Is 10 meg enough, Dlux-4 M8, Looking for insight from users

[boxerjim]

I am kicking tires right now, and have the M8 vs. Canon G10 in mind. I know HUGE swing, part of it is the question do I deserve a 3k camera, and part of it, is will I get enough use to justify, both are personal, and I need to struggle with those.

My question is something that I hope will generate one of those very technical debates that brought me to RFF.

I know pixels are not everything, and sensor size is not either. I have done my reading, and see that Sigma is going for large sensor, but odd tech, Canon/Nikon, Leica Point and shoots are sticking with small sensors, Leica is sticking with lower pixel count. I also understand that the larger that pixel is in size, the better chance it has to render colour, not render noise, and be "acurate", but in real use, lets say 5x7 to 11x14, what is the optimal pixel count/ sensor size. and tech of the sensor to produce presentable prints.
Has Leica found the optimal compromise, is Canon just going for bragging rights, were does hype, and sales end, and actual functional change come into play?

Any thoughts would be great, I think this group is a very well rounded mix, and I enjoy reading the commentary.

 

[infrequent]

10mpx on a APS-c or larger sensor is ample for the prints you are suggesting. and yes canon is after a pissing contest.

 

[Avotius]

I think the G10 would make a great compact camera as long as high iso is up to par which with so many megapixles seems like a dubious effort. That said the M8 is not exactly head of the curve when it comes to low noise high iso despite its much later sensor. I would go with the G10.

 

[andydg]

For me 10mpx is ideal. While I dream of owning an M8, I make do with my Olympus system and Leica D-Lux 3 for now. In the end I believe it is up the photographer to decide what look they desire and not to be persuaded by others as to how their images should look. With all the different sensors out there, each one will offer its own distinct look. All of them will perform well for the image sizes you mentioned. The subject being photographed also matters, amount of detail, lighting, etc.
It is like listening to some high end speakers. What sounds good to one set of ears, sounds completely different to the next person.
If I were in the market for a new camera, trying it out and seeing the results side by side of different manuf. or models would help me make the final decision. Besides the ease of use of the particular camera in question. If I have to constantly look at the camera to change the settings, I might be missing a good shot.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rob-F]

There's no simple answer to this! Pixel count is about print size. You can do quite a lot with 10MP, I can print D200 shots out to 11 x 17 with no loss in quality. Larger that that, you might want more pixels.

I haven't tried printing that large with my D-Lux3, but apart from shots taken at ISO 1600, I'm happy with the IQ on letter size paper. The D-Lux3 has 7.5MP at the 4:3 format that conforms to a 7.5 x 10" print. That's enough for that print size. Using the 16:9 format (10MP) I think I could go about 9 x 16 at the lower ISO settings, but I haven't tried it yet, so can't make any claims.

Yes the noise will be lower with a larger camera, and perhaps the color will be better; but you can't put a D300 or D700 (etc.) in your pants pocket. So it is horses for course, as usual.

 

[boxerjim]

Maybe one additional clarification. The Point and shoot "RF" in quotes since they are not, but appeal to me in that sense, are very small sensors, at what dimension does the sensor size become the issue ( too small) , and at what px count does the count become the issue (not enough). I guess I am almost asking, if we were asked what are the sensor dimension/pixel count, that does the work we need, what would they be?

 

[Andrew Howes]

I think most small sensor compacts make cheesy looking prints regardless of Mpix count. Though I routinely will print portraits at 20x30" from the old 5,47 MP d1x which look great.
I think for a pocket-able option, with interchangeable lenses, the new micro 4/3 system looks like a dream. The cameras are the size of a p&s digital, great lenses from leica, olympus, and anything else with an adaptor (maybe even M mount as there is room there) The 4/3 10mp sensors are much better than most people seem to think, high iso noise is low, colour is great. For portraits or uban landscape, 20x30" will be a breeze, for detailed landscape, 16x24 will still be very good.

 

[photogdave]

The G10 is an unknown quantity until we actually see some real world results. So far I like the specs of the Leica Dlux 4/Panasonic LX3 better in terms of pixel count and lens focal length and speed. It also looks nicer although the seemingly improved optical finder of the Canon is appealing.
If I chose the Leica I would definitely buy the Panasonic version instead - the same camera for half the money! It was a harder choice when the Dlux 3 was only about $100 more than the LX2 but twice the price is just ridiculous!
Personally, I'm not planning on making ANY compact digital purchase until I see more from the micro four thirds system.

 

[jaapv]

I am kicking tires right now, and have the M8 vs. Canon G10 in mind. I know HUGE swing, part of it is the question do I deserve a 3k camera, and part of it, is will I get enough use to justify, both are personal, and I need to struggle with those.

My question is something that I hope will generate one of those very technical debates that brought me to RFF.

I know pixels are not everything, and sensor size is not either. I have done my reading, and see that Sigma is going for large sensor, but odd tech, Canon/Nikon, Leica Point and shoots are sticking with small sensors, Leica is sticking with lower pixel count. I also understand that the larger that pixel is in size, the better chance it has to render colour, not render noise, and be "acurate", but in real use, lets say 5x7 to 11x14, what is the optimal pixel count/ sensor size. and tech of the sensor to produce presentable prints.
Has Leica found the optimal compromise, is Canon just going for bragging rights, were does hype, and sales end, and actual functional change come into play?

Any thoughts would be great, I think this group is a very well rounded mix, and I enjoy reading the commentary.

The M8 with "just" 10Mp produces highly resolved prints of over 1 m wide ( not just my experience, but of many other users as well), far beyond what film does at that size, so 10Mp is ample. The main advantage of higher resolving sensors is when you want to produce large prints from cropped images. On the other hand, if you work the lens resolution vs Mp numbers, the optimum pixel count for the very best lenses ( and those are mostly Leica or Zeiss) works out at about 8 Mp for APS-c, 10 Mp for 1.3x , 16 for full frame. etc. Dont forget that the Mp number is related to the surface, so is squared, whilst enlargement is linear, making the differences between pixel counts far less dramatic than the numbers would suggest.

 

[Ray Nalley]

10 megapixels is fine from an APS-C sized sensor. I have made a lot of 17x22 inch prints from a Canon Xti and they are outstanding. At ISO 100 or 400 they are outstanding, the highest ISO I've printed. I've seen prints from the camera at 30x40 inchs that were still fine at normal viewing distances. So I suspect the M8 would also produce good prints at large sizes.

I also shoot a G9, which doesn't have the resolution of the G10. The G9 produces good prints at larger sizes if very carefully exposed. Even if shooting RAW at ISO 80, the difference between the Xti and G9 RAW files are dramatic, with the Xti winning easily. I don't know how the G10 will compare.

The most dramatic difference I see in large prints - which I make regularly - is when moving from the Xti's APS-C sensor and the 5D's full frame sensor. While the 5D has only 2 megapixels more than the Xti, the advantage of the larger sensor is dramatic when printing large.

 

[Praxis Unitas]

Dont forget that the Mp number is related to the surface, so is squared, whilst enlargement is linear, making the differences between pixel counts far less dramatic than the numbers would suggest.

Great point. When comparing prints to 'Square Megapixels' (the real unit of sensor size), it would be better think of prints as 35 square inches (5x7) and 80 square inches (8x10), etcetera... Love my M8, BTW. After 2.0 firmware, noise at 1250 seems quite good, at least on initial tests.

Ciao!

-Christopher

 

[sojournerphoto]

The M8 with "just" 10Mp produces highly resolved prints of over 1 m wide ( not just my experience, but of many other users as well), far beyond what film does at that size, so 10Mp is ample. The main advantage of higher resolving sensors is when you want to produce large prints from cropped images. On the other hand, if you work the lens resolution vs Mp numbers, the optimum pixel count for the very best lenses ( and those are mostly Leica or Zeiss) works out at about 8 Mp for APS-c, 10 Mp for 1.3x , 16 for full frame. etc. Dont forget that the Mp number is related to the surface, so is squared, whilst enlargement is linear, making the differences between pixel counts far less dramatic than the numbers would suggest.

It's not actually a simple problem, although the answer may be simple.

I use, regularly, a Ricoh GX100 (9Mp in 3:2 ratio), a Canon 5D (12.7MP) and a Canon 1Ds3 (21Mp). I shoot in raw to maximise output quality.

At 15 by 10, even at iso 100, the GX100 prints an be nice. However, they are slightly granular due to noise.

15 by 10 is a walk in the park for the canons - largely because the files are much smoother (less noisy).

At 18 by 12 upwards I think the 1Ds3 is visibly better than the 5D.

Both will make much bigger prints easily.

So for 11 by 14, 10Mp is plenty. The look is different between a small senor camera and a larger sensor. This refelcts noise, diffraction limiting resolution, depth of field and dynamic range (linked to noise). Sean Reid describes it well - small sensor cameras are more sketch like (a bit like 35mm film!)

You might find a second hand 5D a good (but slightly larger and louder) alternative to an M8.

Mike

 

[Ronald_H]

The G10 will probably give good results, but has too many pixels on too small a sensor, with the related disadvantages of high ISO noise and dynamic range. The M8 will trounce it in image quality, I'd bet my house on it.

To be fair, I have made aboslutely stunning 50x75cm prints from my 6Mp Nikon D70. You can pick one up for next to nothing. I firmly believe that a 6Mp dSLR will yield better results than any compact, no matter how large the pixel count. The M8 is great, but not significantly better than the current crop of dSLRs.

For the price of an M8, you can buy a good dSLR, a few lenses, a computer and a scanner, and a G10. And maybe a nice weekend holiday on top of that.

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

I think it really comes down to how big you want to print and how much noise at high ISO you are willing to tolerate.

I myself like 8x10s and have something for 5x7s. I think when you display 5x7s on a wall for people to see, they get a lot closer to the images. The biggest I've ever printed from a DSLR with an aps-c sensor was 13x19 from a canon XT. It looked pin sharp but I was shooting at 100 iso, mounted on a tripod and in a studio shooting still life. If I were doing street and walking in less than good light (which is most of the time) I don't think it would cut for anything larger than 8x10.

echoing my point though it really depends on how big you want to print. Are you doing billboards or just scrapbook and the occacional wall hanger or even just posting on the web, in which a little G10 is perfect.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I think it really comes down to how big you want to print and how much noise at high ISO you are willing to tolerate.

And to reinforce that point - Michael reichmann at the Luminous Landscape is currently preparing 20 by 24 inch gallery prints for sale =using crops from a 12Mp Nikon D3. He acknowledges they'd be better from a 21Mp camera, but the D3 fitted the envirnment for that trip.

 

[boxerjim]

Wow, It is amazing how much information flows in 24 hours, thank you all!! I think 20x24 is outside the range of what I do, I also have a thing for 5x7, so 11x14 is about as large as I consider framing a print.
I think in summary, there is a common thread that point and shoot models, tend to produce a great deal of noise at higher iso, fine weather outdoor, trip with the family they are well suited,
but when it comes to 12 14 15 meg on that size senso, its bragging, and marketing. APC sensor and above, 10-12 range will work for most, and the pro's like Luminous Landscape need the extra pixel counts, when really going to large display shots.
I find it funny since the easy answer to this, was posted, go buy a mid-range dslr, BUT I am a
rangefinder kinda guy, and end up running back to my Contax IIa, and my Canon G7, the Contax is for my artistic side, and the Canon gets a shot, when I was not expecting to take one. So an M8 may end up in my kit someday, it seems from all your comments, I would do well with it.
thanks Again!!

 

[Moto Mark]

I think 10 megapixels will be plenty for the bulk of shooters that want to stay smaller than 16x20. Careful framing, a tripod and low ISO can make for a very sharp photo that can be blown up to quite a large size.

I use a G9 as a backup camera and it has all the bells and whistles I could ever want.

 

[Ben Z]

The M8 with "just" 10Mp produces highly resolved prints of over 1 m wide ( not just my experience, but of many other users as well), far beyond what film does at that size, so 10Mp is ample. The main advantage of higher resolving sensors is when you want to produce large prints from cropped images. On the other hand, if you work the lens resolution vs Mp numbers, the optimum pixel count for the very best lenses ( and those are mostly Leica or Zeiss) works out at about 8 Mp for APS-c, 10 Mp for 1.3x , 16 for full frame. etc. Dont forget that the Mp number is related to the surface, so is squared, whilst enlargement is linear, making the differences between pixel counts far less dramatic than the numbers would suggest.

I would echo everything that Jaap said, plus add a couple more points. Although I have not printed to 20x30 myself (my printer only prints to 13x19) I have seen prints at that size made from uncooked M8 files. David Farkas showed me some which he made on Dale's pro printer straight off a DNG (no uprezzing, no sharpening, no noise-reduction...in fact, no Photoshop, just converted in C1-4 and sent to the printer driver). They were architectural shots with lots of sharp details to check on, and they were outstanding. Not a hint of pixellation or artifacts, and I was looking much closer than anybody would normally do with a print that size. Which brings me to the second point, which is since when do people look at prints that size with their noses up to the glass? Pixel-peeping is probably great for new camera sales but returns very little at the point of displaying a print.

As a long-time 35mm film shooter, I'm used to composing and printing full-frame, and do likewise with the M8. If 100% crops they use nowadays to "compare" digital cameras online was always the norm, I think 35mm photography would never have caught on in the first place.

 

[lainer]

I have the M8.2, the Canon G9, and the Leica D-Lux 4. The M8.2 produces beautiful images. I'm sure the X1 isn't far behind it. The Canon G9 is a lovely camera, but doesn't have as nice IQ as the Leica D-Lux from what I can see. I like the little extras that the Leica D-Lux 4 has as well. I don't know the differences between the G9 and G10, if they are that great. I like Canon and I like Leica. I like Nikon too. But my favorite point & shoot right now is the Leica D-Lux 4. I will be selling my Canon G9.

 

[eleskin]

17"x22" prints with M8 are fantastic!!!!!

17"x22" prints with M8 are fantastic!!!!!

I have used medium format 6x9 for years, and let me tell you, the M8 combined with the Epson 3800 (3880 new) and Epson Exhibition Fiber 17"x22" is blowing my mind! Yes, it is that good! I frame them in 20"x25" frames. Perfect for the gallery. I have no complaints!!! The MP war is over!!!