ajm057 wrote:
Thanks for the analytical information and good sources. I'm snipping various comments you made in this response to keep things manageable.
The Pixel Wars in 35mm, APS-C , Micro 4/3rd and SmartPhones are just "stupid".
To a degree, this is true. But based on my tests (and I think your information), we are not at the limit yet with the R5 at 45mp. I have compared RP and R5 test charts with the same lenses, and the result is that you get the linear resolution improvement of the sensors.
Based on your information, we are probably right on the edge with the R7. I'm still waiting to see a really good study. I had an R7 backordered but canceled it based on factors other than resolution.
I did a lot of looking and a little analysis of what I found. I can thoroughly recommend the following websites: Digital Picture , Cambridge in Colour, PhotoPills.com and by far the most detail and useful Scantips.com.
The 2nd argument against ever more MP and higher and higher resolution is all about the adverse impact of diffraction, which becomes increasingly visible with ever finer and finer the pixel pitch (and high and higher resolution per mm2) at lower and lower aperture values. The first is genuinely "who needs it" - sure fast card makers and computer and SSD manufacturers love it. Rather like 8.1k 12-bit RAW videos -- why?
Hey, cards and data and even computing today are next to free. Around 2001, I bought a 340 Megabyte IBM Microdrive CompactFlash (CF) Type II for about $400 (~$650 in 2022 dollars and over $1/megabyte). That drive would hold about 15 cRAW R5 pictures.
My only problem is when I fill up a 256GB flash drive (thanks to the 20 frames/second) it is a pain to back up.
The data is clear the effects of diffraction may start to be seen when shooting Sony AR7 IV with its 60.2 MP sensor at f/5.7 and will certainly be apparent when closed down to f/8.5 and beyond. A 90mp sensor on a A7R V or Z8 or R5? and whatever follows would be even more impacted - diffraction may be seen at f/4.4-4.5 and definately be visible at f/6.6-6.8 (the sensors are very different sizes).
AND the same is seen on the 32.3MP APSC cropped sensor Canon R7 (f/4.7 - f/7.3). This means that unless one is shooting close to wide open, with all that this means for the depth of focus, the resolution of the images taken with these "ultra" high resolution sensors (with increasingly tiny pixel pitch) will be diffraction limited. This is before considering the resolving capabilities of the lens.
I will agree there is essentially little headroom left for smaller pixels. Maybe they can get "clever" with some tricks, but there is not a lot of room left before physics limits everything.
Based on what I see from my R5 test charts, I'm not sure that the "net resolution" won't be OK at f8.
I have looked at a bunch of RF lenses over a wide range of focal lengths and from their widest apertures to at least f16 on my R5 (16f2.8, 85f2, 50f1.8, 15-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 100-500, 24-240, 100f2.8). And I fairly consistently see:
- All lenses (even the RF24-240 at all focal lengths) are sharp (or nearly so in the case of the RF24-2450) to the limit of the R5's resolution, wide open in the center.
- The IS consumer prime lenses (I only have the 85f2, so also based on other people's postings) are as sharp as the L-zooms at similar focal lengths in the corners.
- The "consumer" non-IS (RF16 and RF50f1.8) are soft and have low contrast in the corners. The RF24--240 is soft in the corners but has a pretty good contrast.
- Even looking at test charts (that make it much easier to see issues) magnified by 200%, I only see almost no reduction in net sharpness (of course, improvements with most lenses) from wide open to f8 and then only a small difference between f8 and f11. Lenses that are very sharp wide open don't lose a barely visible amount of sharpness through f8.
- Between f11 and f16, I consistently see a noticeable (maybe 25%) fall off in sharpness with the various lenses at various focal lengths.
These observations are on test charts, and it would be even harder to tell the differences with real-world photos. I concluded that with the R5 with any lens, I could go to f11 without a resolution penalty. Beyond f11 with the R5 is when the trade-off of DoF versus resolution kicks in. Based on your information, it may be one stop less for the R7.
ULTIMATELY -- please don't just get sucked into the pixel wars -- buying ever more and more resolution -- you simply become prey for those that sell you fast and faster computers, larger and larger SSDs and yes better and better glass.
An ILC camera is a jack of all trades device. My two most used lenses are my RF100-500 and my RF15-35f2.8. I'm doing radically different things with the two lenses shooting mostly moving things with the RF100-500 and pretty still things with the wide angle lens. I like having all the pixels with the R5 so I can crop.
As I wrote before, the storage devices are essentially free.
The quality of the lenses are amazing compared to where they were years ago. Between the ability to deal with noise and the quality of the lenses plus IS and IBIS, I rarely want a flash or a tripod.
The lenses are crazy expensive but adjusted for inflation, not any more so than years ago. Adjusted for inflation, my R5 cost about the same as my 3.1MP APS-C D30 did in 2000.
The big problem ILC cameras have is that smartphone cameras are "free" (come with all phones) and take pretty good pictures. Certainly more than good enough for posting online. Unless you are willing to spend north of $2,000, it gets hard to beat a smartphone.
I think a huge issue for the camera companies is where they can go from here. Smartphones keep improving and are introducing somewhat telephoto lenses. They are also doing much more with computational photography.
How about just buying what you need to do your job or want to enjoy. For some of us that is 45mp 20fps/30fps and even 11mp at 120fps (once or twice in 7 months) -- which is perfect and my camera used rarely at those settings. Most often I shoot single-shot or 3-5fps. For others (including most news and sports shooters) 19-24mp JPG is what they take, sell and squirt to their photo-desks within seconds and they do more than just fine. Most tourists can barely handle 5-11mp and this is already far more than they need. They certainly do not have the desire to buy or carry ultra-fast lenses with very high resolving capability and transmission losses. So what is to gain from putting a 18-300 travel lens on a 60mp sensor -- only the salesperson paid commision does well from that deal.
Unless a lot of people don't heed this advice, the camera companies are going to stop making cameras. Except for a few "blogging cameras," cameras with fixed lenses are pretty much dead, and I think the low end of ILC is very much in danger. You need a pretty good camera and lens combination to demonstrate much of an advantage of a smartphone. The tourist that can't handle 5-11mp is already gone and using smartphones where 10 to 15 years ago they might have a Rebel DLSR camera.
Unfortunately, in the current climate with smartphones, a "low-cost" ILC is a bit of an anachronism. You either move up to better cameras and lenses or stick with a smartphone. Sure there will be some, but not enough for camera companies to develop new cameras and lenses. The "dollars times the volume" is too small.
I really like my RF24-240 on both the RP and R5. It is a fun lens if I am only going to take one lens with me. These days, I mostly put it on my RP when I have the 100-500 on the R5. Still, even the 24-240 is very sharp in the center on the R5 (but suffers greatly in the corners).
