Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"

[awinphoto]

Seriously, those who think they "need" 21 or 24MP would have/should have moved to FF by now. All DSLRs should have FF sensors, maximize the lens mount FFS. Leave the crop sensor to the lowest-end Rebel and the so-called "large sensor compacts" .

There's a time and a place for each body type... There are those who are just learning or basically cannot afford those price brackets and has to make due with what they can get... That being said, I dont mind if manufacturers increase MP as long as they increase the quality so the image quality doesn't suffer... otherwise it was all for not.   

[LetTheRightLensIn]

More resolution is more resolution... Kinda like how a photoshop file built to minimum standards of 5x7 will look ok/good but a photoshop 8x10 downsized to 5x7 printed will have that little bit extra...

Yes, but we  cannot get 8mp resolution out of a 2mp monitor... so perhaps it is not about the absolute number pixels.

So perhaps there are other factors to be considered, for example, if the effect of AA and bayer filters less of an issue with higher resolution shots proportionally? I would think yes and that would probably explain some of the difference we are witnessing... What else should we consider?

Because if you very carefully and properly filter and scale down say 21MP to 2MP you get rid of any moire, de-mosaic artifacts, end up with full color information per pixel instead of interpolated color information, you essentially get perfect MTF at higher scales which no lens ever gives you at 100% view, filter away the high freq noise.

However poor downscaling won't handle noise as well and can introduce much worse aliasing than you ever had to begin with out of the camera.

[nikkito]

i work for a newspaper and i find the 21 mpx to be very useful because i always have the chance to crop the image in huge amounts (when needed) and still get a printable photo.

[Kernuak]

Seriously, those who think they "need" 21 or 24MP would have/should have moved to FF by now. All DSLRs should have FF sensors, maximize the lens mount FFS. Leave the crop sensor to the lowest-end Rebel and the so-called "large sensor compacts" .

There are some very good reasons for having a crop camera. One, you can get much faster frame rates for those times where it is needed (even though those times might be few and far between) for faster action shots. Two, the extra reach is very useful for wildlife photography. The 5D MkII has its uses for me, but a general wildlife camera it is not. It's a case of having the right tool for the job, so I use the 7D for general wildlife, where I need the reach and sometimes frame rate and the 5D where ultimate resolution or low noise is more important, so landscape, macro, detail and low light. Yes you can get a longer lens, but they are significantly more expensive (not to mention heavier) when you get to the super-tele range and even if you get a 500 or 600mm, the 7D still has more reach. It's much easier to swing a 300mm f/2.8 around than a 500mm, when you are trying to react or track wildlife.

[keithfullermusic]

I'm not sure that I understand the comment about crop sensor cameras being for amateurs only.  There are tons of benefits to having them.  They are typically faster (great for sports) & they have a much higher pixel density (great for cropping).  Both of those are reasons enough to be a number one choice in many situations. 

Don't get me wrong, I want a full frame, but even with one I wouldn't always use it.  If I were taking pictures at a game I would definitely choose the crop sensor, and if I were shooting wildlife I would probably go crop sensor also.  What's the big advantage with having a full frame?  More picture?  You can get just as much picture with a crop sensor - just take a couple steps back.  Now you have a higher resolution image of basically the same thing.  Also, don't full frame cameras have issues with the edge of the picture sometimes?  They are also typical worse at handling noise right?

Either way, I'm curious to hear the reasons why FF cameras are pro cameras and everything else is for amateurs.  By that logic the 1D is basically a Rebel.

[craigkg]

I'm awaiting the release of a 400 mp camera so I can sell off all my telephoto lenses.

I'd like a 400MP camera...if it were a 4x5 or 5x7 sensor. As someone that likes to photograph landscapes, digital large format would be the holy grail.

400MP on a APS-C or even full frame 35mm would be so overkill it isn't even funny. Your lens couldn't resolve anywhere near that resolution and you'd be sacrificing dynamic range and noise performance because of the amount of photons per pixel the sensor can capture.

[DJL329]

I'm awaiting the release of a 400 mp camera so I can sell off all my telephoto lenses.

400MP on a APS-C or even full frame 35mm would be so overkill it isn't even funny.

It would be so "noisy" that you'd need to wear earplugs! 

[alipaulphotography]

I'm not sure that I understand the comment about crop sensor cameras being for amateurs only.  There are tons of benefits to having them.  They are typically faster (great for sports) & they have a much higher pixel density (great for cropping).  Both of those are reasons enough to be a number one choice in many situations. 

Don't get me wrong, I want a full frame, but even with one I wouldn't always use it.  If I were taking pictures at a game I would definitely choose the crop sensor, and if I were shooting wildlife I would probably go crop sensor also.  What's the big advantage with having a full frame?  More picture?  You can get just as much picture with a crop sensor - just take a couple steps back.  Now you have a higher resolution image of basically the same thing.  Also, don't full frame cameras have issues with the edge of the picture sometimes?  They are also typical worse at handling noise right?

Either way, I'm curious to hear the reasons why FF cameras are pro cameras and everything else is for amateurs.  By that logic the 1D is basically a Rebel.

Full frame cameras can be prone to vignetting and unsharp corners in poor quality lenses but they make the most a camera can out of an EF lens. Why waste glass and only use the middle of it when you can use it all? The focal length change gives an apparent shallower depth of field as you can then get closer to your subject also. I would hate if my 50mm wasn't actually 50mm...

Another massive reason for full frame is its hands down superior noise handling. No crop sensor compares and noise reduction technologies don't count as they affect the sharpness of your image.

They both have their uses.

[awinphoto]

I'm not sure that I understand the comment about crop sensor cameras being for amateurs only.  There are tons of benefits to having them.  They are typically faster (great for sports) & they have a much higher pixel density (great for cropping).  Both of those are reasons enough to be a number one choice in many situations. 

Don't get me wrong, I want a full frame, but even with one I wouldn't always use it.  If I were taking pictures at a game I would definitely choose the crop sensor, and if I were shooting wildlife I would probably go crop sensor also.  What's the big advantage with having a full frame?  More picture?  You can get just as much picture with a crop sensor - just take a couple steps back.  Now you have a higher resolution image of basically the same thing.  Also, don't full frame cameras have issues with the edge of the picture sometimes?  They are also typical worse at handling noise right?

Either way, I'm curious to hear the reasons why FF cameras are pro cameras and everything else is for amateurs.  By that logic the 1D is basically a Rebel.

Full frame cameras can be prone to vignetting and unsharp corners in poor quality lenses but they make the most a camera can out of an EF lens. Why waste glass and only use the middle of it when you can use it all? The focal length change gives an apparent shallower depth of field as you can then get closer to your subject also. I would hate if my 50mm wasn't actually 50mm...

Another massive reason for full frame is its hands down superior noise handling. No crop sensor compares and noise reduction technologies don't count as they affect the sharpness of your image.

They both have their uses.

There are a lot of pro's for either system, however people need to realize there are professionals who shoot with what they have including crop sensors, full frame, film, and beyond... There are situations where a 7D can shine over a 5d... It's using the best gear for the situation and conditions and knowing how to use the gear to it's fullest potential that makes one a pro (and get paid for doing so)... 

[Hillsilly]

I would hate if my 50mm wasn't actually 50mm...

A 50mm on an APS-C sensored camera is still a 50mm.  You need to free your mind from such restrictive thought paradigms! 

[UncleFester]

Seriously, those who think they "need" 21 or 24MP would have/should have moved to FF by now. All DSLRs should have FF sensors, maximize the lens mount FFS. Leave the crop sensor to the lowest-end Rebel and the so-called "large sensor compacts" .

I think I know what you mean here. My experience this past summer with both a cropped and ff was that the cropped sensor, IQ-wise, had no advantage over the FF cropped. And I certainly couldn't use a converter with the 7D,but the 5DII worked amazingly well with a 2x. And still able to crop at %100.

So, either 1.6 needs to get better, or ff needs to get faster. Until then, I need to use 2 cams, or buy one really expensive one.

[Woody]

My experience this past summer with both a cropped and ff was that the cropped sensor, IQ-wise, had no advantage over the FF cropped. And I certainly couldn't use a converter with the 7D,but the 5DII worked amazingly well with a 2x. And still able to crop at %100.

Then, you have not done a proper apple to apple comparison. Quote from:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_7d_review.htm

"Comparing a lens without TC on 7D vs lens with 1.4x TC on FF, the 7D gives slightly better image quality - more detail and less chromatic aberration."

[NotABunny]

What's the big advantage with having a full frame?  More picture? They are also typical worse at handling noise right?

Where did you here that they are worse at handling noise?

The sole, absolute, and single most important technical aspect of a photo camera is the sensor SIZE. A larger sensor size means that more light is captured for the SAME exposure (obvisouly, it's the entire light capturing system, meaning, the lens diameter must scale). Tough to understand (the relationships between all the relative and absolute factors involved), but it's physics.

This extra light actually reduces the noise in a photo (when scaled to the same given physical size). Of course, it all depends on the used technology, but this is how the current technology scales.

You can get just as much picture with a crop sensor - just take a couple steps back.  Now you have a higher resolution image of basically the same thing.

Not really, you have an image with a slightly lower technical quality. (Though it's unlikely to see the difference between a FF and a APSC at low ISO.)

Also, don't full frame cameras have issues with the edge of the picture sometimes?

No. Lenses have that. Besides, after I apply lens correction in post-processing, I add some vignette.

[NotABunny]

Then, you have not done a proper apple to apple comparison. Quote from: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_7d_review.htm

The problem is that he's comparing pixels, not images; he compares photos coming from sensors of different physical sizes and different resolutions. The apples that he's comparing are made of wax... and consequently of no importance (to humans).

I have however used some of his photos to prove to myself that indeed, the noise levels for 1D4 and D3s are the same per UNIT AREA (square millimeter, for example), not pixel (nor image for that matter).

[NotABunny]

Regarding why sensor size matters most, I am separating some details in another post:

This is why astronomy is being done with ginormous telescopes: more light per image / "exposure".

See http://www.galileotelescope.com/choosing_a_telescope.htm

A telescope's aperture relates directly to the two vital aspects of the scope's performance: its light-gathering power (which determines how bright objects viewed in the scope will appear), and its maximum resolving power (how much fine detail it can reveal).

The truth is, any telescope can be made to provide almost any magnification, depending on what eyepiece is used. The factor that limits the highest power that can be used effectively on a given scope is, you may have guessed, its aperture. As magnification is increased, and the image in the scope grows larger, the light gathered by the telescope is spread over a larger area, so the image is dimmed.

Or http://www.howstuffworks.com/telescope1.htm

A telescope's ability to collect light is directly related to the diameter of the lens or mirror -- the aperture -- that is used to gather light. Generally, the larger the aperture, the more light the telescope collects and brings to focus, and the brighter the final image.

Then there is the experience of this guy http://www.waid-observatory.com/article-what_can_I_see.html

I had an eight-inch SCT (Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope) that had very good optics. I then purchased a big 12-inch SCT and thought the heavens would suddenly "open up". Quite frankly, I was disappointed when I looked through the "Big Scope". The difference was there, but it was not like night and day.

What he didn't realize is that the difference was only of sqr( 12 / 8 ), which is just a bit more than 1 stop of light.