Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What if 36mp DSLRs were around the corner?  (Read 11679 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8183



WWW
« on: November 21, 2011, 07:43:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Some interesting points. This would be even more true if the rumors were accurate about some of these DSLRs not having an AA filter.

http://www.diglloyd.com/

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2011, 08:19:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link Bernard - Very interesting reading.

If Nikon do bring out the much rumoured 36mpx camera it will indeed set the cat amongst the proverbial pigeons.
Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2011, 08:22:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the link.
It seems that in order to extract 36 mp of detail one has to shoot always like shooting jewelry at extreme close-up. LV Mode 2, flash, tripod, remote control, etc. I've been doing that trying to extract 21.         Hey! Much better alternative that a home mortgage for a DMFB.
That's ok with me.
Eduardo

Some interesting points. This would be even more true if the rumors were accurate about some of these DSLRs not having an AA filter.

http://www.diglloyd.com/

Cheers,
Bernard

« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 08:26:19 PM by uaiomex » Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2011, 09:39:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see that it changes anything regarding technique.  Cameras with equivalent (or smaller) pixels already exist on the market and have for several years.  A given absolute amount of shake (due to wind, slap, etc.) will have just as much pixel-level blur on these existing cameras. 
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8183



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2011, 09:52:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link Bernard - Very interesting reading.

If Nikon do bring out the much rumoured 36mpx camera it will indeed set the cat amongst the proverbial pigeons.

Well, Sony and Canon are probably close behind with similarly speced bodies.

The key in my mind, but it was already the case with the D3x, is that using live view is going to be the only reliable way to achieve focus.

Will we ever need another camera for landscape applications? :-) I can see myself keeping an Optical Coast 60mm f4 lens set a f7.1 permanently on this camera and only use it with a robust stitching head.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7635


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2011, 10:56:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have an Sony Alpha 55 SLT, which is an APS-C camera with 16 MP. Would this sensor be full frame it would be 36 MP. I cannot compare the A55 SLT to Canon, Nikon or Phase that I don't own, but image quality on it's own is good, not that far behind my Alpha 900. So I don't think that 36 MP full frame will be more problematic than 24 MP. The images will gain somewhat in quality, as OLP filtering could be weaker, and the images will also sharpen better.

Actually, it seems that OLP filtering may have been reduced a bit to much on the SLT A55, I can see moiré and aliasing artifacts a bit more often than I'd prefer.

Best regards
Erik



I don't see that it changes anything regarding technique.  Cameras with equivalent (or smaller) pixels already exist on the market and have for several years.  A given absolute amount of shake (due to wind, slap, etc.) will have just as much pixel-level blur on these existing cameras. 
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2011, 11:20:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see that it changes anything regarding technique.  Cameras with equivalent (or smaller) pixels already exist on the market and have for several years.  A given absolute amount of shake (due to wind, slap, etc.) will have just as much pixel-level blur on these existing cameras. 
The pixel count and angular resolution is more important than pixel size alone: getting the same FOV in a larger format with more pixels of the same size means a longer focal length, so that the same degree of camera movement causes more image movement across the focal plane, so more "pixels-worth" of blur.
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580


« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2011, 02:34:51 AM »
ReplyReply

36 megapixels is exactly the same pixel pitch (4.73 um) as the 16 megapixel APS-C D7000, which is a little bit smaller than the phase one IQ180 back at 5.17 um, and a bit larger than Canon 7D at 4.16 um. 36 megapixels on a fullframe sensor is not an extreme amount, one would rather say that the current fullframe sensors have compared to other formats extremely high pixel pitch.

One should also take into account that the larger the image circle the more difficult it is to make a lens resolve small pixels, so you can probably have a little bit smaller pixel pitch on 135 fullframe than on medium format.

Putting a full-frame lens on a D7000 and you can see how the center portion of the rumoured D800 sensor will perform. It works well, so I'm certainly not too worried about lens / focus performance. Before edit I said you could see autofocus performance too, but that is the old mistake of mixing up pixel size with resolution. With 36 megapixels fullframe you would need longer focal lengths for the same FoV and get shorter DoF and need more precise autofocus. Will it be good enough? Don't know, not too worried though. When I myself use autofocus it is for hand-held action, and then resolution is limited by that I'm holding the camera in my hands anyway... on a tripod I use live view-assisted manual focus almost all the time.

Say if you need very good corner performance, zooms with wide angle will probably not perform that great, neither will extremely wide lenses (wider than 24mm). But primes at f/8 will most likely give you very good performance corner-to-corner, and tele lenses will probably also work well.

And that field curvature "problem", is it really a problem for anything else than shooting flat test charts?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 04:34:10 AM by torger » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8183



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2011, 02:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

And that field curvature "problem", is it really a problem for anything else than shooting flat test charts?

Yes, it can be at infinity.

But anyway, the answer to all these concerns is once more of course stitching. Perfect corners guaranteed 100% of the time.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580


« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2011, 03:07:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it can be at infinity.

But anyway, the answer to all these concerns is once more of course stitching. Perfect corners guaranteed 100% of the time.

I was thinking that you put the focus where you want it (without recomposing afterwards) and that it does not really matter much if the focal plane is flat or is curved, as long as it is not extremely curved, and as long as you are not shooting flat things. I don't really know how curved it can be though, I haven't seen any measurements, it would be interesting.

In landscape with focus at infinity you typically want large DoF, and I thought it would be large enough to make the curvature effect negligible. But perhaps that is not true?
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2011, 03:17:09 AM »
ReplyReply

but will it still be 3::2 format?  Ugh!  After 4x5, 6x6 ... I just can't get used to the DSLR format anymore.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8183



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2011, 03:27:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I was thinking that you put the focus where you want it (without recomposing afterwards) and that it does not really matter much if the focal plane is flat or is curved, as long as it is not extremely curved, and as long as you are not shooting flat things. I don't really know how curved it can be though, I haven't seen any measurements, it would be interesting.

In landscape with focus at infinity you typically want large DoF, and I thought it would be large enough to make the curvature effect negligible. But perhaps that is not true?

That my assumption as well, but it seems that on some lenses fild curvature is strong enough that the corners at not focused at infinity when the center is even at f8.

You are going to ask me what lens, are you not? :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8183



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2011, 03:29:02 AM »
ReplyReply

but will it still be 3::2 format?  Ugh!  After 4x5, 6x6 ... I just can't get used to the DSLR format anymore.

Just stitch, crop or keep not using a Dslr. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580


« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2011, 03:32:14 AM »
ReplyReply

but will it still be 3::2 format?  Ugh!  After 4x5, 6x6 ... I just can't get used to the DSLR format anymore.

Yep... I've heard that it is not easy to change due to the flange distance and mirror box size, that is to change the format you would have to do a crop sensor (not use the full image circle).

For me personally I don't really know if I like the 3:2 format or not. For stitching it is good (stitch vertically get lots of res), and for panoramic crops (I quite often do wide formats), but for portrait form factors it kind of sucks. Probably 4:3 would be the ideal compromise for my shooting style, but since I use all sorts of form factors it does not matter too much, would gain in some cases, lose in others.
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580


« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2011, 03:51:14 AM »
ReplyReply

That my assumption as well, but it seems that on some lenses fild curvature is strong enough that the corners at not focused at infinity when the center is even at f8.

You are going to ask me what lens, are you not? :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

As long as it is not my favorite Canon TS-E 24mm II I'm good ;-). Quick search of the net it seems like Canon EF 14/2.8L II could be such a lens. If it is only wide angle lenses that have these problems I guess it may be quite small in practice. At f/8 for a 24mm lens you'd have DoF from 7.2m to infinity when focusing at inifinity, and the corner would have to be focused on less than 3.6 meters to not still have DoF up to infinity. In other words, for small apertures and short focal lengths there is a very wide range of focusing distances when you have a sharp infinity, so wide that it seems to me that no lens could have *that bad* curvature, but perhaps they can? For a 135mm lens there is the range 115 meters to infinity for f/8, seems like you would need to have extreme curvature on these too. But I do see people talking about field curvature issues quite often, I have not just understood which circumstances that this is a problem. If it is only short DoF shooting of flat surfaces at close to medium range I think I can ignore it for my shooting style.
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2011, 05:53:58 AM »
ReplyReply

.... But I do see people talking about field curvature issues quite often, I have not just understood which circumstances that this is a problem. ...

I use the 24mm PCE nikkor and if i want to use it fully shifted i have to use f9-f11 and use live view in the utter corners ( at f9-f11) to get even sharpness across the entire frame...



Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2011, 06:25:45 AM »
ReplyReply

The pixel count and angular resolution is more important than pixel size alone: getting the same FOV in a larger format with more pixels of the same size means a longer focal length, so that the same degree of camera movement causes more image movement across the focal plane, so more "pixels-worth" of blur.

I can see that being the case at the image plane.  But in a print it doesn't make as much sense.  It's similar to the depth of field issue, I think.  At the image plane smaller sensored cameras have more DOF but in a print not so because those smaller pixels have to be 'magnified' more to make a print of the same size as a larger sensored camera.  It seems the same would be so for 'pixel blur' in this instance. 
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8183



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2011, 06:34:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I can see that being the case at the image plane.  But in a print it doesn't make as much sense.  It's similar to the depth of field issue, I think.  At the image plane smaller sensored cameras have more DOF but in a print not so because those smaller pixels have to be 'magnified' more to make a print of the same size as a larger sensored camera.  It seems the same would be so for 'pixel blur' in this instance. 

An image 4800 pixels wide printed at 240DPI will be 20 inch wide, whatever the size of the sensor used to capture the image, right?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580


« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2011, 07:06:28 AM »
ReplyReply

It is a common mistake to mix up pixel and/or sensor size and resolution, I do it myself from time to time. Resolution is what counts.

36 megapixel on a small sensor has the same DoF as 36 megapixel on a large sensor if just looking at the sensor alone. The difference is that if the sensor is larger you must use longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view, and thus at maximum aperture you indeed get a shallower DoF. If you shoot to get maximum DoF there is no difference, you can use a smaller aperture before diffraction issue occurs when using a larger sensor, but that is cancelled out by the need of longer focal length.

The same counts for camera shake. It is about resolution. The larger sensor needs longer focal length to cover the same angle of view, and then the angular resolution is the same, and thus the same affected by camera shake. I recently heard Canon use the false conclusion "bigger pixels = less camera shake problems" in their marketing material for 1DX, what you should say is "lower resolution = camera shake less noticable since it may not be resolved", but I guess that is not as sexy.

The "old truths" about format size and DoF etc comes from the film days when resolution was much more limited on the smaller formats than they are today.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 07:13:41 AM by torger » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2011, 07:16:31 AM »
ReplyReply

An image 4800 pixels wide printed at 240DPI will be 20 inch wide, whatever the size of the sensor used to capture the image, right?

Cheers,
Bernard


True.  But those smaller pixels will need to be 'enlarged' more to make that 20" print.  That additional 'enlargement' causes degradation.  Whether it's DOF or accentuating camera shake.

There used to be a very good website (now gone) that dealt with photographic myths.  The myth of smaller sensors having greater DOF was just one that was dealth with. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad