thank you Schruminator
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, diffraction is happening in the lens regardless of the sensor, but the advantage of the higher MP sensor is lost much easier to diffraction. If you have two cameras, one 20MP and the other 282MP, and shoot both with a lens set with its aperture smaller than f11, there will be no difference in resolution between the two. The higher MP body won't be worse - it just won't have any advantage. But shoot at f5.6 with a great lens, and the 282MP sensor will be able to resolve 70MP of detail while the 20MP sensor is limited to 20. So while 282MP clearly holds an advantage with a great lens in that particular scenario, why bother with 282MP? Isn't the cut off of where a FF sensor should ever go to somewhere around 70MP or below? And if its a video optimised sensor, 39.3MP seems like the ultimate destination for FF if video remains based on a multiple of 1080p (4k or 8k), even hundreds of years from now.There are very sound arguments for up to 400mp, but with big caveats. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html
File sizes are a major concern when using these large sensors. As you said, the resolution of the D800 is too much, too soon for event shooters with current computers.
I was looking more into how far it is worth going based on the laws of physics, assuming sensor tech and storage/processing all continue improving, making these resolutions easy to capture and post process.
Going to the extremes of a 400MP FF sensor will allow you to see 400MP of beautiful blur up close when viewed at 100%, unless a lens exists to resolve 400MP of resolution at f2.3 and wider apertures. Having said that, software enhancements such as SmartDeblur, if further refined could turn those extra blurred pixels into meaningful detail:
I still reckon 20 odd MP is enough for most people, and 70MP without any artificial enhancement should be more than enough for any real life situation.
The 1Dsx will do for me provided Canon manage to leapfrog Nikons current world beating performance with the 800E. If they can achieve that, then I will be in heaven, if not, then its goodbye Canon. I'm not hanging about if they continue to produce cameras with noise and banding issues but with excessive ISO figures.
Having said that, my present 5DII is OK for the moment, so I would rather they spent more time getting it right than a rushed "knee jerk reaction".
Just interested, what do you think an $8,000+ 38+MP camera will do for you when you can currently live with a $1,300 21MP 5D MkII? What do you shoot now, and what do you do with your output that would necessitate such an upscale?
How did this thread go from 500 vs. 600 to cropped sensor vs. FF? He already have a 1DX and is not asking about 7D vs. 1DX plus 1.4X.
I did a 'quick-and-dirty' test (static scene, not my ISO 12233-type chart) soon after getting the 600 II, comparing the 7D vs. 1D X + 1.4x. The 1D X + TC was a little better at ISO 100 and a lot better at ISO 3200.
The original test was with the 100L, no extender. The point was to simply compare the crop sensor vs. cropping the FF image to match FoV.
Backup body is frankly always worth it IMO, especially if you take any sort of "costly" trip where swapping / repairing a body is impossible...So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.
Probably not. The reason I haven't been terribly motivated to set up the test is that I've done the test between the 7D and cropped 5DII (about 18 months ago, now), so I know the only difference is MP not IQ, and the 1D X is better than the 5DII for sensor IQ. I assume the test with the 600 + 1.4x on both bodies would show the same, or an advantage to the 1D X at higher ISO. That test is less relevant now that the 1D X supports f/8 AF - not much difference in pixel-level magnification comparing 2x on FF to 1.4x on 1.6x crop. I disagree with natureshots that the 7D + 1.4x will optically outperform the 1D X + 2x. That might be true with a lesser lens, but the MkII supertele lenses just don't take that big an IQ hit from a TC, even a 2x (and keep in mind that the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800/5.6 for IQ). As for AF, while the 7D's 19-points are very good, the center point of the 1D X is better. But the real kicker is that most times I've been out shooting with the 600 II, my ISO has ranged from 1600 to 6400. The bottom of that range is ok on the 7D, but the top end just doesn't cut it on the 7D.
For those reasons, I'm pretty sure the 7D gives me no advantage over the 1D X, other than a few more MP (and not really all that many more, comparing the 1.4x on the 7D to the 2X on the 1D X.
The question I suppose I'm really asking myself is, do I want to keep the 7D as a backup body? Or should I take what I can get for it, now, and put that money toward a 24-70 II?
Or Canon. Or panasonic.
I'm really interested to see how a crop sensor can measure up to a FF on focal length limited applications.
Me too, and I've been planning to do such a test for a while, but haven't gotten to it yet. Besides curiosity, I want to determine if there's a point in my keeping the 7D (other than purely as a backup camera).
Obviously not everybody has seen my comparisons yet, though I know Neuro has
These were shot to determine if I would gain any advantage with a 7D, I set it up in ideal conditions that very much favoured the crop camera. After seeing these I determined a 7D was a waste of my money although there are very good reasons for others to get one, however thinking you are getting extra resolution in focal length limited situations in real world shooting, ie, AF, IS, panning etc etc is not one of them.
Left hand image is full 1Ds MkIII image with 7D image from the same place with the same lens marked in red, right hand images are very tight over 100% crops, this equates to very sizable prints and from a couple of feet or so away I can't tell the difference in resolution. If you look closely the 7D does have more resolution (and noise), but I found in real world shooting situations that extra just wasn't realisable. Don't forget, in these two crops the 7D image has over twice as many pixels as the 1Ds MkIII image.
Great shot. I live in Arizona (not near Page, though) and could fairly easily drive up there on a two day trip. However, I have never been and likely never will for one reason. Everyone I know who has gone in the last decade says that it is always full of photographers with tripods no matter when you go and you have to fight for a place to get a shot. Just too popular and too small of a space.I've been twice to Lower Canyon and thrice to the upper. Upper is indeed busier, especially in high season, but my most recent visits to both where Jan (2011) and Mar (2012) and you often had sections to yourself. Most people on the lower respect photographers and will happily wait the 20 secs of a long exposure! Time wise, you want the sun overhead to get best illumination to the bottom, but if you prefer more contrast then adjust accordingly.
Am I wrong about this?