Huss
Veteran
This isn't news to anyone. Tech moves on and will
cost you big time in all the peripherals to keep up with it.
It’s up to you if you want to play that game.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Huss,
What I glean is the vision to future-proof if one decides to go that way. My thinking is the current SL APO glass (Crons) might be future-proofed 4-5 generations.
Presently on my SL (24MP) I see the enhancements of the APO glass, and the SL2 rumored to be 48 MP is only eating into one generation. This Leica APO glass might be good for 100 MP and it is available today, or in my case on a waiting list (35 Cron).
The even higher pixel counts will come later. My point is that the glass is here now.
Also interesting the 20x30 print size cited. This is where the extra resolution becomes evident. Will 20x30 become the new print size?
Cal
willie_901
Veteran
Right!
All that matters is where one stands.
If you crop instead of move your feet, the images' perspective will be different.
If you walk closer to the subject (i.e. cropping is not needed) with the 50 mm the images' perspective can be identical.
I've thought about it...you are most likely right. Still trying to wrap my head around it. I guess I was confused by how when sensor size changes, than lenses look different.
icebear
Veteran
All that talk about even better prints from higher res. sensors sound like he is up to his nose at the print counting dpi's.
A great shot is a great shot and no one is even thinking about getting up close and start complaining about some dodgy resolution that isn't up to par with the latest rat race MP champ. If the print is getting scrutinized for flawed technical execution, it just isn't a great shot to begin with.
If you don't see the light, there is no 100MP sensor to save your behind to make the image a great one.
Vision is actually pretty simple.
It starts with your eye and not with the technology you use to capture it.
Don't try to put the cart before the horse.
DennisM
Established
cOMMENT
cOMMENT
cOMMENT
Well said!All that talk about even better prints from higher res. sensors sound like he is up to his nose at the print counting dpi's.
A great shot is a great shot and no one is even thinking about getting up close and start complaining about some dodgy resolution that isn't up to par with the latest rat race MP champ. If the print is getting scrutinized for flawed technical execution, it just isn't a great shot to begin with.
If you don't see the light, there is no 100MP sensor to save your behind to make the image a great one.
Vision is actually pretty simple.
It starts with your eye and not with the technology you use to capture it.
Don't try to put the cart before the horse.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
All that talk about even better prints from higher res. sensors sound like he is up to his nose at the print counting dpi's.
A great shot is a great shot and no one is even thinking about getting up close and start complaining about some dodgy resolution that isn't up to par with the latest rat race MP champ. If the print is getting scrutinized for flawed technical execution, it just isn't a great shot to begin with.
If you don't see the light, there is no 100MP sensor to save your behind to make the image a great one.
Vision is actually pretty simple.
It starts with your eye and not with the technology you use to capture it.
Don't try to put the cart before the horse.
Klaus,
I see your point, but then again if you admire large format prints that are done well, one does nose up to look at the amazing resolution and fine detail. Already I would argue that the transcending of formats is happening. I dare say that already I have some prints/files that resemble large format IQ and tonality of say shot with a fast film.
Did you get to see Salgado's Genesis show at ICP? These wet prints were made via 4x5 digital negatives using the best lab in Paris. About half used 645 film for image capture, and the other half was full frame digital. The likely forensics was that a tripod was used for enhanced resolution and IQ.
I'm not saying that everyone can use or needs this IQ, but whether people like it or utilize it or need it; it is where the technology is going.
Back in 2012, when I bought my Leica Monochrom, Piezography had a digital negative system that required a different inkset to print negatives for contact printing. Today they offer a "what-you-see-is what-you-get" calibrated system that allows both Piezography printing for proofing and printing of digital negatives for contact printing without the need for changing the inkset. This new digital negative system is turnkey.
I know not everyone is a printmaker who prints for exhibition, or prints limited editions, but I say this resolution is mighty useful for some. Also not everyone prints big, but today the technology is such that I could do a "Salgado" and make contact wet prints on the scale of Genesis without the best French lab in Paris at home.
I will also say that my 24 MP SL is still a great camera and in this pixel race/competition that sometimes it is the size of the pixel that wins, in say low light/high ISO situations.
I asked a Leica Rep about "Future-Proofing" and one response was that the Leica "Q" lens is future proofed to 80 MP. Meanwhile the second generation Q2 I believe is only 47 MP. When and if Leica comes out with a "Q3" would you buy one? Perhaps 61 MP or so. BTW the old original "Q" is still a great camera.
The APO Crons for the SL are said to be future-proofed at least 3 generations and maybe 4 generations whatever that means (100 MP???). BTW the concensus among photographers that own the APO 50 Cron-L and APO Cron-M is that the "L" lens is better. Also the same is said when comparing the APO 75 Cron-L to the APO Cron-M. The "L" lenses are bigger, but offer higher performance without the size and weight constraints of the M-body and mount.
Of course none of these developments matter if you don't print, print small, or can't utilize the resolution. I say though for some who want to create digital negatives the resolution is an asset.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Corran
Well-known
Yes!
No!
You are saying two completely opposite things. Think about it.
If you shoot an image with an 8x10 camera and 300mm lens, and then you physically cut out the center of the image, a 35mm-sized chunk, does the perspective of the image change? No! Only the field of view changes. The relationships between objects in the frame do not change magically by cutting down the film, or cropping a digital image.
RichC
Well-known
^
Wot Corran sez!
Things that change the relationship between stuff at different distances in a photo so they look different: (a) moving away or from the subject, (b) staying still but using lenses of different focal lengths.
Things that don't change the relationship between stuff in a photo: (a) cropping a photo, (b) changing the format (e.g. FF vs APS - sensor or film).
Wot Corran sez!
Things that change the relationship between stuff at different distances in a photo so they look different: (a) moving away or from the subject, (b) staying still but using lenses of different focal lengths.
Things that don't change the relationship between stuff in a photo: (a) cropping a photo, (b) changing the format (e.g. FF vs APS - sensor or film).
Corran
Well-known
Well, check out the photos I posted earlier. The relationship between stuff at different distances doesn't actually change when you use different lenses, only the field of view. And if you match the size of the aperture (actual physical size, not f/number), DOF will be the same as well. Individual lens characteristics will of course be dependent on the lens (distortion, fall-off, rendering, contrast, etc.).
RichC
Well-known
Sorry - you're entirely right. I was momentarily spouting rubbish! What I should have written was "including using lenses of different focal lengths but moving yourself so that the same subject appears identically sized in each photo".
Corran
Well-known
Yes exactly! I thought you might've meant to say that.
It's hard to explain in words. Interested photographers should try it themselves with a digital camera and zoom lens.
It's hard to explain in words. Interested photographers should try it themselves with a digital camera and zoom lens.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
icebear
Veteran
Hi Cal,
you are one of the few people who have seen my prints of images captured with the Monochrome (MM, 18MP CCD), mostly shot with the 75Apo 'cron, handheld. One shot was cropped to half frame, printed 20x30 on 24x36 by ConeEdition using Piezography on Hanemühle FA Baryta. " You can see the peach fuss" That's printed resolution from a 9MP captured file. I have been milking IQ in those shots. Bright sunlight, lowest ISO, shot wide open, B&W yellow filter, 1/1000s or shorter, careful focussing, holding my breath etc. but still handheld.
And printing was not a bargain but the only possible option with Jon Cone. All this effort you don't make for any images, they have to be worth it. If you do care about the image you can squeeze amazing quality out of existing tools.
If you have a boring still life shot and you can help it using a Phase One with 100MP and have it printed on fancy paper with high res etc but what you will get is a high quality print of a boring image that looks impressive just because of the high end tools that have been used. Technical capability is used to cover up lack of artistic vision, rant mode off .. oh wait where did I turn it on?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Hi Cal,
you are one of the few people who have seen my prints of images captured with the Monochrome (MM, 18MP CCD), mostly shot with the 75Apo 'cron, handheld. One shot was cropped to half frame, printed 20x30 on 24x36 by ConeEdition using Piezography on Hanemühle FA Baryta. " You can see the peach fuss" That's printed resolution from a 9MP captured file. I have been milking IQ in those shots. Bright sunlight, lowest ISO, shot wide open, B&W yellow filter, 1/1000s or shorter, careful focussing, holding my breath etc. but still handheld.
And printing was not a bargain but the only possible option with Jon Cone. All this effort you don't make for any images, they have to be worth it. If you do care about the image you can squeeze amazing quality out of existing tools.
If you have a boring still life shot and you can help it using a Phase One with 100MP and have it printed on fancy paper with high res etc but what you will get is a high quality print of a boring image that looks impressive just because of the high end tools that have been used. Technical capability is used to cover up lack of artistic vision, rant mode off .. oh wait where did I turn it on?
Klaus,
The original 18 MP Monochron is a very capable camera in the right hands for sure. I believe that it will be somewhat of a cult camera one day. For one I think it has a unique rendering due to its CCD sensor.
Also I would argue that it is likely the most unforgiving digital camera camera because of the lack of Bayer Filter Array compounded by the CCD sensor. CMOS sensors and color cameras are more forgiving in recovering highlights.
You do make a great point that many shooters don't necessarily fully exploit their gear, but I know from seeing the results in your prints printed by Jon Cone's Studio that you approached the max that a MM could produce.
I think it was a smart move to retain our MM cameras. Also know that out of all the digital cameras two stand out as being the most like a basic film camera: the Leica CL (Digital Barnack); and the original Monochrom.
I can list all the things that make it a primitive camera: the not so good high ISO when compared to a M-246; the crappy screen; the slow small buffer; the lack of video capabilities; no live view... For me the slow performance and basic utility combined make my MM most like a film camera.
Not everybody fully exploits the resolution, IQ, or tonality like we have.
I believe your Jon Cone prints were 20x30 on 24x36. They were stunning.
BTW when I showed off that small 13x17 inch print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg Bridge to the crew at the Leica booth at a PhotoPlusExpo they could not believe it was shot with the Monochrom. LOL.
Richard Herzog, a large format shooter, thought it was shot with a large format camera.
Also we know that we can print what we can't see on a dimmed down EIZO in a darkened room. We know that we can print what you can't see. Also "big prints don't lie."
Christian once pointed out the lightning rods on a smokestack that were visible on a 20x30 print that were over a quarter mile away on the Domino Refinery.
Cal
POSTSCRIPT: Sometime in early December "Maggie" has a gig where we will be on a luxury river cruise that begins in Amsterdam, stops at about half a dozen cities on the Rhine River, and ends in Switzerland. I'll let you know our itinerary, but I don't know if I'll have the time to hook-up with you.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Darling Bill,
I seem to remember meeting that beautiful young Italian man who was president of Magnum for a small while. He is writing that book Leros. He had three 8mp Olympus cameras - point and shooting types - around his neck. His work from then still looks wonderful. I am shooting 12 - 24 mp in Nikon and Fuji. I am so sorry, but I cannot disagree with you. The resolution is been good enough for my eyes for a very long time.
Mme. O.