Q2 to be announced in May?

[jmschuh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 22 Stunden schrieb Infiniumguy:

I don’t just want more pixels, I want a back-side illuminated sensor like Sony and Nikon use which gives better low light and shadow performance.

BSI doesn't do much with large sensors, only with small sensors, because the relationship between pixel area and electronic area is not as bad as with small sensors. Effectively there is not more than 1/3 EV left.

You can see this very well at Fujfilm, who have just switched to BSI with the new X-T3. The difference to non-BSI is insignificant.

When Canon and Nikon switched to new sensors, it should not be forgotten that with the switch to BSI a new sensor generation was introduced at the same time, which was considerably optimized in several points. This has brought much more than the additional effect of BSI.

[Leica Guy]

5 hours ago, jmschuh said:

BSI doesn't do much with large sensors, only with small sensors, because the relationship between pixel area and electronic area is not as bad as with small sensors. Effectively there is not more than 1/3 EV left.

You can see this very well at Fujfilm, who have just switched to BSI with the new X-T3. The difference to non-BSI is insignificant.

When Canon and Nikon switched to new sensors, it should not be forgotten that with the switch to BSI a new sensor generation was introduced at the same time, which was considerably optimized in several points. This has brought much more than the additional effect of BSI.

Makes sense that BSI would benefit small sensors more. I guess I should clarify I want a sensor with comparable performance to full frame Sony or Nikon cameras like the A7RIII or the D850. 

[jmschuh]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Infiniumguy:

I guess I should clarify I want a sensor with comparable performance to full frame Sony or Nikon cameras like the A7RIII or the D850. 

I totally agree with you. Let us hope so.

[bags27]

It's hard to imagine that the next generation of Qs and SLs won't be a full standard deviation larger than present, since the new Panasonic with the L mount will be something like 48 MPS. It just seems incomprehensible that Leica will allow its own similar cameras to suffer so much by comparison.

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

18 hours ago, jmschuh said:

You can see this very well at Fujfilm, who have just switched to BSI with the new X-T3. The difference to non-BSI is insignificant.

Apparently the X-T3 sensor is able to handle 16 bit resolution. I would call that significant.

[jmschuh]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb LichtUndDunkelheit:

Apparently the X-T3 sensor is able to handle 16 bit resolution. I would call that significant.

Actually offtopic, but maybe someone would like to know...

Interesting speculation. But this has nothing to do with BSI. First 16 bits would mean that the raw files get bigger. If the two additional bits should contain useful information, a lot should have happened. 2^16 is 65536. So many electrons have to be collected first. That sounds pretty unrealistic.

The sensor in the X-T3 is obviously an "IMX571 Plus".

It fits best if you compare the X-T3 with the X-H1. But even then you can see that the X-T3 shows more noise at ISO 25600 and 51200 than the cameras with the older sensor. The speculation that this is due to the new sensor, however, is only that: a speculation. One could also speculate that it's the processor, because with ISO 25600 and 51200 the X cameras traditionally need a little more time for the creation of a RAW file, which encourages speculation that Fuji already performs image processing at RAW level with these ISOs. 

In the range up to ISO 12800, the normalized comparison between H1 and T3 shows practically no difference. This corresponds to the tests carried out at the saturation limit by Bill Claff, who already determined the PDR of the X-T3:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm GFX 50S,FujiFilm X-H1,FujiFilm X-T3

Here, too, you can see the difference between the two extended ISO H settings, while the other settings are practically the same.

Thanks to the basic ISO 160, the X-T3 has about 1/3 EV more dynamic range than its predecessors. With the same exposure settings for ISO, time and aperture, the new and older models have the same noise behaviour up to ISO 12800 in a normalized comparison. 

At ISO H (25600 and 51200) the RAWs of the X-T3 are visibly worse than those of the older cameras.

 

[trstahly]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As if anyone did not realize that Leica needed to upgrade the MP of the Q. My gosh the RX1RII has had 42MP for almost four years now and cameras are heading towards 72MP this year. I realize many of the Leica purists think 24MP is plenty but I doubt many if any have used a higher MP camera to actually understand the benefits.

Better images, able to crop which extends the usefulness of the camera, being able to downsample greatly reducing noise to name a few. 

If they bumped the Q up to 50MP and made it a little smaller I might even try another one but I expect Sony to come out with a RX1RIII with 60-72MP but I hope they have the sense to make it a 28mm lens like the Q.

[SonomaBear]

1 hour ago, trstahly said:

As if anyone did not realize that Leica needed to upgrade the MP of the Q. My gosh the RX1RII has had 42MP for almost four years now and cameras are heading towards 72MP this year. I realize many of the Leica purists think 24MP is plenty but I doubt many if any have used a higher MP camera to actually understand the benefits.

Better images, able to crop which extends the usefulness of the camera, being able to downsample greatly reducing noise to name a few. 

If they bumped the Q up to 50MP and made it a little smaller I might even try another one but I expect Sony to come out with a RX1RIII with 60-72MP but I hope they have the sense to make it a 28mm lens like the Q.

24 has served me very well.  I just started shooting a 30mp mirrorless Canon and I do love the sensor.  I like it better than the 50mp 5Ds.

30-35 would do it for me.  I'm more concerned with better weather sealing.

But in practical reality, I'll keep the Q1 for a very long time.  I'll buy a Leica-M lens to Canon-R body adapter -- then some Leica M glass for my great new sensor!

[tgdinamo]

1 hour ago, trstahly said:

As if anyone did not realize that Leica needed to upgrade the MP of the Q. My gosh the RX1RII has had 42MP for almost four years now and cameras are heading towards 72MP this year. I realize many of the Leica purists think 24MP is plenty but I doubt many if any have used a higher MP camera to actually understand the benefits.

Better images, able to crop which extends the usefulness of the camera, being able to downsample greatly reducing noise to name a few. 

If they bumped the Q up to 50MP and made it a little smaller I might even try another one but I expect Sony to come out with a RX1RIII with 60-72MP but I hope they have the sense to make it a 28mm lens like the Q.

 

Who cares that RX1RII has 42MP when the Q images are still better, even with 24MP sensor? As a matter of fact, no current Sony camera has better IQ than the Q, but that is not surprising given Leica has better lenses which is still the most important parameter (and arguably the Sumilux on the Q is one of the best even when compared to other great Leica lenses). Actually, from what I can see the only current camera system that has better overall IQ than the Q is the X1D.

[bags27]

2 hours ago, trstahly said:

As if anyone did not realize that Leica needed to upgrade the MP of the Q. My gosh the RX1RII has had 42MP for almost four years now and cameras are heading towards 72MP this year. I realize many of the Leica purists think 24MP is plenty but I doubt many if any have used a higher MP camera to actually understand the benefits.

Better images, able to crop which extends the usefulness of the camera, being able to downsample greatly reducing noise to name a few. 

If they bumped the Q up to 50MP and made it a little smaller I might even try another one but I expect Sony to come out with a RX1RIII with 60-72MP but I hope they have the sense to make it a 28mm lens like the Q.

Do you just lurk, waiting for a discussion of sensor size and then jump in? This is your entire contribution to this board. Why not buy a Leica and post pictures? I confess that, when I viewed your website, I wasn't wild about your aesthetic style, but I know others on this board have praised it, and that's all that matters. Actually, all that matters is that you love photography. We'd rather have you as a contributing member of our community than a one-trick pony critic. 

[evikne]

I think a fixed 35- or 50mm lens would be much more interesting. But that would probably cannibalize the M-System too much?

[tgdinamo]

Just now, evikne said:

I think a fixed 35- or 50mm lens would be much more interesting. But that would probably cannibalize the M-System too much?

However, then you would also lose 28mm wide angle on the Q (where with the current Q you have that in addtion to very usable 35 and 50).

Having said this, I would not be opposed to getting more MP on the next Q (to have even more cropping flexibility), but only if that would not have other negative impact on the IQ - isn't camera shake more of an issue with sensors with more MP's? Was that not one of the reasons Leica has stuck with 24MP so far (except on the S line which is more special purpose and probably meant to be used on the tripod most of the time)?

[evikne]

3 minutes ago, tgdinamo said:

However, then you would also lose 28mm wide angle on the Q (where with the current Q you have that in addtion to very usable 35 and 50).

But a digital zoom or cropping doesn't give the same result as a real 35- or 50mm lens. The perspective and depth of field will also be different. 

[tgdinamo]

9 minutes ago, evikne said:

But a digital zoom or cropping doesn't give the same result as a real 35- or 50mm lens. The perspective and depth of field will also be different. 

Sure. I personally still find the results good enough (prefer having slightly 'compromised' results for 35 and 50mm to not having 28mm option at all on a fixed lens camera).

[pico]

10 minutes ago, evikne said:

But a digital zoom or cropping doesn't give the same result as a real 35- or 50mm lens.

 Yes it does.

Quote

The perspective and depth of field will also be different. 

No it will not

[evikne]

49 minutes ago, pico said:

No it will not

I guess that depends on how you look at it. If you because of a different focal length move closer or farther away to achieve the same framing, you will get another perspective, and thus also another depth of field. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by evikne

[trstahly]

8 minutes ago, evikne said:

I guess that depends on how you look at it. If you because of a different focal length move closer or farther away to achieve the same framing, you will get another perspective, and thus also another depth of field. 

If you do not want to crop you do not have to but it does make the camera more useful and versatile. Just being able to downsample images by 100% to 200% is a great advantage for those who have not been able to do that to date. You can shoot at far higher ISO's and not even have to use noise reduction to get rid of noise. I find that very useful and a great time saver.

[zampelis]

13 minutes ago, evikne said:

I guess that depends on how you look at it. If you because of a different focal length move closer or farther away to achieve the same framing, you will get another perspective, and thus also another depth of field. 

If you just crop the image, while keeping the same perspective, then the results are exactly the same as if you had taken that image with the corresponding lens. Say that you are 3 meters away from your subject with a 28mm lens and you crop the image to an equivalent of 50mm lens, then the image that you will get will have exactly the same bokeh and overall look as if it was taken with a 50mm lens from the same distance and with the same aperture. Now if you compare the end results using in each case comparable lens quality at the same aperture and same MP size then the images will look virtually identical.

Edited November 5, 2018 by zampelis

[ramarren]

On 10/29/2018 at 3:35 PM, ynp said:

... The new IPhones are trying to compute a 50mm lens look imitation for a reason. ...

The iPhone 8 Plus and X models have a dual camera setup that includes a wide angle and a short telephoto lens set. Switch the camera to 2x and you're on a different lens and camera. The Portrait mode of the camera goes to the longer lens camera, keeps it at full aperture, and adds processing to help blur the background. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[pico]

27 minutes ago, evikne said:

I guess that depends on how you look at it. If you because of a different focal length move closer or farther away to achieve the same framing, you will get another perspective, and thus also another depth of field. 

Sorry. Not true. You are really speaking of viewing distance, not optics per se.