Canon's direction is unappealing to me

With my 500D and 70-200 F4L IS, I find it immensely useful being able to crop 1:1 on screen and end up with 1000mm equiv almost. But then iso 100 noise is a pain since then my camera is like a 2MP p&s sensor.

But it's canon that gives you choice with having an 18MP high detail file or a 12MP lower noise one. Take an 18MP picture, if you don't like the noise, downsize it.

With nikon you only get the 12mp lower noise one.

Noise is random, so the larger the sampling area (ie sensor size), the less the error. Having more, but smaller sampling areas leads to the same overall noise. The same number of photons are collected. (assuming gapless microlenses)

Marcus Beard said:

Thanks for reminding me Bob.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Marcus Beard said:

Clearly, I'd better spend some time reading up on sensor physics before daring to grace the forums with any opinions whatsoever.
--

Click to expand...

Opionions expressed and qualified as opinions are fine. Opinions expressed as fact without supporting evidence are a problem and will result in what this thread has become.

Yes, reading up on sensor physics would be a good excercise.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Marcus Beard said:

Are the opinions that most class cannot resolve high resolution sensors wrong? This is the usual argument against higher pixel density.

Click to expand...

Yes, those opinions are wrong. For three reasons, one is that even mid range glass can produce much inner resolution than current sensors can capture. The second, it is not a case of the reslolution levelling off to whatever is lower. The MTF (resolution functions) of the lens and camera convolve (that is, multiply together point by point), so the lens/camera system of a lens mounted on a low res camera resolves less than than the same lens mounted on a high res camera, whatever the resolution capability of the lens. You can see this in lens tests, where the apparent resolution of lenses increases when the testers start using a higher resolution camera.

The third reason is the action of the AA filter. An AA filter simply blurs the image, and an AA filter for a high res sensor blurs less than one for a low res sensor. The example of the Canon G compacts shows this nicely:
G10 (14.5MP on 1/1.7)



G11 (10MP on 1/1.7)



When the G11 came out with only 10MP, many said that there would be no difference, because it was still beyond what any lens could resolve, but the tests show otherwise. Remember that the G10 and G11 have the same lens , the lens is simply performing much better on the G10. Since in this test the lens is diffraction limited to somewhat below the resolution capability of either camera, the reason for the difference is most likely the AA filter. (thanks to Emil for the example)

There. Less pixels. Lower noise. I like the option.

Steven

--
---
Last Half of 2009:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/gallery/last_half_of_2009

2007 Paria Plateau
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_spring_2007

Hmmm I think you've missed the point.
--
http://www.mbphotography.net

Marcus Beard said:

Hmmm I think you've missed the point.

Click to expand...

. . . Hmmm, maybe you could explain what the point is that I've missed.

Because you said: Nikon seems to have a better understanding of what makes an all round good sensor these days. Keeping the resolution to 12Mp,...

Not true anymore. The most recent crop Nikon is 14+ mp. Either they do not understand sensors anymore, or you do not.

Marcus Beard said:

Marcus Beard said:

Too bad Nikon just relased a new crop camera with 14+ mp. You have to buy your equipment from ebay now. A used 300D can still be found there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The 7D is the 60D. Canon have made a change to their lineup and have repositioned the 60D. And forget about less megapixels because it will never happen. The future sensors will only ever have more.

I have probably read 100 posts on this exact topic, either you have not bothered to read those, or you have and still are convinced that more pixels == bad (like fire bad!). I'm not sure much more can be discussed on the topic, but I will share my personal experience.

I had a 400d (still do, love it) and considered 7d for a year. I then read these forums and just about was put off from 7d. People who didn't have the camera were convinced that it could not possibly perform because of x or y, and people with the camera in two groups, 1. didn't read how to use it, 2. got a bad copy.

Then in May I went to see my cousin and we went shooting in san diego, me with my 400d and he with his 7d. I played with his camera a bunch as well....now I have a 7d, and think it's a great camera, even after shooting 5dm2 I really like the 7d. The only complaint you have made that makes any sense at all to me is that the file size is bigger than it needs to be 95% of the time. I just printed a movie poster from a crop of a shot from my 7d though, and I'm glad the res is there when needed.

This shot sits on my Flickr account specifically for these discussions, it's not even the sharpest shot I've gotten from my 7d, but here you go, a 100% crop from an 80$ lens on my 7d. The idea that lenses can't take advantage of the res is just wrong. I get nice sharp shots from my dad's 18-55mm IS, and it's a 200$ lens! This shot is from the 50mm f1.8, an 80$ lens. My 18-50 ex dc macro and 70-200 f4 L both product excellent sharp shots on this camera as well, I don't see an issue here.

glitched said:

These are the same reasons why I am against 18mpx too. The files are way too huge, both in pixel dimensions and RAW file size.

Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring mRAW and sRAW? Complaining about full size RAW as if it's the only RAW setting is kind of like complaining about ISO 1600 as if it's the only ISO setting. If you don't need high ISO, you would use a lower ISO setting. The same applies to RAW: if you don't need full resolution, just use a lower resolution setting.

glitched said:

"Cheap" hard drives are not the solution too.

Click to expand...

Why aren't they the solution? They are the solution. You can buy a terabyte drive for $100 these days. I have 2TB drives that I've bought on sale for $150. No storage issues here. Why? Because cheap hard drives are the solution.

glitched said:

Nobody really needs 18 in the first place.

Click to expand...

Really? That's quite a sweeping assumption. But like I said, you don't have to shoot 18mp all the time. For my wedding photography, I shoot most of the candids and general images at mRAW or sRAW, and switch to full RAW for the portraits and group shots.

glitched said:

So why waste space on it?

Click to expand...

You don't "waste" space if you choose the appropriate RAW size for your needs.

glitched said:

What did, people forget that advanced resize technology like Alien Skin Blow Up or Genuine Fractals exist?

Click to expand...

Or you could just switch to full RAW size instead.

Look at the comparison of the 7d done at our own DPR. The 7d just blows the lower MP other cameras away - at ISO 3200. Look at the smoothness of the background and the bottom lettering on the coin - you get lower noise AND better resolution.

Don't let the hype fool you, more MP in this case is better. Pick your own comparisons, the results will be the same.

But what if that same technology that can ram well over 10MP into a P&S camera were used on a 6MP sensor...that's the point we're trying to make. Or, maybe the electronics on the sensor are small enough to not matter even at 10-20MP.

Maybe now with back illuminated sensors, the electronics do not matter at all - they don't block any of the light? I thought SLRs would quickly use that technology - do any?

Chez Wimpy said:

CNY_AP said:

I bet the electronics however do take up enough space to be significant (otherwise we'd have 100MP chips).

Click to expand...

But "we do" have 100MP chips... that is the effective result with the pixel density of some of today's compact cameras. There are ways to make the supporting circuitry not interfere with photon collection, such as microlenses (now "gapless" in fact, on the current 18MP APS-C model chips, which steer the photons to the sensels) and back-illuminated sensors (now a factor with compacts).

The reason you don't see 100MP sensors in DSLRs is the overhead. File sizes, buffering, fps, storage, processing... and the goal of Canon (Nikon, Sigma, Sony, ect) to keep pushing out "upgrades" for the foreseeable future. They are in no rush.

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな

Click to expand...

You're forgetting the most important factor in the real world - the electronics for the extra 6MP (12mp vs 18mp let's say) take up space, perhaps significant space,
so adding more pixels causes more noise even if downsized from 18mp to 12mp.

All factors being the same (apples to apples comparison - same sensor technology) the electronics for a single pixel of a 18MP sensor are no smaller than the electronics on a 12MP sensor. The electroncis on a 18MP pixel will take up a greater space, therefore the signal to noise ratio will be small. ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING THE SAME, i.e WITH BOTH SENSORS HAVING THE SAME MICRLONSES; ETC ETC ETC).

I think until sensor resolution gets silly high (to the point where you can't hold the camera steady enough to utilize the added pixels), then the current stragegy of keeping per pixel noise the same (or even improving it) while raising resolution makes sense. To crop an image, you need high SNR and also high resolution, so both factors need to improve.

dopeydog said:

With my 500D and 70-200 F4L IS, I find it immensely useful being able to crop 1:1 on screen and end up with 1000mm equiv almost. But then iso 100 noise is a pain since then my camera is like a 2MP p&s sensor.

But it's canon that gives you choice with having an 18MP high detail file or a 12MP lower noise one. Take an 18MP picture, if you don't like the noise, downsize it.

With nikon you only get the 12mp lower noise one.

Noise is random, so the larger the sampling area (ie sensor size), the less the error. Having more, but smaller sampling areas leads to the same overall noise. The same number of photons are collected. (assuming gapless microlenses)

Click to expand...

These discussions are ridiculous because most of you can't or won't compare apples to apples, which is impossible since nobody releases two sensors using the same fabrication technology, with different resolutions, yet having the same physical size.

ASSUMING what you wrote below is true, all it proves is that the newer 7d is better than the older D300s sensor. It does not prove that a 7D with 12P (using the same fabrication techniques as the 18mp sensor) would not have greater dynamic range than the 18mp version of the same senor design. My camera is "only" 12MP, but it's very rare that I wish a shot had more resolution for cropping or printing larger...but more dynamic range would be useful in many shots.

I think thsi is the point of the original post...not that the 18MP sensor is not good, the point is that it could be better if it had fewer pixels (not sure if I agree w/o knowing much more about the sensor though).

I think many agree the 500d/50d was not a great sensor. So even though they had 18 months or so to design the extra 3MP, they failed to increase SNR of each pixel. I assume downsized to 12MP, the 500d/50d images would be at least competitive to the 450d though, so it wasn't a total step backwards.

photog7320 said:

Canon 7D has per pixel noise roughly equal to the D300s despite having smaller pixels. More to the point, in DPReview's own words: On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. (emphasis mine)

Click to expand...

the wiring takes up a larger percentage of the sensor surface on a p&s sized sensor. as sensor performance is a function of the total light gathered, that larger % on a p&s means that a larger % of the light is lost in the wiring on a p&s (and even worse on cell phone cams). and so performance may suffer in the range of a usable fraction of a stop. on an SLR sensor the wiring probably takes up a fraction of a fraction of a stop of sensor area, in terms of performance.

further, gapless microlenses mean the wiring doesn't come into play. as pretty much all APS and larger sensors have gapless or near gapless micolenses (4/3 is probably the same), back-illumination is practically pointless for SLRs.

Did the other cameras' sensors use the same exact sensor design, just at a lower resolution? Not hardly...so all this shows is that a newer sensor with new manufacturing techology is of course better. It does not prove that a 12MP 7D would not have better dynamic range / less noise than the 18MP sensor using the same technology. For example, the 500d, even though surely it had some improved manufacturing technology, was considered to not be better than the 450d. Clearly, the 7d is better than the 500d/50d, but it might have been even better at 15MP or 12MP. The transistors used on every added pixel blocks light - maybe 50% of the light? A 18MP sensor has 50% more wasted space (i.e. non-light gathering surafce area) than a 12MP sensor - ALL ELSE BEING THE SAME.
That's a fact.

tko said:

Look at the comparison of the 7d done at our own DPR. The 7d just blows the lower MP other cameras away - at ISO 3200. Look at the smoothness of the background and the bottom lettering on the coin - you get lower noise AND better resolution.

Click to expand...

Agree. There is something about Canon that is irritating like they are intentionally holding back.

The last upgrade for me was a T1i and no more flash or lenses. I go to other brands for innovation. You have to be a crop addict to keep chasing pixel increases without the IQ improvement.

I am not convinced Canon quality and focus are under control either.
--

Torch

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20014582-1.html

120 megapixel APS-H sensor.

And yet again! 100% crop, canon 7d (you know, that one with too man pixels!)

If you cannot get 100% crops that are sharp with your 18 mpix camera, there's something wrong with your gear, or your technique. I count poor lighting as poor technique, this shot has poor lighting, but at least there's enough of it.

Warning! To get this level of sharpness costs as least 85$! The lens is the Canon 50mm f1.8 II



Eternally yours.....Keith, in constant battle against this silly argument.

CNY_AP said:

Did the other cameras' sensors use the same exact sensor design, just at a lower resolution? Not hardly...so all this shows is that a newer sensor with new manufacturing techology is of course better. It does not prove that a 12MP 7D would not have better dynamic range / less noise than the 18MP sensor using the same technology. For example, the 500d, even though surely it had some improved manufacturing technology, was considered to not be better than the 450d. Clearly, the 7d is better than the 500d/50d, but it might have been even better at 15MP or 12MP. The transistors used on every added pixel blocks light - maybe 50% of the light? A 18MP sensor has 50% more wasted space (i.e. non-light gathering surafce area) than a 12MP sensor - ALL ELSE BEING THE SAME.
That's a fact.

Click to expand...

But is it?

I'm close sure if you start with the 18MP image, process it optimally and downsample it to 10MP you can get better images than with a 12MP camera.

So what I think Canon could and perhaps should do is to have a processing HW and FW in their camera to do this sort of optimal processing for smaller image sizes - for those who want to have the JPEGs. I personally do not need this as I in any case process my images close 100% from RAW data.

CNY_AP said:

tko said:

Look at the comparison of the 7d done at our own DPR. The 7d just blows the lower MP other cameras away - at ISO 3200. Look at the smoothness of the background and the bottom lettering on the coin - you get lower noise AND better resolution.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...