Jump to content

Leica M11 - your next camera? {MERGED}


Al Brown

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, adan said:

I guess the question here is: if you are going to downsample to the "same sized output" - why did you pay the money for the extra (smaller) pixels in the first place?

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe less chance of moire and less artifacts from things like false color via a higher megapixel sensor?

From my side, I fit in the camp where I went for a high megapixel camera (selling an SL2 to buy a GFX100S) because I sometimes print very large to 60"+, and the added resolution does makes a difference to my eyes in terms of both tonal gradations and the realism of the image by not needing to resample upwards as much for a given large print.  Very basically, I think there's more "real data" to play with from the higher megapixels, and I see its benefit, especially with fine detail situations like landscapes and in terms of the smoothness of color gradations.

Whether it's the medium format camera that I own, or cameras like the Leica SL2 or Panasonic S1R, I also think eliminating artifacts from a Bayer sensor like false color are helped by their "pixel shift / high resolution modes".  The sensors at the end of the day have the same megapixels in their "standard" vs "high resolution" mode, but cleaning out some of those issues from the color array filter via pixel-shifting adds an appearance of more detail IMHO ...to me, the benefits in apparent detail feel similar in that sense to the Monochroms vs their color sensor equivalents .... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, they would just keep the 2 models going (R and non R). I’m in the lower resolution preference camp. So far, the downsampled RAW size file have not been quite as good as the original ones (from other camera manufacturers), and I don’t want fill up my traveling hard drives with a bunch of small pixels.

Hope they can introduce 2 different resolution models within a few months or a year of each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

So interesting the speculations and leaks have resulted in 43 pages of almost 850 posts already. Loving it.

Welcome to the forum’s predictable and well tested formula. Next, after the M11 arrives, there will be similarly long threads on controversial changes and complaints. One such discussion after the M10 ran over 1,000 posts…


No worries, though, as these are typically followed by long, praiseworthy discussions from converts.  Until the next cycle… rinse and repeat.

Jeff

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, adan said:

I guess the question here is: if you are going to downsample to the "same sized output" - why did you pay the money for the extra (smaller) pixels in the first place?

I'm just going by the stated reason most people gave to explain their "need" more pixels and more resolution, and couldn't survive with just 24Mpixels - which was to make BIG output (BIG prints). Or to crop - which is not the same thing as downsampling.

If you downsample - that destroys the claimed advantage of 40 Mpixels.

If you don't downsample, you may (depending on what other technological improvements have been made) get a higher noise floor, and thus less DR.

;)

 

The question is how to compare outputs of two cameras of differing resolutions. Of course, the most sensible approach is to compare the outputs with the same size. IMO, it would be unfair to require upsampling from the lower resolution camera.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SrMi said:

The question is how to compare outputs of two cameras of differing resolutions. Of course, the most sensible approach is to compare the outputs with the same size. IMO, it would be unfair to require upsampling from the lower resolution camera.

 

Good question. And, IMHO, down-sampling to that of the lower megapixel camera won't equally show the resolution attributes of the higher megapixel camera. 

From my side, I simply consider what my maximum print size would often be? Then for that same maximum print size, I compare the files of 2 cameras that I'm considering (focused on my typical subject matter and using my own post processing, and favored paper for the final print) .... and then simply decide which output I prefer.

Clearly for very large prints, that method that I follow might favor the camera that does not need such a large amount of upsampling.

But at the same time, it allows me to consider that -- for web use, or for printing to (say) only 20"x16" at 300dpi -- I'd personally see no point whatsoever in going for more than 24 megapixels .....ie, given the camera is already around that native resolution with no resampling needed. Which I think is kind of back to Adan's point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, SrMi said:

The question is how to compare outputs of two cameras of differing resolutions. Of course, the most sensible approach is to compare the outputs with the same size. IMO, it would be unfair to require upsampling from the lower resolution camera.

Unfair for the low res user you mean? ;) Upsampling a file doesn't remove any data from it AFAIK so the only fair comparo requires such upsampling to me... as an high res user of course :D. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 8:23 AM, adan said:

I guess the question here is: if you are going to downsample to the "same sized output" - why did you pay the money for the extra (smaller) pixels in the first place?

I'm just going by the stated reason most people gave to explain their "need" more pixels and more resolution, and couldn't survive with just 24Mpixels - which was to make BIG output (BIG prints). Or to crop - which is not the same thing as downsampling.

If you downsample - that destroys the claimed advantage of 40 Mpixels.

If you don't downsample, you may (depending on what other technological improvements have been made) get a higher noise floor, and thus less DR.

;)

 

Hi Andy

I think that the point is probably that most of us have different requirements at different times.

Having more pixels doesn't have much of a noise disadvantage when you downsample, but it does give you the option not to downsample on other occasions, to print bigger and also to crop. You might lose some DR if you don't downsample, but that's not always the most important factor.

I was very sure that 24mp was the 'sweet spot' until the M10-R dropped in my lap when I very quickly realised that it presented new opportunities without really having any disadvantages. 

Best

Jono

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Perhaps it would be good if the new camera was the size of an M5? After all, a tribute to the past, and perhaps a chance for redemption after all these years?

 

Oh my dear Lord. I dropped a hammer on my foot once but I don’t want to repeat that. 😃

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, SrMi said:

CF Express A is a little bit smaller and a bit thicker (0.7mm) than an SD card. Preferably, the card slot would accept both CFE type A and SD cards.

Two card slots would increase the size of the body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Fang changed the title to Leak image of M11
  • jaapv changed the title to Leica M11 - your next camera? {MERGED}

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...