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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are not (yet?) speed limits in photography fortunately .

[Alistairm]

A fair question, but probably better aimed at the SL.

 

I expect the answer is likely that rather than win a megapixel race Leica decided that 24MP was a good use case for most M users, as well as fitting whatever procurement/corporate objective issues it had at the time.

 

Moreover, it is a high enough resolution to allow some cropping for composition and has big enough pixels to benefit the standard M use case (street, travel, reportage with medium wide/standard/short telephoto focal lengths) by having usable high ISO and rendering the colour and tonality that M lenses M deliver, without requiring the higher shutter speeds and more careful handholding techniques that some of us learned using higher MP SLR cameras with non-stabilised lenses.

 

The Nikon D700 was one of my favourite cameras. It had a 12 MP sensor. I also loved the 36MP D800/810, but definitely noticed that the tighter pixel density required more care handholding non-stabilised lenses than on the D700. Frankly, I'm not sure I would prefer a higher pixel density on my M!

 

Honestly, I think 24MP is sufficient resolution for the M's normal use case. I think that is probably part of the reason it didn't go up in the last generation (M240 to M10). And it's not like the M10 is Leica's entry camera, with inferior sensor and features to hold a market point.

 

If you want to print 6x4 foot then medium format is better anyway, where you can have a bigger sensor, higher MP and usually a more methodical approach. If you want to shoot small birds/wildlife and need autofocus and to crop and weather sealing you are certainly not using an M.

 

The S is the flagship for big prints. The SL will certainly get more MP in its next iteration and is openly Leica taking on the use case for Canon and Nikon SLRs. The CL has shown Leica can do a higher pixel density small format camera without chucking away the tonality we all love. However, many users are already calling for IBIS at this pixel density!

 

There is something for everyone but I don't see the M ever being a camera marketed, sold or use case wise demanding a leading edge sensor in term of pixel density and outright resolution.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

I expect the answer is likely that rather than win a megapixel race Leica decided that 24MP was a good use case for most M users .....

 

Moreover, it is a high enough resolution to allow some cropping for composition .....

Learning to 'crop' in camera is actually a very cost effective way of shooting - and avoids costly upgrades for sloppy compositional reasoning .

[Eoin]

I'm perfectly happy and enthralled with my lowly 24mpx sensor. I love my photography and the fact I can actually use a Leica M in a digital workflow.

 

I would think we're approaching the technological limits of on sensor microlens density, for the specific requirements of digital M cameras. If this were the case, perhaps Leica is rationing "megapixel upgrades" to prolong the upgrade cycle of the M range into the future.

 

I'm sure in the not too distant future, technology will advance even further and people will bemoan the loss of the old ccd/cmos sensors. 

 

Photography, it's all about the strength of the image. Never the technology. 

[Keith_W]

I remember the early days of digital photography. Only about 13 years ago, Canon not only had the 1DS on the market, but they had also introduced the 5D. Meanwhile, Nikon had an all APS-C line. Not a single Nikon was full frame. At one point, the Nikon body with the highest MP count was the lowly D70, which had an even higher MP count than the flagship D2H or D1X (6MP vs. 4MP vs. 5.5MP). 

 

Everywhere on forums, Nikon users were saying loudly that they don't want full frame nor the absurd megapixel count of the 5D (12.8MP at the time). 

 

They were fools. They defended their preferred camera manufacturer not on any objective reason, but simply because Nikon did not offer a full frame, high resolution camera at the time. Well, now they do - and they have changed their tune. 

 

I see the same thing on this forum. You don't need more than 24MP? Sureeeeeeee. Don't bet against technology. Come back here in 10 years, when the M15 is touting a 100MP sensor, and let's see what everyone is saying then. 

 

I will say this right now - I will happily welcome a 100MP sensor provided the things I value even more (e.g. low noise, high ISO, dynamic range) are not compromised. Sure, right now it will take forever to process a 100MP file in Lightroom, but computers get more powerful every year, and storage gets cheaper. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Keith_W

[TomB_tx]

... Sure, right now it will take forever to process a 100MP file in Lightroom, but computers get more powerful every year, and storage gets cheaper. 

Valid point. My use would not benefit from more than 24MP, and in fact the 18 of the M9 was more than enough. When I wanted a digital body for my old SLR lenses I got the plain A7 - mainly due to the issues of handling the larger files of the A7R. Even then I notice a slowdown in handling files compared to the M9. But you get used to it, and this laptop won't last too long (8 yrs old already).

I added the M10 not for more pixels, but for the other improvements - and I'm fully satisfied with it. But I'd have gotten it even if it stayed at 18 MP.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see the same thing on this forum. You don't need more than 24MP? Sureeeeeeee. Don't bet against technology. Come back here in 10 years, when the M15 is touting a 100MP sensor, and let's see what everyone is saying then. 

 

Need and provision are very different things. If in 10 years time sensors will be 35mm size and 100MPixels, I expect the images taken with them will be, for the most part, no different from those taken today. People will, no doubt, be whining on about how they need a 200MPixel sensor though. Technology is only as important as it needs to be to do the job which it is being used for. For the most part it already exceeds genuine 'need'.

[Lonescapes]

Eh, my first digital camera (Canon APS-C DSLR) had 12.2MP, and there's not a single image I've taken on bigger sensors that I couldn't have taken on that camera, including stuff that has gone as big as the majority of a newspaper broadsheet.

 

I've been lucky to be able to upgrade cameras and switch systems a few times, but it was never really needed. And MP has never been my chief concern. There was a time in my life I was shooting in a lot of indoor locations in a country that suffers frequent power outages. So the camera always with me was the Sony A7S. That's a 12.2MP sensor, and I would happily use that camera as my primary stills camera again today if the situation called for it.

[Herr Barnack]

I remember the early days of digital photography. Only about 13 years ago, Canon not only had the 1DS on the market, but they had also introduced the 5D. Meanwhile, Nikon had an all APS-C line. Not a single Nikon was full frame. At one point, the Nikon body with the highest MP count was the lowly D70, which had an even higher MP count than the flagship D2H or D1X (6MP vs. 4MP vs. 5.5MP). 

 

Everywhere on forums, Nikon users were saying loudly that they don't want full frame nor the absurd megapixel count of the 5D (12.8MP at the time). 

 

They were fools. They defended their preferred camera manufacturer not on any objective reason, but simply because Nikon did not offer a full frame, high resolution camera at the time. Well, now they do - and they have changed their tune. 

 

I see the same thing on this forum. You don't need more than 24MP? Sureeeeeeee. Don't bet against technology. Come back here in 10 years, when the M15 is touting a 100MP sensor, and let's see what everyone is saying then. 

 

I will say this right now - I will happily welcome a 100MP sensor provided the things I value even more (e.g. low noise, high ISO, dynamic range) are not compromised. Sure, right now it will take forever to process a 100MP file in Lightroom, but computers get more powerful every year, and storage gets cheaper. 

 

With baited breath I await the arrival of the Leica M-7-II. 

 

It will be a joint project undertaken by Leica and Mamiya, resulting in a rangefinder camera with a 100mp 6x7 cm. sensor ensconced in a Mamiya 7 II body. 

 

As for the megapixel complainers - by God, that'll teach 'em! 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[Alistairm]

Keith, you've set up a straw man and knocked it down. You have also obliquely called those of us who don't think more MP are required at this time fools, which is a bit harsh! Nobody is saying we should bet against technology or that we don't think cameras will continue to evolve or that we don't want more advanced sensors. The question is why - right here and now - the M10 isn't higher resolution. If you want a 100MP sensor get yourself a Phase One XF 100MP. It definitely has a "better" sensor than the M10. So good that to reap the benefits it needs Honeybee AF, Focus Stacking, Vibration Tracking and Detection and an Electronic First Curtain Shutter to help manage vibration and it has a "Seismograph" setting built in so you and the camera can monitor vibrations, as well as a Vibration Delay setting where the camera will wait for vibrations to settle before triggering the shutter.

 

The point is not that most M users are Luddites who don't want better sensors. It is that - at this time - most M users have a use case scenario which does not call for an ultra high resolution sensor and that piling in more megapixels to a rangefinder that doesn't have IBIS or any stablished lenses might make the M10 less usable.

 

If you want more resolution then Leica already has a higher density sensor in smaller cameras (TL2 and CL), which also have access to lenses that are designed to resolve more detail than the M lenses and can also access image stabilised zooms. Also, both the S007 and SL are at a product cycle stage where we will see the next iteration before any new M, and both will likely be higher resolution.

 

Don't buy an M if you are chasing megapixels or outright resolution. There are better options. Get another Leica, or a D850, or Sony Alpha. But it is also worth noting that as things stand the M10 has a higher resolution than ether the Nikon or Canon flagship pro bodies, so it seems that Leica isn't exactly maverick in settling at around the 20MP mark and staying there during the move from the M240 to the M10 and M users really have little to complain about in terms of sensor resolution.

 

That said, of course I'd like to see the M series continue to develop with better technology, as it no doubt will. But, personally, I've never found 24MP limiting in a rangefinder and I would rather see a sensor wth more DR and less noise at high ISO than a higher MP sensor, which it may be difficult to get the best out of with a manual focus rangefinder. And let's be blunt, it is the rangefinder, small M lenses and compact full frame body that are what an M is all about, not the sensor.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Alistairm

[Mr Fjeld]

I remember the early days of digital photography..............At one point, the Nikon body with the highest MP count was the lowly D70, which had an even higher MP count than the flagship D2H or D1X (6MP vs. 4MP vs. 5.5MP). 

 

 

I still use my Nikon D70S and continue being amazed by the colours it can produce. I don't make large prints with it but for most other purposes (social media) it's still a great camera. Many are obsessed about the pixel race but seem to forget that unless you print wall sized prints a camera with 12 - 24 megapixels will to the job just fine.

[Jon Warwick]

The M has a unique DNA via rangefinder focusing, very small lenses, and a long tradition of its small form factor. Maybe image quality is less important for why people buy it?

 

My personal view is these unique selling points also add possible challenges to the M ever being very high megapixel.

 

Possible challenges include the M’s focusing accuracy in the digital world that is limited by an off-sensor central focusing point, and very small lenses acting as a huge challenge for construction accuracy and light rays hitting the sensor at acute angles via microlenses.

 

I own the M 50 APO, and it’s clear to me me now that the image quality I can reliably extract from an SL .... especially with its new 75mm SL prime lens (which is utterly superb) ..... is noticeably superior to anything I’ve achieved with the digital M and 50’APO.

 

If more megapixels are coming, I’d now think it’s much much more logical to incorporate them into the SL that was “designed exclusively for digital”, compared to an M and its small lenses and off sensor focusing that is trying its best to “incorporate digital” in a legacy product.

[Eoin]

Sure, people are entitled to expect more mpx, but the fact remains if it were easily available it would have been already included within the camera.

Calling us luddites is unfair, sure I've no objection to higher mpx when it's available some time in the future. The point is it's not available now, but more to the point what Leica has sold me now, is perfectly functional and vastly improved in form and function from my last digital M8.

 

I chose the M for many reasons, but primarily for the joy of photography and the connection I feel using it. 

If you're complaining about the camera tech then either, your images are simply not strong enough, your demands exceed what the M is capable of, or you are caught up in the modern trend of fast tech advancement and short product life cycle that feed our must have it now consumer attitudes.

 

I for one miss the joy of owning something and using it for years, now I buy something tech related and I already know before I walk out of the shop the manufacturer is already working on it's replacement.  Hardly a reason to be labelled a luddite!.  

[Guest]

I made this shot the other day and there's not one sharp in focus point in it....and I've printed it to roughly 26x38 inches without any problems at all with the quality of the final print. As a picture it works for me, perhaps not for many others but so be it. I probably could have made the same image with a throw away camera come to that.

The point is that comparisons of sharpness, definition and resolving power are easily over rated if that's all you are looking for out of whatever camera you choose to use. There's always going to be something else that's got more of whatever these days, but that's a yardstick that gets you nowhere fast and empties your wallet even faster.

I use other cameras, film through digital, but I choose the M's because I have been familiar with the camera for nearly five decades and although it's not a perfect tool by all measures it's way good enough and a hell of a lot better than most I've used. The mpx conversation is a waste of time in my opinion. If for any really good reason 24mpx's aren't enough for you, then move over to another camera system, the discussion here is whether what we have now in the M's is good enough, and for me the answer is clearly yes seeing the results and the large prints I get from the cameras........

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!

[Hannes Lummes]

I'm wondering where people get their info about what "most of the users" need. There is a charming circular argument in the discussion: If someone has a good reason to claim that they require more this or that in their M, we always get to hear "There are other tools, go buy something else" AND "Most M users don't need more this or that" So, if you feel like you would benefit from more this or that, remember, M users don't do that. You have learn to be a better M user

 

I'm also wondering where some people get the idea that higher resolution would require extraordinary circumstances to get sharp pictures. This seems to be just a meme circulating the web and no matter how many times it is beaten to death is just resurrects. Should I even try to point out that doubling resolution is only 1.41 times more linear resolution, so, in case of camera shake one only needs 1.41 times faster exposure time to get to the same pixel sharpness. This is also one reason to be interested in better high ISO performance. Just half a stop.  In case of shutter shake, well, that is obviously a more severe problem, but does Leica suffer from it?

I don't *need* anything. Who else cares how the small detail any of my pictures look like.  No one.  I'm only interested in analytical approach in the discussion. But I do hate it when I see false detail and moire in pictures. And this is what 24Mpix easily produces. It is pretty disgusting effect to have red pixels in pictures with green pine needless with white background for example. And this is common.

About the storage space: Of course there should be an option to save the pictures at for example 1/4 of the resolution, one Bayer matrix unit -> one pixel. Excellent per pixel sharpness, no color alias, simple in camera processing. Win Win for everyone!

As long as the resolution of sensor is not reasonably higher than what lens can provide, it is in not high enough. Technically.

But, the ultimate question remains. Is it possible to design a sensor with the correct micro lens structure. I would REALLY like to see someone who actually knows and does not just speculate or believe to tell about it. The answer would in my opinion provide the end to the discussion. If it is impossible, then the "there are better tools for that" -argument would actually be valid.
 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Hannes Lummes

[robert blu]

I can understand someone needs more pixel or a "better" sensor. Personally I do not but it's fine of course other photographers need it. We all have different needs, or desires.

 

More difficult for me is to understand if a better sensor is the main requirement why they bought an M with different options available, Leica or not.

 

But there is another point which I do not understand reading this thread (and similar).

 

Maybe my poor english but it seems that many people believe that Leica deliberately decided to put in the M10 an inferior sensor to what they could easily have selected.

Because I respect other people's work I do believe that engineers, technicians, marketing and management decided to have in the M10 the best available sensor without compromise what an M camera is.

 

A simple, small, intuitive to use digital rangefinder camera.

 

robert

Edited February 4, 2018 by robert blu

[jaapv]

I'm wondering where people get their info about what "most of the users" need. There is a charming circular argument in the discussion: If someone has a good reason to claim that they require more this or that in their M, we always get to hear "There are other tools, go buy something else" AND "Most M users don't need more this or that" So, if you feel like you would benefit from more this or that, remember, M users don't do that. You have learn to be a better M user

 

I'm also wondering where some people get the idea that higher resolution would require extraordinary circumstances to get sharp pictures. This seems to be just a meme circulating the web and no matter how many times it is beaten to death is just resurrects. Should I even try to point out that doubling resolution is only 1.41 times more linear resolution, so, in case of camera shake one only needs 1.41 times faster exposure time to get to the same pixel sharpness. This is also one reason to be interested in better high ISO performance. Just half a stop.  In case of shutter shake, well, that is obviously a more severe problem, but does Leica suffer from it?

 

I don't *need* anything. Who else cares how the small detail any of my pictures look like.  No one.  I'm only interested in analytical approach in the discussion. But I do hate it when I see false detail and moire in pictures. And this is what 24Mpix easily produces. It is pretty disgusting effect to have red pixels in pictures with green pine needless with white background for example. And this is common.

 

About the storage space: Of course there should be an option to save the pictures at for example 1/4 of the resolution, one Bayer matrix unit -> one pixel. Excellent per pixel sharpness, no color alias, simple in camera processing. Win Win for everyone!

 

As long as the resolution of sensor is not reasonably higher than what lens can provide, it is in not high enough. Technically.

 

But, the ultimate question remains. Is it possible to design a sensor with the correct micro lens structure. I would REALLY like to see someone who actually knows and does not just speculate or believe to tell about it. The answer would in my opinion provide the end to the discussion. If it is impossible, then the "there are better tools for that" -argument would actually be valid.

 

Well, in a way, Leica is telling you. They appear to have decided that, with current technology, 24 MP  -or, possibly, something between approximately 20 and 30-  about is the sweet spot for a 135 class sensor in a reportage-style camera.

[lct]

[...] I don't *need* anything. Who else cares how the small detail any of my pictures look like.  No one.  I'm only interested in analytical approach in the discussion. But I do hate it when I see false detail and moire in pictures. And this is what 24Mpix easily produces. It is pretty disgusting effect to have red pixels in pictures with green pine needless with white background for example. And this is common. [...]

 

I've never been bothered by faulty pixels so far but what you say about 24MP sensors being prone to moiré is not totally accurate with respect. The moiré issue comes mainly from the fact that there is a thin filter above the sensor. It is a well known effect whatever (non Foveon) sensor is used. Same for the M8 for instance or my Sony A7s which sensor filter has been modded by Kolari vision. BTW it is true also with my old Nikon D70 for the same reason. Nowadays, a 24MP sensor like that of the Leica CL shows very little moiré, if any, because its sensor stack is thicker most probably. 

[Hannes Lummes]

I've never been bothered by faulty pixels so far but what you say about 24MP sensors being prone to moiré is not totally accurate with respect. The moiré issue comes mainly from the fact that there is a thin filter above the sensor. It is a well known effect whatever (non Foveon) sensor is used. Same for the M8 for instance or my Sony A7s which sensor filter has been modded by Kolari vision. BTW it is true also with my old Nikon D70 for the same reason. Nowadays, a 24MP sensor like that of the Leica CL shows very little moiré, if any, because its sensor stack is thicker most probably. 

Uh, no, cover glass thickness only affects astigmatism. Low pass filter or the lack of it, together with sensor pixel density and lens resolution affect amount of moire. M digital cameras never had low pass filters  and therefore have a lot of moire with sharp lenses. Even fully open LUX ASPH 50 can cause mild moire, so the lens doesn't have to be super sharp. For example CV15 does it easily and badly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

It is not a matter of lens or astigmatism, just thickness of the sensor stack. Well known issue. I have all the bodies quoted above, and that since 2004 when the exact same size and pixel density on my D70's Sony sensor caused more moiré than that of the similar Sony sensor of both Nikon D100 and Epson R-D1 bodies. The extra-thin sensor stack of the M8 caused the same effect together with the IR issue we all know well here.

Edit: BTW of course soft lenses don't cause moiré, but sharp ones like Leica 50/1.4 asph or CV 15/4.5 you quoted above do that on thin sensor stacks (M8, M240, A7s mod) and none or less so on thicker ones (A7r2, Leica CL).

Edited February 4, 2018 by lct