Sony to unveil a 50 MP new A7 body at Photokina?

[dtaylor]

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.

True.

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.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

That's not including UWs, 24-70's, and most 70-200's being able to satisfy the already 36mp nikon, forget about a 50MP 35mm Cam.

It's like using the 17-40L on a 5Dc, it looks fine but I used it on the 5D3, and it looks garbage.

 

[jrista]

You miss that upping RAW filles needs a lot of bandwith.

Here in Europe where i live 60KB/s upload speed is the norm outside big cities.
That´s DSL6000 upload speed.

Wow. Yeah, those kinds of internet speeds are VERY unusual to me. My parents live nearly forty miles into the mountains of Colorado, way out of town, totally isolated and rural. Even they get several megs per second internet speeds, via local wireless and ground wire (not satellite) at relatively good prices due to more than one competitor in the market.

Even in rural area, there are now wireless providers offering significantly more than 60kb/s. If your bandwidth limited, that certainly limits the cloud storage options...however, that still does not necessarily rule it out. You could always upload at night (that's a 6-8 hour window of uninterrupted upload time...unless you also have bandwidth limits.)

 

[Lawliet]

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

You're repeating the same mistake made a few posts earlier...so much for oversimplification.

 

[RLPhoto]

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

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.

 

[Lawliet]

It's that simple.

Only to those who don't understand how the resolution tests work. Those misconceptions lead to fallacious assumptions about which lenses are suitable for higher res sensors and which are not.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's that simple.

Only to those who don't understand how the resolution tests work. Those misconceptions lead to fallacious assumptions about which lenses are suitable for higher res sensors and which are not.

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. : : :

 

[Lawliet]

It's that simple.

Only to those who don't understand how the resolution tests work. Those misconceptions lead to fallacious assumptions about which lenses are suitable for higher res sensors and which are not.

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. : : :

You should really work on your comprehension skills. Both here and a page earlier.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's that simple.

Only to those who don't understand how the resolution tests work. Those misconceptions lead to fallacious assumptions about which lenses are suitable for higher res sensors and which are not.

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. : : :

You should really work on your comprehension skills. Both here and a page earlier.

You should seek professional help, something might be blocking reality of lens limitations from sinking into your brain.

 

[Lawliet]

You should seek professional help, something might be blocking reality of lens limitations from sinking into your brain.

And another person who doesn't understand that lenses are analog devices. But lots of blind faith in numbers to compensate...Penn&Teller come to mind

 

[RLPhoto]

You should seek professional help, something might be blocking reality of lens limitations from sinking into your brain.

And another person who doesn't understand that lenses are analog devices. But lots of blind faith in numbers to compensate...Penn&Teller come to mind

And another person that couldn't photograph the inside of a paper bag and let alone understand the point of diminishing returns. You should really seek some help with that.

 

[psolberg]

it is off course inevitable and a welcomed sensor for it would yield excellent image quality given it will over-sample away a lot of the Bayer pattern issues. And if they keep the excellent dynamic range and deep clean shadow characteristics, this sensor will once again set the bar for landscape and studio. No doubt it is in the making but I doubt 2014 is the year. And I expect to see it on the Nikon D4X if in fact sony does release it in 2015 since I doubt the D850 will show up so soon after the D810.

and man, sony is really pushing the envelope. their video offerings look fantasic and their sensor tech remains top notch. I'm so glad to see them break the canon/nikon duopoly of stagnation.

 

[dtaylor]

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

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.

 

[dtaylor]

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.
[/quote]

Again, resolution does not work like this

 

[dtaylor]

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.

 

[psolberg]

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

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.

he he, off course you can see a difference. People are only in denial about the fact that 18-24MP APSC is in fact much denser than 36MP which is why 36 sounds like a big number which would kill all your lenses but in fact it isn't. 36MP is in fact nowhere near the limit of what current lenses can do. Even at 50+ we're just approaching what people have been doing for years: shooting 18+MP in APSC. The idea 36MP is too high, is just ridiculous nonsense spread by lack of understanding of basic math as others have pointed out. And besides there are many other aspects to high MP beyond resolution of contrast patterns.

But I don't worry about such things any more. Anybody who wants to be in denial can remain so. Watch them all become cured of it when canon releases a high MP body. Suddenly the laws of mathematics will apply again and suddenly, oh 36MP ain't all that. It ALWAYS happens :

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.

 

[msm]

it is off course inevitable and a welcomed sensor for it would yield excellent image quality given it will over-sample away a lot of the Bayer pattern issues. And if they keep the excellent dynamic range and deep clean shadow characteristics, this sensor will once again set the bar for landscape and studio.

+1

 

[RLPhoto]

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

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.

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. 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.

 

[psolberg]

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

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.

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. 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.

yes the edges will not be as high a quality, but to say it is negligible is nonsense. In any case, you've already made your point. You're not really going to convince people otherwise. Time to move on Just keep shooting whatever works for you.