Is 24mp the sweet spot of 36x24 format?

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have much of kin in the game, but I start with the best picture I can get, and I use mostly 50-60MP cameras.

I see my commercial clients taking a full body image and crop it into small detail shot. if you deliver 24mp you are quickly running out of resolution.
For fashion the SL2-s has moire issues, and nobody want to deal with that in post.

 

that said for a little bit a prospective, this face image on the side of penn station in NYC where shot on a 5D 24MP camera and croped in to 1/2. 
You can see that prints are always in relation to the distance of the viewer.

No only cameras and lenses are improving in details and colors, but so are the printers. back in the day the M8 inject printer where not that great.
as technology improves, so is the taste of the viewers.

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]

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

[Martin B]

Pros and cons of each - biggest issue I see with 60 MP on FF sensor in Leica M cameras is that every kind of little shake will be seen as blur. There is a good reason why in other high resolving FF MLCs image stabilization has become a standard. 24 MP FF is a lot more forgiving here. Also noise at higher ISO can be more of an issue with high FF MP sensors even the algorithms in camera have improved a lot to limit noise. I have no trouble using my M 246 at ISO above 6400 without creating much noise in the image - amazing for the age of the camera at this point and still performing to this level. 

I am also using the older Sony A7R which comes with 36 MP FF sensor. I consider this one the sweet spot for FF sensor resolution. I can see the bit of better sensor resolution when magnifying landscape photos and looking at tree branches for example. But it won't make a difference on a 12x18" print for example - I wouldn't be able to tell the difference here between 24 MP and 36 MP. 

One thing I believe is fully overrated is that vintage or older lenses are "out-resolved" by new high MP FF sensors. I don't think this is true - my older vintage LTM lenses actually shine when adapted on my Sony A7R camera (and as well as on my M 240 cameras, too). So I don't believe that modern high MP sensors require also modern lenses to get excellent photos done. Modern lenses certainly have other improvements like coatings and better corner to corner sharpness but won't be worse or better compared with an older lens just regarding sensor resolution. 

In my opinion, 24 MP is sufficient but a bit more might be the sweet spot around 40 MP. Higher than this might not improve much and actually cause more issues as mentioned earlier regarding camera shake. 

[Leicaboy Norway]

2 minutes ago, Martin B said:

iggest issue I see with 60 MP on FF sensor in Leica M cameras is that every kind of little shake will be seen as blur.

seemed like the Q3 43 and of course the 28 version will have less risks of camera shake because of the integrated lens design

[Martin B]

1 minute ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

seemed like the Q3 43 and of course the 28 version will have less risks of camera shake because of the integrated lens design

Possible - I have no personal experience with the fixed-lens based Q series though. 

[Martin B]

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

This not "overrated" but plain wrong. No high megapixel sensor can "outresolve" a lens. It just magnifies its flaws.

I 100% agree! It still comes up every so often in forum discussions. 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Martin B

[Photoworks]

49 minutes ago, Martin B said:

One thing I believe is fully overrated is that vintage or older lenses are "out-resolved" by new high MP FF sensors

a Summicron-R lens from the '60 is very soft, and from the '80s is still very detailed.

But age is not everything, the Q lens is very sharp wide open, and does not deliver the dreamy feeling from the Summilux-M 28.

But here we are not talking about lenses, but MP resolution.


 

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the advent of uprezzing software like Topaz Gigapexel and clean up like LR's Denoise, there is very little true need for anything over 24MP, though the overhead of 40 on my M10-R does make the ability to crop if need be easier. I can easily make 24X36 prints or larger - even from the 18mp Leica M9 or Nikon D3 12mp I used to shoot. IMO, choice of lens and the choices made during post will have as much if not more effect than the sensor being used, especially once ink hits paper. 

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There are some eminent print photographers on this forum, not least @Stuart Richardson and @Jeff S. But I was reading comments by another eminent photographer, old enough to have started work in the 50s, that in the last decade he has seen the massive shift in popularity from prints for the wall to photobooks, for which the resolution needs are much reduced. I like making prints at home, mainly A3 or A2, but my walls, though more extensive than those of many people, are not extensive enough to print more than a limited number, and only occasionally. My bookshelves, however, contain many more accessible images in photobooks by myself (both handmade and Blurb) and by other photographers (some of the latter as limited editions with print quality overseen by the photographer). A photobook can also be used to control the sequence and style of delivery of the images to the viewer, and to supplement them with text. Personally I prefer this 'contextual' presentation that emphasises subject matter to looking at a single image, however wonderful its print quality.  And I suspect that any of the photobooks could have been produced from a camera with no more than 24mp.

I started collecting photobooks in the early 70’s, before I owned a decent camera.  I enjoy them today just as much as the prints I’ve collected, and made, since. Most are first edition, and many are printed beautifully. The cameras used in producing the work is mostly insignificant.  As always, it’s the photographer, and the decisions he/she makes.

Jeff

[SrMi]

We should not look at the performance per pixel unless we are pixel peepers, in which case higher resolution gives you much more detail.

We agree that higher-resolution sensors are better for larger prints exceeding 24MP. The question is how higher-resolution images fare in situations where 24MP is sufficient. Therefore, we should compare images shot with different resolutions at the same output size. The noise between SL3 and SL2-S at the same output size is pretty much the same. Moire is much more visible with 24MP, i.e., detail is better with 60MP. Post-processing (noise reduction, transformations like SDC or LPC) works better with more data.

Often, 24MP is good enough. While 60MP is at least as good as 24MP, I feel it produces higher-quality output than 24MP.

[pgk]

13 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Is 24mp the sweet see pot? If technology progress, would this trend remain?

Yes, and I assume that it will. I do have a 40 something MPixel camera but it is my least used and in all honesty I see little significant difference in the final images it produces from my mid-20s MPixel cameras. Like many others the ability to have more big prints is limited by wall space (they walls are filled already .....). And FWIW my M9s will produce excellent prints as large as I can reasonably want to put on my walls. But that said, people will always buy cameras with higher specifications because the numbers are bigger.

[Dazzajl]

1 hour ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

seemed like the Q3 43 and of course the 28 version will have less risks of camera shake because of the integrated lens design

The leaf shutter in the Q cameras will have a lot to do with it.

[Einst_Stein]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

We should not look at the performance per pixel unless we are pixel peepers, in which case higher resolution gives you much more detail.

We agree that higher-resolution sensors are better for larger prints exceeding 24MP. The question is how higher-resolution images fare in situations where 24MP is sufficient. Therefore, we should compare images shot with different resolutions at the same output size. The noise between SL3 and SL2-S at the same output size is pretty much the same. Moire is much more visible with 24MP, i.e., detail is better with 60MP. Post-processing (noise reduction, transformations like SDC or LPC) works better with more data.

Often, 24MP is good enough. While 60MP is at least as good as 24MP, I feel it produces higher-quality output than 24MP.

When   performance per pixel improves, the higher MP camera may perform equally well as the older generation. But what I have seen is the downsized low MP version of the new technology is still preferred to the high MP due to the low light performance. 

It might change when the low light performance is good enough. Handle held in completely dark?

[Photoworks]

31 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

With the advent of uprezzing software like Topaz Gigapexel and clean up like LR's Denoise, there is very little true need for anything over 24MP,

that is if you don't care about the lines and detail that don't correspond to reality and texture changes  in different areas of the image, 

[Photoworks]

2 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

It might change when the low light performance is good enough. Handle held in completely dark?

SL2-s and SL3 have about the same noise level. The texture is a bit different.

[hansvons]

11 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

24mp is popular with many users because they have modest print requirements (or none), and it is cheaper and easier for manufacturers so it continues to thrive. But for image quality in prints, the higher megapixel sensors are a substantial improvement. 24mp has been common for a long time now, but personally, I wouldn’t bet on it still being the resolution of choice in ten years. 

Agreed.

However, as you pointed out, it depends on their print requirements. And these can be as diverse as art is.

I have an SL2-S, which happens to be demoted to serve as a scanner or sometimes as a hybrid DSLR that excels at everything except delivering hyper-resolving images without moiré. In the Leica stable, that's now the job of the SL3 and, awkwardly, of the 60MP M11, which is deprived of every modern technology supporting high-resolving images such as AF and IBIS (and thus fails grandiosely at that, more often than not). 

Based on my past, I'm regrettably alienated from digital landscape photography and prefer shooting on Kodak Vision 35mm negative, despite the chores that come with it (I develop myself). I rarely (never) get colours and contrast where I want them to be on digital. Plus, the SL2-S 24MP/6K sensor exhibits quite a nice texture above ISO 800 but is still not there where film is. 

Which brings me to texture. I print relatively large, mostly 80x60 cm, with a Canon 44" printer, which is said to deliver prints as vibrant and high-resolving as possible, especially on inkjet paper like Photo Rag 308, my default paper. I don't use glass or anything to protect the pictures. They are unprotected, as any painting would be. I'm not after the best print (whatever that is); I'm after a way to nail pictures on the wall that don't identify as photographs but as pictures. So, in my case, printing is very different from what photography typically is about or what clients want, at least technically. It is about colours, the subject, the texture, the punch, and the power of existence as an entity with its own rules. Megapixels don't play a part in my game. Colour, punch, texture, blacks and whites, everything essential to a painter or graphic artist matters to me, too.

 

[psyclism]

In my personal estimation, anything around 40MP is the sweet spot. The cropping flexibility and fine detail difference between the M10 and M10-R sensor is significant.  The M10M sensor makes this even more dramatic.

I personally set my SL3 to the 36MP resolution for nearly everything. I'll bump to 60MP for landscapes or specific portraits where I want to capture every detail, but otherwise the 36MP setting is ideal. There's enough resolution to reframe and recompose in post, high ISO noise is mostly eliminated, and files sizes are much more manageable. 

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

If I make a snapshot of the discussion, MP beyond 24mp might be beneficial only if you want a large print. I figured something like 24x36 (inch) and you can shoot with low ISO. This is probably the only reason. 

 

Or for cropping, if Leica marketing is to be believed. 

One can make a decent highway billboard photo using an older phone camera, if the cars/viewers are far enough away.

Jeff

[BernardC]

7 minutes ago, psyclism said:

In my personal estimation, anything around 40MP is the sweet spot.

My guess is that 42MP will be the "next 24MP." The main reason is that it corresponds to 8K video. 24MP is 6K.

We've been dealing with 20-24MP files for a decade now, so any complaints about data size for still photography are overstated. Cards are bigger now, processors are faster, and disks have grown too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[charlesphoto99]

17 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

that is if you don't care about the lines and detail that don't correspond to reality and texture changes  in different areas of the image, 

And that is why I mention the importance of the choices one make's in post, even when, and probably most importantly, using software such as this. Don't go whole hog or use the default. 

[SrMi]

53 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

When   performance per pixel improves, the higher MP camera may perform equally well as the older generation. But what I have seen is the downsized low MP version of the new technology is still preferred to the high MP due to the low light performance. 

It might change when the low light performance is good enough. Handle held in completely dark?

There is very little difference in low-light performance between a low-resolution and high-resolution sensor using the same technology. I have tested it with my cameras, and many other tests document that. As said, per-pixel performance is irrelevant for practical purposes.