56 mp fx ?

fft81 · Feb 23, 2013

Every one above this post is wrong! Here are the facts:

The pixel count is only half of the story. Quality of each pixel is the other half. Can a 100MPx sensor be made? Yes it can. Will that 100MPx sensor produce image file better than today's D4's 16MPx sensor? No it won't. Nokia 808 has 41MPx sensor. The manufacturer states that the phone is capable of producing photos on par with 6 to 7 MPx DSLR. It all has to do with diffraction and amount of light falling on each pixel. Yes you can zoom in and pixel peep on the 41MPx image, but when you look at it in full view it will look as good as 6MPx dslr shot. It is not hard to cram 100MPx onto a FF sensor; it is near impossible to cram 100MPx onto FF sensor while maintaining the quality of each pixel on par with even the d90 pixels.

It's also a balance triangle. Decrease pixel pitch, you need to also increase shutter speed to overcome camera shake. This means the amount of light falling on each pixel is decreased by X^2 where X is your pixel pitch change. What it all boils down to is that to increase resolution by a factor of 2 you need to increase the light sensitivity of each pixel by a factor of 2. To do that you need to either design a brand new pixel or increase excitation voltage to each pixel by a factor of 2. If you increase excitation voltage to each pixel by a factor of 2 you will increase its power consumption by 2^2=4 times, so it draws 4 times more power, heats up 4 times more and drains your battery 4 times faster. For the D800 vs D700 the resolution bump was 3x so if D800 used the same pixel technology as d700, it would consume 9x more power. So, the d800 pixels are actually rather different than d700 pixels (more pure materials, better precision, better pixel-to-pixel isolation etc). Even if you can design a perfect pixel a pixel on its own can not differentiate between signal and noise, so even in a perfect pixel you will eventually develop very low signal-to-noise ratio, so to really get a clear picture you would need to average the information out across multiple pixels, hence what is the point of making smaller pixels in the 1st place. Noise is generated by sensor itself, plus there is noise in the actual light hitting the sensor. Noise in the light is your hard limit for resolution. Noise generated by the sensor is increased by higher ISO, which is ultimately is the problem with Nokias 808 camera and the reason for its image being equivalent to a 6MPx image from a real modern DSLR. Bumping up ISO is what adds the sensor generated noise and it multiplies both signal and noise from light itself. Bottom line is that increasing ISO always decreases signal-to-noise ratio. For a smaller pixel pitch you have to increase iso and so add noise. Doing so reduces your total resolution to a lower number than was gained by using smaller pixel pitch.

inasir1971 · Feb 23, 2013

fft81 said:
fft81 wrote:

Every one above this post is wrong! Here are the facts:

The pixel count is only half of the story. Quality of each pixel is the other half. Can a 100MPx sensor be made? Yes it can. Will that 100MPx sensor produce image file better than today's D4's 16MPx sensor? No it won't. Nokia 808 has 41MPx sensor. The manufacturer states that the phone is capable of producing photos on par with 6 to 7 MPx DSLR. It all has to do with diffraction and amount of light falling on each pixel. Yes you can zoom in and pixel peep on the 41MPx image, but when you look at it in full view it will look as good as 6MPx dslr shot. It is not hard to cram 100MPx onto a FF sensor; it is near impossible to cram 100MPx onto FF sensor while maintaining the quality of each pixel on par with even the d90 pixels.

It's also a balance triangle. Decrease pixel pitch, you need to also increase shutter speed to overcome camera shake. This means the amount of light falling on each pixel is decreased by X^2 where X is your pixel pitch change. What it all boils down to is that to increase resolution by a factor of 2 you need to increase the light sensitivity of each pixel by a factor of 2. To do that you need to either design a brand new pixel or increase excitation voltage to each pixel by a factor of 2. If you increase excitation voltage to each pixel by a factor of 2 you will increase its power consumption by 2^2=4 times, so it draws 4 times more power, heats up 4 times more and drains your battery 4 times faster. For the D800 vs D700 the resolution bump was 3x so if D800 used the same pixel technology as d700, it would consume 9x more power. So, the d800 pixels are actually rather different than d700 pixels (more pure materials, better precision, better pixel-to-pixel isolation etc). Even if you can design a perfect pixel a pixel on its own can not differentiate between signal and noise, so even in a perfect pixel you will eventually develop very low signal-to-noise ratio, so to really get a clear picture you would need to average the information out across multiple pixels, hence what is the point of making smaller pixels in the 1st place. Noise is generated by sensor itself, plus there is noise in the actual light hitting the sensor. Noise in the light is your hard limit for resolution. Noise generated by the sensor is increased by higher ISO, which is ultimately is the problem with Nokias 808 camera and the reason for its image being equivalent to a 6MPx image from a real modern DSLR. Bumping up ISO is what adds the sensor generated noise and it multiplies both signal and noise from light itself. Bottom line is that increasing ISO always decreases signal-to-noise ratio. For a smaller pixel pitch you have to increase iso and so add noise. Doing so reduces your total resolution to a lower number than was gained by using smaller pixel pitch.

I don't know if this is ignorance or a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead people with misinformation but this kind of rubbish with a sprinkling of pseudo technical babble with false assumptions and flawed logic to give it an air of credibility is becoming far too common in this forum. If you are posting this with any sincerity, and I hope for your sake you aren't, you clearly understand less than you think you do.

For others, please look up 'oversampling' and do it somewhere other than this forum lest you be lead astray by other idiotic posts like the above.

Grevture · Feb 24, 2013

Much like sinature "inasir" I am not sure you are writing this as a provocation, or if you actually belive in the pseudo-scientific BS you wrote.

fft81 said:
fft81 wrote:

Every one above this post is wrong! Here are the facts:

The pixel count is only half of the story. Quality of each pixel is the other half. Can a 100MPx sensor be made? Yes it can. Will that 100MPx sensor produce image file better than today's D4's 16MPx sensor? No it won't.

Very likely it will, and in so many different ways.

fft81 said:
Nokia 808 has 41MPx sensor. The manufacturer states that the phone is capable of producing photos on par with 6 to 7 MPx DSLR. It all has to do with diffraction and amount of light falling on each pixel. Yes you can zoom in and pixel peep on the 41MPx image, but when you look at it in full view it will look as good as 6MPx dslr shot.

Have you actually tried a Nokia 808? I have, and when you shoot it under optimal conditions, it compares favorably with very high megapixel DSLRs - in spite of having a sub-par lens which is its biggest limitation. And you obviously have not read its specifications very well, since it does not even have particularly small pixels - it has a unusually large sensor (in fact noticeably larger then most compact cameras).

fft81 said:
It is not hard to cram 100MPx onto a FF sensor; it is near impossible to cram 100MPx onto FF sensor while maintaining the quality of each pixel on par with even the d90 pixels.

And you, like so many others fail to remember that images are not made up of single pixels, but of aggregations of many pixels - basically adhering to the old principle of "the more, the merrier". Image quality is the product of multiplying pixel performance with the number of pixels. You can decrease one of them as long as the other increases more and still get a better final image.

And as it turns out, looking at the last ten years of development, pixel quality has by and large actually increased, not decreased even as the numbers has increased (and the size has been shrinking), resulting in rather drastic improvements in image quality.

fft81 said:
It's also a balance triangle. Decrease pixel pitch, you need to also increase shutter speed to overcome camera shake.

Which sound good in theory, until you actually start thinking a bit: If 100 megapixels would be so difficult to hand hold, how come you get wonderfully sharp images with a Sony RX100 which pixel pitch correspond to a whopping 140 megapixel scaled up to FX size. Or many of the more standard compact cameras which pixel pitches correspond to values like 200, 300 or even 400 meapixel scaled up to a FX sensor.

The simple truth is all cameras benefit greatly from being used on a solid tripod - even if it has a meager 3, 6 or 12 megapixels. The difficulty in hand holding a camera only gradually increase with shrinking pixel pitch. Not dramatically as you seem to belive.

fft81 said:
This means the amount of light falling on each pixel is decreased by X^2 where X is your pixel pitch change. What it all boils down to is that to increase resolution by a factor of 2 you need to increase the light sensitivity of each pixel by a factor of 2. To do that you need to either design a brand new pixel or increase excitation voltage to each pixel by a factor of 2. If you increase excitation voltage to each pixel by a factor of 2 you will increase its power consumption by 2^2=4 times, so it draws 4 times more power, heats up 4 times more and drains your battery 4 times faster. For the D800 vs D700 the resolution bump was 3x so if D800 used the same pixel technology as d700, it would consume 9x more power. So, the d800 pixels are actually rather different than d700 pixels (more pure materials, better precision, better pixel-to-pixel isolation etc). Even if you can design a perfect pixel a pixel on its own can not differentiate between signal and noise,

Which is why there is such a large benefit from using many of them ...

fft81 said:
so even in a perfect pixel you will eventually develop very low signal-to-noise ratio, so to really get a clear picture you would need to average the information out across multiple pixels, hence what is the point of making smaller pixels in the 1st place.

Because more pixels equals more information volume, and more precise information too - it is a double whammy.

fft81 said:
Noise is generated by sensor itself, plus there is noise in the actual light hitting the sensor. Noise in the light is your hard limit for resolution. Noise generated by the sensor is increased by higher ISO,

No, it is actually fairly constant, but amplifying it (=increasing iso) makes it more visible.

fft81 said:
which is ultimately is the problem with Nokias 808 camera and the reason for its image being equivalent to a 6MPx image from a real modern DSLR.

Which is wrong. Maybe you should actually

1) read the specifications of the Nokia 808 and ralise it does not have very small pixels to begin with

2) actually try a Nokia 808 and realise it can produce fine looking images (particularly if it had been equipped with a proper lens matching the high sensor quality)

fft81 said:
Bumping up ISO is what adds the sensor generated noise and it multiplies both signal and noise from light itself. Bottom line is that increasing ISO always decreases signal-to-noise ratio. For a smaller pixel pitch you have to increase iso and so add noise. Doing so reduces your total resolution to a lower number than was gained by using smaller pixel pitch.

So, how come a D800 has a much lower noise then say a D3X with its larger 24 million pixels? Or that a D800, even at very high iso, delivers much more resolution then a D3 with its fairly large pixels?

Why? Because those smaller pixels have evolved (comparing pixel by pixels) and at teh same time increased greatly in numbers. Which, combined, makes better images all around.

Grevture · Feb 24, 2013

RedFox88 said:
RedFox88 wrote:

RedFox88 said:

Grevture wrote:

RedFox88 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RedFox88 said:
RedFox88 said:

RedFox88 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Josh SZ · Feb 24, 2013

I believe it is no difficult to make a 56 M pixel sensor technically today. but to make a 56M pixel camera you need to have reading time, buffer size, processing speed , lens quantity all in place, it is a balancing job. plus macketing to match with. so it will not happen in 5 years.

carlk · Feb 24, 2013

Grevture said:
Grevture wrote:

Grevture said:

RedFox88 wrote:

Grevture said:

Grevture wrote:

Grevture said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Grevture said:

Grevture said:

Grevture said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Not capable of 56 MP.

Click to expand...

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.

RedFox88 · Feb 24, 2013

Grevture said:
Grevture wrote:

Grevture said:

Not capable of 56 MP.

Click to expand...

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

Making small lenses capable of resolving small pixels is one thing, but making a 35mm lens to do the same thing is different. Bigger glass and making things bigger is more difficult.

Grevture · Feb 24, 2013

RedFox88 said:
RedFox88 wrote:

RedFox88 said:

Grevture wrote:

RedFox88 said:

Not capable of 56 MP.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Making small lenses capable of resolving small pixels is one thing, but making a 35mm lens to do the same thing is different. Bigger glass and making things bigger is more difficult.

And testing existing Nikon lenses on a Nikon 1 camera will show you they work just fine and the resolution increase in the sensor is clearly visible even with not ver advanced Nikon DSLR lenses.

I did try this about a year ago, did a shot with AF-S 24-70/2,8 (pr grade, but a zoom), AF-S DX 35/1,8 (good value for money, but still a cheap lens) and a old A 105/2.5 (my lens is about 35 years old, the optical design is about 50 years old) and with all three lenses you could see a very clear and distinct increase in detail rendition compared to putting the same lens on a D7000 (which is very similar to the D800 in pixel pitch) and on a D3X (with its 24 MP FX sensor).

So yes, even cheap and very old lenses would work just fine also with a 74 megapixel FX sensor. And the increase in detail rendition was very clear, so yes even with such sensor resolutions we will see marked improvements from our current (and even very old) lenses.

The notion that our lenses cannot resolve higher resolution sensors is BS. Try it yourself, you might be surprised

Grevture · Feb 24, 2013

carlk said:
carlk wrote:

carlk said:

Grevture wrote:

carlk said:

RedFox88 wrote:

carlk said:

Grevture wrote:

carlk said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

carlk said:

carlk said:

carlk said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Not capable of 56 MP.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

inasir1971 · Feb 24, 2013

Valant said:
Valant wrote:

With the advent of the d7100: Will the next FX camera be around the 56mp mark? Or is that pushing the boat too far out?

Here's a little something from not so long ago - 2008

"Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.

Sharpness depends more on your photographic skill than the number of megapixels, because most people's sloppy technique or subject motion blurs the image more than the width of a microscopic pixel."

Hmmm.... "Don't need more than xx MP", "You're looking too close / pixel peeping", "It's the skill of the photographer" - we've heard all this before.

You can read all about why you don't need more and "The Megapixel Myth" here.

Personally, it's never enough! Not till f/1.4 is diffraction limited - as long as S/N ratio doesn't drop!

Grevture · Feb 24, 2013

Member said:
inasir1971 wrote:
Hmmm.... "Don't need more than xx MP", "You're looking too close / pixel peeping", "It's the skill of the photographer" - we've heard all this before.

Forums seem to have some cycles of perpetual repetitions of some universals so called "truths"

(a "truth" or "fact" in the context of a internet forum is usually a opinion offered by someone with more passion then knowledge)

The odd thing is that ...

... when we got 10 or 12 megapixel cameras, according to many forum participants, it was way to much, would just lead to more noise, be to taxing on our lenses, and virtually impossible to handhold. The manufacturers really should have stayed at 6 megapixels.

When we got 16 megapixel cameras, according to many forum participants, it was way to much, would just lead to more noise, be to taxing on our lenses, and virtually impossible to handhold. The manufacturers really should have stayed at 10 or 12 megapixels.

When we got 24 megapixel cameras, according to many forum participants, it was way to much, would just lead to more noise, be to taxing on our lenses, and virtually impossible to handhold. The manufacturers really should have stayed at 16 megapixels.

When we got 36 megapixels ... Well, you get the picture. It will be the same when we reach 48, 56, 74, 92 or whatever arbitrary number of megapixels. The previously highest number of megapixels will always be much better, regardless of how many they actually are

--

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

KewlEugene · Feb 24, 2013

i forgot which year it was a prof once told our class i was barely awake in "advances in materials results in ever faster and smaller ADC circuits"

CLOSED ACCOUNT · Feb 24, 2013

Valant said:
Valant wrote:

With the advent of the d7100: Will the next FX camera be around the 56mp mark? Or is that pushing the boat too far out?

Before we see DSLR cameras with 60 mp or more...we will more than likely have moved on to a completely new sensor technology platform that does not centre around "resolution" and pixels at all.

There will obviously come a time when we invent technology that captures an image in just "one" single pixel...as it were....without the "resolution" part included. Just a total (full) capture as one.

Just as we are now experimenting with computer chips that are molecule based and more than a billion times faster than processors today.

I would think, that with regard to our current technology...that somewhere in the range of 60-100 mp will be the ceiling. Ie: what we have in top end MF.

Beyond that....is more than our human visual system can detect or appreciate.

KEV

Grevture · Feb 25, 2013

Member said:
KEVZPHOTOS wrote:

Member said:

Valant wrote:

With the advent of the d7100: Will the next FX camera be around the 56mp mark? Or is that pushing the boat too far out?

Click to expand...

Before we see DSLR cameras with 60 mp or more...we will more than likely have moved on to a completely new sensor technology platform that does not centre around "resolution" and pixels at all.

We might see DSLR cameras with 60 megapixels - and more - a lot sooner then many people tend to think.

Just scaling up the sensor technology used in D3200, D5200 or D7100 would land us close to the 56 megapixels the OP suggested. Scaling up the sensor technology used in first generation (10 mpx) Nikon 1 cameras would land us at around 74 megapixels. Using the technology from the second generation Nikon 1 cameras (14 mpx) would mean just over 100 megapixels in FX sensors. Or take the technology used in the 20 megapixel Sony RX100 (which is proven to very good indeed) which corresponds to a 140 megapixel FX sensor.

So the current technology is very obviously proven valid and useful for much higher resolutions then 60 megapixels in a FX sensor.

Now, you do have a good point that new technologies are coming. But the technologies which seem most promising in the short term are not drastically different then todays Bayer filtered, pixel counting sensors. First we already have a lot of experimentation with different color filter patterns (deviating from the traditional Bayer pattern). Sony has looked into that (judging from patents), Fujifilm has already a alternative pattern up and running in their (very good) X-trans sensors.

Then we have multi-layer sensors, sort of "Foevon-like" solutions, for example with two layers which mean much simpler color filters and less resolution loss due to color interpolations. This technology might not be far away at all.

Member said:
There will obviously come a time when we invent technology that captures an image in just "one" single pixel...as it were....without the "resolution" part included. Just a total (full) capture as one.

Interesting thought, but I cannot really see how a image could be without resolution ... Since no resolution = no information ...

Member said:
Just as we are now experimenting with computer chips that are molecule based and more than a billion times faster than processors today.

Which is something entirely different, and actually is based on the exact opposite of your concept, more "resolution" as in smaller components, which means more information and processing for a given volume or area of processor ...

Member said:
I would think, that with regard to our current technology...that somewhere in the range of 60-100 mp will be the ceiling. Ie: what we have in top end MF.

Why? We already use much, much denser sensor technologies today. Look at compact cameras which have pixel sizes corresponding to 200, 300 or even 400 megapixels in a FX camera.

Of course we will at some point hit a level where diminishing returns mean it less and less reasons to drive resolutions further - that is where there is so small performance gain (from increasing sensor resolution) in proportion to the increased cost it becomes rather pointless. But that is still quite a bit further along the road.

Member said:
Beyond that....is more than our human visual system can detect or appreciate.

Which is the point of not just diminishing returns, but no returns

I honestly think we are not far away (in time) from 100+ megapixel cameras. 100 megapixels is just a doubling of the linear image resolution compared to what is produced with a 24 megapixel sensor. Not a very drastic step at all.

CLOSED ACCOUNT · Feb 25, 2013

Grevture said:
Grevture wrote:

Grevture said:

There will obviously come a time when we invent technology that captures an image in just "one" single pixel...as it were....without the "resolution" part included. Just a total (full) capture as one.

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, but I cannot really see how a image could be without resolution ... Since no resolution = no information ...

Of course you can't...because we haven't invented it yet ;-)

Read my signature below...

What we think and know NOW doesn't count

KEV

noirdesir · Feb 25, 2013

Grevture said:
Grevture wrote:
and virtually impossible to handhold.

That however is a fairly hard limit. It is my impression that, while very good, stabilisation systems don't fully reach the level of a good tripod. Of course this limit is a function of AOV, 'speed' of the lens and the ambient light level.

If we stay within reasonable levels of FOV (eg, 200 mm FF equiv.), already 12 MP required at least 1/400 s. Staying at base ISO, eg, 200, that is f/11 in bright sunlight. Going to 100 MP, ie, quadrupling in linear terms, we are at f/5.6. And that is in bright sunlight.

But maybe it this just confirms the old saying that one needs a tripod for a technically really good photo.

Leo360 · Feb 25, 2013

Robin Casady said:
Robin Casady wrote:

Robin Casady said:

Valant wrote:

With the advent of the d7100: Will the next FX camera be around the 56mp mark? Or is that pushing the boat too far out?

Click to expand...

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.

Grevture · Feb 25, 2013

noirdesir said:
noirdesir wrote:

noirdesir said:

Grevture wrote:
and virtually impossible to handhold.

Click to expand...

That however is a fairly hard limit. It is my impression that, while very good, stabilisation systems don't fully reach the level of a good tripod. Of course this limit is a function of AOV, 'speed' of the lens and the ambient light level.

If we stay within reasonable levels of FOV (eg, 200 mm FF equiv.), already 12 MP required at least 1/400 s. Staying at base ISO, eg, 200, that is f/11 in bright sunlight. Going to 100 MP, ie, quadrupling in linear terms, we are at f/5.6. And that is in bright sunlight.

But maybe it this just confirms the old saying that one needs a tripod for a technically really good photo.

While I agree you need a (good) tripod to get the most out of a camera - that is actually very true also for a 6 megapixel, or even 3 megapixel camera. Really.

Look, we can successfully handhold compact cameras with way, way, way higher pixel densities, and with their flimsy weight, they are actually more difficult to handhold then a reasonably heavy DSLR.

I just had the chance to try out Canon Powershot SX50 for a couple of weeks, you know the one with the insane 50x zoom range. It is a 4.3-215 mm zoom, which gives image angles corresponding to 24-1200 mm on a FX camera. And with its 12 megapixel 1/2.3 sensor it has a pixel density corresponding to well over 350 megapixel in a FX sized sesnor. And yet, you can shoot with it at 215 mm (corresponding to 1200 mm on FX) hand held. Really. Sure, you do need good light, and it has a good stabilization system. But still it points out that 36 or say 56 megapixels on a FX sensor is not such a big deal many try to make it into.

I agree higher pixel densities puts higher demands on hand holding, but it is a very gradual increase, not a definitive barrier. I would not hesitate for a moment to use a 100 mpix DSLR hand held - unless I am really sloppy it will almost always give me more detail then using a 12 or 24 megapixel camera in the same situation. Of course, if I want to get the full potential of those 100 megapixels, I would put it on a tripod. But that was equally true when I used the D70 almost ten years ago ...

Grevture · Feb 25, 2013

Member said:
KEVZPHOTOS wrote:

Member said:

Grevture wrote:

Member said:

There will obviously come a time when we invent technology that captures an image in just "one" single pixel...as it were....without the "resolution" part included. Just a total (full) capture as one.

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, but I cannot really see how a image could be without resolution ... Since no resolution = no information ...

Click to expand...

Of course you can't...because we haven't invented it yet ;-)

Read my signature below...

What we think and know NOW doesn't count

KEV

OldDigiman · Feb 25, 2013

Consider that the m4/3 sensor that is about 1/4 the area of a FF sensor has 16MP in the latest iterations, and DR and noise are pretty good. There's your 56MP right there. Big problem will be heat generation and data throughput if you ask me. BTW, I give credence to the rumors that the next top-flight FF Canon will leapfrog the D800's pixel count.

56 mp fx ?

Senior Member

inasir1971

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

inasir1971

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

CLOSED ACCOUNT

Guest

Senior Member

CLOSED ACCOUNT

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts