DxO new lens resolution data: 36 Mpx camera just a waste of money ?

[Telecaster]

Personally I'd like to see the photosite count go up to 64 million. Then I could, via RAW converter (or even in-camera), generate 16mp files using each RGBG Bayer matrix to create one output pixel. 16mp gives me enough spatial detail...I want finer, richer tonal detail.

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Such a technique has been proposed and there is real math supporting it.

Now, todays lenses have something like 0.5 % flare, that is 0.5% of the incoming light bounces around in the lens. Digital sensors cover 12EV or 14EV (3.6 - 4.2 density steps). I think we need discuss lens flare and put less emphasis on sensor DR.

Best regards
Erik

Personally I'd like to see the photosite count go up to 64 million. Then I could, via RAW converter (or even in-camera), generate 16mp files using each RGBG Bayer matrix to create one output pixel. 16mp gives me enough spatial detail...I want finer, richer tonal detail.

-Dave-

[Guillermo Luijk]

with 36 Mpx camera we are also kindly gifted by an increase of negative side effects, early diffraction and minor camera shake made visible.

That is not correct, or just partially true. Early difraction and camera shake are made more visible the higher the pixel count at pixel level (100% pixel peeping), but that does not translate to a given output real image. More Mpx never mean your final images will be more affected by diffraction nor camera shake.

Regards

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Guillermo is right.

The image below shows resolution for MTF=50 on three different cameras, 6MP, 12MP and 24MP - all APS-C.



You see essentially that diffraction starts reducing sharpness somewhat on all three systems at f/8 but the higher resolving systems hold advantage up to f/22.

The Alpha 77 used here is 24 MP APS-C, corresponding to 54MP on full frame.

That is not correct, or just partially true. Early difraction and camera shake are made more visible the higher the pixel count at pixel level (100% pixel peeping), but that does not translate to a given output real image. More Mpx never mean your final images will be more affected by diffraction nor camera shake.

Regards

[hjulenissen]

Personally I'd like to see the photosite count go up to 64 million. Then I could, via RAW converter (or even in-camera), generate 16mp files using each RGBG Bayer matrix to create one output pixel. 16mp gives me enough spatial detail...I want finer, richer tonal detail.

-Dave-

The question is, if you are going to pay for a 64 MP sensor and the supporting electronics to digitize and (partially) process that data.... Would you not rather store the data with full precision to your memory card, leaving the possibility open to maximize the fidelity in a current (or future) raw converter?

I am not confident what "tonal detail" really is, but I don't think that in-camera downsampling is the way to get it. Whatever the camera can do (automatically and fixed) to your raw digital data, a software raw developer can do (with better precision, flexibility and user-interaction).

In my view, the "megapixel wars" is moving us further and further into the oversampled region. If the camera manufacturers can increase the number of sensels for a given sensor area without increasing image-level noise (they seem to be able to do the opposite), while lens manufacturers cannot improve at the same pace, then we will have more and more (accurate) samples of a 2-d waveform that gets (relatively) blurrier and blurrier (thus easier to sample and recreate). To me, that is happy-land.

-h

[PhotoEcosse]

That is not correct, or just partially true. Early difraction and camera shake are made more visible the higher the pixel count at pixel level (100% pixel peeping), but that does not translate to a given output real image. More Mpx never mean your final images will be more affected by diffraction nor camera shake.

Regards

Precisely. But it amazing how many of the self-appointed gurus get that wrong. Mark you, it was not helped by the strange Technical Note that Nikon put out just before the D800 launch.

[jjj]

That is not correct, or just partially true. Early difraction and camera shake are made more visible the higher the pixel count at pixel level (100% pixel peeping), but that does not translate to a given output real image. More Mpx never mean your final images will be more affected by diffraction nor camera shake.

Yup, absolutely.
Similarly [of sorts] is why comparing different MP cameras at 100% is also a bit daft. Compare them at same print size that's a far more useful metric. If a 40Mp camera has marginally more noise at 100% than a 20MP camera, you are are simply not going to see it as it will be much smaller/less noticable at same enlargement.

[allegretto]

Amazing

Thought I knew something about photography but little about the functioning of sensors before I came here. I know nothing about sensors and very little photography now

But this seems another, "... no one needs all these pixels and the camera companies are evil and just want us to give them more money their R&D didn't earn..." thread. Of which I've watched numerous spring up over the past year

On one hand you have "pixels I don't need", on the other "it's all about empiric testing (which of course has nothing to do with looking at a picture.) Sort of like road testing a car still in the garage (but you did read an empiric article about the exhaust note)

One thing I really like to do is look at and manipulate images. Too bad I'm too old to actually use it beyond my family. Stopped reading about sensor-metrics. No serious scientist would base a "true statement" on the "n's" used by these publications. But I do know that my RX-1 is an amazingly good camera for taking interesting and enjoyable pictures! And when I have enough light, the resolution and beauty of a DP-2 & 3 Merrill (with some "adjustments" to tifs) is at once manifest and sublime. I see things in these pictures that my eye likes.

Understood that some like to "bench" a bunch of data and call it authoritative, but doesn't one get a bit curious about how it actually looks? When I was much younger audiophiles were the rage and I worked for a time at a high end audio store. Same thing. Look at spec sheet all day and perseverate about the measured minutiae, but once the music came on, all the data was no better than "interesting".

[hjulenissen]

... I worked for a time at a high end audio store. Same thing. Look at spec sheet all day and perseverate about the measured minutiae, but once the music came on, all the data was no better than "interesting".

Me too. Those people tended to either:
1) Not care about spec at all, or
2) Care about some single spec (like purity of Cu in cables) without paying much attention to the full picture

I am convinced that measurements and practice _can_ be combined, and that a good combination i better than either in isolation.

-h

[uaiomex]

Enter Blade Runner   
Eduardo

In a word, "No".

The premise that the 36Mp sensors of the Nikon D800 and D800e are capable of "outresolving" decent quality lenses is absurd.


I probably have no rational "need" for a 200Mp camera - but when an affordable one comes along (as indeed it must), then you can bet your bottom dollar that I am going to "want" one and will thoroughly enjoy the new, currently unimagined, possibilities it will give me.

[allegretto]

Me too. Those people tended to either:
1) Not care about spec at all, or
2) Care about some single spec (like purity of Cu in cables) without paying much attention to the full picture

I am convinced that measurements and practice _can_ be combined, and that a good combination i better than either in isolation.

-h

+1