Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

[Loswr]

resolve better?
its clearly so that d800 resolves more than 5dmk3 with the right lens

It's déjà vu all over again. Yes, with the right lens. But on average, across a large group of lenses, the D800 cannot out-resolve the 5DIII, according to DxO.

It is also about DR and cleanliness of the raw image.

Sign next to Nikon dSLR at Best Buy: "Great DR and clean RAW."

Comment by 'average consumer' overheard: "Well, if I was one-a them vegan-types that ate only raw foods, I'd sure as heck need a great doctor! Think I'll check out that Canon over there..."

 

[Don Haines]

Do you really want to see what happens when you go from a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor to a 46 megapixel sensor? Do you want to see how the lens affects sensor sharpness? Take your lens, mount it on your FF camera, take a photo that shows off sharpness. Then take that lens, mount it on a Rebel, and do the same. You will find that only lenses of superior sharpness will give you a sharp image on your Rebel...... and that is what will happen when you go full frame high megapixel....

Unless you have a camera bag full of the finest L-glass, you can rant on and on about which sensor and which camera outresolves who..... but out in the real world most people have bought into a SYSTEM.... and by far the most important part and the most expensive part of that system is the glass....

You can take the crappiest Nikon DSLR, put a high end lens on it, and it will outresolve the finest Canon camera with a kit lens. Likewise, take the crappiest Canon, put on some high end L-glass, and it will outresolve the finest Nikon with a kit lens.

You want to know the order of things?
#1 - photographer
#2 - glass
#3 - camera

..... and the glass is an investment while the camera can be best thought of as expendable.

Sorry for the rant, but this thread has degenerated into another DXO/SENSOR/NIKON/CANON arguefest, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand..

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Do you really want to see what happens when you go from a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor to a 46 megapixel sensor? Do you want to see how the lens affects sensor sharpness? Take your lens, mount it on your FF camera, take a photo that shows off sharpness. Then take that lens, mount it on a Rebel, and do the same. You will find that only lenses of superior sharpness will give you a sharp image on your Rebel...... and that is what will happen when you go full frame high megapixel....

Unless you have a camera bag full of the finest L-glass, you can rant on and on about which sensor and which camera outresolves who..... but out in the real world most people have bought into a SYSTEM.... and by far the most important part and the most expensive part of that system is the glass....

You can take the crappiest Nikon DSLR, put a high end lens on it, and it will outresolve the finest Canon camera with a kit lens. Likewise, take the crappiest Canon, put on some high end L-glass, and it will outresolve the finest Nikon with a kit lens.

You want to know the order of things?
#1 - photographer
#2 - glass
#3 - camera

..... and the glass is an investment while the camera can be best thought of as expendable.

Sorry for the rant, but this thread has degenerated into another DXO/SENSOR/NIKON/CANON arguefest, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand..

+100

 

[Loswr]

[quote author=DxOMark]
Perceptual MPix: a much simpler tool to score and compare lenses
P-Mpix is the unit of a sharpness measurement. The number of P-Mpix of a camera/lens combination is equal to the pixel count of a sensor that would give the same sharpness if tested with a perfect theoretical optics, as the camera/lens combination under test.
For example, if a camera with a sensor of 24Mpix when used with a given lens has a P-Mpix of 18MPix, it means that somewhere in the optical system 6Mpix are lost, in the sense that as an observer you will not perceive the additional sharpness that these 6Mpix should have added to the photos if everything was perfect.
[/quote]

According to DxOMark, the best prime and best zoom from each are:

Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 22 P-Mpix
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G on D800 - 22 P-Mpix

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 21 P-Mpix
Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on D800 - 21 P-Mpix

So, by DxO's criteria and definition, Canon's best prime and zoom lens are basically not limiting system resolution (within a 1 MP margin of error). However, Nikon's best prime and zoom on the D800 are resulting in the 'loss' of 14-15 MP....resulting in a perceived sharpness of even Nikon's best lenses on the D800 as no better than Canon's best lenses.

Interestingly, while the D800 appears to be 'too much' for Nikon lenses in that the lenses are clearly limiting overall system resolution, we don't know from these data if we're at the limit of the Canon lenses.

 

[BrettS]

I hear the noise of someone rustling about with chart papers...

 

[rpt]

Do you really want to see what happens when you go from a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor to a 46 megapixel sensor? Do you want to see how the lens affects sensor sharpness? Take your lens, mount it on your FF camera, take a photo that shows off sharpness. Then take that lens, mount it on a Rebel, and do the same. You will find that only lenses of superior sharpness will give you a sharp image on your Rebel...... and that is what will happen when you go full frame high megapixel....

Unless you have a camera bag full of the finest L-glass, you can rant on and on about which sensor and which camera outresolves who..... but out in the real world most people have bought into a SYSTEM.... and by far the most important part and the most expensive part of that system is the glass....

You can take the crappiest Nikon DSLR, put a high end lens on it, and it will outresolve the finest Canon camera with a kit lens. Likewise, take the crappiest Canon, put on some high end L-glass, and it will outresolve the finest Nikon with a kit lens.

You want to know the order of things?
#1 - photographer
#2 - glass
#3 - camera

..... and the glass is an investment while the camera can be best thought of as expendable.

Sorry for the rant, but this thread has degenerated into another DXO/SENSOR/NIKON/CANON arguefest, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand..

+100

Yup! A +100 from me too.

 

[mjbehnke]

I think that is why Canon has been doing alot of len upgrades. I think they are making sure that users who will buy a Big MP body will be able to get results out of it via the new L glass. Just MHO, but I think Canon is smart to upgrade glass first.

 

[pj1974]

I think that is why Canon has been doing alot of len upgrades. I think they are making sure that users who will buy a Big MP body will be able to get results out of it via the new L glass. Just MHO, but I think Canon is smart to upgrade glass first.

+1 I have been thinking along the same lines as this, above.

Canon has made some very good moves regarding digital photography in the past (eg first in FFs, first DSLR with video and live-view, etc).

So the idea of first getting a suitable amount of high quality lenses to get the most of any increased MP DSLRs (particularly FF) makes a lot of sense to me.

When I upgraded from an 8MP 350D to a 18MP 7D, the requirement for better glass to get the most out of the increased resolution / sensor was clear to me. I now have high quality lenses covering 10mm to 300mm, including Canon L glass too.

Regards

Paul

 

[David Hull]

Do you really want to see what happens when you go from a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor to a 46 megapixel sensor? Do you want to see how the lens affects sensor sharpness? Take your lens, mount it on your FF camera, take a photo that shows off sharpness. Then take that lens, mount it on a Rebel, and do the same. You will find that only lenses of superior sharpness will give you a sharp image on your Rebel...... and that is what will happen when you go full frame high megapixel....

Unless you have a camera bag full of the finest L-glass, you can rant on and on about which sensor and which camera outresolves who..... but out in the real world most people have bought into a SYSTEM.... and by far the most important part and the most expensive part of that system is the glass....

You can take the crappiest Nikon DSLR, put a high end lens on it, and it will outresolve the finest Canon camera with a kit lens. Likewise, take the crappiest Canon, put on some high end L-glass, and it will outresolve the finest Nikon with a kit lens.

You want to know the order of things?
#1 - photographer
#2 - glass
#3 - camera

..... and the glass is an investment while the camera can be best thought of as expendable.

Sorry for the rant, but this thread has degenerated into another DXO/SENSOR/NIKON/CANON arguefest, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand..

Yep... I don't know why people can't figure this out. This sort of thinking used to be common sense in teh film days.

+1 for sure.

 

[Loswr]

According to DxOMark, the best prime and best zoom from each are:

Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 22 P-Mpix
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G on D800 - 22 P-Mpix

You're wrong or rather you've quoted incomplete information. If you look here:

Then you will see that the Nikon D800 with the Sigma 35/1.4 bests the Nikon 85/1.4G with a P-MPix score of 23.

Grasping at straws, are we? I was comparing Nikon vs. Canon lenses, and last time I checked, Nikon doesn't make the Sigma 35/1.4.

Ok, so with that excellent lens not made by Nikon, the D800 is only throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP. Woot.

 

[roguewave]

According to DxOMark, the best prime and best zoom from each are:

Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 22 P-Mpix
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G on D800 - 22 P-Mpix

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 21 P-Mpix
Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on D800 - 21 P-Mpix

So, by DxO's criteria and definition, Canon's best prime and zoom lens are basically not limiting system resolution (within a 1 MP margin of error). However, Nikon's best prime and zoom on the D800 are resulting in the 'loss' of 14-15 MP....resulting in a perceived sharpness of even Nikon's best lenses on the D800 as no better than Canon's best lenses.

Interestingly, while the D800 appears to be 'too much' for Nikon lenses in that the lenses are clearly limiting overall system resolution, we don't know from these data if we're at the limit of the Canon lenses.

Something is not right with these numbers.

For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.

Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.

So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Loswr]

Aomething is not right with these numbers.

For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.

Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.

So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Pixel density isn't the only factor - sensor size matters.

 

[bseitz234]

Woot.

Oh come on, put some excitement into your sarcastic owl calls!

 

[roguewave]

Aomething is not right with these numbers.

For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.

Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.

So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Pixel density isn't the only factor - sensor size matters.

Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?

 

[Loswr]

Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?

P-Mpix isn't a measure of resolution, although resolution is a contributing factor. Resolution ≠ sharpness. A true measure of spatial resolution involves a physical distance. Usual units are line pairs / mm (LP/mm). For a spatially normalized measure in LP/mm, the higher density sensor will outresolve the lower density sensor.

However, that's a per-unit basis - and that's not how we look at images. MTF50, a commonly used measure of sharpness, is reported in line pairs / picture height (LP/PH). In that case, the greater 'height' of a FF sensor means higher values. You can see that on photozone.de - when you compare a lens on FF vs. APS-C, the MTF50 values will be higher for the 5DII tests than the 50D tests, despite the higher pixel density of the 50D. This isn't just a numerical phenomenon - take a look at the TDP comparison of two 18 MP sensors, the 1D X vs. the 7D (same lens, the 200/2L IS at f/4). The 1D X is producing a noticeably sharper image.

P-Mpix isn't exactly measuring sharpness, either. It's basically a measure derived from subjective quality factor (SQF), which simply put is an MTF measurement that's adjusted to match human perception (the psychophysical basis is that humans percieve some spatial frequencies better than others, and viewing distance is relevant to perception of sharpness, too).

That difference you see in TDP's ISO 12233 crops can be measured by SQF, and that's basically what P-Mpix is telling you. For example, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II that delivers 22 P-Mpix on the 5DIII achieves only 14 P-Mpix on the 7D. In fact, the 300mm f/4L IS at $1400 delivers better perceived sharpness on the 5DIII than the $7000 supertele lens on the 7D.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Overheard today:

"My wife wants to buy Canon because it has touch screen."

i.e. for her that is the killer feature of the Canon 650 and it is things like this that let Canon get away with not improving IQ.

Canon are adding bells and whistles to their camera rather than improving its abilities to take better photos.

Maybe that feature helps that lady to take better pictures

 

[David Hull]

Overheard today:

"My wife wants to buy Canon because it has touch screen."

i.e. for her that is the killer feature of the Canon 650 and it is things like this that let Canon get away with not improving IQ.

Canon are adding bells and whistles to their camera rather than improving its abilities to take better photos.

The real answer to that is the so-called "IQ" of the Canon equipment is essentially the same as that of Nikon (Pentax, Sony, Oly..., pick your favorite). The output of the equipment when used properly will be essentially indistinguishable. So she was correct, pick the gear based on price and feature set.

It is anyone’s guess as to why Canon has not bothered to make changes to their implementation but one valid guess is that they see no urgent need to fix something that isn’t really broke. Canon is successful because the equipment does an admirable job of producing stunning images that can hold their own against any of the rest.

 

[Skulker]

............
That difference you see in TDP's ISO 12233 crops can be measured by SQF, and that's basically what P-Mpix is telling you. For example, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II that delivers 22 P-Mpix on the 5DIII achieves only 14 P-Mpix on the 7D. .............

And that's why I was pleasantly surprised not to miss the crop factor on switching to 1Dx from 7D. Actually it's what made me trade in the 7D for the 5D3 as back up. (Not that the 7D has suddenly become a poor camera, I still have plenty of shots taken with it that I love)

 

[J.R.]

Overheard today:

"My wife wants to buy Canon because it has touch screen."

i.e. for her that is the killer feature of the Canon 650 and it is things like this that let Canon get away with not improving IQ.

Canon are adding bells and whistles to their camera rather than improving its abilities to take better photos.

Maybe that feature helps that lady to take better pictures

+1

Everyone's needs and perceptions are different - for some people a touch-screen can be a deal-maker.

 

[insanitybeard]

No, she didn't care about picture quality. The 650D could have produced images half as good as the Nikon but the touch screen, well that's just like new phone that has a touch screen and "iPad" that has a touch screen, so why would anyone want one of those prehistoric things with knobs and stuff?

Has DxOMark quantified that the Canon images are only 50% as good as the Nikon?