50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
gdanmitchell
When in doubt, doubt.
Joey said:
It is essentially a "low pass" filter that "smoothes" image data that could otherwise produce moire distortion patterns. In general this is not a negative thing, and you can produce extremely detailed photographs from such images. On the other hand, some cameras now come with sensors that do not have a the "low pass" (or "anti-alias") filters. Nikons D810 doesn't have one, nor to the Fujifilm X-trans sensor cameras. The idea is that they might produce slightly sharper images in some cases, with a slightly increased chance of moire/aliasing distortion with some subjects.
If none of this makes sense to you, frankly you can probably just ignore it.
drjlo said:
If things advance the way they have though the previous development of DSLR sensors, the higher MP sensor will have the same or better low light performance, dynamic range, noise performance, and cost. Unless something changes this time around, there is no disadvantage to the higher MP sensor.
(Some will tell you that they will need more computer storage, faster processors, and so forth — but in the grand scheme those things also advance at a rate that keeps their cost relatively stable or declining.)
In the best of circumstances — very careful photographer, excellent lenses, good aperture and focus decisions — there are image resolution advantage to higher MP. Even in cases where the image isn't going to be resolved with greater sharpness, a large print will require less interpolation to deal with potential pixelation. (This is an issue for those who make very large prints.) It is also possible that denser pixels can produce smoother gradients, and they also reduce the "grain size" of any noise.
Upvote
0
Gary Irwin said:
Don't know how to pose this question without the engineer types jumping down my windpipe, I am certainly not one of those. Is it actually an existing dual pixel sensor reworked to 48-50mp or really a brand new sensor??? For some reason this sounds too good to be true, hope to be wrong.
TIME WILL TELL!
btw, not a Sony fan boy....love my Canon
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Yes they do prefer money, and what better way to pump up share holders confidence than announcing a ground breaking camera and point out how the EOS line is 28 years strong and the company is still moving forward in the market place after 78 years. It is all in the spin. Money is nice but spin is free, in todays market place you have to keep those share prices up
.
Upvote
0
I am not sure about the specifics vis a vis the low pass filter, but I do know that Moire patterns are a serious matter when doing video. They can pop up anywhere and you have to remind the 'actors' not to wear finely patterned or striped shirts. Sooo. . . maybe this 'feature' will be a factor when choosing the version of the camera to buy. If you are going to use it for video then maybe you go with the low pass filter? I guess we will find out.
Upvote
0
erjlphoto said:
My understanding is that the "high resolution" 5Ds is rumoured to pack the 7D Mark II (22.3 x 14.9 mm, APS-C DPAF CMOS) sensor scaled up to Full Frame (36 x 24 mm).
That would make sense, it terms of leveraging the R&D costs for the newly-released DPAF CMOS technology. The production issue then becomes one of making Full Frame sensor yields from a given silicon wafer economical using existing manufacturing processes.
Just scaling up the 7D II sensor suggests that a 5Ds might have a 51.9 MP sensor with the same pixel pitch and - I imagine therefore - sensitivity performance as the 7D II.
In contrast, the rumour for the 5D Mark IV seems to be of a novel sensor.
At the end of the day, who outside of Canon's "circle of trust" really knows until they announce something? All of the above is just hearsay, rumour and inference!
Upvote
0
e17paul said:
Not really. Anybody that has owned a crop camera then moved to a ff camera and then left the crop camera to gather dust knows the intrinsic difference that sensor size makes, well that happens again going to medium format digital, throw in the lack of AA filters on medium format and the differences become even bigger.
In the same way that crop can't ever deliver what ff can (though I am not saying crop cameras are not very good and have several key advantages over ff cameras in specific situations), ff will never be able to deliver what medium format digital can. The point at what each sensor size becomes 'good enough' for each individual is an entirely personal call.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I use a crop camera and a full-frame camera side-by-side all the time. I just usually use a lens on the crop camera that's one stop faster than the lens on the full-frame camera allowing me to use one stop lower ISO on the crop camera. The resulting images are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
I don't care what your opinion of the differences are, or are not, as I very clearly said.
Upvote
0
ScottyP said:
Yes, I am bumping my own question. I don't oftrn do that but I really wonder what others think of the question. If they omit the filter, there are compromises. Why not go the Fuji x-trans route and use a less simple pixel pattern?
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
I didn't miss your point, I ignored it.
How do you shoot with a lens 1 1/3 stop faster on your crop camera if you are shooting on your ff camera with a 1.2, or a 1.4? How about if you are shooting 2.8 zooms all around? What if you are going big with a 300/400 f2.8 on the ff, or a longer f4?
There are an awful lot of people here who did exactly what I laid out, owned a crop camera and then got a ff one and hardly touched the crop camera again afterwards, virtually every one of them will say they see the difference in their images, if you can't in yours then that is up to you.
Upvote
0
I didn't miss your point, I ignored it. [/quote]
Even worse.
You can't. That's the biggest reason I own a full-frame camera. It's capable of shooting in areas outside the performance envelope of the crop camera.
If you use a longer f/4 (say, 500/4), then a 300/2.8 on crop will pretty much do the same thing.
I can - it's a stop, same as I can see the difference between f/4.5 and f/2.8.
Even worse.
You can't. That's the biggest reason I own a full-frame camera. It's capable of shooting in areas outside the performance envelope of the crop camera.
If you use a longer f/4 (say, 500/4), then a 300/2.8 on crop will pretty much do the same thing.
I can - it's a stop, same as I can see the difference between f/4.5 and f/2.8.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
I have no intention of getting drawn in to one of your back and forth black holes either dilbert.
But APS-C have more advantages than the spurious pixel density which has been illustrated time and time again to be largely meaningless in real world shooting of same generation sensors. There is the cost advantage, the features advantage (fps, swivel screens etc), the AF area as a percentage of the frame advantage, size advantage, weight advantage etc etc.......
Upvote
0
Similar threads
