Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: uheck on February 09, 2015, 01:59:44 am
-
Hi dear Collegues,
what do You think? Guess LEICA will be in trouble on the medium format side of things by Canons recent move.
If the magic Lantern guys open up the EOS firmware, allow 4K video and high ISO/Dual ISO, there´s no need to invest double the budget for almost half the resolution.
They have to react or use another sensor.
-
Welcome to the forum.
-
I think that if they were not hurt by the recent offerings of Nikon and Sony that they will survive this new Canon wave as well. There's much more to IQ than just MP's and additional firmware tricks.
-
Haha :)
This forum just loves sky-is-falling-down posts for each new DSLR release ;)
Anyway, while forum goers in general are very technically interested I don't think it well mirrors the whole photographic community. Overall it's much less about technical data and more about fuzzy things like if you like the viewfinder, where the buttons sit and the user interface in general, and how you like the "character" of the lenses. A "boring" thing like leaf shutters can be a more important feature than the latest coolest sensor feature.
In a longer term MFD can't fall too much behind in technical features though, while many MFD photographers today come from MF and LF film the future photographers will come from smaller format digital, and I think it's harder to convince that group that they need MFD than MF film photographers.
-
If you have ever handled and used a Leica S you will know that no 35mm "threatens" it.
It's not all about pixel count and sensor output measurements.
-
If you have ever handled and used a Leica S you will know that no 35mm "threatens" it.
It's not all about pixel count and sensor output measurements.
True enough . But pixel freaks will be extremely pleased . But for how long ? ? ?
-
The Leica S will not be threatened any more by the 5Ds than it was by the D810.
Meaning not at all or tremendously so depending on the needs and priorities of the photographer.
Wasn't it your avatar who claimed 2 days back you had sold your supposedely owned S2?... :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you have ever handled and used a Leica S you will know that no 35mm "threatens" it.
It's not all about pixel count and sensor output measurements.
Ken, I have one.The Kodak sensor just doesn´t cut it any more, so does the handling.
In my daily work I MUST have the option to go beyond ISO 800 at least once a month.
If You compare the bad roll off curve in the highlights to the IQ180, charging double for half the pixels just for brand reasons is no longer working.
-
Ken, I have one.The Kodak sensor just doesn´t cut it any more, so does the handling.
In my daily work I MUST have the option to go beyond ISO 800 at least once a month.
Then the S Typ 007 should be something for you, shouldn't it? It promises the best high ISO performance in MFD
-
The Kodak sensor just doesn´t cut it any more, so does the handling.
In my daily work I MUST have the option to go beyond ISO 800 at least once a month.
If high ISO is a 'MUST have' for you, why buy the S with CCD? ISO 800 has never been the S's comfort zone, though the new S (007) will most likely do just fine with high ISO.
Personally, I love the look of the Kodak sensor in combination with the S lenses and I'm very happy with the files I get.
As for the handling, I guess that's a personal thing. I like the simplicity of the Leica S. No Gazillion buttons, no clutter, just straight to the point ie, the essential, I believe Leica calls it.
-
Judging by the S-League website, it seems that Leica is big in Germany, eliciting an 'Obviously' comment. In Europe, as opposed to USA. Perhaps I'm mistaken? Is there another European country that is a bastion of Leica? I guess there it is eternal.
http://s-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/home.html
Why doesn't America like Leica?
But all these photos are too washed out for me, all these muffled colours, desaturated, a lot of darkness, black-and-white, bleached out highlights, a lot of plum colour in the photographs.
I prefer a different style.
-
Leica should enable or achieve 4K with global shutter on their backlit sensor cameras, with some serious professional codecs in a RED-camera like body.
-
Leica is tied to their wide angles (M and S). They cannot use the Sony CMOS sensors due to crosstalk issues. What a bad time for Leica meh...
-
The graveyards of the internet are filled with the bones of Leica's doomsayers.
-
Note to OP.
Change "Leica" to "Phase one" in the original post with everything else exactly the same and you will find tonnes of support. :)
-
Leica-S is DSLR, very much different from Leica M, so cross talk issues should be little problem. Pretty sure they could use the Sony sensors if they wanted. But I guess there may be different reasons they use the CMOSIS design. Perhaps their MAESTRO processor is to much integrated with the CMOSIS sensor? Pride? Long term plans?
Best regards
Erik
Leica is tied to their wide angles (M and S). They cannot use the Sony CMOS sensors due to crosstalk issues. What a bad time for Leica meh...
-
Leica-S is DSLR, very much different from Leica M, so cross talk issues should be little problem. Pretty sure they could use the Sony sensors if they wanted. But I guess there may be different reasons they use the CMOSIS design. Perhaps their MAESTRO processor is to much integrated with the CMOSIS sensor? Pride? Long term plans?
Absolutely right about the 'cross talk', Erik. I guess Leica uses the CMOSIS sensor because they've invested quite a lot in the R&D and there needs to be ROI, of course. By now, they have a lot of expertise with this sensor and they seem confident that it will deliver on the new S.
I for one, am happy that not every cameramaker is choosing Sony as their sensor-supplier. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Sony sensors, I just think variety is good.
-
Leica-S is DSLR, very much different from Leica M, so cross talk issues should be little problem. Pretty sure they could use the Sony sensors if they wanted. But I guess there may be different reasons they use the CMOSIS design. Perhaps their MAESTRO processor is to much integrated with the CMOSIS sensor? Pride? Long term plans?
Best regards
Erik
My bad. I wasn't thinking while I typed. The S system has a long flange focal distance so shouldn't be a problem for crosstalk. I should be referring to the diglloyd tests of the da25/4 on the 645Z with poor corner sharpness (we didn't observe that on the 645D). It probably has something to do with sensor cover glass or so.
-
Hi,
It is more like sample variation, I guess. The cover glass is also a beam-angle related issue that DSLRs generally don't have. I would assume that it is included in the optical calculations on newer (non film era) lenses.
Best regards
Erik
My bad. I wasn't thinking while I typed. The S system has a long flange focal distance so shouldn't be a problem for crosstalk. I should be referring to the diglloyd tests of the da25/4 on the 645Z with poor corner sharpness (we didn't observe that on the 645D). It probably has something to do with sensor cover glass or so.
-
Hi,
I don't think Leica's competitive position is challenged by the Canon. Resolution-wise it is very close the 800 Nikons, but it is still selling well. So I don't think they sell them on resolution alone.
The CMOSIS sensor on Leica S (type 7) is a major step in DR and high ISO, AFAIK.
Personally, I feel that large pixels combined with ultrasharp lenses without OLP-filtering is not an ideal combination. More like a recipe for an aliasing machine. I am not shooting Leica-S, but I see a lot of aliasing on my Hasselblad V and P45+ combo, not only on textiles but even on water surfaces, so I feel the problem is real. Stopping down to f/16 works as an OLP-filter and the problem disappears, but so does a lot of apparent sharpness.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/seawater_a.png)
From what I have seen, 3.8 micron pixel pitch seems a pretty good compromise, on the S2 that would be 94 MP. That resolution would make the lenses some justice. That pixel size is totally feasible as all 24 MP APS-C cameras have 3.8 micron pixels.
So, in short, I don't think the Canon 5Ds or 5DR are dead ringers for the Leica S, but Leica's choice of pixel size doesn't make any sense to me.
Best regards
Erik
-
I've always wondered if the leica glass covers full 645. I guess it does except maybe the wideangle 24 3.5
-
I have shot 5dIII and Leica S for some years now and find the combination of larger sensor and the S lenses to lead to visible different and better IQ. Not just sharpness but also color and specially rolloff from focus plane to background.
Different look.
I dont think 50MP will change this.
-
If I could use medium format for everything I would. For the occasions that I can't there is 35mm.
-
Hi dear Collegues,
what do You think? Guess LEICA will be in trouble on the medium format side of things by Canons recent move.
If the magic Lantern guys open up the EOS firmware, allow 4K video and high ISO/Dual ISO, there´s no need to invest double the budget for almost half the resolution.
They have to react or use another sensor.
Leica seems to always have sensor trouble. The MM has a very sharpsensor, but it has trouble with highlights. The M240 has a second rate sensor. No it is not sour grapes or jealousy. I had 5 Leicas, now 4. I have many other cams as well.
I wish Fuji made a FF Leica rangefinder knockoff for $2500. How I love the Fuji sensor but hate the Fuji controls. The Leica is like a Rolex in build. But build does not produce photos. It is also very overpriced.
-
Personally, I feel that large pixels combined with ultrasharp lenses without OLP-filtering is not an ideal combination. More like a recipe for an aliasing machine. I am not shooting Leica-S, but I see a lot of aliasing on my Hasselblad V and P45+ combo, not only on textiles but even on water surfaces, so I feel the problem is real. Stopping down to f/16 works as an OLP-filter and the problem disappears, but so does a lot of apparent sharpness.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/seawater_a.png)
From what I have seen, 3.8 micron pixel pitch seems a pretty good compromise, on the S2 that would be 94 MP. That resolution would make the lenses some justice. That pixel size is totally feasible as all 24 MP APS-C cameras have 3.8 micron pixels.
Erik -
I must say this image you posted is rather surprising. I've shot with a Leaf 7 for several years and never ever seen anything like this. I don't have the slightest idea what is causing this problem, but something seems really off. The lens and back you have are of good quality - anyone else have any ideas what's going on here, so we can help Erik?
Geoff
-
Moiré eez ze new film grain, eet is so artistique ...
Edmund
-
Dear sir,
This is a textbook case of colour aliasing. The small waves have something like pixel dimensions. Demosaic cannot interpolate colour correctly. The image shown is of course a crop. Why you don't see it, I don't know. What I know is that it goes away at f/16, due to diffraction acting as an OLP-filter, but it is still present at f/11. Fine detail, high contrast, correct focus, medium aperture and no vibration are the recipes for this effect.
Best regards
Erik
Erik -
I must say this image you posted is rather surprising. I've shot with a Leaf 7 for several years and never ever seen anything like this. I don't have the slightest idea what is causing this problem, but something seems really off. The lens and back you have are of good quality - anyone else have any ideas what's going on here, so we can help Erik?
Geoff
-
Hi Erik
That is an interesting case of aliasing. I shoot a lot of water and don't remember seeing this but I may have missed it. I wonder if using a CLPL filter might help as it will eliminate most ofthe glare and the glare may be part of the problem some exasterbating the effect? I pretty much always use a CLPL when working water especially water in the sun.
Just a thought.
Paul
-
This is a textbook case of colour aliasing. The small waves have something like pixel dimensions. Demosaic cannot interpolate colour correctly. The image shown is of course a crop. Why you don't see it, I don't know. What I know is that it goes away at f/16, due to diffraction acting as an OLP-filter, but it is still present at f/11. Fine detail, high contrast, correct focus, medium aperture and no vibration are the recipes for this effect.
Hi Erik,
The difference between f/11 and f/16, is a reduction of the MTF by at least 15% near the Nyquist frequency on a 6.8 micron pitch sensor. That's the Optical Transfer Function's effect from diffraction and a bit of lens/sensor aperture blur alone, which will then interact with the subject contrast and the sensor specific MTF (e.g. coverglass and fill-factor) to reduce some subject contrast to low significance, or even below a relevant detection threshold. The Raw converter will have much less ambiguous data to work on, even though some aliasing can still exist (f/22 would eliminate enough contrast to avoid aliasing altogether on that sensel-pitch).
The 10% loss of contrast in the MTF50 region will have enough remaining contrast to allow local contrast and detail boosts for compensation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've had some rippled water moire, but you need relatively short shutter speed and the ripples need to be small enough to create moire. It's a very good example of how moire can occur in natural subjects.
With a tech cam at ISO50 and f/11 and center filter the shutter speeds are often long enough to smooth the waves to avoid moire.
-
Leica seems to always have sensor trouble. The MM has a very sharpsensor, but it has trouble with highlights. The M240 has a second rate sensor. No it is not sour grapes or jealousy. I had 5 Leicas, now 4. I have many other cams as well.
I wish Fuji made a FF Leica rangefinder knockoff for $2500. How I love the Fuji sensor but hate the Fuji controls. The Leica is like a Rolex in build. But build does not produce photos. It is also very overpriced.
Interesting how taste is different: I have allways prefered Leica S output over Leica M output and Leica M over Fuji output. For me the Fuji colors look like some old prints lying in the sun too long. A bit retro and nice but I prefer the deeper and more saturated colors.
-
Interesting how taste is different: I have allways prefered Leica S output over Leica M output and Leica M over Fuji output. For me the Fuji colors look like some old prints lying in the sun too long. A bit retro and nice but I prefer the deeper and more saturated colors.
Wow, I find your remarks remarkable. I also prefer Leica's M colors to Fuji's but found Leica's less saturated than Fuji's. I now use both X-Pro1 and X-T1 and often turn down saturation. I often find Fuji's colors too velvia like (I disliked velvia). Interesting, how our perceptions differ.
I also liked the colors Zeiss lenses on my Canon 5D gave me more appealing (cooler) than from Canon lenses. A shame that manual focusing with the 5D is such a pain.
-
Ken, I have one.The Kodak sensor just doesn´t cut it any more, so does the handling.
In my daily work I MUST have the option to go beyond ISO 800 at least once a month.
If you already have one Leica S then you are rich enough to have at least two systems so why all the belly aching?
Just buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR for the days when you have to go beyond ISO 800 and keep the Leica S as a weekend shooter.
-
Erik -
I must say this image you posted is rather surprising. I've shot with a Leaf 7 for several years and never ever seen anything like this. I don't have the slightest idea what is causing this problem, but something seems really off. The lens and back you have are of good quality - anyone else have any ideas what's going on here, so we can help Erik?
Geoff
Geoff,
I think you are onto something here. It's quite likely this image is one he took specifically to illustrate color moire since that is of interest to him and something he has studied. That is of course much different than saying it shows up in every image, which I think you are are saying which I agree with. Color moire can occur but happens with very low frequency in my images and simple steps such as stopping down or moving the camera to subject distance can avoid it. Surely he would know that?
It may well be that finer pixel pitch will reduce the occurrence of aliasing as he argues, but it's not a free lunch either. You'll see diffraction loses at wider and wider apertures as the pixel size gets smaller and DR can suffer as well. It's one of the reasons why I am a proponent of larger sensors.
Back on topic of the Leica… no I don't think the new Canon will cause them any trouble. Their offerings don't compete on number of pixels anyhow. That's silly. If all that mattered were just number of pixels then the Nokia n808 cell phone with 41mp would have wiped out all kinds of cameras.
-
Hi,
You are right about the thing that aliasing interests me. I am always interested in things were theory and practice are in contradiction.
Regarding the idea that the image is intentionally taken to illustrate moiré is a bit absurd. As you say, the phenomenon is not very frequent. How could I know it would occur? It cannot be observed in the viewfinder. It would be possible to spot it on the P45+ display, but how probable would that be? Also, it is not easy to find a shooting position in those coastal areas. In this case I am standing on the edge of a rock, it is something like three meter down to the water, the tripod just fits. If I move back I get a lot of unwanted stuff in the image.
It is simply one of my shoots september 2013. I have it in half a dozen of my exposures on that shoot, and I was not particularly happy when I observed it on my 24" screen.
It was probably shot at f/11 as it is aperture I use mostly on the Hasselblad. Exposure was 1/30 at 50 ISO. From my test chart shoots I know that colour aliasing disappears at f/16, but at f/16 there is a significant loss of sharpness. Some lenses would probably performing better at f/8 than at f/11, but according to my measurements there is little loss from f/8 to f/11 and f/11 gives a bit more of DoF.
Anders Torger, who used to shoot Leaf on a Linhof shoots mostly at f/16, just to avoid aliasing.
This is the full image with affected part marked:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20130920-CF044127_small.jpg)
And here is the raw file: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20130920-CF044127.iiq
Regarding the effects of reduced pixel size you are mostly wrong. It is clear that diffraction effect will be more visible with smaller pixel sizes, but that it is only when you pixel peep. Enlargement is larger if you look at the image at actual pixels, but if you downscale a small pixel image to the same size as the large pixel image it will always be better. This is valid under the presumption that imager size is the same .
DR is on the other hand affected. Halving the pixel area, like going from 6.8 micron pixels to 4.8 micron pixels would give a decrease in DR by 1/2 EV. But, it would not have a significant effect on noise levels.
You are right about Canon not causing problem for Leica. I don't think Leica sweats a lot because of Phase One, Leaf or for that part the Pentax 645Z.
On the other hand, I don't understand why Leica develops lenses with what they say extreme sharpness and don't follow up with sensors to match.
Just as a side note, the OP (the guy who started the thread) owns a Leica S2, so he speaks from personal experience.
Best regards
Erik
Geoff,
I think you are onto something here. It's quite likely this image is one he took specifically to illustrate color moire since that is of interest to him and something he has studied. That is of course much different than saying it shows up in every image, which I think you are are saying which I agree with. Color moire can occur but happens with very low frequency in my images and simple steps such as stopping down or moving the camera to subject distance can avoid it. Surely he would know that?
It may well be that finer pixel pitch will reduce the occurrence of aliasing as he argues, but it's not a free lunch either. You'll see diffraction loses at wider and wider apertures as the pixel size gets smaller and DR can suffer as well. It's one of the reasons why I am a proponent of larger sensors.
Back on topic of the Leica… no I don't think the new Canon will cause them any trouble. Their offerings don't compete on number of pixels anyhow. That's silly. If all that mattered were just number of pixels then the Nokia n808 cell phone with 41mp would have wiped out all kinds of cameras.
-
Just as a side note, the OP (the guy who started the thread) owns a Leica S2, so he speaks from personal experience.
No offense but complaining about the ISO performance of a CCD sensor and the price of Leica is pretty close to trolling in my book....
-
Hi Paul,
I don't see this often. It is a combination of small ripples on the water, relatively high contrast and so on. The idea of using a CLPL is interesting. I have a couple of CLPLs but neither fit on the blad, as they have a bayonet. I have an adapter so I could fit my existing filters but than I would not be able to use the lens shade. I don't think Hasselblad still makes filters for the V-series. Food for thought…
As Anders Torger has pointed out in another posting, he has seen it a couple of times, but he normally uses a center filter and that lengthens exposure. A polariser would also do that. Personally, I seldom use polarisers but NDs I use quite often and I have the same problems with NDs.
Getting back to the original topic: When Leica released the Leica S2 there was considerable enthusiasm about the new lenses that were designed to support much higher resolution. When Leica moved to next generation I was assuming they would increase resolution. IMHO it makes little sense to build a very high resolution lens system and combine with a low resolution sensor. I presumed they would use the Sony sensor or that they would scale down the pixels on their CMOSIS designed sensor.
That sensor has been designed for Leica M wide angles, with shallow wells. I guess that they may have given up some full well capacity to keep the wells shallow. Comparing the Canon 5DIII noise levels in DxO mark, it seem that the Canon has slightly less noise (shot noise) at most ISOs and goes lower in ISO and has significant advantage at base ISO. This would be what I would have expected from reduced well capacity. But I will not pretend I know about CMOS sensor design. Regarding DR, the CMOSIS sensor runs circles around the Canon.
The CMOSIS sensor would be a good alternative on technical cameras and Leica owns Sinar, so I would have expected the CMOSIS designed sensor to show up in digital backs for Sinar, but has not been the case this far.
I would presume that Leica has done their market research and arrived at the conclusion that they have chosen a feasible strategy within the constraints they probably have.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik
That is an interesting case of aliasing. I shoot a lot of water and don't remember seeing this but I may have missed it. I wonder if using a CLPL filter might help as it will eliminate most ofthe glare and the glare may be part of the problem some exasterbating the effect? I pretty much always use a CLPL when working water especially water in the sun.
Just a thought.
Paul
-
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20130920-CF044127_small.jpg)
Erik:
I really like the image, moiré notwithstanding (I'd be tempted to remove the contrail however). I would love to be there with a canoe and a tent. I assume this is in Sweden; should you ever have the chance to visit Georgian Bay in Canada, you will feel very much at home.
Tom
-
Thanks for the suggestion! I sort of liked that image but got frustrated with the moiré stuff and sort of ignored it.
If you ever come to Sweden, the place is Stendörren a natural preserve near Nyköping. Canoes are OK but tents are not allowed within the preserve. Sweden is a good place for outdoors.
That place is just 5 minutes from office :-).
The coordinates are here: 58°44'54" N 17°22'38" E, taken from an other shot. The real shooting position is marked.
Best regards
Erik
Erik:
I really like the image, moiré notwithstanding (I'd be tempted to remove the contrail however). I would love to be there with a canoe and a tent. I assume this is in Sweden; should you ever have the chance to visit Georgian Bay in Canada, you will feel very much at home.
Tom
-
It is clear that diffraction effect will be more visible with smaller pixel sizes, but that it is only when you pixel peep. Enlargement is larger if you look at the image at actual pixels, but if you downscale a small pixel image to the same size as the large pixel image it will always be better. This is valid under the presumption that imager size is the same .
I'm not sure one can get away with such a presumption that with more pixels the final image size would stay the same with more and smaller pixels. Rather, with more pixels people will crop more, print bigger, or just zoom into 100% and pixel peep. I don't think Canon can sell the new 5Ds with more and smaller pixels and tell their customers that they can only expect better quality if they keep the prints the same size as with their 5Dmk2.
You yourself claimed that you'd be limited by diffraction in the posted image if you stopped down to f/16 to avoid aliasing. I doubt with a p45 its enough to spoil an image more so than aliasing since I shoot my 80mp camera frequently at f/16 and do fine, but in any case you've just proven my point about smaller pixels. If you were not willing to stop down to f/16 due to diffraction concerns in the above image and a p45, then you would really wouldn't be happy with a similar camera with your own optimum pixel pitch where you would be limited to a much larger aperture, than you are now.
-
Hi Eric,
I don't think I have seen your point about smaller pixels. I have stated for many years that smaller pixels are good, not least to reduce aliasing. The reason this is dicussed here is that the Leica has relative large pixels and very good lenses. So it is really a recipe for aliasing.
MFD photographers have opted for small pixels for a long time, and one reason was to get rid of colour moiré, one form of aliasing.
If you shoot an 80MP back I guess that you get rid of colour moiré some around f/11 (didn't do the math, just an estimate). But, any well corrected MF lens will be sharpest between f/5.6 and f/8. With f/11 you loose a bit.
Sharpening comes into play, as long as you haven't stopped down to far small contrast can be enhanced by sharpening.
Bart van der Wolf has a lot of good stuff on this.
Best regards
Erik
I'm not sure one can get away with such a presumption that with more pixels the final image size would stay the same with more and smaller pixels. Rather, with more pixels people will crop more, print bigger, or just zoom into 100% and pixel peep. I don't think Canon can sell the new 5Ds with more and smaller pixels and tell their customers that they can only expect better quality if they keep the prints the same size as with their 5Dmk2.
You yourself claimed that you'd be limited by diffraction in the posted image if you stopped down to f/16 to avoid aliasing. I doubt with a p45 its enough to spoil an image more so than aliasing since I shoot my 80mp camera frequently at f/16 and do fine, but in any case you've just proven my point about smaller pixels. If you were not willing to stop down to f/16 due to diffraction concerns in the above image and a p45, then you would really wouldn't be happy with a similar camera with your own optimum pixel pitch where you would be limited to a much larger aperture, than you are now.
-
Yes, Erik, you missed my point.
My ideal pixel is a lot bigger than your 3um value at least 2x bigger. And I wouldn't be surprised if my ideal sensor size would be different from yours or a lot of people for that matter. I'd like to see something bigger than what we have currently.
I haven't seen a whole lot of them but haven't seen any color aliasing in any of the Leica S files I did look at. Have you? But surely there is some but probably the users are working around it just like the p25 owners did. I have never felt color aliasing was as important a concern as you have all along.
On the 80mp backs, you can see diffraction start at f/8 but its not really enough loss to worry about until past f/16. I have Imatest data for all of my lenses from wide open to f/18 or so - you can see it but it's very small until just before f/16. It's not that important really - the most affect area is the peak of the focus which also is much sharper than the areas still in DOF but not at the focus peak. I doubt that anyone would notice the difference between f/11 and f/13 and few would notice between f/13 and f/16 and besides you can recover some diffraction loss with software so I don't worry about it. I shoot often at f/13 and f/16 with the camera - works brilliantly.
ps you might enjoy imatest software if you haven't already a copy.
-
Dear Sir,
I have had Imatest since it's inception. I have also published a lot of data using Imatest, which you have bin happy to criticise. You memory seems to be short.
Regarding pixel size, here is an analysis Jim Kasson published. It is based on the Otus, a quite demanding lens and I think he used it at f/5.6.
- He found that at 1.25 microns the OLP filter was not needed
- There would be no or little visual difference between 1.25 micron and 2.5 microns
- Five microns (with OLP filtering) was still good
You find it here: http://blog.kasson.com/?m=201406
The image below shows one of Norman Koren's test charts shot at 1/50 magnification. Top is 3.8 micron Sony Alpha 77 (probably OLP filtered), and below is the P45+ used with a Planar 80/2.8 at f/5.6. The Sony Alpha still has some aliasing but the P45+ has a lot. The Sony was shot at f/8 in this case, so it has some more diffusion from diffraction. The reason I used f/8 on the Sony is that the lens used was a 16-80/3.5-4.5 zoom and I wanted to have it a bit stopped down, but regarded the Planar be near optimum in resolution at f/5.6. What you can keep in mind is that any information on the right of the red line is fake information. Ideally that area should be smooth gray! Ideally, the lens + OLP filter + sensor combo would have MTF of zero at Nyquist. In that case there would be no aliases and the image could be sharpened to increase MTF at high frequencies.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Nyquist1_cropped.jpg)
That Planar can resolve something like 150-180 lp/mm on ADOX CMS, albeit at very low contrast.
MTF-curves maesured with Imatest are shown here (both at f/8):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Test3/Plots/NoSharpening.png)
Would you be interested in the issues involved the article may be worth reading: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
Personally, I feel that when there is a conflict between proven theory and experience there is something wrong with either the experience or the interpretation of the theory.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, Erik, you missed my point.
My ideal pixel is a lot bigger than your 3um value at least 2x bigger. And I wouldn't be surprised if my ideal sensor size would be different from yours or a lot of people for that matter. I'd like to see something bigger than what we have currently.
I haven't seen a whole lot of them but haven't seen any color aliasing in any of the Leica S files I did look at. Have you? But surely there is some but probably the users are working around it just like the p25 owners did. I have never felt color aliasing was as important a concern as you have all along.
On the 80mp backs, you can see diffraction start at f/8 but its not really enough loss to worry about until past f/16. I have Imatest data for all of my lenses from wide open to f/18 or so - you can see it but it's very small until just before f/16. It's not that important really - the most affect area is the peak of the focus which also is much sharper than the areas still in DOF but not at the focus peak. I doubt that anyone would notice the difference between f/11 and f/13 and few would notice between f/13 and f/16 and besides you can recover some diffraction loss with software so I don't worry about it. I shoot often at f/13 and f/16 with the camera - works brilliantly.
ps you might enjoy imatest software if you haven't already a copy.
-
I haven't seen a whole lot of them but haven't seen any color aliasing in any of the Leica S files I did look at. Have you? But surely there is some but probably the users are working around it just like the p25 owners did. I have never felt color aliasing was as important a concern as you have all along.
This "being without AA filter is a feature" is about photographer psychology rather than image quality. Of course there's aliasing. But there's also pixel peep joy. Photographers rarely admit it but we just love to pixel peep, and there's a special type of satisfaction of 100% crops that are so sharp that they cut you.
If we would care about real image quality we would not worry about the 1-2% resolution loss of an AA filter, but rather about spurious and unpredictable aliasing.
I've had a long long discussion about 5DS vs 5DS R recently, and even when I show examples of moire and aliasing from the few 5DS R shots out there people still want the R for the more pleasing pixel peep, it's just more fun. I don't blame them, I have a hard time resisting myself, but one should be aware of that it's an illusion that it's about image quality.
I don't think people generally "work around aliasing" (shaking the camera, shooting at f/22, shooting out of focus), they just ignore it. In most cases it's really subtle and clients won't notice. Only specialists on digital image quality will notice, unless you have some really bad moire (which indeed is quite rare).
When we shoot medium format we of course have no choice as there are only AA filter-free sensors out there. Then you learn to not care, or even regard it as a feature. I myself shoot mostly at f/16 with my 6um sensor, I've found that after proper sharpening workflow it yields better image quality with no significant detail loss compared to f/11, thanks to reduced aliasing. But yes, pixel peeping is not as fun when you've softened the image with some diffraction... but as everyone knows pixel peep sharpness only matters for pixel peep entertainment, as soon as you publish the image in any form print, web etc, the image is scaled either up or down and it just doesn't matter, you're actually better off with a softer more scaling-friendly image.
Of course aliasing is just one aspect of image quality, like noise, overall color etc. It's a matter of taste how important you think it is to register the correct color of small details. As you often scale down images for publishing it's often not that important, unless it forms moire. So I agree it's not too hard to live with, but I do understand those that consider it to be an issue, just like some think having "only" 12 stops of dynamic range is an issue.
-
The other side is there might be many - including me- who have used sensors without AA-filters for many years and have not been disturbed by aliasing. I am sure if I search for it I will find it in some images.
On the other side I am not yet convinced if you see the difference between AA-filtered and non-AA-filtered only when pixel peeping.
And how much can we close the "gap" with sharpening? I allways feel sharpening is adding artificial information to an image which has not been there in reality. Isnt it a bit like a simulation of missing information?
The approach of the Pentax K3 seems great, to have a function to slightly shake the sensor and to be able to choose.
I am not arguing that AA-filter might make sense.
-
And how much can we close the "gap" with sharpening? I allways feel sharpening is adding artificial information to an image which has not been there in reality. Isnt it a bit like a simulation of missing information?
"Sharpening" is really just selective contrast enhancement. If poorly/over done it can add objectionable artificial detail, like haloing.
Aliasing isn't just about moiré effects…it does add artificial spatial detail too. This contributes to the crunchy sharp full res look that, as torger notes, so many of us get off on. A sensor with a large enough photosite count to mitigate aliasing is likely to be a letdown in this respect 'cuz that fake detail will go away. :)
Edit: Edmund (just below), good points. I'm not arguing that non-AA cameras/backs offer no additional real spatial detail. Just that existing ones, at least those I'm familiar with, are offering other stuff too.
-Dave-
-
Aliasing isn't just about moiré effects…it does add artificial spatial detail too. This contributes to the crunchy sharp full res look that, as torger notes, so many of us get off on. A sensor with a large enough photosite count to mitigate aliasing is likely to be a letdown in this respect 'cuz that fake detail will go away. :)
-Dave-
It's not so simple. RB, and G have substantially different spatial frequencies in a Bayer sensor, and also different spatial frequencies if you measure horizontally or diagonally to image orientation. Look at the distance between two nearest G's and two R's in the Bayer array fragment below.
RGBGR
GBRGB
RGBGR
So either you really kill all the resolution of the G to avoid aliasing in the R and B or you will get the chromatic sparkling of false color. And this will be especially the case in eg. hair where thin lines change direction.
Now if you kill all these nasty frequencies by attenuating way below the diagonal R and B frequency you have effectively divided your spatial resolution by .... look at the diagram above.
And there is the also the interesting detail that usually filters don't chop, they attenuate, so you have some progressive attenuation which blurs your image even more in the lower frequencies. Oh, and also I would expect some contrast loss and diffusion in *any* filter. All of the above possibly explain why digital backs that have no real AA filter have such a sharper look than the filtered SLRs: They really are sharper.
We can debate this, but before people explain to me as usual that I am not an "imaging processing expert", I would prefer that they show either simulations that take Bayer into account, and a realistic filter model (pun intended) or just write down the formulas taking the various sensel distances into account.
Edmund.
-
With the 5DS and 5DS R the AA filter vs no AA filter question is as hot again as when the D800/D800E was released. I think it's interesting. I use AA-filtered cameras in the 135 range, and AA-filter-less cameras in MFD obviously. It should be said that a microlens-free sensor like my 50 megapixel Kodak with very sharp tech lenses will alias a bit more than a modern microlens-equipped sensor with fuzzier lenses.
Anyway, my taste has turned more towards the AA-filtered look the more I've worked with raw conversion on the software level. I've got to see how much that we actually make up during demosaicing. We make up a lot with AA-filtered sensors too otherwise we would just lose too much resolution, but there's considerably less problems. Afaik AA-filters today are not just random blurrers but carefully crafted filters designed to blur as little as possible while removing as much aliasing as possible, I guess that design is what makes them reversible with an extra layer like done with the D800E and now 5DS R.
Just knowing that details are not as correctly rendered as they could be just for 1-2% resolution gain does not feel right. On the other hand, when I pixel peep my tech cam lenses when shot at f/11 with my 6um pixels there I do get that sharpness rush I think everyone get. I doesn't help that I know that that sharpness does me no good when I print or scale, it's still a special kind of satisfaction. So I won't blame anyone that trades that satisfaction for some aliasing artifacts, but I think it's quite easily demonstrated that it's not about real image quality in the final output, but rather the opposite.
My taste towards AA-filtered look has grown even stronger lately when I've started to make prints with an own printer, as I've seen even less reasons to have that pixel peep sharpness when I scale for printing, rather the opposite, in the rare event of having to scale up an aliased image will just make it look "digital". Having a sharper pixel peep could have a value if you would publish the image on a medium where the square pixels in the image map exactly to square pixels in the output medium, but that is never the case. There's always scaling to match, and then aliasing does you no good.
It is an interesting question if removing the AA filter has a global effect, ie if you scale down the image so there's no resolution advantage, would you still see a difference (assuming we don't have visible moire in the subject). I've got the sense that there is a belief that there is indeed a "global advantage" in image quality of not having an AA filter, but I'm almost 100% positive that it's a myth (the only reason I would see is that AA filter would somehow disturb the efficiency of the color filters, but I haven't heard or read that there would be such a problem). I haven't done A/B testing though, there are not many cameras out there that allow that.
About that sharpening creates artificial detail, it depends on how you see it. The bayer+demosaicing process is softening in itself, and diffraction too. Counteracting those effects I would not say creates artificial details, ie you don't create any details that are not there you just enhance contrast. Aliasing creates false details for real though, in the form of small false colors and patterns around small details, which result in moire if the small details have a repeating pattern.
In landscape images moire occurs rarely, but false colors around small details occurs often. However with a 50 megapixel camera or so those details are so small so they generally become invisible in most publishing forms, and even if they are visible they're so tiny that the eye don't register that the color is wrong. So in practice it's certainly not a big issue for a landscape photographer like me. But I also know that the sligthly less sharp AA-filtered image would also not result in meaningful loss in sharpness, and then it for me feels better to rather trade (reasonably) accurate details for a visually reversible softening.
To me being without AA-filter on my MF camera is not a feature, but rather "a minor bug" I as a landscape photographer can live with.
-
Hi,
I hope this example explains some issues. Just to say, this is an intended test.I found a subject that shows interesting issues and went back to shoot it with different cameras. In this case tripod position and focal length was fixed but different sensors were used. So this demonstrates the effect of pixel pitch and OLP filtering.
The image below was shot with a macro Planar 100/3.5 on a P45+. In this case the lens outresolves the sensor and has no OLP filter. Pixelation and moiré occours:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20150103-CF046029.jpg)
The next image was shot with Sony SAL 70-400/4-5.6G lens at 100 setting and f/8 on a Sony Alpha 77 with 3.8 micron pixels and probably some OLP-filtering:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20150103-_DSC6682.jpg)
Finally, the same image downsized to same image size as delivered by the P45+:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20150103-_DSC6682_downscale.jpg)
What I see here is that the P45+ image has both moiré in the blinders on the right side and some colour artifacts on the "Centralstationen" sign, it could be argued that there is some pixelation.
The center image shows the Alpha 77 image at actual pixels, clearly, the image is much cleaner but also quite soft.
The third image show the Alpha 77 image downscaled to 6.8 micron resolution. It may need some additional sharpening, but it shows more true detail than the first image.
Best regards
Erik
With the 5DS and 5DS R the AA filter vs no AA filter question is as hot again as when the D800/D800E was released. I think it's interesting. I use AA-filtered cameras in the 135 range, and AA-filter-less cameras in MFD obviously. It should be said that a microlens-free sensor like my 50 megapixel Kodak with very sharp tech lenses will alias a bit more than a modern microlens-equipped sensor with fuzzier lenses.
Anyway, my taste has turned more towards the AA-filtered look the more I've worked with raw conversion on the software level. I've got to see how much that we actually make up during demosaicing. We make up a lot with AA-filtered sensors too otherwise we would just lose too much resolution, but there's considerably less problems. Afaik AA-filters today are not just random blurrers but carefully crafted filters designed to blur as little as possible while removing as much aliasing as possible, I guess that design is what makes them reversible with an extra layer like done with the D800E and now 5DS R.
Just knowing that details are not as correctly rendered as they could be just for 1-2% resolution gain does not feel right. On the other hand, when I pixel peep my tech cam lenses when shot at f/11 with my 6um pixels there I do get that sharpness rush I think everyone get. I doesn't help that I know that that sharpness does me no good when I print or scale, it's still a special kind of satisfaction. So I won't blame anyone that trades that satisfaction for some aliasing artifacts, but I think it's quite easily demonstrated that it's not about real image quality in the final output, but rather the opposite.
My taste towards AA-filtered look has grown even stronger lately when I've started to make prints with an own printer, as I've seen even less reasons to have that pixel peep sharpness when I scale for printing, rather the opposite, in the rare event of having to scale up an aliased image will just make it look "digital".
It is an interesting question if removing the AA filter has a global effect, ie if you scale down the image so there's no resolution advantage, would you still see a difference (assuming we don't have visible moire in the subject). I've got the sense that there is a belief that there is indeed a "global advantage" in image quality of not having an AA filter, but I'm almost 100% positive that it's a myth (the only reason I would see is that AA filter would somehow disturb the efficiency of the color filters, but I haven't heard or read that there would be such a problem). I haven't done A/B testing though, there are not many cameras out there that allow that.
About that sharpening creates artificial detail, it depends on how you see it. The bayer+demosaicing process is softening in itself, and diffraction too. Counteracting those effects I would not say creates artificial details, ie you don't create any details that are not there you just enhance contrast. Aliasing creates false details for real though, in the form of small false colors and patterns around small details, which result in moire if the small details have a repeating pattern.
In landscape images moire occurs rarely, but false colors around small details occurs often. However with a 50 megapixel camera or so those details are so small so they generally become invisible in most publishing forms, and even if they are visible they're so tiny that the eye don't register that the color is wrong. So in practice it's certainly not a big issue for a landscape photographer like me. But I also know that the sligthly less sharp AA-filtered image would also not result in meaningful loss in sharpness, and then it for me feels better to rather trade (reasonably) accurate details for a visually reversible softening.
-
Here's something that shows aliasing in a irregular landscape context. f/11 with 6um pixels, rendered with Phocus which is better than most raw converters at hiding false colors. Lightroom will not make this good result.
And no the tree branches are not magenta or cyan, they're dark brown with some snow on them.
However when the details are rendered small the eye won't see colors just luminance difference so you don't actually see that the color is wrong (maybe you don't even see it on the attached thumb, click it to see the enlargement), so as long as you have a high enough pixel count to render pixels tiny on your final output you're safe. So you generally don't need to worry, but I fail to see how rendering the wrong colors should be seen as a image quality feature. How well AA-filtered images can be sharpened is a different demonstration, but that will show that there's no meaningful loss in actual detail or look.
-
Dear Sir,
I have had Imatest since it's inception. I have also published a lot of data using Imatest, which you have bin happy to criticise. You memory seems to be short.
The truth is your memory may be the shorter one .... Don't you remember that we agreed to ignore each other? Since then I have happily overlooked a great number of your posts presumably many loaded with Imatest results you write about. But don't take it too personally as I've been quite short of time lately and spend much less time at LuLa now than ever. And while I don't recollect critiquing any imatest results of yours, I have in the past pointed out some flaws in your testing particularly some based on sample images of a building that looked impossibly soft for a Phase p45 back and Zeiss lens unless they were out of focus or possibly taken with a duff lens. It seems you took this as a personal attack? The feeling of being attacked must be the only thing you do remember since you seem to relish in taking every chance to get in a little 'axe grinding' as you referred to it. But why waste everyone else's time? This shouldn't be personal, and if a person who professes to wish to learn, they should be the first one wanting to know if they have done something wrong in their tests.
Anyhow, I think you missed where I was going with the Imatest comment. I was suggesting you make a little test to discover for yourself how little detail you would have actually lost stopping down to f/16 with the p45. Was it worth keeping your lens at the f/stop that would result in aliasing just to avoid a little diffraction loss? That's the question I was hoping you would answer for yourself.
I know with the 80mp back which has even smaller pixels than the p45, I just don't miss that much at f/16 even though I know diffraction starts at f/8. And when its really important, I can get back some of that with various software sharpening tools that recover diffraction loss. It seems from the comments of others, they either are experiencing aliasing to the degree you do, or are not bothered by it, or work around it. I'm certainly in that camp. Color aliasing just isn't a problem for me and in my work, I almost never think about it.
For that reason I don't see color aliasing as enough motive by itself to drive the decision to make sensors with smaller pixels when the trade offs, as I explained already, are loss of DR, and less range of working DOF (for a given sensor format). If a camera maker also shrinks the sensor size with the pixels then maybe it will work out for the DOF usability concerns, but even then the system will be reliant on expensive ultra fast lenses. I'm more in favor of a larger sensor with 7um or bigger pixels, hopefully 6x6 or 6x7 in size or even bigger. 4x5 large format sensor? Yes please!
Back to the topic of the Leica S, I think the camera competes in a different market than the DSLR's even though it is like one. The S offers a much nicer viewfinder, a bigger sensor, high build quality and a very nice set of lenses. I certainly wish Leica well. They've done an amazing job to develop a whole new camera system and lenses. I'd like to have one myself, but so far have resisted because I already have too many cameras and not enough time.
-
I don't think people generally "work around aliasing" (shaking the camera, shooting at f/22, shooting out of focus), they just ignore it. In most cases it's really subtle and clients won't notice. Only specialists on digital image quality will notice, unless you have some really bad moire (which indeed is quite rare).
Torger,
You could be right about the pixel peeping joy, psychology, or perhaps let's call it the ability to deeply crop an image. I do remember quite a lot of discussions here on LuLa from working pros about how to deal with moire in fabrics and such when the standard pixel pitch for MFDB was 9um. If you search the forum you'll bring it up. Stopping down, moving subject to camera distance, and caprock filters were all discussed among other workarounds.
It will be interesting to see what resolution differences there are between the new Canon with and without the AA filter. Probably someone is out there testing this right now as I type?
-
Hi Eric,
In general there is no resolution difference between an OLP-filtered image and an OLP-filtered image. The resolution is essentially allways limited by the sensor, lens or diffraction. What the OLP-filter does is reducing MTF, that is contrast at the pixel pitch. So MTF is affected and it is affected very significantly.
If you photograph a Siemens star or even better Bart van der Wolf's test target, you will find that the lines converging start to turn around. That is when you pass the Nyquist limit.
I have never owned a camera that would not show these bending lines with a decent lens at medium apertures. The P45+ is the only camera I have that lacks OLP filtering.
The enclosed images show Barts's and Norman Koren's test targets shot with Sony Alpha 99, and P45+. The P45+ image has been developed in both LR5 and Capture One V8. I also added a shot from the A77 that has 3.8 micron pixels. All those images were shot at 1/50 magnification, so they illustrate the effect of pixel pitch and ignore format differences.
It is interesting to see the Capture One is quite sucessfull in hiding colour artefacts, specially on the Norman Koren target but it has the same type of monochrome artefacts as the image developed in LR5.
All the images have the bending lines, indicating that the sensor limits resolution, but the 3.8 micron pixel image is quite low on fine detail contrast.
Torger,
You could be right about the pixel peeping joy, psychology, or perhaps let's call it the ability to deeply crop an image. I do remember quite a lot of discussions here on LuLa from working pros about how to deal with moire in fabrics and such when the standard pixel pitch for MFDB was 9um. If you search the forum you'll bring it up. Stopping down, moving subject to camera distance, and caprock filters were all discussed among other workarounds.
It will be interesting to see what resolution differences there are between the new Canon with and without the AA filter. Probably someone is out there testing this right now as I type?
-
The images shown here are screen dumps from Photoshop CS at 1:1. On the left, the same Alpha 77 (3.8 Micron) image as before but downscaled to 55% to match the size of the 6.8 micron P45+ image. The P45+ image is coming right out from C1 v8 with default setting. Some extra sharpening was added to the image on the left side and a small curve adjustment was done.
Check out the area marked in red. Text is still readable in the left image, but barely readable in the right.
An original version of that image is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/P45vsa77.png
Note, some of the artefacts in the left image are a consequence of the crude resizing in Photoshop CS. Lightroom makes a much better job at this.
Another experiment would be to resize the 6.8 micron image to the same size as the 3.8 micron, I have done that using bicubic in Adobe PSCS and enclose it as a second image.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric,
In general there is no resolution difference between an OLP-filtered image and an OLP-filtered image. The resolution is essentially allways limited by the sensor, lens or diffraction. What the OLP-filter does is reducing MTF, that is contrast at the pixel pitch. So MTF is affected and it is affected very significantly.
If you photograph a Siemens star or even better Bart van der Wolf's test target, you will find that the lines converging start to turn around. That is when you pass the Nyquist limit.
I have never owned a camera that would not show these bending lines with a decent lens at medium apertures. The P45+ is the only camera I have that lacks OLP filtering.
The enclosed images show Barts's and Norman Koren's test targets shot with Sony Alpha 99, and P45+. The P45+ image has been developed in both LR5 and Capture One V8. I also added a shot from the A77 that has 3.8 micron pixels. All those images were shot at 1/50 magnification, so they illustrate the effect of pixel pitch and ignore format differences.
It is interesting to see the Capture One is quite sucessfull in hiding colour artefacts, specially on the Norman Koren target but it has the same type of monochrome artefacts as the image developed in LR5.
All the images have the bending lines, indicating that the sensor limits resolution, but the 3.8 micron pixel image is quite low on fine detail contrast.
-
Torger,
You could be right about the pixel peeping joy, psychology, or perhaps let's call it the ability to deeply crop an image. I do remember quite a lot of discussions here on LuLa from working pros about how to deal with moire in fabrics and such when the standard pixel pitch for MFDB was 9um. If you search the forum you'll bring it up. Stopping down, moving subject to camera distance, and caprock filters were all discussed among other workarounds.
It will be interesting to see what resolution differences there are between the new Canon with and without the AA filter. Probably someone is out there testing this right now as I type?
Fortunately aliasing with more recent cameras are much less than with the 9um microlens-free sensors, with lower resolution and no microlenses it gets worse.
It's not exactly hard to see it in an 80 megapixel file either though if you look at 100%, this one is riddled with aliasing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_One_%28company%29#mediaviewer/File:JacquelineMegaw.jpg
but there's fortunately no large areas of moire and then you get away with that the aliased parts will be so small in the final output that the eye does not detect the color errors. So today I think most just don't care. It's kind of ironic to increase the resolution with 400% to hide aliasing when you could reduce it with 1-2% with an AA filter and then get rid of it... :)
Probably we have to wait a while for the 5DS vs 5DS R comparison as the cameras are a few months away from public availability. There was some D800 vs D800E tests though, but mostly done by people that has already fallen for the common view that no AA filter equals better image quality. If you apply the same amount of sharpening on both and evaluate by looking at 100% pixel crops of course the filter-free will win, but if you instead evaluate with adapted sharpening and do it on upscaled prints and value color correctness the result will be different.
Bayer array is still by far the best color sensor technology, better color filters, better sensitvity, Foveon cannot match at all. But for Bayer to perform at its best it should have an AA filter and it should have a high pixel count. If Bayer outresolves the optical system the artifacts go away. We're not there yet by far though, so more megapixels please :)
Edit: attached crops from the IQ180 image, as you can see there are some demosaic failures on the vertical fur, and on the horizontal fur you can see that the colors of the hair is not correctly rendered even in this case when it's slightly out of focus (this happens as the image is shot with a large aperture so diffraction does not save the day, when looking at areas with the hair even a bit more out of focus you can see what the correct color should be). Again the thumb is scaled down, click to see 1:1. To me this is an image quality problem, you don't get return on all your 80 megapixels. It's a small problem as 80 megapixels means scaling down in most cases, but if I would really need the resolution I would be concerned about getting colors right also on the small details. Therefore it would still be better with an AA filter that would reduce resolution to say correspondingly 78 megapixels and get the colors mostly correct and without demosaicing failures.
MFD manufacturers can't introduce AA filters now though, I think it would be a sales flop. The view that being without AA filter is a feature rather than a bug is just too strongly anchored I think. People would pixelpeep and look only for sharpness, and not notice that aliasing has disappeared.
-
If Bayer outresolves the optical system the artifacts go away.
Torger,
I think this was the funny quote of the day. And quite correct, of course.
Unfortunately, the lens guys will keep telling customers that their cameras are better with sharper lenses, an obsolete thought, obviously, which dates from the time of film :)
However for now, one can also make the artefacts go away easily with some vaseline on a filter :)
Edmund
-
Attached a d800 vs d800e 100% crop, from files available from dpreview. D800E is to the left (no AA), D800 to the right (with AA).
The files have been sharpened taking input softness into account, meaning that there's more sharpening on the D800 file than the D800E. It's probably possible to make a better job than I just did, but it's a start.
Some observations; moire with demosaic failures are visible in the D800E image on the rails and some less visible issues on house wall up to the right, the diagonal lines are more jagged, there are more color errors on the small details. We also see that the D800 image is not entirely free from color errors -- AA filters are relatively weak. We also see that the microcontrast is a bit lower and you have a little "bleed" in high contrast transitions. You don't really see more details in the D800E image, but the tiniest details have higher contrast but also more errors.
It can also be noted that the exactly horizontal rails makes it easier for the demosaicer which make line extensions (usually in 8 directions).
Which image represents the better image quality? It's a matter of taste, I think the AA-filtered version is better, especially when making real outputs such as prints, less jagged, less errors. However, I can't deny that with 1:1 pixel matching the trees appears a bit more detailed in the D800E for example, and the parts of the image that don't have aliasing and demosaic issues then the D800E looks a little bit better as there's less bleed and higher micro contrast. I don't think that advantage is real in a print though, I would worry more about the occasional small blotches of demosaic failures and the overall higher error rate.
-
Torger -
if you can afford to downscale quite a bit, the aa filtered version will be cleaner, as Erik demonstrated.
but at max rez or near to it, I feel the non-filtered version may sharpen/upscale better for a crisper if artefacted print.
in a natural landscape image you won't find all these straight line repeats so the artefacts won't be too much of an issue, while crispness will be noted.
e.
Attached a d800 vs d800e 100% crop, from files available from dpreview. D800E is to the left (no AA), D800 to the right (with AA).
The files have been sharpened taking input softness into account, meaning that there's more sharpening on the D800 file than the D800E. It's probably possible to make a better job than I just did, but it's a start.
Some observations; moire with demosaic failures are visible in the D800E image on the rails and some less visible issues on house wall up to the right, the diagonal lines are more jagged, there are more color errors on the small details. We also see that the D800 image is not entirely free from color errors -- AA filters are relatively weak. We also see that the microcontrast is a bit lower and you have a little "bleed" in high contrast transitions. You don't really see more details in the D800E image, but the tiniest details have higher contrast but also more errors.
It can also be noted that the exactly horizontal rails makes it easier for the demosaicer which make line extensions (usually in 8 directions).
Which image represents the better image quality? It's a matter of taste, I think the AA-filtered version is better, especially when making real outputs such as prints, less jagged, less errors. However, I can't deny that with 1:1 pixel matching the trees appears a bit more detailed in the D800E for example, and the parts of the image that don't have aliasing and demosaic issues then the D800E looks a little bit better as there's less bleed and higher micro contrast. I don't think that advantage is real in a print though, I would worry more about the occasional small blotches of demosaic failures and the overall higher error rate.
-
if you can afford to downscale quite a bit, the aa filtered version will be cleaner, as Erik demonstrated.
but at max rez or near to it, I feel the non-filtered version may sharpen/upscale better for a crisper if artefacted print.
in a natural landscape image you won't find all these straight line repeats so the artefacts won't be too much of an issue, while crispness will be noted.
I guess one have to make more testing with nosing real prints. I don't think the crispiness will be much noted as I think this effect is much enhanced on screen due to the one-to-one pixel match, but there could be some ppi range where crispiness may come through more. A guess would be that it would be in the 200 - 100 ppi range, and below 100 ppi jaggies and stuff will be problematic, and higher than 200 ppi the difference is just too small. This with inkjets which has rather fuzzy "rasters". In offset printing there is an "artificial" crispiness created by that the raster is very sharp at a smaller detail level than the underlying image, I like that look actually it makes the image to appear have detail into infinity without any softness at all.
One thing is for sure though, the AA-filtered version is more robust for scaling to any size.
When printing you'd do some additional sharpening tricks too, I'm a beginner at that though but it seems like some haloing can be an advantage to counteract print smearing, at least that was the case with C-prints.
In landscape aliasing is indeed much less an issue than in architecture. Moiré that I have myself come across in landscape has happened in rippled water and in sand or gravel, but that is rare. Aliasing in the form of false colors around small details happen often though, narrow branches against a bright background is a typical example, or now in a snowy landscape where you have high contrast edges between snow and dark things below it. As said earlier those details are generally so small that in a typical viewing scenario the eye would not register color. Maybe one could argue that the eye would register the increased micro-contrast but not the color errors. The eye does have higher luminance resolution than color resolution. It would be an interesting experiment indeed!
If one would find that the crispiness of the 36 megapixel D800E can be appreciated in a real print it would be interesting to see if an AA-filtered 40 megapixel image of the same FOV would appear even more crisp. Unfortunately there are no cameras to make such test, but I think it could show that the slightly higher resolution AA-filtered camera would be even more crisp, so what you in practice get when getting rid of the AA filter is just getting a very slight virtual increase in megapixels, traded for potential image quality issues.
From a "philosophical" perspective I don't find it hard to prefer the AA-filtered version simply because it makes a more correct image at a very minor cost, but I also see that you can come to a different conclusion. It's not black and white.
As a software engineer I've already started thinking that you could do better aliasing suppression than what's available today too, you could have some sort of post-processing pass where you detect high contrast narrow details where you know aliasing would exist and simply remove magenta/cyan there. Possibly super-resolution techniques could be used along edges to figure out the likely non-aliased color. Demosaicers today are more focused on speed than quality, there should be more to do there. I also think more can be done in upscaling, making a crossover between bicubic and fractal/vector to avoid jaggies while keeping a natural look. It does not really matter how much I like AA-filtered images from an image quality perspective, AA filters is not coming back to medium format and in 135 I'm quite sure 5DS will be the last high res camera from Canon with AA-filter, because people will choose the 5DS R based on pixel peep joy alone.
-
Wow, I find your remarks remarkable. I also prefer Leica's M colors to Fuji's but found Leica's less saturated than Fuji's. I now use both X-Pro1 and X-T1 and often turn down saturation. I often find Fuji's colors too velvia like (I disliked velvia). Interesting, how our perceptions differ.
I also liked the colors Zeiss lenses on my Canon 5D gave me more appealing (cooler) than from Canon lenses. A shame that manual focusing with the 5D is such a pain.
Mmmh, maybe different raw converter or processing? I was talking about x-pro 1 in LR vs Leica M in LR.
-
Mmmh, maybe different raw converter or processing? I was talking about x-pro 1 in LR vs Leica M in LR.
Have you tried your X Pro 1 files in Capture One Pro (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/capture-one-main)? I've been a happy X Pro 1 owner for a while now and couldn't imagine processing the raws anywhere else.
-
I Find that C1 does a bit better job on areas of green against blue but it still can't really begin to pull out the details that available. It's an easy enough comparison to see just how much overall detail is being left on the table by LR and C1 by working up a shot in Iridient and then C1 and or LR. Iridient has no toolset and won't output to a dng so I don't use very often.
I find that neither C1 or LR can really define finer details like bare branches against a blue sky. LR does worse as it creates a red smudy look to the finer details. However C1 only offers the 1 stock profile and LR attempts to work with several of the in camera film/slide settings.
IMO is a bit tragic as the Fuji files can produce amazing details as shown by Iridient.
Paul
-
Hi Eric,
I decided a couple of days ago to take you of my ignore list, I sort of thought that you wouldn't mind.
Regarding measuring the loss of MTF at small apertures, I did this the first weeks I owned the Hasselblad V/P45+ combo. I even published the figures:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/MTF_of_aperture.png).
I would think these figures were developed without sharpening. It seems that the lens performed best at f/5.6 and lost significantly at f/16. The loss of MTF can be compensated by increased sharpening. So shooting f/16 on a P45+ and increase sharpening may be a good way to reduce aliasing effects.
The full article is published here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
Best regards
Erik
The truth is your memory may be the shorter one .... Don't you remember that we agreed to ignore each other?
Anyhow, I think you missed where I was going with the Imatest comment. I was suggesting you make a little test to discover for yourself how little detail you would have actually lost stopping down to f/16 with the p45. Was it worth keeping your lens at the f/stop that would result in aliasing just to avoid a little diffraction loss? That's the question I was hoping you would answer for yourself.
I know with the 80mp back which has even smaller pixels than the p45, I just don't miss that much at f/16 even though I know diffraction starts at f/8. And when its really important, I can get back some of that with various software sharpening tools that recover diffraction loss. It seems from the comments of others, they either are experiencing aliasing to the degree you do, or are not bothered by it, or work around it. I'm certainly in that camp. Color aliasing just isn't a problem for me and in my work, I almost never think about it.
For that reason I don't see color aliasing as enough motive by itself to drive the decision to make sensors with smaller pixels when the trade offs, as I explained already, are loss of DR, and less range of working DOF (for a given sensor format). If a camera maker also shrinks the sensor size with the pixels then maybe it will work out for the DOF usability concerns, but even then the system will be reliant on expensive ultra fast lenses. I'm more in favor of a larger sensor with 7um or bigger pixels, hopefully 6x6 or 6x7 in size or even bigger. 4x5 large format sensor? Yes please!
Back to the topic of the Leica S, I think the camera competes in a different market than the DSLR's even though it is like one. The S offers a much nicer viewfinder, a bigger sensor, high build quality and a very nice set of lenses. I certainly wish Leica well. They've done an amazing job to develop a whole new camera system and lenses. I'd like to have one myself, but so far have resisted because I already have too many cameras and not enough time.
-
Very funny! Well said!
The graveyards of the internet are filled with the bones of Leica's doomsayers.
-
I Find that C1 does a bit better job on areas of green against blue but it still can't really begin to pull out the details that available. It's an easy enough comparison to see just how much overall detail is being left on the table by LR and C1 by working up a shot in Iridient and then C1 and or LR. Iridient has no toolset and won't output to a dng so I don't use very often.
I find that neither C1 or LR can really define finer details like bare branches against a blue sky. LR does worse as it creates a red smudy look to the finer details. However C1 only offers the 1 stock profile and LR attempts to work with several of the in camera film/slide settings.
IMO is a bit tragic as the Fuji files can produce amazing details as shown by Iridient.
Paul
Paul,
Even with the latest version of C1? I personally think that v8 does a better job than V7. I still prefer Iridient though.
Thanks, Joris.
-
Paul,
Even with the latest version of C1? I personally think that v8 does a better job than V7. I still prefer Iridient though.
Thanks, Joris.
Hello Joris
I just started using C1 8 on the Fuji files so I will do some more detailed checking.
Paul
-
Very funny! Well said!
Uhm- no
my topic was never generalizing LEICAs condition as a whole.
I strictly meant the MF division, where the units and R & D spending count.
I´m shure Leica will be successful the coming years in their core business, but NOT MF.
This is now a new era, and there will be tons of lens alternatives available on the Canon/Nikon side of things, let alone premium players like Zeiss
(and ambitious SIGMA).
-
The question is which percentage of Leica S cameras are sold to professional photographers and which percentage to rich Chinese photography enthusiasts. I guess the second kind of customer is nowadays more important for Leica (same for the M) and they won't buy a Nikon 810 or Canon 5Ds (R) alternatively but additionally to the S.
-
The question is which percentage of Leica S cameras are sold to professional photographers and which percentage to rich Chinese photography enthusiasts. I guess the second kind of customer is nowadays more important for Leica (same for the M) and they won't buy a Nikon 810 or Canon 5Ds (R) alternatively but additionally to the S.
Not sure why you've singled out rich Chinese enthusiasts…they may be more recent comers to the luxury goods party, but that party has been swingin' for a long time. Leica has of late positioned itself as a luxury brand, so the overall question becomes something like: Do luxury buyers care much about how capable CaNikon cameras are, and if so will this influence their buying? My suggested answer to both parts of this, having some familiarity with folks in this market segment, is: No, not much. Recently I've run across more such folk buying Sony A7 series cameras "because they have Zeiss lenses!" :)
Hey, post #1000. ;D
-Dave-
-
Hi,
This may be an interesting point. I got the impression that some folks buy Leica as a high resolution DSLR, an MFDB in a practical weather proof package. Some folks may like the user interface. Nothing wrong with that.
Regarding Zeiss lenses on Sony, I am not so sure about it. There is some collaboration between Zeiss and Sony for sure. The lenses are certified by Zeiss, but it seems they may have wide manufacturing tolerances.
That said , I have two ZA lenses, the 16-80/3.5-4.5 and the 24-70/2.8, both are OK, pretty good in the sweet spot and not so ugly outside. The sweet spot is decently large.
Looking at tests and MTF charts it is quite obvious that the 85/1.4 ZA is a very different lens from the Zeiss 85/1.4, good enough that I am considering to buy it. What I would buy immediately would be an 85/2 APO. I don't need 1/1.4 but I would appreciate an 85/2 lens usable at full aperture with no colour fringing on out of focus detail.
Best regards
Erik
Not sure why you've singled out rich Chinese enthusiasts…they may be more recent comers to the luxury goods party, but that party has been swingin' for a long time. Leica has of late positioned itself as a luxury brand, so the overall question becomes something like: Do luxury buyers care much about how capable CaNikon cameras are, and if so will this influence their buying? My suggested answer to both parts of this, having some familiarity with folks in this market segment, is: No, not much. Recently I've run across more such folk buying Sony A7 series cameras "because they have Zeiss lenses!" :)
Hey, post #1000. ;D
-Dave-
-
The best thing that may happen for Leica S bettering its sales further, ....is if more high resolution DSLRs will appear! ;)
-
After chatting with my local rep, they see the Leica S as more a rich enthusiast, and yet they don't even stock a S to H adapter so as they can rent out more of the H glass. I think that Leica will continue exist for years, without regard to what else is going on in the camerasphere.
The pros whom shoot it love it, the glass is amazing, and there isn't a technical reason not to use it. I would not be surprised if they were the first to a mirrorless MF system given their experience in the M line.
-
Interesting idea. The sensor design would make sense with a mirrorless design, allowing more compact lenses.
Best regards
Erik
The pros whom shoot it love it, the glass is amazing, and there isn't a technical reason not to use it. I would not be surprised if they were the first to a mirrorless MF system given their experience in the M line.
-
A mirrorless MF system (meaning an MF digital rangefinder) is a bad idea... MF is the only system the offers separate cameras and MFDBs... MFDBs are mirrorless by definition... What's the point of having an MF alternative to Sony A? ...Tech & modern view cameras are mirrorless, one can add an MFDB on them and have digital... What's the purpose of having an MF rangefinder? To have (even) better sharpness or more resolution? ...what's the point? ...IQ on current FF is already better than MF film rangefinders of the past and will improve further with time...
More resolution doesn't improve one's photography, nor does better sensors... photography has been proven to be offered nothing by better sensors over the past decade...
MF mirrorless... HA! ...new series of lenses, no price reduction, just for some (more) show-offs "playing" the photographer by using a new toy... No wonder why none (maker) wants to commit suicide by risking a new line of products (huge investment) just because some - that would never buy it - want it to exist... ;)
-
A mirrorless MF system (meaning an MF digital rangefinder) is a bad idea... MF is the only system the offers separate cameras and MFDBs... MFDBs are mirrorless by definition... What's the point of having an MF alternative to Sony A? ...Tech & modern view cameras are mirrorless, one can add an MFDB on them and have digital... What's the purpose of having an MF rangefinder? To have (even) better sharpness or more resolution? ...what's the point? ...IQ on current FF is already better than MF film rangefinders of the past and will improve further with time...
More resolution doesn't improve one's photography, nor does better sensors... photography has been proven to be offered nothing by better sensors over the past decade...
MF mirrorless... HA! ...new series of lenses, no price reduction, just for some (more) show-offs "playing" the photographer by using a new toy... No wonder why none (maker) wants to commit suicide by risking a new line of products (huge investment) just because some - that would never buy it - want it to exist... ;)
Theodoros,
Not sure why you think that (options) are a bad thing? There are many photographers who enjoy using an EVF, why would a high-end product from Leica(or anyone) be a "bad" idea?
I'm all for flexibility between systems, but if one is capable of running multiple systems simultaneously, why not?
Kinda like saying "I can drive a big 400hp pickup truck, because it's more flexible across multiple situations" when you only need a 3cyl hatchback to run down to the market because you're out of eggs ;)
The "truck" CAN be used for this, but I think we can both agree, it isn't always the ideal/proper "tool" for the job :)
-Dan
p.s. I'm a GX680 user/lover. I love the system (for) its flexibility, but I also use other, more "nimble" cameras when I do not want the bulk, or full capabilities of the larger system.
-
What's the difference for one using ELV now (say on an ALPA for example) or use it on other MF rangefinder? MF market has shrunk than 10 years ago to some 6-7000 units... what share can (another) rangefinder have? Who is the maker that will invest in developing a new camera with a series of new lenses and accessories just to make and sell a few hundred of cameras annually?
-
What's the difference for one using ELV now (say on an ALPA for example) or use it on other MF rangefinder? MF market has shrunk than 10 years ago to some 6-7000 units... what share can (another) rangefinder have? Who is the maker that will invest in developing a new camera with a series of new lenses and accessories just to make and sell a few hundred of cameras annually?
I'll try this - cost. Yes, you can do the Alpa, or a Cambo or an A series Phase, but it's designed around an existing MF back that folks aren't putting up to their face. The ideal that folks are looking for in a MF Rangefinder is like a Mamiya 7, or an oversized Leica M / Sony A styled body around a 33x44 50MP sensor for around $10k. Leveraging a legacy glass mount would please lots of folks, but as long as it can be adapted to, things would be fine.
-
On the subject of a medium format rangefinder.
I wouldn't play this down. There are plenty of people who would utilise such a thing if it was correctly implemented. I'm always looking to use lighter kit, especially as I advance in years. Factor in how far technology has come since 2005 and the possibility of a medium format rangefinder with a speedy refresh EVF and a global shutter could be 1, 3, 5 or 10 years away.
Near infinite flash sync speed and lightweight. Most wedding photographers would peak an interest at such a thing providing the AF was snappy and the lens choices were there.
-
Definitely less about the image sharpness and more about the image usability. A lot of the misconceptions floating around the amateur sites about the A-series were based off this. Medium format is not a great kickaround workflow, but if they could get a body sized like a Mamiya 7II that weighs that much, I think you'll get a lot of people pulled into the MFD discussion based on aesthetics, not IQ. I specifically think of all the adventure lifestyle guys like Chris Burkard that I'd love to show off MFD, but constantly talk about traveling light and shedding poundage on multi-day hikes.
-
The Point of a mirrorless MF would be fast and accurate Focus compared to todays techcams, and smaller size Body compared to todays SLR-MF-bodies.
-
The Leica S is a superb camera platform. It has a short Flange Focal Distance so basically all other medium format lenses can be adapted to work on the S. The body is not unnecessarily large in respect to it's sensor size (unlike the all other 6x6, 645 cameras when used for digital with the smaller sensors and even the APS-C 35mm based DSLRs) and feels great in hand. Also, The Leica S lenses are all superb being mostly recent designs for digital.
Yes, the Leica S sensor might not be state of the art when measurebators take a 100-200% look at it and test it to shreds but everything else about the camera is really nice. So yes, I understand if some people call it the case of a great camera / system looking for a sensor but the one it has is not useless, it's pretty good. Well see how the new sensor measures up.
Right now the only way to get the best overall sensor (specially for DR measurebators) and the best glass together with top notch functionality (screen quality, tethering, processing etc) is with one of the PhaseOne IQ250/150 and Leaf Credo 50 backs. And it's well known it ain't cheap.
-
As of today, LEICA is urged by its stakeholder Blackstone to have a new CEO:
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.manager-magazin.de%2Funternehmen%2Findustrie%2Fblackstone-macht-druck-leica-wechselt-chef-aus-a-1021417.html&edit-text=
-
Uheck,
What's your obsession with Leica doing badly? Seriously man, what?
Yeah, it would make sense that their camera sales numbers are pretty anemic since all of their core products are end-of-cycle and replacements are very slow in coming (as always). They also have a few bills to pay over Dr. K's new Leitzpark playground, which is gorgeous but a pretty questionable outlay of capital.
But there will Leica cameras being made long after you and I are in the ground. Of that you can be quite certain. Remember, just as there are rich people who collect Leicas, there are even richer people who would collect Leica, for fun.She's here to stay, as much as this may wrankle you.
- N.
-
Uheck,
What's your obsession with Leica doing badly? Seriously man, what?
....snip
- N.
Seriously
nothing.Otherwise I would´ve been more active in this discussion as you can see.
It´s just that they "milk the cow" until it breaks.At least in MF.They don´t innovate enough (bigger sensor jsut one exapmple).
That´s when Canon threw the white glove in and I was curious if the others felt the same as me.
-
Uheck,
What's your obsession with Leica doing badly? Seriously man, what?
Yeah, it would make sense that their camera sales numbers are pretty anemic since all of their core products are end-of-cycle and replacements are very slow in coming (as always). They also have a few bills to pay over Dr. K's new Leitzpark playground, which is gorgeous but a pretty questionable outlay of capital.
But there will Leica cameras being made long after you and I are in the ground. Of that you can be quite certain. Remember, just as there are rich people who collect Leicas, there are even richer people who would collect Leica, for fun.She's here to stay, as much as this may wrankle you.
- N.
Nick, Haters gonna Hate. There are quite a few people here who want to see PhaseOne, Hasselblad and Leica go down in a ball of fire. Mainly because of their pricing and business model. It is what it is. In most threads one has to weed through the hate and read between the lines and try to see through this. Get's tiring after a while.
-
Haters gonna Hate.
I've seen this type of thread since the start of forums.
What is (expensive pro camera) going to do now that (inexpensive prosumer camera) is announced?
Usually nothing because building a camera to assist in producing compelling professional imagery is more than tiny little 300% crops of what could go wrong, charts, graphs and apples to oranges comparisons.
In stills Lecia, Phase, Leaf and hasselblad make professional cameras. Some non pros appreciate them, some don't, but these cameras are produced to be solid and robust in a professional setting with excellent build quality and workflow.
My old P30+ is still relevant today with ever improving software, amazing tethering, never over the buffer shooting and a deep rich file that sings in post. How old is that camera and it goes to show how long real professional equipment can be useful.
Same with motion cameras Arri and RED.
The viewfinder on the new Arri Mini is $6,500. Arri loses no sleep over this because once again they make cameras for professional production and have a business model to reflect that.
Lecia . . . they're always compared to rich guys playing around, but I can promise you the S series is a professional tool and used with that purpose produces what is expected.
In reality a very good artist can produce a compelling project with just about any camera, but that in no way makes higher priced cameras less relevant.
I like professional gear. I can trust it to perform and am willing to do the extra work to get that 10% better look. (noticed I said look not tech specs).
I'll own the leica no matter if some less expensive maker comes out with a 200mpx camera.
I'll end this with the final thought of I've never understood the negativity that has developed through these type of conversations.
it seems more pervasive every day.
Why start a thread with a damaging negative? Why wish for a companies demise? It seems to me it's just a way to gain attention and smacks of gawker world.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I would say that the 5Ds would be a professional camera, too. At least a lot of professional photographers seem to have opted for the 5D models over the 1D models. You yourself say that the Panasonic GH3 you use serves your professional needs well, don't you?
Personally, I felt that the original S2 was quite attractive. But, times are changing. In my world it makes no much sense to make the best lenses if they are not paired with the best sensor. When the S2 was introduced the lens designers stated with some pride that the lenses were designed for at least twice the resolution. So, when the new 50 MP sensors arrived and Leica released another 37.5 MP sensor I felt the offering was quite less reasonable.
Personally, I print normally A2, occasionally up to 70x100cm. I feel that both 24MP and 39MP are perfectly OK for that A2 size. Still, printing larger I would think that more pixels would be beneficial. It is also very probable that Nikon and Sony will follow up with 50+ MP cameras. 24 MP on APS-C we had for long, and that would be 54 MP at full frame. Such a sensor may look less than optimal with mediocre lenses at actual pixels but may outperform larger pixels with excellent lenses when viewed at the same scale.
So, my take is that the Leica S2 was attractive compared to low end MFD, but I also feel that with the new sensors low end MFD made two-three steps forward. In that context I feel Leica is lagging behind.
Another way to see it, I felt that the Leica S2 was a reasonable choice if anyone wanted a high quality and weather proofed camera, but with the new CMOS offerings in MFD those benefits weight far less.
Another small observation is that I got a P45+ something like 20 months ago. I guess that I have done something like 40% of my shooting on that camera, but none of the images I shot with the P45+ made it to my small exhibition I have hanging right now. Hard to know why. Would I have taken images from where I live and not from travel the percentage would be different, I am pretty sure.
Best regards
Eik
I've seen this type of thread since the start of forums.
What is (expensive pro camera) going to do now that (inexpensive prosumer camera) is announced?
Usually nothing because building a camera to assist in producing compelling professional imagery is more than tiny little 300% crops of what could go wrong, charts, graphs and apples to oranges comparisons.
In stills Lecia, Phase, Leaf and hasselblad make professional cameras. Some non pros appreciate them, some don't, but these cameras are produced to be solid and robust in a professional setting with excellent build quality and workflow.
My old P30+ is still relevant today with ever improving software, amazing tethering, never over the buffer shooting and a deep rich file that sings in post. How old is that camera and it goes to show how long real professional equipment can be useful.
Same with motion cameras Arri and RED.
The viewfinder on the new Arri Mini is $6,500. Arri loses no sleep over this because once again they make cameras for professional production and have a business model to reflect that.
Lecia . . . they're always compared to rich guys playing around, but I can promise you the S series is a professional tool and used with that purpose produces what is expected.
In reality a very good artist can produce a compelling project with just about any camera, but that in no way makes higher priced cameras less relevant.
I like professional gear. I can trust it to perform and am willing to do the extra work to get that 10% better look. (noticed I said look not tech specs).
I'll own the leica no matter if some less expensive maker comes out with a 200mpx camera.
I'll end this with the final thought of I've never understood the negativity that has developed through these type of conversations.
it seems more pervasive every day.
Why start a thread with a damaging negative? Why wish for a companies demise? It seems to me it's just a way to gain attention and smacks of gawker world.
IMO
BC
-
I don't mean to dump unduly on the OP, because I do find discussions about the business side of photography interesting in their own right.
That said, it is interesting how mightily they have struggled to make their digital cameras work. As one of the smaller players in the field, it's instructive in terms of how this is truly a big-boys' game only. If you don't have billions, don't build digital cameras, seems to be the moral of the story.
I expect to see a lot of limited edition film "M"s in the years to come - easy way to pay the bills. And I don't begrudge them doing so for a second.
- N.
-
I use cameras to produced different work, genres, for different purposes than Erik does, see the world in a different way and make my entire income from image creation.
I respect the "right" that someone has a different viewpoint, uses equipment for different end results, even when it doesn't, or never will apply to me.
I still look listen and attempt to learn, though 300% moire crops really don't interest me, given the fact that I can find a flaw in an image from any session and if your post production skills are decent, it's usually an easy fix.
But I'm curious (I know I'll regret this line), but if I had a system that I used to show 300% crops of issues and didn't produce work with it that I wanted to present, then I think I'd make a change in my shooting style or equipment.
IMO
BC
P.S. I'm have no problem with the op's viewpoint, though do take issue with the title as I feel it serves no purpose, other than to draw attention in a negative way.
-
Hi,
I don't think that either me or "Torger" has shown 300% moiré crops, the ones I have shown are at 100%. Regarding Torger, he actually modified both shooting style and equipment. He bought a 50 MP CCD back for his technical camera and uses f/16 to suppress moiré and other artefacts.
Personally I am still shooting f/11 mostly, would I have live view I would use wider apertures more often. It is also one of the reasons I didn't jump on the A7r. Would that camera had an OLP filter and an electronic first curtains shutter, I may have jumped on it.
I am quite happy with the Hasselblad/P45+ I have. I see quite a bit more of that moiré stuff than I would like, but on most subjects it is not obvious.
Regarding the Leica S, it is quite a bit more expensive than what I would be willing to spend on a camera, but I feel that it would make more sense if the sensor resolution would be a better match the resolution of the lenses. Well, I feel I would get cleaner rendition with smaller pixels, some of the samples I posted indicate this quite clearly, and more pixels never hurt when printing large.
I hope that Sony makes a decent A-series camera with a new 50 (or so) MP-sensor. That camera can open some doors, like taking T&S lenses from Canon and some of the more interesting Zeiss lenses, I guess that is the direction my spending will go. But I guess I keep the Hasselblad with the P45+ and all the lenses.
Best regards
Erik
I use cameras to produced different work, genres, for different purposes than Erik does, see the world in a different way and make my entire income from image creation.
I respect the "right" that someone has a different viewpoint, uses equipment for different end results, even when it doesn't, or never will apply to me.
I still look listen and attempt to learn, though 300% moire crops really don't interest me, given the fact that I can find a flaw in an image from any session and if your post production skills are decent, it's usually an easy fix.
But I'm curious (I know I'll regret this line), but if I had a system that I used to show 300% crops of issues and didn't produce work with it that I wanted to present, then I think I'd make a change in my shooting style or equipment.
IMO
BC
P.S. I'm have no problem with the op's viewpoint, though do take issue with the title as I feel it serves no purpose, other than to draw attention in a negative way.
-
That's when Canon threw the white glove in and I was curious if the others felt the same as me.
As has been observed before in this thread, Leica's primarily target market is different than Canon's. Different worlds really. There may be some overlap if the new Canon models perform well, but there won't be much.
As a small company Leica is more exposed to the short-term ups & downs of (potential) customer interest than big companies like Canon and even mid-sized ones like Nikon. Sounds to me like Blackstone is getting a bit antsy about this. It's the foolish gimme results now! venture capital mindset.
-Dave-
-
since this is turning into a general Leica strategy dicussion-
once again:
I was not talking about Leica in general.The topic is labeled "bad times for Leica S", a.k.a.
there´s a good chance that the MF "arm" gets severly affected, and that is my guess.
What happened to Hasselblad (didn´t innovate enough, too many owner changes, held on to the Kodak CCD sensor too long etc.)
might very well now happen to Leica.
On top of that we now have a margin challenge due to the fact of having Blackstone, a fierce private equity player, on board.
Erik nails the technical aspect here.
Hi,
I would say that the 5Ds would be a professional camera, too. At least a lot of professional photographers seem to have opted for the 5D models over the 1D models. You yourself say that the Panasonic GH3 you use serves your professional needs well, don't you?
Personally, I felt that the original S2 was quite attractive. But, times are changing. In my world it makes no much sense to make the best lenses if they are not paired with the best sensor. When the S2 was introduced the lens designers stated with some pride that the lenses were designed for at least twice the resolution. So, when the new 50 MP sensors arrived and Leica released another 37.5 MP sensor I felt the offering was quite less reasonable.
Personally, I print normally A2, occasionally up to 70x100cm. I feel that both 24MP and 39MP are perfectly OK for that A2 size. Still, printing larger I would think that more pixels would be beneficial. It is also very probable that Nikon and Sony will follow up with 50+ MP cameras. 24 MP on APS-C we had for long, and that would be 54 MP at full frame. Such a sensor may look less than optimal with mediocre lenses at actual pixels but may outperform larger pixels with excellent lenses when viewed at the same scale.
So, my take is that the Leica S2 was attractive compared to low end MFD, but I also feel that with the new sensors low end MFD made two-three steps forward. In that context I feel Leica is lagging behind.
Another way to see it, I felt that the Leica S2 was a reasonable choice if anyone wanted a high quality and weather proofed camera, but with the new CMOS offerings in MFD those benefits weight far less.
Another small observation is that I got a P45+ something like 20 months ago. I guess that I have done something like 40% of my shooting on that camera, but none of the images I shot with the P45+ made it to my small exhibition I have hanging right now. Hard to know why. Would I have taken images from where I live and not from travel the percentage would be different, I am pretty sure.
Best regards
Eik
And lastly: I´m not a "Leica hater" at all, otherwise I wouldn´t use an "S".
Maybe You saw my other thread where I suggested CANON fires one of their PR/strategy managers....
-
And lastly: I´m not a "Leica hater" at all, otherwise I wouldn´t use an "S".
I don't get this...
Weren't you looking for a Leica S in these forums perhaps 6 months ago... ?
And then you bought a used one with a 37.5 CCD sensor...
And then you started moaning about the ISO performance and the fact that it is not an 80 MP, obviously knowing all of this when you bought into the system...
I quite frankly have no idea what your intention is with this thread other than you seem to want to put Leica in a negative light and draw attention to yourself...
-
I don't get this...
Weren't you looking for a Leica S in these forums perhaps 6 months ago... ?
And then you bought a used one with a 37.5 CCD sensor...
And then you started moaning about the ISO performance and the fact that it is not an 80 MP, obviously knowing all of this when you bought into the system...
I quite frankly have no idea what your intention is with this thread other than you seem to want to put Leica in a negative light and draw attention to yourself...
Interesting.
I speculate about a camera makers strategy, and You begin to attack me...
Nice1.
-
Interesting.
I speculate about a camera makers strategy, and You begin to attack me...
Nice1.
Hardly a personal attack at all...
You only very recently bought an S2 on the cheap knowing that it is only 37.5 MP and knowing its high ISO limitations.
And then start crying about that in social media, saying that it doesn't cut it anymore, casting doom scenarios and doubt about the company's future, etc...
What the heck dude! Do you really expect anybody to take that seriously? Enough said.
-
Geez, this thread, which should never have been born in the first place, is dying a slow, painful death.
FWIW, I've been working with my S2 now for two years and I'm very content. I'm not worried about FF competition.
-
Yeah, me too. I use the S system as a pro shooting interior/exterior arch exclusively. Couldn't be happier with the S system for the last two years. Have used lots of systems - over the past 15 years using (digital) Nikons, Canons along with Hasselblads , and before that, myriad 4x5's. They were all fine actually, at the time, but for me now, the tool of choice is the S hands down. Look, I'm in not one to be constantly questing the next bleeding edge of digital chip development, nor do I need ever more mp or DR. Rather, for me it's much more about the lenses, as it was in the view camera days, and the "look" of the file created. So, I prefer this camera that for me reliably delivers superb, malleable MF raw files - if needed, rapidly - with a rock solid weatherproof system, that never crashes tethered, and has great, fast professional support when needed. The camera is a great tool.
Richard
-
Yeah, me too. I use the S system as a pro shooting interior/exterior arch exclusively. Couldn't be happier with the S system for the last two years. Have used lots of systems - over the past 15 years using (digital) Nikons, Canons along with Hasselblads , and before that, myriad 4x5's. They were all fine actually, at the time, but for me now, the tool of choice is the S hands down. Look, I'm in not one to be constantly questing the next bleeding edge of digital chip development, nor do I need ever more mp or DR. Rather, for me it's much more about the lenses, as it was in the view camera days, and the "look" of the file created. So, I prefer this camera that for me reliably delivers superb, malleable MF raw files - if needed, rapidly - with a rock solid weatherproof system, that never crashes tethered, and has great, fast professional support when needed. The camera is a great tool.
Richard
This is, in my opinion, what really differentiates Leica from Canon, Canon from Sony, Sony from whomever. Quality is not the only factor that can be used to evaluate gear (nor can price.) Otherwise we'd all be shooting with X digital back and nothing else. But even then, how do you define quality? Is it the image color accuracy? Moire suppression? Does the back crash when tethered?
Canon's coming out with something that has a similar resolution to the established medium format game, but offers different ergonomics and handling than many of the other options out there. Similar to that, the Leica S2 did the same thing when it was released as compared to the DF/Hasselblad/Contax options. Some people may simply need the resolution but also need the FPS. Their choice is pretty easy for Canon, whereas others could care less about the FPS abut need the widest dynamic range possible.
Having options is never a bad thing. Hell, it may force established players to innovate in order to regain/add new customers. The horror! :D