Jump to content

Does SL need more megapixels?


Kamyar

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

To be pedantic: the Noctilux is just as (in)accurate as any other lens, but you can see the inaccuracies more easily.

That’s true.  The issue is that  you have the same focusing information with the M rangefinder (aligning the images in the focusing patch) regardless of the lens attached or the aperture.  Not a problem for wides, but at focus becomes more critical (fast lenses wide pen or longer lenses), then the rangefinder becomes a blunt instrument.

The interesting thing is that if your calibration (both lens and camera) are bang on, and your technique good, the rangefinder is easy and consistently very accurate even with very difficult lenses.  Sadly, this is far from reliable.  Anyway, our experiences clearly differ - I could never reliably focus the 75 Summicron ASPH on my M9, whereas the hit rate with my 75 Summilux has always been good.

no such problems with the SL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

That’s true.  The issue is that  you have the same focusing information with the M rangefinder (aligning the images in the focusing patch) regardless of the lens attached or the aperture.  Not a problem for wides, but at focus becomes more critical (fast lenses wide pen or longer lenses), then the rangefinder becomes a blunt instrument.

The interesting thing is that if your calibration (both lens and camera) are bang on, and your technique good, the rangefinder is easy and consistently very accurate even with very difficult lenses.  Sadly, this is far from reliable.  Anyway, our experiences clearly differ - I could never reliably focus the 75 Summicron ASPH on my M9, whereas the hit rate with my 75 Summilux has always been good.

no such problems with the SL.

I think we agree. The experience is highly personal and depends on many factors, including camera/lens calibration, eyesight and experience and dexterity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also depends on how much one wants to crop. And even then, by using ON1 Resize to upsize the SL picture and then sharpen, again, this is the result. Can you tell which is the 24 MPx and which the 45 MPx picture? 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Q4J9vG/

Z7 with Z 24-70 f/4 S @70mm f/4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

SL with Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 @70mm f/4

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the crops.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Q4J9vG/

Z7

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

SL

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive ..... but not that surprising as going from 24 to 45mpx is only 'stretching' the pixel by 50% in each direction so the amount of 'fabrication' is not that great and there is plenty of data to work with. Upsizing involving doubling, trebling or more of the linear original resolution is presumably more problematic. The linked JPG's do show a difference ..... but less than you would be led to expect.... Tempted to keep ON1 for the upsizing alone (been trialing it but I doubt I will abandon LR + occasional dips into PS)

ps. no doubt this is a very simplistic view and some clever folk out there will correct me .... 🙄

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

My previous comparisons of Z7/24-70 vs. SL/24-90 showed an advantage to Nikon in center resolution (acuity) with the advantage quickly shifting to Leica outside of center.   The Nikon lens can not match the 24-90SL optically.  If the Nikon lens can only resolve to the sensors potential in the center then the pixels are a moot point elsewhere.  From what I am hearing  Canon's R series has a more Leica-like approach, good optics and midrange megapixels.    

Edited by darylgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, darylgo said:

My previous comparisons of Z7/24-70 vs. SL/24-90 showed an advantage to Nikon in center resolution (acuity) with the advantage quickly shifting to Leica outside of center.   The Nikon lens can not match the 24-90SL optically.  If the Nikon lens can only resolve to the sensors potential in the center then the pixels are a moot point elsewhere.  From what I am hearing  Canon's R series has a more Leica-like approach, good optics and midrange megapixels.    

I think Nikon's 24-70mm f4 is a kit lens retiling for about £600 here in UK, which is about 1/6 price of 24-90mm Leica lens [£3600-3700].  This is and old discussion; overall image quality is resultant of lens resolving power and sensor resolving power, formula 1/OR = 1/LR + 1/SR  OR=overall resolution, LR=lens resolution & SR=sensor resolution [or film].

Looking at samples in a posts #63 and 64 i would say Z7 pictures look, to me, better (smoother) than SL ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jaapv said:

I think we agree. The experience is highly personal and depends on many factors, including camera/lens calibration, eyesight and experience and dexterity.

Let's not forget lots of practice and good technique.

Kaiman Wong explains his technique for focusing an M here (starting around 1:20):

 

He may be a funny guy, he's also a very good street photographer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the announcement of the 64mp S3, I predict that Leica will have a ~41mp SL eventually. S, M and Q all share the basic sensor, with the same pixel pitch. With the S sensors being 25% larger in dimension, and 56.25% greater in pixel count compared to M and Q, a 64mp S sensor translates to 40.96mp for M and Q.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While 24MP is enough for my needs I wonder if the rumoured 36MP Sony sensor (link) defines the new sweet spot in megapixel terms for FF cameras? An interesting sensor but I'm not aware if Leica has ever used Sony or would want to even if it could customise it a little? Presumably any successor to the SL will house a sensor fabricated by STMicroelectronics who unconfirmed rumour has it are responsible for the current offering. Using the word rumour twice in a post (now thrice 😀) is tempting fate but I'll be brave and hit the Submit Reply button.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the question in the thread title is the wrong one.

It should be " Does the photographer need more megapixels?"

 

BTW, Leica does use Sony sensors, like Digilux2, the X series and most likely the CL, and approached Sony for the M240. However, from this list we can deduce/suspect that Sony does not do dedicated microlens layers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As full frame mirrorless cameras with sensors bigger than 40Mp already exist (Nikon & Sony) and Panasonic is bringing one to market next year we can expect for Leica to travel on this band wagon as competition is always good. 

Need and want we can discuss all we like, what we really need is air, water, food and shelter.  What we want is what is technologically feasible and is affordably priced.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting 'need' and 'want' to the side for a moment, Leica must ensure that their products sell. This doesn't imply that Leica has to be in front on all aspects (certainly not the case, although Leica scores high on cost... 😉 ), but that the tech spec must be reasonably state-of-the-art. So whether we need or want or lust after higher res sensors, the mp count will gradually increase as long as technology advances. The new S3, as an example, would simply not sell with a general purpose 30-ish mp sensor... 

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

12 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Need and want we can discuss all we like, what we really need is air, water, food and shelter.  What we want is what is technologically feasible and is affordably priced.   

Thanks for putting things in perspective! May I add fact-based decisions and peace, as well... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, helged said:

Thanks for putting things in perspective! May I add fact-based decisions and peace, as well... 

Agree we need peace but unfortunately it is still big want -  much bigger than mega pixels. 

Since day one those with bigger clubs have been securing their needs at the expense of those with lesser clubs. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 53 Minuten schrieb helged:

Thanks for putting things in perspective! May I add fact-based decisions and peace, as well... 

I totaly agree, maybe we live in a century of decadence, but at least some have left the age of enlightenment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2018 at 2:27 AM, Brian C in Az said:

Leica made a decision a few years ago to use a large size pixel than the other companies use.

This is very interesting. I've always felt the Leica SL file has a quality (apart from the lens performance) which is separate from just the file size. Could you point to  a source for the information?

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...