Poll - Would you want 36 million pixels?

[beejaybee]

Even though there is more data from the 36MP sensor. Both makers use 14bit technology so there is going to be a 71% increase in raw digital information from the D800.

That's where you're wrong - the raw digital information is proportionate to the number of photons captured i.e. the area of the light sensitive area of the sensor times the exposure time. Nothing else.

I know you are a fan of the 5DMKII, so am I in terms of performance. But the D800 at 36MP is going to make some portrait/wedding photographers think. At SWPP convention you see alot of A2 prints of wedding shots. Some customers want a one or two images at that size for show in their new home.

If the 5DMKIII does not have more pixels (rumours of only 22MP) they could lose the wedding market. Alot of photographers lease the kit. So a changeover is not a problem. Yes, there was the 24MP D3x but 21MP to 24MP is not alot more edge. But 21MP to 36MP that's a different issue.

For a perfect computer generated image (one with no lens softening) most people would find it very hard indeed to tell the difference between a 21 MP image interpolated to 36 MP and a native 36 MP image - however thethe image was displayed. You'd almost certainly need a computer to analyse the image to be able to deduce that interpolation had been applied to one and not the other. Add on the aberrations from the lens, light scatter from imperfect coatings and diffraction softening and it's not going to make any difference at all.

In any case, with the profit margins in professional photography being what they are, I don't think many will jump ship from one brand to another even if the difference was noticeable - there's just too much investment in lenses, flash units etc. which would also need to be changed. Most pros will also be very wary of jumping from one manufacturer's kit to another because of having to re-learn handling. Of course those joining the market will be more likely to invest in the latest kit, that's always been the case.

OK, for those who think that super high pixel counts are necessary, guess the size and number of pixels in the sensor used to make this image. Or this one.

[daft_biker]

OK, for those who think that super high pixel counts are necessary, guess the size and number of pixels in the sensor used to make this image. Or this one.

Are those from the wee Sony camera you posted a link to last week?

I've never tried but I doubt I'd want to print images from my 7D any bigger than I've printed stuff from my 300D (A3ish). With my nose to a computer screen it's easy to zoom in and see more detailed on the higher res files but when looking at a print from the other side of the room I was happy enough with 6MP....the sensor size is same, the enlagement factor the same and most of my lenses are the same ones I've been using for years.

[Old git]

I always believed that the size of the picture dictated it's viewing distance...

[P_Stoddart]

That actually is one of the issues. Are the current lenses out there capable of taking advantage of 36MP?

But in terms of a printing a 300ppi system based on 8 bit data has 264KB of data per square inch display.

So a A2 has or requires 100MB of data to avoid any stretching.

So a 21MP 8 bit image uncompressed is only 63MB. Where the other 37MB going to come from? Upscaling that's where.

Where as the D800 gives you 108MB of 8 bit colour data for a start, you got more than you need.

Yes, you can print a MP size image to any size you like but they go soft and depending on how much you push it might work at a regular viewing distance. I know I have done it.

But with no upscaling at all using 300ppi you can go 6"x4" close and still not see any problem. Presuming the lens can hack putting a image onto the 36MP sensor clean.

Finally if the other position is true that 36MP is pointless etc. Then why do we see MF camera at 80MP? If you don't need all those pixels to print say A0 why have them? As I said even inkjet (200ppi) printing at A0 needs 60MP.

[beejaybee]

Are those from the wee Sony camera you posted a link to last week?

The second one is from the Imaging Source DMK21 - 640 x 480 (0.3 MP), 5.6 micron pixel pitch. It's diffraction limited (110 mm aperture objective working at f/28).

The first one is from a similar camera with a different sensor - DMK41, 1280 x 960 (1.3 MP), 4.65 micron pixel pitch. Not quite diffraction limited but some diffraction softening (110 mm aperture objective working at f/14).

There's no point in using a sensor that oversamples the image formed by the lens too much - you're just diluting the light, and increasing the amount of computer time needed to process the images. The small image is a stack of 2000 frames and took approx. 20 minutes to process; the larger one is a mosaic of 16 panels comprising a total of 12,400 frames and took over 12 hours to process. Even the thought of the computer time needed to process 100 times the amount of data is frightening (and, because of the lack of anti-alias and Bayer filter matrices on these cameras, the quantum efficiency is far higher than a colour camera can possibly manage).

[beejaybee]

Then why do we see MF camera at 80MP?

More sensor area, more information in the capture. But if you're only going to print at A3 or smaller, or display on a screen, you're wasting your money buying MF digital kit, and you're straining your back carrying it.

[Mojo_66]

36 isn't bad, but I'd still rather have one of these. Technically on paper etc. etc. I know it's arguable that it's only 16.xx but it's not the pixels it's the sensor! And it's more affordable now....