The Full Frame Myth

[alban]

I just got the A7r today. This is crazy. LOL

Iphone image folks but same sensor in a different package.

Turn them around and then one starts scratching his head .I am all for the smaller package minus all of the buttons,apps and so forth.

[Rob C]

Rob, a book would be a far better investment.

Keith, my son-in-law has sent me a PDF link to a Dell/Dummies e-book that seems to be pretty good; problems exist though even on things such as e-mail, where you have to go through a somewhat convoluted route to get the thing to accept/send e-mail other than a few (4) selected ones of Window's choice. I shall do that bit when I have calmed down a bit and actually rediscover what my own E-mail password might have been! I need to set up a Microsoft one, but to retain my old one, need to find that password info before I go any further. Considering all the previous version of Windows Mail were open to all, this seems as restrictive as it comes - mabe it'll all end up in another profitable 'cloud'!

Rob C

[Telecaster]

Most photographs, whether considered great or not, are vitally dependent upon resolution.

There are of course no photographs without resolution.     But I suspect John is refering to the runaway obsession with spatial detail that typically results in all other aspects of photography being relegated to secondary status.

Here's a link to a selection of photos from one of my favorite photo books of 2013, Edward Burtynsky's Water:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html

I wanted to xref one particular photo, titled Thjorsá River #1, but can't do so...at least not via my iPad. Anyway it's my favorite from the book and probably my overall favorite of the year. It was taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 and 50mm lens. It's an abstract. What makes the photo is its fine, subtle tonal detail: a range of metallic blue, gray and green hues. IMO this attention to tonality helps Burtynsky stand out from the sharpness-fixated landscaper crowd.

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is that resolution is a good thing.

Best regards
Erik

There are of course no photographs without resolution.     But I suspect John is refering to the runaway obsession with spatial detail that typically results in all other aspects of photography being relegated to secondary status.

Here's a link to a selection of photos from one of my favorite photo books of 2013, Edward Burtynsky's Water:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html

I wanted to xref one particular photo, titled Thjorsá River #1, but can't do so...at least not via my iPad. Anyway it's my favorite from the book and probably my overall favorite of the year. It was taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 and 50mm lens. It's an abstract. What makes the photo is its fine, subtle tonal detail: a range of metallic blue, gray and green hues. IMO this attention to tonality helps Burtynsky stand out from the sharpness-fixated landscaper crowd.

-Dave-

[John Camp]

Hi,

My take is that resolution is a good thing.

Erik

I also think it's a good thing. But no great photo is considered great because of its (high) resolution.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I also think it's a good thing. But no great photo is considered great because of its (high) resolution.

Yet, most low resolution images are not even considered to begin with ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

There are of course no photographs without resolution.     But I suspect John is refering to the runaway obsession with spatial detail that typically results in all other aspects of photography being relegated to secondary status.

Here's a link to a selection of photos from one of my favorite photo books of 2013, Edward Burtynsky's Water:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html

What makes the photo is its fine, subtle tonal detail: a range of metallic blue, gray and green hues. IMO this attention to tonality helps Burtynsky stand out from the sharpness-fixated landscaper crowd.

-Dave-

If subtle tonal detail is important for you, the larger sensor generally has better tonal range regardless of resolution.

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

I imagine if Nikon were to produce a full-frame 54 mp DSLR, a successor to the D800, there would be howls of protest from people who never print larger than A3, claiming that they don't need 54 mp and that the extra file sizes would merely slow down their computer and take up more storage.

This is a very shortsighted view. For anyone who needs only 10 mp, a 54 mp DSLR can be tremendous value and a great tool. A 50mm prime lens on such a camera becomes effectively a high quality 50-150mm zoom, from the perspective of someone who doesn't need more than 10 mp.

Simply through a process of cropping one can get a range of focal lengths. A 54 mp full-frame image taken with a 50mm lens, when cropped to 10 mp produces an image with a 150 mm equivalent focal length and a sensor size which is a bit smaller in area than the 4/3rds format. (Hope my maths is correct.  )

[telyt]

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

+1

I like having the option even if I don't take advantage of it in every photograph.

[KirbyKrieger]

Could anything happen in zero time :-)

"Compared with electronic devices, neurons are exceedingly slow...

• Conduction of an electrical signal along a copper wire is about 2.5 million times faster than impulse transmission in the fastest axons.
• It is ~10 million times faster than more typical axon conduction speeds.
• Or, one minute vs. 19 years"

Is there an EVF that will show the time-variations in luminance of light reflected off wind-blown ripples onto the feathers of a large bird?

I have never seen one.

My gripe with EVF's has much more to with bandwidth and resolution than with delay.  Fwiw    .

[Hans Kruse]

If subtle tonal detail is important for you, the larger sensor generally has better tonal range regardless of resolution.

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

I imagine if Nikon were to produce a full-frame 54 mp DSLR, a successor to the D800, there would be howls of protest from people who never print larger than A3, claiming that they don't need 54 mp and that the extra file sizes would merely slow down their computer and take up more storage.

This is a very shortsighted view. For anyone who needs only 10 mp, a 54 mp DSLR can be tremendous value and a great tool. A 50mm prime lens on such a camera becomes effectively a high quality 50-150mm zoom, from the perspective of someone who doesn't need more than 10 mp.

Simply through a process of cropping one can get a range of focal lengths. A 54 mp full-frame image taken with a 50mm lens, when cropped to 10 mp produces an image with a 150 mm equivalent focal length and a sensor size which is a bit smaller in area than the 4/3rds format. (Hope my maths is correct.  )

The cropping argument is often given, but I don't think it is very valid. A crop from 54 to 10MP is a crop factor of 2,32 and the m43 is 2. A m43 at 16MP not cropped would give better IQ. I don't see much point in walking around with a full frame camera unless one uses the full sensor area for taking the pictures.

[Rob C]

The cropping argument is often given, but I don't think it is very valid. A crop from 54 to 10MP is a crop factor of 2,32 and the m43 is 2. A m43 at 16MP not cropped would give better IQ. I don't see much point in walking around with a full frame camera unless one uses the full sensor area for taking the pictures.

Absolutely; that's the only reasonable way of looking at the situation. It can't be that difficult to engage the brain before leaving home for the greater outer world. Anyway, one format should really be all anyone needs, unless they depend on it for a living.

Rob C

[PeterAit]

Is there an EVF that will show the time-variations in luminance of light reflected off wind-blown ripples onto the feathers of a large bird?

Is there a combination of eye, brain, finger, and shutter that will capture a feather-ruffle at the exact instant? No (DUH!). So, why care?

[KirbyKrieger]

Is there a combination of eye, brain, finger, and shutter that will capture a feather-ruffle at the exact instant? No (DUH!). So, why care?

Peter:

I said nothing about feather ruffle.  Putting words in my mouth, and then citing them to imply that I am an idiot, is churlish.

What I did mention was the luminance variation of sunlight reflected from rippled water.  The ripples are wavelets.  They, and thus the reflections, are rhythmic.  Timing the shutter duration to coincide with either the light or dark phase of the result of the wave action is physically and mentally trivial, and artistically important.

I care.

That you might not in no way diminishes the value of my caring.

I use the above example specifically to illustrate one of the shortcomings of an EVF.  I carry a light-recorder in order to record light.  I see variations in light.  I expect my light-recorder to allow me to record what I see.  In that specific illustration, and many like it, I cannot.

[Telecaster]

If subtle tonal detail is important for you, the larger sensor generally has better tonal range regardless of resolution.

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

Absolutely. This isn't an either/or scenario. I mentioned Burtynsky's Hasselblad for a reason. I'm all for larger sensors and having more photosites on 'em. What I'm not a fan of are photos taken by people who think mega-resolution by itself makes those photos worth looking at. It doesn't.

-Dave-

[Ray]

The cropping argument is often given, but I don't think it is very valid. A crop from 54 to 10MP is a crop factor of 2,32 and the m43 is 2. A m43 at 16MP not cropped would give better IQ. I don't see much point in walking around with a full frame camera unless one uses the full sensor area for taking the pictures.

Hans,
The cropping advantage is clearly less of an advantage for those who are  obsessed with pixel count and resolution, as I am and I suspect you are.

I would certainly prefer to use a 150mm lens with my 54 mp Nikon rather than crop a shot to 10mm. which had been taken using a 50mm lens.

I was addressing the concerns of people who are not particularly obsessed with resolution, such as John Camp. That is, people who might think that 10mp is quite sufficient for their needs.

It wasn't so long ago that I was very pleased with the performance of my Canon 40D, which is 10mp. Just out of curiosity, I checked the DXOmark test results comparing the Nikon D7100 with the Canon 40D, at the pixel level.
The pixel quality is very similar, except for DR of course. The smaller D7100 pixel wipes the floor with the 40D, regarding DR performance. If I weren't a bit obsessed with resolution, I would definitely prefer a 10mp crop from a Nikon 54 mp full-frame than an uncropped shot of the same contrasty scene taken with the 40D and 150mm lens.

Of course, a good 150mm prime should give at least marginally better resolution on a 40D because the  40D pixels and sensor are a bit larger than the 10mp crop from a 54mp full-frame and therefore make less demands upon the lens.

On the other hand, a fairer comparison would be the 50mm prime versus a 50-150 zoom. Does a 50-150 zoom with a constant aperture of F1.4 exist? I think not. If some manufacturer were to make one, it would be rather heavy. I suspect that such a lens attached to an Olypus 4/3rds, or Canon 40D, would weigh more than a Nikon 54mp full-frame with 50/F1.4 attached.

[Peter McLennan]

This dilemma of chip resolution, frame size and focal length is preventing me from buying a new telephoto.  So far. : )

Two items are in contention: the Nikkor 80-400 f5.6 (that Kevin took to Antarctica) and the as-yet-unannounced but soon-to-appear Nikkor 300mm f4. 

Which lens will provide the ultimate resolving power on print?  A crop of the probably-superb 300?  Or the whole frame from the not-quite-as-sharp, especially-at-full-zoom 400?

Until the 300 appears, I just have to suffer.

[barryfitzgerald]

John,
If you do that, then people like me, when reading the epitaph, will find it odd that you were of the opinion that all great photographs are like blurred waterfalls with the sharp, surrounding bits removed. 

Most photographs, whether considered great or not, are vitally dependent upon resolution.

Honestly the "resolution" debate ended years ago for most people.
I think the only ones left wanting more either have such specific demanding needs (ie mega crop shooters) or make prints that fit on bar door standing a few inches away and want it tack sharp at that distance.

If you fall into that trap I think even 50mp isn't enough you'll want 75mp then 100mp and even 200mp
Personally I see it as a marketing triumph for the camera makers v what most people's needs are.

I call it the "boy racer" theme..no matter how fast you think you can go, there is always something better out there.
We could apply it to high ISO too, we're up to the point where it's very good now (even on non FF sensors) probably good enough for most

And yes I still use my 6mp DSLR's from time to time, and yes for the normal print sizes it's actually sufficient for much of what I do.
I'm up to 16mp now (nope not a micro 4/3 user either) really that is more than enough for most people's needs. And the 10/12mp point was really a watershed for most people (ie enough to crop somewhat, decent resolution for bigger print sizes)

I'm sure the debate will range on but it's been over for a while now 

[Ray]

What I'm not a fan of are photos taken by people who think mega-resolution by itself makes those photos worth looking at. It doesn't.

-Dave-

Dave,
The concept of mega-resolution by itself doesn't make any sense. Whether a photo is high resolution or low resolution, it is reasonable to presume that the shot was taken because something in the scene interested the person holding the camera and inspired the person to take the shot. High resolution is merely an attribute of a composition which can enhance the experience of viewing it, assuming the intention was not to create a semi-abstract blur. In other words, there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept, except a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.

For example, the attached shot is nothing special. It wouldn't come into the category of a 'great' shot, but the reason I'm keeping it is because of the reasonably good resolution. I get pleasure from viewing the fine detail in the feathers, and since the lens used is not particularly excellent, the Nikkor 24-120/F4 at 120mm and F8, that enhanced resolution is largely due to the high pixel count of the D800E. Anyone see any aliasing?    

[Telecaster]

Ray, IMO you're in danger of beating a dead horse. Have another look at the Ed Burtynsky photos I linked to earlier in this thread. Now they may not be to everyone's taste—which is quite fine by me—but they show, to my eyes, a creative balance of concept, composition & technique. No fuzzy strawmen to be found.

-Dave-

[Peter McLennan]

I call it the "boy racer" theme..no matter how fast you think you can go, there is always something better out there

I agree. But once you've zoomed in on a D800 image shot with a really good lens, it's hard to go back.