Possible 7D mkII Spec.

Started Nov 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
40d_dane
Senior MemberPosts: 1,010
Like?
Re: Possible 7D mkII Spec.
In reply to hjulenissen, Dec 11, 2012

hjulenissen wrote:

It is, like you say, a game of diminishing returns. We won't know, however, at what point the return is so small as to be indistinguishable until we hit that point. Perhaps it is at 20MP, perhaps 36MP perhaps 200MP. The guesswork is made more difficult because we dont know how much current and future lenses pass at those spatial frequencies, and because we dont know how much more stable stands people will purchase once there is a need for it.

The returns have already diminished going from the 40D to the 7D. As far as I'm concerned there really isn't much reason to go beyond 18MP. Since you also mention 36 MP and 200 MP, I have to assume you really don't know what you are talking about.

I object to the claim that a 25 MP camera "requires" more sharpening than an 18 MP camera. It does if you evaluate the end-result on a per-pixel basis, but I reject that criteria as a relevant criteria for comparing the quality of two cameras with different pixel counts. I printed my 350D and 7D images at equal size, and the 7D image did not need "more sharpening" to look pleasing, on the contrary.

"Oversampling" should (in itself) be seen as a good thing: even if the sensor "outresolves" the lense or the camera stand, the high pixel density means that moire, color pattern/bayer artifacts, etc are that much easier to avoid. Sampling/recreating a smooth signal (something that is blurry relative to the sensel pitch) is that much easier, well supported by Nyquist theory, etc.

Well, you forget to mention that oversampling is called oversampling because you sample your signal *more* than required to reconstruct the original signal accurately. If you are truly oversampling all you do is adding data that you really don't need.

The question then only is if an increase in pixel density leads to visibly worse noise, DR, etc as seen on a fixed size display or print, or lower framerate, worse battery life etc. Is the D800 worse than the 5Dmk3 in those respects?

The D800 has a better sensor than the 5DmkIII below ISO 800. Above the reverse is true. And if you work out the pixel density of the D800 it's about 14 MP on (Canon) APS-C. So the 7D sensor has a more dense sensor than the D800. To really benefit from the full D800 resolution you have to put your camera on a tripod. How many actions shooters do that ? Some Nikon shooters have returned a D800 in favor of a D4 in disappointment over the IQ of the D800 in practical shooting.

Don't forget this debate is about the next incarnation of an action shooters camera. Not a landscape or what ever else camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow