[les24preludes]

Do Sensors ?Outresolve? Lenses?

I tried to work out from the above the question "at what level of Megapixels does a sensor outresolve a lens" but it's far too technical. I did find this:
• 300 DPI at 12x18" = 3,600 x 5,400 pixels = 20 MP
• It takes 25MP to simulate 35mm film
• It takes 100MP to simulate medium format film
• It takes 500MP to simulate 4x5” film

But what consumers will end up with is wholly another question. Look at music downloads - almost entirely MP3 when they could easily be lossless CD quality at the very least. Pretty hard to download music at even CD resolution. Go figure....

We may not be defining the format - we may be defining the consumer. Or the marketing dept's concept of what a "consumer" either is or ought to be.

Andy

---

Last edited by les24preludes; 12-25-2012 at 11:27 AM.

[wpvv]

In my personal experience it takes far less MP to simulate film, even with fine grained slide or b&w film. May be with some special black and white, but just comparing some Fuji professional 800 film (very good film at the time) for events and 800 ISO on the K5 now. The K5 prints will be better in almost every respect.

[slip]

Everyone seems to want a FF that's all good except for sports or wildlife where the crop sensor has the edge not only in the cropping ability but also FF camera all seem to have a fairly slow burst rate.
Not to mention FF carry a hefty cost increase.

If the image quality became the same as FF I would never need to migrate from a crop sensor. Cheaper long zooms is the main reason

Thanks

Randy

[Steve Beswick]

... much better image quality than what was available for the 35mm film format.

Um, no. Film is capable of so much more than digital it's not even funny. There is a lot more to image quality than resolution.

[kadajawi]

I think I'd go for a mirrorless FF if it had a good electronic viewfinder -- no big mirror slapping, could be more compact and maybe the burst rate a bit faster. For telephoto, I have to admit I am intrigued with what people are doing with the Q and K-mount lenses...

Reason to go for FF is the big viewfinder. That, shallow DoF and more wide angle. Otherwise I see no reason to go for FF.

[vonBaloney]

Reason to go for FF is the big viewfinder. That, shallow DoF and more wide angle. Otherwise I see no reason to go for FF.

Superior IQ is the main reason. I'd love high-quality 24 or 36mp images I can print big.

[Ash]

We're approaching film quality with current generation sensors, but yes, I do wonder how much sensor development is driven by uninformed consumer demand rather than practical need. I suppose camera company marketing research is focused to specific client groups to ascertain each groups' needs/desires. There is more room to move in terms of IQ with larger formats, but there will always be a market for the smaller formats, especially APS-C - as their cost to IQ ratio is great and affordable to a good proportion of consumers.

[SteveB]

At the moment, if you want 24MP or more quality then it's FF as 24MP on APS-C seems to have zero extra real resolution or DR compared to Pentax 16MP, just bigger files no better than upscaled 16MP. FF IQ is definitely better but the improvement even over the K-30 is marginal. I have a feeling Pentax would get more out of FF than the others.

[Ash]

The 36Mp from the D800 cropped to 16Mp are at least as good in quality as that coming from the K-5. For a FF, the D800 sensor seems to have hit a sweet spot for resolution, which I hope Sony or other eligible sensor manufacturer can match for Pentax's R&D department.

[kadajawi]

Superior IQ is the main reason. I'd love high-quality 24 or 36mp images I can print big.

To be honest I was perfectly fine with my 6 MP Pentax. Now I have 16. Guess it is better, but I don't need more. If I shoot for a client they also don't need that much...

[Steve Beswick]

Regarding the film v. digital debate, can everyone stop saying that we are "approaching the same quality", when what they are really talking about is resolution? There are many more variables to consider, and some of them are subjective.

[Ash]

I recognise resolution is only one of the aspects in determining comparative qualities between analog and digital, but the comparisons can be made and quantified. It may not be widely accepted, but there is clear evidence that image quality obtained from modern day sensors are giving film a harder time to top.

[GlennG]

To be honest I was perfectly fine with my 6 MP Pentax. Now I have 16. Guess it is better, but I don't need more. If I shoot for a client they also don't need that much...

My 6 MP is pretty good for me, too. And who prints that big anyway, and if they do, then looks at the print from 12 inches away?! Big prints are viewed from farther distances, and then the resolution does not need to be so much. 6 MP would print at 20X30 inches at 100 dpi, which, viewed at 3 ft. I doubt one could discern the resolution. Heck, even Ken Rockw....... says no one really needs more than 6 MP. So what are we all really doing - supporting the marketers?

[les24preludes]

Why are we exclusively talking about prints? A lot of people look at their photos on computer screens. And increasingly on home theatre setups with lager screens or projectors. What's the situation there regarding resolution? You have to take present computer+screen resolution and IQ into consideration, and these are going to evolve as well.

[Pheo]

Why are we exclusively talking about prints? A lot of people look at their photos on computer screens. And increasingly on home theatre setups with lager screens or projectors. What's the situation there regarding resolution? You have to take present computer+screen resolution and IQ into consideration, and these are going to evolve as well.

Even full screen, most people won't be looking above 1280x1024 (or the 16:9 version of that!) so I'm not sure it's that relevant.

For me the only advantage of more resolution is benefits in cropping while maintaining IQ