PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   So how good is 36 megapixels? (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=125447)

Me March 15th 13 08:37 AM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
.... compared to 24 megapixels.
Of course it's a bit better, but not much better.
With the best lens they've tested, DXO only give the D800 a 5% (linear)
"perceptual" resolution advantage over the 24mp D3x.
That's measurable in the lab, but you'd never see it in the field or in
print.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...sons-to-switch

Meanwhile, there seem to be rumours of 50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors "coming
soon. I don't believe it:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg

David Taylor March 15th 13 05:15 PM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
On 15/03/2013 07:37, Me wrote:
... compared to 24 megapixels.
Of course it's a bit better, but not much better.
With the best lens they've tested, DXO only give the D800 a 5% (linear)
"perceptual" resolution advantage over the 24mp D3x.
That's measurable in the lab, but you'd never see it in the field or in
print.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...sons-to-switch


Meanwhile, there seem to be rumours of 50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors "coming
soon. I don't believe it:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg


Although, over in rec.photo.digital Mr Davidson has been trying to
persuade us that "something above 175-200MP" is required....
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Floyd L. Davidson March 15th 13 06:54 PM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
David Taylor wrote:
On 15/03/2013 07:37, Me wrote:
... compared to 24 megapixels.
Of course it's a bit better, but not much better.
With the best lens they've tested, DXO only give the D800 a 5% (linear)
"perceptual" resolution advantage over the 24mp D3x.
That's measurable in the lab, but you'd never see it in the field or in
print.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...sons-to-switch


Meanwhile, there seem to be rumours of 50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors "coming
soon. I don't believe it:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg


Although, over in rec.photo.digital Mr Davidson has been
trying to persuade us that "something above 175-200MP"
is required....


That is a total misquote, and misunderstanding, of what
I have said.

There is no way that I relate "175-200MP" to "resolution
advantage" over any other size image nor to any
particular camera. Nor did I suggest that such cameras
were "coming soon" in the same sense conveyed above
about the "50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors".

Regardless, yes it is in fact true that 24x36mm sensors
in the 50MP range are right around the corner. We can
safely assume that at least two, perhaps more, sensor
manufacturers are currently field testing such sensors.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

David Taylor March 15th 13 08:02 PM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
On 15/03/2013 17:54, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
That is a total misquote, and misunderstanding, of what
I have said.

There is no way that I relate "175-200MP" to "resolution
advantage" over any other size image nor to any
particular camera. Nor did I suggest that such cameras
were "coming soon" in the same sense conveyed above
about the "50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors".

Regardless, yes it is in fact true that 24x36mm sensors
in the 50MP range are right around the corner. We can
safely assume that at least two, perhaps more, sensor
manufacturers are currently field testing such sensors.


Thanks for your correction. Perhaps you would clarify why you stated:
"something above 175-200MP [full-frame] is required" for the sensor to
out resolve the lens, and aliasing artefacts to be absent.

If subjective tests suggest that 36 MP is not a lot better than 24 MP,
would anyone see significant improvements with your proposed 200 MP sensor?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Me March 15th 13 09:08 PM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
On 16/03/2013 8:31 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Mar 15, 2:37 am, Me wrote:
... compared to 24 megapixels.
Of course it's a bit better, but not much better.
With the best lens they've tested, DXO only give the D800 a 5% (linear)
"perceptual" resolution advantage over the 24mp D3x.
That's measurable in the lab, but you'd never see it in the field or in
print.http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...eviews/Which-l...

Meanwhile, there seem to be rumours of 50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors "coming
soon. I don't believe it:http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg


36mp is about 50% greater resolution than does 24mp. Which means you
will see detail (all things being equal) 50% smaller. Which could
mean a much sharper-looking print IF a lot of detail in the scene is
just at the edge of resolution.

36 mp is NOT 50% greater resolution than 24mp - linear resolution should
be used, in which case the difference is about 22%.

Perhaps you haven't read the article. The average difference in
"perceptual" /megapixels/ with all lenses tested by DXO was only 10%.

If you think you can see the difference in result between a 10mp camera
and an 11mp camera, then that's about the average difference in practice
you'd see between say a d600 and a d800.

Of course more megapixels is good, eventually there will be no need for
an AA filter.

Alan Browne March 15th 13 10:41 PM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
On 2013.03.15 03:37 , Me wrote:
... compared to 24 megapixels.
Of course it's a bit better, but not much better.
With the best lens they've tested, DXO only give the D800 a 5% (linear)
"perceptual" resolution advantage over the 24mp D3x.
That's measurable in the lab, but you'd never see it in the field or in
print.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...sons-to-switch


Meanwhile, there seem to be rumours of 50, 60, 70mp Fx sensors "coming
soon. I don't believe it:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/10qgtjn.jpg


Lenses are quite the spatial frequency filter somewhere above 20 or so
Mpix on a full frame sensor.

Sensors heading off to 50+Mpix for FF is like camera phones with 10 Mpix
and more... completely useless.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald


Wolfgang Weisselberg March 16th 13 02:09 AM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
Me wrote:

Of course more megapixels is good, eventually there will be no need for
an AA filter.


At the price of tons of pixels with practically no information,
which never the less need to be stored, backupped and computed
over for RAW processing.

-Wolfgang

Doug McDonald[_8_] March 16th 13 02:18 AM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 

Lenses are quite the spatial frequency filter somewhere above 20 or so
Mpix on a full frame sensor.



Absurd: I own an 18 mpixel Canon7D, a crop frame camera: and it shows
bad moire on subjects like an LCD TV. And it has an AA filter.

Doug McDonald


David Taylor March 16th 13 11:24 AM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
On 16/03/2013 01:18, Doug McDonald wrote:

Lenses are quite the spatial frequency filter somewhere above 20 or so
Mpix on a full frame sensor.



Absurd: I own an 18 mpixel Canon7D, a crop frame camera: and it shows
bad moire on subjects like an LCD TV. And it has an AA filter.

Doug McDonald


Please you could point to a sample image? What does it look like zoomed
right in to 1:1 viewing? I wonder whether the moiré may be due to
resampling for your display?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Alan Browne March 16th 13 12:59 PM

So how good is 36 megapixels?
 
On 2013.03.15 21:18 , Doug McDonald wrote:

Lenses are quite the spatial frequency filter somewhere above 20 or so
Mpix on a full frame sensor.



Absurd: I own an 18 mpixel Canon7D, a crop frame camera: and it shows
bad moire on subjects like an LCD TV. And it has an AA filter.


Post the original.


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com