolution versions.

 

For Leica to produce a high resolution digital M it would seem reasonable to assume it would be in addition to a lower resolution version.  It would naturally cost more since the sensors are more costly to manufacture.  Also the cost of the lower resolution model may rise as a result since sales would be lower reflecting the buyers who selected the high resolution model.

 

Regarding Leica M prices, It is often mentioned that Sony A7 and A9 models offer superior performance at a significantly lower price point and that the additional cost of the M is due to the premium of the Leica name. I would offer that while there undoubtedly is a premium for the Leica name and for products made in Germany, it is not the primary reason for the difference.  EVF mirrorless bodies are much cheaper to manufacture due to many fewer mechanical components.  And that trend is likely to continue going forward making the cost difference even greater.

 

What we have with the M10 is a body that is as close to a mechanical film M as is practical to produce.  Almost the only thing it lacks is a lever to mechanically cock the shutter.  Were Sony to produce a clone of the M10 its price would be much closer to that of the M10 than current A series models.  What we pay for in the M is the very costly rangefinder and other mechanical components.

 

Many prefer EVF only (no optical finder) cameras and wish that Leica would produce an M-like camera  that replaced the rangefinder with a built-in EVF. And perhaps Leica will at some point.  But I believe those who assume an Electronic View Finder (EVF) is in all ways superior to optical systems are mistaken.  Both have different strengths and weaknesses which means neither is optimal in all situations.

 

But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Luke_Miller

[Chaemono]

The way an M was used 10 or 20 or 30 years ago isn't the only way it should be.

Leica has another FF camera line for the other way called the SL. They are just pathetic, aren’t they? The SL and the M should converge into one body over time.

[Tailwagger]

Call me a dreamer...

 

All that is inevitable, excepting IBIS on an M.  Shaking the sensor around seems contrary to their DNA.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Tailwagger

[Tailwagger]

...But I believe those who assume an Electronic View Finder (EVF) is in all ways superior to optical systems are mistaken.  Both have different strengths and weaknesses which means neither is optimal in all situations.

 

But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. 

 

Not in my opinion. While I certainly desire a, hopefully, lower cost, EVF M, it is as an adjunct to the real thing. Beyond the obvious weaknesses of EVF, there are subtler ones.  For whatever reason, I've been shooting long exposures with M and Q over the weekend. Stacking NDs on the EVF only Q can be a challenge, where the M can be reoriented and focused independent of the lens.  Having to unscrew the filters to recompose is actually more annoying than having to wait around for the noise reduction processing.

[jdlaing]

All that is inevitable, excepting IBIS on an M.  Shaking the sensor around seems contrary to their DNA.

Whatever gained by reducing the size of the M 10 would be lost but adding stabilization.

[jdlaing]

Leica has another FF camera line for the other way called the SL. They are just pathetic, aren’t they? The SL and the M should converge into one body over time.

No. They should not. Apples and oranges.

[pico]

You sound like a real nice, open-minded fellow, especially for Minnesota folk.

 

You betcha, but I'm originally from Rhode Island.

Edited March 4, 2018 by pico

[Simon]

I’m more interested to know about the potential improvement offered by 16-bit vs 14-bit colour depth. Some manufacturers like Hasselblad with the X1D claim it to offer improved tonality and gradation, so why can’t we have that in the M?

 

I’d be more than happy to trade a bit of FPS for slightly larger files with higher colour depth.

 

From their marketing spiel: “This system is also capable of creating imagery with exceptionally smooth tonal transitions that are reminiscent of analog film capture, which is thanks in part to the X1D's 16-bit color depth.”

 

Thoughts?

[Jeff S]

I’m more interested to know about the potential improvement offered by 16-bit vs 14-bit colour depth. Some manufacturers like Hasselblad with the X1D claim it to offer improved tonality and gradation, so why can’t we have that in the M?

 

I’d be more than happy to trade a bit of FPS for slightly larger files with higher colour depth.

 

From their marketing spiel: “This system is also capable of creating imagery with exceptionally smooth tonal transitions that are reminiscent of analog film capture, which is thanks in part to the X1D's 16-bit color depth.”

 

Thoughts?

Mere marketing. The X1D is a 14 bit device; only Hasselblad’s 100 MP H series is true 16 bit. Do a search to read various technical discussions.

 

And remember, the whole storage/editing/print workflow must be able to handle 16bits to take full advantage.

 

Jeff

Edited March 5, 2018 by Jeff S

[jaapv]

Not only that, but even on most 16-bits devices the last two bits are empty/noise, so not really useful. Marketing.

[Berlinman]

We will see in increase in sensor technology. Also at Leica. For me it is not clear weather MP ist the biggest point - DR, High-ISO, 16bit, speed are also important. I hope that Leica finds the perfect compromise for the M and may be a slightly different for the SL. so for me more MPs are fine if the whole package is an improvement. It is like the improvement in film technology with grain and ISO.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Photon42]

Any higher mega pixel count than 24 in the M10 would have killed the SL sales. Not that I would really care about it.