High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
dilbert said:
Ah yes, the Internet, with its vast array of infallible experts. Where else could nonsense spread with such efficiently that there is currently an epidemic of a disease in a nation where it was eradicated?
You clipped my quote. If Image Quality is a property of the sensor, then all Images produced using the same sensor (at same gain) must be of equal Quality, agreed?
Since that is clearly inconsistent with reality, the premise must be wrong, regardless of what reviewers all over the Internet say.
Those same reviewers would claim that every Image I make with my D7100 is of higher Quality than every Image I make with with my 5D3, and that both are always bested by my A7R. Neither claim is true. The Quality of my final Images depends on a hell of lot more than the sensor I happen to capture the initial data with.
Upvote
0
stolpe said:
My guess is that the next ff camera will sell anyway, even if the advancements are mediocre or the "high mp" sensor is "just" an upscaled 7d2 crop sensor.
All this talk of "18mp is plenty 'nuff" and "no more dr for me, thank you very much" will be gone instantly the upgrades are actually available. If you just go by "my current camera works just fine", Canon would have sold no dslrs at all for years.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Okay, I'll bite with this one. Again you're using 'best' selectively, as many would consider an MF-only lens inferior for their purposes, however sharp, lacking in CA, etc. But aside from that, have you used the super telephoto lenses? They are optically excellent AND have AF. You're ignoring focal lengths you don't use no doubt, but guess what? If I want to photograph a bird, an Otus 55mm ain't gonna be of use.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Would you rather have an in-focus shot from a Canon 50/1.4 or an out-of-focus shot from an Otus?
Something like 5% of my shots are of subjects that would tolerate a manual focus lens on a body that doesn't have a split-prism focusing screen in the viewfinder.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Which belies the notion that IQ is a sensor property. It is about much more than the sensor. It is about input, signal chain, and post.
dilbert said:
It doesn't take a digital camera expert to look at two Images made using the exact same sensor and conclude that there is more to Image Quality than sensor.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Not true.
I buy stuff that enables me to do stuff that I want to do that I can't do with the stuff I'm using at the time.
A camera with 10 stops more base ISO DR wouldn't enable me to do anything I don't do already because I essentially never bump into the base ISO DR I have already.
A camera with 1/2 stop more high ISO DR would help me because I'm always bumping into the high ISO DR I have available right now. Unfortunately, high ISO DR is much more restricted than base ISO DR and Canon's sensors are already as good as the best of the rest.
So, if Canon comes out with a 16 stop DR (at base ISO) camera, that will be fine, but not of any particular interest to me. Cleaner is always better so I wouldn't oppose that, but it wouldn't be a big selling point for me either. There are lots of other things about a camera that interest me more than base ISO DR. I'm still waiting to see my first shot where Canon's base ISO DR was a real problem in a real shot and where the shot would have been okay if it had been shot with just 1-2 stops more base ISO DR. I've still only seen contrived samples.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Fixed that for you
To say that sensor has nothing to do with IQ is folly. It's like in the old days saying that it didn't matter what film you use. The differences are, I grant you, lesser between sensors than say between Velvia 50 and Portra 400. The capability of the sensor isn't everything, but it is an important cog in a complex wheel. You do need good glass the get the best from a great sensor, but if good glass simply magnifies the weakness of the sensor, then where are we?
It's been a while since I posted, and eve longer since I've shot with a Canon. I now shoot predominantly with the Pentax 645Z with the D800E as my back up. My problem with the 5D3 was twofold: Dynamic Range and the noise banding at low ISOs. I just couldn't live with the banding at all. Lower DR wasn't so much an issue. Now with the 645Z I can push at least 2/3 stops from the shadows with little or no IQ penalty for it. I don't need to ETTR as I have so much latitude in the first place.
Am keeping an eye on developments as I still have the best of my Canon lens setup.
Also on a side note, in forums I see so much dismissiveness about manual focus lenses. For action shots I get the reason for the objection. For portrait and landscapes I don't understand the objection. The Zeiss lenses are superb. I have the 35 f/2 and I'm sure the Otus 55 is mindblowingly good. I wouldn't exclude them because they are AF as a landscape shooter. My 35 f/2 Zeiss wipes the floor with 24 - 70 of any variety at that focal length.
Upvote
0
itsnotmeyouknow said:3kramd5 said:
Fixed that for you
To say that sensor has nothing to do with IQ is folly. It's like in the old days saying that it didn't matter what film you use. The differences are, I grant you, lesser between sensors than say between Velvia 50 and Portra 400. The capability of the sensor isn't everything, but it is an important cog in a complex wheel. You do need good glass the get the best from a great sensor, but if good glass simply magnifies the weakness of the sensor, then where are we?
It's been a while since I posted, and eve longer since I've shot with a Canon. I now shoot predominantly with the Pentax 645Z with the D800E as my back up. My problem with the 5D3 was twofold: Dynamic Range and the noise banding at low ISOs. I just couldn't live with the banding at all. Lower DR wasn't so much an issue. Now with the 645Z I can push at least 2/3 stops from the shadows with little or no IQ penalty for it. I don't need to ETTR as I have so much latitude in the first place.
Am keeping an eye on developments as I still have the best of my Canon lens setup.
Also on a side note, in forums I see so much dismissiveness about manual focus lenses. For action shots I get the reason for the objection. For portrait and landscapes I don't understand the objection. The Zeiss lenses are superb. I have the 35 f/2 and I'm sure the Otus 55 is mindblowingly good. I wouldn't exclude them because they are AF as a landscape shooter. My 35 f/2 Zeiss wipes the floor with 24 - 70 of any variety at that focal length.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I don't think anyone here is saying the sensor is irrelevant to image quality, nor that manual focus lenses can't be amongst the best - for the quality of the image they produce.
Rather, what we've got is someone claiming the opposite - that only the sensor counts, and that the presence or absence of autofocus is irrelevant to whether a lens can produce a good image. Which of the two is less realistic?
I try to see things from different viewpoints, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'd like any neutral observer - expert or layman - to ponder whether the statements 'all images taken by the same sensor at the same ISO have equal image quality' and 'an out of focus image with more DR/lower noise is better than an in focus image with lower DR/more noise' and see if that chimes with their experience and opinion.
If a definition of 'image quality' leads to such absurd conclusions (i.e. in order to defend your position, you have to agree such ridiculous statements are true) then at the very least you have to accept that your view differs from most people's, and is so selective as to be meaningless in most practical situations. Dilbert's entitled to his view, but he has to realise that he's twisted the meaning of some terms to such a degree that few people could reasonably agree with him.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:itsnotmeyouknow said:Fixed that for you
To say that sensor has nothing to do with IQ is folly.
To be clear, I wasn't saying that.
My apologies, I should have been clearer. I suspected that wasn't what you were saying.
Upvote
0
I'd go for a high megapixel Canon only if:
1. It had a M-Raw or S-Raw setting, that when used produces a lower mega-pixel image that has equivalent image quality to a sensor that is native to that megapixel size. Example, if it is a 52mp sensor, on M-Raw it produces say a 26mp image, that 26mp should be the equivalent IQ as say a 5D3 or slightly better.
2. Using the smaller Raw settings does not slow down the camera in FPS.
If it can't do that, I'm not interested in higher megapixels. Already with 20+ megapixel cameras, I can produce razor sharp albums over 14". In fact, can make high detailed, razor sharp posters.
If it can do the above, I'd purchase one and use it on M-Raw for most of my shooting, and use the full megapixels for the occasional landscape or architecture shot. I don't even want more than 24mp for portraits. Most of the time skin is being softened anyway. What is the sense in having resolution that can see INSIDE of a pore, only to then soften it down in post?
There is also the work flow issue. Last weekend I shot an event and my partner and I shot just under 2,000 photos. It was over 45 GB of files. I wouldn't want to double that or more with a high megapixel camera.
Most of this megapixel stuff doesn't translate to print or internet. It is great though for the personal satisfaction of pixel peeping. That is about it.
1. It had a M-Raw or S-Raw setting, that when used produces a lower mega-pixel image that has equivalent image quality to a sensor that is native to that megapixel size. Example, if it is a 52mp sensor, on M-Raw it produces say a 26mp image, that 26mp should be the equivalent IQ as say a 5D3 or slightly better.
2. Using the smaller Raw settings does not slow down the camera in FPS.
If it can't do that, I'm not interested in higher megapixels. Already with 20+ megapixel cameras, I can produce razor sharp albums over 14". In fact, can make high detailed, razor sharp posters.
If it can do the above, I'd purchase one and use it on M-Raw for most of my shooting, and use the full megapixels for the occasional landscape or architecture shot. I don't even want more than 24mp for portraits. Most of the time skin is being softened anyway. What is the sense in having resolution that can see INSIDE of a pore, only to then soften it down in post?
There is also the work flow issue. Last weekend I shot an event and my partner and I shot just under 2,000 photos. It was over 45 GB of files. I wouldn't want to double that or more with a high megapixel camera.
Most of this megapixel stuff doesn't translate to print or internet. It is great though for the personal satisfaction of pixel peeping. That is about it.
Upvote
0
K said:
I agree 99% with you but I would like to use another procedure:
Taking all pictures at max resolution &
using DPP (or whatever) to downsample the RAW files into e.g. 1/2 native or 1/4 native resolution
and store them as mRAW or sRAW (or DNG or ....)
I really don't like to change image quality/format settings after one bad experience: sRAW with the 10 MPix EOS 40D resulted in 3 MPix files and that translates into print! - I had some luck because the landscape and weather were the same 2 days later and I had to drive just 10 km for the shot!
Upvote
0
