Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

[torger]

ok there's a lot of replies and stuff here. I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about so I'll try to rephrase some stuff.

Dxomark scales their lpmm values, so for APS-C they are not "true" lpmm, they're scaled to be directly comparable to fullframe. So yes, some EF-S lenses are sharper than fullframe lenses. Actually compact camera lenses are sharper than costly fullframe lenses, smaller lenses seems to be easier to make sharper. Problem is, with the smaller lenses the sensors are even smaller so the effective resolution becomes lower anyway. Still, a compact camera lens may resolve ~2um on the sensor while a sharp full-frame lens does ~5um.

About the need for megapixels. In handheld photography you most likely don't need more than ~12 megapixels, higher resolution will be lost due to camera shake or noise factors due to low light. High resolution is for tripod-mounted photography only, generally still life. The kind of stuff you use medium format cameras for if you can afford it. The talk about technical quality is not important the image content is what counts is of course relevant but there are many different types of photography. Some still life photography is dependent on high technical quality, and corner-to-corner sharpness can be important. But in for example portrait photography corner sharpness is almost irrelevant, but instead out of focus blur really important. But just because you have an interest in a type of photography that don't gain from extra resolution that does not mean that there are not others.

About diffraction. Yes it is a problem, that's why you in a high res system want tilt lenses so you can control depth of field so you can solve depth of field problems with larger apertures. That's why "old school" technical view cameras is still used by many professionals. There is one way to overcome diffraction though, which is through deconvolution in post-processing, already used in microscopy and to some extent in photography (mostly to combat lens softness today which generally is larger problem than diffraction currently, but diffraction is actually an easier problem to solve technically). We will probably see a lot more deconvolution in the future, perhaps directly in the camera. In a distant future you could use deconvolution to combat camera shake and thus increase hand-holding resolution past those practical 12 megapixels too.

Anyway, I currently see lens sharpness as a larger limiting factor than diffraction in terms of resolution.

About lens sharpness on full-frame. Yes for every increase in megapixels you'll get an increase in resolution. But current lens sharpness such as for the new TS-E 24mm II does seem to be good for say 25 - 30 megapixels. You would not get much extra real resolution in your prints going from 30 to 60 megapixels with that lens. Take a photo with a 7D and you'll see how the center portion of a 45 megapixel fullframe lens will perform.

As an interesting side fact, one could mention one of the most well-known considered super-sharp medium format digital wide angle lenses, the Rodenstock digital 23mm (costs about 5000 USD), it is said to be good for 5 um on the sensor, which means 34 megapixels for 35mm fullframe and about 90 megapixels for the largest medium format sensors.

[distant.star]

If there's any sort of "war" going on, it's a quiet one.

I can't remember the last shot heard from Canon.

An indicator of how all is quiet on the Canon front is the latest newsletter I (probably all of us) just got from B & H. In the photo section, the Canon name does not even appear. Panasonic is there. Nikon, Sony, Kodak, Olympus all get some mention. That suggests how quiet it is.

Again, if there's a war going on, I'm hoping Canon is busy reloading.

[photosites]

Dr Croubie, you brought up a very interesting point. In the past Mhz = Performance, until the multi-core strategy came in and changed everything.

Maybe the future, higher resolution may not be dependent on Mpx alone. Hasselblad just introduced a sensor shift technology that takes a 200mpx picture from a 50mpx sensor.

I would think the future of high resolution sensor technology may employ techniques such as sensor shift, multi layer sensor (ala Foveon) or multiple sensor (ala video cam)... or maybe not.

Note that while the Mhz war has sort of taken a different course for Intel/AMD, the number of transistors packed into a microprocessor has been doubled every two years as predicted by Moore's law without change...

Since we are in this topic, here are some articles discussing the application of Moore's law to camera sensors

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/moore-rebuttle.shtml

[awinphoto]

ok there's a lot of replies and stuff here. I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about so I'll try to rephrase some stuff.

Dxomark scales their lpmm values, so for APS-C they are not "true" lpmm, they're scaled to be directly comparable to fullframe. So yes, some EF-S lenses are sharper than fullframe lenses. Actually compact camera lenses are sharper than costly fullframe lenses, smaller lenses seems to be easier to make sharper. Problem is, with the smaller lenses the sensors are even smaller so the effective resolution becomes lower anyway. Still, a compact camera lens may resolve ~2um on the sensor while a sharp full-frame lens does ~5um.

About the need for megapixels. In handheld photography you most likely don't need more than ~12 megapixels, higher resolution will be lost due to camera shake or noise factors due to low light. High resolution is for tripod-mounted photography only, generally still life. The kind of stuff you use medium format cameras for if you can afford it. The talk about technical quality is not important the image content is what counts is of course relevant but there are many different types of photography. Some still life photography is dependent on high technical quality, and corner-to-corner sharpness can be important. But in for example portrait photography corner sharpness is almost irrelevant, but instead out of focus blur really important. But just because you have an interest in a type of photography that don't gain from extra resolution that does not mean that there are not others.

About diffraction. Yes it is a problem, that's why you in a high res system want tilt lenses so you can control depth of field so you can solve depth of field problems with larger apertures. That's why "old school" technical view cameras is still used by many professionals. There is one way to overcome diffraction though, which is through deconvolution in post-processing, already used in microscopy and to some extent in photography (mostly to combat lens softness today which generally is larger problem than diffraction currently, but diffraction is actually an easier problem to solve technically). We will probably see a lot more deconvolution in the future, perhaps directly in the camera. In a distant future you could use deconvolution to combat camera shake and thus increase hand-holding resolution past those practical 12 megapixels too.

Anyway, I currently see lens sharpness as a larger limiting factor than diffraction in terms of resolution.

About lens sharpness on full-frame. Yes for every increase in megapixels you'll get an increase in resolution. But current lens sharpness such as for the new TS-E 24mm II does seem to be good for say 25 - 30 megapixels. You would not get much extra real resolution in your prints going from 30 to 60 megapixels with that lens. Take a photo with a 7D and you'll see how the center portion of a 45 megapixel fullframe lens will perform.

As an interesting side fact, one could mention one of the most well-known considered super-sharp medium format digital wide angle lenses, the Rodenstock digital 23mm (costs about 5000 USD), it is said to be good for 5 um on the sensor, which means 34 megapixels for 35mm fullframe and about 90 megapixels for the largest medium format sensors.

Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z.  Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake?  Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup?  Tilt Shift to make up for DOF?  Are you kidding me?  Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days?  a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using!  Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it.  Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass.  Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.

[dr croubie]

So diffraction is a problem now? Is it an indication that lens design might be falling behind sensor design? Well, lens engineer go solve it... Is this a limitation with laws of Physics? Did they not say that microprocessor will face an inevitable limit with laws of Physics at xx nm and there is no way to go beyond? ... well, we are well into 20nm territory now and going strong....

Well Diffraction is a slight problem now, and will only become more so with more (especially denser) megapixels, that's a law of physics. Moore's "law" was never a law, it was an observation made in the '70s and just happens to have held reasonably well since. Limitations at whatever-nm process were just based on the current knowledge, and the engineers managed to overcome the problems with new discoveries.
Diffraction is different, there's no way to change the relationship between DLA and pixel size, no matter what lens/sensor designers do.

But whether it's enough of a problem is the other thing.

Canon's 120 MP APS-H sensor has a DLA of f/4.  Ouch.

So there's still a good margin of MP to go before we really hit the limits, good to know. And as said, it's just going to reduce where the sweet-spot lies.
Put X lens on a 7D, you get so many lppmm at wide open, you get more at f/5.6. Put the same lens on 1Dsmk6 and you get more lppmm at wide open, but you get *less* than that at f/5.6. Changing the shape of the MTF charts is not such a bad thing, as long as you know how to use it.
In the end, the line "the lens sharpens up as you stop down" will disappear, at a few hundred MP every lens will be sharpest wide-open and will reduce with aperture size.

What it will be the worst problem for is bad lenses. Take the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. its resolution starts low, and does get better with higher f-number, peaking at f/8 (or higher, f/8 is the end of the graph). Put that lens on a sensor with a DLA of something closer to f/4 or so and the MTF will peak at f/4 or even lower, the lens will be worse at f/8 than at f/4 for the same higher mp sensor.
So in a way it means lens designers will have to become better, they won't get the benefit of a 'sweet-spot' as mentioned.


But some other ideas I like. Like the 'split sensor in 3' to do some in-camera combining for HDR, one other idea I had is an automatic 'focus on 3 different lengths for 3 shots and combine'. OK, so people do it manually now, and it only works for static/landscapes, auto-incamera would be nice though...

[V8Beast]

V8beast, case in point about your gear comments, I knew 2 photographers... one works on Hollywood movie posters and the other taking photos at airports... The airport photographer had to take some pictures of airplanes taking off on runways... He sat on the runway and took pictures of airliners as they charged at him.  He didn't shoot 1ds's or medium formats or such, he had this little point and shoot camera so when he got the picture he needed he can run off the runway.  The other Hollywood guy took the original photo for the "i am legend" movie poster with Will Smith with a point and shoot as well.  Not all pro's shoot with $4000-8000 gear...

I think you're missing the point. Given enough time and patience, and commitment to spending long hours in post processing, I can get the same shot with a 60D as I can with a 1DMKIV. Is it satisfying to get similar results with lesser equipment and chalk it up to superior technique? Absolutely. Unfortunately, time is a commodity that's rarely on your side for a busy pro photographer. As the adage goes, time is money, and if your photography tools enable you to get a job done more quickly and efficiently, you'll be able turn around a greater quantity of work in a shorter duration of time, and pay off the extra premium you paid for nicer equipment. I can see how it might be unimaginable for a hobbyist to spend three times as much for a 1Ds than for a 5DMKII, when the 5D can match the 1Ds in image quality, but working pros are almost always under time constraints. As such, a camera that just works and "doesn't get in your way" is just as important as image quality, and the 1Ds higher FPS and far superior AF just flat out crushes the 5D.

Let's say I'm covering a race and there's a wreck or a pivotal pass that needs to be captured to adequately cover the event. If luck is on your side, you can get away with a slow, portrait/studio oriented camera like a 5D. If you're really lucky, maybe even a point and shoot will work. However, the truth of the matter is that wrecks or passes like that happen in a few brief seconds, and you can't risk missing the shot of something that's only going to happen once. Plus, you're standing next to a half dozen photographers from magazines that compete directly with the magazine you're working for. If you're the only loser that doesn't get the shot, and all the competing magazines have it, you can bet your sweet hiney that your editor will be pissed. He could very well hire another photographer the next time around, so there's just too much at risk by limping around with lesser equipment. 

I've been cheap before, whether it's with glass or bodies, but every time I make the plunge and invest in nicer gear, I always ask myself why I didn't do it sooner. That's not to say that novices should go out and spend $20K in gear, only to wonder why their images suck, but their comes a point where you've maximized the potential of your equipment and no amount of practice or improvement in technique will make up for it. Granted it take a LONG time to get to that point, but with enough practice, everyone will get there. 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe the future, higher resolution may not be dependent on Mpx alone. Hasselblad just introduced a sensor shift technology that takes a 200mpx picture from a 50mpx sensor.

That's pretty cool.  For those unfamiliar with the concept, the idea is that individual pixels have sweet spots, so by slightly translating the sensor, you can capture additional 'real' resolution. Of course, for Canon to implement that, they'd have to get rid of the gapless microlenses (which remove the sweet spot by concentrating light from the entire pixel area into the photosensitive rea in the center of the pixel).  Looks like Hasselblad also implements the full-pixel moves to eliminate the interpolation made necessary by the Bayer mask - that has the additional benefit of reducing chromatic aberration.

Incidentally, Zeiss implemented these technologies nearly 10 years ago, in their AxioCam line of microscope cameras.  The original versions used Sony 2/3" 1.4 MP CCD sensors, and used 'microscanning' in a 3x3 subpixel array to yield a 12 MP resolution (with an available 2x2 array for a 5 MP image), and also full pixel shifts called 'co-site sampling' so each pixel captured all three colors in the Bayer mask. 

[awinphoto]

V8beast, case in point about your gear comments, I knew 2 photographers... one works on Hollywood movie posters and the other taking photos at airports... The airport photographer had to take some pictures of airplanes taking off on runways... He sat on the runway and took pictures of airliners as they charged at him.  He didn't shoot 1ds's or medium formats or such, he had this little point and shoot camera so when he got the picture he needed he can run off the runway.  The other Hollywood guy took the original photo for the "i am legend" movie poster with Will Smith with a point and shoot as well.  Not all pro's shoot with $4000-8000 gear...

I think you're missing the point. Given enough time and patience, and commitment to spending long hours in post processing, I can get the same shot with a 60D as I can with a 1DMKIV. Is it satisfying to get similar results with lesser equipment and chalk it up to superior technique? Absolutely. Unfortunately, time is a commodity that's rarely on your side for a busy pro photographer. As the adage goes, time is money, and if your photography tools enable you to get a job done more quickly and efficiently, you'll be able turn around a greater quantity of work in a shorter duration of time, and pay off the extra premium you paid for nicer equipment. I can see how it might be unimaginable for a hobbyist to spend three times as much for a 1Ds than for a 5DMKII, when the 5D can match the 1Ds in image quality, but working pros are almost always under time constraints. As such, a camera that just works and "doesn't get in your way" is just as important as image quality, and the 1Ds higher FPS and far superior AF just flat out crushes the 5D.

Let's say I'm covering a race and there's a wreck or a pivotal pass that needs to be captured to adequately cover the event. If luck is on your side, you can get away with a slow, portrait/studio oriented camera like a 5D. If you're really lucky, maybe even a point and shoot will work. However, the truth of the matter is that wrecks or passes like that happen in a few brief seconds, and you can't risk missing the shot of something that's only going to happen once. Plus, you're standing next to a half dozen photographers from magazines that compete directly with the magazine you're working for. If you're the only loser that doesn't get the shot, and all the competing magazines have it, you can bet your sweet hiney that your editor will be pissed. He could very well hire another photographer the next time around, so there's just too much at risk by limping around with lesser equipment. 

I've been cheap before, whether it's with glass or bodies, but every time I make the plunge and invest in nicer gear, I always ask myself why I didn't do it sooner. That's not to say that novices should go out and spend $20K in gear, only to wonder why their images suck, but their comes a point where you've maximized the potential of your equipment and no amount of practice or improvement in technique will make up for it. Granted it take a LONG time to get to that point, but with enough practice, everyone will get there.

I understand where you are coming from, however, in my experience as a working professional (making 100% of my income due to my photography), there are 4 groups of people who own and use these 1d series cameras in which you call "pro"... 1st... agencies who deal with high price clients and photographers working with said agencies (including newspapers, magazines, etc).  These are the creme of the crop photographers... 2nd... people who work freelance for newspapers/magazines/etc who negotiate prices for photographs which easily pays for said camera.  These are the photogs not good enough to be hired full time.  3rd... Hobbyists who need to have the latest and greatest, and lastly, those who are incredibly stupid with their money and cant compensate otherwise.  There are a lot of "working professionals" that dont fit within those categories that make due with what they have. 

I've always been taught to do everything possible to get it "right" in camera so post processing is at a minimal.  I am comfortable with post where I dont have to spend long on each photo if I royally screw up, but thankfully those are few and far between.  I wont lie and say I want the 7D AF in the new 5D MIII... however I feel the 7D AF is more than capable for 99% of all situations.  If I run into that 1% situation, I also, as a pro, have canon CPS to borrow cameras/lenses for when needed.  Lastly, I've shot several low light football games, air races, air shows, etc when I had my 30D, 50D's and it was rare I got missed focus.  If anything it was too slow shutter than anything else.  I feel its commentators such as you that make people feel that it's all about the gear and not about skill.  If you got the skill, you should get good photos off of any camera as you would with the $8000 cameras... It's just the $8000 cameras make it that much easier which has taken away some of the skill factor from many good photographers. 

[V8Beast]

I understand where you are coming from, however, in my experience as a working professional (making 100% of my income due to my photography), there are 4 groups of people who own and use these 1d series cameras in which you call "pro"... 1st... agencies who deal with high price clients and photographers working with said agencies (including newspapers, magazines, etc).  These are the creme of the crop photographers... 2nd... people who work freelance for newspapers/magazines/etc who negotiate prices for photographs which easily pays for said camera.  These are the photogs not good enough to be hired full time.  3rd... Hobbyists who need to have the latest and greatest, and lastly, those who are incredibly stupid with their money and cant compensate otherwise.  There are a lot of "working professionals" that dont fit within those categories that make due with what they have.

No argument here, except I don't know any wannabe photogs - the people who you say "aren't good enough to be hired full time" - that shoot with the 1D or 1Ds. They're just too much damn money for something that doesn't pay the bills full time. I'd also venture to say that the cream of the crop photographers, as you describe them, are full-time freelancers, not people tied down to agencies or full-time staff photographer gigs for editorial outlets. That's besides the point, so no need to dwell on that.   

Lastly, I've shot several low light football games, air races, air shows, etc when I had my 30D, 50D's and it was rare I got missed focus.  If anything it was too slow shutter than anything else.

I commend your skill, but I rarely see pro sports photographers shoot with anything other than a 1D or a D3x. The 7D is a great body if all you need is speed, but for instances where you need both speed and IQ in the same shot, the 7D is sorely lacking. As the owner of a 5D, you should be able to attest t this. I can see how you might be able to get away with a 50D if you only shoot sports part time, but Canon wouldn't have invented a 45-point AF system and bodies that shoot 10 FPS if the demand wasn't there. By your logic, all sports photographers who shoot with a 1DMKIV are inept and they'd all be shooting with 50Ds if they had any skill at all. 

I feel its commentators such as you that make people feel that it's all about the gear and not about skill.  If you got the skill, you should get good photos off of any camera as you would with the $8000 cameras... It's just the $8000 cameras make it that much easier which has taken away some of the skill factor from many good photographers.

Quite the contrary. Gear wise, I'm a minimalist by nature and only upgrade to better equipment when my old gear starts costing me money, or it becomes such a PITA to use in the field that it has to go. I'd venture to say that 90% of people that have Rebels and 50/60Ds would be better off with a point-and-shoots. I can't even count how many times I've steered people away from SLRs, and recommended point-and-shoots instead.

The reason this topic even came up in the first place is because the original question at hand had to do with megapixels. I simply stated my opinion that Canon will continue to pack as many megapixels into its consumer grade cameras not because the average consumer actually need them, but because megapixels is what sells consumer-grade cameras. In comparison, Canon's pro bodies seem to have more practical features and specs geared toward the needs of working professionals who aren't as fixated on megapixels as the typical tech geek. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but considering that a 7D has more megapixels than the 1D, Canon seems to understand this as well. 

[awinphoto]

"Pro" sports photographers you see at races, games, etc I would bet you my paycheck came from a bigger company such as but not limited to magazines (espn, sports illustrated), newspapers, other media outlets that either has photographers on staff they send out to games/events whom they provide the gear for.. They usually also have press passes and access the typical photographer wouldn't have.  Pro photographers in those instances are the ones on the sidelines and wannabe's are in the stands with the camera security screened before letting them in the event. 

7D, in most events minus lets say indoor arena's or whatever with low low light, is more than adequate and has very nice IQ for most of my needs and my clients needs.  I do not claim to be a professional sports photographer, however when I get the request, I have had no problems using my 7D to shoot a 2 page spread magazine shot.  7D is not as poor IQ as you let on.

Personally I couldn't give a rip what you or any other person says about photography, but I just want to get out the truth, not the opinion of photography.  Crop sensors can hold their own if that's all you need and you dont need to sell your xxd or xxxd cameras for point and shoots if your willing to put in the time and energy to learn this craft.  Dont worry about hurting my feelings, however if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill.  That's all I'm getting at.   

[gferdinandsen]

Really, how many people are printing at sizes that require higher MP?  I understand that Canon has to compete with what others sell just to stay competitive, but that's because the consumer is buying their camera based on just MP.  How many of you ever shot with a 1V, 3, 7/7E, or even a Rebel?  Except for speed, AF, and weather sealing (OK the 1V offered a very primitive EXIF data), there was very little difference.  What I am trying to say is that the resultant picture was usually just as good regardless of the body (not the lens though).  I still have my 28-70, I have no plans on upgrading to the 24-70 much less anything that comes down the road.

Only when we do very large enlargements (bigger than 8x12, probably larger than 13x19) would we see a difference...and very few photo's get enlarged to that size.  Frankly, I don't have the money to afford the framing for all the enlargements that I would like.

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday.  Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes.  Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

[awinphoto]

Really, how many people are printing at sizes that require higher MP?  I understand that Canon has to compete with what others sell just to stay competitive, but that's because the consumer is buying their camera based on just MP.  How many of you ever shot with a 1V, 3, 7/7E, or even a Rebel?  Except for speed, AF, and weather sealing (OK the 1V offered a very primitive EXIF data), there was very little difference.  What I am trying to say is that the resultant picture was usually just as good regardless of the body (not the lens though).  I still have my 28-70, I have no plans on upgrading to the 24-70 much less anything that comes down the road.

Only when we do very large enlargements (bigger than 8x12, probably larger than 13x19) would we see a difference...and very few photo's get enlarged to that size.  Frankly, I don't have the money to afford the framing for all the enlargements that I would like.

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday.  Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes.  Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

I agree with your sentiments regarding skill... with my clients, most portraits, the sizes range from 8x10's to 11x14... Keep in mind, even with the 7D at 300dpi it's native size only pumps out a 17.5"x11.5".  While that's more than most people, and I know you can print at 240dpi and get slightly larger, it isn't as big as you would really think.  I also have clients that like 2 page spreads and their magazines are roughly letter paper sized and so you are looking at about 11x17 right there, plus needing enough for a bleed.  Lastly, on epsons you can get away with printing at lower DPI, however with commercial printers, they still require 300 DPI or they look crappy with the crappy CMYK color mode... As said before, I'd rather have the extra MP in my backpocket to shoot with as needed than need it and not have it.  PS.... this last spring a company going to a tradeshow wanted a mural shot for their tradeshow booth... It was at 10 feet wide by 8 feet tall... I only needed to shoot it at 72dpi because of the printer they were using for the booth... with the 7d vertically, I was able to shoot the mural in 7 photos overlapping a little each time and used photoshop to quickly stitch them together... I was able to produce an image at their resolution and size that required no interpolation and fractal enlargement you would need if shot with a lesser camera. 

[torger]

Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z.  Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake?  Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup?  Tilt Shift to make up for DOF?  Are you kidding me?  Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days?  a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using!  Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it.  Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass.  Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.

Yes fast shutter speeds is a good backup, but then you usually have too little light to go for ISO100, and then electronic and shot noise takes down the effective resolution, so you pretty much end up at around that 12 megapixel effective resolution anyway. Thing is you need really short shutter speeds to avoid camera moves that makes 12+ megapixels tack sharp, shorter than "traditional" hand-hold times since those are based on what resolution you would expect from 35mm film.

The purpose of the whole discussion with hand-holdability does not need more than ~12 megapixels was to make clear that if you only do hand-held photography you shouldn't scream for more megapixels today. The megapixel hunt is for us that shoot from a tripod with mirror up and remote shutter and dream about affording a medium format system so we could do even larger prints. It is probably quite a small group, but we exist.

Tilt is to make up for DOF, shift is perspective control. Anyone that has worked with a view camera in landscape photography know that tilt is used *alot*, perhaps in the majority of photos. You often don't get 100% perfect sharpness in the whole image of course, but you can in many cases make a much better sharpness optimization than you can without tilt, and new compositions of near-far-type is possible. When you may have needed f/22 without tilt you could get away with f/8, and thus both get less diffraction and shorter shutter speed with less wind problems. The more resolution your system can produce, the more you want to avoid the smallest apertures, and the more valuable the tilt function becomes. Some compositions made possible by tilt have so much depth of field that even f/22 is not enough.

I'm not exactly worried about performance. However, I invest quite a lot of money in my hobby and thus make careful technical analysis of the performance of the system. If quality wasn't important to me, I'd just go for a Canon S95 compact camera and happily shoot my landscapes. Aside from quality, it can do all pictures I can do with my current system. But I kind of like the photographic craft and want to be able to produce the best technical quality within my budget, so that the 4 - 5 pictures I manage to do a year that do have sufficient artistic quality to be framed on the wall also have true professional technical quality and can be made very large. So I gather all this technical knowledge to be able to make wise investment decisions, and to know how to make the best possible out of a situation in the field. But it's not like I don't shoot pictures if I can't use ISO100 and optimal aperture... :-).

[gferdinandsen]

Maybe this is another subject, but for those of you you never shot transparancies (E6), for those of you who picked up photography in the last few years.  The Dynamic Range of slides, from what I remember, is about 3.5 f stops (E6 = 3.5, C41 = .  As I look back at all my slides, I wonder how much better they would be as digital; but, you learn much better technique when you are constrained (ISO 100, 400 max; limited dynamic range; no photoshop).  Film (C41) has much better dynamic range, but much less color saturation...just my two cents as someone who learned their *art* with a film camera.  And no matter how good photoshop is, you can't dodge and burn like you can in a wet darkroom.  I'm kind of missing my trusty 1V now as I respond to this thread

[awinphoto]

Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z.  Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake?  Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup?  Tilt Shift to make up for DOF?  Are you kidding me?  Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days?  a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using!  Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it.  Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass.  Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.

Yes fast shutter speeds is a good backup, but then you usually have too little light to go for ISO100, and then electronic and shot noise takes down the effective resolution, so you pretty much end up at around that 12 megapixel effective resolution anyway. Thing is you need really short shutter speeds to avoid camera moves that makes 12+ megapixels tack sharp, shorter than "traditional" hand-hold times since those are based on what resolution you would expect from 35mm film.

The purpose of the whole discussion with hand-holdability does not need more than ~12 megapixels was to make clear that if you only do hand-held photography you shouldn't scream for more megapixels today. The megapixel hunt is for us that shoot from a tripod with mirror up and remote shutter and dream about affording a medium format system so we could do even larger prints. It is probably quite a small group, but we exist.

Tilt is to make up for DOF, shift is perspective control. Anyone that has worked with a view camera in landscape photography know that tilt is used *alot*, perhaps in the majority of photos. You often don't get 100% perfect sharpness in the whole image of course, but you can in many cases make a much better sharpness optimization than you can without tilt, and new compositions of near-far-type is possible. When you may have needed f/22 without tilt you could get away with f/8, and thus both get less diffraction and shorter shutter speed with less wind problems. The more resolution your system can produce, the more you want to avoid the smallest apertures, and the more valuable the tilt function becomes. Some compositions made possible by tilt have so much depth of field that even f/22 is not enough.

I'm not exactly worried about performance. However, I invest quite a lot of money in my hobby and thus make careful technical analysis of the performance of the system. If quality wasn't important to me, I'd just go for a Canon S95 compact camera and happily shoot my landscapes. Aside from quality, it can do all pictures I can do with my current system. But I kind of like the photographic craft and want to be able to produce the best technical quality within my budget, so that the 4 - 5 pictures I manage to do a year that do have sufficient artistic quality to be framed on the wall also have true professional technical quality and can be made very large. So I gather all this technical knowledge to be able to make wise investment decisions, and to know how to make the best possible out of a situation in the field. But it's not like I don't shoot pictures if I can't use ISO100 and optimal aperture... :-).

To be frank, you can easily get away with up to ISO 1000 in most situations on the 7D... I've shot with higher and noise isn't bad... I will say that the 50D has more noise than the 7D and has less MP... I shoot a lot of handholding with my cameras... sometimes you need to shoot 2-4x the MM of the lens you are using, but it's not hard getting tack sharp images with my gear unless you are shooting indoors... then yes, a tripod is required, but as you can expect with most cameras...

Heck the same can be said with large format cameras in regards to size and resolution, the 4x5 view camera had to be tripod bound cause of size and weight but they were able to come up with 4x5 feild cameras which were handheld and that has even higher resolution than modern digitals.  Dont forget Image stabilization within lenses... Unless you have the shakes, you shouldn't have problems handholding with fast shutters and getting tack sharp images.  What lenses are you using that cannot get sharp images?  There's a difference between theory photography and practical photography... I understand your theory about MP and tack sharp images but in practice, in what situation have you ever had problems... please provide examples and details...

i've shot with 4x5's, medium formats, 35mm... to be honest 3 years ago I sold my view camera cause of lack of use... There are other ways to get around DOF including for landscapes and such including but not limited to focus bracketing and hyperfocal distance focusing which can use lower f-stops.  To be honest, the latter of the two has never let me down on my landscapes.  Also as lens quality improves, so will diffraction and this a new era in lenses and cameras...