lct Posted February 1, 2018 Share #21 Posted February 1, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) High MP count w/o IBIS? Thanks no thanks. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 1, 2018 Posted February 1, 2018 Hi lct, Take a look here Why not more pixels in the M camera?/ 36 MP {merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted February 1, 2018 Share #22 Posted February 1, 2018 The REAL point should be that we all have different demands of our equipment so what is important to some is irrelevant to others. I don't crop images (other than straightening horizons when needed - I'm often off a couple of degrees), I rarely shoot above base ISO, I print to 30" x 20" and the M9 used well produced very acceptable prints (yes if you look very closely a higher MPixel sensor would be marginally more detailed but on the wall sharpness is perceived differently from a ridiculously close scrutiny), and so on. So M9s are fine and I have Sony/Canon for other applications if needed. To me a higher MPixel M might be useful but is far from essential. My guess is that there are some who might genuinely benefit from more pixels but they will be in the minority because around 20MPixels is actually sufficient for most uses (in much the same way that 35mm users outnumbered medium format users). 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonescapes Posted February 1, 2018 Share #23 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) Yeah, I don't see a lot of M users wanting the benefits and the headaches that high-MP sensors give. Get a 246. The effective resolution is pretty nuts, Edited February 1, 2018 by Lonescapes 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 1, 2018 Share #24 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) The M is a street camera. Period. Add an SL or S to your equipment if you want spectacles in IQ for landscape, portrait, fashion, etc. The SL is a very fine solution for all the interesting Leica lenses. It would be very adequate to ask for more Mp in the SL2. Edited February 1, 2018 by otto.f 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted February 1, 2018 Share #25 Posted February 1, 2018 yes..and i shoot it handheld in the street for hours at a time without any issues. Some people who need high res. from camera can buy Canon EOS 5DSR for half of M10's price. We live in wonderful world . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgh Posted February 1, 2018 Share #26 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) Exactly. Precisely my point. It is not the DR as measured, for instance, by DXO. This is the exposure range. Obviously the exposure range cannot be larger than the DR, however, the amount by which it is smaller is determined by the actual camera. So even if the theoretical DR is larger on a given camera, the usable exposure range may be larger on a camera with lower DXO measurement. So a difference of 1.2 EV value in DXO tells us nothing. I have yet to see any comparison that gives these values Until then we can only rely on anecdotal reports like yours. I'm not saying it does not matter. - I never did. I'm just putting a bit of perspective on the numbers being bandied around. The Koolaid is in relying on numbers that do not cover photographic reality. I'm not referring to dxo numbers, I'm referring to the process of using identical images from identical scenes in raw converters and what the image actually looks like. I'm talking about the actual usable parts of the image that exist on the extreme ends of the tonal spectrum. Most sensors now start to rival negative film in what you can pull out of them practically (the transitions still don't look quite as good) but the M10 isn't there. I could care less about the numbers, because actually the numbers seem to understate the issue from my experience. If you told me that the Leica is only one unit of measure worse than the other sensors in terms of tones it can represent in a scene when converted through LR or C1 I would say that is a kind assessment from my experience. I'm not going to post image comparisons here because anyone who has actually had the experience of using the two knows what I am talking about (there have been plenty of users mentioning the ease of the highlight clipping - however you want to talk about it it is a real thing), and if you haven't, it doesn't matter to you. Again, the M10 sensor is plenty nice for most uses, but when large( r ) prints or dynamic lighting comes in to play, it's weaknesses show in the actual end product images that you can get, even with all of the photoshop magic in the world. Edited February 1, 2018 by pgh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgh Posted February 1, 2018 Share #27 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) High MP count w/o IBIS? Thanks no thanks. The Sony Rx1RII succeeds just fine without IBIS. As user PGK stated the issue of handheld images with high res sensors crosses into funny territory that isn't justified. It is possible and practical to make handheld images with high res sensors. I mean many of us shot hassys, rolleis, mamiya 6/7 cameras, fuji rangefinders handheld and got great negatives. Edited February 1, 2018 by pgh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 1, 2018 Share #28 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) I've come to the conclusion that I want more MPx in my M10 but I love that whole rangefinder thing. So my solution is to carry always an α7R III along and take identical pictures with both cameras. When I have a craving for more MPx, I look at the α7R III shot. When I want to reminisce about that rangefinder feeling, I just look at the M10 picture. It's so much fun. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/ Edited February 1, 2018 by Chaemono Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Posted February 1, 2018 Share #29 Posted February 1, 2018 I guess I would not frown at more resolution in my M10, the lenses can certainly handle more. But I have other equipment that I much favor over the handling of a Leica M for that kind of work anyway. I can get pretty meaty prints out of a 24MP file, especially with the edge contrast of Leica glass. But I will be completely selfish here and say that if Leica kept the M10 at 24 and just kept seriously ramping up the high ISO performance, that would serve my needs of Leica M digital bodies best. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonescapes Posted February 2, 2018 Share #30 Posted February 2, 2018 The Sony Rx1RII succeeds just fine without IBIS. As user PGK stated the issue of handheld images with high res sensors crosses into funny territory that isn't justified. It is possible and practical to make handheld images with high res sensors. I mean many of us shot hassys, rolleis, mamiya 6/7 cameras, fuji rangefinders handheld and got great negatives. This is true, but it's a 35 fixed. An ILC with no IBIS would probably start to suffer at portrait focal lengths with a sensor of that size. That said, 35 is safe, 50 is probably safe if you're steady-handed, and once you get into real tele territory (135 etc) you should be on a tripod anyway, so it just leaves 75-90 as the focal length that might become fairly unusable (you could always put IS into the portrait/short tele lenses). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickx Posted February 2, 2018 Share #31 Posted February 2, 2018 I don't buy the notion that higher resolution result in less sharp images. This might be true it we zoom in 100 % and have the pixels equal size but is that really a requirement. If we instead have the pictures the same size the one with higher resolution contains more information and can be enlarged more. That said, I have never felt limited by the resolution of my M9 and can't imagine I will with my M10. I also have a Nikon D800 as reference, at one time it was considered to have almost too high resolution (36 MP). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 2, 2018 Share #32 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 24Mp are enough for me. More DR or exposure range is more useful than image-size or resolution. The real question is why the difference between the M240 and the M10 is so small, after 4 years of development. I am referring here to DxO measures, because I don't have the M10 and I cannot tell if there is any practical difference in terms of DR (related to noise levels). Anyway, the sensors of the M240 and M10 are pretty good, but they could be better with Sony technology. They are not avant-garde in terms of electronic components (the filters and microlenses are unique though). Edited February 2, 2018 by rosuna 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 2, 2018 Share #33 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) I don't buy the notion that higher resolution result in less sharp images. This might be true it we zoom in 100 % and have the pixels equal size but is that really a requirement. If we instead have the pictures the same size the one with higher resolution contains more information and can be enlarged more. That said, I have never felt limited by the resolution of my M9 and can't imagine I will with my M10. I also have a Nikon D800 as reference, at one time it was considered to have almost too high resolution (36 MP). Well Jackie, after I started using a 101MP digital back I knew higher resolution even helped my jpeg conversions. I most often shoot at native ISO on all cameras. As for the OP's inital question, IMHO until the S gets higher MP nothing below that camera will get close to 37MP. again IMHO it depends on what you do wuth your images. Print larger than 17x22 and/or crop a lot then higher MP helps. On line stuff matters less. Edited February 2, 2018 by algrove Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 2, 2018 Share #34 Posted February 2, 2018 I'm not referring to dxo numbers, I'm referring to the process of using identical images from identical scenes in raw converters and what the image actually looks like. I'm talking about the actual usable parts of the image that exist on the extreme ends of the tonal spectrum. Most sensors now start to rival negative film in what you can pull out of them practically (the transitions still don't look quite as good) but the M10 isn't there. I could care less about the numbers, because actually the numbers seem to understate the issue from my experience. If you told me that the Leica is only one unit of measure worse than the other sensors in terms of tones it can represent in a scene when converted through LR or C1 I would say that is a kind assessment from my experience. I'm not going to post image comparisons here because anyone who has actually had the experience of using the two knows what I am talking about (there have been plenty of users mentioning the ease of the highlight clipping - however you want to talk about it it is a real thing), and if you haven't, it doesn't matter to you. Again, the M10 sensor is plenty nice for most uses, but when large( r ) prints or dynamic lighting comes in to play, it's weaknesses show in the actual end product images that you can get, even with all of the photoshop magic in the world. Yes - I don't think you are disagreeing with me. As you see in my post I do say that some cameras have a wider exposure latitude than others. I just warn against depending on the wrong information for determining it. A difference of one or even two EV value dynamic range in DXO can lead to the wrong conclusion - as said - Exposure Latitude numbers are not given. Obviously there will be cameras that perform better than others, but only real-life experimenting can tell you which. Before you get out your Kool-Aid bottle again - you will not find any post by me that claims that Leicas are the weapon of choice for high-contrast photographs. They do well, but others may do better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted February 2, 2018 Share #35 Posted February 2, 2018 24Mp are enough for me. More DR or exposure range is more useful than image-size or resolution. The real question is why the difference between the M240 and the M10 is so small, after 4 years of development. I am referring here to DxO measures, because I don't have the M10 and I cannot tell if there is any practical difference in terms of DR (related to noise levels). Anyway, the sensors of the M240 and M10 are pretty good, but they could be better with Sony technology. They are not avant-garde in terms of electronic components (the filters and microlenses are unique though). Sony won't or couldn't do a sensor that fits leica's need, i guess... so stuck with this 24mb we are... Well, no matter, just keep the bit rate high and DR enough, and I am happy. Now, I want a 16bit 24mb sensor please, both BW and Color! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 2, 2018 Share #36 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Because 24mp plenty for vast majority? More mp = bigger files= more storage capacity = etc.etc. I suspect that the vast majority of digital M users never make exhibit quality fine prints - or even 4"x6" album size prints for that matter; 24 MP is adequate for screen viewing of images. 24MP is also enough for making fine prints up to 16x24 inches, possibly somewhat larger. Given these factors and the complications that arise when using a larger sensor as observed by other posters in this thread, 24 MP seems to be the optimum sensor size for the digital M camera. I suspect that most - if not all - of the disappointment with the M camera's supposedly meager 24 MP sensor stems from the "mine's bigger than yours" game that people like to play. JMHO but the megapixel count penis measuring that some engage in is an exercise in pointlessness and futility. Edited February 2, 2018 by Herr Barnack 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted February 3, 2018 Share #37 Posted February 3, 2018 Honestly it's not a deal-breaker, but I wouldn't mind the option of having selectable (ie 24MP and 42MP) RAW files. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonescapes Posted February 3, 2018 Share #38 Posted February 3, 2018 I had a Guggenheim-winning photographer with me on a project once who shot everything on his M8 and was later selling very large gallery prints off those files to extremely discerning customers. If your prints look funny, it's not the fault of the megapixel count. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted February 3, 2018 Share #39 Posted February 3, 2018 The next SL will be announced before 2020, it will have at least 36mp. Otherwise Leica might as well drop the line. The next Q will be announced before 2020. It will get the sensor from the SL. The next M will be announced in 2020. It will have at least 36mp. Why hasn't Leica moved to 36 mp in the M10? Simple technologically its the most conservative camera in its full frame line up. It doesn't lead the way in anything. This is by design. Progress has always been slow in the M line. So to answer your question, its not because it cant, its because its customers, myself included, are in no rush for it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 3, 2018 Share #40 Posted February 3, 2018 Isn't it odd that given that 'bigger is better' cars haven't evolved so that they all have huge engines? Perhaps shoe-horning a 10 or 12 litre motor into a small chassis sports might be seen as counterproductive? I wonder if we should reflect on this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.