For the serious pros who pay models, pay for travel shoots or get paid by Fortune 500 firms for unmatched content, the added differential quality between modern MF (Fuji GFX) and FF (Including the A1) MF is inherently better.
SONY/NIKON/CANON fanboys notwithstanding, there is in addition to a 100 MP sensor a ≈ 30% resolution gain due to the simple increase in focal length/entrance aperture for say, standard lenses at similar f/stops (50mm to 80mm). Example:
Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA (λ[.00005] ÷ D[29.4mm] [@ f/1.7] = 1.7x10-6rad
Fuji GFX 80 f/1.7 (λ[.00005] ÷ D[47.1mm] [@ f/1.7] here bokeh is identical or better = 1.06x10-6rad
It's λ/D = Angular Resolution (rad) where "D" is the entrance aperture.
The above example resolution difference is 37% better (smaller) with standard lens and this advantage carries through to all commonly used lenses regardless of apochromatic corrections.
Of course, SONY makes money selling sensors, the real issue is why serious pros who have their own cash on the line and who seek to offer demanding clients unmatched quality, have reached and continue to reach for leading digital MF products. Their clients can see the difference.
This isn't just a sensor or megapixel capacity advantage – the MF resolution/noise advantage extends to all common lenses. SONY knows it's run up against this performance wall and thus ramped up their A1 hype.
Is the A1 a great camera? Certainly. The 8K video alone makes it desirable along with a crucial ergonomically class leading viewfinder. However, with stills as the final product, on expensive photo shoots with expensive models and demanding Fortune 500 clients, the MF tools continue to predominate.
BTW Fuji has other unmatched systemic secret weapons...but we'll save that one for later.
sector99 wrote:
For the serious pros who pay models, pay for travel shoots or get paid by Fortune 500 firms for unmatched content, the added differential quality between modern MF (Fuji GFX) and FF (Including the A1) MF is inherently better.
SONY/NIKON/CANON fanboys notwithstanding, there is in addition to a 100 MP sensor a ≈ 30% resolution gain due to the simple increase in focal length/entrance aperture for say, standard lenses at similar f/stops (50mm to 80mm). Example:
Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA (λ[.00005] ÷ D[29.4mm] [@ f/1.7] = 1.7x10-6rad
Fuji GFX 80 f/1.7 (λ[.00005] ÷ D[47.1mm] [@ f/1.7] here bokeh is identical or better = 1.06x10-6rad
It's λ/D = Angular Resolution (rad) where "D" is the entrance aperture.
The above example resolution difference is 37% better (smaller) with standard lens and this advantage carries through to all commonly used lenses regardless of apochromatic corrections.
Of course, SONY makes money selling sensors, the real issue is why serious pros who have their own cash on the line and who seek to offer demanding clients unmatched quality, have reached and continue to reach for leading digital MF products. Their clients can see the difference.
This isn't just a sensor or megapixel capacity advantage – the MF resolution/noise advantage extends to all common lenses. SONY knows it's run up against this performance wall and thus ramped up their A1 hype.
Is the A1 a great camera? Certainly. The 8K video alone makes it desirable along with a crucial ergonomically class leading viewfinder. However, with stills as the final product, on expensive photo shoots with expensive models and demanding Fortune 500 clients, the MF tools continue to predominate.
BTW Fuji has other unmatched systemic secret weapons...but we'll save that one for later....Show more →
A lot of things are convoluted here. Why do you use the same aperture instead of using the FF lenses at wider aperture instead to match DOF, e.g. using the Sony at 1.4 or the RF 50/1.2 at 1.2?
Iff the lens has that possibility, why not use it instead of cherry picking to make one look better?
This is always the same debate for years now, starting with m43 vs. APSC or FF. We know, that when being able to sacrifice DOF, i.e. are able to shoot at the same f-stop and have a much lower DOF, you gain with larger formats, e.g. by using a much larger sensor area which is subject to the same intensity/unit square at equal f-stop. But that is not the general use case or advisable.
Yeah very misleading right there, and also why is he comparing 50mm vs 80mm? The Fuji MF format is 43.8mm on the long axis vs 36mm for FF, therefore a ~0.8x crop factor, certainly not 0.625 (50/80).
Actually I just checked and it's commonly accepted that the FF crop factor is 0.79.
sector99 wrote:
For the serious pros who pay models, pay for travel shoots or get paid by Fortune 500 firms for unmatched content, the added differential quality between modern MF (Fuji GFX) and FF (Including the A1) MF is inherently better.
SONY/NIKON/CANON fanboys notwithstanding, there is in addition to a 100 MP sensor a ≈ 30% resolution gain due to the simple increase in focal length/entrance aperture for say, standard lenses at similar f/stops (50mm to 80mm). Example:
Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA (λ[.00005] ÷ D[29.4mm] [@ f/1.7] = 1.7x10-6rad
Fuji GFX 80 f/1.7 (λ[.00005] ÷ D[47.1mm] [@ f/1.7] here bokeh is identical or better = 1.06x10-6rad
It's λ/D = Angular Resolution (rad) where "D" is the entrance aperture.
The above example resolution difference is 37% better (smaller) with standard lens and this advantage carries through to all commonly used lenses regardless of apochromatic corrections.
Of course, SONY makes money selling sensors, the real issue is why serious pros who have their own cash on the line and who seek to offer demanding clients unmatched quality, have reached and continue to reach for leading digital MF products. Their clients can see the difference.
This isn't just a sensor or megapixel capacity advantage – the MF resolution/noise advantage extends to all common lenses. SONY knows it's run up against this performance wall and thus ramped up their A1 hype.
Is the A1 a great camera? Certainly. The 8K video alone makes it desirable along with a crucial ergonomically class leading viewfinder. However, with stills as the final product, on expensive photo shoots with expensive models and demanding Fortune 500 clients, the MF tools continue to predominate.
BTW Fuji has other unmatched systemic secret weapons...but we'll save that one for later....Show more →
I never trust the opinion of someone who presumes to speak for an imaginary group of people. In real life I find that groups are full of all kinds of opinions, needs and methods of accomplishing a similar goal.
"Sony just put both major competitors in their place for quite some time. For the type of mandates we do, the a1 is a total beast, and ours are on order!"
sector99 wrote:
For the serious pros who pay models, pay for travel shoots or get paid by Fortune 500 firms for unmatched content, the added differential quality between modern MF (Fuji GFX) and FF (Including the A1) MF is inherently better.
SONY/NIKON/CANON fanboys notwithstanding, there is in addition to a 100 MP sensor a ≈ 30% resolution gain due to the simple increase in focal length/entrance aperture for say, standard lenses at similar f/stops (50mm to 80mm). Example:
Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA (λ[.00005] ÷ D[29.4mm] [@ f/1.7] = 1.7x10-6rad
Fuji GFX 80 f/1.7 (λ[.00005] ÷ D[47.1mm] [@ f/1.7] here bokeh is identical or better = 1.06x10-6rad
It's λ/D = Angular Resolution (rad) where "D" is the entrance aperture.
The above example resolution difference is 37% better (smaller) with standard lens and this advantage carries through to all commonly used lenses regardless of apochromatic corrections.
Of course, SONY makes money selling sensors, the real issue is why serious pros who have their own cash on the line and who seek to offer demanding clients unmatched quality, have reached and continue to reach for leading digital MF products. Their clients can see the difference.
This isn't just a sensor or megapixel capacity advantage – the MF resolution/noise advantage extends to all common lenses. SONY knows it's run up against this performance wall and thus ramped up their A1 hype.
Is the A1 a great camera? Certainly. The 8K video alone makes it desirable along with a crucial ergonomically class leading viewfinder. However, with stills as the final product, on expensive photo shoots with expensive models and demanding Fortune 500 clients, the MF tools continue to predominate.
BTW Fuji has other unmatched systemic secret weapons...but we'll save that one for later....Show more →
You got part of the freshman physics right but you need to keep paying attention to the end of that lecture where it is shown that the width of the point spread function is proportional to the f/#. In your example the ratio of the diffraction limited angles is the diameter of the entrance aperture (this is all for the simple case of the thin lens approximation), but you did not include the fact that for the same FOV the focal length gets longer and consequently the point spread function at the sensor gets larger. For the simple case you present the diffraction limited PSF is the same size for both cases (For this simple minded discussion we will ignore whether an f/1.7 lens will be diffraction limited wide open). As photographers we are primarily concerned with the size of the PSF (Airey disks and all that) not the angles. That is why we care about f/# not D (of course D is involved in f/#).
Since the diffraction limited PSF is proportional to f/#, the advantage of a larger sensor is easy to analyze. For the same f/#, a larger sensor will fit more PSFs onto the sensor. That means a higher resolution image can be formed. Even later in freshman physics it is shown that the photon flux per unit area is also determined by f/#. As the area of the sensor grows the total number of photons and consequently photoelectrons produced grows. Even later in freshman physics it is taught that the fluctuations in photoelectrons follow a Poisson distribution, so more photoelectrons means less noise. Somewhere around Sophmore or Junior level physics there is a discussion of image information, but let's not go there for now. I have also skipped over the FOV and DOF discussion, which unfortunately is a source of zillions of incorrect conclusions on the internet.
In summary, this all means that large systems can produce better images (in an image information sense). That is why as you move from iphones to MFT, APS, FF, MF to MF, quality rises (assuming you keep the same f/#). But you pay a price! Not only $$$ but you have to haul around much bigger heavier stuff. This is of course the endless debate, which has lots of incorrect physics. As a physicist (retired) I like to see discussion of the physics, but it can be a bit painful too.
"Sony just put both major competitors in their place for quite some time. For the type of mandates we do, the a1 is a total beast, and ours are on order!"
Being facietous ... by your measure compare the lateral resolution of the Hubble Telescope at F/24 (Cassegrain focus–Ritchie Chreitien) and again, by your logic a SONY A1 @ F/1.4 which delivers a smaller "PSF" than the Hubble telescope.
Why did NASA launch a massive telescope into space when a tiny SONY digital camera (even operating at a smaller "PSF") would have sufficed?
It's due to the true measure λ/D. Bigger "D" better resolution. What you miss is plate or sensor scale. An ancient 8x10 film camera crushes any of today's FF output. Ansel Adams worked his 8x10 @ f/64. His pics should have been fuzzy...right?
Further to the same point... MF normal lenses are 80mm while ff sensors have a 50mm normal lens angle of view. This is precisely why MF delivers better lateral resolution at similar f/stops and due to larger pixels better signal-to-noise. Plate scale matters, not just PSF.
MF has a built-in advantage whether with film or silicon.
sector99 wrote:
For the serious pros who pay models, pay for travel shoots or get paid by Fortune 500 firms for unmatched content, the added differential quality between modern MF (Fuji GFX) and FF (Including the A1) MF is inherently better.
SONY/NIKON/CANON fanboys notwithstanding, there is in addition to a 100 MP sensor a ≈ 30% resolution gain due to the simple increase in focal length/entrance aperture for say, standard lenses at similar f/stops (50mm to 80mm). Example:
Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA (λ[.00005] ÷ D[29.4mm] [@ f/1.7] = 1.7x10-6rad
Fuji GFX 80 f/1.7 (λ[.00005] ÷ D[47.1mm] [@ f/1.7] here bokeh is identical or better = 1.06x10-6rad
It's λ/D = Angular Resolution (rad) where "D" is the entrance aperture.
The above example resolution difference is 37% better (smaller) with standard lens and this advantage carries through to all commonly used lenses regardless of apochromatic corrections.
Of course, SONY makes money selling sensors, the real issue is why serious pros who have their own cash on the line and who seek to offer demanding clients unmatched quality, have reached and continue to reach for leading digital MF products. Their clients can see the difference.
This isn't just a sensor or megapixel capacity advantage – the MF resolution/noise advantage extends to all common lenses. SONY knows it's run up against this performance wall and thus ramped up their A1 hype.
Is the A1 a great camera? Certainly. The 8K video alone makes it desirable along with a crucial ergonomically class leading viewfinder. However, with stills as the final product, on expensive photo shoots with expensive models and demanding Fortune 500 clients, the MF tools continue to predominate.
BTW Fuji has other unmatched systemic secret weapons...but we'll save that one for later....Show more →
Serious pro would just show the difference in image that can be seen. Serious troll like you speaking of bullshit numbers.
Being facietous ... by your measure compare the lateral resolution of the Hubble Telescope at F/24 (Cassegrain focus–Ritchie Chreitien) and again, by your logic a SONY A1 @ F/1.4 which delivers a smaller "PSF" than the Hubble telescope.
Why did NASA launch a massive telescope into space when a tiny SONY digital camera (even operating at a smaller "PSF") would have sufficed?
It's due to the true measure λ/D. Bigger "D" better resolution. What you miss is plate or sensor scale. An ancient 8x10 film camera crushes any of today's FF output. Ansel Adams worked his 8x10 @ f/64. His pics should have been fuzzy...right?
Further to the same point... MF normal lenses are 80mm while ff sensors have a 50mm normal lens angle of view. This is precisely why MF delivers better lateral resolution at similar f/stops and due to larger pixels better signal-to-noise. Plate scale matters, not just PSF.
MF has a built-in advantage whether with film or silicon.
Man, you are beating an old drum and pretend to have found something completely new.
I just waited for you to bring up the Hubble telescope. 2K by 4K (8 Mega pixel) CCDs, with a field of view of 202×202 arcsec. The high resolution HRC has a square 1 Megapixel camera with a 26×29 arcsec field of view. So when using your MF camera and a FF camera with a lens with an equivalent FOV and 1MP sensor vs. an equivalent FF with 50 MP sensor, does the MF camera have the resolution advantage and when?
MF just cannot compete with LF. Our DinA4 prints will look soo much better, MF doesn't have a chance against future LF MILCs. Did you buy one already?
DClark just explained to you that one needs to be careful in how to compare systems. A MF system has advantages, but also disadvantages and for certain situations no advantage at all. You are only trying to emphasize the advantages.
Douglas Liu wrote:
Man, I found watching Tony & Chelsea's videos more entertaining than digesting physics, but wait, I don't watch T&C
Now living in the true boonies with the very limited HughesNet I can't waste my monthly allowance on snake oil sellers/charlatans/ click baiters. Heck I'd rather watch re-runs of 'Married with Children'. Better yet, save my precious megabytes for a professional and gentleman like Galer who readily/upfront states he's a pied piper/Sony Digital Imaging Ambassador. At least he knows what he's doing with a Sony camera in hand.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Now living in the true boonies with the very limited HughesNet I can't waste my monthly allowance on snake oil sellers/charlatans/ click baiters. Heck I'd rather watch re-runs of 'Married with Children'. Better yet, save my precious megabytes for a professional and gentleman like Galer who readily/upfront states he's a pied piper/Sony Digital Imaging Ambassador. At least he knows what he's doing with a Sony camera in hand.
The funny thing I read is Tony said he was working with Sony engineers on these issues. It's like me saying I am going to work with Warren Buffet to make his investment better.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Now living in the true boonies with the very limited HughesNet I can't waste my monthly allowance on snake oil sellers/charlatans/ click baiters. Heck I'd rather watch re-runs of 'Married with Children'. Better yet, save my precious megabytes for a professional and gentleman like Galer who readily/upfront states he's a pied piper/Sony Digital Imaging Ambassador. At least he knows what he's doing with a Sony camera in hand.
Off-topic, but if you're in the boonies and have good Verizon signal, definitely check out Visible. My dad's Visible "router" way out performs his HughesNet by orders of magnitude, and it's only $35/month (truly unlimited).
ShootPDX wrote:
Off-topic, but if you're in the boonies and have good Verizon signal, definitely check out Visible. My dad's Visible "router" way out performs his HughesNet by orders of magnitude, and it's only $35/month (truly unlimited).
Thanks. Sadly/happily the retirement home is nowhere near cell service.
And since we're off topic, here's the front yard from two weeks ago.
And Elon already has my downpayment. The front yard is frozen by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr
Differences in system resolution are difficult to illustrate on screen, as it would require showing the full-resolution images (in this case 50 or 100 MP) and comparing them would be even more difficult on screen as there is limited space to show multiple images at the same time.
Two large prints made with the different setups viewed in person would convey this information, but in practice one would need to demonstrate it with multiple subjects to get a feel for the overall quality difference. So basically one needs to view many large prints.
On screen, even point and shoots with fixed-focal length lenses show perfectly adequate image quality. One can easily fool the viewer into thinking a photo was made with an ILC in many circumstances, because the demands for resolution are so low.
?