Canon EOS R5 Mark II going to 60mp? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
You simply cannot argue that resolution = quality. The image on the left (or top) is from a 24 MP RAW file, the image on the right (or bottom) is from a 48 MP RAW file. Which is higher quality?
Upvote
0
More resolution = more information, that contributes to better technical quality, yes. It doesn't affect the artistic quality. When you downsize images that much, as in your example, you discard a lot of information, so the comparison isn't fair.
Upvote
0
Since mRAW and sRAW are debayered, they don’t perform like raw, especially when changing white balance. On top of that, since both have fewer MP, they don’t enlarge as well as a proper RAW.
But if you want a better-than-jpeg low resolution version of a proper RAW, then yes, m/sRAW is for you.
For modern bodies, this would be the HEIF option. Or cRAW.
Upvote
0
I bought my first MF digital back (60mp) in the end of 2017 - I guess I am in the clear and can say that without people questioning me then?
To be clear, kidding aside, I do not "need" 60+mp, but I do want them and can absolutely use them. And for the people who are happy with ~24mp... well they have plenty of choices already.
Upvote
0
This is a good point. At what point does video or image quality exceed the ability of the human eye/brain to resolve? I would think in some scientific or engineering situations there are needs for microscopic resolution. But for the average wildlife photographer for say a 13 x 19 inch print or for web display, what would the optimal resolution be? Just curious, not arguing anyones point because I don't know. It may be strictly subjective. I agree with Neuro that "more" sells, just like in the old days of horse powered engines. But at what point do we as photogrpahers say I can't tell the difference between x and y resolution on my super duper monitor or printer even when cropping?
Upvote
0
Unless you are a pixel peeper that actually knows what to look for then any APS-C or larger image sensor released within the last 10 years with good enough quality of light will pass most general audience eyeball test.This is a good point. At what point does video or image quality exceed the ability of the human eye/brain to resolve? I would think in some scientific or engineering situations there are needs for microscopic resolution. But for the average wildlife photographer for say a 13 x 19 inch print or for web display, what would the optimal resolution be? Just curious, not arguing anyones point because I don't know. It may be strictly subjective. I agree with Neuro that "more" sells, just like in the old days of horse powered engines. But at what point do we as photogrpahers say I can't tell the difference between x and y resolution on my super duper monitor or printer even when cropping?
People are already happy with $429 iPhone SE images... what more any image sensor larger than that with an EF or RF L lens?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Until, of course, you get into serious diffraction territory and inability to hand hold the camera sufficiently to see no difference between, let's say 80MP and 120MP. Had a chance to use both the 32MP R7 and 24MP R10 side-by-side a while back. Totally unscientific comparison, but only some shots were higher resolution at 100% on the R7, many indistinguishable between the two cameras.
Upvote
0
Most images are downsized for output. Given that smartphones have surpassed TVs for media consumption, most images are downsized a lot. That renders the improvement from more MP meaningless in many cases. Some people care more about technical image quality than artistic image quality. I think both are important, but personally I think artistic quality trumps technical quality.
There is far more even to technical quality than just resolution. In any case, it's really the needed output resolution that matters. As long as input resolution is higher than that, more downsampling provides limited practical benefit. Given the impact of diffraction, putting more MP into a full frame sensor is a diminishing return unless you can use a wide aperture (and that brings other limitations depending on the subject).
Having more MP is meaningful beneficial if you're focal length limited and need to crop. Personally, I'd prefer to use a longer focal length, and that's why I have a 600/4 and TCs. For subjects that require deep cropping even in that use case, atmospheric effects matter and diffraction becomes limiting at higher MP counts anyway, so still the benefit is limited. But if you're shooting at 300mm or 400mm instead of 840mm or 1200mm, sure...more MP is going to be a benefit.
Upvote
0
According to your logic, the fuzzy underwater image with lots of backscatter is a higher quality image, because it has more MP. Or maybe you will acknowledge that factors other than MP are more important for image quality. But maybe not...some people can't admit when they're wrong.
Upvote
0
In theory, maybe; in practice it's not so clear cut, especially when comparing different formats.
Here's an example of the 24mp Canon G1XIII at 45mm (70mm equivalent), f/6.3, against the same field of view taken out of an 26mp RP frame using the RF 50mm f/1.8 lens at f/8 ( to give more equivalence in depth of field). So to get the same framing the RP image is around 13 mp, so only 54% of the G1XIII pixels.
The G1XIII achieves an MTF 50 of around 3200 lw/ph, so it is no slouch in the resolution department.
Here is the full image from the G1XIII
Here is a crop from the centre at full resolution
And here is the centre form the RP cropped into the same field of view, making it 13mp. I then doubled the output in photoshop enhance before reducing to the same 6000 x 4000 mp as the G1XIII, so identical output size.
You can see here that the (originally) 13mp crop from the RP, using a good prime lens has lost nothing in resolution to the 24mp G1XIII. In fact the RP is considerably better despite being originally half the amount of pixels.
I took a FF comparison where I shot a 'landscape' scene on a 5DS with Tamron 45mm f/1.8 @ f/8 and printed it at A3 Super with native resolution, so 600 dpi, and then did the exact same shot with the RP and a 24 - 70 f/4 IS lens, again at same 45mm and f/8, but printed this at native output to that camera, so A3 Super at 300dpi.
It is almost impossible to tell any difference in the prints, even though one is higher mp, a better lens and 600dpi print.
From my experience of nearly seven years with 5DS cameras I would say that if you want more than 30 or so mp in FF you'd be better off looking at a larger format rather than cramming more pixels into FF.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The use cases for more MP change. If the Bayer pattern is smaller than the resolved image you'll avoid Bayer moire/artifacting. I'd like to see more supported options for alternative uses of 'extra' pixels as we get to the point we're out-resolving practical uses of more standard resolution for the sensor size. Auto-pixel binning? dual or tri ISO raws (I want more dynamic range)? As the ISO increases, auto-switch to dual then tri ISO to preserve dynamic range at the expense of resolution as an option? Assuming that at least dual row readout (as discovered by Magic Lantern) is still there, this'd could be a software only feature at first! If the IR filter can be moved to the Bayer colors, an extra pixel for IR, UV (possibly far fewer of them)? If the current gen tech would benefit, an unfiltered pixel for luminance to assist in at least getting 'an image' in extremely low light. Lots of things could be offered that aren't available officially yet.
That said, in the center for my best lenses with enough shutter speed etc I'm still seeing improvement. I'd pick more dynamic range and better low light performance given a choice, but I bet what we're seeing release is driven by what current generation tech makes possible and that's been increase resolution ahead of other things. Presumably actual products we're seeing are a balance of resolution, memory card speed and capacity, camera processor speed and professional demand (or competition/marketing).
Upvote
0
Where did you get the MTF50 of 3200 LW/PH for the G1XIII? Optyczne has measured it to be 1700 LW/PH at best in the centre at 45mm? https://www.optyczne.pl/389.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_PowerShot_G1_X_Mark_III_Optyka.html
Upvote
0
Similar threads
