Lens resolution and sensor resolution are two independent matters. A higher resolution sensor will always give you more details just not as much for a mediocre lens as a sharp lens. Most good lenses will benefit from the 18MP aps-c, or 45MP ff full equivalent, resolution at least when stopped down. Some lenses, e.g. those super teles, can even do that with teleconverts.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Resolution thoughts from the sideline
- Thread starter summitphotographer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 7d nikon d800
gipper51
Veteran Member
In my opinion, the problem with going to such small pixel densities is not a lens issue, but a technique issue. Smaller and smaller pixels require even higher shutter speeds and less vibration on a tripod to fully extract all the detail. Movement and vibration become the killer of sharpness here, and I'm not sure if there is a tripod stable enough to keep a semi-long lens from exhibiting shake unless your shutter speeds are 3x the focal length or more. I'm speaking of extracting sharp pixel-level sharpness (otherwise why bother with more pixels?).
It likely can be accomplished but the requirements to do only keep going up to do so. If you NEED the amount of detail of 50+mp, a larger format with bigger pixels makes more sense.
To me this is like trying to squeeze 600 horsepower out of a small 4 cylinder...it's possible, but a larger engine is more practical if that's the goal.
--
On the 5D3 and D800: "The fact there is still so much to criticize with cameras this good only proves the human race can never be satisfied with anything." (Me)
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
It likely can be accomplished but the requirements to do only keep going up to do so. If you NEED the amount of detail of 50+mp, a larger format with bigger pixels makes more sense.
To me this is like trying to squeeze 600 horsepower out of a small 4 cylinder...it's possible, but a larger engine is more practical if that's the goal.
--
On the 5D3 and D800: "The fact there is still so much to criticize with cameras this good only proves the human race can never be satisfied with anything." (Me)
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
summitphotographer
Well-known member
Anyone?
gipper51
Veteran Member
Because you have to square the crop factor and multiply by the MP to get the FF equivilent (in MP). It's an area formula.
--
On the 5D3 and D800: "The fact there is still so much to criticize with cameras this good only proves the human race can never be satisfied with anything." (Me)
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
bobn2
Veteran Member
But, at least for active pixels, the read noise tends to be connected to pixel size. More precisely, under strict scaling the read noise will fall as the pixel area. In practice it seems this trend works, as pixels are shrunk generation to generation the read noise falls. Within a manufacturer generation, read noise tends to be the same for all pixel sizes (at least, for Canon) since the different pixel sizes are not produced by scaling.
In any case, when one is comparing sensors from different manufacturers we are not looking at a theoretical scale dependent read noise, we are looking at the actual read noise achieved by the designers of those sensors, and the differences in that can swamp any scale dependent factors.
--
Bob
Good point. That said more pixels still make your unsharp picture sharper than large pixels would. (With multiple exposure integration sensors, (and heavy processing), that problem will also largely disappear as they can follow and compensate for movement throughout the exposure time).
As for pixel level sharpness most people take pictures, not pixels. (Would you expect every grain in a film negative to have clear definitions to the next grain?) Moreover, as we get more pixels we don't actually want pixel level sharpness. It is fairly useful to have so many pixels that we're well inside the diffraction limit, and the fuzziness caused by that effectively replace the function of the anti-aliasing filter.
Mike K
Veteran Member
18 mp x 1.6 X 1.6 = 36 mp as the APS C sensor is smaller in both height and width.
Look at any picture comparing sensor sizes and you will see that both APS C and FF are the same 3:2 aspect ratio but the APS C is smaller in both dimensions by a factor of 1.6.
Look at any picture comparing sensor sizes and you will see that both APS C and FF are the same 3:2 aspect ratio but the APS C is smaller in both dimensions by a factor of 1.6.
summitphotographer
Well-known member
Thanks for the posts, I think I got it. For me I'll bite at an upgrade when the Canon FF sensor is around 28-30MP. However I can't wait to read some reviews that put the two cameras RAW images under the microscope. I may pick-up a 7D in the meantime.
altair8800
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,000
- Reaction score
- 443
summitphotographer
Well-known member
Nah, I think an APC with 18MP is a good pixel density. I may wait for the announcement and therby take a little off my 7D purchase.
summitphotographer
Well-known member
One more thought, the pixel density of the MIII seems to be approximately the same as the 20D, (8.3 x 2.6) which does cause a reasonable person to pause and ask the question why Canon could not improve on the resolution a bit, come up to 28-32? Can't wait to see samples.
bronxbombers
Veteran Member
no you need to deal with area so 1.6x1.6x18MP is the correct answer
This is true only if you pixel peep. On the other hand at the same print (or viewing) size the high MP sensor will still give you more resolution even with the consideration of lens resolution, diffraction effect and camera shake blur. There are many misconceptions on this and need to be clarified.
summitphotographer
Well-known member
Great quote!
Yes that's essentially what you said too. I first thought you agree with op when you said "good point".
RvPhotoTraveller
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 1
Why do you think resolution on full frame sensors lags behind aps-c sensors ? ( in terms of pixel pitch ) wouldn't it be great if we could get a FF sensor based on the sensor design of the Sony NEx7 24 MP pixel pitch for low ISo/ high resolution needs. Didn't Canon and develop a 120 MP aps-h sensor last year ?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum