I refuse to believe that people don't want better IQ

Phil Hill · Mar 12, 2012

Increased DR would certainly be welcome, but keep in mind that all of Canon’s DSLRs already capture significantly more DR than can be displayed on a screen or printed. Images that won’t be heavily manipulated in PP won’t really benefit from increased DR in the camera.

I guess my point is that increased DR is not going to benefit everybody all of the time, and some people will never benefit. Increased resolution, on the other hand, would seem to benefit everybody.

If the 5D3 falls short in DR while the D800 excels, it would make sense for anybody placing a high value on DR to consider a D800 instead of waiting three years for the 5D4, and hoping Canon has finally decided that DR is important. On the other hand, those that seldom do the radical PP that bumps into DR issues probably wouldn't want to make such a change.

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen a number of posts in the Nikon forum from folks that are expecting better performance from the 5D3 than many here.

Phil Hill · Mar 12, 2012

altair8800 said:
Some more math. Crop the 5D3 to APS-C and you get 8Mp. Crop D800 to same and you get 14Mp. Can't see any difference? Hard to mask that difference!

That 8MP 5D3 crop will still have 78% of the resolution of the D800 14MP crop. If you’re somebody for whom that difference is too great then nobody would blame you for switching. Canon, however, appears to be betting that other factors will make the 5D3 a better choice for many. The market will sort this out.

A 60D or a 7D would make a better choice for birds, by the way. The 5D3 appears to be aimed at a completely different market.

BadBeta · Mar 12, 2012

Time will tell I guess. And yes, I'm one of those radical post processing guys so I appreciate all I can get.

(And most people taking high contrast photos will likely benefit too).

altair8800 · Mar 12, 2012

Phil Hill said:
altair8800 said:

Some more math. Crop the 5D3 to APS-C and you get 8Mp. Crop D800 to same and you get 14Mp. Can't see any difference? Hard to mask that difference!

Click to expand...

That 8MP 5D3 crop will still have 78% of the resolution of the D800 14MP crop. If you’re somebody for whom that difference is too great then nobody would blame you for switching. Canon, however, appears to be betting that other factors will make the 5D3 a better choice for many. The market will sort this out.

A 60D or a 7D would make a better choice for birds, by the way. The 5D3 appears to be aimed at a completely different market.

I have a 7D, but a high res FF would eliminate a problem I sometimes have where the bird's head is just outside the frame. Other fast action situations can also benefit from wider frame with ability to crop a lot and still have good resolution.

Dan

Phil Hill · Mar 12, 2012

It sounds like Nikon had you in mind when designing the D800. Obviously Canon didn’t, at least not with the 5D3.

The 5D3 is a nice upgrade from the 5D2, and it appears to be aimed at a similar market. The D800 is a bit of a departure from the D700, so perhaps Nikon hopes to gain some market share from your segment. I wonder, though, how many portrait and wedding photographers might be contemplating a switch in the other direction. They do exist, based on chatter I’ve seen in Nikon forums.

It would be great if either company could come out with a camera that had universal appeal, but that’s probably not going to happen any time soon.

For what it’s worth, I would have welcomed a higher-resolution 5D3 sensor, but I don’t see 22MP as being the disaster that many are predicting.

I’ve long resisted FF cameras, much preferring APS-C, and not just on price. For the first time, however, Canon has caught my attention with the 5D3. It has specs, features, build and form factor that I like, so I’m watching with interest to see how this all plays out.

RvPhotoTraveller · Mar 13, 2012

why did canon develop 120 megapixel APSH sensor last year if not to use in an upcoming high res camera ?

BadBeta · Mar 13, 2012

I take that as a sign that more megapixels are coming. That sensor might be on a too early stage though.

(And even if that chip was ready and ok to manufacture I can't help thinking that Canon would like to milk the resolution stages in between as well - that is say 45, 80-90, and then that one).

RvPhotoTraveller · Mar 13, 2012

BadBeta said:
I can't help thinking that Canon would like to milk the resolution stages in between as well - that is say 45, 80-90, and then that one).

Ha ha. I like that ! Translating this 120 APSH sensor to full frame would give a 154 Megapixel. Sensor - my dream -ISo 100 tripod landscape nature CAM. GODSPEED CANON !!!!

John Sheehy · Mar 13, 2012

RvPhotoTraveller said:
BadBeta said:

I can't help thinking that Canon would like to milk the resolution stages in between as well - that is say 45, 80-90, and then that one).

Click to expand...

Ha ha. I like that ! Translating this 120 APSH sensor to full frame would give a 154 Megapixel. Sensor - my dream -ISo 100 tripod landscape nature CAM. GODSPEED CANON !!!!

Assuming exactly 1.3 for a crop factor (I think it is a little off from that), that would be 120MP*1.3*1.3 = 202.8MP.

--
John

RvPhotoTraveller · Mar 14, 2012

John Sheehy said:
RvPhotoTraveller said:

BadBeta said:

I can't help thinking that Canon would like to milk the resolution stages in between as well - that is say 45, 80-90, and then that one).

Click to expand...

Ha ha. I like that ! Translating this 120 APSH sensor to full frame would give a 154 Megapixel. Sensor - my dream -ISo 100 tripod landscape nature CAM. GODSPEED CANON !!!!

Click to expand...

Assuming exactly 1.3 for a crop factor (I think it is a little off from that), that would be 120MP*1.3*1.3 = 202.8MP.

--
John

So why are we stuck at 22 megapixels if Canon has the sensor technology to develop over 200 megapixel full frame sensor ? Why waste the research and development ?

Phil Hill · Mar 14, 2012

RvPhotoTraveller said:
So why are we stuck at 22 megapixels if Canon has the sensor technology to develop over 200 megapixel full frame sensor ? Why waste the research and development ?

Canon is marketing the 5D3 to those that were happy with the resolution of the 5D2 but wanted faster burst, better AF, weather sealing, lower high-ISO noise, better video and an extra slot for an SD card.

If a sufficient market exists for a high-MP model then I’m sure they’ll offer that too. I think it’s a mistake to assume that 22MP is some kind of limit that Canon can’t overcomee.

John Sheehy · Mar 14, 2012

RvPhotoTraveller said:
So why are we stuck at 22 megapixels if Canon has the sensor technology to develop over 200 megapixel full frame sensor ? Why waste the research and development ?

Shot-to-shot speed might only be 1/2 fps; files would be very big for most people; spoonfeeding sells more cameras over time.

--
John

BadBeta · Mar 14, 2012

You can buy an off the shelf 70MP full-frame sensor with DR at about 10.5 stops and 3 FPS today if you want to. The technology is here today, so I think it is more a question of market and product life considerations.

And to those wanting higher DR but not higher pixel density: with higher pixel density one can trade resolution for better DR, or one can trade for noise for better DR. Higher pixel density sensors give more opportunities, not less.

John Sheehy · Mar 14, 2012

BadBeta said:
And to those wanting higher DR but not higher pixel density: with higher pixel density one can trade resolution for better DR, or one can trade for noise for better DR. Higher pixel density sensors give more opportunities, not less.

You might want to re-write that paragraph, because I don't have a clue whether or not you know how English works, based on it.

When you trade A for B, you give up A, to get B in return.

Regardless, you do not trade DR for density, or visa-versa. Every technology has a minimum amount of read noise possible for a single photosite at base ISO, where having lower density doesn't help any with pixel level DR, and actually decimates it at the image level. The more pixels, the merrier, for DR, in general.
--
John

BadBeta · Mar 14, 2012

John Sheehy said:
John Sheehy said:

And to those wanting higher DR but not higher pixel density: with higher pixel density one can trade resolution for better DR, or one can trade noise for better DR. Higher pixel density sensors give more opportunities, not less.

Click to expand...

You might want to re-write that paragraph, because I don't have a clue whether or not you know how English works, based on it.

There was a "for" too much - corrected above. And no, I'm not a native English speaker and type a bit too quick at times.

John Sheehy said:
When you trade A for B, you give up A, to get B in return.

That is pretty much the concept yes.

John Sheehy said:
Regardless, you do not trade DR for density, or visa-versa. Every technology has a minimum amount of read noise possible for a single photosite at base ISO, where having lower density doesn't help any with pixel level DR, and actually decimates it at the image level. The more pixels, the merrier, for DR, in general.

You can trade between sensor spatial resolution, dynamic range and noise. Let say you want more DR but give up some spatial resolution - different sized pixels will give you that. Or maybe you'll accept some more noise to get higher DR while keeping resolution - shade a percentage of the microlenses. Once you get to a point with several pixels for each lens Airy disc that is a valid trade.

Wester · Mar 14, 2012

OK, please forgive this very basic question and perhaps intuitively obvious answer, but what exactly is IQ? What defines good IQ? Is it measurable or merely subjective?

altair8800 · Mar 14, 2012

John Sheehy said:
RvPhotoTraveller said:

So why are we stuck at 22 megapixels if Canon has the sensor technology to develop over 200 megapixel full frame sensor ? Why waste the research and development ?

Click to expand...

Shot-to-shot speed might only be 1/2 fps; files would be very big for most people; spoonfeeding sells more cameras over time.

If you are still talking about the 120Mp APS-H sensor, it was almost 10fps. It may be it is too expensive to produce except for NASA or similar scientific use. But I would be glad to settle for 40Mp and 10fps.

Dan

BadBeta · Mar 14, 2012

Wester said:
OK, please forgive this very basic question and perhaps intuitively obvious answer, but what exactly is IQ? What defines good IQ? Is it measurable or merely subjective?

My definition of high IQ is high sharpness (which again consists of high resolution, acuity and contrast), low noise, a wide dynamic range, accurate colors and smooth tonal graduations. All of these can be measured, but I'd say actual weighting of the different factors in a given motive is a subjective matter.

There is surely someone here with a better and more concise definition though?

Phil Hill · Mar 14, 2012

In my opinion, DR isn’t directly part of IQ because all cameras these days have greater DR than can be displayed or printed. Increasing DR doesn’t change the way an unmanipulated image looks in print or on a screen.

What increased DR does provide is greater leeway for creative PP and rescuing bad exposures. I don’t underestimate the value of this for those that are inclined to express creativity after the capture, but I don’t equate the potential to do creative processing with IQ, at least not in the sense that we usually use that term.

BadBeta · Mar 15, 2012

Phil Hill said:
In my opinion, DR isn’t directly part of IQ because all cameras these days have greater DR than can be displayed or printed. Increasing DR doesn’t change the way an unmanipulated image looks in print or on a screen.

My thinking is that until we at least have a DR comparable to human vision we will not be able to capture what we truly see. And I'd like some headroom on top of that. That is the capture side, and for me camera IQ is on the capture side. That printers and other devices can't keep up is about their IQ.

Phil Hill said:
I don’t equate the potential to do creative processing with IQ, at least not in the sense that we usually use that term.

Agreed. I think - having leeway is not a bad thing.

I refuse to believe that people don't want better IQ

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts