24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Saying that less mp look more interesting equates to saying that images taken with a 400 or 800 iso film look more interesting than those taken with a 50 or 100 iso film, as 400 or 800 iso films have less resolution than 50 or 100 iso films. But why would less resolution render images more interesting, at least in general? I am waiting for someone to say that images are more interesting if they are less sharp ...

I do acknowledge that technical perfection (sharpness, resolution etc.) does not render images interesting per se, but neither is the opposite true, at least in my humble opinion.

[Anakronox]

Also think about how the new M10-R’s DNGs are different and that you will also have to adjust your post processing to get the look you are used to from say an M10. I went from a M9M to a M10M and had to really relearn y workflow in Lightroom 

[Advertisement]

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

[Steven]

1 minute ago, wizard said:

Saying that less mp look more interesting equates to saying that images taken with a 400 or 800 iso film look more interesting than those taken with a 50 or 100 iso film, as 400 or 800 iso films have less resolution than 50 or 100 iso films. But why would less resolution render images more interesting, at least in general? I am waiting for someone to say that images are more interesting if they are less sharp ...

I do acknowledge that technical perfection (sharpness, resolution etc.) does not render images interesting per se, but neither is the opposite true, at least in my humble opinion.

Images are more interesting if they are less sharp 

[Steven]

1 minute ago, Anakronox said:

Also think about how the new M10-R’s DNGs are different and that you will also have to adjust your post processing to get the look you are used to from say an M10. I went from a M9M to a M10M and had to really relearn y workflow in Lightroom 

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

[Rupert Greenwell]

This is a interesting topic, I have a M10 and I have been watching the M10 R threads with interest. I moved from a Q to a Q2, I feel that the Q2 has lost some of the Q's charm in the look of the images to my eyes. I slightly prefer the images from the M10 to the Q2. Before the M10 I used a M262 and only at higher iso's did the M10 seem to perform image wise better than the 262.

I also have a M10 M and it is early days but the improvement over the M246 is at times hard to tell. This is all very personal, I don't examine my images for minor details or worry too much about sharpness, it is the overall look of my images that please me. For me a M10 R is not going to make me a better photographer , I now realise to be happy with what I have already.

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, Steven said:

Images are more interesting if they are less sharp 

Sharp is not a technical term.  A linear contrast curve often yields pictures that appear flat, less crisp. That’s a common issue with high dynamic range camera output, made worse by lack of PP understanding (including excess use of software ‘sharpening’). For screen shots a camera phone gives plenty of resolution.  Boring subject matter is also likely exacerbated by pandemic conditions.  A lot of issues seem to be conflated here.

Jeff
 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Jeff S

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Sharp is not a technical term.  A linear contrast curve often yields pictures that appear flat, less crisp. That’s a common issue with high dynamic range camera output, made worse by lack of PP understanding (including excess use of software ‘sharpening’). For screen shots a camera phone gives plenty of resolution.  Boring subject matter is also likely exacerbated by pandemic conditions.  A lot of issues seem to be conflated here.

Jeff
 

 

I never talk technical. I wouldn't be able if I tried. I only speak with my heart. Sharp, here, refers to an emotion. 

[Tom1234]

6 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Sharp is not a technical term.  A linear contrast curve often yields pictures that appear flat, less crisp. That’s a common issue with high dynamic range camera output, made worse by lack of PP understanding (including excess use of software ‘sharpening’). For screen shots a camera phone gives plenty of resolution.  Boring subject matter is also likely exacerbated by pandemic conditions.  A lot of issues seem to be conflated here.

Jeff
 

 

The dilemma:  Should a camera company give the flattest color/brightness curve (dull looking picture) or a color/brightness curve that excites?  

The flattest gives the most differentiated data but needs fixing in post production.  An exciting saturated color Euro Look of some kind probably makes the camera sell.  

Me thinks… both should be selectable.  Both should be retrievable from the other.  

Could the saturated Euro Look be a software tweak-file-of-settings applied to a flat DNG file?  Yes but that would give it away for all to know.  Yet don't the insiders all know what these tweaks are?  So really a camera maker may be giving very little away except a few secret tweaks.  It is obvious that Nikon's Color science is similar to Leica's.  So in the name of preserving corporate secrets, marketing edge, and product differentiation - we may not see this information give-out by the camera companies but only by the post product photo software providers. 

[Guest]

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.

[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]

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".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[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