medium format vs. dslr lens sensor resolution

[david distefano]

with the rumors of a 54 mp nikon d4x and the death of medium format (ha ha), at what point do you reach in either dslr or medium format, the ability of the lens not being able to resolve fully for the large mp sensor. the new zeiss lens for dslr is said to resolve about 31 mp and these lenses are very expensive. has the race to the top in the mp race become a marketing game instead of really being a benefit to the photographer.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

If the lens is capable of 31 MP the sensor should have twice the linear resolution to match fully, to it would require a 31*(22)=124 MP sensor. With Bayer patterns in use maybe even more. Bart van der Wolf or any signal processing specialists should be able to explain this in better detail with this Nyquist thingy and such ...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't know. I shoot both MF (P45+) and DSLR (Sony Alpha 99 and Alpha 77). The P45 has a resolution advantage over my Sony's, I am not sure it is visible in 30x40" prints. I am also quite sure that 135 format can go a bit further.

If you stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 the differences between lenses may go away. The comments on Otus here on LuLa are a bit split.

I absolutely think that the increases in resolution are beneficial, but he gains get smaller with increasing resolution. I have written an article that demonstrates it pretty well:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good

Best regards
Erik

with the rumors of a 54 mp nikon d4x and the death of medium format (ha ha), at what point do you reach in either dslr or medium format, the ability of the lens not being able to resolve fully for the large mp sensor. the new zeiss lens for dslr is said to resolve about 31 mp and these lenses are very expensive. has the race to the top in the mp race become a marketing game instead of really being a benefit to the photographer.

[Ken R]

Unless you are after a different color response and look, great tethered workflow, different depth of field characteristics and/or want to work with different camera platforms with a variety of capabilities (tech cameras are awesome for landscape!) then the lower MP digital backs are not a really good choice. The 60MP and 80MP still rule though. They offer a significant resolution advantage over any DSLR or smaller format cameras. the 60/80mp sensors also have excellent dynamic range and color depth. With the older sensors like the P45+ you will give up some dynamic range and with the older backs even more so (from what I have seen online).

With Medium Format Digital there are just more camera and lens options. You can build a system to suit your needs. With the DSLR system, specially Nikon DSLRs (which have a lens mount that has a lot of limitations to adapt lenses to it) you are limited to what Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss/Rokinon/Tamron/Tokina have to offer. I am sure very few lenses will be up to the task (54.6 MP D4X) and those that are will be best at a very limited range of apertures (diffraction). Just like it's the case with the smaller formats.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Ken,

If you believe in what you just wrote then all well and good but for me my Nikon D800E and the twenty three lenses consisting of Nikon, Sigma and Rodenstock lenses I use with it all work beautifully.

Am looking forward to the Nikon D4x next year.

Cheers

Simon

[Petrus]

Mid format still has an edge in absolute resolution (not in DR, though), but so called FF cameras are catching up fast. There is more money in FF size sensor business so more R&D money is spent there. The final question is if we are prepared to pay five times the money and and suffer considerable inconvenience  in handling, size and operation speed for 15% increase in linear resolution? Something like D4X with 10 frames/sec and fast autofocus with good ergonomics or clumsy, big mid format camera with manual focus, lousy battery life and 1 frame per second at 5X the price?

[AreBee]

Ken,

With Medium Format Digital there are just more camera and lens options. You can build a system to suit your needs. With the DSLR system, specially Nikon DSLRs (which have a lens mount that has a lot of limitations to adapt lenses to it) you are limited to what Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss/Rokinon/Tamron/Tokina have to offer. I am sure very few lenses will be up to the task (54.6 MP D4X) and those that are will be best at a very limited range of apertures (diffraction). Just like it's the case with the smaller formats.

Why would the range of apertures not adversely affected by diffraction for a 54.6MP D4x be any different to that from a 60MP IQ260? The latter may have larger pixels but the larger sensor requires the lens to be stopped down further for equal DOF. My understanding is that its effectively all the same but that if anything, the larger format will exhibit slightly greater diffraction than the smaller when DOF is equal. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

[Petrus]

With Medium Format Digital there are just more camera and lens options.

Is there really? How many medium format digital cameras are there, and how many different lenses can be used? If we start to count all possible legacy lenses which could be attached to MFD cameras with adapters, certainly they all could also be attached to FF sensor cameras. And there are thousands of lenses which can be fitted (if we really wanted to) to FF cameras but not to MFD bodies. The only relevant thing is the number of combinations which produce best possible results. With FF there is progress (new Zeiss, Nikon, Sigma etc), MFD is stagnating as the demand is not there anymore.

[Doug Peterson]

MFD is stagnating as the demand is not there anymore.

Our sales have been up every year since the great recession.

[Ken R]

Ken,

Why would the range of apertures not adversely affected by diffraction for a 54.6MP D4x be any different to that from a 60MP IQ260? The latter may have larger pixels but the larger sensor requires the lens to be stopped down further for equal DOF. My understanding is that its effectively all the same but that if anything, the larger format will exhibit slightly greater diffraction than the smaller when DOF is equal. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

The pixel pitch of the 60mp PhaseOne (dalsa) sensor is similar to what you get in 20-24mp Full Frame DSLRs. Also, since I use the back primarily in an Arca Swiss RM3Di (tech camera) I use tilt to control what is in focus in the landscape situations I mostly use the camera in. I do not use the aperture for that. I usually leave it at f8 most of the time. I also use shift and rise/fall (individually or combined) to either stitch or compose the image as I wish while maintaining the camera level. I work it like a large format camera and works great. I can get perfect focus from the foot of the tripod to infinity if I wish without changing the aperture and in a single file/exposure.

A few folks with the D800/E use focus stacking to get that but that requires multiple images and extensive post production and in some instances, like when shooting the ocean/waves, it is not always a viable solution.

Also, edge to edge resolution is always tough to achieve in wide angles on the D800E and the Sony A7R, read THIS article written by Roger Cicala from LensRentals. Posted is a sample of his test results. You can see that corner resolution is not that great compared to the center (and that is with native mount lenses, the A7R with the adapter is even worse). With the Rodenstock HR lenses on the Arca I get awesome sharpness in the corners. The difference to what I got with the Nikon D800E I tested and the best Nikon and Zeiss glass at optimum apertures was staggering.

[HarperPhotos]

Hey Doug,

As Fred would say prove it.

Cheers

Simon

[bcooter]

Simon,

I believe him.   The moneyed amatuer base will buy, regardless of pixel pitch, noise anything you would worry about, because they buy eqipment for the enjoyment.

A small dealer I know that did specialize in pro gear now sells 8o% to the advanced amateur and more 6 grand nikon lenses than you can count, but never to a professional.

When the d3x came out they we're sellig them by the dozens per week and not one to a pro.

So yea, between the pro market, the amateur market and the repro market, I would think phase sales are up and growing.

BC

[Ken R]

Simon,

I believe him.   The moneyed amatuer base will buy, regardless of pixel pitch, noise anything you would worry about, because they buy eqipment for the enjoyment.

A small dealer I know that did specialize in pro gear now sells 8o% to the advanced amateur and more 6 grand nikon lenses than you can count, but never to a professional.

When the d3x came out they we're sellig them by the dozens per week and not one to a pro.

So yea, between the pro market, the amateur market and the repro market, I would think phase sales are up and growing.

BC

I also believe him.

I for one am a professional. I use Canon DSLRs for most of my paid work. A lot of times I need the speed, reliability, workflow and versatility of the full frame DSLR to work efficiently in a wide range of situations. Yesterday for example, I was working as a stills photographer alongside the camera unit of a commercial (advertising) spot production. They were using an Arri Alexa (native iso 800) and light levels were pretty low most of the time (thankfully they were using a zoom lens with a T2.9 max aperture) so I shot at iso 800 most of the day (at f2 or so). I needed to catch the best moments of the talent during their performance. At times I needed to use a sound blimp. No way medium format is practical in those situations. That is why I have different tools and pick and choose.

In the studio under controlled lights all bets are off really, one can use almost any camera that helps one to get the desired look and feel. It's all about style when shooting fashion and portraits and working with the subject and light. (That is Fred's specialty!) For some MFD is the choice in the studio. I really like the look of the Phase and the tethered workflow. Others might differ.

For landscape there is basically nothing better, for me, than working with an Arca tech camera and the IQ160. It is great to have tilt/swing available with any lens I mount and extensive shift/rise/fall capabilities. The image quality with wide angle lenses is unmatched.

Like a lot of things in photography it is all about preference.

Why pay for Profoto lights when you can get Alien Bees at a fraction of the cost? Great to always have alternatives.

[AreBee]

Ken,

Thanks for clarifying - I did not appreciate that in your previous post you referred to tilt in order to achieve DOF, though to be fair, tilt/swing is not solely the province of Medium Format. I accept that the range of available movements is greater for a tech cam than a DSLR.

With the Rodenstock HR lenses on the Arca I get awesome sharpness in the corners. The difference to what I got with the Nikon D800E I tested and the best Nikon and Zeiss glass at optimum apertures was staggering.

I look forward to determining this myself in due course!

Cheers,

[Paul2660]

As a user of both, I am curious to how the D4x if it does reach 54MP will resolve with current Nikon lenses?  There is enough trouble with the D800 family getting corner to corner sharpness with wides, plus much past F11 you are seeing pretty considerable diffraction softness.  Nikon I guess will come out with some new lenses also? 

As a Nikon user, I would much much prefer to see a mirror less solution like the Sony, even 24MP would work for me.  Something that would take current Nikon lenses but allow both VR and AF. 

Paul Caldwell

[synn]

Too many people talk about resolution and resolving power of the lenses and all that, but too little people care about lens rendition, tonality etc. these days.
All the Nikkors I have are definitely in the upper realm in terms of resolving power, but in terms of rendition, there's only one that I really like and that's the 85 f/1.8G.

In contrast (Pun unintended) my Bronica 150 f/4 is probably miles behind in terms on numbers on a paper or graphs, but the way it renders is absolutely glorious.

No idea what the MTF charts or whatever of this lens is like, but this+ some Velvia 100 is magic to me:




Did this pixel peeping deal for a while. It gets real old real fast.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would agree with Ken.

What I see on my DSLR lenses that centers are very good but corners are weak. I have mostly zooms on the DSLRs but I am pretty sure that corners are a bit weak on many lenses.

The MF lenses I have are in part tricky, with not really flat field, but it often comes out pretty well in the corners. Ken uses HR lenses made for digital and those are very good.

What I would add is that I think that there are benefits of high resolution even if the lenses would not keep up.

- MTF multiplies, you get better resolution with a high res sensor even if the lens is not so good
- A high resolution avoids/reduces aliasing, so it is always good
- Even lenses that are not so great are often quite good at the center at medium apertures, if your focus in that area you gain a lot with sensor resolution

Best regards
Erik

The pixel pitch of the 60mp PhaseOne (dalsa) sensor is similar to what you get in 20-24mp Full Frame DSLRs. Also, since I use the back primarily in an Arca Swiss RM3Di (tech camera) I use tilt to control what is in focus in the landscape situations I mostly use the camera in. I do not use the aperture for that. I usually leave it at f8 most of the time. I also use shift and rise/fall (individually or combined) to either stitch or compose the image as I wish while maintaining the camera level. I work it like a large format camera and works great. I can get perfect focus from the foot of the tripod to infinity if I wish without changing the aperture and in a single file/exposure.

A few folks with the D800/E use focus stacking to get that but that requires multiple images and extensive post production and in some instances, like when shooting the ocean/waves, it is not always a viable solution.

Also, edge to edge resolution is always tough to achieve in wide angles on the D800E and the Sony A7R, read THIS article written by Roger Cicala from LensRentals. Posted is a sample of his test results. You can see that corner resolution is not that great compared to the center (and that is with native mount lenses, the A7R with the adapter is even worse). With the Rodenstock HR lenses on the Arca I get awesome sharpness in the corners. The difference to what I got with the Nikon D800E I tested and the best Nikon and Zeiss glass at optimum apertures was staggering.

[eronald]

Our sales have been up every year since the great recession.

I walked into a gallery today, in Paris, they were offering about 15 paintings by Peter Breughel the elder and Jan Breughel the younger. There is plenty of money in the "rich" parts of the economy.

I saw the walkins at an MF dealer in Paris this week. Buying MF kit is as hard for them as a pair of shoes for most of us. And the dealer gives very short shrift to anyone who knows what a camera is.

Edmund

[Paul2660]

Not sure I would want to spend the money on a 54mp sensor only to crop it back to 36 due to only being able to use the center of the image. 

[eronald]

Not sure I would want to spend the money on a 54mp sensor only to crop it back to 36 due to only being able to use the center of the image. 

Your average 35mm prime costs as much as an MF lenscap
If you put expensive glass on 35mm cameras you suddenly get much better pix.

Edmund