And here it goes...Rumours are Canon will have ibis next, dynamic range doesn’t make any difference to IQ
If the dynamic range isn't decreased, there's no downsides, apart from 2: a) longer in-camera processing times and therefore less fps, and b) larger raw file size, more storage required and worse editing software performance.(...no snark intended...)
Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?
Personally I’ve never had issues with DR effecting IQ (product and architecture) using Sony or Canon cameras unless i’d done something wrong at capture.DR does affect the IQ, especially when editing.
Given the same resolutions and sensor sizes, a sensor with a lower DR will have more noise esp. in the shadows. When you work with controlled light, it's not that important.Personally I’ve never had issues with DR effecting IQ (product and architecture) using Sony or Canon cameras unless i’d done something wrong at capture.
I have however come across IQ and detail issues by not having enough resolution.
I’ sure you are 100% correct however, using say a 21MP Canon vs a 42 MP Sony the DR (shadow noise) has never been a issue with my architecture work, only resolution/detail.Given the same resolutions and sensor sizes, a sensor with a lower DR will have more noise esp. in the shadows. When you work with controlled light, it's not that important.
Good news! None of that will be impaired by a 83MP sensor camera, should you decide to get one. You can use it just like you use your current camera.Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.
As far as overall system resolution (which is really what matters), increased sensor resolution stops offering benefit at the point where you are using the sensor and lens to take pictures of pigs flying over snowbanks in Hell. Not before.At what point does the sensor resolution exceed the resolving power of the lens?
Never:At what point does the sensor resolution exceed the resolving power of the lens?
Reposted yet again/again/again:-
System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.
tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )
Where tsr is total system resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.
So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this
1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm
Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm
1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm
You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.
Why would it have to have IBIS?but that camera has ibis and probably much better dynamic range. and of course more MP.
Could it be that Canon is going to do in both directions - an 1DxIII what 30 ish MP and lots of FPS, etc., AND a 5DsR replacement w/ lots of MP and not so many FPS? I did notice I had to up my technique - not hard, just pay attention - when I rented the 5Dsr over my 5DIII.