High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]

[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?

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.

In that case they should be able to "cook" ;D the A7II files even better since the later camera is newer...

 

[scyrene]

And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

 

[scyrene]

That's an expensive habit you've got there. Is there a twelve step plan available?

Yes.

Although...it's up to 14 steps, now.

Eek! That's way too rich for my blood... think I'd better stick with my Samyang 14mm!

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).

I'm a big fan of the Samyang 14mm, but I found for astro work it had weird asymmetrical colour variations across the frame. I've had no luck filtering it out with flat frames (ditto the 85L). Is that just my copy, or am I missing a trick?

 

[Loswr]

That's an expensive habit you've got there. Is there a twelve step plan available?

Yes.

Although...it's up to 14 steps, now.

Eek! That's way too rich for my blood... think I'd better stick with my Samyang 14mm!

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).

I'm a big fan of the Samyang 14mm, but I found for astro work it had weird asymmetrical colour variations across the frame. I've had no luck filtering it out with flat frames (ditto the 85L). Is that just my copy, or am I missing a trick?

I haven't noticed that with mine. Their QC means buying one is like playing the lottery. My first copy had issues, I lucked out on the second try.

 

[privatebydesign]

And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

That is funny, it is when the mighty Exmor is found wanting and we are told to normalize........

You are saying here is zero benefit from stitching, also a patently rediculous opinion.

 

[scyrene]

And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.

 

[jrista]

And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.

+1 I totally agree with this. Not everyone has the same needs. Some people simply need more pixels, others need better pixels. There are certainly options out there if you need better pixels.


It would be nice if you could get both...more AND better pixels...and from Canon (as they do so many other things so well). But, that doesn't seem to be in the books...

 

[Lee Jay]

And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.

So you're saying that if sensor A has measurably less noise and measurably more DR than sensor B then A isn't better than B from an objective point of view?

In what conditions? Are all other things equal or are other things (such as pixel size/count) different? What about color separation, quality and/or existence of the AA filter?

 

[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.

In that case they should be able to "cook" ;D the A7II files even better since the later camera is newer...

They probably are. The big problem with Sony files is the darn compression. I honestly don't understand that move by Sony, as it wastes so much of the potential of their sensors and their cameras. It doesn't matter to every photo, but enough photos end up with compression artifacts that it's a real bummer. So, regardless of how much Sony cooks their images, I'd say the RAW compression is a vastly more important, and detrimental, issue.

 

[scyrene]

And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.

So you're saying that if sensor A has measurably less noise and measurably more DR than sensor B then A isn't better than B from an objective point of view?

Look back - is that what I said? Not sure why I'm bothering, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt...

I am saying that if sensor A and sensor B have the SAME noise and DR but B has more megapixels, then a person wanting more pixels will call B "better".

If sensor C has fewer pixels, but better DR, noise etc than D, then someone wanting better DR and noise will choose C.

You see, you've qualified *your* definition of "better" by talking about DR and noise. That's good. But those are not the only measure of a sensor. The discussion here is about a putative new Canon sensor - if it has the same noise and DR as the current Canon sensors, but more pixels, this will be like the first example I've given above. People wanting more DR and lower noise won't see the appeal, but people satisfied with current DR and noise but wanting more pixels will. Is that clear enough? You may not believe those people exist, but they do.

PS we of course all want every aspect to improve - and they may, it remains to be seen. But even if they don't, some people will like the new camera. I imagine you won't be satisfied whatever they come out with.

 

[Alangeli]

It will be less than 50MP and will be announced within the next 5-6 weeks ...

 

[scyrene]

Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

 

[Loswr]

Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

Of course, anyone who really cares about IQ knows that every shot must be taken at base ISO with the camera on a tripod. There's always time for CDAF or even manual focus, and you can use as long a shutter speed as you want.

I guess some of us just don't really care about IQ.

: : :

 

[J.R.]

I guess some most of us just don't really care about Dilbert's IQ.

: : :

There - Corrected it for you

 

[scyrene]

Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

Of course, anyone who really cares about IQ knows that every shot must be taken at base ISO with the camera on a tripod. There's always time for CDAF or even manual focus, and you can use as long a shutter speed as you want.

I guess some of us just don't really care about IQ.

: : :

Or they could always use a camera with such a small sensor that the whole scene is acceptably in focus - let's all switch to phone cams!

 

[NancyP]

Yer all wrong - see that new-fangled Lytro! You can too rescue out-of-focus shots with post-processing. :

 

[tron]

Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

Focus has no bearing on the image quality - only the clarity with which subject of the image is captured. An out of focus bird at ISO 25,600 is just as noisy (image data wise) as an infocus bird at ISO 25,600. Focus cannot correct image quality issues.

It should be obvious though that lack of focus has a negative impact to IQ :

 

[scyrene]

Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

Focus has no bearing on the image quality - only the clarity with which subject of the image is captured. An out of focus bird at ISO 25,600 is just as noisy (image data wise) as an infocus bird at ISO 25,600. Focus cannot correct image quality issues.

It should be obvious though that lack of focus has a negative impact to IQ :

Yes - I'm sorry, Dilbert, but that is a bizarre attitude. You believe certain things intrinsic to an image constitute *image quality* but others don't. There seems no rationale for which, except maybe the ones Canon doesn't do as well as other manufcaturers (e.g. the much discussed low ISO DR) - which is at best contingent, and at worst constitutes deliberate bias. If I gave a number of images to a random selection of people, or entered them into a competition, and they were out of focus (except in the rare event it is an obviously deliberate/artistic choice), they would be rejected as poor. Because images are expected to be in focus - and I'd argue most people would understand the concept of focus without being taught. A noise free image that is out of focus is pretty easy to create, but unlikely to please many people.

On the other hand, many non-photographers don't really notice noise up to a certain point, and even those with exacting standards will tolerate it to varying degrees.

Do you disagree?

 

[Sporgon]

Focus has no bearing on the image quality -

Quote of the month !

 

[scottkinfw]

This thread turned ridiculous.

Focus has no bearing on the image quality -

Quote of the month !