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

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since when has cost held Leica back? And is "not many could deliver" and "outdated" not a contradiction?

Leica sets the specifications and finds a supplier. Don't forget that Sony (who can hardly be accused of supplying obsolete products) was unable to supply a sensor for the M240, Leica had to look elsewhere.

Nor do I think that pixel count makes a sensor "better" or "worse"

 

Profit margin increase - sell high for lower cost to produce or lower cost regarding parts in a camera body. This game is played by all camera manufacturers. Leica's cut-down in cost is not in the exterior built quality but certainly in regard to electronics. I am not familiar with the M240 history in regard to Sony - never heard about it. Possible that Sony does not want to supply to competitors (only to Nikon for a while). As I mentioned earlier, I can clearly see the difference between 22 and 36 MP - DR (dynamic range) is another big benefit, and the M10 sensor is already very good in this aspect.

[Martin B]

And at the moment you cannot have it. If Leica could simply buy an off-the-shelf high MPixel sensor and slot it into to the M10 then all would be hunky dory. But ever since the 'perpetual upgrade' of the M8 this has not been possible. The reasons are numerous and as anyone who has been on this forum for a few years will tell you, they regularly need repeating. FWIW I too have been using a 22MPixel camera for a fair time and yet to me the 18MPixels of the M9 still produce comparable prints at near 30" x 20" and they are equal to those from a higher MPixel Nikon used by a colleague too.

 

So there are two questions: one is technical - can it be done to which the answer is currently, obviously no, but the other is about need. Whether you actually 'need' more MPixels, assuming the answer to the first question is no longer no, is about the relevance of more MPixels. How many people as a percentage of Leica M owners genuinely print to larger than 30" x 20" (cropping in my book is a lazy way to justify more MPixels)? I suspect not that many.

 

This is an old excuse that higher MP is only good for large prints which is not the case. When Canon was falling behind by not offering a high MP FF camera, exactly the same reasons were raised by members of other camera forums. Now the big majority of those who formerly said this kind of excuses use themselves either competitive high MP FF cameras or upgraded to the 5DsR. Why? Because the difference is so visible! You can crop much better if needed, landscapes have a lot more detail in it. I am making good use of my high MP FF sensor in microscope photography - huge benefit to get as much detail in the photo as possible. I would certainly not go back to a 24 MP sensor in any kind of new digital camera. 

 

I don't see any technical reason why a better sensor couldn't be used in a modern digital Leica M. So the "obvious" reason totally escapes me. 

[Martin B]

As a Leica and Sony user, i can understand why Leica doesn't want the same kind of results A7 bodies can achieve with M lenses. If they share my viewpoint, Leica users don't want compromise on image quality and prefer a thin and light 24MP body to a bigger and heavier 42MP the same way as i prefer my 12MP Sony A7s mod to the bulkier A7r2 i've been using for my job.

 

I don't get why a high MP sensor would require a bigger body - nonsense from my perspective. Heat is only created if you perform a lot of fast frame per second shooting - which Leica M cameras don't do anyway. 

[jonoslack]

INowadays, a 24MP sensor like that of the Leica CL shows very little moiré, if any, because its sensor stack is thicker most probably.

Judging by it’s performance with M lenses (and after discussions with Sean Reid and others) I think it’s pretty clear that the CL has a very thin sensor stack - otherwise it’s edge and corner performance with lenses such as the 28 ‘cron wouldn’t be so good.

 

Best

[jaapv]

 

Profit margin increase - sell high for lower cost to produce or lower cost regarding parts in a camera body. This game is played by all camera manufacturers. Leica's cut-down in cost is not in the exterior built quality but certainly in regard to electronics. I am not familiar with the M240 history in regard to Sony - never heard about it. Possible that Sony does not want to supply to competitors (only to Nikon for a while). As I mentioned earlier, I can clearly see the difference between 22 and 36 MP - DR (dynamic range) is another big benefit, and the M10 sensor is already very good in this aspect.

Sony supplies plenty of different sensors to Leica. The Digilux2, the X series, possibly the CL, etc.The history of the M240 sensor was explained by Leica's CEO in an interview. Leica will raise the price rather than cut costs on parts. If you can see the difference between 22 vs 36 you are either pixel-peeping at 100% or printing over 1.50 m wide. I suspect you are seeing other developments in sensor technology rather than a minor increase in linear resolution. 22 to 36 is what? 20% linear?

 

 

 

This is an old excuse that higher MP is only good for large prints which is not the case. When Canon was falling behind by not offering a high MP FF camera, exactly the same reasons were raised by members of other camera forums. Now the big majority of those who formerly said this kind of excuses use themselves either competitive high MP FF cameras or upgraded to the 5DsR. Why? Because the difference is so visible! You can crop much better if needed, landscapes have a lot more detail in it. I am making good use of my high MP FF sensor in microscope photography - huge benefit to get as much detail in the photo as possible. I would certainly not go back to a 24 MP sensor in any kind of new digital camera.

 

I don't see any technical reason why a better sensor couldn't be used in a modern digital Leica M. So the "obvious" reason totally escapes me.

A better sensor perhaps, if it existed. That is not synonymous with a higher MP sensor. Some cell phones have a very high MP count...

You are falling into the trap of thinking that DSLR sensors can be exchanged unmodified with RF sensors. They cannot.

Not only are there huge problems with the filter stack and microlenses, crosstalk in a high-MP sensor is also a considerable factor with steep incidence angles.

[lct]

Judging by it’s performance with M lenses (and after discussions with Sean Reid and others) I think it’s pretty clear that the CL has a very think sensor stack - otherwise it’s edge and corner performance with lenses such as the 28 ‘cron wouldn’t be so good.

 

I suspect the sensor stack of my CL is thicker than that of my three champions there (M8.2, A7s mod, M240) judging by its somewhat lesser edge and corner performance with lenses of mine like 28/2.8 asph v1 and 35/2 asph v1, in spite of its smaller sensor, but it does indeed well with my 28/2 v2, less so with my 28/2 v1. Nothing to complain about given that the CL is not an M camera and Leica seems to have chosen this compromise vs less moiré artefacts and IR sensitivity but i may be wrong. BTW i seem to recall that Sean Reid did suspect this lesser thinness of the CL's sensor stack as well. Are you sure he did not?

Edited February 5, 2018 by lct

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sony supplies plenty of different sensors to Leica. The Digilux2, the X series, possibly the CL, etc.The history of the M240 sensor was explained by Leica's CEO in an interview. Leica will raise the price rather than cut costs on parts. If you can see the difference between 22 vs 36 you are either pixel-peeping at 100% or printing over 1.50 m wide. I suspect you are seeing other developments in sensor technology rather than a minor increase in linear resolution. 22 to 36 is what? 20% linear?

 

 

A better sensor perhaps, if it existed. That is not synonymous with a higher MP sensor. Some cell phones have a very high MP count...

You are falling into the trap of thinking that DSLR sensors can be exchanged unmodified with RF sensors. They cannot.

Not only are there huge problems with the filter stack and microlenses, crosstalk in a high-MP sensor is also a considerable factor with steep incidence angles.

 

Leica already uses the thinnest sensor glass cover for the M lenses out there. From my personal experience most of my M lenses work just fine on a high MP/high DR sensor which is not even made for M lenses - ultrawide rangefinder lenses are more of a challenge here. 

As I said earlier, yes, I can clearly see the difference between 22 and 36 MP on my screen at 66%. Better resolution is always beneficial as well as dynamic range in a sensor. The latter is a bit tricky since it is with current technology focused on either low or high ISO preference. 

[jaapv]

Well, your experience with high MP sensors in other brands is not confirmed by others, especially with legacy wide angles. People like LCT have had to resort to modifications.

[Martin B]

Well, your experience with high MP sensors in other brands is not confirmed by others, especially with legacy wide angles. People like LCT have had to resort to modifications.

 

As I said, ultra-wides are challenging, and not all M mount lenses work with Sony sensors - the newer ASPH lenses with f/2 often create trouble here. CV 12/5.6 in M-mount is probably the most problematic here but for the rest of my M-lenses - CV 21/1.8, CV 35/1.2 II, CV 28/2, Leica 35/2 (vers. IV), Leica 50/2 (vers. V), Leica 90/2.8 (vers. I) - no problems at all. I can highly recommend the freeware Adobe Flat Field Plugin to remove slight color cast in the corner if needeed with ultra-wide M lenses. 

[pico]

What pixel count do y'all think would satisfy you, and why?

[Martin B]

What pixel count do y'all think would satisfy you, and why?

 

I am currently quite happy with 36 MP close to the 40-50 MP range. In a few years this will be already sort of outdated and technology then moves into the +60 MP FF area. At this point in-body image stabilization is a must because slight blur will be easily seen with this kind of high resolution. I find the RAW file size of photos taken at 36 MP FF sensor size very manageable with a modern PC and sufficient RAM. 

[pico]

At this point (+60 MP FF area) in-body image stabilization is a must because slight blur will be easily seen with this kind of high resolution.

 

I do not think so.

Physics do not agree.

Edited February 6, 2018 by pico

[Martin B]

I do not think so.

Physics do not agree.

 

Not sure what you mean here - already the current 42 MP Sony FF sensors are challenging in this aspect and one reason for the in-camera stabilization system which is included in the newer mirrorless bodies. I am not talking of other reasons for image blur like shutter vibration for example. 

[jaapv]

I am currently quite happy with 36 MP close to the 40-50 MP range. In a few years this will be already sort of outdated and technology then moves into the +60 MP FF area. At this point in-body image stabilization is a must because slight blur will be easily seen with this kind of high resolution. I find the RAW file size of photos taken at 36 MP FF sensor size very manageable with a modern PC and sufficient RAM. 

Motion blur has only an indirect correlation to resolution. It has to do with pixel size. A higher resolution on a larger sensor will not lead to more motion blur, a higher resolution on the same size sensor will.

[jdlaing]

Why not more pixels?

 

Maybe because the M camera line competes only with itself and is not a me too camera?

[Martin B]

Motion blur has only an indirect correlation to resolution. It has to do with pixel size. A higher resolution on a larger sensor will not lead to more motion blur, a higher resolution on the same size sensor will.

 

Well, I am talking the whole time of FF (35 mm) sensor size and compare higher resolution on the same sized sensor. 

[lct]

Edges and corners are too soft with M wides on stock Sony bodies, reason why i had my A7s modded by Kolari Vision, and IBIS can hardly be avoided at high pixel counts indeed so it's not tomorrow that Leica will cram a 42MB sensor together with IBIS in a compact M body. The SL should be a better candidate for that.

[jaapv]

Given that it is impossible to see anything over 10 MP on a print up to A3, making sensor resolution higher is only useful for moirë reduction.

In the rare cases that one needs more pixels, the way to go is a medium format sensor. High pixel counts look considerably better on large sensors anyway.

[frame-it]

maybe the OP wants to print like this

 

 

https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/10/30/ultraprints-vs-normal-prints-visualising-the-difference/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgh]

Jaapv - I know I've asked this before, but have you ever used the higher pixel count 35mm cameras in any serious manner? I only ask because some of your replies just don't line up with my experience, and I wonder what actual experience you're bringing. It would be helpful to know this, because it could be a different perception of the same thing, but as someone who uses both the M10 and multiple Sony models side by side, often in the same shoots, I just think a lot of these points presented are just not reflective of my experience. The notion that a medium format sensor, for instance, is the default way to go when one needs more resolution disregards the benefit of the high res 35mm sensors - mainly the fact that they are 90% as good in many cases and offer much more flexibility in use, lens choice etc.

 

Assuming equivalent exposures and ISO, in my opinion there is a greater visible difference between an M10 and Sony A7RII print at a medium size than there is a Sony A7RII and a Pentax 645Z/X1D print. When you go MF, you give up some things that 35mm gives, and it doesn't always make sense to give that up. It depends on the work you do of course, but the 36-42mp sensors definitely occupy a sweet spot of robust files that yield good prints past past 24 inches - upto 50 or 60 inches depending on technique - (and exposure latitude) with a portable and faster, more flexible way of working.