-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
56 mp fx ?
- Thread starter Valant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d7100
Robin Casady
Forum Pro
Same question came up when the D7000 came out and people wondered whether they could do the same pixel pitch in FX. Turned out they could—the D800.
Perhaps there will be D4x.
Or not far enough?
Anyway. History tells us that increases in resolution have, so far, happened very, very slowly. We were at ~ 12mp in 2002, and all these years later there's a single 36mp camera and a bunch at 18-24mp..
moving_comfort
Veteran Member
I'm certain we'll see 56MP, the only question is when and in what body.
You're right. Especially if you look at the linear resolution which is the squre root of MP. We have not even doubled the resolution in 10 years. Many people are talking about MP war but in reality it did not progress very fast. Not as fast as in other electronic products like processors or memories.
Last edited:
Of course image quality is a function of amongst other things lens and sensor so more pixels should give some advantages. However I read that the best lenses are already at the 99.9% limit with the d800e 36mp fx, with the edges of course lagging, beyond this the diminishing returns will become more apparent. Is there enough room for improvement in lens capabilities (nikon f mount)? Or is their more to be gained by sensor improvements at the same pixel density?
On the other hand when the d2 series came out with 10mp density (dx) with say half the pixel density of the d800 the best lenses of the time were said to be at their limit, but later showed better results as pixel density increased albeit not two fold increase!
On the other hand when the d2 series came out with 10mp density (dx) with say half the pixel density of the d800 the best lenses of the time were said to be at their limit, but later showed better results as pixel density increased albeit not two fold increase!
KewlEugene
Forum Enthusiast
Someday, someday... Toshiba Semi taped out 15nm/10nm FIN chips in 2006... many others have since followed... but it's not perfected to the point of profitability for the consumer market...
Last edited:
Grevture
Senior Member
Nice to read some sensible thoughts - and in a forum too
Over the years I have often been amazed by so many people being upset over what they call the "megapixel race" and similar expressions. When in fact the resolution of sensors is one of the slowest growing properties of cameras. Size of memory cards (particularly if you look at the space/dollar ratio), processor capacity, battery capacity, dynamic range, even framerate (looking at the average for all cameras) has grown faster.
Petroglyph
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,096
- Solutions
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1,384
One problem would be processing all of that data from huge files. But they will get there. Sigma says a FF FOVEON is possible. That would work out to 72MP in FF terms if my math is correct. It would probably take about 30 minutes to process a jpeg from the raw data with current engines though. :-D
Grevture
Senior Member
That is, and I apologize for the crude language, utter and proper BS
With that reasoning, the lenses used in compact cameras must be made of very exquisite über-turbo cryptonite or something, since they work just fine with sensor resolutions corresponding to 300-400 megapixel in a FX sensor ...
(And yet they manage to give them 10x, 15x, 20x, 30x or even 50x zoom factors. And at a low price point to boot. Must be some magic involved ...)
The simple truth is, it still is the sensor resolution which is the most limiting factor (in terms of final output resolution) in our camera systems. You can increase the megapixel counts drastically and still get a lot of mileage out of our current lenses.
Call me when FX sensors reach something like 200 megapixels, then some lenses will start to have real problems. Until then, don't worry
Last edited:
Grevture
Senior Member
I agree, it seem production economy is the main limiting factor on sensor resolution, not sensor technology as such (or we would have no cell phone cameras), nor sensor performance, nor limitations of our optics. The reason sensor resolution in large sensors (say m43 and upwards) is growing so slow is because it is difficult to produce sensors that both have large surface areas and have high density while not have the price run away.
It would come as a permanent mount to a tripod since the D800 requires so much stability in mounting.
Amount of pixels within a camera follow no logic. It used to be you had to get a 35mm SLR in order to have lots of pixels Now Many aps-c dSLRs have more pixels than most 35mm dSLRs. And P&S cameras now are in the 20 MP range which is more pixels than some aps-c dSLRs! So the pixel count world is all mixed up now. This is largely because P&S cameras get replaced every 12 months on average and aps-c replaced every 12 to 24 months while 35mm dSLRs get replaced every 3 to 4 years. Plus lower end, lower priced products have higher sales volumes driving profit. So makers want to throw lots of pixels in low end units to drive sales.
56 MP of recorded image is nice.. if lenses are around to resolove that amount of detail. larger files for the sake it aren't any good if you only get 30 MP of resolution for instance.
56 MP of recorded image is nice.. if lenses are around to resolove that amount of detail. larger files for the sake it aren't any good if you only get 30 MP of resolution for instance.
Rich42
Senior Member
There is no such thing as a 99.9% limit or any other such limit in an optical system. The lens doesn't simply run out of resolution and then become useless to better sensors beyond that point. Image quality is (and always has been) an interaction between all the parts of the system, primarily, of course, the lens and film/sensor.
The inverse of image resolution is (approximately) equal to the sum of the inverses of the lens and film/sensor. That simply means that if lens and sensor each has a resolution of, say, 100 lpi, the image resolution will be about half of each, or 50 lpi. To actually get 100 lpi in the image, the resolution of either (or both) has to be increased (way) beyond that.
So, improve any part of the optical chain and the result will be improved image quality. If a lens or a set of lenses performs at a particular level with a given sensor, it will perform better with a better sensor.
Nikon's advertising that only the very best (i.e newest and most expensive) lenses were "recommended" for the D800/E resulted in a rash of "urban legend" type messages all over the Internet that images from the D800/E would be worse if used with any lens not recommended than would images from the same lens on, say, a D700. That is, a non recommended lens would perform better on a D700 than it would on a D800. Of course that is absolute nonsense. When did putting fine-grain, high-resolution film in a camera ever result in lower resolution images than when using coarse-grain, low-resolution film?
Improving the sensor never results in lesser quality images ("because the sensor reveals optical defects," or "runs into the 'limit' of the lens' resolving power")
"All other things being equal" (OK, we know they never are) a given size print will be "better" from a particular lens on the D800/E than on a D700 (or other camera). The lens and image will benefit from the better resolution, DR, and other improvements in the new sensor. In fact, even a larger print from the same lens on a D800/E will be "better" than on a D700, up to a point. After that the greater image magnification and D800/E sensor capabilities may reveal optical limitations in the lens that could not be seen in the smaller D700 sensor print. Those visible limitations may cause the image to be perceived as less good.
It is true that (some) newer, better lenses will perform better than (some) older lenses, because they will improve the overall equation of the optical system. But not by that much. The improvement is really marginal in real-world photography. It's been my experience, seeing thousands of D800/E images in the last year, taken with all manner of Pro Nikkors, that the images can be and are spectacular in the hands of pros and that it is impossible to identify images as to the lens that took them. That is, images produced by lenses from some of the oldest AI and AIS lenses cannot be readily distinguished by image quality from those made by the newest lenses, in day to day, assignment and non-assignment, put-bread-on-the-table-shooting by good photographers.
Bottom line: Bring on newer sensor technology, and keep it coming. it makes everything better. And we can continue to use all our pro lenses that we have invested small fortunes in over the years. It's great to get the newest and best, but it doesn't have to happen all at once, or even ever. Barring a change in lens mount design, good optics don't become obsolete.
Rich
Last edited:
Not necessarily true. You will have the flexibility of either taking super high resolution images or down sized images that require easier techniques. Also it provides cropability for composition purpose or for situations when you're reach limited.
Grevture
Senior Member
You mean like with all compact cameras who would require that tripod so much more?
(since compacts have much, much higher pixel densities then either a 36 or 56 megapixel FX camera)
Grevture
Senior Member
Read the reply from signature "KewlEugene" earlier in this thread. It is simply a result of how manufacturing cost for sensors work. In simple terms: The smaller a sensor is, the more advance technology you can afford using in it. It is in fact pure and simple business logic.
Agree with 56 megapixels being nice. And the lenses are already around, in abundance.
Last edited:
rubank
Senior Member
and very well put. Best on DPR for some time.
I know people who have been ridiculed for using the 28-300 on the D800 - as if that lens would give better results on a D700. Imagine that
I know people who have been ridiculed for using the 28-300 on the D800 - as if that lens would give better results on a D700. Imagine that
Pradipta Dutta
Veteran Member
It is amazing how people simply make things up or read some unsubstantiated material at some web site and then post in forums as facts. Where did you get that buddy?
You need to get the facts straight. D2x with 12 MP DX sensor had a pixel pitch of 5.6 microns while D800 with 36 MP FX sensor has a pixel pitch of 4.9 micron. How does it make it half? Heck you don't even know that D2X was 12 MP not 10. But still you felt the need to post.
Huh? And where did you get that from?
That is no answer nor does it include any logic. Small pixels are small pixels and is no special technology.
Not capable of 56 MP.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum