46mp sensor useless for landscape?

[heptagon]

So, just take look at the center resolution of the image.

Ok, now that I'm on my computer instead of my phone, I did.  The Sony image looks sharper. 

Of course, if I oversharpened the 5DII image as the Sony in-camera settings seem to be doing, it would be sharper still, but it would probably have the purple jaggies just like you see in this crop of the Sony image...

This is clearly not enough sensor resolution.

[akiskev]

***Still better test than DXO***

[jrista]

SUBJECTIVE!! "Just take a look at the center resolution of the image"?!? What the hell kind of comparison is that!?! That's exactly what I said NOT to do!

BTW, something is seriously up with those photos. The Nex seems to have captured trees in the background that simply don't exist in the Canon shot. Unless your trying to tell me the Sony NEX is capable of generating content that isn't there, an that that is its strength, I find this "test" 100% bogus. All your doing is saying:

"Well, the NEX image looks better to me!"

Sorry, you can't objectively determine if either of those photos is "better", too many variables (pixel size, focal length, camera settings, etc. etc.), not the least of which is the fact that you manually focused, which adds a huge human element of non-deterministic subjectivity to the test right from the get-go. If you were using contrast-detection AF in live view, or had a proper test chart to help you gauge when the image was well and truly focused, that's a different thing...but this....

BO-GUS.

Calm down, this is just a simple test, comparing the combo/image not the camera itself, I think I did the best I can. 100% live view manual focus is more accurate than auto focus, what you see is what sensor captures. Focus are both on the tile above the house at center. Since Nex sensor is 1.5 crop and focal length is 28 vs. 24 =>(1.75) the 5D II shot took is half way closer, that's why perspective changed, some of the tree appeared/disappeared.

Maybe it's the in camera software (standard jpg style in both), to me the Nex image looks has better contrast and bit sharper even it is 1/3 overexposed than 5DII.

I just find it incredibly ironic, that, after my request that you NOT simply provide an unscientific "I think X looks better" analysis, that's exactly what you did. Blew my mind that you though posting two out of camera jpegs that have had radically different processing and were manually focused (although you did mention Live View with CDAF, which is, IMO, not "manually" focusing) was anywhere remotely close to an objective comparison of two cameras.

As Neuro stated, the Sony camera applies some judicious sharpening, and its very clear at 100% on a 30" screen that such is the case. Neither image looks particularly great, to be quite frank, and I think there are a number of better subjects that could assist in demonstrating the image quality of two cameras. Regardless of the subject chosen, however...using out of camera JPEG's is ridiculous, and not indicative of the kind of IQ we get for buying cameras that support RAW output.

So, sorry, but I really do find your comparison to be extremely lacking and highly subjective. Thus, bogus.

[ankorwatt]

Give us two exactly alike captured raw files so we can judge ourselves
JPG is not valid.


ABOUT MB

John Sheehy has done some  calculations on how many Mp a good lens is capable of, and for example the  Tamron SP90 is capable of much more than 100Mp (24x36mm sensor area.)

Mikael Risedal have shown that  who are corresponding to 75 Mp and a with Nikon 85/1,8  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41009176

[jrista]

Give us two exactly alike captured raw files so we can judge ourselves
JPG is not valid.


ABOUT MB

John Sheehy has done some  calculations on how many Mp a good lens is capable of, and for example the  Tamron SP90 is capable of much more than 100Mp (24x36mm sensor area.)

That would be 100mp at what MTF? A lot of people talk about lens resolution at an MTF 0% (which is ridiculous, the only time MTF 0% has ever been particularly valuable is when scientifically analyzing deep space star photos to determine if they might be binary or tertiary stars...as far as an image sensor is concerned 0% contrast means ZERO difference between pixels except what you get from noise.) A lot more people talk about MTF 9%/10%, which is the limit of HUMAN visual acuity (which, thanks to our brains, is a hell of a lot more acute than a pixelated bayer image sensor regarding what our lenses actually project onto our retinas, we effectively get biological superresolution with our eyes and are able to detect much finer gradations of contrast). The standard MTF for testing lens and camera resolution is MTF 50%, which is still pretty low in contrast overall, but high enough for cameras to detect enough difference between pixels that it doesn't just look like noise.

At an MTF 50%, the only way you could actually achieve 100mp worth of lens resolution would be at a very wide aperture with a perfect lens. At least PERFECT diffraction-limited f/2 lens that exhibited ZERO aberrations would barely be able to produce enough line pairs/millimeter (lp/mm) for 100mp, and monochrome 100mp at that. You would probably need a perfect f/1.4 lens to produce enough resolution for a bayer 100mp sensor. That is ignoring system blur, which impacts overall system resolution. You might get a total system spatial resolution of 245lp/mm out of the whole setup, which is about "52mp" at MTF 50% for a perfect f/2 lens and a 100mp monochrome sensor, and maybe "35mp" or so for a 100mp color bayer sensor.

Mikael Risedal have shown that  who are corresponding to 75 Mp and a with Nikon 85/1,8  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41009176

As far as I can tell, there is already diffraction blurring in the samples posted by Mikael at f/4. If it was really "75mp equivalent", I would expect to see FAR more brick detail, but at 100% there is very little. There is also a noticeable drop in contrast between the f/4 and f/8 images, which indicates that diffraction is indeed affecting the image at the narrower aperture.

The perception of diffraction is very skewed in general among photographers. It is not as if the moment diffraction occurs, your IQ goes completely to hell. Diffraction gradually eats away first at contrast, then at detail, as you progressively stop down. Once you pass the DLA of the sensor, diffraction's impact is largely in the area of contrast...when the outer regions of the Airy PATTERN begin to affect other pixels. The primary point of light is concentrated in the center of the Airy Pattern...the Airy DISC. It is only when the Airy Disc grows larger than the size of a pixel and begins to affect other pixels that you actually experience visible diffraction softening.

I am not sure what the DLA of the Nikon V1 is...I would guess somewhere around f/4, so its not surprising that there is a loss of contrast at f/8. I would expect that blurring sets in pretty soon after f/8, though.

[ankorwatt]

There are lot of more details in  75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness  at F-8  F11 compared to F4
considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

 "75" Mp compared to Canon  21Mp  (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

[ankorwatt]

This is 36Mp compared to 21

[Razor2012]

There are lot of more details in  75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness  at F-8  F11 compared to F4
considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

 "75" Mp compared to Canon  21Mp  (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

I would take better glass over MP any day.

[ankorwatt]

There are lot of more details in  75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness  at F-8  F11 compared to F4
considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

 "75" Mp compared to Canon  21Mp  (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

I would take better glass over MP any day.

Why not both, better lenses and higher resolution???

[Razor2012]

There are lot of more details in  75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness  at F-8  F11 compared to F4
considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

 "75" Mp compared to Canon  21Mp  (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

I would take better glass over MP any day.

Why not both, better lenses and higher resolution???

I am quite happy with my L-glass right now, as for the higher res I will check it out when it's available.  Very content with my great glass and 22 MP.

[jrista]

There are lot of more details in  75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness  at F-8  F11 compared to F4
considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

 "75" Mp compared to Canon  21Mp  (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Sure, more resolution is never "worse". But as far as I could gather, the original argument on the DPReview forum was that there was NO diffraction. There absolutely IS diffraction. You can't avoid diffraction, and it always sets in earlier as you reduce pixel size, so claiming it doesn't exist was just ridiculous, hence my reply.

On a focal-length limited basis, yes, a cropped sensor has a reach advantage, and a sensor with smaller pixels will always capture more detail of a SMALLER AREA than a larger sensor. However if you have the ability to correct the focal length discrepancy, the larger sensor will always outperform. Slap on a 250mm lens onto that 5D III and take a step back, and its IQ will probably trounce the V1's. A high density sensor is never a trade-off for better glass (especially glass with a larger physical aperture (entrance pupil), which leads to improvements in other aspects of IQ, such as boke.)

The thing you are forgetting is that what you want is an actual 75mp Full-Frame sensor. A 75mp-equivalent crop sensor doesn't buy you anything other than the potential for extra reach with fewer pixels in actuality. You aren't actually getting a 75mp sensor with the Nikon V1. Your literally getting a 10.1mp sensor, plain and simple as that. You could argue that you can do mosaics with it, and sure, you could....assuming your scene and subjects were entirely static. However on a pixel-size-normal basis, a 10.1mp V1 is a FAR cry from a true 75mp FF sensor. Be careful not to confuse conflated concepts with actual reality.

[art_d]

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

Let me reassure you Tony, you're MDII+24TSEII does not get outperformed by a NEX 5n.

I shoot with a 5DII and 24TSEII. I also shoot with a NEX 5n, along with a very nice 28mm Contax G Zeiss. For that matter I also shoot with my 24TSEII on the NEX 5n thanks to the wonders of the Conurus adapter. I also make my own large fine art prints. After a year or so since I've had the 5n, and numerous prints made with both cameras, here is my take.

With the 5DII I typically can typically print up to 20x30 inches without compromising any image integrity. With the 5n, that point is more like 16x24 inches.

Now for smaller prints, it does become more difficult to tell the difference. But, if you are downsampling the images 5DII images to the same print size as the 5n, there is no way the 5DII will look worse. Converserly, if you upsample 5n images to 5DII dimensions, there is no way the 5n will look better.

[Razor2012]

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

Let me reassure you Tony, you're MDII+24TSEII does not get outperformed by a NEX 5n.

I shoot with a 5DII and 24TSEII. I also shoot with a NEX 5n, along with a very nice 28mm Contax G Zeiss. For that matter I also shoot with my 24TSEII on the NEX 5n thanks to the wonders of the Conurus adapter. I also make my own large fine art prints. After a year or so since I've had the 5n, and numerous prints made with both cameras, here is my take.

With the 5DII I typically can typically print up to 20x30 inches without compromising any image integrity. With the 5n, that point is more like 16x24 inches.

Now for smaller prints, it does become more difficult to tell the difference. But, if you are downsampling the images 5DII images to the same print size as the 5n, there is no way the 5DII will look worse. Converserly, if you upsample 5n images to 5DII dimensions, there is no way the 5n will look better.

It's hard to dispute facts.   

[jrista]

There are lot of more details in  75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness  at F-8  F11 compared to F4
considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

 "75" Mp compared to Canon  21Mp  (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Sure, more resolution is never "worse". But as far as I could gather, the original argument on the DPReview forum was that there was NO diffraction. There absolutely IS diffraction. You can't avoid diffraction, and it always sets in earlier as you reduce pixel size, so claiming it doesn't exist was just ridiculous, hence my reply.

On a focal-length limited basis, yes, a cropped sensor has a reach advantage, and a sensor with smaller pixels will always capture more detail of a SMALLER AREA than a larger sensor. However if you have the ability to correct the focal length discrepancy, the larger sensor will always outperform. Slap on a 250mm lens onto that 5D III and take a step back, and its IQ will probably trounce the V1's. A high density sensor is never a trade-off for better glass (especially glass with a larger physical aperture (entrance pupil), which leads to improvements in other aspects of IQ, such as boke.)

The thing you are forgetting is that what you want is an actual 75mp Full-Frame sensor. A 75mp-equivalent crop sensor doesn't buy you anything other than the potential for extra reach with fewer pixels in actuality. You aren't actually getting a 75mp sensor with the Nikon V1. Your literally getting a 10.1mp sensor, plain and simple as that. You could argue that you can do mosaics with it, and sure, you could....assuming your scene and subjects were entirely static. However on a pixel-size-normal basis, a 10.1mp V1 is a FAR cry from a true 75mp FF sensor. Be careful not to confuse conflated concepts with actual reality.

Who has said it is an actual 75Mp sensor? the individual pixel size corresponds to  75Mp  and a  24x36mm  sensor.

And I quote:

I rather take 75Mp and  it will allways be better  compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Simple fact of the matter is, its NOT 75mp, its 10.1mp. The fact that the pixels are smaller, and packed into the area of a smaller sensor, is only meaningful when comparing cameras with different size sensors and pixel densities at the same focal length. An 85mm lens for the V1 is only a 230mm lens on FF, so its far from improbable that one could buy a 200mm or 250mm lens for the 5D III to normalize framing. Outside of a focal length limited scenario, the 10.1mp of the V1, even if it is technically equivalent to a 75mp FF sensor, will always produce the lesser image compared to a FF sensor with lower pixel density but more megapixels overall. That is simply because when one normalizes framing (makes the Angle of View between both cameras the same), the FF camera simply has more pixels...it gathers more light and more information for the same exact scene as the smaller camera with its smaller sensor.

Now, assuming one actually had the option of using a 75mp FF sensor, certainly...it will perform better than either the 1V or the 5D III. But the 1V is not a 75mp FF sensor, its a 10.1mp 2.7x crop sensor, and can only outperform on a focal-length limited scenario, and only in certain ways (i.e. in total detail captured per focal length). A more pixel dense sensor will experience more photon shot noise, will have a lower saturation point, and will generally gather less light overall than a larger sensor, which will have none of those problems. Same thing goes for lenses...the physically smaller lenses designed for the Nikon 1 series will usually have smaller physical apertures for any given focal length, so they will usually allow less overall light through.

It really doesn't matter what angle you try to come at the problem from. Every way you slice it, a larger sensor with more pixels, even if they are less dense, will always outperform on a framing-normal basis.

[jrista]

Who has said it is an actual 75Mp sensor? the individual pixel size corresponds to  75Mp  if a  24x36mm  sensor was filled with that pixel size . And it shows a result together with  a 85/1, 8 and at F- 8 which is not optimal from the point of view of diffraction, but is perfectly acceptable results.

Ankorwatt effectively said he would take a 75mp camera over a 21mp camera...referring to the V1, which is not a 75mp camera...its a 10.1mp camera.

Anyway, your still misunderstanding my argument. No, the V1 85mm test at f/8 is not terrible. It's usable. I'd entirely expect that...f/8 is really not what I consider a narrow aperture. I'd consider f/16 to be narrow such that diffraction could pose a problem at 1:1 crop viewing.

Again though. Compare the V1 85mm f/8 setup with a 5D III 250mm f/8 setup. The 5D III setup will trounce the V1, for the exact same framing of an identical subject. Claiming that the V1 is "like a 75mp FF camera" is very misleading, and gives a false sense of what the camera is capable of. It may have the same pixel size as a 75mm FF camera, but the similarities STOP there. An actual 75mp FF camera is a whole world of difference, with MANY benefits over a Nikon 1 V1, and claiming the two are effectively equivalent is simply wrong.