Reading mode: Light Dark

first one to crack 100mp with a FF is a rotten....

Go to last post
Thanks guys! I'm still not sure I want one, but I have learned something from you!
 
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large. Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
The high MPs increases the advantage of hybrid FF/APS-C cameras like the a7RIII. You can use FF for wide to short telephoto and switch to a fully capable APS-C mode if you want to use small telephoto lenses. Then we would get some relief from the "huge, gigantic, gargantuan, massive, colossal, mammoth" FF lens complainers!
 
John Sheehy said:
D Cox said:
sportyaccordy said:
Click the link I posted earlier. Downsampling from a higher resolution renders much more detail for a given MP count. You don't need to crop heavily or make huge prints to see the benefits.
Click to expand...
Downsampling cleans up the blur caused by the use of the Bayer mosaic.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that wording, as is. Higher pixel density on the display would do the same thing, but better. As damaged as the red and blue channel detail is in Bayer sensors with severe aliasing and low actual resolution, it doesn't help to resample it, as doing so makes things worse.
John Sheehy said:
A nominal 100 Mpix sensor has 25 Mpix in the red and blue channels. Downscale your "100 Megapixel" image to 25 Mpix, and you get a nice clean crisp result.
Click to expand...
For a 25MP monitor, you want about a 100MP Bayer source, or more, and the best sources are exactly 100MP, 225MP, etc. For a 100MP monitor, you don't want to downsample a 100MP Bayer capture to 25MP to improve the image, because it doesn't; it just distorts and loses some resolution.

The fact that a 100MP image downsampled to a 25MP monitor looks better than a 25MP crop from it, or a 25MP sensor image, does not mean that downsampling is an improvement of data!
Click to expand...
True. It is just one way to get a good clean 25 Megapixel image. An alternative way is to use Foveon technology, but this has its own problems. Pixel shifting also has limits.

With a "100 Megapixel" sensor (which is really 25 Mpix), you get a good 25 Mpix image in one shot and, if needed, at high ISO settings. Viewed at 100%, it will look soft, like any Bayer image.
 
Camley said:
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large. Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
The high MPs increases the advantage of hybrid FF/APS-C cameras like the a7RIII. You can use FF for wide to short telephoto and switch to a fully capable APS-C mode if you want to use small telephoto lenses. Then we would get some relief from the "huge, gigantic, gargantuan, massive, colossal, mammoth" FF lens complainers!
Click to expand...
Why do that? Just shoot on FF and then crop later.
 
D Cox said:
John Sheehy said:
D Cox said:
sportyaccordy said:
Click the link I posted earlier. Downsampling from a higher resolution renders much more detail for a given MP count. You don't need to crop heavily or make huge prints to see the benefits.
Click to expand...
Downsampling cleans up the blur caused by the use of the Bayer mosaic.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that wording, as is. Higher pixel density on the display would do the same thing, but better. As damaged as the red and blue channel detail is in Bayer sensors with severe aliasing and low actual resolution, it doesn't help to resample it, as doing so makes things worse.
D Cox said:
A nominal 100 Mpix sensor has 25 Mpix in the red and blue channels. Downscale your "100 Megapixel" image to 25 Mpix, and you get a nice clean crisp result.
Click to expand...
For a 25MP monitor, you want about a 100MP Bayer source, or more, and the best sources are exactly 100MP, 225MP, etc. For a 100MP monitor, you don't want to downsample a 100MP Bayer capture to 25MP to improve the image, because it doesn't; it just distorts and loses some resolution.

The fact that a 100MP image downsampled to a 25MP monitor looks better than a 25MP crop from it, or a 25MP sensor image, does not mean that downsampling is an improvement of data!
Click to expand...
True. It is just one way to get a good clean 25 Megapixel image. An alternative way is to use Foveon technology, but this has its own problems. Pixel shifting also has limits.

With a "100 Megapixel" sensor (which is really 25 Mpix), you get a good 25 Mpix image in one shot and, if needed, at high ISO settings. Viewed at 100%, it will look soft, like any Bayer image.
Click to expand...
Not only that, it also really helps with complex post processing. Correct all kinds of lens imperfections, from distortion to CA, better fitting of panoramas and so on. With more fine adjustment you will get very good quality downsampled result.
 
KWNJr said:
Rick Knepper said:
I agree that 100 MP would be a nice jump for FF, yet, no one has done it. Is it a viable for FF?

We'll more than likely be seeing the new Sony 100 & 150 MP sensors next year in MF still cameras.

Something seems off about S&N&C stopping their "race" at 42-50 MPs.
Click to expand...
Is there some other factor they would have give up to go from 42-50 MP -> 100 MP?
Click to expand...
Lower DR, more noise? Plateaued tech. Customer bitching about storage. I don't know. Mine was an observation made keener by my hopes that Sony would break the 50 MP barrier with the A7rII/III but failed to. Now, I am glad they disappointed me.
KWNJr said:
KWNJr said:
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large. Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If they're going to push further with megapixels they have to get more clever about how they use them.
 
Canon really should have had the 5DS sensor in a cheaper body by now, but there’s so little competition the 5DS keeps running strong as the IQ King for static subjects.

I’m also watching Crop sensors crawl up in density just waiting for the first 40MP APS-C camera, at least that should get me extra reach in both Telephoto and Macro without paying through the nose, and with the quality of sensors and glass now it would still be good for landscape/portrait.

Fuji is at least hitting 26MP, here’s hoping they try to make a splash with something like 30MP in an X-Pro 3.
 
9VIII said:
Canon really should have had the 5DS sensor in a cheaper body by now, but there’s so little competition the 5DS keeps running strong as the IQ King for static subjects.
Click to expand...
If by "image king" you mean highest resolution, maybe. But for overall image quality, D810 was producing better images before the Canon came out. That year, the A7Rii gave even better image quality. And anyone wanting to go with 50Mp or more have GFX and 645Z to consider. I've never seen the 5DS as a king of anything.
 
D Cox said:
John Sheehy said:
D Cox said:
sportyaccordy said:
Click the link I posted earlier. Downsampling from a higher resolution renders much more detail for a given MP count. You don't need to crop heavily or make huge prints to see the benefits.
Click to expand...
Downsampling cleans up the blur caused by the use of the Bayer mosaic.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that wording, as is. Higher pixel density on the display would do the same thing, but better. As damaged as the red and blue channel detail is in Bayer sensors with severe aliasing and low actual resolution, it doesn't help to resample it, as doing so makes things worse.
D Cox said:
A nominal 100 Mpix sensor has 25 Mpix in the red and blue channels. Downscale your "100 Megapixel" image to 25 Mpix, and you get a nice clean crisp result.
Click to expand...
For a 25MP monitor, you want about a 100MP Bayer source, or more, and the best sources are exactly 100MP, 225MP, etc. For a 100MP monitor, you don't want to downsample a 100MP Bayer capture to 25MP to improve the image, because it doesn't; it just distorts and loses some resolution.

The fact that a 100MP image downsampled to a 25MP monitor looks better than a 25MP crop from it, or a 25MP sensor image, does not mean that downsampling is an improvement of data!
Click to expand...
True. It is just one way to get a good clean 25 Megapixel image. An alternative way is to use Foveon technology, but this has its own problems. Pixel shifting also has limits.

With a "100 Megapixel" sensor (which is really 25 Mpix), you get a good 25 Mpix image in one shot and, if needed, at high ISO settings. Viewed at 100%, it will look soft, like any Bayer image.
Click to expand...
They only look soft if you insist on viewing them on 27" HD screens. Try 40-55 inch at 4K, no more softness, as long as the lens is good.
 
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large.
Click to expand...
Or you use a crop.
DiffractionLtd said:
Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
You could use this same argument for EVERY resolution bump. BTW, it's more like 44% for 50mp vs. 24mp. My latest upgrade was from a Canon 5D II to a 5DS. The difference is very obvious. And, of course, there are more changes than just a bump in resolution.
 
Victor Engel said:
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large.
Click to expand...
Or you use a crop.
Victor Engel said:
Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
You could use this same argument for EVERY resolution bump. BTW, it's more like 44% for 50mp vs. 24mp.
Click to expand...
Even so, 30% is quite significant.
Victor Engel said:
My latest upgrade was from a Canon 5D II to a 5DS. The difference is very obvious. And, of course, there are more changes than just a bump in resolution.
Click to expand...
 
stevo23 said:
Victor Engel said:
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large.
Click to expand...
Or you use a crop.
stevo23 said:
Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
You could use this same argument for EVERY resolution bump. BTW, it's more like 44% for 50mp vs. 24mp.
Click to expand...
Even so, 30% is quite significant.
Click to expand...
It is. I agree.
 
DiffractionLtd said:
D Cox said:
John Sheehy said:
D Cox said:
sportyaccordy said:
Click the link I posted earlier. Downsampling from a higher resolution renders much more detail for a given MP count. You don't need to crop heavily or make huge prints to see the benefits.
Click to expand...
Downsampling cleans up the blur caused by the use of the Bayer mosaic.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that wording, as is. Higher pixel density on the display would do the same thing, but better. As damaged as the red and blue channel detail is in Bayer sensors with severe aliasing and low actual resolution, it doesn't help to resample it, as doing so makes things worse.
DiffractionLtd said:
A nominal 100 Mpix sensor has 25 Mpix in the red and blue channels. Downscale your "100 Megapixel" image to 25 Mpix, and you get a nice clean crisp result.
Click to expand...
For a 25MP monitor, you want about a 100MP Bayer source, or more, and the best sources are exactly 100MP, 225MP, etc. For a 100MP monitor, you don't want to downsample a 100MP Bayer capture to 25MP to improve the image, because it doesn't; it just distorts and loses some resolution.

The fact that a 100MP image downsampled to a 25MP monitor looks better than a 25MP crop from it, or a 25MP sensor image, does not mean that downsampling is an improvement of data!
Click to expand...
True. It is just one way to get a good clean 25 Megapixel image. An alternative way is to use Foveon technology, but this has its own problems. Pixel shifting also has limits.

With a "100 Megapixel" sensor (which is really 25 Mpix), you get a good 25 Mpix image in one shot and, if needed, at high ISO settings. Viewed at 100%, it will look soft, like any Bayer image.
Click to expand...
They only look soft if you insist on viewing them on 27" HD screens. Try 40-55 inch at 4K, no more softness, as long as the lens is good.
Click to expand...
That is downscaling.

Another advantage of having plenty of pixels is that there is more data for deconvolution software to work on when correcting lens faults.

You don't have to use the full 100Mpix version of the image (the raw file) for your display JPGs. You can downscale to whatever size suits you.
 
rurikw said:
stevo23 said:
Victor Engel said:
sportyaccordy said:
If they're going to push further with megapixels they have to get more clever about how they use them.
Click to expand...
Surely that's the photographer's job?
Click to expand...
It's the automated photo assistant's job, no? I thought we were planning to remove all humans from this equation.
Click to expand...
Yes AI will take over. Might keep some human specimens in reservations.
Click to expand...
I just wonder what my job will be in that brave new world. I'm so looking forward to it.
 
Victor Engel said:
sportyaccordy said:
If they're going to push further with megapixels they have to get more clever about how they use them.
Click to expand...
Surely that's the photographer's job?
Click to expand...
I mean in terms of managing them in useful ways for the photographer. For example I showed that downsampled images from high res sensor still retain more detail. Having a way to downsample while retaining full data in camera is one less step in the processing workflow. I don't think 100MP photographs are of much use to most people, but the added detail captured by a 100MP sensor in a downsampled photograph most certainly is.
 
Kurgo said:
Camley said:
DiffractionLtd said:
This is needed. Suckers, er, people are being conned into paying premiums for 36-50mp cameras when the actual resolution increase over the stalwart 24mp models is a measly 30%. Meaning, although the pixel count has just about doubled, resolution has only increased marginally. So marginal that although it's visible at 100% onscreen, it's almost invisible in print, unless the prints are very large. Two make resolution markedly better, you must quadruple the pixel count. That doubles true resolution to where you can actually and clearly make good use of the extra. So, 100mp should be a goal for manufacturers. m4/3rds is at a FF equivalent of 80mp, so 100 is no great stretch. But if mfg's do create 100mp cameras, hopefully they won't price-gouge for the privilege of owning one. High ISO fanatics who actually (think) they need 14 steps of DR can stick with 24mp.
Click to expand...
The high MPs increases the advantage of hybrid FF/APS-C cameras like the a7RIII. You can use FF for wide to short telephoto and switch to a fully capable APS-C mode if you want to use small telephoto lenses. Then we would get some relief from the "huge, gigantic, gargantuan, massive, colossal, mammoth" FF lens complainers!
Click to expand...
Why do that? Just shoot on FF and then crop later.
Click to expand...
You may have a good collection of APS-C lenses.
 
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