24MP vs. 42MP and IS effects

justpix

justpix

Messages
13,494
Name
Immo
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, many of us might wonder at times what a new camera with a higher res sensor might mean for IQ to them.

Leica has just announced the M10-R with 40MP.

So, M10 (with 24MP) owners might wonder how much better their pics will get.

To get a rough low cost idea I took my SONY A7 (24MP) and my A7R2 (42MP) with the SONY/ZEISS 1,8/55 at f 8, IS off, the view from my window:

A7:

DSC00143-a7-5-s55-8.jpg



A7R2:

DSC06728-a7r2-3-s55-8-nois.jpg



A7:

DSC00143-a7-5-s55-8-c.jpg



A7R2 :

DSC06728-a7r2-3-s55-8-c-nois.jpg



Many Leica owners (like myself) would have liked IS for the new M10-R. So let's look at what IS does (or doesn't) :


A7R2, as above, IS off :

DSC06728-a7r2-3-s55-8-c-nois.jpg



A7R2, IS on :

DSC06731-a7r2-3-s55-8-c-is.jpg



Something to think about over the weekend, perhaps ... :)
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
... not much to think about really. You want the bottom case period. You might want to think about Sony vs Leica though
Click to expand...

Hi, I have SONY, Leica (and Nikon).

My pics seem to show no great differences.

A car analogy: 30 hp vs 100 hp one really experiences ( 5MP vs. 24.MP). But a 300 hp car won't get you 3 times faster to your destination in normal traffic than an 100 hp car.

In economics this is called the Principle of Diminishing Returns... ---
 
justpix said:
Hi, I have SONY, Leica (and Nikon).

My pics seem to show no great differences.

A car analogy: 30 hp vs 100 hp one really experiences ( 5MP vs. 24.MP). But a 300 hp car won't get you 3 times faster to your destination in normal traffic than an 100 hp car.

In economics this is called the Principle of Diminishing Returns... ---
Click to expand...

I'm guessing all three use a very similar Sony sensor. At least the Nikon does. Leica could be Panasonic??? The rest is down to the lenses and these are very important but I notice that most of the recent high end zooms are all superb performers. Primes with their "Characters" could be more subjective talk which I choose not to get into. I like "clinical" output.
 
justpix said:
Hi, I have SONY, Leica (and Nikon).

My pics seem to show no great differences.

A car analogy: 30 hp vs 100 hp one really experiences ( 5MP vs. 24.MP). But a 300 hp car won't get you 3 times faster to your destination in normal traffic than an 100 hp car.

In economics this is called the Principle of Diminishing Returns... ---
Click to expand...
I‘m confused, the crops between the A7 and A7r above show quite a difference. Of course at normal viewing size you’re unlikely to see a difference.
 
snerkler said:
I‘m confused, the crops between the A7 and A7r above show quite a difference. Of course at normal viewing size you’re unlikely to see a difference.
Click to expand...

Hi, I also saw differences. The question for me is, how big is the difference for you, to get a new camera ...
 
justpix said:
Hi, I also saw differences. The question for me is, how big is the difference for you, to get a new camera ...
Click to expand...
We all need very few excuses to buy shiny new toys ;)
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I'm guessing all three use a very similar Sony sensor. At least the Nikon does. Leica could be Panasonic??? The rest is down to the lenses and these are very important but I notice that most of the recent high end zooms are all superb performers. Primes with their "Characters" could be more subjective talk which I choose not to get into. I like "clinical" output.
Click to expand...

Hi, the Leica M9 uses a KODAK sensor. - They do not say where the one for the M10-R is from. -

I have good reasons for using several camera systems.

It is not a discussion about which is best here, because all have their relative merits.

The simple question is: what difference is there between a 24MP and a 42MP sensor, and does IS make a difference in everyday pics?
 
On my 23in monitor, the enlarged sections are equivalent to a full image around 4m wide. And the standard viewing distance for a poster print that size would be about 5m. Our ability to easily zoom into an image on the PC is very handy, but in terms of how images are actually viewed, it's a massive distortion of reality.
 
you see the difference more when you crop or make large prints. Cants see much at all on computer screens like this, a £300 camera looks much the same as a £3000 one with this size images i feel
 
HoppyUK said:
On my 23in monitor, the enlarged sections are equivalent to a full image around 4m wide. And the standard viewing distance for a poster print that size would be about 5m. Our ability to easily zoom into an image on the PC is very handy, but in terms of how images are actually viewed, it's a massive distortion of reality.
Click to expand...

You are right, of course. With digital images, one is always tempted to check minute details and is in danger of not seeing the whole picture, getting lost in all the pixels ---

In my analogue days, I put the slides in the Leica Pradovit projector and viewed the images on a 2 meter x 2 meter screen. No one ever got up to read the number plates of cars.

Maybe, I should get a video projector for my pics.... ---

Actually, I ran this trial for the Leica thread, where some (including myself) are tempted by the new M10-R. At present, I can live with my M9s, my SONY A7R2s and my NIKON D800 quite happily.

Any purchase at present would be more out of curiosity (or boredom) ...
 
justpix said:
No one ever got up to read the number plates of cars.
Click to expand...

This made me lol. In my Great Auntie's slideshows, no one ever got up. They were sat at the back of the room, hoping no one had noticed they were checking their eyelids for holes :)

I think that back in nineteen ninety something, pixel counts were perhaps important because the tech was new and improving so so rapidly. When I was working in Non-Stop computing, the shift to Itaniums, then Blade was the only way forward and they were meteoric performance jumps. However getting a transaction to complete in 1ms as opposed to 2ms needs people to step back and look at how much money they are paying for that. Sure, it's a "doubling" of performance, but it's actually nothing in terms of anything that's humanly noticeable.

Maybe there are differences in the 100% crop, but at normal enlargement, all I can see is the usual forum compression and unsharp image that everything looks like here on TP (not a TP thing, a forum thing).

Pixel peeping is encouraged by camera manufacturers, because it's a selling point. More of something has to be better right? And someone who pays the £x,xxx to purchase that thing is going to defend their intelligence by saying "yes - it's totally worth it. It's awesome". They point to 100% crops that they could never see in reality unless they printed to A1 and use that as a justification for being somehow "better".

When the M10-R was announced I was salivating at the hope of reduced [second hand] M10 prices, but if I'm totally honest with myself, I use my phone for photography more than I use my X-T2. It would really be this...

justpix said:
Any purchase at present would be more out of curiosity (or boredom) ...
Click to expand...

In other words, buying it not because I think it's in any way "better", but just because "I want".

The pixel quality of my images is the least of my photographic problems... And I shoot 35mm film!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top