Messages

31

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 05, 2013, 05:13:17 PM »

You missed my point entirely.   I'll spell it out.

You can cut the pixel linear dimension by a factor of four (giving you four time the resolving power), use NR to reduce the per-pixel noise to parity and still be left with twice as much resolving power.

32

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 05, 2013, 03:57:50 AM »

Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).

Hmm, ok. But in the general discussion, noise increases when pixels get smaller (at Hi-ISO).

Yeah, but that's a myth.

It is only a "myth" assuming images are always compared on a size-normal basis. That is certainly a valid way to compare, and the only normalized way to compare. However...assuming one buys a higher resolution camera for the purposes of using it for its native resolution, rather than downscaled to something smaller...the increased noise of a higher density sensor is no myth.

Smaller pixels have a lower cap on charge. Lower charge means higher gain. Higher gain means that for any given illumination level photon shot noise is exacerbated by amplification, which results in higher noise at native size.

Amplification has nothing to do with it and well capacity only matters at base ISO.  And it's still a myth anyway as cutting pixel size by a factor of 16 (area) still allows double the resolving power at lower per-pixel noise in the final image because noise reduction software is so much better than spatial block averaging which is all bigger pixels do.

33

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 04, 2013, 08:15:51 PM »

Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).

Hmm, ok. But in the general discussion, noise increases when pixels get smaller (at Hi-ISO).

Yeah, but that's a myth.

34

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 04, 2013, 08:34:36 AM »

So if I get this right, Canon is taking a full frame sensor, and ENLARGING the pixels on it 7.5 times, and then market it as the best ISO performer on the market? DUH!

Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).

35

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 02:33:36 PM »

As long as smartphone cameras are permanently stuck around 28mm, I and many others that are even slightly interested in photography will continue to use compact cameras instead.  I keep a compact in the same pocket as my Galaxy S3 and never use the camera on the phone.

People are lining up to pay big-bux for the Sony RX1 with a permanently attached 28mm f/2.0 lens

Which is only slightly less useless than a cell phone.

36

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 01:53:51 PM »

There is NO demand for compact P&S and none for step-up cameras. They have been replaced by smart-phones.

As long as smartphone cameras are permanently stuck around 28mm, I and many others that are even slightly interested in photography will continue to use compact cameras instead.  I keep a compact in the same pocket as my Galaxy S3 and never use the camera on the phone.

37

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 12:48:40 PM »

24mp APS-C Sensor = no sale here

Canon might want to look around before they come to market.

Perhaps if they offered full frame instead of APS-C and fewer mp in exchange for a much higher ISO, they might have something.

They're not going to compete with Sony et al with this product, but they have the opportunity to compete with Leica etc.  Especially at the proposed price point.  And they can do it.

Repackage the 6D sensor perhaps?

When are people going to give up this belief in the myth that high pixel counts mean high noise?

38

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 12:40:18 PM »

The main thing I'd want if I were going to by an M is a standard zoom that folds entirely inside the body when not in use.  Since I don't see that happening, I can't see this system ever becoming interesting.

Not likely to happen, the laws of physics are against it.

Interesting that they were able to do it with dozens of compact film cameras, that were necessarily full-frame and also carried a film transport mechanism!

39

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 11:06:33 AM »

The main thing I'd want if I were going to by an M is a standard zoom that folds entirely inside the body when not in use.  Since I don't see that happening, I can't see this system ever becoming interesting.

40

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 20, 2013, 06:25:34 PM »

Tests have shown that even the best APS-C lenses are limited to around 20 megapixels of resolution,

Point me to those tests and I'll show you why they're wrong.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 20, 2013, 05:58:17 PM »

This camera would have a pixel density equal to a 61mp full frame camera, that is far beyond the resolving power of most lenses.

Grrrrr....would people quit saying entirely wrong stuff like that please?  First of all resolving power doesn't work like that.  Second, even if it did the better lenses can already resolve up into the many hundreds of megapixels on full frame.

Yes, but diffraction softness at this pixel density starts to become a problem, get up to f/5.6 or higher and you start loosing sharpness.

Diffraction is the most misunderstood concept in photography.

Oh, I don't know, DOF is up there pretty good too!

The notion that diffraction is ever a "problem" is just flat out wrong.

Diffraction is always a factor in resolving power.  When I'm shooting planetary photography, diffraction tends to be the driving factor, and it most certainly is a problem.  I wouldn't have just upgraded from a 5" to an 11" scope if it weren't!

Just because diffraction starts earlier with smaller pixels does NOT mean you are resolving less detail.

"Just because diffraction starts earlier with smaller pixels does NOT mean you are resolving less detail."

I just thought that was important enough for a repeat.

I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER.

That one as well:

"I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER."

42

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 20, 2013, 05:27:35 AM »

I think both of you guys are greatly underestimating the resolving power of Canon's new Mark II generation of lenses. According to my experiences renting many of them, they are unbelievably sharp...far sharper than necessary to completely resolve detail for the 18mp APS-C sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if they were good enough to resolve just enough detail for a 24mp APS-C (which, again, would be ideal from an AA filter standpoint...it wouldn't need to be all that strong), and plenty good enough for 40-50mp FF sensors.

What?  The difference in resolving power between 18MP and 24MP is nothing - 15%.  The gap between these lenses and the 18MP sensor is more like 200%.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 20, 2013, 05:21:43 AM »

This camera would have a pixel density equal to a 61mp full frame camera, that is far beyond the resolving power of most lenses.

Grrrrr....would people quit saying entirely wrong stuff like that please?  First of all resolving power doesn't work like that.  Second, even if it did the better lenses can already resolve up into the many hundreds of megapixels on full frame.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 03:11:51 PM »

Given the choice of 6D or 7DII at similar prices, I'd likely go 6D. It's very hard to do without FF goodness once you've had it.

Baloney.

Depends on what you're shooting.  When I'm shooting airshows I'll take a speedy crop camera over a slower and larger pixel full-frame every time, and I do.  When I'm shooting slower stuff, lower light stuff, or when I'm not focal length limited, I'll shoot the full-frame.

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 11:14:23 AM »

If it has f/8 AF points, a decent sensor, and video crop modes, I might even order one at launch.  Next, they need to update the 5DIII with the sensor tech from this camera and add GPS and WiFi.  GPS isn't a frivolous thing for those of us that geo-tag our images.  It saves considerable time in post.