Need a treatise on image quality

[chauncey]

Let's assume that I would use only Canon long prime glass, the ones with the mostly flat MTF lines, yeah the expensive ones.
And, that PS's photomerge feature is commonly used in my workflow, to overcome limited FOV while using those long, flat, MTF lined, expensive lenses.

I'm in the market for a new body with the criteria being superior low light capabilities, something my 1DsIII is somewhat lacking, and superior IQ.
Dynamic Range and bit depth also rank in the want column as well. I'm thinking that photomerge will overcome the need for high MP needed for large images.

I'm thinking that a crop sensor that utilizes the "center sweet spot" of the lens coupled with reduced MP to allow more utilized light would be the answer.

Am I overlooking/overanalizing my decesion making process...

 

[Sporgon]

Well I'm not going to treatise, but:

Photo merging to gain higher MP quality is a good idea, assuming the subject keeps reasonably still, because you also gain from the benefit of a larger format. At Building Panoramics we do it all the time.

By using APS in this way you don't take as much advantage of the larger format you are able to create, when compared with FF.

Also I would question where you are going to find an APS sensor which has larger photo sites than a full frame. I don't see how a crop sensor would ever utilise more light than a larger one.

Lastly I'd be worried about the fact you find the 1Ds mk3 somewhat lacking in low light performance. Perhaps a 6D might suit your needs.

Seen some of your pictures by the way - like them.

 

[bseitz234]

Well, a crop sensor does only use the "center sweet spot". But those lenses are really good in the corners. Hence the flat MTFs. So you really have nothing to fear in the corners...

Also, while a reduced MP camera would have more light-gathering area per photodiode, the smaller sensor means less light-gathering area for the whole image. So 18mp of full frame sensor (think 1dx) will gather more light than an 18mp crop sensor (lots of these :) if you want low light performance and dynamic/exposure range (see jrista's thread on the difference), I think you'd be better off with any of the new FFs (1dx, 5d3, 6d, depending on your AF/sealing/other needs)

 

[tomscott]

Sounds like a 5DMKIII is the answer

 

[RLPhoto]

Look at the brenzer method. A practical use of that idea.

 

[7enderbender]

Wow. And I thought I overthink and make things more complicated than they need to be at times...

 

[chauncey]

Seen some of your pictures by the way - like them.

Thanks Sporgon

Look at the brenzer method

Was doing that before the term was coined.

low light performance and dynamic/exposure range (see jrista's thread on the difference),

Can't seem to locate that thread... ???
Appreciate the input guys.

 

[dtaylor]

I'm in the market for a new body with the criteria being superior low light capabilities, something my 1DsIII is somewhat lacking, and superior IQ.
Dynamic Range and bit depth also rank in the want column as well. I'm thinking that photomerge will overcome the need for high MP needed for large images.

Noise is NOT primarily determined by pixel size as so many people falsely assume. It is primarily determined by technology and total sensor surface area. When you stitch images what you are basically doing is simulating a larger sensor surface area.

Low ISO noise has been a solved problem for a long time now, and no modern sensor produces noisy low ISO images when properly exposed. People who claim otherwise are zooming to 300% in PS OR using image viewers with horrible scaling algorithms (Apple's Preview is one) OR trying to lift shadows by 3-5 stops. Or all of the above. Suffice it to say, noise is going to be even less of an issue when you stitch multiple frames and thereby simulate a larger sensor.

Dynamic range OTOH is primarily driven by technology and pixel size, and stitching won't help this. Then again, if you're shooting a subject still enough for stitching, you're shooting a subject that's still enough for exposure blending / HDR.

FWIW - I find stitching 3 frames (camera orientation opposite of image orientation) to be relatively easy and practical. Anything more is a chore. Even the lowest Rebel can match a top notch MF film scan with a three frame stitch. It's rare to need or even see prints that big.

I'm thinking that a crop sensor that utilizes the "center sweet spot" of the lens coupled with reduced MP to allow more utilized light would be the answer.

You're not taking technology into account. The current sensors in either format are the lowest noise sensors Canon has produced to date, and noise is being further squashed into oblivion for a given print size by the stitch. Though stitching doesn't help DR, the current sensors are also the highest DR sensors to date, again due to technology.

If DR is truly a concern then 1DX, 5D3, or 6D. If you're doing this for big landscape prints, be aware that the DR gains aren't a great benefit in practice. Generally if your landscape scene exceeds the sensor DR, it REALLY exceeds it, and you need to exposure blend/HDR. In which case any sensor will do.

Don't forget to buy a panoramic head.

You may also want to consider if the shift function on the T/S lenses better serves your needs.