|5D III (FF)||1.3||22|
|Sony RX1 (FF)||1.33||24|
With micro4/3 some quick observations (which seem to be representative) are found in such lenses as the Olympus 75mm f1.8 and their 45mm f1.8. These lenses give 9 and 7P-Mpix (respectively) on the GH1 and 9 and 11P-Mpix (respectively) on the GH2. For the This is a ratio of 1.33 and 1.44 Pixels/P-Mpix for the Oly 75mm lenses on the GH1 (12Mpix) and GH2 (16Mpix) bodies, demonstrating that as pixels go up the 'return ratio' of perceptual megapixels gets less. This is otherwise known as diminishing returns.
I suspect that the data on DxO is insufficient (unverified and uncross referenced tests) for a good analysis (to allow for removal of measurement error by proper statistical samples). From my reading of the data on the APS cameras the results seem to follow the pattern. I expect diminishing returns will flatline when you ultimately hit the "aerial resolution limits" of the lens (as one would normally do in MTF testing)
With the Full Frame stuff the 5D was the low hanging fruit, with a very good ratio of yeild per sensor pixel. However as the desire to increase output quality went higher the requirement for capture pixel to Perceptual pixel ratio when higher too. The Sony RX1 for instance has 24Mpix to get its 18P-Mpix
It would seem to me that an appropriate 'storage' compression here would be to downscale the captured RAW file into a DNG (or the like) from the captured Mpix to the reasonable limit of real IQ. There would be little or no loss as observed in my previous post.
Back in the past designers seemed to not be restricted to sensor size and just moved up to a slightly larger film format 35mm - 645 - 6x7 - 6x9 ... and larger
Perhaps the best answers here are really the same?
I would love to see some tests of the Leica S2 system.