Canon EOS sensors, and technology

[Phil Indeblanc]

Hmmm... Just buy a Sony A7R + EF adapter. Since you're doing food photography and other macros, you don't need that "better" AF. ;D You don't need to stay with one brand (and I know you don't). Give some love to other brands also.

That is exactly what will happen. But I am patient as I have alternatives.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Don, we are on the edge. I believe this also. It is the companies that are willing to take a risk that will pull forward. Ricoh cannot afford doing so much longer(Didnt they just merge?), Sigma is stuck with low mpixels. Lytro is just budding....But yes, the form itself is changing. The way we hold the device to our faces can evolve in time. We shall see.

Canon can afford taking risks. Not necessarily big ones. Start with optional AA.

So what if I am of the minority. Who knighted you as the silencer of wishful thinking?

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.

.

There are plenty threads. Who said stop and reply to this one

 

[tolusina]

Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.

.

There are plenty threads. Who said stop and reply to this one

Your inanity suggested it.

 

[jrista]

Yes, it is a fact. The magnitude of that difference is not so obvious. Detail that is present but blurred in a predictable manner can be brought out in post. (Side note - optical microscopes can now resolve beyond the Abbé diffraction limit, and one way of achieving that uses post-processing analysis of moiré resulting from patterned illumination, i.e. since the pattern is predictable, detail not present in the image can be extrapolated mathematically.)

Also, depending on the lens much of that extra detail may not be there to begin with, which is why the D800 with a Nikon 24-70/2.8 barely outresolves a 5DIII with a Canon 24-70/2.8 II, despite the 60% higher MP count of the D800's sensor.

I thought DXO showed the D800E as having the highest IQ if not almost as high as the Phase One IQ280 ? I could be wrong as I didn't study it, it was something I read in discussion of MF DB's. If that is not the case, please do list the top 3-5 markers of IQ in the DXO testing.

Do all the calculations you want. I am shooting for over 20 years now.
I have done my side by side apples to apples test using a Leica R Macro 60 lens mounted on each on a studio stand with controlled lighting. If you shoot jewelry, you will know the difference without a second thought.

Yes Don, I use a P25/P45 and have used, Kodak pro back, Blad CF39, Sinar evol75 on a Sinar 4x5. I have used Nikon before, but focus was horrible about 10+ years ago. Switched to Canon and have loved it for the product and service. I think they can do better in specialized features.

I use it in the studio on still subjects. For people I often use it for portraits that are slow moving. Otherwise I use the 5D mark2.

There is a significant difference in the lowest end which is the P25(22MP) DB vs a 5D mark2. Regardless of all the numbers these guys want to crunch. A good portion and I don't hesitate to say it is due to the AA filter.

First, you put too much weight on DXO's numbers. As far as their sensor tests go, they do not actually measure "sharpness" or anything like that. It's actually extremely difficult to objectively test a sensor in terms of sharpness, as you have to use a lens to do so, in which case your not testing a sensor, your testing a sensor and lens combined, which totally changes the outcome (and the reasons why you get that outcome). The other problem with lens+sensor tests is they are bound by the least capable component...if the lens is the weak point, then no matter how good the sensor is, your output resolution is limited by what the lens is capable of...you can never resolve more than the lens resolves, period. Similarly, if the sensor has limited resolution and the lens is a powerhouse (like the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4), then your output resolution is limited by the sensor...you can never resolve more than the sensor resolves, period. That makes determining how sharp a sensor is a very muddy issue, one that cannot be definitively pinned down. Hence the reason DXO measures things like SNR and dynamic range and color sensitivity in it's sensor tests...that's all they CAN measure.

Regardless of what DXO has to say about the D800 or D800E sensors, the removal of an AA filter does not increase image quality. Actually, in all too many cases (quite possibly the majority of cases), removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality, thanks to increased aliasing in general, moire specifically. This is clearly evident by all the numerous standardized image tests done with cameras over the years...while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire. DPReview has plenty of examples where the removal of AA filters in Nikon cameras, or even just the weakening of the AA filter in many brands (including Canon) has greatly increased the amount of moire that occurs. (A great baseline for comparison on DPR is the 7D...it has an appropriately strong AA filter and doesn't suffer from moire at all. You can compare any newer camera with a sensor that is supposedly "better" than the 7D because of the removal or weakening of the AA filter...those images will be sharper, but they are usually riddled with moire.)

If the things you photograph have no regular/repeating patterns, and do not contain any elements with clearly defined edges, then increased aliasing due to having no AA filter is not an issue. There are not very many forms of photography where that actually turns out to be the case...landscape photography is probably one of the very few. Even say insect macro photography, for example, will suffer from the removal of the AA filter...things like antenna, feelers, legs, wing veins, anything thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings will end up with clearly aliased edges, and not even a highly optimized AHD demosaicing algorithm will be able to hide that fact.

The only thing removal of the AA filter MIGHT do is increase the acutance between pixels, which ultimately has the potential to increase sharpness. This increase in sharpness is only possible if the lens is already resolving enough detail that the real image resolved at the sensor plane is not being oversampled by the sensor. Someone using the Nikon 14-24mm zoom lens on a D800E to photograph landscapes would probably be in heaven without an AA filter. There is a whole host of Sigma lenses that would probably fit quite well on the D800E also. I know I'd love to have such a kit for my landscape photography. For just about anything else, however, I'll take a camera with a properly designed OLPF. Sharpness is not the sole defining trait of image quality, it is only one of many (the others being things like SNR, dynamic range, color fidelity, spatial resolution).

Furthermore, the kind of blurring caused by an optical low pass filter (aa filter) is regular, predictable, and well-understood. That means it is very easily reversed (deconvoluted) with mathematical algorithms in software, and since it is a small effect at a specific and narrow range of spatial frequencies, it can be nearly entirely reversed. All it really takes is a light application of your basic unsharp mask to do a darn good job, and smarter algorithms that come with photo editing tools like Nik or Topaz suites can do an even better job. This is what Neuro was talking about.

 

[CarlTN]

I think once Canon introduces their high MP full frame camera, you will see most Canon fans line up behind it. As for medium format, I definitely don't see it happening for Canon in the very near future. In the other threads where this was discussed, I said it was my feeling that a (smallish) medium format, would likely take over the full frame 35mm format, in the relatively more distant future.

So really, what we should all be wondering about, is just how good, and how much dynamic range, is this next full frame Canon camera going to have? Is it possible it still won't compare to the D800's dynamic range? And if so, will this not keep the hordes of Canon fans (myself included) from lining up behind it as the "best" Canon sensor? I guess it depends on how close it gets to the Exmor, if not exceeding it in any way.

 

[Loswr]

There is still another problem, however, that mirrorless AF systems will need to overcome before they can really achieve parity with their dedicated AF system counterparts: Low Light Sensitivity. Modern dedicated AF systems are sensitive to light down to the -2 to -3 EV range.

The Sony a7S has autofocus senstivity down to -4 EV, meaning according to the specifications that mirrorless it can AF in 1/4 the light of the 1D X/5DIII and 1/2 the light of the 6D.

As for EVFs, I can only hope they get significantly better.

The report on the potential 1D X issue with AF in cold temperatures reminded me of an issue with EVFs - my OVF allows me to continue shooting after the LCD blacks out from exposure to sub-freezing temps. Would an EVF work in those conditions?

 

[Loswr]

I thought DXO showed the D800E as having the highest IQ if not almost as high as the Phase One IQ280 ? I could be wrong as I didn't study it, it was something I read in discussion of MF DB's. If that is not the case, please do list the top 3-5 markers of IQ in the DXO testing.

Clearly you didn't study it - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. DxO measures dynamic range and color depth at base ISO, and they measure noise at higher ISO, and throw those numbers into a black box formula with undisclosed weightings for the various factors, a formula which apparently changes from camera to camera. FWIW, the reason that the D800/D800E/a7R sensors score higher than MFDBs in DxO's tests is because the ISO noise score of those Sony sensors is around 2800, and that's higher than most MFDBs can even be set.

The bottom line is that you were discussing sharpness, and you invoked DxO, but DxO does not test sensor sharpness.

 

[Don Haines]

Don, we are on the edge. I believe this also. It is the companies that are willing to take a risk that will pull forward. Ricoh cannot afford doing so much longer(Didnt they just merge?), Sigma is stuck with low mpixels. Lytro is just budding....But yes, the form itself is changing. The way we hold the device to our faces can evolve in time. We shall see.

Canon can afford taking risks. Not necessarily big ones. Start with optional AA.

So what if I am of the minority. Who knighted you as the silencer of wishful thinking?

I am not the silencer of wishfully thinking.... As the person in this thread who asked why you can't have a replaceable AA filter like a focus screen used to be, or why in a mirror less camera you couldn't have one move in and out like mirror, and who thinks something big is about to come from canon, I am probably the king of wishful thinking.

 

[Don Haines]

OK, I shouldn't say large segment. But "ground breaking" changes or improvements are what big tech companies need to keep the spirit of innovation alive, don't you think? People who echo these sometimes small, and sometimes game changing innovations are what can snowball the market direction.

I think we are on the edge of a shift in digital cameras.

We need to step back and ask "why mirrors". In the days of film, you needed the mirror and optical viewfinder to know what you were looking at and we needed focusing screens to know if we were in focus.... Then came digital sensors and we treated them like film... because that is what we were used to.

A digital sensor is NOT film. It has different strengths and different weakness.... and the mirror is no longer the only way to see through the lens. A decent mirrorless camera (and there are several on them out there) will be designed to the strengths of digital technology. They already do many things better than DSLRs, but a great mirrorless camera will have to do everything better. Right now, the two big stumbling blocks are focusing and viewfinders.

Dual pixel technology may well be the end of the focusing dilemma... and as it matures we should be able to have far more capable focusing systems on mirrorless cameras than with DSLRs... the point I keep bringing up is that we should be able to recognize a bird and track it as it flies through the air, even though the operator is not steady. We already have P/S cameras that recognize individual faces and can even tag them for use on social media and I have a waterproof P/S that has "cat mode" and "dog mode" and when you put it in "cat mode" it tracks the face of the cat and not the dog so please don't tell me this is a far-fetched idea... It's not coming, it's already here!

The second stumbling block is viewfinders. Right now, optical viewfinders are better than EVFs.. A few years ago EVFs were garbage... there are some real nice ones now.... who knows what the future will bring? At some point, people will stop trying to design an EVF to be like an optical viewfinder and design them to the strengths of digital... perhaps they will get a bit bigger... perhaps you will have a little window open up on it to check focus at 10X... or exposure preview.... or whatever... but until they stop pretending it is optical they will be inferior. I am sure that what is currently in the labs is good enough for the real world.... we are that close.

I can see Canon coming out with a new camera that shakes things up. I would love to see a quad-pixel technology 7D mirrorless camera where you could address the sub-pixels individually for a 24megapixel image with similar ISO and noise to the 70D, or bin them together for a 6megapixel low-light camera that had better low light performance than a 1DX....

Canon has a HUGE R+D department.... they are not all siting on their rear ends playing solitaire... something is coming and the delays to the successor to the 7D may just mean that the change is big.

Very well put. Especially that last bit...the change would really have to be big like that, for it to be justifiable. Otherwise, it's just a demonstration of a major Canon blunder, if the 7D II comes out and is a mediocre improvement over the 7D, and not much in terms of competition against counterpart offerings from other brands.

Regarding the two points about viewfinders and focusing. I'm not sure were "nearing the end" of the issues. I think DPAF marks the beginning of finally moving down the right path, however I think there is a lot of innovation along that path that needs to take place before you start seeing action photographers seriously think about dumping their dedicated AF sensors and familiar AF points for a mirrorless image-sensor-based AF system. DPAF should at least become QPAF, so we can detect phase in at least two directions. I think we may ultimately need to see one further innovation, dual-direction QPAF, where you have horizontal and vertical with one half of the sensor's pixels, as well as phase detected diagonally in two perpendicular directions with the other half of the sensor's pixels. Only then would you be technologically similar to how dedicated PDAF sensors are designed, and only then could you really start building advanced firmware to really produce high rate, high accuracy AF without a dedicated AF sensor.

There is still another problem, however, that mirrorless AF systems will need to overcome before they can really achieve parity with their dedicated AF system counterparts: Low Light Sensitivity. Modern dedicated AF systems are sensitive to light down to the -2 to -3 EV range. Not only that, each dedicated PDAF point receives a tiny fraction of the total light entering the lens (thanks to passing through a half-silvered mirror and an AF unit splitting lens), and each line sensor that comprises an AF point recieves at most half of that tiny fraction of total light. All that, down to at least f/5.6, and in "pro" grade cameras, down to f/8. Dedicated PDAF sensors are ludicrously sensitive to the smallest amount of light...and largely thanks to the fact that they can be fabricated independently of the image sensor, so they can be explicitly designed with huge photodiodes in each line sensor that have massive SNR. I'm not sure how camera manufacturers will overcome this issue, as even at very high ISO settings, image sensors are nowhere near as sensitive as the photodiodes in PDAF sensors. I'm sure one of the big manufacturers will figure out something brilliant to solve this problem...but I think it is definitely something that needs to be dealt with.

(BTW, I am aware that Canon's current DPAF supports live view focusing up to f/11, however the speed of that focusing is nowhere even remotely close to as fast as a dedicated PDAF unit. The slower speed gives DPAF a bit of an advantage in that area...similar to the advantage Canon creates when they force a slower AF rate when attaching one of their teleconverters to a lens.)

As for EVFs, I can only hope they get significantly better. I'm very curious to see what Canon does with their Hybrid VF...I wonder how that will ultimately work, and whether it will be as flexible and user configurable/selectable as it really needs to be to be a success. I suspect it will be rather inflexible, and only activate the EVF under very specific circumstances (such as recording video).

That's why I'd like to see quad pixel technology with bigger pixels and the ability to address the sub-pixels....

 

[jrista]

@Don: What do you mean by "address the sub pixels"? For DPAF, or QPAF, to work, the "subpixels" have to be underneath the CFA. If you are thinking you could get a higher resolution image by "addressing sub pixels", I don't think that would actually work.

I think this is the same mistake people make when they thing DPAF can improve DR...it really can't. MagicLantern improved DR by reading FULL pixels at two different ISO settings, and blending the result. But if you read half pixels at one ISO, and half pixels at another ISO, you are actually getting quite a bit less light for both your high and low ISO "channel". Theoretically, you could improve the noise of the low ISO channel by applying the high ISO channels the way ML does, but since you are effectively doubling noise in the first place by using half pixels, your net gain in the end is effectively nothing...you end up roughly back where you started (i.e. if you started by binning the two halves (or four quads)).

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Clearly you didn't study it - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
The bottom line is that you were discussing sharpness, and you invoked DxO, but DxO does not test sensor sharpness.

The bottom line is that I said if it doesn't apply, Then pardon me...so get over DxO. Stop spewing some simple fact you simply know, yet doesn't help develop the conversation. Talk about a little knowledge!

Don,
I'll take wishful thinking and king of wishful thinking or daydreamer over any fact checkers, derailleurs, "don't think, just do as you're told" mental blockers any day.

 

[Loswr]

I'll take wishful thinking and king of wishful thinking or daydreamer over any fact checkers, derailleurs, "don't think, just do as you're told" mental blocks any day.

The cold, hard realities of optical physics and marketing trump wishful thinking and daydreams, at least in the real world. I can't speak for what goes on behind mental blocks.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

First, you put too much weight on DXO's numbers. As far as their sensor tests go, they do not actually measure "sharpness" or anything like that. It's actually extremely difficult to objectively test a sensor in terms of sharpness, as you have to use a lens to do so, in which case your not testing a sensor, your testing a sensor and lens combined, which totally changes the outcome (and the reasons why you get that outcome). The other problem with lens+sensor tests is they are bound by the least capable component...if the lens is the weak point, then no matter how good the sensor is, your output resolution is limited by what the lens is capable of...you can never resolve more than the lens resolves, period. Similarly, if the sensor has limited resolution and the lens is a powerhouse (like the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4), then your output resolution is limited by the sensor...you can never resolve more than the sensor resolves, period. That makes determining how sharp a sensor is a very muddy issue, one that cannot be definitively pinned down. Hence the reason DXO measures things like SNR and dynamic range and color sensitivity in it's sensor tests...that's all they CAN measure.

This is not news. Lets leave DxO out. I am sorry I even mentioned them for this discussion. I mixed some info and used them as a point of reference. Its something that can happen with the amount of info I go through. Please accept my blunder as a simple error as DXO is often the reference point for sensor quality, and I understand it is not of sharpness of the sensor, and more with DR and ISo, and the related.

Regardless of what DXO has to say about the D800 or D800E sensors, the removal of an AA filter does not increase image quality. Actually, in all too many cases (quite possibly the majority of cases), removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality, thanks to increased aliasing in general, moire specifically. This is clearly evident by all the numerous standardized image tests done with cameras over the years...while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire. DPReview has plenty of examples where the removal of AA filters in Nikon cameras, or even just the weakening of the AA filter in many brands (including Canon) has greatly increased the amount of moire that occurs. (A great baseline for comparison on DPR is the 7D...it has an appropriately strong AA filter and doesn't suffer from moire at all. You can compare any newer camera with a sensor that is supposedly "better" than the 7D because of the removal or weakening of the AA filter...those images will be sharper, but they are usually riddled with moire.)

while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire

The moire is subjective. I'm not too interested in the DPReview samples showing loads of moire issues. I have plenty personal samples I can stand by to tell you otherwise. Many samples in those cases are looking to show moire, and samples of it.

removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality

Be more specific. As with this statement, in this discussion you are saying that fullframe or larger sensors that are not using AA have lower image quality. How do you figure?

If the things you photograph have no regular/repeating patterns, and do not contain any elements with clearly defined edges, then increased aliasing due to having no AA filter is not an issue. There are not very many forms of photography where that actually turns out to be the case...landscape photography is probably one of the very few. Even say insect macro photography, for example, will suffer from the removal of the AA filter...things like antenna, feelers, legs, wing veins, anything thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings will end up with clearly aliased edges, and not even a highly optimized AHD demosaicing algorithm will be able to hide that fact.

The underlined falls under EXACTLY what I shoot on a regular basis, and I, with all the respect I have for your knowledge as I have read much of your posts, I think you are simply flat wrong about this. I have worked with about 20 digital camera systems in the past 24 years. I certainly don't have the understanding of sensors, and electro engineering you do, or even in the realm of it. I know I have shot just about everything there is to shoot, and I specialize in macro work WITH dealing of " thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings ". I uesd the Kodak 14mpixel SLRc camera, and if it didn't have issues with handling light, I would continue using it. The images from that didn't suffer the things you claim. Nor do the MF backs, tossing the optional AA filter aside. (never used one to this day). Has moire EVER happened? Yes. Can I remember it being a problem or can I even count on my 10 fingers vs over 400K frames (with half using filter free cameras)? NO.

Earlier in the post someone mentioned that as one gets better at shooting and images get better focus and sharper you will see moire show up often. This maybe a true statement on its own. Just doesn't apply to me, as I shoot much of my stuff in studio. I use Schneider, Leica and Rodenstock from the APOs to HRs to the digitar.

The only thing removal of the AA filter MIGHT do is increase the acutance between pixels, which ultimately has the potential to increase sharpness....

The only thing removal of the AA filter MIGHT do is increase the acutance between pixels, which ultimately has the potential to increase sharpness.

This increase in sharpness is only possible if the lens is already resolving enough detail that the real image resolved at the sensor plane is not being oversampled by the sensor. Someone using the Nikon 14-24mm zoom lens on a D800E to photograph landscapes would probably be in heaven without an AA filter.

Which maybe all MF mfg's formulate this in making the sensor (to lens)?
Kodak SLRc was by design AMAZING at this (using Leica lenses)?

Yes, I don't worry AT ALL about AA when doing street, portrait, or events shooting.
In my product work, it is an ISSUE to overcome.

Did you discuss the bold area I highlighted above (about the ratio between lens to sensor) a bit more in detail someplace? This is likely the feature I'm looking for to be optimal, and likey what the D800E, and A7R have factored in. It is my next criteria for my future camera/sensor purchase.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

The cold, hard realities of optical physics and marketing trump wishful thinking and daydreams, at least in the real world. I can't speak for what goes on behind mental blocks.

Physics NEVER trumps wishful thinking/daydreaming/imagining. These laws simply regulate the possible.
Unless "regulate" is your idea of superiority ?

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

So silly to argue about this from a personal standpoint. Why not from a technical one?

If anyone here really understood it, and I think there are a couple that do here (surely not including me). You would simply explain it rather than knocking others thoughts.

Here is a sample conversation, or reply to my original post:

"Its an idea you have that has been thought of plenty time Phil, I personally am not interested in sharpness ALL THAT much. I'm happen with the AA and the protection it gives me from moire....Besides there are a few things you say that are totally off...Futhermore, it may not be in the interest of Canon. BUT this is the problem of taking this idea and implementing it...(explained)XYZ.

I understand Nikon/Sony sensor has done it, and this is why they have done it successfully....(explained)XYZ. and this is how Canon sensors differs from Nikon/Sony".

My reply would be. Oh! I'm so glad to know this. Thank you for explaining.
I will likely continue shooting with the gear I have use each one optimally for its purpose, and either wait for some changes, or opt for the alternative. Do you think it maybe economics that CANON cannot modify something like this, or it would take a entirely new sensor , or would it be looking negative for CANON to do something thats been done since day 1. Issues occured, resolved, and reintroduced, solved, etc...

;D

 

[Loswr]

Physics NEVER trumps wishful thinking/daydreaming/imagining. These laws simply regulate the possible.
Unless "regulate" is your idea of superiority ?

How many pictures have you taken with cameras you dreamed up? Personally, I have taken zero images with imaginary cameras. Dreaming and wishing are fine, but if you want to take pictures with a camera, 'the possible' is far more relevant.

Canon dreams, too…and at some point we might be taking pictures with the Wondercamera – but not today.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Wow...what is that thing, and what can it do?

(I may have seen this in PopSci mag some time back)?


My pre 2015 imaginary camera is close to the A7R, except I wish I couple slap on my Canon glass without an adapter. Maybe the EV be a bit better for low light, tethering would be great....

Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus with Foveon like sensor but in TRUE 50-100mpixel in a open source RAW format(this I can live without). I would think it would be more in the form of a monocular on my head.

 

[mackguyver]

I couldn't find this yesterday, but now that I have, I'll let DPReview's comparison (with 100% crops) do the talking:

"To get the absolute best resolution, naturally you need to shoot within your lens's optimal aperture range. At large apertures, lens aberrations will limit resolution, while diffraction will have a similar effect as you stop down. What this means is that, while the D800E will in principle always offer higher resolution than the D800, the difference may not always be huge in practice."

"At F2.8, the slight blurring from lens aberrations is sufficient to narrow the gap between the D800 and D800E to the point you'd probably not be able to see any real difference in normal shooting. It's only at the lens's very sharpest apertures, i.e. F4 - F5.6, that the difference between the D800 and D800E is really pronounced. The latter gives clearly higher contrast, but at the expense of the more-prominent moiré that we noted earlier."

"However the gap narrows again even at F8, with slight diffraction blurring reducing both the contrast and the false colour of the D800E's image. At F11 - scarcely an unrealistic aperture to use with full frame, indeed one many landscape photographers may well use a lot of the time - the D800E shows just marginally higher contrast, and by F16 diffraction blurring has become sufficiently pronounced that there's scarcely any visible difference between the two cameras at all."

"So the overall message is that the while D800E can indeed provide higher resolution than the D800 (although with the risk of accompanying false colour), you'll only obtain this across a specific aperture range, and (of course) when using impeccable technique."

 

[3kramd5]

Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus

Doesn't the lytro "focus" mathematically? If you're happy with light field algorithms, why not deconvolving AA filtered images?


"Here is a sample conversation, or reply to my original post... [/snip]"

But your original post comes across as very self-centered and demanding. While that may not have been your intent, it is not inviting of the type of reply you suggest. Rather, people will by and large either move along, or they will argue. And later on, you merely dug yourself a hole by triumphantly citing a non-applicable source.


Sure, it's fun to have a list of dream features. Maybe all I care about is superb OOF rendering, so why not muster my best Arnold accent to demand that canon produce 300mm f/0.7 fixed (round) aperture lenses? Paired with my 58MP 8 color-per-pixel 64-bit sensor, I'm going to get rainbow bokeh like the world has never seen! DO IT NOW!

But really, it seems kinda silly to hope that one company introduces a niche product when there are other companies already serving that niche. Would it be nice to not have to use system 1 for one purpose and system 2 for another? Yah. But is that economically realistic? Not really. Canon serves a mass market. If they offered a camera without AA filtering, likely many people would unknowingly buy them, and a big upwelling of "my new canon has weird distortion" would ensue online. Nikon has a smaller market and may be less susceptible to people inadvertently purchasing the "E." Sony is frantically trying to get into any market it can. Canon tends to play it safe. Some sports cars allow drivers to disable traction control systems, but I don't think we'd see Hyundai doing that any time soon.