Upcoming M10X with 47MP?

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, jaapv said:

 Looking at 100% blown up images on a monitor will not show this effect as a computer screen is something quite different from a print (discrete pixel resolution vs. dithered ink spots, for instance)

This raises another point. I wonder how many people spend thousands on the latest camera and then only view the results on their computer? I took a couple of shots on a Leica Digilux Zoom the other day (which has a mind blowing 1.5mp). The results on the screen didn't look half bad but I think it would be a rather different story if I had tried a large print.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

20 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

No, of course I don’t mean that. To print larger you need a higher MP camera. At least to print larger than a smaller sensor camera. Then there are cameras which does that job much better than Leica M, within the Leica portfolio, that’d be S series. Let’s say you’ll print 100m x 50m, a huge poster.

Yes this is easy to validate by simply working on the common idea for the best viewing distance of a print. The common viewing distance (or 'best' viewing distance) is often cited as something between 1.5 and 2 times the diagonal of a print, so your print has a diagonal of 111 meters so your viewing distance would be between 166m and 222m away. Hmm, in many towns that would be in another post code so I can't imagine how big your house is.

So having thought about this just now I've changed my mind, a 100m x 50m print from an M240 would be just as effective as a picture from a Leica S because in the city you'd have something like a garage or Walmart blocking the view, or in your own house probably a number of chandeliers and Michelangelo's 'David' in the middle of the room.

I've been a little bit facetious but the common or 'best' viewing distance is 'a thing', and art galleries employ it, advertisers use it, and so should people in their homes, and viewing closer or further away is wasted if the medium is indeed the message. Equally in the same vein of the medium being the message there is a natural size for their art that photographers should consider before simply blowing a picture up to it's maximum size just because they've bought more megapixels. This is because photographers often start out thinking bigger is best, larger format makes bigger pictures so it's best, more pixels means bigger prints etc. But in terms of human responses (your viewing public) an 8" x 10" contact print can very often be more beautiful and intimate than the same image enlarged, a modest 10" x 10" enlargement from a Hasselblad equally so, and the same goes for digital. It stands to reason, the larger the print the further away your viewing public have to stand, but draw them in with a smaller print and they aren't jostling with other people, they are 1-to-1 with your image so can meditate on it alone.

I think this is all worth thinking about in the megapixel debate, not to say people shouldn't print big, but the expansive range of tone from using more megapixels can be even more beautiful when going to smaller prints. I mean, more megapixels is a competition nobody is likely to ever win, people won't continue to go 'wow' beyond the size of your wall and how far away they need to stand to view the image properly, unless of course the aim is to make the image into decorative wallpaper. So maybe it's time for a more sophisticated approach from photographers and to discover what else they can get from more megapixels?

[Guest]

If you want bigger digital prints then move up to medium format..............sorted

 

Neil

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

Yes this is easy to validate by simply working on the common idea for the best viewing distance of a print. The common viewing distance (or 'best' viewing distance) is often cited as something between 1.5 and 2 times the diagonal of a print, so your print has a diagonal of 111 meters so your viewing distance would be between 166m and 222m away. Hmm, in many towns that would be in another post code so I can't imagine how big your house is.

So having thought about this just now I've changed my mind, a 100m x 50m print from an M240 would be just as effective as a picture from a Leica S because in the city you'd have something like a garage or Walmart blocking the view, or in your own house probably a number of chandeliers and Michelangelo's 'David' in the middle of the room.

I've been a little bit facetious but the common or 'best' viewing distance is 'a thing', and art galleries employ it, advertisers use it, and so should people in their homes, and viewing closer or further away is wasted if the medium is indeed the message. Equally in the same vein of the medium being the message there is a natural size for their art that photographers should consider before simply blowing a picture up to it's maximum size just because they've bought more megapixels. This is because photographers often start out thinking bigger is best, larger format makes bigger pictures so it's best, more pixels means bigger prints etc. But in terms of human responses (your viewing public) an 8" x 10" contact print can very often be more beautiful and intimate than the same image enlarged, a modest 10" x 10" enlargement from a Hasselblad equally so, and the same goes for digital. It stands to reason, the larger the print the further away your viewing public have to stand, but draw them in with a smaller print and they aren't jostling with other people, they are 1-to-1 with your image so can meditate on it alone.

I think this is all worth thinking about in the megapixel debate, not to say people shouldn't print big, but the expansive range of tone from using more megapixels can be even more beautiful when going to smaller prints. I mean, more megapixels is a competition nobody is likely to ever win, people won't continue to go 'wow' beyond the size of your wall and how far away they need to stand to view the image properly, unless of course the aim is to make the image into decorative wallpaper. So maybe it's time for a more sophisticated approach from photographers and to discover what else they can get from more megapixels?

Agreed. Smaller prints can also have the added viewing benefit of being able to stand reasonably close while still being able to see at once the whole geometry/composition of a print.  In this pixel peeping age, folks often miss the forest for the trees (sometimes literally and figuratively, depending on subject matter), content to study print details with a wandering eye rather than appreciating the gestalt.  

For me, the image often dictates the print size: there is a best size for my eye, smaller often better than bigger.  Creating a coherent series of small prints (4x5 -5x7 ish) that work individually and together can be challenging and rewarding.  I still recall seeing in 1992 a rare, roughly 2x3 contact print of a landscape by Kertesz, a small b/w gem that still resonates far more than the gazillion color postcard landscapes, printed large, that I see these days and forget soon after.

Jeff

[Photon42]

On 7/31/2019 at 6:27 PM, Photon42 said:

Anyone thinks the M10x comes as an M10M (monochrome) version with a high MP sensor >40 MP?

 

https://leicarumors.com/2019/08/28/the-upcoming-leica-m10m-monochrom-camera-is-rumored-to-have-a-new-41-42mp-sensor.aspx/

 

[maxfairclough]

Personally I would love a 47MP upgrade of the M10. Not many here want/need it here it seems, but I would welcome it. The next thing to that would be better dynamic range. Everything else, I don't mind at all. I love how the body looks and feels. I just hope with that upgrade the body size doesn't increase.

I work in music doing tour documentation and press and promotional pictures for artists that are largely in print and billboards etc. I love what my 50MP Canon 5DS does. I would love to have similar in my Leica body which I predominantly use when on tour. I have shot a few magazine covers with the M10 but more resolution would be nice, too. Not sure why people would be against it? 

Anyway maybe I am on the younger side on this forum (I am 27). But more megapixels and dynamic range is my two favourites.

Edited August 29, 2019 by maxfairclough