Cameras focused on high ISO have lower resolution.Isn't there a kind of noise that gets overproportionally worse when pixels get smaller? Otherwise it is strange that sensors optimized for low noise often have a low resolution. I am thinking about that sensor by Canon for example that can do images with ISO 3,276,800 or so and only has a very low resolution. Of course if noise is random at each pixel, you can average it out, but there also is noise with other frequencies that effects a hundred or so pixels in the same way, Averaging it out will not work there and it could get worse on small pixel, because on small pixels tha signal has to be amplified much more than on a large pixel.
Pretty cure cost of entry and low price ef glass plays a huge role in that. A rebel with access to old cheap EF lenses is a lot cheaper.Yes, at the current rate of market change that should only take a decade or so. Did you know that the best-selling ILC in Japan for the last two months was a Canon DSLR?
The cost of the entry level DSLRs and MILCs (e.g., SL3/Kiss X10 and M50 MkII/Kiss M2) are essentially the same (within a few 10’s of dollars and different ones are slightly cheaper in different markets, so no real difference there).Pretty cure cost of entry and low price ef glass plays a huge role in that. A rebel with access to old cheap EF lenses is a lot cheaper.
Invest in camera glass...not the camera bodies. The bodies worth drop like a hot brick over 3-5 years. Most lenses only take a 20% hit over their life span of 10-20 years.Fingers crossed for a reasonable selling price. After forking out for the 1dx mkiii last year the chances of persuading the boss that this is a must have could be difficult especially if its over £5k.
I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera. Each colour is interpolated to neighbouring pixels to create the final image. So combining two green, one red and one blue pixel into a single pixel of an sRAW image would even be more accurate than the big RAW image that contains a lot of interpolated colour information. Even some noise reduction that can't be disabled is used to create the RAW file. So it is quite far away from real raw data.Many of your posts are nonsensical, but this one makes you look more foolish than most.
Downsampling means removing information from an image, a RAW image contains the original data from each pixel on the sensor.
Perhaps you're confusing downsampling with compression, they are not the same.
When you downsample a RAW image, it is no longer RAW. Period.
OK, thanks. My mistake. Now when I see FPS I think of still photos.No, i meant 4K video at 30fps.
Ehm, no. RAW images from Canon cameras haven't been debayered or interpolated yet, the software on you computer needs to do that. In the past you could use 'mRAW' and 'sRAW', which weren't actually RAW. They were debayered, downscaled TIFFs with enough metadata to be able to change the whitebalance in post.I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera.[..]
I was disappointed when I compared the 12mp Sony A7s against my 5DS at relatively high ISO, ie practical for my situation, about 6,400.Cameras focused on high ISO have lower resolution.
I guess maybe they also have less noise at low ISO but they capture a lot less information.
Not completely.Ehm, no. RAW images from Canon cameras haven't been debayered or interpolated yet, the software on you computer needs to do that. In the past you could use 'mRAW' and 'sRAW', which weren't actually RAW. They were debayered, downscaled TIFFs with enough metadata to be able to change the whitebalance in post.
As for the alledged noise reduction on the R5 sensor, we don't know where and why it's being done. It could very well be done in hardware by the sensor.
Sorry, no. You need to do a little more research on what comprises a RAW image.I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera. Each colour is interpolated to neighbouring pixels to create the final image. So combining two green, one red and one blue pixel into a single pixel of an sRAW image would even be more accurate than the big RAW image that contains a lot of interpolated colour information. Even some noise reduction that can't be disabled is used to create the RAW file. So it is quite far away from real raw data.
Not quite. The ‘custom RAW format’ is a set of corrections applied by the RAW conversion software that supports the camera, and the manufacturer supplies those instructions. For example, the RF 24-240 is actually wider than 24mm and has mechanical vignetting at the corners, but when cropped to a 24mm FoV the vignetting is outside that frame.Not completely.
RAW files are not a direct readout from the sensor.
They have still gone through an image processor.
The amount of processing varies from camera to camera which is one of the reasons Photoshop has to do custom RAW processing for every camera.
Adobe came out with DNG (Digital Negative) RAW format to try to avoid this but that became a clusterbomb.
Now each vendor has a custom RAW format that is different for every camera.
Are you saying the raw file (as stored in memory, NOT as viewed) contains 3 colors per pixel after Bayer interpolation? I very strongly doubt that, but would welcome you to provide evidence of it. You might be assuming this because when you "view" a raw file (by using some software program), that program will do the Bayer interpolation of the (non-interpolated) file so that you can see it on a monitor which is expecting 3 colors per pixel format.I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera. Each colour is interpolated to neighbouring pixels to create the final image. So combining two green, one red and one blue pixel into a single pixel of an sRAW image would even be more accurate than the big RAW image that contains a lot of interpolated colour information. Even some noise reduction that can't be disabled is used to create the RAW file. So it is quite far away from real raw data.
Agreed on 30 MP. I've never had a complaint about 20 MP 1Dx II files either. 45MP would just slow me down. If the R5 was 30 MP I'd have two by now.Have you played with any of the AI up-scalers lately, like Gigapixel? Pretty amazing. Who REALLY needs more than 30MP now? Even the 12MP A7s becomes useable as a stills camera again (not just for video). People who absolutely must have huge files will probably migrate to medium format if they haven't already or will rely on pixel shift (for motionless subjects) if they need to create a large file. I think 30MP is ideal for most uses. I haven't had a client ask for a print in decades. Almost all viewing is done on a screen now and for magazine work, 30MP is more than enough. If not, use AI software to double the perceived resolution. I just hope the R3 is less than $6000 USD. It apparently has the specs of the 1Dx and those have all been introduced at $6500+/- so I wouldn't be surprised is this one lands in that zone, too. But maybe Canon will not be greedy and will realize they'll sell more if they keep the price as low as possible. Remember the 1Dc that started out at $10,000? I'm hoping for a pleasant price surprise (and 4K 120fps) on the 29th.
Yes. My original model EF 300 2.8 still takes amazing images. I think it's remarkable that Canon built a system in the late 80's such that you can still mount those lenses on an R5 from 2020 and do amazing work. I can't think of any other piece of expensive high technology that is so backwards/forwards compatible. Not that I still don't miss my FD 400 2.8.Invest in camera glass...not the camera bodies. The bodies worth drop like a hot brick over 3-5 years. Most lenses only take a 20% hit over their life span of 10-20 years.
If the RAW file does not contain any interpolated colours, that would mean that each pixel only contains either red, blue and green colours. Doesn't that mean that the whole information contained in one red, one blue and one of the green pixels could be saved in a single RGB pixel? I think that depends on how the interploation works. Is each colour interpolated separately or do the blue pixels for example help interploating the red pixels?Are you saying the raw file (as stored in memory, NOT as viewed) contains 3 colors per pixel after Bayer interpolation? I very strongly doubt that, but would welcome you to provide evidence of it. You might be assuming this because when you "view" a raw file (by using some software program), that program will do the Bayer interpolation of the (non-interpolated) file so that you can see it on a monitor which is expecting 3 colors per pixel format.
Now, some manufacturers are reported to apply filtering on the stored raw file itself (which is tragic IMHO) so that they have better results when their camera & sensors are tested by companies like DXO. (Remember the "star eater" firmware versions from Sony?) I don't know if this is true for Canon or not, and would be interested to know if it was.
There are no RGB pixels in a RAW file.If the RAW file does not contain any interpolated colours, that would mean that each pixel only contains either red, blue and green colours. Doesn't that mean that the whole information contained in one red, one blue and one of the green pixels could be saved in a single RGB pixel? I think that depends on how the interploation works. Is each colour interpolated separately or do the blue pixels for example help interploating the red pixels?