Is a 47 MB sensor coming soon?

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, mdemeyer said:

It’s not that you can’t hand-hold with a high MP sensor.  It’s just a question of what kind of technique it takes to actually realize the value of all those pixels.  

 

The rest of the world has been working with greater than 24MPs FF digital sensors for some years now. Even APS-C sized sensors are now coming with greater than 24MPs. Nothing to worry about really, no need to worry about hand-holding, changing or adopting a new or special technique. More MPs or in this case 47MPs will retain more MPs per cropped focal length as well as more crop capabilities in post processing and of course even larger prints. 24MPs is fine for most and 47Mps just provides more options particularly in the case of the fixed lens Q.

* I currently shoot Leica M10 with fast M glass, Sony A9 w/ 24MPs and Sony A7r3 w/ 42Mps. I also adapt Leica M glass to my Sonys. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Torontoamateur]

11 hours ago, jplomley said:

Are the current stable of M lenses up to the specs necessary to support a 47 MP sensor. I see a very clear difference between my SL primes and M primes that would leave me to believe the M glass might struggle.

Then Perhaps the increased sensor would be in the SL? The plot thickens.

[mujk]

It's always nice to have more MPs, but IMHO you need them mainly when having to crop heavily (or print really big). But that also requires a lens with a definition that matches the sensor. I have A3 sized prints of (only slightly cropped) pictures taken with several Canon DSLRs during the years, from 6MP to 50MP, and it's really impossible to tell the sensor resolution just by looking at them. The lens used has just so much bigger impact on the end result.

I find that it's quite possible to get sharp pictures with a 50MP sensor handheld also without IS, provided that the focal length is fairly short and the shutter speed high enough. But getting the focus nailed exactly where you want it when using bigger apertures is a completely different story. The high res sensor will reveal even the smallest focussing errors, although you will not necessarily see them in the final print.

There must also be a reason (other than price) why several of the big manufacturers manufacture parallell models with different sensor resolutions.

[Printmaker]

After spending the last 10 years of my working career shooting with a 309 MP back (necessary for 60" art repro printing), I was seriously disappointed the M10 was only 24 MP. 36 would have been more appropriate for this camera. 36 MP lets you print 20x30 inches at native resolution without the need to interpolate the file. This is a good size for gallery display. But, as has been pointed out,  the difference between an interpolated  24 MP and a native 36 MP file is very hard to see at a viewing distance of 5-6 feet. Go to a physically larger sensor as in the S cameras or blads, and you clearly see a better tonality and color.

However, my home printer is an Epson 800. I mostly print 14x21 inch prints on 17x22 inch paper and 16x24 on 17 inch roll stock so a 24 MP sensor is not that big of an issue. Still, I know 36 or 47 MP would allow for files sent to the printer at 360 pixels/inch which would allow for slightly more detailed prints. So why not give us a higher rez sensor? Especially now that the S camera has a grown up sensor and the Q/M/SL would not compete.

Graybeards will remember having the option of loading PanX in their M3/M2/M4 when a 16x20 inch print was required. The PanX results always looked better than TriX. Yet, TriX was more than likely your bread and butter 35 mm film. The M10 is TriX. Nothing wrong with TriX but when a better result is desired there is no M option. Today's digital technology offers PanX quality with a 36+ MP sensor, so why not give us the tool we need/want Leica?

 

[mujk]

It's really a very long time since then (more than 40 years), but I recall the grain on my early TriX prints being clearly visible already on prints of approx. 8x11 inches. Compared to that, the pixels and even the "digital harshness" from an M10 only become visible at much bigger sizes. But I do understand your analogy. And more MPs are of course always welcome, unless you need to give up some other benefit, like lower noise at higher ISOs.

And it's also quite possible I just managed to produce that very visible TriX grain back then by improper exposure and/or development 🙂. 

[pico]

1 hour ago, mujk said:

It's really a very long time since then (more than 40 years), but I recall the grain on my early TriX prints being clearly visible already on prints of approx. 8x11 inches.

That is my experience, too. Tri-X 135 did change and I resent it. Perhaps we can find out exactly when Kodak made the change. My best guess that it was late Seventies.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't say whether Tri-X changed but when I practiced 35 mm Tri-X in diluted Rodinal (1970s and early 80s) I liked the look of the grain in the midtones on 8.5 by 11 inch prints.  Even on 5x7's.  If I shot pictures of a group and wanted to see all the faces, the answer was 120 film, probably Plus-X.

[algrove]

On 2/23/2019 at 9:02 PM, LBJ2 said:

Never had to worry about handholding Sony 42MP cameras. Minimum 1x FL rule still applies. I only use Sony camera or lens stabilization when I can’t maintain the rule. 

At present M cameras have no image stabilization.

[derleicaman]

On 2/25/2019 at 4:00 PM, pico said:

That is my experience, too. Tri-X 135 did change and I resent it. Perhaps we can find out exactly when Kodak made the change. My best guess that it was late Seventies.

 

Tri-X did change, my recollection being in the late 80's or early 90's. Back then, I had my camera store and lab. I sold a ton of Kodak and Fuji film, and had several pros shooting Tri-X for sports. I recall that Kodak changed Tri-X when they introduced T-Max and the other T grain films, even though Tri-X did not use T-grain technology. Too bad Tom A is no longer with us. He could tell us exactly when Tri-X changed.

[jdlaing]

16 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

Tri-X did change, my recollection being in the late 80's or early 90's. Back then, I had my camera store and lab. I sold a ton of Kodak and Fuji film, and had several pros shooting Tri-X for sports. I recall that Kodak changed Tri-X when they introduced T-Max and the other T grain films, even though Tri-X did not use T-grain technology. Too bad Tom A is no longer with us. He could tell us exactly when Tri-X changed.

Tri-X has undergone a number of minor engineering changes during its long history. An early change in ASA (ISO) speed from 200 to 400, around 1960, was due to a change in the ASA standard rather than the film. In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained. The amount of silver in the film stock was reduced.

[6bit]

On 2/23/2019 at 5:37 PM, pico said:

No better technique required with more pixels.  The whole idea is some kind of impressionistic, uninformed poorly considered myth.

 

Is this why Fuji insists on putting IBIS in a 100MP body (GFX)? More pixels, better technique or higher shutter/readout speeds are going to be needed. No two ways around it for pixel peepers.

Edited March 2, 2019 by 6bit

[M11 for me]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb 6bit:

Is this why Fuji insists on putting IBIS in a 100MP body (GFX)? More pixels, better technique or higher shutter/readout speeds are going to be needed. No two ways around it for pixel peepers.

That is correct.

[willeica]

It is nice to see discussions about Tri-X in the middle of feverish babble about more megapixels. I have used cameras with 36 and 45 Mps sensors (no St Patrick's Day badges for guessing the make) and you would be hard put to notice the difference compared with 24 Mps. I don't make prints the size of barn doors as some chaps here appear to do. It is, however, easier to see the effects of shake in such larger Mp images unless some form of image stabilisation is used. Also download and processing speeds on your computer will tend towards glacial unless you upgrade your computer. Everything that represents a perceived advance comes with a price.

William

[Luke_Miller]

I have over 11 thousand images in my Lightroom catalog taken with 36 or 45 mp cameras.  And my experience is much like that of willeica.  When not using a stabilized lens I have to double my normal shutter speeds to avoid visible camera shake.  High ISO performance suffers in comparison to the 24mp (and lower) bodies,  so I use flash more often.  I don't print big so I use the extra resolution to reduce field of view through cropping.  I can get shots with my 24-120 f4 zoom that look like they were taken at longer focal lengths - avoiding the need to mount my much heavier 70-200 f2.8.  Likewise with primes.  A short telephoto becomes a longer one via crop.  So my primary use of the high resolution is to lighten the load over that of my  20mp body with heavy f2.8 zoom lenses.  Now I must admit that shots in good light, particularly at ISO 64, are spectacular when viewed at 100%.  But there are very few practical ways to show them that way to anyone else.  So they get resized down to web gallery size and are indistinguishable from those from my 24mp (and lower) bodies.

I would find a 47mp Leica M limiting.  M glass is already small and light (particularly in comparison to pro grade 35mm format f2.8 zoom lenses).  So the extra megapixels do not allow me to use smaller and lighter lenses,  although it would create "extra reach" through a crop.  Since all my M shots are hand held I will have to use higher shutter speeds (no stabilized lenses) which then forces me to endure the poorer high ISO performance in low light situations.  Leica M TTL flash exposure is pretty primitive compared to that of other brands so using flash in low light in order to use a less noisy ISO setting can be challenging and mounting a flash to an M really affects the handling.

So I would probably not be a buyer of a 47mp Leica M, but I'm sure there would be a market for one. Those who could really take advantage of 47mp plus those who always buy the latest model would be on board.  It would most likely be a variant of a lower resolution (24mp-28mp) model and be priced something the the neighborhood of a $1000 higher due to the increased production cost of the sensor.  Were I to get one I would wait for a used one from a buyer who found that the lower resolution body was a better fit.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Luke_Miller

[Agent M10]

23 minutes ago, Luke_Miller said:

I have over 11 thousand images in my Lightroom catalog taken with 36 or 45 mp cameras.  And my experience is much like that of willeica.  When not using a stabilized lens I have to double my normal shutter speeds to avoid visible camera shake.  High ISO performance suffers in comparison to the 24mp (and lower) bodies,  so I use flash more often.  I don't print big so I use the extra resolution to reduce field of view through cropping.  I can get shots with my 24-120 f4 zoom that look like they were taken at longer focal lengths - avoiding the need to mount my much heavier 70-200 f2.8.  Likewise with primes.  A short telephoto becomes a longer one via crop.  So my primary use of the high resolution is to lighten the load over that of my  20mp body with heavy f2.8 zoom lenses.  Now I must admit that shots in good light, particularly at ISO 64, are spectacular when viewed at 100%.  But there are very few practical ways to show them that way to anyone else.  So they get resized down to web gallery size and are indistinguishable from those from my 24mp (and lower) bodies.

I would find a 47mp Leica M limiting.  M glass is already small and light (particularly in comparison to pro grade 35mm format f2.8 zoom lenses).  So the extra megapixels do not allow me to use smaller and lighter lenses,  although it would create "extra reach" through a crop.  Since all my M shots are hand held I will have to use higher shutter speeds (no stabilized lenses) which then forces me to endure the poorer high ISO performance in low light situations.  Leica M TTL flash exposure is pretty primitive compared to that of other brands so using flash in low light in order to use a less noisy ISO setting can be challenging and mounting a flash to an M really affects the handling.

So I would probably not be a buyer of a 47mp Leica M, but I'm sure there would be a market for one. Those who could really take advantage of 47mp plus those who always buy the latest model would be on board.  It would most likely be a variant of a lower resolution (24mp-28mp) model and be priced something the the neighborhood of a $1000 higher due to the increased production cost of the sensor.  Were I to get one I would wait for a used one from a buyer who found that the lower resolution body was a better fit.

Pretty interesting observations. I think Leica was smart to stay with 24 MP for so long. Having both the SL and M, I am not sure that I will want to upgrade to a 47 MP sensor for the reasons that you point out. Personally, I think I'd rather stick to the Bresson idea of not cropping anything than adding yet another decision into the photographic process.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Agent M10

[Simone_DF]

On 3/2/2019 at 3:45 PM, Luke_Miller said:

I would find a 47mp Leica M limiting.  M glass is already small and light (particularly in comparison to pro grade 35mm format f2.8 zoom lenses).  So the extra megapixels do not allow me to use smaller and lighter lenses,  although it would create "extra reach" through a crop.  Since all my M shots are hand held I will have to use higher shutter speeds (no stabilized lenses) which then forces me to endure the poorer high ISO performance in low light situations.  Leica M TTL flash exposure is pretty primitive compared to that of other brands so using flash in low light in order to use a less noisy ISO setting can be challenging and mounting a flash to an M really affects the handling.

I would expect Leica to add in-body stabilization rather than stabilize lenses?

Also I don't see my Sony a7rii underperforming at high ISO in low light situations. Quite the opposite actually, so I don't see why this wouldn't work on a Leica body.

[Luke_Miller]

I would be surprised to see IBIS in a Leica M.  It would likely require a thicker body to make room for it, plus much more computational power (and heat) than present models.  In my view it would be contrary to the Leica M gestalt.

I doubt the A7RII is better at high ISO settings than my D850.  When I need to shoot in low light levels I use my D5 instead.  Since Leica does not (currently at least) use Sony sensors, a high resolution Leica will probably not perform quite as well as a comparable Sony sensor of the same generation since Sony Semiconductor is the technological leader in sensor development.

In any event - there is no free lunch.  Stuffing more pixels into the same size sensor means smaller pixels with less ability to gather light.  The signal to noise level gets worse (same noise less signal) so there is more noise in the image.   One can counter this by re-sampling the image to a smaller resolution.  My 45mp high ISO D850 images are virtually identical to those at the same ISO setting with my D5 when I re-sample them down to the D5's 20mp resolution.  But that begs the question "If I need good high ISO performance, why not just buy the lower resolution body?"

Don't get me wrong.  Since I bought the 36mp D810 in 2015, the majority of my photography has been with it and the 45mp D850 that replaced it.  But I don't view them as all purpose bodies because of the trade offs that result from the additional resolution.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Luke_Miller

[Dr No]

I am very much looking forward to a 47MP Leica M and will likely be swappings my Nikon equipments for Leica lenses and have not found such problems with higher resolutions—higher ISO—shutter speed problems—only much better all around.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[scott kirkpatrick]

1 hour ago, Luke_Miller said:

In any event - there is no free lunch.  Stuffing more pixels into the same size sensor means smaller pixels with less ability to gather light.  The signal to noise level gets worse (same noise less signal) so there is more noise in the image.   One can counter this by re-sampling the image to a smaller resolution. 

The 24M pixels used in the CL's APS-C imaging chip  are of a size that when scaled up to full frame, will be 47 MPx.  The dynamic range measurements on the Photonstophotos website indicate that they perform about the same as does the M10 and a bit better than the older SL.  Even though the pixels are smaller in surface area, perhaps they are in some way deeper, able to hold as many electrons when fully illuminated.  So I do not expect to see a decrease in image sensitivity or much higher noise floor.  We'll see when the rumored Q2 appears.

Edited March 6, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[Agent M10]

3 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

The 24M pixels used in the CL's APS-C imaging chip  are of a size that when scaled up to full frame, will be 47 MPx.  The dynamic range measurements on the Photonstophotos website indicate that they perform about the same as does the M10 and a bit better than the older SL.  Even though the pixels are smaller in surface area, perhaps they are in some way deeper, able to hold as many electrons when fully illuminated.  So I do not expect to see a decrease in image sensitivity or much higher noise floor.  We'll see when the rumored Q2 appears.

I think the main thing about more pixels may be operator error, i.e., handholding. I've read more than a few folks who have said that their higher-MP images aren't as sharp as their 24-MP ones are because of shake.