Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image
unfocused said:
privatebydesign said:
unfocused said:
neuroanatomist said:
...if you downsample the 50 MP sensor to 20 MP, the noise will be the same...
Thanks Neuro,
But this still leaves me wondering...
...The manufacturers have been fighting consumer preconceived prejudices for ever...market forces have obviously proven the high pixel versions are not economical...
I appreciate the discussion. I must admit that when I review this and then try to reconcile it with past demonstrations by both Neuro and PDB that have shown examples of some pretty severe crops using cameras with sensors under 20 mp which don't seem to suffer significantly, I'm coming to the conclusion that MP counts may be the least relevant specification out there.
I agree with you, unless you are intending to produce exhibition sized prints under controlled conditions, and even under those circumstances moving up to a larger format would produce a better result, pro rata.
I thought that moving up to the 40 to 50 MP mark on a FF sensor would give better colour definition, given the four pixel bayer array sensors, but in practice this doesn't really seem to be the case, even against a 12 MP camera. Yes you can define more colour definition / detail at 100% with a much larger image, but it is lost when reducing the output size. (A bit like the noise
). I would say that 99% of the time for most people we are talking about an output size of somewhere between 100mm and 420 long side, and as we go for ever increasing MP I think this is giving images with something of a brittle signature compared with a relatively low MP camera, unless further work is done on the reduced size file. PS carries some blame here I think.
Quality is subjective. In the early days of photography when using large format cameras, infinite depth of field was very difficult to achieve, and full focus throughout the image was regarded as quality. Then in the modern age infinite depth of field became the domain of small sensored cameras, easy to achieve, and we now associate a selective focus with higher quality. It wouldn't surprise me if in time smoother, less brittle, micro-detailed images become more associated with 'quality', and lower MP cameras are better at this IMO.
When you look at the main raisin de tair of the one series or Nikon single digit series, those cameras are all about speed and accuracy, and optimum quality output at normal output sizes, even under sub optimal, demanding conditions, so it's not at all surprising that they are going to stay around the 16 to 20 MP mark.
