More MP from a 350D replacement?I don't think so.Read this

As 30D has been released with 8MP due to limitations of L glass, I made a comparison table to see the pixel intensities of each model.
350D has:155,67pixels/mm
30D has:155,73pixels/mm
5D has:122pixels/mm
1DsMKII has:138,67pixels/mm
MAMIYA ZD:111pixels/mm (with DALSA CCD)

So most figure is with 350D/30D. It is the limit of quality (of course there is more pixels/mm for P&S cameras but we all know what results from a small P&S CCD).

So what happens if CANON produces FF with 350D pixel intensity?
The result will be 20,9MP.

It has already got 16.6MP. So, there is only 4,3MP left to go (which is not so appealing to wait).

What CANON can do in the future? Just fine tuning the existing cameras (like 30D of 20D design). Nothing so much more. Don't expect miracles anymore. We are almost in the end of the road with the current EF L lens line up.

I don't get it. Why is there a limitation because of the L lenses? Do you have a link or could you explain.

But then, who needs more than 8 MP anyway? I have made prints pretty much as big as I can fit into my room and no problems.

people who are too fanatic about MP I can only suggest, save for a hasselblad digital back with -- what is it? 39MP I think -- but then you have to deal with 300 MB - pictures. I certainly don't wanna do that, having shopt about 4 gig of pics this year 2006 so far.

--
-- Cheers, Adrian

I think the limitation is due to the fact that the lens can only resolve so much !

Read the 30D review on this site, I think it gets mentioned there.

Kobus

OK, thanks. There is no review, yet, probably I sinply can't find it. But I think I understand now...

And since L lenses can only resolve that much, every other (zoom at least) cripples the potential, soesn't it?
--
-- Cheers, Adrian

--
http://www.linelight.org/

Cihangir Gzey said:

As 30D has been released with 8MP due to limitations of L glass,

Click to expand...

Huh?

Hurricane_777 said:

Cihangir Gzey said:

As 30D has been released with 8MP due to limitations of L glass,

Click to expand...

Huh?

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to make a sensor with a higher resolution than the lens in front of it. You can only capture as much detail, as the lens is giving you.

With the 8MP sensor in the 30D/350D, you have pretty much reached that point. Only very few lenses (including the L's) are sharp enough, that you would actually see more detail with more MP.

Check all the lens review sites... If the sensor was the limiting factor, then all high-quality lenses would perform exactly the same. But they don't...

The other reason, is that is also doesn't make sense to produce sensors with a much higher resolution, then what the image will be printed on. Typical print resolution is 300 ppi. (PIXELS per inch... not dots per inch.)

With an 8MP sensor, you have to print larger than 12x8 inch before you would are limited by the sensor resolution...

Anthony de Vries said:

It doesn't make sense to make a sensor with a higher resolution
than the lens in front of it. You can only capture as much
detail, as the lens is giving you.

Click to expand...

Understood....that makes sense, even for a non-technical guy like myself.

Anthony de Vries said:

With the 8MP sensor in the 30D/350D, you have pretty much reached
that point.

Click to expand...

That's the part I'm questioning. The OP stated that "As 30D has been released with 8MP due to limitations of L glass." I'm looking for a source for that comment, or something else that shows that Canon's sensor technology has hit the limits with L glass.

Perhaps the next step is to improve the underlying technology of the sensor. Remember that we're still limited by what can be achieved with a Bayer mosaic pattern. It's good, but it could be better. Foveon has done some incredible work in this area, but they don't have the funding to compete with the "big boys." Improved dynamic range would be nice, as well.

--
Jordan

Anthony de Vries said:

It doesn't make sense to make a sensor with a higher resolution
than the lens in front of it. You can only capture as much
detail, as the lens is giving you.

Click to expand...

I understand the thinking here, but have we really reached the limit of lens potential? Is this a new revalation? What about the 5D and 1DsMII, with 12 and 16 mp respectively? I understand they are full frame, but if the limit is the lens, where is the benefit of a full frame/more mp sensor in these models?

LarryT said:

Anthony de Vries said:

It doesn't make sense to make a sensor with a higher resolution
than the lens in front of it. You can only capture as much
detail, as the lens is giving you.

Click to expand...

I understand the thinking here, but have we really reached the
limit of lens potential?

Click to expand...

Pretty much... If you check lens reviews (for example http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html ) then you'll see that almost all lenses show a definite difference between aperture settings and center and edge measuements. And that simply means that the lens is (at least partly) the limiting factor. And that the sensor has enough resolution to test the lenses...

Also from a theoretical standpoint, you'll see that: The maximum number to reach in that test is 2050, which is the sensors resolution. You see that there are few lenses that reach those numbers. If they do, it's mostly just in the center, and on the sweet spot.

So that means that the sensor outresolves almost all lenses...

Now, those numbers might exagerate a little bit... For example, because pixels are squares, the sensors resolution is different in horizontal and diagonal direction. I assume that number 2050 is for horizontal/vertical and not diagonal. it would be a bit lower in the diagonal. Also, the sensor has more green than red and blue pixels. Those kind of things might also lower the effective resolution for some situations.

So, when using the sharpest lenses, and optimal settings, you will see some small improvements to the image quality. Those are thus the situation where a teleconverter is still usefull.

Nevertheless, for most lenses and/or shooting situations the lens is the limiting factor, and the sensor hardly plays a role.

NB: This is not bad!!!

It simply means that the resolution of the sensor in your camera is very nicely match to the sharpness of your lenses. That's good!

It's no use having a super sharp lens, when the sensor can't resolve it, nor is it any use having a high resolution sensor, when then sensor isn't that sharp.

LarryT said:

Is this a new revalation? What about the
5D and 1DsMII, with 12 and 16 mp respectively? I understand they
are full frame, but if the limit is the lens, where is the benefit
of a full frame/more mp sensor in these models?

Click to expand...

Those camera's can use higher MP, because they are full frame.

When we talk about sensor resolution, this simply means pixel size. A higher resolution sensor, has smaller pixels.

Putting more MP on a 350D, would mean that you decrease the pixel size. And that's of no use, because of the limits to the sharpness of the lens.

The 5D and 1DsMII however, achieve more MP because they increase the number of pixels. They do NOT decrease the pixel size. Because they don't decrease the pixel size, they do not run into the limitations of the lens resolution. (Actually, their pixels are bigger than those on the 350D/20D. )

The reason why the 5D and 1DsMII can get more MP, is simply because they use the whole lens. The lens sharpness allows for a certain size of the pixels. A bigger sensor will hold more of those pixels.

Let me understand. Are you saying that switching from my 350d to a nikon D2X won't give me more detail using the same quality lens (e.g. a tamron 90mm macro)? If so, one could spare a lot of bucks if intertested only in image quality...
--
cuginoStefano
http://www.pbase.com/cuginostefano

not directly linked to the post but for megapixels fans here is a link to mamiya ZD original resolution samples

http://www.mamiya-op.co.jp/home/camera/digital/zd/sample/sample.html

amazing resolution but what is "funny" is that for portrait they used between F18 and F12 aperture! With such a large sensor I guess it's hard to use large aperture.

but it looks like a great camera for landscapes (while I was not so much impressed by their 3 nature photos...)

mmiikkee

spelling problem... sorry!

mmiikkee

--
sara

please visit my gallery -
http://www.pbase.com/fidola13

The paradox of photography is that it is both simple and complicated in its nature, in that success is achieved through a combination of technique and personal vision. A zest for life leads us as photographers to discover what truly exists in the world around us. Photography is a reflection of life’s energy. Using a camera, we transmit our feelings, thoughts, and dreams in the form of images. Life’s stages and interests are documented and revealed in our photography.
by Randy Romano

mazzuccato said:

Let me understand. Are you saying that switching from my 350d to a
nikon D2X won't give me more detail using the same quality lens
(e.g. a tamron 90mm macro)? If so, one could spare a lot of bucks
if intertested only in image quality...

Click to expand...

The Tamron 90mm macro is one of those few lenses that can exceed the 8MP sensors resolution. So if you're shooting with such lenses, at their sweetspot, then you'll see the effect of more MP.

But use a high quality zoom, wide open at f/2.8, and you won't see much of a difference...

Just like people suppose that higher-density sensors cannot be made (a ridiculous point of view), do you think that sharper lenses can't be made? In addition, as you note, there's a big difference in comparing the sharpness of a lens (which is analog) and a grid arrangement of pixels.

Information is lost with a sharp lens on a 1.6X 8MP sensor. If you don't believe me, go blow up any 350D picture. There is no fading-- the pixels look blocky. If there were 2X as many pixels on each axis, you would start to see a lot less of this blockiness. That's where the lens limitation would begin for the first time to kick in.

In order for the sensor not to discard information, the image must look smooth... this is the phenomenon known generally as "pixelation", yes? AA filters try to minimize the visual impact of this effect, but what they do is mix the information from neighboring pixels together, which actually damages things further from an information-loss perspective.

Comparing LP numbers and such for lenses and sensors is not the whole picture.

It's not limitations of L glass, but limitations of sensor research and development and marketing that have made the 30D be an 8MP camera. This is sheer speculation by you.

the problem becomes that by putting more pixels on the same size sensor you have to decrease the size of each pixel. on average a pixel (at least for a CCD) is around 5-10 microns. one you go too much smaller you start having a problem with getting enough light flux to enter each pixel.

NON-TECH

if you have a tray of shot glasses (sensor with pixels) and you drop coins onto it (photons) you collect so many "coins" in each glass. but if you keep making the shot glasses smaller it becomes hard to get those "coins" in there.
--

Hasmo