Pixel-Size vs Megapixel

[mike3996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You might consider the Hasselblad 503CWD with a 37x37 sensor and 16 megapixels. Will the pictures be astounding? Perhaps. In any event you gotta print large if you want to see the effect to the fullest.

Edited May 31, 2019 by mike3996

[John McMaster]

I can see a difference in A3 between my M(240) and S(007)....

john

[fsprow]

I have found pixel count and size to make a substantial difference in perceived quality in reasonably large prints at normal viewing distances.  I have some scenics taken the same day with a Leica M10 and a Hasselblad H6D-100c.  The impact is quite different.  My wife often comments that the Hasselblad images have a three dimensional quality that is missing from my other prints.

The other day I was in a store and looked at TV's.  The new OLED screens (very expensive) have an impact and again, three dimensionality, that even the 8K sets do not.

No, I have no technical analysis of same.

[Stuart Richardson]

One of the main things that I have found as a printer is that good pixels are as important if not more so than the number of pixels, often because larger prints require interpolation and if you multiply bad pixels you just get more obviously bad pixels. If the pixels are great to begin with, then they are much more convincing when interpolated. That is one reason the S CCD images are so good...the 1 to 1 detail is superb.

The classic example is cell phones. You can have a 12mp cell phone and a 12mp Sony A7S and there is absolutely no comparison in print quality...the A7S will look better in nearly ever situation unless the image was taken in bright daylight and requires massive depth of field. With respect to mike3996 above, I think the 16mp in the 503CWD look good, but that really is a bit of a stretch these days...native ISO is 50 and it goes to 400. It will make great prints at small sizes, but for really big prints you might want more resolution. The sensor in that back is well on 15 years old, which is somewhat pushing the envelop of practicality. It was still more or less early days of digital photography. A sensor like that in the S2 or S006, while still quite old, is far more practical and advanced, and frankly obtainable for a similar cost these days. The S2 is so cheap now that it is a really good option for someone who wants a back for their V lenses.

 

--fsprow, your point on OLED's is spot on. That is a case in which the inherent technology is so much better that they look better in almost any situation, though it is primarily an issue of dynamic range...being able to show a perfect black is like the difference between printing on a glossy baryta paper and a matte rag paper. The image can look good on matte (or on an LCD), but the contrast, snap and depth are nearly always better on photo black papers.

I have a video installation opening at a show tomorrow. It is a series of videos taken at night, and I conceived it for 4K OLED, but unfortunately the museum could not arrange for one. The video is projected instead with a regular HD projector, and unfortunately the videos look so much worse than they do on OLED. I am sure I would be happy if I did not know what I was missing!

Edited May 31, 2019 by Stuart Richardson

[Jan1985]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Stuart Richardson:

One of the main things that I have found as a printer is that good pixels are as important if not more so than the number of pixels, often because larger prints require interpolation and if you multiply bad pixels you just get more obviously bad pixels. If the pixels are great to begin with, then they are much more convincing when interpolated. That is one reason the S CCD images are so good...the 1 to 1 detail is superb.

The classic example is cell phones. You can have a 12mp cell phone and a 12mp Sony A7S and there is absolutely no comparison in print quality...the A7S will look better in nearly ever situation unless the image was taken in bright daylight and requires massive depth of field. With respect to mike3996 above, I think the 16mp in the 503CWD look good, but that really is a bit of a stretch these days...native ISO is 50 and it goes to 400. It will make great prints at small sizes, but for really big prints you might want more resolution. The sensor in that back is well on 15 years old, which is somewhat pushing the envelop of practicality. It was still more or less early days of digital photography. A sensor like that in the S2 or S006, while still quite old, is far more practical and advanced, and frankly obtainable for a similar cost these days. The S2 is so cheap now that it is a really good option for someone who wants a back for their V lenses.

 

--fsprow, your point on OLED's is spot on. That is a case in which the inherent technology is so much better that they look better in almost any situation, though it is primarily an issue of dynamic range...being able to show a perfect black is like the difference between printing on a glossy baryta paper and a matte rag paper. The image can look good on matte (or on an LCD), but the contrast, snap and depth are nearly always better on photo black papers.

I have a video installation opening at a show tomorrow. It is a series of videos taken at night, and I conceived it for 4K OLED, but unfortunately the museum could not arrange for one. The video is projected instead with a regular HD projector, and unfortunately the videos look so much worse than they do on OLED. I am sure I would be happy if I did not know what I was missing!

So where to place the S in all these facts...? Are 37mpx good enough? What My thoughts were to buy the S. That is has this Medium Format look through the Sensor size and optics... whether the Sensor is New or oldee... what i read is thar the S with its Bigger Pixel is better in print even it has "only" 37mpx.

[Stuart Richardson]

Unfortunately these questions are not easy to answer. Good enough for what? They are good enough to make huge, detailed prints. I do not think the prints are better than what you might get from similar MFD cameras unless the lenses being used are not good or used poorly. I met one Hasselblad photographer who was doing studio work and shot everything at f32 because he had no idea what diffraction was...turned his 39mp camera into a 16mp one. But in general, any S series camera will generate superb results in most situations other than very low light.

In general I would say that the S's "big pixels" are not that big. They are 6 micrometers. The GFX 50 is 5.3 micrometers. The Sony A7S is 8.4 micrometers and the Hasselblad CFV is 9 micrometers, both of which are more what people are talking about when they talk about big pixels. The D850 is 4.35 micrometers, and the iPhone X is 1.4 micrometers, which would be very small. I think these sizes can be helpful to get a general idea, but they are not all that useful in drawing conclusions about what is a better camera.  Big pixels mean a better signal to noise ratio and in general better sensitivity (though like I said above, a CFV is OLD, so do not buy it for high iso). But they are more useful when comparing to similar sensors, rather than comparing across totally different cameras. Comparing the A7S to the A7 or A7R makes sense in this context, but not really the CFV to the S to the Phase One IQ4 150 etc.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Stuart Richardson

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Unfortunately these questions are not easy to answer. Good enough for what? They are good enough to make huge, detailed prints. I do not think the prints are better than what you might get from similar MFD cameras unless the lenses being used are not good or used poorly. I met one Hasselblad photographer who was doing studio work and shot everything at f32 because he had no idea what diffraction was...turned his 39mp camera into a 16mp one. But in general, any S series camera will generate superb results in most situations other than very low light.

In general I would say that the S's "big pixels" are not that big. They are 6 micrometers. The GFX 50 is 5.3 micrometers. The Sony A7S is 8.4 micrometers and the Hasselblad CFV is 9 micrometers, both of which are more what people are talking about when they talk about big pixels. The D850 is 4.35 micrometers, and the iPhone X is 1.4 micrometers, which would be very small. I think these sizes can be helpful to get a general idea, but they are not all that useful in drawing conclusions about what is a better camera.  Big pixels mean a better signal to noise ratio and in general better sensitivity (though like I said above, a CFV is OLD, so do not buy it for high iso). But they are more useful when comparing to similar sensors, rather than comparing across totally different cameras. Comparing the A7S to the A7 or A7R makes sense in this context, but not really the CFV to the S to the Phase One IQ4 150 etc.

So, Stuart, with the benefit of hindsight, is there any real advantage to the S(007) over the S2-P?  Both 37.5MP, one CMOS, with live view, the other CCD with perhaps less dynamic range?  Both available for really tempting prices - which would you prefer?

[Stuart Richardson]

For me there was not, so I stuck with the 006. But for others who appreciate the better high ISO, live view and so on, then I think there is. In my comparisons, I preferred the rendering of the detail and the color in the S006, so I stuck with it, as it would have been at least 8000 dollars for me to upgrade, which did not make sense for me, since I am most concerned with color and sharpness, both of which seemed better to my eye on the CCD version. Other people view it differently...

I should also say that I never had a long term test of the 007. I only was able to compared based on files that people sent me, and that I had access to online. As I said, at the time that I was thinking about it, the 007 was still quite expensive, and the 006 had already lost much of its value, so the cost to upgrade was very large for what seemed to me to be mostly about things which for me would be "nice to have" but in no way critical, along with the potential downsides that I mentioned. I was also not a fan of the loss of the analog shutter speed dial.

 

As an aside, I also used to use the M9, and currently have the M10. As much as I prefer the M10 for all the modern features, the size, the high resolution and so on, when I go back and look at the photos from the M9, they look better to me. I think that given the S is a souped up M9 sensor and the S007 is a souped up M240 sensor (kind of), the pattern follows. Those CCD sensors has a lot of disadvantages compared to more modern CMOS sensors, but in terms of color and presence, I still prefer them. I do not know if this is inherent in the technology, or just some sort of symbiosis between the sensor makers and Leica, but they sing in a way that I have not found in any other digital camera I have used.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Stuart Richardson

[dave.gt]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

For me there was not, so I stuck with the 006. But for others who appreciate the better high ISO, live view and so on, then I think there is. In my comparisons, I preferred the rendering of the detail and the color in the S006, so I stuck with it, as it would have been at least 8000 dollars for me to upgrade, which did not make sense for me, since I am most concerned with color and sharpness, both of which seemed better to my eye on the CCD version. Other people view it differently...

I should also say that I never had a long term test of the 007. I only was able to compared based on files that people sent me, and that I had access to online. As I said, at the time that I was thinking about it, the 007 was still quite expensive, and the 006 had already lost much of its value, so the cost to upgrade was very large for what seemed to me to be mostly about things which for me would be "nice to have" but in no way critical, along with the potential downsides that I mentioned. I was also not a fan of the loss of the analog shutter speed dial.

 

As an aside, I also used to use the M9, and currently have the M10. As much as I prefer the M10 for all the modern features, the size, the high resolution and so on, when I go back and look at the photos from the M9, they look better to me. I think that given the S is a souped up M9 sensor and the S007 is a souped up M240 sensor (kind of), the pattern follows. Those CCD sensors has a lot of disadvantages compared to more modern CMOS sensors, but in terms of color and presence, I still prefer them. I do not know if this is inherent in the technology, or just some sort of symbiosis between the sensor makers and Leica, but they sing in a way that I have not found in any other digital camera I have used.

Finally!!!

Thank you, Stuart! Thank you for answering a question that I have been seeking an answer for over the past year. The question was actually two questions:

1. What M (small, portable classic) would be a great complement to a Leica SP or S006? ...and,

2. Why would I not buy an M9 with a replaced sensor, in excellent condition at an excellent price? After all, I always loved the look of the images from that sensor and I missed out on buying a new one and then the corroded sensor problems became the big thing.

Always loved those M9 images! But it seems most people think the camera and its images are "obsolete"/undesirable. I disagree of course.😃

 

I see a wonderful symmetry with an M9 paired with an "M9 on steroids".

[Jan1985]

The M9 is a great camera. It was My workhorse for 3 wedding seasons paired with the noctilux. Amazing rendering. But i often had Problem with high iso. So i went to m10... I often miss the m9.

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, dave.gt said:

Finally!!!

Thank you, Stuart! Thank you for answering a question that I have been seeking an answer for over the past year. The question was actually two questions:

1. What M (small, portable classic) would be a great complement to a Leica SP or S006? ...and,

2. Why would I not buy an M9 with a replaced sensor, in excellent condition at an excellent price? After all, I always loved the look of the images from that sensor and I missed out on buying a new one and then the corroded sensor problems became the big thing.

Always loved those M9 images! But it seems most people think the camera and its images are "obsolete"/undesirable. I disagree of course.😃

 

I see a wonderful symmetry with an M9 paired with an "M9 on steroids".

No need to have waited a year! We could have pointed you in right direction and cited many other discussions (debates) on  CCD vs CMOS (M, Monochrom and S).  Specifically regarding your second point, a whole M9 forum attests to its popularity, including a fairly recent thread regarding current purchase....

Jeff

[dave.gt]

13 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

No need to have waited a year! We could have pointed you in right direction and cited many other discussions (debates) on  CCD vs CMOS (M, Monochrom and S).  Specifically regarding your second point, a whole M9 forum attests to its popularity, including a fairly recent thread regarding current purchase....

Jeff

Thanks for the link, Jeff!!!

It is better late than never, I suppose.😀

[Stuart Richardson]

13 hours ago, dave.gt said:

Finally!!!

Thank you, Stuart! Thank you for answering a question that I have been seeking an answer for over the past year. The question was actually two questions:

1. What M (small, portable classic) would be a great complement to a Leica SP or S006? ...and,

2. Why would I not buy an M9 with a replaced sensor, in excellent condition at an excellent price? After all, I always loved the look of the images from that sensor and I missed out on buying a new one and then the corroded sensor problems became the big thing.

Always loved those M9 images! But it seems most people think the camera and its images are "obsolete"/undesirable. I disagree of course.😃

 

I see a wonderful symmetry with an M9 paired with an "M9 on steroids".

Hi Dave, 

I am glad I can help. I do think the M9 is a very good compliment to the 006 or S2P. That said, the M9 is not for everyone...the M10 really does improve on it in most functional ways...the VF is better, battery life, size, shutter sound, ability to use live view or EVF for difficult focusing conditions, resolution, ISO performance etc etc. All that said, the color from the M9 is superb and I have not been able to fully replicate it with the M9, and I personally prefer the somewhat "crunchier" pixel level detail of the CCD cameras. They seem more likely to have moire and aliasing, but they also seem to have higher acutance. If you know black and white film, the M9 and S detail looks more like Acros developed in rodinal, while the M10 and CMOS cameras look more like a Efke 25 or techpan. They might be smooth and grainless, but they have no bite. This is all highly subjective and not at all scientific, so I would encourage anyone to test themselves and see what they think, as I certainly could be subject to confirmation bias or rose tinted glasses.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Stuart Richardson

[BernardC]

18 hours ago, fsprow said:

I have found pixel count and size to make a substantial difference in perceived quality in reasonably large prints at normal viewing distances.  I have some scenics taken the same day with a Leica M10 and a Hasselblad H6D-100c.  The impact is quite different.  My wife often comments that the Hasselblad images have a three dimensional quality that is missing from my other prints.

The other day I was in a store and looked at TV's.  The new OLED screens (very expensive) have an impact and again, three dimensionality, that even the 8K sets do not.

No, I have no technical analysis of same.

The difference, in both cases, is micro contrast.

Over-simplifying things a bit, the medium format image is less "strained." The bigger sensor means that you don't enlarge the image as much (to get the same print size), which in turn means that you aren't pushing against the optical limits of your lens, where everything turns to mush.

The OLED looks better because each pixel is an independent light emitter, unaffected by its neighbours. This means that one pixel can be fully bright, and the next pixel can be fully black, which is the definition of contrast.

LCD pixels are all illuminated by the same backlight. You can't turn the backlight off for individual pixels (although you can for different slices of the screen). That means you don't get the same micro contrast.

[peterv]

Well said both Stuart and Bernard, I'd just like to add that OLED is very nice with regard to micro contrast, but with over-all contrast, not so much IMHO. That's because it is quite easy to crush the blacks on an OLED panel.

Money no object, I'd have hard time choosing between an OLED (doesn't have to be the most expensive TV because they all look kinda the same ever since LG hit a technological wall) and a top end LCD with good FALD. 

Which just goes to say that there is no one straight/right answer in these matters. In the end, it comes down to everyone's own preference/style for image producing and consuming alike.

[John McMaster]

20 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, Stuart, with the benefit of hindsight, is there any real advantage to the S(007) over the S2-P?  Both 37.5MP, one CMOS, with live view, the other CCD with perhaps less dynamic range?  Both available for really tempting prices - which would you prefer?

Depends on how you use them.  The S2-P was a good weather camera in NZ and worked will in the south of France.  But the S(007) is so versatile, far better at high ISO than my M(240),  that I hardly use my M cameras and will probably sell some bits off to go towards an S3...

john

[peterv]

Indeed, for me the S2-P is good weather (lots of light) and the sun behind me 🙂

But in those instances it really sings very nice for 10 year old tech. I can understand you're looking at the S3, being in Scotland and all, same for me here in the NW of the Netherlands.

[Jan1985]

vor einer Stunde schrieb John McMaster:

Depends on how you use them.  The S2-P was a good weather camera in NZ and worked will in the south of France.  But the S(007) is so versatile, far better at high ISO than my M(240),  that I hardly use my M cameras and will probably sell some bits off to go towards an S3...

john

I had a lot of cameras. The whole Canon line, M9, M10, M9 Monochrom... But the S007 is somewhat special. The M9 with the 50 Noctilux is also very special. But the S I don't know why... It's amazing.

[John McMaster]

I will probably keep both Noctiluxii and my M bodies (too tatty to get much money), but some oddities like MATE and R 70-180 get little use...

john

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stuart Richardson]

I never really felt the S006 was a good weather camera. In fact, just the opposite. I did a book of night photographs out of it and use it in the subarctic all year round. Sure, it might not do a great ISO 6400, but it is really impervious to all weather conditions, and with a tripod, the quality of the images in low light are superb. I would link there here, but the 500kb forum rule is infuriating. So I will just link some images to dropbox.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5d5b35nls2imzxp/L1001336.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yclzss9b9yzoiaj/L1001451.jpg?dl=0

 

The second image is handheld at ISO 400, wide open, taken in a winter storm with 70kmph winds and snow. Yes, not ISO 6400+, but the camera did not skip a beat. The first image was after using it in blowing snow conditions and -15C for a few hours. Again, not a single issue with battery life or function etc.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Stuart Richardson