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

[TG14]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The pixel count for M10 is significantly less than full frame cameras from the other brands.

 

Why is that?

What's the thought process behind it?

Is there something inherent in the design process or the way the camera works?

Does Leica not have the technology for this?

 

I buy the argument that if you only print <up to a certain> size, you dont need that many pixels - but that strikes me as a bit of an apologetic argument.

 

[pedaes]

Because 24mp plenty for vast majority? More mp = bigger files= more storage capacity = etc.etc.

[Advertisement]

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

[TG14]

Because 24mp plenty for vast majority? More mp = bigger files= more storage capacity = etc.etc.

 

That implies that Leica decided, through maybe market research/feedback, that 24MP was the sweet spot for people who would consider buying a Leica full frame RF.

[otto.f]

Heat?

[pgh]

The pixel count for M10 is significantly less than full frame cameras from the other brands.

 

Why is that?

What's the thought process behind it?

Is there something inherent in the design process or the way the camera works?

Does Leica not have the technology for this?

 

I buy the argument that if you only print <up to a certain> size, you dont need that many pixels - but that strikes me as a bit of an apologetic argument.

I've brought this up many times in other areas of the forum. It is indeed a disappointment at times, at least for my uses, because I do often print large, and I do often shoot in dynamic light (the M sensor also has mediocre ability to capture a wide spectrum of light compared to the Sony sensors) and it's the one that makes me keep the Sony cameras nearby for many of my shoots. 

The reason I've heard most often, that I accept (due to my technical ignorance) is that, due to the rangefinder design of the lenses the practical resolution of the sensor is limited by current technology. Exhibit A would be when you put wide angle lenses on a Sony, the corner performance is poor due to the flange distance. So, okay, I get that.

But, with that argument in mind, I would fully expect the next version of the SL (not that I would ever buy that system) to have a better sensor, since it a modern system designed from the ground up that should be able to run with the the cameras that are half the price in terms of image quality.

 

Personally, I would love to get rid of the rest of my cameras and would be able to do so if they put out an M with a sensor that compared to the other offerings. I don't need MF and don't want the hassle that comes with it. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by pgh

[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 focal length. With my other DSLRs one x focal length is fine. Camera movement that would not be visible at 24 mpixels is now clearly visible at 36 mpixels.  A 36 mpixel Leica M would experience the same need for higher shutter speeds for hand held shots, albeit not as high as a DSLR due to the Leica's lack of a moving mirror.  So whatever the minimum shutter speed that gets you sharp images will have to increase to get sharp 36 mpixel shots. An additional stop of shutter speed will necessitate a doubling of ISO which adds additional ISO noise.  Also those smaller pixels will be more prone to ISO noise.  For a camera that is intended for hand held use and lacks stabilized lenses I suspect 24 mpixels is as far as Leica can go and still meet its standards of image quality.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Luke_Miller

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The pixel count for M10 is significantly less than full frame cameras from the other brands.

 

Why is that?

What's the thought process behind it?

Is there something inherent in the design process or the way the camera works?

Does Leica not have the technology for this?

 

I buy the argument that if you only print <up to a certain> size, you dont need that many pixels - but that strikes me as a bit of an apologetic argument.

Perhaps those other brands are what you should choose and not bother with inferior Leica cameras.

[Steve Ash]

I could think of following reasons:

- limitations in size of microlenses

- data handling limits, processing power, bus data rate

- charing of components within the different products and their differentiation

-etc

- b

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[olgierdc]

Nikon D5 has 20,8 Mega pixels and costs about the same, so I think that D5 is worse than Leica M10, even worse comparing to CL

[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 for the sensor (otherwise none of us would probably own the Leica, since the sensor is not the strong selling point). The D5 also shoots video, lots of FPS, has can actually be used to shoot sports reliably etc etc etc. 

 

The sensor may not matter for you, for others it does, that's a thing. If you don't have something constructive to say about it then spend that time making a photo that's worth printing big and see what you think for yourself when you hit the limits. If you don't care, then carry on. 

[Mark II]

There are likely many reasons why the pixel count remains the same - only Leica will know. Some pure guesses:

 

1) M series cameras are usually shot hand-held, and without some form of image stabiliser it will be difficult to benefit from the extra pixels

2) upgrading a sensor is incredibly expensive and difficult - affecting not just the sensor but also the subsequent image processing and storage

3) many of the current lenses may not resolve enough to benefit substantially from a sensor resolution change (Canon, for example, have re-issued many of their workhorse lenses to accommodate the newer sensors - and the new optics are usually larger and heavier)

4) Leica need something to get people to pony up for an M11 in the future...

 

More than resolution, the M series desperately needs better native low-ISO and some means of user focus calibration. All those new and expensive M-mount Noctilux releases would benefit greatly from this.

[pgh]

There are likely many reasons why the pixel count remains the same - only Leica will know. Some pure guesses:

 

1) M series cameras are usually shot hand-held, and without some form of image stabiliser it will be difficult to benefit from the extra pixels

2) upgrading a sensor is incredibly expensive and difficult - affecting not just the sensor but also the subsequent image processing and storage

3) many of the current lenses may not resolve enough to benefit substantially from a sensor resolution change (Canon, for example, have re-issued many of their workhorse lenses to accommodate the newer sensors - and the new optics are usually larger and heavier)

4) Leica need something to get people to pony up for an M11 in the future...

 

More than resolution, the M series desperately needs better native low-ISO and some means of user focus calibration. All those new and expensive M-mount Noctilux releases would benefit greatly from this.

 

I don't buy the handheld argument as a reason for limiting resolution. Yes, it can be slightly more limiting, but it is hardly difficult to handhold a 40-50 mp camera and get a tack sharp image - in real world use they are quite versatile. I've used high res cameras in the same exact reportage scenarios as low res cameras and my sharp keeper rate is about the same- slightly lower, never enough to make me wish I had a lower resolving sensor. At most it seems to take one stop off the shutter speed you can use - but then these high res cameras are usually pretty good when you bump up the ISO one stop anyways.

 

I would also add to your last point that in addition to the ISO thing (not a huge issue for me), they need sensors that capture more range of light. The amount of light one can capture before getting blown highlights or blocked shadows is noticeably less than the other sensors, and the tonal transitions are rougher looking too. I'd rather have that with a usable ceiling of 3200 or 6400 than my 25k iso look usable. 

[a.noctilux]

Some people who need high res. from camera can buy Canon EOS 5DSR for half of M10's price.

We live in wonderful world .

[lct]

Unless the latest technology is used, what Leica is not famous for, cramming more pixels into the same sensor size ends up with more bulk and more digital noise generally. The 42MP Sony A7r2 of my office is bulkier and noisier than my 12MP A7s mod for instance but the latest 42MP A7r3 is said to be cleaner than the former. Leica will follow suit with the next SL and possibly the M11 i guess unless its "Das Wesentliche" philosophy extends to 24MP sensors.

[olgierdc]

The ultimate goal of every company is earning money for shareholders. First of all, in 2013 Leica purchased SINAR.

https://en.leica-camera.com/Company/Press-Centre/Press-Releases/2013/Press-Release-2013-11-26_Leica_Camera_takes_over_Sinar

Secondly, Leica has a medium format line called S. Why would Leica insert a sensor with the same number of pixels into Leica M as in Leica S? If someone wants to make large prints, he should use Leica S (eg commercially). If someone wants to print great landscapes, he should use Sinar. Leica M is generally targeted at the street or documentary photography market. Of course Leica M can be used for landscapes or even sports, but you have to take into account the limitations, e.g. the number of pixels.

 

Unfortunately, Nikon does not have a medium format camera, so it divides products in small format on D850 and D5.

 

Despite the popularity of the Leica brand, it is a niche producer and is unlikely to provide products for each segment. Therefore, some customers will go to Sony, Canon or Nikon, because there is more choice.

And nothing foretells Leica ceasing to be a niche producer, if only because of the lens production process. Recently you can even see that Panasonic is not on the way, because it seems that there will be no successor to D-Lux.

Edited January 31, 2018 by olgierdc

[jaapv]

I don't buy the handheld argument as a reason for limiting resolution. Yes, it can be slightly more limiting, but it is hardly difficult to handhold a 40-50 mp camera and get a tack sharp image - in real world use they are quite versatile. I've used high res cameras in the same exact reportage scenarios as low res cameras and my sharp keeper rate is about the same- slightly lower, never enough to make me wish I had a lower resolving sensor. At most it seems to take one stop off the shutter speed you can use - but then these high res cameras are usually pretty good when you bump up the ISO one stop anyways.

 

I would also add to your last point that in addition to the ISO thing (not a huge issue for me), they need sensors that capture more range of light. The amount of light one can capture before getting blown highlights or blocked shadows is noticeably less than the other sensors, and the tonal transitions are rougher looking too. I'd rather have that with a usable ceiling of 3200 or 6400 than my 25k iso look usable. 

The difference in DR between the M10 and A7 is just over one EV value. I don't think that that makes a decisive difference, especially as the pure DR measurement does not tell us very much about the actually usable exposure range. That can only be judged by the exposure curve taken directly from the sensor.

[pgh]

The difference in DR between the M10 and A7 is just over one EV value. I don't think that that makes a decisive difference, especially as the pure DR measurement does not tell us very much about the actually usable exposure range. That can only be judged by the exposure curve taken directly from the sensor.

I've refuted this point before - there is a real and discernable difference between the range of light one is able to work with in a Sony/Nikon file and a Leica file. That one stop is noticeable. You've tried to tell me before this doesn't matter. It does, for me and for others I know. It's not a matter of incompetent use or not knowing how to expose. It's a matter of the actual information that's recoverable in the extreme ranges of light and dark without it looking like garbage in the transitions and recoverable highlight area. When you're shooting in dynamic light like that, the M10 leaves something to be desired compared to other sensors of the same size and equal (and better) resolution. Try doing an environmental portrait exposed for the indoors with backlit windows with each camera, work in raw, pull back highlights - you'll see the difference in what you can work with quickly, and you'll see where the Leica falls short, where it clips to white garbage and where with other cameras you can actually begin to bring back useful tone and image information. This stuff matters depending on the photograph. Also, relevantly - this is referring to the A7RII or the D810, or Rx1rII - all of which capture more - the A7 is older, more inferior tech and sensor at this point. 

 

Why are there so many responses in this forum that - when a shortcoming is brought up - basically try to say it doesn't/shouldn't matter or its not of consequence? That's not the point. It's sort of ridiculous. I've made my living doing this work for 10 years at this point, still a young(ish) fellow, but I know when a camera hits its limits and when it matters for the work some of us do. At some point it would be helpful if some users could understand. At least step back from that kool aid. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by pgh

[jaapv]

 

It's a matter of the actual information that's recoverable in the extreme ranges of light and dark without it looking like garbage in the transitions and recoverable highlight area.

Exactly. Precisely my point. It is not the DR as measured, for instance, by DXO.  This is the exposure range. Obviously the exposure range cannot be larger than the DR, however, the amount by which it is smaller is determined by the actual camera. So even if the theoretical DR is larger on a given camera, the usable exposure range may be larger on a camera with lower DXO measurement. So a difference of 1.2 EV value in DXO tells us nothing.

 

I have yet to see any comparison that gives these values

Until then we can only rely on anecdotal reports like yours.

 

I'm not saying it does not matter. - I never did. I'm just putting a bit of perspective on the numbers being bandied around. The Koolaid is in relying on numbers that do not cover photographic reality.

[pgk]

 This stuff matters depending on the photograph.

 

My experience is that recovering both highlights and shadows isn't as simple as simply gaining information; its how pleasant that information can be made to look. In this respect I find that recovered information may not look good as its tonal/colour transitions can spurious and unpleasant to view, so the ability to recover it is of little relevance if this is the case. But I do agree that if its useful to you and works within your way of shooting/processing than thats great for you.

 

I fully agree on your point about handholding a camera. This comes up so often its in danger of becoming folklore, so I will restate that it is perfectly possible to obtain as sharp images as possible handheld - even with high MPixel cameras. Its about angular deflection and other motions and there is no reason to think that these cannot be minimised (within reason) by a combination of highest viable shutter duration and a useful combination of camera hold/bracing/ breathing. I have innumerable proofs of this where a tripod would make no difference whatsoever.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Keith_W]

Reasons why I would want a higher megapixel count than 24: 

 

1. It gives me space to crop without losing too much resolution. This might mean the difference between shooting with the lens I have mounted vs. having to change my lens. 

2. If I want to print large. Which I don't. 

3. For boasting rights or to tell people my camera has a higher DXO mark score. Which I don't care about. 

 

Reasons why I am happy with 24MP or lower (I previously had a choice of an A7S2 or A7R2 for the same price, and I chose the A7S2): 

 

1. I care more about clean images , high ISO performance, and wider dynamic range than I care about resolution. 

2. Higher MP bodies are more difficult to shoot handheld. The 1/f shutter speed rule no longer applies (although on Sony bodies this is mitigated by IBIS). 

3. I don't want to waste storage on my SD card and HDD and suffer slower lightroom performance for more pixels which I am not going to use. 

4. More MP's as a rule slow your camera down. Everything is slower - shot to shot speed, maximum number of burst shots, image review. This isn't always true however. 

 

On balance I would happily accept a higher megapixel camera if it doesn't compromise on the negatives too much. So - while I am happy with 24MP, I wouldn't mind a higher MP count PROVIDED it maintains its dynamic range and high ISO performance - which IMO is the most important once you reach a "good enough" resolution (for me that is 10MP and up).