• UPDATE



    The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being.

    I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
F

Flake

Guest
#1
The BBC went to the 'click' technology exhibition in Germany and talked to a few people about future camera development, manufacturers will look to charm customers with ever more features such as built in WiFi - a 3D interchangeable EF lens is an inevitability as the market moves that way, no doubt there will also be demand for 3D stills too.

The Canon 'Rep' is Jurg Ammon if anyone is aware of him - the camera relevant part starts at 10:00 and the DSLR stuff at around 11:00. Another interesting comment is that there's no real future for cheap video cameras as casual users can now record HD video on their cameras.

An interesting interview, sorry but I think this might only be accessible from UK ISPs so those in the know might have to work some internet magic to view it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014tbg4/Click_10_09_2011/
 
#4
Was "Jurg Ammon" from the still photography or camcorder side of the house? The trend in the last generation of Canon prosumer camcorders was to have future pixels. 1080P video is only about 2MP.
 
Upvote 0
#5
Bob Howland said:
Was "Jurg Ammon" from the still photography or camcorder side of the house? The trend in the last generation of Canon prosumer camcorders was to have future pixels. 1080P video is only about 2MP.
Click to expand...

Thats what I tell whoever asks me "how many megapixels does your camera have"... but guys the truth is, that an 8mp image shown on a 1080p TV/monitor looks much better than a 2mp image... why?
 
Upvote 0
#6
Eagle Eye said:
I'm awaiting the release of a 400 mp camera so I can sell off all my telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...

Hahaha... gave me a good chuckle this monday morning =) I wouldn't mind having good crop ability as long image iq is superb..

K-amps said:
Bob Howland said:
Was "Jurg Ammon" from the still photography or camcorder side of the house? The trend in the last generation of Canon prosumer camcorders was to have future pixels. 1080P video is only about 2MP.
Click to expand...

Thats what I tell whoever asks me "how many megapixels does your camera have"... but guys the truth is, that an 8mp image shown on a 1080p TV/monitor looks much better than a 2mp image... why?
Click to expand...

More resolution is more resolution... Kinda like how a photoshop file built to minimum standards of 5x7 will look ok/good but a photoshop 8x10 downsized to 5x7 printed will have that little bit extra...
 
Upvote 0
#8
awinphoto said:
More resolution is more resolution... Kinda like how a photoshop file built to minimum standards of 5x7 will look ok/good but a photoshop 8x10 downsized to 5x7 printed will have that little bit extra...
Click to expand...

Yes, but we cannot get 8mp resolution out of a 2mp monitor... so perhaps it is not about the absolute number pixels.

So perhaps there are other factors to be considered, for example, if the effect of AA and bayer filters less of an issue with higher resolution shots proportionally? I would think yes and that would probably explain some of the difference we are witnessing... What else should we consider?
 
Upvote 0
#9
K-amps said:
awinphoto said:
More resolution is more resolution... Kinda like how a photoshop file built to minimum standards of 5x7 will look ok/good but a photoshop 8x10 downsized to 5x7 printed will have that little bit extra...
Click to expand...

Yes, but we cannot get 8mp resolution out of a 2mp monitor... so perhaps it is not about the absolute number pixels.

So perhaps there are other factors to be considered, for example, if the effect of AA and bayer filters less of an issue with higher resolution shots proportionally? I would think yes and that would probably explain some of the difference we are witnessing... What else should we consider?
Click to expand...

For the last decade i've been a big proponent for increasing resolution due to more information, bigger prints, more options in post... I think we can be getting to the peak (especially on crop sensors) in resolution... perhaps they can bump it up to 21 but I want to see a big jump in IQ and noise... With full frame I think they have a little wiggle room should they want to but dont overdue it... The bigger the MP the better lenses you need... From this point on though I wont mind more MP as long as other areas are focused more on as far as improvements...
 
Upvote 0
#10
Those who want fewer MP are definitely in luck, since there is a huge supply of low MP cameras out there, even some with less than 1MP.

I have a wonderful Nikon CP 990, 3.3 mp, and I love it for a great piece of technology. However, it does not hold a candle to the resolution of the images from my 5D MK II.
 
Upvote 0
#16
Mark D5 TEAM II said:
Seriously, those who think they "need" 21 or 24MP would have/should have moved to FF by now. All DSLRs should have FF sensors, maximize the lens mount FFS. Leave the crop sensor to the lowest-end Rebel and the so-called "large sensor compacts" .
Click to expand...

There's a time and a place for each body type... There are those who are just learning or basically cannot afford those price brackets and has to make due with what they can get... That being said, I dont mind if manufacturers increase MP as long as they increase the quality so the image quality doesn't suffer... otherwise it was all for not.
 
Upvote 0
#17
K-amps said:
awinphoto said:
More resolution is more resolution... Kinda like how a photoshop file built to minimum standards of 5x7 will look ok/good but a photoshop 8x10 downsized to 5x7 printed will have that little bit extra...
Click to expand...

Yes, but we cannot get 8mp resolution out of a 2mp monitor... so perhaps it is not about the absolute number pixels.

So perhaps there are other factors to be considered, for example, if the effect of AA and bayer filters less of an issue with higher resolution shots proportionally? I would think yes and that would probably explain some of the difference we are witnessing... What else should we consider?
Click to expand...

Because if you very carefully and properly filter and scale down say 21MP to 2MP you get rid of any moire, de-mosaic artifacts, end up with full color information per pixel instead of interpolated color information, you essentially get perfect MTF at higher scales which no lens ever gives you at 100% view, filter away the high freq noise.

However poor downscaling won't handle noise as well and can introduce much worse aliasing than you ever had to begin with out of the camera.
 
Upvote 0
#19
Mark D5 TEAM II said:
Seriously, those who think they "need" 21 or 24MP would have/should have moved to FF by now. All DSLRs should have FF sensors, maximize the lens mount FFS. Leave the crop sensor to the lowest-end Rebel and the so-called "large sensor compacts" .
Click to expand...
There are some very good reasons for having a crop camera. One, you can get much faster frame rates for those times where it is needed (even though those times might be few and far between) for faster action shots. Two, the extra reach is very useful for wildlife photography. The 5D MkII has its uses for me, but a general wildlife camera it is not. It's a case of having the right tool for the job, so I use the 7D for general wildlife, where I need the reach and sometimes frame rate and the 5D where ultimate resolution or low noise is more important, so landscape, macro, detail and low light. Yes you can get a longer lens, but they are significantly more expensive (not to mention heavier) when you get to the super-tele range and even if you get a 500 or 600mm, the 7D still has more reach. It's much easier to swing a 300mm f/2.8 around than a 500mm, when you are trying to react or track wildlife.
 
Upvote 0
#20
I'm not sure that I understand the comment about crop sensor cameras being for amateurs only. There are tons of benefits to having them. They are typically faster (great for sports) & they have a much higher pixel density (great for cropping). Both of those are reasons enough to be a number one choice in many situations.

Don't get me wrong, I want a full frame, but even with one I wouldn't always use it. If I were taking pictures at a game I would definitely choose the crop sensor, and if I were shooting wildlife I would probably go crop sensor also. What's the big advantage with having a full frame? More picture? You can get just as much picture with a crop sensor - just take a couple steps back. Now you have a higher resolution image of basically the same thing. Also, don't full frame cameras have issues with the edge of the picture sometimes? They are also typical worse at handling noise right?

Either way, I'm curious to hear the reasons why FF cameras are pro cameras and everything else is for amateurs. By that logic the 1D is basically a Rebel.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
CHICAGOLAND, DEATH ROW STORIES, and MORGAN SPURLOCK: INSIDE MAN Captured On Canon Cinema EOS Digital
Replies
0
Views
4K
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu