24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Totally agree that aesthetically the 24 mp is much better.

I can also assure fellow posters that the simple fact that i cannot afford the now available in the UK M10R has nothing at all to do with this opinion.

[Advertisement]

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

[Raymondl]

Do you think it's possible for someone that owns both cameras m10 & m10R to post images ? been following the conversation and very interesting, but I think it would help to further illustrate this with an actual image.

 

[Tailwagger]

7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

 A lot of issues seem to be conflated here.

Indeed. And few ignored, as well. The impact of the optic employed being the singular most important one.

[Tom1234]

39 minutes ago, Raymondl said:

Do you think it's possible for someone that owns both cameras m10 & m10R to post images ? been following the conversation and very interesting, but I think it would help to further illustrate this with an actual image.

 

Great idea!

One wonders… is this a real megapixel effect of "too sharp" or just the jagged edges of computer screen pixel displays?  I am using a 31.5" diagonal monitor adjusted to resolution of 3008 x 1692, a Benq photographer's color monitor.  Nice indeed.  

40 meg shots seem more technical and some how harsher yet they do have more resolution - and added resolution can be a fun obsession.  

[Tom1234]

Maybe what we need is a shot of a woman's face, a portrait, with same lens and distance on 24meg and 40meg.  A close up and a medium shot (smaller head size, less skin) would help. 

[Raymondl]

Understand that not everyone has a M10 and M10-R on their shelves. I believe you can go to a Leica store and try them (if you bring your own SD card) additionally you can try a lens like a 50mm APO to avoid any debates about edge to edge sharpness on a higher megapixel camera and any focusing issues because of certain constraints using the RF (pressured to perform etc).

I have in the past and they were fairly courteous, even though I was just trying the M10 and 50 0.95 (coming from a M9) and had no inclination of purchasing a camera. 
 

So. anyone game enough ? If there are no models available in store (wife/daughter/friend/mistress etc)...  you can be the model ! 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Raymondl

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, Steven said:

I’m going through the same issue with my new q2. 

+1

I owned a Q when the Q2 first came out, and I was shocked by what I saw as a kind of vulgar rendering. But at the time, I predicted that everyone would get used to it, because the differences are small enough that the eye/brain spans the difference. And it has. Now, I can no longer see the vulgarity and accept the rending. (But I sold my Q and have never wanted the Q2.)

This is frankly how I reacted to most early M10R photos as well. Now, I just see them as the norm. But I've since probably done 90% of my photography with film (and in the last year have bought 3 [and soon 4] film bodies to 1 digital body). Contemporary digital has driven me back to an earlier aesthetic, so maybe somewhere in my reptile brain I do still sense a difference.

Edited October 27, 2020 by bags27

[Tom1234]

3 minutes ago, bags27 said:

+1

I owned a Q when the Q2 first came out, and I was shocked by what I saw as a kind of vulgar rendering. But at the time, I predicted that everyone would get used to it, because the differences are small enough that the eye/brain spans the difference. And it has. Now, I can no longer see the vulgarity and accept the rending. (But I sold my Q and have never wanted the Q2.)

This is frankly how I reacted to most early M10R photos as well. Now, I just see them as the norm. But I've since probably done 90% of my photography with film (and in the last year have bought 3 [and soon 4] film bodies to 1 digital body). Contemporary digital has driven me back to an earlier aesthetic, so maybe somewhere in my reptile brain I do still sense a difference.

This is it.  My initial reaction is the same. 

[elmars]

Here are some test (!!!) shots when I were a beta tester for the firmware of the M10-R. Direct comparison, all settings were the same. Can anyone tell which is which? Of course You can see a difference in the white balance. This was a "problem" of the early version of the firmware.

Anything different in the aesthetics?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 27, 2020 by elmars

[elmars]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Raymondl]

Nope. I personally can't. Besides the 50 euro shot where it had a little "tear" at the top (that looked sharper)..but I wouldn't put it down to "aesthetics".

[bags27]

Honestly, this isn't the way I react to photography. For me, it's always a gut feeling of whether the photo seems to me psychologically true. Neither of those test cases remotely touches my emotions, so they mean nothing to me.

Robert Parker was the world's most famous wine critic (I deeply disliked his taste in wine, but that's just me). He never, ever tasted blind. He wasn't a fool, because he knew he would be fooled. Michael Broadbent, the previous generation's best known critic, famously said that after a drink or two at lunch, he couldn't tell the difference between Burgundy and Bordeaux (and that's a pretty huge admission). There are studies that purport to show that most people, blindfolded, can't even tell white wine from red.

I don't care. I have a complex and wonderful cellar, and I love what I love. It's sort of what Justice Stewart once said about something else, I know it when I see it.

Edited October 27, 2020 by bags27

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

Maybe what we need is a shot of a woman's face, a portrait, with same lens and distance on 24meg and 40meg.  A close up and a medium shot (smaller head size, less skin) would help. 

I didn't realise you only saw the aesthetic difference effect in women's faces.

Edited October 27, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Tom1234]

Bags27, like you might say… I have lost confidence in blind tests.  

The maker of the drink Coca-Cola tried blind tests and found that more sugar won the test, so they came out with "New Coke" with more sugar, but then people purchasing liked the less sugar filled older version. Today's Coke has gone back to New Coke's more sugar and I don't like it anymore and have totally quit buying Coke soft-drink which at one time I loved.  

I went to an audio speaker show, they did blind speaker tests, and found that the louder speaker was almost always chosen as best, blind or not blind.  But when listening over time the speaker that wins out is softer on the ears not the louder. 

The Problem?  It could be that the human mind needs sight to orient itself, and without sight, its decision making becomes disoriented and over-focused, causing changes in the mental choice mechanism to the most predominating element, loosing the Gestalt (generalization) that would normally balance out all elements and choose the best overall.  The "over time affects" and "summary-of-all-elements" are left out of these acute blind tests.

Next comment on aesthetics below:

 

2 hours ago, elmars said:

Here are some test (!!!) shots when I were a beta tester for the firmware of the M10-R. Direct comparison, all settings were the same. Can anyone tell which is which? Of course You can see a difference in the white balance. This was a "problem" of the early version of the firmware.

Anything different in the aesthetics?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

2 hours ago, elmars said:

Thank you for this test Elmars.  It shows what I am saying, an aesthetic difference on my monitor, but maybe not yours.  I have no idea which is 24meg and which 40meg, that is your secret.  Below is my judgement of them on my  screen.  I am using a Benq 31.5" Photo monitor calibrated using X-Rite calibrator with the Benq software. 

Foliage- Smoother on top soothes me (24meg ?).  Harsher on bottom causes irritation (40meg?).  Comment: But maybe a sharpening routine is causing this?  Which would slightly alter the comparison of 24 and 40meg.

Stamp- Harsher on top irritates me (40 meg?).  Smoother on bottom soothes (24 meg?).  Comment: The lower contrast in the detail on bottom might slightly alter the test making that sensor more soothing.  Maybe I like the one that is slightly lower contrast not the lower megabytes?

Even if I am naming the megabytes wrong, definitely the irritating one I do not like as much, and the soothing one I do like more.  

Back to Steven's comments about terms that are descriptive of the heart's reaction:  The reaction is almost instantaneous and felt as irritating-or-soothing first, before I can describe it a little more technically as a visual harsh-or-smooth.  This is exactly what I felt on the other sites showing 40 meg shots… I felt instant irritation with the 40 meg pictures for some reason I could not understand, and I call it an aesthetic difference caused by higher resolution, for lack of a better analysis and term.  

The irritation could be higher contrast, though in the past higher contrast attracted me, it did not repulse. The irritation could be a sharpening routine used in the higher meg camera, these excessive sharpening routines I know do repulse, with visually hardly perceivable pixel jaggies that I emotionally pick up on.  Or the irritation could be an unnaturally high resolution?   

Do others feel this effect?  Can we step closer to a conclusion?  Elmars please speak!  

Now some Shakespeare:  So tell me oh Elmars, only you know which picture is 24 and which is 40meg.  Please tell… which have I chosen?  Or have I chosen differently each time?  What do I like the most, 24 or 40 meg, OR, am just I noticing contrast & sharpening differences?  As they say in an old TV advertisement "inquiring minds want to know".

[Tom1234]

10 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I didn't realise you only saw the aesthetic difference effect in women's faces.

Not only, but yes including, on the face.  Skin differences on the face should show an aesthetic difference when resolution changes going up.  Like too much detail from unnaturally high resolution.  Unnatural, because it is more than the eye would see, as caused by more megabytes of detail than the eye can record.   

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, Tom1234 said:

Not only, but yes including, on the face.  Skin differences on the face should show an aesthetic difference when resolution changes going up.  Like too much detail from unnaturally high resolution.  Unnatural, because it is more than the eye would see, as caused by more megabytes of detail than the eye can record.   

I was actually questioning why it had to be a woman's face. And would a woman looking at it come to a similar aesthetic difference conclusion.

[Tom1234]

53 minutes ago, Steven said:

Let me take this a bit further. 

For the advocates (such as me) of the better aesthetics of lower res sensors... im think it could also have a bit to do with post processing. Here's why: 

I just came across this video on YouTube comparing a 12MP sensor vs a 61MP sensor. Quite unbelievable how the images look the same. The funny thing is I owned both the A7RIV, which I never liked, and the A7SIII, which I don't know yet if I like. But from my first impressions, the 12MP files ive been editing this week from my A7SIII are much much more pleasing than anything ive ever got from the A7RIV. They are more malleable to me. More enjoyable to edit, and the end results looks much more like what I get with my M10P than when I used to compare my M10P to my A7RIV. Therefore, im thinking that lower res files might be indeed easier (and funner) to control/edit, and that this is why some of us are preferring lower res aesthetics. Because of the workflow and nothing else. I might totally off topic, who knows... but one more thing ill add is that it recoups with what I was saying here yesterday: I recently downloaded some 12MP photos from a Nikon D3S from 2011 and they are a joy to edit... and to look at. 

Here's another point on topic:: yesterday I adapted my 35 pre FLE lux to my A7SIII and shot side by side photos with the M10P, at night in town. Sure, I gave an advantage to the Sony by choosing lowlight for the test, but I would say that 90% of the out of camera shots were nicer from the Sony. Furthermore, with a couples touches to the temperature and tint sliders in LR, I could match both images so well is seconds, to a point where no one, I assure you no one, would be able to tell a difference in a blind test. This might be a topic of interest for a new thread ? Or no one cares about Sony bodies here?

 

A professional still photographer friend of mine said, that when the sensors got to 6 meg they were good enough for his purposes, of seminar photography and executive photos.  Of course,  sensors above 6 meg makes cropping possible.  

[Raymondl]

@Tom1234 Hope you are well  

note that I am not trying to steer this thread to a certain direction as I have “both” higher MP and lower MP cameras.

Additionally I just wanted to form a better understanding of the different opinions. Some opinions I may not agree with, but that’s fine.. at the end of the day that’s why we have choice..

SO... how does the lens optics play a part on higher MP image  ?  E.g. using old lenses that are (NOT) very “sharp” by modern standards.

In the link below, you can download a down res file (16MP) and there are 2 images.. both are shot with a 50mm lens from the 50’s but one is shot wide open (“full of character”) while the other is shot at F8.

keen on hearing your thoughts in addition to others.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/booSewXedevGVqC77
 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Raymondl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

4 hours ago, elmars said:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The interesting parts of both pictures look aesthetically more pleasing on the 24 mp images.

[Raymondl]

12 minutes ago, Steven said:

Just did another comparison test for myself. I'm sharing it with you guys but please note it was only intended for my personal use originally. It is not scientific and not perfect (because I don't  care). Its more of a real world comparison (shot handheld, with the time between the shot to switch the lens on the two bodies). But as you know what I care about is the general feeling. Not the brick wall study. So it was useful or me. 

Two other twists compared to the examples above: 

1. This is not 24mp vs 40mp, but 12mp vs 24mp, sorry! Still useful and on point I think. 

2. M10P vs ..... A7SIII (both with the 35mm 1.4 Lux Pre FLE)

Let me know which one you think which? 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YtZbcLOWQ2niaa54a1CBhO78zkDQbwa6?usp=sharing

PS. All straight out of camera. No edit. 

I prefer no: 2 but I was looking for specific areas that I “think” I know to look for. But to be honest the colours were so similar.. thought the Sony and Leica would produce a different “look”.. I guess when you start doing more post like bringing shadows and highlights in raw.. is when the “real” difference of dynamic range etc kicks in.