July 31, 2014, 02:00:16 PM

Author Topic: Canon EOS sensors, and technology  (Read 6032 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3749
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2014, 08:05:37 PM »
Jrista
Your points about removing AA filters are spot on,  moire and alaising will always be present and higher performance lenses will definately show the problem faster I would not buy any camera without one. However AA filters themselves are very difficult to produce especially in large volume and keep consistent. The AA filter is part of the optical system and taken into consideration when designing lenses and well designed and manufactured AA filters now have a minimal impact on resolution. Lateral chromatic abberations are still visable in most Canon lenses including L lenses and this will have an affect on apparent sharpness particularly further out to the edges of the frame and Canon will need to address this going forwards especially as Zeiss roll out more of their Otus range I see this as more of an issue rather than the affects of the AA.

Canon's shorter focal lengths, under ~200mm (including the 70-200) do need improvement in the corners. The worst of Canon's lineup are their wider angle lenses. The 24-70 II improve things, however it's corner performance (as even indicated by Canon's MTF charts) is still quite poor. I don't know why Canon has such a hard time with wide angle corners, but it's their Achilles heel, for sure. I think that is one of the main reasons Sigma has been making such major strides...they found the weak spot in the biggest photography manufacturer in the world, and have been exploiting it as much as they possibly can. :P

These days, I'm less concerned about a manufacturer's ability to produce AA filters of consistent quality, and more concerned about their ability to produce them strong enough. Sadly, I think the (uneducated) demands of the consumer for no AA filters are winning out in this arena, despite how non-beneficial that is for IQ. People want "sharp out of camera", and don't seem to understand the consequences of the tradoff that is REQUIRED to make that happen. An appropriately strong AA filter that minimizes moire to the point where only the strongest interference patterns make it show up is what we really need. I'd rather have slightly soft out of camera without moire, as I can easily sharpen in post, than have razor sharp out of camera with a bunch of aliasing and moire.

The AHDD, or Adaptive Homogeneity-directed Demosaicing algorithm used in Adobe ACR/LR is highly optimized. It is capable of interpolating in such a way as to utilize the raw luminance information in EVERY pixel, and only really suffers the resolution loss when interpolating the color channels. That means were getting the vast majority of the resolution our sensors are capable of with modern RAW editors like Lighroom, and only really suffering some loss in resolution and color fidelity in the color channels. That doesn't much matter, though, as we aren't as sensitive to softness in color as we are to softness in luminance detail.

Not to mention the fact that most cameras offer far more resolution than a growing majority of photographers need, what with publication on the web at relatively small sizes (compared to those required for print) being the primary means of sharing photography...from your average instagram and facebook uploads to your avid amateurs to your professionals.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2014, 08:05:37 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2014, 09:28:38 PM »
On the subject of cameras and technology.... I took this shot with an SX-50 on the way home today... I put it into "green box mode" and the image was taken handheld at full zoom (1200mm equivalent) plus another 4X digital zoom..... in other words, handheld at the equivalent of 4800mm! Yes, I know it's a cheap P/S and I know the picture is not national geographic quality... but for a toy camera at 4800mm handheld I think that this is amazing. A lot of research went into making this work as well as it did...

P.S. I couldn't tell it was a wood duck until I saw it through the camera EVF....
The best camera is the one in your hands

Phil Indeblanc

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2014, 09:57:51 PM »

Quote
I don't know why Canon has such a hard time with wide angle corners, but it's their Achilles heel, for sure. I think that is one of the main reasons Sigma has been making such major strides...they found the weak spot in the biggest photography manufacturer in the world, and have been exploiting it as much as they possibly can. :P

I think Tamorn has the upper hand on wides, 17-35, and 24-70
Quote
I think the (uneducated) demands of the consumer for no AA filters are winning out in this arena, despite how non-beneficial that is for IQ. People want "sharp out of camera", and don't seem to understand the consequences of the tradoff that is REQUIRED to make that happen.

I don't think there are general consumers asking for any mods of an AA filter to be removed. I think maybe some pixel peepers,and perhaps those that actually need it in certain markets that see the gain from it.

Quote
That means were getting the vast majority of the resolution our sensors are capable of with modern RAW editors like Lighroom, and only really suffering some loss in resolution and color fidelity in the color channels. That doesn't much matter, though, as we aren't as sensitive to softness in color as we are to softness in luminance detail.

You can get cleaner results in sharpening with less muddiness in Capture One with some sensors. LR maybe able to, but takes more work. I have tried, but I'm not at the point of formulating captures with LR settings from memory. I take each image individually, and C1 gets it done cleaner off the bat(*In the files I have worked on).

Quote
Not to mention the fact that most cameras offer far more resolution than a growing majority of photographers need, what with publication on the web at relatively small sizes (compared to those required for print) being the primary means of sharing photography...from your average instagram and facebook uploads to your avid amateurs to your professionals.

This too is a very general scope of things.

So far your points are correct for the general market you talk about. It doesn't have much to do with the reason I started the thread, but it does make things clear for me. Besides the overwhelming information you have a great understanding of....
 There is the correct tool for every job.  For anything specialized don't expect all niche markets to be covered by one.  I guess I can buy a $1700 A7R(plus adapter) and see if it is worth replacing a MF back(at least).


I just don't know what areas the A7R will start to bleed into as a replacement to have less gear. I can easily see it be a PointShoot replacement for the Canon-M that I like, and maybe take over the 5D M2? I doubt it. With the adapter, and if lenses get freed up, who knows? My mind is working while I wait for the 5-7 days it takes for my shutter to be replaced on the 5Dm2 for about $350.  I'm not complaining, in fact I will take Canon service over Nikon any day, and besides the Sony cell phone, I haven't gotten anything Sony for a long time.


Moreorless,

Its interesting as now with MF going into 50-60+ mpixels, and the sites being as small as 5-6 microns, AND them going towards CMOS, If compared using the same lenses...What else is there?

I do agree the difference is not a major significance for most types of shooting. It does effect stones facets, watches, etc.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 11:36:13 PM by Phil Indeblanc »

Phil Indeblanc

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2014, 10:01:44 PM »

P.S. I couldn't tell it was a wood duck until I saw it through the camera EVF....

4800MM! That is pretty cool. Reminds me when I had the Oly C2500L, then the UltraZooms came in, and I had the UZ730, I still have a 740 in a drawer. But 30+optical zoom was rather great. Sure the mpixels were around 4!

jeffa4444

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2014, 12:45:47 PM »
Its funny here everyone wants more resolution & more DR. The guys shooting for our movie screens or TV are trying to break it down to get a more organic look. a look that they feel film used to give them however VFX want it as clean as they can get it there is no squaring the circle.
Canon 6d, 7d & 550d with EF-S and EF-L glass

moreorless

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2014, 03:57:28 PM »
Whilst removing an AA filter(depending obviously on how strong that filter was) can aid sharpness a little(with certain trade offs) I think the lack of one became a bit of an easy way for people to explain the superior performance of MF digital.

Just pointing to a lack of an AA filter as some kind of magic bullet(especially when all mainstream 35mm and smaller sensors had one) was a lot easier than going into the indepth reasons of why a larger format will generally offer better performance even if the number of MP's on the sensor are similar, most obviously that lenses won't be pushed anywhere near as hard.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 04:01:12 PM by moreorless »

Phil Indeblanc

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2014, 11:39:37 PM »
Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus

Quote
Doesn't the lytro "focus" mathematically? If you're happy with light field algorithms, why not deconvolving AA filtered images?

The question was a regarding future cameras, and that would be for general shooting purposes, not product.

I remember reading some time back that digital cameras can be made with a single pixel. a very large single pixel being the light gatherer. I wonder what happen to this approach?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2014, 11:39:37 PM »

gargamel

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2014, 06:23:28 AM »
[...]

I think we are on the edge of a shift in digital cameras.

We need to step back and ask "why mirrors". In the days of film, you needed the mirror and optical viewfinder to know what you were looking at and we needed focusing screens to know if we were in focus.... Then came digital sensors and we treated them like film... because that is what we were used to.

A digital sensor is NOT film. It has different strengths and different weakness.... and the mirror is no longer the only way to see through the lens. A decent mirrorless camera (and there are several on them out there) will be designed to the strengths of digital technology. They already do many things better than DSLRs, but a great mirrorless camera will have to do everything better. Right now, the two big stumbling blocks are focusing and viewfinders.

[...]

Exactly, plus, for some photographers, battery life can be an issue with mirrorless cameras. Especially travel and nature photographers, who cannot easily charge batteries when they are "on tour", should consider this. Mirrorless cameras suck power for EVERYTHING. With a DSLR you can look through the OVF and check composition even when your camera is switched off. With an EVF the cameray needs to be on, all the time, and the mini tv set, called EVF, needs power.

Since my old 5D1 died I am looking around, what my next camera might be, and as I don't own a lot of expensive glass, I am open for other systems, too. While many Canon shooters go for Sony, it seems, I got even more interested in Fuji's X system. However, I found that I can get only about 300 photos with an X-M1, when I was able to take about 800+ photos with a 6D (had both for a rent for one day).

Regarding (not only) AA filters, Fuji is lighting the way. As has been said here, Moire (sorry, no diacritic characters on the keyboard I am using right now) was no problem with film, due to its amorph distribution of grain. No geometric pattern, so no interference with other geometric patterns. Simple as that. And it's exactly this, what Fuji is trying to achieve with its X-Trans sensors.
So, while I agree with most of the arguments that AA filters are useful, these arguments apply more (if not only), if the pixels on the sensor are arranged in a geometric pattern, that could interfere with a geometric pattern in the image, which is less likely with an X-Trans sensor than with a "classic" sensor, where the pixels are arranged in the Bayer pattern.

BTW, while better lenses may increase Moire, the way out, apart from other, more chaotic arrangements of senser pixels, is to increase the megapixel count. Only when they reached 24+ MP, Nikon and Sony dared to make cameras without AA filters. Why? Because, the finer the structures and the smaller the areas that can possibly cause Moire are, the less of a problem they will be in the resulting images.
Well, I am not a techie, and maybe some expert can give more detail, and maybe someone with more didactic experience can explain this a lot better than me, but I hope, I was able to give correct facts. (Otherwise, please correct me!)

Finally, for those of you who want to have AA filter or not as an option, the Pentax K-3 should be a very interesting piece of technology.... :)

gargamel

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3749
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2014, 12:04:43 PM »
Speaking of battery life in DSLRs. When I attach my battery grip to my 7D and use fully charged batteries, I can get well over 2500 shots (which is usually about the limit for what I get on a shoot these days, not because of no battery power, but because by then the sun has set, or the animals/birds moved on, or something.) I rarely use my batteries below the 50% mark when using the grip, so it's possible I could get quite a bit more than 2500 out of one pair of fully charged batteries.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

scottkinfw

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 704
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2014, 01:49:48 AM »
Make it stop already!
sek Cameras: 5D III, 5D II, EOS M  Lenses:  24-70 2.8 II IS, 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 300 f4L IS, EF 400 5.6L, 300 2.8 IS II, Samyang 14 mm 2.8 Flashes: 580 EX II600EX-RT X 2, ST-E3-RT
Plus lots of stuff that just didn't work for me

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2014, 08:44:05 AM »
MF  is  used not solely for its IQ. While it's IQ will always be better to that tiniest nth degree, it is better but we will soon see that gap widen with new CMOS sensors now being made in MF.

MF has the very best optics and is less demanding on the glass too. I remember my beat up scratched 80mm zeiss 2.8 being sharper than any 35mm lens because of the lower magnification.

MF backs can be attached to technical cameras with movements you can't get with a sensor buried in a body.

MF also has high true sync speeds with leaf shutters. A lustful trek for any strobist.

MF gear may give a client an impression of professionalism. Not always true but it not a camera you mom could have.

Is it worth 30K for a top end system? It depends but I am slowly purchasing my body, lens, And an older back to get those sync speeds.

What I'd like to see is a series of lenses from canon with a leaf shutter that works with any canon camera in live view. I can get the super sync speed without having to buy MF gear.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 08:52:03 AM by RLPhoto »

jeffa4444

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2014, 12:33:21 PM »
RLPhoto

All those points are valid and true. The other point is depth of field which is shallower than on 35mm which means focus is more critical.
Canon 6d, 7d & 550d with EF-S and EF-L glass

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2014, 12:33:21 PM »