Damien Demolder
Tharg the Mighty
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 1021
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
Sony's new Alpha 900 has more pixels than we have seen before in a 35mm style digital camera - it even has a higher 'resolution' than Canon's professional EOS 1Ds III. For those of us that bought 10 million pixel cameras just last year it might seem things have really moved on since. The idea of more pixels and more detail is always tempting, but how tempted would you have to be to switch systems to buy a Sony Alpha, or to upgrade from another A mount camera?
If you are a KM user already this might not be such a big deal (although the cost is still considerable), but would you switch systems to get 24.6 million pixels? Do you think other people might?
Head to the home page to vote in our poll: Would you consider switching to Sony for 24.6 million pixels?
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
No, at least not without knowing if,
a. Legacy lenses can provide enough resolution to match the sensor
b. I can get a lens wider than 15mm
c. When printed at A4 300dpi there will be a visible difference in detail over a 12mp camera
d. When printed at A3 300dpi there will be a visible difference in detail over a 12mp camera
There's the argument that extra pixels allow for cropping but that sounds like a pretty desperate argument, a bit like suggesting shooting 5x4 rather than 35mm so that you can crop and still enlarge to 10x8.
I wouldn't switch to a Canon 1DS mk111 or 5D mk11 either but I would certainly consider a Canon 5D, Nikon D3 or more likely a D700. I think they would offer improved DR which is more likely to be useful regardless of print size and although High ISO performance isn't critical to me it would at least allow full use of all aperture/shutter speed without needing to compromise through needing to keep the ISO down.
Of course similar questions have been asked in the past and it appears that the majority of people won't switch systems regardless of what the competition offer. In the worst case scenario if you really need what the competition offer, you hold off for a while and you'll get the same performance once the manufaturer whose cameras you use release their updated model.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20924
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
^^^ WHS ^^^
(I can't believe I just wrote that!) 
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
If the sensor delivered the same, or less signal 'leakage' between each pixel than say a 12-15 Mp camera, ( I'm guessing that the even narrower gap between each pixel could pose a few frabrication problems.) the level of noise at 400+ ASA is improved, maybe I would go for one. The real 'acid test' is do I really need this level of detail in my images?
However, if the technology behind this was used to produce even better but lower-pixelled sensors of about 10-15Mp, with significantly less 'noise' when using ASA ratings up to 800ASA, I would be far more interested in buying one of those!
I guessing that the reason for the noise seen at 400+ASA ratings, is due to the levels of amplification applied. Now I do seem to remember that some years ago (please bear with me because this might highlight an interesting solution to reducing noise levels) the US airforce realised that the Russians were fitting a far better onboard aircraft radar system. Some years later, a Russian in a Foxbat defected to Japan and the Americans managed to get a look at the system and discovered it employed valves instead of transistors!
Apparently, by using much higher voltages, this reduced the level of noise generated by amplification. Could it be that if cameras used a higher voltage (say, 24v?) power supply, we would also see noise levels reduce?
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1179
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
21MP and 24.6MP isn't a difference worth bothering about so I can't see someone with an established Canon system considering switching to Sony for pixels with the 5Dii being available. Nikon users will just wait and carry on telling us that they don't care about pixels anyway. Now for in-body anti-vibration .....
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
^^^ WHS ^^^
(I can't believe I just wrote that!)
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1179
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
Apparently, by using much higher voltages, this reduced the level of noise generated by amplification. Could it be that if cameras used a higher voltage (say, 24v?) power supply, we would also see noise levels reduce?
I don't think this is right. My understanding was that thermionic valves are far less susceptible to ionising radiation than transistors so would keep working after a nuclear blast.
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
Ha ha ha! That's just confirmed why some people want full-frame DSLRs ... the APS-C format is short of ultra-wide optics. People using the 4/3rds format, have not encountered this problem since late 2005 ....
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Sigma 10-20mm = 15-30mm approx. on APS-C/DX
Zuiko 7-14mm = 14-28mm on 4/3rds
Unless you can go, or need wider than, 15mm there's no point going from APS-C/DX to Full Frame/FX for that reason alone.
No to all intents and purposes the 'wide' argument no longer exists but in any case this 'Poll' is really about megapixels and whether you would switch systems/brands/format for that reason alone. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would switch from a 21mp?? Canon to a 25mp Sony.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
I made my choice of system more than 20 years ago, and in that time I've never had any significant disatisfaction with it, so really the only thing that would persuade me to switch to any other system is if someone were (a) supplying the gear, and (b) paying me for the inconvenience. Even then that might not be enough. But certainly, a ship-load more megapixels isn't going to do it - I've said for years that 12MP is sufficient for my digital purposes, and more than that would only generate problems for me in processing and storage demands (already quite enough of a headache), so would only be a disadvantage.
I could certainly see me 'switching' to a rangefinder system for some of what I do if it were affordable. But that wouldn't replace my chosen DSLR system entirely - only for certain kinds of photography, and I still wouldn't be looking for more megapixels.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3650
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
It's not just a question of going wider than APS-C, as far as I know you get greater control over DOF with larger sensors and there's the larger possible prints. Might not matter to you or me but for a minority of people any one factor may be enough.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
TimF
Senior Member
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16475
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Agree with everything that's been said to date, added to which I couldn't use a Sony while they maintain that hideous orange logo. 
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else--and whichever is better you print. - Garry Winogrand
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
No to all intents and purposes the 'wide' argument no longer exists
... if it ever did. By any historical standard, 14mm on 135 format is just about as extreme rectilinear wideangle as has ever existed for 35mm SLR systems. The lenses that were available in that focal length were expensive and exotic beasts, and hardly anyone other than the pros even had them. So basically, a niche product that almost no-one either owned or used has been touted by some in recent years as the bare minimum. Not really a great argument - more like a contrived excuse for something.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
... added to which I couldn't use a Sony while they maintain that hideous orange logo.
Says he, openly displaying that bl**dy red dot! ;-)
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
TimF
Senior Member
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16475
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
I don't care much for that either Huw (not on a camera anyway), but it has bags more class than the Sony effort.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else--and whichever is better you print. - Garry Winogrand
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
It's not just a question of going wider than APS-C, as far as I know you get greater control over DOF with larger sensors
DOF control is a surprising one, I assume you mean shallow DOF as an advantage of a larger sensor and it's true that at any given F/L and aperture a Full Frame sensor can provide a shallower DOF, however you can pretty much get whatever degree of separation you want by working at different distances and choosing different F/L lenses regardless of sensor size. It's something I've been looking at recently and as an example, I can get very close to Full Frame/50mm f/1.8 DOF by using a 50mm f/1.8 on a 4/3rds camera simply because a 50mm on 4/3rds acts like a 100m on a Full Frame.
e.g
Nikon D3 + 50mm f/1.8 - DOF @ 20' is 5.26'
Olympus E-3 + 50mm f/1.8 - DOF @ 20' is 2.6'
Clearly I'd need to double the subject distance if I used the E-3 as the 50mm has the same angle of view as a 100mm lens on a D3.
Olympus E-3 + 50mm f/1.8 - DOF @ 40' is 10'
In one example the DOF is half and the other double (more or less) but it illustrates what is possible if you want make the effort. It certainly isn't as difficult as I first thought. That said you're correct in saying that ultimately FF offers greater DOF control.
Interesting to see how it all works out here.
DOF Master
Of course that's not really the issue as far as this 'Poll' is concerned IMO, isn't it more about switching due to an increase in megapixels?
Quote:
and there's the larger possible prints. Might not matter to you or me but for a minority of people any one factor may be enough.
That is absolutely true, however the question was whether one would switch to a 25mp Sony and for the reasons I gave in my 1st post my answer is no (subject to answers to the 4 questions I posed)
I can't obviously speak for anyone else or suggest what size of prints they should or do have made. That said I suspect that while most people can and do print to A4 and a significant number print to A3 a significantly smaller number would consider A3+ as their standard print size. The question then remains, how large do you need to print before you can actually see the difference between a 12mp and a 25mp print.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No to all intents and purposes the 'wide' argument no longer exists
... if it ever did...........
.......... Not really a great argument - more like a contrived excuse for something.
Agreed.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
... you can pretty much get whatever degree of separation you want by working at different distances and choosing different F/L lenses regardless of sensor size.
Yes, but that necessarily changes perspective as well, which is also an aspect of creative control, so it's not directly equivalent. There is no way round it - format size does affect depth of field, and when you hit the limits of the aperture control there's no way of improving the situation which doesn't also affect some other aspect of the image. When you run out of f-numbers you've either got too much DoF on a small format, or too little on a larger format (leaving aside the issue of swings and tilts on LF cameras, or tilt lenses for 35mm systems).
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Terrywoodenpic
A whiff of silicon...
Reged: 21/01/2006
Posts: 367
Loc: Saddleworth UK
|
|
I find it a case of diminishing returns.
The range 10 to 12mp give me the detail and quality I need at the sizes I require.
Far more important is the quality of those pixels and the processing and memory and disk size required to process and store them.
In the days of film I rarely used films faster than 400 iso., anything faster and grain was a problem.
Today even compacts can give very good quality in terms of detail and noise up to ISO 400.
My 40D suits me very well....Perfect no....but as good as most film cameras I could have afforded.
The question then is what could induce me to change...?
Water and dust proofing....
Noise free images at iso greater then 6200.
Two extra stops of latitude.
A view finder as good as the old OM1n.
a full time mirror lock button.
An articulated live view screen.
all modes and buttons to be user defined.
Built in radio transmission of live view and data, with live control over exposure, zoom and focus, with extension from the camera to control rotation and tilt of a pano bracket.
Inbuilt auto gps data collection.
In built CA and lens distortion correction.
I know that is quite a wish list, however they will all be on offer some day. Perhaps sooner than we might think.
SRaw already gives us the option of reducing Pixel count, so I have not included it in my list.
--------------------
63 happy photo years from amateur to professional and back to amateur
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
... you can pretty much get whatever degree of separation you want by working at different distances and choosing different F/L lenses regardless of sensor size.
Yes, but that necessarily changes perspective as well, which is also an aspect of creative control, so it's not directly equivalent. There is no way round it - format size does affect depth of field, and when you hit the limits of the aperture control there's no way of improving the situation which doesn't also affect some other aspect of the image. When you run out of f-numbers you've either got too much DoF on a small format, or too little on a larger format (leaving aside the issue of swings and tilts on LF cameras, or tilt lenses for 35mm systems).
Of course, as I said
Quote:
That said you're correct in saying that ultimately FF offers greater shallow DOF control.
On the other hand it's worth experimenting to see if you can get the 'effect' without investing in a 2nd system. Sometimes it's not always whats theoretically possible thats important. As I say I've just started experimenting but while shallower DOF is always better for what I'm trying to do just now it's worth checking to see if a Full Frame would deliver rather than simply assuming it would. I think what I'm trying to say is don't write off the smaller sensors if you want shallow DOF before you see if they can deliver the effect you're looking for to an acceptable degree.
Like so many aspects of photography it's all about compromise unless you can afford a to have a different system to suit every possible situation.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
