Is a 47 MB sensor coming soon?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

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. 

With respect, the error is in their perception unless they can resolve 1:1 pixel views. It is, IMHO, story-telling or an excuse.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Agent M10]

46 minutes ago, pico said:

With respect, the error is in their perception unless they can resolve 1:1 pixel views. It is, IMHO, story-telling or an excuse.

 

I guess these guys are all just making it up: post, post. Thanks for your help.

[pico]

17 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

I guess these guys are all just making it up: post, post. Thanks for your help.

I stand by my assertion. Mega-pixels are not proportionally relevant to our photographic aesthetic. I realize that statement might create an interesting, perhaps profound divide. Let us hope we live long enough to know.

Edited March 6, 2019 by pico

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, pico said:

I stand by my assertion. Mega-pixels are not proportionally relevant to our photography.

One guy you might appreciate...

https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/05/03/myth-diffraction-and-motion-blur-worsen-with-more-megapixels

Jeff

[Luke_Miller]

Yep - I agree.  Diffraction, camera shake, subject motion blur, and focus errors are not more visible in high resolution images - as long as you make those images the same size as those from your lower resolution body.  So re-sample those images from the (yet to be announced) 47mp M down to 24mp and don't worry about it. 😃

Edited March 6, 2019 by Luke_Miller

[IkarusJohn]

Shutter slap on the d800e drove me crazy.  I couldn’t understand how I could get an unsharp image even at 1/1000, but this was reliably achievable - worse at normal operating shutter speeds of 1/250.  

I’m sure Luke & Pico are technically correct - my experience with both the d800e and A7r reflected Ming Thein’s observation that the higher resolution 37.5MP sensors required greater shot discipline than my modest 18MP Monochrom.

[Luke_Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

... my experience with both the d800e and A7r reflected Ming Thein’s observation that the higher resolution 37.5MP sensors required greater shot discipline than my modest 18MP Monochrom.

I had my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek.  Every conceivable lapse in technique with my D810 and D850 is fully visible when the image is viewed at 100% on my 4K monitor.  So if I plan to use all those pixels anywhere close to a 100% view I have to be a lot more rigorous in my shooting.  For web galleries and "normal" sized prints I can shoot without worrying since those technique issues won't be visible.

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Luke_Miller

[IkarusJohn]

And I guess that for most printing situations and web viewing (pixel peeping aside), I don’t need the extra resolution.  To my mind, it comes down to huge prints and vigorous cropping. Big prints I can happily get up to a metre on the long side (and that is exceptional) with what I have (18MP Monochrom and 24MP in colour), and cropping isn’t my thing - remove a distraction from the edge or straighten the horizon, yes; but creating a new image from a small part of an image, not so much.  Old fashioned, maybe, but I like to select the lens for the field of view, and check the framing and take the picture - the whole picture ...

I’ll happily take more MP, but it isn’t a driver and I don’t want it to bring problems of its own; my experience is that it does.  I found the two 37.5MP cameras I had deeply frustrating. But then, the TL2 less so.  As I understand it, the TL2 has a higher pixel density than either of those two previous cameras, so maybe it isn’t a worry!

[Luke_Miller]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

And I guess that for most printing situations and web viewing (pixel peeping aside), I don’t need the extra resolution.  To my mind, it comes down to huge prints and vigorous cropping. Big prints I can happily get up to a metre on the long side (and that is exceptional) with what I have (18MP Monochrom and 24MP in colour), and cropping isn’t my thing - remove a distraction from the edge or straighten the horizon, yes; but creating a new image from a small part of an image, not so much.  Old fashioned, maybe, but I like to select the lens for the field of view, and check the framing and take the picture - the whole picture ...

Agree.  I think for many that point is overlooked.  What the high resolution bodies do well - they do very well.  But in other areas they are out performed by lower resolution bodies with larger pixels.  So if one is going to pay the higher costs associated with the hi-res bodies it makes sense to know how those additional pixels will be used.

[M11 for me]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Luke_Miller:

Agree.  I think for many that point is overlooked.  What the high resolution bodies do well - they do very well.  But in other areas they are out performed by lower resolution bodies with larger pixels.  So if one is going to pay the higher costs associated with the hi-res bodies it makes sense to know how those additional pixels will be used.

Do you say with that, that when cropping a high res picture (lets assume a 47MP picture taken with a 28mm lens) it would make more sense to either have the right lens (i.e.35mm) or else have a lower res sensor if you go for best quality for large prints (lets assume 1m long side times 66cm short side)?

[IkarusJohn]

I certainly would. 

[LocalHero1953]

I find that cropping an image substantially for compositional reasons, either because I want to create an image from just one element, or because I screwed up the composition first time round, is rarely satisfactory - the result often looks 'wrong' (whatever that may be) for perspective reasons or because the relationship between a persons expression and the photographer is too distant. I would far rather get composition as right as possible in camera, though I am happy to trim and straighten. And if I haven't got the right lens to get that correct shot, or I can't get to the right standpoint then that's just too bad - the world is full of shots that got away. Learning from them makes me a better photographer - next time.

[TG14]

On 3/2/2019 at 11:45 PM, 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.

All good arguments. And i wonder if Leica has a list of them. Of what is the optimal for an M. Clearly 24mp is low compared to current tech. And i think leica has the tech or could develop the tech but i think (hope) they chose it that way.

They cannot say why they chose because that would invite rebuttals and more questions. And we all know there are 2 or more sides to an argument. Only downside if they come out with an explanation or rationale.

[Luke_Miller]

Well Leica shooters now have the opportunity to experience 47mp in the new Q2.  Still fixed 28mm f1.7 lens and no stabilization.  I expect it will be a good performer since with that lens one can shoot in most situations without running the ISO setting too high.  Whether this portends a 47mp M is yet to be determined.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Luke_Miller

[pgk]

I really don't know why there is all this arguing about MPixels - we already have cameras with capabilities undreamt of in film days. I will suggest that, for the most part, the vast majority of users will not increase the print size of their images so increased MPixels are largely irrelevant (pixel peeping is a largely pointless exercise except for highly specific reasons). There will of course be those who decide to crop rather than use a more appropriate lens and that's just laziness for the most part - they are trying to use technology to make up for sloppiness. And there are those who will try to force a 35mm frame camera to do what a 5" x 4" camera would have been used for in the past - and there are better solutions already available.

I've watched people try to achieve ever 'better' results from their high MPixel cameras and have to adjust their techniques to do so. Sometimes this has worked but at other times the result has been a compromise, a trade off if you will, and the gain has not been clear cut. In the best of circumstances higher MPixels may achieve greater information capture but for the most part this is probably far from being needed. My personal view is that 18~24MPixels is as 'sweet spot' for handheld, small format cameras, anything greater is drifting into specialism and will require specific reasons for its use and techniques appropriate to achieving a specialist result. The Q2 holds no attraction for me.

[pgk]

32 minutes ago, Dr No said:

The increase in image qualities with more quality pixels is considerable and anyone who disagrees should be ignored.

Feel free to add me to your ignore list then. You might try examining some relevant images first though.

[pgk]

Why do you think that larger formats have existed and still exist? Because people like carrying heavier weights around with them, or could it just be that there are good technical reasons for their existence. Isn't the fundamental problem with small formats the need to enlarge them and doesn't this create the trade-off? If you don't understand this or can't be bothered looking into it then so be it. My ignore list is richer.

[Luke_Miller]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I will suggest that, for the most part, the vast majority of users will not increase the print size of their images so increased MPixels are largely irrelevant (pixel peeping is a largely pointless exercise except for highly specific reasons). There will of course be those who decide to crop rather than use a more appropriate lens and that's just laziness for the most part - they are trying to use technology to make up for sloppiness.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the last.  In my view the only reasons to shoot with one of the high resolution bodies is to either print big or crop.  Since I don't print big I crop.  Not because I'm lazy, but because it allows me to use smaller and lighter lenses and still achieve the composition I was going for when I took the shot.  Please note in the new 47mp Q2 Leica offers the ability to shoot 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm field of view shots with the fixed 28mm lens.  In other words it crops in camera if one desires.  That is exactly how I use my high resolution bodies except I do the cropping in post.

Now I understand the ideal is getting the desired composition when you shoot and I am not of the school "crop until you find an image you like".  When I started in digital photography in 2002 my camera had only 2.7mp so there were few "extra" pixels to throw away in a crop. The composition I saw in the viewfinder had to be the final image, so I got lenses suitable to achieving that end.  Since I shot events (and still do) I gravitated to zoom lenses in order to compose with the zoom and avoid lens changes.  Over time those lenses got bigger and heavier.  I would do weddings with full frame 24-70mm f2.8 on one body and 70-200mm f2.8 on the other.  Beautiful shots but a load to carry.  Nowadays I prefer not to do that.  I use lighter lenses, generally high quality primes, and crop to get the composition I would get if using one of my heavy zooms.  With the high resolution bodies the image quality is still great and I achieve the composition I would have gotten with one of my zooms.

So call me lazy if you like, but I still get the shots I want and have a lot more enjoyment doing it.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

15 minutes ago, Luke_Miller said:

Please note in the new 47mp Q2 Leica offers the ability to shoot 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm field of view shots with the fixed 28mm lens.  In other words it crops in camera if one desires.

So call me lazy if you like, but I still get the shots I want and have a lot more enjoyment doing it.

Well changing field of view by in-camera cropping is a real compromise in my book. And I'm sorry but not getting things right in camera IS fundamentally lazy. There is no other way to put it.

But I've shot both events and weddings so I do know where you are coming from. Aren't we drifting into the realms of specialism where the end use is unlikely to stress such MPixels? That said I'd still use a dSLR and zoom for such work myself.

Edited March 7, 2019 by pgk

[robkimbaker]

The fact that the new Q2 has a 47MP sensor in it basically ordains that a future M model will have a larger sensor.

Why? Because most camera consumers (including the vast majority of Leica consumers) believe that more MP's = better camera.

It's going to happen. Leica will do it just like every other camera company out there...because they all have to compete and introduce new "seemingly better" features to keep selling more cameras...and to make you think that your old camera in now out-dated and inadequate...time to upgrade!

That is reality. It is going to happen because it needs to be done to make money.

Edited March 7, 2019 by robkimbaker