Is 24mp the sweet spot of 36x24 format?

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me, it's 36-40. In that the M10-M and M10 R are the best 35mm format digital cameras ever made, to my mind. 40 is fantastic resolution for most purposes and still forgiving enough. 24mp is a little bit more forgiving, it's true, but the tradeoff for resolution is still worth it. 

If Leica released an M with better range than the M10 and it had to be 24mp to do that, then I might say it's 24. 60 is too much for a handheld 35mm format camera without IBIS. It works ok, but you might as well shoot medium format if that level of deliberateness is required - it goes against the original ethos of the M to my mind. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, BernardC said:

They still have the best EVF image, partly thanks to the fact that they use all-glass/high-cost EVF optics. Some brands have EVFs with more megapixels, I've tried them in stores and wasn't impressed. It's a textbook case of specifications vs. real-world. You need to trust your eyes; if the image looks de-saturated and low-contrast, it is. Don't listen to the salesman shouting "it's 8K!" in your ears.

+1 

VF quality remains a core strength of Leica, across systems, including S (top level OVF), SL (top level EVF), and M (league of its own).  Glad to see that they care more about real life benefits in this regard, rather than engaging in a written spec race.

Jeff

[Eclectic Man]

On 12/10/2024 at 5:08 AM, bobtodrick said:

...

I often tell my customers, who think they need to move up to the new body with an extra 5mp to save their money, or spend it on better glass.

Were I one of your customers you should probably refuse to sell me anything (except maybe an SSD card) until I have actually learnt how to use the flippin' camera(s) I already own.

But I guess if you were that honest with all of your customers, then maybe you would be out of a job.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

Okay, I see what you’re saying. MF is not sharper, you find it more reliable. 
 

Although with the camera locked down on a tripod, a point set with single AF should be more reliable than MF, which has room for human error. 

It is more precise as well because the photographer decides exactly where to put the focus, whereas with AF the camera makes the final decision. 

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

...MF is not sharper, you find it more reliable. Although with the camera locked down on a tripod, a point set with single AF should be more reliable than MF, which has room for human error. 

Depends on the subject type and distance, scene contrast, focal length, the lens, the AF system, and atmospherics (for long telephotos). 

AF can get fooled in many scenarios, especially for lower contrast subjects. Ever tried getting infinity focus using single point AF on a cloud or the horizon? Doesn't work well. Gotta switch to a wider AF area mode and hope it locks on, especially on a hazy day. 

The only way MF is less reliable than AF for focus accuracy for static subjects is if you, the human are less reliable. 99 times out of 100, I can see perfectly in magnified live view in a good EVF if something is in focus.

One example I run into: shooting landscapes at infinity with a telephoto at distances of a few miles to 10 miles (100-600mm). AF almost always misses perfect infinity focus by a margin so small, one might not realize it unless they attempt to fine tune the focus manually after AF locks on.

[bobtodrick]

33 minutes ago, Eclectic Man said:

Were I one of your customers you should probably refuse to sell me anything (except maybe an SSD card) until I have actually learnt how to use the flippin' camera(s) I already own.

But I guess if you were that honest with all of your customers, then maybe you would be out of a job.

I have many customers how have been with me 20+ years....partly because I often talk them out of spending their hard earned dollars on something they don't need but have fallen victim to marketing. 

But I get the money in the end because they always come back to me because I am honest with them.

I'm a salesperson with ethics....something that is not always common these days.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

This is the myth that will never die. Perhaps it is just how you worded it, but motion blur has nothing to do with sensor resolution other than increasing sensor resolution will show more of the blur that was also there for the low resolution camera.

I agree this has been over stated in many posts, and I suspect it is really only an oissue if you go looking for it.  I should add that Leica seems to have dealt with shutter shock really well with the M digitals.  However, with the d800e on a tripod, at certain shutter speeds (I seem to recall the frequently used range somewhere between 1/125 and 1/500), I could not get an acceptably sharp landscape image (which I intended to enlarge) evern without pixel peeping.

And the camera was only 37.5MP.

I have no issues with motion blur with my X2D, but that has leaf shutters.  Your comment that “increasing sensor resolution will show more of the blur that was also there for the low resolution camera” coincides with my experience.  More resolution does require more care.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

With the same sensor technology, increasing MP per area means degrade the sensor sensitivity, including low light performance and dynamic range. That is probably the main reason Leica offers SL2S. That is why more people prefer SL2S over SL2. 

Low light performance might be overcome with tripod  if shooting static subjects. I think your comments might come from your landscape photography. But it is not a solution for no static subjects.

Dynamic range degradation is hopeless unless your subject does not need is soak to suffer that.

Of course people can choose to live with that ”enough” dynamic range, or “enough” low light sensitivity, or “enough” resolution. Then shut up the discussions. 

 

Low light performance might be overcome with tripod, which I think suits your landscape photography. But this is not a solution for non static shots. 

Dynamic range 


I cannot believe you did not notice this. 

Honestly, I am not quite sure what you are accusing me of here. I am not trying to prevent you from using 24mp. If you prefer that resolution, please enjoy. Dynamic range is not a direct function of sensor resolution, it is a property of a given sensor generation. The highest DR cameras on DxO are all high resolution cameras. The first 24mp sensor (Canon R3) is in 10th place for DR. The 60mp M11 is in 3rd. As SrMi noted, within the same sensor technology, the DR is often similar. You were asking whether 24mp was the sweet spot and "enough" for everyone and whether we think that it will stay that way. I do not think so, and I think increasing megapixels come with advantages, as I described.

I don't really think there is a "sweet spot", because any technology gains either in resolution or DR or ISO noise are likely to be experienced as a positive by photographers. Technology will improve and photographers and artists will find ways to use those capabilities to make work. If we are talking about what is "enough", well that is personal and for most purposes 35mm film was plenty. My own personal "sweet spot" is 47mp, as that is the camera I have now and I have a 44" printer, and I think the prints I can make from 47mp and APO Summicrons look very good at up to 100x150cm. If I am going to use 24mp, I try to keep it more like 60x90cm or below. I could push it a bit more, but I would rather not. But the reason I pick up the 24mp camera is primarily for video, or because between the SL2 and SL2S, the SL2S is indeed better in low light. But that is not just the resolution, but also the different tuning of the sensors and different technologies they employ. Would 60-100mp look better at 100x150? Yes. Do I really need that? No. In my most recent show the sizes were mostly 80x100cm, but 1 picture was 170x220cm (I believe), and five or six were 140x170 or so. Two were from the S2 at 37mp. They looked ok, but they were already pretty soft at that size. The others of that size were film scans from 4x5 and 8x10 and looked better. I wish I had 60-100mp for those pictures. Maybe in another few years.

[Einst_Stein]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Honestly, I am not quite sure what you are accusing me of here. I am not trying to prevent you from using 24mp. If you prefer that resolution, please enjoy. Dynamic range is not a direct function of sensor resolution, it is a property of a given sensor generation. The highest DR cameras on DxO are all high resolution cameras. The first 24mp sensor (Canon R3) is in 10th place for DR. The 60mp M11 is in 3rd. As SrMi noted, within the same sensor technology, the DR is often similar. You were asking whether 24mp was the sweet spot and "enough" for everyone and whether we think that it will stay that way. I do not think so, and I think increasing megapixels come with advantages, as I described.

I don't really think there is a "sweet spot", because any technology gains either in resolution or DR or ISO noise are likely to be experienced as a positive by photographers. Technology will improve and photographers and artists will find ways to use those capabilities to make work. If we are talking about what is "enough", well that is personal and for most purposes 35mm film was plenty. My own personal "sweet spot" is 47mp, as that is the camera I have now and I have a 44" printer, and I think the prints I can make from 47mp and APO Summicrons look very good at up to 100x150cm. If I am going to use 24mp, I try to keep it more like 60x90cm or below. I could push it a bit more, but I would rather not. But the reason I pick up the 24mp camera is primarily for video, or because between the SL2 and SL2S, the SL2S is indeed better in low light. But that is not just the resolution, but also the different tuning of the sensors and different technologies they employ. Would 60-100mp look better at 100x150? Yes. Do I really need that? No. In my most recent show the sizes were mostly 80x100cm, but 1 picture was 170x220cm (I believe), and five or six were 140x170 or so. Two were from the S2 at 37mp. They looked ok, but they were already pretty soft at that size. The others of that size were film scans from 4x5 and 8x10 and looked better. I wish I had 60-100mp for those pictures. Maybe in another few years.

Clarify what is the same generation of technology but with different MP:

   --- Imaging the only difference is the pixel size in the horizontal sense, but of course the ADC, signal path should logically matching this. ---

Do you think they would have the same light sensitivity, same dynamic range?

This is not against high MP or low MP, it is just to point out what you pay when you go to higher MP (with the same generation technology). I can see the desire to have higher MP, me too. But you need to determine for your case which is more important, the resolution or the sensitivity.

I would not doubt using tripod for static landscape can make sense that compromise the degraded light sensitivity. But there  are other applications. The question is, where/what would be the majority usage?

Now, would 24mp always the sweet spot? may be , may be not.  It might varies according to technology. 

Maybe the better way to think this issue is, would the "sweet spot" resolution of a generation always be the reduced resolution from its max resolution? Would it be close to 24MP anyway, even it might slight grow up?  

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[padam]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

Is that a typo? Leica has L-log, Panasonic has V-log.

They still have the best EVF image, partly thanks to the fact that they use all-glass/high-cost EVF optics. Some brands have EVFs with more megapixels, I've tried them in stores and wasn't impressed. It's a textbook case of specifications vs. real-world. You need to trust your eyes; if the image looks de-saturated and low-contrast, it is. Don't listen to the salesman shouting "it's 8K!" in your ears.

I purposefully wrote Log as to be no confusion. S1R has no V-Log while the SL2 has L-Log, so there is a bit of distinction between the two.

And I haven't said anywhere the SL2 viewfinder is not great, that is its party piece (at least with enough light, it becomes flickering / wonky in low light).
But I also wouldn't say it is a quantum leap over better ones, which do offer more from the sensor side of things.
And while I have't tested it, all reports point to a decrease in quality of the magnified view in the SL3.
Also, in tracking AF mode, quality becomes poor (one only needs to try a Canon just to realise how much better it really is when the camera AF is not pulsating...), while there are more cameras where it stays constant. As I stated before, there seems to be no progression.
I can easily choose cameras where the view is not as good, but things are moving forward. People rave about the GFX 100 II viewfinder, so I wonder how it fares.
Same with the A9III which probably has few to no motion/flicker etc. artifacts and a high quality feed thanks to less megapixels.
In the same way EVF is not just about pixel count, it is not just about optics either.

While I have not verified yet, I suspect the SL2-S does go to a slightly lower magnification mode than an SL2 (way more useful because of the idiotic way the joystick button magnification works - defaults to a setting that is too much for me and all the other programmable buttons where I can zoom in and out quicky are put in wrong places...unfortunate...) and the noise is probably a lot lower as well.
This would help me greatly in achieving perfect focus manually and also keeping the framing in check. (Peaking also fails, so that's not an option.)
Way more useful than more megapixels, which is totally useless, if I miss the focus even slightly.
And the SL3 might be even more diffcult than SL2, which is probably more difficult than SL2-S... while I had crappy EVF in an original Sony A7S A7II etc., magnifying still worked fine, so I have all the technology in the SL2 just to have hit rate that is not much better in a much bigger and heavier body... (just as fiddly party thanks to the idiotic implementation of controls...) Maybe the next step is where I could see the focus perfectly (some say SL series EVFs work wide open on a 50/1.4 Asph, but not precise enough with wider focal lengths or stepped down), but until that level is achieved I can only say it is "pleasant", but still not enough.

That was one of my main points against more megapixels on a mirrorless camera = lesser quality live feed is a highly overlooked feature when used handheld. Although it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if the SL series implemented controls and/or software that are user-friendly - they really aren't one bit, other cameras aren't great either - but that's not an excuse for a camera marketed to be also used with M lenses...

Edited December 11, 2024 by padam

[Einst_Stein]

28 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Honestly, I am not quite sure what you are accusing me of here. I am not trying to prevent you from using 24mp. If you prefer that resolution, please enjoy. Dynamic range is not a direct function of sensor resolution, it is a property of a given sensor generation. The highest DR cameras on DxO are all high resolution cameras. The first 24mp sensor (Canon R3) is in 10th place for DR. The 60mp M11 is in 3rd. As SrMi noted, within the same sensor technology, the DR is often similar. You were asking whether 24mp was the sweet spot and "enough" for everyone and whether we think that it will stay that way. I do not think so, and I think increasing megapixels come with advantages, as I described.

I don't really think there is a "sweet spot", because any technology gains either in resolution or DR or ISO noise are likely to be experienced as a positive by photographers. Technology will improve and photographers and artists will find ways to use those capabilities to make work. If we are talking about what is "enough", well that is personal and for most purposes 35mm film was plenty. My own personal "sweet spot" is 47mp, as that is the camera I have now and I have a 44" printer, and I think the prints I can make from 47mp and APO Summicrons look very good at up to 100x150cm. If I am going to use 24mp, I try to keep it more like 60x90cm or below. I could push it a bit more, but I would rather not. But the reason I pick up the 24mp camera is primarily for video, or because between the SL2 and SL2S, the SL2S is indeed better in low light. But that is not just the resolution, but also the different tuning of the sensors and different technologies they employ. Would 60-100mp look better at 100x150? Yes. Do I really need that? No. In my most recent show the sizes were mostly 80x100cm, but 1 picture was 170x220cm (I believe), and five or six were 140x170 or so. Two were from the S2 at 37mp. They looked ok, but they were already pretty soft at that size. The others of that size were film scans from 4x5 and 8x10 and looked better. I wish I had 60-100mp for those pictures. Maybe in another few years.

On the other hand, I do think eventually there would be needs for much higher resolutions, though that would be very very different, if not completely changing the fundamental of usage.

About half century ago, I have done some laser-beam hologram work for fun.  To get the hologram, I used  films with 1000lpmm (for HeNe Red light laser) or 2000lpmm (for Argon laser blue light). The film is coated o glass plate and the glass is special treated to reduce the thermal expansion. Needless to say, that resolution out run any single lens at that time ( not including the phase arrayed lens). 

If, some day, the sensor resolution achieves 1K or several K lpmm, and natural light hologram camera is available, we can come back to talk about the advantage of super high MP digital sensor.

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Do you think they would have the same light sensitivity, same dynamic range?

You have to look at the whole sensor, not at individual pixels. The larger the sensor, the more light can be collected. The pixel size is secondary to the amount of collected light.

[frankchn]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

They still have the best EVF image, partly thanks to the fact that they use all-glass/high-cost EVF optics. Some brands have EVFs with more megapixels, I've tried them in stores and wasn't impressed. It's a textbook case of specifications vs. real-world. You need to trust your eyes; if the image looks de-saturated and low-contrast, it is. Don't listen to the salesman shouting "it's 8K!" in your ears.

With the latest generation of EVFs, I think the Sony A9III and Canon R1 EVFs are better than the SL3. I've the A9III, R1, and SL3 sitting on my desk right now and I personally prefer the first two over the SL3. The SL3 EVF is still good, but the 0.9x magnification optics that the first two have provide a more comfortable view for me.

[lencap]

Along with being fascinated by photography my other hobby is being an "audiophile".  Within that hobby there are many similarities to photography - digital versus analog among them.  One of the lessons a audiophile tried to teach me decades ago was that if you don't capture the details of the recorded music properly anything you do after that will only improve an imperfect replica.  The key, according to this theory, is to capture resolution accurately as the "prime directive".  Starting from that perspective you have the highest probability of replicating the original music accurately.  In the photography analogy that would suggest that resolution is the starting point, but it may not be quite that easy.

At the time this perspective was typically manifested by buying a top quality turntable and cartridge, ensuring that the music recorded on the record was captured faithfully.  Audiophiles then went down a similar "specifications" based dark hole and began learning about distortion in ways that had not been understood or realized earlier - things like "jitter", limited bandwidth (20-20K cycles is considered the range of human hearing, but measurements beyond that range, while "inaudible" were often found in double blind testing to be sonically significant.

I believe that analogy may apply to photography as well, especially as sensor megapixel density continues to increase, and artificial intelligence creates new ways to manipulate digital media leading to new ways to capture/process/produce images, and constantly improving technology reveals characteristics that hadn't been considered earlier because they couldn't be observed or measured.

I look forward to the "brave new world" that lies ahead, no doubt one that will initially be filled with arguments and counter-arguments about the best approach/tools/techniques to resolve (pun intended) photography.  Regardless of the outcome I will continue to enjoy the simple pleasure of blending the tactile, technical and "non-quantifiable" qualities of camera gear in never ending combinations, marveling at the choices and tools we have.

Edited December 11, 2024 by lencap

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

snip…..,

Do you think they would have the same light sensitivity, same dynamic range?

This is not against high MP or low MP, it is just to point out what you pay when you go to higher MP (with the same generation technology). I can see the desire to have higher MP, me too. But you need to determine for your case which is more important, the resolution or the sensitivity.

 

 

NYes. The will. Noise, DR and other issues are an effect of magnification, not pixel count. If you actually have sensors of the same tech, effective noise, DR, etc remain the same, regardless of pixel size. Magnification is the thing that show defects etc. The only reason high resolution sensors show more noise at 100% is because the magnification is higher.

A 60MP sensor is no less sensitive than a 24MP one, if they are the same size and tech. You’ll need to increase the bit depth for this to be true.

Really the only things that change with more resolution are less aliasing and (somewhat) more detail. The latter helps with bigger prints. The former just helps.

The only real downsides of resolution are storage and processing power required to support them.

Gordon

[hdmesa]

56 minutes ago, frankchn said:

With the latest generation of EVFs, I think the Sony A9III and Canon R1 EVFs are better than the SL3. I've the A9III, R1, and SL3 sitting on my desk right now and I personally prefer the first two over the SL3. The SL3 EVF is still good, but the 0.9x magnification optics that the first two have provide a more comfortable view for me.

The Canon EVFs I've used before (R5/6) don't drop in resolution when magnified or when using AF. The SL3 EVF looks like a 640x480 over-compressed 1990s .mov video in those situations, and it was a huge letdown versus my previous SL2-S. A higher magnification for the SL3 EVF would just make the low resolution live view feed look even worse. 

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, padam said:

the idiotic way the joystick button magnification works - defaults to a setting that is too much for me

Which is exactly why I assigned the Fn function of the thumbwheel (short push) to magnification - you can then instantly change  it by rotating the wheel. The joystick is for Back Button Focus.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, padam said:

I purposefully wrote Log as to be no confusion. S1R has no V-Log while the SL2 has L-Log, so there is a bit of distinction between the two.

And I haven't said anywhere the SL2 viewfinder is not great, that is its party piece (at least with enough light, it becomes flickering / wonky in low light).
But I also wouldn't say it is a quantum leap over better ones, which do offer more from the sensor side of things.
And while I have't tested it, all reports point to a decrease in quality of the magnified view in the SL3.
Also, in tracking AF mode, quality becomes poor (one only needs to try a Canon just to realise how much better it really is when the camera AF is not pulsating...), while there are more cameras where it stays constant. As I stated before, there seems to be no progression.
I can easily choose cameras where the view is not as good, but things are moving forward. People rave about the GFX 100 II viewfinder, so I wonder how it fares.
Same with the A9III which probably has few to no motion/flicker etc. artifacts and a high quality feed thanks to less megapixels.
In the same way EVF is not just about pixel count, it is not just about optics either.

While I have not verified yet, I suspect the SL2-S does go to a slightly lower magnification mode than an SL2 (way more useful because of the idiotic way the joystick button magnification works - defaults to a setting that is too much for me and all the other programmable buttons where I can zoom in and out quicky are put in wrong places...unfortunate...) and the noise is probably a lot lower as well.
This would help me greatly in achieving perfect focus manually and also keeping the framing in check. (Peaking also fails, so that's not an option.)
Way more useful than more megapixels, which is totally useless, if I miss the focus even slightly.
And the SL3 might be even more diffcult than SL2, which is probably more difficult than SL2-S... while I had crappy EVF in an original Sony A7S A7II etc., magnifying still worked fine, so I have all the technology in the SL2 just to have hit rate that is not much better in a much bigger and heavier body... (just as fiddly party thanks to the idiotic implementation of controls...) Maybe the next step is where I could see the focus perfectly (some say SL series EVFs work wide open on a 50/1.4 Asph, but not precise enough with wider focal lengths or stepped down), but until that level is achieved I can only say it is "pleasant", but still not enough.

That was one of my main points against more megapixels on a mirrorless camera = lesser quality live feed is a highly overlooked feature when used handheld. Although it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if the SL series implemented controls and/or software that are user-friendly - they really aren't one bit, other cameras aren't great either - but that's not an excuse for a camera marketed to be also used with M lenses...

The controls are user-configurable. So any idiocy is down to the user implementation. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Einst_Stein]

Although I am a semiconductor engineer, this article has a better explanation than I can do. 
read it, help yourself with some interesting knowledge.

https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/understanding-digital-image-sensors/

[padam]

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Which is exactly why I assigned the Fn function of the thumbwheel (short push) to magnification - you can then instantly change  it by rotating the wheel. The joystick is for Back Button Focus.
The controls are user-configurable. So any idiocy is down to the user implementation. 

I know, but it does not work (I use it for the drive mode, for that function, it seems to be fine), it is not a good position for that, too far away from the joystick, which is still needed to quickly move the area. That is simply the best if it was easy to cancel (let's say it is managable with the shutter button, if quite unintuitive) and/or magnified the right amount. If an SL2-S magnifies less than an SL2, that might be the least insufferable method to focus properly. Otherwise I can do nothing more than trying to get the most of what I have or convert the view to black and white or some other tricks just to focus better but these hurt other aspects.

The configurability only works if there is any combination that makes sense. And I am sorry to say that for this purpose, there isn't.
The more I think about this camera, the more I realise how bad it is ergonomically (in favour of achieving a very clean-looking, aestetically pleasing design).

Best is to try and forget (posting as well), make some pictures and consider that it may be more rewarding, knowing that it is possible to overcome all this.

Canon R5/R6 series have infinitely better and more controls crammed into a smaller area. It is not at all convoluted. Whatever Leica purists say, I simply don't think it's true.
Admittedly, a Leica can't do nearly as much, so quantity is not needed, but an M is way less confusing to use
(ok, there is the ISO dial that many dislike, but it can be re-assigned).
It is only the software implementation where Canon decided to screw with users of lenses without electronic connection. With, Leica both parts have issues.

Can anyone tell me a valid reason as to why a self timer is kept separately from the drive mode? It is simply in a place where it should not be, and it makes 0 sense.
Such a small thing, of which there are many that make me mad.
But I have too many lenses (for now) not to make use of a body with a sensor that was made to work well with them.

Edited December 12, 2024 by padam