If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300, combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 What a waste of time for a meaningless result. Why don't you just go to DPreview and look at the 5dII review where there are converted raw samples 5DII vs 5D. The difference is also entirely consistent with what the masses who "upgraded" from a Canon 300 to 450d have already seen. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300, combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor. eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
Scott W wrote:
On Feb 17, 1:11 pm, Alan Browne wrote: Rich wrote: Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300, combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor. eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses. I think you meant to write 1/res_out = 1/res_len + 1/res_sensor, you had lens_sensor. I think I meant to have my brain on when I wrote that. But the real equation is closer to 1/res_out = sqrt(1/res_len^2+1/ res_sensor^2) Yes - more brain idle, though I would have wrote it: 1/res_out^2 = 1/res_lens^2 + 1/res_sens^2. Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account, and can be the limiting factor. Everything in series has a limiting factor. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
"Alan Browne" wrote: Scott W wrote: Yes - more brain idle, though I would have wrote it: 1/res_out^2 = 1/res_lens^2 + 1/res_sens^2. Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account, and can be the limiting factor. Everything in series has a limiting factor. FWIW, I find that it's quite possible to get corner-to-corner sharp images from the 5D2. Most of the wide angle lenses I own need to be stopped down to f/11 or f/16 (which is an irritation and is why I'll be buying the ZE 21/2.8 if it comes out), but at 35mm and longer most lenses are sharp at the corners at f/5.6 or f/8. So the lens is only the limiting factor if one isn't thinking/trying. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
"Rich" wrote in message ... Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300, combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 Hmmm, comapring a APS-C sensor to a FX`sensor? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote: Scott W wrote: Yes - more brain idle, though I would have wrote it: 1/res_out^2 = 1/res_lens^2 + 1/res_sens^2. Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account, and can be the limiting factor. Everything in series has a limiting factor. FWIW, I find that it's quite possible to get corner-to-corner sharp images from the 5D2. Most of the wide angle lenses I own need to be stopped down to f/11 or f/16 (which is an irritation and is why I'll be buying the ZE 21/2.8 if it comes out), but at 35mm and longer most lenses are sharp at the corners at f/5.6 or f/8. So the lens is only the limiting factor if one isn't thinking/trying. Well, there is the difference between absolute performance, pixel peeping and plain making good photography. Oddly, when I posted the "Megapixel challenge" before Christmas there was only one taker (other than me) - and he shot on film (acquitting himself well at that - I scanned his film on my 9000ED). The photos were corner shots only, BTW, though shot in the sweet aperture spot. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
RichA wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:12 pm, Me wrote: Rich wrote: Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300, combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 What a waste of time for a meaningless result. Why don't you just go to DPreview and look at the 5dII review where there are converted raw samples 5DII vs 5D. Because the 5D is over 4 years old. You can't compare its output with the 5D II. Why not? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
In article 343ff82d-3d4d-4d11-89eb-6d81df77c4a2
@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com, Scott W says... On Feb 17, 1:11*pm, Alan Browne wrote: Rich wrote: Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. *I shot 4 frames with the D300, combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also took one shot for 12 megapixels. *The detail increase is more noticeable than I'd have expected. *I figure this is pretty much like going to the D3x, at least at lower ISOs. *Images look best at top screen resolution (at least 1680 x 1050). *Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots. 12 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567 24 Megapixels: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645 1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor. eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses. I think you meant to write 1/res_out = 1/res_len + 1/res_sensor, you had lens_sensor. But the real equation is closer to 1/res_out = sqrt(1/res_len^2+1/ res_sensor^2) Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas make no sense. Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account, and can be the limiting factor. Yep. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
Alfred Molon wrote:
[] Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas make no sense. Alfred, It makes sense if you use the same spatial units, whether that be microns or megapixels, and then use the appropriate formula. But you are right in that using one figure for lens performance may simplify things too much. David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff. | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 20 | February 19th 09 09:11 PM |
TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma. | Little Green Eyed Dragon | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 07 08:04 PM |
OPTICAL Zoom versus megapixels | Joan | Digital Photography | 4 | May 6th 06 03:06 PM |
Megapixels versus Quality | Never Enough Money | Digital Photography | 37 | February 9th 06 07:26 AM |
A Serious question on enlarging 120 (6x6) negs. Diff enlargers and diff results! | Martin Jangowski | In The Darkroom | 9 | July 25th 04 12:57 AM |