Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
I went to Bird Nature Reserve and all the photographers had enormous 500/600/800 lenses and give me an amusing look when I took my little P900 out. They were not smiling when they saw the results and I told them what it had cost.
To Donaldjose’s point, 20-24 megapixels is already the defacto minimum standard. The only reason that the D500 is only 20 megapixels is that 24 megapixels would have compromised the frame rate. I think that the same applies to the D5. I would expect the next iterations to be 24 megapixels. For everything else, the minimum standard is 24 and could be 36 in the next generation.
Moore’s law is slowing down and so are improvements in processing speed. The improvements that we were used to 10 years ago are already a thing of the past and the improvements of the last 3 or 4 years are also not sustainable. The next iteration, therefore, may have a longer shelf life with photographers.
I just "wasted" some free time on DxO - the only place one can do that - comparing same Nikon lenses on D750 and D810 . As we all know, the D810 has 50% more Mps than the D750.
The top 4-5 highest score lenses - totalling over $23-35k, did show a 30-40% gain on the D810. However, once down the list to more affordable quality glass, the difference fell to 10-20%.
That is of course if we assume the only difference in resolution/image quality between the D750 and the D810 originates from the number of Mps. Not a healthy assumption since the guts of the D750 may not be at par with the D810's ...
Not only that, the AA filter on the D750 can make a huge difference, so I thought maybe it would be wiser to compare the D750 with the D800. Comparing the two, one sees the difference in sharpness figures in most cases diminish.
Here are some examples
200mm f2 on D750 - 24Mp
200mm f2 on D800 - 28Mp
200mm f2 on D810 - 33Mp
400mm f2.8 on D750 - 24Mp
400mm f2.8 on D800 - 25Mp
400mm f2.8 on D810 - 33Mp
85mm f1.4G on D750 - 22Mp
85mm f1.4G on D800 - 22Mp
85mm f1.4G on D810 - 30Mp
14-24mm f2.8G on D750 - 19Mp
14-24mm f2.8G on D800 - 17Mp
14-24mm f2.8G on D810 - 23Mp
24-70mm f2.8G VR on D750 - 16Mp
24-70mm f2.8G VR on D800 - 20Mp
24-70mm f2.8G VR on D810 - 19Mp
70-200mm f2.8G ED on D750 - 16Mp
70-200mm f2.8G ED on D800 - 15Mp
70-200mm f2.8G ED on D810 - 20Mp
One can add another 10 examples but I became cross eyed doing this much so please help yourself and see if you can see anything else happening there.
Looks like the extra 50% Mps did bring something but nothing much in the end. And this was from 24Mp to 36Mp . The increase is likely to be LESS as we go from 36Mp to 50Mp ( or 70 ) as we would be past resolution limits of most lenses ...
Oh yes, I did not forget ... One has more pixels to crop with high Mps . Nothing to say on that.
And to your last point, the ability to crop is a benefit of higher resolution cameras. But as to your point, lens resolution is important, so this is not a benefit when the sensor resolution exceeds the lens resolution.
You will note in my previous post that I suggested that a D900 with 72 megapixels might be accompanied with some new super high resolution lenses. That comment was mindful of your above analysis.
This is not a new issue. Many 35mm films had much higher resolution than was achieved with the lenses of their day - or even today.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Covered many times before, there is also the diffraction ( f6 being the new f8 ) that will come with a +50Mp sensor which brings up IQ issues if any DOF is required. I can see a landscape photographer wanting more Mps for more details but he does need the DOF. On the other hand, there is the portrait/sports/ news / event photographer who may not need the DOF, but he also does not need the 50Mp, does he?
Not saying the extra Mps will take away anything or take us back; just that it won't justify the cost for most due to diminishing returns. Isn't it time higher and higher Mps stop being the main selling point & main upgrade for DSLRs ?
An then the camera manufacturers will shift their focus to what is really important. Camera ergonomics, cost, lens image quality, improving VR etc. etc. etc.
With film nobody complained about the resolution of film. You could buy 35mm film with a resolution of greater than a hundred megabytes, but it didn't matter. Everyone talked about lens sharpness.
This article on Wikipedia discusses Digital Versus Film but I believe some of the information is pertinent to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
Cramming 50+ megapixels into a 35mm sensor is not the same as 50+ megapixels on a medium format sensor. The surface area of a 35 sensor is between 850 to 870 square mm. Phase One 65Mp (Hasselblad 60 mp about 2170) is roughly 2180 square mm. The Phase One is roughly 2.5 times larger. For the Landscape photographer I believe this is significant in that printing an image that from a 35mm sensor that has to be enlarged 2.5 times to equal the same image that is captured without enlarging on a medium format sensor. I agree that there are many other factors that need to be considered but fundamentally I believe you have to start factoring this concept as well. I agree with Paperman that at some point the increase in higher megapixels reaches its limit as a selling point.
Maybe 24 and 36 is where it is sensible to stop.
Or perhaps you can substitute modifying the plane of focus for a wide dof. My PC-E lens arrived a couple of days ago, so I will be experimenting with that.
"With film nobody complained about the resolution of film. You could buy 35mm film with a resolution of greater than a hundred megabytes, but it didn't matter. Everyone talked about lens sharpness. "
Jeff I have to disagree with you on this point. I am pretty certain that there has never been a 35mm film camera that produces a 100 mega pixel equivalent image. Most professional photographers that needed high resolution images used Medium Format or Large Format cameras. Based on the article I referenced above, most 35mm film cameras produce roughly a 20MP image.
I am not alone in this thought either, Ansel Adams states in his book on Basic Techniques of Photography, page 44.
"the photographer who uses the (medium) format (camera) does so because he finds that the compromises involved work to his benefit. He may achieve better image quality than is possible with a 35mm camera, with greater mobility than a 4 x 5 camera."
A medium format film camera is capable of producing up to a 400 MP equivalent image. There is also discussion within the medium format cameras about the 645, 6 X 6 and 6 X 7 formats and which provides the best image quality. Even though Ansel Adams preferred the 6 X 6 square format (for his visualization of a image) he felt that the 6 X 7 format produced the a noticeable better enlargement than a 6 x 6 format because the 6 x 7 due to cropping of 6 X 6. For example enlarging a 6 x 6 negative to produce a 8 x 10 print would result in cropping 1.2 cm from the negative which would result in a 45 percent loss of usable area. Ansel Adams considered the 6 x 7 the perfect format.
The 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 large format film cameras produce astounding images that I do not believe will ever be capable of being produced by a digital camera. Ansel Adam used large format cameras because he required the high quality image that could be produced. He used 35 mm camera and medium format cameras, which I believe was that there is no one camera that will satisfy every photographic need. It seems that this is the larger issue that everyone today is looking for that one camera that will do everything.
This is a link to Guy Tal's website. He uses a 4 x 5 large format film camera and produces in my opinion incredible images. There is a resurgence of people going back to using film especially in medium and large format.
http://guytal.com/gtp/gallery/showgallery.jsp?gid=0
I would like for Msmoto and/or others with experienced in medium and large format film cameras to weigh in on this as well.
@spraynpray I agree with your comment on the massive mega pixel race. I believe it is flawed and a poor business decision if Nikon decides to pursue it as well.
35mm camera = 24mm x 36mm = 864mm2
4x5 camera = 40mm x 50mm = 2000mm2
Hence with a 2.3x multiplication factor, the 20Mp vs 400Mp ( 20x ) won't work. Neither will it work for the maximum 6x7 size mentioned ( 60 x 70 = 4200mm2 ) that gives you 4.9x.
Maybe you were thinking large format cameras ....
I woke up one day the film I used for 20 years was discontinued, shortly there after the lab I used closed and my Old Man (who had been hammering on me to move to digital for years) pointed me towards Nikon.
I take shots now that would be simply impossible to shoot with medium format. Between the limitations of the format its self in terms of frame rate and lenses (not to mention the problems with finding film and getting it processed) there isn't a day I would want to be back shooting medium format. I can make better images (of what I shoot) with more flexibility (creativity) than I ever could have with medium format.
And I shoot a lot of it. Because at the end of the day all we are doing is inconveniencing billions and billions of electrons and they work cheap. I have a 32TB server with lots and lot and lot of images on it. And I can search all of those images quickly and print them on my large format Epson 7900 printer in a matter of minutes.
And speaking of big prints, once you start printing big it becomes an obsession. I now consider 8.5 x 11 to be test print size. I have printed 24 x 48 images of rodeos and landscapes and I have a 24 x 36 inch print of the Very Large Array I shot a couple of years back on my D7000 with a Nikon 400mm F/2.8 lens (600mm effective) hanging in my office. I knocked it back to black and white and it just pops out of the frame. It the number one reprint request I get when people see it. None of this would be possible/affordable/make any sense at all in medium format.
I have a couple of magazine covers and industrial posters I shot with my D800E and when I drop boxed the 200M 16 bit TIFF files to the magazines they were very happy (and the checks cleared)..
I still have all of my 645 gear but I just can't see going back to shooting with it even if there was a "benefit" in doing so. Some people like the limitations of medium format and the look of film. But there isn't anything there for me.
I don't listen to vinyl either...
Denver Shooter
My quote was based on what I recall from a credible comment by our dear friend Ken Rockwell:
The Digital Resolution of Film
So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?
Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.
Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.
320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.
35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.
To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.
But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."
At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.
Now, he points out that contrast is really low at 160 lines per mm, but there is detail nonetheless. That does not mean the 175 megapixel image he refers to above will be pleasing, only that you will see detail. That is why I "downgraded" my estimate to 100 megapixels.
Now I take everything that Ken Rockwell says with a careful grain of salt, but this sounds credible to me. He gets his resolving power rating of 160 lines per mm from here (bottom of last page):
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdf
Now the contrast is low, but at 80 lines per mm, there is a decent amount of contrast. So this film resolves equivalent to about 45 megapixels easily.
Now my point was that there was a time in history where the sensors (film) could resolve finer details than the lenses available. Even if you were not using Velvia 50, there were films that were resolving finer details than many lenses. If the next iteration of sensors takes us to something like 72 megapixels, we can all ignore cameras forever (as far as resolution is concerned) and focus on the thing that really matters, the lenses. Not the photon detectors........
35 x 24 mm = 856 to 864 mm2 depending on the model of the camera
6 X 6 cm or 56 x 56 mm = 3131 mm2
6 x 7 cm or 56 x 67 mm = 3752 mm2
4 X 5 inches or 121 x 97 mm = 11737 mm2
Sorry for not referencing the units of the different formats.
I was referencing the following quote from the article concerning the megapixels. I am not sure how they calculated the megapixel equivalents but I have seen similar number on a variety of sites.
"The resolution of film images depends upon the area of film used to record the image (35 mm, medium format or large format) and the film speed. Estimates of a photograph's resolution taken with a 35 mm film camera vary. More information may be recorded if a fine-grain film, combined with a specially formulated developer, are used. Conversely, use of poor-quality optics or coarse-grained film yield lower image resolution. A 36 mm x 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million pixels,[6] although this estimate was later revised to between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used.[7]
Many professional-quality film cameras use medium-format or large-format films. Because of the size of the imaging area, these can record higher resolution images than current top-of-the-range digital cameras. A medium-format film image can record an equivalent potential of approximately 400 megapixels,[8] while large-format films can record considerably larger (4 × 5 inch) which equates to around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches, without accounting for lens sharpness.[9]"
@DenverShooter I still shoot medium and large format film but I also shoot a lot more with my D800, D810 and Phase One. My post started out to address the comment that WestEndFoto made concerning the resolution of 35mm film. I however went off topic discussing the resolution of the medium and large format cameras. I respect your opinion and appreciate your comments. I will use my D800 or D810 to scout out locations that I may want to take a image of with a larger format film camera. Some times I capture a image that gets the job done with the D8XX and sometimes I get what I need with one of the other formats when I come back to the location. I also have a Fuji X-T10 and new X2-Pro that I use when I do not need a large image or just walking around town or driving in the car. I do enjoy the process involved in using a larger format cameras and also enjoy using my digital cameras. I believe there are limitations to all formats of cameras, knowing the limitations and benefits of each format and using the right camera for the job at hand yields the best results.
I am also saying that I am looking forward to a 70ish megapixel camera because no lens can achieve that. Then we can all forget about sensor resolution and focus on lens resolution.