Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Resolutio versus Image Quality  (Read 1143 times)

Bo_Dez

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 83
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2017, 08:34:03 AM »

Put an Otus on a D810... and I swear the results are going to be identical or the Nikon will come on top... at any ISO.

Cheers,
Bernard

I would actually really like to see a proper comparison like this. Personally these two systems are two i am considering carefully.

The S with S lenses really does have a very high quality look that I think might be tricky to top and from what I have seen from various samples I think it might have the edge. It's the smoothness of tone and colour that I have not seen in 135 cameras.

Then there is also talk of a new S at 60MP which I think will be very interesting.
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 569
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2017, 04:13:15 AM »

An old friend who is a Leica chauvinist claims that the Leica S2 makes far better images than the Nikon d800 because despite the same pixel count Leica images have greater and more subtle gradations of tones.

This point generalizes to tonal quality versus resolution.

I wonder what the experts here think of this controversy and if it is valid which cameras solver the best tonal continuum.

There is a huge range of Leica equipment if you count all the film-era stuff, and even now Leica makes cameras in a variety of formats and levels of quality. The closest comparison with a top-of-the-line Nikon would be a current Leica of the same format. Even then, different lenses have different characteristics. So, are you comparing just lenses or just sensors or the combination?

As far as comparing formats, all other things being equal, and assuming proper technique and the same viewing conditions (size of print, viewing distance, etc.), the larger format images will generally exhibit a greater range of subtle tonalities than smaller format ones. However, in practice, all other things are seldom equal, so it is rarely as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.

Oh, and image quality is highly subjective.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 04:21:03 AM by David Eichler »
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 221
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2017, 09:53:14 AM »

I thought to an extent this still goes back to the old adage "no replacement for displacement" or in the camera world...sensor size.  Imagine drawing an image on a postage stamp and an 8x10 canvas.  Which one will have the ability to show more variations of tone, subtle detail, and finer variation?  Obviously the larger working space.  It's just straight forward. 

Does the Leica S2 show more...yes probably, it has a somewhat larger sensor surface area.  (30% is it?)

The difference now a days is that tech has gotten really good.  Lenses have gotten really good.  Resolution shrinks the gap between the extremes. 


If you have ever seen an original 11x14 contact print that was masterfully made it is breathtaking.  Nothing we have compares in my opinion.  Though technically it may not be as clinical, the subtlety is amazing.  Talk about surface area! 

Image quality is subjective.  And everything now a days can create excellent prints and visual content.  There is still a difference is fine variation and tonal gradation between sensor sizes.  I use m43 and a 49mm my sensor daily together.  The gap is not huge, but there's is a difference.  There is a difference between this and my 36mm sensors going either way.  But the gap has gotten inconsequential for most images for most general uses.  In my opinion. 

I notice the subtle tone differences mostly in skin and twighlight images..at least in the work that I do.  There is more complexity and "truth to the scene" in the larger sensors.  However, that doesn't necessarily make it any better. 
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10442
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2017, 11:23:42 AM »

Hi,

One important factor is full well capacity and we can deduce it from Signal Noise Ratio.

Sony A7rII and Nikon D810 have an SNR of 46.3 and 46.4 at base ISO, while the S (typ 006) has 42.4. So the Leica cannot make use of it's sensor size. The Nikon D810 and the Sony A7rII also have lower base ISO and that indicates that they absorb more light.

The only advantage the S2 or S (type 006) may hold is really MTF, due to larger pixels. But to reach that advantage the S/S2 would need very accurate focus and there is significant doubt if it can achieve it. Manual focus is not quite accurate enough and AF is problematic, too. Sony A7rII and Nikon D810 can use magnified live view for pin point accurate focus, CCD based sensors don't have that capability.

The CMOS sensor in the S (Type 007) is probably a better match. But, best of breed 24x36 mm technology is quiet a bit of very stiff competition for slightly larger formats.

100 MP at 54x40 mm combined with Sony Exmoor technology, that is a different race…

Best regards
Erik




I thought to an extent this still goes back to the old adage "no replacement for displacement" or in the camera world...sensor size.  Imagine drawing an image on a postage stamp and an 8x10 canvas.  Which one will have the ability to show more variations of tone, subtle detail, and finer variation?  Obviously the larger working space.  It's just straight forward. 

Does the Leica S2 show more...yes probably, it has a somewhat larger sensor surface area.  (30% is it?)

The difference now a days is that tech has gotten really good.  Lenses have gotten really good.  Resolution shrinks the gap between the extremes. 


If you have ever seen an original 11x14 contact print that was masterfully made it is breathtaking.  Nothing we have compares in my opinion.  Though technically it may not be as clinical, the subtlety is amazing.  Talk about surface area! 

Image quality is subjective.  And everything now a days can create excellent prints and visual content.  There is still a difference is fine variation and tonal gradation between sensor sizes.  I use m43 and a 49mm my sensor daily together.  The gap is not huge, but there's is a difference.  There is a difference between this and my 36mm sensors going either way.  But the gap has gotten inconsequential for most images for most general uses.  In my opinion. 

I notice the subtle tone differences mostly in skin and twighlight images..at least in the work that I do.  There is more complexity and "truth to the scene" in the larger sensors.  However, that doesn't necessarily make it any better.

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 569
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2017, 09:00:25 PM »

To add to what I said above, when I used Leica equipment many years before digital, there were some Leitz lenses that had a look that I liked above all other small format lenses I used. However, this did not apply to all Leitz lenses. Some were mediocre lenses, yet you still paid a high price for them. I don't know if that quality that I saw with film has carried over to digital. If it does, a good copy of a 50mm Summicron on a full-frame Leica would probably still be one of the best  representatives of the Leitz look.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10442
    • Echophoto
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2017, 01:23:05 PM »

Hi,

Diglloyd have done some comparisons like that. The one I have studied was a comparison between the Leica S2 and the Nikon D3X. In that case the Leica S2 had significant aliasing while the Nikon had little. The Nikon images were significantly sharper at the corners. The comparison was probably between the Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro Planar and the correspondng S-lens.

I don't any longer subscribe to Diglloyd, so I cannot really post a reference to that article.

Focusing is critical to achieving optimal results, and Lloyd Chambers mentioned that was very hard on the S2. Modern cameras offer live view and magnified live view is probably the most accurate way focus. On the other hand, he had a lot (an awful lot) of aliasing on the S2 in that test image, so he must have gotten focus right.

Best regards
Erik


I would actually really like to see a proper comparison like this. Personally these two systems are two i am considering carefully.

The S with S lenses really does have a very high quality look that I think might be tricky to top and from what I have seen from various samples I think it might have the edge. It's the smoothness of tone and colour that I have not seen in 135 cameras.

Then there is also talk of a new S at 60MP which I think will be very interesting.

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2440
Re: Resolutio versus Image Quality
« Reply #26 on: Today at 08:34:01 AM »

There's no substitute for skill. Resolution is secondary. Of course, sometimes both skill and resolution are interdependent.
« Last Edit: Today at 08:37:34 AM by BobDavid »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up