16MP sensor improvements?

Started Apr 24, 2013 | Questions
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,466
Re: The bottom line is that you didn't read my post......
4

tedolf wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

I know I do.  Regardless, you said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51348161

Keep in mind that you will have more diffraction effects with more pixels on the same size sensor.

The 12mp sensor can be stoped down to f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction.

With the 16mp sensor you are going to start seeing diffraction at f/8.

So the extra resolution is not without cost.

That is wrong.

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

The fact of the matter is that 16 MP will always resolve more detail than 12 MP, all else equal.  How much more, however, depends on a great number of factors.

See the part above where I say, "Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse", and the part where I talk about the effect on out of focus parts of the photo and how those sorts of things do not and can not show up in a photo of a two dimensional test chart?

Really amazing that you can read an entire post and not extract the substance of it.

Amazing really.

What is really amazing is that you still don't get it after being corrected over and over. So please repeat after me:

A 16 MP sensor resolves more than a 12 MP sensor no matter which aperture you use. The advantage of the 16 MP sensor will be less pronounced if you use very small apertures than if you use somewhat larger ones, but it will still be there.

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus. It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF. These things are true regardless of whether you shoot a test chart or something else.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

Jonas Palm wrote:

The 16MP sensor shows remarkable advantages in dynamic range (almost 2 f-stops !) and roughly 1 f-stop improvement in high-ISO noise. And of course higher resolution.

Pretty damn significant in my book, you would have to go to the very best full frame sensors to get a similar jump from the 16MP sensor.

Nonsense. You can get quite a bit better IQ if you go to the 24 mp APS-C cameras like the Nikon D7100.  More DR, better color depth, much cleaner files at base ISO and better high ISO ability, superior DOF control, and of course, more resolution.  Add to the mix the intangibles like micro contrast that you get from some of the no OLPF (Optical Low-Pass Filter) cameras like the D7100 and Coolpix A.

I have an E-PL5 and IQ is not nearly as good as my D7000, the X-Pro1 that I use to have, and they certainly aren't nearly as good as the what I've seen from class leading cameras like the D7100 or D5200.  And since you mentioned DxOMark, they confirm what I'm mentioned in their Sensor Ratings.

As far as the best of FF, IQ from my D800 is galaxies away from my E-PL5.  

IQ from the E-PL5/E-PM2/OMD is quite good and with the Sony 16 mp found in the PENs m43 closed the gap somewhat with APS-C, matching some of the older APS-C Canon DSLRs, at least in terms of DxOMark measurements.   But IQ of the 3 Olympus cameras is not on the same level as the best of APS-C.  Forget high ISO, one of the main problems is ISO 200 just cannot compete with the essentially noiseless ISO 100 images from the Nikon APS-C cameras (Coolpix A, D7000, D7100).

I'm sure I won't be popular for saying this, but I've owned more cameras than I can to admit, and these are my observations.

Love my new EPL-5, for the most part.  I do wish they'd do away with the clip-on flash, or at least make the flash tilt back for bounce flash like the Sony NEX-3N.  And I'd love to see the resolution of the LCD panels increased from 460 K.  IQ I don't have much problem with, but above ISO 3200 in low-light, images and colors start to deteriorate.  But these are minor niggles, and on the whole these are nice cameras if small size is important to you.

Cheers, and happy shooting, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
azazel1024 Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

marike6 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

The 16MP sensor shows remarkable advantages in dynamic range (almost 2 f-stops !) and roughly 1 f-stop improvement in high-ISO noise. And of course higher resolution.

Pretty damn significant in my book, you would have to go to the very best full frame sensors to get a similar jump from the 16MP sensor.

Nonsense. You can get quite a bit better IQ if you go to the 24 mp APS-C cameras like the Nikon D7100.  More DR, better color depth, much cleaner files at base ISO and better high ISO ability, superior DOF control, and of course, more resolution.  Add to the mix the intangibles like micro contrast that you get from some of the no OLPF (Optical Low-Pass Filter) cameras like the D7100 and Coolpix A.

I have an E-PL5 and IQ is not nearly as good as my D7000, the X-Pro1 that I use to have, and they certainly aren't nearly as good as the what I've seen from class leading cameras like the D7100 or D5200.  And since you mentioned DxOMark, they confirm what I'm mentioned in their Sensor Ratings.

As far as the best of FF, IQ from my D800 is galaxies away from my E-PL5.  

IQ from the E-PL5/E-PM2/OMD is quite good and with the Sony 16 mp found in the PENs m43 closed the gap somewhat with APS-C, matching some of the older APS-C Canon DSLRs, at least in terms of DxOMark measurements.   But IQ of the 3 Olympus cameras is not on the same level as the best of APS-C.  Forget high ISO, one of the main problems is ISO 200 just cannot compete with the essentially noiseless ISO 100 images from the Nikon APS-C cameras (Coolpix A, D7000, D7100).

I'm sure I won't be popular for saying this, but I've owned more cameras than I can to admit, and these are my observations.

Love my new EPL-5, for the most part.  I do wish they'd do away with the clip-on flash, or at least make the flash tilt back for bounce flash like the Sony NEX-3N.  And I'd love to see the resolution of the LCD panels increased from 460 K.  IQ I don't have much problem with, but above ISO 3200 in low-light, images and colors start to deteriorate.  But these are minor niggles, and on the whole these are nice cameras if small size is important to you.

Cheers, and happy shooting, Markus

Compared to the best APS-c sensors, sure. I can't speak to the latest and greatest Canon APS-c, but it is my experience, that at least against what was on the market a year or so ago from Canon, the OM-D EM-5 sensor is significantly better than the Canon 7d and earlier APS-c Canon sensors.

Beyond WB, which is massively better, noise at similar ISOs (ALL similar ISOs) was/is higher on the 7d, dynamic range is roughly the same, but roll off is better on the OM-D E-M5 in highlights. High ISO noise is also better in that chroma noise is much better supressed than in the 7d, and luminance noise is roughly slightly lower at high ISOs. Resolution also is at least a hair better, though that could be more of a lens issue, but the 16MP of the E-M5 certainly appears higher resolution than the 18MP of the 7d in the few pixel peeps I've had the pleasure of.

My cousin owns a 7d and I've both compared my files to his and shot with his 7d a resonable amount (a couple of hundred photos in a few different occasions).

For what Canon currently puts on the market with APS-c? No idea how the E-M5 stacks up. Compared to the latest and greatest Nikon? No idea either.

I merely bring that up by way of saying "matching older Canon APS-c" hasn't been my experience. It is fair amount better, especially when you throw in things like vastly supperior white balance in the OM-D E-M5 compared to the 7d. If you ignore white balance, okay, it isn't such a world of difference that the Canon sensors look terrible...but it is clearly better in my experience, not on par. Now...dunno with new Canon APS-c cameras.

-- hide signature --

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Chatokun
Chatokun Regular Member • Posts: 447
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

I'd like to note that you two are comparing different things. One is comparing to Canon (hence the "all but the best FF sensors) while the other is comparing more accurately to Nikon, Fuji, Sony. Canon hasn't really updated their sensor technology significantly for a while. The Sony and whatever sensor Fuji is using have superior numbers.

I tend to wonder if Canon is just keeping on top via rep and client base.. I see great praise for cameras such as the Canon 5D mark II and III, and see a lot of consumers using them, but the newer Nikons on all fields seem to blow Canon stuff away... with strict senor tests anyway. Once you start bringing lenses, processors, functions, and other such things in, the result may be quite different.

 Chatokun's gear list:Chatokun's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic LX100 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +13 more
Najinsky Veteran Member • Posts: 5,739
Re: The real world.....

Ulric wrote:

That's odd, the f/2 picture isn't visible, but when I try to edit my post it's there. Oh well, there isn't any relevant diffraction there anyway.

The pictures are taken with an E-M5, which has the same sensor as the E-PM2. I think all pictures are usable, although the last one has obvious softness from diffraction.

I agree the F/16 is noticeably, but not unusably softer. And I agree at F/16 diffraction is playing some role.

What I'm not clear on, is lens performance (resolution) at F/16. Most M/43 lenses seem designed to deliver their top resolution at F/4 - F/5.6

So why is the F/16 (slight) softness attributed to diffraction rather than the lens performance? Ultimately it may be a moot point, the effect is there whether it's the lens or diffraction.

-Najinsky

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,466
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

Chatokun wrote:

I'd like to note that you two are comparing different things. One is comparing to Canon (hence the "all but the best FF sensors) while the other is comparing more accurately to Nikon, Fuji, Sony. Canon hasn't really updated their sensor technology significantly for a while. The Sony and whatever sensor Fuji is using have superior numbers.

I tend to wonder if Canon is just keeping on top via rep and client base.. I see great praise for cameras such as the Canon 5D mark II and III, and see a lot of consumers using them, but the newer Nikons on all fields seem to blow Canon stuff away... with strict senor tests anyway. Once you start bringing lenses, processors, functions, and other such things in, the result may be quite different.

On reason why the sensor tech may not hurt Canon too much is that they are seriously behind only when it comes to low-ISO performance (low dynamic range due to high read noise at low ISOs). At high ISOs, the Canon sensors are reasonably competitive and the shortcomings at low ISOs is noticeable primarily to those who shoot RAW and value the ability to push shadows in PP. I belong to that group, so I consider the poor base-ISO DR a significant weakness. But I can't rule out the possibility that I am part of a pretty small minority.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Pedagydusz Veteran Member • Posts: 5,539
Re: The real world.....

My feeling (and it is a "feeling", rather than hard Science!) is that whatever purely optical issue causes less sharpness @ higher f/numbers is impossible (in practice, for somebody working with a camera) to separate from the diffraction softness. The reason a lens resolution peaks @ f/5.6 is that for higher values we start to see the effects of diffraction, more and more.

But I agree with others: if necessary, close down the lens, the effect of diffraction is not that noticeable (see ulfric's images, for example).

-- hide signature --
 Pedagydusz's gear list:Pedagydusz's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F707 Canon EOS 7D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 +3 more
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

Jonas Palm wrote:

The 16MP sensor shows remarkable advantages in dynamic range (almost 2 f-stops !) and roughly 1 f-stop improvement in high-ISO noise. And of course higher resolution.

Pretty damn significant in my book, you would have to go to the very best full frame sensors to get a similar jump from the 16MP sensor.

That is a bit of hyperbole the new Nikon APS models { D5200/D7100} comfortably outperform the best mFT options by the time you get to the best FF the difference is pretty huge {2.8 stops colour depth, 2 stops DR and at least 1.7 stops high ISO{2 if you take into account the flexibility the extra detail gives you in post processing of noise}.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/865|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/793|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28appareil3%29/814|0/%28brand3%29/Nikon

In fact even the old APS sensor in the 2010 Nikon D7000 outperforms the current best mFT sensors. Even the 2008 D90 gives almost identical scores to the E-M5

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/793|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/698|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon

Though there is indeed a very good advance in DR/colour depth of the 16mp E-M5 sensor over the 12mp sensor

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/793|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/724|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus#toggleBookmarks

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
Yohan Pamudji Senior Member • Posts: 2,874
Tedolf's real world, not THE real world
1

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.  You would see that both the 12MP and 16MP sensors start showing diffraction effects at f/8 regardless of lens.  I have the E-P1 and E-M5 and have shot with the E-P3 as well.  All start softening a bit  at f/8 due to diffraction with any lens I use on them.  By f/11 the effect is very obvious on both sensors.  I'm not sure how you can look at your pictures and say that the 12MP goes to "f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction", but if we assume that's true then the same is true of the 16MP sensor by your standards.

In short: the 16MP sensor isn't noticeably worse in terms of diffraction than the 12MP, not unless you're "measurebating" as you so derisively refer to it.  Again, maybe you should take your own advice.

MoPet New Member • Posts: 11
Re: The bottom line is that you didn't read my post......

Jawohl, der entscheidende Unterschied ist immer bei feinen Strukturen zu erkennen!

Gleichgültig, ob Testchart oder Naturaufnahme. Je kleiner die Pixelmaße desto mehr wird bei gleicher Beugung an Partialkontrast verloren.  Es wird "Matsch" und die höhere Auflösung des Sensors wird nicht mehr adressiert.

Peter M.

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,466
Re: The bottom line is that you didn't read my post......

MoPet wrote:

Jawohl, der entscheidende Unterschied ist immer bei feinen Strukturen zu erkennen!

Gleichgültig, ob Testchart oder Naturaufnahme. Je kleiner die Pixelmaße desto mehr wird bei gleicher Beugung an Partialkontrast verloren.  Es wird "Matsch" und die höhere Auflösung des Sensors wird nicht mehr adressiert.

Peter M.

Genau.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
MoPet New Member • Posts: 11
Re: The real world.....

Nein, es kann kein Streitpunkt sein. In Regel werden alle Restfehler eines Objektives mit abblenden , besonders am Rand- und Eckbereich, besser korrigiert,  aber die Beugung nimmt zu;

so wird jedes Objektiv ab einer bestimmten Blende wieder weicher und mit sichtbarem Verlust an Auflösung immer schlechter. Deshalb wird bei einigen Objektiven das Abblenden auf  Blende 16 begrenzt.

Peter M.

MoPet New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Tedolf's real world, not THE real world

Der 16 MP Sensor ist nicht " merklich" schlechter in Bezug auf Beugung (?)

Nicht "merklich" ist eine Frage der Definition!

Aber er ist eben doch anfälliger für Beugung als der 12 MP Sensor und ein 20 MP Sensor wäre noch anfälliger als ein 16 MP Sensor.

Peter M.

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,466
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies
2

jim stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

The 16MP sensor shows remarkable advantages in dynamic range (almost 2 f-stops !) and roughly 1 f-stop improvement in high-ISO noise. And of course higher resolution.

Pretty damn significant in my book, you would have to go to the very best full frame sensors to get a similar jump from the 16MP sensor.

That is a bit of hyperbole the new Nikon APS models { D5200/D7100} comfortably outperform the best mFT options by the time you get to the best FF the difference is pretty huge {2.8 stops colour depth, 2 stops DR and at least 1.7 stops high ISO{2 if you take into account the flexibility the extra detail gives you in post processing of noise}.

That's a bit of hyperbole Jim. I guess what you actually wanted to say is that the difference compared to the best FF sensor (I guess you are talking about the D800/D800E), is about 1.5 stops color depth, 2 stops DR at base ISO and slightly more than one stop DR at higher ISOs (the DxO high-ISO score is useless), all of which at the same 8 MP normalized resolution for both cameras alike. If you compare the D800 at its original 36 MP resolution with the best MFT sensor at its original 16 MP resolution, the differences are of course smaller than those I listed.

Now, these comparisons are of course valid only if we compare at the same ISO. If, instead, we compare equivalent photos (same DoF) in higher-ISO shooting, then the best MFT sensor is about half a stop ahead for color depth and more than half a stop ahead for DR (again at the same 8 MP normalized resolution).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/865|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/793|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28appareil3%29/814|0/%28brand3%29/Nikon

In fact even the old APS sensor in the 2010 Nikon D7000 outperforms the current best mFT sensors. Even the 2008 D90 gives almost identical scores to the E-M5

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/793|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/698|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon

Though there is indeed a very good advance in DR/colour depth of the 16mp E-M5 sensor over the 12mp sensor

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/793|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/724|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus#toggleBookmarks

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 24,133
Re: The bottom line is that you didn't read my post......
2

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

I know I do.  Regardless, you said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51348161

Keep in mind that you will have more diffraction effects with more pixels on the same size sensor.

The 12mp sensor can be stoped down to f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction.

With the 16mp sensor you are going to start seeing diffraction at f/8.

So the extra resolution is not without cost.

That is wrong.

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

The fact of the matter is that 16 MP will always resolve more detail than 12 MP, all else equal.  How much more, however, depends on a great number of factors.

See the part above where I say, "Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse", and the part where I talk about the effect on out of focus parts of the photo and how those sorts of things do not and can not show up in a photo of a two dimensional test chart?

Really amazing that you can read an entire post and not extract the substance of it.

Amazing really.

What is really amazing is that you still don't get it after being corrected over and over. So please repeat after me:

A 16 MP sensor resolves more than a 12 MP sensor no matter which aperture you use.

At what aperture?

The advantage of the 16 MP sensor will be less pronounced if you use very small apertures than if you use somewhat larger ones, but it will still be there.

Is that true for OOF background items?

What about the "bokeh"?

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus.

B.S.

It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF.

Except that most people don't care about that because most printers can't print at that resolution anyway; but the "haze" effect on OOF areas is very nocticable.

These things are true regardless of whether you shoot a test chart or something else.

Test charts do not have OOF backgrounds, do they?

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +8 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 24,133
Tedolf's world

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.

I do not see diffraction effects on the E-pl1 at f/11 or below.

I do see diffraction at f/16.

I know that mathematically there will be more diffraction effects with a closer pixel pitch.

This is basic optical physics.

You would see that both the 12MP and 16MP sensors start showing diffraction effects at f/8 regardless of lens.  I have the E-P1 and E-M5 and have shot with the E-P3 as well.  All start softening a bit  at f/8 due to diffraction with any lens I use on them.  By f/11 the effect is very obvious on both sensors.  I'm not sure how you can look at your pictures and say that the 12MP goes to "f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction", but if we assume that's true then the same is true of the 16MP sensor by your standards.

In short: the 16MP sensor isn't noticeably worse in terms of diffraction than the 12MP, not unless you're "measurebating" as you so derisively refer to it.  Again, maybe you should take your own advice.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +8 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,466
Re: The bottom line is that you didn't read my post......
3

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

I know I do.  Regardless, you said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51348161

Keep in mind that you will have more diffraction effects with more pixels on the same size sensor.

The 12mp sensor can be stoped down to f/11-16 without a lot of noticable diffraction.

With the 16mp sensor you are going to start seeing diffraction at f/8.

So the extra resolution is not without cost.

That is wrong.

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

The fact of the matter is that 16 MP will always resolve more detail than 12 MP, all else equal.  How much more, however, depends on a great number of factors.

See the part above where I say, "Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse", and the part where I talk about the effect on out of focus parts of the photo and how those sorts of things do not and can not show up in a photo of a two dimensional test chart?

Really amazing that you can read an entire post and not extract the substance of it.

Amazing really.

What is really amazing is that you still don't get it after being corrected over and over. So please repeat after me:

A 16 MP sensor resolves more than a 12 MP sensor no matter which aperture you use.

At what aperture?

As I said: Any.

The advantage of the 16 MP sensor will be less pronounced if you use very small apertures than if you use somewhat larger ones, but it will still be there.

Is that true for OOF background items?

No. Since, as you can see, I am talking about resolution here, it is true for things that are not OOF.

What about the "bokeh"?

See the line you quoted just below.

Diffraction has virtually no noticeable impact on areas that are really out of focus.

B.S.

No. Actually you don't need a B.S. to know this.

It has a clearly noticeable effect on fine detail that is in focus or clearly within the DoF.

Except that most people don't care about that because most printers can't print at that resolution anyway

If you think so, why are you at all concerned about diffraction?

but the "haze" effect on OOF areas is very nocticable.

There is no haze effect in OOF areas, except possibly with your Russian and other legacy lenses which might conceivably have a lot of sh*t on that part of the small glass area you use when you stop down a lot.

As you might be aware, however, OOF areas will become less OOF as you stop down, and in that respect, less "hazy".

These things are true regardless of whether you shoot a test chart or something else.

Test charts do not have OOF backgrounds, do they?

No subject has an OOF background but any subject can be put OOF. However, this is irrelevant here, so why do you ask?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 13,655
Re: Tedolf's real world, not THE real world
1

Wieso antwortest du auf Deutsch hier? Dass verstehen nur Deutschen (Osterreicher usw), Niederlander und Skandinavier mehr oder weniger.

I think it is better to answer in English, Peter...

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
Yohan Pamudji Senior Member • Posts: 2,874
Re: Tedolf's world

tedolf wrote:

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Do any of you actually look at your photo's to see what diffraction looks like?

It makes the whole photo look like it was shot though a screen.  The worst effect is on the background out of focus objects where it creates a distracting "haze" that doesn't look right.

That sort of thing doesn't show up in test charts.

Yes, you migh not be able to read letters any worse but diffraction does make the photo worse.

Please, use some common sense and look at your photo's  in addition to reading websites and measurebating.

Tedolph

Do you have one of the Olympus cameras with 16MP sensor?  I'm guessing not.  You should take your own advice and look at photos instead of spouting your own theory.

I do not see diffraction effects on the E-pl1 at f/11 or below.

I do see diffraction at f/16.

I know that mathematically there will be more diffraction effects with a closer pixel pitch.

This is basic optical physics.

So you tell other people to compare actual photos but you yourself go by theory.  I figured as much--just wanted to be sure.

I'll say it again: the 16MP sensor doesn't exhibit noticeably more diffraction than the 12MP at the same apertures.  I've shot with both sensors and am more sensitive to the effects of diffraction than you since it starts becoming obvious to me at f/8 and above, and I don't see an appreciable difference between the two sensors in this area.

OP Msnap Regular Member • Posts: 107
Re: Forget the numbers, the new sensor is much better

Pixnat2 wrote:

People can always argue about measurments and graphs. What counts are the pictures.

I completely agree. Yet with all these responses, no-one has posted a side-by-side comparison.

I'm most interested in dynamic range.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads