AlanJW Posted January 6, 2016 Share #41 Posted January 6, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is nothing new about MP contests. When the "best" cameras had 8 or 10, we probably thought 16 was ridiculous. Now there are phones with 10mp. People complained that the M9's 18mp were more than enough and the 24 of the M(240) or 36 of Nikon were overkill. Now it is 42mp or 50mp that is overkill and 24mp is the "sweet spot" for a FF sensor. And I guess 16 is the sweet spot for MFT. In 10 years, g_d willing, we will probably all be back here talking about how 100mp is the sweet spot and 200mp is overkill. The technology marches on, and as long as there are enough customers who "must have" more megapixels, whether for legitimate or bragging reasons, there will be camera companies who will satisfy them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Hi AlanJW, Take a look here Has the day of super high pixel counts passed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jon Warwick Posted January 6, 2016 Share #42 Posted January 6, 2016 Still, 45MP you will see exceptional differences when you increase to a 2-3m print, or crop. Compare 18MP and 45MP at these sizes and, well...there's no comparison. The 18MP file has fallen apart. But still, a trained eye will see the differences in colour and tonality even in smaller images, it's up to you and your clients if you justify or see it. also working with the Phase One P45+ files (39MP) were far more maleable than the 18MP Leica ones. The extra dimension and depth in them is unquestionable. ... not dissimilar to what I've seen in files that I took with the S camera (38mp). + S images have a "walk in" feel to them -- way more dimension than anything off my M digital. Maybe it's the superior S lenses, maybe it's the S' larger sensor .... maybe it's a combo of those things given the camera was built for digital from the ground up .... but the S offers a look of 3D'ness that eclipses the M, with files that stretch to print sizes and which are more malleable (and don't fall apart) at prints that are far larger than the 24mp --> 38mp headline would infer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 6, 2016 Share #43 Posted January 6, 2016 Eventually there will be a way to view images in which greater resolution will be welcome. Look beyond the screen or print. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 6, 2016 Share #44 Posted January 6, 2016 as with all these claims there is a significant subjective element ....... hardly anyone has all of these cameras at once (S, M, Nikon,Fuji,Canon) and can take identical shots of the same thing at the same time and print them up for interested folk to look at ..... .... so we are invariably left with anecdotal evidence and crappy online images to look at. I took a series of test photos with M260 at 320 - 12500 iso ...... and whilst there was a noticeable difference when viewed at 100% on screen there was b*gger all difference on A2 prints ....... so assumptions can be very misleading Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 6, 2016 Share #45 Posted January 6, 2016 Has it been noted here that Canon have produced a camera with a 125MP sensor, although not yet for commercial production and, are developing a 250MP sensor? Whilst it would be wrong to underestimate the power of marketing over truth, I find it hard to imagine that this development programme is purely an advertising gimmick with no photographic merit or potential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted January 6, 2016 Share #46 Posted January 6, 2016 The D5's ability to shoot continuous 20mp at 14fps is a pretty good sign that the death of traditional still photography is near. In 10 to 15 years you won't take still photos any more. You will shoot video and grab frames. There will be no more missed "decisive moments" because you'll have a thousand moments recorded from which to pluck the one that is "magic." What we now know as photography will continue to exist, but it will exist in the way that film photography exists today: as a niche. With this in mind, the video heavy features of the Leica SL suddenly make Leica management appear to be very, very forward-thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 7, 2016 Share #47 Posted January 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Joshua I enjoyed film and my darkroom while it lasted. I enjoy digital and LR and will continue to while it lasts. I'll enjoy what ever comes next I suppose. It has been a good ride so far. Not much to do but just enjoy the ride. As Dr. Sidney Freedman, Psychiatrist, said on MASH, "Take my advise, drop your drawers and slide on the ice." Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 7, 2016 Share #48 Posted January 7, 2016 The D5's ability to shoot continuous 20mp at 14fps is a pretty good sign that the death of traditional still photography is near. In 10 to 15 years you won't take still photos any more. You will shoot video and grab frames. There will be no more missed "decisive moments" because you'll have a thousand moments recorded from which to pluck the one that is "magic." What we now know as photography will continue to exist, but it will exist in the way that film photography exists today: as a niche. With this in mind, the video heavy features of the Leica SL suddenly make Leica management appear to be very, very forward-thinking. Dash cams are becoming pretty commonplace, recording every journey you make, in case of anything eventful happening. Maybe we'll all just end up wearing body cams, recording every moment of our lives as we go about our daily business, which will upload in real time to our social media pages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 7, 2016 Share #49 Posted January 7, 2016 I think I now understand why HCB returned to pencil and paints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 7, 2016 Share #50 Posted January 7, 2016 The D5's ability to shoot continuous 20mp at 14fps is a pretty good sign that the death of traditional still photography is near. In 10 to 15 years you won't take still photos any more. You will shoot video and grab frames. There will be no more missed "decisive moments" because you'll have a thousand moments recorded from which to pluck the one that is "magic." What we now know as photography will continue to exist, but it will exist in the way that film photography exists today: as a niche. With this in mind, the video heavy features of the Leica SL suddenly make Leica management appear to be very, very forward-thinking. Some have been shooting that way for eight years now, believe it or not. First instance I know was 2008, Vogue Italia cover shot on 4K RED One Camera. It's already more common than you may imagine. RED are just about to launch the 8K RED Weapon - 33MP of 16bit RAW at 200fps with 15 stops of DR. They have been forward thinking for most of a decade now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 7, 2016 Share #51 Posted January 7, 2016 and the usual excuse for more pixels .... cropping ...... is just another form of walking closer Ever heard about perspective ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 7, 2016 Share #52 Posted January 7, 2016 Eventually there will be a way to view images in which greater resolution will be welcome. Look beyond the screen or print. Indeed. 8k displays are coming, and in a few years, people printing images on paper will be as many as people listening to music on vynil today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 7, 2016 Share #53 Posted January 7, 2016 I think I now understand why HCB returned to pencil and paints. Because it requires much more skill than "compose" and press a button ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 7, 2016 Share #54 Posted January 7, 2016 .... so we are invariably left with anecdotal evidence and crappy online images to look at. The number of crappy online images to look at is not dependent on the number of megapixels. It is only proportional to the lens max aperture Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 7, 2016 Share #55 Posted January 7, 2016 If a twelve year old displayed the level of mathematics in that online photographer article in any maths exam, it would be a fail. There are a number of basic errors in it. The SL sensor has 6000 pixels along a 36mm length, which equals at the most basic level 166 pixels per mm. So in order to have perfect lens resolution you need 166 line pairs per mm, so that light or dark or any stage between can be detected for that pixel. This is at about the level for current top class lenses like the best Leica/Zeiss/Nikon/Canon prime lenses and possibly the 24-90 zoom, if Leica's sales blurb is to be believed. The Canon 5DS sensor is nearly 9000 pixels along a 36mm length which is 250 pixels per mm. Nothing other than specialist photo micrography lenses currently attain 250 lp/mm at the centre of the image let alone in the corners. Well, Ctein isn't twelve anymore...he understands a lot more than you give credit. Here's one of his linked articles (albeit 6-7 years old) that goes into more detail, and I'm sure it still scratches the surface of what he understands, but hasn't written here.... http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html And if you still think he's an idiot, you should email him with your comments.....I don't think you'll need to dumb down your big thoughts...as a physicist/astronomer, I think he'll try to keep up with you. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 7, 2016 Share #56 Posted January 7, 2016 Well I just skimmed the article and I'm completely unimpressed. 'Sharpness' is what exactly? So full of vagueness and relying on decades of data. Really? Just skimmed? ...the mark of someone truly intellectually curious. For more on 'sharpness', maybe you might also skim the article in my post above (embedded in the earlier post). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 7, 2016 Share #57 Posted January 7, 2016 If a twelve year old displayed the level of mathematics in that online photographer article in any maths exam, it would be a fail. There are a number of basic errors in it. The SL sensor has 6000 pixels along a 36mm length, which equals at the most basic level 166 pixels per mm. So in order to have perfect lens resolution you need 166 line pairs per mm, so that light or dark or any I think you would fail the test along with that 12 year old boy. You know, the bayer CFA... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 7, 2016 Share #58 Posted January 7, 2016 Indeed, as Ctein points out, along with other factors, in the article linked in post #56 above (and which was already embedded in the first article I posted.....only requires 6th grade reading comprehension to find it). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 7, 2016 Share #59 Posted January 7, 2016 Just skimmed? ...the mark of someone truly intellectually curious. For more on 'sharpness', maybe you might also skim the article in my post above (embedded in the earlier post). Jeff When someone uses undefined, vague terms I simply cannot be bothered reading on. As for being a scientist, well, I know a lot of scientists who use photography as part of their work. Some are excellent. Others are not. They have to publish and it shows with poor research and badly formulated results often as a result of underfunding and consequent inadequate data. As I said, credibility takes a knock as soon as ill-defined wording is used. I am uninterested in reading further. Sharpness is in any case a subjective description which encompasses many factors - its vague to say the least. One thing that we all have a tendency to forget is that photography is, at the end of the day, an applied subject. I've applied it and because my goals often were and are specific, I can determine whether or not images actually achieve the required goal. FWIW one of the problems I encountered when checking detail in the identification images I discussed above was motion blur even with flash - in fact it was possible to see small bright near point objects with a comet-like 'tail' due to the 'die down' of the flash duration, something I had never encountered before, and certainly never on film. So if you think that I am cynical about a lot of the internet gurus you are quite right. Regardless of who they are and their claims to photographic understanding I treat them with suspicion until proven otherwise. And its why I don't push any photographic credentials myself. Of course you are welcome to take my comments as you please - forum posts are after all only of value if you are satisfied that they have some value. But to get back to the original topic. In my view increasing MPixels is now like audiophile hi-fi - gains in audio 'quality' (an ill-defined term for sure) are nuance, often subjective and rarely of relevance to the vast, vast majority of listeners who are listening to the music as opposed to the sound. Producing higher levels of detail (resolution) is not simply about higher MPixels and the other factors (such as required aperture) may be far more important than a marginal increase in such detail due to use of the optimal aperture and perfection in technique. I have little doubt that higher levels of image detail will be possible but I would suggest that this will be due to other innovations and increased data transfer between lenses and cameras and increased processing of images within cameras. MPixels may play a part but not necessarily in a simplistic way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 7, 2016 Share #60 Posted January 7, 2016 Lots of interesting reading here. Thanks everyone. ...a trained eye will see the differences in colour and tonality even in smaller images, it's up to you and your clients if you justify or see it... This, IMX, is the most pertinent point. In my professional capacity I had always used monorails and when I first went over to digital I carried on shooting with my trusty Sinar paired with one of the early Phase One backs. The result was that 99% of my clients complained about the 'enormous' file sizes they were being given. I battled against this reaction for a while but eventually faced with the new 'reality' I put the Sinar away and bought into dSLR. Upgrading my dSLRs over the years brought about the unexpected result that, once more, 99% of my clients complained that the file sizes I was now sending had become too large for all of their practical needs. I don't shoot professionally for me. I shoot for my clients. It's safe to say my clients would not discern nor even care about the improvements a 100mp sensor would provide. Sad, perhaps, but true. The Sinar sits in it's flight case under the stairs along with eight S-K lenses. They will, in all likelihood, never be used again. Philip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.