Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Why do you own a digital M Leica?  (Voting closed: October 30, 2011, 07:03:58 AM)
Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder. - 9 (45%)
Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses. - 11 (55%)
Total Voters: 20

Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M Leica Camera or Lenses?  (Read 89850 times)
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #140 on: August 19, 2012, 08:46:57 AM »
ReplyReply

and diffraction ?
and for what do you need exactly so many pixels ?
Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #141 on: August 19, 2012, 09:10:46 AM »
ReplyReply

With 4m pixel-pitch (54MP on 24x36 or 24MP on APS-C) you would start notice diffraction with the very best lenses somewhere between f5.6-f8, but even diffraction-limited, the IQ would still be superior to the native 24MP-file, it could even be used (stopping down beyond f8) to avoid aliasing without the need of an AA-filter.

54MP (or 6000x9000) would be sufficient for flawless 76cm wide prints (@300ppi) - which would be nice for some of us indeed, altough I don't print all pictures this large, of course...

Long story short: A cleverly implemented 54MP-sensor (4m) instead of a common 24MP-design (6m pixel-pitch) would increase IQ and versatility. The only downside would be the higher effort in R&D. When you seriously can't handle the file-size with your computer, you can still use in-camera-downsampling and still yield superior IQ.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #142 on: August 19, 2012, 09:12:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I really hope they will never do that
Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #143 on: August 19, 2012, 12:10:03 PM »
ReplyReply

why not?
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #144 on: August 19, 2012, 12:20:38 PM »
ReplyReply

because for A2  you don't need so many pixels, it's heavy and un-necessary, and diffraction will be worst than it is now
Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #145 on: August 20, 2012, 02:20:35 AM »
ReplyReply

In practice, diffraction is an issue of magnification (sensor size vs. output size), not the pixel-count!

One example: you have to make a 76cm-wide print and you use two cameras with identical MP-count but one is equipped with a 4/3-sensor (18mm wide -> 40x magnification), the other one with a 24x36-sensor (36mm wide -> 20x magnification). The 24x36-system can be stopped down two stops further at a similar level of diffraction.

But when you compare cameras with the same sensor size but different pixel count (we stick with the 24x36 24MP vs 54MP comparison) diffraction effects will be the same on both prints. On a pixel level, the 54MP-file will degrade earlier (let's say from f8 on) but this is compensated for by the higher pixel count. At the same stop, the 54MP-sensor will always result in a superior IQ compared to the 24MP-sensor.  Only the IQ-advantage over the 24MP-sensor degrades.

A hypothetical 24x36 camera with 54MP-sensor could also offer internal downsampling (e.g. to 24MP or 13.5MP) and would just behave like a camera with lower native pixel count. Most likely, the downsampled 24MP-file will be superior to the native 24MP-file. No disadvantages for the user whatsoever!

We have reached that level of technology now, we just have to implement it. No need for two cameras (like Nikon D3x vs D3s) - high-sensitivity vs high-resolution - anymore.

Yes, for a 300ppi-print (which is needed for a fine-art-print in demanding landscape-photography, not a portrait-poster viewed at several m distance...) A2 "just" takes 7000 pixels horizontally, A1 already 10000 pixels.

Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #146 on: August 20, 2012, 05:46:34 AM »
ReplyReply

georgl  I know all that theory

but thanks for your answer
Logged
jfirneno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #147 on: August 20, 2012, 06:30:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like there may soon be another full-frame camera to attach Leica lenses to.  Rumor has it that Sony is developing a full-frame camera with an 18mm flange to sensor dimension (e-mount).  From all the buzz on the various Sony sites there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm.  Of course it's just a rumor, but stranger things have happened.  This would be a direct way of polling how many people want Leica just for their lenses.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #148 on: August 20, 2012, 06:54:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like there may soon be another full-frame camera to attach Leica lenses to.  Rumor has it that Sony is developing a full-frame camera with an 18mm flange to sensor dimension (e-mount).  From all the buzz on the various Sony sites there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm.  Of course it's just a rumor, but stranger things have happened.  This would be a direct way of polling how many people want Leica just for their lenses.
if Sony does that FF  for 2000  I shall never buy a Leica for 8000
it's a good answer to the question I guess :-)
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


« Reply #149 on: August 20, 2012, 08:54:56 AM »
ReplyReply

because for A2  you don't need so many pixels, it's heavy and un-necessary, and diffraction will be worst than it is now

Diffraction is always the same, with lesser systems you just can not see it. Sharper sensor will always make pictures sharper than a less sharp (less resolving) sensor, diffraction or no diffraction.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #150 on: August 20, 2012, 08:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Diffraction is always the same, with lesser systems you just can not see it. Sharper sensor will always make pictures sharper than a less sharp (less resolving) sensor, diffraction or no diffraction.
no diffraction is not always the same
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


« Reply #151 on: August 20, 2012, 10:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

no diffraction is not always the same

Diffraction is only dependent of the f-stop. Not sensor size, sensor resolution, image circle, lens quality. It can be calculated from a simple physical formula. That way it is always the same for the same f-stop. If the sensor and lens resolution* is better than the diffraction limit, it shows. If the sensor and lens resolution is less, it does not show (as much**). As the tests and common sense has proved, a sensor with better resolution than the diffraction limit makes sharper pictures even with diffraction coming into play than a sensor which falls short of the diffraction limit.

* meaning that the lens is diffraction limited, not optical quality limited.
** all quality constrictions affect the final output to some extent. It is like a chain of quality damaging factors (=>1) where the product of all the factors determines the final quality. If one of them approaches 1 its effect becomes negligible. With a truly good lens diffraction "factor" is practically 1 when using large apertures below the diffraction limit of the system.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #152 on: August 20, 2012, 02:16:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Diffraction is only dependent of the f-stop. Not sensor size, sensor resolution, image circle, lens quality. It can be calculated from a simple physical formula. That way it is always the same for the same f-stop. If the sensor and lens resolution* is better than the diffraction limit, it shows. If the sensor and lens resolution is less, it does not show (as much**). As the tests and common sense has proved, a sensor with better resolution than the diffraction limit makes sharper pictures even with diffraction coming into play than a sensor which falls short of the diffraction limit.

* meaning that the lens is diffraction limited, not optical quality limited.
** all quality constrictions affect the final output to some extent. It is like a chain of quality damaging factors (=>1) where the product of all the factors determines the final quality. If one of them approaches 1 its effect becomes negligible. With a truly good lens diffraction "factor" is practically 1 when using large apertures below the diffraction limit of the system.
diffraction depends on the pitch,  the distance between 2 pixels
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


« Reply #153 on: August 20, 2012, 02:35:02 PM »
ReplyReply

diffraction depends on the pitch,  the distance between 2 pixels

True, maybe I was not precise enough. I meant sensor resolution measured as pixel pitch, not number of pixels in the image. To nitpick: diffraction LIMIT depends on the pitch, diffraction itself is just dependent of f-stop, even if the lens was not attached to anything...

Diffraction limits can of course be calculated for different pitch resolutions for each sensor size just as easily. See the local chart for diffraction limits for each sensor size: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml , end of the article.

In any case the diffraction limit is the same for all (pitch) resolutions irregardless of sensor size. If we have different size sensors with different pixel pitch we get different diffraction limits. See the chart at the end of the linked article.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 02:37:24 PM by Petrus » Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #154 on: August 20, 2012, 03:06:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Petrus
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #155 on: September 08, 2012, 10:45:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Basically we should just use bigger sensors. Cramming ever more pixels on to a redundant format that was not even ideal for still photography when it was first introduced is becaming increasingly ridiculous.
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #156 on: September 11, 2012, 10:10:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Basically we should just use bigger sensors. Cramming ever more pixels on to a redundant format that was not even ideal for still photography when it was first introduced is becaming increasingly ridiculous.



If you refer to 35mm cameras (135 format) then I have to say you are mistaken; I made most of my career out of 35mm and Kodachrome, despite owning two 500 Series 'blads at the same time as the Nikons. What 35mm did for me, it did very well and better than I could do by going larger; it's seldom all about one factor.

Rob C
Logged

lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


WWW
« Reply #157 on: September 18, 2012, 02:33:00 AM »
ReplyReply

How about "Texas Leica" MF digital rangefinder cameras like this one???
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #158 on: September 21, 2012, 04:12:31 AM »
ReplyReply

now both are perfect  and my M9 for sale in february  Tongue
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 04:17:01 AM by erickb » Logged
John Gellings
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #159 on: November 29, 2012, 08:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

The only reason I use a M8/M9 is because of the rangefinder.  
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad