Is 18 MP FF sensor the best for 35mm digital format ?

[rashedahmed]

<p>When I bought my Canon 5D (Yes.Granddaddy of 5D M3) long back and when Canon 1ds M3 (24MP) was released, It felt to me that Canon 1ds M2 (16MP) was the best in FF sensor category. Surprisingly, Canon released EOS 1DX in 18MP sensor and recently Nikon released 4Ds in 16MP sensor. So, is 16 or 18 MP the best in FF sensor category ? I think pixel size really matters to get details.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

The EOS-1D X and Nikon D4/D4s cameras are very special beasts , optimized for working at high ISO ratings, and high

frame per second rates. That said my standard camera is the EOS-1D X even if I don't regularly shoot at ISO 3200 or

higher.

 

I've also shot a lot with a DSLR camera on the other end of the spectrum, the 36mp Nikon D800/D800E. If you shoot

portraits, architecture, or landscapes and mostly work at ISO 1600 or less, and don't need to shoot more than 6 FPS, It is

the best 35mm based DSLR on the market today.

 

I never liked either the 5D or the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mk. III? That's a different story. The image processing firmware,

software and hardware are significant upgrades, and the autofocus system is superb.

[BelaMolnar]

<p><em>"I think pixel size really matters to get details".</em> . . . NO.<br /> <br /> To get detail, you need technique, a reasonable good lens and a "know how" of photography, not higher MP sensor. If you view an image in your monitor only, even the 12MP is to much. If you print your image to 12x16 os 16x24 or what ever, you still have enough pixel to print. If you image be printed in wall size, you my need 16MP but, not necessarily. You never enjoying the view of a wall size image, 3 feet distant, you my back a way to 10-20 feet and then you not going to see any pixels at all, even if a printed individual pixels going to be 1mm in size.<br /> You my have better transition of shades, color of a 16 MP image and better dynamic range then an older technology produced 6 - 12MP sensor. Also, you have better noise handling, because the new and better sensitivity sensors. Still, the sharpness of the image is NOT depend on the pixel density of your camera only.<br /> In pure Englis.</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>Dear Bela, I did not say High MP sensors matters in details but pixel size which is measured in microns. Bigger micron pixel gives more details even in high ISO settings. If the MP is higher (35mm FF sensor) then the micron gets smaller.<br>

"Consumers need to think about sensor size rather than pixel count, says Aptina's Sandor Barna, because larger image sensors are likely to appear in all types of devices". Barna, the Vice President and General Manager of sensor maker Aptina. Quoted from DP Review.com</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Only a certain number of megapixies can dance on the head of a pin. Beyond that number, there's no real benefit to more MP. All you get is larger file sizes.</p>

<p>That tradeoff point beyond which more MP won't do you any good depends on the resolution of your optics and your level of skill/technique. It also depends on decisions you make as to whether you want to handhold, for instance. Finally, it depends on the size of the prints/images you wish to display. For small snaps in a photo album or images displayed on the web, even my first digital camera (1.3 MP -- which I still actually own!) has more than enough megapixies to do the job.</p>

<p>My own, personal sense of optimal MP, relating to my optics, technique, and desired image size, is somewhere between 12 and 20 MP. But that's just me.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

When I see discussions on sharpness and detail nowadays nowhere do I see lp/mm. Smear some Vaseline on the lens of a 24MP camera and can you claim that the 24MP camera has captured more detail than an unsmeared 16MP camera? I suppose you could if you are talking about the detail of the smeared out of focus mass.

 

There are people who do paintings on the heads of pins. They in no way look as good as paintings done full size. For a full frame 36x24mm sensor to get more photosites on that area the photosites have to be made smaller. Digital cameras contain "microlenses" above each photosite to enhance their light-gathering ability. These lenses are analogous to funnels which direct photons into the photosite where the photons would have otherwise been unused. As things get smaller and smaller a tiny small flaw is easier to be introduced with a greater impact on the outlet performance.

 

In the old days, lp/mm was used to evaluate lens performance since the film used was the same. Perhaps studies should be made to show the lp/mm performance of various sensors using the same lens within a brand system. Or if one wanted to compare the lp/mm of a Canon sensor to that of a Nikon sensor, lenses of each brand that themselves have the same lp/mm could be used.

 

With the same lens if a 24MP camera can deliver 100 lp/mm and a 16MP camera can deliver 125 lp/mm (or visa-versa) you have your answer.

[User_2000406]

<p>Linear resolution goes up proportional to the square root of the number of megapixels, assuming a constant aspect ratio. Thus, an 18 MP sensor offers only 6% more linear resolution than a 16 MP sensor, not enough to make a significant difference. </p>