Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 07, 2019, 04:49:11 pm
Am I the only one to find it very appealing?
I may just cancel my long standing Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF and reallocate that cash for the Leica. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: John Camp on March 07, 2019, 06:24:17 pm
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on March 08, 2019, 02:45:13 am
The Leica Q2 has been announced.
Am I the only one to find it very appealing?
I may just cancel my long standing Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF and reallocate that cash for the Leica. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Shot with Leica a few times in the days of film but never really clicked with them, excuse the pun. I just cannot see them as serious tools for my commercial work and that’s true now as well.
But this camera looks really wonderful. I could see it becoming my companion. It’s that type of camera.
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on March 08, 2019, 04:25:01 am
The good news is that for 28mm FOV, the new Ricoh GR3, with image stabilization, is much more affordable:)
But I think I prefer 35mm as a single lens camera, and for that, the new Zeiss ZX1 is sure appealing too!
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on March 08, 2019, 07:26:01 am
But I think I prefer 35mm as a single lens camera, and for that, the new Zeiss ZX1 is sure appealing too!I just took a look at this and it's pretty interesting. It has LR built in so you can do some editing with the camera with 512 GB of internal storage (6800 RAW images). 37.4 mp sensor. I wonder what the price point of this relative to the Leica.
Post by: vjbelle on March 08, 2019, 07:31:45 am
Victor
Post by: Paul2660 on March 08, 2019, 03:48:59 pm
Interesting camera. Fixed 28mm too limiting
Paul C
Post by: Christopher on March 08, 2019, 04:29:10 pm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Telecaster on March 08, 2019, 04:44:59 pm
-Dave-
Post by: BAB on March 08, 2019, 05:27:33 pm
Also no engineering for a slick willy tilt swing screen am I the only one who sometimes used that?
The EVF is not state of art besides those niggles I think it should be a great camera for snapshots.
Post by: faberryman on March 08, 2019, 05:30:01 pm
Just wondering if anyone knows why the buffer is so small from what I understand it only will capture 11 raws before bogging down.Why good for "snapshots"? A 47MP camera with a Leica lens ought to be good for something more than "snapshots". What, for example, are you using for your serious work?
Also no engineering for a slick willy tilt swing screen am I the only one who sometimes used that?
The EVF is not state of art besides those niggles I think it should be a great camera for snapshots.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 08, 2019, 07:07:09 pm
The EVF is not state of art besides those niggles I think it should be a great camera for snapshots.
Well, it is probably going to deliver a level of image quality close to 4x5, but yes, great snapshots. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: JV on March 08, 2019, 09:08:36 pm
I also have the SL and CL and I used to have the original Q but sold it because I was using the other cameras more.
The higher resolution and the weather sealing are a plus, also for travel the fact that it uses the same battery now as the SL is very interesting.
Post by: hogloff on March 09, 2019, 08:34:31 am
Well, it is probably going to deliver a level of image quality close to 4x5, but yes, great snapshots. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Same lens as the Q1 so that will limits the image quality...especially near edges and corners.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 09, 2019, 09:12:32 am
Same lens as the Q1 so that will limits the image quality...especially near edges and corners.
Yes, same lens as Q1, but it is outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: hasselbladfan on March 09, 2019, 11:25:47 am
That will allow everyone to fit the lens they like.
I bet my money on the SL2. The prime SL Summicron lenses (35-50-75-90) are razor sharp. And I can also use my old Leica glass (R & M). 8)
Post by: hogloff on March 09, 2019, 11:30:36 am
Yes, same lens as Q1, but it is outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
Never owned it, but from what I read it seems the 28mm lens does not quite fill a full frame sensor and some magical software needs to be applied to use the full sensor size...thus making the image not so good on the edges. Also lens distortion is corrected, again degrading the edges.
Post by: Telecaster on March 09, 2019, 04:48:09 pm
Never owned it, but from what I read it seems the 28mm lens does not quite fill a full frame sensor and some magical software needs to be applied to use the full sensor size...thus making the image not so good on the edges. Also lens distortion is corrected, again degrading the edges.
Made a total hash of my initial reply, so let's try again.
The Q's lens was designed with software correction in mind. Its actual focal length is likely a bit wider than 28mm in order for the corrections to be applied without cutting into the field-of-view people expect from a 28mm lens. The software corrections for distortion allow for a more compact lens design, in keeping with the rest of the camera.
-Dave-
Post by: hogloff on March 09, 2019, 05:39:24 pm
Made a total hash of my initial reply, so let's try again.
The Q's lens was designed with software correction in mind. Its actual focal length is likely a bit wider than 28mm in order for the corrections to be applied without cutting into the field-of-view people expect from a 28mm lens. The software corrections for distortion allow for a more compact lens design, in keeping with the rest of the camera.
-Dave-
How does this image manipulation affect overall image quality? Seems people feel the edges of the images are compromised.
Post by: SrMi on March 10, 2019, 12:19:13 am
How does this image manipulation affect overall image quality? Seems people feel the edges of the images are compromised.
Sean Reid (reidreviews.com) wrote a detailed review of the camera and the lens. His site is subscription only but is very well worth it.
Post by: Kirk_C on March 10, 2019, 06:25:41 pm
Quote from: hasselbladfan link=topic=129442.msg1099223#msg1099223 date=1552148747
I bet my money on the SL2.
[/quote
I bet my money on the SL2.
[/quote
I'm waiting on the SL2 before buying my next Leica. I think we've seen the evolution of the M go as far as it will go for the next couple of years and the Q2 is just too odd IMHO. For a company predicated on outstanding optical design to rely on software to make this lens work with the new (sort of new) sensor seems wrong somehow.Sean Reid (reidreviews.com) wrote a detailed review of the camera and the lens. His site is subscription only but is very well worth it.
I subscribed a few years back but found I could get just as much information in this forum and from a wider range of users perspective.
Post by: armand on March 11, 2019, 10:36:32 am
What do you think this camera offers than a Ricoh GR for 28 mm doesn't or a Fuji X100 for 35 mm for 5x times the cost? Or a Fuji X-E3 with many lenses.
Move to a Sony and the size is not far behind either and you have the full frame and tons of pixels too for still less cost and more versatility.
Post by: Telecaster on March 11, 2019, 04:54:15 pm
How does this image manipulation affect overall image quality? Seems people feel the edges of the images are compromised.
I'm sure the software correction has some effect on corner image quality. But so too do the geometrical distortions of most lenses that do all the correction work optically. I suppose Leica could've gone with the Zeiss Otus strategy: give the lens a huge image circle and push the corner/edge issues out of the 24x36mm frame. But then the lens would've been a lot bigger. They had to give a bit on something…
-Dave-
Post by: Telecaster on March 11, 2019, 05:05:24 pm
Genuine question as I'm a little at loss about the excitement regarding this camera.
What do you think this camera offers than a Ricoh GR for 28 mm doesn't or a Fuji X100 for 35 mm for 5x times the cost? Or a Fuji X-E3 with many lenses.
Move to a Sony and the size is not far behind either and you have the full frame and tons of pixels too for still less cost and more versatility.
The Q2 doesn't offer much of anything extra in technical terms than those other cameras besides higher resolution. But Leica's target audience is people who value the whole Leica prestige thing and who also want a piece of gear that performs. It's probably the only market niche they can sustainably occupy.
-Dave-
Post by: adriantyler on March 12, 2019, 03:05:09 am
- I found 42 megapixels needed near perfect technique (not something I wanted to do on a P&S)
- Less DOF
Basically, IMO, I didn't want to use a tripod or fast shutter speeds or have to stop down to get DOF on a camera that is designed to be P&S.
That said, I love the Q1 and 28mm is perfect for my hand held work. But I don't think I'll be upgrading, unless they bring out a native 50mm version.
Post by: vjbelle on March 12, 2019, 03:47:31 pm
Genuine question as I'm a little at loss about the excitement regarding this camera.
What do you think this camera offers than a Ricoh GR for 28 mm doesn't or a Fuji X100 for 35 mm for 5x times the cost? Or a Fuji X-E3 with many lenses.
Move to a Sony and the size is not far behind either and you have the full frame and tons of pixels too for still less cost and more versatility.
+1
Victor
Post by: SrMi on March 13, 2019, 12:33:19 pm
The Q2 doesn't offer much of anything extra in technical terms than those other cameras besides higher resolution. But Leica's target audience is people who value the whole Leica prestige thing and who also want a piece of gear that performs. It's probably the only market niche they can sustainably occupy.
-Dave-
It will be a sad day when cameras and lenses are judged by their technical data only.
Post by: JaapD on March 14, 2019, 01:28:58 am
This is another dentist camera. No offence to dentists in any way…..
Regards,
Jaap.
Post by: Chairman Bill on March 14, 2019, 05:28:27 am
Post by: scooby70 on March 14, 2019, 05:41:59 am
I upgraded from the original RX1 to the RX1RII and I regretted it. Two reasons:
- I found 42 megapixels needed near perfect technique (not something I wanted to do on a P&S)
- Less DOF
Basically, IMO, I didn't want to use a tripod or fast shutter speeds or have to stop down to get DOF on a camera that is designed to be P&S.
That said, I love the Q1 and 28mm is perfect for my hand held work. But I don't think I'll be upgrading, unless they bring out a native 50mm version.
I'm baffled by all of this.
42mp will only reveal issues with things like focus and camera or subject movement that the lower mp kit hides if you view at high magnification. Downsize the 42mp pictures to match whatever lower mp kit you're using and the issues should be equally well hidden. Surely?
Post by: scooby70 on March 14, 2019, 05:48:46 am
Yeah, right. It should be valued by the presence of the red dot containing the brand name <not>
This is another dentist camera. No offence to dentists in any way…..
Regards,
Jaap.
I'm not so sure and in fact I think I disagree :D because the Leica is a capable camera with a good AF system and a good lens. If anyone wants a quality FF 28mm fixed lens camera this surely makes a lot of sense. Personally I much prefer 35mm and would rather have my A7 with 35mm f2.8 (there is no compact 35mm f1.8 yet but I also have a manual 35mm f1.4) simply because I use other focal lengths and would rather change lenses than rely on cropping.
There's the price of course... that puts me off as does the fear of getting sensor contamination with a fixed lens camera. I know that contamination is (presumably) much less likely and maybe it's an irrational fear but it's there for me.
Good luck to anyone who buys though.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 14, 2019, 07:58:32 am
I'm baffled by all of this.
42mp will only reveal issues with things like focus and camera or subject movement that the lower mp kit hides if you view at high magnification. Downsize the 42mp pictures to match whatever lower mp kit you're using and the issues should be equally well hidden. Surely?
Agreed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: adriantyler on March 14, 2019, 10:07:42 am
I'm baffled by all of this.
42mp will only reveal issues with things like focus and camera or subject movement that the lower mp kit hides if you view at high magnification. Downsize the 42mp pictures to match whatever lower mp kit you're using and the issues should be equally well hidden. Surely?
makes sense. i take it's the DOF is the same too?
Post by: williamrohr2 on March 14, 2019, 07:00:20 pm
Post by: SrMi on March 15, 2019, 12:22:57 am
Why the 28mm? The M6 I had a long time ago was one of the most enjoyable cameras I have ever owned. I looked back through my files and even though I had all the available focal lengths over 80% of my shots were with either the 50mm or 35mm lenses. I realize everyone's styles of shooting are different but I was traveling extensively and carried it to do street photography ... and almost never used the 28. People didn't like it when they saw how they looked with the 28mm ... always did when I used the 50mm. The 35mm. was the go-to for general street scenes and was always wide enough even in the narrow streets of old European cities. P.S. Only sold the kit when I made the mistake of trading for the M7 which was never as good ... and then the lens coding business is when I had enough and said goodbye to Leica. One gal's opinion.
iPhones have a camera lens that corresponds to the 26mm full frame lens. Discuss.
Post by: armand on March 15, 2019, 01:35:24 am
iPhones have a camera lens that corresponds to the 26mm full frame lens. Discuss.
Google Pixel 3 has 28mmm equiv.
Post by: hogloff on March 15, 2019, 08:58:10 am
iPhones have a camera lens that corresponds to the 26mm full frame lens. Discuss.
A wider view gives the user more flexibility to capture wide landscape scenes and then use pinch zoom to narrow the view when needed. I've seen phone users constantly using pinch zoom to adjust their focal length.
I believe people that buy a $5,000 camera most likely don't want to "pinch zoom" to their desired focal length but rather have the camera default to that. Many prefer, including myself, that default to be 35mm as I find at 28mm people images start looking too distorted.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on March 15, 2019, 09:14:09 am
Post by: Telecaster on March 15, 2019, 03:44:53 pm
Why the 28mm? The M6 I had a long time ago was one of the most enjoyable cameras I have ever owned. I looked back through my files and even though I had all the available focal lengths over 80% of my shots were with either the 50mm or 35mm lenses. I realize everyone's styles of shooting are different but I was traveling extensively and carried it to do street photography ... and almost never used the 28. People didn't like it when they saw how they looked with the 28mm ... always did when I used the 50mm. The 35mm. was the go-to for general street scenes and was always wide enough even in the narrow streets of old European cities. P.S. Only sold the kit when I made the mistake of trading for the M7 which was never as good ... and then the lens coding business is when I had enough and said goodbye to Leica. One gal's opinion.
I think the Q(2)'s target customers tend not to use 28mm lenses on their M camera(s) 'cuz they can't see the 28mm framelines in the viewfinder (due to wearing glasses) and don't like using external VFs, yet do like the 28mm's wider-than-35mm coverage for urban travel & rural scenics. It's a niche-within-a-niche market, yet large enough (to a small, niche company like Leica) to be worth servicing.
-Dave-
Post by: armand on March 15, 2019, 04:34:01 pm
Much rather have a 35mm than any other focal length if I have to choose one fixed lens.
...
I believe people that buy a $5,000 camera most likely don't want to "pinch zoom" to their desired focal length but rather have the camera default to that. Many prefer, including myself, that default to be 35mm as I find at 28mm people images start looking too distorted.
There is a Fuji X100F for you for 1/4 price, smaller size and with a hybrid viewfinder. Too bad it's not weather sealed, maybe next generation.
Post by: hogloff on March 15, 2019, 07:11:41 pm
There is a Fuji X100F for you for 1/4 price, smaller size and with a hybrid viewfinder. Too bad it's not weather sealed, maybe next generation.
I have the original X100... Sits on my shelf with little use. I can take my A7r / A7R2 with both a 35 2.8 and 28 2.0 and it provides way more flexibility. Typically my travel kit is 25mm, 35mm and 85mm along with the A7R2 and at a price likely less than the Q2. Much more flexibility...and I bet no one can tell the difference in prints from the Leica and A7R2.
Post by: faberryman on March 17, 2019, 01:12:29 pm
Much more flexibility...and I bet no one can tell the difference in prints from the Leica and A7R2.The Leica comes with a better menus tax.
Post by: armand on March 17, 2019, 02:08:14 pm
I have the original X100... Sits on my shelf with little use. I can take my A7r / A7R2 with both a 35 2.8 and 28 2.0 and it provides way more flexibility. Typically my travel kit is 25mm, 35mm and 85mm along with the A7R2 and at a price likely less than the Q2. Much more flexibility...and I bet no one can tell the difference in prints from the Leica and A7R2.
I was tempted several times to get a version of X100 but knowing my old X-E1 is almost the same size, particularly with a slightly longer 27 F2.8 (42 equiv), made it difficult to justify. Newer phones getting better doesn't help either. Still, the simplicity is tempting.
To make the case for Leica though I find it even more difficult because of options that offer most things that Leica offers on paper while being much cheaper.
Post by: BJL on March 19, 2019, 07:06:03 am
iPhones have a camera lens that corresponds to the 26mm full frame lens. Discuss.There is a trend—due to sensors with far more resolution than most “display intents” need—for single focal length cameras to go wider, relying a bit more on cropping options. The Q2 offers framelines for a 30MP crop to “35mm equivalent FOV”, and a 1.5X crop emulates an 21MP APS-C sized sensor at “normal” FOV, like 42mm in 36x24mm format.
Not that this matters for me; I’d never pay even $1000 for a single focal length camera—even if it also made phone calls!
Post by: KLaban on March 20, 2019, 06:43:04 am
Post by: Dan Wells on March 21, 2019, 02:05:12 pm
There are rumors around that Panasonic may slap a Leica label on the high-end FF gear - which might come with Leica no longer developing the SL series?
Post by: KLaban on March 21, 2019, 02:54:52 pm
Would the Panasonic S1R meet your expectations for a SL2? Different user interface, but otherwise seems to do what you say...
There are rumors around that Panasonic may slap a Leica label on the high-end FF gear - which might come with Leica no longer developing the SL series?
They are different beasts. The S1R is too large and heavy for my needs and as far as I know is not optimised for M lenses.
I understand the SL2 is in development and doubt Leica would enter into the alliance only to cede the camera to Panasonic. Time will tell.
Post by: faberryman on March 21, 2019, 03:58:28 pm
There are rumors around that Panasonic may slap a Leica label on the high-end FF gear - which might come with Leica no longer developing the SL series?I think the market would be small for a rebadged SR1. Leica is going to have to actually do something.
Post by: Christopher on March 21, 2019, 04:46:42 pm
I think the market would be small for a rebadged SR1. Leica is going to have to actually do something.
Well at the end the sl2 is a rebadged sr1.. different design, but the sensor will probably be exactly the same...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KLaban on March 21, 2019, 04:54:11 pm
Well at the end the sl2 is a rebadged sr1.. different design, but the sensor will probably be exactly the same...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You must be the first to have seen the SL2 and have the specifications.
Post by: Christopher on March 21, 2019, 05:24:06 pm
It makes perfect sense to develop something on their own for one specific camera, especially because it means you can spend even more money on development instead of using something devolved my a partner company.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KLaban on March 21, 2019, 06:21:48 pm
Perhaps I have, but it doesn’t really matter. Leica will surely have a Second completely different sensor for the sl2... and why shouldn’t they?
It makes perfect sense to develop something on their own for one specific camera, especially because it means you can spend even more money on development instead of using something devolved my a partner company.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Manufacturers use essentially the same sensor in very different cameras.
Post by: BJL on March 21, 2019, 06:30:54 pm
Manufacturers use essentially the same sensor in very different cameras.Indeed: as surely as film SLRs using the same "sensors" (36x24mm frames of film) varied greatly in price and performance.
Post by: Dan Wells on March 21, 2019, 09:27:42 pm
Canon and Sony build sensors (technically, Sony Imaging buys them from the related Sony Semiconductor).
Nikon buys (usually) Sony sensors, but has enough volume to order at least semi-custom chips.
Fuji buys Sony sensors, sometimes with custom color filters (the X-Trans is a catalog model Sony sensor with a unique filter - not sure whether Sony or Fuji applies the filter). Fuji medium format sensors are catalog Sony chips with standard filtration.
Pentax, Phase One and Hasselblad buy stock Sony sensors from the catalog.
Panasonic and Olympus buy Micro 4/3 sensors from somewhere (Sony? TowerJazz?). If the 20 MP Micro 4/3 sensor is a Sony, it's a couple of generations behind the current models - no BSI, no copper wiring, etc.
Panasonic and Leica buy TowerJazz (?, but the high resolution sensor is from not Sony) sensors for the L-mount
Post by: BJL on March 21, 2019, 10:50:21 pm
Leica doesn't have the volume to get custom sensors (why they buy from TowerJazz(?) instead of Sony is a mystery to me).I am not sure at that: the 45x30mm sensors for the "R" bodies (one CCD, then two CMOS models) are custom designs to a degree, but maybe based on a standard design for the individual photosites. And I have read that the same has been true for various sensors used in digital M models. What Leica lacks in volume it can sometimes make up for with its ability to pass the higher price of custom sensors onto its customers!
Also, does anyone know the status of Panasonic's plan of getting back into the sensor business? It was producing and even selling its own "Live MOS" sensors for a while, then withdrew for that sector and then indicated that it was getting back into sensor making.
Post by: Dan Wells on March 22, 2019, 11:58:25 am
The very best current sensors seem to be bumping up against the limits of conventional sensor design (if we define conventional as 14 bit Bayer (or X-Trsns, which is a variant of Bayer) sensors using standard materials).
The low-hanging fruit may be getting more dynamic range by moving to a 16-bit readout while improving noise/photosite capacity farther. The best current sensors have meaningful information in all 14 bits, so more information would need more readout bits. A few medium format sensors (and a RED sensor or two?) already use 16-bit readouts.
You can't go too much farther with resolution before getting bitten both by diffraction and reduced photosite capacity (a 60ish MP 24x36mm sensor should work - both APS-C and medium format sensors are at that density and working well). The 20 mp Micro 4/3 sensor is a comparatively weak performer - perhaps because it's too dense (that would be about 36 MP APS-C, 80 MP 24x36mm).
Organic materials may offer more photosite capacity, allowing more DR at the same photosite sizes, (needs 16-bit readout), smaller photosites without sacrificing DR (watch out for diffraction), or both.
Multi-layer sensors could offer interesting improvements, especially in color rendering. So far, Bayer and X-Trans sensors have been able to beat any multi-layer sensor for most images, simply by offering enough more resolution and DR that they capture most or all of the color information that the multi-layer sensor gets while also getting much more luminance and spatial resolution. The latest multi-layer sensor that has been announced is Sigma's L-mount 20 MPx3 design (next year). It will offer 20 MP each of red, green and blue - but only 20 MP of spatial resolution. It will probably lag the best of the competition in DR - Foveons always have. A 45 MP Bayer sensor actually offers more green resolution than the Foveon (22+ MP), which the eye is most sensitive to, while lagging in red and blue. However, it offers more than twice the spatial resolution and a couple extra stops of DR. A 45 MPx3 Foveon would almost certainly outperform 45 MP Bayer (substantially), especially if the DR was the same. However, the Foveon process has never been at a stage where it offers similar spatisl resolutions.
Post by: faberryman on March 22, 2019, 12:30:03 pm
You can't go too much farther with resolution before getting bitten both by diffraction and reduced photosite capacity (a 60ish MP 24x36mm sensor should work - both APS-C and medium format sensors are at that density and working well).If you take a 24 x 36 section out of the 40.4 x 53.7 IQ4150 sensor, you get 60MP for full frame. That should be the next jump for Sony.
Post by: Telecaster on March 22, 2019, 03:41:55 pm
My interest in sensor tech at this point is about finer tonal gradation. Don't care about more spatial detail for its own sake. It's generally IMO a Good Thing, though, if sensors outresolve lenses.
-Dave-
Post by: BJL on March 22, 2019, 06:30:08 pm
The low-hanging fruit may be getting more dynamic range by moving to a 16-bit readout while improving noise/photosite capacity farther. The best current sensors have meaningful information in all 14 bits, so more information would need more readout bits. A few medium format sensors (and a RED sensor or two?) already use 16-bit readouts.That 16 bits might be about as fas as it needs to go; that is enough to count 65,536 photons exactly, which is about enough to cover full well capacity of current good sensors, so enough even if read noise is completely eliminated. If anything the FWC is likely to go down rather than up as resolution increases, and it might be that the way forward is more 14-bit pixels (or even many more 12-bit ones). Most images are well handled by a 14-stop DR, and the extreme cases that need more can be handled by dithering/downsampling/binning to improve the output dynamic range. That also allow more parallelism in ADC, for a possible frame-rate advantage.
You can't go too much farther with resolution before getting bitten both by diffraction and reduced photosite capacity (a 60ish MP 24x36mm sensor should work - both APS-C and medium format sensors are at that density and working well). The 20 mp Micro 4/3 sensor is a comparatively weak performer - perhaps because it's too dense (that would be about 36 MP APS-C, 80 MP 24x36mm).Neither diffraction nor "per pixel dynamic range" are really the impediments that they are sometimes made out to be:
- At worst, diffraction means that the full resolution increase benefit will only be achieved at lower f-stops, while at higher f-stops, the gain will be less or even negligible, but resolution will never be worse than at a lower pixel count. That will only fail when the f-stops that gives a worthwhile resolution benefit are so low that lens aberrations become a significant impediment, and we are nowhere near that level yet — not even in phone-cameras!
- Per pixel DR is an unfair and somewhat irrelevant measure when comparing different pixel counts. For one thing, downsampling (or on-sensor binning) to a lower pixel count improves the per pixel DR, and once read noise is low enough, the result comes close to recovering the per pixel DR than one would get with fewer, large photo-sites. As an extreme case note that the "photo-sites" of traditional film (silver halide crystals) are 1 bit; either exposed or not. All tonal gradations, dynamic range and such come from the dithering of many billions of such 1-bit signals.
Post by: Dan Wells on March 23, 2019, 02:50:17 pm
Also note that the f1.8 aperture is not what it seems, due to the tiny sensor. The aperture equivalent on a full frame camera is above f8, closer to f11.
An iPhone (or any other phone that isn't too thick for most people to want) is basically a 3-4 MP (those lenses aren't perfect, so you don't reach the 6 MP diffraction limit) f8-f11 wide angle camera with around 7 stops of DR. Other than the enormous amount of post-processing the phones do, it's almost exactly equivalent to a very early DSLR like a Canon EOS-D30 from 2001 (with a lens that is wider, but dimmer than anything one could economically fit to a D30 at the time).
The only practical way to build a phone camera better than that (not "get a more pleasing image through automatic post-processing", but "collect more real data") without making the darn phone thicker would be to use multiple cameras and merge the images. Light tried to do that, and the first generation wasn't great, but someone may get there.
Until then, the laws of physics keep phone cameras stuck right around the image collection capabilities of 20 year old DSLRs, although with incredible post-processing.
Post by: BJL on March 23, 2019, 03:27:17 pm
Anyway, in the main realm of our discussion, we are not close to diffraction limiting the resolution available with good lenses at their largest “good” apertures, which are no longer limited by the old rule of thumb about “two stops down from wide open”.
Post by: Dan Wells on March 23, 2019, 05:04:37 pm
By that calculation, only a few lenses are diffraction-limited wide open with the sensors they are most commonly used with. Many compact superzooms are diffraction-limited, with perhaps the most egregious example being the Nikon Coolpix P1000 (1.4 micron pixels and an f8 lens!). A few inexpensive Micro 4/3 lenses may be diffraction-limited wide-open on the 20 MP sensor (there are several with f6.3 maximum apertures on the telephoto end). You might see diffraction wide-open on an APS-C or high-resolution full-frame DSLR with certain lens/teleconverter combinations, but not with any lens used alone.
I've seen visible evidence of diffraction (in tests, not so much in my own images) wider than that by a stop or so. Absent diffraction, a lens would tend to sharpen up as it gets stopped down, no? Most lenses on 40+ MP full-frame cameras are clearly sharpest at f5.6, beginning to soften by f8 - really high performance lenses are equally sharp from some wider aperture to f5.6, but they too soften a bit at f8. The softening at f8 doesn't show up on 24 MP FF cameras, but it does on 24 MP APS-C.
Post by: BJL on March 23, 2019, 06:33:08 pm
By BJL's formula (which is more optimistic than many I've seen), a phone sensor will be diffraction-limited around f2-f2.8 (pixels ranging from 1 to 1.4 microns), with most compact cameras (other than large-sensor compacts) limited around f4. Micro 4/3 and large-sensor compacts will be limited somewhere around f5.6-f8, with their 3-4 micron pixels. Larger sensor DSLR/mirrorless cameras will reach their limit between f8 and f11.That sounds about right, and good lenses for any of those ILC formats are available and comfortably usable at those f-stop limits.
Also, remember that diffraction effects scale in a way that imposes the same limit on image resolution (lp/ph at 50% MTF or whatever) at the same DOF (viewing same sized images from the same distance). For example, the f-stop giving "40MP" resolution in 4/3" is about half that giving the same 40MP in 36x24mm (maybe f/4 vs f/8) and both give equal DOF once one allows for the larger format using twice the focal length and half the degree of enlargement (along with four times the ISO speed if one needs equal shutter speed!)
So let's not make the mistake that the smaller formats are hampered in DOF by those lower limits on "f-stop giving full resolution".
BTW, for the 40MP high res. mode of the OM-D E-M5 Mk II and 50MP high res. mode of the OM-D E-M1 Mk II, Olympus limits aperture to f/8, presumably as its estimate of where diffraction limits start hurting.