Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       end
  

Archive 2015 · SL Pre-Order Poll.

  
 
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · p.6 #1 · SL Pre-Order Poll.


adamdewilde wrote:
I missed your line "prints of the same size". I was running under the assumption one buys a 42mp camera to print massive sized pictures. Else why bother


i never understand this thinking, more megapixels are nice because they look better at every size. small prints look better and big prints look better even when using a crappy lens. all else being equal i would always choose more megapixels.

the problem is nobody usually offers the same camera with different sensor options so there is always tradeoffs in price, features, and/or usability. i agree with michael's philosophy in general, so i'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a little resolution for a more enjoyable camera to use (i usually stitch if i want to maximize resolution anyway). i just get annoyed when people argue that high resolution sensor will make your lenses look bad, which is provably false! all your lenses will look better than they did with a lower resolution, sure you'll be able to see more of their weakness by pixel peeping, but the photos will still look better (which is what matters). if knowing that if you magnifying the output of your lens enough it shows soft corners or bits of CA causes gear dissatisfaction you should see how bad it looks when you magnify the lower res images by the same amount.

moving back closer to topic. 42mp is a noticeable improvement over 24mp, but its only like a 30% improvement in line resolution so it's not a giant improvement. this too me is an important argument – the difference between 24mp and 36mp is a little past the threshold of noticeability, 24mp versus 42mp is a bit more obvious but still not a huge gain. to double the line resolution of a 24mp sensor you need 96mp. yes, the a7r will produce more detailed prints and probably better tonal transitions, but only by a small amount. if that small little bit is the most important thing for your work you probably shouldn't get a leica because they will never be updating sensors fast enough to stay at the top of the resolution race.



Oct 27, 2015 at 01:48 PM
telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #2 · p.6 #2 · SL Pre-Order Poll.


sebboh wrote:
... yes, the a7r will produce more detailed prints and probably better tonal transitions, but only by a small amount. if that small little bit is the most important thing for your work you probably shouldn't get a leica because they will never be updating sensors fast enough to stay at the top of the resolution race.


I'd go so far to say that if that small little bit is the most important thing for your work you ought to work on developing your composition skills.



Oct 27, 2015 at 02:38 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · p.6 #3 · SL Pre-Order Poll.


sebboh wrote:
i never understand this thinking, more megapixels are nice because they look better at every size. small prints look better and big prints look better even when using a crappy lens. all else being equal i would always choose more megapixels.

the problem is nobody usually offers the same camera with different sensor options so there is always tradeoffs in price, features, and/or usability. i agree with michael's philosophy in general, so i'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a little resolution for a more enjoyable camera to use (i usually stitch if i want to maximize resolution anyway). i just get
...Show more

Yes, I've had this discussion about prints to someone who said they bought an A7RII to print big.. I'm more interested in the mentality of people who buy high MP sensors. My point about the R lenses was that you wouldn't want to use them on a high MP camera, if there are lenses that look better on the sensor. I think if I were doing large prints and I had a 50mp 5DsR I'd probably grab an Otus over a 50/1.4 USM. Simply because it's going to look more stunning with the Otus lens. Unless of course you didn't care about soft corners and the nasty little things that show up from using uncorrected lenses.. But heck at web viewing or for 8x10 prints the 50/1.4 is fine. Zeiss wouldn't have built the Otus lenses if there wasn't a demand for them from the higher MP cameras hitting the streets. I know "future proofing" a lens is marketing hype, but if you buy high mp to print big, older lenses will disappoint.

Again, we don't have to print big.. But I'd reckon you buy high MP to print at max resolution, no? Else why not get an A7sII? Easier on the workflow, and better overall colors (subjective). Actually the A7s sensor is closer to what I'd like to see out of Sony then what I'm seeing from their 24,36,42mp sensors.
And 12mp to 42mp is almost double print size



Oct 27, 2015 at 05:06 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · p.6 #4 · SL Pre-Order Poll.


telyt wrote:
I'd go so far to say that if that small little bit is the most important thing for your work you ought to work on developing your composition skills.


I think his above quote is being taken a bit out of context

But I think it's clear that you'd pick different tools for different jobs. IF I were shooting landscapes/gallery work I'd want the highest resolving sensor with the highest resolving lenses and best DR I could get. And I'd want to print the BIGGEST I could, with the most amount of detail I could leech out of a scene.

MOST lenses can do this when stopped down. A lot of lenses still suffer in the corners. The higher the MP the faster diffraction sets in on a given F/stop. BUT it's not that bad in real world terms, only when pixel peeping.. But in this situation, printing at max resolution is essentially pixel peeping.

I shoot 1000-2000 images a day (sometimes 15 hour days) and I'm frankly glad the SL is coming in at 24mp. I'd probably have been ok with less.

So again, right tool for the job. I buy a 100mp camera, I want lenses that'll shine on it. I don't want to use lenses that won't shine printed large. To me, it defeats the purpose of owning a high MP machine. Again, not saying that all R lenses are bad. Or that you have to use it the way I'd use it.


Speaking of which. I just printed something at Costco to test their print quality (not so much quality more calibration). I did a 8x10 to see how the Noritsu machine varies from my monitor. And I did a 20x30 to see how the Epson varies from my monitor. It was very typical of what I see at professional labs. The Noritsu gave me a flatter (less contrast), less vibrant image. The Epson give me more contrast, and more saturation. It shifted towards the reds and a bit towards the yellows. Overall if they were consistent with their output, I think I could prep my files for good prints.

I bring this Costco thing up because I SLIGHTLY missed focus we are talking 1mm off (I used a S + 100S wide open so DOF is almost non-existent at close distances). In the large print, all I could see was the missed focus. In the 8x10 it looked perfectly fine. Not to mention what you would have seen in the large print if there was CA/LoCA etc..



Oct 27, 2015 at 05:22 PM
peterv
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #5 · p.6 #5 · SL Pre-Order Poll.


I voted #3 and I'll just repeat what I wrote over at LUF:

If I were a young photographer starting my career I would buy this camera and the three lenses and be done with the hassle of constantly changing systems for the next five or ten years.

The high(-er) price for the investment would surely pay off for those who want to put their time in photography, not in gear.

We all know that 24 million good pixels is enough for quite a few jobs, if not I could stitch with what promise to be optically fairly good lenses with IS, or simply rent for specialised jobs.

This could very well be all a young photographer/image maker needs, also for decent motion jobs.

No need to chase the latest and greatest in electronics for years to come. The SL seams rugged and made to be a real workhorse.

Wan’t to get creative? You’ll have easy access to almost a century of fine lens making history.

I think the SL was a great move by Leica and I hope and think that people who want to just forget about the marketing hypes by camera makers and start making photographs, will find their way to this very complete system by Leica, a company with historically a strong and proud brand name in photography.

I hope Leica will - if possible - also bring an S tilt/shift adapter.

And I hope Leica will give high priority to the adapters and lenses. This camera needs glass, ASAP.



Oct 27, 2015 at 05:36 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #6 · p.6 #6 · SL Pre-Order Poll.


peterv wrote:
I voted #3 and I'll just repeat what I wrote over at LUF:

If I were a young photographer starting my career I would buy this camera and the three lenses and be done with the hassle of constantly changing systems for the next five or ten years.

The high(-er) price for the investment would surely pay off for those who want to put their time in photography, not in gear.

We all know that 24 million good pixels is enough for quite a few jobs, if not I could stitch with what promise to be optically fairly good lenses with
...Show more

YES... ASAP on the GLASS.



Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46 PM
1       2       3              5      
6
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.