Jump to content

"Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier


johnbuckley

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But you can trade resolution for more noise reduction. However beyond ISO 6400 you start to lose the higher definition advantage. 

If you really need very high ISO 25000 and more, it would be better to stick with 24MP. But from 50 to 6400 , 47MP is definitely better.

To sum up, 24MP advantages are only into the 25000 ISO range only. Because it is almost a tie at 12800 and 50000 ISO is unusable anyway.

Do you need 25000 ISO that often ? A faster lens may be a better solution than sticking with 24MP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

But you can trade resolution for more noise reduction. However beyond ISO 6400 you start to lose the higher definition advantage. 

If you really need very high ISO 25000 and more, it would be better to stick with 24MP. But from 50 to 6400 , 47MP is definitely better.

To sum up, 24MP advantages are only into the 25000 ISO range only. Because it is almost a tie at 12800 and 50000 ISO is unusable anyway.

Do you need 25000 ISO that often ? A faster lens may be a better solution than sticking with 24MP. 

Thanks Nicci78.

To maintain 1/2000 Sec shutter speed for moving subjects at lesser light conditions, I generally go from ISO800 to 3200. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Just like every business, a new product is a bet.

Otherwise it will too easy, if you accountants can predict accurately the future sales  

Leica has made lots of mistakes in the distant past and at present time. 

Only time will tell if the SL2 will be a success or not  

 

And not just Leica. I think that any company introducing a new product will have its accountants and marketeers chewing their nails on the day that the product is revealed. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 49 Minuten schrieb sillbeers15:

Thanks Nicci78.

To maintain 1/2000 Sec shutter speed for moving subjects at lesser light conditions, I generally go from ISO800 to 3200. 

You ain’t gonna like ISO 800 and above of the S1R sensor, I’m afraid, even though Panasonic does a good job cleaning up the RAW files. S1 is a different matter. 

vor 16 Minuten schrieb sillbeers15:

Biggest regret would be SL2 becomes merely a follower to Pana S1R if it does not provide any differentiating factor above SL & S1R.

+1. Panasonic has two bodies to cater to different users’ needs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

A faster lens may be a better solution than sticking with 24MP. 

A five year old knows that aperture should be used to determine DOF and subject separation, not exposure. 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

If you really need very high ISO 25000 and more, it would be better to stick with 24MP. But from 50 to 6400 , 47MP is definitely better.

😂 You’re funny. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But people are still buying fast lens at 50% for low light capabilities and 50% for thin depth of field. 

There used to be a time, that high ISO does not exists. So you have to have a fast lens. 

Same here f/1.4 can avoid you ISO 12800 or higher. Of course you have to deal with thin depth of field, just the time to get creative.

 

From my experience Q2 is on par with Q at ISO 6400. At 12800 there is a slight edge for Q. 

But Q2 is definitely better than Q from ISO 50-3200

50000 is crap for both anyway. So in the end Q is only better at 25000 ISO. Do you need it that often, with an OIS wide angle f/1.7 lens ?

Just beware that ISO 50 of Q2 has weird behaviour. 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr.Q said:

Differentiators - Size/weight, ergonomics, design, compatibility with M lenses, and a couple of forward-thinking features that is still unknown.

Basically a simple photographic tool with only the essentials. For all the bells and whistles, get a Panasonic.

The SL is already better in Size. M lenses application. Against S1R. I don’t see. it as a differentiator. Besides my M10 certainly do a better job than SL on that. Better AF-C tracking ability and ISO than S1R would be useful in real world. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 21 Minuten schrieb sillbeers15:

The SL is already better in Size. M lenses application. Against S1R. I don’t see. it as a differentiator. Besides my M10 certainly do a better job than SL on that. Better AF-C tracking ability and ISO than S1R would be useful in real world. 

I’ll do some ISO 800 to ISO 3200 S1 vs. S1R this weekend. Will post them in a separate thread but show a link here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowadays the only real world advantages of lower pixel count are faster operation, smaller files and easier video output. Without the hassle to handle so many unnecessary pixels for 1080p or 4K 

That’s why we will never see a 12MP full frame camera again. Just look at how late A7S III is. And Panasonic just choose 24MP for its video champion S1H. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Nowadays the only real world advantages of lower pixel count are faster operation, smaller files and easier video output. Without the hassle to handle so many unnecessary pixels for 1080p or 4K 

That’s why we will never see a 12MP full frame camera again. Just look at how late A7S III is. And Panasonic just choose 24MP for its video champion S1H. 

Which are not to be sneezed at. They are important to me in the real world.

Whereas the advantages of more than 24mp will only be experienced by a small fraction of photographers:
- I don't shoot for glossy magazines
- I don't print larger than A3+ (apart from the occasional canvas).
- If I have to crop to much less than 2/3 of a side length I find the perspective and the overall 'look' of the image is unsatisfactory - something wrong with it because I did not take it from the right place. The IQ may be great but it's a poor photo to look at.

Perhaps we need a thread for heavily cropped images that have both great IQ and are great photos!

 

PS But who am I to stand in the way of what the market thinks it 'needs'!

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 26 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

Nowadays the only real world advantages of lower pixel count are faster operation, smaller files and easier video output.

In theory, no, in practice, yes, but only because the RAW files are cleaned up by clever algos. Occasionally, a galaxy may go missing, though. 😁

vor 27 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

And Panasonic just choose 24MP for its video champion S1H. 

Don’t underestimate the low light performance of a 24 MPx BSI sensor for stills. The files are amazingly clean. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need 24MP advantages go for it. 

It was a time, when we said that 16MP was too many and 12MP is ok. 

What has changed ? Processing power and memory bandwidth. Making higher pixels count easier and easier to work with. 

Q2 IQ is really nice. What bothers me, is the lack of adequate processing power to handle so many MP. Q was an instant camera. Q2 is an almost instant one sadly. 

If SL2 is coming with crazy fast ASICS + large & fast RAM buffer. Why not 47MP ? After all Q2 is already capable of 20 frame/sec. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

If you need 24MP advantages go for it. 

It was a time, when we said that 16MP was too many and 12MP is ok. 

What has changed ? Processing power and memory bandwidth. Making higher pixels count easier and easier to work with. 

Q2 IQ is really nice. What bothers me, is the lack of adequate processing power to handle so many MP. Q was an instant camera. Q2 is an almost instant one sadly. 

If SL2 is coming with crazy fast ASICS + large & fast RAM buffer. Why not 47MP ? After all Q2 is already capable of 20 frame/sec. 

 

Wow I'm confused. It wasn't so long ago that you were passing along that SL2 was going to have 36MP and it seemed like you actually liked the idea at the time. Now you are saying why not 47MP?

Well even though it appears that we are going to get the 47MP after all I'm still of the view that 36MP would have been a far better choice for SL2. First of all it would have provided some differentiation smack in the middle of what Panasonic has released and it would be a differentiation that would have some logic / purpose behind it.

You mention the need for more processing power to support all the extra resolution. Why not balance the need for faster operation with better faster AF and not " investing" all the added processing power just to support the MP race which as LocalHero1953 has correctly pointed out is a benefit that will be leveraged by only a small fraction of photographers.

I believe that both Leica and Panasonic are not sufficiently focused on their serious deficiencies in AF. Coming from the world of dedicated wildlife photography ( Nikon D5, D4s etc) I don't expect that level of performance from the SL or S1R, but the notion that a $7K camera in this day an age can't have sufficiently decent AF (C) to consistently nail focus on a kid chasing after a soccer ball, as was demonstrated in a recent review of S1R, is in my view definitive proof that folks in product management at both Leica and Panasonic do not have all their priorities straight.

Which brings me full circle to my post of some days ago. I find the whole MP race exhausting and completely misguided. I wish camera companies would see improvements in processing power and sensor technology as an opportunity to provide "some" added resolution but at same time invest part of that processing power and R&D resources on other aspects of building a great camera and certainly handling speed, fast reliable AF and ISIS are all worthy of extra attention. With that said, I'll gently step down from my soapbox.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking all of the comments above into consideration, I agree with Chaemono, that above 800 ISO on the S1R things get  noisy and that files at 24MP are generally much cleaner. I've just offloaded my S1R which I've had since May and with which I shot over 4, 500 images and I can confirm this. Also agree with NicholasT's comment above re the MP race, as well as the S1R's mediocre AFC ability, it drove me nuts! IMO my SL performs better in AFC mode, simpler and less complicated.

FWIW I also don't think that in an everyday situation, anyone can realistically expect to get decent results above 6 400 ISO, why would you want to print an image that was taken at 12 000 ISO or above? Unless of course you're looking for some kind of "special feel or effect" the rest is just a theoretical discussion as to which camera is better at 12 000 or 25 000 ISO, in reality they're all crap.

As far as printing and megapixels go, I'm currently preparing 16 of my best images to be printed on canvas for a wildlife exhibition. Minimum size is A2  and maximum size is several panos at 2m X 1m. Some of these images go back to my M8 and M9. As long as you have a decent file to start with you can always resize in Photoshop, stay at 300DPI and happily print away.

The advantage of higher MPs is mainly for cropping purposes.

Edited by michali
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

Wow I'm confused. It wasn't so long ago that you were passing along that SL2 was going to have 36MP and it seemed like you actually liked the idea at the time. Now you are saying why not 47MP?

Do I have the choice ? Apparently 47MP is confirmed. What’s the point to hope for less ? Reality beats fantasy.

If SL2 has way faster CPU than Q2, it should be ok. If not it will be a major disappointment to choose such sensor. 

I already got a 47MP with Q2, so why not a SL2 with 47MP and APO-Summicron-SL 50mm as second camera ? I am entertaining the idea and hope that it will not disappoint.

 

About high ISO between 24MP vs 47MP. Of course you have to downsample 47 to 24MP for direct comparison. At 100% 24MP will always look better. But matching both at same lower resolution will give an advantage to 47MP images. Because you are trading resolution against noise reduction by oversampling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

The SL is already better in Size. M lenses application. Against S1R. I don’t see. it as a differentiator. Besides my M10 certainly do a better job than SL on that. Better AF-C tracking ability and ISO than S1R would be useful in real world. 

Well there are different preferences. There will always be a crowd that appreciates smaller, simpler and well-designed cameras. A good example is how poorly the feature-packed Fuji X-H1 is selling against the X-Pro2.

I agree that PDAF would be nice. I just want a small, versatile, and adaptable camera that is fun to shoot with because, honestly, in terms of IQ it's just splitting hairs. My X1D has a clear advantage over any fullframe camera + lens combo, and that's not going to change whether Leica goes with a 24 or 47 MP sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience 'noise' is primarily a digital issue and when converted into something analog like a print it has a tendency to vanish. Dynamic range is also compressed in the printing process so any loss of that as ISO rises is also mitigated.

What you cannot avoid is loss of resolution if there wasn't enough resolution to start with. One of the delights of a printed image is being both able to appreciate the image as a whole, and look at small details as well. A nice A2 12mpx image is fine, but you lose the added experience of the delicacy and interest of detail that you can get from more mpx. Personally, I will wring out the last pixel of detail in a print and if nobody but me appreciates it then I'm not bothered. I will also have images I can use on my 16k video wall when it no doubt appears in the future.... 

I think the argument that "Harry C. Brassiere took great photos with only a Minox' is specious ...... the photos would have been greater still if he'd used a better camera and decent film..... :rolleyes:24mpx may be 'enough' ..... but it is 'just enough' and leaves little leeway for those 'if only ......' occasions. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

In my experience 'noise' is primarily a digital issue and when converted into something analog like a print it has a tendency to vanish. Dynamic range is also compressed in the printing process so any loss of that as ISO rises is also mitigated.

What you cannot avoid is loss of resolution if there wasn't enough resolution to start with. One of the delights of a printed image is being both able to appreciate the image as a whole, and look at small details as well. A nice A2 12mpx image is fine, but you lose the added experience of the delicacy and interest of detail that you can get from more mpx. Personally, I will wring out the last pixel of detail in a print and if nobody but me appreciates it then I'm not bothered. I will also have images I can use on my 16k video wall when it no doubt appears in the future.... 

I think the argument that "Harry C. Brassiere took great photos with only a Minox' is specious ...... the photos would have been greater still if he'd used a better camera and decent film..... :rolleyes:24mpx may be 'enough' ..... but it is 'just enough' and leaves little leeway for those 'if only ......' occasions. 

 

+1

While I stand by my views on the disproportionate attention paid to more and more MP, I find your explanation of how you view added resolution eloquent and persuasive, and in particular your point about appreciating detail that may otherwise get lost in a larger print, even if others don't notice or care.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...