Resolution vs MP

[Deleted member 68495]

On another thread, someone mentioned the Fuji GFX100s which apparently has a sensor capable of 102MP. Has this not exceeded the resolution of any glass lens? Just asking as I would have thought that above a certain number of MP, and I don't know how many, all you are going to do is resolve any tiny defects in the glass.

 

[Krisstiffer]

Maybe, maybe not. Don’t forget that the GFX100 sensor is a medium format 44x33mm one that’s nearly 70% physically bigger than what we normally call full frame - so it’s roughly the same pixel density as 60MP 36x24mm full frame cameras would be which, while they deserve top notch lenses, don’t necessarily outstrip them.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

Maybe, maybe not. Don’t forget that the GFX100 sensor is a medium format 44x33mm one that’s nearly 70% physically bigger than what we normally call full frame - so it’s roughly the same pixel density as 60MP 36x24mm full frame cameras would be which, while they deserve top notch lenses, don’t necessarily outstrip them.

I did not notice that re: the medium format bit; that'll teach me to read further and deeper.

Ok, I'll have to modify the question. Assuming that at some point in the future, standard format sensors reach 100MP... I would have thought that above a certain number of MP, and I don't know how many, all you are going to do is resolve any tiny defects in the glass.

 

[Jim_Tod]

it’s always been the case. It’s why some lenses are considered the ultimate in sharpness- they could out resolve other lenses at the image receiver compared to the competition. Some lenses are considered at their optimum only when shot at f5.6 or f8, others sharp wide open. all that means is there’s a sweet spot for sharpness and trade offs in the decisions on settings that are made, higher mp just bring more constraints

I believe its also a big contributor more recently to why certain lenses shouldn’t be paired with high mp cameras and why there’s part myth about having to change shooting techniques with the high mp density cameras- lenses that were sharp at 12,24,36mp, take your pick, are now softer on a 46/60 mp camera, again take your pick - as it was fine on the old camera it must be the technique that needs to change. There may be some truth in that, e.g. the 500 rule can be more like the 1000 rule now for astro on high mp ff cameras, but it’s also just as likely that the limits of that lens are being stretched.

It appears from all manufacturers that 24mp appears to be a sweet spot on crop sensors. thats a sweet spot in respect to density and diffraction. For those with crop and full frame ranges then better glass on a crop is often just bigger glass from the ff range with the centre image circle (usually better resolution) onto the crop, hey presto improved sharpness up to say f8 then diffraction kicks in a bit.

i believe this is the reason why fuji missed ff out in their line up so far. They could produce a new line of crop sensors with good lenses at a reasonable price. Going ff at that stage would mean fighting with everyone else in the ff market and having to develop expensive new lenses with no legacy kit. Bypassing the ff market and entering the mf market, where prices are historically higher and the market is much less crowded, they’ve invested in a new lens mount and range which they basically said from the outset would be good up to 100-150mp on that size sensor- i assume somewhere in there is the gfx sweet spot for that lens range before physics diminishes the photographic returns. In pricing fuji are a game changer for mf digital and development. They’ve developed 2 new lens mounts, differentiated themselves in a crowded marketplace, brought the cost of high mp mf down to where it is reasonably in range of the top end ff in terms of cost but with the ability to grow a bit and are tempting the high mp ff shooters over to gfx.

Sony have good glass but decided to fight it out with Canikon in crop and ff. Canikon have both developed new lens mounts for mirrorless to give them some wriggle room and leave the best performance to new native mount lenses. All 3 are likely to struggle in mp wars and will constantly be nudging up against mf. Is it likely we’ll see 100mp ff. it might be physically possible but it would nudge up against greater diffraction issues and lens quality. The answer might be then to remount legacy mf lenses with ff being a crop mf. But if thats where you are then why not move to gfx or similar developments in format perhaps true mf sensors.

Apologies if i’ve dragged this out, a bit of insomnia and a subject i’ve thought about. I shoot nikon, d500, d810, d850 and z7. Also have a fuji crop but dont really use it- was travel camera. Not a fuji fanboy but can really respect their business decisions and where they have driven mf digital in a few years. If i was starting out today with the knowledge i have gathered then i’d probably go d500 for wildlife/ sports and gfx for landscape/ portrait/ macro. D500 fine on current and many legacy lenses, gfx for high mp kick. There’s little crossover with the lenses i use for different genres with the exception really of telephoto landscape- i dont do much of it but it is a weak spot in the setup, but it’s always a weak spot- would i buy a 500/600 prime for landscapes. Not until i win the lottery so my compromise is to put a 150-600 on a high mp camera and try to work within the constraints.

For those who think 24mp ff is fine, i dont disagree there should always be a place for hanging onto the d700/d750 and just remain inside an optimum envelope for the constraints of physics and sensors but there will be a place for higher mp pushing that envelope for detail.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

In my opinion, resolution and sharpness are much over-rated for general photography.

Of course, if you're an astronomer and your camera is mounted on a satelite outside of the atmosphere, then the greater the resolution the more useful the results. The same goes for engineering, forensic and other technical applications.

For everything else, and particularly posting on the web, 6MP is good enough. Some random shots from a Canon 10D...

 

[Deleted member 68495]

Jim_tod, an extensive reply which is most informative.

Andrew, the centurion picture certainly is sharp. Amazing to think that the 10D was announced as a professional camera less than eighteen years ago according to Wikipedia -- The Canon EOS 10D is a discontinued 6.3-megapixel semi-professional digital SLR camera, initially announced on 27 February 2003. Given the right circumstances old cameras can give impressive results. This picture was taken in about 2004, hand-held at arms length on a Nikon Coolpix, the model number of which escapes me but it was a 3.6 MP camera with a tiny LCD on the back. It will print to at least A4 without any noticeable deterioration in quality:

 

[SFTPhotography]

it’s always been the case. It’s why some lenses are considered the ultimate in sharpness- they could out resolve other lenses at the image receiver compared to the competition. Some lenses are considered at their optimum only when shot at f5.6 or f8, others sharp wide open. all that means is there’s a sweet spot for sharpness and trade offs in the decisions on settings that are made, higher mp just bring more constraints

I believe its also a big contributor more recently to why certain lenses shouldn’t be paired with high mp cameras and why there’s part myth about having to change shooting techniques with the high mp density cameras- lenses that were sharp at 12,24,36mp, take your pick, are now softer on a 46/60 mp camera, again take your pick - as it was fine on the old camera it must be the technique that needs to change. There may be some truth in that, e.g. the 500 rule can be more like the 1000 rule now for astro on high mp ff cameras, but it’s also just as likely that the limits of that lens are being stretched.

It appears from all manufacturers that 24mp appears to be a sweet spot on crop sensors. thats a sweet spot in respect to density and diffraction. For those with crop and full frame ranges then better glass on a crop is often just bigger glass from the ff range with the centre image circle (usually better resolution) onto the crop, hey presto improved sharpness up to say f8 then diffraction kicks in a bit.

i believe this is the reason why fuji missed ff out in their line up so far. They could produce a new line of crop sensors with good lenses at a reasonable price. Going ff at that stage would mean fighting with everyone else in the ff market and having to develop expensive new lenses with no legacy kit. Bypassing the ff market and entering the mf market, where prices are historically higher and the market is much less crowded, they’ve invested in a new lens mount and range which they basically said from the outset would be good up to 100-150mp on that size sensor- i assume somewhere in there is the gfx sweet spot for that lens range before physics diminishes the photographic returns. In pricing fuji are a game changer for mf digital and development. They’ve developed 2 new lens mounts, differentiated themselves in a crowded marketplace, brought the cost of high mp mf down to where it is reasonably in range of the top end ff in terms of cost but with the ability to grow a bit and are tempting the high mp ff shooters over to gfx.

Sony have good glass but decided to fight it out with Canikon in crop and ff. Canikon have both developed new lens mounts for mirrorless to give them some wriggle room and leave the best performance to new native mount lenses. All 3 are likely to struggle in mp wars and will constantly be nudging up against mf. Is it likely we’ll see 100mp ff. it might be physically possible but it would nudge up against greater diffraction issues and lens quality. The answer might be then to remount legacy mf lenses with ff being a crop mf. But if thats where you are then why not move to gfx or similar developments in format perhaps true mf sensors.

Apologies if i’ve dragged this out, a bit of insomnia and a subject i’ve thought about. I shoot nikon, d500, d810, d850 and z7. Also have a fuji crop but dont really use it- was travel camera. Not a fuji fanboy but can really respect their business decisions and where they have driven mf digital in a few years. If i was starting out today with the knowledge i have gathered then i’d probably go d500 for wildlife/ sports and gfx for landscape/ portrait/ macro. D500 fine on current and many legacy lenses, gfx for high mp kick. There’s little crossover with the lenses i use for different genres with the exception really of telephoto landscape- i dont do much of it but it is a weak spot in the setup, but it’s always a weak spot- would i buy a 500/600 prime for landscapes. Not until i win the lottery so my compromise is to put a 150-600 on a high mp camera and try to work within the constraints.

For those who think 24mp ff is fine, i dont disagree there should always be a place for hanging onto the d700/d750 and just remain inside an optimum envelope for the constraints of physics and sensors but there will be a place for higher mp pushing that envelope for detail.

It's about pixel pitch more than anything else.

A 26mp crop camera has the same pixel pitch as a 60mp FF and 100 44x33 medium format camera.

This is quite a demanding pixel denisty requiring very high-quality optics. But for the most demanding of landscape photographers or studio photographers at the absolute top of their game there is no reason why such camera's cannot work as they will buy the finest lenses for these systems and consider nothing else. It's always been thus. The mount might be the same, but that's it. Look at the F mount range and the number of zooms that overlap similar focal lengths. Some cost a few £, some many £. It shows. The difference between a 200-500 and a 180-400 is a ten fold price. One is quite good actually, the other a top-level piece of pro optics designed for the best cameras and the most capable and serious of photographers. They mount the same, and that's it. You can see this now in the Fuji range with vary degrees of FL overlap. Some will be good for the 50mp models, the 100mp models might demand the better ones.

I also have a D850...and reckon the latest ED FL Zooms and Sigma Primes are the only things that will not fall to bits on it. As I have no intention of putting cheap tat in front of it, I should be ok. These top level lenses would probably cope on the rumoured D880 with the 61mp but put some 70-300 in front and expect disappointment.

My 645z, despite only having 5mp more - has a much lower pixel density and you can use cheaper film era lenses on it with remarkable ease and produce results that FF users could only dream of. They hold up well on this camera which has a pixel density that's less than a Canon 5d4. If they do come out with a 100mp version time will tell if these older lenses will hold up well but money's on no.

I love both my cameras and I'll shoot DSLR for as long as they make them, but if I have to go mirrorless the GFX100s would be the one, and again paired to the very best and most expensive lenses in the GFX range. My experience from sample files is the GFX100s and 23mm is the finest wide angle prime/camera combination for sub £10k today - the centre to edge sharpness, resolution, dynamic range of this combination are very exciting. That lens is totally amazing. The 32-64 examples I've seen have been of mixed performance, one copy looked really quite ok, the other worse than some amateur superzoom from tamron for £300. But you could buy the 30mm prime, the very highly regarded 45-100 zoom and have a very nice package. You can even adapt Canon EF lenses and they have a cracking 70-200 F2.8 and the 100-400 L II would hold up on this resolution. Ok the vigetting would be an issue but crop square and job done. This is a very very exciting camera Fuji have released.