D3 racetrack(pics) C&C welcome

Started Oct 22, 2011 | Discussions thread
PK24X36NOW Senior Member • Posts: 1,872
Re: Fine detail...

rbmphoto wrote:

Compare against similar MF photo. IMO the biggest difference is in detail resolution as opposed to DR. Your colors and composition are great, lens stellar, but with a magnificent setting such as this, particularly one that has been shot so frequentlty by MF shooters, these are betrayed only by comparison.

For most of us, the subject or technique limitations wouldn't justify more pixels - congratulations/sympathy, it looks like you are one of the few who really would benefit...

Unfortunately, I think you're missing your own point.

You're comparing his (beautiful) shots in 35mm format with MF shots, and then suggesting that a 35mm format camera with more pixels is going to capture so much more detail just because it has more pixels . The MF captures more fine detail not just because of the increase in pixel count, but because, in the larger format, the demands on LENS resolution is so much less (since the lens doesn't need to be able to resolve the details at such a small size (due to the larger original image size of the format), and because, for a given angle of view, the bigger format uses a longer focal length lens, increasing the magnification of the details), enabling that fine detail to be resolved - and recorded by the sensor.

The statement has been made many times that you don't "create" any additional detail when you up-rez a digital image (which is true); however, in a similar vein, you won't get any more detail than the lens is capable of resolving (at the size necessary for the format being used, and using a focal length needed to capture the desired image) just because you put a sensor with more pixels behind it. There isn't much resolution being "missed" at 12.1 megapixels in the 35mm format, and what is will be seen only in very limited circumstances (subject having fine enough details to actually be seen as a difference, lens aperture used being large enough not to have diffraction rob the "extra" resolution of the higher pixel count sensor, focus being fine enough to show the difference in resolution, etc.). Tests and lpmm charts are fine for theoretical differences in resolution, but real world differences are slight and we're already seeing diminishing returns.

Have a look at how close the "peeling paint" samples on Thom Hogan's website are when comparing upsampled D3 and native D3X images - they are virtually indistinguishable.


At the end of the day, what "detail" is it you think is missing from the OP's shots?? You're looking at a low-rez web sized sample of his shot, and the detail and clarity are still outstanding - on a moving subject. I imagine the original RAW image would show even more detail, and the posted image hardly seems lacking. Sure, you could get more fine detail with a MF camera, but how many "keepers" do you figure you'd get with MF autofocus and frame rates? I believe the expression is "horses for courses," if you'll pardon the pun...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow