32 mp really?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
justmeMN Veteran Member • Posts: 8,272
Re: Here we go again!

Photo Pete wrote:

Rumours of major sensor improvement with no basis in fact at all.

A while back there was a "NEW Sony m43 Global Shutter Sensor Coming" rumor. The sites that posted the rumor failed to mention that Sony listed it as a monochrome sensor for industrial applications.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,023
Re: Here we go again!
2

justmeMN wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Rumours of major sensor improvement with no basis in fact at all.

A while back there was a "NEW Sony m43 Global Shutter Sensor Coming" rumor. The sites that posted the rumor failed to mention that Sony listed it as a monochrome sensor for industrial applications.

It's also available in a Bayer version and industrial sensors are quite usable for photographic use, if required. The point is that 'global shutter' is a technology that has been around a long time, but it isn't magic. Putting in the extra circuitry required reduces pixel efficiency and increases noise. Not a problem in applications where avoiding rolling shutter effects is of importance, but for a stills-focussed camera, maybe not the best choice.

-- hide signature --

263, look deader.

gary payne Contributing Member • Posts: 943
Diffraction Limits?
1

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased.  Is that no longer a problem?  Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread.  I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past.  Why not now?  gp

 gary payne's gear list:gary payne's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Panasonic G85 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +9 more
otto k Senior Member • Posts: 2,099
Re: Diffraction Limits?

It's not diffraction limited. And it is. Depends on the aperture

 otto k's gear list:otto k's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Samsung NX1000 Samsung NX500 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 20-50mm F3.5-5.6 ED +6 more
gary payne Contributing Member • Posts: 943
Re: Diffraction Limits?

But that is exactly what was meant in earlier discussions on this forum.  That M4/3 apertures would be curtailed considerably as MP increased.  Quality would suffer at medium apertures and above, paraphrasing, as I recall.  gp

 gary payne's gear list:gary payne's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Panasonic G85 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +9 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,023
Re: Diffraction Limits?
4

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

-- hide signature --

263, look deader.

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,819
Re: Diffraction Limits?

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field.   So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,023
Re: Diffraction Limits?

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field. So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

Indeed, and this usage also turns round the normal meaning of 'diffraction limited', which is a system which has a resolution only limited by diffraction. That's in fact very good, it means the optics are perfect. Few if any photographic lenses are diffraction limited wide open.

-- hide signature --

263, look deader.

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,819
Re: Diffraction Limits?

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field. So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

Indeed, and this usage also turns round the normal meaning of 'diffraction limited', which is a system which has a resolution only limited by diffraction. That's in fact very good, it means the optics are perfect. Few if any photographic lenses are diffraction limited wide open.

The way I think about it is that pretty much everything that matters from a photographic perspective can be analyzed in 'object space', that is in the space from the lens opening to the subject and beyond. Diffraction, exposure, depth of field, blur, and so on.

If someone (say Cambridge Color) says I need to know pixel pitch to understand a photographic concept, then they're doing it wrong.

For most of my shooting, the limits on resolution are my own technique, ability to hold a steady camera, lens choice and lens settings.  In this day of 20MP sensors, I really dont' see MP as the limiting factor on the image quality I get in my routine shooting.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,023
Re: Diffraction Limits?

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field. So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

Indeed, and this usage also turns round the normal meaning of 'diffraction limited', which is a system which has a resolution only limited by diffraction. That's in fact very good, it means the optics are perfect. Few if any photographic lenses are diffraction limited wide open.

The way I think about it is that pretty much everything that matters from a photographic perspective can be analyzed in 'object space', that is in the space from the lens opening to the subject and beyond. Diffraction, exposure, depth of field, blur, and so on.

If someone (say Cambridge Color) says I need to know pixel pitch to understand a photographic concept, then they're doing it wrong.

For most of my shooting, the limits on resolution are my own technique, ability to hold a steady camera, lens choice and lens settings. In this day of 20MP sensors, I really dont' see MP as the limiting factor on the image quality I get in my routine shooting.

I applaud the sentiment, but 'everything' goes too far. Exposure, for instance, very definitely cannot be analysed in object space, by its very definition. The rest, certainly.

-- hide signature --

263, look deader.

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,819
Re: Diffraction Limits?

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field. So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

Indeed, and this usage also turns round the normal meaning of 'diffraction limited', which is a system which has a resolution only limited by diffraction. That's in fact very good, it means the optics are perfect. Few if any photographic lenses are diffraction limited wide open.

The way I think about it is that pretty much everything that matters from a photographic perspective can be analyzed in 'object space', that is in the space from the lens opening to the subject and beyond. Diffraction, exposure, depth of field, blur, and so on.

If someone (say Cambridge Color) says I need to know pixel pitch to understand a photographic concept, then they're doing it wrong.

For most of my shooting, the limits on resolution are my own technique, ability to hold a steady camera, lens choice and lens settings. In this day of 20MP sensors, I really dont' see MP as the limiting factor on the image quality I get in my routine shooting.

I applaud the sentiment, but 'everything' goes too far. Exposure, for instance, very definitely cannot be analysed in object space, by its very definition. The rest, certainly.

Fair enough.  I cast my net too far.  The choice of exposure, of course, does depend on the medium.

I will say that a lot of what is written about 'digital photography' would be better understood in terms of the geometry and physics of what is happening in front the lens (i.e., photography) rather than behind the lens.

But I did reach too far.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,023
Re: Diffraction Limits?

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field. So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

Indeed, and this usage also turns round the normal meaning of 'diffraction limited', which is a system which has a resolution only limited by diffraction. That's in fact very good, it means the optics are perfect. Few if any photographic lenses are diffraction limited wide open.

The way I think about it is that pretty much everything that matters from a photographic perspective can be analyzed in 'object space', that is in the space from the lens opening to the subject and beyond. Diffraction, exposure, depth of field, blur, and so on.

If someone (say Cambridge Color) says I need to know pixel pitch to understand a photographic concept, then they're doing it wrong.

For most of my shooting, the limits on resolution are my own technique, ability to hold a steady camera, lens choice and lens settings. In this day of 20MP sensors, I really dont' see MP as the limiting factor on the image quality I get in my routine shooting.

I applaud the sentiment, but 'everything' goes too far. Exposure, for instance, very definitely cannot be analysed in object space, by its very definition. The rest, certainly.

Fair enough. I cast my net too far. The choice of exposure, of course, does depend on the medium.

Not just the choice. To actually set and exposure you need a shutter, which rather operates outside the object field. But now you make my point, what you're saying does have weight, most of the conditions that affect your choice of exposure are there in the object field, only the limitations to the exposure you can actually set are in the camera.

I will say that a lot of what is written about 'digital photography' would be better understood in terms of the geometry and physics of what is happening in front the lens (i.e., photography) rather than behind the lens.

I thoroughly agree with that sentiment.

But I did reach too far.

But not as much too far as I originally thought.

-- hide signature --

263, look deader.

otto k Senior Member • Posts: 2,099
Re: Diffraction Limits?

That may be, but for someone who is not an artist but technical photographer (me) there is an ongoing war between DoF and diffraction, especially in situations that prevent focus stacking. YMMV.

 otto k's gear list:otto k's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Samsung NX1000 Samsung NX500 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 20-50mm F3.5-5.6 ED +6 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,023
Re: Diffraction Limits?

otto k wrote:

That may be, but for someone who is not an artist but technical photographer (me) there is an ongoing war between DoF and diffraction, especially in situations that prevent focus stacking. YMMV.

There is no war, just a set relationship. More DOF means more diffraction, that's it.

-- hide signature --

263, look deader.

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,819
Re: Diffraction Limits?

otto k wrote:

That may be, but for someone who is not an artist but technical photographer (me) there is an ongoing war between DoF and diffraction, especially in situations that prevent focus stacking. YMMV.

My point would apply quite well to this situation.  DOF is due to the geometrical relationship of the subject to the lens opening.  Diffraction is proportional to the ratio of light wavelength to lens opening.  The tradeoffs you need to make are determined by what goes in front of the lens, not what is behind it.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,819
Re: Diffraction Limits?

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

gary payne wrote:

It seems like a year or two has passed since I last read on this forum that M4/3 format is limited by increasing problems with diffraction as MP is increased. Is that no longer a problem? Was it ever?

I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I am not taking a stand on the matter since the details are beyond my understanding but a jump to 32mp would have raised the diffraction issue here in the past. Why not now? gp

It's nothing to worry about. The theory of pixel count and diffraction limiting, peddled originally by Cambridge in Colour, I think, is nonsense. Pixel count doesn't affect diffraction limiting.

To expand on that, diffraction depends on the physical size of the lens opening, the same as exposure and depth of field. So if you're not diffraction limited at f/8 on FF, then you won't be diffraction limited at f/4 on micro four thirds.

Indeed, and this usage also turns round the normal meaning of 'diffraction limited', which is a system which has a resolution only limited by diffraction. That's in fact very good, it means the optics are perfect. Few if any photographic lenses are diffraction limited wide open.

The way I think about it is that pretty much everything that matters from a photographic perspective can be analyzed in 'object space', that is in the space from the lens opening to the subject and beyond. Diffraction, exposure, depth of field, blur, and so on.

If someone (say Cambridge Color) says I need to know pixel pitch to understand a photographic concept, then they're doing it wrong.

For most of my shooting, the limits on resolution are my own technique, ability to hold a steady camera, lens choice and lens settings. In this day of 20MP sensors, I really dont' see MP as the limiting factor on the image quality I get in my routine shooting.

I applaud the sentiment, but 'everything' goes too far. Exposure, for instance, very definitely cannot be analysed in object space, by its very definition. The rest, certainly.

Fair enough. I cast my net too far. The choice of exposure, of course, does depend on the medium.

Not just the choice. To actually set and exposure you need a shutter, which rather operates outside the object field. But now you make my point, what you're saying does have weight, most of the conditions that affect your choice of exposure are there in the object field, only the limitations to the exposure you can actually set are in the camera.

Well, unless we're talking about an in-lens leaf shutter. 

I'll modify my statement to extend object space from the subject, through the lens and to the shutter.

I will say that a lot of what is written about 'digital photography' would be better understood in terms of the geometry and physics of what is happening in front the lens (i.e., photography) rather than behind the lens.

I thoroughly agree with that sentiment.

But I did reach too far.

But not as much too far as I originally thought.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,125
Re: Diffraction Limits?
1

Premium long focus telephotos are close to or diffraction-limited wide open.    Most good lenses are diffraction-limited closed-down a bit, but the real issues are control of other aberrations, especially at the edge, not the resolving power.

frst16 Regular Member • Posts: 166
Re: 32 mp really?
1

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image?   Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image.  Would you really see a difference?  Or is it only when you start looking at a pixel peeping level that the detail stands out?

OP Jeepit Regular Member • Posts: 168
Re: 32 mp really?

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance.  This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

that the detail stands out?

Thanks to all who responded.

 Jeepit's gear list:Jeepit's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-330 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 18-180mm 1:3.5-6.3 +16 more
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,125
Re: 32 mp really?

Until users get away from these ancient 24-27" HD computer monitors and start using 4K 42-inch or larger TV's, the current crop of 16mp+ digital camera's output won't look like they are capable of looking like.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads