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

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am convinced that most who justify the current 24 MP FF sensor as being more than sufficient will upgrade to a higher MP sensor as soon as it becomes available in a M camera body. As I already pointed out earlier, same happened in 2012 in Canon-specific online forums after Canon fell behind in FF sensor capability compared to Nikon and later Sony. As soon as Canon released the 5DsR, suddenly the tone in the forum changed and better resolution sensors were "in". Others switched or added with Nikon and Sony cameras before. 

 

There are areas in photography where 24 MP will remain sufficient for now - in street photography for example higher resolution FF sensors might not be needed if severe cropping in post processing is not desired. In landscape or wildlife photography a higher MP sensor is definitely a benefit - much more details in structures. This is all well described elsewhere since the > 36 MP sensors are not new. I personally wouldn't like to go back to 24 MP FF sensor after shooting with 36 MP since 2014. It is like going to a larger hard drive in your PC - after you upgraded there is no way back. Newer sensors also come with better dynamic range - something which I don't want to miss anymore either. I am never extremely pushing shadows in PP, but my actual high MP sensor does not require me to use graduated ND filters anymore nor do I need HDR often - as long as I avoid clipping highlights, all the information is in a single shot most of the time. That many Leica shooters also use Sony cameras in parallel is also a sign that Leica would benefit from offering a higher MP FF sensor in M cameras. Why not offering digital M models with different FF sensor resolution like Sony did in the A7/A7R/A7S series? Let the customer decide!

 

Possible that Leica will introduce better/newer sensors only in the SL camera series first to avoid in-house competition with the M series. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Martin B

[Keith_W]

Revisiting this rather controversial topic ... my first digital camera had 2MP. Then I upgraded to a 4MP camera, then to my first DSLR which had 6MP. I remember believing back then that 6MP was excessive and I didn't mind 2MP. Now I have 24MP, which would have seemed wildly excessive back then. But I also now know enough about digital photography (having had my expectations of what was enough reset repeatedly over the years!) to know that I would welcome more resolution if it was made available at no cost. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Possible that Leica will introduce better/newer sensors only in the SL camera series first to avoid in-house competition with the M series.

Likely in the rumored S008 first, then to the SL.

 

The real battle for IQ is happening in the shift to larger sensors at lower costs (Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji), not just in MP gains. There was never a debate in film days that medium and large format influenced potential IQ to a greater extent than battles within the 35 mm category.

 

Digital ‘medium format’ sensors don’t approach the sizes of medium format film negative sizes, but the potential benefits in color, tonal transitions, etc are there. As always, however, these benefits come with other usability trade offs.

 

And if output is screen rather than print, all this is much ado about nothing.... except a lot more dollars and forum chatter.

 

Jeff

[lct]

[...] I personally wouldn't like to go back to 24 MP FF sensor after shooting with 36 MP since 2014. It is like going to a larger hard drive in your PC - after you upgraded there is no way back. [...]

 

To each his own. Aside from my pro needs i prefer my Sony 12MP to 42MP by far. Now how about rangefinders? Some of us are yet disappointed by RF accuracy on 24MP cameras. How would they feel with a high res rangefinder? 

[jaapv]

Likely in the rumored S008 first, then to the SL.

 

The real battle for IQ is happening in the shift to larger sensors at lower costs (Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji), not just in MP gains. There was never a debate in film days that medium and large format influenced potential IQ to a greater extent than battles within the 35 mm category.

 

Digital ‘medium format’ sensors don’t approach the sizes of medium format film negative sizes, but the potential benefits in color, tonal transitions, etc are there. As always, however, these benefits come with other usability trade offs.

 

And if output is screen rather than print, all this is much ado about nothing.... except a lot more dollars and forum chatter.

 

Jeff

Insert "large" before the word print

[Martin B]

Wh

 

To each his own. Aside from my pro needs i prefer my Sony 12MP to 42MP by far. Now how about rangefinders? Some of us are yet disappointed by RF accuracy on 24MP cameras. How would they feel with a high res rangefinder? 

Why are the 24 MP rangefinders less accurate than lower resolution ones?! Never heard this before.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Insert "large" before the word print

Well, that depends on definition of large. I’ve seen benefits of larger sensors in 16x20 prints.

 

But screen displays suffer in comparison to print at even smaller sizes IMO.

 

Jeff

Edited February 7, 2018 by Jeff S

[lct]

Why are the 24 MP rangefinders less accurate than lower resolution ones?! Never heard this before.

 

An image looking sharp at 12MP may look soft at 42MP if focus is not nailed perfectly.

[Martin B]

An image looking sharp at 12MP may look soft at 42MP if focus is not nailed perfectly.

 

Ok, I guess this goes back to the earlier discussion in this thread about potential vibration issues. In-camera image stabilization resolves this - also already existing and applied technology. I have no issues using my camera handheld to get crisp images with my high res FF sensor. 

[TG14]

 

That many Leica shooters also use Sony cameras in parallel is also a sign that Leica would benefit from offering a higher MP FF sensor in M cameras. Why not offering digital M models with different FF sensor resolution like Sony did in the A7/A7R/A7S series? Let the customer decide!

 

 

 

I think this point is interesting and I'm in 2 minds about it. I was just in a sony shop a few days ago and asked to see the cameras. I was brought to a table with many and given an incredible choice. Which is great, but also overwhelming.

 

The sony series is a great example, where A7 is for one purpose, A7R for another and the A7S has its own specialty. And the customer can decide which suits their shooting style or type (assuming that the customer knows). By having cameras for different purposes, is the manufacturer compromising on other parts of the system?

[Ickx]

An image looking sharp at 12MP may look soft at 42MP if focus is not nailed perfectly.

 

Enlarge the 12 MP image as much as the 42 MP and it will not look as stellar any more. 

[TG14]

To each his own. Aside from my pro needs i prefer my Sony 12MP to 42MP by far. Now how about rangefinders? Some of us are yet disappointed by RF accuracy on 24MP cameras. How would they feel with a high res rangefinder? 

 

Can you elaborate on that please? Does it mean that when you line up the RF, it's still not in focus?

[lct]

Ok, I guess this goes back to the earlier discussion in this thread about potential vibration issues. In-camera image stabilization resolves this - also already existing and applied technology. I have no issues using my camera handheld to get crisp images with my high res FF sensor. 

 

It is not, or not only, a matter of stabilization. You have no issues because you can use image magnification on your 42MP camera. Imagine you cannot do that and you don't have focus peaking either. Most of your pics at full aperture would look out of focus then at 100% magnification. 

[pgk]

Can you elaborate on that please? Does it mean that when you line up the RF, it's still not in focus?

 

A mechanical RF mechanism has a finite accuracy. The 'point' of focus on which it is focussed actually lies between two planes which represent the tolerance to which it is able to operate. So if you try to use the RF to focus on the centre of this plane, it will provide an 'accuracy' which is actually only within these planes. 75/1.4/1.25, 90/2 and 135/3.4 lenses when used wide open are about at the limit of the RF's ability to provide 'accuracy' and these lenses can benefit from live view/focus peeking/whatever. However this starts to move away from the concept of RF photography. If you increase the MPixels of the sensor and thus the magnification at which you view an image the required accuracy increases meaning that discrepancies show more obviously.

[Martin B]

It is not, or not only, a matter of stabilization. You have no issues because you can use image magnification on your 42MP camera. Imagine you cannot do that and you don't have focus peaking either. Most of your pics at full aperture would look out of focus then at 100% magnification. 

 

On a rangefinder camera with OVF, you focus like you do on older film-based rangefinder cameras, correct? Why should I have more trouble on a digital rangefinder camera with high MP sensor especially if it comes with in body image stabilization? I find the rangefinder focusing with OVF very accurate and often even faster than I can focus manually on my Sony camera. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Martin B

[lct]

On a rangefinder camera with OVF, you focus like you do on older film-based rangefinder cameras, correct? Why should I have more trouble on a digital rangefinder camera with high MP sensor especially if it comes with in body image stabilization? I find the rangefinder focusing with OVF very accurate and often even faster than I can focus manually on my Sony camera. 

 

Faster yes but RF accuracy is calculated for average magnification. If you take a magnifying glass to view your pictures you will see that what looked sharp to the naked eye may appear softer this way. 

[pgk]

I find the rangefinder focusing with OVF very accurate and often even faster than I can focus manually on my Sony camera. 

 

Perhaps it might be an idea to ask Sony to fit a rangefinder to their cameras?

[Martin B]

Perhaps it might be an idea to ask Sony to fit a rangefinder to their cameras?

 

Or ask Leica to use Sony sensors in their cameras.....

[jaapv]

Or ask Leica to use Sony sensors in their cameras.....

They do... Whenever it makes sense. Digilux2, X series, most likely T series, CL probably too. Unfortunately Sony does not produce full frame sensors that are suitable for legacy rangefinder wideangle lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

I can't really see Sony using Leica Rangefinders in their cameras myself - retro fitting the lenses with a rangefinder ramp would be a real problem. Legacy-wise, there are however some Minolta ltm lenses which already have the ramp though so .....