CarlTN said:
jrista said:
CarlTN said:
It will be interesting to see if Canon can actually achieve parity with the current SOA sensor, regarding those attributes that people like to argue about. What would be mind blowing, is if Canon actually exceeds those attributes...regardless of the pixel dimensions. It seems to me that if the number is closer to 60MP rather than 45, the performance might be more compromised. Certainly it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii.
Remember that total system resolution is effectively (closely approximated by) the root mean square of the resolution of each component that makes up the system. In a DSLR, to keep things simple, the final resolution of the photographs you make is the RMS of the resolutions of the lens and the sensor. There is no such thing as one outresolving the other. Increasing the resolution of either lens or sensor increases the resolution of the system as a whole, and produces higher resolution photographs.
You get the most bang for the buck by increasing the lowest common denominator, but if you have a lens, like the 24-70 II, and you use it on a 60mp FF camera...you WILL realize better results (all other things being equal...i.e. assuming the best tech available is used to produce said 60mp sensor.)
That was not my point. My point was as stated. I never said the overall results would not be "better". To belabor my point, since you are intentionally missing it...I will quote myself: "...it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii."
I stand by this. Your point does not disprove my point. You might have your own idea about how you define the phrase "make use of all that resolution". I have mine. My point was never that you could not get improved resolution and image quality, from a higher megapixel sensor. Only a fool would argue that. Yet you seem to want to believe that's what I meant. I wonder why? Up to your same old tricks I see.
As for "bang for buck", that is an entirely separate issue altogether, which I hope you realize...and has nothing to do what my point.
I am not
intentionally trying to misquote you... Simple matter of the facts.
I does not matter whether you are talking about resolution at the center of the frame, edge of the frame, or corner of the frame. The basis of "system resolution", which is a
convolution of the effects of each and every component, holds true regardless of which region of the frame you apply it to. Sure, poorer quality lenses and wider angle lenses tend to have more detractors to resolution in the corners. That does not mean that suddenly the rules that govern overall system resolution change. Just as much as a higher resolution sensor will improve the outcome of what the lens resolves at the center, so too will it improve the outcome of what the lens resolves at the edge. A higher resolution sensor can never produce WORSE results than a lower resolution sensor, all else being equal.
A horrible lens is a horrible lens, and while you might see marginal improvements in corner resolution with a higher resolution sensor, you experience
diminishing returns. An excellent lens, such as the 24-70 II, which performs quite well in the corners, will realize a greater benefit from a move to a higher resolution lens than, say, the 16-35 II (which performs only moderately well in the corners), both of which would benefit considerably better than say the EF-S 18-55mm, which performs terribly in the corners.
The benefit boils down to a matter of degree for every component involved, not
whether or not you get any benefit at all outside of the center of the lens. You don't "make use" of resolution...you convolve a result via a functional process as a real-world image passes through each and every lens element, the aperture, the sensor's filter stack, the CFA, and even the pixel well itself. A higher resolution sensor, assuming equivalence in terms of noise,
could never "compromise" IQ in any way. Even with a
relative increase in noise, a higher resolution sensor, when its image size is normalized to that of any lower resolution sensor, would still produce results that are as good as or better. (The only time I believe a higher resolution sensor can be detrimental to IQ is when there is a disproportionate increase in the amount of noise due to smaller pixels, which to some degree is the case with the 7D (a fact I blame on Canon's 500nm process, which wastes a lot of photodiode space resulting in disproportionately smaller light sensitive photodiode area relative to sensors with larger pixels...a defect I believe a move to a smaller process, such as 180nm, can resolve.))
A far greater concern, in my opinion, for high density sensors than "making use of" any given lenses resolving power would be avoiding softening from camera shake. As pixel sizes shrink for both APS-C and FF sensors, the effects of camera shake will become increasingly magnified. The slightest vibration caused by even a light wind across a camera on a tripod is likely to introduce detrimental softening on a 24mp APS-C or 61mp FF sensor. I've experienced moderate winds that, even on my very stable GT3532LS tripod, introduce some softening, and the 7D is becoming something only moderately dense as sensor technology continues to evolve and push the envelope towards smaller and smaller pixels.
and the guys don't have any stories. Gotta get used to that and also try to get out in Stockholm to shoot. In that sense I look forward to the fall as I like grey and gloomy. 
