Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: geesbert on October 19, 2013, 01:11:22 pm
-
Can anyone explain, please?
Why is Canon not teasing us with a reoadmap for a high MP camera? I am sure a lot of people are switching camps, and I am about, too....
-
Can anyone explain, please?
Why is Canon not teasing us with a reoadmap for a high MP camera? I am sure a lot of people are switching camps, and I am about, too....
If you absolutely want and/or need higher resolution NOW, you have no choice but to switch.
Only the naive would think that Canon is not working on a response or leap-frog-jump. With development projects, committing a product on a date is lose, lose. The odds of exactly hitting that date with exactly what was promised is slim...stuff happens.....if you are late or early there will be user and press complaints.
-
Can anyone explain, please?
Why is Canon not teasing us with a reoadmap for a high MP camera? I am sure a lot of people are switching camps, and I am about, too....
One wonders at what point will you have enough pixels in your camera?
-
One wonders at what point will you have enough pixels in your camera?
That will be when the camera stops delivering (1) lower noise per unit area of the sensor, and (2) higher MTF in the upper frequencies, even at web sizes.
-
Can anyone explain, please?
Why is Canon not teasing us with a reoadmap for a high MP camera? I am sure a lot of people are switching camps, and I am about, too....
I can't explain it either. Canon's practice of only making small improvements with each new model, and disabling some features in the cheaper models to create an artificial price differential makes them look poor. Next year I plan to switch.
I couldn't see that the 5D3 was worth the price of the upgrade. The 5D2 (with Magic Lantern installed) still does the job that I bought it for, and does it well. I'm not paying for a better autofocus if it doesn't come with a significantly better high iso and dynamic range. More MP would be quite useful for the stuff I print.
I've used a 7D when I want better autofocus. Last month I borrowed a Fuji XE1. The autofocus is not as good, but the image quality and handling just leaves that Canon completely for dead in every respect. It's like another century ahead. I really look forward to owning a camera with EVF.
Furthermore, if Canon bring out a high MP camera I have no confidence based on past experience that it won't have bugs and that Canon will own up and fix them. (Nikon can be as guilty here as well). As I would have to upgrade my glass anyway, I may as well look around as see what else is out there and not wait around for an improved model that actually works.
Ideally I'd look for two bodies that take the same glass. One with a high MP sensor for detailed work, and one with a crop sensor around 20 MP with a fast autofocus and frame rate. Good high iso would be nice.
Well, we can all live in hope. :)
-
Can anyone explain, please?
Why is Canon not teasing us with a reoadmap for a high MP camera? I am sure a lot of people are switching camps, and I am about, too....
The standard explanation is the Osborne effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect): a company advertising its plans for future products that are distinctly better than what it offers now can inhibit sales of its current products, and so hurt more than it helps. Product roadmaps tend to be offered by companies in a position of some weakness relative to competitors, for example new systems which for now have a smaller market share and smaller lens offerings than direct competitors but are working on catching up, and for future products that add to current offerings, not supercede the [e.g. lens roadmaps for the newish Fujifilm X system or the brand new Sony FE mirrorless 35mm format system]. Canon, despite much online hand-wringing over the disadvantages of its sensors compared to its rivals, is still the SLR market leader, and has little need to show its hand prematurely.
Making promises of products that mostly catch up with what competitors already offer can also be earn contempt as vaporware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware), after the notorious case from the 1960's where IBM announced future models to match the then new supercomputer offerings from CDC, but never delivered.
-
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2012-10-10/
Jeremy
-
If you are getting pleasing images with what you have and don't need the jump in final print sizes for a particular reason or client or it isn't adding to your bottom line, why make the switch?
Why not take that money and invest it in to making you a better photographer (workshop, class, seminar, training), or to buy opportunity to go out and shoot (travel to a distant place, gas to drive, etc.)?
The ROI is so much higher to spend those dollars on making one better than on the promise that a better camera will lead to better photos. It seldom will.
-
If you are getting pleasing images with what you have and don't need the jump in final print sizes for a particular reason or client or it isn't adding to your bottom line, why make the switch?
Why not take that money and invest it in to making you a better photographer (workshop, class, seminar, training), or to buy opportunity to go out and shoot (travel to a distant place, gas to drive, etc.)?
The ROI is so much higher to spend those dollars on making one better than on the promise that a better camera will lead to better photos. It seldom will.
Logic when it comes to gear! What a concept. LOL
Peter
-
Amazingly Nikon's flagship camera the D4 is 16.2Mp and Canon's D1x is 18.1Mp. The big two seem to have a very similar roadmap…
Cheers,
-
Amazingly Nikon's flagship camera the D4 is 16.2Mp and Canon's D1x is 18.1Mp. The big two seem to have a very similar roadmap…
Cheers,
So the D4 sensor, which like the 1Dx, uses an outboard amp/A-D strategy, has an enormous full-well capacity of about 120k-e, which gives it clean blacks and high DR at ISO100 on a par with the D3x. Will Canon step up their basic sensor technology, which tops out at approximately 12 stops of DR? Eventually--but how? The Exmor, which uses on-chip amp/A-D is the lowest noise chip out there, at over 14 stops of print DR. Will Canon match that? Will Canon pony-up in the very high MP sensors? Can they do this without a sensor of equivalent performance as the Exmor?
For that matter, will Nikon come in with a DX MILC? Or an FX MILC?
-
Correct me if I am wrong please, but despite all this Canon still outsells Nikon significantly correct? I don't think we know the breakdown of sales by models, but with all the odd strategy and outdated sensor they still rule the roost.
-
Correct me if I am wrong please, but despite all this Canon still outsells Nikon significantly correct? I don't think we know the breakdown of sales by models, but with all the odd strategy and outdated sensor they still rule the roost.
This article (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/japane-2012-market-analysis-only-high-end-product-sales-didnt-decline/) shows some info. The source info is in japanese.
-
Why not take that money and invest it in to making you a better photographer (workshop, class, seminar, training), or to buy opportunity to go out and shoot (travel to a distant place, gas to drive, etc.)?
Agreed.
-
If you are getting pleasing images with what you have and don't need the jump in final print sizes for a particular reason or client or it isn't adding to your bottom line, why make the switch?
Why not take that money and invest it in to making you a better photographer (workshop, class, seminar, training), or to buy opportunity to go out and shoot (travel to a distant place, gas to drive, etc.)?
The ROI is so much higher to spend those dollars on making one better than on the promise that a better camera will lead to better photos. It seldom will.
what does traveling to distant places help if your client is asking for higher MP files? They want to crop and they want to ken burns in 4k, so the Canon files don't cut it.
I went MFD, but it doesn't suit my workflow.
I worked with Canon for years, and I really like their stuff, but recently I feel a bit abondoned.
I think it is such a shame that canon stopped catering for the professional studio photographer. When they came out with the first 1DS, many professionals threw away their MF gear and got that. Even the 1DX still seems to carry so much film EOS DNA, which I thing is really blocking them from evolving into a modern system.
I like what Sony is doing with the alpha 7 and 7r, they manage to move on and leave things behind that are crippeling them. having a camera with such a short flange distance, great HDMI out and no mirror makes it nearly modular, I can put nearly every lens I own onto it, can use the build-in viewfinder or an Eizo or a beamer for preview, I can strap it onto my Linhof without a mirrorbox getting in the way, I can give my AD an ipad while i keep on shooting and so on. So I get it anyway.
It is just just so weird that Canon is not able to tease me with what they might have up their sleeve.
-
.......snip........
I think it is such a shame that canon stopped catering for the professional studio photographer. When they came out with the first 1DS, many professionals threw away their MF gear and got that. Even the 1DX still seems to carry so much film EOS DNA, which I thing is really blocking them from evolving into a modern system.
I like what Sony is doing with the alpha 7 and 7r, they manage to move on and leave things behind that are crippeling them. .......snip
I'm a big fan of mirror-less, completely blown away by the video quality of the Pana Gh3's, have the OMD e5 for some stills and like most people find the development of the new Sony fascinating.
Though I still own Canon 1dx, 5d2 and 1ds and a large amount of glass. Why?, because if you work all day with a mirror-less evf, (and they are getting much much better) and doing a dedicated still shoot, the Canon is so refined, with zero glitches.
18mpx seems small in todays 36 mpx world, but I've compared the 1dx files next to my two 1dsIII's and really compared them and found the 1dx had more real detail, plus it shoots at a crazy frame rate of like 10fps, shoots beautiful raws and jpegs, amazing autofocus, tethers bulletproof in DPP with ethernet (like nothing I've ever tethered before) and when it's all said and done, it's not a revolutionary camera, but it's a highly refined still camera.
Recently shooting a combination motion and still project, it was much easier just to continue the stills with a GH3 or Olympus because that's what we were using with some of the video, but after using an evf, going to the refinement and robust size and build of the 1dx made a huge difference in ease, file quality and results.
We all love big new development but refinement really makes a difference and the continuity of the line is huge in terms of keeping your favorite lens set and not having to search out everything new from filter rings, to shades to learning new software or even complex camera menus.
I think for the casual photographer a sony 7 is great, same with the omd, so is the panasonic, but when your in to one of those 20 set up, 2,000 frame days, where it's a billion degrees, no time for any equipment glitches, going from flash to continuous, 2 screen heavy tethering, a mirror-less compared to a tried and test ovf, refined 1dx, is like a having 200 lbs of agro lifted from you.
In fact that's where all of these reviews on cameras fall down. Sure people test the detail of the file, the focus accuracy, the color, tone, noise and accessories, added lenses using lcd focusing all doing casual walk about photography, but they don't test in the brutal conditions we work under, those times when a client must see the image in 27" splendor, the ability to tether and see the image immediately on a large screen while also on the camera lcd.
It's the same thing with my RED cameras and the Gh3. Sometimes I think why did I spend the money on RED's when the gh3 is so easy and so good, until it's very heavy production, you need 4 channel sound, cages that actually fit, finders and monitors that hook up professionally and secure, additional fan cooling, lens mounts that are tough and accurate, footage counts and file naming that is perfect and a dedicated software suite to process and you can rent anything for a Canon or RED in any market in the world.
Then you realize where the money is well spent and that the RED is ready for heavy expensive production, just like the Canon 1dx.
That doesn't mean mirror-less doesn't have a place or isn't getting better, because it is and for some things it's perfect, but in my view no evf dslr style camera is as robust as the large traditional workhorse dslrs.
Also we should keep in mind that Sony in regards to standard dslrs, has never caught up to Canon and Nikon so the 7 series is a place they almost had to go to gain traction in the market, but I'm not sure that a 2.5 fps camera with limited continuous focus is really ready for heavy lifting.
IMO
BC
-
that very much depends on your subjects. Any slow paced or even still life neither needs high fps nor AF
I think the one thing which could make or break those sonys for professionla use is thier ability to tether.
-
Currently I am in the "learn more and shoot more" mode, so Canon's lack of a roadmap doesn't bug me. However, I am not a pro with highly demanding clients, I am just an amateur who is happy with up to 13" x 19" prints. 18 MP can do that fine. All that said, when the 7D2 comes out, I will be standing there with my nose pressed to the window, just like everyone else in the sports/wildlife photography mode, at least the ones who don't want to spend for the 1DX.
-
Well I'm definitely not happy with just 13"x19" prints. I aspire to 13ft x 19ft prints. I'd like an 80mp Phase One with the flexibility, weight, price, DR and high-ISO performance of a basic Nikon D800.
I still hang on to my Canon lenses in the hope that Canon will eventually produce a high res, high DR, body which will effectively upgrade my Canon lenses, image resolution always being a product of both lens resolution and sensor resolution.
-
Well I'm definitely not happy with just 13"x19" prints. I aspire to 13ft x 19ft prints. I'd like an 80mp Phase One with the flexibility, weight, price, DR and high-ISO performance of a basic Nikon D800.
I still hang on to my Canon lenses in the hope that Canon will eventually produce a high res, high DR, body which will effectively upgrade my Canon lenses, image resolution always being a product of both lens resolution and sensor resolution.
There is always the regression to film to be considered. Apropos the Nikon lens thread, I was looking at an image from my Mamiya in a magazine today and comparing it with an image taken on God knows what, probably a mobile or compact, on the opposite page and the 'proper' camera really did offer so much more in the way of image quality. Then I sought out some of my old MF trannies and wow!! I'd forgotten just how good film could be.
Edit. I've just tried capturing some that brilliance with the scanner, and well, I guess film does have its drawbacks. ;)
-
There is no 'regression' to film. It is a choice many of us make to suit the prints we want.
As for Canon and their lack of a roadmap, or lack of focus - they have shot themselves in the foot after making some great decisions in the past.
Big, fast AF lenses put them way ahead of Canon when it mattered. Nikon was 4-5 years behind in getting 300/400/500/600mm fast glass out after Canon had them which resulted in white lenses on sidelines of sporting events worldwide. Nikon didn't dig itself out of that hole for a long time. Now Nikon seems to be more responsive with higher level gear than Canon.
Nikon puts out the announcement for the D600 and it is on the shelves for purchase 3 days later. Canon announces the 5D MkIII and it is on the shelves in a few months. Nikon announces the D800 and it is available quicklyl while Canon has nothing at all to answer it. 36 MP compared to 18 MP is a no brainer for many who aren't sure what reality is other than one is 'twice the MP' of the other.
In mirrorless Fuji seems to be topping the market right now with their X series. Sony is close but their lack of lenses hurts them. Olympus is where they always seem to be, late but good and with a small market share. Panasonic and others are close but not in the same sentence as Canon and Nikon.
Then there is Leica - plaything of Doctors and such for the most part. Collectors and weekenders love them and a few pros who grew up on them stick with them while the technical lead is going elsewhere.
Canon? Still sitting while everyone else seems to be moving forward. Once they finally announce a big deal it may be too late.
-
13' x 19' prints? Your living room is a LOT larger than mine! :D
-
There is no 'regression' to film. It is a choice many of us make to suit the prints we want.
The remark was made tongue in cheek. ;)
As for Canon and their lack of a roadmap, or lack of focus - they have shot themselves in the foot after making some great decisions in the past.
Big, fast AF lenses put them way ahead of Canon when it mattered. Nikon was 4-5 years behind in getting 300/400/500/600mm fast glass out after Canon had them which resulted in white lenses on sidelines of sporting events worldwide. Nikon didn't dig itself out of that hole for a long time. Now Nikon seems to be more responsive with higher level gear than Canon.
Nikon puts out the announcement for the D600 and it is on the shelves for purchase 3 days later. Canon announces the 5D MkIII and it is on the shelves in a few months. Nikon announces the D800 and it is available quicklyl while Canon has nothing at all to answer it. 36 MP compared to 18 MP is a no brainer for many who aren't sure what reality is other than one is 'twice the MP' of the other.
In mirrorless Fuji seems to be topping the market right now with their X series. Sony is close but their lack of lenses hurts them. Olympus is where they always seem to be, late but good and with a small market share. Panasonic and others are close but not in the same sentence as Canon and Nikon.
Then there is Leica - plaything of Doctors and such for the most part. Collectors and weekenders love them and a few pros who grew up on them stick with them while the technical lead is going elsewhere.
Canon? Still sitting while everyone else seems to be moving forward. Once they finally announce a big deal it may be too late.
Good summary but I'd add that Pentax have been particularly disappointing with on/off rumours of a full frame for several years now. The latest word is that next autumn is when they'll finally roll it out. Yeah yeah yeah, Ricoh, we'll believe it when the rubber actually hits the road.
-
I am surprised that more people don't take a hybrid approach. Not unusual for a landscape photographer to use a 4x5 view camera and a DSLR. I see little difference between that and having a Canon with telephotos or to use the Canon PC lens and a Nikon D800e for use with the stellar 14-24mm f2.8 lens. It is less expensive than swapping out all your cameras and lenses and flash gear.
No company produces the road map you mentioned as it would be sharing their marketing and product development strategy with their competitors. The ultra high resolution is beneficial if you have the lenses to match and adjust your shooting technique and plan to make very large prints. There are 20x30 gallery prints that have been selling for years that were produced with the 2MP D1h and even more with the 12MP D3 camera.
It is also a big mistake to equate more megapixels with greater image quality. I did a test with a 12MP APS-C D300 and a 12MP D3 using the 14-24mm and 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lenses and compared the results. The more pixel dense (more per square millimeter and with smaller photosites) D300 produced very noticeably inferior images in terms of tonal range to the D3. The larger the print the more apparent this would be.
-
36 MP compared to 18 MP is a no brainer for many who aren't sure what reality is other than one is 'twice the MP' of the other.
The folks who buy those cameras are mostly knowledgeable. Those who are not and are looking for a status thing go all the way to a Leica.
The higher resolution of the D800 is clearly a good initial eye catcher, but I don't believe that this does trigger that many actual sales, especially among Canon shooters.
What drove sales of the D800 among those knowledgeable shooters is IMHO the additional 2 stops DR. That really makes a significant difference in many shooting situations, as the many Canon shooters buying Sony a7r are currently realizing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
+1 on DR advantages of the D800 over Canon as a main reason to switch.
Paul Caldwell
-
... Pentax have been particularly disappointing with on/off rumours of a full frame for several years now.
I don't think that Pentax can be blamed for the periodic bouts of internet forum speculation and rumor-mongering about Pentax reverting to 36x24mm format: I have not seen anything in the words or actions of Pentax or Ricoh that could be blamed for such rumors.
-
+2 on DR.
-
I don't think that Pentax can be blamed for the periodic bouts of internet forum speculation and rumor-mongering about Pentax reverting to 36x24mm format: I have not seen anything in the words or actions of Pentax or Ricoh that could be blamed for such rumors.
Yes and no. The rumour mill is used by companies to keep their name up their on the web pages so I rather suspect that they may have let it be believed that they were going to progress dramatically to keep their customer base happy. The black art of internet marketing is not confined to just maintaining a blog or a FB page.
-
[...]The ultra high resolution is beneficial if you have the lenses to match and adjust your shooting technique and plan to make very large prints. There are 20x30 gallery prints that have been selling for years that were produced with the 2MP D1h and even more with the 12MP D3 camera.
The ultra high resolution is beneficial at any print size. A better lens helps, but does not erase the benefits.
It is also a big mistake to equate more megapixels with greater image quality. I did a test with a 12MP APS-C D300 and a 12MP D3 using the 14-24mm and 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lenses and compared the results. The more pixel dense (more per square millimeter and with smaller photosites) D300 produced very noticeably inferior images in terms of tonal range to the D3. The larger the print the more apparent this would be.
This doesn't seem like a test for anything. Measured *per unit area of the sensor*, the D300 was at least as good as the D3, and at base ISO, likely better. Comparing an APS-C sensor as a whole with a sensor 2.25x larger, yields incommesurable results.
-
Yes and no. The rumour mill is used by companies to keep their name up their on the web pages so I rather suspect that they may have let it be believed that they were going to progress dramatically to keep their customer base happy. The black art of internet marketing is not confined to just maintaining a blog or a FB page.
If you have any evidence that Pentax-Ricoh is spiking the rumor mill, let us know. Otherwise I find your "suspicions" as unpersuasive as most of the numerous rumors that "brand X is moving to a larger format". The internet's over-amplified feedback loop is perfectly capable of producing a vast amount of wishful/fearful thinking wrapped up as rumors without any corporate assistance. I love it when one site quotes "several anonymous sources", as if several people passing on the same story that they read on yet another website adds credibility.
-
No sensor in 36x24mm format or larger yet matches the resolution of the finest-grained black and white films like Pan F Plus or Delta 100 or TMAX-100 --- and I mean serious, useful resolution measured at a level like 50% MTF (about 140 cycles/mm for TMAX100, matching about 3.5 micron pixel spacing, or about 70MP in 36x24mm format), not the extinction resolution on 1000:1 contrast test patterns quoted by "film still rules!" partisans.
There has never been much complaining about such films having a pointless superfluity of sharpness or detail, they just motivate photographic enthusiasts to use good technique and seek good lenses ...
-
If you have any evidence that Pentax-Ricoh is spiking the rumor mill, let us know. Otherwise I find your "suspicions" as unpersuasive as most of the numerous rumors that "brand X is moving to a larger format". The internet's over-amplified feedback loop is perfectly capable of producing a vast amount of wishful/fearful thinking wrapped up as rumors without any corporate assistance. I love it when one site quotes "several anonymous sources", as if several people passing on the same story that they read on yet another website adds credibility.
Whoa! Steady on there! The internet is rife with what might be termed black flag operations. Generally I fear that it has become rather corrupt as there are far too many interested parties who would wish to see reduced to nothing more than a shopping channel. To believe that companies do not try and manipulate the PR opportunities presented by the web could be considered a little out of touch, it's just part of doing business nowdays.
-
No sensor in 36x24mm formst or larger yet matches the resolution of the finest-grained black and white films like Pan F Plus or Delta 100 or TMAX-100 --- and I mean serious, useful resolution measured at a level like 50% MTF (about 140 cycles/mm for TMAX100, matching about 3.5 micron pixel spacing, or about 70MP in 36x24mm format), not the extinction resolution on 1000:1 contrast test patterns quoted by "film still rules!" partisans.
Hi,
Two remarks though. First, granted a small niggle, 50% MTF is not a resolution metric as such. It does mean that even at that approx. 140 cy/mm detail level the response is still significant. However, that is for film only! It doesn't tell a thing about what is left after the lens projects its image on the film, the combined MTF as often shown for a digital sensor. And it also doesn't tell what's left after additional digitization, while the sensor image is already digitized without further degradation.
There has never been much complaining about such films having a pointless superfluity of sharpness or detail, they just motivate photographic enthusiasts to use good technique and seek good lenses ...
While that will help, it's no different for a digital sensor ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm not too upset with Canon as many are because:
1) I think they will develop something that will be a game changer (I don't have a road map either).
2) In the meantime, many Canon users will jump the fence to get some greener grass and will sell their gear off, thereby lowering the prices. Then I can pick up some good bargains.
Keep on changing. :D
Glenn
-
Whoa! Steady on there! The internet is rife with what might be termed black flag operations. ...
I think that the words "Whoa! Steady on there!" apply better to the person who is making a specific criticism (of Pentax) and yet declining to offer any evidence.
-
First, granted a small niggle, 50% MTF is not a resolution metric as such. It does mean that even at that approx. 140 cy/mm detail level the response is still significant. However, that is for film only! It doesn't tell a thing about what is left after the lens projects its image on the film, the combined MTF as often shown for a digital sensor. And it also doesn't tell what's left after additional digitization, while the sensor image is already digitized without further degradation.
I was comparing to the theoretical maximum resolution of a sensor based on the Nyquist limit alone, not measurements involving further degradation by lenses. The highest possible resolution for any current sensor in 36x24mm format or larger, for the Sony/Nikon 36MP sensors, is about 102 cycles per mm, at which point TMAX100 is still at almost 70% MTF. At any finer scale than that, those sensors effectively resolve nothing while TMAX100 stays above 50% for a significant stretch: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
Linguistic niggling aside, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that for people who find the detail/sharpness/resolution/acutance/whatever given by films like TMAX100 worth having, 36MP in 36x24mm format is not yet in the realm of overkill.
-
I was comparing to the theoretical maximum resolution of a sensor based on the Nyquist limit alone, not measurements involving further degradation by lenses. The highest possible resolution for any current sensor in 36x24mm format or larger, for the Sony/Nikon 36MP sensors, is about 102 cycles per mm, at which point TMAX100 is still at almost 70% MTF.
It isn't that high any longer once you scan it ..., and you need to scan it before it becomes digital output like the DSLR produces. I used to scan my film myself, @ 5400 PPI (Nyquist=106.3 cy/mm) which indeed extracted more detail than a 4000 PPI scanner, and I switched to digital 35mm capture for good when my 16 MP DSLR (EOS-1 Mark II) resolved about the same level of detail from Supra 100 and Provia film as the scans @ 5400 PPI. I also tested that with a slanted edge target which has much higher resolution than film. Black and White film resolved a bit better, Technical Pan in particular.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
My take on the issue is that increasing resolution is useful until MTF from the best lens we happen to own drops to a sufficiently low level not to cause aliasing.
With my 70-400/4-5.6G (which is not Sony's best lens) at 85 mm and f/8 I still see aliasing at 3.9 microns, although the sensor probably has some kind of OLP filtering. There is some loss of DR with decreasing pixel size and the files get larger, of course, so there are other aspects than just MTF.
Best regards
Erik
It isn't that high any longer once you scan it ..., and you need to scan it before it becomes digital output like the DSLR produces. I used to scan my film myself, @ 5400 PPI (Nyquist=106.3 cy/mm) which indeed extracted more detail than a 4000 PPI scanner, and I switched to digital 35mm capture for good when my 16 MP DSLR (EOS-1 Mark II) resolved about the same level of detail from Supra 100 and Provia film as the scans @ 5400 PPI. I also tested that with a slanted edge target which has much higher resolution than film. Black and White film resolved a bit better, Technical Pan in particular.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It isn't that high any longer once you scan it ..., and you need to scan it before it becomes digital output like the DSLR produces. Black and White film resolved a bit better, Technical Pan in particular.
Since I was talking about the attitude of traditional film users to this idea of "too much resolution if not all lenses can make use of it", it is a little strange bringing scanning into the story; I would think that most of those B&W film users were printing in the darkroom rather than scanning! And why do you bring color films into the discussion when I was specifically talking about fine-grained B&W films? I do not dispute that recent 35mm format sensors out-resolve color film.
But thank you for reminding me of Technical Pan (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf): by the measures in that Kodak document and the one above, there is not much between them, but TMAX100 has somewhat higher MTF across most of the frequency range.
-
Since I was talking about the attitude of traditional film users to this idea of "too much resolution if not all lenses can make use of it", it is a little strange bringing scanning into the story;
Hi,
Many people do not fathom that the resolution or acutance film/sensor alone, doesn't mean much in isolation. A film alone doesn't a picture make... What's more, many people still think that the worse element of the imaging chain sets the limit (as some may interpret the subject line you changed from the OP's), while the limit will actually be worse than the worst component, because the MTFs multiply. It therefore helps most to improve the worst element of a chain, as it does in a real chain.
I would think that most of those B&W film users were printing in the darkroom rather than scanning!
Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, it seems harder every day to produce silver-based output, and easier to produce inkjet output. Also posting on the web or archiving digital copies off-site will require scanning the material, and it gets harder to find a competent scanner operator (and even scanners). So it is a development that will add another MTF to the imaging chain.
And why do you bring color films into the discussion when I was specifically talking about fine-grained B&W films?
Because there are only a few true monochrome digital cameras / backs around, and most people base their judgment on a Bayer CFA equipped sensor array, and that will lower the MTF50 metric. Besides, post-processing an image that is color from the start will allow much better control over B/W tonality than with a simple lens filter, so one can produce creatively superior results.
I do not dispute that recent 35mm format sensors out-resolve color film.
But thank you for reminding me of Technical Pan (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf): by the measures in that Kodak document and the one above, there is not much between them, but TMAX100 has somewhat higher MTF across most of the frequency range.
Yes, but with very low granularity (=5) for the Technical Pan, versus the T-MAX 100 (=18), thus allowing huge output with little grain showing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I agree that the degradation in printing needs to be taken into account --- but isn't that just part of the argument that it can be worth using a sensor/film offering more resolution/detail than the limits set by other parts of the processing chain or "signal path"? My economic rule of thumb is that one should identify the component where improving performance [MTF?] is cheapest and push it somewhat past the performance of the rest of the system, and increasing pixel count in a sensor of the same size is not that expensive.
I was explicitly talking about photographers finding it worthwhile to use films like TMAX100 and Tech Pan back in the days of darkroom printing, before scanning, not what people are doing with film these days.
TMAX100 had granularity of 8, not 18, but I agree that Tech Pan is better [5] on that measure; my conclusion is that the two are roughly comparable overall, desire advantages to each is various respects.
The fact that most sensors use Bayer CFAs, and therefore sacrifice some resolution to CFA and demosaicing, just strengthens my point: to compare the "sensor resolution" that many B&W film users found worthwhile to the sensor resolution currently offered by things like the 7,360 x 4,912 pixels (36MP) of the D800E. Demosaicing goes in the balance on one side just as scanning or the effects of printing with an enlarger go on the other side.
-
It therefore helps most to improve the worst element of a chain, as it does in a real chain.
This is almost verbatim from The Theory of Constraints. You maximize your improvement by throwing all of your resources at improving the weakest link. Spreading your resources over the entire process actually minimizes the potential for improvement because only the improvement to the constraint improves the end result. After you improve the constraint, then you re-evaluate, identify the new constraint and throw all your resources at it.
-
TMAX100 had granularity of 8, not 18, but I agree that Tech Pan is better [5] on that measure; my conclusion is that the two are roughly comparable overall, desire advantages to each is various respects.
You're right, I overlooked the figure [8] at halfway the document.
The fact that most sensors use Bayer CFAs, and therefore sacrifice some resolution to CFA and demosaicing, just strengthens my point: ...
Sorry, I disagree (explained below).
... to compare the "sensor resolution" that many B&W film users found worthwhile to the sensor resolution currently offered by things like the 7,360 x 4,912 pixels (36MP) of the D800E.
And that exactly illustrates why I disagreed above. The 35mm film scan @5400PPI gives 7654x5102 pixels and the D800/D800E gives 7360x4912 pixels. However, one cannot compare the 'sensor' resolution in isolation. One delivers a partial product that will degrade further upon scan/print, and the other is already output 'ready' and will not degrade at all.
Demosaicing goes in the balance on one side just as scanning or the effects of printing with an enlarger go on the other side.
The degradation is very much incomparable in magnitude.
This is almost verbatim from The Theory of Constraints. You maximize your improvement by throwing all of your resources at improving the weakest link.
Absolutely correct, it always helps to improve the weakest link. However, in the case of cascading MTF responses, a combination of 50% and 40% response at e.g. MTF50 gives a combined MTF of 0.5 x 0.4 = 20% . Improving the worst of the two (40%) to 50% will boost the combination to 0.5 x 0.5 =25% MTF, and boosting the best (50%) to e.g. 62.5% gives 0.625 x 0.4 = 25%, IOW the same result.
So in the case of cascading MTFs it can also pay to improve the second weakest link instead (although it may be cheaper to improve the weakest, or not).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I would rather discuss what I actually said (and later clarified), not a misinterpretation of it. So to repeat, I was referring to the fact that some years ago, when 35mm format B&W negatives were printed directly with an enlarger, not via scanning, many photographers found it worthwhile using very fine grained high resolution monochrome films like Kodak TMAX100 and Tech Pan or Ilford PAN F Plus or Delta 100. So I am not so interested in discussions of scanning at 54ppi, or color films.
I admit that I totally do not understand some of your latest comments: sensors with Bayer CFAs can only give lower MTF at a given spatial frequency] than monochrome sensors or ideal scans at the ppi, and this can only increase the pixel density needed before the resolution/detail/MTF performance reaches the level of being "excessive" relative to the rest of the MTF chain.
But at least we agree on this about dealing with "multiplicative" combination of defects:
... in the case of cascading MTFs it can also pay to improve the second weakest link instead (although it may be cheaper to improve the weakest, or not).
Or to put it another way, it can be worth improving the second weakest link to be significantly better than the weakest link if this second weakest link is cheaper to improve. Which I suspect is the case with increasing sensor resolution (at equal sensor size) versus improving lenses.