Megapixel count: technical necessity or peer pressure?

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've never used a Q before, although they are lovely looking cameras; I just find a 28mm fixed lens to be a bit limiting, which is why I use the X Vario. Still, I keep an eye on latest camera news from various sites.

When I heard about the Q3, I figured that they'd up the megapixels as usual, and they did. To 60, which is Sony A7R4 territory. 

I wonder to what extent this yet-further increase in resolution is driven by technical necessity, and how much of it by "peer pressure", for want of a better word. Even for a company like Leica, which is known for walking its own path, there must be at least some awareness of what other companies are doing. 

One of the other reasons I use the X Vario is that I don't print. Ever. My entire output is online, so there's more than enough resolution in the X Vario for that.

I don't know what percentage of photographers regularly print their pictures, let alone to a size which could justify 60 megapixels. Yeah, there's also the cropping argument, but I honestly think that if you have to crop that much, you're using the wrong gear.

But I'll be happy to hear contrasting views - if you think that this resolution is justified, what's your reasoning?

 

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

Evolution

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TZombek]

Well, for me, the Q has plenty of resolution. I just completed a magazine photo shoot with it and the images were well received by the editor. Yes, the 28mm lens is less flexible but it forces you to be more creative.

[jaapv]

For Internet use 6 MP suffices. Bar highly specialized use 18 MP is about all a large print can handle. So yes, I see these ever-higher pixel numbers as a playground for marketeers and a black hole  for consumers. With one of exception: The Q series: for those cameras it means increasing the “focal length”. 

[nicci78]

Marketing ploys : « please buy 60MP but only use less than 6MP in 90mm crop mode »

However higher megapixels count is no free lunch. 
- higher noise at pixel level. Yes you can down sample. But you’ll lose the benefit of having so many pixels. 
- worst rolling shutter in the industry, making electronic shutter almost useless. A real issue for a camera limited to 1/2000th mechanical.  
- worst corner sharpness, see diggloyd review about the issue. Because higher MP put more stresses on the digitally enhanced lens. 
- no more full width 4K or 8K videos. Q3 will crop into Super35. Due to so many data to process and to very slow readout time. 
- more data to process for hybrid AF acquisition. Making it potentially slower than 24MP counterparts. 
- you’ll have to use higher shutter speed to get sharp images. Or a tripod or IBIS.

Edited May 30, 2023 by nicci78

[SrMi]

31 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Marketing ploys : « please buy 60MP but only use less than 6MP in 90mm crop mode »

However higher megapixels count is no free lunch. 
- higher noise at pixel level. Yes you can down sample. But you’ll lose the benefit of having so many pixels. 
- worst rolling shutter in the industry, making electronic shutter almost useless. A real issue for a camera limited to 1/2000th mechanical.  
- worst corner sharpness, see diggloyd review about the issue. Because higher MP put more stresses on the digitally enhanced lens. 
- no more full width 4K or 8K videos. Q3 will crop into Super35. Due to so many data to process and to very slow readout time. 
- more data to process for hybrid AF acquisition. Making it potentially slower than 24MP counterparts. 
- you’ll have to use higher shutter speed to get sharp images. Or a tripod or IBIS.

- Higher noise at the pixel level is not an issue if you compare cameras with different resolutions (i.e., at the same output level).

- The readout is typically slower with larger resolutions but faster when using BSI instead of FSI (the main advantage of BSI is faster readout, not better low light behavior).

- Higher resolution sensors have better corners when SDC is applied (more data to work with). Sean Reid has confirmed it in his tests.

- You need the same shutter speed to avoid camera motion blur for the same output size. AFAIK the Q/Q3/Q3 Auto-OIS mode switches OIS off at 1/60 sec, regardless of resolution.

- Higher resolutions are better for post-processing (NR, transformations).

- Higher resolutions have less aliasing.

Apart from the slower readout and higher memory requirements, higher resolutions have no disadvantages. With Q's leaf shutter, there is less need for the electronic shutter and its slow readout than in other cameras.

I do not think that the resolution difference between Q2 and Q3 matters. Leica probably picked the latest high-resolution BSI sensor available.

 

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

47MP sensor from S1R, Q2 or SL2 has one of the best read-out time, discounting stacked sensors  

It is not BSI. BSI and FSI has nothing to do with rolling shutter only stacked sensor gives an edge.

However every tests shows that 60MP sensor from Sony Semicon has the worst read out time, more akin to decades old sensors. 

Hence Q2 can do full frame 4K while Q3 only do Super35 crop 4K video. Which is quite a downside. 

Massive rolling shutter means that Q3 in some situations are a 1/2000th camera… which is absolutely horrific for a f/1.7 lens. Just check sunny 16 rules to see how bad it could be. For exemple at ISO 50 1/2000th you are limited to f/2.8 at best. 
 

In practice I had to double the shutter speed of my Q2 compare to previous Q to ensure almost 100% sharpness. For every type of situations. 
Your mileage may vary, but optics laws tell us that you have to increase it, because the sensor can resolve more details. So finer details required higher shutter speed. 
 

Digglloyd and Sean Reid are not on the same page about corner sharpness. Let them fight. 
However sharpness reviews shows that corners have only half the sharpness of center from f/1.7 to f/4.

We need more real life experience to conclude anything yet. 
Nikon for exemple did not want to use 60MP because the drawbacks outweigh the advantages against 40+MP sensors. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by nicci78

[SrMi]

34 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

47MP sensor from S1R, Q2 or SL2 has one of the best read-out time, discounting stacked sensors  

It is not BSI. BSI and FSI has nothing to do with rolling shutter only stacked sensor gives an edge.

Nikon's Z5 (24MP) has an FSI sensor and slower readout than Z6 (24MP) with a BSI sensor. When Nikon switched to BSI with D850, they said the reason was faster readout speed (not better low light). The difference between FSI and BSI is not as significant as between stacked and non-stacked sensors (stacked sensors are also BSI).

S1R's full sensor readout speed seems to be 1/12 seconds (DPR forum), while a7rV's (60MP) seems to be 1/10 sec (Jim Kasson). The difference does not seem to be relevant. Do you have any more reliable sources that measure the readout speed of S1R or SL2?

54 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Massive rolling shutter means that Q3 in some situations are a 1/2000th camera… which is absolutely horrific for a f/1.7 lens. Just check sunny 16 rules to see how bad it could be. For exemple at ISO 50 1/2000th you are limited to f/2.8 at best. 
 

The rolling shutter is the same as with M11, and owners have not reported issues with using it when shooting wide open.
 

55 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

In practice I had to double the shutter speed of my Q2 compare to previous Q to ensure almost 100% sharpness. For every type of situations. 
Your mileage may vary, but optics laws tell us that you have to increase it, because the sensor can resolve more details. So finer details required higher shutter speed. 

You have to consider the final output, and I assume pixel peeping is not the ultimate goal of an image.

57 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Nikon for exemple did not want to use 60MP because the drawbacks outweigh the advantages against 40+MP sensors. 

Can you share the source?

Sony's 60MP sensor has no disadvantages over Z7's 47MP, except a slower readout speed (1/15 vs. 1/10). While Z7 has a 50% faster readout speed, both readout speeds are slow and cause rolling shutter issues with fast-moving subjects.

[ianforber]

I wonder whether it’s a combination of peer pressure and not wanting to be seen as using old technology and economics. If Leica are sourcing their sensors from companies who are configuring their production lines to churn out 60MP+ sensors, it could be too expensive to switch suppliers. My Q2 and my M11 both produce images more than good enough for me in terms of dynamic range, ISO noise etc. I don’t obsess about the corners of the shot because I always crop so they don’t appear in the final image

[Stuart Richardson]

As a printer, I would say we are entering the era of diminishing returns, though there are still returns. 24mp is enough for most people's work, journalism work, events, medium prints and of course anything web only. 37-50mp is enough for excellent large prints, and you only start seeing additional benefits with higher counts for huge prints (40inches/1 meter wide on at least one side). The increasing megapixels do, however, allow for a lot more cropping (you can lose resolution very quickly by cropping...even the 60mp in the Q3 is pretty limited at normal and telephoto focal lengths). More megapixels mean better tonality (smoother tone transitions), better color fidelity (smoother gradients and more samples, therefore more accurate color in fine detail like clothing, plant life etc), and lack of troublesome aberrations like moire. As mentioned above, more resolution gives more data for software based corrections, which means better performance in things like defringing and distortion correction. Noise is more or less a wash given equal technology and sensor generations. Higher resolution sensors might have more noise, but they are also giving more information. If you equalize the output size it is similar.

I don't think 60mp is necessary for everyone, but it does make a certain kind of sense for the Q3, given its heavy reliance on software lens correction and the desire for it to be able to be used at heavy crop ratios. Personally, I would have preferred an additional Q2x with a longer lens, like Ricoh has done. But in the absence of that the Q3 will take you a bit further in your cropping. Despite its resolution, I don't think the lens in the Q series is really good enough to make the most out of the 60mp. I found that the lens was pretty average corner to corner in the Q2, so I imagine it is stretched even more in the Q3. To my mind, the best use case for 60+ megapixels is in true professional high end cameras like the SL2, Fuji GFX and so on. All the better if you can also produce a lower resolution model that maybe does better video and frame rates for photographers whose work is better served by that than more resolution. As long as people make big prints, however, high resolution is going to make them look better...even if it is only at the extremes.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[Mikep996]

It totally depends on what you are trying to do.

Huge prints have been made with 6MP cameras that at normal viewing distance appear no different to the eye than that of a 24, or 47, or 60 mp camera.  Normal viewing distance is the key.  OTOH, if the goal is to make a large print that can support somebody standing a foot away viewing with a magnifying glass to see fine details, then a large pixel count is really important.  

On a computer screen just about anything that can take a picture has enough resolution.  For example, I shot a pic with my M10R/90mm ElmaritM and shot the same subject from the same distance with my Q2.  Cropping the Q2 to produce the same size image on screen, other than the difference in color rendering, there was no visible difference in the images.  I don't know specifically how many MPs are in a 90mm Q2 crop but in the scientific world I suspect it would be referred to as "damn few!" 

Again, the number of MP needed depends on the 'purpose' of the final print/image.

 

[Me Leica!]

Some interesting ideas here, in particular about readout speed.

While I currently use (and very much enjoy using) an X Vario, I have no brand loyalty to speak of. It would be quicker to list the camera brands I haven't used than the brands I have. I've had two different periods using the Sony A9, which struck me as the most well balanced camera I've ever used in terms of resolution (more than enough), autofocus performance (insane), dynamic range (impressive) and so on, but its big party trick was that you could basically set it to silent (electronic) shutter and forget about it, because the readout speed was so fast that the chances of getting distorted lines, etc, were slim to none.

I doubt that Leica considers the A9 as a rival to any of its cameras, of course...

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

It totally depends on what you are trying to do.

Huge prints have been made with 6MP cameras that at normal viewing distance appear no different to the eye than that of a 24, or 47, or 60 mp camera.  Normal viewing distance is the key.  OTOH, if the goal is to make a large print that can support somebody standing a foot away viewing with a magnifying glass to see fine details, then a large pixel count is really important.  

On a computer screen just about anything that can take a picture has enough resolution.  For example, I shot a pic with my M10R/90mm ElmaritM and shot the same subject from the same distance with my Q2.  Cropping the Q2 to produce the same size image on screen, other than the difference in color rendering, there was no visible difference in the images.  I don't know specifically how many MPs are in a 90mm Q2 crop but in the scientific world I suspect it would be referred to as "damn few!" 

Again, the number of MP needed depends on the 'purpose' of the final print/image.

 

And the quality of the sensor. Aberrations from the filter stack, precision of the microlenses, resistance against crosstalk, it all comes into play. 

[Phil75]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Me Leica!:

Some interesting ideas here, in particular about readout speed.

While I currently use (and very much enjoy using) an X Vario, I have no brand loyalty to speak of. It would be quicker to list the camera brands I haven't used than the brands I have. I've had two different periods using the Sony A9, which struck me as the most well balanced camera I've ever used in terms of resolution (more than enough), autofocus performance (insane), dynamic range (impressive) and so on, but its big party trick was that you could basically set it to silent (electronic) shutter and forget about it, because the readout speed was so fast that the chances of getting distorted lines, etc, were slim to none.

I doubt that Leica considers the A9 as a rival to any of its cameras, of course...

The XV is a camera to keep! Due to its' outstanding lens, despite its' known other limitations.

[Me Leica!]

1 hour ago, Phil75 said:

The XV is a camera to keep! Due to its' outstanding lens, despite its' known other limitations.

I sort of like the "known other limitations". This probably belongs in the X Vario forum, but the XV makes me focus on what I find important: composition, colour, etc, rather than being able to shoot 30 frames per second at 1AM in a coal mine at ISO three trillion.

(There's a time and a place for cameras with those kind of abilities, and I've used them, but for most daily, travel, etc. photography, 90 per cent of their functions are rarely or never used...)