Is 60MP going to be the standard for a few further generations? Is that what you would want?

[Leslie22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm happy with 60 , but 100 would be great. It's all about Crop, Crop, Crop. And fewer lens of course (that's me , you may be different )

[algrove]

@Jon Warwick

I mostly do not shoot in studio, but have tried multi shot on tripod while on landscape shoots. Must try printing those files large in order to see if they are as you say, containing micro blur.

[AceVentura1986]

As someone who got his start on a Canon D30 (the 3mpx camera not the 8 mpx 30D) I’m consistently impressed with anything over 8 mpx. Frankly, I think 16 mpx is enough for the vast majority of people, especially hobbyists and anything over 24 mpx is overkill. Even when I shoot my 50mpx Canon 5Dsr, I’ll usually down sample the image in-camera to 28 mpx. FWIW, I’ve printed photos from my M9M to 48 inches on the long side. 

 

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, AceVentura1986 said:

As someone who got his start on a Canon D30 (the 3mpx camera not the 8 mpx 30D) I’m consistently impressed with anything over 8 mpx. Frankly, I think 16 mpx is enough for the vast majority of people, especially hobbyists and anything over 24 mpx is overkill. Even when I shoot my 50mpx Canon 5Dsr, I’ll usually down sample the image in-camera to 28 mpx. FWIW, I’ve printed photos from my M9M to 48 inches on the long side. 

 

I'm with you. When I go back and look at the photos I took with my 13mp Nikon D3 (esp with Zeiss glass) I'm utterly impressed. Sure, you may not be able to count the subject's nose hairs, but not everything needs to be a medium format shot (and often better off if it isn't). 

I recently had somebody come to me with the need for an archival photo from the eighties for an album cover. The negs were nowhere to be found, nor prints, so all I had was a crappy 1000X1000px jpeg off the internet (most likely scanned decades ago from a print given to the band). But with a little AI and PS, I was able to make a tif 12X12" wide at 300dpi that was acceptable enough for all to go with. What with modern software and sensors, there's little need for so many megapixels and all of the problems that come with them (camera shake, storage, etc etc). The M10-R is definitely a sweet spot imo, though I do find I need to shoot a shutter speed or two faster than the M10/9. 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Leslie22:

I'm happy with 60 , but 100 would be great. It's all about Crop, Crop, Crop. And fewer lens of course (that's me , you may be different )

Yep, 100% agree!

Same reason for me to go with much MP as i can and i have to admit that i am a pixel peeper, counting hairs on far away nose makes me happy 😆
That was a joke wit the nose hairs, however i really enjoy to zoom in or pull up shadows and less errors i find more happy it makes me, probably my rather strong affinity to technology and the many many years doing computer graphics and editing my photos is still a pleasure for me.
I have been so long in photography about 1970 to today and went from Leica II and handheld exposure meter over Canon AE1 or Nikon FE, Rollei 35 and then a Nikon Coolpix 2000 what was my first digital camera with 2 MP and then Nikon D90/D7000/D800 plus many many compacts for underwater photography when i was guiding.
Instead of having a lot of lenses i just use the widest one for the scenery and then crop later that photo satisfy my personal aesthetic sense.
But thats me and i certainly admire others who invest a lot of time to find perfect location for a perfect shot without any editing or cropping, but thats not me and honestly never was. Even in film times i cropped many of my photos in the dark room with a much subpar result than today with high MP digital cameras.

Everyone has his on way and reason to take photos and that makes photography a vaste creative area, and thats good!

Chris

 

 

[VanDooglz]

When photographers think and talk about megapixels and cropping, the boring reality is not always acknowledged:

• Not many scenes are static enough to deflect enough photons to fill in a 50+ sensor without detectable motion blur, at least with an interesting light (not mid-day). It's basically the same limitation as the large format photographers always faced.
• Very few lenses can deliver the resolution outside the center which can take advantage of a 50+ sensor. As you crop, you're not getting the same quality of pixels as if you produced the same image natively.
• And even those lenses that CAN delvier practical resolution above 50+ can do that at just one aperture (usually f/4 or f/5.6) and only in the central 2/3 of an image. 
• Cropping shrinks the amount of captured light. 2x crop means 2x the noise (same as 0.5 dynamic range).
• File sizes, scan + trasnfer times grow linearly while area resolution grows only quadratically.
• The largest non-floorstanding printers deliver only 17" on the short side, which is 5,100 pixels at 300dpi. That is about 39MP for a 3:2 sensor.
• People overestimate the resolving power of a human eye at normal viewing distances. Do some research and you'll be surprised. Realistically this means that it's hard to find a presentation medium, other than digitally zooming to 100%, where the extra resolution will be noticed by anyone.

IMO the Goldilocks zone for pixel density on a 3:2 36mm sensor is around 40-50MP. The current 60mp sensor has already jumped the shark for general purpose photography. This is why several 60MP cameras have an option for 36MP RAW. But I love it because it allows me to digitize 6x6 film negatives with a solid 36mp output after aspect ratio cropping.

 

Edited December 5 by VanDooglz

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

 

(2) for more general use including landscapes, I’ve stumbled across Adobe’s “Super Resolution” working very well - but and it’s important to note - specifically for DNGs off my lower resolution 24mp SL2S (that’s bolted to a long telecentric lens, in my case 50mm 1.4 DG DN). The file is resampled to 40” wide at 300dpi, and I find the end result very convincing in its resolution and (crucially) its rendering (ie, providing clear detail that’s not hyper-sharpened).  I’m very pleasantly surprised by the result it achieves with SL2S files. I prefer the result of Super Resolution over multi shot on the SL2S.

 

It shows how cheap editing can be compared to buying a new camera to score the next trick. If more attention was paid to addressing post processing and the 'it takes me too much time post processing my images', then they wouldn't have to work so many hours in the coal mine to buy the next best camera in the first place. All these things are out there, and yet the focus is on 'what camera can I buy to make me a better photographer?' 

[chris7273]

I took my best (to me) photo with a Nikon 1 J1.  The best camera is the one I have with me when it counts 🙂

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

If more attention was paid to addressing post processing …

All these things are out there, and yet the focus is on 'what camera can I buy to make me a better photographer?' 

 I can get a lot more from my M240 files than I could at the time. Long sold that camera for the next thing, which in hindsight is a shame. That “old” camera offered a great deal of opportunity to produce excellent-looking large prints. I’ve now learnt how to get more out of those same DNGs in terms of image quality, which is probably driven by a mix of software development and my increased experience in post processing.

Edited December 5 by Jon Warwick

[Tseg]

It sounds like I have 2 options:

a) Become a better photographer

b) Spend more $$ for more megapixels and hope/cross my fingers that I can produce "better" photography as a result.   Then post in forums that the subsequent iterations need more megapixels to really give me what I need to make my photos better

Edited December 6 by Tseg

[jaapv]

On 12/5/2025 at 8:41 AM, Leslie22 said:

I'm happy with 60 , but 100 would be great. It's all about Crop, Crop, Crop. And fewer lens of course (that's me , you may be different )

But crop, crop, crop means magnify, magnify, magnify lens flaws...

[jaapv]

13 hours ago, VanDooglz said:

Cropping shrinks the amount of captured light. 2x crop means 2x the noise (same as 0.5 dynamic range).

Not true. The "captured light" is per square mm (unit) This fallacy has been exposed (pun intended) many times. The number of photons per pixel remains the same.

What does change is the magnification  ( and thus visibility) of the existing noise. Basically the same as motion blur, lens flaws and sensor artefacts. And DOF of course. 

[Leslie22]

Jaapv, my "crop crop crop" comment was not meant to be extreme , I'd never crop an image to "postage stamp" size. However with a large sensor it does give you ability to crop in to your taste when you don't have a longer lens with you. Very convenient. I would also add that in the Antarctic with a 400mm lens ,  whales can still seem to be kilometres away , cropping can save an image.

[jakontil]

When 2 M generations stay with 24mpx i thought i found home… but the M10r changed it all and i feel relax with a 40mpx

there comes the hasselblad with 100mpx.. right off the bat, it’s too big file to swallow for my use case except when cropping happily but i dont always crop apart from getting a designated FOV or ratio

anyway, im glad with the M11, i still could pick a 36Mpx file size.. i think that’s all i need, a 24mpx with a safe net

[Kiwimac]

On 11/25/2025 at 6:58 AM, evikne said:

Except that they could very well bring back the thumb rest from the M10-D. 😊

I’d actually pay extra for that. It’s exactly how I shot my M6. I really liked it. 

[Kiwimac]

I don’t need 60 MP. I don’t mind having it but I don’t need it. 
 

The digital M cameras most appealing render to my eyes was the CCD sensor versions followed by the M10-R. 
 

I’d love an M11-P with the M10-R sensor. Assuming you could still have the hybrid shutter so I don’t have to faff about with filters. I hate filters. 

[Kiwimac]

On 11/25/2025 at 9:27 AM, costa43 said:

 

There are negatives that come with higher megapixel cameras but there are positives too. It’s pick your poison..

I doubt Leica will go back down in resolution with the M12, it’s a photo only camera with no AF and M11 owners will be a target market for them, less megapixels is a risk.  I think they will stabilise it. That will sell cameras. How they do it is the question, they’ve always stated there is not enough space, maybe a faster reading 60mp sensor is on the way so the shutter can go, maybe tech has evolved now so it fits with the current one. 🤷‍♂️

 

I’ve seen digital stabilisation used, mainly in video applications. 
 

Could that be implemented in a stills camera?

[Einst_Stein]

All friends I know prefer SL3S and SL2S to SL3 and SL2. This should mean a lot. Howevere, I don't junderstand why M does not have reduced MP version. Maybe because it is lack of zoom lens? that cropping is more needed like Q?

with M-EV, I guess M-zoom might be a new offer for M camera. If so, more MP would be less attractive.

Edited December 7 by Einst_Stein

[lct]

1.3x and 1.8x cropping aka digital zoom are a regular feature of modern M cameras. Requires a high res sensor so chances to get back to 24mp seem rather theoretical.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Aram Langhans]

14 hours ago, jaapv said:

But crop, crop, crop means magnify, magnify, magnify lens flaws...

I guess we just have to use the flawless Leica lenses.  Good thing they make them.