Strange 50MP phenomena to expain...

Pistnbroke

Horses for courses as they say ...But the 54MP will give you 24mp in DX crop..

Ironheart

Why can't you use f/11 with a 54mp camera?

haroldp

54mp will not be for me. What will macro shooters do without f11 available to them - stacking is not feasible with moving subjects and mp will not make unsharp images sharper...

I think there is basic mis-understanding here.

Diffraction is entirely a lens based property, and exists at all f-stops.

Theoretically, a perfectly corrected lens will be sharpest wide open. The Nikon 400/2.8 is a good example of this.

As you stop down, an imperfectly corrected lens gets sharper because aberrations are reduced. ’Optimum' aperture is the intersection where the loss due to diffraction equals the gain due to reduced aberrations.

If the sensor cannot resolve the diffraction 'circle of confusion' then stopping down (eg: for dof) does not appear to reduce sharpness from a wider opening but the diffraction is still there.

The bottom line to this dreary saga is that in no circumstance will the 54mp (or 108 mp or 1000mp) image be worse (because of resolution) at f11 than the 36 mp image, you will merely be able to see that it is not as good as the f8 image.

If f11 is indeed the 'diffraction limit' for the lens / 54mp sensor combo, then with a lower resolution sensor, the f11 image will look (about) like the f11 image on the higher resolution sensor, and like the f8 image, but the f8 (if it is indeed 'optimum' will look better on the higher resolution sensor.

The higher resolution image may well be better in modes other than resolution such as color or texture because more data is more data.

If the sensor is not as good with noise or color, that is another problem but succeeding generations tend to be as good in other factors as they add resolution.

Feel free to shoot your 54mp macros at f11, you may not see more resolution than 36mp but neither will it be less, and unless macro’s are the only thing you shoot, it may come in handy for other types of images.

Enjoy …. H

heartyfisher

?? I am not understanding your post @Haroldp ....

1) Difraction is Aperture based not lense based..
2) Perfectly corrected lense. Theoretically wide open will be mostly blur.. only plane of focus will be sharp. and with a Wide aperture the plane of focus will be very thin.. so mostly blur ...
3) Stopping Down will always increase DOF.. just the sharp bits will seem less sharp the more MP you have in the sensor...

...
...

Hmmm mybe its time for me to sleep .... and stop posting in the middle of the night .. ..niteynite..

WestEndFoto

Strangely, the 36mp that I always thought to be more mp than I want is becoming more appealing with the thought of a 54mp monster arriving. O:-)

54mp will not be for me. What will macro shooters do without f11 available to them - stacking is not feasible with moving subjects and mp will not make unsharp images sharper...

I think that it will put more pressure on lens design.

As to why 36 is now desirable when 54 is available? Simple marketing. It is acceptable to "not be able to afford the best". But "not be able to afford second best" is beyond the pale.

haroldp

?? I am not understanding your post @Haroldp ....

1) Difraction is Aperture based not lense based..
2) Perfectly corrected lense. Theoretically wide open will be mostly blur.. only plane of focus will be sharp. and with a Wide aperture the plane of focus will be very thin.. so mostly blur ...
3) Stopping Down will always increase DOF.. just the sharp bits will seem less sharp the more MP you have in the sensor..

1 ) Yes, I include aperture as a property of the lens, Diffraction is not sensor based and will be the same for any lens/aperture regardless of sensor.

2) At the exact plane of focus, which is in fact a plane and has no depth at any aperture, a perfectly corrected lens will be sharpest wide open. Whether this works well for any given subject or composition is an artistic question.

3) You are absolutely correct, Stopping Down will always increase DOF.

My main point is that at any lens/ aperture, a higher resolution sensor will never look worse than a lower resolution sensor, though in some cases such as diffraction it might not look much better either.

What time zone are you in ??

Regards ... H

snakebunk

I also think that 36 mp is pretty good, I think I rather have one more fps in the D820 than more mp, but once we get used to 54 mp it will probably feel alright :-).

WestEndFoto

I also think that 36 mp is pretty good, I think I rather have one more fps in the D820 than more mp, but once we get used to 54 mp it will probably feel alright :-).

I want more resolution. If you want more fps and are not concerned about resolution, buy a D750, D500 or at D5 if you are OK with the cost.

Ironheart

Strangely, the 36mp that I always thought to be more mp than I want is becoming more appealing with the thought of a 54mp monster arriving. O:-)

54mp will not be for me. What will macro shooters do without f11 available to them - stacking is not feasible with moving subjects and mp will not make unsharp images sharper...

I asked the (somewhat rhetorical) question "Why can't you use f/11 with a 54mp camera?" but it got lost in the sauce above, most of which is correct, diffraction and high-resolution are somewhat related, but you will never get a "worse" image with higher res, you'll just be able to see the effects of diffraction better.

Which brings me to my point, diffraction is not an all or nothing proposition. When I said "diffraction starts to set in" that is exactly the case, it is always a tradeoff like ISO vs. shutter speed. Each click adds a bit more, but it is by no means a cliff or brick-wall. The onset of diffraction is slow and steady, not on or off.

snakebunk

I also think that 36 mp is pretty good, I think I rather have one more fps in the D820 than more mp, but once we get used to 54 mp it will probably feel alright :-).

I want more resolution. If you want more fps and are not concerned about resolution, buy a D750, D500 or at D5 if you are OK with the cost.

Of course, I think we all can agree on that. Personally I don't want less than 36 mp though.

spraynpray

Back now...

@haroldp: Good explanation. IIUYC, looking at 1:1 will enable you to see diffraction effects earlier with more mp, but at normal viewing ratios will give better detail. Thanks.

@Ironheart: Sorry I missed your post - my comment was based on the bald statements (written without any explanation) that I have read before on NR that higher mp did 'bring on' diffraction effects earlier than on lower mp sensors so I expected to not be able to shoot effectively beyond f5.6.

I remember well the shock that most Nikon lenses were not recommended to be used on the D800e when it came out. I expect another list for the 54mp body.

snakebunk

I remember well the shock that most Nikon lenses were not recommended to be used on the D800e when it came out. I expect another list for the 54mp body.

I think that kind of list is very strange because it is not a specific mp count at which a lense cannot resolve a sensor; it is the lense and the sensor together that sets the limit of the resolution. Only in extreme cases the resolution depends on either the sensor or the lense.

For example, with my 500/4.5 lense I usually do not get a crystal clear definition of the pixels like I do with my 50/1.4 lense, but I still think I can get more resolution out of my 500/4.5 lense than I would with a lower resolution sensor.

Also, even with a very unsharp lense it wouldn't be worse on a 36mp sensor than on a 54 mp, given that you use an equal area of the sensor.

Does it sound about right?

spraynpray

Something is amiss there @snakebunk?

"it is the lense and the sensor together that sets the limit of the resolution."

Well, yes, the lens will look sharp on a low mp sensor. As the mp goes up, previously good lenses become just ok, or not good enough. That is my point.

"Only in extreme cases the resolution depends on either the sensor or the lense."

If by that you mean only when the mp surpasses the level needed to out-resolve the lens, then yes. Again, that was my point.

"Also, even with a very unsharp lense it wouldn't be worse on a 36mp sensor than on a 54 mp, given that you use an equal area of the sensor."

Unsharp on 36mp is only going to get worse on a 54mp so yes. That was my point.

So I don't get what is strange about the list?

I wonder if Nikon made their latest lenses '54mp-proof' because if not, they may be increasing pressure on their lens R&D to catch up.

snakebunk

Hm, it would be easier if we could take a cup of coffee and talk it through .

My main point is that there is no exact limit at which there is no point in having a higher resolution sensor for a certain lense. Even if a lense is slightly unsharp on 36 mp you can probably get some more information out of it on a 54 mp sensor. It will of course look worse on a 100% crop, but if you compare the full image downsampled to equal size the image will look equal or better on 54 mp compared to 36.

The strange thing about the list is that it gives you a feeling of a lense not being as good on a sensor with more pixels. It's kind of like saying that Miles Davis Kind of Blue is not good enough to be played on CD.

spraynpray

Yeah, I would prefer a chat over coffee too, that would be good. What part of Kent in England are you from? :-)

snakebunk

Start driving north east and when people start having horns on their helmets you are close .

Pistnbroke

In Nuneaton they have two heads

spraynpray

Start driving north east and when people start having horns on their helmets you are close .

The land of the northern lights?

WestEndFoto

Start driving north east and when people start having horns on their helmets you are close .

The land of the northern lights?

No, that is Yellowknife, Canada, which is almost underneath the magnetic pole.

Msmoto

We can all discuss this stuff over coffee at the get together in St Augustine.....now about 72 days away!

What is interesting about photographic equipment is the rules are only a starting point, and while the laws of physics (optics) do not change, the interaction with all the variables is almost always too complex to state definitively for all lenses, as each lens design has its unique characteristics.

Or at least this is what I think may be true....... ) )