Quick rebuttal

[qianp2k]

It's also the key point why DPR and IR labs are still reviewing cameras in their respective full size rather on the same size.

If I buy D800 the main reason is to print big such as at 40" or larger. If you only print to 30x20" then extra 14mp is basically wasted.

What DPR said means something by using better technique. Otherwise in reality you really will not see much superior IQ from D800 over 5D3/5D2. No mention you have to deal with the pain of large files and slow processing.

and that is the key point that makes the more blurry comment irrelevant

The D800 would not be more blurry for any given output size. The clarity will be limited by whatever is most limiting of maximum sharpness. This could be shutter speed vs movement of the camera body, mirror/shutter vibration, lens quality at selected f stop, etc.

A higher resolution sensor is NOT a variable to the sharpness equation that will make a final output look more blurry.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[qianp2k]

bobn2 wrote:

because for the same camera movement and same viewing conditions the 36MP picture will always be less blurry than the 22MP one.

Theoretically it's true if you view/print on the same size. However if you shoot under marginal hit or miss scenarios with the help of IS/VR, this might not true as the blurry level is not lineal when I shoot at 1/15 hand-held for example. I found usually is either hit (70% of sharp or better) or miss (30% of sharp or less). So my argument is that when you shoot D800 under such marginal shutter speed, you likely have more miss photos than 5D3. Then a 30% sharp D800 photo is unlikely better than a 70% sharp 5D3 photo

You really are struggling to find anti-D800 arguments now. This one is still wrong. Whatever the amount of blur in the image projected on the sensor, the D800 will add less extra sensor blur than does the 5DIII. It doesn't matter whether it's 'marginal hit or miss scenario' blur (whatever that is), 'lineal' blur (whatever that is) or venusian double genitoid blur, whatever the blur in the projected image, the D800 adds less.
.

But even you can achieve the same sharpness level in less technique such as hand-held, although D800 still is at least as good as or better than 5D3 then the advantage of 24mp is compromised, you might only ended with a slightly better or indistinguishable rather a clear win.

Certainly. That os always true of the best equipment. Take the best L lens, wobble it so it's blurred to b*ggery and you'll find it's hardly any better than a kit zoom similarly blurred to b*ggery.

However 5D3 runs faster that means in a given time, 5D3 can take more photos than D800 that will only increases 5D3 hit rate. On paper or in lab yes D800 trumps 5D3 clearly but in real world photos I am not so sure.

Original, I'll give you that. More FPS equals sharper photos. Never heard that before.

You're a master to twister. I mean in hit or miss situation, 5D3 can have more hit photos in a given time that exactly I meant. Said both have 50% hit or miss chances in 10 sec. With 5D3 I probably will have few more hit photos.

So, for spray and pray, 5DIII is better. Maybe you are right, but a 7D would be better still and a lot cheaper.

I have no interests to play game of words with you again and again. But I believe what DPR said that does much better physical job than your empty paper work. Read carefully again that means you need better technique to fully leverage D800 36mp resolution.

Can the D800 make good on its pixel count and provide a level of fine detail that trumps its DSLR rivals? It can. We emphasize the word can, because if you're truly after 36MP performance, be prepared to do some work. Flawless technique , fast shutter speeds and top-shelf equipment (particularly lenses and a tripod) along with a low ISO are requirements not options .

And last I am NOT anti-D800 but I will stay in Canon for my choice. And I don't really need 36mp in my needs at this moment. You might have a different choice that I don't care.

But clearly you do care, since you have been in the forefront of trying to turn every disadvantage of the 5DIII into an advantage.

Again it depends. If I don't print big then extra 14mp is hardly be an advantage to me rather likely a disadvantage to cause huge size files and slow computer processing.

I don't believe I have any right to criticise anyones equipment choice. All of us choose for our own reasons, and that should not be argued withe. If you like Canon that is a perfectly valid reason to buy Canon. It's not a reason to dismiss other people's choices or other brand's achievements.

When I ever trying to do that? Again please don't twist my words. I keep saying I fully respect those choice D800. But I only echo DPR opinion that you do need a better technique to fully leverage 36mp D800 potential. It's you and few actually to choose either my way or highway attitude and say in absolute way that "I am always right".

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[studio311]

yep...and don't forget cropped sensors were superior to full frame on the same forum as well...until "FX" arrived

With both camps...fanboys...they frighten me

I admire your patience and perseverence Great Bustard.

I fear some will not be deterred from believing 22MP is the holy grail...a resolution of magical qualities...and any more, especially and specifically 36MP is just horrible.

Of course, that will all change once Canon releases a 40+mp camera next year.

You are correct of course, just like when 12MP was the holy grail on a different forum until a 24MP machine dropped

 

[Great Bustard]

It's also the key point why DPR and IR labs are still reviewing cameras in their respective full size rather on the same size.

And yet:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex7/page22.asp

One long-running concern about cameras' ever-increasing pixel counts is the impact on high ISO noise. Fitting more, smaller pixels onto a given size sensor almost inevitably ends up with higher pixel-level noise when images are viewed are viewed at 100% on-screen. Sony's older 16MP sensor, as used in the NEX-5N, has earned itself an enviable reputation for its high ISO output - here we're seeing how the NEX-7 stacks up in comparison. The question to be answered here is how any increase in pixel-level noise affects the image as a whole; i.e. does the higher pixel count have a negative impact if you compare prints of the same size, rather than view on-screen at 100%.
.
.
.

These 100% crops show the A77 to be clearly noisier than either of the other two cameras, but between the NEX-7 and NEX-5N there's really not a lot to choose. The NEX-5N looks less noisy when viewed at 100%, but upsample it to match the NEX-7 and the visual difference all but disappears. The same story continues in the highlight and shadow regions of the frame, shown below - the 5N tends to look better at 100%, but little different when the images are compared at the same size.

The inevitable conclusion from this is that, if you compare images as a whole rather than at the pixel level, the NEX-7's low light, high ISO performance is essentially a match for the NEX-5N's. So overall the increased pixel count delivers potentially more detail at low ISO, without any obvious negative impact on high ISO image quality.

If I buy D800 the main reason is to print big such as at 40" or larger. If you only print to 30x20" then extra 14mp is basically wasted.

No. The D800 print will resolve more detail on a print of any size. The question, of course, is at what point does that additional resolution become inconsequential. The answer depends on the viewer's QT (quality threshold).

In other words, for some, the difference between the D800 and 5D3 at 20x30 inches may be significant, whereas for others, they wouldn't notice it. In my opinion, the vast majority may well notice if they are looking for it, but simply would not care. After all, at best, the D800 is going to deliver 28% more linear resolution than the 5D3.

What DPR said means something by using better technique. Otherwise in reality you really will not see much superior IQ from D800 over 5D3/5D2. No mention you have to deal with the pain of large files and slow processing.

As has been explained to you numerous times, there are many non-trivial situations when no additional care needs to be taken to make maximum use of the resolution advantage that the D800 offers, e.g. a landscape taken at 24mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 100 -- an easy shot handheld, even at 36 MP.

 

[Tom Christiansen]

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

Next you'll tell me you don't believe in Santa.

I am seriously impressed with both your and bobn2’s indefatigable tenacity in conducting these pig-singing master classes. Not even Sisyphus could have better. Bravo to you both!

I know I just couldn’t do it myself. I’m afraid to annoy the pigs — not so much because their whingeing is too strident for my delicate sensibilities, but because of the risk that their suidian shrieks might shatter my monitor’s glass.

Thanks to you both for your insightful and illuminating technical contributions.

--tom
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
colicky, havocker, picnicky, plasticky, panicking, picnicking,
panicky, magicked, colicking, picnicked, bivouacking,
colicked, mimicked, frolicked, picnicker, demosaicked ,
garlicky, mimicker, havocking, bivouacked, demosaicker ,
havocked, panicked, mimicking, frolicking, demosaicking .

 

[studio311]

Is your argument...that with 22MP you can use sloppy technique and still achieve the full potential IQ of the 5d3? I certainly hope not. You need good technique to "fully leverage" the potential of a 12MP, 22MP, 36MP or 100MP camera. Good technique results in better IQ. Period.

When I ever trying to do that? Again please don't twist my words. I keep saying I fully respect those choice D800. But I only echo DPR opinion that you do need a better technique to fully leverage 36mp D800 potential. It's you and few actually to choose either my way or highway attitude and say in absolute way that "I am always right".

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

amobi you're almost as clueless as qianp2k but you're still way better than him. Support of him will do nothing but pull yourself down a full level lower.

While I rarely agree with Amobi, he at least is out in the trenches doing photography. It may be only a few times a year, I don't know, but at least he has to think on his feet and produce a body of work for each event. With that comes the experience of running a business, post processing, use of a variety of gear, etc. For that I can respect him. Qianp2k is just some recent hobbyist who seems to think that because his day job can afford him a few cameras, he's now in a position to talk above and beyond those doing it for a living with a great deal of experience. That is why I don't read his posts any longer...they never offer anything of value.

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

 

[qianp2k]

Is your argument...that with 22MP you can use sloppy technique and still achieve the full potential IQ of the 5d3? I certainly hope not. You need good technique to "fully leverage" the potential of a 12MP, 22MP, 36MP or 100MP camera. Good technique results in better IQ. Period.

Absolutely. What DPR said is just means higher pixel camera needs better technique in order to fully leverage more pixel advantage. Is that difficult to understand?

For example, in old days, with 8mp camera, you can see pretty sharp photo viewed at 100% cropped even with minor shake, so you will still get great print at 10x8" for example. But now the same minor shake will be amplified many times in the case of 36mp D800 or even more with 80mp MF when view/print big. If you still print small then yes you don't need better technique, But then why you'd need 36 or 80mp that only meaningful for print big or super big. Then a better or perfect (or near perfect) technique is required not an option as DPR said!

When I ever trying to do that? Again please don't twist my words. I keep saying I fully respect those choice D800. But I only echo DPR opinion that you do need a better technique to fully leverage 36mp D800 potential. It's you and few actually to choose either my way or highway attitude and say in absolute way that "I am always right".

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Great Bustard]

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

Look who is talking. You are one confused fellow.

amobi you're almost as clueless as qianp2k but you're still way better than him. Support of him will do nothing but pull yourself down a full level lower.

While I rarely agree with Amobi, he at least is out in the trenches doing photography. It may be only a few times a year, I don't know, but at least he has to think on his feet and produce a body of work for each event. With that comes the experience of running a business, post processing, use of a variety of gear, etc. For that I can respect him. Qianp2k is just some recent hobbyist who seems to think that because his day job can afford him a few cameras, he's now in a position to talk above and beyond those doing it for a living with a great deal of experience. That is why I don't read his posts any longer...they never offer anything of value.

FIrst up, yes, amobi is a talented photographer -- I enjoy his work. That said, being a talented photographer and technically competent, are, for the most part, independent.

That is, there are extremely talented photographers who say the most silly things, and and extemely knowledgable people who couldn't take a decent photo to save their life, and everywhere inbetween.

Just as a movie critic need not be able to produce, direct, or act to give an insightful review of a movie, and just as a producer, director, and/or actor can sound like a complete moron when talking about a great movie.

I mean, there has to be some level of technical competence, of course. But it's simple to see how a talented photographer can make the easy mistake of confusing 100% view of a photo with the quality of the photo as a whole, and coming to a completely incorrect conclusion, avoiding high MP cameras as a result, yet still producing spectacular photos with lesser equipment.

 

[Great Bustard]

Is your argument...that with 22MP you can use sloppy technique and still achieve the full potential IQ of the 5d3? I certainly hope not. You need good technique to "fully leverage" the potential of a 12MP, 22MP, 36MP or 100MP camera. Good technique results in better IQ. Period.

Absolutely. What DPR said is just means higher pixel camera needs better technique in order to fully leverage more pixel advantage. Is that difficult to understand?

Everyone understands this. What you fail to understand is that simply because the full advantage of more pixels is not attained does not mean that more pixels will be at a disadvantage in some circumstances (all else equal).

That is, more pixels always result in greater IQ, all else equal. How much of the potential IQ increase is realized, whether or not it is noticable, and/or whether or not it is worth the opertational disadvantages, however, is another matter all together.

For example, in old days, with 8mp camera, you can see pretty sharp photo viewed at 100% cropped even with minor shake, so you will still get great print at 10x8" for example. But now the same minor shake will be amplified many times in the case of 36mp D800 or even more with 80mp MF when view/print big. If you still print small then yes you don't need better technique, But then why you'd need 36 or 80mp that only meaningful for print big or super big. Then a better or perfect (or near perfect) technique is required not an option as DPR said!

You're entire problem (on this subject) is confusing the IQ of the 100% view of a photo with IQ of the photo as a whole. It's been explained to you so many times, that I'm currently of the opinion that you lack the capacity to understand your mistake.

 

[bobn2]

And last I am NOT anti-D800 but I will stay in Canon for my choice. And I don't really need 36mp in my needs at this moment. You might have a different choice that I don't care.

But clearly you do care, since you have been in the forefront of trying to turn every disadvantage of the 5DIII into an advantage.

Again it depends. If I don't print big then extra 14mp is hardly be an advantage to me rather likely a disadvantage to cause huge size files and slow computer processing.

Yes, if you don't print large or crop, the file size is a disadvantage. Had it been only the file size you had been complaining about, that might have been a sensible answer.

--
Bob

 

[Great Bustard]

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution. For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped. In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp?

Well, following your reasoning, the D800 will give at least same result at same printing size, and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you?

Not only is that OK with me, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate.

Not everything. If I were taking a photo of a landscape, for example, and it called for 24mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 100 on a 5D3, I'd shoot the same settings on a D800. What isn't equal is that the Nikkor 14-24 / 2.8G at f/5.6 will resolve considerably better than the Canon 16-35 / 2.8L II at f/5.6. Of course, we can find different pairings of lenses that favor Canon.

Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

Depends. It's not merely steadiness, but motion, especially in low light. So, as the motion in the scene increases, and the light dims, the advantages of more pixels melt away rather quickly, except inasmuch as more pixels results in a finer "grain" of noise and lends itself to NR (noise reduction) in a more pleasing fashion.

But while more pixels still retain the advantage over fewer pixels for lower light scenes with motion (assuming equally efficient sensors), that advantage is severely curtailed.

For example, at 1/100 ISO 1600, the advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 is basically nill, in terms of pixel count.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

Look who is talking. You are one confused fellow.

amobi you're almost as clueless as qianp2k but you're still way better than him. Support of him will do nothing but pull yourself down a full level lower.

While I rarely agree with Amobi, he at least is out in the trenches doing photography. It may be only a few times a year, I don't know, but at least he has to think on his feet and produce a body of work for each event. With that comes the experience of running a business, post processing, use of a variety of gear, etc. For that I can respect him. Qianp2k is just some recent hobbyist who seems to think that because his day job can afford him a few cameras, he's now in a position to talk above and beyond those doing it for a living with a great deal of experience. That is why I don't read his posts any longer...they never offer anything of value.

FIrst up, yes, amobi is a talented photographer -- I enjoy his work. That said, being a talented photographer and technically competent, are, for the most part, independent.

That is, there are extremely talented photographers who say the most silly things, and and extemely knowledgable people who couldn't take a decent photo to save their life, and everywhere inbetween.

Just as a movie critic need not be able to produce, direct, or act to give an insightful review of a movie, and just as a producer, director, and/or actor can sound like a complete moron when talking about a great movie.

I mean, there has to be some level of technical competence, of course. But it's simple to see how a talented photographer can make the easy mistake of confusing 100% view of a photo with the quality of the photo as a whole, and coming to a completely incorrect conclusion, avoiding high MP cameras as a result, yet still producing spectacular photos with lesser equipment.

This is a huge issue. So many on these forums mistake what they see at 100% on screen vs what is actually laid down in print.

A perfect example of this is striving for a "creamy smooth" lack of noise at 100% screen view. In fact, what is common in the printing industry, and I do it myself when producing large portraits, is to add a bit of grain/noise to an image to provide a slight bit of dither/texture to the final print. This amount of dither is virtually always far more than the noise apparent at 100%.....and thus the reason why these 100% discussions are basically worthless.

This has been explained by myself and so many others here....on so many different threads, that I'm surprised the same people continuously comment to the contrary.

 

[Great Bustard]

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped.

First of all, you will not have a sharp 5D3 photo and a blurry D800 photo, which makes the premise bogus. Secondly, in terms of the IQ of the photo , a comparison at 100% is not the tell.

Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp?

Again, a bogus premise. Assuming a blurry photo at all, both will be blurry, and a 100% crop of the D800 photo will be more blurry than a 100% crop of the 5D3 photo. But, in terms of the whole photo , the D800 photo will not be more blurry than the 5D3 photo.

Well, following your reasoning, the D800 will give at least same result at same printing size,

If use the same technique, this is basically correct but then you waste extra 24mp.

I assume you mean extra 14 MP. In any case, it's not wasted -- it will still help the IQ of the photo -- just not be as useful as it could have been had there been no motion blur / camera shake.

5D3 can shoot more photos in a given time if both in P&S hand-held. So I will not surprise 5D3 might have better photos sometime in this scenario such as from a vacation snap shooter.

Ah -- you're the "spray and pray" kind of "photographer". Then I suggest the 1D4 is the camera you want, not the 5D3 or D800.

and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you?

Nothing is absolutely.

Yeah, it is.

A very blurry FF 36mp photo cannot be better than a sharp 22mp FF photo.

Once again, bogus premise.

You can get better photos from D800 but also you need to spend more efforts as DPR suggested.

No, you don't. You need more effort in some circumstances to get more from 36 MP than you get from 22 MP, but you will always get more IQ from 36 MP (all else equal).

Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate. Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

It depends. From serious photog who shoot mostly from tripod D800 will obviously trump 5D3.

As has been pointed out to you, time and time again, one need not use a tripod for a landscape at 24mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 100, which is not an uncommon scenario.

From casual P&S photog who shoot mostly in hand-held, the difference will be pretty small to print to normal size such as 30x20" or below. I don't think 99% of photog want to print 60" wide will shoot in hand-held.

I'd be quite comfortable printing 24mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 100 from a handheld shot. In terms of the IQ of the print:

5D3 @ 22 MP:

13x19 inches: 303 PPI
16x24 inches: 240 PPI
20x30 inches: 192 PPI
24x36 inches: 160 PPI
32x48 inches: 120 PPI
40x60 inches: 96 PPI

D800 @ 36 MP:

13x19 inches: 391 PPI
16x24 inches: 309 PPI
20x30 inches: 247 PPI
24x36 inches: 206 PPI
32x48 inches: 155 PPI
40x60 inches: 124 PPI

You keep using 20x30 inches as the cutoff, which means that, for you, anything beyond 200 PPI is trivial. Fair enough. But understand that not all have the same QT (quality threshold) as you. Some may be fine with 100 PPI, others may not be satisfied with less than 300 PPI.

In any case, as I've said, in the best of situations, the D800 will resolve at most 28% more linear detail than the 5D3, usually less -- let's say 15% on average -- but it's not averages we care about, but what we're getting with our particular photos. For some, that means the D800 is substantially better, for other it means there's no difference worth mentioning.

In any event, it's important to separate fact from opinion.

 

[Great Bustard]

Sorry, qianp2k -- all else equal (same lens, same aperture, same sensor size, same relative AA filter strength), more pixels will always resolve more detail than fewer pixels.

For example, a 36 MP sensor will resolve between 0 and 28% more linear detail over a 12 MP sensor -- it will never resolve less (all else equal, of course).

Joe,
if we keep the noise constant (with applying NR),
then the resolution will be decrease as we raise the ISO.
Is that correct ?

Of course.

For example,
say we get 36 MP at ISO 100,
and at ISO 1600 we could just get about 10 MP resolution ?

I can't comment on how much resolution is lost at ISO 1600 (same aperture and shutter speed). It likely depends a great deal on the scene itself.

And I think the "resolution decrease" is not linear between ISO 100 to 400.

That's worthy of a whole thread in and of itself, and others are far more qualified to answer than I.

 

[chironNYC]

More mpix obviously does not automatically translate into more resolution under all levels of mpix, all lenses, all ISOs, and under all shooting conditions. There is law of diminishing returns that operates here. This is what DPR's review and many others have pointed out. Saying "all things being equal" obscures this point by assuming away the different circumstances in which a camera might be used--a at-a-wedding vs. a on-a-tripod, for example.

According to DPR's review, it requires going to "inordinate lengths" to get the resolution from the higher mpix count on the d800, a point they emphasized repeatedly in their review. This means higher shutter speeds, mirror lockup, tripods, limited aperture, best possible lenses, and lower ISO. Read their review. Luminous Landscape even recommends a focusing loupe! These are essentially view camera and medium format constraints that most people will not observe most of the time. The constraints eliminate most shooting situations. And therefore they won't get the increased resolution most of the time.

This probably is why Nikon did not put the 36 hex on their pro models, but used it to aim at amateurs/prosumers who would be more taken with a big mpix count.

And then there is still the d800's shoddy build quality to contend with--misaligned AF, green LCD, battery doors that pop open, etc.

My jab at it: Given the same surface area e.g. a FF sensor, more pixels per line (horizontal and/or vertical) records more/finer detail at capture due to a finer "resolution" (the non-print big definition of the word).

All any Canon user had to do was compare their 5D to the 5D2 before selling off their 5D, and this silly ongoing debate would have been virtually silent on this forum except from Nikon users (until now). Apparently few if any ever did. I did and the result was clear, more megapixels, more detail at my target image presentation size (1800x1200 electronically as viewed from 12 to 18 inches - essentially my computer monitor an NEC 2690). This is one part of the IQ equation but certainly not the only. For landscape styles, it is an important consideration, for other styles, other factors may be way more important.

I know that after comparing 12 MP to 21 MP, I saw an increase in captured detail. My only concern for the 21 MP to 36 MP jump is the law of diminshing return for my aforementioned target presentation size.

Of course, the possibility exists that these "arguments" are being made by folks who really know better but are currently under the control of fanboi compulsions.

This gentleman talking about blurry this and that must be referring to images shot by someone with poor technique (which has nothing to do with the camera). Also, he doesn't seem to understand the phrase "all else being equal".

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41527329

What's clear is that, all else equal, 36 MP will never look worse than 22 MP, and will usually look better. How much better depends on many variables.

No true. You fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

Sorry, qianp2k -- all else equal (same lens, same aperture, same sensor size, same relative AA filter strength), more pixels will always resolve more detail than fewer pixels.

For example, a 36 MP sensor will resolve between 0 and 28% more linear detail over a 12 MP sensor -- it will never resolve less (all else equal, of course).

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

--
Peter

 

[Great Bustard]

More mpix obviously does not automatically translate into more resolution under all levels of mpix, all lenses, all ISOs, and under all shooting conditions. There is law of diminishing returns that operates here. This is what DPR's review and many others have pointed out. Saying "all things being equal" obscures this point by assuming away the different circumstances in which a camera might be used--a wedding vs, a tripod, for example.

More pixels result in more resolution -- all else equal . How much more resolution, of course, depends on a great number of factors.

According to DPR's review, it requires going to "inordinate lengths" to get the resolution from the higher mpix count on the d800, a point they emphasized repeatedly in their review. This means higher shutter speeds, mirror lockup, tripods, limited aperture, best possible lenses, and lower ISO. Read their review.

That's what's required to get the full benefit of the 36 MP of the D800. Guess what? That's also what's required to get the full benefit of the 22 MP of the 5D3, the 21 MP of the 5D2, and the 13 MP of the 5D.

Luminous Landscape even recommends a focusing loupe! These are essentially view camera and medium format constraints that most people will not observe most of the time. And therefore they won't get the increased resolution most of the time.

Not get " the increased resolution most of the time", but not get the full 28% maximum possible linear resoltion everytime. There are many non-trivial situations where I can easily get 15% more resolution hand held with AF.

This probably is why Nikon did not put the 36 hex on their pro models, but used it to aim at amateurs/prosumers who would be more taken with a big mpix count.

No, it most likely was because of frame rate. That is, they can get a much greater frame rate with 16 MP than they can with 36 MP, and felt that the greater frame rate mattered more with their pro models than did 36 MP vs 16 MP.

 

[chironNYC]

No.

Each of your rebuttals is wrong, really just miss the point being made.

Re-read what I wrote and think about it. For example, you DON'T need the same inordinate lengths with 22 mpix that you do with 36. Surely that is obvious to you? Each of your other assertions either assumes away the main point--that different uses may make the extra resolution unattainable without compromising the purpose for which the picture is taken, or adds an obscuring qualification.

More mpix DOES NOT automatically mean more resolution.

But it does impose additional constraints. (I know--you're going to say you don't know what that means--just read DPR's review again.)

More mpix obviously does not automatically translate into more resolution under all levels of mpix, all lenses, all ISOs, and under all shooting conditions. There is law of diminishing returns that operates here. This is what DPR's review and many others have pointed out. Saying "all things being equal" obscures this point by assuming away the different circumstances in which a camera might be used--a wedding vs, a tripod, for example.

More pixels result in more resolution -- all else equal . How much more resolution, of course, depends on a great number of factors.

According to DPR's review, it requires going to "inordinate lengths" to get the resolution from the higher mpix count on the d800, a point they emphasized repeatedly in their review. This means higher shutter speeds, mirror lockup, tripods, limited aperture, best possible lenses, and lower ISO. Read their review.

That's what's required to get the full benefit of the 36 MP of the D800. Guess what? That's also what's required to get the full benefit of the 22 MP of the 5D3, the 21 MP of the 5D2, and the 13 MP of the 5D.

Luminous Landscape even recommends a focusing loupe! These are essentially view camera and medium format constraints that most people will not observe most of the time. And therefore they won't get the increased resolution most of the time.

Not get " the increased resolution most of the time", but not get the full 28% maximum possible linear resoltion everytime. There are many non-trivial situations where I can easily get 15% more resolution hand held with AF.

This probably is why Nikon did not put the 36 hex on their pro models, but used it to aim at amateurs/prosumers who would be more taken with a big mpix count.

No, it most likely was because of frame rate. That is, they can get a much greater frame rate with 16 MP than they can with 36 MP, and felt that the greater frame rate mattered more with their pro models than did 36 MP vs 16 MP.

--
Peter

 

[Slideshow Bob]

Try using a dictionary, chiron, and you'll probably find something like this...

megapixel |ˈmegəˌpiksəl|
noun
one million pixels, used as a measure of the resolution in digital cameras.

So actually, more mpix DOES automatically mean more resolution.

Yes, you might have to work a little harder to get the most out of the D800's 36mp, but if you hold the D800 as steady as a 5DIII needs to be help to get an acceptably sharp photo, you'll get more than 22mp out of the D800. Easy. Surely that is obvious to you?

If you're unsteady enough to loose all of the "extra" 14mp that the D800 has, you wouldn't be getting all 22mp out of the 5DIII either, so the D800 would still be resolving more detail.

In and of itself, a higher megapixel count does not impose "additional constraints".

SB

Each of your rebuttals is wrong, really just miss the point being made.

Re-read what I wrote and think about it. For example, you DON'T need the same inordinate lengths with 22 mpix that you do with 36. Surely that is obvious to you? Each of your other assertions either assumes away the main point--that different uses may make the extra resolution unattainable without compromising the purpose for which the picture is taken, or adds an obscuring qualification.

More mpix DOES NOT automatically mean more resolution.

But it does impose additional constraints. (I know--you're going to say you don't know what that means--just read DPR's review again.)

More mpix obviously does not automatically translate into more resolution under all levels of mpix, all lenses, all ISOs, and under all shooting conditions. There is law of diminishing returns that operates here. This is what DPR's review and many others have pointed out. Saying "all things being equal" obscures this point by assuming away the different circumstances in which a camera might be used--a wedding vs, a tripod, for example.

More pixels result in more resolution -- all else equal . How much more resolution, of course, depends on a great number of factors.

According to DPR's review, it requires going to "inordinate lengths" to get the resolution from the higher mpix count on the d800, a point they emphasized repeatedly in their review. This means higher shutter speeds, mirror lockup, tripods, limited aperture, best possible lenses, and lower ISO. Read their review.

That's what's required to get the full benefit of the 36 MP of the D800. Guess what? That's also what's required to get the full benefit of the 22 MP of the 5D3, the 21 MP of the 5D2, and the 13 MP of the 5D.

Luminous Landscape even recommends a focusing loupe! These are essentially view camera and medium format constraints that most people will not observe most of the time. And therefore they won't get the increased resolution most of the time.

Not get " the increased resolution most of the time", but not get the full 28% maximum possible linear resoltion everytime. There are many non-trivial situations where I can easily get 15% more resolution hand held with AF.

This probably is why Nikon did not put the 36 hex on their pro models, but used it to aim at amateurs/prosumers who would be more taken with a big mpix count.

No, it most likely was because of frame rate. That is, they can get a much greater frame rate with 16 MP than they can with 36 MP, and felt that the greater frame rate mattered more with their pro models than did 36 MP vs 16 MP.

--
Peter

 

[Andre Affleck]

qianp2k wrote:

Absolutely. What DPR said is just means higher pixel camera needs better technique in order to fully leverage more pixel advantage. Is that difficult to understand?

This is a misleading statement and leads to faulty conclusions as your OP suggests. The statement applies to all cameras of any resolution, not just high resolution cameras.

The amount of acuity loss incurred by blur is practically the same regardless of resolution. There may be more loss for frequencies close to nyquist, but in general the loss is practically the same.

Here is an example. 100% crops form both cameras showing the resolution advantage of the D800 (click to expand):





Now apply equivalent motion blur to both images. 5 pixels for the 5DIII and 6 for the D800 (rounded from 6.4 pix):





Notice both images loose detail similarly. Even though the D800 looses detail, it still has more detail than the 5DIII by the same amount. To say one will look blurry and one would look sharper is inaccurate IMO. To say the D800 uniquely requires better technique to leverage the advantage is nonsense. You need better technique to to take better images regardless of resolution.

To further Great Bustard's claim, if you go and downsample the D800 to the 5DIII resolution, it still renders more detail after blurring. This is because it had more detail before blurring due to the higher resolution.