Canon loves 24mp…where’s the new FF32mp?….R6 mk3!

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Foskito wrote:

"Yeah, you should document that marketing talk for when they want to sell you the R6III with 30.4Mp."

Exactly!! I dont buy the "our new 24mp sensor magically offers more resolution than 30mp sensors" BS.

Seems like it would be a very easy thing to test.

Wouldn't it have to be via those tests where they take pictures of converging lines ? The actual number resolution might be less, but maybe when you look at photos of converging lines, the 24mp might do as well as the 30mp.

That is to say, if they cut back on the anti-aliasing filter.

That seems reasonable. It should be easier to simply do that kind of test than just arguing about it endlessly with no data.

The problem is the lack of a definition when talking about "resolution". The digital resolution is nothing else but the Mp-count. You can change things in the optical part, like changing the anti-aliasing filter or mounting a better lens, but that digital resolution determines a maximum amount of possible detail being captured when the optical part is as good as it gets.

If resolution is defined as the optical part being included, statements about one sensor being better than the other are pretty meaningless without taking the lens performance into account.

That’s why it’s best to just do the experiment and see the results.

I have no problem with testing, but I think you're missing the point. Without a clear definition you can't determine what should be tested.

It’s a photo, you can either see it or not, it’s a provable claim.

But what it shows you is under question, not whether you can or cannot see a picture.if you cannot see the picture then I guess we can conclude.

If you can’t see a difference then the claim is true, if you can then it’s not. Maybe if you’re doing some scientific research something beyond that might matter but the vast majority of photography isn’t that. This whining about Canon’s claim really seems silly. I see lots of big claims made but zero to back any of it up.

Why not remove the AA filter entirely? The reason for not doing this is you are concerned some shot will be ruined by Moire. The are less common in wildlife photography that wedding photography where people wear patterns close. The design of the AA filter is a tradeoff between Moire suppression and the ultimate in resolution. The R5 has very fancy high tech AA filter uncommon in many cameras. I bet it is much expensive too because it can effectively filter as well as maximize resolution.