Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
p.3 #1Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
snapsy wrote:
Lens resolving power gradually drops away from the center, which means the lens becomes the limiting factor. It's actually a significant issue with high MP sensors for landscapes - not because there's less improvement away from the center by itself but because it creates a more noticeable difference in sharpness between the center and edges.
If that bothers you, you can blur through a radial gradient.
StephenLowell wrote
Fred, Maybe I'm missing something incredibly simple, but why is the resolution/contrast increase only expected or seen around the centre area of the image?If that bothers you, you can blur through a radial gradient.
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:08 AM
p.3 #2Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
I think this comparison might have just saved me 4000€. 
Yes, I can see the increased detail, but I think i will skip this generation (I am on the RIII). Resolution aside, the other benefits are sure nice but I just think the III will more than suffice for the time being.
Regards,
Ben
Yes, I can see the increased detail, but I think i will skip this generation (I am on the RIII). Resolution aside, the other benefits are sure nice but I just think the III will more than suffice for the time being.
Regards,
Ben
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:10 AM
p.3 #3Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Indeed 
I am very curious to see how different plugins results will compare to the real thing.
Here are some tests with a sensor of the same pitch:
https://blog.kasson.com/category/printers/page/3/
https://blog.kasson.com/category/printers/page/2/
Jim
vdo1 wrote
At $99 that thing looks like the most effective upgrade to the R3, you don't even need new L brackets and stuff.... I am very curious to see how different plugins results will compare to the real thing. Here are some tests with a sensor of the same pitch:
https://blog.kasson.com/category/printers/page/3/
https://blog.kasson.com/category/printers/page/2/
Jim
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:11 AM
p.3 #4Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
It's more the FN display is a little hard to see
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:14 AM
p.3 #5Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
JimKasson wrote:
Lens resolving power gradually drops away from the center, which means the lens becomes the limiting factor. It's actually a significant issue with high MP sensors for landscapes - not because there's less improvement away from the center by itself but because it creates a more noticeable difference in sharpness between the center and edges.If that bothers you, you can blur through a radial gradient.
I'd probably stitch instead, at least when the situation allows.
snapsy wrote
StephenLowell wrote
Fred, Maybe I'm missing something incredibly simple, but why is the resolution/contrast increase only expected or seen around the centre area of the image?I'd probably stitch instead, at least when the situation allows.
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:19 AM
p.3 #6Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
snapsy wrote:
At native resolution, it seems that the 4 is showing a tiny bit more actuance than the 3, if there is any difference. Normally, as we get higher resolution sensors and compare images at native resolution using the same lens at the same aperture, we should observe lower actuance with the higher resolution camera, because we are looking at a higher magnification and see more lp/mm, where the lens MTF is lower.
I am going to postulate that the A7r4 is using smaller microlenses, with lower fill factor than the A7r 3. The reports on increased ISO noise, even normalized, points in the same direction.
If this is the case, it is going to be good for:
- Less need for sharpening
- Possibly less corner smearing with certain lenses
And it is going to be less good for certain things as well:
- Lower light sensitivity
- More aliasing, compared to the same sensor resolution with gapless microlenses. However, increased resolution always means less aliasing, so it will still probably be better than the A7r III sensor in that regard.
If there is more data coming in that supports this, I am going to suggest to Jim Kasson to look into it. He found that the GFX 100 sensor is doing the opposite, abandoning the smaller microlenses used in the GFX50 sensors.The increase in High ISO noise is attributable to lower high ISO DR, which is attributable to no advancement in read noise with the new sensor in combination with more pixels, which increases aggregate read noise at high ISO. It's also due from the earlier ISO dual gain switch. I doubt the fill factor is any less - sensors with geometries much smaller than this still achieve near 100% fill factors (smartphone sensors).
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
alundeb wrote
Thanks for the tests, Fred.At native resolution, it seems that the 4 is showing a tiny bit more actuance than the 3, if there is any difference. Normally, as we get higher resolution sensors and compare images at native resolution using the same lens at the same aperture, we should observe lower actuance with the higher resolution camera, because we are looking at a higher magnification and see more lp/mm, where the lens MTF is lower.
I am going to postulate that the A7r4 is using smaller microlenses, with lower fill factor than the A7r 3. The reports on increased ISO noise, even normalized, points in the same direction.
If this is the case, it is going to be good for:
- Less need for sharpening
- Possibly less corner smearing with certain lenses
And it is going to be less good for certain things as well:
- Lower light sensitivity
- More aliasing, compared to the same sensor resolution with gapless microlenses. However, increased resolution always means less aliasing, so it will still probably be better than the A7r III sensor in that regard.
If there is more data coming in that supports this, I am going to suggest to Jim Kasson to look into it. He found that the GFX 100 sensor is doing the opposite, abandoning the smaller microlenses used in the GFX50 sensors.
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:22 AM
p.3 #7Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
alundeb wrote:
At native resolution, it seems that the 4 is showing a tiny bit more actuance than the 3, if there is any difference. Normally, as we get higher resolution sensors and compare images at native resolution using the same lens at the same aperture, we should observe lower actuance with the higher resolution camera, because we are looking at a higher magnification and see more lp/mm, where the lens MTF is lower.
I am going to postulate that the A7r4 is using smaller microlenses, with lower fill factor than the A7r 3. The reports on increased ISO noise, even normalized, points in the same direction.
If this is the case, it is going to be good for:
- Less need for sharpening
- Possibly less corner smearing with certain lenses
And it is going to be less good for certain things as well:
- Lower light sensitivity
- More aliasing, compared to the same sensor resolution with gapless microlenses. However, increased resolution always means less aliasing, so it will still probably be better than the A7r III sensor in that regard.
If there is more data coming in that supports this, I am going to suggest to Jim Kasson to look into it. He found that the GFX 100 sensor is doing the opposite, abandoning the smaller microlenses used in the GFX50 sensors.The increase in High ISO noise is attributable to lower high ISO DR, which is attributable to no advancement in read noise with the new sensor in combination with more pixels, which increases aggregate read noise at high ISO. It's also due from the earlier ISO dual gain switch. I doubt the fill factor is any less - sensors with geometries much smaller than this still achieve near 100% fill factors (smartphone sensors).https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
Yep, read that. Doubt Sony would do the same for sensors they consume. Should be easy to determine either way by comparing the normalized shot noise between the A7rIV and A7rIII high up the tonal scale.
snapsy wrote
alundeb wrote
Thanks for the tests, Fred.At native resolution, it seems that the 4 is showing a tiny bit more actuance than the 3, if there is any difference. Normally, as we get higher resolution sensors and compare images at native resolution using the same lens at the same aperture, we should observe lower actuance with the higher resolution camera, because we are looking at a higher magnification and see more lp/mm, where the lens MTF is lower.
I am going to postulate that the A7r4 is using smaller microlenses, with lower fill factor than the A7r 3. The reports on increased ISO noise, even normalized, points in the same direction.
If this is the case, it is going to be good for:
- Less need for sharpening
- Possibly less corner smearing with certain lenses
And it is going to be less good for certain things as well:
- Lower light sensitivity
- More aliasing, compared to the same sensor resolution with gapless microlenses. However, increased resolution always means less aliasing, so it will still probably be better than the A7r III sensor in that regard.
If there is more data coming in that supports this, I am going to suggest to Jim Kasson to look into it. He found that the GFX 100 sensor is doing the opposite, abandoning the smaller microlenses used in the GFX50 sensors.
Yep, read that. Doubt Sony would do the same for sensors they consume. Should be easy to determine either way by comparing the normalized shot noise between the A7rIV and A7rIII high up the tonal scale.
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:25 AM
p.3 #8Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
snapsy wrote:
alundeb wrote
snapsy wrote
alundeb wrote
Thanks for the tests, Fred.At native resolution, it seems that the 4 is showing a tiny bit more actuance than the 3, if there is any difference. Normally, as we get higher resolution sensors and compare images at native resolution using the same lens at the same aperture, we should observe lower actuance with the higher resolution camera, because we are looking at a higher magnification and see more lp/mm, where the lens MTF is lower.
I am going to postulate that the A7r4 is using smaller microlenses, with lower fill factor than the A7r 3. The reports on increased ISO noise, even normalized, points in the same direction.
If this is the case, it is going to be good for:
- Less need for sharpening
- Possibly less corner smearing with certain lenses
And it is going to be less good for certain things as well:
- Lower light sensitivity
- More aliasing, compared to the same sensor resolution with gapless microlenses. However, increased resolution always means less aliasing, so it will still probably be better than the A7r III sensor in that regard.
If there is more data coming in that supports this, I am going to suggest to Jim Kasson to look into it. He found that the GFX 100 sensor is doing the opposite, abandoning the smaller microlenses used in the GFX50 sensors.
Waiting for those curves to see for sure.
Sep 17, 2019 at 09:38 AM
p.3 #9Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
Center area at f/4 for both:Hey Fred I got Topaz Gigapixel if you want, I can use it to match the A7R3 file to the A7R4 size to see how close it can get to it. At $99 that thing looks like the most effective upgrade to the R3, you don't even need new L brackets and stuff.... Indeed I am very curious to see how different plugins results will compare to the real thing.You know, I just went through some reviews and sample shots and I believe that asking an 120% scale from it is not a big ask at all. What was obvious from one review was that bicubic is terrible when compared with Topaz. There was no contest.I will try topaz gigapixel instead of PS bicubic when comparing both cameras.
But Fred, if the R3 with Topaz compares well to the R4 then you have to apply Topaz to the R4. We might then be looking at future R5 performance ...
vdo1 wrote
GabrielPhoto wrote
vdo1 wrote
GabrielPhoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Both images interpolated to 121MP using PS bicubic:Center area at f/4 for both:
I am very curious to see how different plugins results will compare to the real thing.But Fred, if the R3 with Topaz compares well to the R4 then you have to apply Topaz to the R4. We might then be looking at future R5 performance ...
Sep 17, 2019 at 10:37 AM
p.3 #10Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
I've purchased Topaz Gigapixel and run some tests using the same Voigtlander 65/2 RAW files.
I found the GP result underwhelming and the R4 is still superior. Perhaps Topaz Gigapixel's strength comes into play when interpolating images to larger sizes. (like 2x, 4x, 6x, etc.)
I don't think that A7R3 + Topaz GP = A7R4
Here are center crops showing the A7R3 interpolated to 60MP compared to the A7R4 original file.
A7R3 interpolated to 60MP using Topaz Gigapixel vs A7R4 at 1:1 (ignore color rendering from the beta LR profile)
Same as above at 2:1 magnification
I found the GP result underwhelming and the R4 is still superior. Perhaps Topaz Gigapixel's strength comes into play when interpolating images to larger sizes. (like 2x, 4x, 6x, etc.)
I don't think that A7R3 + Topaz GP = A7R4
Here are center crops showing the A7R3 interpolated to 60MP compared to the A7R4 original file.
A7R3 interpolated to 60MP using Topaz Gigapixel vs A7R4 at 1:1 (ignore color rendering from the beta LR profile)
Same as above at 2:1 magnification
 |
||
 |
||
|
Sep 17, 2019 at 10:58 AM
|
p.3 #11Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Today I will do more comparisons with the FE 135/1.8 GM, CV 21/1.4 Nokton and perhaps with a slight lower IQ lens like the Loxia 35/2.
At first, I thought about skipping the R4 and sticking with my R3 but I'm unsure now.
At first, I thought about skipping the R4 and sticking with my R3 but I'm unsure now.
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:14 AM
p.3 #12Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Okay the CV 75 on Big Bronco. I shot the A7rIII awhile back and than this morning the A7rIV so keep that in mind
A7r3 on top the A7R4 on bottom
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 11:24 AM · View previous versions
A7r3 on top the A7R4 on bottom
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 11:24 AM · View previous versions
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:24 AM
p.3 #13Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Fred Miranda wrote:
Today I will do more comparisons with the FE 135/1.8 GM, CV 21/1.4 Nokton and perhaps with a slight lower IQ lens like the Loxia 35/2.
At first, I thought about skipping the R4 and sticking with my R3 but I'm unsure now.
One idea: take a single shot and a pixel shift shot of the same scene with the R4. Then use Topaz to enlarge the single shot to the same resolution as the other. That is supposed to show how much better the pixel shift thing is.
Today I will do more comparisons with the FE 135/1.8 GM, CV 21/1.4 Nokton and perhaps with a slight lower IQ lens like the Loxia 35/2.
At first, I thought about skipping the R4 and sticking with my R3 but I'm unsure now.
One idea: take a single shot and a pixel shift shot of the same scene with the R4. Then use Topaz to enlarge the single shot to the same resolution as the other. That is supposed to show how much better the pixel shift thing is.
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:24 AM
p.3 #14Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Crops A7r3 on Top
A7r4 on bottom
A7r4 on bottom
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM
p.3 #15Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
I am seeing a detail increase but Ill leave these tests to Fred since i don't have the A7R3 anymore and I dont have a lot of my Big Bronco tests around. I was cleaning house
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 11:53 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 11:53 AM · View previous versions
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:28 AM
p.3 #16Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
GMPhotography wrote:
I am seeing a detail increase but Ill leave these tests to Fred since i don't have the A7R3 anymore and I dont have a lot of my Big Bronco tests around. I was cleaning house
If you're not shooting the cameras at the same time, the test is invalid. Too many variables.
Joel
I am seeing a detail increase but Ill leave these tests to Fred since i don't have the A7R3 anymore and I dont have a lot of my Big Bronco tests around. I was cleaning house
If you're not shooting the cameras at the same time, the test is invalid. Too many variables.
Joel
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:31 AM
p.3 #17Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
1joel1 wrote:
If you're not shooting the cameras at the same time, the test is invalid. Too many variables.
Joel
I think we all know that . OMG
But I have shot this many times and it is in the same distance framing and such. It was just to see. But hell with it I'm done with this shit.
But apparently you did not read this post . What does that say.
I am seeing a detail increase but Ill leave these tests to Fred since i don't have the A7R3 anymore and I dont have a lot of my Big Bronco tests around. I was cleaning house
GMPhotography wrote
I am seeing a detail increase but Ill leave these tests to Fred since i don't have the A7R3 anymore and I dont have a lot of my Big Bronco tests around. I was cleaning houseJoel
I think we all know that . OMG
But I have shot this many times and it is in the same distance framing and such. It was just to see. But hell with it I'm done with this shit.
But apparently you did not read this post . What does that say.
I am seeing a detail increase but Ill leave these tests to Fred since i don't have the A7R3 anymore and I dont have a lot of my Big Bronco tests around. I was cleaning house
Sep 17, 2019 at 11:48 AM
p.3 #18Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
Wasn't trying to be rude and meant no offense.
Joel
Joel
Sep 17, 2019 at 12:33 PM
p.3 #19Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
1joel1 wrote:
Wasn't trying to be rude and meant no offense.
Joel
No problem but this is not DP review and the Trolls have been out in force. I apologize but its been attack Guy month and Im really fed up. Im even surprised im posting this
But here is something very cool . I did maybe 6 of these going away and coming at me . The only time it got interrupt was a tree in the middle of the frame on the other side of the street. This is in AF tracking mode Medium expandable spot at 1.8 with the 135. It does not miss. Pretty amazing
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM · View previous versions
Wasn't trying to be rude and meant no offense.
Joel
No problem but this is not DP review and the Trolls have been out in force. I apologize but its been attack Guy month and Im really fed up. Im even surprised im posting this
But here is something very cool . I did maybe 6 of these going away and coming at me . The only time it got interrupt was a tree in the middle of the frame on the other side of the street. This is in AF tracking mode Medium expandable spot at 1.8 with the 135. It does not miss. Pretty amazing
Edited on Sep 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM · View previous versions
Sep 17, 2019 at 12:37 PM
p.3 #20Comparing 42MP vs 61MP: Real-World Resolution and Contrast
I mean all the way out to the right side it was nailing it. No blips. Ill do a series coming at me sort of but with the tree interruptions it missed focus there but picked right back up on it
These are at 1.8 folks. Its amazing
These are at 1.8 folks. Its amazing
Sep 17, 2019 at 12:38 PM