24 MP is enough

[A Almulla]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm done with the megapixel war. My lust for megapixels ended a year ago. Was using a Nikon D800 then bought a Fuji X100s and all of a sudden 16 Megapix seemed more than enough.

 

I'm on the same boat with the 24 Megapix but the want for better high ISO and dynamic range.

[tom0511]

In what specific respects?

 

Jeff

 

IMO I the S delivers even "better" (skin) color, even more detail over the frame, less vignetting when using lenses wide open. Also the bokeh and the transition between focus plane and out of focus areas looks different between M and S.

[jaapv]

Bokeh and transitions would look different even with the same number of pixels, as the sensor size is different...

[tom0511]

Bokeh and transitions would look different even with the same number of pixels, as the sensor size is different...

 

I agree about sensor size but also believe that the S-lenses are more "neutral" in regards of rendering and OOF-area. Probably a matter of taste but as a user of both system for me the images from the S-System have a special quality. Thats for me the reason I own the S, and not so much the question if it is 24 or 36mp (24mp would be enough for my needs).

[bocaburger]

If sheer number of megapixels were my primary criterion I can get a Hassy V50c back on a 503 body and a few CFE T* lenses for a lot less than an S. The S always seemed to me to be a system in search of a purpose. Less versatile than a FF Canikon DSLR, less ultimate IQ than a top-tier medium format digital back setup, yet costing as much or more. The S a very ergonomic camera though and the IQ is gorgeous, I do not argue with that.

[k-hawinkler]

People tend to forget that the jump from 24 to 36 MP is not that dramatic,

The S image may be 7500 pixels wide, but the M is 6000...

 

Thanks Jaap.

I find for extra reach of long tele-lenses getting more pixels into a subject helps a lot.

[Likaleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People tend to forget that the jump from 24 to 36 MP is not that dramatic,

The S image may be 7500 pixels wide, but the M is 6000...

 

And they have the same pixel pitch, 6 micrometers

[250swb]

Thanks Jaap.

I find for extra reach of long tele-lenses getting more pixels into a subject helps a lot.

 

So all you do is see something better than the eye can see it, which to me is the realm of technological tricks where the photograph isn't related to any human scale or experience but entirely manufactured by what a machine can do. For the next best pictures photographers just wait for the next thing a machine can do and then the next and so on, always responding to technology like a rat in a maze. It is like the current trend for drones, showing something that hasn't been seen before and pretty soon the novelty wears off as it is devoid of any connection to the viewer and done for the sake of it being done. We, the human race, went to the Moon and still only needed an 80mm lens on an MF camera, human scale, it never fails to work.

 

Steve

[k-hawinkler]

So all you do is see something better than the eye can see it, which to me is the realm of technological tricks where the photograph isn't related to any human scale or experience but entirely manufactured by what a machine can do. For the next best pictures photographers just wait for the next thing a machine can do and then the next and so on, always responding to technology like a rat in a maze. It is like the current trend for drones, showing something that hasn't been seen before and pretty soon the novelty wears off as it is devoid of any connection to the viewer and done for the sake of it being done. We, the human race, went to the Moon and still only needed an 80mm lens on an MF camera, human scale, it never fails to work.

 

Steve

 

 

Utter BS!

 

Sony NEX-7 + Leica APO-Telyt-R 280/4

 

More here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/345261-hummingbird-detail.html

 

An FF sensor would need about 57 MP to match the resolution of the NEX-7 APS-C sensor!

[IkarusJohn]

Hi K-H,

 

I'm not sure these are the same thing at all. Your Nex-7 has 16MP? What makes your shot is not the "rat in the maze" pursuit of technology for the sake of it Steve refers to, but the extraordinary quality of the lens last manufactured in 2009.

 

I'm sure it would have looked as fabulous had you used your Nex-5n (if you still have it). I agree that to match that resolution in full frame, you would have needed a very large sensor, but that would have brought huge problems of its own.

 

Very nice shot, by the way - I suspect you have detail to spare for most reasonable sized prints ...

 

Cheers

John

[jaapv]

Thanks Jaap.

I find for extra reach of long tele-lenses getting more pixels into a subject helps a lot.

You have me really puzzled here, Karl-Heinz. As the focal length gets longer the image (in general) gets more simple, with lower frequency detail and broader shapes. The wide-angle images are (in general again) packed full of high-frequency fine details. It is not for nothing that landscape photographers tend to gravitate to medium format cameras and the wildlife photographers usually have 24x36 sensors.

So I should think it is just the other way around.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi K-H,

 

I'm not sure these are the same thing at all. Your Nex-7 has 16MP? What makes your shot is not the "rat in the maze" pursuit of technology for the sake of it Steve refers to, but the extraordinary quality of the lens last manufactured in 2009.

 

I'm sure it would have looked as fabulous had you used your Nex-5n (if you still have it). I agree that to match that resolution in full frame, you would have needed a very large sensor, but that would have brought huge problems of its own.

 

Very nice shot, by the way - I suspect you have detail to spare for most reasonable sized prints ...

 

Cheers

John

 

 

Thanks John.

I am afraid you got the MP for the NEX-7 wrong.

It has about 24 MP.

I also still own the NEX-5N.

It has about 16 MP.

 

Sensel (Sensor Element) pitch of NEX-7 is 3.9 µm, of the NEX-5N is 4.7 µm.

The latter compares roughly to the D800E and A7R with about 36 MP and 4.8 sensel pitch.

 

BTW, the OM-D E-M1 has a sensel pitch of 3.7 µm. So the NEX-7 is in that same league.

 

I think what we see in my image is the combination of an excellent lens coupled with small sensel size.

Both contribute to capturing the detail.

 

What did you have in mind with, quote:

"I agree that to match that resolution in full frame, you would have needed a very large sensor, but that would have brought huge problems of its own."

[jaapv]

 

An FF sensor would need about 57 MP to match the resolution of the NEX-7 APS-C sensor!

No it would not. As long as you fill the frame with the subject the number of pixels would need to be exactly the same. The magnification would be correspondingly less. Actually, as the pixels would be larger the quality of the output of that 24 MP ff sensor would be better.

Of course, if you were to crop to the same size the crop would be 24 MP out of 57, wasting 33 MP on emptiness...

[k-hawinkler]

You have me really puzzled here, Karl-Heinz. As the focal length gets longer the image (in general) gets more simple, with lower frequency detail and broader shapes. The wide-angle images are (in general again) packed full of high-frequency fine details. It is not for nothing that landscape photographers tend to gravitate to medium format cameras and the wildlife photographers usually have 24x36 sensors.

So I should think it is just the other way around.

 

Thanks Jaap.

Well, I don't use WA lenses to take pictures of hummingbirds.

IIRC, according to Erwin Puts the APO-R 280/4 resolves 500 line pairs.

That's really amazingly good and should be taken advantage of - if one can.

No other lens I own is equally good, though the APO-R 105-280/4.2 (your favorite) seems close.

 

Last summer, just for fun, I shot hummingbirds with the FF Nikon D3 and D800E and a 400 mm lens.

The D3 has about 12 MP and 8.4 µm sensel pitch, whereas the D800E has about 36 MP and 4.8 sensel pitch.

Please, guess which images showed more detail?

[k-hawinkler]

No it would not. As long as you fill the frame with the subject the number of pixels would need to be exactly the same. The magnification would be correspondingly less. Actually, as the pixels would be larger the quality of the output of that 16 MP ff sensor would be better.

Of course, if you were to crop to the same size the crop would be 16 MP out of 57, wasting 41 MP on emptiness...

 

 

Thanks Jaap. Why don't we let 01af straighten this one out?

[jaapv]

Hmmm.. Olaf and I agree more often than not...

[k-hawinkler]

Hmmm.. Olaf and I agree more often than not...

 

That's good - when he is correct!

[jaapv]

Thanks Jaap.

Well, I don't use WA lenses to take pictures of hummingbirds.

IIRC, according to Erwin Puts the APO-R 280/4 resolves 500 line pairs.

That's really amazingly good and should be taken advantage of - if one can.

No other lens I own is equally good, though the APO-R 105-280/4.2 (your favorite) seems close.

 

Last summer, just for fun, I shot hummingbirds with the FF Nikon D3 and D800E and a 400 mm lens.

The D3 has about 12 MP and 8.4 µm sensel pitch, whereas the D800E has about 36 MP and 4.8 sensel pitch.

Please, guess which images showed more detail?

 

Don’t let Olaf hear this one.. The concept of sensors outresolving lenses or the other way around is a bit of a red flag to him. The final image is a product of the combination of both. I happen to agree. A sensor regardless of quality will perform better with a better lens. A lens regardless of quality will perform better on a better sensor.

[k-hawinkler]

Don’t let Olaf hear this one.. The concept of sensors outresolving lenses or the other way around is a bit of a red flag to him. The final image is a product of the combination of both. I happen to agree. A sensor regardless of quality will perform better with a better lens. A lens regardless of quality will perform better on a better sensor.

 

I agree and remember well the exchange back then!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

My first digital camera (an Olympus C800L) could boast 0.8 MP and back then, any increase in megapixels was greeted with enthusiasm. At 6 MP I started to ditch my analogue equipment and at 12 MP I thought that a higher resolution would be nice, but not really essential. At 24 MP it is not like I would boycott a higher resolution as long as it didn’t incur any disadvantages, but a higher resolution alone could not entice me to switch my camera for a newer model.