At a given aperture, DOF is a function of distance from the subject. The closer the subject, the less DOF; the farther away from the subject, the greater the DOF. The crop factor of the APS sensor requires greater distance from the subject for the same FOV as a larger sensor, and therefore you end up with more DOF at the same aperture than a larger sensor due to that increased distance from the subject.
--
What makes a person wanting higher resolution elitist?
Yeah. That was me. I used technical pan and rolled my own developer. I also shot a lot of Kodachrome. High ISO and large grain never appealed to me.
Define close. My take is that we will see APS DSLRs reach around 24Mp. That is still a larger pixel pitch than a CP995 or CP5000. These cameras may not be the most common and they will probably be specialty cameras - or perhaps elitist cameras if I take your apparent point of view.
and be restricted to an ISO cap of 200 or lower just like those prosumer digitals. Will such a low range , hgh mp body be profitable for the manufacturers to devote R&D and marketing to??? It should be clear that the more generally useful body (read: larger ISO range at optimal pixel count) will sell the most and offer a better cost / profit ratio for the manufacturer than making a body with restricted applications that will sell at very low volume. I am sure if the market is out there the manufacturers will cater to it, but it sure isn't going to be cheap for them or for the prospective consumers.
I guess I'd say the opposite: Anybody who doesn't want more resolution probably doesn't know what he's doing. (There - I said it.)
The first intelligent thing that I have read in this thread! Up to this point in the discussion everyone acts like a 12mp APS-C at f/11 is worse than a 6mp because of diffraction...er, um, er...come on people! All that this says is that at 12mp and f/11 the LENS is the limfac, while at 6mp and f/11 the sensor is the limfac. Big deal! At the point where any nikkor is limiting the resolution you are still able to produce mammoth prints of extrodinary quality. What more do you want?
You are simply expressing a personal preference. Why shouldn't we want to record more detail. Why was there a market - and still is - for medium and large format cameras. Just because 35mm film resolution was a practical compromise "yesterday" doesn't mean we necessarily should settle for the same today.
Sure. Better high ISO performance would be nice. And for some people, it would be great. But personally, the images that I would shoot at high ISO (indoor sports) are served fine by a 6Mp camera. I have no particular pressing need for higher ISO and higher resolution.
No, the D2X won't provide 300dpi of detail in a 10x14 print. Just because the sensor has 4228 sensor sites doesn't mean it can record that many "dots". The actual resolution of the typical DSLR sensor is about 80% of what is implied by the sensor site count. So you get about 11.5 inches at 300dpi on the long dimension of a print from a D2x. The Foveon X3 is the only color chip that I know of that will give you a "dot" per sensor site. But then, the 300dpi criteria is overused. Excellent digital prints can be made with much less than 300dpi of actual detail.
I've heard it said that quantity has a quality all its own. I think that applies here.
Precisely. Which is why they should just jump directly to 24mp and be done with it.
Its funny that you say this right after pointing out that Nikon has a second generation 12Mp chip that improves high ISO values. High ISO noise is obviously an important issue as well. High resolution and better noise performance are both worth having.
Given that the context of the discussion is the Nikon D2x, I really don't see how the mass market enters into the discussion.
I might jump back into SLRs at the 12Mp resolution level. I don't like the bulk of DSLRs nor do I have a pressing need for their better high ISO performance. So I've been sitting it out with my Coolpix 5000 for quite a while. Moving to 6Mp in a DSLR or 8Mp in another digicam seems like a baby step to me. But a move to 12Mp from 5Mp might make sense.
The question is whether this aerial resolution will translate into resolution that a sensor can record. Hopefully it will.
Sure. But like I said, this discussion was never about them since they aren't likely customers for the D2x or similar cameras. The higher resolution will be developed and sold to the upper priced markets first and much of it will probably trickle down to Joe and Mary who can brag that their new camera has the same megapixels as the pros. They may not trade in their 6Mp camera for a 25Mp one, but when it breaks, they will probably opt for the higher resolution.
Fine, yes. But hardly excellent. At least not as compared to say, 4x5 film.
Are we discussing compromises for the average Joe or the practical technical limits of what could be offered in a DX format sensor? These are two very different discussions. I was discussing the later, not the former.
Yes, that was probably one of the things (assuming that it really has been "killed"). But the higher resolution is one of the reasons I hear users give for their continued use of these cameras. People aren't exactly giving these cameras away. if I'm wrong about this I will happily make my shipping address available - and I'll spring for the shipping costs.
And the reality is not that at f/11 the resolution is being limited so much as the MTF response with finer detail is being negatively impacted. The D2X's sensor should continue to resolve additional detail all the way to f/22. But at f/22, the MTF response will be very low and hence this detail won't be resolved as "sharply" (it is at the Rayleigh limit here) as it would be at a larger aperture. This is where sharpening can be very useful. So the D2X at f/22 with a very sharp lens should reveal more image detail than a 6Mp sensor of the same size at any aperture. It is only beyond approximately f/22 that basic diffraction physics says you cannot record as much detail as the sensor is capable of.
But these cameras aren't supposed to replace 4x5's, they're made to replace 35mm cameras. And for the results they deliver to the average Joe they've already done that.
But what's the market? Where's the incentive (read $$$$)?
At today's prices that is probably true.
I predict that will be a ceiling for awhile - just personal thought.
But in reality, with good design, you can have both in the same body. The Kodak 14n has 14MP and a reduced 6MP with less noise. With all it's flaws it does show the distinction.
I don't understand why this technology isn't progessing more rapidly.
Think I mentioned the same.
No, I'm going to hang onto mine for a long time to come. With all it's warts it still gives great color, wide dynamic range, FF, and has mirror lock-up (another discussion). It's the only thing preventing me from ordering a D2X right now. As for ISO I don't need higher than 160 for 80% of what I do.Yes, that was probably one of the things (assuming that it really
has been "killed"). But the higher resolution is one of the
reasons I hear users give for their continued use of these cameras.
People aren't exactly giving these cameras away. if I'm wrong
about this I will happily make my shipping address available - and
I'll spring for the shipping costs.
I'm sure that is the way many people approach it, but it is not the only way to look at it. It seems to me that the purpose is not only to replace 35mm film, but to also improve on it. If you can get even better landscapes with the higher resolution sensor, then why not encroach on medium format and possibly even 4x5 film?
The car makers are selling cars that are far more powerful than anyone "needs" for legal driving. But there is definitely a market. The market is anyone who ever wanted more resolution than 35mm film. Its a small market for sure. And so is the market for the D2x and the other higher resolution DSLRs.
Right. But the 12Mp and higher cameras are being made anyway.
Well for a while for sure. But I don't believe that ceiling will last nor that it is caused by the limits of diffraction. Right now I think it is largely a technology/marketing/price ceiling. Not something dictated fundamentally by diffraction - which was the original question.
Well yeah. That is the point I make later. Even the poor "per pixel" noise that you might expect from a 25Mp DSLR isn't so poor when you consider it from a per image standpoint. The same think you mention about the 14n would exist for my mythical 25Mp DX sensor as well.
Join the club. Perhpas part of it is the CMOS design. I understand from other posts that it is difficult to get very small sensor site pitches on CMOS.
Well, if you change your mind ...
Right. I suspect most people don't need the low noise, high ISO that DSLRs currently offer. I'm sure its nice to have, but I suspect it isn't a huge benefit to a lot of people. I'd much rather have double the resolution and worse high ISO performance.
