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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
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?


I can easily get moire when using photoshop at other than 100% view also.
Proves nothing about the camera though.

Trevor.

On 3/17/2013 8:46 PM, Trevor wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
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?


I can easily get moire when using photoshop at other than 100% view also.
Proves nothing about the camera though.

Trevor.


I have the pictures. No, I', not so stupid as to not check for moire at
100% or 200% view. They are absolutely hilarious. Of course. I did say
LCD TV. And oh yes, I did use my cheapest lens (50 mm f/1.7, at f/4.5),
but the moire is visible with my 24-105mm f/4L zoom, just not as
horrific. Pics posted tomorrow on Dropbox, I can't do that from home.

Doug McDonald

Trevor wrote:

I can easily get moire when using photoshop at other than 100% view also.
Proves nothing about the camera though.

Proves that photoshop is incompetent at resampling for display.

-Wolfgang