Jump to content

Comparing resolutions correctly


steppenw0lf

Recommended Posts

I only have the SL and A7RII. D5 is yet to come. Did Nikon deliver the new D5 to shops in your place? For my purpose, clean high ISO is all that matters at A3+ prints.

[...]

In case you're not informed, 3M iso is part of the D5 specs sheet.

 

 

Should be available in 3 weeks here. Not that I care much, as I shoot Canon.

I am afraid that 3M iso is part of the D5 specs bull-sheet. I don't see how the camera could be better than the Sony A7S with almost twice the resolution. I hope to be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For prints up to 30" at 300dpi, I think my current M240 is fine with some resampling.

I think higher Megapixels are much needed, however, to keep depth and tonality in large prints - say 40"++ in size.

I think the way to achieve this is with larger and larger sensors when the megapixel count increases (similar to what Phase One does), not cramming in endless pixels into a fixed size space.

With its ownership of Sinar, I'm always thinking maybe the massive megapixels will come from Leica on that side of the business. And high megapixel cameras, just like LF film cameras, need huge discipline to gain that benefit of higher Rez when taking the shot - that is why I don't think we will ever see high megapixel M or S or SLs, which apparently have sensors of fixed dimension, and which are designed mainly as handheld cameras.

Edited by Jon Warwick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mildly agree with you, but it was not my point.

 

All I am saying is that if you take two identical photos as follows:

- Apo 75/2 stopped down to f/2.8 on a 24MP camera

- Apo 50/2 wide open on a 50MP camera and then crop to 75mm equivalent (about 24 MP)

 

It will be very tough for you (and me) to understand which is which, without relying on lens rendering character (which is quite neutral for both cited lenses).

As a consequence: if the price difference between the 50MP camera and the 24MP camera is less then the price of the Apo 75 (which will eventually happen) then you are saving money buying only the 50MP camera and the Apo 50, and still get the same quality at 75mm and better quality at 50mm (even if you don't need it). Therefore more megapixels make you save money.

 

Most shooters develop an appreciation and expectation for how each of their lenses will render (i.e., draw the image the viewer gets from the print).

 

Leica, which is the most frequent domain for this forum, seems to agree. Leica makes five different 50mm lenses today (5!), and each one has a particular character, differences in maximum aperture notwithstanding.

 

The math of sensors, focal lengths, resolutions and post processing techniques is all very interesting. The Sony ILCE department thrives on this, IMHO. I just don't see how helpful all of the techno-gymnastics is for making good pictures...  just one opinion.

 

P.S.  Let's hope Fuji does not take this line of reasoning to heart...  then we won't have reversal film anymore, will we?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CheshireCat,

 

I'm surprised to find myself suddenly in your drawer, and unfortunately it is a "deniers" drawer. >> shock <<

 

Would you mind taking me and the others out of it ?

I have a 5Ds - I had it even long before the SL - you know, the one with the 50 MPixel. And unfortunately I also have a D800 with the 36 MPixel, since several years - can't even remember the exact date. Only the 42 MPixel thing is missing.

Generally I do not like to be put in a drawer, most people don't, unfortunately your mind seems not to contain anything else. 

 

I would like to know in which drawer you should be put - your favourite drawer so to speak. That makes it easier to address you and to put you away in a drawer if I feel like it. You can certainly understand this.

 

Back to the discussion, but please do not forget to tell me your drawer.

 

I have pictures made at different occasions with many cameras (and sensors). Comparing them I often find no obvious difference in quality regarding "resolution". One reason could be that the "weak" sensor cameras are using strong lenses, so the sensors are used to their best. While the "best" sensors have not always been used with the most perfect lenses. For example wideangle pictures taken with a WATE to my eye seem very often (most of the time) clearly more detailed than fotos taken with the 50 MPixel Canon gear.

 

There are also other pictures taken on the fly (we can put it in the drawer "street fotography" if you prefer drawers) or also most fotos of people (drawer "portraits", or "group potography" or "event photography" to stick with your mindset) do not show enough difference in quality or "granularity" to tell where they come from.

Of course this is not the sensors fault, I have to be blamed, because I am not constantly using a APO 50 lens and because my technique is generally poor, anyway.

 

Well, at the end: Please do not forget to take us out of your drawer - it's not very cosy, rather gloomy and a bit dusty in the rearmost corners.

And please tell us your favourite drawer, then I will try to make it there comfortable for you.

 

Stephan

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm surprised to find myself suddenly in your drawer, and unfortunately it is a "deniers" drawer. >> shock <<

Would you mind taking me and the others out of it ?

 

Sorry, Stephan, not my intent to offend anyone.

I am using the word "deniers" in the sense "to refuse to admit or acknowledge" [about the usefulness of more MP].

And sure, let me take you guys out of my drawer (hope it was not the one with the smelly socks) :D

 

I would like to know in which drawer you should be put - your favourite drawer so to speak. That makes it easier to address you and to put you away in a drawer if I feel like it. You can certainly understand this.

 

Feel free to put me in the "more MP are good" drawer. I am never offended.

I don't need high ISO performance, and I am confident that technology will continue to bring us new sensors with higher MP and better ISO performance.

I also believe that the finest (expensive) lenses I own are wasted on current generation sensors (this includes 50 MP).

 

 

I have pictures made at different occasions with many cameras (and sensors). Comparing them I often find no obvious difference in quality regarding "resolution". One reason could be that the "weak" sensor cameras are using strong lenses, so the sensors are used to their best. While the "best" sensors have not always been used with the most perfect lenses. For example wideangle pictures taken with a WATE to my eye seem very often (most of the time) clearly more detailed than fotos taken with the 50 MPixel Canon gear.

 

Makes sense. I don't own any Canon wide lens because I was never happy with the performance (even on 20 MP).

You may want to try the Zeiss ZE ultra wide primes; I love the 21 and 15, and they are great on 21 MP (I don't own a 5Ds though).

It is also important to note that the perception of image clarity may be affected by different post processing (even internal to the camera, before writing the raw).

If you provide a download link to a couple comparison shots, I'll be happy to study what the problem may be.

 

There are also other pictures taken on the fly (we can put it in the drawer "street fotography" if you prefer drawers) or also most fotos of people (drawer "portraits", or "group potography" or "event photography" to stick with your mindset) do not show enough difference in quality or "granularity" to tell where they come from.

Of course this is not the sensors fault, I have to be blamed, because I am not constantly using a APO 50 lens and because my technique is generally poor, anyway.

 

Technique is important, and the camera is important too.

I skipped the original A7R because it did not have EFC, and had issues with shutter vibration.

The new A7R2 has EFC and IBIS, therefore I bought it. I don't own an APO 50, but still get full resolution crops also with < $1000 lenses (some of them just need stopping down).

Note that my previous posts cite the APO 50 just because it has similar rendering to the APO 75. But you don't need a $8000 lens to resolve 50 MP.

Again, I don't own a 5Ds, but I understand it has EFC when set to Silent Mode 1 or 2 and you shoot in Live View mode. Give it a try and let me know if it's better !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what drawer I am in.  I have some thoughts based on the way I shoot.

I like more megapixels so that in an emergency I can crop down in the manner explained by Mr Cat, so I agree with him, up to a point.   I am going to put him in touch with my wife so he can explain why my getting a 50 APO saved us money (I am the perfect case because I don't have a 75) :D

I used a Nikon D800 in Galapagos to good effect but it was not the 36mp (at the time at the top of the 35mm scale) that helped get good shots.  It was more from image stabilization and being to shoot high iso and high shutter speeds.

In normal situations, I prefer the way Leica sensors draw to the Nikon, and to Sony (I had A7r before it drove me so crazy that I sold it).  I also prefer the way my M (and more recently, SL) files can be worked on in ACR (less adjustment needed most of the time.

I also prefer my APO 50 to almost any other lens out there.

The reason I am saying all these things is that the number of megapixels is only one variable in a long list of things that go into image quality:  Sensor, sensor size, lens quality, ISO performance, image stabilization, camera ergonomics too (ability to hand hold for example).  The system has to work together or the results won't be very good, period.  And if I am a hack photographer (as I am sure I am sometimes if not frequently) having more megapixels is not going to make me into Ansel Adams or HCB, nor will improving anything else on the list.

 

So I really don't care about the mathematics of sensor density, pixel count, or whether 50mp is more than twice 24mp.    I won't care either when the debate is whether a 50mp sensor is half as good as a 100mp sensor, a debate I am certain will happen.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be available in 3 weeks here. Not that I care much, as I shoot Canon.

I am afraid that 3M iso is part of the D5 specs bull-sheet. I don't see how the camera could be better than the Sony A7S with almost twice the resolution. I hope to be wrong.

It's the same thing when the Nikon D3X was launched. Everyone was lambasting the high megapixel 24 when everyone was at 10 and 12MP. Let's be open-minded at what comes and see how they deliver actual results for the D5 high ISO that you call bull-sheet vs your low resolution 12MP Sony A7S2.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same thing when the Nikon D3X was launched. Everyone was lambasting the high megapixel 24 when everyone was at 10 and 12MP. Let's be open-minded at what comes and see how they deliver actual results for the D5 high ISO that you call bull-sheet vs your low resolution 12MP Sony A7S2.

 

 

I only call BS on the 3M ISO. And by the way, it actually is BS, as it is just a software push from the native 400k ISO with good de-noise algorithms.

Do you know if the D5 sensor is provided by Sony ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...