24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.

Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at
least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.

12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567

24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645

Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at
least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.

12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567

24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645

What a waste of time for a meaningless result.

Why don't you just go to DPreview and look at the 5dII review where
there are converted raw samples 5DII vs 5D.
The difference is also entirely consistent with what the masses who
"upgraded" from a Canon 300 to 450d have already seen.

Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at
least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.

12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567

24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645

1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor.

eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Scott W wrote:
On Feb 17, 1:11 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at
least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.
12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567
24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645
1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor.

eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses.

I think you meant to write 1/res_out = 1/res_len + 1/res_sensor, you
had lens_sensor.

I think I meant to have my brain on when I wrote that.


But the real equation is closer to 1/res_out = sqrt(1/res_len^2+1/
res_sensor^2)

Yes - more brain idle, though I would have wrote it:

1/res_out^2 = 1/res_lens^2 + 1/res_sens^2.

Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account,
and can be the limiting factor.

Everything in series has a limiting factor.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
Scott W wrote:

Yes - more brain idle, though I would have wrote it:

1/res_out^2 = 1/res_lens^2 + 1/res_sens^2.

Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account,
and can be the limiting factor.

Everything in series has a limiting factor.

FWIW, I find that it's quite possible to get corner-to-corner sharp images
from the 5D2. Most of the wide angle lenses I own need to be stopped down to
f/11 or f/16 (which is an irritation and is why I'll be buying the ZE 21/2.8
if it comes out), but at 35mm and longer most lenses are sharp at the
corners at f/5.6 or f/8.

So the lens is only the limiting factor if one isn't thinking/trying.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution
(at
least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.

12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567

24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645

Hmmm, comapring a APS-C sensor to a FX`sensor?

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Scott W wrote:

Yes - more brain idle, though I would have wrote it:

1/res_out^2 = 1/res_lens^2 + 1/res_sens^2.

Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account,
and can be the limiting factor.
Everything in series has a limiting factor.

FWIW, I find that it's quite possible to get corner-to-corner sharp images
from the 5D2. Most of the wide angle lenses I own need to be stopped down to
f/11 or f/16 (which is an irritation and is why I'll be buying the ZE 21/2.8
if it comes out), but at 35mm and longer most lenses are sharp at the
corners at f/5.6 or f/8.

So the lens is only the limiting factor if one isn't thinking/trying.

Well, there is the difference between absolute performance, pixel
peeping and plain making good photography.

Oddly, when I posted the "Megapixel challenge" before Christmas there
was only one taker (other than me) - and he shot on film (acquitting
himself well at that - I scanned his film on my 9000ED). The photos
were corner shots only, BTW, though shot in the sweet aperture spot.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

RichA wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:12 pm, Me wrote:
Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at
least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.
12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567
24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645
What a waste of time for a meaningless result.

Why don't you just go to DPreview and look at the 5dII review where
there are converted raw samples 5DII vs 5D.

Because the 5D is over 4 years old. You can't compare its output with
the 5D II.

Why not?

In article 343ff82d-3d4d-4d11-89eb-6d81df77c4a2
@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com, Scott W says...
On Feb 17, 1:11*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
Rich wrote:
Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. *I shot 4 frames with the D300,
combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
took one shot for 12 megapixels. *The detail increase is more noticeable
than I'd have expected. *I figure this is pretty much like going to the
D3x, at least at lower ISOs. *Images look best at top screen resolution (at
least 1680 x 1050). *Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.

12 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567

24 Megapixels:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645

1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor.

eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses.

I think you meant to write 1/res_out = 1/res_len + 1/res_sensor, you
had lens_sensor.

But the real equation is closer to 1/res_out = sqrt(1/res_len^2+1/
res_sensor^2)

Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas
make no sense.

Still you are correct that the lens needs to be taken in to account,
and can be the limiting factor.

Yep.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas
make no sense.

Alfred,

It makes sense if you use the same spatial units, whether that be microns
or megapixels, and then use the appropriate formula. But you are right
in that using one figure for lens performance may simplify things too
much.

David