Some thoughts on Pixels, Lenses, and the Digilux 2/DMC-LC1

(Note: For most of this discussion, I'm assuming that the Leica Digilux 2 and the Panasonic DMC-LC1 are basically the same camera, with the same lens and guts, mostly to simplify the discussion.)

In the time that preceeds the release of any new camera or electronic device, there's a storm of rumors, statements, theories, superstition, and vitriol that's all based on what we in the computer industry like to call FUD: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Nobody knows anything, so people start to fill in the gaps based on the tiny bits of information they can get. This goes double for a digital camera, and triple when that camera has the Leica mystique attached to it.

I'm no different -- witness my essay about design sleuthing and the DMC-LC1. I like to flatter myself that I base my guesses on things I can actually see, rather than on assumptions I'm making, but the fact is that I'm just trying to fill the information void like everyone else.

And if you head over to the Leica digital forums, you'll see enough FUD to bore you several times over.

Number of pixels: Is it all that?

One of the areas where there's a lot of discussion is the question of the number of pixels. The consumer digicam industry has managed to make number of pixels -- 3.1 megapixels, 4 megapixels, 5, 6, 8, etc. -- the benchmark by which they convince consumers that they Need To Upgrade. So why, the fud-sufferers ask, did Leica go with only 5 megapixels? That's going to be crappy, right?

The problem is that raw numbers don't tell the whole story. Two other factors are actually more important: size of the sensors, and the quality of the lens sitting in front of the sensors.

What is a sensor? Briefly, each pixel in the final image is represented by a single sensor sitting in an array on a chip called a CCD.

There's a lot of technical discussion about sensor size, but I'll limit myself to a very broad summary of the issues. In fact, everything I want to say is contained within this sentence: Bigger sensors are better sensors. And why is that? Because smaller sensors can't currently be as light-sensitive as larger sensors, so they inherently are noisier than larger sensors.

For example: Based on raw pixel numbers, my 4 megapixel Canon G3 should be "better" than the 2.7 megapixel Nikon D1h -- it's got an extra 1.3 million pixels, right? So that's more data, right?

Wrong, and here's why. My G3 fits four million sensors onto a CCD that's barely .5" wide. The D1x, on the other hand, fits 2.7 million pixels onto a CCD that's .93" wide. Rough math, then, shows that each D1x pixel is about .012mm wide, whereas each G3 pixels is about .006mm wide. If you remember your geometry, 1/2 as wide means 1/4 the surface area, so each G3 sensor has 1/4 the light gathering ability of a D1x sensor. And the results speak for themselves: A huge percentage of the news photos you see these days -- especially sports photos -- are shot on a D1x or a similar Canon camera. Roughly none are shot on a G3. (There are a few other factors, like shutter lag and interchangable lenses, but it's still a valid point.)

All of that said, if you could get more pixels of the same size, you would capture a higher quality image. Which brings us to the Digilux 2: One thing they've done is put five megapixels on a slightly larger sensor, roughly 2/3" wide.

Again, comparing to Canon, their G5 -- a 5 megapixel camera -- uses the same size of CCD as the G3. Which means they've actually made their sensors smaller: roughly .005mm wide. The result? In looking at samples, I wasn't impressed with the image quality of the G5 as compared to my G3. The images were noisier, and overall just a bit "crappier" in the fine details than the G3 is.

On the other hand, the Digilux 2, with their slightly larger sensor, actually has larger pixels than the G3: .007mm wide. Still not the .012mm of the D1x, but better than a sharp stick in the eye.

The other factor: Lens quality

This will be a much quicker discussion. In brief, Leica makes some of the best lenses in the world. It's not clear whether the lens on the Digilux 2 is made by Leica -- the press releases from Panasonic seem to say that the lens on the DMC-LC1 is made by Panasonic under Leica supervision -- but the point remains that anything with the Leica name on it is going to have some relation to their tremendous standards of quality. Which means the Digilux 2 is going to have a great lens, which means that the image that reaches those slightly bigger pixels is going to be starting out at a higher level of quality. 'Nuff said.

The proof is in the pudding, uh, sample photos

Finally, this week, I got what I was waiting for: Actual sample photos from the Digilux 2. There are a few samples on the Leica site, but they're not very good examples for my purposes. They're mostly shot at night (at a higher "film speed" than the highest quality the camera can do) and they aren't the direct images from the camera -- they've all been re-saved as JPGs, which reduces the quality of the image.

Much more useful was this pair of photos some kind soul posted -- a couple of snapshots taken at high quality on the street. And how do they look? In a word, great. Here's a full-size crop of some hair:

Note how sharp the individual hairs are, and how distinct they look. Compare to a similar shot taken with my G3:

The individual hairs are much lest distinct -- the whole thing is a little "smeary".

Actually, the proof is in the printing

Sample photos means sample prints, and though I unfortunately can't show those to you in any kind of useful way, let me tell you that the prints look great. Printed at 12" x 16", roughly the largest I can go on my printers at home, the images look great -- sharp and distinct, with no visible pixel artifacts unless I at them through a magnifying glass. No, they're not as sharp as pictures the full-frame, 11 megapixel Canon EOS 1Ds -- but are they high enough quality that I'd exhibit them with no qualms? Yes, indeed.

It might be helpful, for those of you familiar with traditional photography, to think of it in terms of medium format vs. 35mm. A number of reviewers have said that the quality of images from their EOS 1Ds rivals or beats that of their medium format cameras -- certainly 6x4.5, if not 6x6 or 6x7. Think of the Digilux 2, then, as a 35mm camera in relation to the "medium format" EOS 1Ds. True 35mm film cameras never going reach the image quality of medium format film cameras. Do they still produce acceptable images? Heck, yes. And so it is with this camera.

A related opinion

Frank van Riper has an excellent essay on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1PP, which can be considered an earlier generation of this upcoming Leica/Panasonic camera: Quality pixels, beautiful Leica lens. It even repeats the pixel question: "I was a little put off by the fact that the [FZ-1] weighed in at a mere 2.0 megapixels."

I recommend reading the essay; he touches on a lot of the issues I mention here, but much more coherently. The key points, though, are contained here:

Inevitably, the question of pixels will come up. At a flimsy 2.0 megapixels, the FZ-1 certainly sounds anemic. And, one might argue, this shortcoming is one reason Panasonic can charge so comparatively little for it (list around $450; street $375-99).

But I keep coming back to Bruce Dale's spectacular 8x10 images, as well to what other of my friends and colleagues, far better versed in digital than I, have been telling me: Size (in this case the number of megapixels captured by a camera) has turned into a kind of meaningless arms race. So much depends on other factors: post-production (i.e.: Photoshop tweaking), printing – not to mention lens quality (remember that Leica glass), that simply touting megapixels is like bragging about having a Nikon body and using it with an off brand cheapo lens.

Something like a conclusion

In summary, I'm happy with how the images look. The only things I still have questions about are responsiveness and hand feel. The reports say that the camera is super-responsive, with no appreciable shutter lag. However, that's not something I can see for myself without actually trying one out. Similarly with hand feel: I suspect, based on the size and shape, that the camera will feel like a lighter-weight Leica M, which would be great for me. I just gotta hold one in my hands to be sure.