M-10 with 40-47 Mp

[Rick in CO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 40Mp Monochrome does not have image stabilization which both the Q2 and SL2 have.  

Initial reviews of high-res sensors suggested that a tripod or image stabilization would be necessary to get the benefits of 40-60Mp 35mm-sized sensors.

Anyone actually using the above cameras done any objective comparisons?

Sure, the reviews testing resolution show a difference, but the cameras are tripod-mounted under controlled conditions.

Walking around with hand-held shooting, as the M is best known for, is increasing the Mp's without image stabilization going to achieve any practical benefit?

Does the color filter play a role?

[250swb]

With the Nikon Z7 (47mp) I'd say it would be pointless with Leica lenses if it didn't offer IBIS for manual M lenses. The more information that is captured the more movement is captured, it shows as a slight smearing of detail and nothing you'd want if you are paying for a 47mp sensor. Yes of course you can get lucky, but the old brag from the days of film that 'I can get a sharp hand held image at 1/8th' is already a thing of the past as a repeatable practice.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Rick in CO said:

The 40Mp Monochrome does not have image stabilization which both the Q2 and SL2 have.  

Initial reviews of high-res sensors suggested that a tripod or image stabilization would be necessary to get the benefits of 40-60Mp 35mm-sized sensors.

Anyone actually using the above cameras done any objective comparisons?

Sure, the reviews testing resolution show a difference, but the cameras are tripod-mounted under controlled conditions.

Walking around with hand-held shooting, as the M is best known for, is increasing the Mp's without image stabilization going to achieve any practical benefit?

Does the color filter play a role?

I have both. With M10M, I shoot with 1/2f rule or even slower. Note that the Q2 default setting for OIS is Auto. AFAIK, this means that image stabilization is on at shutter speeds slower than 1/2f (1/60).

There is no need for image stabilization or tripod when shooting with a 40Mp camera (though it is helpful). X1D has a 50Mp sensor, no image stabilization, and is an excellent handheld camera. Note that if your output size is the same for a 24Mp and a 40Mp image file, then the same rule applies for required shutter speed. 

[mujk]

I don't think camera shake is a problem with 40-50Mpix sensors without IS, as long as the shutter speed is sufficiently high, the focal length is fairly short and the weight of the camera+lens combo reasonable.

Several 35mm pro systems use in-lens IS only and only for pro glass of longer focal lengths. There is a reason for this. IS is not always the magic bullet. Like noise cancelling headphones (which actually work according go the same basic principle of creating a compensating movement in the opposite direction) IS reduces the effects of camera shake, but does not necessarily remove it completely.

Based on experience, I would claim that, in normal use with high-res sensors and fast lenses, inaccurate focus is at least as visible as blur caused by camera shake. Regardless of whether its AF or MF.

[250swb]

9 minutes ago, mujk said:

I don't think camera shake is a problem with 40-50Mpix sensors without IS, as long as the shutter speed is sufficiently high, the focal length is fairly short and the weight of the camera+lens combo reasonable.

 

The point would be that if you are spending $7000 on a Leica body would you be so happy to have your hands tied by using this parameter. And to just add to your woe, hand holding a heavy camera is easier than holding a light camera steady, inertia and science stuff etc.....

Edited February 16, 2020 by 250swb

[John Miranda]

I have both M10 and Nikon D850 which has ~46MP sensor.  Regarding the Nikon D850 with no image stabilization (on a 24-70mm f2.8 lens that I walk about with) the assertion that there is no (in all cases) benefit is totally false.  

There is for sure a benefit and at higher shutter speeds the detail is quite amazing and enjoyable when it first pops up on a large display.  For shower shutter speeds, without having to excessively raise the ISO, a tripod becomes more relevant.

Edited February 16, 2020 by John Miranda

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hiya, Rick - how ya doing?

Anyway - the issue here is that it is situational. There are times when smaller pixels (meaning - more pixels on the same sensor area) will resolve blur that will fit in one pixel on a lower-res camera, and not register. And there are times when it won't. Which is why one will get varied '"anecdotal" opinions.

It depends on how close to the bone one wants to cut the old 1/focal-length rule of thumb. And how large one prints. Any camera blur won't be "bigger" on a high MP sensor - it will just be better-resolved. And so on and so on.

I shot a test with the D850 back when it was new. And with a 60mm Micro-Nikkor hand-held at 1/125th second (which would have been fine on most films, and sub-20Mpixel-cameras) it revealed a fair number of little 2-pixel streaks (resolved camera/hand-shake). At 1/1000th, it didn't.

But frankly, even with the M10, I try to shoot 1/4x-the-focal-length (and with the 21/28 lenses, I set it to a hard manual 1/250th or higher; That's 12x the focal length for the 21). Unless I am looking for creative motion blur. Because my subjects move far more than a hand-held camera shakes.

There is some fairly simple math involved. A 48-Mpixel-camera will have pixels with linear dimensions 1.41x smaller than a 24-Mpixel camera. Thus it will capture blur-streaks 1.41x smaller than will show on the lower-res camera. Thus a shutter speed 1.41x faster on the higher-res camera (say, 1/360 vs. 1/250) should corral that same amount of shake to within a pixel.

A shutter speed 2x faster (1 full step on the dial) will provide a wider safety margin. Similarly, a 72-Mpixel camera will need a shutter speed increase of 2x to eliminate the same amount of shake (with 3-4x increase to provide a wider safety margin).

[Rick in CO]

11 hours ago, adan said:

Hiya, Rick - how ya doing?

Anyway - the issue here is that it is situational. There are times when smaller pixels (meaning - more pixels on the same sensor area) will resolve blur that will fit in one pixel on a lower-res camera, and not register. And there are times when it won't. Which is why one will get varied '"anecdotal" opinions.

It depends on how close to the bone one wants to cut the old 1/focal-length rule of thumb. And how large one prints. Any camera blur won't be "bigger" on a high MP sensor - it will just be better-resolved. And so on and so on.

I shot a test with the D850 back when it was new. And with a 60mm Micro-Nikkor hand-held at 1/125th second (which would have been fine on most films, and sub-20Mpixel-cameras) it revealed a fair number of little 2-pixel streaks (resolved camera/hand-shake). At 1/1000th, it didn't.

But frankly, even with the M10, I try to shoot 1/4x-the-focal-length (and with the 21/28 lenses, I set it to a hard manual 1/250th or higher; That's 12x the focal length for the 21). Unless I am looking for creative motion blur. Because my subjects move far more than a hand-held camera shakes.

There is some fairly simple math involved. A 48-Mpixel-camera will have pixels with linear dimensions 1.41x smaller than a 24-Mpixel camera. Thus it will capture blur-streaks 1.41x smaller than will show on the lower-res camera. Thus a shutter speed 1.41x faster on the higher-res camera (say, 1/360 vs. 1/250) should corral that same amount of shake to within a pixel.

A shutter speed 2x faster (1 full step on the dial) will provide a wider safety margin. Similarly, a 72-Mpixel camera will need a shutter speed increase of 2x to eliminate the same amount of shake (with 3-4x increase to provide a wider safety margin).

Hi Andy, doing well, I miss our conversations at EC!

I don't know if its a fair argument that if user-induced motion causes, say a 10% pixel blur, all sized pixels being equal, then the cumulative effect on the smaller pixel size will amount to the same quantitative effect.  For example, with the 6uM pixel on the M10 sensor the effect would be 0.6%, the Q2/SL2 at 4.3 uM is 0.43% + 0.172% (the 0.4X on the adjoining pixel occupying the same relative space) = ~same 0.6%.   With a more crowded sensor wouldn't the overall result be worse?  Does the color filter account for any decrease or magnification of the effect?  Or additional interpolation by software (not with RAW capture?)  Too many questions.

I agree with your comment, and all of those above, that it is situational with all of the factors mentioned playing a role.

The "real world" result I guess I'm after is if anyone who prints 16x20 from hand-held shots has noticed a real difference.  I went from the M9 to the M10 because a 16x20 print stretched the M9's 18 Mp and have found the M240 and M10's 24 Mp to be adequate.  I recently tried the TL2 and found its more crowded APS-sized sensor to perform less satisfactory than my M10 having similar 24 Mp's.

The Hasselblad X1D has a sensor 1.7X that of "full frame", with a 5.3 uM pixel size.  No image stabilization.  More similar to the M10 and some of the online photos are stunning.  I have not personally seen a larger-sized print but since that was thrown into the mix?  

[SrMi]

16 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

Hi Andy, doing well, I miss our conversations at EC!

I don't know if its a fair argument that if user-induced motion causes, say a 10% pixel blur, all sized pixels being equal, then the cumulative effect on the smaller pixel size will amount to the same quantitative effect.  For example, with the 6uM pixel on the M10 sensor the effect would be 0.6%, the Q2/SL2 at 4.3 uM is 0.43% + 0.172% (the 0.4X on the adjoining pixel occupying the same relative space) = ~same 0.6%.   With a more crowded sensor wouldn't the overall result be worse?  Does the color filter account for any decrease or magnification of the effect?  Or additional interpolation by software (not with RAW capture?)  Too many questions.

I agree with your comment, and all of those above, that it is situational with all of the factors mentioned playing a role.

The "real world" result I guess I'm after is if anyone who prints 16x20 from hand-held shots has noticed a real difference.  I went from the M9 to the M10 because a 16x20 print stretched the M9's 18 Mp and have found the M240 and M10's 24 Mp to be adequate.  I recently tried the TL2 and found its more crowded APS-sized sensor to perform less satisfactory than my M10 having similar 24 Mp's.

The Hasselblad X1D has a sensor 1.7X that of "full frame", with a 5.3 uM pixel size.  No image stabilization.  More similar to the M10 and some of the online photos are stunning.  I have not personally seen a larger-sized print but since that was thrown into the mix?  

How do you compute 1.7x for X1D? An XCD 45mm corresponds to a 36mm lens in full-frame universe (1.25x).

If your output is the same (16x20) for a 24Mp and a 40Mp camera, then the camera shake induced blur effect in the output will be the same for a given shutter speed.

[Rick in CO]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

How do you compute 1.7x for X1D? An XCD 45mm corresponds to a 36mm lens in full-frame universe (1.25x).

If your output is the same (16x20) for a 24Mp and a 40Mp camera, then the camera shake induced blur effect in the output will be the same for a given shutter speed.

The X1D sensor is 1.7X the 35mm full frame sensor by the dimensions of the area.  Lens perspective is calculated by the diagonal of the image capture area.

[SrMi]

30 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

The X1D sensor is 1.7X the 35mm full frame sensor by the dimensions of the area.  Lens perspective is calculated by the diagonal of the image capture area.

Thanks for the answer. Typically, it is the diagonal ratio that is used in the 'computation' for camera-shake-free shutter speed.