24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

I have used all generations of digital Ms, and before M6.

Personally I can not see the asthetic difference between the M10 and M10r. I see a little different colors, sometimess a bit better for the M10 (a little warmer and slightly more saturated), sometimes a little more neutral and slighty better skintones for M10r. For my taste.

I can not see difference in regards of aestetic in regards of resolution for the lower resolution sensor. I would expect advantages for the higherresolution for tonal and color-graduation in case of demanding scenes, but have not used the M10r enough in such situations to have an opinion. 

 

COLOR: Referring to Tom0511 post and also BlackBarn above… apparently we are all affected by different things more and less.  To me the color going neutral on the M10r is something I don't like, I am very sensitive to color, but it is so easy to add saturation in post that it is not worth worrying about for most people, but I do not want to fix in post hundreds of files but other people don't mind doing so.  I want a menu checkbox that says Euro color (meaning slightly more saturated).

SHARPNESS: The sharpness increase in M10-R seems to be a game changer for some and me too IMHO.  I also would like a way to turn it off in a menu.  

[Jeff S]

41 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

COLOR: Referring to Tom0511 post and also BlackBarn above… apparently we are all affected by different things more and less.  To me the color going neutral on the M10r is something I don't like, I am very sensitive to color, but it is so easy to add saturation in post that it is not worth worrying about for most people, but I do not want to fix in post hundreds of files but other people don't mind doing so.  I want a menu checkbox that says Euro color (meaning slightly more saturated).

SHARPNESS: The sharpness increase in M10-R seems to be a game changer for some and me too IMHO.  I also would like a way to turn it off in a menu.  

I think you don’t understand post processing fundamentals.  Make a custom color profile (or profiles) and simply import using that profile, or click once on a different one. No harder than clicking in-camera. Sharpness... similarly easy to set default or preset.  Adjustments can also be applied to whole grouping of pics.  
 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Steven]

Another stupid fun little MP aesthetic test ! 

Q2 Summilux 28 1.7 (47mp) vs A7S3 & 24mm G Master 1.4 (12mp)

Any difference, beyond colour profile? 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uj22jSswdSYHtWQ696QkfAuYUPCFLxeV?usp=sharing

[Steven]

Here's another way to look at it (for me, who's privileged enough to have a closet full of camera and lenses)... 

Go out to take pictures with whichever body makes you the most confident, enjoy, take nice photos, and no one will ever know which one it was. 

This morning, I took pictures of the kids with the Q2 as I needed AF. 

In the afternoon, I had a calm walk around the city and went out with the M10R. 

A few minutes ago, I went out to walk the dog. I wanted to use an M lens but I feared it was too dark for the A7SIII so I mounted it on the A7SIII. It enabled me to shoot at 12800 ISO like if it was 800! Check this out? Can you tell how many pixels ? All the photos here are between 1000 and 12800, with the majority of them at 4000 (Non edited, non fancy, non special, stupid photos I clicked for the sake of the test)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ktTKteCoa0N2YUbiVQ0rmnc8wjzh3pDo?usp=sharing

[Tom1234]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

Here's another way to look at it (for me, who's privileged enough to have a closet full of camera and lenses)... 

Go out to take pictures with whichever body makes you the most confident, enjoy, take nice photos, and no one will ever know which one it was. 

This morning, I took pictures of the kids with the Q2 as I needed AF. 

In the afternoon, I had a calm walk around the city and went out with the M10R. 

A few minutes ago, I went out to walk the dog. I wanted to use an M lens but I feared it was too dark for the A7SIII so I mounted it on the A7SIII. It enabled me to shoot at 12800 ISO like if it was 800! Check this out? Can you tell how many pixels ? All the photos here are between 1000 and 12800, with the majority of them at 4000 (Non edited, non fancy, non special, stupid photos I clicked for the sake of the test)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ktTKteCoa0N2YUbiVQ0rmnc8wjzh3pDo?usp=sharing

Love the color on these night shots.  Really to me,. the less light, the more the highest ISO sensor just wins regardless of camera. Yet I wonder what the mustang would look like in terms of color on the M10. 

My car back in the 1970's is the red one (it made in 1960's). 

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!

[Tom1234]

19 minutes ago, Steven said:

Another stupid fun little MP aesthetic test ! 

Q2 Summilux 28 1.7 (47mp) vs A7S3 & 24mm G Master 1.4 (12mp)

Any difference, beyond colour profile? 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uj22jSswdSYHtWQ696QkfAuYUPCFLxeV?usp=sharing

Essentially Identical.  Must be that at some megapixel number, for simpler shots not too challenging, adding more megs is not helpful. 

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!

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Love the color on these night shots.  Really to me,. the less light, the more the highest ISO sensor just wins regardless of camera. Yet I wonder what the mustang would look like in terms of color on the M10. 

My car back in the 1970's is the red one (it made in 1960's). 

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!

Very rare to see a mustang like this in Paris. Worth taking a photo of. 

Actually, this shot was taken at 12800 ISO... on the M10R, the colour of the car would look like .... 🤮

[Tom1234]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

Very rare to see a mustang like this in Paris. Worth taking a photo of. 

Actually, this shot was taken at 12800 ISO... on the M10R, the colour of the car would look like .... 🤮

Someday the ISO will be auto like focus. 

[jdlaing]

4 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Someday the ISO will be auto like focus. 

It already is. It’s called auto iso.

[Tom1234]

Just now, jdlaing said:

It already is. It’s called auto iso.

I've used it, auto ISO, but it was not exactly perfected so I found it better to set a top ISO.  It seems to interact with white balance.

I wish this was compared between cameras more often… who's auto-iso-&-white-balance is best and can you just set to auto and forget it… probably on the newest cameras you can.  Yes I've read about this in some reviews.  

But some people might say it is all the same regardless of camera really, just fix it in PhotoShop, but other sites are comparing without Photoshop expectations more than this Brand specific forum, IMHO and no offense meant. 

Of course this would affect the aesthetic which I am sure no one wants to hear after 24 pages on this subject. 

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

The lower meg file is a little sharper when pixel peeping.  Damn!

True. And what do you conclude?  That the 12MPx sensor has higher acuity?!? 😆🤣😆😁😂 

I'll tell you what I see. One shot is in focus, the other isn't.  If you want to draw a conclusion from this 'test', the only one possible, assuming the OVF was used, is that critical focus is more easily achieved with an EVF than a RF. 

Same scene, same photographer, same camera, same lens, same settings, default LR sharpening, same focus point, top edge of right wing shot back to back with a few seconds of each other. 1K crops from 40Mpx. One about as close as you can get under the circumstances, the other not as good. 

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!

Here was the scene.

Yes one is sharper than the other. Nothing to do with the camera or lens. Everything to do with the photographer. 

 

 

[Steven]

9 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

True. And what do you conclude?  That the 12MPx sensor has higher acuity?!? 😆🤣😆😁😂 

I'll tell you what I see. One shot is in focus, the other isn't.  If you want to draw a conclusion from this 'test', the only one possible, assuming the OVF was used, is that critical focus is more easily achieved with an EVF than a RF. 

Same scene, same photographer, same camera, same lens, same settings, default LR sharpening, same focus point, top edge of right wing shot back to back with a few seconds of each other. 1K crops from 40Mpx. One about as close as you can get under the circumstances, the other not as good. 

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!

Here was the scene.

Yes one is sharper than the other. Nothing to do with the camera or lens. Everything to do with the photographer. 

 

 

I'm going to have to argue that ! 

Not saying my test is a test. Actually, it's more of a game, or an experiment. BUT, my focus was fine. The A7SIII focused with the Eye AF feature. The M10R's focus was confirmed on live view with magnification + peaking. 

That being said, I do think that the A7SIII is sharper too. Here are a few theories, since I am not a very technical/scientific "tester": 

1. My 35 Lux ASPH pre FLE suffers from focus shift (edit: again, im not very technical, but I suppose we can discard that since focus was confirmed in live view. Focus shift could only be an issue while focusing through the RF, correct?)

2. The fact that this "test" was made in low light gave an advantage to the sony while the M produces a more noisy, less clean image

3. Sony applies some sharpening in camera. 

4. Some of you are too old and have bad eyes ! 

5. All of the above 

The final result, however, is that everyone thought the 12MP was sharper. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Steven

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I'm going to have to argue that ! 

Argue all you like. I can see the apparent target, the face, on Sony is "sharper". What I don't see is any factual evidence whatsoever that supports the notion that the Sony is more detailed than the Leica, a conclusion that frankly not only defies the primary motivation behind 30+ years of sensor development, but simple common sense.  And when you see a test result that is both unexpected and flies in the face of normalcy one begins by seriously questioning the test methodology and execution, not blindly accepting the conclusion.  

What I also see is the M file is a helluva lot noisier than the Sony. Not entirely surprising, given the brief, but in a test like this, I shouldn't be seeing any. So I checked the EXIF. The Sony shot was at ISO 320, the M at 800. The Sony at 1/125",  the Leica at 1/250".  Thats a full stop to the bad on the Leica side when the Sony can already be expected to outperform  from a noise standpoint when at equal ISO. I can also see that noise reduction and luminance smoothing was applied to the Leica file, none to the Sony which naturally results in more lost detail.  I further note that lens profiles were applied in one case, not in the other.  I'm sure there were other variables involved.  If you're doing a serious comparison that others are going to potentially draw conclusions from, you need to at least account for these simple things. 

The exif also reports a a focus distance of .7M, aperture 1.7 from the Leica.  Likely inaccurate, but it was clear the shot was obviously close and likely wide open. So for the sake of argument, at .7M 35mm f1.7 the DoF is .04M or 1.5" total.  Assuming this, you have 3/4" on either side of the focus point.  Very easy to screw this margin up, especially if hand held, which I'm assuming this was given the obvious change in perspective. But maybe you were on a tripod.  Let's take a close look at the bottle and read the label on it. Which is more legible?  Look at the 1L. Which looks sharper?  Look at the Evian label. Again which is more out of focus?   What do you put the difference down to?  How do you reconcile the result in the right portion of the frame with the center?  There are several explanations and too many variables to assert one or another, but nothing visually that suggests you dealt with this precisely and nailed focus in the same way on both shots.  So sorry, young eyes or no, I find both the methodology and conclusion erroneous. 

If you are really serious about testing this, set up a scene, get a tripod, ensure sufficient lighting.  If you're concerned with comparing edge sharpness, place objects around the frame, not just in the center. Make sure everything is measured and on plane. Buy a target or better yet a lens alignment tool as below and take the time to align it properly... which in this case I didn't. That will not only give you a far better gauge of sharpness, but give you a record of just how well you actually focused as opposed to simply asserting it.  Make sure all the relevant settings are equal. Use a gray card or tool to set white balance. Make sure no noise reduction is enabled, and sharpening settings are at least equal. Take a series of shots with each camera, upping ISO and aperture as you go. Now you have something that is worth paying attention to.  Currently, AFAIC, you don't.

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!

 

[Steven]

4 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

The Sony shot was at ISO 320, the M at 800.

Real world, that's how I roll. Real world, to me, means how I personally shoot, not caring how others shoot. No brick wall, no charts.... Remember I do these tests for me, not for others. I make these tests not to see which camera is sharper in each corner or whatever non sense like this. I make them to see which one suits me better, and there are only two factors that are being considered: 1. which one I enjoyed using and 2. which one made me take the nicer photo. Not my fault if one AWB works better than the other. I shoot with AWB on 90% of the time, so it needs to works. I don't live in a lab, I live in the world. I shared them cause it seems some are interested. I can stop if you think they mislead people which is not the intention. I can assure you though that they don't mislead me. They lead me in the right direction. And trust me, the right direction isn't sony, its Leica. 
 

For the purpose of the discussion though, and in case I did mislead people to sell or their Leica gear overnight to go buy a 12MP sony camera (😂😭) here's my doll, shot in the middle of the frame and on the side, on a tripod...

All shot at 200 ISO, 1.4 aperture, 1/60 SS. No idea the distance, but should be somewhere between 0.7 and 1m. 

Lens used is the 35 Lux ASPH pre FLE. 

I also added for fun a shot with the Sony FE 35 1.8 (only in the shot with the doll on the side to compare sharpness, which I don't care about. I actually prefer less sharpness on the sides, if possible, with a bit of vignetting and distortion too. Of course, if its not to much to ask, a bit of dust works well for me!). 

I added a proof of focus as well just in case.... 

On this test, sony seems sharper to me in the middle, Leica on the edge... 

Back to our main topic though, any aesthetics difference between 12 and 40MP? 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t1P1vYeAyAHl0b5NbmiAOXjOEONtkHin?usp=sharing

[jaapv]

To me this discussion has drifted  to be useless. The original question was whether 47 MP differed from 24 MP in an aesthetic sense. Now it comes down to shooting test subjects -which show no aesthetic at all- to make technical points which have no relevance for the aesthetic quality of an image whatsoever. 

[pgk]

10 hours ago, Steven said:

Not saying my test is a test. Actually, it's more of a game .....

Many a true word .....

22 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To me this discussion has drifted  to be useless. The original question was whether 47 MP differed from 24 MP in an aesthetic sense.

Cynicism doesn't become you😉. Answers on a postcard please.

[jaapv]

Just stating my perception.

[Steven]

A new doll for another stupid test: 

M10R with 35 lux V. Sony with 35FE 1.8 V. Sony with 35 lux V. Q2 in 35mm crop (12MP vs 35MP vs 40MP)

Center and edge. ISO 200 across all the cameras. 

In my opinion, the sharpest in the center is the Q2, then the A7S3 with the Lux, then the M10R with the lux, then the Sony with the FE. 

My preference is the Q2, then the M10R, then the Sony with the lux, and last the sony with the FE. 

On the edge of the frame test, the sharpest is the Sony 35 FE, then the Q2, then Sony 35 Lux, and last the M10R. 

My preference is the Q2, then the M10R, then the Sony FE, then the Sony Lux

Damn what a stupid stupid test that was!  😂😜

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KWqOZLxI_XcaLH0a0BG2OqXaZAyQOdgp?usp=sharing

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

Real world, that's how I roll. Real world, to me, means how I personally shoot, not caring how others shoot. No brick wall, no charts....

Real world?!?! Hahahahahahahaa.....  These shots are what you consider real world?!?  A panty-less doll, placed on a table, legs splayed and shot wide open both literally and figuratively?  Hahahahahhaha.....  You see this crap as  "real world" shots worthy of technical and aesthetic commentary.  Wow...  Fine... Carry on...  TW out. 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steven]

8 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Real world?!?! Hahahahahahahaa.....  These shots are what you consider real world?!?  A panty-less doll, placed on a table, legs splayed and shot wide open both literally and figuratively?  Hahahahahhaha.....  You see this crap as  "real world" shots worthy of technical and aesthetic commentary.  Wow...  Fine... Carry on...  TW out. 

 

 

 

It's what my world has come to now. Locked in my house, talking to dolls, being bored all day long. My world used to be different, it's what it is now. All I can tell you is that it's more real than your charts. 

It's really too bad to run into aggressive people like you though, who think that because something doesn't please them it might not please anyone else. Some found my experiments useful. Many probably didn't, but they didn't bother to take the time to attack me. I thought these kind of forum participants belonged on Sony forums, sad to see some here in the Leicaverse, where I had found things to be more peaceful and understanding so far. 

It's sad because you are turning me off from posting and participating and sharing my journey with others...