This article is devoted to the ratio of the growth in the number of megapixels in cameras and the growth of real image sizes.
Mathematics and Megapixels. Only for the most inquisitive. Do you want to make money on the output of a new camera? Just add pixels!
It all started with the fact that for review YONGNUO LENS EF 50mm 1: 1.8 project Photo dzen and the official representation of Canon in Ukraine provided me with a Canon 5Dsr camera. At the time, it was the camera with the highest megapixel count of any full-format digital camera (i.e., narrow format).
A plate with Nikon & Canon narrow format cameras, which have the highest megapixel count, can be found here.
With the Canon 5Dsr, I was able to shoot not only YONGNUO LENS EF 50mm 1: 1.8, but also on the Canon EF 24-70 f / 2.8L II (the review of which I did not have time to prepare), as well as on the legendary Industar-50-2 3,5 / 50. I was wondering how all these lenses allow such a super-megapixel camera. In the resolution, as it turned out, I did not find anything interesting, but at the same time I came across one very interesting nuance.
Industar-50-2 3,5 / 50 and Canon EOS 5DSR
Together with the Canon 5Dsr, I also had a camera on the review at the same time Sony a7II. Poking around in Canon 5Dsr RAW files and Sony a7II I did not immediately understand where the Canon 50Dsr's vaunted 5 megapixels are, or how to feel them to the touch.
Let me remind you that the Canon 5Dsr has 50 MP on its sensor, and the linear dimensions of the image in pixels are 8688 X 5792, which equals 50.320.896 pixels (which are rounded up to 50 MP).
Sony a7II has 24 MP on its board, and the linear dimensions of the image in pixels are 6000 X 4000, which equals 24.000.000 pixels (and corresponds to exactly 24 MP without rounding).
Important: the physical size of the sensors of these cameras is the same and is 36 mm by 24 mm. Sensors differ precisely in the number of megapixels.
If we divide 50 MP into 24 MP, then we get:
50 MP / 24 MP = 2.08
those. 50 MP is 208% of 24 MP. If you rephrase, then 50 MP is 108% more than 24 MP.
It seems to many that the difference in half is a lot, but we forget that the area (the number of megapixels on the sensor) is doubled, and not the linear dimensions (image width and height).
The number of megapixels is a function of the area of linear dimensions (width and height of the image in pixels). Users often pay attention only to the growth of megapixels, forgetting about the linear dimensions of the images.
If visually to observe the images in proportions, it may seem that the image is 24 MP smaller than 50 MP not 2 times (visually I would say that it is about one and a half times smaller).
Important: the images shown below illustrate the aspect ratio of images from different sensors if they were viewed or printed with the same pixel density. Original image size can be viewed here.
How much more image with 50 MP compared to 24 MP
The real increase in image length in pixels is only 45%, not 100%, as you can erroneously assume (when 50 MP is divided by 24 MP).
8688/6000 = 1.448. Those. image length with 50 MP is only 45% longer than the image length with 24 MP. The same goes for image height.
The actual increase in image length is only 45%
By the way, the difference between 12 MP and 24 MP, too, is not felt as seriously as we would like. Even when processing and viewing photos in a '1 to 1' ratio, it is difficult to tell what is in front of my eyes - 50 MP or 24 MP. It is only when you start moving around the frame with the Loupe tool that you notice that the 50MP image is slightly larger.
Image Ratio of Cameras Nikon D700, Sony a7 and Canon 5Dsr
The difference between 12 MP (Nikon D700) and 50 MP (Canon 5Dsr)
Due to the fact that the area grows quadratically, to double the image width (from 4256 pixels at Nikon D700, up to 8688 pixels for Canon 5Dsr) the number of Megapixels had to be increased by more than 4 times (from 12 MP for Nikon D700 up to 50 MP for Canon 5Dsr):
- Difference in length: 8688/4256 = 2.04 times
- Difference in quantity: 50 MP / 12 MP = 4.17 times
It turns out pretty funny: an image with a 50 MP camera is only two times longer than with a 12 MP camera.
Paradox
My experience
No 'WOW!' from 50 Mp, Canon 5Dsr did not. Even after the transition from 12MP images to 50MP images, nothing has changed dramatically. The image just got 2x taller and wider. 2 times is very little. What I really felt from 50 MP was the slowdown of my computer while performing the same operations that I do with 12 or 24 MP images.
Roughly speaking, the essence of this article is as follows: when processing, viewing and printing photos, the difference in the number of megapixels is not felt as strongly as one might expect.
On the topic of megapixels, I also advise you to look in the sections'Pixels and Subpixels", "Gigapixels'and'Battle of Megapixels'.
Thank you for attention. Arkady Shapoval.
the question remains: how many megapixels are optimal for comfortable work? So that you can crop, and after cropping, you can see the details, and so that the computer does not slow down, and that the disk space is not eaten with tablespoons
Everything rests on the budget. If the TOP computer, then everything will fly on it, even pictures from the 60 megapixel Hassel will not slow down. And with TOP resolution optics, you can crop as much as you like. If there is no money, then you have to sacrifice something.
For crop, 16 is enough, but 20-25 is sometimes tasty, especially for animalistics and reporting. But for portraits and 12-16 is enough
Enlighten what 16 is not enough for reporting in particular?
mb megapixels?
Sometimes you have to shoot different reports. Most often, images are needed for publishing on sites or social networks. In this case, everything is pressed to a miserable 2-3 megapixels. The last case struck me altogether, the customer squeezed the given material up to 1 X 237, and then uploaded it to the social network. It was stinging with some kind of hellish compressor that the wild oversharp made, as a result of the photo it turned out to be super-duper sharp, not particularly pleasant to view.
Well, yes. Therefore, I write that "it happens."
Any newspapers that will reduce this to 800 * 600 on their website are completely normal.
I have a familiar reporter, so she uploads no more than 500-600 on the larger side, and always with kit brands. And then they are tying in the open
How to whom, but I ceased to notice the effect of dofigamegapikselnost after 10, and then there is already who has what task.
Useful clarification. Thanks.
Interesting and logical thoughts, conclusions are also quite understandable. It is worth noting that at one time many did not want to switch from 6 to 10 megapixels, then it was also with the advent of 16 megapixels and 24. But mostly people still take more megapixel carcasses over time. And people who were content with 6 megapixels in 2006 now shoot at d800 and are happy again. Yet, apparently, the number of megapixels is not such an important parameter for most photographers. And companies simply increase their number in order to once again show their technological superiority. These megapixels may be needed when printing banners or with a strong crop of images, but often this problem can be solved in other ways, and we used to print 10 * 6 banners from 6 megapixel DSLRs without problems. They should not be looked at point-blank, but from a distance - and there are enough megapixels.
At the same time, with the growth of megapixels, the camera's requirements for optics are growing, which again plays into the hands of manufacturers. It is criminal to buy 5dm24 and shoot at 105-4 5lis, there will be no difference from 3dm5 or even 2dm24 in detail. So, you need to take 70-2.8 2 L24 or top elkofixes. However, the stand-alone flagships still seem to hint to us that it's not about megapixels :) In general, I'm not a supporter of the manufacturers' conspiracy theory, but their logic can be understood. Otherwise, everything would have been filmed with old lenses. The same 70-2.8 24l or 105-4 5lis feel great at 12d, if they released cameras with a 24 megapixel matrix, hardly anyone would take 70-2.8 2l24 or 70-4 XNUMXlis.
I would like to see a picture with flowers without inserts of compared squares) beautiful)
Here in the review there is https://radojuva.com.ua/2011/12/gelios-44m-2-review/
But what about the resolution of the picture? Detailing? I wonder how the diffraction of the 50-megapixel matrix?
It seems that the resolution and detail should be similar to 24 megapixel crop, and the diffraction can be the same, because the physical size of the pixel is almost the same.
If you do not pinch the aperture and use good optics, a crystal picture can be obtained quite easily.
Yes, something similar to the 24 megapixels of my d3200.
If Evtifeev is not lying, the 5Dsr has an actual diffraction threshold of f / 6.2 (like the Nikon D7100), and the 5DmarkIII is f / 10.1.
“If Evtifeev is not lying” is in the quotation book. An absolutely excellent tovarisch, this your Efftifeev. Read on :)
After he let the Fujinists go, I don’t believe him
and there everything is clear))) the fuji has a built-in noise reduction in RAW. Honest isosha in fujah as well as other crop sensors. No fuji miracle
This comrade is not at all comrade to us.
You’d better look for the diffr yourself. threshold, and we were told.
What did you uncle Yarkiy say about the diffraction and the picture here, and what does the resolution of the matrix have to do with diffraction, the Eri circle will cover and nullify all irresponsible pixels and the more there are, the more it will cover.
Yes, really, what have we said about diffraction? Oh, yes we said here that "the diffraction can be the same, due to almost the same pixel size."
It seems that the information is too redundant for you, because before the Erie circle you read, and then it seems like they broke off.
Maybe it is worth arguing otherwise?
Density (number) of pixels per unit?
150 ppi, 300 ppi, 600 ppi ...
Pixel density is a separate topic.
What is separate? What is separate?
You talk about the size of the picture, considering the pixel as a constant. And so the picture is bigger or smaller.
IMHO, you need to do the opposite - with a constant size of the picture, talk about an increase in pixel density and, as a result, detail.
I understand what you mean - if you take the same physical size of images in millimeters (or other derivatives of a meter or inch), then they will have different densities. But in this case, in my article it will be much more difficult to show the real physical differences in the image. In my technique, when the area of one pixel is taken as a basis, it is very simple and clear to show the difference in the sizes of the resulting images. It goes without saying that the amount of detail in a larger image will be greater.
The opposite can of course be done, especially during the actual application of increasing density - for example, during printing.
So the whole problem is that size and pixel are related only by one parameter - the number of pixels per unit of size.
Or we take the same density - 150 ppi, for example, and get A4 and A3 (for example), respectively.
Or take A4 and get 150 and 300 ppi.
IMHO another technique somehow smacks of tautology. It seems that the words are similar, but the meaning is slipping away. :)))
Well, yes, despite the shuffle in my clumsy 36 megapixel pen, I won’t give it up, because the cropping capabilities outweigh the inconvenience of micro-grease. Although 50 megapixels I'm afraid it would be too much for me. Well, the comp had to take a new one under 36 megapixels, because the plugs were tired. The difference in processing speed differs significantly from 13 megapixels. By the way, what is the approximate weight of Raw at 50 megapixels without compression?
I am sure that in a couple of years everything will shift again and 50 megapixels will be the norm. 5dsr RAW on average weighs from 50 to 80 mb, it always uses raw with compression.
But I'm not sure that the future is for 36mp and even more so 50mp.
If we analyze the development trends of the flagship cameras:
Nikon D3 - 24MP => Nikon D4 - 16MP => Nikon D5 - 20MP
and the latest flagship Canon DX Mk2 - 19MP,
you can see how manufacturers empirically grope for a certain “spherical ideal in a vacuum”, approaching the formula “about 20 MP per full frame”.
It is with this matrix size that a certain optimum is achieved in the ratio of the main parameters
1) detailed (for most typical shooting tasks) detailing (more rarely when necessary)
2) ISO (directly dependent on pixel density)
3) rate of fire (directly dependent on image size)
4) file size (important for the total capacity of the cards, the speed of transfer to the computer and the speed of their processing in editors)
In terms of matrix size, the train of thought of the developers apparently coincides with mine.
If I imagined some ideal camera for myself, it would be something like
"Nikon D800, but with a 20MP sensor and the latest Expeed5 processor ... and with a price like D3000 :)))"
D3 - 12 MP, you are confusing. There was also a separate line of high-resolution tops - D3x, but so far there has been no continuation.
The number of megapixels is increased to overcome the diffraction barrier
With decreasing pixel size, the diffraction limit approaches.
In fact, the higher the density of megapixels (the more they are at the same density), the more sensitive the sensor is to diffraction (diffraction theoretically begins to manifest itself at lower F numbers). However, many photographers shoot on small-pixel cameras and tightly closed apertures, while they do not care about diffraction. For example, take a look at what landscape photographers do on F / 22-F / 32, while everything is super-detailed and super-sharp.
Arkady, could you give a link to these wonderful photographers? I would like to see the super-detail on f32 :) such an aperture value is rare. More often on macro lenses.
It is especially interesting what drives landscape photographers to such vandalism. After all, it is easy to calculate that, for example, on a 21mm lens, the flu can start from 1.7 m already at f5.6 aperture. In this case, you will not see all the dirt on the matrix, which will certainly be visible on f22.
Of course, for some reason everyone is convinced that a landscape photographer should go with 11mm super wide full frame. But, all of a sudden, landscapes, if you didn't know, are also filmed on telephoto, with a pronounced “close-up” perspective.
I agree that over-widths are usually limited to the extreme aperture values of F / 16-F / 22, telephoto lenses can calmly allow you to close it further than F / 22.
It is rather strange from you to want to hear the reasons for closed diaphragms. There is only one reason - endurance. Real photographers such as famous http://www.fotolandscape.com/workshops/ hardly calculates depth of field before each frame. 21 mm as I understand it - this is from the recent Loxia in memory.
Most likely, it is not the DOF that begins, but the hyperfocal distance, or infinity.
Hearing about dirt is strange - if there is dirt, it needs to be removed. The same Stelmakh handed over his stamps for cleaning after each shooting, because he loves to shoot under cover on his 24 1.4. Dirt shouldn't be a problem. Moreover, if it exists, then it will be visible on telephoto landscapes even at F / 8.
I agree that on F / 22-32 detailing will be so hot, nevertheless below are links to “miracle photographers” who take photographs, and not rummage around the picture with a magnifying glass in search of loss of details due to diffraction. And, suddenly, on the previews of the photos, everything is sharp and with details, where they are needed:
I hope I was able to answer your question.
thank you Korean beautiful landscapes makes
I didn’t talk about super-widths - you’re talking about someone else. But..
your time: Canon EOS 5D Mark II 17mm / ƒ / 22/1 / 4s / ISO 100
your two: EF16-35mm f / 2.8L II USM 16mm / ƒ / 22/1 / 2s / ISO 100
your three: Canon EOS 6D EF16-35mm f / 2.8L II USM 25mm / ƒ / 22/1 / 1s / ISO 100
your four: Canon EOS 6D EF16-35mm f / 2.8L II USM 16mm / ƒ / 22/1 / 3s / ISO 50
Do I need to continue? Where is the telephoto so necessary in landscape photography?
They are filming, of course. And I filmed. But the main lenses are almost universally wide-angle.
"Telephoto lenses can easily allow it to be closed beyond F / 22."
You have to pay for it. Not only that, the meaning of this action is still incomprehensible. If you shoot mountains, as in your example six, then everything will be sharp without such a closing of the diaphragm. What a distance!
“Real” photographers of the DOF present without a calculator. The houses will be counted, tested in practice and used their knowledge.
“It's rather strange from you to want to hear the reasons for closed diaphragms. There is only one reason - endurance. "
What is wrong with exposure? You wrote very succinctly.
21 mm for example. I have 21, 25, 28, 35, etc. I take pictures of landscapes from time to time.
"Most likely not to start depth of field, but hyperfocal distance, or infinity."
It is DOF. Infinity can neither begin nor end by definition :)
Hyperfocal is a certain focusing distance, it is also an accepted constant for these conditions.
“Hearing about dirt is strange - if there is dirt, it needs to be removed.”
If you change the lenses in nature, then it gets in one shot in sufficient quantity. And there are no services in the forest. And also sometimes landscapes are shot not in their hometown, but on a trip ..
In the desert, for example, it’s very inconvenient to clean the sensor.
"Who take photographs, and not with a magnifying glass rummage around the picture in search of loss of detail due to diffraction"
There is no need to fumble here - you can immediately see the low detail of the images and sharping over the top.
My photography experience is decent .. Including landscapes. Therefore, the strong closing of the diaphragm (22-32), it seems to me, should be justified by something extreme.
Arkady, thanks for the answer!
The reason is the shutter speed - apparently Arkady meant shooting with long shutter speeds (although why is the ND filter bad?). In his examples, there is a lot of flowing water captured with blur. Although it seems to me, too, it is not necessary to clamp the aperture so hard - the picture turns out worse.
the difference between 12 and 36 MP is easiest to feel not during viewing at a magnification of 1: 1, but at the moment of transition from a full image to a magnification of 1: 1 - at 12 MP the half-length portrait turns into a front portrait, and at 36 MP - a full-length portrait turns into almost the same in the front :).
Hello Arkady! Thank you very much for your site, everything is very sensible and to the point ... Judging by the comments, you recently changed your favorite Nikon D40 model to D3200. I would like to know how successful this replacement is. And another question, given the almost equal price between D3200 and D3300, which model will be more interesting. Thanks.
Yes yes, where is the D40?
I have ^^
D40 had to change d3200 for the sake of video. Color in D40 is much nicer. The d3300 has a newer matrix and a little better color. Of course, this is my personal opinion. And so the d3200 and d3300 are good amateur cameras. I just came across the new d3200, brought from the states at a very low price.
Therefore, they still take used Canon 5D 12.8MP, since the picture on it is excellent even by modern standards, and the pixels are large and pretty low-noise. If Canon wanted, then they would calmly make all the cameras on these matrices (or, for example, on 1DsMk2 16Mp matrices) and with modern processors, and everyone would be happy, but they deliberately slow down progress in this area by snatching miserable "crops" to people ...
nickels are taken because "FF is cheap !!!!"
Suddenly dxomark.com as usual surprises. 5d is always better than the most fresh crop)
Yeah ... twice without changing the aperture. ))
Young man, we're talking for Kenon.
well ... you are not serious about DD from canon ??? ))
he doesn’t work on DD at crop.
Although…
Judging by the data from the site, it turns out that the "crops" are only now beginning to catch up with the FF cameras of ten years ago ...
So it is for a number of parameters. One of the newest Nikon d3300 iso barely catches up with the old nickle. I have both and I can say that on ISO 3200 a nickel is still more decent than the d3300 (although it is not bad at all). And canon sprinkles do merge 5d to this day. Especially those that are comparable in price.
In fact, if you take the first full frame 1DS from kenon, then the crop has surpassed it, but no more. Nikon has not yet a single crop in terms of performance at high ISO has not caught up with the very, very first full-format D3.
rather “just now the FF has caught up with some 10 year old crop.
No dear, they don't take nickels for that. They are taken because the quality of the camera and the picture is still excellent and there is no point in paying 150 thousand rubles for a 5dmk3, with similar characteristics with a camera for 30 thousand ... (It is clear that the MK3 is better and all that, but the meaning does not change)
Yeah. .I just see a pro who has real money to buy a new carcass like mark3 or 1dx (and not an amateur provincial wedding man with 20 thousand cut from his wife's salary), who says - “Well, the brand is not cool, but killed, overused , with a half-dead bolt (after the wedding bombila), with a beaten body, without working lava, high ISOs, and other bells and whistles - this is cool and I will not overpay for stamps. And I'll take the top five with the only and main camera ”.
I can imagine Rashap or Zotov at these words.
Yeah .. two times. Without changing the aperture.
Like - the shah goes from home to work and X5 goes from home to work. The result does not change - you are at work.
There are so many letters, and the value of the message tends to 0 ...
well, what a question, that’s the answer.
I don't remember asking you about anything ... And don't write more nonsense about super professionals. I worked for 4 years in direct sales of photographic equipment and saw the entire contingent from a person who does not know how to open a box when buying a camera to people who took 5Dmk2 2 pieces every couple of months since the shutters were killed when shooting
Ps Oh, yes, and your Zotov (as a person) is a sad, arrogant th ... but. After the video where he persuaded the model and himself "obosr..l" the visiting photographer who helps him in shooting the plot, there is no desire to watch and listen to this goat.
ABOUT! Babah from the store manager. A person clearly knows everything and everything about photography.
Sounds like a McDonalds employee opinion on cooking and the reasons for using marzipan
It sounds like a McDonald's employee opinion on cooking and the reasons for using marzipan.
Rodchenko school is not ashamed of you, I wonder?
Not always and not everyone likes to carry kilograms and still overpay for it. Do you have something against the crop? Arkady has an article here that clearly explains why Kropy is good, and FF is good. I also like those and those.
Crops are good ... And it is also good to shoot on the phone, you can write an article about it. “Comparative analysis of professional SLR cameras and iPhone 6s. Cons and pros of both solutions ”. I wonder what the customer or even your friends will say when you tell them that you will be filming the celebration on an iPhone. While convincingly proving that it is not worse in any way ... Ps I respect Arkady and I think, all other things being equal, he will prefer to shoot on FF, knowing full well that this will give the highest quality picture
By the way, yes. It would be interesting to see an overview of the iPhone camera from Arkady
Nothing of the kind, so many pros have a crop with a second camera, and sometimes the first one. If you read a hundred or two reviews from Arkady, you will see that in certain situations he prefers crop to the full frame. As well as you can argue that SF Hassel (if any) is ALWAYS and in any situations better than FF and crop.
You would have to think less and decide for others than to take pictures.
You would be less telling others what to do ... What FF apparatus do you own? What crop did you switch from? Substantively comrade, let's communicate in detail ...))
LOL
FF ... Well, here's the XNUMXth Minolta, for example.
Still at home somewhere medium format is either Amateur, or Amateur-2 lying around. I don’t remember exactly, I photographed on it in childhood.
There, only the viewfinder cracked, it would be necessary to fix it.
If your hands grow from the right place, it doesn’t matter what you photograph. A photographer takes a photograph, not a camera, remember it already.
For example, an old Sonya two hundred and thirtieth is enough for me with a head for homework.
Do you want to shoot anything and everything on FF? LOL, on health. Even shoot yourself in full frame. Just remember that your opinion is not interesting to anyone, everyone pays $ XNUMX for it. These are the realities of our world.
Go to the mirror and repeat a hundred times your last two sentences)) immediately feel better))
Well, yes, I don’t give a damn about your wrong opinion.
the pictures can be misleading that the matrices are of different sizes and the pixel density is the same)
Fixed Explanation added.
Exactly, the picture will be the same, only the size in pixels will differ; those. better to remove the background.
And the answer to the question mentioned in the article, whether the old lenses will resolve such a matrix, providing per-pixel sharpness, has not been sounded. I suspect that both the Chinese fifty and the Industar are useless for a 50 megapixel matrix a little more than completely. Look, even the new Fujian lenses have a resolution in the center of 60+ lines / mm, and the matrixes are 16 megapixels. The stock is there, but not huge.
Regarding framing, I’ll prepare a separate article where all the charm of multi-pixel cameras will be visible.
The first one I write a comment, interestingly, I never thought about it this way
No…..
Hello Arkady! Thank you for your site, everything is sensible and to the point ... Judging by the information you have changed your favorite Nikon d40 to d3200. How successful was the update? And another question, with almost the same price between d3200 and d3300, which camera will be more interesting?
Answered above to your exact same question.
Tell me what characteristics or rather what kind of hardware is needed on the computer so that Lightroom 6 starts flying
You know, there is still one 3D picture in the final, rendered for several hours even on very powerful graphics stations, and this is considered the norm. Photo processing is a flower. So everything is relative and subjective. For me, on my ultrabook i5 / 8Gb / 512ssd LR 6.5 flies with 24MP photos, but it may seem to someone that it slows down. There is no limit to perfection. But there are operations that require a huge amount of calculations, and the higher the power of modern PCs and the higher the version of the programs, the more sophisticated these procedures become and require more resources, but they give a better result, and the point is not only in megapixels. Well, the programmers are lazy, of course, the assembler has sunk into the ages. )))
Install Windows on the SSD drive, and install Lightrum on it. You will be satisfied
I apologize for repeating the text, the internet slows down ...
The tendency to increase megapixels is clear to me personally. Most no longer print photos, but store them digitally on disks and clouds. Also, the artistic component fades into the background, yielding to the genres of documentary and reportage, in other words: everything that I see - I shoot everything, and preferably as clearly as possible on closed apertures and a wide angle, so that it can be seen from the toes of the boots to the horizon. Then it becomes obvious that for documentary filmmaking it is very good to have the opportunity to consider both the general plan and the bas-relief of the rivet on the jacket “whooon with that girl”. In general, these trends are followed by the development of matrices and glasses. In general, it is even not bad, there is technological progress. And now there are backdrops with glass for every taste and wallet.
I would like just full-fledged (not cropped) medium format digital backdrops, at human prices. And the aprons, too.
And so, we will be with a 35mm matrix all our life.
Arkady, where's the 5Dsr review?
There is no review of this camera when it was in my review, along with 24-70 / 2.8 I was seriously ill, I only managed to review 50 1.8.
This is a joke?
What a joke? The cameras do not give for infinite use)
It's a pity…)))
I’ll insert my 5 kopecks as an amateur who owns a D5100 with 16 megapixels.
Cropping is convenient, but the aperture diffraction limit starts theoretically from f / 8, visually - from f / 11. Because very often you need a high-tech photo with per-pixel sharpness, then the shake at 16 megapixels does its bit. My opinion is that the crop resolution should be 10-12 Mpix.
Let me disagree with you: I'm an amateur (D7100 crop). Without touching my crooked photos, nevertheless, sometimes you need to cut out what, say, relatives, on an A4 calendar. Even from the already compressed jpeg with a size of 3-4 mb. I calmly cut out faces on A4. If you cut something from a fujifilm digital compact (in RAW, of course) or from a phone, then you can see eerie noises even on the A5. The same 16 mp. in 1,3 crop format as good as 24 megapixels. are not cropped, there is more noise, etc. If you are making a portrait like a professional, then 16 megapixels. Enough for the eye, and if the household type: "my sister against the background of a cobblestone", then when framing, 24 MP is still better than 16.
24 mp. I think it is optimal for processing “everyday photos” in LR and PS, despite the problem of blurring from shutter operation, even with a tripod. 50 mp. this is overkill.
The trick is that theoretically (I don’t know how the cells are implemented on the sensor itself), the 50 megapixel pixel size will be larger than Nikon’s 24 mm on the crop.
That is, the picture on the crop at Nikon at an approximation of 24 megapixels, so to speak, more detailed than that of Canon at 50 megapixels? (on the same area of the frame, if you cut the crop 1,5 from FF).
To get the same detail from the kenon, there should be 54 megapixels (24 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 54)
Thanks! The question is what to do with such detailing with lubrication from the shutter. D7100 light tripod is not enough at night. You must either raise the mirror or turn on the liveview. If 24 mp. lubricants, then 54 overkill. You need either a mirrorless mirror or a lot of light.
Of course. Multiply the resolution of the cropped matrix by the squared factor. As a result, you will get the resolution of the FF matrix with the pixel density, as in cropped.
24 * 1,5 * 1,5 = 54MP
And Olympus outwitted everyone and did the same 50 megapixels (or more, I don’t remember) on a 16-megapixel matrix using the matrix shift method by half a pixel (or less) :)
Arkady, please show the photo community the charm of the number of megapixels by the example of cropping, and not by squares resembling the physical dimensions of matrices. but the impression is that some people are lost in the undercover coverage of the topic .... thanks.
How to get this food: do you want to distribute the photo in the exact same size with the digital camera format DX 24 megapixel and also with the full format 24 megapixel camera, why don’t you stink the same for the rose?
If you print with the same density, they will be the same. In general, if you change the density, you can print with any size from any camera. In this case, the detail will either decrease or increase.
Arkady, thank you for making us think about things that would seem obvious. But did the lenses mentioned in the article allow 50MP?
Explain to me, please, the meaning of the common saying about "increased demands of multi-pixel matrices for the quality of optics." I don't really understand the physical meaning of this thesis.
What is the visual difference in which matrix the image from the lens is projected onto?
Let's say a cheap lens gives a not very sharp picture on a 50MP matrix. What if screwed onto a camera with a 16MP matrix, will the image visually become more satisfactory? It seems to be not. There will be exactly the same blurry photo. Is not it so?
Well, not at all. If the image is projected onto a matrix with small pixels, then the error in the projection of the light beam (lens aberration, insufficient resolution) will be recorded by these pixels. If the lens error does not exceed the linear pixel size, then we will not be able to see these flaws, even looking at the image at 100% size. And since it is not prints that are usually compared now, but the images on the monitor at a scale of 400%, hence this common opinion is growing. Naturally, if you compare images in the same size, and not resolution, then the picture will be different.
In general, it’s a shame that over the past 10 years there has been no real progress in sensor engineering. When resizing images up to 3602 by 2398 (A4 printing, 8,64 MPix), the same DXOmark produces the same graphics for the d700, the third dime and d4s in terms of noise. Actually, in Nikon, only DD grew (rather, even in Sony). In the canon since the time of the first nickle, only the noise figures have grown, DD and color there.
As a result, if you do not rummage through the image on a scale of 1 to 1 with a magnifying glass, then there is no difference.
Another thing is that autofocus pulled up, and there were other buns. But the image quality itself is there. And if the exposure did not miss and the focus took place, then no one will find the difference on the monitor screen and A4 print
Arkady, can you explain one thing to me? For example, I'll take Nikon 85mm 1.8G.
On DxO, the resolution of this lens for Nikon D7100 (24.71MP sensor) = 15MP, for Nikon D5000 (12.9MP matrix) = 9MP. Why, if glass can resolve 15MP on Nikon D7100, it can't fully resolve all 12.9MP on Nikon D5000? After all, the size of the matrices is the same, and the pixel is even “fatter” on the D5000.
These are not standard megapixels, but Perceptual Megapixel (P-Mpix). Details in English:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you
But there is a trend for a newer and more full-format sensor - this parameter is growing.
Because the resolution of the photo cannot be equal to the resolution of the matrix or lens. Read about the Katz formula (this is the theory). Plus, add the AA filter and the Bayer filter interpolation and the final print already does not contain any 12 megapixels
Many thanks to you and the previous “anonymous”! It was always interesting why the numbers are so, although the sharpness was somehow less interested in me. And with physics, I was always not very good. :)
Well, sharpness and resolution are brothers. It's almost the same
Well, I don’t know, it’s not twice as long as wide, but four times as much area as A4, what is A1, the difference is big. On your photos you can clearly see that the blue zone is 12 megapixels 4 times less than 50 megapixels. What did the author want to refute? What 12x4 is about 50? Nonsense article.
This is if it is purely in the mind to photograph mathematically “in squares”. But usually the photo is adjusted to the width or height of the captured object during post processing, while maintaining the aspect ratio of the frame. And then it turns out that by trimming only a third in width (or in height: I photographed the model in full growth, but did not like the position of the legs and cut it just above the knee), I cut the file size by more than half (making 50 / 1,8 from snapshot at 75 / 1,8 :).
jjjj, you are talking about “zone, meaning area. I'm talking about width (linear size).