What is DSLR-like Quality??Definition? [Archive] - The Global Indian Photographer

synn

09-09-2009, 06:13 AM

It IS about the image quality, per pixel detail and and high ISO performance. Nothing below a DSLR can deliver this, Period.

But apart from that, it is also about two things. Control and optics. The level of control you get on a DSLR is something that even medium formats can't match. DSLRs these days have the best AF systems which can track not only using the points, but also using the color of the subject and that too in 3 dimensions. They can control massive flash arrays. Record RAW data in 14 bits. And so on.

All this combined together helps you take pictures that aren't really possible with anything else.

But the most important part is the optics. A camera is nothing without good glass. Nearly all the recent breakthroughs in optics have come from lenses for DSLRs (Companies like Leica, although they have excellent primes are basically using decades old designs. It works for their system where changes are slow as molasses.). With full frame sensors exceeding the resolution power of some previously excellent lenses, companies have to push themselves to the limits to come up with something that's even better. A good example is the new Nikon VR-II whose predecessor was arguably the best 70-200 out there and was considered flawless until the FX sensors came about.

Even the cheapest DSLR lens out there is still miles better than the ones found in the most expensive superzoom and this is the reason why it clicks better photos out of the box, if the person knows what he is doing.

One can fool oneself into believing that other options are "Almost" as good as a DSLR, but the fact is, "Almost" isn't "Exact" and sooner or later, they tend to realize it.

KrishnenduKes

09-09-2009, 09:10 AM

ill be looking some answers from you..since u have been using it for ages..

something which is not the usual IQ and noise stuff..some explanation which goes beyond this.

It is true that I have been using an SLR and then a DSLR for Ages! Which is exactly the reason why I will not be able to talk about the Non-DSLR stuff.

It is also true that I do own an ageing dated P&S Sony DSC and that once in a while I do take some pictures with it. When I hold it in my hand, I feel severely handicapped. I have used some other P&S just to have a feel, they do not give me any controls like 1/3 aperture/shutter-speed/ISO stops, practically noiseless till 800ASA, nice and very FAST AF, which also includes AI Servo for tracking. Let us not even go into details like xFps at 21 continuous on RAW and unlimited on Jpeg!

Actually, had I made the transition from P&S to SLR, I probably would have been able to better explain the difference.

The level of control you get on a DSLR is something that even medium formats can't match.

Medium and 120 formats were never meant to be excellent tracking devices. They were always meant to produce outstanding clarity, colours fidelity and sharpness... which they still do. They are not meant to shoot Formula1 or WRC! Given a studio shoot, I would simply chuck my 5D in the bin and go for a 120.

synn

09-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Medium and 120 formats were never meant to be excellent tracking devices. They were always meant to produce outstanding clarity, colours fidelity and sharpness... which they still do. They are not meant to shoot Formula1 or WRC!

I do not disagree.

The point is, DSLRs are the most versatile solutions around. A guy can do very respectable studio shoots with a D3X and take the same camera to an F1 race and get decent shots there too. All at a price that's 1/3rds that of a Leaf back.

KrishnenduKes

09-09-2009, 09:18 AM

All at a price that's 1/3rds that of a Leaf back.

Not if you have been using a Blad all along. You just have to replace the Blad film-back with a digital back. Which costs less than the 1Ds MkIII.

Edit: No, it is not less, but about as much. There are digital backs which are quite expensive out there just because of the sensor size obviously! :) So finally we come down to sensor size! Which is the crux of the whole matter!

synn

09-09-2009, 09:30 AM

It's close, yes:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS-1Ds_Mark_III/index.asp

7900 Pounds Sterling.

http://www.rapidgroup.net/products/hasselblad_cfv39.html

8750 Pounds Sterling.

The 1Ds Mk III is no match for the 'Blad when it comes to sheer detail, but again; that's besides my point. What I'm putting across is that when it comes to versatility, that DSLR right there is unmatchable. Not that it's better than a medium format.

KrishnenduKes

09-09-2009, 09:52 AM

The point is, DSLRs are the most versatile solutions around. A guy can do very respectable studio shoots with a D3X and take the same camera to an F1 race and get decent shots there too. All at a price that's 1/3rds that of a Leaf back.

What I'm putting across is that when it comes to versatility, that DSLR right there is unmatchable. Not that it's better than a medium format.

Totally agreed on those counts. The SLR and the DSLR have been the most versatile photographic instruments made by man.

synn

09-09-2009, 09:56 AM

So finally we come down to sensor size! Which is the crux of the whole matter!

Just saw this edit. Yes! We are in agreement!

Sensor size and optics open creative avenues unseen before. There's no two ways about it. One can get a good picture with even a cellphone camera if one has the compositional skills. But a bigger sensor and better optics transform that "Good" picture to a "Great" one.

And THAT, is what people mean by DSLR quality; if I'm not mistaken.. :)

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-09-2009, 12:01 PM

Even the cheapest DSLR lens out there is still miles better than the ones found in the most expensive superzoom and this is the reason why it clicks better photos out of the box, if the person knows what he is doing.

so that would make my pictures pretty useless and downright cheap in front of a 1000D or a D40 or the likes.

It is also true that I do own an ageing dated P&S Sony DSC and that once in a while I do take some pictures with it. When I hold it in my hand, I feel severely handicapped. I have used some other P&S just to have a feel, they do not give me any controls like 1/3 aperture/shutter-speed/ISO stops, practically noiseless till 800ASA, nice and very FAST AF, which also includes AI Servo for tracking. Let us not even go into details like xFps at 21 continuous on RAW and unlimited on Jpeg!

then ken what will you say about the recent developments..
the PANASONIC LX-3
the FUJI F200EXR and now the F70 EXR
SONY WX-1

there is a particular thing that during wedding photography,many pro people use kite photography technique.there they use a G9 or 7 and develop and print nice.

smaller things are also progressing forward.not of APS-C where the sensor size for us mainstream buyers has remained the same while they cramped in more MP(and changed the processor).not comparing things but projecting the developments.many are impressed by the LX-3 low light performance and some now say that the LX-3 has stolen the trophy of low light performance from the fuji F31 FD(the sensor that is there in my cam too).but again now the LX-3 is in trouble since the launch of the WX-1 and somewhat the F70 EXR.

so my next question is...

now we know that DSLR gives performance and optics and such.

so why are PANASONIC, SONY,FUJI putting their money on a COMPACT which is not a DSLR and coming out cameras for us...dubbed enthusiasts.not common joe but we people.??their target is US.

we have seen that we are not gonna buy these since they DONT GIVE DSLR quality right??so why these companies are targetting these beauties to us??

anvancy

hitanshu

09-09-2009, 12:41 PM

Yaar,

Vertu is a flagship Nokia brand but gets only a fistful of models.

Nokia on the other hand just wants to sell us crap with flashlight, no flashlight, with VGA camera, with 1.3/2/3.2 etc mp camera. Why o why?

Vicky

09-09-2009, 01:04 PM

so that would make my pictures pretty useless and downright cheap in front of a 1000D or a D40 or the likes.

I feel this discussion will soon turn nasty.

Nobody is totally correct here, and neither is anybody completely wrong.
Guys, its not just Black and white! There's also numerous shades of Grey in between:)

There are many many different types of people in this world, with different levels of knowledge, different needs, different tastes, different priorities, different expectations and most importantly, different budgets. And with such a varied base of consumers, there's practically a market for everything!

Hero Honda is the world's largest motorcycle manufacturer. But, does it make the best motorcycles in the world? No! And does this make a difference to the regular Hero Honda buyer? Again No!:rolleyes:

synn

09-09-2009, 01:11 PM

so that would make my pictures pretty useless and downright cheap in front of a 1000D or a D40 or the likes.

No, that means you could use a 1000D or a D40 and take those pictures BETTER. No need to get defensive. I'm talking about the tools. Not the artist.

smaller things are also progressing forward.not of APS-C where the sensor size for us mainstream buyers has remained the same while they cramped in more MP(and changed the processor).not comparing things but projecting the developments.many are impressed by the LX-3 low light performance and some now say that the LX-3 has stolen the trophy of low light performance from the fuji F31 FD(the sensor that is there in my cam too).but again now the LX-3 is in trouble since the launch of the WX-1 and somewhat the F70 EXR.

There's a reason why Nikon isn't taking part in the megapixel race. Look at an ISO 1600 shot from a D90/D300. It is astonishingly clean. Find me a superzoom that can deliver the same output.

so why are PANASONIC, SONY,FUJI putting their money on a COMPACT which is not a DSLR and coming out cameras for us...dubbed enthusiasts.not common joe but we people.??their target is US.

In simple terms, this is called different strokes for different folks.Also because it's not easy to make headway in the DSLR arena where people are heavily polarized and have a clear choice in their sight when it comes to brands before they even buy it. Panasonic had a DSLR once. Like, 10 people bought it. 4 probably returned it a week later and bought a Nikon or Canon. That's how the world works. Samsung has one. It's main hobby is to gather dust on the shelves.

The same Sony that you talk of promotes their DSLR lineup with just as much force behind it, btw.

we have seen that we are not gonna buy these since they DONT GIVE DSLR quality right??so why these companies are targetting these beauties to us??

The answer is simple: Some folks like yourself simply can't accept that DSLRs are betterand want to put your money down on a superzoom. The companies don't care what you buy from them as long as they get your money.

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-09-2009, 01:32 PM

I feel this discussion will soon turn nasty.

Nobody is totally correct here, and neither is anybody completely wrong.
Guys, its not just Black and white! There's also numerous shades of Grey in between:)

There are many many different types of people in this world, with different levels of knowledge, different needs, different tastes, different priorities, different expectations and most importantly, different budgets. And with such a varied base of consumers, there's practically a market for everything!

Hero Honda is the world's largest motorcycle manufacturer. But, does it make the best motorcycles in the world? No! And does this make a difference to the regular Hero Honda buyer? Again No!:rolleyes:

no vicky..i knew before hand that these topics are sort of to bring nasty things.i think even KEN knows that such discussions are nasty.but he approved since he thought something will be different. my intention is different.i am not here in this thread to PROVE that PS is better than DSLR or upfront of DSLR.i mean how can i change the physics..a mirror reflecting light splitting it in a sprectrum will obviously get you great light on the sensor.

ya grey matter..of our brains also..LOL.

if KEN sees that this thread is a complete piece of crap..he or any other MOD can close it..i have absolutely no problem in this regard.

No, that means you could use a 1000D or a D40 and take those pictures BETTER. No need to get defensive. I'm talking about the tools. Not the artist.

synn..then the artist will require the correct tools to do his art right?:)

There's a reason why Nikon isn't taking part in the megapixel race. Look at an ISO 1600 shot from a D90/D300. It is astonishingly clean. Find me a superzoom that can deliver the same output.agreed on this part.same output cannot be possible because of the sensor size.but given circumstances there are certain cameras who in their field are producing good low light results.

In simple terms, this is called different strokes for different folks.Also because it's not easy to make headway in the DSLR arena where people are heavily polarized and have a clear choice in their sight when it comes to brands before they even buy it. Panasonic had a DSLR once. Like, 10 people bought it. 4 probably returned it a week later and bought a Nikon or Canon. That's how the world works. Samsung has one. It's main hobby is to gather dust on the shelves.can we say here that CANIKON did extensive aggressive marketing for their products??

The same Sony that you talk of promotes their DSLR lineup with just as much force behind it, btw. i tried one sony at chroma..with a minolta lens..it was beautiful.

The answer is simple: Some folks like yourself simply can't accept that DSLRs are betterand want to put your money down on a superzoom. The companies don't care what you buy from them as long as they get your money.i think you got me wrong here.i use DSLRS when i get it from my friends.i know the capability.

the basis of creating this thread is different.if i wanted P&S VS DSLR i would have not created this thread but rather spent some time on dpreview.com and had nice fun.

the point i am asking is that WHY..people consider that ONLY DSLRS can give you TRUE PHOTOGRAPHY while a P&S cant?thats why in the first post i put the question as "how will you term DSLR-quality as??"

can photography be done only when you HAVE A DSLR??thats my point of asking synn..not that PS is at par with DSLR..i know the physics part.but i want to understand from you people the cribbing many do that PHOTOGRAPHY=DSLRing...nothing else.

once again...if KEN or even you all think i am putting crap here...just tell me once that its all wrong and stop the crap..ill stop..close the thread..close it..

but dont target this particular thread as a PS vs DSLR situation.rather target it as whether photography can be achieved only through a DSLR??and not a PS??

anvancy

synn

09-09-2009, 01:53 PM

There's a simple explanation to why the term "DSLR-like quality" has gathered acceptance. Simply because DSLRs are the benchmark when it comes to professional photography. Not because they are the best (A certain large format manufacturer called Horsemann would like to have a word with you if you believe so :D ), but because they are the most widely used and have the widest available range of optics and accessories.

For better or worse, compare it to how people say "iPods" for any MP3 player or XEROX for any copier.

As i said before, a good artist can take pics with even a cellphone. But he can do so much more with a more versatile tool.

Don't take my word for it. Here's what a man who has traversed Antartica a few times with DSLRs and medium formats has to say on the matter. He has used probably every camera type known to man. Adobe and Canon consult him before designing their next gen products. And he says, Yes, it matters! (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml)

Vicky

09-09-2009, 02:47 PM

Yes, it matters! (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml)

Interesting read :)

Loved this part the most...

One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit.

One can't build a modern house with a stone axe, and a doctor can't do surgery without a finely honed scalpel. I'm a pretty decent photographer, and give me a Holga toy camera and I can do some fun shots with it. But I can't do a formal portrait, an architectural commission, a sports or wildlife shoot, or a table top still life or product shot without the right tools, which may include at any one time a camera with a large sensor, long lens, technical movements, and other tools and techniques of the trade...

..Just because I am arguing that good and appropriate equipment is important when doing many types of photography doesn't mean that the inverse is untrue; in other words, that talent isn't necessary. Of course talent and artistic skill are also necessary.

So please folks, stop the childish nonsense. Equipment does matter, and if anyone tells you otherwise, smile, nod sagely, and simply move along. Or, send them here for a good spanking.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-78/duck.jpg

Bibudesh

09-09-2009, 03:38 PM

@anvancy- the areas of photography are limited where we can claim the quality of P&S and DSLR is almost the same. With a p&s you cannot extend your boundaries.
With a p&s, all type of feature, lenses etc. are packed in one box, but there are technological limitations. You have a 20x tele in p&s but u cant achieve the quality and clarity what u get in 400mm primes, no matter how much creative you are, your hands are tied.

another e.g. a very fast P&S say G10 or oly or fuji s100fd, are they all capable of capturing a supersonic sukhoi? Take a D3 with a 400mm, just put it into Av mode, point and shoot. No creativity needed and your photo is ready to be putten up at IAF HQs.

BANDHAV

09-09-2009, 05:23 PM

After going through all the discussion i have understood/concluded two things one can be a photographer with a P&S, and a DSLR is more like a natural progression. But its not a must to upgrade to a DSLR one can decide to be a photographer with a P&S.

srikeerthi

09-09-2009, 05:39 PM

Wow! This is soo much fun! I finished my bucket of popcorn, let me get a refill.

Go for the kill boys :D

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-09-2009, 06:00 PM

that was an interesting read synn..

i like the part where he partly goes against ken rockwell.it was fun.

@bibudesh:agreed..we can say then versatility vs dedication??

btw how many times will you shoot a sukhoi??:p..the IAF has a sukhoi base in pune.still they dont allow people to shoot stuff..they are always on a watch.i m waiting for their airforce open day..if i cant get it in the sky..why not in the ground..:cool:
finance plays a major role when it comes to purchasing a prime..

@srikeerthi: do get me one.i will like salted..not caramel.;)

so is it now...the equipment matters..or the photographer matters...or the blend matters??

anvancy

Xavier

09-09-2009, 06:06 PM

finance plays a major role when it comes to purchasing a prime..

A prime is less expensive than a comparable zoom in the same range.

synn

09-09-2009, 06:44 PM

that was an interesting read synn..

i like the part where he partly goes against ken rockwell.it was fun.

That wasn't meant to be just entertaining. It actually was more like a factsheet. Looks like the point was lost.

@bibudesh:agreed..we can say then versatility vs dedication??

btw how many times will you shoot a sukhoi??:p..the IAF has a sukhoi base in pune.still they dont allow people to shoot stuff..they are always on a watch.i m waiting for their airforce open day..if i cant get it in the sky..why not in the ground..:cool:

More like versatility vs inability.

Leave the sukhoi. How about a trackday? Some low light, tight DoF portraits? Hell, tight DoF portraits, period?

Or am I punching on a wall with no give and wasting my time? ;)

finance plays a major role when it comes to purchasing a prime..

Let's leave the finance card at home. It frankly has been overplayed. When one gets into photography, one knows what they are getting into. It IS a money draining hobby. I've made several sacrifices to acquire my gear and I have zero regrets about it. I'll buy more gear in the future and I'm sure something enticing has to make way for it. It's all about priorities.

so is it now...the equipment matters..or the photographer matters...or the blend matters??

That question was beautifully answered by Reichmann in the article. So yes, the point was indeed lost in translation.

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-09-2009, 07:07 PM

That wasn't meant to be just entertaining. It actually was more like a factsheet. Looks like the point was lost.

the way he has written is entertaining.he is putting his point in a way that is fun to read.not entertaining as in popcorn fun.

More like versatility vs inability.inability then will make me unable to take a single photo since i m using a PS.

Leave the sukhoi. How about a trackday? Some low light, tight DoF portraits? Hell, tight DoF portraits, period?
Or am I punching on a wall with no give and wasting my time? ;)Reichmann himself has written that equipment changes according to situation.

That question was beautifully answered by Reichmann in the article. So yes, the point was indeed lost in translation.so then we should stop blabbering that you took a great pic..instead we should now say that your camera took a great pic.

synn

09-09-2009, 07:22 PM

inability then will make me unable to take a single photo since i m using a PS.Again, you are losing the plot completely in an attempt to be defensive. You could be the greatest photographer in the world; with skills bestowed upon you by the ghost of Ansel adams, but you'd still come up short with a P&S at a trackday. It's just science. The shots that you take, as good as they are, aren't really pushing the limits of the equipment. Mind you, I said the limits of the EQUIPMENT; not YOU. There's a huge difference in that and you repeatedly fail to comprehend this.

Let me highlight this in bold: The whole point of this discussion is the inferiority and superiority of equipment while the photographer remains the same.

Reichmann himself has written that equipment changes according to situation.
...and that is where DSLR's shine. You can transform it to work in any situation. A P&S is handicapped severely in this regard. This is what several forum members have been trying to convey to you; and not just in this thread. Your stubbornness to accept this reality and still hold on to your prejudices in no way makes our points any less correct.

then we should stop blabbering that you took a great pic..instead we should now say that your camera took a great pic.
No, we should talk about how that person knew what settings and what lens to use at that particular moment. The camera doesn't set itself and change lenses on its own. You won't get that sort of insight by confining yourself to a P&S and proclaiming that it is all you need. Photography is about pushing one's limits.

I think I and several others have answered your original question pretty clearly in the past few posts. So I'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to drive a point that reached home several hours ago. If you still want to live in a misguided reality where you twist all the facts to suit your interpretation, so be it. The world wouldn't end. :)

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-09-2009, 07:24 PM

Again, you are losing the plot completely in an attempt to be defensive. You could be the greatest photographer in the world; with skills bestowed upon you by the ghost of Ansel adams, but you'd still come up short with a P&S at a trackday. It's just science. The shots that you take, as good as they are, aren't really pushing the limits of the equipment. Mind you, I said the limits of the EQUIPMENT; not YOU. There's a huge difference in that and you repeatedly fail to comprehend this.

Let me highlight this in bold: The whole point of this discussion is the inferiority and superiority of equipment while the photographer remains the same.

...and that is where DSLR's shine. You can transform it to work in any situation. A P&S is handicapped severely in this regard. This is what several forum members have been trying to convey to you; and not just in this thread. Your stubbornness to accept this reality and still hold on to your prejudices in no way makes our points any less correct.

No, we should talk about how that person knew what settings and what lens to use at that particular moment. The camera doesn't set itself and change lenses on its own. You won't get that sort of insight by confining yourself to a P&S and proclaiming that it is all you need. Photography is about pushing one's limits.

I think I and several others have answered your original question pretty clearly in the past few posts. So I'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to drive a point that reached home several hours ago. If you still want to live in a misguided reality where you twist all the facts to suit your interpretation, so be it. The world wouldn't end. :)

thank you for putting your time.:)

so shall we say and end to this discussion and close the thread?

KrishnenduKes

09-09-2009, 09:04 PM

Moderator's Note: Thread will remain open for constructive inputs as long as people remain civil.

There have been a moment or two of the discussion turning sour... but so far so good! I do not want to close the discussion.

BANDHAV

09-10-2009, 10:05 AM

+1 to that kenda.

I must say that this is turning out to be one informative thread atleast for me.

Aryan

09-10-2009, 10:42 AM

+1 to that kenda.

I must say that this is turning out to be one informative thread atleast for me.
Not only for you Bandhav, for many of us, there is loads of information in this thread. Some, which I do understand while some, which totally goes over my small head. :p

Daniel Browning

01-03-2010, 09:27 PM

so this DSLR-like quality is termed as???

Here's my take on it. DSLR-like quality is:

High lens contrast
Thinner DOF
Good highlight headroom (e.g. 3.5 stops) for fewer clipped whites.
Wide or unusual angles of view (e.g. 24mm-equivalent and macro)
More realistic color rendering (muted saturation)
Low noise.
Very little lens aberration
No artifacts (sharpening, compression, etc.)

Daniel Browning

01-03-2010, 09:35 PM

This is a little off topic, but why not? :)

There's a reason why Nikon isn't taking part in the megapixel race.

In one sense, Nikon is taking part in it more than anyone else. They feel that megapixels are so important than it's worth charging an extra $3,000 for (D3X vs D3).

Look at an ISO 1600 shot from a D90/D300. It is astonishingly clean. Find me a superzoom that can deliver the same output.

I don't think that has anything to do with the megapixel race. A superzoom has a small sensor, while the D300 has a large one. That is why the D300 has less noise with the same exposure. Even if they had the same pixel size, the D300 would still have far less noise. A more relevant comparison would be two sensors of the same size but a different number of pixels.

KrishnenduKes

01-04-2010, 07:56 AM

In one sense, Nikon is taking part in it more than anyone else. They feel that megapixels are so important than it's worth charging an extra $3,000 for (D3X vs D3).

I don't think that has anything to do with the megapixel race. A superzoom has a small sensor, while the D300 has a large one. That is why the D300 has less noise with the same exposure. Even if they had the same pixel size, the D300 would still have far less noise. A more relevant comparison would be two sensors of the same size but a different number of pixels.

Interesting observation. Thanks.

hitanshu

01-04-2010, 10:43 AM

Very interesting stuff - Dan. Thanks for sharing!

So by your logic, we should compare noise of 400D vs 450D vs 500D?

Daniel Browning

01-04-2010, 11:05 AM

So by your logic, we should compare noise of 400D vs 450D vs 500D?

Yes. You can also compare sensors of different sizes if you crop the larger one down to the same size: that gives you an idea of what the performance is "per area".

synn

01-04-2010, 11:54 AM

This is a little off topic, but why not? :)

In one sense, Nikon is taking part in it more than anyone else. They feel that megapixels are so important than it's worth charging an extra $3,000 for (D3X vs D3).

I wouldn't call that a megapixel "Race". They are just restricting their top sensor to the most expensive model. A 7D user and a friend of mine was just complaining about diffraction setting in at f6.x the other day. I can only imagine the cries of dismay from D90 and even D300 users if the same sensor made its way into them. There are only a few primes and the holy trinity in the Nikon lineup that can handle those extra MPs on the D3X.

I would like to see a higher MP D700 though (And my all accounts, I would! :D )

I don't think that has anything to do with the megapixel race. A superzoom has a small sensor, while the D300 has a large one. That is why the D300 has less noise with the same exposure. Even if they had the same pixel size, the D300 would still have far less noise. A more relevant comparison would be two sensors of the same size but a different number of pixels.

The intention was to compare a similar megapixel count on two different types of cameras. So yes, Sensor size was always part of the equation. At the same MP count, the DSLR's bigger sensor puts it at an advantage compared to a superzoom.

Daniel Browning

01-04-2010, 01:13 PM

I wouldn't call that a megapixel "Race".

You're right. Thanks for commenting on that.

A 7D user and a friend of mine was just complaining about diffraction setting in at f6.x the other day. I can only imagine the cries of dismay from D90 and even D300 users if the same sensor made its way into them.

I don't think that's a downside. It's actually a good thing. Has your friend considered that the 7D has higher resolution than any previous APS-C camera at every f-number, even with diffraction? If he were to compare the 7D and 40D, for example, the 7D has far higher resolution even at f/16. (Despite the fact that diffraction sets in almost four stops earlier, at f/6.x.)

There are only a few primes and the holy trinity in the Nikon lineup that can handle those extra MPs on the D3X.

I kindly disagree. If the D3X had the same pixel size as the D300, then it would be 27 MP. So if put an FX lens on the D300, and take a 100% crop from the center, it's the same as if you took a 100% crop from a 27 MP FX camera.

If you do that, you will find that almost all lenses, even the cheapest zooms, provide lots of contrast and resolution in the center when stopped down. It's only the corners and wide open that are do not get as much benefit from smaller pixels.

The intention was to compare a similar megapixel count on two different types of cameras. So yes, Sensor size was always part of the equation. At the same MP count, the DSLR's bigger sensor puts it at an advantage compared to a superzoom.

Ah, it was my misunderstanding. Now I see that you were saying that small sensors have lower image quality. I agree with that. Before I thought you were saying that more megapixels with the same sensor size would result in lower quality.

synn

01-04-2010, 02:12 PM

He did consider that and he wasn't happy with the results he got from the 7D/100mm Macro combo. He previously used the lens with a 50D and was very satisfied with the results. I wouldn't know of first hand results as I am a Nikonian.

As for the D3X example, not so. From the experience of a lot of Nikonians worldwide, the D3X sensor outresolves the cheaper lenses in the Nikkor range. My age old 70-300G FX lens for e.g. can barely keep up with the 6.1MP I get to play with. I can only imagine the kind of pictures it'd take should the 26MP sensor be available in a cheap body.

The way Nikon sees it, the D3X is a dedicated studio/ landscape camera. The D3s shoots faster, has cleaner high ISO output, is more forgiving on your lenses and has a far wider ISO range. the 12MP sensor can and does satisfy a lot of people and only those who really need every MP they want goes for the more expensive model. When someone goes for a body this expensive, they already know about and have the lenses that can hang with it.

That said, there definitely is a market for a >12MP FX Nikon body and the rumored 18MP D900 would fit the bill perfectly.

Deltaone

01-04-2010, 02:53 PM

I kindly disagree. If the D3X had the same pixel size as the D300, then it would be 27 MP. So if put an FX lens on the D300, and take a 100% crop from the center, it's the same as if you took a 100% crop from a 27 MP FX camera.

If you do that, you will find that almost all lenses, even the cheapest zooms, provide lots of contrast and resolution in the center when stopped down. It's only the corners and wide open that are do not get as much benefit from smaller pixels.

There are way too many problems with comparing bodies like that. One of the advantages of having a high megapixel aps-c is the sheer number of pixels. The detail captured is something a lower megapixel FX sensor cannot really match. However, the problems from the very same sensor are quite a few. Most of the high MP aps-c from the canon range really need the top end lenses to get the quality that the sensor can output. The lower level lenses don't even come close.

And no, i will not agree that at the center, most give good quality. I have used quite a few of the lower end lenses. Now, the nikon 18-55 is indeed an exception. That is a lens that outresolves the d300 sensor which is saying something. But most of the cheaper lenses begin to show problems even at the center even with the lower resolution bodies from 6-10 MP. What kind of problems they're going to show at 20+ does not even warrant a thought. Yes, the edges are where most of the pronounced effects are seen, however the sheer level of detail these modern sensors can capture is really something and the lower level lenses just cannot keep up with them center or not. And you have to remember, if im getting problems with these lenses on a sub 10 MP sensor, how much more magnified are they going to be on a 20+ MP sensor....

Now, real world scenarios, there are quite a few other factors that come into play. Noise is one of them. One of the biggest advantages of the D700/300 is the high iso capabalities they show. It is an advantage derived from the fact that they are a "mere" 12 MP. The D3x as synn pointed out is not designed to be used in any of those conditions. It is mostly a studio use/landscape camera and thats about it.

Ultimately it comes down to what you need. Right now i need more megapixels, however, i need just as importantly high iso capability. So even if i had the money, i wouldn't be looking at the D3x. For me personally, i need a balance between the megapixels i get and the iso range i get to play around with. That is my personal preference. There are people who dont want the high iso but want/need the higher MP count, they go for the others. It comes down to what your personal requirements are.

Daniel Browning

01-04-2010, 10:56 PM

As for the D3X example, not so. From the experience of a lot of Nikonians worldwide, the D3X sensor outresolves the cheaper lenses in the Nikkor range.

Most photographers think that the D3X is more demanding than the D300 just because the number of megapixels is higher. But in actuality, any lens that is outresolved by the D3X is even more outresolved by the D300, because the reproduction magnification is higher and the pixels are smaller.

My age old 70-300G FX lens for e.g. can barely keep up with the 6.1MP I get to play with.

I don't have Nikon, but I don't think Nikon's lenses are generally any worse. Look at this 100% crop from a cheap Canon zoom:

28-135 @ 28mm f/5.6 on 50D (http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2)

See the mazing artifacts in the 100% crop from the center? Those are caused by aliasing, which only occurs when the lens has more resolution than the sensor is capable of sampling. And remember that this is equivalent to 38.4 MP on FX.

Same story with other cheap zooms. The Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 is one of the worst and cheapest Canons ever. I can't imagine the Nikon 70-300 is any worse. But even on a 21 MP sensor, and wide open (f/4), this lens still has aliasing in the center:

75-300 @ 70mm f/4 on 1ds3 (http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=237&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0)

At 300mm it is quite a bit softer, but if you stop down to f/8 there is still quite a bit of aliasing:

75-300 @ 300mm f/8 on 1ds3 (http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=237&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=3)

The D3s [...] is more forgiving on your lenses [...].

I don't like to put it that way. I'd rather say that the D3s has such low resolution that it cannot show the full resolution that lenses are capable, nor can it show all the defects that they have. It hides the flaws (and additional resolution) behind a low resolution.

To me, the lenses are the expensive and important part of the system. The camera is the cheap part. Having the photograph be limited by the camera means the lenses are not being fully utilized. I'd rather the photograph be limited by the lenses.

The 12MP sensor can and does satisfy a lot of people and only those who really need every MP they want goes for the more expensive model.

Agreed.

That said, there definitely is a market for a >12MP FX Nikon body and the rumored 18MP D900 would fit the bill perfectly.

12 -> 18 MP is a very minor increase, only 21% in linear resolution.

Daniel Browning

01-04-2010, 11:20 PM

Most of the high MP aps-c from the canon range really need the top end lenses to get the quality that the sensor can output. The lower level lenses don't even come close.

I agree completely. There are two separate ideas at work here:

How low does the pixel count need to be in order to fully hide every flaw in the lens?
How high does the pixel count need to be in order to fully utilize every last drop of resolution/contrast from the lens?

You are talking about the first idea, and I am talking about the second idea.

But most of the cheaper lenses begin to show problems even at the center even with the lower resolution bodies from 6-10 MP.

I agree that they show problems. But what I'm interested in is this: does the lens result in a picture with higher resolution and higher contrast when used on a high MP camera? The answer is yes.

synn

01-05-2010, 06:30 AM

No, Nikonians; Pro Nikonians who have both bodies have actually stated that the D3X is very demanding on the lenses. You gotta remember that an FX lens on the D300 is getting away with lack of performance in the corners. They have nowhere to hide on a D3X.

The 70-300G is an especially horrible piece of glass that doesn't deserve a place in the Nikon lineup. Especially since it's an FX lens. The 70-300 ED and 70-300 VR are miles better. I've used mine on a 6MP and a 10MP body and both times, it gave horrible output. I know for certain that the 6MP sensor can resolve better detail than this lens is capable at 300 because I've shot the same object on my 50 f1.4, moved back and shot the same with the 70-300 while keeping a similar perspective. Hardly scientific, but the difference is astounding. Both the 50 1.4 and the 15-55VR are among the sharpest Nikons out there barring the holy trinity and both gave exceptionally good results with both bodies. The 70-300G at the tele end? Not so much.

I don't have any lab test shots of the same, but there are several pics that I've shot with these two lenses on this site and my portfolio.

I don't like to put it that way. I'd rather say that the D3s has such low resolution that it cannot show the full resolution that lenses are capable, nor can it show all the defects that they have. It hides the flaws (and additional resolution) behind a low resolution.

To me, the lenses are the expensive and important part of the system. The camera is the cheap part. Having the photograph be limited by the camera means the lenses are not being fully utilized. I'd rather the photograph be limited by the lenses.
This isn't about hiding the flaws. It's about your original point that mentioned Nikon charging more for the D3X. The D3s is in no way a body "has such low resolution that it cannot show the full resolution that lenses are capable, nor can it show all the defects that they have". Enough real world shots and lab tests have been done to refute this statement, the Olympics being an example most people may recognize. It's just that the D3X is that much more tough on the lenses.

12 -> 18 MP is a very minor increase, only 21% in linear resolution. May be so, but it's something that Nikonians have been asking for some time.

Daniel Browning

01-05-2010, 07:09 AM

No, Nikonians; Pro Nikonians who have both bodies have actually stated that the D3X is very demanding on the lenses. You gotta remember that an FX lens on the D300 is getting away with lack of performance in the corners. They have nowhere to hide on a D3X.

True, but my point is about the center, not the corners. I agree that the corners are oversampled in some cheap lenses, but elsewhere in the frame the image is undersampled by 12 MP and 24 MP. If they have no problem with the D300, then that proves that the center of the frame benefits from 24 MP.

This isn't about hiding the flaws. [...] The D3s is in no way a body "has such low resolution that it cannot show the full resolution that lenses are capable, nor can it show all the defects that they have".

Either the lens is the limitation (no benefit to getting higher pixel counts) or the sensor is (no benefit to getting a better lens).

Enough real world shots and lab tests have been done to refute this statement, the Olympics being an example most people may recognize.

People shot the Olympics just fine long before the D3X and D3 came along, so that does not prove that lenses are oversampled. Higher pixel counts will result in more resolution in the future.

synn

01-05-2010, 07:29 AM

True, but my point is about the center, not the corners. I agree that the corners are oversampled in some cheap lenses, but elsewhere in the frame the image is undersampled by 12 MP and 24 MP. If they have no problem with the D300, then that proves that the center of the frame benefits from 24 MP.

When you're using the top of the line, FX camera, you'd want corner to corner sharpness. Just like in the film days, incidentally. In fact, Nikon redesigned the 70-200 VR because this lens, even though it was FX was designed with APS-C sensors in mind and the D3X exposed its weak spot. (Kinda funny in a way because corner sharpness isn't all that critical on a tele. But it shows how much demanding customers at this end of the spectrum are).

Either the lens is the limitation (no benefit to getting higher pixel counts) or the sensor is (no benefit to getting a better lens).

Let me make this very simple. Almost all of Nikon's (And I'd assume other manufacturers as well) pro FX lenses have their roots in film, which means that even 26MP is barely testing them. So if you look at it that way, none of the current FX sensors pose a challenge to these lenses. Keep in mind that the D3X IS the highest res FX camera out there at the moment.

The cheaper lenses can't hang with the elite crowd and that's a fact. So you're right, if I'm a guy with an 18-70 ED DX(Usable at 24mm onwards on an FX body) and a 70-300G, I'd have next to no use for a D3X. I AM that guy and I very well know that when I switch to FX, I'll have to rethink my lens collection as well.

People shot the Olympics just fine long before the D3X and D3 came along, so that does not prove that lenses are oversampled. Higher pixel counts will result in more resolution in the future.

Again, refer to the film example. People shot the Olympics just fine with these lenses on film. Which is why the D3s delivers excellent results. Right now if one wants pro level burst rates, FX coverage AND wants to go digital, the D3s is the only option out there. If you want to push these lenses (The 70-200 f2.8 VR II, the 80-200 f2.8 ED, the 300 f2.8 VR II, the 200-400 f4) to their maximum potential in an Olympics like environment, go film.

Daniel Browning

01-05-2010, 07:40 AM

When you're using the top of the line, FX camera, you'd want corner to corner sharpness. Just like in the film days, incidentally. In fact, Nikon redesigned the 70-200 VR because this lens, even though it was FX was designed with APS-C sensors in mind and the D3X exposed its weak spot.

Agreed.

I AM that guy and I very well know that when I switch to FX, I'll have to rethink my lens collection as well.

I agree.

Deltaone

01-05-2010, 12:14 PM

I agree completely. There are two separate ideas at work here:

How low does the pixel count need to be in order to fully hide every flaw in the lens?
How high does the pixel count need to be in order to fully utilize every last drop of resolution/contrast from the lens?

You are talking about the first idea, and I am talking about the second idea.

I agree that they show problems. But what I'm interested in is this: does the lens result in a picture with higher resolution and higher contrast when used on a high MP camera? The answer is yes.

Er, the answer to that question is rather obvious. Of course it will give higher resolution, the sensor is of a higher resolution... Contrast? theoretically yes. But you can't really separate those two questions.

The real question is a combination of the two. Does the increased resolution and contrast that you may get from a better sensor outweigh the increased flaws that it exposes?

My answer is no. For me, ultimately the whole point is whether the picture i take is usable or not. Yes, at the center i get better resolution, but what exactly is the point of having a lens and body combo that might give me a little better resolution in the center but gives me an overall unusable picture?

Usability is ultimately what it comes down to. I would rather have slightly lesser resolution and a better usable picture. Remember, when you're taking a photo you're not taking just a center, its kinda assumed that you will need the whole picture.

Ultimately, only the top of the line lenses in both the nikon and canon range can do justice to these high MP sensors. So the question becomes, what exactly is the use of getting a nice high pixel sensor, if the overall image is unusable?

Are these sensors useless? No, of course not. But to do justice to them, you need to invest in a whole lot of high quality glass. In the canon range it becomes slightly more complicated because most of the high quality glass is in the FX lineup but the DX sensors are high MP. Simpler in the nikon equation, because as of now they dont have any high pixel sensors in the dx lineup.

Daniel Browning

01-05-2010, 01:04 PM

The real question is a combination of the two. Does the increased resolution and contrast that you may get from a better sensor outweigh the increased flaws that it exposes?

Yes, always. First of all, if you have no way to deal with the flaws, and you want to hide them from your sight, you can simply downsample the resolution back to a lower pixel count that hides the flaws. The only difference is that now you have the choice of seeing the flaws or not, whereas a low pixel count sensor always hides the flaws (and the additional resolution/contrast) whether you want or not.

Second, some of the flaws can be helped with the right software. Chromatic aberration can be corrected a lot better with more resolution, for example.

For me, ultimately the whole point is whether the picture i take is usable or not. Yes, at the center i get better resolution, but what exactly is the point of having a lens and body combo that might give me a little better resolution in the center but gives me an overall unusable picture?

Well, it can never be *worse* in usability than a lower pixel count sensor, since you could always downsample to the lower resolution if you wanted. But it is possible that it will only be the same, and not better.

Remember, when you're taking a photo you're not taking just a center, its kinda assumed that you will need the whole picture.

Agreed.

Ultimately, only the top of the line lenses in both the nikon and canon range can do justice to these high MP sensors.

Actually, there are quite a lot of inexpensive lenses that are far undersampled even by 21 MP sensors. I can buy ten Canon 50mm f/1.8 lenses for the price of a single "L" prime, and they are all heavily undersampled at f/2.8. Almost any prime, in fact. All zooms are undersampled in the center, but not necessarily corners as mentioned.

I already posted a photo of a cheap 28-135 zoom on a 21 MP camera. How about a superzoom? Even the lowly 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 @ 70mm f/8 is greatly undersampled at 21 MP (http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=286&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=3).

But to do justice to them, you need to invest in a whole lot of high quality glass.

I have a different approach. To me, the glass is far more important than the sensor. I would not want a sensor resolution that is so low that it cannot expose the maximum resolution of my lenses. On the contrary, I want to get maximum benefit from the lenses by changing sensors. To me, the lens is king, not the sensor. The lenses are the expensive and long-lived part of the system, so I want to do everything I can to extract the maximum possible from them, and that means a sensor with enough resolution that it is not limiting the system. To me, when the sensor limits the system it is not ideal.

synn

01-05-2010, 03:35 PM

I have a different approach. To me, the glass is far more important than the sensor. I would not want a sensor resolution that is so low that it cannot expose the maximum resolution of my lenses. On the contrary, I want to get maximum benefit from the lenses by changing sensors. To me, the lens is king, not the sensor. The lenses are the expensive and long-lived part of the system, so I want to do everything I can to extract the maximum possible from them, and that means a sensor with enough resolution that it is not limiting the system. To me, when the sensor limits the system it is not ideal.

To be fair, Delta's saying the same thing to you. Once you get the best lenses, it doesn't matter what body you use. But to get a top of the line body with the most MP count just because some of your lenses have decent resolution in the center, not the ideal thing.

We'd all be better off with an under-resolving sensor on excellent glass than the other way around. That's the bottom line now, innit?

Daniel Browning

01-06-2010, 12:59 AM

To be fair, Delta's saying the same thing to you.

No, Delta is saying that the sensor is so important that we should protect it from being limited by the lens. I'm saying that the lens is so important that we should protect it from being limited by the sensor.

Once you get the best lenses, it doesn't matter what body you use.

I kindly disagree.

We'd all be better off with an under-resolving sensor on excellent glass than the other way around. That's the bottom line now, innit?

I don't think I'm really making myself clear. Car analogy time. :)

To me, the camera is like tires, and the lenses are the engine. When your lenses are undersampled, your top speed is limited by the tires. The engine (lens) could go faster if only it had better tires.

Some people don't want to go faster because it exposes flaws in the engine, like chromatic aberration. But I would much rather have the choice of seeing (and sometimes correcting) those flaws, rather than being forced to drive slow by the tires.

My position is that the top speed should be limited by the expensive, long-lasting thing, the engine (lenses), not the inexpensive and short-lived thing like the tires (camera).

synn

01-06-2010, 06:07 AM

Delta is saying that the sensor is so important that we should protect it from being limited by the lens.

I disagree. Seems to me like he's saying that unless you have top of the line glass, a high MP count sensor is not worth the investment. Like he said here:

Are these sensors useless? No, of course not. But to do justice to them, you need to invest in a whole lot of high quality glass.

Which is pretty much my stand on the matter and in a way, yours too. Everyone knows that glass is more valuable than the body. No one's arguing that. (Although, these days the firmware of the body makes a difference too). The point we're making here is that unless you're among the select few that owns the top of the line glass, the top of the line body doesn't make much sense for you.

Like I said before, ALL our 35mm sensors pose no challenge when it comes to pro lenses with film roots. What does that leave us with?

BTW, chromatic aberrations are no longer an issue with the new Nikon bodies. They are programmed with details of almost all lenses in the Nikkor catalog and remove them on the fly.

Daniel Browning

01-06-2010, 07:29 AM

I disagree. Seems to me like he's saying that unless you have top of the line glass, a high MP count sensor is not worth the investment.

For Nikon, I can agree with that, but only because their only high MP sensor costs almost three times as much as the D700. No one else charges such a premium just for 41% higher resolution. Sony has the same pixel count in a body that is even cheaper than the D700.

Like he said here: "But to do justice to them, you need to invest in a whole lot of high quality glass."

That's true, but it's not important to me. I don't care about "doing justice" to the sensor. I want to do justice to the lens. In other words, it's true that to get the maximum improvement possible from increasing the sensor resolution, you need to make sure it is not limited by the lens (i.e. have high quality glass). But even if you don't get the maximum possible improvement from the sensor, you'll still get more out of the lens. And as long as that is true, I would like to have higher resolution sensors. Only when all my lenses are utilized to the maximum do I want resolution growth to stop.

The point we're making here is that unless you're among the select few that owns the top of the line glass, the top of the line body doesn't make much sense for you.

I agree with that.