[flyer]

If a 20mp comes out this summer I will buy it. Don't care if the high iso goes to pot (can limit it to iso 400 if they want). This will be my hi res body. Will use one of my other 5 dslrs (3 Pentax) for low light. Bring it on. I want at least as good resolution as the 35mm film camera.

Sensor size plays a big role in resolution. The latest Canon APS-C with 15 meg hardly improve an the 12 meg camera they had before. It is true that a Canon with 21 meg has better resolution, but the same 21 meg. on an APS-C sensor would give a lower resolution due to sensor size. A Hasselblad with 18 meg will beat the crap out of the Canon 21 meg just due to larger sensor size. Try it, you'll be surprised.

[rparmar]

Actually, they've got it wrong. 6 MP is enough for most people. I don't think my K20D takes appreciably better shots than my K100DS.

99.9% of shooters never make a poster. If they did, they'd learn that you have to quadruple the MP in order to double the size of the poster at the same IQ. So the next real step up from 6MP is in fact 24MP. With that increment I warrant people would be able to notice a difference.

But they don't need it.

[whatever7]

Sensor size plays a big role in resolution. The latest Canon APS-C with 15 meg hardly improve an the 12 meg camera they had before. It is true that a Canon with 21 meg has better resolution, but the same 21 meg. on an APS-C sensor would give a lower resolution due to sensor size. A Hasselblad with 18 meg will beat the crap out of the Canon 21 meg just due to larger sensor size. Try it, you'll be surprised.

I agree. As soon as we get more high MP APS bodies people will find the upper resolving ceiling of the APS sensor.

My theory is that for APS sized is around 12-15mp; for 4/3 sized is around 10-12mp.

Right now we only get 40D and 50D to compare sensor resolution from the same linerage. It's hard to compare K10D and K20D since they are from different make and they are from different technology (CCD vs. CMOS).

I don't think we will get a high MP sensor from Nikon's up coming bodies judging from past history they will only upgrade to a 14mp sensor. Since Sony supply APS sensors for Nikon, it makes sense for Alpha cameras to use the same sensor. But if Sony decides to up the MP count on the next a700 follow up, its going to be very interesting to compare the resolving power of this body to the a700.

As for Point and Shoot cameras, I think the resolving bottleneck had long reached a few years ago. Now the tiny sensor can only give you good resolution under very very good light condition.

[brkl]

While the 10 Megapixels I have on my K10d far outperforms any skills and lenses I have, I have seen examples of 35mm film cameras that shows a resolution that is far exceeding the 10 Megapixels.

Here is a link showing a BW photo (using a Leica M3 and a Summicron 90 mm lens on Kodak Technical Pan film) showing a resolution of about 100 lp/mm. To get the same on a FF would take roughly 35 Megapixels.

Staffan Johansson sharp pictures Leica Ansel Adams dark red filter Kodak Technical Pan focus adjustment

(It is actually quite an amazing shot)

Best regards,
Haakan

That doesn't look all that sharp to me compared to digital. Here's jin's excellent shot from the Post your photos! forum, this thread, along with a crop of a similar area as the crop of that BW photo. Tell me jin's shot doesn't have oodles more image information, and that's nowhere near 35mp.

Attached Images

       

[jeffkrol]

Sensor size plays a big role in resolution. The latest Canon APS-C with 15 meg hardly improve an the 12 meg camera they had before. It is true that a Canon with 21 meg has better resolution, but the same 21 meg. on an APS-C sensor would give a lower resolution due to sensor size. A Hasselblad with 18 meg will beat the crap out of the Canon 21 meg just due to larger sensor size. Try it, you'll be surprised.

Where do you get this stuff from?.... IF in fact this is correct, it is due to other factors then pixel count......

Actually, they've got it wrong. 6 MP is enough for most people. I don't think my K20D takes appreciably better shots than my K100DS.

99.9% of shooters never make a poster. If they did, they'd learn that you have to quadruple the MP in order to double the size of the poster at the same IQ. So the next real step up from 6MP is in fact 24MP. With that increment I warrant people would be able to notice a difference.

But they don't need it.

Why do you ignore cropping. It is real easy to shave a 6Mp file down to 5-2MP.
6MP is "enough" in the GENERAL sense that a 6MP APS-C balances noise/fill factor and with resolution for all mundane shooting......

I agree. As soon as we get more high MP APS bodies people will find the upper resolving ceiling of the APS sensor.

My theory is that for APS sized is around 12-15mp; for 4/3 sized is around 10-12mp.

Right now we only get 40D and 50D to compare sensor resolution from the same linerage. It's hard to compare K10D and K20D since they are from different make and they are from different technology (CCD vs. CMOS).

I don't think we will get a high MP sensor from Nikon's up coming bodies judging from past history they will only upgrade to a 14mp sensor. Since Sony supply APS sensors for Nikon, it makes sense for Alpha cameras to use the same sensor. But if Sony decides to up the MP count on the next a700 follow up, its going to be very interesting to compare the resolving power of this body to the a700.

As for Point and Shoot cameras, I think the resolving bottleneck had long reached a few years ago. Now the tiny sensor can only give you good resolution under very very good light condition.

Sorry I suspect ALL of this is just urban legends at best.......
ALL 3 of you should go over to dpreview and do a major search on this topic... You can start here and there are probably literally 1000's of posts discussing this subject...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28813159

[falconeye]

Can take the same lens on the LX loaded with Fuji Velvia and beat the K20D.

Here is a link showing a BW photo (using a Leica M3 and a Summicron 90 mm lens on Kodak Technical Pan film) showing a resolution of about 100 lp/mm. To get the same on a FF would take roughly 35 Megapixels.
Staffan Johansson sharp pictures Leica Ansel Adams dark red filter Kodak Technical Pan focus adjustment

Well, while I do not totally disagree (i.e., I do partly agree ), I must say that both statements are exaggerations, to say the least.

First, it is true that b&w films with an excellent lens render 100 to 120 lp/mm. As is shown in the example above. It also says: "text (ALASKA) height of button on negative: 31.5 µm". Which is 6 pixels with a K20D. "ALASKA" printed in a 6px font would actually look quite similiar (i.e., with an "A" lacking the hole). Indeed, the K20D has the same resolution of 100 lp/mm. The statement "would take roughly 35 Megapixels" is just wrong (you may argue that the FoV is larger -- but as I will show below, the quality of the rendition is better by about the same factor to compensate for this).

Let me refer to my post here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/316913-post24.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/316914-post25.html

As you can see, K20D and a B&W film even better than Technical Pan both are able to resolve a lightning rod in 1 mile distance. Which is as good as it gets. A color Fuji Velvia 50 couldn't anymore resolve this little detail. The K20D image looks even better and is color. But keep in mind that the B&W image covers the full frame while the K20D sensor image doesn't. So overall, I would consider Pentax K20D and a B&W high resolution film to be on par, both slightly outperforming (resolution-wise) color film.

[whatever7]

.....

Sorry I suspect ALL of this is just urban legends at best.......
ALL 3 of you should go over to dpreview and do a major search on this topic... You can start here and there are probably literally 1000's of posts discussing this subject...
How many MPx do you want / need?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

So you make counter argument by refering me to a different thread, how lazy can you get.

[jeffkrol]

So you make counter argument by refering me to a different thread, how lazy can you get.

Well you offer no proof to refute. I've read those threads and countless others on the same subject. I've read about the credentials of some of the posters. I've made my decisions based on what I "researched". To try to post it all in one thread would just be me encouraging you to be lazy...
I will give you some quotes (quoting (particularily color quoting) seems to bug some people) that I believe were derived from much more educated sources then myself.
There are two figures of merit here, sensor size and MP count. Sensor size determines the size of the diffraction spot relative to frame height at fixed f-stop. If you want the diffraction spot to be "smaller" in a print, choose a larger sensor. For fixed sensor size and f-stop, increasing the MP count always increases the resolution, even in the diffraction limited regime.
Emil Martinec..

.. not that many large format lenses. Of course, lenses designed for 1/2.5" sensors routinely resolve at that resolution.
200MP cameras could be designed to give the user whatever the user wants in terms of spatial resolution and bit depth and/or compression in the output. When you start oversampling your lenses, you really don't need the kind of critical pixel-level accuracy that is needed with low pixel counts. JPEG-like compression could be done on the full-res RAW data without a hint, viewed at standard print sizes. 14 bits is overkill for current sensors at their best ISOs; a 200MP 2-micron sensor could get away with a few bits and a LUT.
The decisions could be automated, too, and the firmware could determine, based on user settings, what level of output resolution/compression is needed for the image as a whole, or even broken down into areas (out-of-focus areas can stand far more spatial loss than in-focus areas). There is no reason for anyone to say nay to high-MP sensors because they force high-MB or GB output; high oversampling is good no matter what output resolution you want. You can even have reduced-resolution RAW, which is still superior in flexibility to reduced-resolution JPEGs.
With 200MP, the big factor (other than technique and optics, of course, which can always ruin everything) is the light. If the exposure is high or the gamma is low at base ISO, those pixels can be pretty accurate and withstand fairly high magnification.
John Sheehy

Agreed, the diffraction is the same, since it is a property of the lens, not the sensor. However, just to clarify for those who've got the wrong end of the stick - as you say below, a high density sensor adds less blur of its own, so the visual effects of diffraction in the diffraction limited regime are (slightly) less with a high density camera than a low density one.
It's relevant when the diffraction limit of a lens is high (for lenses with low aberration blur at large apertures). Here a low density sensor simply fails to resolve what the lens is capable of.

Agreed also. The bad news is higher memory costs and longer processing times, but luckily our friend Dr Moore is dealing with this.
bobn2


So using the center resolution values in lp/ph for the DPR test of the 70-200/2.8, I divided by the respective ph's in mm and found that the 1Ds Mk40D has higher resolution than the 5D at ALL apertures, *even when the optics is severely diffraction limited*. The main effect of diffraction is to limit the amount of improvement to be got from smaller pixels; the improvement is over 40% at f5.6, but only about 10% at f16 and beyond. But it's always an improvement.
Emil Martinec
MAYBE I just need to state my 'beliefs" based on my reading.
1) I do not believe that we are anywhere near approaching "outresolving" the APS-C sensor and the limit is nowhere near 24, more like double that. Sensor geometyry and math are not the only effects. Bayer arrays and AA filters tend to reduce the hard numbers, and sometimes in large numbers. (A 24MP Bayered, AA'd sensor has an "effective" resolution of say 12MP)
2) Even if limited f stops and or certain lenses are out resolved it is not a bad thing nor does it ever post a negative or NEUTRAL effect to resolution it can only add w/ diminishing returns though.
Here just go to table 3:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

[RioRico]

The Holy Grail for digital cameras has always been to be able to replicate as closely as possible, preferably exactly like, a contact print from a piece of large format film..Truth be told, that has also been the goal of all of the smaller film formats as well..

Bruce, you make excellent points here. Currently-available resources are never enough. IBM, 1948: America doesn't need more than 10 computers. B.Gates, 1984: 640k is enough for anyone. Pentaxians: 6mp is enough resolution. Yeah, right. (OK, one of those is apocryphal, but what the hell.)

Some use their dSLRs for astrophotography, scientific and forensic photography, etc. There's never enough resolution. Some of us enlarge and crop mercilessly. Some of us piece-together huge enlargements on matrices of standard paper. There's never enough resolution. And whatever today's limits, they'll seem paltry in ten years or less. More *is* better. There's never enough resolution.

My Dad was a semi-pro, selling occasional photos to local newspapers, late 1940s-1960s. His tools were a Rolleiflex TLR with 80mm lenses, appropriate B&W filters, and flashbulbs. He typically shot 100 ASA Verichrome Pan. With this not-expensive kit, he produced images of terrific clarity and depth and resolution. He wasn't aiming for poster-sized reproductions, just the clearest possible pics.

Ah, back in the day, a good camera was Nice To Have (Dad used Kodak and Yashica MFs also), but the FILM made all the difference. For special needs, you bought special films (and maybe filters). From ultra-fine to ultra-fast, to specialized spectral response, the FILM was primary. You might select a camera specifically because the films you wanted were available in its format. But in the digital era, the camera IS the film. This is quite profitable for camera makers, requiring competitive photographers to constantly purchase EXTREMELY expensive new camera bodies, and lenses to match. And those makers that can't afford to develop the expensive new technologies just fall by the wayside.

I WANTZ MOAR MEGAPICKLEZ! There's a constant demand for moar megapickles, big fat juicy low-noise megapickles. Moore's Law is still in effect; semiconductor densities will continue to increase exponentially; over time, we will GET those big fat juicy sweet megapickles. We will capture images with near-infinite resolution, clarity, depth, beauty. Sturgeon's Law is also still in effect: 95% of those images will be crap. But we'll have fun while taking them.

[whatever7]

I was not takling about diffraction though. I was talking about the sacrifice you have to make when you increase the pixel count pass certain number. You lost dynamic range, noice performance and sensitivity. Or to simple put, "the quality of the pixel".

And a DSLR has much higher sensitivity requirement than a P&S camera. For example, ISO 1600 has to be usable. Unlike a P&S sensor, you can shoot garbage ISO 1600 shots and still claim ISO 6400 capable and then paddle that on the spec sheet.

I agree under good light condition a tiny tiny pixel is usable. I have seen that with my own eyes on my Canon G9 (12mp 1/1.7" sensor) compare to the F20 (6mp 1/1.7" sensor). But there is no high ISO improvement. In face high ISO is worse. Fujifilm still hasn't surpass the high ISO performance it set with the F31fd. The F200 is closed.

[jeffkrol]

I was not takling about diffraction though. I was talking about the sacrifice you have to make when you increase the pixel count pass certain number. You lost dynamic range, noice performance and sensitivity. Or to simple put, "the quality of the pixel".

And a DSLR has much higher sensitivity requirement than a P&S camera. For example, ISO 1600 has to be usable. Unlike a P&S sensor, you can shoot garbage ISO 1600 shots and still claim ISO 6400 capable and then paddle that on the spec sheet.

I agree under good light condition a tiny tiny pixel is usable. I have seen that with my own eyes on my Canon G9 (12mp 1/1.7" sensor) compare to the F20 (6mp 1/1.7" sensor). But there is no high ISO improvement. In face high ISO is worse. Fujifilm still hasn't surpass the high ISO performance it set with the F31fd. The F200 is closed.

What you forget is the "quality of the pixel" is also dependent on support electronics. A "perfectly clean" ADC could increase (guesstimate) all these quality factors at least 2x. It is NOT just the sensor.
The only argument of any value is that since you can "clean up" your pixels on cheap sensors (APC) it would translate "upwards" creating a "wash".

Dynamic range, by definition is based on noise ceilings. ISO is just multiples of the base measurements, be it with the ADC or straight math.
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/
For instance, one sees that a 1D3 pixel is over 1/2 stop more efficient than a 1D2 pixel, despite being smaller.

For Flyer:
Sensor Size

Clearly the physical size of the sensor is a factor in image quality, but equally clearly it's not the only factor. To take an absurd example, a Full Frame sensor with 100,000 (or even 1 million) pixels isn't going to better the image quality of an APS-C sensor with 10 million pixels. So pixels count too. Exactly how much they count is another complex subject, but let's just say that if you have the same number of pixels, then the larger sensor can give higher quality images, and if you have more pixels, then you're in even better shape. There could conceivably be situations when a larger sensor with somewhat fewer pixels could give better quality, but let's not get into that one!
EOS 5D vs. EOS 20D - Full Frame vs. APS-C Sensors - Bob Atkins Photography
Recent find.. I'll have to really look at it later, lazy you know;
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4882

[flyer]

Where do you get this stuff from?.... IF in fact this is correct, it is due to other factors then pixel count......

That is exactly what I said. The MF format sensor has larger pixel spread on a larger area being able to use lenses covering a wider circle. That's where the difference is coming from.

[Haakan]

Well, while I do not totally disagree (i.e., I do partly agree ), I must say that both statements are exaggerations, to say the least.

First, it is true that b&w films with an excellent lens render 100 to 120 lp/mm. As is shown in the example above. It also says: "text (ALASKA) height of button on negative: 31.5 µm". Which is 6 pixels with a K20D. "ALASKA" printed in a 6px font would actually look quite similiar (i.e., with an "A" lacking the hole). Indeed, the K20D has the same resolution of 100 lp/mm. The statement "would take roughly 35 Megapixels" is just wrong (you may argue that the FoV is larger -- but as I will show below, the quality of the rendition is better by about the same factor to compensate for this).

Let me refer to my post here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/316913-post24.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/316914-post25.html

As you can see, K20D and a B&W film even better than Technical Pan both are able to resolve a lightning rod in 1 mile distance. Which is as good as it gets. A color Fuji Velvia 50 couldn't anymore resolve this little detail. The K20D image looks even better and is color. But keep in mind that the B&W image covers the full frame while the K20D sensor image doesn't. So overall, I would consider Pentax K20D and a B&W high resolution film to be on par, both slightly outperforming (resolution-wise) color film.

Hi,
The images you posted in your links were very nice examples, and I agree that at least for colour, 14 Megapixels seems to have not problems to match the 35 mm film. And even with BW film it is not easy to really get the full resolution shown in the link where the author had to use red filter to limit the chromatic aberrations in order to get the shown resolution.

If I understand your comparison, you are saying that the resolution power in terms of line width / number of pixels on the K20D and the example I refered to are roughly the same. I think that is fully correct, but that would also mean that having the same pixel density as for the K20D would give about 32 Mbit for FF.

Anyhow, as your pictured cleary showed, and especially for colour, the K20D seems to outperform 35mm film.

Best regards,
Haakan

[jeffkrol]

Apparently Olympus marketing felt they needed to clarify..............
Correction 8:50 a.m. March 6: Two details in this story were changed at Olympus' request. Customers who want more than 20 megapixels should look to full-frame cameras, and imager-based autofocus will outpace phase-detect autofocus in the future, but not necessarily soon, Watanabe said.
Olympus declares 12 megapixels is enough | Underexposed - CNET News

[*isteve]

I guess you're stating this perhaps because I'll hazard a guess you like many on this forum haven't tried out a full frame DSLR that has a sensor that exceeds 20 megapixels.

Once one has used a camera like the hefty EOS 1Ds Mark III, it is plain to see the benefits of having more megapixels.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/489802-post37.html

BTW how come the change in user nick?

Sorry I see nothing very impressive in the picture you linked to. Am I missing something?