Re: After 13 years of all Sony, I'm adding a Nikon body
j4nu wrote:
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
A74me wrote: j4nu wrote: aCuria wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The Z8 has more than double the number of pixels as the OM-1 II so of course the system should be heavier. Of course the a7rV has triple the number of pixels, but obviously it is not so action orientated.
EBH
The MP size is a contentious issue. I haven't heard anyone saying that the A9iii is not a good camera because it has "only" 24MP. My guess is that 99.99% of photos are viewed on devices that dont have more than ca. 8 MP. Those few who print probably rarely need more than 20MP. Another guess is that 99% of photos posted on FM (not mine) have been resized to 1-2MP. I have a 50MP A1 and a 20MP OM-1 II, and the megapixel count is not a factor that makes some of my photos better to my eye. The number of MPs is like the lens "sharpness" - everyone wants these but I doubt that many FMers use or need these attributes, or that these attributes are central to photography in general. Basically, there is no need to worry too much about the "low" megapixel count of the 20 - 24MP sensors.
Most lenses cannot resolve 24MP (83 lp/mm) at all, and for those lens’s that can, it’s only in the center of the frame at a specific aperture.
The high MP sensor WILL extract more detail out of the same lens due to how the transfer function works (in theory 100% of lens resolution is extracted when the sensor resolution approaches infinity)
This means if a lens resolves 70 lp/mm on the 60MP sensor, maybe you can extract 68 lp/mm on the 24MP sensor, and a infinite resolution sensor can pull 72lp/mm. This is not very significant
Only if you have lenses that can actually resolve 60MP (130 lp/mm) that’s when you would see a bigger advantage for the high MP cameras. AFAIK there is no such lens for E mount
Even the 50-150 peaks at only 85 lp/mm, and only in the center of the frame at f/4 on the A7Riii (110 lp/mm sensor)
On the mid frame at f/2 it’s down to 53 lp/mm, far less detail than what a 24MP sensor can capture
But in real life, there's an actual benefit to higher res sensors: cropping.
Even using pixelshift with good lenses results in more detail when viewing at 100% / cropping...
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
Re: After 13 years of all Sony, I'm adding a Nikon body
j4nu wrote:
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
A74me wrote: j4nu wrote: aCuria wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The Z8 has more than double the number of pixels as the OM-1 II so of course the system should be heavier. Of course the a7rV has triple the number of pixels, but obviously it is not so action orientated.
EBH
The MP size is a contentious issue. I haven't heard anyone saying that the A9iii is not a good camera because it has "only" 24MP. My guess is that 99.99% of photos are viewed on devices that dont have more than ca. 8 MP. Those few who print probably rarely need more than 20MP. Another guess is that 99% of photos posted on FM (not mine) have been resized to 1-2MP. I have a 50MP A1 and a 20MP OM-1 II, and the megapixel count is not a factor that makes some of my photos better to my eye. The number of MPs is like the lens "sharpness" - everyone wants these but I doubt that many FMers use or need these attributes, or that these attributes are central to photography in general. Basically, there is no need to worry too much about the "low" megapixel count of the 20 - 24MP sensors.
Most lenses cannot resolve 24MP (83 lp/mm) at all, and for those lens’s that can, it’s only in the center of the frame at a specific aperture.
The high MP sensor WILL extract more detail out of the same lens due to how the transfer function works (in theory 100% of lens resolution is extracted when the sensor resolution approaches infinity)
This means if a lens resolves 70 lp/mm on the 60MP sensor, maybe you can extract 68 lp/mm on the 24MP sensor, and a infinite resolution sensor can pull 72lp/mm. This is not very significant
Only if you have lenses that can actually resolve 60MP (130 lp/mm) that’s when you would see a bigger advantage for the high MP cameras. AFAIK there is no such lens for E mount
Even the 50-150 peaks at only 85 lp/mm, and only in the center of the frame at f/4 on the A7Riii (110 lp/mm sensor)
On the mid frame at f/2 it’s down to 53 lp/mm, far less detail than what a 24MP sensor can capture
But in real life, there's an actual benefit to higher res sensors: cropping.
Even using pixelshift with good lenses results in more detail when viewing at 100% / cropping...
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
Re: After 13 years of all Sony, I'm adding a Nikon body
j4nu wrote:
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
A74me wrote: j4nu wrote: aCuria wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The Z8 has more than double the number of pixels as the OM-1 II so of course the system should be heavier. Of course the a7rV has triple the number of pixels, but obviously it is not so action orientated.
EBH
The MP size is a contentious issue. I haven't heard anyone saying that the A9iii is not a good camera because it has "only" 24MP. My guess is that 99.99% of photos are viewed on devices that dont have more than ca. 8 MP. Those few who print probably rarely need more than 20MP. Another guess is that 99% of photos posted on FM (not mine) have been resized to 1-2MP. I have a 50MP A1 and a 20MP OM-1 II, and the megapixel count is not a factor that makes some of my photos better to my eye. The number of MPs is like the lens "sharpness" - everyone wants these but I doubt that many FMers use or need these attributes, or that these attributes are central to photography in general. Basically, there is no need to worry too much about the "low" megapixel count of the 20 - 24MP sensors.
Most lenses cannot resolve 24MP (83 lp/mm) at all, and for those lens’s that can, it’s only in the center of the frame at a specific aperture.
The high MP sensor WILL extract more detail out of the same lens due to how the transfer function works (in theory 100% of lens resolution is extracted when the sensor resolution approaches infinity)
This means if a lens resolves 70 lp/mm on the 60MP sensor, maybe you can extract 68 lp/mm on the 24MP sensor, and a infinite resolution sensor can pull 72lp/mm. This is not very significant
Only if you have lenses that can actually resolve 60MP (130 lp/mm) that’s when you would see a bigger advantage for the high MP cameras. AFAIK there is no such lens for E mount
Even the 50-150 peaks at only 85 lp/mm, and only in the center of the frame at f/4 on the A7Riii (110 lp/mm sensor)
On the mid frame at f/2 it’s down to 53 lp/mm, far less detail than what a 24MP sensor can capture
But in real life, there's an actual benefit to higher res sensors: cropping.
Even using pixelshift with good lenses results in more detail when viewing at 100% / cropping...
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
Re: After 13 years of all Sony, I'm adding a Nikon body
j4nu wrote:
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
A74me wrote: j4nu wrote: aCuria wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The Z8 has more than double the number of pixels as the OM-1 II so of course the system should be heavier. Of course the a7rV has triple the number of pixels, but obviously it is not so action orientated.
EBH
The MP size is a contentious issue. I haven't heard anyone saying that the A9iii is not a good camera because it has "only" 24MP. My guess is that 99.99% of photos are viewed on devices that dont have more than ca. 8 MP. Those few who print probably rarely need more than 20MP. Another guess is that 99% of photos posted on FM (not mine) have been resized to 1-2MP. I have a 50MP A1 and a 20MP OM-1 II, and the megapixel count is not a factor that makes some of my photos better to my eye. The number of MPs is like the lens "sharpness" - everyone wants these but I doubt that many FMers use or need these attributes, or that these attributes are central to photography in general. Basically, there is no need to worry too much about the "low" megapixel count of the 20 - 24MP sensors.
Most lenses cannot resolve 24MP (83 lp/mm) at all, and for those lens’s that can, it’s only in the center of the frame at a specific aperture.
The high MP sensor WILL extract more detail out of the same lens due to how the transfer function works (in theory 100% of lens resolution is extracted when the sensor resolution approaches infinity)
This means if a lens resolves 70 lp/mm on the 60MP sensor, maybe you can extract 68 lp/mm on the 24MP sensor, and a infinite resolution sensor can pull 72lp/mm. This is not very significant
Only if you have lenses that can actually resolve 60MP (130 lp/mm) that’s when you would see a bigger advantage for the high MP cameras. AFAIK there is no such lens for E mount
Even the 50-150 peaks at only 85 lp/mm, and only in the center of the frame at f/4 on the A7Riii (110 lp/mm sensor)
On the mid frame at f/2 it’s down to 53 lp/mm, far less detail than what a 24MP sensor can capture
But in real life, there's an actual benefit to higher res sensors: cropping.
Even using pixelshift with good lenses results in more detail when viewing at 100% / cropping...
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
