Is 8MP the limit for APS size sensor DSLRs?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From my experimentation, it appears that there is not much to be gained by
making higher resolution APS sized sensors for DSLR cameras. Unless I used
high quality fixed focal length lenses on a tripod, I was not able to
squeeze out any useful additional resolution. Even with a 6mp DSLR,
difference between good and great lenses is quite evident.

With all the resolution concentrated in the small APS sized sensor, requires
more resolution from the lens then does a high resolution camera, such as
Canons 16.6 MP body. For example, if the 20Ds 8mp sensor pixel size and
pitch were kept the same, but made into a full frame sensor, the sensor
would be 21MP. This is because a 36x24mm full frame sensor has about 2.6
times the area than does the APS sensor.

Given this fact, the APS sized sensor has run it course resolution wise. It
would seem that a way for making lower cost full frame sensors is the best
route for digital SLRs.

What do you think?
-S

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SimonLW wrote:

> What do you think?

I think the statement has as much value as '640K is more memory than
anyone will ever need'. History will undoubtedly prove you wrong ;-)

Needless to say there already is a 12MP APS digital on the market ...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> No doubt every owner of the Nikon D2x would disagree with you
>> since it's 12 Mpixels in a 1.5x sized sensor and gives great results.

>Simon writes ...
>
>Yes, but as I previously stated, unless quality lenses are used and a tripod
>to steady the camera ... there is nothing real gained.

I know maybe half a dozen guys using the D2x and every one of them uses
high quality lenses. Think about it this way ... if you're spending
$5,000 (or $3,500 for a 5D or $8,000 for a 1Ds M II) on a camera body
you'd be nuts to use just cheap glass with it ...

>Dpreview's comment about the APS sensor using the sharper central area
>of the lenses' image circle is a good point though

This is certainly true ... I have a couple of MTF charts where I marked
up the cutoff points for various sensor sizes from 2x to 1x and with
bad or average lenses that have significant contrast or resolution drop
off at the edges you're right, the smaller sensor sizes avoid most of
the problem ... almost all wide angle lenses show this problem wide
open too ... but with top quality lenses with little drop off towards
the edges it's irrelevant, so the solution is to use good glass. I'll
post a couple of examples later today if I get time ...

Bill

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>>> No doubt every owner of the Nikon D2x would disagree with you
>>> since it's 12 Mpixels in a 1.5x sized sensor and gives great results.
>
>>Simon writes ...
>>
>>Yes, but as I previously stated, unless quality lenses are used and a
>>tripod
>>to steady the camera ... there is nothing real gained.
>
> I know maybe half a dozen guys using the D2x and every one of them uses
> high quality lenses. Think about it this way ... if you're spending
> $5,000 (or $3,500 for a 5D or $8,000 for a 1Ds M II) on a camera body
> you'd be nuts to use just cheap glass with it ...

I _HATE_ Tamron.

My wife wants my 300D, so won't be complaining if I buy a 5D. So I was going
to let her have the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

So I'm lurking on a 1Ds2 group, and someone asks 'what's a good wide angle',
and some obnoxious twit responds 'The Tamron's as good as it gets at 28mm,
if you don't need any wider' and provided pointers to images to prove it.

Which leaves me without a lens I'm willing to give the wife. And she's not
going to be amused by a lensless camera...

>>Dpreview's comment about the APS sensor using the sharper central area
>>of the lenses' image circle is a good point though
>
> This is certainly true ... I have a couple of MTF charts where I marked
> up the cutoff points for various sensor sizes from 2x to 1x and with
> bad or average lenses that have significant contrast or resolution drop
> off at the edges you're right, the smaller sensor sizes avoid most of
> the problem ... almost all wide angle lenses show this problem wide
> open too ... but with top quality lenses with little drop off towards
> the edges it's irrelevant, so the solution is to use good glass. I'll
> post a couple of examples later today if I get time ...

Yes. See my other note on this.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Given this fact, the APS sized sensor has run it course resolution wise.
> It would seem that a way for making lower cost full frame sensors is the
> best route for digital SLRs.
>
> What do you think?
> -S

What do I think? I think that if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
you're a walking powderkeg.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SimonLW" <nospam@donet.com> wrote in message
news:433804e9$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> From my experimentation, it appears that there is not much to be gained by
> making higher resolution APS sized sensors for DSLR cameras. Unless I used
> high quality fixed focal length lenses on a tripod, I was not able to
> squeeze out any useful additional resolution. Even with a 6mp DSLR,
> difference between good and great lenses is quite evident.
>
> With all the resolution concentrated in the small APS sized sensor,
> requires more resolution from the lens then does a high resolution camera,
> such as Canons 16.6 MP body. For example, if the 20Ds 8mp sensor pixel
> size and pitch were kept the same, but made into a full frame sensor, the
> sensor would be 21MP. This is because a 36x24mm full frame sensor has
> about 2.6 times the area than does the APS sensor.
>
> Given this fact, the APS sized sensor has run it course resolution wise.
> It would seem that a way for making lower cost full frame sensors is the
> best route for digital SLRs.
>
> What do you think?
> -S
>
As a side note, the resolving power of short focal length, compact lens
systems can be very high. This is almost never realized in interchangable
SLR lenses perhaps because of the retrofocus design. At least Canon EF-S
lenses (Lenses for their APS dSLRs), the ability has not been proven to me)
.. The absolute resolution of the lens on typical compact digital cameras has
to have very high due to the fine pitch of the sensor cells in the array.
For example, the number of pixels per mm on a 6mp APS sensor is only about
135. On the DX2, it is around 200 (the finest APS pixel pitch to date that
I'm aware of). The Canon 1Ds Mark II (16.7 mp) only has around 138 pixels
per mm. Putting the lens edge performance argument aside, It requires about
the same resolving power from the lens as does a 6 mp digital rebel. The
typical 4mp compact will have around 430 pixels per mm so the lens must be
quite good!

The point is that higher resolution APS sensors can possible in lower cost
SLRs if high quality lenses can be developed for it at an affordable price,
otherwise, I see 8mp APS sensors to be the end of the line in affordable
interchangable lens SLRs (aside from the 5 grand DX2 and costly high
performance lenses).
-S

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SimonLW wrote:

>
>
> Given this fact, the APS sized sensor has run it course resolution wise.
> It would seem that a way for making lower cost full frame sensors is the
> best route for digital SLRs.
>
> What do you think?
>

I think there is more to image quality than just resolution.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3pumh6FbrgqaU5@individual.net...
> SimonLW wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Given this fact, the APS sized sensor has run it course resolution wise.
>> It would seem that a way for making lower cost full frame sensors is the
>> best route for digital SLRs.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I think there is more to image quality than just resolution.
> --
>
> Stacey

Of course, but why bother with medium and large format and why bother
progressing beyond 3mp dSLRs?
-S

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Of course, but why bother with medium and large format and why bother
> progressing beyond 3mp dSLRs?
> -S

LOL