Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
fuji xt2 seems amazing
#11
Quote:No, it does not. Look at the dpreview comparison scenes and you can see it is not comparable to the 36mp Sony, 42mp Sony and 50mp Canon sensor, resolution-wise. It is comparable to the Nikkor D7200 which also has an AA-filter-less 24mp sensor.


Sometimes I feel people make outlandish statement just to attract attention to their website.
#12
At Cameralabs it is compared to 5D IV. Both cameras look pretty close.

It will be good to see the shadows after 3 stops pull for both.

In any case the price/performance ratio is in Fuji's favor.
#13
Quote:At Cameralabs it is compared to 5D IV. Both cameras look pretty close.

It will be good to see the shadows after 3 stops pull for both.

In any case the price/performance ratio is in Fuji's favor.
 

It's the price/performance/space/weight relation, which makes it at first a bit silly to go for the FF camera  Wink But to go for that one or a D810 still can have some reasons the Fuji can't offer now. Some are upgradeable just by firmware updates (like some menu points which are stupid if you know it can be done differently and better).

 

Both cameras have their own target groups.

 

And Toni-A, instead of posting more links of Leica-straps or whatever, you could ask once Wikipedia for "resolution". It is a ratio of how many points to get on the same distance. 300 dots per inch. It is not a comparison of Megapixels because their resolution value can be the same - just one camera doesn't show the same field of view than the one with the smaller or bigger sensor.

 

Posting something like

"I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera, to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor having twice the resolution," is plain wrong and only left remained by BC because it fits well in his reasoning, otherwise he had pulled out his calculator like he did when someone dares to compare different, DoF which never will make it into solid math. Airy discs are hard to measure and soft to compare.

 

5D IV has 36 mm and 6720 pixel on that distance. 6720 ÷ 36 mm = 186.66 pixel per mm or 4741 ppi (pixel per inch)

Any 24 MP APS-C camera has on 23.6 mm 6000 pixel. 6000 ÷ 23.6 = 254.24 pixel per mm or 6457 ppi 

 

Now decide for yourself which one has the higher resolution. And try to find out the 5D R's resolution ^_^ 

 

Sony α7R II 35.9 mm, 7974 pixel 7974 ÷ 35.9 mm = 222.11 p/mm

 

Phase One IQ3 100 MP: 53.7 mm 11608 pixels: 11608 ÷ 53.7 = 216 p/mm

 

I would never be so stupid to say the Fuji is the best of this choice because her resolution (and all other 24 MP APS-C models as well) is higher than even a super expensive MF. Would be wrong conclusion, but the fact remains, these days standard APS-C have a bloody high resolution.
#14
Fuji seem to have really upped the game with regards to video: https://www.cinema5d.com/fujifilm-xt2-vs-sony-a7s-ii-best-mirrorless-video-camera/ 

#15
Bit confused JoJu why are you computing p/mm of the sensor ? What is important is the quality of the pixel and p/mm of the final print NOT p/mm of the sensor. In fact a high p/mm on the sensor has the disadvantage that it puts more stress on the lens optical performance.

#16
you2, it was about Toni-A's "having twice the resolution (FF vs APS-C)" without knowing what resolution means.

 

Since when can a sensor put stress on a lens?  Rolleyes The problem is, pixels have a limit for downscaling and lenses have limits of tolerances at reasonable production costs.

#17
JoJu, I agree on "every camera has buyer". What I find interesting in Gordon's experiment is how close the crop sensors are in performance to full frame. Keep in mind that both cameras are with new developed sensors.

I don't think D810 is good candidate to go against XT2, because it has more resolution and it's quite old.
#18
Quote:It's the price/performance/space/weight relation, which makes it at first a bit silly to go for the FF camera Wink But to go for that one or a D810 still can have some reasons the Fuji can't offer now. Some are upgradeable just by firmware updates (like some menu points which are stupid if you know it can be done differently and better).


Both cameras have their own target groups.


And Toni-A, instead of posting more links of Leica-straps or whatever, you could ask once Wikipedia for "resolution". It is a ratio of how many points to get on the same distance. 300 dots per inch. It is not a comparison of Megapixels because their resolution value can be the same - just one camera doesn't show the same field of view than the one with the smaller or bigger sensor.


Posting something like

"I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera, to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor having twice the resolution," is plain wrong and only left remained by BC because it fits well in his reasoning, otherwise he had pulled out his calculator like he did when someone dares to compare different, DoF which never will make it into solid math. Airy discs are hard to measure and soft to compare.


5D IV has 36 mm and 6720 pixel on that distance. 6720 ÷ 36 mm = 186.66 pixel per mm or 4741 ppi (pixel per inch)

Any 24 MP APS-C camera has on 23.6 mm 6000 pixel. 6000 ÷ 23.6 = 254.24 pixel per mm or 6457 ppi



Now decide for yourself which one has the higher resolution. And try to find out the 5D R's resolution ^_^


Sony α7R II 35.9 mm, 7974 pixel 7974 ÷ 35.9 mm = 222.11 p/mm


Phase One IQ3 100 MP: 53.7 mm 11608 pixels: 11608 ÷ 53.7 = 216 p/mm


I would never be so stupid to say the Fuji is the best of this choice because her resolution (and all other 24 MP APS-C models as well) is higher than even a super expensive MF. Would be wrong conclusion, but the fact remains, these days standard APS-C have a bloody high resolution.
I guess you may have this reslotion thing mixed up. To put it simply, given the same angle of view and the same final output size, what matters is the total pixel count, if all lenses are perfect.


Take 24 mp APSC camera for example, at any given fov, the sensor can only have 6000 different values along it's longer edge,compared to 7900 for A7R II


If lenses are not perfect, with the same total pixel count, smaller format will need lenses with better point spread function to suit their smaller pixel pitch
#19
Quote:JoJu, I agree on "every camera has buyer". What I find interesting in Gordon's experiment is how close the crop sensors are in performance to full frame. Keep in mind that both cameras are with new developed sensors.

I don't think D810 is good candidate to go against XT2, because it has more resolution and it's quite old.
 

The D810 has more MP, not more resolution of the sensor.  Wink
#20
Quote:I guess you may have this reslotion thing mixed up. To put it simply, given the same angle of view and the same final output size, what matters is the total pixel count, if all lenses are perfect.


Take 24 mp APSC camera for example, at any given fov, the sensor can only have 6000 different values along it's longer edge,compared to 7900 for A7R II


If lenses are not perfect, with the same total pixel count, smaller format will need lenses with better point spread function to suit their smaller pixel pitch
 

I think you bring in a new variable which is output size. But this we don't know when we compare sensors and pixel densities. In my comparison I talk about sensor sizes. If you target the same output size for each sensor, the resolution of the final picture changes.

 

If you use the same enlarging value, it remains with pixel count, you just get smaller output sizes from APS-C - but the resolution comparison remains the same. But the bigger you get, the more distance you need to see the whole picture. And since our eyes also have resolution limits, you will not see  bigger benefit for a certain enlargement, because you are too far away to resolve 300 dpi on 100 inch  Wink

 

What you don't look at, is the loss of Aliasing filters and different color depth of the sensors. This matters as much as resolution, because our eyes can't tell the absolute difference, but the relative difference is visible. So, the 50 MP Sensors of Sony in Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji, PhaseOne will show more colors than the one from a Canon 5DRS, just because the absolute pixel density of the sensor is lower - and each pixel bigger. Therefore more sensitive and bigger color scale. This is for me the reason to get bored about equivalencing calculations. It's more variables involved in this game.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)