Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!

[risc32]

sorry, but i second what RLPhoto said. Larger formats have a big advantage. go to imaging resource and use their comparometer. then pull up one of the MF formats -vs- whatever else and get ready to be depressed by our sissy 135 format. also, as Ansel aged his equipment got smaller. i think he ended up with a 6x6.

[awinphoto]

Point is, for the 135 format, which the 5d3 is, 22mp probably outresolves what the format was initially designed to do...  as I've mentioned in prior threads...the 135, in film, really optimized out at 8x10... 11x14 you were risking softness and grain even at ISO 100 film.  The 5d3 can natively pump out what...  12x19? give or take...  Many photographers can print 30x40's with the camera at 150 dpi without batting an eye.  In the film days 30x40's were only printed with 4x5 or 67 film...  And at 67 there was the compromise such as 11x14's were to 135.  Heck the compromise was so great most pro's would add a texture or lay the print on canvas to distract from that fact... Digital has surpassed what film file formats were ever designed to be for...  is the 5d3 or D800 as good as an old 8x10 film?  Probably not, but i would wager they probably rival many of the 645's and 67's of the day with good glass. 

[RLPhoto]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Again you are talking about two things, is it DR we are talking about? Then it is clear that Nikon is the winner. FWC and read noise, nothing else than pure physics.
Is it resolution we are discussing, then you can optimize lenses who are smaller in diameter = 24x36 just like the manufacturers do for smaller sensors than 24x36mm . What's needed is gained  contrast and resolution that is in proportion  of the loss with the smaller sensor. BUT the 24x36 is light years ahead of a MF sensor and MF lenses has lower contrast and lower resolution per area unit so that is not so big deal as it is to use the same Canon lens on a 24x36 and a APS 18Mp to get the same contrast. signal/noise etc
You must be the one of the  most  uncomprehending  persons here at CR. I suggest  that you read and study the subject and try to understand a little before you so consistently pronounce your things

35mm does not have the detail of a larger format. Period. End of story. There is no argument here, it's a fact.

[RLPhoto]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Again you are talking about two things, is it DR we are talking about? Then it is clear that Nikon is the winner. FWC and read noise, nothing else than pure physics.
Is it resolution we are discussing, then you can optimize lenses who are smaller in diameter = 24x36 just like the manufacturers do for smaller sensors than 24x36mm . What's needed is gained  contrast and resolution that is in proportion  of the loss with the smaller sensor. BUT the 24x36 is light years ahead of a MF sensor and MF lenses has lower contrast and lower resolution per area unit so that is not so big deal as it is to use the same Canon lens on a 24x36 and a APS 18Mp to get the same contrast. signal/noise etc
You must be the one of the  most  uncomprehending  persons here at CR. I suggest  that you read and study the subject and try to understand a little before you so consistently pronounce your things

35mm does not have the detail of a larger format. Period. End of story. There is no argument here, it's a fact.

read my answer above and try to understand it.

Re-read my response and use some discernment.

[RS2021]

I think it is silly comparing 35mm cameras to medium format and large format.

They are different tools for different types of photography. I always thought 35mm was for photojournalism, events, etc. It was never intended to be used for billboard sized prints or massive works of fine art. Isn't the "smaller format" the whole point? Portability, hand-holdable, faster focus, faster shutter-speeds, etc. is the trade-off to a smaller image.

If it isn't enough, get a different tool.

+100000!

Sums up what I have to say. The folks who just think bigger nubmers are better are whom the market unfortunately relies on to sell more and more bodies....as has been said before here a 1000 times, once the high MP fans have the 100MP body,  they will want 110MP. But you probe a bit deeper and ask what format Adams used, there you would run into a void.... "Format? I think Adams probably used a PC not a Mac for sure" .  One can't but wonder if some of these people will not benefit from learning a bit about the history of Photography, and learning to recognize the works of innovative photographers through the decades all the way through the 80's (which will shock some belonged to film). Comparing apples to oranges is common among the "I want more MP" crowd. 

To be clear, I am not against more MP's per se, clearly there is a little bit of MP that can still be sqeezed out in the 35mm frame, but I do believe after that, there is going to be diminishing return in the near term. Sensors and lenses will have to evolve significantly more to eek out benefits after about ~50MP. The image circle and the lens that produces it will dictate this as much as the sensor...and oh...lets not forget technique which you can't buy at the big MP store.
 
So if you wanna belly ache, the answer is to move to a larger format. The 35mm format evolved in the context of larger frames to fit a much needed segment for smaller formats (which has now grown to our current jaw dropping mass market level) but it was never envisioned as a substitute for larger formats. 

[denisbergeron]

The fact that picture made by Yousef Karsh and other great photographer that use 8x10 camera, are so great, it's not because of the number of pixel but by the physics of the light.
With bigger sensor, the lens doesn't need to be perfect to have a crisp picture.
With bigger sensor, the lens doesn't need to have a pig aperture to have a nice bokeh blur.
With bigger sensor, you need a tripod.
With bigger sensor, you spend more time compose your shoot.
If a compare my work with MF and 35mm, for approching the quality of a 6x7 with a 120mm f3.5 lens I had to take my 85mm f1.2 and event there, the bokeh is not that nice.... but again, it's not a 8x10

[JohanCruyff]

Back in the old film days, these two Grant Masters used 8x10 films to create the absolute best images (both in terms of IQ & creativity) in the field of Landscape (Ansel Adam) and Fashion & Portrait (Richard Avedon) respectively ... and I am sure their works will always remain in the books and museums for generations to come!

Probably Ansel Adam and Richard Avedon spent little time on web forums, and most of their time shooting or carefully preparing shoots.

[jrista]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

[Nishi Drew]

When so many photos these days end up straight on a webpage where the size of the image won't be viewed any larger than the screen it's displayed on, and when you frame and compose the shot as you want it to be (or just don't like cropping much) then 10 mp is good enough. "Look at this casual snap of my cat, it's got so much res I can count the hairs... on a flea!" Just a lot more data used up, where speed and storage priority could be instead. And stitching multiple photos together, when done right with the utmost precision... well there's still a lot more to the whole thing as everyone here is discussing over

[RLPhoto]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

[ankorwatt]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Yes
Mikael is right, if you reads his text and understand what he means.
A. there is a big difference comparing MF lenses with 24x36mm lenses regarding contrast and resolution and per surface unit.Therefore there are no use to put a Hasselblad lens on a 24x36mm SLR camera, the lenses are optimized for MF
B. There are  also a big difference between MF sensors  and a modern 24x36 sensor, a old CCD with low QE and high read out noise and the best 24x36mm cmos sensors  and this  including research regarding microlenses, QE, FWC and read out noise.
C. And therefore it is not so obvious that an MF combination , camera and lenses  are so much better than a 24x36mm combination  if you look at the different parameters as lenses+sensor= contrast resolution even if MF sensor area is much biggger than 24x36 and  if  the Mp is the same .
Here is a link to a explanations  regarding film and film size
http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html
 

[ankorwatt]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

and what has that to do with the earlier answers from Jrista or Mikael?
it requires more in  terms of contrast and resolution from 24x36 lenses  and a smaller sensor if the sensors are equivalent, and they are not, 24x36 mm sensors are far superior to MF regarding QE

[RLPhoto]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.

and what has that to do with the earlier answers from Jrista or Mikael?

For equivalent focal length, framing, and film, A larger format will always resolve more detail.

[ankorwatt]

se  answers above , physical conditions, everything is  NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

[jrista]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

Again you are talking about two things, is it DR we are talking about? Then it is clear that Nikon is the winner. FWC and read noise, nothing else than pure physics.
Is it resolution we are discussing, then you can optimize lenses who are smaller in diameter = 24x36 just like the manufacturers do for smaller sensors than 24x36mm . What's needed is gained  contrast and resolution that is in proportion  of the loss with the smaller sensor. BUT the 24x36 is light years ahead of a MF sensor and MF lenses has lower contrast and lower resolution per area unit so that is not so big deal as it is to use the same Canon lens on a 24x36 and a APS 18Mp to get the same contrast. signal/noise etc
You must be the one of the  most  uncomprehending  persons here at CR. I suggest  that you read and study the subject and try to understand a little before you so consistently pronounce your things

35mm does not have the detail of a larger format. Period. End of story. There is no argument here, it's a fact.

Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue.  The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.