A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)

[Lawliet]

Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be? What ought a person to expect out of one's camera? Honestly, a tripod, a broader aperture, and a little patience can make up for a whole lot of ISO...

Remember those who want video (or just the movie lighting tools for stylistic reasons)?
To get decent shutter times&apertures - both are degrees of freedom that have artistic purpose, so they can't be changed for technical reasons, as a wider aperture won't give you sufficient DOF and a tripod won't stop motion - ISO 3200-6400 is really nice to have if you have to work within the confines of household electricity.
Now, to get that sensitivity without a nasty hit on image quality a few stops margin are prudent.

 

[motorhead]

Smirkypants,

Of course you are completely entitled to you opinion. I think its crazy, but then my photography is only a small niche of the enormous range of subjects.

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

 

[AprilForever]

Smirkypants,

Of course you are completely entitled to you opinion. I think its crazy, but then my photography is only a small niche of the enormous range of subjects.

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

Exactly.

 

[dtaylor]

We are at the threshold if not well beyond lens resolution with some of the current sensors and lens combinations.

Nope. There are plenty of lenses which can resolve more then the 7D's sensor can deliver. At FF size the 7D's pixel pitch would result in 45 MP images. And I would gladly pay for a FF body with a 45 MP sensor that had the noise characteristics of the 7D. IQ at low ISO would be comparable to the 645D, and it would still be usable at ISO 3200 and 6400.

You're the guy bragging about the V8 in his car, talking trash about anyone with a V6 and claiming that they just can't squeeze the same power out of a V6, about to get his rear handed to him by a V6 with twin turbos.

 

[UncleFester]

I would expect more megapixels is going to challenge the skill of the user.

 

[bycostello]

for me the more mega pixals the more spare i have... means i don't need that longer lens as i can crop the image and still have a print quality file...

 

[Loswr]

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

 

[dtaylor]

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

Yes, diffraction imposes an upper limit on pixel density. No, we are not there yet, and a 35-45 MP FF sensor would yield benefits in fine detail and maximum print size.

 

[motorhead]

Thats like the argument that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. For years science has claimed that as an unmovable barrier but now there are experimental results that show that is simply not true.

Just because present sensor and lens technologies have certain theoretical limits I believe it is a mistake to think that this can never be "side stepped". I know that lens design is just a case of pouring money at the problem and sensor design may well develop in future in directions we can only dream about.

 

[RayS2121]

There is such a thing as aesthetics that transcend numbers and ratios … that something we can’t put our fingers on intellectually, yet we recognize intuitively when we see it. I wouldn’t say, however, that this is beyond rational understanding; just that you momentarily drop the analysis and the stats and just recognize that there is something special about the picture you are viewing. Needless to say, this is a combination of the photographer’s talent, the technology of the sensor and the lens, and the subject (yes, the subject, it is difficult to make a seeping wound look nice regardless of talent or technology). I digress…

So what is it about those occasions when you recognize that there is something special about a picture, provided the human photographer, the viewer, the lenses, etc. are the same? More specifically, what would it be about the sensor as the *sole* variant that could make a picture, oh lets be less technical, “juicy”. I would refer to the Leica pictures that appeared on Canon Rumors article a while back… http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/leica-m9-a-second-opinion/

All things being equal, especially the lens, barring the sensor, I would argue, what your eyes are picking up, and what your brain is perceiving is the “physics” of the sensor: the overall quality… the combination of dynamic range, color depth, the tonal range… much of these take a dip in 5D II when we wander into the higher ISO range. There is scope to improve the physics of these pixels. As a Canon supporter, I see without subterfuge, guile, or pride, that Nikon has worked more on the quality of pixels and I want that for Canon.

I am not against more MP per se. My point was we could gain on that extra aesthetic, that “je ne sais quoi”, that non-technical “juiciness”, by working on the quality of the pixels instead of just their quantity. Peace

 

[funkboy]

I would expect more megapixels is going to challenge the skill of the user.

Joseph Holmes would certainly agree with you.

They're long articles on medium format shooting technique & precision, but well worth a read.

The summary is that merely using a "bomb-proof" tripod, using a cable release, waiting 6 seconds for mirror vibration to settle after lock-up, and using a 3x magnifier on the focusing screen is not good enough to get the full 40+ MP resolution out of a medium format camera system.

Phase One's tolerance for registration distance is 12 microns, but he's come across systems that were off by hundreds. Joseph calculates that with this system's lenses the difference between the focal plane registering at infinity and 200 feet can be as low as 8 microns (depending on the focal length). Among other things, he had to test *seven* 80mm lenses to find *two* that would really, truly focus to infinity at the micron level (meaning everything at 1000+ feet sharp; remember that we're talking about the mechanical tolerances of lenses in distances of microns here). Other lenses worked out better, but you get the idea. I'm not talking about the resolution of the glass or sensor here, but simply the mechanical tolerance of medium format lenses & bodies.

If Joseph had to go through all this to really squeeze all the resolution capability out of a high-end hand-assembled ultra-quality-controlled medium format camera system costing tens of thousands of $US, how much resolution do you think non-professionals will really be able to effectively eek out of a mass-produced 30+ MP DSLR with even smaller pixels, mass-produced lenses? How stable is "stable enough" from an I.S. system? How much will the strong AA filter Canon tends to use impact the real capability of such a sensor? How precise is phase-detect AF at these resolutions (even after calibration)? And let's not forget that ultra-high resolution CMOS sensors like this tend to stink for video...

Mind you, sometimes Canon's approach to this sort of thing is "ship first, ask questions later" so who knows, but personally I think that they're purposely avoiding the high-resolution game as it would open up several proverbial cans of worms for them, none of which are economically lucrative for them to deal with.

Have a look at some of Joseph's samples BTW, they're truly stunning in terms of resolution.

 

[funkboy]

All things being equal, especially the lens, barring the sensor, I would argue, what your eyes are picking up, and what your brain is perceiving is the “physics” of the sensor: the overall quality… the combination of dynamic range, color depth, the tonal range… much of these take a dip in 5D II when we wander into the higher ISO range. There is scope to improve the physics of these pixels. As a Canon supporter, I see without subterfuge, guile, or pride, that Nikon has worked more on the quality of pixels and I want that for Canon.

Excellent post. This is exactly what I'm hoping for in the "accessible to mere mortals" followups to the 1DX. It's also one of the reasons I think they're so afraid of Fuji.

 

[Zuuyi]

I just see these ISO people wanting a 1Dx for the 5d3 price.

How about give me a 5d3 with the normal increased pixels and higher iso. I'll take a 24mp camera (30 would be great but not needed).

You have a 1Dx and most likely the new 7D2 for your needs. We just want the 5d3.

There is already a current camera in the Canon line for your needs, most just don't want to pay for it. We want to ensure that we can buy a current camera and not have to go down in Megapixels.

When your client ask how many megapixels, they just want to hear MORE than the other guy. If Canon made a MF camera then high MP wanters would have a natural progression but they don't so we want 1 camera(5d3) in the line.

 

[J. McCabe]

Honestly, a tripod, a broader aperture, and a little patience can make up for a whole lot of ISO...

I'm shooting band shows, and putting a tripod on the seat in front of me or in the area in front of the stage is not practicle.

I'm already shooting at f/2.8 @ 3200 ISO. I could get another stop or two from primes, but a sensor with 2-3 more stops would make my life that much easier. Bands are not likely to make the stage any darker, so that's about all I want.

And as far as DR is concerned, what do one really actually need 37 stops of DR for? What about ND grads? What about HDR? Why about exposure stacking and masking? Or fill flash and reflectors? Honestly, my 7D RAW files have piles of DR, when I expose to the right.

Print film ISO 50 has wild DR and low noise... could this work as a temporary stop-gap?

I'm not looking for more DR, but ...

- Some lenses can't be fitted with ND grad filters (e.g. ultra wide lenses), and some can't be fitted with any filters.

- Where I live, nobody sells 35mm ISO 50 films. If I got some, say ordering abroad, the highest resolution scans shops offer is 6MP JPEGs (= 8 bits per channel). If I wanted more DR, ISO 50 films wouldn't be an attractive option.

 

[Loswr]

I just see these ISO people wanting a 1Dx for the 5d3 price.

I just see these AF people as wanting a 1D X for the 5DIII price.

Seriously, while we'd all like a 5DIII pro-level AF ('cuz Nikon does it, right?), higher ISO, better DR, fully-sealed build, and we'd all like it for the price of a 60D, it's just not going to happen. It's not even going to happen for the price of a 5DII. With the 5DII, Canon used the same sensor as the 1DsIII flagship - but does anyone really think the 5DII was a 'baby 1Ds'? No - an the 5DIII will not be a 'baby 1D X.' Either the 5DIII will be 'handicapped' in some (many) ways compared to the 1-series, or it will cost much more.

 

[RayS2121]

When your client ask how many megapixels, they just want to hear MORE than the other guy. If Canon made a MF camera then high MP wanters would have a natural progression but they don't so we want 1 camera(5d3) in the line.

....We want to ensure that we can buy a current camera and not have to go down in Megapixels.

I dont' think you are in any danger of losing MP in 5d3 ...even if Canon splits the 5D product line, there will be one option that retains the same MP or slightly up it, just to keep people like you needing to tell other people your "inches" I mean MP numbers

All things being equal, especially the lens, barring the sensor, I would argue, what your eyes are picking up, and what your brain is perceiving is the “physics” of the sensor: the overall quality… the combination of dynamic range, color depth, the tonal range… much of these take a dip in 5D II when we wander into the higher ISO range. There is scope to improve the physics of these pixels. As a Canon supporter, I see without subterfuge, guile, or pride, that Nikon has worked more on the quality of pixels and I want that for Canon.

I am not against more MP per se. My point was we could gain on that extra aesthetic, that “je ne sais quoi”, that non-technical “juiciness”, by working on the quality of the pixels instead of just their quantity. Peace

There I was arguing about "aesthetics" and "je ne sais quoi"...but this clearly shows this is about the numbers, the "25 inch chrome wheel" I alluded to in the original post... there is nothing inherently wrong with more MP, but increasing MP without addressing basic issues of quality is not productive. It is like putting lipstick on a pig. Or giving your granny a double-D cup implant when the rest of her face, shoulders, and stomach are sagging and she has bags under her eyes. A young, in shape model is going to stand out every time because it is more than the size of the bra.

 

[Loswr]

- Some lenses can't be fitted with ND grad filters (e.g. ultra wide lenses), and some can't be fitted with any filters.

True...but a large rectangular resin/glass filter can be held in front of the lens.

 

[thepancakeman]

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

While I cannot even pretend to have the technical knowledge of neuroanatomist, I guess I have a higher opinion of where science can go and a lower opinion of where it is. Whether you're talking about the discovery of quasicrystals for which the discoverer was practially barred from scientific circles because it went against "the laws of physics" (but has since been awared the nobel prize) or the more assinine "truth" that the 4-minute mile is (was) physically impossible, science grows and evolves and changes as we continue to push the boundaries.

For example, what about metamaterials for lenses? (Haha--now I'm just using fancy words that I don't even know the meaning of! ;D )

 

[K-amps]

If the maximum resolving power of the current L-series lenses is around 45MP for full-frame 35mm cameras then when the MP count exceeds 90MP is when we have too many MP. Why 90? Because at that point we've got enough resolution to properly sample the light and give clear definition to the 45MP worth of detail.

Kind of like how the music on CDs is sampled at 44khz, whereas the human can't hear much over 22k. The higher sampling gives better definition to what can be heard.

I may not be an expert in Digital photography, but I have spent half a lifetime as an Audiophile. If they had designed a "decent" Brick Filter at 22kHz, we would be fine. The issue was not frequency limitations, rather phase shifts caused by the brick filtering at 44.1kHz. Moving out the frequency bandwidth, merely softened the phase shift. PS: Most of us can't hear above 16kHz (maybe we could 20 years ago) :-\ but in trying to stick to the topic, why not 135mp (each photosite does RGB ) or even 180mp for in Camera 4 to 1 binning?

 

[K-amps]

One of the problems with very tiny photosites is the narrow angle of view of each photosite. Those toward the outer edges have a real issue trying to get light due to the angle of the light rays.

Does that in any way translate to more vignetting at the corners on the 7D?