# 46mp sensor useless for landscape?



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

In most landscape situations, aperture needs to be set less than f/8 for large DOF. But according to the article below, 19mp is the max a 35mm full frame sensor can capture for red light (wav length of 0.0007mm) at f/8, doesn't matter if your camera has 36 or 46mp sensor...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml







So, what happens when a landscape picture is captured by 46 mp 35mm sensor at f/11? Do we see more blue than green and red? turquoise color shifted?


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

Plus optica resolution from the center to edge of the image degrades and low pass filter.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

corresponding to article above, maybe that's why Sigma Foveon X3 was designed this way: thinner blue and thicker red layer. 

Canon should buy Sigma Foveon X3 technology and make a 35mm full frame sensor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 7, 2012)

TonyY said:


> In most landscape situations, aperture needs to be set less than f/8 for large DOF. But according to the article below, 19mp is the max a 35mm full frame sensor can capture for red light (wav length of 0.0007mm) at f/8, doesn't matter if your camera has 36 or 46mp sensor...



If you photograph scenes which contain nothing but varying brightness levels of pure red, then yeah, I suppose you're limited to 19 MP.

For the rest of us, there is definitely a resolution gain moving to a 46 MP sensor.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 7, 2012)

I won't try to say that I fully understand the article. However, real world results suggest that there is no such problem. The 5Dii has more than 19mp and has been considered an excellent landscape camera - I don't recall anyone noticing odd colour shifts when stopped down below f/8. And those with a working D800 seem delighted with their cameras too.


----------



## dhofmann (Oct 7, 2012)

If you set your focus to the hyperfocal distance, or if you use a tilt/shift lens, you'll be able to use a lower f-stop and get more resolution. Also, I'd use the numbers for the green wavelength (0.55um). At f/5.6, that yields 60MP for 35mm.


----------



## PeterJ (Oct 7, 2012)

Not an expert in optics but I thought even though the system overall may not render an individual pixel accurately more is still better because it's a form of oversampling, so when downsizing the more information still gives a higher probability of reconstructing the image accurately.

One thing I must say though is that some of the tables look like cut and paste jobs which make it hard to follow. Some are in fractions of a mm, others in um instead of the more conventional nm you'd normally use to describe visible light wavelengths, although maybe a regional thing.


----------



## natureshots (Oct 7, 2012)

Not at all. When light is passed through a small aperture it can interfere with other light near it. That's a real simple explanation of the physics of it. What that means to a photographer is that if you stop down your lens too much you will start to lose resolution instead of gaining it. 
You normally gain resolution when you stop down a lens because there is less tendency for aberrations in the glass to show up. You have to remember that you are bending light in order for a lens to work and different wavelengths get bent different amounts when they pass through glass (think of a prism) and lens coatings try to correct for this but there are practical limits to how perfect you can make a glass surface and how well these coatings can work in the relatively cheap lenses photographers work with. These are consumer lenses and they have price constraints. 
When you take smaller samples of the light by using a smaller aperture you tend to have less problems therefore increasing your resolution when you stop down the lens. However, at some point you will start getting destructive and constructive interference when all the light hitting the sensor is coming through a smaller and smaller holes. If it was simply destructive interference then you would start losing your reds starting at deep red and going through the spectrum until you hit deep purple. Light waves can combine to make brighter, constructive interference or darker, destructive interference so instead you just start to get fuzzy reds then oranges then yellows etc... as you stop down a lens. As you decrease the aperture, higher megapixel cameras will start to pick up on this fuzziness and lose resolution. 
You are never going to get better resolution with less megapixels in theory (of course there's a lot more problems in real life with high megapixels e.g. increased sensor noise and other stuff I'm not going to discuss right now). What all this technical crap means is that if your goal is to get as much information into your landscape photo as humanly possible, really small apertures are not necessarily a good way to do it. You may gain DOF but you may lose detail. Ultimately there is a sweet spot in each lens that will give you the most possible resolution where you get rid of enough lens aberration that decrease sharpness without losing too much to diffraction. Higher megapixels cameras on really nice glass tend have a smaller sweet spot because it will pick up the diffraction problems sooner. 
In practice you want lots of megapixels as long as the pixels are of a good quality for landscape photography so you can pick up fine detail. There is a tipping point however where you are just not going to get better resolution with more megapixels and we've hit that point with the D800 and even some of the really nice glass. However you have to make a decision as to what aperture to use based on the DOF you need and how your lens performs as far as aberrations are concerned and also depending on how much resolution your sensor can get. You will only figure it out by taking lots of pictures and paying close attention to your results (have fun pixel peeping). Basically this article is saying that you don't want to just set your camera to iso 100, F22 or F32 and sit there for half an hour for the exposure. You will lose a lot of detail from diffraction. Just test out different apertures, ISOs and Fstops til you figure out what gives you the best picture for you combination of camera, glass and subject. Don't worry about the math or this article, just don't be dumb and close down your aperture as much as humanly possible and think you will get a better picture. 
If parts of this don't make sense please realize that it 4am and I have insomnia and this is my way I'm getting to sleep tonight. I'd love to hear well intentioned corrections if I have something wrong but take my writing with a grain of salt. I think I understand the basics of this topic but I may not have done a great job explaining it.
On a related note, I have cheap glass and I'm not huge into landscape photography but what do you experienced landscape photographers think about focus stacking for landscapes as a way around the diffraction and DOF issues you can run into in landscape photography? I know that it requires a specific subject (not catching clouds in the perfect formation or sunset pictures) but I've been screwing around with doing HDR focus stacking landscapes mostly as an experiment (lots of fun spending hours in photoshop stitching together thirty photos to make one). Is anyone actually doing that stuff? If so, have you got anything good with it? I've done it a couple times just to see if I can do it and the results are kind of interesting. Anyone else try it and what do you think?


----------



## natureshots (Oct 7, 2012)

If you really want to do some good landscape photos, screw digital. Get a medium/large format film camera and a bathtub. Its definitely cheaper too, just don't drink the silver nitrate if you're doing B+W.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> I won't try to say that I fully understand the article. However, real world results suggest that there is no such problem. The 5Dii has more than 19mp and has been considered an excellent landscape camera - I don't recall anyone noticing odd colour shifts when stopped down below f/8. And those with a working D800 seem delighted with their cameras too.



The 5DII sensor is a bayer filter image sensor, 19mp is actually 6 mp, 3 pixels represent 1, see


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2012)

TonyY said:


> The 5DII sensor is a bayer filter image sensor, 19mp is actually 6 mp, 3 pixels represent 1



False, 19 MP is actually 19 MP. The Bayer mask provides color sensitivity (and requires interpolation) but the spatial resolution is unaffected. Note, though, that when Foveon counts the three 'stacked' pixels separately, that's a misrepresentation - a '14 MP' Foveon has only 4.7 MP of real spatial resolution.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DII sensor is a bayer filter image sensor, 19mp is actually 6 mp, 3 pixels represent 1
> ...



Correct, but for a specific color - red, blue or green(50% more than other 2 colors), the resolution is really less than 7mp on 5D Mark II. "14 MP" instead of "4.7 MP" is just for marketing, and the picture took by that sensor really shows fine micro details.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2012)

TonyY said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > TonyY said:
> ...



Sorry, still false. You're assuming that the colors in the mask are 'pure' RGB, but they aren't - there's substantial spectral overlap, such that photons of a given wavelength, except the very ends of the visible spectrum, are detected by photosites under at least two, and sometimes all three, colors. 

Here's the response of the 500D sensor:


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ok, I think this is too technical for me. So 46 MP is same as 36 MP for landscap?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Oct 7, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> If you set your focus to the hyperfocal distance, or if you use a tilt/shift lens, you'll be able to use a lower f-stop and get more resolution. Also, I'd use the numbers for the green wavelength (0.55um). At f/5.6, that yields 60MP for 35mm.



+5
Since I live in a forest, I guess that I'm lucky to have so many green things in my landscapes. I also get alot of blue (like in ocean - but sometimes a greenish blue). I never did like the red tide. My solution for the D800 and D800E is to shoot tilt-shift most of the time and otherwise limit myself to F14 where I visually see some minimal loss of sharpness. By the way, the wider the lens, the more DOF you have. My other favorite lens is the 14-24 for Nikon and the 17mm tilt shift for Canon. Both have alot of DOF. However the 24 tilt shift Canon is another favorite. p.s. I shoot Nikon quite a bit now but will go back to Canon once they have a high MP body. Thank you for your share.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 7, 2012)

The total MTF of a system is the product of the individual mtf's of the components. The final MTF will never be greater than the lowest MTF in the system.
Thus, a camera with a lens MTF of 0.9, and a body of 0.7 will be 0.63. Increase either one, and the value goes up. Suppose, we have a body with a very large number of MP, say a billion, with a impossibly high MTF of 0.99. The system MTF will then be basically that of the lens. (0.891).
What all this means is that increasing one component or the other is going to raise the mtf of a real world camera / lens system. Of course, at some point, there will be enough MTF in a camera body to cause the lens to be the limiting factor, but that is well out in the future, we are not near reaching it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2012)

TonyY said:


> Ok, I think this is too technical for me. So 46 MP is same as 36 MP for landscap?



No, 46 MP is higher resolution than 36 MP, for any application.


----------



## friedmud (Oct 7, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Of course, at some point, there will be enough MTF in a camera body to cause the lens to be the limiting factor, but that is well out in the future, we are not near reaching it.



I wouldn't necessarily say that. Go read about the lengths D800E users have to go to in order to get all the resolution out of their sensors. You have to use the _very_ best glass and hit the perfect f/stop with the perfect focusing (hyperfocal generally). It is already getting quite fiddly to feed 36mp... if Canon is going to do 46mp things are definitely going to get interesting.

BTW - It's a pet peeve of mine that many "landscape photographers" don't truly understand diffraction, DOF and hyperfocal focusing. If you think "all landscape shots are at f/8 or smaller" then you need to go do some reading and shooting.

Just go get a really good camera and lens, stick it on a good tripod, use manual focusing and mirror lockup and go through a series of shots from f/4 to f/22. Choose a good landscape scene with foreground interest (although your camera doesn't have to be right up against the foreground interest) and go through the aperture series while focusing at 3 different points:

1. At the foreground interest
2. Halfway to the distant object (like mountains or a far off building)
3. At the distant object

Compare your results.

The results will be pretty damn obvious. You'll get the best sharpness focusing halfway between (which is just an approximation of the hyperfocal distance that will be good enough for you to see what's going on) the near and far subjects and with an aperture that is just on the large side of the diffraction limit (generally around f/5 to f/8 for most modern sensors and good glass).

By focusing better (right at the true hyperfocal distance) you can get everything sharp with larger apertures (I'm using f/5.6 more and more often lately in my own work).

If you use a tilt-shift you can do even better than that because you tilt the focal plane so that it more closely approximates your scene (instead of just being perpendicular to your lens).

All of this is a way of saying that as we get higher MP sensors... we (the landscapers) are going to need to do more work and be more diligent to get the very best possible image.

I read an article not too long ago where a pro (really?) landscape photographer was advocating shooting everything at f/22 focused at infinity. I nearly lost my lunch. How could a "pro" never have even done the above testing? Because when you're using film or only 10mp it simply doesn't matter that much....


----------



## friedmud (Oct 7, 2012)

Beyond shooting, I also definitely recommend using a "DOF Calculator" for a while (like this one http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ). You can also get really good DOF calculators for iOS and Android so you can have them in the field.

Just playing with one will give you a good idea of aperture sizes to use.

Note that according to that dofmaster website with a D800 at 24mm at f/5.6 I can focus at 11.2 ft (the hyperfocal distance) and get everything from 5.6 ft to infinity in focus.

Even at f/4 I can focus at ~16ft and get everything from 8ft to infinity in focus! If your camera is on a tripod at eye level, it's going to be rare to have something closer than 8 ft...

Once you get a feel for this you can "wing it" in the field... I generally just focus a bit beyond my foreground interest and choose an aperture around f/5 to f/8 depending on if there is something closer than that. Beyond f/8 on my 7D diffraction starts to kill any gains made in DOF...


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

Just hoping Sigma can make a 35mm full frame 48MP (3 x 16 MP) sensor, some of the Sigma D2P Merrill sample picture are really astonishing, shows tons of detail and color compare with my 5D Mark II.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 7, 2012)

very interesting, all the Nikon D800/D800E sample landscap images are taken at f/8, still no detail:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm

Canon 5D Mark III is even worth:


----------



## Positron (Oct 7, 2012)

The source article seems very in-depth and while I'd love to spend enough time reading it to understand everything it's saying, I have actual work to do today, so I will shamelessly ask the question on my mind instead: assuming that what's said in the article is correct, how does it affect lenses that can tilt? For example, if you have a TS-E 24mm, can you leave it wide open or nearly wide open to maximize the effective resolution, and use only tilt to gain the DoF you need? Put more directly, will tilting provide more absolute resolution than stopping down, or is there some _other_ loss from tilt?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 7, 2012)

friedmud said:


> I wouldn't necessarily say that. Go read about the lengths D800E users have to go to in order to get all the resolution out of their sensors. You have to use the _very_ best glass and hit the perfect f/stop with the perfect focusing (hyperfocal generally). It is already getting quite fiddly to feed 36mp... if Canon is going to do 46mp things are definitely going to get interesting.



I don't consider a 7D that difficult and it has a higher pixel pitch than the D800. There are plenty of lenses that can provide 46 MP of detail FF (18 MP crop).

Diffraction is not the hard, fast limit people think it is. There's a gradual loss of detail contrast. That's something people don't understand when discussing diffraction or lens testing. They will, for example, read that a lens "only" provides XY lpmm at 50% MTF, or that you can "only" achieve XY lpmm at Z aperture, and assume no sensor with smaller pixels can benefit. What they don't realize is that the lens or aperture setting can still saturate any sensor at 20% MTF. And in our digital world, PS can bring back much of the lost detail contrast.

You run into similar nonsense comparing FF and APS-C sensors, and especially comparing lens resolution on the two formats because of the way the major sites compute the resolution numbers.


----------



## heptagon (Oct 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I think this is too technical for me. So 46 MP is same as 36 MP for landscap?
> ...



This is not ultimately true. According to the Nyquist theorem you get the whole information about a bandwidth limited signal if your samples are spaced close enough. Making more samples provides you with no new information. While the airy function is no sinc function, it is rather similar. So there is supposed to be a pixel spacing below which the quality gains become marginal. However i suspect this isn't the 50% contrast assumed in the calculations and if you consider the effects of the bayer pattern there should be a lot more pixels than we have today.


----------



## Radiating (Oct 7, 2012)

Color resolution and black and white resolution are different. It will still look sharper Even if you're not getting any more red redolution. The maximum resolution of the best full frame prime lenses is just under 30 mp (28.3 mp). Add a low pass filter into the mix and you can justify at least 31 mp as being usable. With 36mp bring usable in around 3 years. 

46mp is just useless thoug for the next decade probably. But hey it's better than 20 mp even if its overkill.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2012)

heptagon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > TonyY said:
> ...



Yes, returns diminish, but we're not at marginalized returns yet. But note that I stated higher resolution, not 10 MP higher resolution.

Since you went and invoked Nyquist,  I will ask - what is the physical phenomenon that we are sampling, and what property(ies) of that phenomenon provide the limits from which we determine the minimal frequency to adequately capture all information present, and the optimal oversampling frequency?



Radiating said:


> The maximum resolution of the best full frame prime lenses is just under 30 mp (28.3 mp). Add a low pass filter into the mix and you can justify at least 31 mp as being usable. With 36mp bring usable in around 3 years.



I'd love to see your evidence for this, especially since you post such a specific value as 28.3 MP. Do you have a link or data to share? Hopefully, the data will also explain how an APS-C sensor with a higher pixel density than the densest FF sensor on the market can resolve a higher level of local detail from those 'best full frame lenses' than a FF sensor.


----------



## Policar (Oct 7, 2012)

So what if 19 megapixels is the most a FF red-sensitive sensor can resolve at f8? A 46 megapixel bayer sensor only has 11.5 million red-sensitive photosites. No problem at all...

At a certain point it does get kind of pointless, especially if you shoot landscapes without a T/S lens (in which case--what are you thinking?). We're not there yet. There's a test online between 80MP backs and 4x5 and 8x10 and 8x10 is still best by far, though 80MP is sharper with less fine detail than 4x5.

With film enlargements you're limited by the size of the grain. 4x5 isn't that much sharper than 6x7 when stopped down to equivalent DoF but the tonality and grain are better. Same with 8x10, you can make a wall-sized print (80''X100") that holds up to scrutiny even up close, but an equivalent enlargement of 135 (to 8''X12')' is sharper (just way, way smaller and with the same granularity and tonality). With digital, there's no grain, but when you can see the pixel structure, that's bad, so there's still that matter of tonality but to a much less significant extent. 

And despite diffraction, landscape shooters have shot at f64 on 8x10 and even 4x5 for quite a while and made huge prints. We might not get sharper than that without stitching, but unless you're printing bigger than wall-sized in a venue where people will stand right next to the print (extremely rare, and obviously you would want to use stitching in these cases), then you'll be fine.


----------



## Tammy (Oct 8, 2012)

There are some really smart people on this board. I love reading these threads.


----------



## jrista (Oct 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



To further Neruo's argument (which is excellent), everyone has to keep in mind that the total "system" resolution of our combined camera+lens is considerably lower than the individual spatial resolutions of each system component. A high resolution sensor, such as the 7D (approx 116 lp/mm raw luminance spatial resolution) or the D800 (approx 100 lp/mm raw luminance spatial resolution) are theoretically capable of capturing FAR more resolution than we actually actually realize once a lens is attached. Total system resolution, when accounting for the intrinsic blur of each component (such as that caused by diffraction in a lens or the low-pass filter of a sensor) as well as non-ideal alignment of the projected image and the sensor pixel layout, is roughly the root mean square (RMS) of the blur of each component. On average, at best, were probably getting around 70 lp/mm at the most ideal aperture possible, and much closer to 40-50 lp/mm on average.

We would only be able to realize an _approach_ to, say, the 116 lp/mm of raw spatial resolution the 7D (or a theoretical 47.6mp sensor, so 46.1mp is close enough) has to offer if we had an ideal, perfect, diffraction-limited lens at something around f/0.7. But thats just an approach...it would take an ideal, perfect, diffraction-limited lens of literally infinite dimension to actually _achieve_ 116 lp/mm, which is flat out impossible (system resolution is asymptotically related to the spatial resolution of the highest resolution component in the system). We have a LONG way to go before the spatial resolution of a sensor actually becomes an issue at all, and then it will become an issue due to the diffraction cutoff frequency (the point where pixels become smaller than the wavelengths of light they are supposed to react to), not diffraction itself.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 8, 2012)

If the original premiss of the OP is that the lens would be useless for landscapes, wouldn't it be just as useless for most all other types of photography. Green, Blue and Red come in other shades other than Trees, Sky and Soil.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 8, 2012)

I am shure, that a GOOD 46MP sensor will be very useful for landscape (and cityscapes).
Good means, that it has high dynamic range and low noise levels at least at lower ISOs.

Why? If you have subjects which reflect/emit light in the red, blue or green region they will excite just one type of subpixels (red, green or blue) substantially. In these cases a 46MP sensor will act as a ~12MP sensor for red and blue or a 24MP sensor for green.

All my cameras exhibit strange patterns around (nearly) monochromatic ("single colored") light sources like tail lights of cars (hopefully the right term?) which are often made of LEDs which emit in a narrow band around 650 nm. The same for blue or green LEDs. (EOS 20D, 40D and DPP for Raw development)

Another reason I would like to see higher resolutions is the fact that edges are rendered smoother with a higher number of pixels - some kind of antialiasing. I think, that is what Policar meant with the comparison of 6x7(cm) MF and 6x10(inch) large format.

But: Only if the noise levels/DR of the individual photosites in such a sensor are as good as the noise levels/DR of a full frame 12 MP camera! I think there is not much difference between 40D and 600D if it comes to "texture fidelity" (= how real look the complex textures of objects) The higher noise of smaller photosites cancels the higher resolution potential.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 8, 2012)

I am not sure how good is the 7D sensor ;D: 

Canon 7D (in blue) vs. others in dynamic range: 










full test can be found at: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-7d-642994/review/page:6#articleContent


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2012)

TonyY said:


> Maybe it's time to switch to Nikon or Sony...



No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of _camera_ performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow. :


----------



## TonyY (Oct 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's time to switch to Nikon or Sony...
> ...



Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.


----------



## jrista (Oct 8, 2012)

TonyY said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > TonyY said:
> ...



I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results. 

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P



My Nikon Koolpixx delivers better IQ than Canon's best sensor and lens. Everyone should know that fact. Trust me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 8, 2012)

TonyY said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > TonyY said:
> ...


What does that tell you about the skills of the operator, when a inferior camera outperforms a better one whih a much better lens?


----------



## PackLight (Oct 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P
> ...



I read CR because I get factual information to base my equipment purchasing decisions on. Which model of the Nikon Koolpix will give me 46mp for landscapes? Also will they have a problem with the color red also?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2012)

PackLight said:


> I read CR because I get factual information to base my equipment purchasing decisions on. Which model of the Nikon Koolpix will give me 46mp for landscapes?



Doesn't matter, any of them will do. SoNykon's sensors are so awesome that you can upsize an image from any of them (except the ones they sell to Canon for the PowerShots) to 46 MP and retain amazing IQ. Canon's senors, on the other hand, suck so bad that even if you downsample them in a futile attempt to increase their abysmal DR, it doesn't help.



PackLight said:


> Also will they have a problem with the color red also?



Sadly yes, because Nikon's logo is yellow.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 8, 2012)

PackLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Lol, Pack, you need to read CR a little bit more.


----------



## heptagon (Oct 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since you went and invoked Nyquist,  I will ask - what is the physical phenomenon that we are sampling, and what property(ies) of that phenomenon provide the limits from which we determine the minimal frequency to adequately capture all information present, and the optimal oversampling frequency?


Now you got me thinking and crunching some quick numerics. The sinc function is bipolar while the optical intensity is only unipolar which is a basic difference. Usually functions are not bandwidth limited unlike ideal low pass functions like the sinc. Therefore if you want to caputre ALL information you need infinitely fine sampling. 

However if we fourier transform the 1D-function of an airy disc and compare the energy content per frequency to the sinc-function with a same resolution (according to the Raileigh criterion) we need about double the sampling frequency to catch almost all energy. Therefore if we sample twice as fine as the resolution according to the Rayleigh criterion, we should be fine. This sampling rate is about 15% finer than for MTF50%. (At least for a series of points, i don't know if it also holds for lines.) 

So using the MTF50% megapixel values as a measure sounds good. A problem, however, is that the pixels have area and are not ideal sampling points. Therefore we must compensate for that by making the pixel areas much smaller than the resolution. In order to not throw away so much light we will have to increase the resolution to a multiple the MTF50% values in order to get close to 90% of the signal energy available in the optical resolution.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



So here it is: 5DII + TSE 24II (IMG_6396.jpg) vs. Sony Nex 5N + Contax 28/2.8 + adapter (DSC06395.jpg) -- see attached images I took mins ago.

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

Setup: tripod, not filter, f/5.6, iso 100, picture style "standard", manual focus using live view and in camera jpg (don't want to involve desktop software, but need to reduce the attachment size under 2 mb)


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 8, 2012)

All I can say is I hope your're not saying the 1st pic is better than the 2nd.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 8, 2012)

TonyY said:


> [...]
> 
> So here it is: 5DII + TSE 24II (IMG_6396.jpg) vs. Sony Nex 5N + Contax 28/2.8 + adapter (DSC06395.jpg) -- see attached images I took mins ago.
> 
> ...



1: The NEX image is sharpened by camera software much more than the 5Dii image. If you sharpen the 5dii image you get the same artifacts around the trees but a much better percepted sharpness for other image contents. But if you look at the fine details you will see much more subtle detail on the 5Dii image - like the palm leaves against the sky.

2: The NEX image shows details in a larger scale (about 20% larger in the image previews) which might help to give a sharper perception at first glance (without necessarily showing more photographic detail).


----------



## jrista (Oct 8, 2012)

TonyY said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > TonyY said:
> ...



SUBJECTIVE!! "Just take a look at the center resolution of the image"?!? What the hell kind of comparison is that!?! That's exactly what I said NOT to do! 

BTW, something is seriously up with those photos. The Nex seems to have captured trees in the background that simply don't exist in the Canon shot. Unless your trying to tell me the Sony NEX is capable of generating content that isn't there, an that that is its strength, I find this "test" 100% bogus. All your doing is saying:

"Well, the NEX image looks better to me!"

Sorry, you can't objectively determine if either of those photos is "better", too many variables (pixel size, focal length, camera settings, etc. etc.), not the least of which is the fact that you manually focused, which adds a huge human element of non-deterministic subjectivity to the test right from the get-go. If you were using contrast-detection AF in live view, or had a proper test chart to help you gauge when the image was well and truly focused, that's a different thing...but this....

BO-GUS.


----------



## akiskev (Oct 8, 2012)

TonyY said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > TonyY said:
> ...


First of all thanks for the samples Tony! Sure it's not a scientific test, but it's a very interesting real world test!!
From what I see the NEX combo seems to give better IQ than the Canon one (jpeg)..

Can you provide us with 2 RAW files from these cameras, so we can eliminate the in-camera editing parameter?

Again, thanks!


----------



## TonyY (Oct 8, 2012)

akiskev said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



sorry, didn't take the raw format with Nex. The max image this forum allow to attach is 4 mb.


----------



## TonyY (Oct 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Calm down, this is just a simple test, comparing the combo/image not the camera itself, I think I did the best I can. 100% live view manual focus is more accurate than auto focus, what you see is what sensor captures. Focus are both on the tile above the house at center. Since Nex sensor is 1.5 crop and focal length is 28 vs. 24 =>(1.75) the 5D II shot took is half way closer, that's why perspective changed, some of the tree appeared/disappeared.

Maybe it's the in camera software (standard jpg style in both), to me the Nex image looks has better contrast and bit sharper even it is 1/3 overexposed than 5DII.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's time to switch to Nikon or Sony...
> ...



;D ;D ;D ;D

You know, Canon is so bad that nobody could in good conscious sell it used to move to Nikon or Sony. What to do then? I will accept the great burden of taking your inferior Canon equipment off your hands at no cost to you. Simply ship your equipment to me along with a receipt for the shipping costs, and I will PayPal you the shipping. Then you will be free to move to Nikon/Sony, conscious clear that you did not charge someone for your inferior Canon products.

I know, I know...somebody will have paid the shipping costs, and your inferior, noisy, narrow DR Canon products aren't even worth that! But don't feel bad, I'm more than willing to make the sacrifice, humble humanitarian that I am :

Any takers? 8)


----------



## psolberg (Oct 9, 2012)

canon crowd:
big MP is useless.

canon delivers big MP body.
canon crowd:
big MP is the way to go.

just read http://diglloyd.com/ comment on the subject of oversampling as a means to deliver superb image quality. both canon/Nikon are heading into 50+MP territory to improve on the abysmal image quality of low MP bodies like the 5DmkIII. the reason is simple: bayer pattern. more mp = less effects of the bayer mosaic.

I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy. once the canon crowd gets it, they'll never look back.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy.



Yep. The D4, for example - not really different from a Hello Kitty cam.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 9, 2012)

psolberg said:


> canon crowd:
> big MP is useless.



When the **** did the "Canon crowd" ever say this? Canon was the first to FF, one of the first to >20 MP, and most Canon users were disappointed that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with the D800.



> both canon/Nikon are heading into 50+MP territory to improve on the abysmal image quality of low MP bodies like the 5DmkIII. the reason is simple: bayer pattern. more mp = less effects of the bayer mosaic.



"Abysmal"? LOL! Have you ever even touched a camera? FYI, the Bayer mosaic has never, ever impacted IQ to the degree claimed. And I've seen plenty of the foolish claims. First it was film guys claiming Bayer could never match three layer color film in the same format (happened around 12 MP for 35mm). Then it was the Foveon guys who couldn't distinguish between overall resolution and color detail...and exaggerated even the color detail advantage. Now you're trying the same nonsense but attaching it to sensor resolution.



> I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy. once the canon crowd gets it, they'll never look back.



While I'm looking forward to >30 MP sensors, even I have to admit that they will make *no real difference* for images viewed on today's monitors or prints up to about 24, maybe 30".

You've just got to love the hyperbole in photographic equipment discussions...


----------



## daniel-barton (Oct 9, 2012)

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Love the baseless claims made in here and I have to admit I always like reading Neuro's smackdowns.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy.
> ...



the D4 doesnt even come in pink! at least the hello kitty cam and the nikon 1v/j thingos come in pink!....


----------



## moreorless (Oct 9, 2012)

Judging by the D800 discussion and pics I'm seeing by far the most limating factor for resolution with landscape work seems to be boarder sharpness. We might be along way off the max resolution limates of the center of lenses but even the very best wideangles seem to be struggling with both 36MP FF images and 24MP ASPC images.

Lens performance seems to me the most likely fact thats going to limate the max resolution of various sensor sizes, larger formats optics simpley won't have to work as hard as in the days of film.


----------



## ecka (Oct 9, 2012)

TonyY said:


> So here it is: 5DII + TSE 24II (IMG_6396.jpg) vs. Sony Nex 5N + Contax 28/2.8 + adapter (DSC06395.jpg) -- see attached images I took mins ago.
> 
> Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.
> 
> Setup: tripod, not filter, f/5.6, iso 100, picture style "standard", manual focus using live view and in camera jpg (don't want to involve desktop software, but need to reduce the attachment size under 2 mb)



IMHO, you are doing it wrong, because you are comparing the default JPG output, which is not for someone looking for the best IQ.
My advice for a non-scientific test:
1st. You have to shoot RAW and then process both images to get the best possible result.
2nd. For FF vs APS-C, similar focal length and the same aperture will give you very different results. Try comparing 5D2 + something at 40mm f/8 vs NEX-5N + 28/[email protected] You may find out that 5D2 + 24-105L at 40mm is just as good as Contax 28/2.8 on NEX-5N.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

TonyY said:


> So, just take look at the center resolution of the image.



Ok, now that I'm on my computer instead of my phone, I did. The Sony image looks sharper. 

Of course, if I _over_sharpened the 5DII image as the Sony in-camera settings seem to be doing, it would be sharper still, but it would probably have the purple jaggies just like you see in this crop of the Sony image...


----------



## heptagon (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > So, just take look at the center resolution of the image.
> ...



This is clearly not enough sensor resolution.


----------



## akiskev (Oct 9, 2012)

***Still better test than DXO***


----------



## jrista (Oct 10, 2012)

TonyY said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > SUBJECTIVE!! "Just take a look at the center resolution of the image"?!? What the hell kind of comparison is that!?! That's exactly what I said NOT to do!
> ...



I just find it incredibly ironic, that, after my request that you NOT simply provide an unscientific "I think X looks better" analysis, that's exactly what you did. Blew my mind that you though posting two out of camera jpegs that have had radically different processing and were manually focused (although you did mention Live View with CDAF, which is, IMO, not "manually" focusing) was anywhere remotely close to an objective comparison of two cameras.

As Neuro stated, the Sony camera applies some judicious sharpening, and its very clear at 100% on a 30" screen that such is the case. Neither image looks particularly great, to be quite frank, and I think there are a number of better subjects that could assist in demonstrating the image quality of two cameras. Regardless of the subject chosen, however...using out of camera JPEG's is ridiculous, and not indicative of the kind of IQ we get for buying cameras that support RAW output.

So, sorry, but I really do find your comparison to be extremely lacking and highly subjective. Thus, bogus.


----------



## jrista (Oct 10, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> Give us two exactly alike captured raw files so we can judge ourselves
> JPG is not valid.
> 
> 
> ...



That would be 100mp at what MTF? A lot of people talk about lens resolution at an MTF 0% (which is ridiculous, the only time MTF 0% has ever been particularly valuable is when scientifically analyzing deep space star photos to determine if they might be binary or tertiary stars...as far as an image sensor is concerned 0% contrast means ZERO difference between pixels except what you get from noise.) A lot more people talk about MTF 9%/10%, which is the limit of HUMAN visual acuity (which, thanks to our brains, is a hell of a lot more acute than a pixelated bayer image sensor regarding what our lenses actually project onto our retinas, we effectively get biological superresolution with our eyes and are able to detect much finer gradations of contrast). The standard MTF for testing lens and camera resolution is MTF 50%, which is still pretty low in contrast overall, but high enough for cameras to detect enough difference between pixels that it doesn't just look like noise.

At an MTF 50%, the only way you could actually achieve 100mp worth of lens resolution would be at a very wide aperture with a perfect lens. At least PERFECT diffraction-limited f/2 lens that exhibited ZERO aberrations would barely be able to produce enough line pairs/millimeter (lp/mm) for 100mp, and monochrome 100mp at that. You would probably need a perfect f/1.4 lens to produce enough resolution for a bayer 100mp sensor. That is ignoring system blur, which impacts overall system resolution. You might get a total system spatial resolution of 245lp/mm out of the whole setup, which is about "52mp" at MTF 50% for a perfect f/2 lens and a 100mp monochrome sensor, and maybe "35mp" or so for a 100mp color bayer sensor.



ankorwatt said:


> Mikael Risedal have shown that who are corresponding to 75 Mp and a with Nikon 85/1,8 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41009176



As far as I can tell, there is already diffraction blurring in the samples posted by Mikael at f/4. If it was really "75mp equivalent", I would expect to see FAR more brick detail, but at 100% there is very little. There is also a noticeable drop in contrast between the f/4 and f/8 images, which indicates that diffraction is indeed affecting the image at the narrower aperture.

The perception of diffraction is very skewed in general among photographers. It is not as if the moment diffraction occurs, your IQ goes completely to hell. Diffraction gradually eats away first at contrast, then at detail, as you progressively stop down. Once you pass the DLA of the sensor, diffraction's impact is largely in the area of contrast...when the outer regions of the Airy PATTERN begin to affect other pixels. The primary point of light is concentrated in the center of the Airy Pattern...the Airy DISC. It is only when the Airy Disc grows larger than the size of a pixel and begins to affect other pixels that you actually experience visible diffraction softening. 

I am not sure what the DLA of the Nikon V1 is...I would guess somewhere around f/4, so its not surprising that there is a loss of contrast at f/8. I would expect that blurring sets in pretty soon after f/8, though.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 11, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> There are lot of more details in 75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness at F-8 F11 compared to F4
> considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp
> 
> "75" Mp compared to Canon 21Mp (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
> I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.



I would take better glass over MP any day.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 11, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I am quite happy with my L-glass right now, as for the higher res I will check it out when it's available. Very content with my great glass and 22 MP.


----------



## jrista (Oct 11, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> There are lot of more details in 75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness at F-8 F11 compared to F4
> considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp
> 
> "75" Mp compared to Canon 21Mp (borrowed from dpreview and MR)
> I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.



Sure, more resolution is never _"worse"_. But as far as I could gather, the original argument on the DPReview forum was that there was NO diffraction. There absolutely IS diffraction. You can't avoid diffraction, and it always sets in earlier as you reduce pixel size, so claiming it doesn't exist was just ridiculous, hence my reply.

On a *focal-length limited basis*, yes, a cropped sensor has a reach advantage, and a sensor with smaller pixels will always capture more detail of a SMALLER AREA than a larger sensor. However if you have the ability to correct the focal length discrepancy, the larger sensor will always outperform. Slap on a 250mm lens onto that 5D III and take a step back, and its IQ will probably trounce the V1's. A high density sensor is never a trade-off for better glass (especially glass with a larger physical aperture (entrance pupil), which leads to improvements in other aspects of IQ, such as boke.) 

The thing you are forgetting is that what you want is an actual 75mp Full-Frame sensor. A 75mp-equivalent crop sensor doesn't buy you anything other than the potential for extra reach with fewer pixels in actuality. You aren't actually getting a 75mp sensor with the Nikon V1. Your literally getting a 10.1mp sensor, plain and simple as that. You could argue that you can do mosaics with it, and sure, you could....assuming your scene and subjects were entirely static. However on a pixel-size-normal basis, a 10.1mp V1 is a FAR cry from a true 75mp FF sensor. Be careful not to confuse conflated concepts with actual reality.


----------



## art_d (Oct 11, 2012)

TonyY said:


> Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.


Let me reassure you Tony, you're MDII+24TSEII does not get outperformed by a NEX 5n.

I shoot with a 5DII and 24TSEII. I also shoot with a NEX 5n, along with a very nice 28mm Contax G Zeiss. For that matter I also shoot with my 24TSEII on the NEX 5n thanks to the wonders of the Conurus adapter. I also make my own large fine art prints. After a year or so since I've had the 5n, and numerous prints made with both cameras, here is my take.

With the 5DII I typically can typically print up to 20x30 inches without compromising any image integrity. With the 5n, that point is more like 16x24 inches.

Now for smaller prints, it does become more difficult to tell the difference. But, if you are downsampling the images 5DII images to the same print size as the 5n, there is no way the 5DII will look worse. Converserly, if you upsample 5n images to 5DII dimensions, there is no way the 5n will look better.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 11, 2012)

art_d said:


> TonyY said:
> 
> 
> > Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.
> ...



It's hard to dispute facts.


----------



## jrista (Oct 11, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



And I quote:



ankorwatt said:


> I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.



Simple fact of the matter is, its NOT 75mp, its 10.1mp. The fact that the pixels are smaller, and packed into the area of a smaller sensor, is only meaningful when comparing cameras with different size sensors and pixel densities *at the same focal length.* An 85mm lens for the V1 is only a 230mm lens on FF, so its far from improbable that one could buy a 200mm or 250mm lens for the 5D III to normalize framing. Outside of a focal length limited scenario, the 10.1mp of the V1, even if it is technically equivalent to a 75mp FF sensor, will always produce the lesser image compared to a FF sensor with lower pixel density but more megapixels overall. That is simply because when one normalizes framing (makes the Angle of View between both cameras the same), the FF camera simply has more pixels...it gathers more light and more information for the same exact scene as the smaller camera with its smaller sensor. 

Now, assuming one actually _had the option_ of using a 75mp FF sensor, certainly...it will perform better than either the 1V or the 5D III. But the 1V is not a 75mp FF sensor, its a 10.1mp 2.7x crop sensor, and can only outperform on a focal-length limited scenario, and only in certain ways (i.e. in total detail captured per focal length). A more pixel dense sensor will experience more photon shot noise, will have a lower saturation point, and will generally gather less light overall than a larger sensor, which will have none of those problems. Same thing goes for lenses...the physically smaller lenses designed for the Nikon 1 series will usually have smaller physical apertures for any given focal length, so they will usually allow less overall light through. 

It really doesn't matter what angle you try to come at the problem from. Every way you slice it, a larger sensor with more pixels, even if they are less dense, will always outperform on a framing-normal basis.


----------



## jrista (Oct 11, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Who has said it is an actual 75Mp sensor? the individual pixel size corresponds to 75Mp if a 24x36mm sensor was filled with that pixel size . And it shows a result together with a 85/1, 8 and at F- 8 which is not optimal from the point of view of diffraction, but is perfectly acceptable results.



Ankorwatt effectively said he would take a 75mp camera over a 21mp camera...referring to the V1, which is not a 75mp camera...its a 10.1mp camera. 

Anyway, your still misunderstanding my argument. No, the V1 85mm test at f/8 is not terrible. It's usable. I'd entirely expect that...f/8 is really not what I consider a narrow aperture. I'd consider f/16 to be narrow such that diffraction could pose a problem at 1:1 crop viewing.

Again though. Compare the V1 85mm f/8 setup with a 5D III 250mm f/8 setup. The 5D III setup will trounce the V1, for the exact same framing of an identical subject. Claiming that the V1 is "like a 75mp FF camera" is very misleading, and gives a false sense of what the camera is capable of. It may have the same pixel size as a 75mm FF camera, but the similarities STOP there. An actual 75mp FF camera is a whole world of difference, with MANY benefits over a Nikon 1 V1, and claiming the two are effectively equivalent is simply wrong.


----------



## jrista (Oct 11, 2012)

ankorwatt said:


> Read it again, you are good at misinterpreting
> And Mikael take it easy. Carm and fine



Just to be clear about what I am referring to:



ankorwatt said:


> I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.



Not too many way to interpret that. You explicitly said you would "rather take 75mp" (and I can only assume, given the context, that by that you mean "take the V1") and that "it will always be better compared to 21mp" (and by that I can only assume, given the context, you mean better than the 5D III), and you even qualified that with "whatever lens you use".

Sorry, that is plain and simply incorrect. If you throw a 250mm lens on the 5D III, to normalize angle of view with the V1 using an 85mm lens...and by "normalize angle of view" I mean produce the same exact scene and framing in the output image, the 5D III *WILL *outperform the V1. The images will effectively appear to be the same, but the 5D III image will have more than twice as many pixels, so twice as much detail, which leads to better microcontrast, better sharpness, etc. etc.

If we factor in the larger lens aperture, greater light gathering power, lower noise, higher SNR, and all the other benefits of the FF camera setup...every aspect of IQ should be superior with the 5D III.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2012)

If he wants 75mp, then 80mp is even better, right? So, he's shooting with a Phase One IQ180, right? If not, he's discussing images from hypothetical, nonexistent cameras, which is nonsensical and totally irrelevant.


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I think every one knows what he meant and if not it is you who has a interpretation failure.
> He rather take a 75Mp in the future (every one understand that) and shows my pictures, was wrong with that?
> 
> You said earlier that you saw softness even at F- 4 etc.There is is no real softness at f- 4, but the image was not properly sharpen when I showed it first time . Then you are right about difraktion affect at f-8 but that is common knowledge
> for almost every one.



Why would you assume he suddenly moved to some hypothetical "future" context, when the context at hand involved 75mp only as an extrapolation from the pixel density of the V1, and the argument at hand was _explicitly_ regarding the *V1's* IQ?


----------

