Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]CIA? :-) On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > The other thing, other than how an end image looks, is that as pixel count > increases the camera has to be held steadier. At ~36-40MP and you are > looking at faster than 1/3xFL as minimum to hand hold IMO, higher MB backs > are usually used on tripods. > > What size output are you envisioning that will need this resolution? > > john > ________________________________________ > > > OK, too much time now that I'm fully retired as of 10 days ago. As I > previously posted here and in the Gallery, I was impressed by the > improvement in resolution with the NEX7's 24 Mpx APS-C sensor over the > D800's 36MPx FF sensor (and much moreso the M typ 240's FF sensor) when all > were used with 35mm lenses (actual zoom FL, not "35mm equivalent", in the > case of the NEX7). The use of a true 35mm FL with the NEX7 was the > equivalent, in image scale on the sensor, of testing a FF sensor of 54 Mpx. > Clearly the limits of the inherent resolution of camera lenses are far > beyond the resolving power of sensors up to 36 Mpx. How far, I wondered. > > So I shot the same scene with a Sony RX100 (20 MPx in a sensor that would > be about 1/8th the surface area of FF if it were cut down from 4:3 to 3:2 > and from 20 to 18 Mpx) and a Panasonic TS3 (12 Mpx, and about 1/32nd of FF > if cut down to 3:2 and 10.7 Mpx). These are therefore like small sections > of FF sensors of roughly 144 Mpx and 350Mpx, respectively. I shot > comparison images as well as with a D800. I made images with the RX100 with > the zoom set to actual FLs of 24mm and 35mm, and with the TS3 set to 23mm > (its maximum actual FL), as confirmed in the EXIF. The D800 was used with > 24 and 35mm primes. The results are posted at: > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hlritter/Res+Test+Crops/ > > I was not surprised by the improvement from the NEX7's 54 Mpx equivalent > to the RX100's 144 Mpx equivalent, but to see a further increase in detail > in going to the TS3's ~350 Mpx equivalent was really eye-opening. There's > not as much more detail in this last step as the one before, but the true > case is masked by a lot of what looks like heavy JPEG artifact (no raw > option) in the TS3's image. This is puzzling, as the degree of compression > here is quite mild (12 Mpx down to 5) and actually less than with the > RX100. There may be more noise as well, inevitable with smaller pixels. > There are numerous trade-offs with tiny pixels, but I would expect > technological improvements to alleviate some of these. When one of the > advantages of medium and larger formats is higher sensor resolution and > rendition of detail, it seems to me that when the FF sensor pixel count > gets into the range above 100 Mpx (assuming that will happen), we'll have > resolution and detail that surpass MF. Noise and dynamic range will suffer > as the pixels shrink, but for many users I suspect that stellar resolution > will trump the disadvantages, at least if technology keeps these to about > the level they have now. > > Regardless, I think this is a revealing demonstration of how the > resolution of even the highest-Mpx sensor still falls far short of lens > resolution. What will be done with/about this state of affairs will be > interesting to see. > > --howard > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> // http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto