TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 18960
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Click for an interesting read.
It's quite heavy going (except perhaps for the scientifically trained), so not for looking at when tired. 
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6282
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
interesting
and well presented.
Just a pity they didn't extend down to the tiny sensors used in bridge& compact cameras and the even smaller ones in camera phones.
|
TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 18960
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Yup. Some while back Reichmann put forward the view that a sensor of around 12-13 megapixel was sufficient for 35mm based cameras, and this article does seem to back that up quite strongly.
Currently, only Canon and Sony have gone above the 14-15 MP limit (though it appears Nikon will follow), but many of Canon's lenses, including L glass, don't seem to be up to it. I recall when the 16 MP 1Ds II was current that some Canon shooters were complaining about fringing etc from their lenses, and that has increased with the Mk III. When the 5D II was announced the 21 MP sensor disappointed me I have to say, partly because of that reason, and judging from web comments elsewhere don't seem to have been alone - 12 to 16 would have been better IMVHO, but there we go. Whether Nikon's recent zooms (14-24mm, 24-70mm) will be up to it will be an interesting thing to study in due course.
Even with his medium format set-up, MR has openly stated that what he was getting from the Contax 645 kit he used was blatantly inferior to shots from a similar back shot with digital view camera lenses from Rodenstock (and not vastly better IQ wise than his Canon images), which induced him to switch to a Linhof outfit to fully exploit the superiority.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink
|
LargeFormat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1912
Loc: Cumbria and Buckinghamshire
|
|
It is difficult to see much point in higher resolution sensors beyond about 20MP (putting aside the noise issue) in the 35mm format or indeed for most people. Lenses are quite clearly in the edge of their resolving power and there can't be many photographers that print beyond A2.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 4364
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
It is difficult to see much point in higher resolution sensors beyond about 20MP (putting aside the noise issue) in the 35mm format or indeed for most people. Lenses are quite clearly in the edge of their resolving power and there can't be many photographers that print beyond A2.
The replacement for the Nikon D300 - the D400 is being quoted as having a 16 megapixel CMOS APC sensor manufactured by Sony (so I guess the Sony a700 replacement will use the same sensor). Too what does that equate - scaled to FF?
--------------------
Rog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6282
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Too what does that equate - scaled to FF?
Multiply by the square of the crop factor....
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 4364
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Too what does that equate - scaled to FF?
Multiply by the square of the crop factor....
Oh all right ... 1.5 x 1.5 x 16 = 36 megapixles
--------------------
Rog
|
LargeFormat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1912
Loc: Cumbria and Buckinghamshire
|
|
It's almost inevitable as the Canon 50D, Pentax/Samsung etc are thereabouts. Lens wise it may work with the benefit of the sweet spot on an APS-C sensor. Reading DxO Mark it may even be an advantage with noise.
|
Monobod
'Phantom' of the forum!
Reged: 03/04/2003
Posts: 6878
Loc: Just West of Norwich, Norfolk
|
|
I have the Pentax K20D (14.6Mp) and using it with the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 zoom at f/8 I am getting much more definition in my photos than I ever did with the K10D (10.2MP). I have not had a chance yet to try the new camera with the Pentax lenses that I own, but as they gave better results than the Siggy on the K10D, I expect them to perform better on the new one also. The obvious change is to the detail showing in the leaves on distant trees for example and to grass.
I do not think there is much point in going beyond 15Mp though. At this resolution I can print a full size A3 at 300dpi, which is perfect for my needs. Even a severe crop can be printed at 240Mp say and still be great.
If noise at high ISO became a problem with more densly populated sensors, then the useage limitations would outway the resolution advantages, I think.
--------------------
David.
-----------------------------------------------
Photos hosted by Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/monobod/
-----------------------------------------------
My sharpest lens is a tripod - Chris Palmer.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 3703
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Quote:
The replacement for the Nikon D300 - the D400 is being quoted as having a 16 megapixel CMOS APC sensor manufactured by Sony (so I guess the Sony a700 replacement will use the same sensor). Too what does that equate - scaled to FF?
I hope that rumour about the D400 is wrong. Any improvement in sensor technology would be better employed in improving high iso performance and improving dynamic range. The new camera could still introduce faster AF processing for dealing with the huge amount of data from the 51 point system. Easily apparent changes to the spec would be to add video and GPS. 12 mega pixels is more than enough.
|
PhilW
Blue Peter Badge Winner
Reged: 14/03/2007
Posts: 1291
Loc: Near Wakefield, Yorkshire
|
|
GPS? Why would you want to pay for GPS in a camera?
--------------------
Phil Winterbourne
http://www.philwinterbourne.co.uk
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6282
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Why would you want to pay for GPS in a camera?
So it can find its own way home when accidentally left in the pub....
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 3703
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why would you want to pay for GPS in a camera?
So it can find its own way home when accidentally left in the pub....
When you get to my age you forget where you took the pictures
The GPS only tells you which pub, and not how to get home.
|
PhilW
Blue Peter Badge Winner
Reged: 14/03/2007
Posts: 1291
Loc: Near Wakefield, Yorkshire
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why would you want to pay for GPS in a camera?
So it can find its own way home when accidentally left in the pub....
When you get to my age you forget where you took the pictures
The GPS only tells you which pub, and not how to get home.
lol
I'm not knocking gps generally - I have several gps devices and find them to be very useful. I just can't see the point on a camera.
I mean I can see how useful it might be to know where you were when you took a photo, but only in the absence of a photo to show you.............. you see what I'm getting at here :-P
--------------------
Phil Winterbourne
http://www.philwinterbourne.co.uk
|
TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 18960
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
I tend to agree, but some people go for that geotagging malarky in a big way. Maybe such folk like to know where a snap was taken, so they can go there and take their own second rate version of the same thing!  
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6282
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Maybe such folk like to know where a snap was taken, so they can go there and take their own second rate version of the same thing!
These things obviously need to be networked so they can steer you to a nearby place that hasn't already appeared on 82% of camera magazine covers.
|
Monobod
'Phantom' of the forum!
Reged: 03/04/2003
Posts: 6878
Loc: Just West of Norwich, Norfolk
|
|
What about also telling you which way you pointed the camera N,S,E or W and how high off the ground the tripod was set. If we are going to have such info, it might as well be complete....... 
--------------------
David.
-----------------------------------------------
Photos hosted by Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/monobod/
-----------------------------------------------
My sharpest lens is a tripod - Chris Palmer.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 3703
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
When I am hill walking I often carry a Garmin thingy widget. If this could be built into the camera for an extra 10grams why carry the Garmin? I would like OSGB as well as degrees, minute, seconds. I do not want all the mapping rubbish, functionality gone mad stuff. I do carry a weatherproof map as well.
|
TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 18960
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Following on from the discussion to date, this thread from GetDPI might be of interest to some. For those unfamiliar, the Phase One P25 is 22 megapixel, the P45 is 39mp & P65 is 60mp (none, to my knowledge, have micro lenses over the pixel wells).
It certainly adds weight to many of the arguments already stated here I think, and emphasises that the higher the pixel count the more vital it is that only the very best lenses be used.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3362
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
.......And as I have said before elsewhere, why does anyone want or need 14.7 MP is a compact camera. 
Surely it would be better to use advances in sensor technology to reduce noise at higher ISO settings, rather than providing yet more resolution (and oversised files) that no compact user really needs.
Following on from the discussions above, can the optical system in a compact really do justice to 14.7 MP resolution anyway? If L Glass struggles beyond 15 MP I'm sure the lenses in compact cameras will be equally challenged.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
