Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Sorry for repeating myself, but I feel that my posting at an ongoing discussion at the Fuji forum is relevant to this discussion as well:
During film days, the difference between a 35mm image (36 x 24mm) and a 6 x 7 image (70 x 56 mm) was a factor of 4.5 (film area). That's the same as the difference between an 8 and a 36 MP sensor. It's a huge difference, and many photographers appreciated that and used it to their advantage. In addition, the lenses for the 6 x 7 cameras were much larger, enabling that increased resolution potential to become reality.
The difference between 16 and 24 MP is a factor of 1.5, and given that it's the same sensor size, this becomes a challenge for many lenses. Also, while the grain size of most films was constant regardless of format, that is not the case when you cram more pixels into the same digital format, with possible (and mostly real) consequences for noise, DR and colour fidelity.
While the film example gives more than 100% increase in linear size, the digital increase in this example only represents 23%. I could make countless examples that illustrate this (a 24 MP crop sensor vs. a 26 MP 35mm sensor for example), but the only ones that would show a really big difference would be between digital MF vs. any other format. However, while even that difference has become much smaller, the price difference has increased in most cases.
Digital cameras have decreased the quality difference between formats and resolutions to a point where I believe most photographers 30 years ago would say that it's insignificant. And while the 135 and 120 formats totally dominated the world then, they are reduced to tiny niches nowadays. Some obviously need every little bit of resolution they can get, but the curve that shows the reality of diminishing returns has become very, very steep.
During film days, the difference between a 35mm image (36 x 24mm) and a 6 x 7 image (70 x 56 mm) was a factor of 4.5 (film area). That's the same as the difference between an 8 and a 36 MP sensor. It's a huge difference, and many photographers appreciated that and used it to their advantage. In addition, the lenses for the 6 x 7 cameras were much larger, enabling that increased resolution potential to become reality.
The difference between 16 and 24 MP is a factor of 1.5, and given that it's the same sensor size, this becomes a challenge for many lenses. Also, while the grain size of most films was constant regardless of format, that is not the case when you cram more pixels into the same digital format, with possible (and mostly real) consequences for noise, DR and colour fidelity.
While the film example gives more than 100% increase in linear size, the digital increase in this example only represents 23%. I could make countless examples that illustrate this (a 24 MP crop sensor vs. a 26 MP 35mm sensor for example), but the only ones that would show a really big difference would be between digital MF vs. any other format. However, while even that difference has become much smaller, the price difference has increased in most cases.
Digital cameras have decreased the quality difference between formats and resolutions to a point where I believe most photographers 30 years ago would say that it's insignificant. And while the 135 and 120 formats totally dominated the world then, they are reduced to tiny niches nowadays. Some obviously need every little bit of resolution they can get, but the curve that shows the reality of diminishing returns has become very, very steep.