Ororaro
Well-known
sitemistic said:
I agreeeee
MikeL
Go Fish
Does anyone know when pixel number will no longer matter to image quality/blow-up size?
I can see the benefit of improved performance at higher ISO, but just curious about pixel number. Sitemistic, for your press work do you find an advantage to the higher pixel count with cropping, etc.?
I can see the benefit of improved performance at higher ISO, but just curious about pixel number. Sitemistic, for your press work do you find an advantage to the higher pixel count with cropping, etc.?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
MikeL said:
How many pixels you "need" depends on how big you need the output to be. For most folks, I'm convinced 10mp is plenty adequate (certainly for me).
For any given sensor size/level of technology, adding pixels begins to be a matter of decreasing, or even negative, returns. As far as I'm concerned they could freeze the number of pixels available on pretty much every camera out there and start concentrating on IQ any time now. Of course, it might be necessary to kill off entire marketing departments before going in that direction.
Ororaro
Well-known
4MP I get fropm my D2H is plenty, believe me!
I've shot product shots destined for publication and posters many times with it.
I am now getting a 10 feet x 10 feet poster from a D2H file and I'm very happy with it.
Honestly, I'm wayyy beyond this megapixel and features craze. I understand the market can't stop because of me but I know I stopped following long ago.
I've shot product shots destined for publication and posters many times with it.
I am now getting a 10 feet x 10 feet poster from a D2H file and I'm very happy with it.
Honestly, I'm wayyy beyond this megapixel and features craze. I understand the market can't stop because of me but I know I stopped following long ago.
MikeL
Go Fish
Thanks for the information. The ability to chose depth of field and deal with people movement seems like a huge plus with the new sensors. I don't blow anything up too large, so I'd love full frame so I don't need to buy more lenses.
kevin m
Veteran
I have to disagree. The reason I got a Leica to begin with is that it's an excellent low-light camera. Nice clear finder, easy to focus, no mirror flap, etc.. I never cared about the increased resolution digital offers, but I DO care about having the option of shooing at high iso without the attendant film grain or, in the M8's case, digital noise at anything over iso 640.
I don't think Leica can survive be being a "style in itself," I think it needs to be compared to other cameras and needs to start measuring up.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
kevin m said:
As in all discussions of this type, it comes down to personal use and style.
kevin m
Veteran
That's true. That's the "negotiable" part. The non-negotiable part, past a certain point, is chasing the diminishing returns of esoteric, expensive lens designs and hand craftsmanship at the expense of simply making a digital RF that can do what any consumer-level DSLR can do: capture clean images at high iso's.
Tell me this: If Zeiss Ikon or Voigtlander started selling a digital rangefinder tomorrow with the sensor from, say, the Canon 40D in their bodies that offered useable iso 3200, would the members of this forum not collectively trip over each other on their way to the store to snatch them up? Answer truthfully, now!
Paul Kay
Member
Both MPixels and 'Image Quality" are irrelevant if you don't/can't take the shot in the first place, whether its because the camera is too big/heavy, slow/cumbersome, obtrusive, etc., etc..
My interest in the M8 lies in its size and the weight with 2 or 3 lenses. Match this with lenses which are well up to delivering images fit form my purposes and it is providing me with a very carriable, usable system with which I can take images which I simply wouldn't shoot with my Canons (tooooo heavy......etc.).
My interest in the M8 lies in its size and the weight with 2 or 3 lenses. Match this with lenses which are well up to delivering images fit form my purposes and it is providing me with a very carriable, usable system with which I can take images which I simply wouldn't shoot with my Canons (tooooo heavy......etc.).
dazedgonebye
Veteran
kevin m said:That's true. That's the "negotiable" part. The non-negotiable part, past a certain point, is chasing the diminishing returns of esoteric, expensive lens designs and hand craftsmanship at the expense of simply making a digital RF that can do what any consumer-level DSLR can do: capture clean images at high iso's.
Tell me this: If Zeiss Ikon or Voigtlander started selling a digital rangefinder tomorrow with the sensor from, say, the Canon 40D in their bodies that offered useable iso 3200, would the members of this forum not collectively trip over each other on their way to the store to snatch them up? Answer truthfully, now!
I certainly would...if they used a 5D sensor (overcoming the FF problem) I'd be willing to do a little violence to be head of the line.
kevin m
Veteran
Really? An M8 with a Summicron 28 mounted is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 40D with a 28/1.8 mounted? And the Canon is slower than the Leica when both are in Manual mode? Really?
infocusf8@earthlink.
Established
Curious
Curious
I stopped posting (and was censored three times) at the photo.net forum because it got to the point where a posting for the M8 couldn't be made without the Canon users jumping all over it with comparisons. Something I've never figured out is why the M8/Canon comparison continues and why every time someone makes a verifiable claim about M8 image quality Canon users need to refute it with a Canon claim. It seems a pointless argument since the cameras are so different in design and application. I also don't follow the continuing argument that Leica technology is so outdated and they will have to do a better job on the M9 when Leica can't make enough M8's to keep up with demand. Leica also has seen such an increase in demand for lenses that they can't keep up production to meet it. I've been in retail sales of photography equipment for 16 years and photography for going on 52 years and after demonstrating and using equipment from every manufacturer on a daily basis I think both manufacturers make excellent equipment that produces excellent image quality with the right optics and the application of sound photographic techniques. When it came time for me to invest in a digital camera that I wanted the Leica M8 won hands down for a variety of my own subjective reasons that were applicable to my photography (after all aren't most things we choose really based on subjective factors?). The image quality my M8 produces is superb and has opened new doors for my photography and a renewed interest by me to get back to the roots of actually thinking about all the factors that take place to produce a good image versus the park it in "P" mode and shoot away then fix it in Photoshop. Can I use my Leica for bird and wildlife photography? No, and for that reason I would probably purchase a 40D with a 100-400 IS lens (sorry Nikon I used your cameras for 33 years but your present menus are way too convoluted for me). All that being said it would be refreshing to see this constant debate between the two factions resolve itself to an appreciation of the respective equipment and not an ongoing one-upsmanship (not sure thats a word but it sounds good) that just keeps repeating itself to no real end.:bang:
Curious
I stopped posting (and was censored three times) at the photo.net forum because it got to the point where a posting for the M8 couldn't be made without the Canon users jumping all over it with comparisons. Something I've never figured out is why the M8/Canon comparison continues and why every time someone makes a verifiable claim about M8 image quality Canon users need to refute it with a Canon claim. It seems a pointless argument since the cameras are so different in design and application. I also don't follow the continuing argument that Leica technology is so outdated and they will have to do a better job on the M9 when Leica can't make enough M8's to keep up with demand. Leica also has seen such an increase in demand for lenses that they can't keep up production to meet it. I've been in retail sales of photography equipment for 16 years and photography for going on 52 years and after demonstrating and using equipment from every manufacturer on a daily basis I think both manufacturers make excellent equipment that produces excellent image quality with the right optics and the application of sound photographic techniques. When it came time for me to invest in a digital camera that I wanted the Leica M8 won hands down for a variety of my own subjective reasons that were applicable to my photography (after all aren't most things we choose really based on subjective factors?). The image quality my M8 produces is superb and has opened new doors for my photography and a renewed interest by me to get back to the roots of actually thinking about all the factors that take place to produce a good image versus the park it in "P" mode and shoot away then fix it in Photoshop. Can I use my Leica for bird and wildlife photography? No, and for that reason I would probably purchase a 40D with a 100-400 IS lens (sorry Nikon I used your cameras for 33 years but your present menus are way too convoluted for me). All that being said it would be refreshing to see this constant debate between the two factions resolve itself to an appreciation of the respective equipment and not an ongoing one-upsmanship (not sure thats a word but it sounds good) that just keeps repeating itself to no real end.:bang:
kevin m
Veteran
infocus, I'm an RF shooter by choice. I used to shoot weddings with two M6TTL's, a 50 pre-asph. Summilux; 35 Asph. Summilux; 90 pre-asph Summicron. Wonderful cameras, wonderful lenses. A bit limited for some things, but the EOS-3 was always in the bag for those times.
When the M8 came out, I sat on the fence and waited, credit card in hand, hoping it would be a real, useable, no-excuses digital RF. But it isn't. It's a hobbyist's camera. The reason the M8 discussion keeps getting shunted off to ever-smaller internet sites is probably because it can't stand the blunt, straightforward statements of fact that it meets on open internet forums such as this: the sensor in that camera is in no way near the current state of the digital art. Its extended DR and 14-bit sensor don't compensate for its Nikon D70-like high iso performance.
When I loaded my EOS-3 and my TTL's with the same film stock, then the playing field was level, and the Leicas oftentimes even had the edge in image quality. But the same isn't true now with different sensors in every camera. The Canon sensors are simply much better than the Leica sensors with the iso dial set past iso 640.
That the M8 has been a big success just shows that digital is absolutely the dominant capture technology now, and that the old Leica virtues of simple, straightforward camera design still hold. But, again, I'll say: If Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon made a 10mp, 1.5 crop digital RF tomorrow with a Canon sensor in it, not only would the members on this forum trip over themselves to buy it, they'd be working their spellcheck programs 'til their hard drives smoked looking for new superlatives to describe the things. You know it's true.
When the M8 came out, I sat on the fence and waited, credit card in hand, hoping it would be a real, useable, no-excuses digital RF. But it isn't. It's a hobbyist's camera. The reason the M8 discussion keeps getting shunted off to ever-smaller internet sites is probably because it can't stand the blunt, straightforward statements of fact that it meets on open internet forums such as this: the sensor in that camera is in no way near the current state of the digital art. Its extended DR and 14-bit sensor don't compensate for its Nikon D70-like high iso performance.
When I loaded my EOS-3 and my TTL's with the same film stock, then the playing field was level, and the Leicas oftentimes even had the edge in image quality. But the same isn't true now with different sensors in every camera. The Canon sensors are simply much better than the Leica sensors with the iso dial set past iso 640.
That the M8 has been a big success just shows that digital is absolutely the dominant capture technology now, and that the old Leica virtues of simple, straightforward camera design still hold. But, again, I'll say: If Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon made a 10mp, 1.5 crop digital RF tomorrow with a Canon sensor in it, not only would the members on this forum trip over themselves to buy it, they'd be working their spellcheck programs 'til their hard drives smoked looking for new superlatives to describe the things. You know it's true.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Hah, I just saw this! You and me both!
Riccis
Well-known
kevin m said:
I don't like to get into gear debates, but in this case I must respectfully disagree with you. As a fellow wedding photographer, I have been using M8s since April of this year all over the place (New York, Chicago, California, Mexico and Finland) without skippping a beat or a complaint from any of my clients. You will also hear more about the M8 and wedding photographers in 2008, stay tuned...
Best,
Riccis
infocusf8@earthlink.
Established
Curious Redux
Curious Redux
I'll say: If Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon made a 10mp, 1.5 crop digital RF tomorrow with a Canon sensor in it, not only would the members on this forum trip over themselves to buy it, they'd be working their spellcheck programs 'til their hard drives smoked looking for new superlatives to describe the things. You know it's true.
That may be your choice and so be it but I do disagree with you. Everyone in the digital world seems to be in a constant state of waiting for the newest next and best instead of purchasing what they need and working with it to achieve the best image quality they can get. That is what fuels the economics of retail photography. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the same old story from people who bought an expensive outfit thinking it would improve their photography only to be disappointed and want to know if they should sell it and switch to brand X. If I want the look and feel of a Canon I'll buy one, instead I chose the look and feel of the Leica and no I would not sell it to purchase a Leica with a Canon sensor my present M8 does exactly what I want it to do and very well.
Curious Redux
I'll say: If Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon made a 10mp, 1.5 crop digital RF tomorrow with a Canon sensor in it, not only would the members on this forum trip over themselves to buy it, they'd be working their spellcheck programs 'til their hard drives smoked looking for new superlatives to describe the things. You know it's true.
That may be your choice and so be it but I do disagree with you. Everyone in the digital world seems to be in a constant state of waiting for the newest next and best instead of purchasing what they need and working with it to achieve the best image quality they can get. That is what fuels the economics of retail photography. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the same old story from people who bought an expensive outfit thinking it would improve their photography only to be disappointed and want to know if they should sell it and switch to brand X. If I want the look and feel of a Canon I'll buy one, instead I chose the look and feel of the Leica and no I would not sell it to purchase a Leica with a Canon sensor my present M8 does exactly what I want it to do and very well.
Prosaic
Well-known
Thanks for that.infocusf8@earthlink. said:
IQ discussions at the current state of technology are pointless and I really couldnt care less about what the average internet amateur calls "noise" and which camera is more or less "noisy" than the other.
Get a life. Film looks better anyway. And remember: There is nothing worse than a noise-free image of a fuzzy concept.
chewbacca
Member
Prosaic:
Amen to that! I personally think that all that techno talk is waste of time. At the end of the day it come to what you have to say; use pinhole if needed!
Sitemistic:
I strongly disagree with you. On any system for recording images by chemical or digital base, optical element is determining factor; and as such it leave it on mark. You are talking about canon cameras and for the sake of argument lets say that same camera WTi is used to record scene with Canon 50mmL at f1.4 and 50mm Summilux-R at F1.4 mounted via adapter. So by what are your saying is that we will have same image just because camera had just 10 mp?
Am averring that you are an expert on digital cameras and my knowledge in this field is limited. On the other hand I know that this logic is far from realty if talk about film. Best exemplar can be made with any LF system; wide variety of formats can be shoot on same camera with different lenses. And for sure Super-SummarXL Aspheric will deliver same image on 4x5 and 120Roll film. Result from thus develop films would be same if we use same material. But then, if we use Summar 210 from 1950 or pinhole; we would for sure have different image. And for the end of this virtual test lets say that we try same experiment but this time with lowest quality material available on market. We could see the difference again.
So if you can pleas explained to me how is possible that 10Mp camera cant make difference? Thank you in advance.
Amen to that! I personally think that all that techno talk is waste of time. At the end of the day it come to what you have to say; use pinhole if needed!
Sitemistic:
I strongly disagree with you. On any system for recording images by chemical or digital base, optical element is determining factor; and as such it leave it on mark. You are talking about canon cameras and for the sake of argument lets say that same camera WTi is used to record scene with Canon 50mmL at f1.4 and 50mm Summilux-R at F1.4 mounted via adapter. So by what are your saying is that we will have same image just because camera had just 10 mp?
Am averring that you are an expert on digital cameras and my knowledge in this field is limited. On the other hand I know that this logic is far from realty if talk about film. Best exemplar can be made with any LF system; wide variety of formats can be shoot on same camera with different lenses. And for sure Super-SummarXL Aspheric will deliver same image on 4x5 and 120Roll film. Result from thus develop films would be same if we use same material. But then, if we use Summar 210 from 1950 or pinhole; we would for sure have different image. And for the end of this virtual test lets say that we try same experiment but this time with lowest quality material available on market. We could see the difference again.
So if you can pleas explained to me how is possible that 10Mp camera cant make difference? Thank you in advance.