High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]

[Giovanni]

yes , and it is regarding Canon sensor layout and read out, more Mp means also higher dynamic range due lower read out noise from the individual pixel, more Mp is a easy way to increase Canons dynamic range, but the analog signal path way can never be as short as, for example in the Exmor and it depends on the early AD conversion in Sony lay out

 

[Don Haines]

Increased resolution causes increased DR? ???

It does if you believe in DXO and that you can "normalize" photos....

Take a 32 megapixel image shot with 12 stops of DR

Normalize it to 16Mpixels and 13 stops...
or 8Mpixels and 14 stops...

Then you say how much better it is than another camera which only has a native DR of 12 1/2 stops....

Once you can do that, you are ready to buy snake oil from DXO...

 

[Giovanni]

Increased resolution causes increased DR? ???

It does if you believe in DXO and that you can "normalize" photos....

no, take a look at the answer above, I'm not so fast and English is not my native language

 

[bdunbar79]

yes , and it is regarding Canon sensor layout and read out, more Mp means also higher dynamic range due lower read out noise from the individual pixel, more Mp is a easy way to increase Canons dynamic range, but the analog signal path way can never be as short as, for example in the Exmor and it depends on the early AD conversion in Sony lay out

In other words, no. There are many other factors you mention above. Just increasing sensor resolution alone isn't going to absolutely increase DR.

 

[Marsu42]

Just increasing sensor resolution alone isn't going to absolutely increase DR.

Looking at the Nikon specs, it rather seems including res *decreases* dr. Lucky us Canon shooters as we know you don't need more than the current dynamic range to shoot 99% of the scenes if you expose properly.

http://sensorgen.info/NikonD610.html
http://sensorgen.info/NikonD810.html

 

[The Flasher]

And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.

I see it better shadow detail, sharper images, better colour rendition.

A 50MP with an AA filter will wipe the floor with a 36MP with no AA filter, and that's the right way to do it - more pixels with proper sampling rather than fewer pixels with lousy sampling.

il then the sensor with jaggies and false detail wins.

So the ONLY reason, the ONLY single factor to your "better shadow detail, sharper images, better colour rendition", is because of the AA filter or lack of one?

By the way, "colour rendition" in digital photography doesn't mean anything at all in RAW.

Nothing personal at all, I just don't understand your statement. That's all.

No offence taken.

Can we agree the AA filter on current Canon sensors blurs the image on pixel level? Well that blur is perceptible when zoomed in at 100% when comparing the same shot, same lens different cameras (in my experiment a 6D vs A7R). This is not debatable. Shadow detail and DR (I called it colour rendition mistakenly) of the Sony sensor are clearly not the results of AA filter removal. Hope that clears it up.

My point was that I need resolution and sharpness on par with what the Sony A7r offers. If canon can deliver this in 2015, AA or no AA, then that's what I'll be getting.

 

[dash2k8]

Oh sure, one week after I buy a new body this happens. Life is such a box of chocolates.

 

[ahsanford]

Can we agree the AA filter on current Canon sensors blurs the image on pixel level? Well that blur is perceptible when zoomed in at 100% when comparing the same shot, same lens different cameras (in my experiment a 6D vs A7R). This is not debatable. Shadow detail and DR (I called it colour rendition mistakenly) of the Sony sensor are clearly not the results of AA filter removal. Hope that clears it up.

My point was that I need resolution and sharpness on par with what the Sony A7r offers. If canon can deliver this in 2015, AA or no AA, then that's what I'll be getting.

(This is the non-affiliated guy again)

Can we at least agree that we are using words to offer an opinion on an image-quality related metric? How about some pictures to suss this out as a group?

D800 vs. D800E vs. D810 --> someone has to have this comparison.

Other than Ken Rockwell.

Who did this.

Ken Rockwell did exactly this.

DON'T MAKE ME LINK KEN ROCKWELL! There must be another way. Find me other data, people.

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.

I see it better shadow detail, sharper images, better colour rendition.

A 50MP with an AA filter will wipe the floor with a 36MP with no AA filter, and that's the right way to do it - more pixels with proper sampling rather than fewer pixels with lousy sampling.

il then the sensor with jaggies and false detail wins.

So the ONLY reason, the ONLY single factor to your "better shadow detail, sharper images, better colour rendition", is because of the AA filter or lack of one?

By the way, "colour rendition" in digital photography doesn't mean anything at all in RAW.

Nothing personal at all, I just don't understand your statement. That's all.

No offence taken.

Can we agree the AA filter on current Canon sensors blurs the image on pixel level? Well that blur is perceptible when zoomed in at 100% when comparing the same shot, same lens different cameras (in my experiment a 6D vs A7R). This is not debatable. Shadow detail and DR (I called it colour rendition mistakenly) of the Sony sensor are clearly not the results of AA filter removal. Hope that clears it up.

My point was that I need resolution and sharpness on par with what the Sony A7r offers. If canon can deliver this in 2015, AA or no AA, then that's what I'll be getting.

Thank you.

Brett

 

[ahsanford]

I'm just going to put this down here and walk away slowly. I offer no opinion here.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2014-07-29-dslrs/sharpness.htm
(D810 vs. D800E)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800/vs-d800e.htm
(D800E vs. D800)

My hard drive is buckling and hissing right now at having to go his site. Thanks a lot, people.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

the AA filter is pretty much obsolet unless you shoot fashion (lots of fine fabrics).

An f/2.8 lens is capable of proving diffraction-limited images to Bayer pixels that are less than 1 micron across. The actual math works out that a diffraction-limited f/2.8 lens doesn't need an AA filter when your full-frame sensor is 1.5 gigapixels.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

 

[ahsanford]

When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Good read, thank you Mt. Spokane. That's a level of nerdy I can cope with.

That site also has a nice intro to ND Grads section that I've used.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Good read, thank you Mt. Spokane. That's a level of nerdy I can cope with.

That site also has a nice intro to ND Grads section that I've used.

- A

Just to warn you, some of the information on that page is misleading and/or wrong.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Good read, thank you Mt. Spokane. That's a level of nerdy I can cope with.

That site also has a nice intro to ND Grads section that I've used.

- A

Just to warn you, some of the information on that page is misleading and/or wrong.

Enlighten us! I'm always willing to learn something new, as long as it isn't arguing over word meanings.

 

[Lee Jay]

Enlighten us! I'm always willing to learn something new, as long as it isn't arguing over word meanings.

His calculations assume there's no AA filter, no Bayer mask, and that the pixels are all infinitely small. His limit calculator assumes (I think) MTF50 is a reasonable cutoff. Most people would choose MTF9 or smaller.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

All I need now is this new high MP camera, a fisheye, and the ability to crop, right? ;D

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor in full frame. 20MP*1.6*1.6
Personally that would do nothing for me. No improved low ISO DR. The reach is the same as the 7D2 and the 7D2 would surely cost less and deliver far more fps. At 50MP it might not hit the critical 6fps of the 5D3. So it wouldn't improve DR, would have reach but no speed, all it would do it proved tons of MP, which is nice. But I'd rather have more fps and DR than just a ton of MP.

If it does 50MP at 6fps, has Exmor DR, then wow though.
And if it has good video too,10bits and real true not mushed up waxy 4k then wow .

One would hope it will have crop modes instead of the IMO largely useless sRAW,mRAW which aren't even really true RAW so then you could have 20MP APS-C and hopefully at least that could be drive at 6fp and for all those distant bird shots do you really want to have to deal with and store 30MP of useless borders when a crop mode could save you all of that mess?

 

[LovePhotography]

A 6D with >40MP, faster focus and faster fps would be fine with me. I'd buy it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

More megapixels is only part of the problem.

Better megapixels is the more significant problem that Canon faces.

If it simple scales up any of its current APS-C sensors to full frame then it won't address the megapixel quality problem.

Yeah if it is just the 7D2 sensor x1.6x1.6 and 4fps and same old same old video, forget it for me.

It would have great reach, but so does the 7D2 for a lot less and with tons better fps and way less wasted space around the edges for wildlife. It wouldn't compete, in my mind, with D810/A7R for landscape since I'd rather 36MP and lots of DR than 50MP and same old same old. So it would be a high reach, high detail but sluggish sloth with old school low ISO DR. That might do it for a few, but for sure not me.

I'd sooner get a 7D2 even. (but would get a bunch of Sony stuff to add to my 5D3 (unless swapped that for a 7D2) or maybe just go Nikon out and out with a7sII added on or something)