Jump to content

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

TG14

By TG14
in Leica M10

 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul J

Paul J

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm... Leica has told their customer base to buy an SL/R camera for non-rangefinder use since the early 1960-iesas the concept of the M is a handy reportage and travel camera. Tethering and studio use are not really part of that concept.

I get the impression that the level of customer unhappiness is quite low nowadays.

 

I'm not wasting time on this argument again. The point is that it had tethering. It worked perfectly well. On a separate grip it doesn't effect anyone who doesn't want it.

Edited by Paul J
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 567
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Luke_Miller
Luke_Miller

I also shoot with a 36 mpixel Nikon D810.  I have to use higher shutter speeds than than with my lower resolution DSLRs in order to eliminate visible camera shake in the images - typically two x lens

pgh
pgh

Seriously, I don't understand the snarky replies. Nowhere does OP say or imply the M10 is inferior - just brings up a point that is valid for many people. There are other reasons to buy a camera than

hteasley
hteasley

I don't believe most of what you wrote. I've done wedding shoots with various cameras, and my clients haven't been any more pleased with 36mpix CMOS shots than they've been with 18mpix CCD shots. I sh

Posted Images

Paul J

Paul J

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ummm. I could buy an entire and excellent system from another manufacturer for the price of a new M body. The costly proposition financial argument is not a sound one.

 

You could find one, but that's just a matter of opinion and based on your own needs Paul so not a sound argument either.

 

Financial is only one part of the argument too. Changing systems, workflow, aesthetic, post patterns, adapting your style to a whole new system is far more costly in time and other things, than basic financials.

Edited by Paul J
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

 

I'm not wasting time on this argument again. The point is that it had tethering. It worked perfectly well. On a separate grip it doesn't effect anyone who doesn't want it.

 

You know we agree basically on the (lack of) wisdom of removing features from the M240 when designing the M10. ;)

 

 

No, I entirely agree. And that is what I do.

 

it's just that the M's use has become far less than what I would like and often really need.

 

At this point I would even be OK moving to the SL but at 24MP it's the no different.

 

Hopefully the next SL ;) It would differentiate the M and SL line even more, and there is the CL now as a scaled-down SL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul J

Paul J

Posted
Posted

You know we agree basically on the (lack of) wisdom of removing features from the M240 when designing the M10. ;)

 

 

 

Hopefully the next SL ;) It would differentiate the M and SL line even more, and there is the CL now as a scaled-down SL.

 

 

Yes I agree and think once the S moves up then the rest finally will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If 24MP is insufficient, there is always film... if I may quote an old but informative test: http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/styled-3/

 

I don't see that my 35 mm film based photos are better in resolution compared to my 2009-based 22 MP FF sensor and certainly not compared to my 36 MP sensor. But I agree that film delivers more resolution when shooting large negative size, for example 4x5".  The resolution is fantastic here!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JTLeica

JTLeica

Posted
Posted

I definitely dont believe that ASA100 film (35mm) gives better resolution than 100 ISO on a 24MP camera. Certainly not in my findings. I have numerous shots from 50 ASA Slide film and even these are no match for a modern 24mp sensor.

 

Also - to all that keep mentioning print size, print size is relative to viewing distance, so technically a print that is 12 feet by 8 feet can be shot on a 10MP camera and look stunning. Unless you are the type to view your prints at nose length.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pgk

pgk

Posted
Posted

I definitely dont believe that ASA100 film (35mm) gives better resolution than 100 ISO on a 24MP camera. Certainly not in my findings. I have numerous shots from 50 ASA Slide film and even these are no match for a modern 24mp sensor.

 

In real world, useful information terms Fuji Velvia 50 roughly gives the same usable information as a 10MPixel camera. How do I know? I've used  both for scientific underwater photography. From my actual tests a Canon 5D yields marginally more usable info the a Velvia 50 transparency. Others may disagree but this is my own finding using the same lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pico

pico

Posted
Posted

As this threads moves on for the next six months, I'll keep mentioning it and include my signature line, of course, so that new readers who join can be informed. 

 

Ah, this is a good opportunity to remind our members that they can block signatures.

.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
JTLeica

JTLeica

Posted
Posted

In real world, useful information terms Fuji Velvia 50 roughly gives the same usable information as a 10MPixel camera. How do I know? I've used  both for scientific underwater photography. From my actual tests a Canon 5D yields marginally more usable info the a Velvia 50 transparency. Others may disagree but this is my own finding using the same lens.

Thanks for the info. Good point about the usable information...

 

The majority of film gave a slightly softer more natural look than digital and the details appears most 'spaced out'... Almost like enlarging a digital image. So if you can accept an ever so slightly softer images with digital you can enlarge to double the area without really suffering too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lucerne

lucerne

Posted
Posted

Sure you can.

 

 

It's my signature line. I like it better this way.

 

 

I'll mention what I think is relevant to the discussion. As this threads moves on for the next six months, I'll keep mentioning it and include my signature line, of course, so that new readers who join can be informed.  :)  

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

http://www.towerjazz.com/prs/2017/1030.html

 

Your signature conveys nothing useful and is irrelevant. In fact, it isn’t a bona fide forum signature. Signatures are normally configured within the users control panel and appear separated from the body of the post. Then it makes sense.

Do we really need reminding that you have some obsession that cannot be challenged. It would be more useful if you now gave us a summary of your conclusions after testing so much equipment.

Help us out please.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
DES

DES

Posted
Posted

I have resisted the temptation to buy another Leica since I bought the M8 in 2007

Because I wanted larger more detailed files (for landscape) I have gone the Nikon D800E.

And the results are superb.

Ok I hate using the thing..... it is not a Leica and if the M10 had 36meg I would have snapped it up (pardon the pun) in a second.

Bring the M11 on and a big 36!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
lucerne

lucerne

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have resisted the temptation to buy another Leica since I bought the M8 in 2007

Because I wanted larger more detailed files (for landscape) I have gone the Nikon D800E.

And the results are superb.

Ok I hate using the thing..... it is not a Leica and if the M10 had 36meg I would have snapped it up (pardon the pun) in a second.

Bring the M11 on and a big 36!

Good things come to those that wait. Meanwhile, the M10 is what we have, and those who own it have it hope that is current for sufficient time to extract value from their investment. At some future date I may also go for the mythical M11. Some of us can’t afford to throw thousands of dollars at leica every few months. After all, you stayed with the M8 for a long time without upgrading. I’m pleased that you found an alternative camera that you like. Why change. Edited by lucerne
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DES

DES

Posted
Posted

The Nikon is great for landscape, which is my “thing” also for sports etc. But...... I hate using it, it is big, cumbersome, and I have a fortune invested in Leica lenses. My M8 isn’t even full frame, so naturally I want to make the most of my gear, before the big man makes the decision for me! Also, I love using Leica.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

I have resisted the temptation to buy another Leica since I bought the M8 in 2007

Because I wanted larger more detailed files (for landscape) I have gone the Nikon D800E.

And the results are superb.

Ok I hate using the thing..... it is not a Leica and if the M10 had 36meg I would have snapped it up (pardon the pun) in a second.

Bring the M11 on and a big 36!

Nikon will have a 120 MP camera by then, you'll have the same problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...