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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, it wouldn't have, as the SL is a essentially different camera and many buyers have no interest in a higher pixel count at all. The reasons to buy the SL are the "SLR"-like experience and the zoom lenses with AF.

[pgh]

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.

lol - no!

There are better resolving, less expensive cameras if you want to go that route. The only Leica worth having IMO is the M, because there is no other option for what it is. But I already said that. I'll happily stick with my Sony if I must use a bulkier (not that bulky by slr standards, but still) mirrorless body. If it's not the small form rangefinder, then it's not part of this discussion. 

[Chaemono]

Well, let’s not get carried away with that G Masterly resolution.

 

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

[Photon42]

No, it wouldn't have, as the SL is a essentially different camera and many buyers have no interest in a higher pixel count at all. The reasons to buy the SL are the "SLR"-like experience and the zoom lenses with AF.

 

 

I am not so sure, Jaap. "Killing" is maybe a strong word, but imagine they would have put out a 36 mPix M10 (vs a 24 mPix SL). My take is a lot of people would have gone towards the M10 or towards another system. But - needless to argue. It is all about different crystal balls 

[Photon42]

Well, let’s not get carried away with that G Masterly resolution.

 

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

 

 

"who cares Manchester City" ... I was about to say. But then you added Santa Claus ...

[JTLeica]

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.....

 

Megapixels are about 5% of a cameras performance. We are well over 'enough' now... 12mp was enough for a wall print. If you want to get a value camera with great specs for cut price... get a Sony no problem. I buy Leica for the enjoyment, build quality and precision!

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Megapixels are about 5% of a cameras performance. We are well over 'enough' now... 12mp was enough for a wall print. If you want to get a value camera with great specs for cut price... get a Sony no problem. I buy Leica for the enjoyment, build quality and precision!

 

Okay, why not 7%? Or 10%? Maybe only 3%? There is no data to come up with any kind of percentage other than your SUBJECTIVE feel how much it is worth to you. And this is a valid point - for you it might be absolutely sufficient. But for others it simply isn't - it is personal preference based. We are going in circles if we are back to the "you only need high MP to print big". I laid this out pages ago in this thread why higher MP FF sensor is beneficial for ME, and printing large is not one of my reasons. You imply that Sony is for low budget buyers and these cameras are less enjoyable. No sure if you ever worked with a Sony FF mirrorless camera yourself - I do. And I use Leica M film cameras in parallel. I personally enjoy both cameras - they both have their pros and cons, but I find them both enjoyable to work with. 

[pgh]

Well, let’s not get carried away with that G Masterly resolution.

 

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

 

I use these cameras side by side often and the larger prints from the Sony are unquestionably better (as in, the files have more latitude and resolution) - and that is even with some adapted film lenses like a Contax G series (where, also, the whole size argument is moot because those sharp lenses are indeed small). Not getting carried away with anything - going off of 10 years printing and shooting experience and making a living doing so. Reproductive screen tests bear little resemblance to real world use - at least in my experience. I may very well live in another dimension.  

Edited March 6, 2018 by pgh

[pico]

Megapixels are about 5% of a cameras performance. We are well over 'enough' now... 12mp was enough for a wall print. [... snip please see post ...]

 

Personally I would be reluctant to propose a percent of performance, so if we can forget/forgive your 5% metric to be posited in results I would be happy. I think others would be as well.

 

So what perspective do you presume?

Edited March 6, 2018 by pico

[Reciprocity]

No.

 

No. It’s not about how many is good. I’m trying to establish whether forum members are truly interested in revealing why they need increased pixels and what they will do with their images files.

Personally, I think that the prospect is hype and very few really want to go through the process in the short term, of changing equipment and purchasing stronger processing systems and increased storage.

Let’s just see.

 

 

I’m not really sure what your purpose is with this or if it is truly any of your business but sure, I’ll play ball:

 

Point blank, the M10 is about third on my list of digital bodies for high res work which I do plenty of for uses up to 15 feet wide in the commercial and fine art sphere. But I see the differences in print as small as a full page magazine reproduction. It has showed and always will show, just like when you could tell a large format image on the cover of Outdoor Photographer magazine in the 90’s, even with it printed at 300 dpi. 

 

Resolution mattered before and it matters now. But that is not to say I can’t get usable images out of the M10’s very average 24MP, I can and do. I just use much better tools for high resolution work because among the obvious one of higher MP count, I find the lack of precision framing alone to be against the mental gymnastics of how I produce this kind of work. 

 

I would never turn down a 36MP version of the M10 as long as the high ISO still improved, that is the area I use the M most in. And after shooting hundreds of thousands of images at both 24 and 36MP I can tell you it just does not take an enormous amount more computing and storage power to deal with 36. Maybe your computer is already on the brink or something, not sure why you think 36MP is going to sink a machine that can handle 24MP?

 

I tend to keep computers very robust and reasonably up to date as just this week I upgraded to a high end spec’d iMac Pro, my overall storage to Thunderbolt 3 and now have some 160TB of diversified SSD RAID and HD RAID 5 storage. 

 

I’m not clear on what you seek to gain but I think the answer to your question lies somewhere in between not taking a blanket and narrow minded view of who the Leica M user base looks like and just chalking it up to all of us being very different.

 

I am almost certain Leica can and will make the next M body higher spec'd in terms of MP count and really, that is ok.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Reciprocity

[lucerne]

I’m not really sure what your purpose is with this or if it is truly any of your business but sure, I’ll play ball:

 

Point blank, the M10 is about third on my list of digital bodies for high res work which I do plenty of for uses up to 15 feet wide in the commercial and fine art sphere. But I see the differences in print as small as a full page magazine reproduction. It has showed and always will show, just like when you could tell a large format image on the cover of Outdoor Photographer magazine in the 90’s, even with it printed at 300 dpi. 

 

Resolution mattered before and it matters now. But that is not to say I can’t get usable images out of the M10’s very average 24MP, I can and do. I just use much better tools for high resolution work because among the obvious one of higher MP count, I find the lack of precision framing alone to be against the mental gymnastics of how I produce this kind of work. 

 

I would never turn down a 36MP version of the M10 as long as the high ISO still improved, that is the area I use the M most in. And after shooting hundreds of thousands of images at both 24 and 36MP I can tell you it just does not take an enormous amount more computing and storage power to deal with 36. Maybe your computer is already on the brink or something, not sure why you think 36MP is going to sink a machine that can handle 24MP?

 

I tend to keep computers very robust and reasonably up to date as just this week I upgraded to a high end spec’d iMac Pro, my overall storage to Thunderbolt 3 and now have some 160TB of diversified SSD RAID and HD RAID 5 storage. 

 

I’m not clear on what you seek to gain but I think the answer to your question lies somewhere in between not taking a blanket and narrow minded view of who the Leica M user base looks like and just chalking it up to all of us being very different.

 

I am almost certain Leica can and will make the next M body higher spec'd in terms of MP count and really, that is ok.

It is OK.

Thanks for your views and taking the time to describe your approach to the use of 24 and 36mp based sensors. Clearly you have a professional requirement and that makes quite a difference to specifying and procuring the right tools for your work.

This thread isn’t challenging any user to justify what they use. However it should demonstrate to forum readers that the choice of equipment should be more pragmatic and not just an attempt to keep up,with others. In other words, the business case for any update is determined by need which should come before want, especially in view of the cost.

[JTLeica]

Okay, why not 7%? Or 10%? Maybe only 3%? There is no data to come up with any kind of percentage other than your SUBJECTIVE feel how much it is worth to you. And this is a valid point - for you it might be absolutely sufficient. But for others it simply isn't - it is personal preference based. We are going in circles if we are back to the "you only need high MP to print big". I laid this out pages ago in this thread why higher MP FF sensor is beneficial for ME, and printing large is not one of my reasons. You imply that Sony is for low budget buyers and these cameras are less enjoyable. No sure if you ever worked with a Sony FF mirrorless camera yourself - I do. And I use Leica M film cameras in parallel. I personally enjoy both cameras - they both have their pros and cons, but I find them both enjoyable to work with. 

 

I agreed 5% was just a made up number and I should have said small. Remember what I say is only what I think... I understand it doesnt apply to all. However I really do feel people with these huge 42mp cameras, never (or hardly ever) need them. I also admit that I have not read every post of the 25 page thread as I didnt have time.

 

I have just recently Sold off two Sony A7RII's and also had a RX1R II a while back so I have worked with the cameras, and although I found the output absolutely excellent, I never found that itch to pick them up and go shooting with them. They were just a tool rather than a passion but I will admit that the output was good. But again, I it was too much. When printing a large image, the only time you can see the different is when you press your face up against the picture and look closely, which isnt really what photography is about, of course in my opinion that is. Sony are probably the most improved camera company in the market and are to thank for pushing sensor tech further.

[JTLeica]

Personally I would be reluctant to propose a percent of performance, so if we can forget/forgive your 5% metric to be posited in results I would be happy. I think others would be as well.

 

So what perspective do you presume?

 

 Yes absolutely we can forget that... could be 0% to some or 100% to others.

[xiaubauu2009]

I think you need to think about whether the lens line up from the past is able to resolve up to higher than 24mp... remember the day when d800 was introduce and suddenly every single Nikkor lens is considered not up to the task. As legendary as Leica lens were, they were not that much higher in resolution, or even lower in resolving power than any cheap old sigma Art lens produce recently and we shouldn't over-hyphe Leica's technical prowess just because it's Leica.

 

So why no higher resolution? in my opinion, it's because they need to cater for the older lens market and also for them to create lens able to resolve up to that kind of resolution, it won't be practical in terms of size and economy....

Edited March 6, 2018 by xiaubauu2009

[JTLeica]

I dont think anyone is over hyping the Leica lenses. Just read the reviews of them, they are only every marked down on 'value'.. of course they do no represent good value if comparing performance alone vs other brands. But they are without doubt some of the best optics in the world.

 

21mm 3.4

21mm 1.4

28mm Lux

35mm FLE

50mm Lux, Noctilux and APO / non APO summicron

90mm APO

135mm APO

 

These are all considered the absolute best amongst their peers. I have used several of these on A7RII cameras and the lenses still out-resolve the sensor - at least they do when they work well on the camera.

[jaapv]

I think you need to think about whether the lens line up from the pass is able to resolve up to higher than 24mp... remember the day when d800 was introduce and suddenly every single Nikkor lens is considered not up to the task. As legendary as Leica lens were, they were not that much higher in resolution, or even lower in resolving power than any cheap old sigma Art lens produce recently and we shouldn't over-hyphe Leica's technical prowess just because it's Leica.

 

So why no higher resolution? in my opinion, it's because they need to cater for the older lens market and also for them to create lens able to resolve up to that kind of resolution, it won't be practical in terms of size and economy....

This is wrong thinking.

It is not a weakest link situation. A higher resolving lens will perform better than a lower resolving lens on a lower resolving sensor, a low-resolving lens will perform better on a high-resolving sensor. Lens and sensor together create the microcontrast which is the determining factor for sharp photographs. Contrast and sharpness are closely linked.

 

Most of the early criticism of older Nikon lenses was about unnoticed motion blur and more critical focusing. Now that people have learned how to use the camera, they are happily using older lenses again.

[xiaubauu2009]

I dont think anyone is over hyping the Leica lenses. Just read the reviews of them, they are only every marked down on 'value'.. of course they do no represent good value if comparing performance alone vs other brands. But they are without doubt some of the best optics in the world.

 

21mm 3.4

21mm 1.4

28mm Lux

35mm FLE

50mm Lux, Noctilux and APO / non APO summicron

90mm APO

135mm APO

 

These are all considered the absolute best amongst their peers. I have used several of these on A7RII cameras and the lenses still out-resolve the sensor - at least they do when they work well on the camera.

 

 

It's a rangefinder lens design, it's not going to be as well performing as those specially design SLR lens on a mirrorless A7RIII particularly the wider end of the lens focal length. I might be a bit harsh about the word 'over-hyphed'. But you are right, they are the best rangefinder lens available in the market. The best there is, but they are not suitable for every kind of body even if you can adapt them.

you said it yourself, they are only good a certain time/condition on an adapted body.... which from my experience, I rather more prefer to use it on the M.... than adapted on anything else.

 

I don't need to read reviews of them as I have owned most of the modern one.. maybe except the 50AA which I know is very good... but like I said, only work best with the M... and that's not because it's inferior design, but it's more 'specific' design.

Edited March 6, 2018 by xiaubauu2009

[xiaubauu2009]

This is wrong thinking.

It is not a weakest link situation. A higher resolving lens will perform better than a lower resolving lens on a lower resolving sensor, a low-resolving lens will perform better on a high-resolving sensor. Lens and sensor together create the microcontrast which is the determining factor for sharp photographs. Contrast and sharpness are closely linked.

 

Most of the early criticism of older Nikon lenses was about unnoticed motion blur and more critical focusing. Now that people have learned how to use the camera, they are happily using older lenses again.

 

I think it's not just that. The requirement of smaller and smaller sensor pitch means that you have to really fix all those CA in order to get contrasty sharp image...

that's why I said, no matter how good leica lens are, those older 70s~80s lens will not be as good as the modern one.

 

The magic 6micron sensor is there for a reason, it makes leica lens feels better than it is. It is really terrible when adaptor on a GFX 50megapixel sensor with 4. something micron and the 9mm gap between sensor surface and protective glass. 

[jaapv]

I would expand that to the use on other Leica cameras with adapter- Leica has gone to great lengths to make the sensors of SL, TL, CL well suited to M lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[xiaubauu2009]

This is wrong thinking.

It is not a weakest link situation. A higher resolving lens will perform better than a lower resolving lens on a lower resolving sensor, a low-resolving lens will perform better on a high-resolving sensor. Lens and sensor together create the microcontrast which is the determining factor for sharp photographs. Contrast and sharpness are closely linked.

 

Most of the early criticism of older Nikon lenses was about unnoticed motion blur and more critical focusing. Now that people have learned how to use the camera, they are happily using older lenses again.

 

I didn't mean higher resolving lens fitting lower resolution sensor or lower resolving lens to lower resolution sensor, I mean, purposely designed sensor to fit or enhance or extract as much juice from the lens as possible in every situation.... And I think M lens is just that. And when you start adapting them to other system, it all become a bit average, particularly the wider end of the spectrum, such as 35, 21 etc, as nowadays, optics design are not as proprietary as before, and a lot of it as to do with glass formulae and coating formulae... right?

Edited March 6, 2018 by xiaubauu2009