Interesting article: "36 Megapixels vs 6×7 Velvia" and 4 x 5

[Old-N-Feeble]

"Preoccupation with the equipment is the hallmark of the amateur"--EWD

I don't know where you found that but... an amateur is often seen as a person who truly loves his/her endeavor without regard to financial gain but who seeks to be the very best. The negative side is an amateur is regarded as one with no professional skills.

[BetterSense]

Let's not forget that "megapixel" is the worst sort of marketing-driven unit. 36 megapixels is only twice as much resolution as 9 megapixels; basically a factor of two better than my old D70. This use of misleading units can lead one to assume progress has happened faster than it really has. Thankfully the video folks are doing it right by designating video resolution classes by linear resolution-a much more meaningful metric.

[jp]

Great article. Fun and interesting to see the comparisons from time to time.

Better; It's true 36 mp is only twice the res of 9, but there is much more to the innovation than that. A 36 mp dslr uses a full frame, where most 6-10mp cameras were crop sensors, meaning they required more magnification and more from the lens. Most of the improvement I've seen is in low light abilities, dynamic range, and video. DSLRs have a long way to go I think before they get to the dynamic range of tmax 400 or portra 160. I use a 24mp digital camera and the detail is plenty for me to keep it for a long time. I'd upgrade if Nikon came out with something with similar resolution and massively enhanced dynamic range though.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Let's not forget that "megapixel" is the worst sort of marketing-driven unit. 36 megapixels is only twice as much resolution as 9 megapixels; basically a factor of two better than my old D70. This use of misleading units can lead one to assume progress has happened faster than it really has. Thankfully the video folks are doing it right by designating video resolution classes by linear resolution-a much more meaningful metric.

That's right but let's not discount that the difference is 'similar to' doubling each side of film thereby quadrupling film area. So it's 'somewhat' the same as moving from 135 format (24x36mm) to 6x7cm if you crop the latter to 2:3 ratio. It's not 'quite' the same because with film the physical size difference is absolute whereas with digital sensors there is an increase in pixel concentration in a smaller area. If the difference between 9 and 36mp was absolute it would be very substantial just as the difference between 135 and 6x7cm formats. That stated, there is a definite difference in quality between 9 and 36mp once you get past 8x12 inch prints especially if the former is smaller than full-frame.

[Drew Wiley]

Rangefinders do have an advantage when it comes to wide-angle lens engineering (versus retrofocus), but it's also a fact that they aren't very adept when it comes to providing longer focal lengths. So a lot of this is apples to oranges, then more apples to oranges comparisons.

[timparkin]

Rangefinders do have an advantage when it comes to wide-angle lens engineering (versus retrofocus), but it's also a fact that they aren't very adept when it comes to providing longer focal lengths. So a lot of this is apples to oranges, then more apples to oranges comparisons.

We did a test with the Hasselblad and 40mm CFE too and it was pretty close to the Mamiya. I thought the rendering of the lens was nicer personally (too rich for me though)

[Adamphotoman]

That's right but let's not discount that the difference is 'similar to' doubling each side of film thereby quadrupling film area. So it's 'somewhat' the same as moving from 135 format (24x36mm) to 6x7cm if you crop the latter to 2:3 ratio. It's not 'quite' the same because with film the physical size difference is absolute whereas with digital sensors there is an increase in pixel concentration in a smaller area. If the difference between 9 and 36mp was absolute it would be very substantial just as the difference between 135 and 6x7cm formats. That stated, there is a definite difference in quality between 9 and 36mp once you get past 8x12 inch prints especially if the former is smaller than full-frame.

I have to agree. It would be like saying 8X10 has twice the resolution as 4X5, or 645 is 1/2 the resolution of 4X5. When it comes down to paper the 16X24 print uses 4X the paper as an 8X12 print. If one were to make the same size print using the 9 mega pixel camera at the same res and quality, then one would have to stitch at least 4 shots together [more with overlap].

There is no question that my 10 mega pixel D200 is not even close to the 36 megapixel D810. The D200 was poor in low light, noisy both in IQ and the shutter was noisy. Slow to focus etc...

I think if I were to compare the image quality in reprographics from a drum scanned 4X5 piece of film to a Betterlight image of the same piece you might be surprised at how much better the digital image is. There is no contest. I have a friend photographer who drum scans and also has a Betterlight.

Making pictorial images outside is quite a different story. Then again I have seen incredible & huge images printed 20 feet across from Mike Collette.

[Drew Wiley]

I've seen forty foot wide images taken with horribly exposed amateur 35mm film. They're called billboards. How small a fraction of a "megapixel" do you think would be equivalent to the Marlboro Man? But it's probably one of the most influential photographs in history, or at least it has killed millions of people. All this
numbers stuff is about the LAST thing I would think about when choosing cameras and lenses, and I'm often a sharpness fanatic!

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Billboards are viewed from 100-1000 feet away. I want my viewers to walk up to my prints and see clean detail from inches away. You simply cannot accomplish this with 135 format film enlarged to 340X. OTOH, 8x10 enlarged to 10X (10 feet wide) is certainly within reason. Apples and oranges...

[karl french]

Why is this interesting?