Jump to content

Does SL need more megapixels?


Kamyar

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’d assume that Leica is now much closer than a few years ago to produce a camera with a sensor that offers much higher megapixels AND higher dynamic range.

Maybe everyone can be happy on those two fronts. Sensor technology marches on, after all .....

As digital noise goes lower on sensors, so one can also crank up shutter speeds as the impact of higher ISO becomes less evident - again, a reason why higher megapixels does not need to compromise other aspects of image quality as much as it did.

Again, sensor technology marching on ....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some truth in that. The issues with the 37.5MP A7r and D800, as I understand it, were pixel density and motion blur (primarily shutter slap).  As others have pointed out, the 24MP of the APS-C sensors in the CL and TL2 have similar pixel density to those earlier cameras, without the complications of blur.  I’m not sure how they achieve this, but it isn’t IBIS. 

I guess the point for many of us is that more MP isn’t an important goal in itself.  That discussion has been going on for years, yet Leica has been successfully selling “old tech” over the same period; tech capable of producing fine images without the issues which have plagued those other cameras which chased the bleeding edge of high MP for the sake of it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Stunden schrieb IkarusJohn:

There is some truth in that. The issues with the 37.5MP A7r and D800, as I understand it, were pixel density and motion blur (primarily shutter slap).  As others have pointed out, the 24MP of the APS-C sensors in the CL and TL2 have similar pixel density to those earlier cameras, without the complications of blur.  I’m not sure how they achieve this, but it isn’t IBIS. 

I guess the point for many of us is that more MP isn’t an important goal in itself.  That discussion has been going on for years, yet Leica has been successfully selling “old tech” over the same period; tech capable of producing fine images without the issues which have plagued those other cameras which chased the bleeding edge of high MP for the sake of it.

Otherwise the sensor of the D850 is producing very good raws with very good dynamic range and fantastic resolution. And this sensor is not the newest on the market.
Why should Leica not use such a sensor on a SL2...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, verwackelt said:

Otherwise the sensor of the D850 is producing very good raws with very good dynamic range and fantastic resolution. And this sensor is not the newest on the market.
Why should Leica not use such a sensor on a SL2...

Why should you not be using a D850 then?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went from 36MP to 24MP (SL) for portrait shootings and my clients did not noticed any difference in quality. Some "faithful" ones even said it was... better! So, the pixels amount is definitely not THE issue, at least for some types of photos!

Edited by PARIS-14
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 minutes ago, sillbeers15 said:

Why should you not be using a D850 then?

Perhaps because they are utterly different cameras in all other respects. Optics, UI, EVF vs OVF, handling, build quality, even availability.  Sensor characteristics, while important, are not the only consideration when investing in a system, particularly for the long term. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Perhaps because they are utterly different cameras in all other respects. Optics, UI, EVF vs OVF, handling, build quality, even availability.  Sensor characteristics, while important, are not the only consideration when investing in a system, particularly for the long term. 

Yeap, so you have to decide what works for you and what matters more for you. there is just no 'perfect camera' for anyone of us.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In all this discussion about MP we tend to forget that key contributor to good quality image is the optics in front of the sensor, also the photographer behind the camera.  I figured what optics is good, still working on improving dummy behind the camera.

Reason I entered into Leica system is due to optics which I tried first on Nikon D700 (only 12 Mp), it just happened that first lens I tried was Leitax converted APO Elmarit R 180mm which  is one of very best ever. All the other R and M lenses I bought since were equally good.

Higher and lower MP sensor all have their place, also different camera systems like RF, Oprical DSLR or Mirrorless, also different formats.

 

So to answer OP question; if you need or want more MP than yes it is necessary.  It is only a matter of time before SL Mark 2 is fashioned after 40+ MP Panasonic model and launch of flagship S3 with 60+ Mp.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PARIS-14 said:

I went from 36MP to 24MP (SL) for portrait shootings and my clients did not noticed any difference in quality. Some "faithful" ones even said it was... better! So, the pixels amount is definitely not THE issue, at least for some types of photos!

This is a dilemma with the S007 now in relation to the SL primes. The 007 has 16-bit color and a larger sensor (same pixel pitch), but the SL now benefits from some optical innovations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The D850's resolution is may be wasted as lenses often exhibit focus shift, or otherwise don't focus accurately.  A 24Mpx imagined focused on the sensor will be better than a 36Mpx one focused only closely approximately.  Yes, you can focus the D850 using Liveview, but that is often not the most natural way of deploying the camera.

Another issue with the higher Mpx cameras is mirror / shutter slap, which starts to degrade image quality.  The recent Sony cameras have largely overcome this, but their initial iterations suffered.

If you want noticeable image quality improvements, I suspect that you are talking about at least 50Mpx (Fuji, Hasselblad) and preferably 100Mpx or 150Mpx, sell your house for one, cameras.  These don't make much sense to me, allegedly showing every leaf, because at that resolution, a breath of wind will kill any resolution benefit.  For studio still life, however, ...

And if you are creating for the Web, 16Mpx is plenty

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, jrp said:

The D850's resolution is may be wasted as lenses often exhibit focus shift, or otherwise don't focus accurately.

 

+1 Nikon Z7 has plenty of pixels, current lenses including some lenses that have photographers gushing (NIkon 105/1.4) are not up to Leica standards (90mm Apo).  The SL at 24mp may not match the Z7 for center resolution but far exceed it in the field, edges and corners. 

7 hours ago, mmradman said:

In all this discussion about MP we tend to forget that key contributor to good quality image is the optics in front of the sensor.

True, true, true.  Lens first, body second....the one exception being forums.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 15.11.2018 um 23:54 schrieb verwackelt:

Otherwise the sensor of the D850 is producing very good raws with very good dynamic range and fantastic resolution. And this sensor is not the newest on the market.
Why should Leica not use such a sensor on a SL2...

Because  M lenses , esp. wide angle,  won‘t work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, saxo said:

Because  M lenses , esp. wide angle,  won‘t work.

yes .... Leica has made life difficult for itself with insisting on backwards compatibility with M lenses ..... otherwise they could just source an 'off the shelf' high pixel count sensor with a good track record. 

The SL2 will need either a bespoke sensor or a heavily modified one with different microlenses and well depths to continue the 'use any Leica lens' philosophy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confident that Leica will spec and source a sensor size to match the,

1 Processing speed;

2 Buffer size;

3 AF Tracking Accuracy;

4 Optimise the optical performance of SL glasses.

This will provide Leica SL the differentiation factor against other Mirrorless Sony, Nikon, Canon & Panasonic if it is to be priced as a premium workhorse. Let the M10 take care of the lagecy M lenses to keep the Leica folks happy with compact and manual focus (including myself) at it’s purest and a flare of M retro styling no other camera comes close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • jaapv changed the title to Does SL need more megapixels?
vor 5 Stunden schrieb sillbeers15:

 .... premium workhorse. Let the M10 take care of the lagecy M lenses to keep the Leica folks happy with compact and manual focus (including myself) at it’s purest and a flare of M retro styling no other camera comes close.

 

Focus high speed M lenses with a rangefinder, even the latest, M 10, is often a game of pure chance. Using the SL instead solves the problem.

If Leica goes for SL glas only with the next generation SL, they need to produce a nice and small EVF camera for high speed M lenses in addition. I doubt they will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...