Reading mode: Light Dark

How? The new sensor, Fuji claims, is capable of delivering resolution of the same qua

Go to last post
jennajenna said:
"The new sensor, Fuji claims, is capable of delivering resolution of the same quality, if not superior, to a full-frame sensor"

How when it is only apsc? Physics be damned?

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/fujifilm-introduces-x-pro-1-mirrorless-camera-1052291
Click to expand...
A very interesting claim, indeed. By working without an anti-aliasing filter, the sensor will have a relative advantage in resolution compared to standard Bayer systems. Higher pixel density will help with details. But to be as good as, or superior, to a sensor that is 2.2 times as large is a bold statement that I'll need to see before I believe it.

--
Desmond Murray
http://www.KelownaPhotographer.com
I shoot to thrill
 
If you read a review or a press release for a 100$ product, you often can find:
  • it delivers the same quality as a 500$ product
than you go and read the review for the 500$ product:
  • it has the same quality as 2000$ product
... and so on

It seems that the comparison is done with a higher class product from 10-20 years ago.
 
jennajenna said:
"The new sensor, Fuji claims, is capable of delivering resolution of the same quality, if not superior, to a full-frame sensor"
Click to expand...
Fuji likes to make exaggerated claims about their sensors (like those "12MP" honeycombs, that were 6MP). This looks like more of the same.

The only real advantage they have (according to their claims) is that they can run without an AA filter.

That does not give it light gathering capability of a full frame sensor, which is the main difference you get with a full frame sensor. Also doesn't give Shallow DOF, which is the other main difference with big sensors.

In fact they will likely still have aliasing issues despite their claims (even Foveon has aliasing issues) and they have even less color resolution than Bayer.

This looks more like they will be aiming for a more B&W + broad color hints. Meaning no high frequency color information, so they won't have errant sharp Red or Blue pixels, but they will likely more readily bleed and muddy colors together.

But it could still be a nice sharp looking image. I look forward to seeing the real world tradeoffs of this change.
 
No AA filter and more green (effectively luminance) photosites should mean higher luminance resolution than you'd usually expect from a 16MP chip. Whether that gets it close to a 5D II is another matter.

Richard - dpreview.com
 
R Butler said:
No AA filter and more green (effectively luminance) photosites should mean higher luminance resolution than you'd usually expect from a 16MP chip. Whether that gets it close to a 5D II is another matter.
Click to expand...
The 5DII already lost the MP race to the NEX-7. Is Sony claiming Full frame performance?

The two big difference with big sensors are light gathering and DOF control, neither of which "Trans X" affects.

One resolution alone.

It is only 5.5% more green (2 per block of 36), which is so trivial it is irrelevant.

It really all comes down to running without an AA filter. This is less likely to result in a measurable resolution improvement, but more likely to give some bump in apparent contrast.

But at what cost? Tradeoffs like this are usually not as one sided as marketing would have us believe.
 
sorry but why in this forums some people has a so narrow view of the world that can continue for 20 years to repeat like parrots the same things...

did you ever think that for some kind of photographer,i.e. photojournalist who shoot in low light night having a Shallow DOF is a problem? do you think that shoting an event in the night with a leica 50mm f0.95 on a FF is a bonus??without anything in focus exept 10cm...???

what to do and how many times to repeat this untill people like you stop to think this its an advantage...?????

open your mind......maybe you will see ALSO other realities...and also your photography skills will improve.....
Peter G said:
That does not give it light gathering capability of a full frame sensor, which is the main difference you get with a full frame sensor. Also doesn't give Shallow DOF, which is the other main difference with big sensors.
Click to expand...
 
Sony dont claim FF performance...but in fact (you can compare) the nex7 blow away in resolution the 5D mark II untill 800-1600 iso...

............again...open your mind....dont think like if you work in canon......canon dont pay you ...(i think but its all possible...many fanboys are paid for repeat same things 10.000 times..
Peter G said:
R Butler said:
No AA filter and more green (effectively luminance) photosites should mean higher luminance resolution than you'd usually expect from a 16MP chip. Whether that gets it close to a 5D II is another matter.
Click to expand...
The 5DII already lost the MP race to the NEX-7. Is Sony claiming Full frame performance?

The two big difference with big sensors are light gathering and DOF control, neither of which "Trans X" affects.

One resolution alone.

It is only 5.5% more green (2 per block of 36), which is so trivial it is irrelevant.

It really all comes down to running without an AA filter. This is less likely to result in a measurable resolution improvement, but more likely to give some bump in apparent contrast.

But at what cost? Tradeoffs like this are usually not as one sided as marketing would have us believe.
Click to expand...
 
In the real world most people (99.9%+) will never own an F0.95 lens.

A lot will own something like an EF 24-105 F4 IS for a 5DII.

That full frame will give them nice DOF control and the big sensor also helps with it's great light gathering power.

Since when (especially here) has full frame only been about mega pixel counts.

My only point was there is much more to Full Frame than megapixels, and in fact that isn't the point at all, for most people, since you can get APS sensors with similar or even greater MP counts.
ZZ9 said:
sorry but why in this forums some people has a so narrow view of the world that can continue for 20 years to repeat like parrots the same things...

did you ever think that for some kind of photographer,i.e. photojournalist who shoot in low light night having a Shallow DOF is a problem? do you think that shoting an event in the night with a leica 50mm f0.95 on a FF is a bonus??without anything in focus exept 10cm...???
Click to expand...
 
jennajenna said:
"The new sensor, Fuji claims, is capable of delivering resolution of the same quality, if not superior, to a full-frame sensor"
Click to expand...
In the end it is not relevant, I am more keen on nice colours and a "film like" look.

There are already enough 21MP cameras around. They do not make a photo better.

Bernie
--

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)
 
Peter G said:
In the real world most people (99.9%+) will never own an F0.95 lens.

A lot will own something like an EF 24-105 F4 IS for a 5DII.

That full frame will give them nice DOF control and the big sensor also helps with it's great light gathering power.
Click to expand...
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Peter G said:
Since when (especially here) has full frame only been about mega pixel counts.

My only point was there is much more to Full Frame than megapixels, and in fact that isn't the point at all, for most people, since you can get APS sensors with similar or even greater MP counts.
ZZ9 said:
sorry but why in this forums some people has a so narrow view of the world that can continue for 20 years to repeat like parrots the same things...

did you ever think that for some kind of photographer,i.e. photojournalist who shoot in low light night having a Shallow DOF is a problem? do you think that shoting an event in the night with a leica 50mm f0.95 on a FF is a bonus??without anything in focus exept 10cm...???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Click to expand...
More opportunity is more control.

There are F2.8 lenses for FF as well. If you are shooting F2.8 because you need the light on APS, you wouldn't begrudge a little loss in DOF for more light on FF either.

If you look at zooms for FF and Zooms for APS, you will note they have essentially the same aperture ratings, giving the advantage to FF with opportunity to have a wider DOF when needed and they extra light gathering power of the larger sensor when needed.
 
Peter G said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Click to expand...
More opportunity is more control.

There are F2.8 lenses for FF as well. If you are shooting F2.8 because you need the light on APS, you wouldn't begrudge a little loss in DOF for more light on FF either.
Click to expand...
I know there are f2.8 lenses for FF as well....but then you're DOF is too shallow. My DOF with f2.8 on an APS-C camera is like f4.5 on a FF. If I need the deeper DOF, then the FF user needs to up the iso....and then the FF high iso advantage vanishes.
Peter G said:
If you look at zooms for FF and Zooms for APS, you will note they have essentially the same aperture ratings, giving the advantage to FF with opportunity to have a wider DOF when needed and they extra light gathering power of the larger sensor when needed.
Click to expand...
Yup...and I have images stabilization on my F2.8 standard zoom...you have a slow f4 with IS for the FF. You just lost one stop. Welcome to higher iso. Shallow DOF isn't always required ya know....most often, people want more in focus....not less.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Peter G said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Click to expand...
More opportunity is more control.

There are F2.8 lenses for FF as well. If you are shooting F2.8 because you need the light on APS, you wouldn't begrudge a little loss in DOF for more light on FF either.
Click to expand...
I know there are f2.8 lenses for FF as well....but then you're DOF is too shallow. My DOF with f2.8 on an APS-C camera is like f4.5 on a FF. If I need the deeper DOF, then the FF user needs to up the iso....and then the FF high iso advantage vanishes.
Click to expand...
2.8 isn't too shallow for loads of folks on FF. There are lots of wedding photographers who shoot wide open on FF at 2.8 or less (e.g., 1.8, 1.4, even 1.2) all the time.
 
Frida said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Peter G said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Click to expand...
More opportunity is more control.

There are F2.8 lenses for FF as well. If you are shooting F2.8 because you need the light on APS, you wouldn't begrudge a little loss in DOF for more light on FF either.
Click to expand...
I know there are f2.8 lenses for FF as well....but then you're DOF is too shallow. My DOF with f2.8 on an APS-C camera is like f4.5 on a FF. If I need the deeper DOF, then the FF user needs to up the iso....and then the FF high iso advantage vanishes.
Click to expand...
2.8 isn't too shallow for loads of folks on FF. There are lots of wedding photographers who shoot wide open on FF at 2.8 or less (e.g., 1.8, 1.4, even 1.2) all the time.
Click to expand...
I'm a wedding photographer. I use primes all the time. But when I have a zoom, I prefer the f2.8 with IS as opposed to an F4 for example. There's more to life than just having shots with a 10cm area in focus.

My reason for bringing this up is that a lot of FF shooters go on and on about the shallow DOF of FF....but when someone mentions the deeper DOF of with a crop camera....they try to just blow it off. Well....it's an issue. Like I said....I can be at 3200 iso apposed to 10,000iso.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
2.8 isn't too shallow for loads of folks on FF. There are lots of wedding photographers who shoot wide open on FF at 2.8 or less (e.g., 1.8, 1.4, even 1.2) all the time.
Click to expand...
I'm a wedding photographer. I use primes all the time. But when I have a zoom, I prefer the f2.8 with IS as opposed to an F4 for example. There's more to life than just having shots with a 10cm area in focus.

My reason for bringing this up is that a lot of FF shooters go on and on about the shallow DOF of FF....but when someone mentions the deeper DOF of with a crop camera....they try to just blow it off. Well....it's an issue. Like I said....I can be at 3200 iso apposed to 10,000iso.
Click to expand...
I'm also a wedding photographer, and I'm all about primes too. However, we see things differently. I'd rather work with FF and the option for less DOF. Different strokes for different folks.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Frida said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Peter G said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Click to expand...
More opportunity is more control.

There are F2.8 lenses for FF as well. If you are shooting F2.8 because you need the light on APS, you wouldn't begrudge a little loss in DOF for more light on FF either.
Click to expand...
I know there are f2.8 lenses for FF as well....but then you're DOF is too shallow. My DOF with f2.8 on an APS-C camera is like f4.5 on a FF. If I need the deeper DOF, then the FF user needs to up the iso....and then the FF high iso advantage vanishes.
Click to expand...
2.8 isn't too shallow for loads of folks on FF. There are lots of wedding photographers who shoot wide open on FF at 2.8 or less (e.g., 1.8, 1.4, even 1.2) all the time.
Click to expand...
I'm a wedding photographer. I use primes all the time. But when I have a zoom, I prefer the f2.8 with IS as opposed to an F4 for example. There's more to life than just having shots with a 10cm area in focus.

My reason for bringing this up is that a lot of FF shooters go on and on about the shallow DOF of FF....but when someone mentions the deeper DOF of with a crop camera....they try to just blow it off. Well....it's an issue. Like I said....I can be at 3200 iso apposed to 10,000iso.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the amount of light gathered on a FF sensor through f4.5 is equal to that on an APSC sensor through f2.8? So when stopping down to achieve the same DOF, the FF camera does not receive less light than the APSC camera.
 
No mirror vibration

No AA filter blurring

Optimized lenses

Looking at the detail the Ricoh GXR M module delivers with Leica lenses from 12mp (better than the NEX 5N with a very light AA filtered 16mp), 21 mp or so would not be too much of a stretch for this chip and a high quality image pipeline.

And the M9 with 18mp appears to do just as well as the D3X with 24mp.

Its marketing of course, but it will be closer to 5D2 rez than D7000 rez, for sure.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top