My head is quite dizzy due to reading about more, more and more pixels on the sensors.
Having done a lot of Astrophotography with high quality telescopes and dedicated Astrocameras, there is something called under sampling and over sampling and also some the " Nyquist " theorem or whatever it is called and have not really got to understand it more or less.
Now having read a bit about MTF charts and LP/mm and native aperture as well as f/8.0 aperture, meridional and saggittal lines etc. etc. etc.
Which lenses really do an adequate sampling on the nowadays existing High Mega Megapixel sensors like the 36mp or 50mp or the rumoured 56mp 35mm full frame sensor.
On the medium format sensor that is less a question for me due to the fact of the far bigger pixel size in microns as in the tiny pixel size of the 35mm sensors not to speak about the micro imaging chips of the smartphones ;D
¿ When is oversampling too much ?
If I take for example the Canon EOS 5D Mark III with its tiny 35mm and a pixel pitch of 0.00625mm which would equal to about 80 LP/mm.
All Canon MTF charts for normal lenses nowadays do talk about 10LP/mm and 30LP/mm and so if I take the tiny 22,118,400 pixel chip of the Canon 5D Marl III with a resolving power of 80LP/mm I am already over sampling by 2.6777x
Now if I take the resolving power of the soon available Canon 5Ds with 120LP/mm (pixel pitch of 0.00414mm) ¿ does it make sense ?, especially when I then afterwards, for printing a nice coffee table book, I go down to a printing pitch of perhaps 175 to 200 lines per inch (The printer house wants the images for this in perhaps 300 to 400 dpi)
Now a coffee table book(I have some nice books from the German Tecklenborg Verlag which are printed near the 200 lines per inch)has a size of 12" x 9.5" (31cm x 24cm) so that would mean a nice image in the size of 4800 x 3800 pixels is good enough for the printer ... (¿ a Canon 5D Mark III is already a good tool for a coffee table book ? ::) )
¿ Am I missing something ?
¿ Is all this not Overkill ?
IMHO, we're a long way from having sensor pixel pitches fine enough that they can extract most everything our lenses can deliver.You plots are for a hypothetical CFA-less sensor, yes? So the point where increasing resolution has close to zero benefit would be even higher than suggested by your nice simulations?
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5905
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5920
If you want more context, feel free to ask questions, and I'll do my best.
Why are things different in astrophotography? I'm not an astrophotographer, but the big telescope sensors that I've seen don't use Bayer CFAs, and resolution is for the most part (without tricks) limited by atmospheric turbulence.
Jim
When is oversampling too much?
You plots are for a hypothetical CFA-less sensor, yes? So the point where increasing resolution has close to zero benefit would be even higher than suggested by your nice simulations?
I think that increased spatial resolution and increased DR goes hand in hand.
The big question is if there will be enough interest and money in camera tech to support the (no doubt) large investements needed to get there.
The half pitch multi-sampling sensors are a good step in the right direction (for stationary subjects and rock-solid tripods and subject supports), but they effectively have an up to 200% fill factor thus reducing the modulation at the Nyquist frequency pretty fast.A seemingly obvious compromise would be to do (e.g.) 16MP Bayer CFA sans OLPF in a IBIS M4/3 camera. Use the IBIS mechanics to simulate OLPF in hand-held mode (shaking the sensor) and to methodically step the sensor around in tripod mode.
If I take for example the Canon EOS 5D Mark III with its tiny 35mm and a pixel pitch of 0.00625mm which would equal to about 80 LP/mm.
All Canon MTF charts for normal lenses nowadays do talk about 10LP/mm and 30LP/mm and so if I take the tiny 22,118,400 pixel chip of the Canon 5D Marl III with a resolving power of 80LP/mm I am already over sampling by 2.6777x
You plots are for a hypothetical CFA-less sensor, yes? So the point where increasing resolution has close to zero benefit would be even higher than suggested by your nice simulations?
Funny, I was sitting in my living room on the weekend having a quiet moment with coffee and the thought struck me of how unimportant megapixels are.
...
I can buy the new Canon EOS 5Ds and my lenses will give more resolution on the 50megapixel chip and I will be able to crop out interesting parts from my 50mp images.
Also this will give me better prints for crops of the original images.
¿ Right ?
We are nowhere near oversampling. There are plenty of lenses that out-resolve 36 Mpixel sensors.
Moire issues would be nonexistent if that were true.
"Too much" in relation to what end?
If i understand it correctly you have to include the bayer pattern so the resolution will be less.
(please correct me if i am wrong, technical photographers on this forum)
According to this site the best lens for 35mm is the Otus 85mm 1.4 and its
"Maximum resolving power is 107MP at an aperture of f/4.1, resolving power wide open is 85MP. "
source : http://www.lenscore.org on the otus 85mm page.
So that leaves some room for progress on the sensor side to show the true lens quality.
What i notice myself on 36MP is that most lenses do fine in the centre, but lack 36MP performance in the corners.
Also you see - especially with zoomlenses- some parts on the image that have less quality than others and also some unexpected sharp-unsharp areas due to field curvature with wide angles.
That said, i agree with Terry McDonald that for most use the amount of technical quality is not relevant at all. But i do architecture and then you like to see those fine details ... in the corners as well.
At the same time with increasing MP's the main platform to publish has shrunk from magazines to the internet. ;)
But i do architecture and then you like to see those fine details ... in the corners as well.
You're the only one knowing if your current camera is a limiting factor for your photography.
...The 35mm format does seem to have a market for very expensive - and good - telelenses, but not so for normal and wide angle lenses... :(
and now comes the question again for architecture. Normal to long focal lenses do not have those problems but it gets critical for wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses ...
I would like to see an image taken inside a house or a church with strong decorated (painted) ceiling with the Canon EOS 5Ds and the new EF 11-24mm f4L zoom lens as well as with the new EF 8-15mm f4L ... be it circular or full frame fish eye
;D...
Yes ...I'm really happy for you: I can only dream to see the day when, looking at my photos, I'll say "if only I had a better camera..."
I'm really happy for you: I can only dream to see the day when, looking at my photos, I'll say "if only I had a better camera..."
Hi Pieter,
Well all the TS lenses from Canon has been tested in lenscore.org, but the question here is, what does their resolving power number define ?
???
I have the Nikon 24mm PCE and it has a score on lenscore of 924 while the (at least on this forum) much higher regarded Canon ts 24mm 3.5 II lens has a score of 780.
There must be something better in the Nikkor but at the same time a lot of people claim the Canon is the better lens- i guess both are right in their own way.
.....the best available converter, namely Iridient Developper 3.02..
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, Your views are always based in thoughtful analysis, so I'll ask what makes the Iridient the best in your opinion? Apologies if this has been discussed here previously...
What I like best about it is:
- Best demoisaicing/sharpening/noise reduction engine -> delivers extremely detailed yet nearly artifacts free images - this is the most important for me,
- Good profiles for the D810 at least,
- Ability to work in Lab space.
Cheers,
Bernard
Funny, I was sitting in my living room on the weekend having a quiet moment with coffee and the thought struck me of how unimportant megapixels are. Of the 15 photographs I have hanging (none of which are "family" photos):
4 were made with a 5mp Minolta 7Hi (3-16x20s and an 11x14);
3 were made with a 5mp Olympus E-1 (1-11x14, 1-16x20 and a 24"x48" canvas);
3 were made with a 12mp Olympus E-30 (2-11x14s and a 16x20);
2 were made with a 36mp Nikon D800E (both 16x20s);
2 were made with a Pentax 67 (film camera - both 16x20s); and
1 was made with a Zone VI 4x5 Field camera (11x14)
Now, I do have others that are "unhung" with a slightly greater proportion of 4x5, 12mp and 36mp, but the point is, it's the content of the work and its ability to conjure up emotions and connections that counts - not the megapixels.
If the end result is mostly books and the odd large print, then camera manufacturers have already plateaued, and, one could argue, surpassed the requirements of 3/4s of people who buy their DSLRs.
I must admit to absolutely loving the detail I get with the D800E, but for most people, I doesn't matter - again it's the emotional attachment that works for them. It is usually other photographers who pixel peep the framed works and they rarely buy other photographers work.
Funny, I was sitting in my living room on the weekend having a quiet moment with coffee and the thought struck me of how unimportant megapixels are.
+1. IMO artistic qualities make or break a photograph regardless of the camera used.
That choice seems to be between a low resolution photo we have and a mega resolution photo we don't have.
The choice becomes interesting when we can choose between a low resolution photo we have and a mega resolution photo we have.
Megapixels, smegapixels. Too much hand wringing and analysis, not enough getting out and making photos!
Just forget about it all, go out and shoot what you have and enjoy your photography! :-)
| 6.8 micron | 3.8 Micron |
| 18.6 MP (on full frame 135) | 54 MP (on full frame 135) |
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png) |
They only care whether, as a friend puts it, "the image speaks to them".
I can't think of any successful image that would be significantly less so if it had somewhat lower resolution and/or was printed a bit smaller.
I do get your point, but the question isn't which file you or I would rather have, it's whether lack of the larger file we'd rather have will limit the success of a given image.
I do get your point, but the question isn't which file you or I would rather have, it's whether lack of the larger file we'd rather have will limit the success of a given image.
Perhaps the question is -- Does Terry McDonald still use those 5mp cameras now he has a 36mp Nikon D800E?
Okay, I'll take the bait... Of course I don't still have my 5mp camera - that's not the point. My enjoyment of a photograph is indepependent of the sensor size. While I have a penchant for detail and gain personal enjoyment out of the level I detail I can now achieve, my photographs are not "better" because of the number of pixels present. They are just as "fuzzy" now as before, but with more detail. ;)
When you say - "I have a penchant for detail and gain personal enjoyment out of the level I detail I can now achieve" - that suggests your enjoyment of your own photographs is not independent of the sensor size.
Would I have a deeper emotional attachment to the photographs? I'm not sure I would.
The 45" canvas of Kilimanjaro… it still never fails to draw attention (and not for its lack of detail!).
In a ideal wold, sensor resolution would match lens resolution. … A good lens stopped down to f/8 will resolve something like 200 lp/mm, albeit at very low contrast. An excellent lens at f/5.6 will perhaps reach 400 lp/mm.
If I did the arithmetic correctly, the Sony APS-C sensor in my camera are something like 105 lp/mm and the bottom of the range lenses I use are something like 65-75 lp/mm MTF50 (but I haven't seen a way to relate MTF50 to Nyquist limit?)
Since when was 35mm sensor 'tiny'?
35mm was introduced as a miniature format. I'd say that's a more accurate description than today's over-inflated "full frame."
-Dave-
Furthermore, detail is not the quality that purchasers of these photographs have been looking at. They buy the photographs because of their overall emotional impact. Is lack of detail sending some potential buyers away, that I couldn't say. As I alluded to in my first post, the pixel peepers are typically other photographers. A couple of them have even remarked on the lack of details - but they weren't looking at the photograph, only the details; IOW they, too, missed the point. But that's okay. We are all blinded by our assumptions.
35mm was introduced as a miniature format.
Barnack decided that the 18 x 24 mm (3:4 aspect ratio) standard movie frame was not large enough for good still photo quality with the films of the day and doubled the frame size to 24 x 36 mm (2:3 aspect ratio), with the image horizontal instead of vertical.
Megapixels, smegapixels. Too much hand wringing and analysis, not enough getting out and making photos!
Just forget about it all, go out and shoot what you have and enjoy your photography! :-)
Apart from megapixels being not important for a lot of images that don't need that level of detail and perfection, there is that other phenomena- Dynamic Range.
DR is - i think probably more important - it is about tonality, about a less graphical and a more photographical image.
Printing a 36mp photograph means 30x20cm 600dpi. Combined with a large Dynamic Range, and printed @ 600dpi means you can make a print with rich tonality even if the subject is unsharp.
I love the rich dark tones of the old baryt photographs and in this way we can produce them again in a digital manner.
Looking back i see that the digital image has become more and more photographical with the DR of color negative film. Even the d810 has better tonality than the d800e i find.
So apart from the fact if we need all these megapixels, i like the fact that i can now print a soft image with many tones. ( and choose to make the image more graphical if i want)
Not really, it's size was an increased size movie film frame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Barnack), to achieve better quality but still in an easily portable camera format: