Nikon 100mp hint from Thom Hogan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcgeekesq
  • Start date Start date
Where there are MTF 50 comparisons of a lens using both 24 and 45 MP sensors the results typically show less image resolution diffraction loss at smaller apertures with the 24 MP sensor.
I have never seen such a test, and it would seem to fly in the face of optical theory.
Nobody seems to directly publish this type of comparison test.

Optical theory predicts that image resolution (which is what interests me) is unlikely to reach 100% of a diffraction limited lens in isolation resolution test.

My fundamental point is that while there is unlikely to be as big a percentage resolution increase going from f11 to f16 as going from f4 to f5.6, comparing a theoretical 100 MP with 24x36 format to a 45 MP sensor, there should normally be a resolution increase.
Yes, that's what I think too. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'results typically show less image resolution diffraction loss at smaller apertures with the 24 MP sensor.'
This image resolution increase is primarily because the 100 MP sensor should have a little in excess of 40% more resolution - and increasing the resolution of either a lens or a sensor is confirmed by optical theory as increasing image resolution.

I think it more probable

1/ Nikon will introduce a body with a 62 MP sensor

2/ If (or when) Nikon does this, MTF 50 will show higher scores at f11, f16 and likely f22 compared to the same lens tested on a 45 MP sensor.
I would say definitely f/22, but not by much. There won't ever be an f-number where the higher resolution sensor ever gives less resolution. As for what Nikon will choose, who knows, except Nikon. But 62MP would just be keeping up with the competition. Sony's now on it's second version of the 60MP camera, Canon's at 50MP for a general purpose camera and rumoured to be going higher, possibly to 100 or more. I don't think it would be a great idea for Nikon to be seen lagging.
 
Here´s another comparison - from LensRentals a few years ago - that might even more clearly show the degree of benefit of more pixels.

The 36 Mp D800 is proven to yield higher resolution at f/16 than the 12 Mp D700 at any aperture.

00d5b7356c354fce975dd41c35f74a9d.jpg

Okay

c82b97d12ed84dc5a33881b6a1254bf1.jpg
Thanks. Looks pretty clear.
This comparison is in line with optical theory predictions!

It also clarifies my earlier point that the difference between high and low resolution (as in centre compared to corners) is compressed at smaller apertures compared to wider apertures - but is still present at f16.

In this comparison taking edge at f16 (when needed for depth of field) going from a score of about 590 to a score of about 750 is an often useful increase in image resolution of 27%.

If the D700 was 12 MP going to 36 MP would like increase image resolution somewhat more than going from 45 to 100 MP - though still likely potentially very useful.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.
 
Last edited:
From my limited knowledge, though supported by around 40+ years of professional photography, the main benefit of a 100MP+ sensor is that moiré is lost inside the diffraction blur. Edit the file at full rez (admittedly with heavy computing power) and reduce the size to end up with a moiré free end result at a size clients can use to communicate with customers (as in a small jpeg on a web page).
100MP on FF doesn't get to the level that all aliasing is sub-diffraction, but yes, as that is an advantage of small pixels.
100 MP on FF sensor would work like that roughly at f/11 (and that's not including subsampling of color channels used in Bayer CFA). However, real world lenses also add some aberrations so it's quite likely that in practice, there would be very little aliasing 100 MP FF sensor at f/8 already.
Yup, and there's a few f-numbers below f/8. I don't have a lens that can't open its aperture wider than f/8.
 
100MP on FX is largely meaningless. The pixels will be so small that diffraction will be a major issue.

If you want 100MP, get "medium format" from Fuji.
Ignoring 'DOF vs aperture' discussion in theory on paper, which usually I really do, I am not a big fan of smaller pixel size because of diffraction.
As has been said several times now in this thread, there is no real issue with smaller pixel sizes and diffraction. Diffraction is a property of the lens, not the sensor. Pixel size makes no difference to the f-number at which diffraction limiting takes over from aberration limiting. All that smaller pixels do is allow you to get more from the lens whether it be diffraction of aberration limited. If severely limited the amount extra will be small, but it will still be there.
I agree with that.

But still I prefer 100M on a 44x33 sensor than a 36x24, the same as 50M on FF Z7 than any DX model in the future. For the same set of lenses, you can stop down just bit more without too much compromise.
It depends on why you want to stop down, I suppose. Mostly I tend to base my aperture on what I'm trying to achieve, and given that where I was working at f/8 on a 44x33, I'd be working at f/6 on a 36x34. I don't think the number being '8' rather than '6' has any significance.
 
100MP on FX is largely meaningless. The pixels will be so small that diffraction will be a major issue.

If you want 100MP, get "medium format" from Fuji.
Ignoring 'DOF vs aperture' discussion in theory on paper, which usually I really do, I am not a big fan of smaller pixel size because of diffraction.
As has been said several times now in this thread, there is no real issue with smaller pixel sizes and diffraction. Diffraction is a property of the lens, not the sensor. Pixel size makes no difference to the f-number at which diffraction limiting takes over from aberration limiting. All that smaller pixels do is allow you to get more from the lens whether it be diffraction of aberration limited. If severely limited the amount extra will be small, but it will still be there.
I agree with that.

But still I prefer 100M on a 44x33 sensor than a 36x24, the same as 50M on FF Z7 than any DX model in the future. For the same set of lenses, you can stop down just bit more without too much compromise.
But given lenses for 36x24 can typically stop down to smaller f-numbers than those for 44x33, you actually end having more stops available before you need to compromise.
For adapted lens, like EF mount, its limit did not change no matter what kind of sensor it adapted onto. I would expect bit more tolerance on a bigger sensor with the same resolution.
I can't work out what you mean by that.
Also for low light scenario, I prefer a larger sensor.
For low light it's a matter of sensor and lens. The fastest Fuji GFX lens you can get is f/1.7 (and there is just one of those). That gets you the same low light capability as an f/1.3 on FX. Nikon has several f/1.2 lenses either released or in the pipeline. That makes the Z system very slightly better for low light than the GFX system.
 
I agree with that.

But still I prefer 100M on a 44x33 sensor than a 36x24, the same as 50M on FF Z7 than any DX model in the future. For the same set of lenses, you can stop down just bit more without too much compromise.

I am speaking of my preference, may not be favored by others.
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
I asked what compromise to expect "with regard to diffraction". Any IQ problems the P1000 has are due to small sensor size, not pixel size and not diffraction related to pixel size.
 
For low light it's a matter of sensor and lens. The fastest Fuji GFX lens you can get is f/1.7 (and there is just one of those). That gets you the same low light capability as an f/1.3 on FX. Nikon has several f/1.2 lenses either released or in the pipeline. That makes the Z system very slightly better for low light than the GFX system.
I suspect when you say "the same low light capability" you might be referring to depth of field.

With an f1.2 lens wide open I can use a faster shutter speed than an f1.7 lens wide open. To me this is not "the same low light capability".
 
For low light it's a matter of sensor and lens. The fastest Fuji GFX lens you can get is f/1.7 (and there is just one of those). That gets you the same low light capability as an f/1.3 on FX. Nikon has several f/1.2 lenses either released or in the pipeline. That makes the Z system very slightly better for low light than the GFX system.
I suspect when you say "the same low light capability" you might be referring to depth of field.

With an f1.2 lens wide open I can use a faster shutter speed than an f1.7 lens wide open. To me this is not "the same low light capability".
If you use equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, then the same amount of light will hit both sensors so the shot noise will be identical as well. You will have more light per area on a smaller sensor and less light per area on a larger one but the total amount stays the same. I guess this is how it was meant by bobn2.
 
Last edited:
For low light it's a matter of sensor and lens. The fastest Fuji GFX lens you can get is f/1.7 (and there is just one of those). That gets you the same low light capability as an f/1.3 on FX. Nikon has several f/1.2 lenses either released or in the pipeline. That makes the Z system very slightly better for low light than the GFX system.
I suspect when you say "the same low light capability" you might be referring to depth of field.
I wasn't, but actually it is the same thing. So long as the sensor efficiency is the same (and given that these sensors are all essentially the same tech, it is) low light capability and depth of field are determined by the same thing - how large is the entrance pupil.
With an f1.2 lens wide open I can use a faster shutter speed than an f1.7 lens wide open. To me this is not "the same low light capability".
Or, you can use the same shutter speed and get better image quality. That results in low light capability. In the terms you're probably using, if you use the same shutter speed and lower f-number you'll use a lower ISO which will give better image quality.
 
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
What makes you think that the P1000 has worse image quality than other cameras with the same size sensor?

b35d5997fd664258b6ace541d319611e.jpg.png
I am afraid you just changed the subject. You should have compared it with FF/DX 16M sensor, equipped with similar lenses.

Thank you anyway showing me the comparison. I bought it for 3000mm reach with IS.
 
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
What makes you think that the P1000 has worse image quality than other cameras with the same size sensor?

b35d5997fd664258b6ace541d319611e.jpg.png
I am afraid you just changed the subject. You should have compared it with FF/DX 16M sensor, equipped with similar lenses.
No I stuck with the subject. You were claiming that the P1000 represented the compromise of 'high pixel count on a smaller sensor'. Two variables there, so I separated them. I compared the P1000 with cameras with the same size sensor but lower pixel count (i.e. bigger pixels). It does better than any of them. So it's clear that the 'high pixel count' part of your statement doesn't hold water. As for the sensor size, it is what it is. We all know that a 1/2.3" sensor isn't going to match up to a FF sensor, whatever the relative pixel count - though strictly it's a matter of lens aperture size, not the size of the sensor. All that actually matters is how much light you can get the sensor to collect.



--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
 
I agree with that.

But still I prefer 100M on a 44x33 sensor than a 36x24, the same as 50M on FF Z7 than any DX model in the future. For the same set of lenses, you can stop down just bit more without too much compromise.

I am speaking of my preference, may not be favored by others.
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
I asked what compromise to expect "with regard to diffraction". Any IQ problems the P1000 has are due to small sensor size, not pixel size and not diffraction related to pixel size.
Really? "not pixel size and not diffraction related to pixel size"?
 
If you use equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, then the same amount of light will hit both sensors so the shot noise will be identical as well.
Will it?

Shooting at f1.2 transmits a greater light intensity than shooting at f1.7.
 
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
What makes you think that the P1000 has worse image quality than other cameras with the same size sensor?

b35d5997fd664258b6ace541d319611e.jpg.png
I am afraid you just changed the subject. You should have compared it with FF/DX 16M sensor, equipped with similar lenses.
No I stuck with the subject. You were claiming that the P1000 represented the compromise of 'high pixel count on a smaller sensor'. Two variables there, so I separated them. I compared the P1000 with cameras with the same size sensor but lower pixel count (i.e. bigger pixels). It does better than any of them. So it's clear that the 'high pixel count' part of your statement doesn't hold water. As for the sensor size, it is what it is. We all know that a 1/2.3" sensor isn't going to match up to a FF sensor, whatever the relative pixel count - though strictly it's a matter of lens aperture size, not the size of the sensor. All that actually matters is how much light you can get the sensor to collect.
Well I think we have to disagree with each other for now, very obviously.

The comparison I am talking about is like this: compare similar saying 16M resolution on P1000 sensor vs on Full Frame sensor or DX sensor, the overall image quality with similar lens mounted.
 
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
What makes you think that the P1000 has worse image quality than other cameras with the same size sensor?

b35d5997fd664258b6ace541d319611e.jpg.png
I am afraid you just changed the subject. You should have compared it with FF/DX 16M sensor, equipped with similar lenses.
No I stuck with the subject. You were claiming that the P1000 represented the compromise of 'high pixel count on a smaller sensor'. Two variables there, so I separated them. I compared the P1000 with cameras with the same size sensor but lower pixel count (i.e. bigger pixels). It does better than any of them. So it's clear that the 'high pixel count' part of your statement doesn't hold water. As for the sensor size, it is what it is. We all know that a 1/2.3" sensor isn't going to match up to a FF sensor, whatever the relative pixel count - though strictly it's a matter of lens aperture size, not the size of the sensor. All that actually matters is how much light you can get the sensor to collect.
Well I think we have to disagree with each other for now, very obviously.
Well then, I'm not sure what was the point that you were making.
The comparison I am talking about is like this: compare similar saying 16M resolution on P1000 sensor vs on Full Frame sensor or DX sensor, the overall image quality with similar lens mounted.
That's clearly an impossible comparison to make. Convenient.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
 
If you use equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, then the same amount of light will hit both sensors so the shot noise will be identical as well.
Will it?
Yes
Shooting at f1.2 transmits a greater light intensity than shooting at f1.7.
The equivalents are f/1.7 and f/1.3. Spread the greater light intensity of f/1.3 over the smaller area of 24x36mm and you end up with the same amount of luminous power as the lower intensity of f/1.7 over the larger area of 33x44mm. So f/1.3 on 24x36 projects the same light power (which actually hits the sensor) and f/1.7 on 33x44. f/1.2 on 24x36 projects a little more power.

Using the terms as follows:

'Intensity' means power per unit area, otherwise known as 'luminance'. SI unit the lux

'Luminous power' is radiant power (in the physical sense) weighted by the luminosity. Otherwise known as 'luminous flux', SI unit the lumen.

Just to round it out, Luminous power times time gives the luminous energy per unit area, otherwise known as 'luminous exposure', or in photography, simply 'exposure'.

Exposure time area gives luminous energy, which has its own unit, the 'Talbot', after the photographer Fox-Talbot. From the point of view of how much noise is seen in the image, and hence low light performance, it is this that matters.
 
If you use equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, then the same amount of light will hit both sensors so the shot noise will be identical as well.
Will it?
Yes
Shooting at f1.2 transmits a greater light intensity than shooting at f1.7.
The equivalents are f/1.7 and f/1.3. Spread the greater light intensity of f/1.3 over the smaller area of 24x36mm and you end up with the same amount of luminous power as the lower intensity of f/1.7 over the larger area of 33x44mm. So f/1.3 on 24x36 projects the same light power (which actually hits the sensor) and f/1.7 on 33x44. f/1.2 on 24x36 projects a little more power.

Using the terms as follows:

'Intensity' means power per unit area, otherwise known as 'luminance'. SI unit the lux

'Luminous power' is radiant power (in the physical sense) weighted by the luminosity. Otherwise known as 'luminous flux', SI unit the lumen.

Just to round it out, Luminous power times time gives the luminous energy per unit area, otherwise known as 'luminous exposure', or in photography, simply 'exposure'.

Exposure time area gives luminous energy, which has its own unit, the 'Talbot', after the photographer Fox-Talbot. From the point of view of how much noise is seen in the image, and hence low light performance, it is this that matters.
 
If you use equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, then the same amount of light will hit both sensors so the shot noise will be identical as well.
Will it?

Shooting at f1.2 transmits a greater light intensity than shooting at f1.7.
Intensity x Area = Total
 
If you use equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, then the same amount of light will hit both sensors so the shot noise will be identical as well.
Will it?
Yes
Shooting at f1.2 transmits a greater light intensity than shooting at f1.7.
The equivalents are f/1.7 and f/1.3. Spread the greater light intensity of f/1.3 over the smaller area of 24x36mm and you end up with the same amount of luminous power as the lower intensity of f/1.7 over the larger area of 33x44mm. So f/1.3 on 24x36 projects the same light power (which actually hits the sensor) and f/1.7 on 33x44. f/1.2 on 24x36 projects a little more power.

Using the terms as follows:

'Intensity' means power per unit area, otherwise known as 'luminance'. SI unit the lux

'Luminous power' is radiant power (in the physical sense) weighted by the luminosity. Otherwise known as 'luminous flux', SI unit the lumen.

Just to round it out, Luminous power times time gives the luminous energy per unit area, otherwise known as 'luminous exposure', or in photography, simply 'exposure'.

Exposure time area gives luminous energy, which has its own unit, the 'Talbot', after the photographer Fox-Talbot. From the point of view of how much noise is seen in the image, and hence low light performance, it is this that matters.
Exactly, just to provide some numbers I will add the following. Light intensity on MF sensor with 0.8x crop factor will be 0.8*0.8 = 0.64x lower than on FF sensor. But area of MF sensor is larger by factor 1/(0.8*0.8). Therefore, the total amount of light hitting such MF sensor is 0.8*0.8/(0.8*0.8) = 1x the amount hitting FF one. As you can see, it's the same.
Just to confirm your numbers, I get the diagonal crop as 0.8 or 1.3 (rounded either way) which means that the f/1.7 lens on this size MF is giving the same luminous power on the MF sensor as an f/1.4 on FF. Previously I'd been using f/1.3 but my rounding had gone a bit haywire. So clearly f/1.2 on FF is giving either a half or third stop more, depending on which version of f/1.2 it is (it appears on both the 1/2 stop and 1/3 stop scales - rounding errors again). The next fastest GFX is f/2 (equivalent to f/1.6), just one of those at 110 then you go down to f/2.8 - f/2.2 equivalent, again just one lens, then down to f/4 - f/3.2 equivalent. For the zooms the fastest you can get is f/4 - f/3.2 equivalent. Clearly if low light performance is what you're worried about the FF systems, whether Nikon, Canon or Sony, are a better bet.

In fact, once FF has 100MP the GFX system won't be competitive anywhere, unless they bring out some faster glass (or even more pixels).

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
 
Last edited:
I agree with that.

But still I prefer 100M on a 44x33 sensor than a 36x24, the same as 50M on FF Z7 than any DX model in the future. For the same set of lenses, you can stop down just bit more without too much compromise.

I am speaking of my preference, may not be favored by others.
So lets forget preferences entirely and limit ourselves to facts. What "compromise" do you expect to experience with regard to diffraction if you use a high pixel count on a smaller sensor?
If you had a P1000, you would notice the compromise of "high pixel count on a smaller sensor": bad image quality.
I asked what compromise to expect "with regard to diffraction". Any IQ problems the P1000 has are due to small sensor size, not pixel size and not diffraction related to pixel size.
Really? "not pixel size and not diffraction related to pixel size"?
Reelly. Not either.

Pixel size has no effect on image SNR for shot noise and pixel size has no effect on the amount of diffraction blur, and small enough pixels reduce the sensor area affected by an airy disc.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top