Do More Mega Pixels translate in a richer photo?

[takesome1]

they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?

That is because the bottom one is back focused slightly, ignore the ruler and look at the paper towel and the bottom one is sharper with more contrast. When doing stuff like this focus is everything, and way beyond AF capabilities.

Impossible comparison since they are focused at two different points. Second not all firmware is created equal, for instance the original 7D had quite a bit of head room for sharpening. For a proper comparison they need to be PP for quality to there maximum level then compared. All things need to be equal for an equal comparison.

Now is it beyond AF capabilities? No it is not. I have done the same comparison with birds and paper using the 7D II, 5D II and 1D IV. You can see the difference in MF on paper and you can see it in real world when you hit the critical focus point of the birds eye. When talking AF capabilities, the 1D body in the sample would be far more likely to hit the critical point of focus than the 7D would have.

 

[takesome1]

I have been saying that for a long time

There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.

There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.

I would say it pays to know why you need the additional mp and how it will benefit what you do.
Many types of photography will see no benefit and actually loose quality in their work going that way.

 

[privatebydesign]

they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?

That is because the bottom one is back focused slightly, ignore the ruler and look at the paper towel and the bottom one is sharper with more contrast. When doing stuff like this focus is everything, and way beyond AF capabilities.

Impossible comparison since they are focused at two different points. Second not all firmware is created equal, for instance the original 7D had quite a bit of head room for sharpening. For a proper comparison they need to be PP for quality to there maximum level then compared. All things need to be equal for an equal comparison.

Now is it beyond AF capabilities? No it is not. I have done the same comparison with birds and paper using the 7D II, 5D II and 1D IV. You can see the difference in MF on paper and you can see it in real world when you hit the critical focus point of the birds eye. When talking AF capabilities, the 1D body in the sample would be far more likely to hit the critical point of focus than the 7D would have.

The difference between my opinion and yours is, mine is backedup with actual images that illustrate my point. You are just blowing hot air.

Why do you assume I processed them both the same? I didn't, I processed them both optimally in the software I had (Adobe), that was the point for me, I didn't do these tests for you or the forum, I did them for me to see what advantages buying a 7D would have for me. Turns out I have pretty conclusive empirical results that show that going from 21 MP to a theoretical 46 MP FF sensor wouldn't do much for me if I was thinking downsampling would give me any additional IQ.

As for your AF comments, dream on, I did the same tests with AF and 10x Live View manual focus, AF is nowhere near as accurate and the differences in the above examples equate to around 2" of focus difference at 30' at f5.6 with a 300mm lens, so well within DOF limits and any normal reproduction size. Yes the 1Ds MkIII AF has a much better accuracy rate than the 7D, so what when neither of them is as accurate as live view when we are looking at resolution?

 

[privatebydesign]

I have been saying that for a long time

There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.

There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.

I would say it pays to know why you need the additional mp and how it will benefit what you do.
Many types of photography will see no benefit and actually loose quality in their work going that way.

Nobody should lose quality, why do you think they would? More MP won't hurt (other than file size) it just won't often give much more.

 

[takesome1]

I have been saying that for a long time

There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.

There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.

I would say it pays to know why you need the additional mp and how it will benefit what you do.
Many types of photography will see no benefit and actually loose quality in their work going that way.

Nobody should lose quality, why do you think they would? More MP won't hurt (other than file size) it just won't often give much more.

High ISO noise, for those of us who like to shoot in the evening without flash. Lower ISO, lower shutter speed, more camera shake....

 

[takesome1]

they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?

That is because the bottom one is back focused slightly, ignore the ruler and look at the paper towel and the bottom one is sharper with more contrast. When doing stuff like this focus is everything, and way beyond AF capabilities.

Impossible comparison since they are focused at two different points. Second not all firmware is created equal, for instance the original 7D had quite a bit of head room for sharpening. For a proper comparison they need to be PP for quality to there maximum level then compared. All things need to be equal for an equal comparison.

Now is it beyond AF capabilities? No it is not. I have done the same comparison with birds and paper using the 7D II, 5D II and 1D IV. You can see the difference in MF on paper and you can see it in real world when you hit the critical focus point of the birds eye. When talking AF capabilities, the 1D body in the sample would be far more likely to hit the critical point of focus than the 7D would have.

The difference between my opinion and yours is, mine is backedup with actual images that illustrate my point. You are just blowing hot air.

Why do you assume I processed them both the same? I didn't, I processed them both optimally in the software I had (Adobe), that was the point for me, I didn't do these tests for you or the forum, I did them for me to see what advantages buying a 7D would have for me. Turns out I have pretty conclusive empirical results that show that going from 21 MP to a theoretical 46 MP FF sensor wouldn't do much for me if I was thinking downsampling would give me any additional IQ.

As for your AF comments, dream on, I did the same tests with AF and 10x Live View manual focus, AF is nowhere near as accurate and the differences in the above examples equate to around 2" of focus difference at 30' at f5.6 with a 300mm lens, so well within DOF limits and any normal reproduction size. Yes the 1Ds MkIII AF has a much better accuracy rate than the 7D, so what when neither of them is as accurate as live view when we are looking at resolution?

Even equally processed, one back focused and one not kind of negates the test if it is about resolution comparison.
A test for you personally to determine if it affects your work it is fine.
I thought possibly you were making a DOF comparison and that the additional resolution wouldn't matter with the AF ability of the camera.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have been saying that for a long time

There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.

There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.

I would say it pays to know why you need the additional mp and how it will benefit what you do.
Many types of photography will see no benefit and actually loose quality in their work going that way.

Nobody should lose quality, why do you think they would? More MP won't hurt (other than file size) it just won't often give much more.

High ISO noise, for those of us who like to shoot in the evening without flash. Lower ISO, lower shutter speed, more camera shake....

For the same output size a down sampled higher density sensor shouldn't be noticeably worse at any given iso at reasonable output sizes, though obviously, as I already said, the two coming sensors iso's are capped low, but presumably any potential purchaser knows that and if they needed higher they wouldn't be buying one.

How big do you print your handheld evening shots with no flash?

 

[Bruce Photography]

Perhaps it is still premature to make any judgments (or evaluations) before actually Canon can deliver a product. The rumor is the end of June. So for now, I'll just wait to hear what the early adopters say. However since Canon has missed the entire shooting season in North America the last part of summer is very dry here in California and so some of my shooting work disappears. When that happens this I plan on doing tests between the new S R Canon, Canon 5DII, and my D810 printed 2' x 3'. I would expect to have the S R do the best. I'll probably use the 14-24 Nikon lens on all the cameras and then try some 2' x 4' and 2' x 5' prints (You can tell my printer is only a 24" printer). For me, that will be the proof of the pudding. How a shot looks on our very low MP monitors just does not interest me. My Canon 10D looked pretty good back 10 years ago. My monitor and video card have improved but not to judge a photograph.

 

[privatebydesign]

they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?

That is because the bottom one is back focused slightly, ignore the ruler and look at the paper towel and the bottom one is sharper with more contrast. When doing stuff like this focus is everything, and way beyond AF capabilities.

Impossible comparison since they are focused at two different points. Second not all firmware is created equal, for instance the original 7D had quite a bit of head room for sharpening. For a proper comparison they need to be PP for quality to there maximum level then compared. All things need to be equal for an equal comparison.

Now is it beyond AF capabilities? No it is not. I have done the same comparison with birds and paper using the 7D II, 5D II and 1D IV. You can see the difference in MF on paper and you can see it in real world when you hit the critical focus point of the birds eye. When talking AF capabilities, the 1D body in the sample would be far more likely to hit the critical point of focus than the 7D would have.

The difference between my opinion and yours is, mine is backedup with actual images that illustrate my point. You are just blowing hot air.

Why do you assume I processed them both the same? I didn't, I processed them both optimally in the software I had (Adobe), that was the point for me, I didn't do these tests for you or the forum, I did them for me to see what advantages buying a 7D would have for me. Turns out I have pretty conclusive empirical results that show that going from 21 MP to a theoretical 46 MP FF sensor wouldn't do much for me if I was thinking downsampling would give me any additional IQ.

As for your AF comments, dream on, I did the same tests with AF and 10x Live View manual focus, AF is nowhere near as accurate and the differences in the above examples equate to around 2" of focus difference at 30' at f5.6 with a 300mm lens, so well within DOF limits and any normal reproduction size. Yes the 1Ds MkIII AF has a much better accuracy rate than the 7D, so what when neither of them is as accurate as live view when we are looking at resolution?

Even equally processed, one back focused and one not kind of negates the test if it is about resolution comparison.
A test for you personally to determine if it affects your work it is fine.
I thought possibly you were making a DOF comparison and that the additional resolution wouldn't matter with the AF ability of the camera.

It is a perfectly legitimate comparison, if you can't see that you are just blowing more hot air. The focus difference is within even the most accurate AF tolerances, the CoC of both images considers both images critically sharp at any normal kind of reproduction size, and both have critical sharpness within the frame. The paper is less than 2" behind the ruler, DOF for the 7D at focus distance is 19", AF accuracy for the 1 series is around 1/3 minimum lens aperture which at focus distance for f2.8 and 300mm is 6", so 2" of maximum accuracy and 19" of DOF.

Not only is the comparison 100% legitimate the focus is considered well inside both accuracy and dof.

 

[takesome1]

I have been saying that for a long time

There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.

There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.

I would say it pays to know why you need the additional mp and how it will benefit what you do.
Many types of photography will see no benefit and actually loose quality in their work going that way.

Nobody should lose quality, why do you think they would? More MP won't hurt (other than file size) it just won't often give much more.

High ISO noise, for those of us who like to shoot in the evening without flash. Lower ISO, lower shutter speed, more camera shake....

For the same output size a down sampled higher density sensor shouldn't be noticeably worse at any given iso at reasonable output sizes, though obviously, as I already said, the two coming sensors iso's are capped low, but presumably any potential purchaser knows that and if they needed higher they wouldn't be buying one.

How big do you print your handheld evening shots with no flash?

Last large print was early morning, handheld and not sure it counts since it was a Pano 30x54.
Additional resolution would not have been required.

Most everything I print is 13 x 19, the additional resolution is nice for crops.

 

[deleteme]

Short answer: No

I started with a Canon 10D at 6MP and was astounded art the quality it could yield given certain subjects and good technique.
I now use 5Dmk3s and while they have a lot of resolution, that resolution is apparent only when I use the best technique and is more apparent on some subjects more than others.
The reality of high res cameras is that the majority of situations we find ourselves are less than optimal thus giving us files that are large without the detail we hoped would be there.
In studio and on location under tightly controlled conditions I can see good results but if I am shooting handheld there is no advantage over my 10D.

Most of my work is handheld. Tele lenses, 800 odd ISO, f5.6, 1/500. I will not see ANY improvement? And why is this so? My first camera was 5d2. Now I am using 5d3 and 1dc - they all have similar mpixs. I do not have any experience with significant higher or lower mpixs. So do explain your theory. Pls.

Not a theory but reality. The best handheld technique will still impart slight movement to the exposure that will be especially visible with tele lenses.
I was able to verify this back in the film days when I chose to spend a month shooting landscapes with my 35mm camera locked down tight to a tripod and with the mirror locked up. The images were so much sharper that the difference was easily visible in even an 11x14 print. I tried to equal the sharpness while handholding the camera and even at 1/1000 sec could not.
A flash exposure was a way to ensure sharpness as the brevity of the flash eliminated the recording of movement but this was not always practical or desirable.
On a different topic, I have also stitched together very high resolution images made in studio of very detailed paintings. While the file sizes were larger and the image sharp, the increase in detail was not as great as one would think and when the low res version was printed was indistinguishable from the stitched image even at high magnification.

 

[Act444]

Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...

So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...

So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).

According to the comparative tests of Nikon D800 vs. D800E, I believe that the greater theoretical sharpness of 5DSr compared to 5DS, can not be taken advantage holding the camera in his hand.

 

[takesome1]

Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...

So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).

According to the comparative tests of Nikon D800 vs. D800E, I believe that the greater theoretical sharpness of 5DSr compared to 5DS, can not be taken advantage holding the camera in his hand.

The increased resolution can be seen hand held with the 7D II's pixel density with the 500mm II, its 4 stops of IS and speeds less than 1/500. Why would it not be possible to see this with the 5Ds or 5Ds R.

I could buy that with an older lens with no stabilization you may not be able to achieve a speed fast enough to see the benefit.

I do not buy this line of discussion. Just not seeing it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...

So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).

According to the comparative tests of Nikon D800 vs. D800E, I believe that the greater theoretical sharpness of 5DSr compared to 5DS, can not be taken advantage holding the camera in his hand.

The increased resolution can be seen hand held with the 7D II's pixel density with the 500mm II, its 4 stops of IS and speeds less than 1/500. Why would it not be possible to see this with the 5Ds or 5Ds R.

I could buy that with an older lens with no stabilization you may not be able to achieve a speed fast enough to see the benefit.

I do not buy this line of discussion. Just not seeing it.

That is probably because you are looking at your results either with an in built bias or your testing isn't like for like or stringent enough.

So here are two more images from my 1Ds MkIII and 7D comparison, though I am certain this kind of thing holds true for any two same generation sensors, it has for every generation I have managed to find good files for.

The 7D is at 100% and that is a single human hair from 30' away. The other image is the same sensor area of the FF camera up sized to match, so again less than half the pixels.

After doing this test, which strongly favours the crop camera/pixel dense sensor, I concluded that a 7D, or a 48MP FF sensor, would do nothing for me in most real world shooting at normal reproduction sizes. Again, mirror lock up, live view 10X manual focus, cable release, 200iso, remote wireless flash, f5.6, massive tripod yadda yadda.

Now I grant you the 7D does have a fraction more detail, and noise, but if you have to go to this level to see this modest a difference then I, for one, don't need it.

Now if anybody anywhere can show me a similar set of images where optimal processing is done to both files and the differences are greater then I would love to see them, every comparison I have ever seen that does show a bigger difference processes the files the same, and that is ridiculous.

 

[takesome1]

Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...

So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).

According to the comparative tests of Nikon D800 vs. D800E, I believe that the greater theoretical sharpness of 5DSr compared to 5DS, can not be taken advantage holding the camera in his hand.

The increased resolution can be seen hand held with the 7D II's pixel density with the 500mm II, its 4 stops of IS and speeds less than 1/500. Why would it not be possible to see this with the 5Ds or 5Ds R.

I could buy that with an older lens with no stabilization you may not be able to achieve a speed fast enough to see the benefit.

I do not buy this line of discussion. Just not seeing it.

That is probably because you are looking at your results either with an in built bias or your testing isn't like for like or stringent enough.

So here are two more images from my 1Ds MkIII and 7D comparison, though I am certain this kind of thing holds true for any two same generation sensors, it has for every generation I have managed to find good files for.

The 7D is at 100% and that is a single human hair from 30' away. The other image is the same sensor area of the FF camera up sized to match, so again less than half the pixels.

After doing this test, which strongly favours the crop camera/pixel dense sensor, I concluded that a 7D, or a 48MP FF sensor, would do nothing for me in most real world shooting at normal reproduction sizes. Again, mirror lock up, live view 10X manual focus, cable release, 200iso, remote wireless flash, f5.6, massive tripod yadda yadda.

Now I grant you the 7D does have a fraction more detail, and noise, but if you have to go to this level to see this modest a difference then I, for one, don't need it.

Now if anybody anywhere can show me a similar set of images where optimal processing is done to both files and the differences are greater then I would love to see them, every comparison I have ever seen that does show a bigger difference processes the files the same, and that is ridiculous.

I did the same and similar test with the 7D vs 5D II four years ago.
I agree with your results, even if I didn't agree with the focus method on the earlier set. Any benefit was very minimal.

I bought the 7D II with the thought of making the same comparisons. The 7D II does fair better than the 7D. Later when I get time if you are really interested I will sort out the home grown test I did for the 7D II. Will not be today though, I have work I need to finish.

But lets put this in context, all my tests were geared toward the 500mm shooting birds and wildlife. All shots that require cropping. Narrow DOF as well. The 7D II resolution will only be seen if you are focal length limited and need to crop. You get a 15-25% advantage, but the negative is that if you can frame any subject properly the FF advantage is greater than the small resolution advantage you gain when you are focal length limited on a crop body.

In general it is a narrow set of parameters that the high density crop sensor is a benefit.
When the high mp sensor is released we will have that pixel density over the entire FF sensor. The term "focal length limited" will not come in to play.

 

[privatebydesign]

This second set of images is specifically testing the 'focal length limited' scenario, indeed that was my main interest in the 7D, but as I am sure most will agree, there is not a 25% improvement in one over the other and whilst percentages are impossible to quantify in such subjective analysis, many would say there isn't even a 10% difference even in these optimal for the crop/pixel dense situations.

DOF is the same for both systems when using the same lens from the same place and the reproduction size is the same, ie, if you crop them both to the same fov and then view them the same size DF is constant.

The real advantages of crop cameras in focal length limited situations are cost, the AF point spread in the frame, better viewfinder magnification of the subject, and easier framing/composition.

My two sets of crops show that we are well within the sweet spot of upsizing and downsizing for most uses, pixel density is a vastly over rated specification.

I'd like to see 5D MkIII and 7D MkII bench comparisons, again, the 7D MkII should show a big improvement over an upsized 5D MkIII image, but I bet it doesn't.

So who is going to see the benefits of the new 50MP FF sensors? Very few people, those that use good lenses and impeccable technique with good contrasty light who print big. The rest of us can easily get by with practically no IQ loss with our 18/24MP crop cameras and 24MP FF cameras and a bit of post processing techniques along with more modest output sizes.

 

[sanj]

Short answer: No

I started with a Canon 10D at 6MP and was astounded art the quality it could yield given certain subjects and good technique.
I now use 5Dmk3s and while they have a lot of resolution, that resolution is apparent only when I use the best technique and is more apparent on some subjects more than others.
The reality of high res cameras is that the majority of situations we find ourselves are less than optimal thus giving us files that are large without the detail we hoped would be there.
In studio and on location under tightly controlled conditions I can see good results but if I am shooting handheld there is no advantage over my 10D.

Most of my work is handheld. Tele lenses, 800 odd ISO, f5.6, 1/500. I will not see ANY improvement? And why is this so? My first camera was 5d2. Now I am using 5d3 and 1dc - they all have similar mpixs. I do not have any experience with significant higher or lower mpixs. So do explain your theory. Pls.

Not a theory but reality. The best handheld technique will still impart slight movement to the exposure that will be especially visible with tele lenses.
I was able to verify this back in the film days when I chose to spend a month shooting landscapes with my 35mm camera locked down tight to a tripod and with the mirror locked up. The images were so much sharper that the difference was easily visible in even an 11x14 print. I tried to equal the sharpness while handholding the camera and even at 1/1000 sec could not.
A flash exposure was a way to ensure sharpness as the brevity of the flash eliminated the recording of movement but this was not always practical or desirable.
On a different topic, I have also stitched together very high resolution images made in studio of very detailed paintings. While the file sizes were larger and the image sharp, the increase in detail was not as great as one would think and when the low res version was printed was indistinguishable from the stitched image even at high magnification.

Ok reality, not theory. Going by this reality and the type of photography I do, there would be no need for me to buy the new 50mp camera. I do need to crop my pictures often but not by a huge margin so guess am ok!

 

[sanj]

Hmmmmm.

 

[Maiaibing]

I am very confused and would appreciate any thoughts:
Will the extra pixels of the new cameras make images look better - sharper/richer/subconsciously more impact full than 5d3 on my computer screen or a 2ft by 3ft print?
I think it should. The extra mp is not just for zooming in.
Your thoughts pls...

The short answer is yes. But not always. In these discussions people often disregard that the subject matter is part of the answer. So there is no single answer.

Lots of people will for example pretend that there is a "normal" viewing distance for a picture. There is not. Several factors decide if people will want to move in to pixel-peep a large print or stand at a distance. Including of course where its hanging just for starters.

One thing people generally can agree to, is that the ability to downsize can help improve the image. Depending on the subject - for instance night shots - this could make some pictures visibly better - even at screen sized viewing. In the same way you could also see a visible difference on a 2x3 ft picture - again depending on the subject.

apart from this significant gains are for cropping and even larger prints.

Magazines very often crop pictures to fit their layout. In fact my experience is that they almost always do. Editors therefore crave every megapix they can get. Another "crop" is making pictures ready for screen presentations. A great portrait picture will sometimes present itself better on-screen by being cropped to fit a landscape screen.