56 mp fx ?

Started Feb 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Re: Think again

carlk wrote:

Grevture wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Grevture wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

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.

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.

That is no answer nor does it include any logic. Small pixels are small pixels and is no special technology.

But manufacturing them puts much higher demands on technology. Which was the point.

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.

Agree with 56 megapixels being nice. And the lenses are already around, in abundance.

Not capable of 56 MP.

Oh yes, they are. And with good margins too.

Have you actually tried? Its quite easy: just put any Nikon lens you can find on a Nikon J1 or V1 (using the adapter) and you will quickly realise even rather cheap and simple lenses work just fine and produce a significant increase in image quality also with a pixel pitch corresponding to 74 megapixels in a FX sized sensor. I have tried this, and the results do really speak volumes.

And, on that note, are you seriously saying all Nikons DSLR lenses are significantly sub-par compared with your run-of-the-mill average 10x or 20x cheap compact camera zoom? Because for some reason those small and cheap zooms are capable of resolving pixel pitches corresponding to 200, 300 or even 400 megapixels scaled up to a FX sensor.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

A disadvantage of dslr lens is the large registration distance (distance between back element and sensor) to accomodate the mirror. That makes lens design, in particular in the normal to wide range, more difficult. That's why there are many better resolution but inexpensive compact/mirroless lenses that have no such restriction.

Look at the test I described above using the Nikon 1 cameras - you have the same lens as you would on a DSLR, and you use it on the same registration distance (using the adapter) and still these lenses deliver better results with sensor resolutions corresponding to 74 megapixels.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow