Problems getting sharp images by 60MP

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Latest Sony FF sensors are available either in 33MP or 60MP versions.

Leica isn't obliged to source its sensors from Sony - they have other choices they have used in the past.  For an M camera, I'm not sure what's wrong with 33MP, so they do have a choice even with Sony.

It seems the M product design team has made a strategic decision which rather limits their options.  If they drank the Koolaid and went for big MP, then that has driven them into a strange place, in my view.  Leica M cameras have never been bleeding edge, yet they've made a strange decision, where other options might have sat more comfortably with the history of the M camera and its core users.

There's a lot of "don't knock it until you've tried it" comment on the forum, and rather dismissive comment that only people who own or have really tried the camera can have an opinion.  Frankly, I don't need to do either to know I don't need 60MP.  The more critical question is, do I mind?  Well, that's the thing where the jury is still out.

I know I'm repeating myself, but here goes - for me, the M camera is about portability, fantastic lenses and what I can do with them with ease, giving me the best DNG files to work with, with the least software interference.  If I want to take a really careful picture, where 60MP might be useful (landscape, I guess), I use my tripod.  At the moment, that space is filled with my SL and my SwC.  I really don't want all the computer aided software tools in my M cameras.  I want a digital camera as close to a film M camera as possible.  That's the appeal.

So, if I don't need the resolution, what does a 60MP sensor give me?  

Cropping - well, that's why I have a cluster of really nice lenses, all with different strengths and focal lengths and speeds.  I'm really not interested in cropping, when I'm also thinking about framing, depth of field, out of focus treatment and the character of the lens.

Pixel binning - zero interest.  I can do this sort of thing in post.  What I do want is the best sensor for the camera, with as few jiggery pockery in-camera gimmicks as possible.  If 60MP is the best sensor, then just leave it as 60MP.  The need for pixel binning suggests to me that, perhaps, it isn't the best choice ...

Strengths?  It sounds like the sensor is very good, with a low base ISO (I'm a Kodachrome mourner) and excellent dynamic range.  If it's good enough, then just leave out the in-camera cropping, pixel binning nonsense.  The fact they are in there makes me wonder.  I know I can turn them off or ignore them, but for me that isn't the point.  The M11 is an indication of future M development.

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Leica isn't obliged to source its sensors from Sony - they have other choices they have used in the past.  For an M camera, I'm not sure what's wrong with 33MP, so they do have a choice even with Sony.

It seems the M product design team has made a strategic decision which rather limits their options.  If they drank the Koolaid and went for big MP, then that has driven them into a strange place, in my view.  Leica M cameras have never been bleeding edge, yet they've made a strange decision, where other options might have sat more comfortably with the history of the M camera and its core users.

There's a lot of "don't knock it until you've tried it" comment on the forum, and rather dismissive comment that only people who own or have really tried the camera can have an opinion.  Frankly, I don't need to do either to know I don't need 60MP.  The more critical question is, do I mind?  Well, that's the thing where the jury is still out.

I know I'm repeating myself, but here goes - for me, the M camera is about portability, fantastic lenses and what I can do with them with ease, giving me the best DNG files to work with, with the least software interference.  If I want to take a really careful picture, where 60MP might be useful (landscape, I guess), I use my tripod.  At the moment, that space is filled with my SL and my SwC.  I really don't want all the computer aided software tools in my M cameras.  I want a digital camera as close to a film M camera as possible.  That's the appeal.

So, if I don't need the resolution, what does a 60MP sensor give me?  

Cropping - well, that's why I have a cluster of really nice lenses, all with different strengths and focal lengths and speeds.  I'm really not interested in cropping, when I'm also thinking about framing, depth of field, out of focus treatment and the character of the lens.

Pixel binning - zero interest.  I can do this sort of thing in post.  What I do want is the best sensor for the camera, with as few jiggery pockery in-camera gimmicks as possible.  If 60MP is the best sensor, then just leave it as 60MP.  The need for pixel binning suggests to me that, perhaps, it isn't the best choice ...

Strengths?  It sounds like the sensor is very good, with a low base ISO (I'm a Kodachrome mourner) and excellent dynamic range.  If it's good enough, then just leave out the in-camera cropping, pixel binning nonsense.  The fact they are in there makes me wonder.  I know I can turn them off or ignore them, but for me that isn't the point.  The M11 is an indication of future M development.

The constraints in your question (quality of sensor output) seem to disqualify any non-Sony sensor currently available. 
I think that it is great that Leica does not stagnate and instead tries new, well thought-out features.

The triple resolution is not the same as when done in post (scene vs. output referred).

With 60MP sensor you have more flexibility than with a 33MP sensor. 

[jaapv]

23 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

However, if we look at four common sensors, the pixel sizes would suggest that this should be a bigger problem with Leica’s APS-C cameras:

Actually, it is.

[IkarusJohn]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually, it is.

I haven't found that with the TL2.  Perhaps, with @FlashGordonPhotography's recommendations in mind, 60MP is less of an issue.  If I can get a crisp image with the TL2, I should be able to get a crisp image with the M11.  There is enough comment on the forum that many can't (which I haven't read in the CL/TL2 threads), and if sharp images aren't a problem, why have pixel binning at all?  Managing files?

Edited March 29, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[IkarusJohn]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The constraints in your question (quality of sensor output) seem to disqualify any non-Sony sensor currently available. 
I think that it is great that Leica does not stagnate and instead tries new, well thought-out features.

The triple resolution is not the same as when done in post (scene vs. output referred).

With 60MP sensor you have more flexibility than with a 33MP sensor. 

A bold statement I don't have the technical knowledge to have any opinion about.  Leica does seem to be able to procure good sensors for its cameras, and I assume they have made the best choice with Sony.  If it were me, I'd be very nervous about committing my flagship camera to such an outlier as 60MP in 35mm format.  But what do I know.

I can't imagine that 60MP can reliably deliver the same IQ, noise response and flexibility that 33MP of the same tech would give, but you seem to know more about that.  What you seem to be suggesting is that there is no sensor for 35mm format of the quality of the 60MP Sony.  I expect we will see all Canons, Nikons and Fujis in 35mm format using this 60MP sensor if what you say is correct - a bit like Sony's fantastic 50c sensor in medium format.

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I haven't found that with the TL2.  Perhaps, with @FlashGordonPhotography's recommendations in mind, 60MP is less of an issue.  If I can get a crisp image with the TL2, I should be able to get a crisp image with the M11.  There is enough comment on the forum that many can't (which I haven't read in the CL/TL2 threads), and if sharp images aren't a problem, why have pixel binning at all?  Managing files?

I don't have much of a problem either, but I find that the 55-135 on the CL requires careful technique.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

I don't have much of a problem either, but I find that the 55-135 on the CL requires careful technique.

Any tele requires careful technique, I guess.  I don't have that lens.  One of the struggles I have with the APS-C format is getting wide.  It would be easy enough to put my 180/2.8 Elmarit-R onto my TL2, but I don't see the point. Sure, I'd get more resolution with 24MP at effective 270mm than 18MP(?) cropped on my SL, but resolution hasn't been a practical problem for years.

We're long past marginal gains in resolution.

[jaapv]

It also suffers markedly from shutter slap. There is a real difference between mechanical and electronic shutter. For WA Voigtländer offers a 10 and a 12 mm (M mount) that play very well with APS-C.

[SrMi]

42 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

A bold statement I don't have the technical knowledge to have any opinion about.  Leica does seem to be able to procure good sensors for its cameras, and I assume they have made the best choice with Sony.  If it were me, I'd be very nervous about committing my flagship camera to such an outlier as 60MP in 35mm format.  But what do I know.

I can't imagine that 60MP can reliably deliver the same IQ, noise response and flexibility that 33MP of the same tech would give, but you seem to know more about that.  What you seem to be suggesting is that there is no sensor for 35mm format of the quality of the 60MP Sony.  I expect we will see all Canons, Nikons and Fujis in 35mm format using this 60MP sensor if what you say is correct - a bit like Sony's fantastic 50c sensor in medium format.

The same 60MP sensor is used in Sony a7rIV, Sigma fp-L, Fuji GFX 100, and Phase One IQ150, though the latter two are of different sizes and, therefore, different resolutions.

Caveat: while it is very likely, we do not officially know whether M11's sensor is by Sony.

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Leica isn't obliged to source its sensors from Sony - they have other choices they have used in the past.  For an M camera, I'm not sure what's wrong with 33MP, so they do have a choice even with Sony.

It seems the M product design team has made a strategic decision which rather limits their options.  If they drank the Koolaid and went for big MP, then that has driven them into a strange place, in my view.  Leica M cameras have never been bleeding edge, yet they've made a strange decision, where other options might have sat more comfortably with the history of the M camera and its core users.

There's a lot of "don't knock it until you've tried it" comment on the forum, and rather dismissive comment that only people who own or have really tried the camera can have an opinion.  Frankly, I don't need to do either to know I don't need 60MP.  The more critical question is, do I mind?  Well, that's the thing where the jury is still out.

I know I'm repeating myself, but here goes - for me, the M camera is about portability, fantastic lenses and what I can do with them with ease, giving me the best DNG files to work with, with the least software interference.  If I want to take a really careful picture, where 60MP might be useful (landscape, I guess), I use my tripod.  At the moment, that space is filled with my SL and my SwC.  I really don't want all the computer aided software tools in my M cameras.  I want a digital camera as close to a film M camera as possible.  That's the appeal.

So, if I don't need the resolution, what does a 60MP sensor give me?  

Cropping - well, that's why I have a cluster of really nice lenses, all with different strengths and focal lengths and speeds.  I'm really not interested in cropping, when I'm also thinking about framing, depth of field, out of focus treatment and the character of the lens.

Pixel binning - zero interest.  I can do this sort of thing in post.  What I do want is the best sensor for the camera, with as few jiggery pockery in-camera gimmicks as possible.  If 60MP is the best sensor, then just leave it as 60MP.  The need for pixel binning suggests to me that, perhaps, it isn't the best choice ...

Strengths?  It sounds like the sensor is very good, with a low base ISO (I'm a Kodachrome mourner) and excellent dynamic range.  If it's good enough, then just leave out the in-camera cropping, pixel binning nonsense.  The fact they are in there makes me wonder.  I know I can turn them off or ignore them, but for me that isn't the point.  The M11 is an indication of future M development.

that is lots of talking out loud!

I don't know how you trying to convince? yourself.. others?

Leica already made the camera and it is here. If you want to buy it, otherwise don't! you can wait for the next one in 4 years.

If you want a camera at 36MP, just set it and the M11 is a 36MP with the best sensor out there from Leica currently.

[IkarusJohn]

27 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

that is lots of talking out loud!

I don't know how you trying to convince? yourself.. others?

Leica already made the camera and it is here. If you want to buy it, otherwise don't! you can wait for the next one in 4 years.

If you want a camera at 36MP, just set it and the M11 is a 36MP with the best sensor out there from Leica currently.

It’s a discussion …

[Photoworks]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

It’s a discussion …

ok, you are correct, it is a forum..

it just didn't read like that to me

[harmen]

6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Let me ask this - had the M11 had better dynamic range (lower base ISO, better highlight recovery etc), more malleable DNG files etc, but “only” been 40MP, would you still have bought it?

Yes, I would.  I’ve been tempted by the 10R, but decided to wait until the improvements over my 240 became even more significant.  With the 240 I would typically choose film over digital.  Now both work well.

[harmen]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It also suffers markedly from shutter slap. There is a real difference between mechanical and electronic shutter. For WA Voigtländer offers a 10 and a 12 mm (M mount) that play very well with APS-C.

Now what you are saying is making more sense to me.  Shutter slap and long lenses would have an impact on blur.  A smaller sensor is not a factor.  For the same amount of movement, a phone sensor of 20MP, an APS-C of 20MP, and a full frame sensor of 20MP would all show the exact same result as long as the lenses are equivalent (same angle of view).  The physical dimensions of the pixels have nothing to do with it.  It’s only the angle of view across one pixel that matters.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I haven't found that with the TL2.  Perhaps, with @FlashGordonPhotography's recommendations in mind, 60MP is less of an issue.  If I can get a crisp image with the TL2, I should be able to get a crisp image with the M11.  There is enough comment on the forum that many can't (which I haven't read in the CL/TL2 threads), and if sharp images aren't a problem, why have pixel binning at all?  Managing files?

Sensor size is irrelevant, other than concerns the differently shaped camera might have. I have a Thumbie and a grip on my CL. I don't see any camera slap issues. It's the small size and lack of good ergonomics that's the big differentiator, for me.

The ONLY things that affect the visibility of camera shake are the output size, shuttter speed, focal length and the amount of camera movement during exposure. Resolution, sensor size and pixel size are irrelevant. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Output size. Focal length. Camera movement. Increase any of them you make the shake more visible. Decrease any to make it less visable. Opposite for shutter speed. Everything else is irrelevant.

Pixel binning speeds up the camera and saves hard drive space compared to just shooting at 60MP. It has no effect on camera shake.

Gordon

Edited March 30, 2022 by FlashGordonPhotography

[Tailwagger]

Personally, my only concern with choosing 60 Mpx at this juncture is that they don't feel the least bit obligated to ensure that the M12 is >= to it.  Sony lopped 10 Mpx off their peak number for their current flagship but presumably, given their audience, that was more due to speed concerns than anything else. I'm not paying attention, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the eventual A7RV sported 100 Mpx. 

[pgk]

13 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

It seems the M product design team has made a strategic decision which rather limits their options.  If they drank the Koolaid and went for big MP, then that has driven them into a strange place, in my view.  Leica M cameras have never been bleeding edge, yet they've made a strange decision, where other options might have sat more comfortably with the history of the M camera and its core users.

Bottom line is how the decisions affect sales. Limiting and potentailly alienating part of your customer base, especially in terms of future sales, is not a good idea. Leica need to develop a clear strategy for the M because without it the camera line will be a betwixt and between one; enthusing to some but equally frustrating to others. I neither need the M11's specification nor EVF, etc. so I will not be buying one. The M10 appeals far more.

That said, the high end camera market is bloated and has a limited (perhaps even shrinking) market. I was highly entertained yesterday when someone was watching me take photos with my M and said that he was taking the same scene with his 'phone, but that they wouldn't be as good as mine taken with my SLR! Which begs a lot of questions. We need to remember that the M has a very limited appeal and cannot be marketed in ways that diminish this or it will finally drift into the obscurity of history.

[Tailwagger]

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

There is a real difference between mechanical and electronic shutter.

Which, of course, means that employing one over the other cuts both ways. I was shooting an early music concert over the weekend and out of deference to the audience tried to use the e-shutter for some of the shooting both with the SL2 and M11. While I saw no noticeable problems due to motion artifacts, nevertheless as I had expected, the results were hit or miss due to a plethora of LED lights. While there were more hits than misses, I think I'd still prefer a bit of shake to this, SL2 in this case...

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!

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Motion artifacts are quite unlikely with most images, especially non-geometric ones. Led banding is a real concern. 

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Sensor size is irrelevant, other than concerns the differently shaped camera might have. I have a Thumbie and a grip on my CL. I don't see any camera slap issues. It's the small size and lack of good ergonomics that's the big differentiator, for me.

The ONLY things that affect the visibility of camera shake are the output size, shuttter speed, focal length and the amount of camera movement during exposure. Resolution, sensor size and pixel size are irrelevant. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Output size. Focal length. Camera movement. Increase any of them you make the shake more visible. Decrease any to make it less visable. Opposite for shutter speed. Everything else is irrelevant.

Pixel binning speeds up the camera and saves hard drive space compared to just shooting at 60MP. It has no effect on camera shake.

Gordon

It is not about sensor size but about pixel size.