High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]

[lintoni]

I have four MF lenses – three from Canon (17+24 TS-E and the MP-E 65), and the Samyang 14/2.8 (which I use for astro, and it's great).

So far, I've avoided being bitten by the Zeiss lens bug. Well...for my personal photography, at any rate. I've bought ~$2MM in Zeiss research equipment (not my money, of course), of which close to ~$200K was for 'lenses' (microscope objectives).

Agree about the Samyang. Originally, I did get it principally for astro, but I've found I've used it more often during daylight hours - whenever there's an interesting sky. It's certainly one of the genuine bargains in the photography world.

 

[slclick]

I loved my Zeiss lenses, until Presbyopia took over, now MF totally sucks (I mostly mourn the Lensbaby use) good thing I now have all bitchin' Canon AF glass and a 5D3.

 

[ahsanford]

So far, I've avoided being bitten by the Zeiss lens bug. Well...for my personal photography, at any rate. I've bought ~$2MM in Zeiss research equipment (not my money, of course), of which close to ~$200K was for 'lenses' (microscope objectives).

I'd be glad to catch that bug, but those lenses are dead to me without AF.

I'd consider an MF lens for 100% dedicated landscape work, but all they have are primes for EF, right? I strongly prefer UWA zooms for landscapes as you can't always move your feet.

- A

 

[sfunglee]

Would it be something to replach APS-H in high mega pixel?

 

[bdunbar79]

Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?

For instance, there will be roughly 4 pixels on this camera's sensor for everyone one pixel on the 1Dx. So, you could average 3 or 4 pixels together when downsampling vs. a single pixel on the 1Dx's sensor.

Thanks.

 

[tron]

Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?

For instance, there will be roughly 4 pixels on this camera's sensor for everyone one pixel on the 1Dx. So, you could average 3 or 4 pixels together when downsampling vs. a single pixel on the 1Dx's sensor.

Thanks.

Quite a reasonable request 8)

 

[Lee Jay]

Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?

Statistically, they are the same since the same number of photons are captured.

But the smaller pixels have two advantages.

First, they allow the photographer the option to "average" them and thus recover the lower resolution but lower noise image of the larger pixel sensor. Or the photographer can choose to preserve the higher detail from the smaller pixels at the expense of higher noise. With the larger pixels, that choice isn't available.

Second, modern noise reduction routines are far superior to simple "block averaging" at removing noise and preserving detail. So, a higher-detail higher-noise (at the pixel level) image can result in an image that, after noise reduction, has both more detail and less noise than an image from a larger pixel sensor.

That's the whole point of images I posted and which I'll repeat here. After final processing, the smaller pixels (on the left in the image below) produce and image with both better detail and lower noise even when exposed to the same light for the same period of time.

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks Lee Jay. Is per pixel noise in this case dependent also on available light?

 

[Lee Jay]

Thanks Lee Jay. Is per pixel noise in this case dependent also on available light?

Of course. SnR = sqrt(photons captured) [to first order] so more light = higher SnR.

 

[bdunbar79]

Ok, I got it now. Thanks.

 

[RGF]

Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?

Statistically, they are the same since the same number of photons are captured.

But the smaller pixels have two advantages.

First, they allow the photographer the option to "average" them and thus recover the lower resolution but lower noise image of the larger pixel sensor. Or the photographer can choose to preserve the higher detail from the smaller pixels at the expense of higher noise. With the larger pixels, that choice isn't available.

Second, modern noise reduction routines are far superior to simple "block averaging" at removing noise and preserving detail. So, a higher-detail higher-noise (at the pixel level) image can result in an image that, after noise reduction, has both more detail and less noise than an image from a larger pixel sensor.

That's the whole point of images I posted and which I'll repeat here. After final processing, the smaller pixels (on the left in the image below) produce and image with both better detail and lower noise even when exposed to the same light for the same period of time.

All true if you going to the same size image. But if you consider both images at 100%, the S/N of the image with large photo sites with be better than the image (again at 100%) with smaller photo sites.

That was the point I was making.

 

[Lee Jay]

Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?

Statistically, they are the same since the same number of photons are captured.

But the smaller pixels have two advantages.

First, they allow the photographer the option to "average" them and thus recover the lower resolution but lower noise image of the larger pixel sensor. Or the photographer can choose to preserve the higher detail from the smaller pixels at the expense of higher noise. With the larger pixels, that choice isn't available.

Second, modern noise reduction routines are far superior to simple "block averaging" at removing noise and preserving detail. So, a higher-detail higher-noise (at the pixel level) image can result in an image that, after noise reduction, has both more detail and less noise than an image from a larger pixel sensor.

That's the whole point of images I posted and which I'll repeat here. After final processing, the smaller pixels (on the left in the image below) produce and image with both better detail and lower noise even when exposed to the same light for the same period of time.

All true if you going to the same size image. But if you consider both images at 100%, the S/N of the image with large photo sites with be better than the image (again at 100%) with smaller photo sites.

It'll have better signal to noise and a lot less detail. If you then apply NR and downsample the image from the smaller pixels, you'll end up with less noise and better sharpness than the image from the larger pixels.

 

[tron]

If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!

 

[Lawliet]

They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!

Only if the processors can handle reading all sensor cells at all desired frame rates and apply stable noise reduction algorithms in real time. Esp. the latter part is important - most NR isn't stable, that's fine for still images, but in a video that leads to artifacts that sometimes look ugly and approximately always mess with the video compression.

 

[jrista]

Thanks Lee Jay. Is per pixel noise in this case dependent also on available light?

Of course. SnR = sqrt(photons captured) [to first order] so more light = higher SnR.

I think it is better to say SNR is relative to SQRT(Electrons Released), as that would factor in quantum efficiency, which is an important factor. So you basically have: SQRT(PhotonFlux * QuantumEfficiency), with full SNR equal to (PhotonFlux * QuantumEfficiency) / SQRT(PhotonFlux * QuantumEfficiency). Not every higher resolution sensor, when downsampled, will produce a less noisy result...it depends on each sensor's Q.E.

If you have a 15mp sensor with Q.E. of 60, and a 60mp sensor with Q.E. of 30, downsampling the 60mp sensor image probably won't produce better results than the 15mp sensor...you'll probably get a sharper result, but not necessarily less noise (you might possibly still have more noise.) Why? Well, for sensors of the same size and an identical exposure, the one with Q.E. 30% converted the same number of incident photons to fewer electrons, and it's the total amount of electrons gathered in the whole sensor that ultimately matters. The higher resolution sensor in this case gathered about half the light, for the same exposure of the same scene. It doesn't matter what you do, less light is less light, and less light means more noise (even on a normalized basis.)

 

[jrista]

If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!

The A7s has more advanced in-camera noise reduction. Exmor is a good sensor, but it wasn't good enough to produce ISO 400k with the low noise levels that the A7s has. The Bionz X DSP is responsible for reducing the noise in each pixel as they are read out. Not much different than what Canon is doing now with DIGIC 6 in the 7D II. If it were not for the more advanced in-camera NR, I would agree...the A7r when downsampled to 12mp would have probably looked very similar to the A7s, primary difference being the downsampled A7r image would be sharper.

 

[tron]

If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!

The A7s has more advanced in-camera noise reduction. Exmor is a good sensor, but it wasn't good enough to produce ISO 400k with the low noise levels that the A7s has. The Bionz X DSP is responsible for reducing the noise in each pixel as they are read out. Not much different than what Canon is doing now with DIGIC 6 in the 7D II. If it were not for the more advanced in-camera NR, I would agree...the A7r when downsampled to 12mp would have probably looked very similar to the A7s, primary difference being the downsampled A7r image would be sharper.

So in A7s they... "cook" the raw files?

 

[RLPhoto]

Perhaps a 5D-s to prevent confused naming? Or will they just name it the mark IV and leave it as the successor of the 5d3?

 

[tron]

Perhaps a 5D-s to prevent confused naming? Or will they just name it the mark IV and leave it as the successor of the 5d3?

Hmm I hope that the high mp camera and 5DMkIV will be different ones...

P.S Otherwise allow me to suggest 5Ds as Canon's answer to Sony's A7s (at... 12Mpixel ofcourse ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D)

 

[jrista]

If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!

The A7s has more advanced in-camera noise reduction. Exmor is a good sensor, but it wasn't good enough to produce ISO 400k with the low noise levels that the A7s has. The Bionz X DSP is responsible for reducing the noise in each pixel as they are read out. Not much different than what Canon is doing now with DIGIC 6 in the 7D II. If it were not for the more advanced in-camera NR, I would agree...the A7r when downsampled to 12mp would have probably looked very similar to the A7s, primary difference being the downsampled A7r image would be sharper.

So in A7s they... "cook" the raw files?

They do, just as much as Canon "cooks" the RAW files in the 7D II with DIGIC 6. ;P Everyone's cooking pixels today, it's all the rage.