Good news! Finally there is a FF mirrorless fully-electronic-shutter camera that has focus bracketing, and also has the kind of half-pixel shifting that increases real resolution. The Panasonic S1R:
https://www.l-rumors.com/here-are-the-f ... s1r-specs/
Panasonic S1R has focus bracketing and hi-res pixel-shifting
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
The G9 has similar functionality. But with the G9 you cannot use pixel shift and focus bracketing together.
Are they saying you can use both features together with the S1?
I am finding the 6K Post Focus is giving me all the pixels I need, but I am after good quality in the field, not ultimate quality.
Are they saying you can use both features together with the S1?
I am finding the 6K Post Focus is giving me all the pixels I need, but I am after good quality in the field, not ultimate quality.
No, I don't know if they can both be used together.
Sure, many small-sensor cameras can do these two things (though not at the same time). What's exciting about this is that the technology has finally reached full frame cameras.
And this is real pixel-increasing pixel-shift, not the four-shot pixel-shifting of the Sony and Pentax FF cameras. Files will have 150Mp.
Sure, many small-sensor cameras can do these two things (though not at the same time). What's exciting about this is that the technology has finally reached full frame cameras.
And this is real pixel-increasing pixel-shift, not the four-shot pixel-shifting of the Sony and Pentax FF cameras. Files will have 150Mp.
Sigma is releasing an S1/S1R mount adapter that will accept Canon mounts, though probably only fully functional with Sigma Canon-mount Art lenses. I hope the camera will at least fire with a "dumb" lens. Then we can immediately use Panasonic, Leica, Sigma Art, Canon EF, and Nikon (via Novoflex Nikon-to-Canon adapter) lenses on it.
Edited to make clear that it is Sigma, not Panasonic, that is releasing this mount.
Edited to make clear that it is Sigma, not Panasonic, that is releasing this mount.
Last edited by Lou Jost on Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It has (in HR mode) higher resolution than a 100mp $50,000 Phase medium format camera. Also, no moire (colour patterns formed by detail-pixel size coincidence) so for some microscope objects that would be a major benefit to prevent fake information in the image.Lou Jost wrote:It's similar in price to other recent high-end FF cameras like the Nikon Z7.
Thanks, I will report on how well it works. Unfortunately I won't be able to afford more than one native lens for it; I will go for the cheapest one, the Sigma 70mm macro, for low-m focus bracketing. Some of my older lenses will do well with the pixel-shifting though. I've seen adapters for Nikon and Canon EOS and old Canon mounts, so there is a big lens ecosystem, though these won't focus bracket.
I am a heavy user of pixel-shifting (Oly MFT and Pentax K-1) and focus bracketing (Oly), and you are right, both techniques are addictive. They are game-changers.
I am a heavy user of pixel-shifting (Oly MFT and Pentax K-1) and focus bracketing (Oly), and you are right, both techniques are addictive. They are game-changers.
After a month or so playing with the Oly Pen F, I'm honestly pretty disappointed with the half-pixel-shift technology. Yep, you get a 80MP image, but it is a blurry one, needs a lot of post-processing, sharpening/deconvolution, in order to achieve acceptable sharpness. That inevitably translates into noise and artifacts.
Also, I find it incomprehensible that you can not get a High-Res RAWs only and the camera generates 3 files per shot- JPEG - ORI (normal ORF) and the 80 MP ORF, which results in a waste of time when stacking. Talked to Olympus about that, they said they will consider including my suggestion into future firmware update. Unlikely to happen...
I like the camera quite a lot, but the pixel-shift disappointed me.
- Macrero
Also, I find it incomprehensible that you can not get a High-Res RAWs only and the camera generates 3 files per shot- JPEG - ORI (normal ORF) and the 80 MP ORF, which results in a waste of time when stacking. Talked to Olympus about that, they said they will consider including my suggestion into future firmware update. Unlikely to happen...
I like the camera quite a lot, but the pixel-shift disappointed me.
- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
Macrero, I have the opposite experience. The Oly pixel shift increases the resolution significantly, lowers the noise, eliminates color moire, and will make a much sharper print than a normal Oly file. I've shown examples here, and this has also been shown in many independent reviews online. In some tests the Oly pixel-shift image beats a FF image, and the FF image often has more color moire. Remember that the 8 shots of the pixel-shifted image gather twice as much light as a single FF image, which helps with the noise, and each image pixel records full RGB info instead of just one color as the FF image does, thus reducing moire.
Your experience may depend on your expectation and how you look at them. If you view the RAW image at 100%, yes, the shifted image looks less sharp than the normal image at 100%, but you've zoomed in twice as far in the shifted image. The resolution increase due to 8-image shifting is not quite 2x, so you lose sharpness when zooming in twice as far (relative to the picture width). But you get detail that you could not even see at all in the unshifted image.
Oly states that the real resolution of the shifted image is captured adequately by the 50mp jpg image rather than the 80Mp RAW file. My experiments back this up. But I like the full RAW file because it will give a better print (more pixels per mm of print). I also like the third file provided which is a single unshifted image. This can be used to retouch areas in the shifted image that might be blurred due to subject movement.
You can have the camera shoot only jpgs if you need to save time.
I am extremely satisfied with this great boost in resolution. It is a bigger boost than most of the differences between high-end lenses that we talk so much about here.
To have this technology on the FF S1R sensor is going to be extraordinary!!!!!
Your experience may depend on your expectation and how you look at them. If you view the RAW image at 100%, yes, the shifted image looks less sharp than the normal image at 100%, but you've zoomed in twice as far in the shifted image. The resolution increase due to 8-image shifting is not quite 2x, so you lose sharpness when zooming in twice as far (relative to the picture width). But you get detail that you could not even see at all in the unshifted image.
Oly states that the real resolution of the shifted image is captured adequately by the 50mp jpg image rather than the 80Mp RAW file. My experiments back this up. But I like the full RAW file because it will give a better print (more pixels per mm of print). I also like the third file provided which is a single unshifted image. This can be used to retouch areas in the shifted image that might be blurred due to subject movement.
You can have the camera shoot only jpgs if you need to save time.
I am extremely satisfied with this great boost in resolution. It is a bigger boost than most of the differences between high-end lenses that we talk so much about here.
To have this technology on the FF S1R sensor is going to be extraordinary!!!!!
Lou,
maybe I had my expectations set too high, and truth be told, I did 3-4 shifted stacks only, though none of them convinced me. Will give it another try with different post-processing.
Resolution is there, there is less noise and moire, but in order to get a sharp image, you need to sharpen it A LOT in the post-processing, so you end up with actually noisier image, there is no way to get a "clean", sharp image at 1:1.
Yep, "optimal" high-res seems to be 50MP. 80MP is an exaggeration IMO. I would prefer a 50MP RAWs with "cleaner", sharper output.
The 50MP JPEGs and 20MP unshifted ORFs are pointless for me when stacking in High-Res. There should be an option to shoot High-Res RAWs only.
Will make more tests...
maybe I had my expectations set too high, and truth be told, I did 3-4 shifted stacks only, though none of them convinced me. Will give it another try with different post-processing.
Resolution is there, there is less noise and moire, but in order to get a sharp image, you need to sharpen it A LOT in the post-processing, so you end up with actually noisier image, there is no way to get a "clean", sharp image at 1:1.
Yep, "optimal" high-res seems to be 50MP. 80MP is an exaggeration IMO. I would prefer a 50MP RAWs with "cleaner", sharper output.
The 50MP JPEGs and 20MP unshifted ORFs are pointless for me when stacking in High-Res. There should be an option to shoot High-Res RAWs only.
Will make more tests...
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
Hi-res shots do take a lot of time to write and process.
Have you tried just saving and using the 50Mp jpgs? That would be faster and would save you some post-processing. They are pretty good.
Sometimes I have environmental vibrations that affect just a couple of images in a stack. Then the ORI files can save the stack.
Edited to add:
"there is no way to get a "clean", sharp image at 1:1"
Yes, if you view the 80Mp image at 100%, it will never be clean and sharp, because it really only has the resolution of a 50Mp image. But our tendency to judge images at 100% is not always the right choice, when comparing images of different sizes. It seems to me that this method of comparing can lead to errors. For example, a cheap mediocre lens on a 5Mp camera will be sharper at 100% than a Printing Nikkor on a 300Mp camera. To avoid such absurd conclusions, we should be comparing resolution per picture width (or fraction of picture width). In that case, the 80Mp file would win by a landslide against the unshifted image.
Have you tried just saving and using the 50Mp jpgs? That would be faster and would save you some post-processing. They are pretty good.
Sometimes I have environmental vibrations that affect just a couple of images in a stack. Then the ORI files can save the stack.
Edited to add:
"there is no way to get a "clean", sharp image at 1:1"
Yes, if you view the 80Mp image at 100%, it will never be clean and sharp, because it really only has the resolution of a 50Mp image. But our tendency to judge images at 100% is not always the right choice, when comparing images of different sizes. It seems to me that this method of comparing can lead to errors. For example, a cheap mediocre lens on a 5Mp camera will be sharper at 100% than a Printing Nikkor on a 300Mp camera. To avoid such absurd conclusions, we should be comparing resolution per picture width (or fraction of picture width). In that case, the 80Mp file would win by a landslide against the unshifted image.
Well, time is actually not that big of a problem when final result is worth it, but when I shoot High-Res I don't need the JPEGs and ORIs, so I think Oly should have included an High-Res Raw only option, which would save processing and writing time. But hey, they said they will consider my suggestion... 
High-Res JPEGs are actually pretty good, but I am an ETTR guy, and RAW is essential in order to recover high lights.
I am shooting a High-Res test stack right now. Will see how it comes out and will try a different post-processing.
High-Res JPEGs are actually pretty good, but I am an ETTR guy, and RAW is essential in order to recover high lights.
I am shooting a High-Res test stack right now. Will see how it comes out and will try a different post-processing.
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light