Re: APS-c at the megapixel wall?

Alan Browne wrote:
On 09-06-09 18:30, Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 09-06-09 17:39, Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

10 - 15 Mpix with even very good lenses is close to limit. This is not
bad news for the "35mm film era" format DSLR's and lenses as they can
still support a full-frame off ramp.

There is absolutely no advantage to higher resolution to make noise
"finer" esp. as the higher resolution itself contributes to the noise
(or rather a decrease in signal v. a somewhat constant noise level).

It is severely limiting to Olympus as their system is both resolution
and noise constrained at the 4/3 size. This has driven them even
further into nichedom with the micro-4/3 system. There is nothing
wrong with their system other than a lack of broader appeal.

I doubt that Canon have hobbled anything as they didn't have to.
Physics does that free of charge.

Further, what number of people print very often at sizes justified by
very high resolution?

-says the guy with the 25MP DSLR :-)

Yeah!!

You will be here (or beyond) one day and you know it... Nikon will
wake up and make a more accessible 24.6 Mpix camera that has a price
comparable to the a900 - perhaps better - and/or higher res. Although
25 Mpix is pretty close to lens limits as well.

From my trials using a 21mp 5DII, it's already well beyond lens limits
for some commonly used and popular zooms at the wide end.
I'm convinced that if 12mp isn't enough, then 24mp is unlikely to be
enough either - there's only a very small window of "resolution
advantage" from entry level aps-c dslrs through to high end full frame
dslrs. The other fact is that of images taken, but destined for the
recycle bin, resolution is never the reason, but other camera
quality/functionality related issues can be.

People have to drop their zoom lens habits on high end gear (or: if you're using a zoom, might as well stop at a cropped sensor). This applied to film as much as it does to digital.
>
Yes - I don't disagree with that except for a couple of crucial things (to me). At the wide angle end, focal length has a big impact on composition - and with DOF at those wide focal lengths, disguising unwanted background elements (or bringing in wanted background elements) by using a wide aperture/shallow DOF just doesn't work easily. To get the composition I want, a combination of zooming as well as small (often very small)changes in camera position is needed, but either alone usually isn't enough. At normal focal lengths, I don't have a problem with "prime" lenses - you can usually "zoom with your feet" quickly enough, and as the lenses are usually wide aperture and focal length is long enough, then you've often got good enough compositional control. But I seldom use "normal focal lengths" except for occasionally when I do some commercial stuff (usually limied to photos of people for newspapers / magazines / brochures / web) or family snapshots, and in those cases, only a few MP are needed unless perhaps you shoot high end fashion for fussy magazines.
The other thing (to me) is that the moments to take great photos (nature/landscape) are often fleeting, with changing light, or moving subjects, and not predictable beforehand, and in those circumstances (without "planning" a shot), then the advantages of having the flexibility of a compact (and hand-held) setup with zoom lenses greatly outweighs the disadvantages.
And on the other side, when a landscape shot is able to be planned in advance, and if ultimate resolution is needed for some reason, then if a dslr is the right piece of equipment to use, the result can usually be achieved through stitching, and the advantage of needing a few less images from higher resolution camera isn't huge.


The major reason images are binned is that the composition or subject sucked followed by poor exposure, focus and blurred images (due to camera movement).

The last point can be salvaged to a degree with IS and higher ISO (or a tripod), the rest would have been bad images regardless of the gear.

Focus can be salvaged by the system, but usually focus errors are due to the user who doesn't use the AF correctly.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: APS-c at the megapixel wall?
    ... There is absolutely no advantage to higher resolution to make noise ... wake up and make a more accessible 24.6 Mpix camera that has a price ... At normal focal lengths, ... and as the lenses are usually wide aperture and focal length is ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Digital SLRs - your top 5?
    ... Okay, but when the IS is built into the camera, then the lenses do not ... There is no degradation in my 500 mm f/4 L IS lens;-). ... lenses and getting reasonably sharp images at insane focal lengths handheld. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: EOS 7D and resolution
    ... between SNR and resolution. ... are available lenses up to the task? ... Dynamic range is a bit overrated. ... And then there's John Sheehy's point: an 18MP camera will always produce ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: FF sensors: is 80MP needed?
    ... what is the MP count starting from which the higher resolution of the ... So with such a sensor, one gets (for SLR fixed-focus lenses): ... Most camera lenses are not that great when it comes to ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: For 1.5 frame, is 50mm better than 85 for portraits?
    ... equivalent lens focal lengths when used with Nikon's DSLR bodies. ... focal lengths of the 85mm and 100mm lenses used with film or Nikon's ... as yet hypothetical FF camera. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)