December 22, 2014, 05:02:56 AM

Author Topic: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body  (Read 11486 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4817
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2014, 03:29:30 AM »
Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

Here's the links:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-sensor-revolution-first-non-bayer-sensors-coming-in-2015/
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2013/12/rumor-sony-to-release-non-bayer-54mp.html

Thanks.  By "large format", I assume they mean something larger than 36mm in width?

Hmm, sorry...I don't recall seeing "large format" in those rumors... Are you talking about Sony's 54mp sensor design, or something else?

As for the non-bayer array, it's still an array...don't see how it would be any more revolutionary than whatever Fuji has done.

It'll depend on the theory behind why they do whatever they do. Fuji has been toying with alternative sensor layouts for a while...but they have yet to produce anything particularly compelling. They used to have SuperCCD, which used a hexagonal array with additional white sensels to improve DR. Intriguing, and the improvement was slight...but certainly nothing on the order of what Sony produced with Exmor. Fuji brought us the X-Trans...however all that really was was an alternative means of blurring higher frequency image detail to avoid moire...and it is LESS discerning than a classic OLPF, resulting in softer high frequency detail than a normal bayer sensor.

Fuji is certainly an out of the box company, but they don't really seem to produce anything that significantly improves image quality. I think the greatest improvement they achieved with X-Trans was improved noise performance at high ISO...however the fundamental reasons why X-Trans allows better high ISO is nothing particularly novel. In fact, it is extremely well understood: averaging reduces noise, and softens detail. X-Trans inherently averages.

Both links said "it depends on what the competition does"...as in, they obviously have a good idea what Canon are up to, and want to wait to see when Canon are done with their next generation sensor.  Or else it could mean they're waiting to see if Canon releases a medium format sensor...or body.

That's the rumor bit. I don't think that part of any rumor, when a rumor has it, really has anything to do with a companies plans. Sony will do what Sony does: Produce image sensors. If there is any demand for 50mp+ sensors, Sony will probably fill it. They are without a doubt one of the top ranking CIS fabricators and providers in the world now, for an extremely extensive market that spans WELL beyond ILCs into cinematography, video, security, etc. It may well be that they produce some kind of new bayer type sensor for the MFD market first, then bring the 54mp sensor to DSLR or mirrorless. Only time will tell, but I think it will service market demand, and really have little to do with "what the competition does". Sony makes sensors...cameras (which is what were talking about here in terms of competition) are an afterthought for Sony, and I really don't think their DSLR/mirrorless segment drive what their sensor segment does. Ironically, their sensor segment could very well become Sony's most successful business...their electronics division is a black hole for money, it hasn't been profitable on over a decade, and in fact loses billions. I bet if Sony focused on sensors and insurance policies, they would be a wildly profitable company a decade from now.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2014, 03:29:30 AM »

FatBoy64

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2014, 05:19:48 AM »
Umm . . . what Hasselblad Camera are we actually talking about here.  Hasselblad have had 40, 50 and indeed 60 MP offerings for some time? 

Viper28

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2014, 07:46:24 AM »
I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that  :o
Cheer Simon

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2014, 08:34:04 AM »
Well, that should stir things up a bit.

Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.
They are medium format! The 50 MP sensors are appropriate size for medium format, 22 MP scans of medium format images is like taking 10 MP scans of full fromat images. You might as well have ended the sentence after "I don't think".

Some may see this as a sign that Canon "must" now offer a high megapixel sensor. I think just the opposite.

We have discussed to the point of nausea the idea that the larger sensor size of "full frame" cameras will always outperform APS-C. So the same principle applies here. There is simply no way that a DSLR sensor can match the performance of these large format sensors.  Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras.

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad would be convinced to switch based on pricing. That, in turn, leaves the sales potential only for new users. The point is we are talking about a niche, within a niche, within a niche.

Now, if Canon were to take one of their APS-C sensors and simply scale it up to full frame they might be able to keep their development costs down, but would it be low enough to turn a profit on the body? I don't know. And, you'd have to account for the extra waste that would occur with the larger sensors.

All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers.

Let the flame wars begin!!!

The megapixels war stirs up all kinds of feelings, but the reality is, more resolution is always better than less as long as it doesn't come at the cost of S/N ratio, DR, or any other aspect of sensor performance. The Nikon d800 is the best the FF market has to offer right now in terms of resolution, and it's a great camera! I'm fully invested in Canon myself but I'll happily use a d800 at times though I don't own one (one system is enough!). I wouldn't mind seeing a 30-35 MP FF from Canon. I grant you one thing: it doesn't seem to fit their style. We'll see if market pressure will force them to change their perspective.

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1117
    • View Profile
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2014, 09:29:20 AM »
I'm not opposed to a 30 or 40 megapixel camera, but I think it is not suitable for my use. I consider enough for my use, full frame 18 megapixel or APSC 12 megapixel, because I prioritize performance above ISO 1600. By today's standards I am very conservative, and marketing currently despises lower megapixel counts. Obviously, Canon does not produce cameras just for me, and it must meet the demands of the market. Really hope a true replacement for 1Ds Mark III, as well as Nikon users expect real substitute for D700. In these two cases the preferred manufacturers offer what buyers did not ask for it. The backwardness of high mega pixel Canon does not mean it will never come. But it means it's not a direct competitor with the price of D800. I believe that Canon will launch a body "1 series" with similar price to 1Dx, ISO limited to 1600, a little better dinamic range, larger LCD, but with AA filter.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 09:44:46 AM by ajfotofilmagem »

hgraf

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
    • Herbert Graf Photography
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2014, 10:36:16 AM »
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2014, 11:43:33 AM »
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.
Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliably cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 02:20:42 PM by flowers »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2014, 11:43:33 AM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3596
  • also on superhero vacation
    • View Profile
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2014, 01:21:18 PM »
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.
Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliable cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"
Exactly!

Plus lens size.... they get huge in a hurry...imagine shooting FF with a 200mm F2.8 lens.... then go medium format and your equivalant field of view comes from something like a 400F2.8 ( a lot less easy to carry around) and if you go large format, imagine carrying around (and paying for) an 800F2.8 lens....

It's not the sensors, it's the glass that will kill you...
The best camera is the one in your hands

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2014, 02:24:33 PM »
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.
Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliable cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"
Exactly!

Plus lens size.... they get huge in a hurry...imagine shooting FF with a 200mm F2.8 lens.... then go medium format and your equivalant field of view comes from something like a 400F2.8 ( a lot less easy to carry around) and if you go large format, imagine carrying around (and paying for) an 800F2.8 lens....

It's not the sensors, it's the glass that will kill you...

haha, well said! though you forgot DOF equivalents, so really you'd need 308/4 and 669/10.5 lenses for MF and 4x5 respectively.
oh and a FF 200/2.8 doesn't cover MF image circle, so you need an even BIGGER lens!
truthfully though, once you get to MF and especially LF, it's not about getting the right lens anymore, it's more about getting the right crop... Although some photographers don't like to crop their photos, and they have a valid point within reason, but with long lenses and MF/LF the perspective distortion doesn't play such a huge role anymore.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 02:38:02 PM by flowers »

Halfrack

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 495
    • View Profile
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2014, 02:29:24 PM »
I shoot MFD almost exclusively now, and it teaches you a lot of things.  The crop factor isn't .5 - it's like .7, but that depends on what back you're using.  The thing that's special about the H5D-50c / IQ250 is that it's a 1.3x crop factor, so kinda like a APS-H.  The main feature of the whole CMOS MF chip is ISO, and while you wouldn't shot at ISO3200 for a fashion shoot, you could.  It's a first gen product, so we will see how well it goes.

Canon is doing fine selling 22mp bodies, and while I wish they'd up the MP, their focus on lenses and AF has really improved the field.  Who makes the best 24-70? Canon... Who makes the best 70-200? Canon... Who makes the best 300/400/500/600/200-400? Canon...  If the weakest link in the Canon system is their lack of MPs on a 5D3 or 1Dx, we are sitting mighty pretty.

I would think their Dual-pixel AF stuff in the 70D would be VERY welcome in the MF world - you know that whole 1 or 3 AF point limitations we have.  If I were to design a camera today, I'd want one that is the dual personality of a A7r/D800 because some times you want the mirror box and grip for shooting long, but want that shallow mirrorless setup for shooting wide - ala technical camera.
"Me owning a lens shop is kind of like having an alcoholic bar tender." - Roger Cicala

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2014, 02:36:17 PM »
I shoot MFD almost exclusively now, and it teaches you a lot of things.  The crop factor isn't .5 - it's like .7, but that depends on what back you're using.  The thing that's special about the H5D-50c / IQ250 is that it's a 1.3x crop factor, so kinda like a APS-H.  The main feature of the whole CMOS MF chip is ISO, and while you wouldn't shot at ISO3200 for a fashion shoot, you could.  It's a first gen product, so we will see how well it goes.

Canon is doing fine selling 22mp bodies, and while I wish they'd up the MP, their focus on lenses and AF has really improved the field.  Who makes the best 24-70? Canon... Who makes the best 70-200? Canon... Who makes the best 300/400/500/600/200-400? Canon...  If the weakest link in the Canon system is their lack of MPs on a 5D3 or 1Dx, we are sitting mighty pretty.

I would think their Dual-pixel AF stuff in the 70D would be VERY welcome in the MF world - you know that whole 1 or 3 AF point limitations we have.  If I were to design a camera today, I'd want one that is the dual personality of a A7r/D800 because some times you want the mirror box and grip for shooting long, but want that shallow mirrorless setup for shooting wide - ala technical camera.

I actually did the math and edited the numbers into my post above :) (Hopefully I didn't get the numbers wrong! They're at least close enough!) Yes, the dual pixel feature would be good for MF, but it's Canon proprietary tech AFAIK, and Canon doesn't make MF cameras/backs.

canonvoir

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2014, 03:38:21 PM »
I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that  :o

I am not sure this makes any sense. Whether you stick a 300mm ii 2.8 L lens on a 5 MP body or 22 MP body it is a great lens. Stick it on a 40 MP body and I think the same result happens.

I can see IQ being a factor for some bodies (mirrorless more than anything) but for SLR's I don't think current lenses with higher MP count sensors (40+ as you alluded to) would alter IQ.

Am I wrong here?
1DX | 5Diii
300mm ii IS 2.8 | 70-200mm ii IS 2.8 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 16-35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.2 | 50mm 1.2, etc.

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2014, 03:50:46 PM »
I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that  :o

I am not sure this makes any sense. Whether you stick a 300mm ii 2.8 L lens on a 5 MP body or 22 MP body it is a great lens. Stick it on a 40 MP body and I think the same result happens.

I can see IQ being a factor for some bodies (mirrorless more than anything) but for SLR's I don't think current lenses with higher MP count sensors (40+ as you alluded to) would alter IQ.

Am I wrong here?

Increased pixel density means the sensor is putting more stress on the resolving power and aberration correction of the lens, in other words: more pixels reserved for showing each and every bit of aberration. Furthermore, the lenses have a resolution limit expressed in lpm (lines per millimeter) or lppm (line pair per millimeter). Take a 36mm wide sensor and put 8000 pixels on the wide side, and your lens will need to resolve 1.425x as many linepairs as it would for a 21 MP sensor or the image will look softer. Someone else can probably explain it better, but the basic idea is: pixels / sensor size = pixel density. The bigger the pixel density, the smaller the pixels. What comes with smaller pixels you can look up elsewhere, I don't know how to explain it without writing a thousand pages on it.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 03:53:50 PM by flowers »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2014, 03:50:46 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4817
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2014, 07:18:27 PM »
I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that  :o

I am not sure this makes any sense. Whether you stick a 300mm ii 2.8 L lens on a 5 MP body or 22 MP body it is a great lens. Stick it on a 40 MP body and I think the same result happens.

I can see IQ being a factor for some bodies (mirrorless more than anything) but for SLR's I don't think current lenses with higher MP count sensors (40+ as you alluded to) would alter IQ.

Am I wrong here?

Increased pixel density means the sensor is putting more stress on the resolving power and aberration correction of the lens, in other words: more pixels reserved for showing each and every bit of aberration. Furthermore, the lenses have a resolution limit expressed in lpm (lines per millimeter) or lppm (line pair per millimeter). Take a 36mm wide sensor and put 8000 pixels on the wide side, and your lens will need to resolve 1.425x as many linepairs as it would for a 21 MP sensor or the image will look softer. Someone else can probably explain it better, but the basic idea is: pixels / sensor size = pixel density. The bigger the pixel density, the smaller the pixels. What comes with smaller pixels you can look up elsewhere, I don't know how to explain it without writing a thousand pages on it.

LOL

I don't know how many times I'll have to debunk this myth. But here it goes again. First off, let's define a few things.

Lens resolution: The spatial resolving power of the lens (in lp/mm)
Sensor resolution: The spatial resolving power of the sensor (in lp/mm)
System (or output or image) resolution: The measurable spatial resolution of the images produced by lens+sensor (in lp/mm)

System resolution is the result of a convolution of what the lens resolves with the spatial grid of the sensor. Both components have an intrinsic blur. This blur is generally approximated by a gaussian function, a spot of light that follows some kind of bell curve (peaked in the middle, falloff as you move away from the middle of the spot). To actually compute the REAL system resolution of a lens and sensor, you would need to know the actual PSF or Point Spread Functions of both. That kind of information is difficult to come by, and greatly complicates the math to get a small amount of additional precision. We can approximate system resolution by using this function:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
Where:

ir = image resolution (output resolution, system resolution) lp/mm
lr = lens resolution lp/mm
sr = sensor resolution lp/mm

This function is a modification of a simpler function:

Code: [Select]
ib = sqrt(lb^2 + sb^2)
Where:

ib = image blur
lb = lens blur
sb = sensor blur

To convert a blur size into lp/mm, you take the reciprocal and divide by two. If we have a sensor with 5µm pixels, its spatial resolution in line pairs is:

Code: [Select]
res = (1l / 0.005mm) / 2l/lp
res = 200l/mm / 2 l/lp
res = 100lp/mm

If we invert this:

Code: [Select]
blur = 1l / (100lp/mm * 2l/lp)
blur = 1l / (200l/mm)
blur = 0.005mm

So, to directly derive the measurable spatial resolution of an output image from the spatial resolutions of a lens and a sensor, we simply combine these two formulas. First, let's assume a diffraction limited lens at f/8. Since it is diffraction limited, the lens will be exhibiting perfect behavior, so we'll be getting 86lp/mm. We have a 5µm pixel pitch in our sensor...let's just assume the sensor is monochrome for now, which means our sensor is 100lp/mm. If we run the formula:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(86*2))^2 + (1/(100*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/172)^2 + (1/200)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0058^2 + 0.005^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000034 + 0.000025)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000059)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0077) / 2
ir = 129.9 / 2
ir = 64.95

The image resolution with a diffraction limited f/8 lens and a 5 micron pixel pitch is 65lp/mm. That is a low resolution lens. One which most people would claim is "outresolved by the sensor". Such terminology is a misnomer...sensors don't outresolve lenses, lenses don't outresolve sensors...the two work together to produce an image...the convolution of the two produces the output resolution, the resolution of our actual images, and it is that output that we really care about.

So, let's assume we now have a diffraction limited f/4 lens. Our lens spatial resolution is now 173lp/mm. Quite a considerable improvement over our f/8 lens. It is actually double the resolving power of an f/8 lens. Same formula:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(173*2))^2 + (1/(100*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/346)^2 + (1/200)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0029^2 + 0.005^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000008 + 0.000025)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000033)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0057) / 2
ir = 175.4 / 2
ir = 87.7

Our image resolution with a diffraction limited f/4 lens is 87.7lp/mm. That is a 35% improvement. In this case, most people would say the "lens outresolves the sensor". But again, that is a misnomer. The two are still working together in concert to produce an image. The results of the image have improved. Now, lets say we still have our f/8 lens, and we now have a sensor with half the pixel pitch. Were using 2.5 micron pixels. Same formula:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(86*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/172)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0058^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000034 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.00004)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0063) / 2
ir = 158.7 / 2
ir = 79.4

Our image resolution jumps to 79.4. Well, supposedly, the sensor is "far outresolving the lens" at this point...and yet, the spatial resolution of our images has still improved considerably. By over 22%, to be exact. The fact that our sensor is capable of resolving considerably more detail than our lens does make the lens the most limiting factor...however it does NOT mean that using "the same old crappy lens" is useless on a newer, higher resolution sensor. Our results have still improved, by a meaningful amount. It is not necessary to build a new lens to take advantage of our improved sensor.

Lets take this one step farther. We are using our same f/8 lens. It isn't a great lens, it's decent, for it's generation. At f/4 it is not diffraction limited, but it performs pretty well. Let's assume it is capable of resolving 150lp/mm instead of 173lp/mm. If we run out formula again:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(150*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/300)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0033^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000011 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000017)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0041) / 2
ir = 244 / 2
ir = 122

Wow. Our crappy old lens which isn't even diffraction limited at f/4, combined with our greatly improved ultra high resolution sensor, is still giving us a lot of bang for our buck! Our image resolution is up to a whopping 122lp/mm! That is an improvement of over 53% over our f/8 performance. Well, let's say we finally break down and buy a better lens, one that is diffraction limited at f/4:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(173*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/346)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0029^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000008 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000014)) / 2
ir = (1/0.00374) / 2
ir = 267.4 / 2
ir = 133.7

Hmm...well, things haven't changed much. Relative to our older lens, we now have 133lp/mm. Unlike the previous jump of 53%, we have now gained a 9.5% improvement in resolving power. Ten percent improvement isn't something to shake a stick at, but our previous older lens that isn't diffraction limited at f/4 still performs remarkably well on our ultra high resolution sensor. To eek out any more performance, we would have to get a lens that was diffraction limited at a wider aperture. At apertures wider than f/4, optical aberrations begin to dominate, and achieving significantly improved results is more difficult. Additionally...you only get the improved resolving power at apertures wider than f/4...if you regularly shoot scenes at diffraction limited apertures of f/4 and smaller, then the only real way to improve the resolution of your photographs themselves is with a higher resolution sensor.

Pushing sensor resolution to obscene levels is a lot easier than pushing lens resolving power to obscene levels. Upping sensor resolution is the far more cost effective means, and therefor the one that tends to appeal to the masses (regardless of whether they know why.)

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2014, 07:44:43 PM »

I don't know how many times I'll have to debunk this myth. But here it goes again. First off, let's define a few things.
By all means. I did say "maybe someone else can explain it better."

...
Pushing sensor resolution to obscene levels is a lot easier than pushing lens resolving power to obscene levels. Upping sensor resolution is the far more cost effective means, and therefor the one that tends to appeal to the masses (regardless of whether they know why.)

I'm not going to even check your math, I trust it's correct! Well, that's good then. :) I'm all for higher resolution, I just had the feeling many lenses wouldn't be able to keep up. I don't mind being wrong on that one!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2014, 07:44:43 PM »