algrove Posted January 16 Share #1 Posted January 16 Advertisement (gone after registration) So the 60MP or 100MP cameras yield fine details which can be advantageous for landscape or extreme cropping plus scientific use etc. As for the 24MP and high PP cameras they seem to yield images more natural and authentic to me which could also be described as less digital looking . I find this output more useful for street and portrait use where it has more of a film like feeling. That's just me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Hi algrove, Take a look here Finally another High pixel pitch Leica-the SL3S. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Elliot Harper Posted January 17 Share #2 Posted January 17 What’s the significance of the pixel pitch from SL3-S that warrants a separate thread of praise? I thought SL2-S has the same pixel pitch ? 4 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptSlevin Posted January 17 Share #3 Posted January 17 (edited) What…? it’s such a disastrous misconception to tie mp to genre and say that 24mp is more film like for portraits. one of the best portrait shots that I saw were made with medium format high mp cameras or full frame cameras with shall DOF lenses. there is like zero connection between style and mp count. Edited January 17 by CptSlevin 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoworks Posted January 17 Share #4 Posted January 17 🤣🤣🤣 I like this! keep going Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17 Share #5 Posted January 17 7 hours ago, CptSlevin said: What…? it’s such a disastrous misconception to tie mp to genre and say that 24mp is more film like for portraits. one of the best portrait shots that I saw were made with medium format high mp cameras or full frame cameras with shall DOF lenses. there is like zero connection between style and mp count. Especially as MP count has little bearing on the appreciation of the final photograph. I have seen better 8 MP photographs than medium format ones and the other way around. Horses for courses! 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted January 17 Share #6 Posted January 17 I just took a 50mp Hasselblad camera on tour and took many lovely looking portraits and street shots. Where it fell down was extremely low light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 17 Author Share #7 Posted January 17 Advertisement (gone after registration) 3 hours ago, Chris W said: I just took a 50mp Hasselblad camera on tour and took many lovely looking portraits and street shots. Where it fell down was extremely low light. Agree, but that sensor has a high pixel pitch of around 5.3 versus the same 100MP model which has a PP of around 3.75. I own both models and often prefer the 50 images over the 100 images for reasons I explain above. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crem Posted January 17 Share #8 Posted January 17 15 hours ago, algrove said: So the 60MP or 100MP cameras yield fine details which can be advantageous for landscape or extreme cropping plus scientific use etc. As for the 24MP and high PP cameras they seem to yield images more natural and authentic to me which could also be described as less digital looking . I find this output more useful for street and portrait use where it has more of a film like feeling. That's just me. I could not agree more. I’m sure there is a technical term for this. A bit more edge sharpness baked in to fine details? It is kind of like having a bit of Lightroom texture permanently in the file. If Leica is listening I really hope they put that SL3-S sensor in a M body. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted January 17 Share #9 Posted January 17 6 minutes ago, Crem said: I could not agree more. I’m sure there is a technical term for this. A bit more edge sharpness baked in to fine details? It is kind of like having a bit of Lightroom texture permanently in the file. If Leica is listening I really hope they put that SL3-S sensor in a M body. This really doesn’t make sense. The amount of detail you’ll see is dependent on resolution and viewing size and distance. The pixel pitch of the sensor has nothing to do with it if you control those variables. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 17 Author Share #10 Posted January 17 10 minutes ago, LD_50 said: This really doesn’t make sense. The amount of detail you’ll see is dependent on resolution and viewing size and distance. The pixel pitch of the sensor has nothing to do with it if you control those variables. Try to tell this to Mark de Paola and Peter Coulson who prefer the 24 sensor over higher MP cameras of same brand, i.e., Leica SL. de Paola actually talks about preferring the way the 24 renders his images citing fat pixels as one reason. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted January 17 Share #11 Posted January 17 I have no idea if fat pixels produce "better" images, but for some time there has been a school of thought that promotes it. In video there is a view that shooting in 8K or 4K in order to produce HD video produces better image quality. The concept seem to be that the down resolution process produces constructive fat pixels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted January 17 Share #12 Posted January 17 Aesthetic preference is just that. Describing the preference as due to “fat pixels” is where it no longer makes sense. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crem Posted January 17 Share #13 Posted January 17 (edited) 53 minutes ago, LD_50 said: This really doesn’t make sense. The amount of detail you’ll see is dependent on resolution and viewing size and distance. The pixel pitch of the sensor has nothing to do with it if you control those variables. Dismissing the idea makes little sense to me. Having extra data available will impact the software algorithms used in post processing and the downsampling algorithms. To my eyes, it looks like a bit of extra edge sharpness (acuity?) in the fine detail. I imagine it is also impacted by the debayering algorithms having more data. Edited January 17 by Crem Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 17 Author Share #14 Posted January 17 Many I hear like using old lenses on say M11 cameras in order reduce the sharpness thereby giving the image a more nostalgic feeling. After all it's about how we feel about our captures that should matter. Thus we all have different feelings. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhotoCruiser Posted January 18 Share #15 Posted January 18 It would be interesting to see the exact same photo shot under controlled conditions from the SL3 and the SL3-S. There is also to consider that each camera may save the same imagine in a bit different way and not sure if it would be possible to make both cameras to save a shot in the exact same way, pure raw data only, no software changes. However, ans some i think same way as some here, i want highest pixel to be able to edit the photo later, even if only a simple crop. How many time i had the too wide lens on and while i swapped with a tele lens the animal went away and i missed the shot, but not if i would had taken the shot and cropped it later on the computer. If i wan't to have a David Hamilton effect then i do that later on the computer as well. We can now discuss if editing is correct or the only, real art is a perfect shot without any editing, but this discussions end same as this with no happy end. I learned photography when i was a boy and spent many many hours in many years in the darkroom to develop and "analog edit" the enlarged copies. Nowadays i prefer to do that on the computer but i understand totally the few who still photograph and develop with film. vor 23 Stunden schrieb algrove: Thus we all have different feelings. Yes, that is what makes art great, art is what one believes is art Chris 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 19 Share #16 Posted January 19 The solution to this conundrum is called a zoom lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted January 19 Share #17 Posted January 19 Photography is about ideas, not pixels. The good pictures, anyway 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted January 19 Share #18 Posted January 19 I eventually added an SL2S to my SL2 after shooting for several years. The intention was to get a body that was better for low light and video, and I did not like the changes the SL3 generation brought, so I just got the SL2S. When I first started using it, it really struck me how talk about the differences was completely overblown. They rendered differently, but really not very differently at all outside of quite high ISO. I saw no noticeable difference in dynamic range. Colors were quite close, though not identical. The resolution difference is significant, but you only see that in prints over about 40x60cm. To me it is really simple. If you make large prints, get the SL2. If you don't, get the SL2S. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.