mustafaakarsu said:
There was a stitched macro photo and setup description in a recent Really Right Stuff catalog, and it may also be online.
So yes, you can stitch macro images.
Practicality is another important variable.
Upvote
0
Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
There was a stitched macro photo and setup description in a recent Really Right Stuff catalog, and it may also be online.
So yes, you can stitch macro images.
Practicality is another important variable.
sanj said:
That statement is incorrect so there's really not much to learn. Many of Canon lenses would be good enough for a 100 MP FF sensor, at least at f/4.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
No, in the context of the interview, sensitivity means high ISO. That is very clear from what they were saying...that Canon already focused on high sensitivity, now they are focusing on high resolution. The only mention DR MIGHT come from their mention of "preserving pixel quality"...which to me does not sound like any kind of improvement, simply that they are maintaining current pixel quality while concurrently increasing pixel count.
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Nikon doesn't really get away with it. Nikon lenses affect output resolution, and in many cases limit it. Unless your using a Zeiss lens on a D810, or maybe the 14-24 Nikon or their new 800mm f/5.6, it's unlikely your going to get close to the resolving power limit of the 36.3mp sensor.
Upvote
0
Sure, if you settle for a 20+ PMP image. But if you do, why pay for a 100 MP image sensor.bdunbar79 said:
Canon's sharpest lens reaches 20 PMP on the 22.3 MP sensor. I would not expect it to reach over 30 PMP on a 100 MP sensor. If it does Canon is leaving money on the table every time they make this lens.
Upvote
0
I didn't say that you cant get a sharp shot beyond f5.6, it says it wont't get sharper until it runs into diffraction. So the resolution peaks @f5.6 if the lense is constructed well otherwise. Please go to a lensreview side of your choice, for example http://www.photozone.de/ , select any Canon APS-C lens and show me one example where you get better results on f8 or f11 than on the center of f5.6.
On Fullframe you'll get into this 1-2 stops later (with both sensors having an comparable pixelpitch). This peak will go even lower to the max-aperture when you minimize the pixel more and more. But you don't have to believe on physics, just buy and belive in your mojo.
Upvote
0
Correct.Lawliet said:
Your clue to the absolute performance of a lens is to compare the PMP of the lens to the MP of the sensor.
If a lens produces 21 PMP on a 22 MP sensor you know that it has the potential to go beyond 22 PMP.
Whereas a lens producing 21 PMP on a 36 MP sensor has already reached its own resolution limit.
The only way to know for sure would be if the industry started publishing charts showing image contrast as a function of line pair density. Today they typically only publish MTF charts based on a couple of very low line pair densities, typically 10 and 30 LP/mm. A 36 MP sensor corresponds to 104 LP/mm and a 50 MP sensor corresponds to 144 LP/mm, so you would like to know how the lens performs in this area.
Upvote
0
You're, of course, right to wonder.
I've heard similar comments each and every time there's been a bump in pixel count. I heard this when the first 5D came out. It was the same thing when the 5D MkII and more recently the Nikon D800 were introduced.
So many people continue to predict the _need_ for better optics... and... well, as you point out "good" lenses still out-perform the current high-resolution sensors.
If people want to buy new lenses, I figure it's their money. Whatever it takes for them to "feel good" about their equipment "needs". Yet from a physics perspective old lenses and new will continue to out-perform a 50mpixel FF sensor down through f/11.
I've heard similar comments each and every time there's been a bump in pixel count. I heard this when the first 5D came out. It was the same thing when the 5D MkII and more recently the Nikon D800 were introduced.
So many people continue to predict the _need_ for better optics... and... well, as you point out "good" lenses still out-perform the current high-resolution sensors.
If people want to buy new lenses, I figure it's their money. Whatever it takes for them to "feel good" about their equipment "needs". Yet from a physics perspective old lenses and new will continue to out-perform a 50mpixel FF sensor down through f/11.
Maiaibing said:
Upvote
0
vscd said:
The peak is both irrelevant and misleading. First of all, you can still get more resolution from a 50MP sensor at f/11 than you could from a 24MP sensor at the same f-stop. Second, many of Canon's better lenses are now diffraction limited below f/4 which means there's a long, long way to go before there's no point in adding more pixels even way beyond 50MP on full-frame.
Upvote
0
"User needs are broadly divided into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers."
So MP count and high iso SNR matter and otherwise it's crickets from Canon?
So MP count and high iso SNR matter and otherwise it's crickets from Canon?
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
That is true, but considering that it's DR that they have been being pounded over you'd think anyone with any marketing brains would try to go to some effort to make it clear that it was also DR that was being improved and not phrase it in a way that makes one as wary as could be so I'm kind of not so liking the sound of it all.
Upvote
0
dak723 said:
You do realize that people complained about banding and DR only because they found issues in photography and not in lab right? Sorry if you don't get it.
And have you ever heard of say wildlife photography where it can be very tricky/not allowed/expensive/etc. to get close and having a higher MP count can add more detail to such shots even at web resolution?
Upvote
0
vscd said:
1. DxO is terrible for rating lenses
2. Most of their scores are taken from lenses shot wide open or near so
3. It's trivial to see that a 7D captures a LOT more detail than a 5D3 of a subject the same distance away when using the same lens so if the resolution is such a waste then how come the difference is so trivial to produce real world?
4. total resolution depends upon a mix of the lens and sensor and even when a lens doesn't seem to make the most of a sensor that doesn't mean it won't deliver more in total at the end from a higher res sensor and don't forget that a lens might fail at the corners on a sensor but still excel over most of the area and I mean just because you took 30MP out of 36MP delivered doesn't mean you'd get 30MP out of 50MP delivered. First of all, you'd likely automatically get some bump just because total res is based on senor res+lens res in a combination that doesn't clip out the way you think it does and second, supposing the lens was doing ultra well over most of the frame and just getting blurry at the edges so maybe you'd get way better detail over most of the frame at 50MP even if the edges were still only at say 20MP equivalent or something
Upvote
0
jrista said:
It does sadly really have the ring to it of a 7D2 sensor just times 1.6 and 1.6. If that it all they could after this many years and it's taken that long to respond to higher MP from other makers.... yikes. It means they really have no care at all. They could've responded much earlier if that is all they were going to do but since the 5D3 still sold some they didn't care. They just are followers and milkers and won't release anything until forced.
I mean maybe not. I still have some silly hope, but it sadly seems silly.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Nikon 810 and Zeiss is probably the best possible combination of digital available today unless you need autofocus. Hopefully this is the quality Canon is striving for.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
