aCuria
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Small Compact Camera A7C2 vs A7CR vs others | |
j4nu wrote:
aCuria wrote:
j4nu wrote:
aCuria wrote:
j4nu wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
aCuria wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
[...]
Here’s a full frame from a Fujifilm XT5 using the (relatively old) Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 lens, handheld with camera IBIS:
[images]
That's nice Dan for a not too big print. At f5.6 things should look good. (I agree about "good enough".)
But come on, using the word "potential" is correct but it is also somewhat condescending (if that's the right word). If you use the Sony FF 60MP sensor with a good lens correctly you get a good deal more of lines/image height compared to using the Fujifilm 40MP system correctly. There is of course nothing wrong with using the Fuji.
Both systems have the potential of focusing errors, taking blurry shots and being misused by their owners.
I use the word “potential” to recognize that most people are not using their gear in a way that is limited by its resolution capabilities, because overall system resolution is more important than any single contributor, and because the meaningful differences generally only manifest as we get to the limits of the systems. There, as I wrote, the excellent Sony 60MP FF sensor can produce a more detailed image than a 40MP APS-C sensor image made with a Sony sensor on a Fujifilm (or Sony or Nikon) camera.
So there are definitely cases in which the greater resolution potential of the 60MP FF sensor will produce a visibly different result. If all else (price, interface, lens availability, personal preference, etc.) were equal, it would always be “better” then to pick the higher resolution and larger sensor system.
When those other factors come into play (essentially always) there are fine arguments for smaller APS-C (or MFT) systems, the fine Sony FF system, or even something else.
My post was also a long way of challenging the significance of our claim about only getting something less than 40MP resolution from the 40MP APS-C sensors. As we both know, there are a whole lot of things that affect what we actually get — camera stability, accuracy of focus, aperture choice, lens used, atmospheric conditions, etc. But the fact is that the 40MP APS-C sensors can produce excellent image sharpness and detail when used competently and with good lenses.
Because this is a Sony forum and not a Fujifilm forum (and because I’m currently here mainly to learn more about Sony and not proselytize for other brands) I’ll try not to say a lot more, but I do think that it is important to have an accurate frame of reference for understanding what various sensor sizes can and cannot do, and the magnitude and relevance of difference between them.
In the end, two things can be true at once:
1. A 60MP full frame sensor can record greater detail than a 40MP APS-C sensor, all else being equal.
2. In many (for most photographers, most) cases it will be impossible or nearly so to tell the difference, while in some cases the difference can be critical.
gdanmitchell wrote:
But the fact is that the 40MP APS-C sensors can produce excellent image sharpness and detail when used competently and with good lenses.
In studio conditions I would agree. In real-world situations, especially low light, maybe not.
If we look at XF 35 mm f 1.4 R you used as an example, notice that at f/1.4 it resolves about ~33 lp/mm on average across the frame. resolution test here resolution test here
[...]
33 lp/mm in average? How did you get that figure? I see one single datapoint under 33 lp/mm in that test where the measured results are depending on lens plus sensor.
Look under f/1.4, the average performance should be between the center (38) and edge (28)performance. (38 + 28) / 2 = 33
The test used a 16MP sensor capable of resolving 104 lp/mm. That’s already well above the 33 lp/mm being tested, so using a higher-resolution sensor wouldn’t produce any noticeable improvement.
This sounds more or less the same like your claim that FF lenses won't benefit from higher res sensors, which is untrue...
I have not made that claim.
I did post samples showing that the 70–200mm GM II at 77mm f/2.8 on a 24MP full-frame camera looks just as sharp as it does at 70mm on a 50MP full-frame camera.
You did.
You said that it basically makes no sense to increase the resolution of FF sensors, because FF won't benefit from it.
Which is untrue because even if you use pixelshift, you can see increased detail compared to base res of the sensor. I posted A1 + 50/1.2GM @f4 samples.
aCuria wrote:
You said that it basically makes no sense to increase the resolution of FF sensors
I never said that either.
Sony just needs to make sufficiently good optics to make it worth while.
Well, you claim that you never said it and now you say it again  .
It's enough to use pixelshift to see the difference, so Sony is already making "sufficiently good optics"...
Pixel shift does not prove anything.
For a camera with a 61MP sensor, the 4-shot pixel shift mode still results in a 61MP image and yet there's more detail.
In a bayer sensor, on a green pixel the red and blue data is thrown away and vice versa. This is the same limitation applies whether its a 24, 50, 60 or even 100MP sensor.
With pixel shift, however, things change. Every part of the sensor contributes full red, green, and blue information. This is fundamentally different from just increasing the MP count of a Bayer sensor.
A 4-shot pixel shift setup is somewhat like using a full-frame 3CCD system, where a prism splits incoming light into red, green, and blue components, each captured by its own full-frame sensor. In effect, 4-shot pixel shift is as if the total sensor area has been tripled from FF bayer.
If you want to prove me wrong, you just have to show a 16-shot pixel shift image (241MP) that has considerably more detail than a 4-shot pixel shift image. (61MP)
Based on the MP count, the linear resolution should almost double if the lens has "sufficiently good optics".
Extra credit if the lens is tested wide open, as that better reflects real-world use. If I carry a prime, and if I need to raise ISO above base, I’ll try to shoot it wide open when DOF permits. Not stopped down to f/4–5.6 where it happens to be the sharpest.
|
