36mp - Why bother ?

36mp - Why bother ?

13 posts
15 Feb 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
Seems like a whole loada cash for not really THAT much resolution increase.

My next purchase will probably be a 48 or above when the tech appears where you will see a significant enough jump in pixel real estate to match your investment. An extra few hundred pixels in each direction hardly seems worth it at the moment.

3000x2000 - 6mp
6000x4000 - 24mp
7299x5000 - 36mp
8000x6000 - 48mp
9000x8000 - 72mp
12000x8000 - 96mp

Thoughts ?

Posted 15 Feb 2016
Edited by AndyGStudios 15 Feb 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Camera development isn't all about resolution, especially since we're hitting the limits on the resolving power of the optics and for those of us with older lenses cameras with 30+ mp are as good as useless anyway. Faster processing, durability, dynamic range, low noise etc. are all improved with each camera generation and IMO more important nowadays anyway (since I personally believe anything over 17/18mp is fine for a 35mm camera).
Posted 15 Feb 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
I agree, 48mp is no good if you have a basic kit lens, it' only got to record the poor quality optic even better than before... so no real advantage. Kit lenses in general can only resolve about 9mp of detail anyway, even on a 24mp camera. Thankfully I don't use kit lenses but you have to spend the big bucks to really get the most out of any sensor, regardless of resolution. £800 to £122 seems to be the go-to bracket for good quality optics. Not worth doing though unless you are earning from your photography. Lens-wise, I love my old manual primes But 48mp PLUS that nifty fifty prime - BOOYAH ! Evil combination ! For my old 10mp Canon, it has a digic2 proc, and it's still fine in use today as long as you don't demand TOO much from it and stay below 400iso.
Posted 15 Feb 2016
Edited by AndyGStudios 15 Feb 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
I wasn't referring to kit lenses. Even some slightly older premium (ie. Canon L series) lenses still aren't suitable (I've got two L-lenses that don't meet Canon's own, albeit questionable criteria for their 5Ds cameras for example).

Posted 15 Feb 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
Limits on the resolving power of the optics absolutely is about the kit lenses, the top end though don't have much to worry about... for now.

Posted 15 Feb 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
I think you're overestimating how good top end lenses are and the gap in resolving power between kit lenses and top-end ones.

Have a look at the results on DXOMark.com and you'll see that Canon (for example) only have four lenses which can resolve to 36mp or higher. Most of their lenses (even L-series) seem to hovver around the 20-30mp range.

Posted 15 Feb 2016
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
It seems an odd, rather circular point being made, on one hand saying you think 48Mp a good idea for an investment, though I'm not convinced you're shooting anything in your port here that warrants half that potential. On the other hand that kits lens are poor compared to expensive lenses. With few exceptions, an obvious and rather pointless assertion. I'd hazard a guess that few of us have much if any glass to extract the best from 48Mp, and just about none will need that resolution in any practical sense either.

Luckily, we aren't governed by neccessity, unluckily we're all too often governed by budget. If it were otherwise the 12Mp and kit zoom would cover most people's actual requirements when shooting largely static and brightly lit tits and arse shots indoors - however much of a fuss might be made about the significance of that.

Posted 15 Feb 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
You might if PS supported 6000x4000 res images, you're not going to see much at internet resolutions. But that's not what I said, I said the pixel real estate you gain at 36mp for the £$£ seems hardly worth it; and with that in mind, my next jump would be to 48. There's not really any glass that can resolve that... yet, but then, they aren't really common... yet either, even if Canon has a 72mp body in the pipeline. I'm sure lens tech will be in the right place when it is though. A lot of people couldn't see the point going to 12mp from 8, citing 8 as plenty enough at the time. If I compare 12mp to 24mp on my lenses, there's a marked increase in detail capture. Like everything else, opinions will be had for and against, but regardless, times will move on and better tech will reach the consumer; all I was saying was, i'd be skipping the 36mp mark, as I did the 18mp mark in favour of 24. I remember printers being 9pin and 24pin black and white (Star LC24-10 for example), and I remember when the Okimate colour came out printing on, essentially... cashier till paper roll. Today we have picolitre drops from multiple carts. Who knows what is around the corner as far as the potential is concerned. the fact that you can shoot today in readiness for tomorrow, that's huge - imagine if people could have shot 4k 20 years ago but tv's could only resolve SD, there's be none of this up-scalling remastering that you see today. I also remember when the main PC resolution was 800x600, then on a 15" screen 1024x768... and it keeps going up ! So although my shots may not show their potential here today to you, they will hold their own long into the future
Posted 16 Feb 2016
diipii
Photographer
diipii
I would like to see a sensor 36mmx36mm in an SLR. All the existing lenses for full frame 35mm could be used and the square format is a joy to use after the 3:2 of 35mm. On this format any pixel density above 25mps seems a waste of effort with nothing gained in terms of smoothness of image, low light performance and ease of editing. The pixel race is only for bauble wearers and cameras club fan boys (and girls).
It used to be the same with film and ISO. Those who used the zone system habitually halved the film speed and knocked a third off the dev time achieving negatives with great tonality in shadows and highlights, fine grain and negs that were a joy to print.
These days pixel chasers get what film speed boosters used to get: Not what they hoped for.


Posted 17 Feb 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
diipii

I would like to see a sensor 36mmx36mm in an SLR. 


I think you'll find that would be too big for the image circle created by 35mm lenses.

To fit within the image circle a square sensor would have to be ~30.6 x 30.6mm (basic GCSE maths will give this answer).

The reason they don't is (I believe) primarily due to efficiency in populating the silicon wafers that sensors are produced on.  Square sensors are much more inefficient and thus will end up much more costly.  It has been mulled over the years though with many people saying they too would buy one but as yet nothing has come of it.

Posted 17 Feb 2016
diipii
Photographer
diipii
RedChecker
I think you'll find that would be too big for the image circle created by 35mm lenses. To fit within the image circle a square sensor would have to be ~30.6 x 30.6mm (basic GCSE maths will give this answer). The reason they don't is (I believe) primarily due to efficiency in populating the silicon wafers that sensors are produced on.  Square sensors are much more inefficient and thus will end up much more costly.  It has been mulled over the years though with many people saying they too would buy one but as yet nothing has come of it.
Thanks for the info. I am to maths what Cyril Smith was to hang gliding. Blad makes a square sensor I think and maybe your theory is what makes them an arm and a leg.
Posted 17 Feb 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
diipii

Blad makes a square sensor I think and maybe your theory is what makes them an arm and a leg.


Nobody (for general / consumer photography) makes a square sensor.  Even Hasselblad's ones aren't even the full 6x4.5, and it's unlikely they'll ever be (again, it's likely due to sensor yield quantities on the silicon wafer).

There may be a few specialist applications (eg. military, satellite photography) but they'll be on equipment costing hundreds of £thousands at the very least (I''ve got a sneaky feeling the aerial cameras that I get images from in my job are done using 80x80mm sensor but they also have lenses costing the best part of £1/2 million)
Posted 17 Feb 2016
Rawandthecooked
Photographer
Rawandthecoo..
Because I can Andy.....

Posted 26 Feb 2016
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join