Q3 - 36MP or 60MP?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

When using 36 or 18mp with the Q3, the camera is applying a so called pixel-binning. You can imagine this as just combining a bunch of single pixels and using / processing them as if the covered area would be one pixel. Of course, due to the bayer colour array, this sounds simpler than it is.

Leica does not use pixel-binning to create smaller-resolution raw files. As far as I know, up-to-date documentation no longer mentions pixel-binning.

Leica uses proprietary algorithms to reduce the resolution without demosaicing the raw file.

[Advertisement]

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

[Passivsportler76]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb M11 for me:

To me its rather difficult to judge beforehand if I want to crop an image in post. I made some experiments with smaller DNGs but decided not to go that path any longer.

Same for me, i experimented with lower resolutions,, but in the end 60mp leave all options open for me

[rich_]

I haven't even tried the lower resolutions on the Q3. The 60MP similar to my M11 has surpassed my requirements. A real step up from the M10 and Q2.

[Aram Langhans]

I had the Q2 and now have the Q3.  I agree with most of what is said about a comparison of the two cameras and how they perform.  I have tried the smaller file size a few times and would like to add one observation.  I like to take astro photos and tried the large, medium and small DNG sizes and have not seen much difference in noise with the nose reduction turned on or off.  I was surprised by this.  I was always frustrated by the Q2 not being able to take long exposures at high ISOs, something that the Q3 allows you to do.  But one thing I did notice is that the edge coma is much less visible at 18 MP and 36 MP.  Makes sense.  Coma was always quite visible with the Q2, so I am happy to be able to turn down the sensor when using it for astrophotography.

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

Leica does not use pixel-binning to create smaller-resolution raw files. As far as I know, up-to-date documentation no longer mentions pixel-binning.

Leica uses proprietary algorithms to reduce the resolution without demosaicing the raw file.

Thanks. The early official documents mentioned pixel-binning. 
However, the fact that there is no real world difference (at same output size) between the 60 an 36mp file is supporting your point. 
 

Would be interesting to get some official information about that topic. This being said, it is nearly of no interest for my use cases - so what😄

[ianforber]

On 9/22/2023 at 9:32 AM, Carrot said:

Thanks for explaining that.

On the optical zoom point, I use Capture One and I'm not sure that has the functionality Lightroom has to retain the whole 28mm RAW image.

I too use Capture One. For a DNG it imports the full 28mm file without showing any in-camera digital cropping, unlike LR which, as I understand it, imports the full 28mm file but showing it as cropped in camera but still retaining the full 28mm file. So, for C1, you need to crop down on the computer to get whatever crop you want (regardless of whether it is 35mm, 50mm or any other size) and, in LR you would need to click the button to show the full file and then crop down to whatever crop you want. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by ianforber

[Qwertynm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Aram Langhans:

But one thing I did notice is that the edge coma is much less visible at 18 MP and 36 MP.

You‘re just not looking as close as you would with 60MP. If you‘d downsize the 60MP file in post and compare that to your incamera 36 or 18MP file you‘d see the same effect. The lower resolution might make sense if you‘re constrained due to bad memory management on the photographers part. I don’t see any other reason other than „I don‘t need 60MP“ or if you forgot a spare card.

[jlindstrom]

One thing to consider is also camera shake. Shooting at 60mp it becomes more visible than at 36mp, because of added resolution. The finer the details, the more visible it is.

Also use case matters. If you don't print big, mostly view on screen - it really doesn't matter at all if the resolution is 10mp or 60mp, as output.

Cropping is a whole other story. If you're someone who regularly crops, most likely you'll appreciate the 60mp freedom.

As for noise and image quality and all that entails, it's a personal choice. If the necessary, to you, quality is there already at 36mp and you're not into cropping - then you're not getting anything extra, other than file size, by going 60mp.

So there are two sides to this discussion:

- actual technical benefits / losses

- personal use case & preference

Out of which, the latter isn't really up for debate, as it's personal.

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, jlindstrom said:

 One thing to consider is also camera shake. Shooting at 60mp it becomes more visible than at 36mp, because of added resolution. The finer the details, the more visible it is.

Also use case matters. If you don't print big, mostly view on screen - it really doesn't matter at all if the resolution is 10mp or 60mp, as output.

 

Thread a year and a half old, with this topic discussed ad nauseam since. Blur is there, but only more visible with increased magnification.   This is true whether printing bigger or viewing larger (pixel peeping) on screen.