The D800 has clarified a few miffs like hitting the diffraction limit with smaller pixels, high pixel noise generated due to its limited surface area, sensors out resolving lenses, cropped sensors having better range coverage, one sensor size not able to cater for users needing wide angel and telephoto coverage and etc...etc...etc...
A lot of time posters used out dated information to substantiate their view like using out dated data, parameters, equipment and alternate technologies that is not available at the moment of time when the first report was generated. But because of not knowing the improvements made by the industries, they continue to believe what was stated.
For example for diffraction limits, the pixel size, the lens used and the software that were able to regenerate and combine the various wavelengths to produce what was expected can be overcome.
For pixel noise (signal to noise ratio) or the ability to capture light can be affected by the micro lens that sits in front of it thus increasing the overall surface area from a square area to a spherical one, also as pixels gets smaller the resolution gets higher, thus the effect of moire will have less effect on the picture if it is not overly enlarged. By removing the AA filter it also helps to improve light loss through transmission.
For sensors out resolving lenses was so miss-understood base on standards that were published and used in the out-going inspection rather than what was actually being produced. Most of the time comparisons were made using 10lp/ph, 30lp/ph or 60lp/ph; instead of how many lp/mm as used in the industry (the known lp/mm used in the industry is much, much higher than what was published in brochures in lp/ph). Also how many official test sites have the super expensive and proprietary equipment that can generate the high line pairs scan to start with for measurement? Not many. Just imagine that if sensors and lenses used in space telescopes and satellites were really base on that low lp/ph you won't see a thing in meters or in recent day's cm but rather in km resolution.
For cropped sensors having better range coverage, one sensor size not able to cater for users needing wide angel and telephoto coverage. Well, ever thought of switching from FF to cropped mode if one consider the pixel size used in the FF is the same as that used in the cropped sensor like what is on the D800 and the D7000 (4.7um if I am correct). Wouldn't the picture coming out of the FF with a 1.5 crop having the same effect or almost the same effect if you consider into DOF of the D7000? So does that not mean that one sensor size can cater for both type of users? With process capability improvements, the cost of manufacturing the FF sensors with respect to the cropped frame will narrow, so having two different formats will not be economical as in having to develop and produce 2 different line of lenses and accessories.
I have learned a lot from some electrical engineering posters who talk about the actual number of noise electrons in a well at each ISO on each camera (MF & 35mm), etc.
As someone who went to digital capture relatively early, and who stopped using 6x7 film in 2004 (?) when I got ther 1DsII, I think we have all been amazed at how much of the early chatter about how digital would hit all of these "walls" at 6mp, 10mp, etc. was just BS. As in other areas, people have a strong bias towards what they already know, and a certain fear of the unknown.
In digital, in some ways, quantity is quality. In other ways, the tools - software and hardware (sonsors) have just improved so much in quality with each generation that it is amazing.
FWIW, the OP is from Singapore, so take it with a grain of salt (miff, myth, etc.) Still interesting points.
the internet and life is full of people who do not stay current with information or just pulling it out of you know where,, (_o_)
what I dislike the most is when someone says well so & so says bla bla bla,, they just pass on the same BS and even embellish it more or put their twist on it,, seldom do they take the time to really research the subject,, even when factual information is given it is challenged as other camps have generated their position,,
I enjoyed the read and when my 800E arrives I'll let you know the diff,,
I still have my Nikon 3.3 MP that works,, was decent photos but any crop left you seeing a lot of pixels very quickly,, we have advanced
First, I would like to clarify my selection of the word miffs over the word myths is because very so often we see people arguing over topics like deffraction, resolution and etc...etc...etc...base on historical events or past technologies that I would think the word myths would represent, but because of the unknown or at time misunderstanding it always ends up as heated arguments which I think the word miffs throughly applies.
myths: traditional stories or historical events
miffs: a fit of ill humor or a trival quarrel
Just like this little short statment: "FWIW, the OP is from Singapore, so take it with a grain of salt (miff, myth, etc.)".
I don't think mmurph meant any harm but it could be misunderstood as someone with very little knowledge of global technologies.
Well, just for the information I kept myself up to date with present day's technology because I work with researchers in the industries all over the world, and attend meetings with researchers from major oversea universities that provide those technologies to the industry, so I learn as I go.
Like recently Monito did a very good layman description of what morie is on another thread to someone who wants to know. Well, Monito you can add to what you already wrote that morie seldom happen away from center of screen because most of the time lenses perform better around the center and not so well off center due to distortion or CA thus minimizing the effect of morie off center.
Another thing is that morie occurs most of the time in diagonal to the screen and not vertical or horizontal due to the pixel shape and arrangement, so morie seldom happens if the detail is more than 75% of the diagonal of the pixel size (provided the picture is not enlarge to where the pixels can be seen).
Well, I hope this will not be another miff but a thread where we can discuss and share information that are allow to be share without breaking any agreement to non disclosure agreements. Something to thinker our minds and move foreward with technology, or else researchers and engineers will loose their jobs if we stop accepting improvements on their newer products.
Well, if you go by the Canonites, the Nikon lenses are not capable of the resolving power required for this sensor. They even claim they can see it in the sample photos.
daskibum wrote:
Well, if you go by the Canonites, the Nikon lenses are not capable of the resolving power required for this sensor. They even claim they can see it in the sample photos.
Image system MTF = Lens MTF x Image Sensor Package MTF (which itself = anti-aliasing filter MTF x infrared-cutoff filter MTF x Micro Lens MTF x Bayer Filter MTF x sensor MTF). The convolution theorem still holds, regardless of what Canon (or Nikon, or Sony, or general) crazies say.
Take it as just a joke and hope those Canonites will not end this thread as another miff, I recalled sometime back when Canon made a G10 or something like that that has a sensor equivalent to close to 300MP or so in FF. I wonder what those owners are seeing through that little pocket camera with that kind of resolving power at that time, didn't we still see pictures coming out of it?
I am very confident that one day someone with come out with a 300MP FF with much improve noise handling capablity for those who needs it for whatever reasons.
Be mindful that the final file size might not have to be 300MP, it could be 1/4 or 1/16 of its actual size to improve the noise cancellation as what we saw in down sizing.
At this moment there are still limitation on how far the equipment can go about measuring the actual optical MTF compare to what can be calculated from it.
Catfur wrote:
Image system MTF = Lens MTF x Image Sensor Package MTF (which itself = anti-aliasing filter MTF x infrared-cutoff filter MTF x Micro Lens MTF x Bayer Filter MTF x sensor MTF). The convolution theorem still holds, regardless of what Canon (or Nikon, or Sony, or general) crazies say.
lol. Just trolling based off what they are screaming... that the Nikkors can't do it. But they say the Canon L's can easily... lol
derry1 wrote:
the internet and life is full of people who do not stay current with information or just pulling it out of you know where,, (_o_)
what I dislike the most is when someone says well so & so says bla bla bla,, they just pass on the same BS and even embellish it more or put their twist on it,, seldom do they take the time to really research the subject,, even when factual information is given it is challenged as other camps have generated their position,,
I enjoyed the read and when my 800E arrives I'll let you know the diff,,
I still have my Nikon 3.3 MP that works,, was decent photos but any crop left you seeing a lot of pixels very quickly,, we have advanced
Derry...Show more →
That is why I say; you have to own them to know them. Shoot in the conditions that you usually find yourself. That is a real test. The results really hit home. I have found things out, especially about lenses, that are not in the reviews, such as "unwanted flare".
Entrenched positions? That is all too common. On one hand, just shoot the pictures. Cameras are good. On the other, your new high ISO full frame camera is better than my D300. Telling me why is also interesting to me. Hanging pics in local galleries and getting cash is real nice too.
daskibum wrote:
Well, if you go by the Canonites, the Nikon lenses are not capable of the resolving power required for this sensor. They even claim they can see it in the sample photos.
