50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thanks bluemoon,

I've seen the effect in the items previously mentioned but then I saw the comment that it doesn't occur in nature and so I went back to look at my waxwing shots and found this sample. I believe I've had similar and worse on some other waxwing shots and didn't like it and wondered where it came from. Never noticed it on other birds. Curious bird me is I guess.

Jack

here is a clear case on a robin (and a lens used with a TC no less):
(click it or whatever you need to do to see it 1:1)
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v63/p1143969646.jpg

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like. I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.

Why's that? Canon has made clear that a high res sensor isn't designed for high sensitivity or high fps, can't have your cake and eat it!

First, I wasn't talking about high sensitivity, but more DR. But it's not like the D800/D810 and such are terrible when it comes to sensitivity, far from it.

And as for DR, who says you can't have both high DR and high MP? Why not? The D810 gives great DR and it has a lot more MP than the 5D3. More MP shouldn't make more DR tougher to get, if anything, provided you can fit the circuits in place still for column ADC and all it should help the DR a trace.

As for fps, yeah you can't expect 50MP to be as easily driven as lower MP (although you can be smart like Nikon and gives APS_H and APS-C modes with full reach and more fps.... and semi-have your cake and eat it too) and I was just saying if it came down to it I'd rather they focus on DR first and if I was forced to chose between 23MP and high DR and high fps or 50MP and low DR and low fps I'd take the former. Ideally I'd go for semi-high MP, high DR and decent fps (like not less than 6, but doesn't have to be more than 6; and it could be only for copped modes if he bump from semi-high MP to very high MP). I would'nt mind 50MP at 4fps and then 6-8fps for cropped mode and with high DR. I might like that best of all actually.

If it's the 7d2 design upscaled that's fine *if* the price is ok, much better than a "dream camera" for €6000+. If it's essentially the crop sensor on a larger die, all "reach advantage" reasons of crop become obsolete. If you've won the lottery and want the best possible iq, you'd better look at mf digital sensors outside Canon.

Maybe fine for some, but certainly not for me. I'd take the 36MP and high DR any day over 50MP and low DR from Canon. I'd even take 23MP and high DR over 50MP and low DR if I was forced.

As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.

It is exactly the targeted audience for a high MP camera that probably MOST cares about high DR.

But now you are trying to have it both ways, oh the 7D2 doesn't really target landscape etc. so who needs high DR. And now oh the high MP doesn't really target a need for high DR either.


All I can say it that I, personally, absolutely will not buy the 50MP Canon unless it has really good DR (unless it offers truly top notch 4k video for a really low price and then I could maybe get that and then add a cheap used SOny for the DR, although by this time Sony might have an A7R II that also does 4k in which case I still wouldn't get this Canon and would just keep using 5D3 plus the Sony or move to Nikon if they make some D820 with nice 4k). I'll just add some sort of something Sony puts out or maybe start the switch to Nikon.

 

[bdunbar79]

What do you mean by "really good DR"? At ISO 6400 the 1Dx has 1.4 stops MORE DR than the D810, as an example. Do you mean low ISO? I guess I've never found myself DR limited with low ISO's where light is sufficient but rather, find myself DR limited in low light, exactly where Canon excels.

 

[Marsu42]

First, I wasn't talking about high sensitivity, but more DR. But it's not like the D800/D810 and such are terrible when it comes to sensitivity, far from it.

Disclaimer: I'm all in favor when it comes to Canon catching up to Sonikon, it's just that atm they don't seem to be willing or able to. And personally, I've been wondering for years why they don't upscale a crop sensor to ff, I'd love to have that for macro shots.

Maybe fine for some, but certainly not for me. I'd take the 36MP and high DR any day over 50MP and low DR from Canon. I'd even take 23MP and high DR over 50MP and low DR if I was forced.

I'm a big fan or more dynamic range and use Magic Lantern's dual_iso for about 1/3rd of my shots. But my guess is that Canon marketing research has gone into this very thoroughly, and the deep pocket enthusiasts on CR don't scale to the whole market.

I just talked to a landscape photog having to switch from his broken 5d2 to something else. He's now buying a d800 because for him, only the resolution counts - he was happy enough with the dr of mf film cameras. If Canon would offer 50mp for a comparable price, he'd been sold.

It is exactly the targeted audience for a high MP camera that probably MOST cares about high DR.

We'll see - my guess is that not that many people depend on more dr in a single frame and wouldn't sell their mother or switch systems for 12ev (Canon) to 14ev (Sonikon).

 

[Lee Jay]

You are talking about one set of currently totally meaningless theoretical 'limits' that have been shown to not be hard limits.

Canon showed tech years ago that showed they were working on sub diffraction level imaging for consumer cameras and there are advantages to resolve below diffraction levels especially when using Bayer array covered sensors. Besides, lenses would have to far exceed diffraction limited resolution for the system, lens and sensor, to resolve them.

Do not attach any importance to 'diffraction limits' when thinking sensor resolution for consumer cameras.

What the heck kind of nonsense is this?

Diffraction limits aren't optional and you can only "beat" them in certain situations (like hard phase shift masks for lithography) under situations that have nothing to do with digital imaging.

When I calculate diffraction limits, I use knockdowns for Bayer masks and AA filters, but the results are absolutely applicable and I've confirmed them through testing.

That said, 50MP full-frame sensors aren't coming close to pushing the real-world resolving power of today's better lenses.

 

[PureClassA]

LTRLI,

I hear what you're saying, but having a a 52MP speed demon would be very nice with light performance on par with the 1DX or better. Effectively you have a built in crop sensor at 20MP. So these specs on a new 1DX would be great!! But I don't know they will go that route. (I know, this is all academic) However on a 5DWhateverthehell A high res, no AA, 6FPS with 65pt AF a la 7D2 would be extremely nice. 4k would be too, especially with a TRUE clean HDMI out at 8-10bit. The a7S gets away with 8 bit nicely. Will Canon do it is the real question. I'm doubtful but hopeful.

I tend to suspect the next iteration of the 1 series will see the 7D2 AF type grid with points more spread out across the frame and MORE of them, all dual cross type or something insane like that. 24ishMP, DPAF, and 12-14 FPS.

 

[9VIII]

To all the sports, journalism and event photographers out there: No, this camera is not for you. You can safely ignore it, while all the landscape, macro, and "less trigger happy" photographers will gobble the thing up and relish every moment manipulating the huge image files.

? Never stop to wonder how people define other photographer's needs.

Indeed.

I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like.

I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.

I'm still confused about the constant stream of negativity toward new camera options that don't fit an individual's style.

 

[jeffa4444]

Quote from: Marsu42
As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.
[/quote]

You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.

 

[9VIII]

Most types of digital Anti-Aliasing (Multi-Sampling or Super-Sampling) only appily the effect where it's needed, and can even bring out detail in a digitally rendered image that would not have been there otherwise. It maintains sharpness while fixing certain problems.
The AA filter on a camera would be comparable to a post processing AA filter, like FXAA, which simply blends every pixel on the screen with its neighbour, which eliminates both aliasing and crisp edges.

Sort of but multi-sampling covers the entire scene so it does it's thing everywhere, but the effects are obviously more noticeable on some parts of some images than on others (unless they did some targeting to located areas of harshest transition and only multi-sample those regions).

That's right.
The reason multi-sampling is so much more efficient than super-sampling is that it's applied selectively.
That also means it's less effective in some applications, but the cost to benefit ratio is very attractive.

 

[bdunbar79]

Quote from: Marsu42
As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.

You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.
[/quote]

Nope. He speaks or the MAJORITY. Hence why Canon leads the market.

 

[Lee Jay]

You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.

I have more than 300,000 images under management in Lightroom. I went looking for high-DR situations shot at base ISO. I was not able to find a single image where my Canon sensors didn't have sufficient DR AND 1-2 more stops would have made the difference. I found one situation shot at base ISO where 15-20 more stops would have done it, but not 1-2, and that was the only situation I found where I couldn't get enough DR at base ISO.

On the other hand, I have thousands of high-ISO shots where DR was severely constrained.

 

[jeffa4444]

Obviously the guys at Red & Arri have got it wrong then, obviously no one has a single shot with clipped highlights.

I remember we did a movie in Africa, strong midday sunlight with a continuos shot into a mud hut. It had to be shot as a cut as the camera reached the door or in other words a two shot so a wider dynamic range was preserved. Without adjusting our eyes can see 10-14 stops of DR, but are eyes do adjust and its estimated we can see up to 20-24 stops of DR.

 

[Lee Jay]

Obviously the guys at Red & Arri have got it wrong then, obviously no one has a single shot with clipped highlights.

You do realize, I hope, that the Sony and Nikon sensor with more base ISO DR than Canon sensor do it by lowering the read noise, thus making shadows cleaner. At the same exposure, they still clip at the same rate as Canon sensors. The only way to get more DR is to shoot with less exposure and retain cleaner shadows.

 

[Diko]

Dilbert says:
bad sensor bad quality bad iq

neuro says:
wrong sensor wrong quality wrong noise

there. I just saved 3 or more pages of discussion of the new sensor.

That made my day! ))

 

[jeffa4444]

Yes I do realize lower read noise improves the shadow detail, I also know that sensors under development are now aiming to improve top end latitude employing different techniques.

Interestingly if you look back people were saying smaller pixels would never be able to produces good results because of well size / dark current noise they are not saying that now!

 

[Marsu42]

The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.

You just proved my very point - you need to bracket anyway in many situations, so another +2ev won't save the day for everyone, and even Sonikon don't have the 20ev sensor yet:

I have more than 300,000 images under management in Lightroom. I went looking for high-DR situations shot at base ISO. I was not able to find a single image where my Canon sensors didn't have sufficient DR AND 1-2 more stops would have made the difference.

Personally, I encounter a lot of situations with motion which can just be captured with the 14.5ev of Magic Lantern - another 1-2ev more would be better to get more shadow resolution though. These include shots with the sun in the frame or harsh contrasts at noon (I'm using fill flash on top of that).

However for max iq with landscape, I'd still bracket unless there are moving leaves/grass/... more post-processing hassle, but more flexibility when joining the images. And in this case sensor dr isn't a concern anymore.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks LetTheRightLensIn for another sample. Did my waxwing sample fall into the range that photographers would likely take exception to - I'm new to all this.

Jack

 

[Maiaibing]

I have thousands of high-ISO shots where DR was severely constrained.

Would like better low iso DR too. And the ability to shoot iso 25 as in the film days. But its in the high end the most severe and critical problems are.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What do you mean by "really good DR"? At ISO 6400 the 1Dx has 1.4 stops MORE DR than the D810, as an example. Do you mean low ISO? I guess I've never found myself DR limited with low ISO's where light is sufficient but rather, find myself DR limited in low light, exactly where Canon excels.

at low ISO of course since that is where Canon is behind otherwise I wouldn't even be bringing it up

and the ISO6400+ shots have too much noise to be truly fine quality and the DR of even the best is still far too low to really do it anyway so to me the DR matters more at low ISO where it often falls 2-3 stops shy of what would really help

the best of the high ISO DR Nikons are right there with Canon for high ISO DR (and better than say the 5D3 high ISO DR) too and still have better low ISO DR than any Canon (althogh not as good as the Exmor Nikons)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I just talked to a landscape photog having to switch from his broken 5d2 to something else. He's now buying a d800 because for him, only the resolution counts - he was happy enough with the dr of mf film cameras. If Canon would offer 50mp for a comparable price, he'd been sold.

most of the landscape guys who added a Sony+adapter or moved to Nikon that I've talked to counted the DR much more important than the MP count increase (although some certainly appreciated the MP count increase too)