I skipped the 7DII and got sick of waiting for 7DIII, got the D500 and 200-500 instead. Awesome combo. I'll be surprised if Canon can even surpass that 4 years after it's release.I’m gonna pounce on a 7d3 like a hungry cougar..
Upvote
0
I skipped the 7DII and got sick of waiting for 7DIII, got the D500 and 200-500 instead. Awesome combo. I'll be surprised if Canon can even surpass that 4 years after it's release.I’m gonna pounce on a 7d3 like a hungry cougar..
Why, it's not meaningless. It now translates to 'the same but slightly tweaked'. An actually new sensor will be called 'revolutionary' or something like that, so we will know.Yup. “All new” is now meaningless when stated by Canon. They do sometimes release generational leaps, but all releases will be termed “all new.”
yes, you may as well forget about that.
it's not just the sensor it's the processors that have to handle all that. Canon's only done that on their C700. it's not even in their CINI lineup that much, and they have cooling fans.
So, I guess you're saying Canon doesn't have processors that can handle all that inside a DSLR body?
I also don't want to see aliasing artifacts in my photos. And I only very rarely see them with my 5DSR, which is why I would like more sensors without an AA-filter as they give sharper images.
Please explain the theory of how you can have AA-filters that kill the artifacts and have very little impact on actual fine detail.
Yes, especially the higher the resolution, the less the need for AA-filters as the artifacts are pushed to higher and higher frequencies.I am with you here, I got rid of the AA filter when switching to the 5DSr and and never looked back. Now my backup camera is a Sony A7R and my next camera will likely be the next Canon that doesn't have an AA filter. I do mostly architecture and interieur for a living, and I still have to try to find a single picture that shows any artifacts. Actually when I picture fabrics, I have less (if any) moiré, when my 5D2 with AA was a moiré beast. High Res cameras do not need AA filters, period. I prefer to have 1 picture out of 1000 with a vague artifact in the background than all my pictures with a soft filter. IMO Canon is too conservative on the matter.
I am with you here, I got rid of the AA filter when switching to the 5DSr and and never looked back.
I also don't want to see aliasing artifacts in my photos. And I only very rarely see them with my 5DSR, which is why I would like more sensors without an AA-filter as they give sharper images.
This camera won't have an AA filter (not cancelled like the 5DsR) and it will be fairly weak for video and speed, simple as that.
Optyczne and lensrentals have measured the MTFs with sharp lenses on the 5DSR and 5DS and found the 5DSR to be significantly sharper - seeOne of my very first shoots with the 5Ds showed moire in the groom's shirt. I would have hated to see it or clean it up without the AA filter attenuating it. While pixel peeping I could also find sections of his jacket and the bride's dress that would have broken out into full moire on a 5Dsr (i.e. they were showing hints of it).
Before buying I went cross-eyed looking at test shots for sharpness and fine detail differences. On sharpness I found the difference amounted to small changes in post sharpening. I sharpen each image to taste any way so I would rather deal with that than moire. On fine detail/resolved detail I could not find a convincing example where one actually resolved more than the other. (I did find a couple examples where the 5Ds shot seemed to suffer from some other factor which the reviewer pinned on the AA filter.)
That said it seems the 5Ds filter is weak which would make sense as the 5Dsr has to cancel that filter. It's not actually removed. A lot of other Canon cameras seem to have AA filters which are too strong. I'm in the camp that would like to see Canon continue to use AA filters, just weak ones.
Optyczne and lensrentals have measured the MTFs with sharp lenses on the 5DSR and 5DS and found the 5DSR to be significantly sharper - see
Your 5DSR has exactly the same AA filter as the 5DS, it just has a de-AA filter behind it too... it restores most of the original optical path but doesn't replicate non-AA to 100%.
We have never had a Canon camera delivered without an AA filter.
You don't print graphs. I don't use prints of playing cards that lack fine detail to make judgements about resolution of fine detail.I don't print graphs. Here's the sharpness difference at full size. This is extreme hair splitting that would be invisible in any print with no post processing.
View attachment 183938
Here it is with 35%/2px applied to the left.
View attachment 183939
If the three were unlabeled and shuffled I don't know if I could accurately, repeatedly tell them apart while pixel peeping. No human has the eyesight to tell them apart in a print. The difference is less than the difference between fine art papers on an Epson Pro printer.
You don't print graphs. I don't use prints of playing cards that lack fine detail to make judgements about resolution of fine detail.
Putting it scientifically, conventional sharpening increases edge sharpness, and so you could sharpen edges from a 5DS image to be very close to that from a 5DSR.
But, when it comes to fine detail, like measured by lensrentals or optyczne, the 5DSR has higher resolution.
Considering the size of the cards in the full dpreview test scene they're a valid example. If you want to go 'finer' look at the fabric samples in the Imaging Resource test shots, or the fine print in the dpreview shot. Or hair, eyelashes, and skin pores in model shots. Still no difference that's visible outside of pixel peeping.
You can manipulate either shot to produce a much higher MTF50 value than LensRentals recorded. However, the level of sharpening that produces the maximum MTF50 value in a test isn't going to look very pleasing to the eye. Such tests can be informative, but understand how they work, what their limitations are, and how they map to the real world. Especially in the age of digital processing.
They didn't test fine detail or resolution, they tested sharpness.
Read the y-axis of the graph: the units are lpmm = line pairs per mm ie resolution. The MTFs reported are resolution.They didn't test fine detail or resolution, they tested sharpness.
Read the y-axis of the graph: the units are lpmm = line pairs per mm ie resolution. The MTFs reported are resolution.
It has the same units as resolution. But it becomes the actual resolution only when your noise is 50% (for MTF50) as strong as your signal.Read the y-axis of the graph: the units are lpmm = line pairs per mm ie resolution. The MTFs reported are resolution.