Your question is what a number of people have responded to. If you just look at the amount of resolution that a sensor (number of pixels per square mm) can capture then the point and shoot cameras will probably win at this. I knew the Digital Elph was going to win in the end!
jtorral wrote:
Larger sensor will capture more of the subect. No arguing this. You see 20 windows in a building with FF and maybe 16 windows of the same building with crop.
My point is not how much subject you can get in one image but rather how much detail of the subject can be captured by the camera.
The problem, Jorge, is that nobody uses their camera that way. Why would you choose to fit more or less subject in the frame with a different camera? Surely there is a composition you want to achieve, and you stand in the appropriate location, with the appropriate focal length lens to achieve it. You then have 20 windows in the frame with both cameras, and 16MP will beat 10MP.
Your argument is a bit like saying that a medium format shooter should use the same focal length as a 35mm shooter, and just fit more in the frame, whereas what they will actually do is use a longer focal length, choose the same composition, and hence capture more detail.
Mike Hatam wrote:
FWIW, I have found empirically that the max lppmm (line pairs per mm) that can be generated by the 1DsII is around 56-57.
This may be true for jpeg. I have measured over 60 lp/mm (62-63) with the 1DsII shooting RAW. Many RAW converters, such as ACR, cannot break the 60 lp/mm barrier.
dklepacki wrote:
...Many RAW converters, such as ACR, cannot break the 60 lp/mm barrier.
That doesn't make sense to me. How is RAW conversion software affected by lp/mm when it deals mathematically with pixel data? I can't argue with any test results you've gotten, having never tried such a test myself, but it doesn't seem on the face of it that ACR would have any resolution limits other than those imposed by the number of pixels. In fact, there are P&S digitals supported by ACR, aren't there? Wouldn't many of them resolve much more than 60 lp/mm, and wouldn't ACR support that?
Photon wrote:
That doesn't make sense to me. How is RAW conversion software affected by lp/mm when it deals mathematically with pixel data? I can't argue with any test results you've gotten, having never tried such a test myself, but it doesn't seem on the face of it that ACR would have any resolution limits other than those imposed by the number of pixels. In fact, there are P&S digitals supported by ACR, aren't there? Wouldn't many of them resolve much more than 60 lp/mm, and wouldn't ACR support that?
I think the original statement is mispresented. Here is my take on it. RGB data need to be generated from the RAW data via so-called Bayer Interpolation. There are many ways to do the interpolation. Common goal is preserving the sharpness while reducing the noise. Not creating artifacts is another important goal. Overall, the interpolation is kind of Snake-oil magic. Every one does it differently. And all interpolations introduce the loss of the resolution. Thus, it is possible that some raw converters can "preserve" more lppm than others.
Thanks foto-z, great link. Especially as all I could find on google is that the Leica DMR is a microscope! I have looked at this camera before and lusted after it as a second body and was only put off by the relatively low Megapixels.
Pondria has correctly addressed my point. The Bayer interpolation performed by the RAW conversion process does play a role in the end result in terms of what the minimum lp/mm can be observed. For example, it is well known that simple bilinear interpolation of the data will result in a host of unacceptable artifacts, including moire, ringing, jagged edges, etc., which reduce the ability to resolve very fine details accurately, if at all.
jtorral wrote:
I saw an early post about shooting a bunch of lines with a 4999 size sensor vs a smaller sensor. And the smaller sensor having to be further away to capture the same subject due to its crop. This is not my point nor question. Let me try and clarify tghis and maybe someone can shed some light on it for me.
Larger sensor will capture more of the subect. No arguing this. You see 20 windows in a building with FF and maybe 16 windows of the same building with crop.
My point is not how much subject you can get in one image but rather how much detail of the subject can be captured by the camera.
Lets just say that both cameras have the same sensor size. Lets bring the canon down to 1.37 like the leica. however the pixels are still the same as on the original design. Does this mean that the camera with smaller pixels will capture more detail of the same subject than the camera with larger pixels will? Remember subject detail and not subject size is what I am referring to....Show more →
You're sill thinking the wrong way around. For the same FOV (and FOV MUST be the same for comparisons to make any sense) you have more pixels representing the scene with the 1Ds2. The number of pixels sets the upper limit for the amount of detail that the camera can resolve. This limit is reduced by the presence of an AA filter so the difference between the Canon and Leica is less than the numbers might suggest. What we lack is a scientific comparison of the two.
I have owned Leica M2s M3s and M4s, R-8 and R-9 with many lenses along the way after all I did own a Camera store and played with everything that came thru the door. Yes Leica and Hasselblad are fantastic pieces of machinery almost a work of art. I personally prefer the conveniences that the modern EOS system offers. The technology is to be admired too! The images come easier with less hassle than the classics.
I would hesitate also in investing heavily in gear made by a company that rumours have it going belly up.
Take a chill pill. These types of subject show up all the time and make good conversation as you can see from all the replies so far excpet for yours!
Coming form a guy that has nothing but Leica gear listed I think you are in the wrong forum myself! But seeing that most people that argue these things are gear heads, engineers and people with too much time on their hands it makes no difference to me! Just use what you feel comftable with and what give you the results you require and like.
steve_t wrote:
... For the same FOV (and FOV MUST be the same for comparisons to make any sense) you have more pixels representing the scene with the 1Ds2. The number of pixels sets the upper limit for the amount of detail that the camera can resolve. ...
jomor wrote:
Take a chill pill. These types of subject show up all the time and make good conversation as you can see from all the replies so far excpet for yours!
Coming form a guy that has nothing but Leica gear listed I think you are in the wrong forum myself! But seeing that most people that argue these things are gear heads, engineers and people with too much time on their hands it makes no difference to me! Just use what you feel comftable with and what give you the results you require and like.
JOHN
He had ( if not now ) enough Canon gears and CZ lenses. I have no idea why he listed only Leica gears.
my choice is to use Leica lenses on Canon 1DsII, the camera body does tell the difference from lens to lens. I have compared Canon prime lenses to Leica R lenses, Leica lens is really outstanding. If you understand traditional Chinese : http://www.leicafanclub.org/cgi-bin/topic_show.cgi?id=14208&h=1&bpg=1&age=30
My friend and I perfromed this test few weeks ago. But the biggest shortage of mounting R lenses on Canon bodies is the Av mode metering problem. Canon can't get accurate metering after certain F, like f 8.0 and smaller for R lenses.
The FOV must be the same, in theory the 1DSII will out resolve the Leica, however the image will be different. First the Leica doesn't have a AA filter which helps and hurts at the same time (fashion photographers take note here), second the Leica was designed for color reproduction perfection (at least according to the Leica magazine), and lastly the system was optomized for a very low sensor noise (which is why it was delayed).
I am sure somebody will review the 2 going head to head shortly.
