When Will Nikon Counter Canon's 5DsR?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>but less than 4K (8192x4320)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that 8K rather than 4K? Sorry, I am not familiar with the video terminology...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sorry Dieter, I was getting my UHD and FUHD mixed up with FUD. :-) Yes, typo, I meant 8K (and convenient for downsampling to 4K).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are having the following scenario:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jon, I am not too concerned about that scenario altogether.</p>

<p>My point is that when your pixels are so small that diffraction becomes a serious concern @ f5.6 and f4, and you typically need to stop down a good lens by a couple of stops to get the best out of it, for a lot of lenses, there is no more "optimum" aperture any more, regardless of depth of field.</p>

<p>But even though you are willing to spend money, medium format lenses are typically not as great as 35mm-format lenses. Medium format used to get away with that due to the much larger film area.</p>

<p>With digital, there are other solutions such as stitching and/or focus stacking multiple frames into one to gain more pixels or depth of field. They are not simple, especially when your subject is not completely still.</p>

<p>But the question is still why you need so many pixels. Huge prints are usually viewed from far away such that the quality doesn't have to be that good. I tell myself that I need the potential to make huge prints, but after having a D800E for 3 years, it remains as potential, as I haven't made even one huge print. Since I sometimes test lenses, I also would like to have the most demanding camera body around. But for the most part, I am afraid that it is mainly about bragging rights.</p>

 

[glenncadman]

<p>OK imagine the engineering gloves are off, but no magic physics, light waves/photos are defracted and optical laws must be obeyed, what would be the "ultimate" FX (35mm) sensor be? ie. the engineering end point as far as MP , ISO and dynamic range, above which would serve no advantage in incremental improvements? <br /><br />He who cannot be named in this forum (Ken RockW) has a mouse rollover comparison between detailed the 5DRS and 5D MIII images and unless it is a fabrication ( or more kindly "fictional" comparison) it does seem that there is a noticeable improvement between the resolution of images of a 5DR (50MP) and the 22MP. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>4K video is the new standard for theatrical productions. It is still relatively rare in home theater settings, but that may change as prices drop. Resolution and binning are not the only concerns, nor even the most important factors in video quality. The A7ii cuts 4,2,2 HD (2K) video (10 bit) at 50 MHz bandwidth, which is the cusp of broadcast quality. The A7Rii gets the same quality for 4K up to 100 MHz.</p>

<p>The Sony 7S is certainly a competent camera, but for a certain niche. Those who need high ISO performance, excellent video and a silent shutter find the A7S indispensable. Others I've known were not satisfied with the low (by Sony standards) 13 MP resolution, and either took a pass or traded it for an A7 or A7R. However the A7Rii records 4k internally to SDXC cards, whereas the A7S requires an external recorder via HDMI.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glen: Can we call the wavelength of "red" ~750nm? That's pushing it, but gives you 48000 x 32000 pixels on an FX frame. That's about 1.5 gigapixels. Somewhere around that point, you're mostly capturing interference patterns. Of course, "capturing interference patterns" means "recording holograms", so that's not necessarily a reason to stop...<br />

<br />

Shun: I'm going to keep saying that prints don't matter any more. With a digital image, you can zoom in as much as you like and look at whatever detail got captured. I've absolutely spent time panning around an ultrawide image to see who was there, and pixels help. It's not so rare, although I admit it's not relevant to absolutely every image.<br />

<br />

Edward: Yes. 4K is starting to matter, and UHD TVs are no longer all that rare. I'm interested to learn how much use people are getting from the A7S - I've been contacted by friends who wanted a camera for very low-light video, and it was my recommendation (partly because ISO is so relevant when you need a large depth of field for video). 4K recording in general seems to be a pain, and I'm not blown away by the external recorders - a Shogun is far from cheap, and you've already thown away some detail by the time you've used an HDMI cable.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Norbert - great article.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everything in photography is a <em>trade-off</em> – you can’t have more of one thing without having less of another. </p>

</blockquote>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Everything in photography? Not only that; everything in life is a trade off.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Besides large scale projection, the driving force behind larger sensors for 2K or 4K video is a <strong>shallow</strong> depth of field. This is both for popular dramatic effect (pulling focus) and because it more closely resembles 35 mm cinema in that respect. By the time you stop down to f/4 or f/5.6 on a 1/3" or 1/2" sensor, the DOF is so deep you hardly have to focus at all. I'd like to know how 4K is useful for local TV and ad production, much less home movies.</p>

<p>A Sony A7S (Canon, or whatever) is an inexpensive way to get the large-sensor effect of an Arri or Red camera. A one-man operation with an harness is a lot cheaper than a three man camera crew plus grips. The next time you feel pinched buying a Canon L lens, take a look at what real cinematic lenses cost. Zeiss has an "inespensive" line of primes which start at about $5K. Zeiss zooms are really expensive, $16K and up, and they're considered the low end of this market. The Canon C300 ($20K) is becoming popular for TV and action movies, instead of a repurposed DSLR. It is configured for either EF or P lens mounts, and has lots of expensive production related accessories.</p>

<p>Noise is not nearly as visible in video due to its random nature and persistence of vision. It's much more apparent if you stop the frame. Noise is further "averaged" out if you use a 3-chip camera. My Canon has three 1/3" sensors (each 1920x1080), and can be used at 24 dB gain (about ISO 3200) without obvious noise.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Megapixels are easy to count, noise level not so easy. </p>

<p>In many cases, it might be that low noise is more important.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Andrew, displaying high resolution digital images on your computer (and zooming into the details) may work for you personally but how do you disseminate digital images in such a way that your audience can see the details, without making physical versions of the images? Also if you allow the high resolution digital image to be seen on the viewer's own device, you lose control over the future use of the image. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: URL?<br />

<br />

It's always possible to scan or recapture an image from a physical version, with varying degrees of inconvenience. Whether it's convenient or practical once we start talking gigapixel images is another matter, but a streaming dynamic loader/zooming browser that never stores the full-resolution version of the image on the viewer's computer is arguably in a better position, from a "hard to copy" perspective, than a large sheet of glossy paper. Copyright is copyright, and there's very little you can do against the determined infringer that doesn't have a much greater effect in annoying the legitimate viewers.<br />

<br />

Of course, I'm an amateur and don't sell my images (although I do ask for a copyright message to stay attached when anything ends up in the press). I may think differently if photography made, rather than cost, me money.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Today I read the Amateur Photographer review - they tested both versions - and the cameras do give good detail but dynamic range was not up there with the current Sony sensors and at the end it said the 5D Mk3 was still the better camera for most users. The review said a lot more than that and was interesting to read so well worth picking up a copy.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Ian. I'm now subscribed, but I've been too busy to actually read an edition since December (my wife got me the subscription for Christmas). I'll make a point of catching up with this one - but I think we knew about the dynamic range already. On that note, I should have answered Scott's original question with "March 2012", when the D800 came out.<br />

<br />

And I've always maintained that the 5D3 is a very competent camera (not that I want one), though I believe the D810 and D750 make up for most of the disadvantages of the D800 relative to the 5D3 while maintaining most of the advantages. That said, at the same price, I believe the 5Ds has a number of (small) non-resolution improvements over the 5D3, so I'd actually claim it's the better camera than the 5D3 unless you care about the tiny fps difference or the storage size requirements from big images. But it's hardly clear-cut, unlike the 5D2/5D3 upgrade where everything improved. I'll be interested to see what the 5D4 looks like, when there eventually is one.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>This whole megapixel race is getting completely out of hand. When they put out sensors which exceed the resolution limits of the lenses, it is just pi**ing in the wind</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

We do need sensors that exceed the resolution of our lenses. Then we need to worry about one thing less (untill they find a way to make better lenses).<br>We do not need sensors that exceed sensors that already outresolve our lenses. That would be silly.