Just a Photographer: More resolution at the cost of image sharpness of everything over f8.0 due to diffraction. People will soon find out that the more megapixels doesn't automatically imply more sharpness and detail.
To start learning about physics and the laws of nature and why diffraction kicks in with this camera. Read this:
FYI. The Canon 5Ds sensor pixel density is 4.1uM.
@Just a Photographer:At what point will we hit the theoretical "diffraction wall"? There are estimates of 288 MP - for APS-C (!):http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37510786
"don't start complaining on the web if you find your pictures not being that sharp and detailed after f8.0 as you thought they would be at 50MP!"Luckily, most of us not that ignorant. We investigate theory and practice before shelling out 4 grand. As my Canon 7D has 4.3 micron sensels compared to the 4.1 micron sensels of the 5Ds, I believe that sharpness loss in the centre of the frame due to diffraction at the same aperture-setting will be comparable on a pixel-to-pixel basis.
"What is the point of owning this camera?"I'd say that anyone wanting to own digital MF but could not justify the expense (or lack of flexibility), might be interested in this camera. Landscape, portrait, product,... It is no doubt a "specialized" camera, unlike the 5Dmk3 that is more of a swiss army knife.
Horshack: I hope this thread doesn't descend into the typical Canon chatter about dynamic range, with everyone asking dpreview staff about how the camera performs in that regard. To the staff: Would you say there was a wide range of people at the show, with long saturated queues of photographers waiting to raise the 5Ds in their hands to see if there are any surprises lurking in the dark areas of the Canon booth?
@Just a Photographer:Yes, really. You will find out if you try to read up on the subject.
I probably won't buy the 5Ds, but not due to some home-made faulty theory on resolution that you offer, but because it does not seem to offer the DR that Sony will probably offer in an A9. That camera may even be priced lower.
@Just a Photographer:"Blame yourself for being ignorant and stupid to fall for Canons' marketing"I am not falling for anything. I am using my engineering education and good references in order to try to understand what is going on. Perhaps you should try something similar? Get an education, or at the very least a physics text book?
"Ignore the 'internet fool' who told you so! "
This is actually the best advice that you have given so far, and that is exactly what I will do. Being able to do a google search does not make you an expert on camera technology, and by now you have been given ample opportunity to explain your misleading statements.
@Just a photographer:In fact, every photography, shot at every aperture using any sensel density will have decreased sharpness due to diffraction.
The 5Ds/r should have better resolution at any aperture than the 5Dmk3, everything being equal (i.e. similar AA-filtering etc).
@Just a Photographer:I suggest that you either cut down on the condescending tone or just accept that people over here generally will classify you as just another internet fool.
If you truly are interested in the topic, I suggest that you search the forum for knowledgeable people who have contributed considerably more than "google this and you'll learn". Once you show that you comprehend what has allready been said, you are in a better position to be taken seriously.
hjulenissen: I have the RX100M2. Here is my wish list:-A simple popup EVF-The built in flash can be pulled to give indirect flash. Great. Now make it stick so I don't have to keep my finger on it.-Loose the tiltable LCD screen, as it adds bulk without adding value.-Loose the NFC and WiFi gimmicks-I don't need continous zoom. Give me 24 or 28mm equivalent at the current f/4.9 equivalent _and_ 100mm at a slightly larger aperture than the current f/13 equivalent. I don't need the intermediate steps, and if this lets you optimize weight/quality, go for it.-A touch screen seems natural in a product like this, and the interaction with the GUI screams for one. E.g. touch to focus.-Use gorilla glass in the LCD-Please add certain "enthusiast" features to the firmware, such as usable exposure bracketing and flexible limiting of exposure parameters in (semi) automatic exposure modes-Please let someone skilled in ergonomy have a look at the control ring
All in all, though, I am quite happy with the images that this camera has enabled me to take. Chances are slim that I will update a 1 year old expensive camera for anything new. The only possibility that I can dream of would be a water proof version.
I have the RX100M2. Here is my wish list:-A simple popup EVF-The built in flash can be pulled to give indirect flash. Great. Now make it stick so I don't have to keep my finger on it.-Loose the tiltable LCD screen, as it adds bulk without adding value.-Loose the NFC and WiFi gimmicks-I don't need continous zoom. Give me 24 or 28mm equivalent at the current f/4.9 equivalent _and_ 100mm at a slightly larger aperture than the current f/13 equivalent. I don't need the intermediate steps, and if this lets you optimize weight/quality, go for it.-A touch screen seems natural in a product like this, and the interaction with the GUI screams for one. E.g. touch to focus.-Use gorilla glass in the LCD-Please add certain "enthusiast" features to the firmware, such as usable exposure bracketing and flexible limiting of exposure parameters in (semi) automatic exposure modes-Please let someone skilled in ergonomy have a look at the control ring
forpetessake: Before people start cheering and celebrating, they need to understand that Sony (just like other manufacturers) mislead the ignorant public providing equivalent FLs and conveniently forgetting to convert the f-stops to FF as well. So they would advertise RX-10 lens as 24-200mm f/2.8 equivalent, while it's 24-200mm f/7.6 equivalent. Same with these lens designs, they provide an equivalent FL and 'forget' to provide an equivalent f-stop. If you look at the actual equivalent numbers, like the first design is 26-112mm f/5.1-9.0 you'll be a lot less jubilant. The lenses are quite dim, no faster than they were in the compact 35mm film cameras of yesteryear.
In terms of total amount of light on the sensor for equivalent pictures, you need to scale the aperture.
My primary interest as a photographer is the images, not some parameter crusade. The truth is that my RX100M2@ 10mm f/1.8 compares most sensibly to my Canon 7D@18mm f/2.8.
agentul: Panasonic has been making video cameras with three sensors for years.
But they have shared a common lens, thus are quite different from the illustration
Grant Hutchins: This maybe a stupid question, but aside from button clicks to set the camera vs. mouse clicks to set panel attributes, wouldn't post processing a non-camera anti-aliased image be preferable? Of course, that assumes you have photo editing software, so I guess my question is to photogs and graphic designers with Photoshop. Given the multitude of different blur filters, de-speckle, etc in PShop, wouldn't you have more ultimate control to just leave anti aliasing off on the camera, and adjust as needed (if needed) in Photoshop?
"wouldn't post processing a non-camera anti-aliased image be preferable"
Theoretically, no. "proper" anti-aliasing must be carried out before you sample the signal to be effective. Think of a political poll. If the selection of participants is biased, you have a flawed dataset. You can do all kinds of advanced statistics on the dataset, but the proper solution is to gather the data correctly in the first place.
Practically, there might be software solutions that works "well enough" for real-world images/sensors/lenses/humans and (like you say) add flexibility. I am aware of none.
danijel973: This is not really impressive as I duplicated this result with a simple "sharpen" command in Gimp. Also, you can't get more information than you put in, meaning that you can't create detail from blur. You can clarify detail that's already there, but I would always prefer to do it optically to the maximum possible extent, and only then use software to try to go even further. Intentionally designing bad lenses and relying on software to make them mediocre is not a good idea.
>>Also, you can't get more information than you put in, right>>meaning that you can't create detail from blur. wrong
If you encrypt your harddrive, the bits will look like a blurry mess. Given the right algorithm and key, you can have all of the information back, though.
ProfHankD: I've been studying PSFs for several years now. The biggest problem with deconvolution is that the PSFs are not really convolved in the first place -- especially for out-of-focus regions of the image. Still, there's lots one can do with better computational methods; I use genetic algorithms for this sort of thing.
What do you mean by the PSFs "not really convolved"? Does it mean that the idealized model of a (slowly varying) linear convolution does not describe the errors contributed by the lens? If not, what kind of physical process is it?
If you had access to highly detailed info about the lens (e.g. sweep monochromatic light from 400-800nm on a target print of impulses (or wavelets) distributed across the frame and sweep this target from close focus limit towards infinity), how much better could things be? Is it fundamentally a problem of gathering enough data, or is it about finding the right algorithms to apply?
If the lens designers knows that a given lens correction is available, they might be able to "tailormake" a PSF that is easy to correct (no deep zeros, gaussian-like?), rather than a PSF that is as small as possible.
Perhaps that would allow better system-performance for a given cost/size/Weight?
123Mike: I think the example is fake because there details in the "improved" version that do not exist in the "original".
Visual inspection is not sufficient to determine that such examples are fake.
Kirppu: So it can magically guess the texture patterns that objects have even if it originally was just a blur... I would like to see that happen. I bet it would have some funny end results. :)
And didn't Adobe all ready do this deblurring thingy?
The key is that the "just a blur" thingy can be (more or less) accurately described as a function of the original, sharp image. Find that function, find a suitable inverse, and you can remove some blur.
Bill Bentley: I can't see a tripod mount anywhere. There certainly is the space for one. I think it would be helpful for a device like this.
The most positive part of this product:It might force Sony to update the PlayMemories application (or even open up its APIs), some thing that would (for most other companies except Sony) be a good thing for my RX100M2 camera.
Interesting on a technological level, uninteresting as a photography tool (for me).
I wonder why they essentially make a "camera sans display". It would be interesting to see what they could do if they rather did (lens + sensor), and moved the image processing into an Android app and relying on the phone for power supply (if possible). This might slow down processing but also reduce cost and size/weight.
On a personal level, I would be willing to shell out the cost only to tinker, if I could have access to RX100M2 quality image aquisition delivered raw and realtime to a simple API on my Android phone for developing my own image development and control apps using high-level languages with richly supported infrastructure, sensors and touch support in a small package.
ezradja: Canon should at least raise the MP to 24MP, IMO
I have a long list of things that I would like to be improved in my 7D. MP count is somewhere near the bottom of that list.
Josh152: Personally I am more interested to see if Canon has finally caught up on dynamic range and color depth than I am in the on sensor phase detection.
@Josh152: I agree that image quality is still a concern@cs hauser: I agree that this AF has the potential to be really nice
I don't see the point in deragotary remarks about those whose expectations and use-cases are different from yours.
I am positive.