Sensor resolution that makes sense on FF and cost

**UncleVanya** · 02-23-2015, 06:01 PM

Earlier in the thread I said 24mp in cropped mode. I think I've been convinced that 16mp in cropped mode would be sufficient.

jonby · 02-23-2015, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Maybe I simply lack imagination, but I can't see many users benefiting from such a 'kitchen sink' array of cropping options for stills. Although square would be interesting for Instagrammers, I guess.

Well, square was a highly valued and much used format with film for decades, so why should this only interest Instagrammers? It's just as valid a format to compose in as it ever was. Less used perhaps ... because few cameras support it? Many people seem to dismiss variable aspect ratio support as some kind of gimmicky feature for amateurs to play with. The 3:2 aspect ratio we all seem to accept as 'normal' has come about fairly arbitrarily as a hangover from 35mm film, which in its time was rarely considered the ideal shape by serious photographers (and indeed not by this one). With lower resolution sensors, some of us have perhaps got into the habit of avoiding cropping because we don't feel like we can afford to lose the resolution, but with a very high resolution sensor, this will give us increased freedom to crop as desired. If this is the case, then why not support this properly by giving us some visual indication of the intended compositional limits? If you compose and frame very carefully, but want to work to a shape governed by the subject rather than the sensor, you need a clear indication of where the frame edges will be. Having to 'imagine' where they might be and cropping later is not a very deliberate or definite way to do things; and if you are working in this way, you know you don't need the pixels outside the intended frame edges, so why waste storage space and editing time dealing with them?

Originally posted by rawr

Video ratios like 16:9 make sense, but you wouldn't use them in the OVF since you'd be shooting via the rear LCD or an external monitor.

Why would you necessarily be using the live view when shooting 16:9 stills?

rawr · 02-24-2015, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by jonby

Why would you necessarily be using the live view when shooting 16:9 stills?

Which DSLR at the moment shoots 16:9 stills using the OVF?

Whenever you ask people for what they want in a camera, you usually up with two classes of response: those who want a huge pile of bells and whistles in the camera (like 15 different cropping outlines in the viewfinder...), or those who want the opposite (like a digital LX with no rear LCD, no built in flash, and of course, no video).

It's pointless debating these feature options. Let's just let the Ricoh engineers figure it out. I trust their judgement.

Dr_who · 02-24-2015, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Earlier in the thread I said 24mp in cropped mode. I think I've been convinced that 16mp in cropped mode would be sufficient.

I agree. I've seen so many nice pictures taken with K5 and K5 II/s on these forums. I can't imagine people saying 16MP isn't enough in cropped mode.

jsherman999 · 02-24-2015, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Dr_who

I agree. I've seen so many nice pictures taken with K5 and K5 II/s on these forums. I can't imagine people saying 16MP isn't enough in cropped mode.

Agreed. In no universe is 'k5 - level' output "bad".

**UncleVanya** · 02-24-2015, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Dr_who

I agree. I've seen so many nice pictures taken with K5 and K5 II/s on these forums. I can't imagine people saying 16MP isn't enough in cropped mode.

My thinking was that this would match the K3 and make it fully capable of producing the same output as the K3 when in crop mode. This would allow a pro to have two FF bodies and maintain full image capability across all lenses and not have to have K3's as well to match prior output levels.

John Shriver · 03-19-2015, 07:19 PM

Price of sensors goes up dramatically with both size and pixel density. Probably geometrically. The reason is yield, less good sensors on one silicon wafer. Bigger means more possibility that a defect wrecks the whole sensor. Pixel density because even smaller defects can knock out a sensor site, wrecking the whole sensor. So a 51mp sensor is probably 4x the price of a 36mp sensor.

Intel makes a "perfect wafer" of processors (every chip on it works) maybe once a year. That's from a company that probably runs the best IC fabs in the world in terms of yield.

Imaging sensors are more critical than digital chips because every pixel has to have the same characteristics, it's not just "on-off" like a computer chip.

Full-frame sensors are also expensive because they are twice the size of the exposure area of the steppers that expose the resist for photolithography in production. So you have one mask set for the left half, and one for the right half. Have to align perfectly and be exposed perfectly. Really tanks the yield.

That's why the 645z sensor is four dies assembled together.

Pentax has waited until full-frame sensors came down from "stratospherically expensive" to "rather expensive". Sensible move.

HoustonBob · 03-20-2015, 07:34 AM - **1 Like**

When we compare the resolution of film with a digital camera we have to be careful to compare apples to apples. The highest resolution COLOR film, as far as I know, was ISO 25 Kodachrome. Kodachrome 25 had a resolution of approximately 50 lp/mm. It takes about 8 megapixels to theoretically have that resolution. Any DSLR currently on the market exceeds the resolution of the highest resolution 35mm color film ever made. The finest grain, highest resolution, 35 mm color film currently on the market is Ektar 100. A K200d exceeds the resolution of that color film; prints made with a K200d on real world subjects have details which are not on an Ektar 100 35mm negative viewed under a microscope. That is an experiment I have run. All of the 35mm films that exceed the resolution of current DSLRs are BLACK and WHITE films. The 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds was the first DSLR that clearly exceeded the resolution of 35mm color film, and that camera debuted in Sept of 2002. A K3 -with its theoretical resolution of 84 lp/mm - far exceeds any 35mm color film ever made.

Gimbal · 03-20-2015, 08:52 AM

I don't know if all the facts above are accurate, but let’s say it is. So what? Has technology moved to far, are the cameras to good? I don’t get the point.

TomE · 03-20-2015, 10:11 AM

Kodachrome started out as ASA 10, but then was bumped up to ASA 25 because 10 was too slow. Digital may have reached the detail of film but still lags behind film in DR.

Winder · 03-20-2015, 12:32 PM - **1 Like**

I think we see a 36Mp sensor without an AA filter and a whole lot of processing power and buffer.

rawr · 03-20-2015, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Winder

a 36Mp sensor without an AA filter and a whole lot of processing power and buffer

A Pentax K810.

Winder · 03-20-2015, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by rawr

A Pentax K810.

If it had the D810 AF I would take it. Ricoh has to keep improving the AF speed and accuracy.

nomadkng · 03-20-2015, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Winder

If it had the D810 AF I would take it. Ricoh has to keep improving the AF speed and accuracy.

That is basically what I'm dreaming of. A D810 for which I don't have to buy a whole kit of new lenses.

Winder · 03-20-2015, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

That is basically what I'm dreaming of. A D810 for which I don't have to buy a whole kit of new lenses.

It will be better than a D810. It will have:

IBIS
DNG support
Pentax ergonomics
Pentax Menus
Quiet shutter

02-24-2015, 02:38 AM	#63
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by jonby Why would you necessarily be using the live view when shooting 16:9 stills? Which DSLR at the moment shoots 16:9 stills using the OVF? Whenever you ask people for what they want in a camera, you usually up with two classes of response: those who want a huge pile of bells and whistles in the camera (like 15 different cropping outlines in the viewfinder...), or those who want the opposite (like a digital LX with no rear LCD, no built in flash, and of course, no video). It's pointless debating these feature options. Let's just let the Ricoh engineers figure it out. I trust their judgement. Last edited by rawr; 02-24-2015 at 02:55 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Combined effect of defraction, lens defocus and sensor/film size on resolution	ARCASIA	Pentax Medium Format	8	11-22-2020 03:19 PM
Can't make sense of CRIS diagnosis and estimate	ephophex	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-21-2012 03:55 PM
How to make sense of the DOF preview/Optical preview on the on/off dial ?	photoleet	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	04-17-2012 04:22 AM
Manual lens size conversion on DSLR... (if that makes sense)	ComputerControlled	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	02-25-2012 06:24 PM
Comparing FF to APS-C: What difference does the bigger sensor make?	dosdan	Photography Articles	26	07-29-2011 02:53 PM

02-23-2015, 06:01 PM	#61
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Earlier in the thread I said 24mp in cropped mode. I think I've been convinced that 16mp in cropped mode would be sufficient.

02-23-2015, 08:43 PM	#62
jonby Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 161	Originally posted by rawr Maybe I simply lack imagination, but I can't see many users benefiting from such a 'kitchen sink' array of cropping options for stills. Although square would be interesting for Instagrammers, I guess. Well, square was a highly valued and much used format with film for decades, so why should this only interest Instagrammers? It's just as valid a format to compose in as it ever was. Less used perhaps ... because few cameras support it? Many people seem to dismiss variable aspect ratio support as some kind of gimmicky feature for amateurs to play with. The 3:2 aspect ratio we all seem to accept as 'normal' has come about fairly arbitrarily as a hangover from 35mm film, which in its time was rarely considered the ideal shape by serious photographers (and indeed not by this one). With lower resolution sensors, some of us have perhaps got into the habit of avoiding cropping because we don't feel like we can afford to lose the resolution, but with a very high resolution sensor, this will give us increased freedom to crop as desired. If this is the case, then why not support this properly by giving us some visual indication of the intended compositional limits? If you compose and frame very carefully, but want to work to a shape governed by the subject rather than the sensor, you need a clear indication of where the frame edges will be. Having to 'imagine' where they might be and cropping later is not a very deliberate or definite way to do things; and if you are working in this way, you know you don't need the pixels outside the intended frame edges, so why waste storage space and editing time dealing with them? Originally posted by rawr Video ratios like 16:9 make sense, but you wouldn't use them in the OVF since you'd be shooting via the rear LCD or an external monitor. Why would you necessarily be using the live view when shooting 16:9 stills?

02-24-2015, 11:07 AM	#64
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	Originally posted by UncleVanya Earlier in the thread I said 24mp in cropped mode. I think I've been convinced that 16mp in cropped mode would be sufficient. I agree. I've seen so many nice pictures taken with K5 and K5 II/s on these forums. I can't imagine people saying 16MP isn't enough in cropped mode.

02-24-2015, 11:22 AM	#65
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Dr_who I agree. I've seen so many nice pictures taken with K5 and K5 II/s on these forums. I can't imagine people saying 16MP isn't enough in cropped mode. Agreed. In no universe is 'k5 - level' output "bad".

02-24-2015, 12:33 PM	#66
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Dr_who I agree. I've seen so many nice pictures taken with K5 and K5 II/s on these forums. I can't imagine people saying 16MP isn't enough in cropped mode. My thinking was that this would match the K3 and make it fully capable of producing the same output as the K3 when in crop mode. This would allow a pro to have two FF bodies and maintain full image capability across all lenses and not have to have K3's as well to match prior output levels.

03-19-2015, 07:19 PM	#67
John Shriver Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Arlington, MA Posts: 160	Price of sensors goes up dramatically with both size and pixel density. Probably geometrically. The reason is yield, less good sensors on one silicon wafer. Bigger means more possibility that a defect wrecks the whole sensor. Pixel density because even smaller defects can knock out a sensor site, wrecking the whole sensor. So a 51mp sensor is probably 4x the price of a 36mp sensor. Intel makes a "perfect wafer" of processors (every chip on it works) maybe once a year. That's from a company that probably runs the best IC fabs in the world in terms of yield. Imaging sensors are more critical than digital chips because every pixel has to have the same characteristics, it's not just "on-off" like a computer chip. Full-frame sensors are also expensive because they are twice the size of the exposure area of the steppers that expose the resist for photolithography in production. So you have one mask set for the left half, and one for the right half. Have to align perfectly and be exposed perfectly. Really tanks the yield. That's why the 645z sensor is four dies assembled together. Pentax has waited until full-frame sensors came down from "stratospherically expensive" to "rather expensive". Sensible move.

03-20-2015, 07:34 AM - 1 Like	#68
HoustonBob Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 265	When we compare the resolution of film with a digital camera we have to be careful to compare apples to apples. The highest resolution COLOR film, as far as I know, was ISO 25 Kodachrome. Kodachrome 25 had a resolution of approximately 50 lp/mm. It takes about 8 megapixels to theoretically have that resolution. Any DSLR currently on the market exceeds the resolution of the highest resolution 35mm color film ever made. The finest grain, highest resolution, 35 mm color film currently on the market is Ektar 100. A K200d exceeds the resolution of that color film; prints made with a K200d on real world subjects have details which are not on an Ektar 100 35mm negative viewed under a microscope. That is an experiment I have run. All of the 35mm films that exceed the resolution of current DSLRs are BLACK and WHITE films. The 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds was the first DSLR that clearly exceeded the resolution of 35mm color film, and that camera debuted in Sept of 2002. A K3 -with its theoretical resolution of 84 lp/mm - far exceeds any 35mm color film ever made.

03-20-2015, 08:52 AM	#69
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	I don't know if all the facts above are accurate, but let’s say it is. So what? Has technology moved to far, are the cameras to good? I don’t get the point.

03-20-2015, 10:11 AM	#70
TomE Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 299	Kodachrome started out as ASA 10, but then was bumped up to ASA 25 because 10 was too slow. Digital may have reached the detail of film but still lags behind film in DR.

03-20-2015, 12:32 PM - 1 Like	#71
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	I think we see a 36Mp sensor without an AA filter and a whole lot of processing power and buffer.

03-20-2015, 03:04 PM	#72
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Winder a 36Mp sensor without an AA filter and a whole lot of processing power and buffer A Pentax K810.

03-20-2015, 03:13 PM	#73
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by rawr A Pentax K810. If it had the D810 AF I would take it. Ricoh has to keep improving the AF speed and accuracy.

03-20-2015, 03:56 PM	#74
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	Originally posted by Winder If it had the D810 AF I would take it. Ricoh has to keep improving the AF speed and accuracy. That is basically what I'm dreaming of. A D810 for which I don't have to buy a whole kit of new lenses.

03-20-2015, 04:06 PM	#75
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by nomadkng That is basically what I'm dreaming of. A D810 for which I don't have to buy a whole kit of new lenses. It will be better than a D810. It will have: IBIS DNG support Pentax ergonomics Pentax Menus Quiet shutter