# Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!



## CanonFanBoy (Oct 25, 2012)

I think I probably heard a thousand times in our forum ... "22Mpx is more than enough ... how much more do you need?" ... Whenever this question pop-up at me, I always wonder ... if there is ever a living Ansel Adam or Richard Avedon hearing this .... what will be their responds?

Back in the old film days, these two Grant Masters used 8x10 films to create the absolute best images (both in terms of IQ & creativity) in the field of Landscape (Ansel Adam) and Fashion & Portrait (Richard Avedon) respectively ... and I am sure their works will always remain in the books and museums for generations to come!

If one converts a 8x10 film with a modern scanner ... say with 4000dpi ... a single 8x10 film will look like (4000 ppi)(8 in)(4000 ppi)(10 in) = 1280 Mpixels or 1.28Gb !!!! 

So ... my question is ... is our current DSLR technology still coming a long way behind, in the eyes of the Grant Masters? Or ... if you are a Grant Master, will you be happy with 22Mpx or even with the Hasselblad H4D-200MS of 200Mpx, if you are leaving a legacy of works behind?


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 25, 2012)

I think there's a trade off for everything. For example take records & CD's. Those old analog records sounded great and when CD's first entered the scene I thought they sounded crappy. As time went on and as tech progressed, CD's sounded better. In regards to film & digital, it's kind of the same thing. Digital was very convenient at first as you didn't have to worry about taking bad pics, you just deleted them. You didn't have to run and get them developed after 24 exposures. Digital is getting better and better all the time.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 25, 2012)

I think that is a lot more dpi than most would could consider necessary but I am not certain since I do not convert to print my shots. I know 600dpi is considered a high quality copy for business printing on sales brochures.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 25, 2012)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think I probably heard a thousand times in our forum ... "22Mpx is more than enough ... how much more do you need?" ... Whenever this question pop-up at me, I always wonder ... if there is ever a living Ansel Adam or Richard Avedon hearing this .... what will be their responds?
> 
> Back in the old film days, these two Grant Masters used 8x10 films to create the absolute best images (both in terms of IQ & creativity) in the field of Landscape (Ansel Adam) and Fashion & Portrait (Richard Avedon) respectively ... and I am sure their works will always remain in the books and museums for generations to come!
> 
> ...



Large format will always be king in Real Pro landscape work. 4x5 or 8x10

Medium format is a good second and 35mm just doesn't have the same IQ as the LF or MF. I think 22mp is a good number for 35mm digital.

If Ansel Adams were to shoot digital, he would probably be shooting a Phase one Back adapted to Large format bellows, lenses, Along with his filters. The best he could get.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Oct 25, 2012)

Have a look at some actual Adams prints.

First, of course, they're marvelous -- absolutely fantastic works of art.

But, second...you can get at least comparable and often better sharpness and image quality with today's high-end DSLRs.

Heresy, I know -- to suggest that puny 135 format might be better than Ansel Adams's legendary 8x10 view camera. But today's lenses are far superior to the ones he had access to, and digital sensors are far superior to his film emulsions.

So, yeah. When I can make prints with my 22 megapickle 5DIII that are technically (though not, to be certain, artistically) superior to what Adams did, I've got plenty of resolution.

More would be absolutely loverly, of course -- especially since I do some fine art giclée reproduction work. Hell, I'd drool over an 8x10 camera with the pixel density of a digicam, the dynamic range of a Nikon, and the rendering quality of a Canon.

But that doesn't mean that what I have isn't already enough.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## birdman (Oct 25, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Have a look at some actual Adams prints.
> 
> First, of course, they're marvelous -- absolutely fantastic works of art.
> 
> ...



Not quite sure about that. I know that more MP always enables final product to have higher resolution. The old fallacy about lens outresolving sensors, or vice versa is just plain lame. Ansel Adams used small apertures, and quite frankly I've ALWAYS HEARD that medium/large format lenses are much more superior to 35mm. Even if they are 70-80 years old in technology, large format film has a TON of detail. 

This being said, 22MP should be enough. Depends on your printing needs. I have the D800 and am nowhere near maxing out its potential. 36MP vs. 22MP is mostly noticeable on print sizes 24 X 36" as well as in cropping. Comparing my former 5d2 images to the D800 does not yield much, if any, differences in visible resolution.


----------



## jthomson (Oct 25, 2012)

2n10 said:


> I think that is a lot more dpi than most would could consider necessary but I am not certain since I do not convert to print my shots. I know 600dpi is considered a high quality copy for business printing on sales brochures.



And at 600 dpi you would get : 600x8x600x10 =28.8 Mpx.


Personally having just upgraded from a 15Mpx to a 22Mpx camera, I have noticed that lightroom has slowed down on opening the files. I can't imagine being happy with much bigger files on my computer. And I have a reasonable computer, a 4 core i7 at 3.4 Ghz with 16GB of ram .

Also, most of my images end up at 1400x768 = 1.075 Mpx to fit the projector at the photo club anyway. 

So yes I would say 22 Mpx is enough for most applications.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2012)

Why is it that so many people act as though Ansel Adams is the standard that all photography should be judged by?

Yes, he made many great images, but that was 70-80 years ago. There is nothing wrong with trying to emulate an artist from the 1930s and 40s, but you do yourself an injustice if you don't progress beyond that. So much has happened in the photographic world since. 

Do yourself a favor. Go to a library and take a look at what has been happening in the past half century. You are cheating yourselves if you don't know anything about Frank, Arbus, Cartier-Bresson, Shore, Friedlander, Meyerowitz, Gowin, Eggleston, Winogrand, Uelsmann, Christianberry. After you've spent some time with these masters, start exploring what some contemporary photographers are doing. 

Ansel Adams was great, but really, who wants to live in the past? (And, frankly, Edward Weston was better)


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 25, 2012)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "22Mpx is more than enough ... how much more do you need?" ... Whenever this question pop-up at me, I always wonder ... if there is ever a living Ansel Adam or Richard Avedon hearing this .... what will be their responds?



Ansel Adams and old landscape pros used larger formats...THAT is the key difference. 
How many pixels is enough in a *35mm* small sensor format is the *real* question. And yes, it has been answered 2000 times here on the forums for "fanboys" (great screen name  btw). 
Fanboys won't rest till 35mm sensor crams 5000000BizillionKazillion pixels and then come back with the same old, trite, boring question.... "Why can't we have more pixels?". *Yawn*


----------



## jasonsim (Oct 25, 2012)

22MP is plenty for me. But I might enjoy the added cropping potential from a 36MP or more raw image ;-). As long as the added MPixels do not cause too much noise; or noise that cannot be easily corrected.

But then again, I am no grant master. If I was, I'd be living large with free grant money! 

Sorry...could not help myself.

Thanks and kind regards,
Jason Simmons


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 26, 2012)

At 1.28 GB per photo, my 8 GB CF card would fill up real fast


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 26, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Why is it that so many people act as though Ansel Adams is the standard that all photography should be judged by?
> 
> Yes, he made many great images, but that was 70-80 years ago. There is nothing wrong with trying to emulate an artist from the 1930s and 40s, but you do yourself an injustice if you don't progress beyond that. So much has happened in the photographic world since.
> 
> ...



haha I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way!


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

I think you are making an incorrect generalization regarding "megapixels" in a scanned film slide. You might indeed be able to scan an 8x10 image at 4000dpi, but don't forget that film grain is going to be the limiting factor in terms of resolution when you push a scan that far, not your DPI. If you make an 8x10 drum scan at 4000dpi, you won't really be gaining resolution...you'll just be putting more pixels to each grain (especially for older photos like those from Ansel Adams...newer film like Velvia 50 4x5 slides actually have pretty good grain characteristics, although a 4000dpi scan is still going to be overkill). In general, when it comes to current 4x5 slid film landscape photographers, most don't scan much higher than 2800dpi (and at 8-bit rather than 16-bit color at that), and then only if they intend to print immensely large...300dpi to 900dpi are more common targets for 4x5 film users. A 2800dpi scan of a 4x5" or 1400dpi scan of 8x10" slide film is still 157mp.

One also has to determine the merits of the tradeoffs. A 1.3 gigapixel digital photo in 16-bit TIFF format is a 60 GIGABYTE image file. Not 60 megabytes, 60 GIGABYTES (and at 8-bit it would still be 30 gigs). In terms of a compressed TIFF file, the size on disk will be smaller, but if you wish to load that file into a tool like Photoshop, you are going to need an unholy amount of physical RAM to do so, on top of some immense swap disks as well. If you start working with layers, your working TIFF could quickly become 120, 240, 480 GIGS. At the moment, there really isn't a personal computer or even a high powered workstation on the planet that could handle that. You would have half a dozen bottlenecks, from bus bandwidth, to memory throughput to disk throughput (even assuming SATA-3 SSD), to video processing throughput, even CPU power. (Generally speaking, 4000dpi scans are for smaller formats, such as 35mm film scans, which result in digital images around 20-22mp...which is just middle-ground these days for DSLRs.)

On the flip side, an 8-bit TIFF of a 1400dpi 8x10 scan would be 3.8gigs. Still a scary-large image from an in-memory editing standpoint, bit less than 1/16th the size of a gigapixel image, and one rich with sharp detail at a pixel level, rather than detail where pixels are sub-grain size, having a rather soft and granular appearance at 100% (meaning your wasting a lot of computing power crunching pixels you don't actually need.) From a print standpoint, a 1400dpi scan would let you NATIVELY print over 90x70" @ 150ppi, so it is still way overkill in the general sense (if you are a specialist who prints 90x75, well you'd be set!) You could get away with a 900dpi scan at 8-bit, which would be a 65mp image, 1.6gb in-memory size, and capable of being printed at a native size of 60x40" @ 150ppi or 30x24" @ 300ppi. More than enough for pretty much ANY work one could think of.

The one benefit I can think of for an ungodly high DPI drum scan like 2800dpi would be for cropping. Out of a 627mp image, you could probably make a dozen separate "photos" from different areas of a single "shot", much like one of my favorite 4x5 landscape photographers demonstrates here:

http://www.widerange.org/gallery/resolution/


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 26, 2012)

I went from a 12 MP 5D Classic to a 22 MP 5D Mark III. I do notice the increased resolution when I'm doing retouching, but honestly it makes no difference in my final images.

Maybe if I were shooting for the billboard industry? LOL


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 26, 2012)

22mp is lots for me. My 2008 iMac, with 4gb ram, would agree too. If I browse a folder that contains 300 or more RAW files with DPP, I get an _insufficient memory_ error.


----------



## marktomaras (Oct 26, 2012)

Well. The answers have covered the topic, but I will add my two cents as well! And I will end with a new question, so please help me out by lending your thoughts.

First, for point of reference, I am a photographer, I use a powershot s95, a 5D mark III, Leica M9, a hasselblad V system with film and 50mp digital back, and a 4x5 film camera, with an Imacon 949 scanner. So from point and shoot, all the way to just about the best scanner money can buy, I have played with and used them all.

Pixels and resolution are not only about enlarging to huge sizes, though that is an issue. Print a series of 40x60 images, and you'll feel that you'd prefer to have more than 22mp. I am working on a print that large at the moment, I shot it with a canon 1Ds mkIII and I have no choice but to upres it. When you look closely at it, it looks like it has been up-resed. Step back 5-10 feet, it looks good.

Pixels are not the only thing that give resolution. Lens quality and technique are huge in this regard. I can tell a massive difference in a 8x10 print from my canon 5d3 compared to the same size print from a scan from my 4x5. 
The detail visible in that print is dense and rich, looks like a different medium.

The same is true for Adams' prints. I went to a gallery in California and saw Adams prints, large and small, and was super impressed by the detail. He was a master.

I was just shooting a landscape project this week with my hasselblad. To maximize resolution, I used a tripod and cable release of course, but even used the mirror lockup switch, and then let my camera sit untouched on the tripod before I carefully pressed the release by cable, even when the shutter speed was not slow. An absolutely still camera greatly increases resolution.

So, is 22mp enough? Yes, absolutely, for normal use, and even a normal to large range of printing. Now that you have 22mp, focus on getting the best out of the pixels. Use good lenses, use good technique.

But! Here is the question that I have been wrestling with: is more than 22 or 24 mp too much for a 35mm sensor? Canon is probably developing a 39 or 50 mp camera, presumably with a 35mm sized sensor. The size of the pixels (pixel pitch) is very important. I think my hasselblad's 50mp are the same size individually as my Canon's 22. So that means, roughly speaking, if canon goes to 39 or 50 mp, the pixels will be many times smaller. This would make low light/noise performance suffer I think. But maybe it will cause other issues as well. Or will it? Perhaps the developers have some new tricks up their sleeves.

Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format. Any more and quality suffers. But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be. Can a 50mp canon be good? Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?


----------



## MarkII (Oct 26, 2012)

I think that it is worth remembering that the 22MP number is slightly misleading. The Bayer colour filter array and matching anti-aliasing filter mean that the useful colour resolution is around 6MP, with the difference made up by software interpolation when converting from RAW.

Moving to a higher resolution with in-camera downscaling (or a Foveon-like design) would allow you to keep the same 22MP output but with much better pixel level sharpness and colour, while still not stressing the lenses resolving power any more.



Daniel Flather said:


> 22mp is lots for me. My 2008 iMac, with 4gb ram, would agree too. If I browse a folder that contains 300 or more RAW files with DPP, I get an _insufficient memory_ error.



I think that is probably DPP wierdness. I am using a similar vintage Apple laptop and routinely process much larger folders of 5DII/III images without problem (Lightroom). It is still usable even with very large (300MB TIFF) panoramas processed using PS.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 26, 2012)

> So ... my question is ... is our current DSLR technology still coming a long way behind, in the eyes of the Grant Masters? Or ... if you are a Grant Master, will you be happy with 22Mpx or even with the Hasselblad H4D-200MS of 200Mpx, if you are leaving a legacy of works behind?



Just an FYI canonfanboy, the term is Grand Master, not Grant. 

Interesting topic, it will be fun to see how these dslr's evolve over the next decade. I'm sure canon has a larger than 35mm sensor "in the works" and 10 years from now 100mp cameras will be common.


----------



## Menace (Oct 26, 2012)

Just had an A1 size canvas delivered this morning from a recent wedding shot using 5dIII and 70-200 2.8 II - all I can say is that 22mp is more than enough for me needs


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 26, 2012)

This is what I like about Canon Rumors. You people out there have so much knowledge and if someone says something technically incorrect it can corrected immediately. 
My personal experience is moving from 15MP up to 22MP.
Initially I thought I wasn't seeing much difference in resolution and was wondering was it all an illusion that higher MP was better. What I am learning as time go by is that full frame can give certain really nice aspects to the photo like in terms of depth of field. I can't recreate it on the APS-C sensor. When I go back and forth between the two cameras I start to notice the subtly better resolution.
I may be like alot of people in that you are always looking for more resolution, hoping the small guy way in the distance could actually be zoomed into and be recognised. You hope that a higher MP camera would provide you with this. There is possibly a diminishing return element in so as far as how good can it get.
File size is an issue with 22MP. Unless you upgrade your PC everything slows down. The uploading to PC, the processing and saving all takes longer. Storage becomes a more serious issue. 1 or 2TB Hard drives don't seem to big any more. In fairness to Nikon the D800 seems to be quite impressive but I think I would start to find that file size a little troublesome to deal with. You'd have to upgrade your PC and storage with it.
When the Canon 5d Mark IV comes out and its 48MP will I be tempted. No doubt the dream of greater resolution will tempt me but I will have to consider all the surrounding costs as well.
Master the 5D Mark III first I guess and see can I reach it's limits (like I did with the 500D/Rebel (something something) - which is still a great camera) .
Keep up these great conversations. You lose me at times with the details technical specs of sensors and lens but it's very interesting 
Kind Regards
Fergal

If you are bored you can skim through my Flickr Page. It's not brilliant but I think I am improving slightly
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 26, 2012)

marktomaras said:


> But! Here is the question that I have been wrestling with: is more than 22 or 24 mp too much for a 35mm sensor? Canon is probably developing a 39 or 50 mp camera, presumably with a 35mm sized sensor. The size of the pixels (pixel pitch) is very important. I think my hasselblad's 50mp are the same size individually as my Canon's 22. So that means, roughly speaking, if canon goes to 39 or 50 mp, the pixels will be many times smaller. This would make low light/noise performance suffer I think. But maybe it will cause other issues as well. Or will it? Perhaps the developers have some new tricks up their sleeves.
> 
> Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format. Any more and quality suffers. But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be. Can a 50mp canon be good? Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?



The short answer is: look at the incredible results from a D800 (or even better, a D800E) with a really good lens in front. The results are quite fantastic. So 36Mp is not at all too many in 35mm.
Considering the fact that the D800 is the first ever 35mm to go over 24Mp, and does it so well, just think what the future holds....

Here's a comparison from DxO - sensor results. Just the sensor. But this is what you were discussing.
Lenses is another issue.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Oct 26, 2012)

I think people get so obsessed with technology that they often forget another word starting with tech - technique. It's not just about sharpness. There is so much more to it than that. I have been at exhibitions of the main photographer for Mohammad Ali and an exhibition of Cartier-Bresson's work in Seoul. Sharpness is not the most important thing in either of their work. Capturing the moment through technique is.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 26, 2012)

marktomaras said:


> Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format. Any more and quality suffers. But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be. Can a 50mp canon be good? Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?



I think we are getting into the territory of diminishing gains. As you increase sensor resolution, you need glass that can cope with the sensor. At the same time, you become more and more limited by diffraction. There will be a point where there is no alternative but to go to medium format if you want better quality.

How many MP is enough? That is a question for each individual photographer, based on their needs. There are a lot of times people shoot in the lower resolutions offered by cameras (SRAW/MRAW etc.) - because the resolution is enough for the use case at hand. - If you only need a 11x14 print, 10MP is enough. If you are only shooting for the web, even less will do.

Provided you can get lenses that can handle the resolution at a reasonable price, 50MP may be reasonable. (The pixel density of the 7D is roughly equivalent to 46MP on full frame.) A 35mm lens that can cope with that kind of resolution is still much cheaper than an equivalent quality lens for a medium format system. However, your diffraction-limited aperture is going to be getting down to somewhere in the region of f/6.3, I suspect. That raises the question of how much headroom you have until diffraction kills the benefit of any more MP?


----------



## Ryan708 (Oct 26, 2012)

The SoNikon Or Nikony sensor is great indeed. But Dxo's scoring is rubbish. Not saying the haselblad isnt worse. But the d800 sensore does NOT have 14.3 shops of dynamic range. An absolute 100% efficient 14 bit system can only get a max of 14 stops DR. Dxo obviously has a flawed testing method.


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2012)

Well a few year ago when 1Ds was introduced 11Mpixes seemed enormous. The same later when the 16Mpix 1DsII and the 21Mpix 1DsIII. The pros always chose these cameras and many of them produced superb work! Now that a higher Mpix camera was introduced it just raised the "standard". They just forget how good a job was being done by these "old" pro cameras. Now when someone introduces a 45Mpix camera they will feel that 36Mpix is not adequate. It is ... a little ... ridiculous!


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim. 

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today. 

There is no replacement for displacement. ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2012)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If one converts a 8x10 film with a modern scanner ... say with 4000dpi ... a single 8x10 film will look like (4000 ppi)(8 in)(4000 ppi)(10 in) = 1280 Mpixels or 1.28Gb !!!!



Ahhh...no. Medium format digital backs were arguably a match for 4x5 at around 40 MP, and definitely by 80 MP.

Still...that's more than 22 MP. (Though part of the IQ comes from the larger format.)

There aren't very many artist / subject / print size combinations which call for 4x5, 8x10, or high resolution MF digital. The difference is obvious when you have a combination which calls for it. But it's rare.


----------



## Caps18 (Oct 26, 2012)

I like the gigapan system and the photos it produces, and it is hundreds or thousands of equivalent megapixels.

21MP has been enough for my photos, but it isn't to say that a few of them could have been better with twice the resolution (if all the pixels were good and not noisy). I ran into that problem with my small point&shoot camera. They jammed so many low quality pixels on the sensor, that it started to get blurry when you zoomed in and pixel-peep.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 26, 2012)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think I probably heard a thousand times in our forum ... "22Mpx is more than enough ... how much more do you need?" ... Whenever this question pop-up at me, I always wonder ... if there is ever a living Ansel Adam or Richard Avedon hearing this .... what will be their responds?



The average photographer isn't exactly Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon, neither in technical needs nor talent. Some are, but the rest don't need as much, e.g. in terms of mpx.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 26, 2012)

I think it is silly comparing 35mm cameras to medium format and large format.

They are different tools for different types of photography. I always thought 35mm was for photojournalism, events, etc. It was never intended to be used for billboard sized prints or massive works of fine art. Isn't the "smaller format" the whole point? Portability, hand-holdable, faster focus, faster shutter-speeds, etc. is the trade-off to a smaller image.

If it isn't enough, get a different tool.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 26, 2012)

sorry, but i second what RLPhoto said. Larger formats have a big advantage. go to imaging resource and use their comparometer. then pull up one of the MF formats -vs- whatever else and get ready to be depressed by our sissy 135 format. also, as Ansel aged his equipment got smaller. i think he ended up with a 6x6.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Point is, for the 135 format, which the 5d3 is, 22mp probably outresolves what the format was initially designed to do... as I've mentioned in prior threads...the 135, in film, really optimized out at 8x10... 11x14 you were risking softness and grain even at ISO 100 film. The 5d3 can natively pump out what... 12x19? give or take... Many photographers can print 30x40's with the camera at 150 dpi without batting an eye. In the film days 30x40's were only printed with 4x5 or 67 film... And at 67 there was the compromise such as 11x14's were to 135. Heck the compromise was so great most pro's would add a texture or lay the print on canvas to distract from that fact... Digital has surpassed what film file formats were ever designed to be for... is the 5d3 or D800 as good as an old 8x10 film? Probably not, but i would wager they probably rival many of the 645's and 67's of the day with good glass.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.
> ...



35mm does not have the detail of a larger format. Period. End of story. There is no argument here, it's a fact.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Re-read my response and use some discernment.


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 26, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I think it is silly comparing 35mm cameras to medium format and large format.
> 
> They are different tools for different types of photography. I always thought 35mm was for photojournalism, events, etc. It was never intended to be used for billboard sized prints or massive works of fine art. Isn't the "smaller format" the whole point? Portability, hand-holdable, faster focus, faster shutter-speeds, etc. is the trade-off to a smaller image.
> 
> If it isn't enough, get a different tool.



+100000!

Sums up what I have to say. The folks who just think bigger nubmers are better are whom the market unfortunately relies on to sell more and more bodies....as has been said before here a 1000 times, once the high MP fans have the 100MP body, they will want 110MP. But you probe a bit deeper and ask what format Adams used, there you would run into a void.... "Format? I think Adams probably used a PC not a Mac for sure" . One can't but wonder if some of these people will not benefit from learning a bit about the history of Photography, and learning to recognize the works of innovative photographers through the decades all the way through the 80's (which will shock some belonged to film). Comparing apples to oranges is common among the "I want more MP" crowd. 

To be clear, I am not against more MP's per se, clearly there is a little bit of MP that can still be sqeezed out in the 35mm frame, but I do believe after that, there is going to be diminishing return in the near term. Sensors and lenses will have to evolve significantly more to eek out benefits after about ~50MP. The image circle and the lens that produces it will dictate this as much as the sensor...and oh...lets not forget technique which you can't buy at the big MP store. 

So if you wanna belly ache, the answer is to move to a larger format. The 35mm format evolved in the context of larger frames to fit a much needed segment for smaller formats (which has now grown to our current jaw dropping mass market level) but it was never envisioned as a substitute for larger formats.


----------



## denisbergeron (Oct 26, 2012)

The fact that picture made by Yousef Karsh and other great photographer that use 8x10 camera, are so great, it's not because of the number of pixel but by the physics of the light. 
With bigger sensor, the lens doesn't need to be perfect to have a crisp picture. 
With bigger sensor, the lens doesn't need to have a pig aperture to have a nice bokeh blur.
With bigger sensor, you need a tripod.
With bigger sensor, you spend more time compose your shoot.
If a compare my work with MF and 35mm, for approching the quality of a 6x7 with a 120mm f3.5 lens I had to take my 85mm f1.2 and event there, the bokeh is not that nice.... but again, it's not a 8x10


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 26, 2012)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Back in the old film days, these two Grant Masters used 8x10 films to create the absolute best images (both in terms of IQ & creativity) in the field of Landscape (Ansel Adam) and Fashion & Portrait (Richard Avedon) respectively ... and I am sure their works will always remain in the books and museums for generations to come!


Probably Ansel Adam and Richard Avedon spent little time on web forums, and most of their time shooting or carefully preparing shoots.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.
> 
> 35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.
> 
> There is no replacement for displacement. ;D



Well, that really depends. An 80mp 35mm sensor could "resolve" the same amount of detail as an 80mp MFD sensor, assuming you get the same number of pixels on subject. For that matter, when you get the same number of pixels on subject with the same physical aperture (entrance pupil), S/N of the resulting image would even be the same, regardless of whether you have huge pixels or tiny pixels. See this article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html


----------



## Nishi Drew (Oct 26, 2012)

When so many photos these days end up straight on a webpage where the size of the image won't be viewed any larger than the screen it's displayed on, and when you frame and compose the shot as you want it to be (or just don't like cropping much) then 10 mp is good enough. "Look at this casual snap of my cat, it's got so much res I can count the hairs... on a flea!" Just a lot more data used up, where speed and storage priority could be instead. And stitching multiple photos together, when done right with the utmost precision... well there's still a lot more to the whole thing as everyone here is discussing over


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.
> ...



If you have an 80MP 35MM sensor, That same pixel density on a MF sensor would be Well over 200MP. Its no competition.

Thats the whole point of larger formats.

Bigger is better for resolution.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



For equivalent focal length, framing, and film, A larger format will always resolve more detail.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.

Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.

Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html

Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> se answers above , physical conditions, everything is NOT equal because it is a MF sensor



You must have never shot MF before.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



But that was not the argument I made. I stated that an 80mp FF and 80mp MFD would fare the same, I never said anything about a 200mp MFD. The same would hold true if you compared a 200mp FF and 200mp MFD...same aperture, same exposure time for same pixels on subject, S/N of each pixel is going to be identical for both sensors. Technically speaking, it does not really matter what the ratio of pixel size is between two sensors, the point is that when you use the same physical aperture and same exposure time while putting the same number of pixels on subject, S/N at the sensor is the same, REGARDLESS of what the FWC of any given pixel might be. That's because it is the lens that determines ratio of light. Increasing ISO just lowers the saturation point, and electronically amplifies the signal...it does not actually change the amount of light reaching the sensor. When each pixel covers the same amount of area on the subject and receive the same amount of light, physical dimensions of either the sensor or the pixels don't matter.

My argument, all things being equal, is that a 35mm sensor CAN INDEED PERFORM THE SAME as a medium format sensor. Read the article I've linked twice now, and you'll understand. (BTW, my argument has little to do with DR, that's another discussion I'd rather not start.)


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.
> 
> Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.
> 
> ...



Thats all fine an dandy but your excluding what make's Medium format what it is.

Its much larger than 35mm, thus has more area to stuff more pixels than 35mm!

That fact alone means that any thing 35mm can resolve can be done better on MF. This fact hasn't changed and will never change from film to digital.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.
> ...



Your changing your argument now, though. Which is fine, and yes, if you stuffed more pixels into the MFD sensor and framed your subjects the same, the MFD would put more pixels on subject, and thus have more detail overall. But that wasn't the original argument...your original argument was that no matter what, MFD is and will always be better. That is not necessarily true. There are a few ways where 35mm can outperform MFD, especially with a sensor like Exmor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Thats Right, MF will always be better than 35mm for resolving detail. Even if the MP counts are the same, MF will still be better.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

IE: If you have a 12mp FF sensor, That would be around a 30mp Medium format sensor. Be fair with the pixel density. There is no replacement for displacement. There is no replacement for a larger sensor.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame. 

A simple example here would be in a reach-limited scenario. If you are physically incapable of getting closer to your subject, and cannot user a longer lens, then a sensor with smaller pixels is the solution. MFD sensors are large, and have large pixels. Increasingly, their pixels are 2x the size of a FF sensor, and even larger than the pixels found in APS-C sensors. That means you can't put as many pixels on subject with the MFD, so either a FF or an APS-C DSLR sensor is going to be better...it'll put more pixels on subject, and assuming you use a lens with a similar entrance pupil, you'll achieve the same S/N. Focal length doesn't even necessarily matter in this scenario....entrance pupil size, exposure time, and # of pixels on subject are all that really matter to normalize S/N across sensors regardless of sensor dimensions or pixel pitch.

So your assertion that MFD _is and always will be better_ is ignoring some of the facts. I'm trying to point out that you CAN get results just as good, if not better, with a physically smaller sensor with physically smaller pixels. The reason for this is Etendue. Roger Clark clearly, mathematically and visually, demonstrates how and why the 7D can and is better in many situations than a 1D IV (APS-H) or 5D II (FF). Just because a sensor is 44x33mm in size doesn't mean it is magically excluded from the facts. 

Your contorting your argument to make it sound as though MFD sensors always have more pixels, which is not actually the case. Hassy has a 30mp MFD, which is actually FEWER pixels than the D800's 36.3mp. In just about every scenario, the D800 will outperform the 30mp Hassy MFD, and not necessarily because of the improved DR. Because it is easier to bet pixels on subject, and because there are lenses that exist for DSLR that have immense physical apertures (such as a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4). The best thing Hasselblad has to offer in their H-system is a 300mm f/4.5. Lets even assume you use a H4D-50 (btw, H4D-200ms is still actually a 50mp sensor, it just integrates their "multi-shot" technology...you could achieve the same results with a pano rig or a Tilt/Shift lens and a normal DSLR) with the 300mm f/4.5, and compare it to a D800 with a 300mm f/2.8. The hassy has 6 micron pixels, where as the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. If you shoot the same scene from the same distance, the D800 is going to take the upper hand here every time (even ignoring its better DR). Smaller pixels, larger physical aperture, more light on the sensor, higher S/N for that particular exposure for a greater number of pixels on subject. If you stop the D800 down to f/4.5, it will still win out because it puts more pixels on subject, even though the two exposures will have the same S/N.

I'm not saying medium-format cameras are not awesome cameras. They most certainly are, and when used for the things they were designed to be used for, such as studio photography where there is nothing to limit you from putting as many pixels on subject as possible (fill the frame), they can and will produce stellar IQ. Assuming you use a MFD with more pixels than a comparable DSLR (i.e. you use a 40, 50, 60, or 80 megapixel MFD), and fill the frame, then yes, MFD will also outperform 35mm. On the flip side, you need to acknowledge that there are situations where 35mm FF or even APS-C DSLR's are the FAR better tool for the job, and they can produce _*better IQ*_ for those kinds of work than a medium-format digital camera could ever hope to aspire to.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



We're not discussing about limited reach, we're not discussing 35mm's versatility and we're not discussing the impracticality of the MF system, or the extreme im-practicality of a 4x5 view camera. 

We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.

You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.

Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D

But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are still assuming everything else is equal, such as subject size in frame.
> ...



Well, no...my reply to you was in regards to the finality in your argument, the "simply fact" statements. Which is demonstrably NOT true, and I've linked external resources that provide the theory that *explains why*. 



RLPhoto said:


> We are discussing the resolving power of two different formats. 35mm & MF.
> 
> You can't say 35mm resolves more that MF. It simply doesn't and never will.



That's plain and simply untrue. A D800 sensor, from a spatial resolution standpoint, resolves more than a 40mp, 50mp, or 60mp Hasselblad. All three of those sensors are different dimensions, and all three of them have 6 micron pixels. The D800 has 4.6 micron pixels. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels. A D3200 has 3.8 micron pixels. From a spatial resolution standpoint, all three of those cameras "out resolve" all of the hasselblad sensors. You might be able to put more pixels on subject with a hassy, but spatially, you aren't resolving more, you are just recording an image of a greater physical area. Different things. For the kinds of scenes you photograph with a MFD, you could just slap a T/S lens on a D800 and in a few seconds a set of six photos that can be stitched together to make a photo around 250-300mp (same exact thing the H4D-200MS does...only with MORE resolution.) 



RLPhoto said:


> Likewise, You won't see anyone go shoot a motorsports race with a MF camera. It's just not practical. I'm not saying 35mm has its place, It does and thats why Photojournalists aren't using garraflexes anymore. I feel 22MP is more than enough for 35mm. It can make great 24x36 prints. ;D



Your contradicting your own statements here. As I indicated above, FF and APS-C DSLR's can and do "resolve" more detail than a medium format. They are also far better suited to many forms of photography, and in many cases just as capable as a MFD in other types of photography. You absolutest statements about MFD being unbeatable period forever and ever are falling apart here. 



RLPhoto said:


> But when push comes to shove, NO 35mm system will ever resolve more than larger formats MF or LF. Period. End of Story. Its Fact.



You need to properly qualify that statement with "when MF has more total pixels." You are also assuming that 35mm will never have as many pixels as MDF...that is just an assumption. There are prototypical sensors that pack FAR more pixels into FF and APS-H sensor area, with higher readout rates than any comparable MFD sensor. Technologically speaking, DSLR sensors could make some even more significant leaps (above and beyond what Sony Exmor has done) past anything MFD has so far provided, or might provide in the same timeframe. So stating "Period. End of Story. Its Fact." is also simply an anecdote, an assumption...and therefor *not a fact. *


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



A d800 only has 36MP. The Phase One IQ 180 Has 80MP. They're is no competition. When 35mm jumps to 46MP, MF will be in the 120-160MP range. 35mm will never catch MF.

The Phase One has more resolving power, not only because of its MP count but because since the magnification is lower on the lenses, They are sharper. Any imperfections on the higher magnification 35mm lens will be shown more clearly, while I had a Hasselblad 501CM with a beat-up scratched lens that still was sharper than any of my 35mm canon's.

MF will always have more detail and resolve better than 35mm.

Edit: Infact Imagine this. Take a full Size 36MP file from a d800. I take the 80MP Phase One file and downsize it to the d800's 36MP size image. Which File will be sharper, have more detail, and better resolution Eh?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Have you shot phase one before? Because MF still resolves more detail than any 35mm DSLR.

Take the best 35mm DSLR d800 and stack it up against the best MF system, The phase one IQ 180. Its no comparison.


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



+1
Totally agree. But there is no point arguing with those who suggest 35mm can even compete with MF... it's wasted effort. They have zero credibility. Just let them live in their delusional world and don't feed their compulsions


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Your completely right Ray.

There shouldn't be an argument, Because this 35mm vs MF argument has been around for decades and still some don't understand that a bigger piece of Film/sensor will always resolve more detail than a smaller format.

MF has its uses, so does 35mm. Its just MF does resolution better.


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Those factors only really affect the lower (darker) fraction of the signal, and only matter if you actually need to lift highlights. In my experience, people who use medium format are far more interested in their larger pixels, which allow a larger FWC than comparable 35mm FF or APS-C sensors (although these days pixel sizes are down as low as 6 microns in MFD...so maybe the pixel size lead is diminishing), along with 16-bit ADC, and thus allow very rich, smooth, and down right legendary highlight preservation and fidelity. I've never heard anyone who uses an MF digital camera complain about shadow fidelity, but I've heard them complain about poor highlight retention in smaller formats.

There is no denying that medium format cameras have a lot of advantages, stricter quality control mechanisms, higher precision and higher quality counterparts (such as image processing chips), and a lot of other features that simply don't exist in the DSLR field (such as interchangeable backs.) But that does not mean that medium format cameras are unbeatable in every respect, or even that they resolve more detail (which is simply false). 

There are pros and cons to every option these days, but there is no question that 35mm FF DSLR's are beginning to encroach upon MFD territory. In the case of the D800, and assuming the rumors are true, even more so with Canon's 46.1mp prototypes, are and will pose a serious thread to MFD in terms of IQ. Canon is known for favoring the highlights with their default tone curves, and if they release a 46.1mp sensor with 16-bit ADC and low electronic noise floor, they could definitely give the H4D-50 a run for the money. Especially when paired with Canon's new Mark II series of lenses, which use nano-tech anti-reflection coating, some of the most advanced optical designs and materials in the world, and some of the largest physical apertures in the world.

De-facto statements like "MFD is just plain and simply superior, its' fact, don't argue with me, I am an anecdotal freak but I don't need to use facts" are just plain naive. The real question is...will the advancements being made in the DSLR sector spur a new round of innovation and advancement in sensor technology for medium format digital? Will we see reductions in read noise, further increases into the 100mp and greater territory, higher bit depths, etc? Or will MFD finally lose it's footing, and lose out to the new wave of 30, 40, and 50 megapixel 35mm FF sensors that outperform in every respect?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> You are answering your self, film is film and sensor are sensors. And old CCD are old CCD, and today there are a big difference between sensors
> did you read Lars Kjellberg article
> everything is not black or white and you have some trouble to understand that and you have a habit of presenting everything you say as truth without analyzing the situation
> 
> ...



The MF Hassy Has much more detail than the 35mm in those crops.

You can see it obviously when looking at the center Circle crop. The 35mm has nasty grain but the MF shot is much cleaner and can resolve the lines farther in than the 35mm can. With a finer-grain stock like velvia 50, It will be even more pronounced.

Either way you slice it, MF still resolves better detail than 35mm.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 27, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> You are answering your self, film is film and sensor are sensors. And a old CCD are a old CCD, and today there are a big difference between MF sensors and SLR
> did you read Lars Kjellberg article
> everything is not black or white and you have some trouble to understand that , and you have a habit of presenting everything you say as truth without analyzing the situation
> 
> ...



Interesting discussion...the 7 test chart images shown in Lars kjellberg's article clearly show the advantage of medium format over 35, and large format over medium and 35.


----------



## cocopop05 (Oct 27, 2012)

While higher DR is good, and Nikon is clearly better than Canon at this, Canon's DR is still very good. For me noise is a bigger issue for ruining digial photos. I will aways be happy to have more MP in a new sensor as long as the noise is the same or better that current sensors. PC's are also getting more powerful, a HP Z820 can have dual Xeon CPU's with 512GB Quad Channel Ram and can have a high end Quadro and Tesla cards (NVIDIA Maximus) that are
supported by LR4 and CS6. Quadro and Tesla slam GeForce, Radeon and FirePro with Adobe solutions at the moment. The only issue is the cost of such a system.


----------

