January 26, 2015, 06:02:57 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 57
And another person that couldn't photograph the inside of a paper bag

Well, guess I prefer sujets & subjects that actually make the cut for paid for publication.
Should the paper bag ever be a topic I'll defer to your expertise.
Oh really? By all means let us see you work on these publications. We're all dying to see them now that you mentioned them.

OMG dude, seriously? clearly high resolution photography and oversampling discussions are not something you're handling well. Can you just let us adults have a thread to discuss without this nonense? Relax and go enjoy whatever equipment you like.

Yeah...he's not making any friends right now.

Negligible or Indistinguishable with most lenses. 18mp aps-c is using the center and see the marginal gain but the 50mp FF would see all the ugly edges.

Most of the lenses I listed do not have ugly edges. With some of those comparisons I cannot say the difference is negligible.

You'd never even get close to getting 50mp of real detail from it w/o the Zeiss Otus or 135mm APO. Sure you'd have a nice big file to downsample but 50---->36mp is already diminishing returns.

You keep claiming this, but what is your evidence? What makes you think the 70-200 f/4L IS or any of Canon's super teles won't show a gain?

I would argue that 22 MP vs. 36 MP is negligible with any lens. You need a 50% or greater gain on each axis before it really becomes evident in print.
having shot both, it isn't. But it depends on what you're doing. If you're web publishing at full HD or approximate, then yes.

I was printing samples to an Epson 3880, some crops scaled to appear as if they were being printed on a larger printer (i.e. up to 36" eq).

I'm open to evidence that with some scenes 22 or 24 vs. 36 has more of an impact in print. But when I tried it as long as I was working with RAWs and scaled the 24 MP file up to 36 MP with light sharpening, the impact in print was negligible. It's not that I could never see a difference, but I had to really be looking for it.

Really now? Lets take your advise to the extreme and slap a nikkor 50mm from the 1970's on a 5D3 and a D800. I bet the resolution difference will be indistinguishable or at best negligible. Afterall, it should be able to resolve so much detail on the Higher MP body.  ::) ::) ::)

I would argue that 22 MP vs. 36 MP is negligible with any lens. You need a 50% or greater gain on each axis before it really becomes evident in print.

That said...you should try this test, because I bet the best aperture(s) before diffraction would show a difference on the D800.

You're repeating the same mistake made a few posts earlier...so much for oversimplification.
Most lenses will not resolve the majority a 36mp sensor let alone a 50mp. It's that simple.

Again, resolution does not work like this  ;)

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.

As a rule I ignore DxO :) That said the page you linked is offering 3 of the "best lenses", not claiming they are the only 3 to show any gain.

At 18 MP crop (= 46 MP FF) I can see a difference between the 17-40L and new 16-35L; the 70-200 f/4L vs f/4L IS; the older Sigma 50 vs Canon's 50 1.4 and 1.8 (and the new ART is much sharper); and the 300 f/4L vs the 100-400L.

It's a good bet that the new 16-35, the Sigma ARTs, any L tele prime, the 70-200 f/4L IS and latest f/2.8 IS, any of Canon's macros, the newer T/S lenses, and Canon's fast wide primes will show an improvement on a 40-50 MP sensor. There are Zeiss primes that would show an improvement as well. You could argue that some of these lenses wouldn't offer as much of an improvement as possible with even better glass, but you will see an improvement.

I'm speaking practically of course. Again, the way resolution works, you should be able to detect some improvement even with only moderately good lenses even if what you gain is meaningless in real world prints.

Eh. Not so in practice, you just getting more crappy detail of the crappy part of the lens by adding more MP. However moving to a bigger format with more MP, now that adds real detail gains.

You didn't specify which part. But in practice I can...for example...clearly see the difference between a 70-200 f/4L and f/4L IS on an 18 MP crop sensor. Which means they will show a similar difference at >40 MP FF.

There are actually plenty of lenses out there that can satisfy a 50 MP sensor.

Prints are certainly the area that gains the most, especially if you print really large.

You have to print very large to see any gain at all today. In print at 24" I would say there is no real difference between the 5D3, A7, A7R, or D800. You might occasionally spot some small difference with your nose on the print, but most subject matter simply won't show it.

We greatly overestimate our ability to discern detail at a normal viewing distance, even those of us with 20/15 and 20/10 vision. It's really humbling to produce two big prints (19" or 24"), same subject, taken with a modern and an older sensor (say 10 vs. 18 MP), ask people if there's any difference, and have 9/10 say no  :(

I'm not against more MP, I'm just realistic about their impact. A 24 >> 50 MP jump will probably be visible in a 36" print or larger. But 24 >> 36 or 36 >> 50? Meh. The magic number seems to be a 50% gain on each axis.

For one, it could pretty much eliminate the reach gap between APS-C parts and FF, assuming you could maintain a high frame rate (and we know that's possible...Canon achieved 9.5fps at 120mp.) You could crop any part of a 50mp frame, and have the same kind of reach as a 20-24mp APS-C camera.


Second, even if you aren't printing, downsampling 50mp means your images sharpen right up without any actual sharpening. Just the act of averaging more information into less space improves your IQ. You could get away with less NR and no sharpening at all when scaling for wallpaper and web sizes.

True, but not much of an issue for the cameras we're talking about.

Third, 4k screens are going to become more common, and eventually common place, within the next few years. At native size (unscaled...currently some browsers scale images along with text DPI), to keep images looking like 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 prints on screen, they will need a lot more pixels than they currently do. That enhances the second point...starting with more pixels, you can downsample to those relative sizes for native display on a high DPI or 4k screen and still have the benefits of increased sharpness/lower noise.

A fair point though, again, I don't think it matters too much for this class of cameras.

You said it is always lower than the weakest component.  So therefore, the weakest component has to be a hard limit on resolution.  Perhaps increasing the resolution of another component causes the system resolution to asymptotically approach the weakest components resolution?

Essentially yes. By "hard limit" I meant that you can't say a 120 lpmm sensor is useless because of a 100 lpmm lens. You're never going to actually achieve 100 lpmm with the system, but pushing up the sensor resolution actually does get you closer even if the sensor is already >100.

I have the formula in a text book some where...I think  ???

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:50:10 AM »
Doesn't quoting the Princess Bride invoke Godwin's Law?

They were Nazis, Dude?

Oh, come on, they were threatening an underexposure test! Are we gonna split hairs here? Am I wrong?   ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:38:08 AM »
Here's a challenge to anyone who feel they know their stuff: 
Meet me at a local brasserie.  I'll bring the stack of prints.  You bring your deep knowledge of "how things really are."  As I share my prints you tell me which camera and which lens made which image.

"All right. Where is the Exmor? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both mount and frame, and find out who is right... and who is dead."

"But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the Exmor into his own print or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the Exmor into his own print, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of me."

"You've made your decision then?"

"Not remotely. Because Exmor comes from Sony, as everyone knows, and Sony is entirely peopled with marketeers, and marketeers are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of you."

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

I haven't checked this thread since my last post. Decided to go ahead and see what was on the last page. Thank you Neuro, I needed the laughs  ;D

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a lens debate in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sony when shadows are on the line! Ahahahaha, ahahahaha, ahahaha" -- thud

"Who are you?"

"I am no photographer to be trifled with, that is all you ever need know."

"To think -- all that time it was your print that was Exmor."

"They were both Canon. I spent the last few years building up an exposure technique immune to shadow noise."

EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:44:27 AM »
Well I guess it is the day of the anti-climatic announcement since there's no announcement yet  >:(

Once again...Sony press releases have more DR (dynamic rumors) then Canon's!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:43:03 AM »
When people want to talk about it who are you to tell them not to?

I never said you shouldn't be able to talk about it.

Ok when it´s every thread then there is maybe a little problem.

Exactly  ;D

I am Canon user and i want to talk about it!

Question: does this mean you would like to discuss real world differences and therefore could produce RAW files as I described? Or does it mean you want a 100 page thread where people talk talk talk about imagined differences or differences never seen in the real world?  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:38:19 AM »
Or maybe you should be banned?
Just so.. because i think that´s ok?

Maybe you could get a sense of humor?  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:34:24 AM »
Yeah yeah whatever makes you sleep better.

Horse laugh.

But what about the T-shirt? Has it to be pink or is rose ok too?


Canon sensors are as good as Sonys.. everyone is wrong except Canon fanboys.

Straw men. (Nobody has ever claimed either.)

And you wonder why I made that post  ::)

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 57