November 27, 2014, 02:05:45 AM

Author Topic: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!  (Read 15014 times)

risc32

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
    • View Profile
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2012, 10:05:45 AM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2012, 10:05:45 AM »

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2012, 10:21:56 AM »
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. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3525
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2012, 10:42:40 AM »
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.  ;D

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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3525
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2012, 11:26:30 AM »
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.  ;D

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

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2012, 11:35:15 AM »
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. 
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 11:40:29 AM by Ray2021 »
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

denisbergeron

  • Guest
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2012, 11:59:07 AM »
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

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2012, 12:00:56 PM »
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.
Italian amateur. Gear: i) 5d Classic, 17-40 F/4 L, 24-105mm F/4 IS L, 100mm F/2.8 IS L, 70-200 F/4 IS L. & EOS M, 22 F/2, 18-55 + Mount Adapter, 55-250 F/4-5.6 IS STM
ii) Wife: Canon G12
iii) First Daughter: Canon 1100D, 18-55 IS iv) Son: Canon A1000IS v) Second Daughter: Nikon L21

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2012, 12:00:56 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2012, 12:58:12 PM »
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.  ;D

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

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2012, 01:29:53 PM »
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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3525
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2012, 01:33:59 PM »
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.  ;D

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.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3525
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2012, 02:03:02 PM »
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.  ;D

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.


jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2012, 02:14:44 PM »
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.  ;D

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.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3525
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #42 on: October 26, 2012, 02:16:47 PM »
se  answers above , physical conditions, everything is  NOT equal because it is a MF sensor

You must have never shot MF before.  :P

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #42 on: October 26, 2012, 02:16:47 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #43 on: October 26, 2012, 02:17:30 PM »
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.  ;D

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.

But that was not the argument I made. I stated that an 80mp FF and 80mp MFD would fare the same, I never said anything about a 200mp MFD. The same would hold true if you compared a 200mp FF and 200mp MFD...same aperture, same exposure time for same pixels on subject, S/N of each pixel is going to be identical for both sensors. Technically speaking, it does not really matter what the ratio of pixel size is between two sensors, the point is that when you use the same physical aperture and same exposure time while putting the same number of pixels on subject, S/N at the sensor is the same, REGARDLESS of what the FWC of any given pixel might be. That's because it is the lens that determines ratio of light. Increasing ISO just lowers the saturation point, and electronically amplifies the signal...it does not actually change the amount of light reaching the sensor. When each pixel covers the same amount of area on the subject and receive the same amount of light, physical dimensions of either the sensor or the pixels don't matter.

My argument, all things being equal, is that a 35mm sensor CAN INDEED PERFORM THE SAME as a medium format sensor. Read the article I've linked twice now, and you'll understand. (BTW, my argument has little to do with DR, that's another discussion I'd rather not start.)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 02:21:30 PM by jrista »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3525
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2012, 02:20:58 PM »

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.

Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2012, 02:20:58 PM »