41 vs 24 MP

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb RexGig0:

Depth-of-field or, if one prefers, depth-of-focus, is ...

... two different things. Has nothing to do with 'preference.'

.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb caissa:

41 MP makes a difference with M lenses. I know from the SL2 with 47 MP.  Somebody showed pics with the Elmarit-M 24 mm Asph. With 24 MP everything was OK at f/2.8. With 47 MP the corners were much worse and it was necessary to use f/5.6 to get decent quality.

First, the digital Leica SL and SL2 cameras perform worse with M lenses than digital M cameras do. Second, 47 MP at 100 % view means 1.4× the magnification, compared to 24 MP at 100 %. So if the Elmarit-M 24 mm Asph apparently looks worse on the SL2 then it has nothing to do with the megapixel count. Instead, any perceived differences come from the different camera models and the different magnifications.

It's a mental short-circuit to conclude that lenses 'perform worse' on cameras with higher pixel counts. Actually, the contrary is true: they perform better ... um, or more precisely stated: Their performance gets recorded better.

Edited January 19, 2020 by 01af

[Advertisement]

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

[shirubadanieru]

Hmmmmm my three lenses are 35mm 8e, 50mm collapsible and 50mm summilux v1, and they render amazingly on the MM1, way better than asph ones from my point of view (I shoot street , portraits etc, and love film). Reading what everyone is saying, and given that all reviewers just tested ASPH lenses I’m still a bit concerned about how vintage lenses will render on such a high mp sensor... hope someone can test old lenses with the M10M sometime soon  
 

[Likaleica]

8 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

I’m still a bit concerned about how vintage lenses will render on such a high mp sensor... hope someone can test old lenses with the M10M sometime soon  
 

Check out Tom's review.  It's in German but if you can't read it just look at the photos.  He used a vintage 50mm Summicron.

 

[insideline]

37 minutes ago, Likaleica said:

Check out Tom's review.  It's in German but if you can't read it just look at the photos.  He used a vintage 50mm Summicron.

 

Actually if you translate the text he used 90 ASPH cron and 35mm ASPH cron lenses for the music and construction images. 

[Likaleica]

Right, for the concert and the construction site.  But he talks about how surprised he was that the 50 Summicron was so good and I believe he made the motorcycle photos with that lens.  He also posted these on the beta test site (which I can't access now).  So, not many pictures but needless to say the camera will allow the full expression of most extant M lenses.

[insideline]

44 minutes ago, Likaleica said:

Right, for the concert and the construction site.  But he talks about how surprised he was that the 50 Summicron was so good and I believe he made the motorcycle photos with that lens.  He also posted these on the beta test site (which I can't access now).  So, not many pictures but needless to say the camera will allow the full expression of most extant M lenses.

I very much agree and am extremely thankful as all of my lenses are pre 1982. I was also struck by how nice the tonal gradation is in the construction pictures, to my eyes a very promising camera. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by insideline
sp error

[shirubadanieru]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

thanks @Likaleica ! By the way just wondering, did you own the M9M? And how would you compare the output of the M10M at base / low ISO. I understand the M10M is of course much better at high ISO, but if you are shooting daytime, did you notice any difference between M9M and M10M? I felt the M9M provided me with files very close to film (all I had to do was add a bit of grain and play around with the black/white channels on LR), wondering how the M10M output compares. 

When I compare the way the M9 renders vs the M10, even after LR editing, the M10 files always seem a bit 'plasticky' to me, just wondering if that would apply in the monochromatic sensors : ) 

I should probably ask this too in the main M10M thread lol 

Edited January 20, 2020 by shirubadanieru

[Likaleica]

I would say that the M10M files are much deeper and malleable across all ISOs.  Having said that, in daylight exposures, the files are very similar (other than file/output size).  Night/low light exposure completely different animals.  Look at my night sky photo in the Images thread, made at base ISO 160.  

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

A lot of times, internet based photographic advice is worth every dollar we pay for it.

On 1/19/2020 at 10:13 AM, marcg said:

.... an a lot of times Internet-based photographic advice is extremely helpful.

True.  I have had it go both ways.

The key lies in being able to discern which is which.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[marcg]

Well I often find that the business of discerning which is which can be helped by seeking Internet-based photographic advice – which is sometimes extremely helpful – and other times not.

Edited January 21, 2020 by marcg

[adan]

A lot of the fuss about additional motion blur with high-megapixel cameras came from the replacement of the Nikon D700 by the D800E (and there were other factors: it was a huge 3x jump in pixel count (12Mp to 36Mp), not a scant 2X increase or less - and the deletion of the D700's anti-alias blurring filter revealed additional sharpness (or lack thereof)).

And when the Sony A7R joined the original A7 (and there was another factor - the A7R shutter was noticeably more violent, at least originally).

I tried out a D800E - it did show more little streaks from camera shake than a 10Mp Leica M8 or 12 Mp D700. A 60mm Micro-Nikkor needed a shutter speed of 1/500th instead of the rule-of-thumb 1/60th to avoid them. But that was visible only at full magnification pixel-peeping.

In same-size prints, thoses streaks would have been "the same" or equally visible/invisible - but most people claim they need more pixels to make BIGGER PRINTS. Therein lies the rub.

[frame-it]

4 minutes ago, adan said:

the A7R shutter was noticeably more violent

Almost like a Nuclear Assault

[lik]

Am 19.1.2020 um 19:11 schrieb 01af:

more precisely stated: Their performance gets recorded better.

Thank you – the given lens performance gets recorded better – that was one of my lessons learned during the past years. 
Therefore it's completely misleading to compare results at 100% (some do it at 200%) magnification. 
As long as ISO-performance doesn't lose, every lens wins with pixel.