24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, Joe Zobkiw said:

Great question. I shoot a Q2 and an M10-P. I bought the Q2 first and it was my first Leica. I added the M10-P over the M10-R because why do I need a 40mp camera when I have a 47mp camera? Plus I found it brand new for $500 off the going price - thank you Amazon! Anyway...

I tend to gravitate towards the M10-P and absolutely love the shots that come out of it. I prefer instant gratification in my photography and therefore only shoot high-quality JPG and perform the most minimal of edits if any. The shots out of the M10-P are certainly more organic and imperfect than the Q2 in my experience. The Q2 is more clinical for me. When I want a "perfect" shot, I reach for the Q2. When I want something a little more warm or artistic, I reach for the M10-P. Your mileage may vary.

I think it's important to remember that these are tools...instruments. You wouldn't chastise a musician playing the Fender Jazz Bass for not playing jazz on the bass or for using certain strings, etc. The magic of these cameras is that there are many ways to use and connect to them. They are our artistic tools and however we get satisfaction out of them is all that matters.

PS: I recently had an experience where I absolutely loved the shots coming out of a photographer on Instagram. Weeks into being inspired by her work, I read in her profile that all the photos were taken with an iPhone 5! Just goes to show you - the equipment *really* doesn't matter. The joy you get out of it does.

I have EXACTLY the same experience than you with my Q2 and my M10P. I feel word for word the same way than you. The only difference is that I got the M10P before the Q2. I wanted both looks. 

[Jeff S]

19 minutes ago, Steven said:

I have EXACTLY the same experience than you with my Q2 and my M10P. I feel word for word the same way than you. The only difference is that I got the M10P before the Q2. I wanted both looks. 

So you shoot JPEGS and use minimal post  processing as he does for “instant gratification”?  Each of us is indeed entitled to our own preferences and workflow. My objective is to make fine prints that embody my own style and interpretation, not dictated by the camera and built-in software, starting with the RAW file and proceeding with however much (or little) effort required.  No wonder we reach different conclusions.
 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Steven]

Just now, Jeff S said:

So you shoot JPEGS and use minimal post  processing as he does for “instant gratification”?  Each of us is indeed entitled to our own preferences and workflow. My objective is to make fine prints that embody my own style and interpretation, not dictated by the camera and built-in software, starting with the RAW file and proceeding with however much (or little) effort required.  No wonder we reach different conclusions.
 

Jeff

Oops, of course no. My bad. Not exactly the same indeed. I don’t shoot jpegs and never will. I was referring to how I feel about the results I get with one or the other. One renders imperfect, soft, classical (maybe also due to my lens choice). The other with high MP and a modern lens is very clinical. I like both. If I had to chose one id keep the M. 

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, Steven said:

Oops, of course no. My bad. Not exactly the same indeed. I don’t shoot jpegs and never will. I was referring to how I feel about the results I get with one or the other. One renders imperfect, soft, classical (maybe also due to my lens choice). The other with high MP and a modern lens is very clinical. I like both. If I had to chose one id keep the M. 

Might be a good exercise to see if you can equalize the results, or even transform one to the other, even if that’s not your normal method. I’m not suggesting that one approach is better or worse, but might be an instructive experience.  Everything matters... lenses, processing, paper choice, lighting (capture and display),  etc, etc, etc....and mostly your vision and decision making. 

Jeff

[Steven]

33 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Might be a good exercise to see if you can equalize the results, or even transform one to the other, even if that’s not your normal method. I’m not suggesting that one approach is better or worse, but might be an instructive experience.  Everything matters... lenses, processing, paper choice, lighting (capture and display),  etc, etc, etc....and mostly your vision and decision making. 

Jeff

That sounds like an awesome challenge, which I accept. I think i will manage to make the q2 look more like the m10p (with the 35 Lux). The other way around will be much harder if course. Let’s see. 

[Joe Zobkiw]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

That sounds like an awesome challenge, which I accept. I think i will manage to make the q2 look more like the m10p (with the 35 Lux). The other way around will be much harder if course. Let’s see. 

Steven, Just followed you on the gram to see your work - holy-number-of-followers-batman! 🙂

One thing I added to my Q2 recently and have been enjoying is the Tiffen 1/8 black pro mist filter. I tried 1/4 first but it was not subtle enough. The 1/8 is a nice complement to the lens and I pretty much leave it on all the time as of late. The goal being to give a little softness. So far so good.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, Joe Zobkiw said:

One thing I added to my Q2 recently and have been enjoying is the Tiffen 1/8 black pro mist filter. I tried 1/4 first but it was not subtle enough. The 1/8 is a nice complement to the lens and I pretty much leave it on all the time as of late. The goal being to give a little softness. So far so good.

That’s in part because you’ve intentionally and significantly limited your editing and processing options.  And that’s before considering the many printing variables and choices that can affect rendering, including ink, paper, paper profile, print size, display lighting, and much more.

Jeff

Edited October 29, 2020 by Jeff S

[Joe Zobkiw]

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

That’s in part because you’ve intentionally and significantly limited your editing and processing options.  And that’s before considering the many printing variables and choices that can affect rendering, including ink, paper, paper profile, print size, display lighting, and much more.

Jeff

To be clear, I'm not complaining about adding the filter. I prefer to have the majority of the "work" done at the point of capture. There are certainly times where highlights, shadows, and contrast need some tweaking, but generally speaking, if I spend more than 30 seconds making those tweaks, it's too much time for my style and interest.

I'm a musician and I prefer to improvise, as opposed to recording then fixing bad notes and endlessly copying and pasting passages, adding effects, etc. The magic for me is at the moment of creation - not in the (what can be endless) edits that come afterwards. I approach my photography the exact same way. Call it Jazz Photography 🙂 

Apologies if this is seen as hijacking the thread, but I think it touches on many of the points others have made.

[Steven]

56 minutes ago, Joe Zobkiw said:

Steven, Just followed you on the gram to see your work - holy-number-of-followers-batman! 🙂

One thing I added to my Q2 recently and have been enjoying is the Tiffen 1/8 black pro mist filter. I tried 1/4 first but it was not subtle enough. The 1/8 is a nice complement to the lens and I pretty much leave it on all the time as of late. The goal being to give a little softness. So far so good.

 

56 minutes ago, Joe Zobkiw said:

Steven, Just followed you on the gram to see your work - holy-number-of-followers-batman! 🙂

One thing I added to my Q2 recently and have been enjoying is the Tiffen 1/8 black pro mist filter. I tried 1/4 first but it was not subtle enough. The 1/8 is a nice complement to the lens and I pretty much leave it on all the time as of late. The goal being to give a little softness. So far so good.

Thanks for joining me mate ! 

Diffusion filter are a great idea. I use them a lot for video, but I never think to put them on for photography. Ill give it a try. And now that Moment is making their own , the red filter on the Q2 would look very cool I think. Although not very discreet. 

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, Joe Zobkiw said:

To be clear, I'm not complaining about adding the filter. I prefer to have the majority of the "work" done at the point of capture. 

I know, nor am I complaining about my approach (which btw also includes lots of decisions at time of capture).  Room for all.  My point, in relation to this thread, is that there is not a mandated or singular aesthetic that derives from a 24MP vs 40 MP camera. This is especially true with high pixel, high dynamic range cameras, where the out-of-camera RAW files tend to have linear, flat contrast and cry out for tweaking. In the last 40 years, I’ve never made a fine print that didn’t require some form of processing, film or digital.
 

Jeff 

[Steven]

 

Following up to the request of @Raymondl, and to satisfy myself as well, I continued my unscientific, real life comparison of the Sony A7SIII’s 12MP sensor, and the 24MP sensor from the M10P.
This is time, instead of using my Sumilux 35 ASPH pre FLE, I decided to go with the Nokton 35 1.4 MC vII. I chose this lens because it has a more vintage classic look, IMO, and I wanted to see if we could lose that character with a very modern camera like the Sony if it would render as nicely.

 

All photos where shot in raw, about 20 secs apart from each other. They are not always exactly the same cause I did it handheld.

I wish I had more people, and in general more interesting stuff but France just got under lock down again so I had to do it all at home. My kids and my dog move too fast for lens change, and my wife has stopped accepting to be the subject of these camera tests long ago. The photos are all very very boring, but the point of this test was just to compare the cameras in different scenarios.

A note on shooting with both camera:  On the M10P , it was actually easier to focus with the RF than with the Focus peaking on the Sony, even if the Sony is nice.  The metering on the A7SIII outperforms the M10P almost every time, even though I used the M10P in live mode to avoid spot metering.

I did the blind test to myself, and to be honest I could not always guess which camera was which. But almost every time I shocked myself and preferred the Sony to the Leica.

Of course, shooting wise, the Sony was still disgusting, and the Leica was a total pleasure. But what I remember from this is that 12MP vs 24MP produces no aesthetics difference (since this is what this thread is about). Besides that, of course I prefer my Leica, but if one day I go out to shoot video with my Sony, I know that I could bring my 35 mil with me and still get photos as well.

Let me know if you have any interrogation on the way I took the photos, settings, etc.... 

Now my question to you is not which camera is Sony and which is Leica, but which one did you prefer ?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WClYBcwQb_i2Nw6DHF8-4vHfUtxCPF31?usp=sharing

[Raymondl]

Thanks @Steven for posting these, looks like you live at an amazing location (great for “test” photos). I’ll have a closer look on my computer later.

But back to the question about the aesthetics.. 24 vs 40 from the same manufacturer (to avoid the “color science debates” between different companies) just wanted to know how this could be qualified ?  Understand this is a Leica community I thought it would be good to keep it within Leica ?

[Mikep996]

"I did the blind test to myself, and to be honest I could not always guess which camera was which. But almost every time I shocked myself and preferred the Sony to the Leica."

IMO it's the convenience of, or preference for, the way a camera "feels" to the operator that determines the "best" camera.  I've seen plenty of iPhone pics that are better photographs than those made with "real" cameras simply because the iPhone was the 'camera of choice' for the artist making the image.  

As I have said many times, I PREFER the Leica M to other cameras because I enjoy using it.  It does not take "better" photos than other cameras I own. But I take better pics when I use it!  

I am one of the "minimal" processing photogs.  I hate futzing around with software.  I used to do all that for MANY years in the darkroom.  Now, I couldn't be bothered.  The pic's either good out of the camera (like slides) or it isn't.  I do a very slight bit of cropping and, occasionally bring up the shadows a bit.  But more than a slight bit of shadow enhancement is not attractive to me.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Mikep996

[Tom1234]

9 hours ago, Steven said:

 

Following up to the request of @Raymondl, and to satisfy myself as well, I continued my unscientific, real life comparison of the Sony A7SIII’s 12MP sensor, and the 24MP sensor from the M10P.
This is time, instead of using my Sumilux 35 ASPH pre FLE, I decided to go with the Nokton 35 1.4 MC vII. I chose this lens because it has a more vintage classic look, IMO, and I wanted to see if we could lose that character with a very modern camera like the Sony if it would render as nicely.

 

All photos where shot in raw, about 20 secs apart from each other. They are not always exactly the same cause I did it handheld.

I wish I had more people, and in general more interesting stuff but France just got under lock down again so I had to do it all at home. My kids and my dog move too fast for lens change, and my wife has stopped accepting to be the subject of these camera tests long ago. The photos are all very very boring, but the point of this test was just to compare the cameras in different scenarios.

A note on shooting with both camera:  On the M10P , it was actually easier to focus with the RF than with the Focus peaking on the Sony, even if the Sony is nice.  The metering on the A7SIII outperforms the M10P almost every time, even though I used the M10P in live mode to avoid spot metering.

I did the blind test to myself, and to be honest I could not always guess which camera was which. But almost every time I shocked myself and preferred the Sony to the Leica.

Of course, shooting wise, the Sony was still disgusting, and the Leica was a total pleasure. But what I remember from this is that 12MP vs 24MP produces no aesthetics difference (since this is what this thread is about). Besides that, of course I prefer my Leica, but if one day I go out to shoot video with my Sony, I know that I could bring my 35 mil with me and still get photos as well.

Let me know if you have any interrogation on the way I took the photos, settings, etc.... 

Now my question to you is not which camera is Sony and which is Leica, but which one did you prefer ?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WClYBcwQb_i2Nw6DHF8-4vHfUtxCPF31?usp=sharing

Your pictures have produced some advanced thoughts.  The setting is world class beautiful.  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WClYBcwQb_i2Nw6DHF8-4vHfUtxCPF31

TECHNICAL COMMENT ON THE TEST:  For each two pictures, one picture is usually more sharp than the other.  Can not say which I like best. The sharper picture had more of a "still life" feel to it. The less sharp more of an atmospheric feel.  Which I liked more depended on subject matter.

I can not say that I saw the M10 24 meg smoothness verses the M10-R 40 meg light harshness though yet another version of this effect is illustrated in your pictures.  Overall I liked the sharper one better because it catches that "still life" aesthetic.  Yet the sharpness was somewhat of a smooth-sharpness, not with a irritating harsh edge, maybe due to lens choice.  

Increasingly I see this as important, that if the sensor has the highest level of megabytes, it will be "sharp" but it might also produce a pixelation type digital-harsh-edge harshness that is not exactly seen but felt, since that edge harshness is only slightly there out at the highest levels of resolution.

The paragraph immediately above is the only explanation I can give for the M10's pictures being more satisfying (somehow less harsh) than the M10-R's.  Yet with software the M10-R's rendition might be smoothable to end this lightly irritating harshness and thus create the best still life's (see below Art Comment).  So overall I would say that if a person is good with post production software the M10-R might be the better choice. Yet I dislike spending hours in post and prefer the adjustment be selectable in the camera.

HIGHER MEG SENSOR HARSHNESS: In the interest of the intellectual study of the arts I will venture an explanation which might be torn down latter.

Some will say this 40 meg harshness is just a matter of contrast technically but I would go further and say that it might be the sharp 40 line pairs (80 lines) MTF test-lines of the lens interacting with the inherent digital pixelation harshness of small pixel (40 meg based) digital sensor capture.  

Thus the 24 meg digital with big pixels and less resolution can not produce this harshness at the higher resolution 80 line mtf test point but the 40 meg can see this fine edge making it rough/harsh where the 24meg sensor misses this fine detail.  If the camera software does not soften up this new increased detail a bit then you get a sort of micro edge harshness that 24 meg could not produce.

Through your choice (not a mistake) of a less sharp and artistically rendering lens (Voitlander Nokton 35mm1.4), the lens helps make the picture work, softening the digital harshness effect.  With a sharper Leica lens directing light to a sharper Leica 40 meg sensor, a harshness might be produced which irritates as seen by we ultra sensitive viewers, and as found in the previous M10 24meg vs M10-R 40meg pictures by we ultra-sensitives (not trolls). 

As in Formula One racing… the most moneyed race engineers hit the limits of the physics first and see problematic phenomena that create problems to be dealt with.  Less moneyed race teams working with known technology do not see these problems.  Thus the M10-R 40 meg plus the sharpest of Leica lenses may be producing this harsh line edge which makes M10's softer edge line edge more desirable.  Fix it in post as they say (if that is fully possible).  The M10 is definitely a standout camera in the history of digital cameras in both how it treats sharpness and color saturation.

ART COMMENT: One of the many explanations for the "still life" effect is:  as the eye looks around it sees something that looks real because of an extremely high level of detail, yet your mind also knows that "it is not real it is a picture".  This dichotomy is intriguing, to vacillate between the emotional-mental sensation of real and unreal.  

Again, by using smallest F-stops and high meg sensors and sharpest lenses, placing the ultra high resolution in various places around the scene where the eye would not normally see so much detail, signals the mind that something otherworldly is going on.  Again, the emotion is one of "this is real but it is not real" which is otherworldly giving an accompanying intrigue.

So in Still Life you have at least two intrigues: 1- Picture representation verses reality and 2- The beyond human focus detail verses what your eye-mind is normally encountering in the real world.

In the USA some call this aesthetic "American Realism" as the ultra high detail of a painter's Still Life "table top subject" is applied to "a scene much larger than a table top".  In the picture your eye sees more detail than it would ever see in real life.  All around the frame picture elements "pop" into life as their detail is noticed.

BACK TO CAMERAS: The ability of the 40 meg sensor to create this Still Life ultra sharpness effect, means I would favor the sharper higher meg picture if the harshness can be lessoned by some de-sharpening.  Also maybe software can soften the 40 meg picture down to the more atmospheric softer focus effect of the 24 meg?   

Fixing in post production software to me frequently creates a picture that looks way too extreme, artificial, and childish like advertising shock techniques so I would rather the camera produce a satisfying rendition in a more eye-natural manner.  I do not want to spend hours playing with software sliders that mainly result in an unrealistic looking "mechanical" picture.  Do I have the time or interest in trying to make the two cameras match one another in post... probably not.  I will leave this for people like the great Overgaard.  Still can he make one camera perform like two cameras... it is too much to ask.

If not or with a little changing of the picture in post... two cameras sit out there on the market with unique and justifiable existences.  The artsy 24 meg soft sharpness camera M10 and the 40 meg M10-R with an edge hardness that can likely be lessoned in software to produce a fascinating Still Life ultra high resolution rendition.

One website I read comments that the M10-R's 40 megs helps see the original rendition of older Leica lenses (Steve Huff's site).  To me this is a holy grail for camera bodies - to bring out the old Leica lens characteristics.  I find it odd that people want their lenses "corrected" by software.  Clearly they have missed the concept of "art" as a "partially real and part modified"  representation of reality.

IF I MADE DECISIONS FOR THE LEICA COMPANY:  I would NOT only let the time and attention of the marketplace decide the popularity of my camera and aesthetic.  I would also produce download instructions for manually entered adjustments for the different aesthetics and also produce template files where possible.  Why let 3rd parties decide your economic survival?  Why leave the user in the dark without the knowledge to fully use the camera?  Yet best would be a checkbox in the camera's menu software that would produce the 24meg softer aesthetic or the 40 meg sharper still life aesthetic.     

Thanks for the picture test Steve... you got me thinking.

[Tom1234]

10 hours ago, Steven said:

This is time, instead of using my Sumilux 35 ASPH pre FLE, I decided to go with the Nokton 35 1.4 MC vII. I chose this lens because it has a more vintage classic look, IMO, and I wanted to see if we could lose that character with a very modern camera like the Sony if it would render as nicely.

An old Leica version of this lens you mention.  Nokton 35mm 1.4 classic AND Leica Pre-Asp 35mm 1.4:

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]

15 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

An old Leica version of this lens you mention.  Nokton 35mm 1.4 classic AND Leica Pre-Asp 35mm 1.4:

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!

Yes, it’s true that these two lenses are very comparable in terms of rendering. 
The nokton produces a circular flare when shooting straight into the light that I enjoy when I’m after a particular look, but that’s a story for another thread. 

[Steven]

23 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Your pictures have produced some advanced thoughts.  The setting is world class beautiful.  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WClYBcwQb_i2Nw6DHF8-4vHfUtxCPF31

TECHNICAL COMMENT ON THE TEST:  For each two pictures, one picture is usually more sharp than the other.  Can not say which I like best. The sharper picture had more of a "still life" feel to it. The less sharp more of an atmospheric feel.  Which I liked more depended on subject matter.

I can not say that I saw the M10 24 meg smoothness verses the M10-R 40 meg light harshness though yet another version of this effect is illustrated in your pictures.  Overall I liked the sharper one better because it catches that "still life" aesthetic.  Yet the sharpness was somewhat of a smooth-sharpness, not with a irritating harsh edge, maybe due to lens choice.  

Increasingly I see this as important, that if the sensor has the highest level of megabytes, it will be "sharp" but it might also produce a pixelation type digital-harsh-edge harshness that is not exactly seen but felt, since that edge harshness is only slightly there out at the highest levels of resolution.

The paragraph immediately above is the only explanation I can give for the M10's pictures being more satisfying (somehow less harsh) than the M10-R's.  Yet with software the M10-R's rendition might be smoothable to end this lightly irritating harshness and thus create the best still life's (see below Art Comment).  So overall I would say that if a person is good with post production software the M10-R might be the better choice. Yet I dislike spending hours in post and prefer the adjustment be selectable in the camera.

HIGHER MEG SENSOR HARSHNESS: In the interest of the intellectual study of the arts I will venture an explanation which might be torn down latter.

Some will say this 40 meg harshness is just a matter of contrast technically but I would go further and say that it might be the sharp 40 line pairs (80 lines) MTF test-lines of the lens interacting with the inherent digital pixelation harshness of small pixel (40 meg based) digital sensor capture.  

Thus the 24 meg digital with big pixels and less resolution can not produce this harshness at the higher resolution 80 line mtf test point but the 40 meg can see this fine edge making it rough/harsh where the 24meg sensor misses this fine detail.  If the camera software does not soften up this new increased detail a bit then you get a sort of micro edge harshness that 24 meg could not produce.

Through your choice (not a mistake) of a less sharp and artistically rendering lens (Voitlander Nokton 35mm1.4), the lens helps make the picture work, softening the digital harshness effect.  With a sharper Leica lens directing light to a sharper Leica 40 meg sensor, a harshness might be produced which irritates as seen by we ultra sensitive viewers, and as found in the previous M10 24meg vs M10-R 40meg pictures by we ultra-sensitives (not trolls). 

As in Formula One racing… the most moneyed race engineers hit the limits of the physics first and see problematic phenomena that create problems to be dealt with.  Less moneyed race teams working with known technology do not see these problems.  Thus the M10-R 40 meg plus the sharpest of Leica lenses may be producing this harsh line edge which makes M10's softer edge line edge more desirable.  Fix it in post as they say (if that is fully possible).  The M10 is definitely a standout camera in the history of digital cameras in both how it treats sharpness and color saturation.

ART COMMENT: One of the many explanations for the "still life" effect is:  as the eye looks around it sees something that looks real because of an extremely high level of detail, yet your mind also knows that "it is not real it is a picture".  This dichotomy is intriguing, to vacillate between the emotional-mental sensation of real and unreal.  

Again, by using smallest F-stops and high meg sensors and sharpest lenses, placing the ultra high resolution in various places around the scene where the eye would not normally see so much detail, signals the mind that something otherworldly is going on.  Again, the emotion is one of "this is real but it is not real" which is otherworldly giving an accompanying intrigue.

So in Still Life you have at least two intrigues: 1- Picture representation verses reality and 2- The beyond human focus detail verses what your eye-mind is normally encountering in the real world.

In the USA some call this aesthetic "American Realism" as the ultra high detail of a painter's Still Life "table top subject" is applied to "a scene much larger than a table top".  In the picture your eye sees more detail than it would ever see in real life.  All around the frame picture elements "pop" into life as their detail is noticed.

BACK TO CAMERAS: The ability of the 40 meg sensor to create this Still Life ultra sharpness effect, means I would favor the sharper higher meg picture if the harshness can be lessoned by some de-sharpening.  Also maybe software can soften the 40 meg picture down to the more atmospheric softer focus effect of the 24 meg?   

Fixing in post production software to me frequently creates a picture that looks way too extreme, artificial, and childish like advertising shock techniques so I would rather the camera produce a satisfying rendition in a more eye-natural manner.  I do not want to spend hours playing with software sliders that mainly result in an unrealistic looking "mechanical" picture.  Do I have the time or interest in trying to make the two cameras match one another in post... probably not.  I will leave this for people like the great Overgaard.  Still can he make one camera perform like two cameras... it is too much to ask.

If not or with a little changing of the picture in post... two cameras sit out there on the market with unique and justifiable existences.  The artsy 24 meg soft sharpness camera M10 and the 40 meg M10-R with an edge hardness that can likely be lessoned in software to produce a fascinating Still Life ultra high resolution rendition.

One website I read comments that the M10-R's 40 megs helps see the original rendition of older Leica lenses (Steve Huff's site).  To me this is a holy grail for camera bodies - to bring out the old Leica lens characteristics.  I find it odd that people want their lenses "corrected" by software.  Clearly they have missed the concept of "art" as a "partially real and part modified"  representation of reality.

IF I MADE DECISIONS FOR THE LEICA COMPANY:  I would NOT only let the time and attention of the marketplace decide the popularity of my camera and aesthetic.  I would also produce download instructions for manually entered adjustments for the different aesthetics and also produce template files where possible.  Why let 3rd parties decide your economic survival?  Why leave the user in the dark without the knowledge to fully use the camera?  Yet best would be a checkbox in the camera's menu software that would produce the 24meg softer aesthetic or the 40 meg sharper still life aesthetic.     

Thanks for the picture test Steve... you got me thinking.

Brilliant post Tom.  I enjoyed reading through it very much, and a lot of your points have left me thinking. But before I can make my mind too, I must ask you something. 
You mention that one series of the photos I took in the test looks sharper, more still life. 

Could you tell me if it’s series A or series B? I want to see if your feel is based on actual MP count, or if other factors could have influenced it, for example maybe better DR of the M10R/A7S3 sensors ..... 

in any case, some people said before they this thread was useless. Your post proved it isn’t. At least not for everyone, not for me... I enjoy this conversation. 
 

cheers 

[Matlock]

43 minutes ago, Steven said:

 

in any case, some people said before they this thread was useless. Your post proved it isn’t. At least not for everyone, not for me...

That was me Steven and now it has got back on track it is very worthwhile again. The trouble is that any thread can get high jacked.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Matlock

[Tom1234]

3 minutes ago, Matlock said:

That was me Steven and now it has got back on track it is very worthwhile again. The trouble is that any thread can get high jacked.

Posts do wander… damn good song too.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

Fixing in post production software to me frequently creates a picture that looks way too extreme, artificial, and childish like advertising shock techniques

This is a simple matter of skill and restraint, not of the process itself. Post production software is not meant to "fix" images. It is meant to bring out the image one wants to produce. It does not correct, it adjusts, if used properly.

 

2 hours ago, Steven said:

Again, by using smallest F-stops

That will really degrade the image through diffraction.

 

3 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

I find it odd that people want their lenses "corrected" by software.

So do I, as that is a misconception.
Modern electronically integrated lenses are optimized to the maximum optically, leaving some aberrations to be corrected  by software - the ones that are better corrected that way. The result is a better lens than could be designed using optical means alone.