Originally posted by jsherman999 You don't need to achieve the utmost resolution every time in order to see the resolution benefits. Using your same technique on say 16MP aps-c and 36MP FF, the 36MP is going to show more resolution, more detail, unless your shooting conditions are so compromised that you've lost all detail anyway (really low shutter speeds and lots of camera shake or a really bad lens on the 36MP)
Keep in mind that to get the utmost resolution from that K-5, you need to have the stars align too. Same technique, both cameras, and the 36MP shows you more.
(In fact because the aps-c image is magnified more, you need better technique and glass on the aps-c side.)
.
Originally posted by stevebrot The sad truth...
No arguments there gentlemen, with the very close to the same pixel size , you'd need to use exactly the same technique on a K-5 to max out it's resolution as you would on a D800. This brings up another burning question.. does the larger pixel size of say D700 make it less prone to camera shake. It would seem just thinking about it that with a tiny bit of shake a larger sensor would have less chance of moving that stream of photons off the pixel, but I have no idea if this would be true or not in a practical sense.
That would be in a way confirmed by the fact that the same guys who squeezed 4000 lw/ph out of a D800 got the same resolution out of a 645D without going through the same kind of effort. I makes you wonder what they'd have done with a 645D if they used the same micro adjustments they did on the D800.
Quote: Keep in mind that to get the utmost resolution from that K-5, you need to have the stars align too. Same technique, both cameras, and the 36MP shows you more.
On one set of tests with the K-5 rated at 2100, the K-5II rated at 2200 and the K-5 IIs rated at 21300 lw/ph, the D600 was rated at 2600 and the D800 was only rated at 2700 lw/ph. So yes you get more with the D800 you get more but not what you might think. If you set 100 line per inch as your desired level for a print you can print 23 inches with a K-5II and 27 inches with a D800. Honestly, if you look at the images sizes, the magnification is not really much of a factor. And the improvement in print size isn't either. Not only that when you reduce your images size you lose lw/ph.. you obviously can't show 2000 lw/ph on an image that is displayed at 1500 pixels deep. (Alternating black and white lines artificially created would give you 1500 distinct line and therefore 1500 lw/ph as a theoretical max, and everything I've seen is that the best a camera can represent is about 80% of that theoretical max).
So as far as I can tell, in practical terms, you're looking at only about a 25% increase in magnification going from APS-c to a D800 based on available sensors and current testing, and what they resolve, and reduced to one dimension sizes Of course if that 25% is of use to you, then it's a bargain being able to get a D800. But lets not get carried away with concepts, we haven't tested. Looking at all the numbers the first thing that stands out is there is simply no way to explain them using simple concepts and simple math. The numbers simply don't turn out to mean in the tests what some imply they do.
Bottom line, doubling your file size and sensor size gets you a file that by linear dimensions is only 25% bigger. You have to double your magnification to get that, but in terms of lw/ph, you don't get anywhere near double the linear size. It's one of those facts where it's so simple, no one knows what it means in the real world.
Doubling your sensor size gets you 2700 lw/ph compared to 2300 lw/ph using the same test with no teasing. Thats one tester's reality. But then, who knows what the truth is. Simple fact is, if you read through different tests from different sites, they all can't be right. None the less certain trends emerge.
The beauty of lw/ph is it doesn't care what size your sensor is. It's a sensor independent rating system. It leaves more artificial theories based on magnification etc, which are essentially theories based on two cameras from times gone by when the same film could be used in two different cameras. The obvious flaw in lw/ph is, the test results are so different from different labs. if it were a reliable standard, that wouldn't be true.
The more you get into this the more you realize statements like like
Quote: In fact because the aps-c image is magnified more, you need better technique and glass on the aps-c side.
based on my own experience I do think you need better glass. Perhaps not so much better technique.
Taken without qualification as a simple statement of fact, doesn't tell the whole story. Then you look at a print from 16 mp Sigma DP2 Merrill being almost identical to a print made at the same time from by a D800, and you realize, there's a lot moe going on than simple math.
ANd if the largest you ever view your prints is on a screen 1500 pixels deep, you are actually throwing away resolution from a D800 to get to that size. At that point the issue is not who started with more resolution, but with who is throwing away more resolution. Saying you have to magnify your APS-c prints more than your FF prints ignores current practice of using files at a reduced size.
Months ago I suggested that at for an image 3000 pixels across, A D800 image and a K-5 image would be virtually the same ( discarding differences in DoF etc.) and so far, I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. For the most part our images are not magnified at all they are reduced, and at a certain point (like 3000 pixels in the example above) the original resolution becomes meaningless.