portocar
Member
If the Leica M8 kept the current pixels size and enlarged the sensor to full frame, how many mega pixels would it be?
How many pixels in a full frame M8?
- Thread starter portocar
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 2K
Bob Ross
Well-known
The 6.8µm pixel is 147 pixels/mm. 24mm X 36mm would yield 3528 X 5292 = 18,670,176 > 18.7MPportocar said:
Bob
marbrink
Established
That's some serious resolution but I think most M users don't want that much resolution.
Sparrow
Veteran
But on the other hand if they forced it on me, I’d have to put up with it I supposemarbrink said:
sf
Veteran
marbrink said:
Ha. Of course you do. this is why you buy Leica glass.
What you need, in order for this to make sense, is to also have the hardware/firmware in the camera and the software on your machine to make use of those images with the same speed and ease as pics several times smaller.
There is no reason to forego more resolution unless it starts making the camera body bigger.
AndyPiper
Established
Bob Ross said:
Which, interestingly, is just about the same size as my 4000-ppi scans from film (since the scanner's film gates have a small crop factor of their own - I'm actually scanning a 35 x 23mm area).
Personally, if Leica ever does figure out how to put a full-frame sensor behind RF lenses (and the apparent success of the offset microlenses in the M8 make me think this may come sooner than I've thought in the past) - I'd prefer they split the difference and devote some of the additional real estate to more pixels, but also some to larger pixels for even better low-light noise performance.
Say, 8-micron pixels producing a 13.5 mpixel file (50% more surface area and sensitivity per pixel) - or 7.5-micron pixels producing a 15.4 Mpixel file (20% more area per pixel).
Bob Ross
Well-known
Hi Andy,AndyPiper said:
They don't tend to advertise the MP value for FF scans and I've noticed that most digital vs. scanned film comparisons are not usually equivalents.
The larger pixels would be best to enhance the DR and tonality, but if they are going for resolution, we can expect even smaller pixels. The 6.8µm pixels give theoretical max of 74 lp/mm. Good RF lenses can do that without breathing hard, so we may see smaller pixels instead. I'd keep an eye on the 10MP sensor in the Oly E-400 for clues. The maker is unknown, but if it is Kodak with their deep pixel KAF architecture, we might see it in larger (1.33 or FF) sensors. As technology marches on pixels may go the way of grain in film.
Bob
Nemo
Established
The R10 might have that resolution (18MP). It is enough picture size for a A3 print at 300ppp. Keeping a good size for pixels, the signal to-noise ratio will be better. Leica lenses can resolve even more detail, but that picture size (18MP) is enough for most applications. Leica does not need pixels smaller than 6,8 microns in a full frame sensor. A croped sensor is a different thing, and a slightly smaller pixel is not a bad idea. The problem with the M8 is the very special nature of this camera: it is an available light camera (and signal-to-noise ratio is very important) and it needs a complex structure of microlenses (and perhaps big pixels make things easier).
Last edited:
rvaubel
Well-known
Nemo said:
Frankly I would have gone for an 8MP camera for the case of the M8. As an available light camera a 8.0 mu pixel would have been the cat's meow noise wise. It would have been nice to reach the 5D's sensitivety. Oh well
Of course a 8MP camera would have been the kiss of death from a marketing perspective
Rex
