Jump to content
Kamyar

Does SL need more megapixels?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

 

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

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the crops.

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

Z7

 

SL

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×