I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.Got to wonder what the use case is.
If the DLA is only f/4.7 then at most lens' sweet spot of f/5.6-8 then diffraction will start to be noticeable and will counter act the fine resolution so what's the point ?
Am I missing something?
Maybe astronomy , but a dedicated astronomy sensor would be cheaper and better anyway.
If there is a strong use case it must be pretty niche
Interesting thoughts Amorse but focus stacking 100mp ?I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.
Ha, oh yes. It's going to be a task! I just upgraded to an M1 max MBP and it's been blazing fast so far. I'm hopeful it's enough! With that said, my working PSBs are already often over 2GB anyway and it's not uncommon for me to get well over 100mpx by stitching. And I don't really trust photoshop's stacking tools so I usually just end up doing it manually. I've learned patience in these sort of situations! It's not too bad though - I probably only produce maybe 50 images a year, so I can tolerate spending a lot of time per image.Interesting thoughts Amorse but focus stacking 100mp ?
You'll need a monster computer and I doubt it'll be possible in camera
My new Mac has a 2TB SSD, and probably about 15TB free space on external drives to archive RAW files on. I’ve thought through this a bit. Storage is not the reason I’m not looking to buy the Fuji GFX 100S. I can’t think of an excuse to buy one in terms of what I would do with it that is different enough from what I already can do and don’t really shoot that much.Storage manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of selling more disk storage to those new owners of extreme megapixel cameras.
I just upgraded to an R5 (from a 5DM3) and going from 22MP to 45MP, and faster frame rates has seen my disk usage explode. I can only imaging what a 100MP image will do.
I have two Promise RAID arrays (R8 and R6) and I'm seriously replacing all the drives in one tower to the largest 20TB drives I can get to keep me happy for the next few years.
How would one even manage 100MP images?
During a recession, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. During the Great Depression, Packards, Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Duesenbergs sold quite well.I am sure there are some people that would take a $10,000 camera out in the wild to shoot birds. But with a massive recession coming on I am not sure there will be that many.
Focus stacking is now built in, so which is better for high-res landscape, a 120MP focus stack at f/5 or a stitched pano of 20MP shots at f/11 or f/16? Probably scene dependent, but either approach will have some artifacts. Worth note that most lenses have best resolution at f/4-f/5.6.Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?
Only if you’re going to be outputting the image at full native size or larger. Even then it’ll be pretty much imperceptible. As for tilt allowing desired depth of field at larger apertures, it’s not as useful as some imagine. The facts are, if you want the benefits of an ultra high mp sensor you need a larger format.I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.
There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.What I have understood till now is that I'll have to test it before buying.
Since most of my macros and landscapes are shot between F8 and F16, will I really see a difference (DLA!) compared to the R5?
Anyway, one certainty: this will be a fantastic tool for astronomy and other specific uses.
The Webb telescope sees in infrared and maybe lower. It can look into the distant past by detecting galaxies moving away so fast that the light from our perspective is red shifted enough that even Hubble can’t see them. It may show us more about the earliest times of the universe, but is not likely to produce images as aesthetically pleasing as what someone with a telescope can shoot out in the yard.There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE
Is that now true? Traditionally the rule of thumb was that lenses are at their best two stops down from wide open. When I was shooting the solar eclipse a few years back I was using the not-so-hot 75–300mm lens on my T3i. So I found tests of the lens that indicated it was best (or least bad) at f/11, so I used that for most of my shots. So I’m a bit skeptical of any statement as broad as yours seems to be.Worth note that most lenses have best resolution at f/4-f/5.6.
I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.
Many reasons in my case, at least.I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?
I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well.I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well.
My biggest issue is lens selection - they don't really have anything that wide (though it is coming) which is a pretty common use case for me. Ideally for me, being wide isn't enough - I'd like it fast as well and the 15-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good fit. I'd be even more excited if Canon released something wider and faster, which I think Canon is more likely to do than Fuji. On the other side of the spectrum of lenses, I've found myself using my 70-200 for landscapes a lot, and I'm craving some more reach. I've been a hair away from buying a 100-400 for my 5Div over and over, but have convinced myself to save my pennies until I have an RF camera and can go for the 100-500. I don't see Fuji producing anything equivalent, so the system, for my use case, will never completely fit. It is an extremely attractive system, and I've considered it a few times, but my decision always gets held up on lens selection when I look through my current images and think "I couldn't have taken this on the 100s, or that, or that." So at the end of the day, the better fit is a full frame system with very high pixel density, at least in my opinion.
Not so sure.
By comparing results obtained using the same lens (Zeiss 100mm macro planar) on a Leica M 240 (24MP) and on an EOS 5D4 (30MP), it becomes obvious that the Leica picture is sharper.
Leica had to use microlenses on their sensor, not because of "old" designs, but because most of their WAs are no retrofocus designs, an optical choice! The microlenses were needed to get sharper picture sides, compared to a conventional sensor ("guiding" light rays).
Many Leica WAs "plunge" deep into the body.
They removed the AA filter explicitly to get a better definition.
I too hope for a sensor without AA filter, even though, at 100MP +, will that really matter?
And, Leica's "marketing experts" never gave a damn about the internet, and never tried to influence it. This is a pure conspiration theory!