Canon have lost me . . .

Started Sep 19, 2008 | Discussions
fixray Forum Member • Posts: 75
Canon have lost me . . .

With the announcement of the SX10IS and SX1IS and even the G10, Canon have lost me.

Canon seems locked into the pixel count race; forever upping the pixels crammed into the same tiny sensor. Even Digic IV can't overcome the laws of physics. Image information coming from ever smaller pixels must include noise that will degrade the IQ.

If Canon was reading the market properly, it would see that the consumer is becoming more technically savvy and wants improved sensors, not more pixels.

I own a Powershot S3IS. At only 6 megapix, it gives great results in a variety of lighting conditions with very little noise.

I suspect that Canon feel the need to introduce new products to keep up with the pack while waiting for new technologies to emerge. The new cameras will no doubt sell well because of the badge across the front of the cameras. And that's what Canon does well . . . sell cameras!

 fixray's gear list:fixray's gear list
Canon PowerShot S3 IS Canon PowerShot SD1200 IS
theranman Veteran Member • Posts: 4,228
Re: Canon have lost me . . .

What "I" don't understand is why in the world doesn't at least ONE of the major manufacturers test-trial just ONE lower-megapixel camera to see what the sales results would be?

Answer: Because those "in-the-know" (he says facetiously) make up less than 1/10th of 1% of the buying public. They won't even give it a try.

RRRick Regular Member • Posts: 209
Re: Canon have lost me . . .

Ditto here - I'm tired of their marketing games. I'm convinced that one major reason they continue to keep image quality low in the P&S models is to protect their DSLR (and lens) business. If someone seriously wants higher quality then they get 'pushed' to the DSLR side. But, as so many others have also noticed, a growing number of consumers want the quality without the size and weight (and cost!). On the other hand, I'm sure that Panasonic is very appreciative of this approach by Canon as increasing numbers of ex-Canonites jump ship. I waited for the SX1IS and SX10IS announcements and that helped me make up my mind to purchase the FZ28 today.

-- hide signature --

Rick

rshhung Regular Member • Posts: 158
Who should be blamed...

Haven't you noticed, there is an increasing trend that the printed media do not even cover the size of the CCD but the pixel count is in large bold font. The media is to be blamed for not educating the public, and consumers are to be blamed when they walk up to a shop & ask "how many pixel" in this cam. Not until we see consumers walk up to a sales person and ask what is the size of CCD instead, this mega pixel race will never stop.

carmageddon Regular Member • Posts: 171
same here

I'm not just disappointed with the g10 Sx1 thing, I can't really understand what did they think to put HD video on the 5D and not on the 50D or the 450D. Well, actually I know, and it's exactly why I will buy the panasonic g1 or the latter one with video.

whatever...
--
**-**-**-**-**
Canon EOS Love View
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingpanic
Excuse my so-so english

KwhyChang Veteran Member • Posts: 5,578
Re: Canon have lost me . . .

Canon seems to put out digicams and DSLRs with superior image quality.

Until that no longer seems to be the case, I'm sticking with Canon.

Good luck with whatever camera you choose.

Dave

DigGuy Regular Member • Posts: 364
Re: Canon have lost me . . .

i may make the same choice. specifically, why did you go with the pany over the canon?

RRRick wrote:

Ditto here - I'm tired of their marketing games. I'm convinced that
one major reason they continue to keep image quality low in the P&S
models is to protect their DSLR (and lens) business. If someone
seriously wants higher quality then they get 'pushed' to the DSLR
side. But, as so many others have also noticed, a growing number of
consumers want the quality without the size and weight (and cost!).
On the other hand, I'm sure that Panasonic is very appreciative of
this approach by Canon as increasing numbers of ex-Canonites jump
ship. I waited for the SX1IS and SX10IS announcements and that helped
me make up my mind to purchase the FZ28 today.

-- hide signature --

Rick

Mirfak Senior Member • Posts: 1,375
Re: same here

carmageddon wrote:

I'm not just disappointed with the g10 Sx1 thing, I can't really
understand what did they think to put HD video on the 5D and not on
the 50D or the 450D. Well, actually I know, and it's exactly why I
will buy the panasonic g1 or the latter one with video.

whatever...
--
**-**-**-**-**
Canon EOS Love View
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingpanic
Excuse my so-so english

The SX1 specs aren't bad considering. The IQ will be the deciding factor for me. The G10 is another case....

Lack of video on the 50D is a mystery, given that they added the feature to the 5D MKII. Perhaps they weren't aware that video was coming on the D90. Regardless of one's point of view on video on DSLRs, I think it was a marketing blunder to omit the feature on the 50D.

Peter Shute Regular Member • Posts: 204
Re: Who should be blamed...

rshhung wrote:

Haven't you noticed, there is an increasing trend that the printed
media do not even cover the size of the CCD but the pixel count is in
large bold font. The media is to be blamed for not educating the
public, and consumers are to be blamed when they walk up to a shop &
ask "how many pixel" in this cam. Not until we see consumers walk up
to a sales person and ask what is the size of CCD instead, this mega
pixel race will never stop.

Is this trend increasing or decreasing? Reviews seem to all get onto the subject of noise fairly quickly these days, and I guess everyone kind of knows the sensor size, as it rarely changes between different models of the same line. It can't, unless they increase the lens size.

Mentioning the pixel count prominently might just be a habit from the early days, when the pixel counts just weren't enough. Now it's becoming obvious to everyone that it doesn't make much difference to have more.

I'd guess that the manufacturers are really keen to get noise levels down, but simply can't increase sensor size because then the cameras are too big. And that unless someone can make a sensor with lower noise, then intermediate systems like Micro 4/3 will have to start emerging.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,718
The megapixel myth

fixray wrote:

Even Digic IV can't
overcome the laws of physics. Image information coming from ever
smaller pixels must include noise that will degrade the IQ.

It reduces dynamic range a bit, but it doesn't increase noise unless micro lens aperture fill factor goes down too, which it doesn't. You get more, noisier pixels, but not a noisier image. Of course, you usually don't get a better image either since we already have more pixels than we need and the lenses are having trouble supporting the extra ones, partly due to diffraction.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
sergifotocat Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: The megapixel myth

Try what a few Foveon pixels can do

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,718
Re: The megapixel myth

sergifotocat wrote:

Try what a few Foveon pixels can do

Create more noise because of poor efficiency and make color reproduction very difficult because of the poor separation between colors?

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Loren3 Regular Member • Posts: 254
Re: Who should be blamed...

Truly, people need to educate themselves. Anyone relying on the media for an education is likely to end up in a very bad way.

Right now people buy based on pixels, and the reality is that for the vast majority of consumers who are email small images and/or printing 4x6s, there is no discernable difference between 6mp and 10mp. Those of us who are enlarging, cropping, etc, see the difference.

The industry could do itself a favor by consistently describing the size of the sensors. Who can initially tell which is bigger: Four-thirds or 1/2.3? What kind of nomenclature is that anyway?? You certainly don't see them describing LCD screen sizes that way because they really do want people to understand how big the screen is. They should do the same with sensors.

My two cents.

whatnotnow Regular Member • Posts: 430
Re: The megapixel myth (Getting the best out of them)

I do find the mp myth a silly (diminishing returns) way ti improve these tinycams, however its going to be it unless we can develop our own company!

There seemed to me some value to the 8 to 10 mp 1/8 from a 6 or so in my landscape shots. Its more that I really like the resolving of very fine detail at distance but the colour depth, DR and noise all go to H* in a JPG. Raw helps a bit but all that data becomes rediculous.

So given that this is what we get, what can be done to max IQ.

My List:
1. if PP results lower in camera "everything" sharp,contr. and sat.
2. use sweetspot 4.0 to 5.0 f

3. shoot to the right on 'gram. (does blowing lites affect other places "sensor flare"?)
4. hood or shade lens in full sun

5. Ive used IR filter in long sunnyshots and overall sharpness and contrast is better.
6. RAW
7.Bracket
8. reduce size to match use.
9. Clean lens

Somuch for point and shoot!

Anymore tips would be appreciated

Keep upthe campaign to get better 8 mp sensors and bodies.

Regards, Jm

Cedarhill Veteran Member • Posts: 4,638
Re: Canon have lost me . . .

Panasonic is doing exactly that with the new LX3 model. We will have to wait and see whether the noise levels are actually lower due to the lower pixel count (compared to previous models or the G10) and whether the camera will be well received in the marketplace.

theranman wrote:

What "I" don't understand is why in the world doesn't at least ONE of
the major manufacturers test-trial just ONE lower-megapixel camera to
see what the sales results would be?

Answer: Because those "in-the-know" (he says facetiously) make up
less than 1/10th of 1% of the buying public. They won't even give it
a try.

Jeremy Senior Member • Posts: 1,968
Re: The megapixel myth

Can you elaborate more on this please?

Most people here (including myself) are under the impression that if you keep sensor size and technology constant, there's a direct correlation between noise and number of pixels. This was a big deal when Canon went from the 1/1.8" CCD to the more commonly used 1/2.5" CCD; megapixels increased while sensor size decreased.

If you print a photo so that the size is equal to 100% viewing on screen (and thus a 6mp image will print smaller than a 12mp image), and you view from the same distance, which photo will appear to have more noise? Is that the crux of it: more noise doesn't not necessitate more apparent noise? Or what if you want to crop both pictures so that 1024x768 is 100%. What will the difference be between 6mp and 12mp?

Confused.

ljfinger wrote:

fixray wrote:

Even Digic IV can't
overcome the laws of physics. Image information coming from ever
smaller pixels must include noise that will degrade the IQ.

It reduces dynamic range a bit, but it doesn't increase noise unless
micro lens aperture fill factor goes down too, which it doesn't. You
get more, noisier pixels, but not a noisier image. Of course, you
usually don't get a better image either since we already have more
pixels than we need and the lenses are having trouble supporting the
extra ones, partly due to diffraction.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

-- hide signature --

Jeremy

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,718
Re: The megapixel myth

Jeremy wrote:

If you print a photo so that the size is equal to 100% viewing on
screen (and thus a 6mp image will print smaller than a 12mp image),
and you view from the same distance, which photo will appear to have
more noise?

The one with more pixels. But that's not a fair comparison since you're printing the bigger one bigger. If you view them on-screen or print them the same size, the signal-to-noise will be about the same.

If you actually need the larger image, you need the extra pixels and so there's no point in complaining about them. If you just want final images of a given size, and have sufficient pixels to get that size, then increasing pixel count on the sensor won't hurt the signal-to-noise ratio. So more pixels doesn't hurt, and it helps if you need a larger image.

Secondary effects cause more pixels to hurt dynamic range a bit, and that's bad because these tiny cameras have way too little DR to begin with.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
whatnotnow Regular Member • Posts: 430
Re: The megapixel myth ( DR question)

Goodpoints, the most important change is the per pixel stats such as noise and DR, also colour depth and the way noise relates to lower light levels suffers. However more MPs are useful in binning and size and the physics of lens and body do matter.

My question on DR is this, is there a reduction in either contrast or other IQ related items when only apart ofthe sensor is"blown out" by highlights? As Mps goup thereis a noticable increase in shadow noise in the smaller pixels and shooting to the right attempstominimize, however I'm thinking even small blowouts affect the entirei mage through some sort of sensor flare.

Jm

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,718
Re: The megapixel myth ( DR question)

whatnotnow wrote:

Goodpoints, the most important change is the per pixel stats such as
noise and DR, also colour depth and the way noise relates to lower
light levels suffers. However more MPs are useful in binning and size
and the physics of lens and body do matter.

My question on DR is this, is there a reduction in either contrast or
other IQ related items when only apart ofthe sensor is"blown out" by
highlights?

Not really.

As Mps goup thereis a noticable increase in shadow noise
in the smaller pixels and shooting to the right attempstominimize,
however I'm thinking even small blowouts affect the entirei mage
through some sort of sensor flare.

Lens flare, but not sensor flare. Blooming/smearing is under good control on these sensors.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
RRRick Regular Member • Posts: 209
Re: Canon have lost me . . .

Several reasons I chose the Panasonic FZ28 model:

  • it's available now & user comments are generally good

  • trials showed that the image quality was very good at ISO400 and useable at 800

  • the lens! - user comments of excellent quality, low distortion, fringing & CA

  • the lens! - faster at the long end than the new Canons

  • the size and weight (lighter and smaller than the new Canons)

  • good quality LCD (I don't care about having a 'fold out' style)

  • the user interface is quite good and friendly

  • SDHC memory cards (vs Olympus and Fuji offerings - matches Canon offering)

  • good results on the automatic exposure / ISO functions

  • the pictures speak for themselves

So far, I'm liking it's operation and functionality. I would have preferred AA batteries and an industry standard RAW format (I only use the jpeg) and a lower maximum pixel count - but those were my compromises.

So far, my only gripes are the need to remove the lens cap prior to power up and a somewhat slow shutter / flash response time (compared to a DSLR).

The unclear availability of the SX1IS in North America by Canon also left a 'bad taste' in my mouth.

-- hide signature --

Rick

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads