Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 21 May 2012 (Monday) 16:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

HASSELBLAD CAMERAS IN MASSIVE PRICE CRASH

 
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
Jun 20, 2012 15:13 |  #31

archer1960 wrote in post #14606201 (external link)
Certainly it does. Any lens has a minimum angular resolution (how far apart in angle a point must be before the lens can detect the difference). Applying that and the lens focal point to the size of the sensor tells you how close the pixels can be and still resolve more detail. What those numbers actually are I have no idea, but the principle is not that complex.

Sort of, but the max angular resolution thing isn't really something one needs to worry too much about in the photography realm. That's something that is going to be more pertinent with telescopes, really, imho. You can try to find a point where the lens no longer resolves any contrast difference between lines super close together and try to extrapolate "how many megapixels the lens resolves" from that, but it's a stretch. What color are the lines (this is one of the huge gotchas that makes the diffraction stuff not apply as much in the real world as people think it will in most cases)? What do you consider to be an acceptable amount of contrast to count as still resolving the detail? What aperture and what part of the image?

Also, say you have a lens that resolves less detail than the sensor can sample...until you reach an absurdly low level of detail from the lens, something like HALF the potential resolution of what the sensor can capture, having more megapixels still results in more detail being captured. It's probably even worse than that, taking into account the bayer array (the other reason diffraction isn't as visible in the real world on say, the d800, as you would think by plugging the number into one of those dozens of online diffraction calcuators---there are a couple that mention this stuff though)...

Really we aren't anywhere near the MP of the camera not delivering more resolution. 36mp isn't enough to get all the detail possible from a decent modern lens. Yeah, there's going to be some soft far corners and such out there on wide angle glass, but for the most part it's not a big deal. We'll be up to at least 100mp before we're really getting all we can from our 35mm size sensors. More samples also helps with lens corrections, I suspect Canon's DLO is forward thinking in this respect.


amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,962 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 543
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Jun 22, 2012 07:23 |  #32

Good luck for you to get one, i had one during a reduced prices in the past.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PM01
Goldmember
1,188 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: USA!
     
Jul 17, 2012 23:59 |  #33

Angular resolution of a lens and pixel size. The formula of 206*pixel size in microns. Divide answer by focal length in question. That will give you the coverage each pixel has.

As for raw angular resolution, Dawes Law. Example, a "perfect" 160mm diameter objective (larger than the ones found in the Canon 600/4 but smaller than 1200/5.6L EF) will give about a .74 arc second resolution. A 101mm (4 inch) objective will give about a 1.1ish arc second resolution. These are "ideals" and very few lenses will reach the resolution. Which brings us to the third area.

Airy disc size. If you were to take a f/1.0 lens, the airy disc (for a PERFECT ONE) will be 1.0 * 1.44, which would equal a 1.44 micron sized disc. That's for a f/1.0 lens with a PERFECT strehl ratio. Commercially made lenses DO NOT have anywhere close to a perfect strehl ratio. Basically it's how much energy is concentrated into the airy disc vs wasted energy into secondary and tertiary rings. You lose contrast, sharpness,etc with a commercially made lens. Strehl ratios are less than 0.8, with a 1.0 being a perfect optic. Scientific optics, like those made at Astro Physics, Takahashi and Telescope Engineering Company are in the realm of .95 or better. The TEC and AP are usually .98x or better. As for Canon, they don't list a strehl ratio or people will be comparing numbers to one another. But the strehl is below 0.8, or that of the diffraction limit. Leica supertelephotos were the only lenses that I know that had a diffraction limited rating (0.8) in their literature.

So, if you take a perfect fictional 300mm 1.0 (just for fun!) with a sensor, you would need 1.44 micron sized pixels to represent the airy disc correctly. And it would have an angular resolution of better than .5 arc seconds. The limitations right now are the pixel sizes for the cameras as well as the strehl ratios and angular resolving capability of each lens. A 300 f/2.8L EF will outresolve a 300 f/4 or 300 f/5.6 due to Dawes Law if they all had equally perfect optical formulas. 100mm aperture vs 75mm vs 53mm. Larger the aperture, more angular resolution.

We haven't come close to resolving the full power of the lenses. Make a sensor platform with 1.44 micron sized pixels. Then compare them with say a 5.7 micron sized pixel.

Now here's the rub. If you're always shooting at f/5.6, you won't see the difference. At f/5.6 you're looking at, on a perfect lens, an airy disc of about 8.1 microns. Now try the lens at f/2.8, you'll need a 4 micron sized pixel to sample a perfect f/2.8 airy disc. The 7D comes very close though at 4.x microns. But if you're taking about a f/1.0 lens, we still have a ways to go.

In other words, it also depends on the f/ratio that you're shooting.

SO, F/ratio (airy disc), lens size aperture (diameter for Dawes Law) and how well figured the lens is (strehl ratio) all come into play.

Hope this helps.

woos wrote in post #14607414 (external link)
Sort of, but the max angular resolution thing isn't really something one needs to worry too much about in the photography realm. That's something that is going to be more pertinent with telescopes, really, imho. You can try to find a point where the lens no longer resolves any contrast difference between lines super close together and try to extrapolate "how many megapixels the lens resolves" from that, but it's a stretch. What color are the lines (this is one of the huge gotchas that makes the diffraction stuff not apply as much in the real world as people think it will in most cases)? What do you consider to be an acceptable amount of contrast to count as still resolving the detail? What aperture and what part of the image?

Also, say you have a lens that resolves less detail than the sensor can sample...until you reach an absurdly low level of detail from the lens, something like HALF the potential resolution of what the sensor can capture, having more megapixels still results in more detail being captured. It's probably even worse than that, taking into account the bayer array (the other reason diffraction isn't as visible in the real world on say, the d800, as you would think by plugging the number into one of those dozens of online diffraction calcuators---there are a couple that mention this stuff though)...

Really we aren't anywhere near the MP of the camera not delivering more resolution. 36mp isn't enough to get all the detail possible from a decent modern lens. Yeah, there's going to be some soft far corners and such out there on wide angle glass, but for the most part it's not a big deal. We'll be up to at least 100mp before we're really getting all we can from our 35mm size sensors. More samples also helps with lens corrections, I suspect Canon's DLO is forward thinking in this respect.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeFairbanks
Cream of the Crop
6,428 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jul 20, 2012 07:20 |  #34

If it's called medium format, does that mean there is something larger?


Thank you. bw!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Jul 20, 2012 07:23 |  #35

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #14743777 (external link)
If it's called medium format, does that mean there is something larger?

Oh yeah, large format:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g …Large_format_(p​hotography (external link))


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PM01
Goldmember
1,188 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: USA!
     
Jul 20, 2012 21:45 as a reply to  @ andrikos's post |  #36

Also don't forget the image circle of the lens. Most of the 35mm ones are 44mm for their illuminated circle. Medium format and large format opens up many more megapixels.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bigVinnie
Senior Member
Avatar
835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Roaming the USA
     
Jul 24, 2012 11:25 |  #37

About 10 years ago I heard people saying that once digital hit 22mp medium format film would be dead. Cost is what killed it.

Basic physics says that a larger sensor is going to give a better image than a smaller sensor. If not then why bother with a 5d? Why doesn't everyone just shoot with a rebel?

Price drops happen for many reasons. Number one is because a new model is coming out. How many 5DC's would sell if Canon had a 5Dc, MKII and MKIII all sitting on shelf for the same price?


Act1 Photo Booths (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jul 24, 2012 11:35 |  #38

And then there's huge format:

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/The_Great_Pictu​re (external link)


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:21 |  #39

woos wrote in post #14607414 (external link)
.... It's probably even worse than that, taking into account the bayer array (the other reason diffraction isn't as visible in the real world on say, the d800, as you would think by plugging the number into one of those dozens of online diffraction calcuators---there are a couple that mention this stuff though)...

Just wanted to point out that Bayer filters are already a relic of the past. Sony has figured out how to get the same moire + less noise at high ISO's + more detail (thanks to no AA filter) by not using a Bayer array. Bayer is dead and just doesn't know it yet.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,666 views & 0 likes for this thread
HASSELBLAD CAMERAS IN MASSIVE PRICE CRASH
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is BLHdd
603 guests, 242 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.