MP wise, where's sweet spot on FF sensors...
/forum/topic/1155125/2

1       2      
3
       4       5       end

R.H. Johnson
Registered: Oct 08, 2006
Total Posts: 1984
Country: United States

Michaelparris, unfortunately i'm not familiar with Brand Nikon and i can't comment on their 16.2 mega pixel D4. thank you for your return comment to me. good day.



Michaelparris
Registered: Sep 15, 2008
Total Posts: 2326
Country: United States

Maybe research shows that the mp range of these two cameras is close to the sweet spot....There is a reason that both Canon and Nikons most high end cams have 16 mp one would think. I could be completely off base though



BrianO
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Total Posts: 8551
Country: United States

Michaelparris wrote: ...There is a reason that both Canon and Nikons most high end cams have 16 mp one would think.

Nikon's "high end cam" -- the D3X -- is a 24.5 megapixel camera.



Michaelparris
Registered: Sep 15, 2008
Total Posts: 2326
Country: United States

I stand corrected....



jctriguy
Registered: Oct 04, 2004
Total Posts: 1194
Country: Canada

Michaelparris wrote:
Maybe research shows that the mp range of these two cameras is close to the sweet spot....There is a reason that both Canon and Nikons most high end cams have 16 mp one would think. I could be completely off base though


Canon is 18 and 22. Nikon is 24 and 36.

I don't think anyone has mentioned any issues with the 36 mp Sony/Nikon sensor. Why isn't that the current sweet spot?



Pixel Perfect
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Total Posts: 19908
Country: Australia

Michaelparris wrote:

Someone else who gets the question. The 1Dx and the Nikon D4 are the reasons I made this post....


For goodness sakes. The 1D X and D4 design goals are a juggling act between many things but mostly; highest possible speed, highest possible ISO, lowest possible noise, reasonable MP count. The intended use of these cameras is first and foremost for PJ's and one thing they would not want in the field is monster file sizes. Their priorities are quite a bit different to a landscape photographers say. There is NOTHING magic about their resolution other than these were the numbers that met their design targets. The 1D X in particular was designed to knock the D3s of it's throne in every area, of course they didn't know how much the D4 would improve at the time. IMO Canon traded off MP for absolute speed and highest possible IQ at very high ISO. As it is it only offers a 2/3 stop advantage over the 5D III and how much of that is purely MP count being smaller of better circuitry, 16 vs 8 channel readout, etc. Camera like the D800 and 5D III have different design targets and hence the (much) higher resolution.

The funny thing about the arguments against higher resolution is in Nikon's case the 36MP D800 is the one with superior IQ at least up to ISO 6400 and beyond this the difference is still small as the D800's 36MP can be downrezzed to 16MP to give similar noise and still more detail at higher ISO.

Everyone's sweet spot is different.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4405
Country: Norway

R.H. Johnson wrote:
the bigger the bucket the more water it will hold. the bigger the photo-site the more light it can absorb.


How about counting for the whole sensor and not individual pixels.

Canon 5DIII FWC: 67531 e- x 22 M = 1486 G e-
Nikon D800 FWC: 44972 e- x 36 M = 1619 G e-

http://sensorgen.info/


The sensor with smaller pixels can in this case absorb more light than the sensor with larger pixels.



RobDickinson
Registered: Sep 25, 2009
Total Posts: 3511
Country: New Zealand

buckets have no meaningful place in sensor discussions.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4405
Country: Norway

Pixel Perfect wrote:

Everyone's sweet spot is different.


That is not what the OP wants to hear. He asked about our opinions or technological proof about the sweet spot. In my first post I offered my opinion that I want as small (implicitly as many) pixels as possible in a FF camera. That was deemed an idiotic post by the OP.



outlawyer
Registered: Feb 27, 2008
Total Posts: 1404
Country: United States

To paraphrase Stanj, print size limits the need for mega MP sensors. Unless you are printing or viewing barn-sized (or cropping equivalently) the extra mp's simply cannot be seen. The human eye is of limited MP's after all.



jctriguy
Registered: Oct 04, 2004
Total Posts: 1194
Country: Canada

outlawyer wrote:
To paraphrase Stanj, print size limits the need for mega MP sensors. Unless you are printing or viewing barn-sized (or cropping equivalently) the extra mp's simply cannot be seen. The human eye is of limited MP's after all.


Lots of people benefit from the ability to crop. Sometimes you just can't get closer or use a longer lens. The option of cropping an 80mp image would be great. Just give the option of shooting lower res when needed and shooting in cropped mode as well.



Michaelparris
Registered: Sep 15, 2008
Total Posts: 2326
Country: United States

alundeb wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:

Everyone's sweet spot is different.


That is not what the OP wants to hear. He asked about our opinions or technological proof about the sweet spot. In my first post I offered my opinion that I want as small (implicitly as many) pixels as possible in a FF camera. That was deemed an idiotic post by the OP.


I still stand by my statement......I am not talking about EVERYONES sweet spot. Look there HAS to be a place, technically where everything is at its peek performance for a sensor of that size.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4405
Country: Norway

Michaelparris wrote:
Look there HAS to be a place, technically where everything is at its peek performance for a sensor of that size.


What do you mean by "everything"?



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 21146
Country: Canada

Pixel Perfect wrote:

Everyone's sweet spot is different.

alundeb wrote:
That is not what the OP wants to hear. He asked about our opinions or technological proof about the sweet spot. In my first post I offered my opinion that I want as small (implicitly as many) pixels as possible in a FF camera. That was deemed an idiotic post by the OP.

Michaelparris wrote:
... there HAS to be a place, technically where everything is at its peek performance for a sensor of that size.


No there doesn't. The trade-offs between important and conflicting technical performance attributes, such as throughput (i.e. data handling), ISO performance, resolution, and other factors means there are many "local optimum" peaks on the "peak performance response surface continuum", but there is no, single global optimum peak for all parameters, simultaneously. It's sort of like ship design, but different...



Michaelparris
Registered: Sep 15, 2008
Total Posts: 2326
Country: United States

jcolwell wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:

Everyone's sweet spot is different.

alundeb wrote:
That is not what the OP wants to hear. He asked about our opinions or technological proof about the sweet spot. In my first post I offered my opinion that I want as small (implicitly as many) pixels as possible in a FF camera. That was deemed an idiotic post by the OP.

Michaelparris wrote:
... there HAS to be a place, technically where everything is at its peek performance for a sensor of that size.


No there doesn't. The trade-offs between important and conflicting technical performance attributes, such as throughput (i.e. data handling), ISO performance, resolution, and other factors means there are many "local optimum" peaks on the "peak performance response surface continuum", but there is no, single global optimum peak for all parameters, simultaneously. It's sort of like ship design, but different...


I was looking at it more like a V8 motor....but your analogy makes sense.



outlawyer
Registered: Feb 27, 2008
Total Posts: 1404
Country: United States

jctriguy wrote:
outlawyer wrote:
To paraphrase Stanj, print size limits the need for mega MP sensors. Unless you are printing or viewing barn-sized (or cropping equivalently) the extra mp's simply cannot be seen. The human eye is of limited MP's after all.


Lots of people benefit from the ability to crop. Sometimes you just can't get closer or use a longer lens. The option of cropping an 80mp image would be great. Just give the option of shooting lower res when needed and shooting in cropped mode as well.


Fair enough. My shots rarely if ever can't be framed w/o cropping, and I forget that other subjects exist



Jeff Nolten
Registered: Sep 06, 2006
Total Posts: 1632
Country: United States

outlawyer wrote:
To paraphrase Stanj, print size limits the need for mega MP sensors. Unless you are printing or viewing barn-sized (or cropping equivalently) the extra mp's simply cannot be seen. The human eye is of limited MP's after all.


The Apple iPad has a 264 ppi "retina" display which supposedly matches what the human eye can discern. A 27" iMac with a retina display would be 6200 x 3390 pixels, requiring a 25 MP camera to crop to that 16:9 aspect ratio. The 15" Macbook Pro is only 220 ppi which extrapolates to only requiring an 18 MP camera for a 27" retina display.



mttran
Registered: Nov 03, 2005
Total Posts: 6858
Country: United States

some day soon, sony getting closer and closer to this P65 sample







Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 6674
Country: United States

I think the sweet spot hinges more on affordable memory and processing, coupled with processing speed. Today, around 25MP is the sweet spot if shooting an abundance of RAW, but in a couple years, possibly 50MP will be comparable.

At the moment, my computer is slightly behind the curve, and I only have a total of 3TB storage: one in the computer as C/D; one external F, one back-up G (plus a mothballed 320GB). I'm on the verge of buying another drive as both these externals are full.

We'll soon need 3TB in-computer if we are moving to a lot of 50MP images. Prices are coming down on computers and memory, while cameras are going up in in-camera processing and MP.

So, I'd say we are always at the "sweet spot" -- it's the resolution we can afford on broad playing field.

Otherwise, the sky is the limit for MP and resolution.



RobDickinson
Registered: Sep 25, 2009
Total Posts: 3511
Country: New Zealand

Storage is dirt cheap tbh.

Plenty of memory would be needed but again thats not that expensive.

I'm already doing many multi image stitches of 6 to 70 raw frames.



1       2      
3
       4       5       end