16MP Too good for the optics?

[I Simonius]

Nothing to do with measures of spirits...;)
Went into the shop to look at the 5D today and the salespersonage slagged of the IDs MK2 saying it had too much resolution for the best optics even, and therefore no point spending money on it. (I just managed to contain my reaction!)

Now I know aforementioned personage was trying to flog me the 5D, but surely there's no truth in the assertion that 16MP is overkill?:evil:

[adas]

If the 20D with 6.5microns isn't, why would be the 1DsMKII with 8.2microns an overkill?

[I Simonius]

If the 20D with 6.5microns isn't, why would be the 1DsMKII with 8.2microns an overkill?

Well I thought they were talking absolute BullDroppings but I try to have an open mind.....

[Pyromaniac]

So by the sales persons reasoning a large format 8x10 studio camera wouls also be over kill I guess. As far as I know the mega pixels of the camers has nothing to do with optics at all, it the same as using a larger format film. The bigger the film the bigger the print, the more mega pixels the bigger the print. I think you rright they where just trying to sell you on the 5D

[Hellashot]

Salespeople will tell ANYTHING to make a sale. The biggest one I get it "I have this model at home and it's great" lol!! :)

[lmitch6]

Foolishness! That's one of those urban legend things that pops up from time to time. I think he was trying to pull out all the stops to sell you a 5D, not speaking any truth. I love the personalities of people that work in camera stores! I always find one person in a store who knows what the real deal is, and stick with em. If he/she isn't working on a day I'm there - my wallet stays in my pocket!

[woodsie]

You mean to tell be that you can find camera salesmen who aren't dodgy? Wow, wonders will never cease to amaze me. ;);):lol:

[rdenney]

So by the sales persons reasoning a large format 8x10 studio camera wouls also be over kill I guess. As far as I know the mega pixels of the camers has nothing to do with optics at all, it the same as using a larger format film. The bigger the film the bigger the print, the more mega pixels the bigger the print. I think you rright they where just trying to sell you on the 5D

I have to say that I disagree with this statement, even though I agree that the salesman was spouting foolishness.

Each pixel is a light bucket. The bigger the bucket, the more light it collects. The more light it collects, the more accurate the pixel will be. Stuffing more pixels into the same space makes more pixels, but it doesn't make more information. Accuracy is not improved.

In the engineering world, we spend a lot of time distinguishing between accuracy and precision. Precision is the tolerance of a measurement, while accuracy is the quality of the measurement. For example, I can measure the thickness of a piece of metal with a micrometer to the nearest five ten-thousandths of an inch pretty easily. But if the micrometer is out of adjustment or my measurement technique is faulty, I will be writing the wrong answer down to four decimal places.

Larger formats capture more information, and the more information in each pixel, the more accurately the pixel represents that information. More pixel density increases precision, but not accuracy.

The size print you can make is limited by the accuracy first, and by the precision second. Just because you have enough precision to make a given print doesn't mean you have the accuracy. Higher pixel density increases precision, while larger pixels are more accurate. Thus, the best result will always be from large sensors with large pixels. 12 megapixels in a 24x36 frame will produce better results than 12 megapixels in a 15x23 frame.

Optics also impose a limit on both accuracy and precision. We think of accuracy in terms of MTF, which is contrast and color at various frequencies of detail, and we think of precision in terms of resolution. An excellent lens may produce a resolution of 100 lines/mm; most even good ones are not that good. Thus, there is a limit to how small a projected image detail can be before the lens can no longer resolve it.

Where the salesman is wrong is that we have to consider both the optics and the sensor as a system, both of which will influence how large our prints can be. The bigger the sensor, however, the less demand we place on the lens.

I want a sensor that is good enough so that the image is indeed controlled by the lens; any less and I'm wasting some of the quality of that lens. But I'll get more out of a given lens with a larger sensor than with a smaller sensor, even if both have the same number of pixels. I might get more from the larger sensor even if it has fewer pixels.

I'm still looking forward (though, sadly, with empty pockets) to the Pentax 645 digital medium format camera. The reported 36x43mm 18-megapixel sensor should outperform any 24x36 sensor. The pixel density is no better than the 5D and maybe not as good, but it sweeps up very much more information, and that places less demand on the lens for a given size print.

Rick "who'll take format size over megapixels any day" Denney

[SkipD]

Well I thought they were talking absolute BullDroppings but I try to have an open mind.....Salespeople...... They are often such experts at spouting BullDroppings (I normally use my favorite 8-character word, but "BullDroppings" is cool and more useable in mixed company).

I have been known to join in on a conversation between such a salesperson and a potential customer and drop a hint of the truth or at least hand the customer a "shovel". The customer usually is highly appreciative but the salesperson may not be.

Hopefully the salesperson learns a lesson, though. Spreading kakka is not a good way to become a trusted salesperson.

By the way - I don't see why a good digital body with a 24mm x 36mm sensor couldn't be a 22 megapixel camera. Today's lenses are definitely up to the task. I suspect we will see such a camera in the not-too-distant future, but not at consumer price levels.

[I Simonius]

So by the sales persons reasoning a large format 8x10 studio camera wouls also be over kill I guess. As far as I know the mega pixels of the camers has nothing to do with optics at all, it the same as using a larger format film. The bigger the film the bigger the print, the more mega pixels the bigger the print. I think you rright they where just trying to sell you on the 5D


I don't know if you can get a 50mm1.4 on a large format camera:D ;) ;) ;) :D

but re the porint size - exactly - more MP = bigger print!

[I Simonius]

Foolishness! That's one of those urban legend things that pops up from time to time. I think he was trying to pull out all the stops to sell you a 5D, not speaking any truth. I love the personalities of people that work in camera stores! I always find one person in a store who knows what the real deal is, and stick with em. If he/she isn't working on a day I'm there - my wallet stays in my pocket!


I never said it was a 'he' !

;) :D :D

Yeah you're right about finding someone who knows what's what and sticking to them !
:D

[I Simonius]

Salespeople will tell ANYTHING to make a sale. The biggest one I get it "I have this model at home and it's great" lol!! :)

this wasn't far out of that range:D

[I Simonius]

You mean to tell be that you can find camera salesmen who aren't dodgy? Wow, wonders will never cease to amaze me. ;);):lol:

Actually -yes I would say Phil, the mamager at Jessops here is pretty straight talking:D

[I Simonius]

I want a sensor that is good enough so that the image is indeed controlled by the lens; any less and I'm wasting some of the quality of that lens.



LOve that! Cheerrs for the explanations Rick!

[I Simonius]

Salespeople...... They are often such experts at spouting BullDroppings (I normally use my favorite 8-character word, but "BullDroppings" is cool and more useable in mixed company).

I have been known to join in on a conversation between such a salesperson and a potential customer and drop a hint of the truth or at least hand the customer a "shovel". The customer usually is highly appreciative but the salesperson may not be.

Hopefully the salesperson learns a lesson, though. Spreading kakka is not a good way to become a trusted salesperson.

By the way - I don't see why a good digital body with a 24mm x 36mm sensor couldn't be a 22 megapixel camera. Today's lenses are definitely up to the task. I suspect we will see such a camera in the not-too-distant future, but not at consumer price levels.


As rick says above - I would love to have the lens be the limiting factor!
From what I have read were not there until we get a 32MP sensor in 35mm format - as I understand it 0 that's the pooint of not return , or diminishing returns or whatever you want to call it...i..e. where it won't be worth shelling out for more MP as it won't improve resolution;)

[Tom W]

If the 20D with 6.5microns isn't, why would be the 1DsMKII with 8.2microns an overkill?

Actually, the 1Ds II has 7.2 micron pixels, though you are correct in that they are still larger than those of the 20D. It is the 1D II and the 5D that have the 8.2 micron pixels.

[PhotosGuy]

the salespersonage slagged of the IDs MK2 saying it had too much resolution for the best optics even, and therefore no point spending money on it. The first reply to that comes to my mind is, "So, you used to sell garden supplies, right?" ;)

[CoolToolGuy]

The issue that is coming out with the 5D has to do with the frame size more than the pixel density. For years the DSLR crowd has been used to the crop factor, which utilizes the best part of the lens - the center. The 1Ds is typically a pro camera, and most buyers have high quality glass to go with it. Now the 5D brings the full frame sensor closer to the masses, and lens weaknesses in the corners and at the edge of the frame will start to be seen.

So the 5D may be Canon's best marketing ploy to sell more 'L' glass. They may also improve some of the non-Ls as well (like the new 70-300 IS, maybe?).

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[aam1234]

This is a quote from DPReview's review of the 5D

"The results of our 'extended test suite' were a confirmation of what we expected (and knew), that a full frame camera fully exposes the limits of the lens used and that simply because the pixel pitch is larger we aren't automatically going to get more dynamic range and lower noise. (Remember the EOS 5Ds pixel pitch is the same as the EOS-1D Mark II)."


Some maybe the salesperson has a point.

[I Simonius]

Actually, the 1Ds II has 7.2 micron pixels, though you are correct in that they are still larger than those of the 20D. It is the 1D II and the 5D that have the 8.2 micron pixels.

How large are the Mekon's microns?:lol: :lol: :lol:

[I Simonius]

The first reply to that comes to my mind is, "So, you used to sell garden supplies, right?" ;)


Yeah they were lucky to have caught me in placid mood, I can be a right BarSteward at times;)

[I Simonius]

The issue that is coming out with the 5D has to do with the frame size more than the pixel density. For years the DSLR crowd has been used to the crop factor, which utilizes the best part of the lens - the center. The 1Ds is typically a pro camera, and most buyers have high quality glass to go with it. Now the 5D brings the full frame sensor closer to the masses, and lens weaknesses in the corners and at the edge of the frame will start to be seen.

So the 5D may be Canon's best marketing ploy to sell more 'L' glass. They may also improve some of the non-Ls as well (like the new 70-300 IS, maybe?).

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

It was mentioned that they 'blonged to the local camera club' which immediately put me into the 'might as well be polite to this product of intransigent cliquery' mode.

And you are probably correct in that it was this aspect that lead to their ill informed extrapolation so glibly delivered to me with all the authority that only an neophyte shop-floor salesperson can muster and present with such ignorant alacrity.:cool: :cool:

[I Simonius]

This is a quote from DPReview's review of the 5D

"The results of our 'extended test suite' were a confirmation of what we expected (and knew), that a full frame camera fully exposes the limits of the lens used and that simply because the pixel pitch is larger we aren't automatically going to get more dynamic range and lower noise. (Remember the EOS 5Ds pixel pitch is the same as the EOS-1D Mark II)."


Some maybe the salesperson has a point.

This why I didn't scoff outright, suspecting their rash assessment might mask an iota of truth that lay behind the proposition:cool:

[soupdragon]

Don't discard the shop assistants comments without thinking about what he is actually saying.
Canon, to my knowledge, do not issue MTF data for their lenses.
However, as a benchmark, Carl Zeiss do. From this you can establish a lens' resolving power expressed as LPPmm.
Now, I know it's not quite as simplistic as this but, because we know how many pixels there are on a sensor of a given size (be it full frame or otherwise) we can calculate how many LPPmm the sensor is capable of resolving (yes I know most sensors are a bayer pattern).
So, if your sensor can resolve to, say, 95 LPPmm, but your optic can only acheive 90 LPPmm, then it is true, you don't need more pixels.

[Longwatcher]

My turn to chime in.
All I know is if I were a saleman, I would have tried to make you want the 1DsMkII, but then sold you the 5D as the closest you could get for your money. If you had the money for the 1DsMkII, happy to sell that. Then again maybe they don't get enough margin on the 1DsMkII.

As to too good for optics.
Some yes, some not so much. No significant difference from film in my opinion. And as someone mentioned, If I have a camera sensor that exceeds my lenses capabilities then I will get the best I can from the best lenses and that is a good thing. It then becomes my goal to get lenses that perform even better.

There is a point of dimenishing returns which we seem to have gotten to the edge of between 1Ds and 1DsMkII, but it hasn't hit the point of insignifcant difference yet. Where that is I am not sure, but for me I am guessing about 22MP on a 35mm format FF sensor. From looking at dpreview's 5D review on ISO, Noise, and Resolution review charts; I can see that the 1DsMkII is maybe starting to hit the practical physics limits at its 16.7MP because of pixel size. But I think we can get a bit more out within the acceptable utility to me.

In the days of film. there was only a small thought as to which film to use to derive the best quality, but a lot of thought was put into lens quality as that was the actual important factor in final product determination. With the sensors getting to this point we once again beginning to return to the lenses as the most important factor. Consider if you will you would spend $300 on a good camera $1500 on a professional camera, but $1500-$2000 on a lens and this was normal. Lens prices haven't really changed much, but maybe they will need to as the lenses quality will need to also grow so that once again a good lens may end up costing 5 times what a good camera costs instead of only 1-2 times (not counting that for 1D series, the best lenses available are often lower cost then the camera). We aren't there yet. In some ways I hope we don't as I can barely afford the lenses as it is.

Lastly, I will take my 1DsMkII at $8k versus a 5D at $3.5k almost any day, especially after using the thing for a year, it would be nearly impossible to go back. There is so much more to the 1DsMkII capabilties it would be too numerous to list.

[Longwatcher]

Canon, to my knowledge, do not issue MTF data for their lenses.

They do:
Taking for example the 24-70/2.8L;
See bottom of page
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503

[I Simonius]

Don't discard the shop assistants comments without thinking about what he is actually saying.
Canon, to my knowledge, do not issue MTF data for their lenses.
However, as a benchmark, Carl Zeiss do. From this you can establish a lens' resolving power expressed as LPPmm.
Now, I know it's not quite as simplistic as this but, because we know how many pixels there are on a sensor of a given size (be it full frame or otherwise) we can calculate how many LPPmm the sensor is capable of resolving (yes I know most sensors are a bayer pattern).
So, if your sensor can resolve to, say, 95 LPPmm, but your optic can only acheive 90 LPPmm, then it is true, you don't need more pixels.

Well I just read the DPReview and can see where they got the idea, but look at the comparison samples and wow! shows' they don't know all for sure

[I Simonius]

My turn to chime in.

Lastly, I will take my 1DsMkII at $8k versus a 5D at $3.5k almost any day, especially after using the thing for a year, it would be nearly impossible to go back. There is so much more to the 1DsMkII capabilties it would be too numerous to list.

If there was a 16.7 MP FF camera at the same size as the 5D I would save up for that over the 5D, but there aint and I couldn't stand to carry that huge 1Ds round as much as I wouyld love to get that sort of pic quality

But for now the 5D will do , but I will look forward with keen anticipation for the next few years to the 17MP version of the 5D, and just keep upgrading til I get to a camera that prints out A1 pics at 100% magnification. After that I doubt I could justify spending more money on cameras, - then it'll go on lenses and a caddy
;)

[I Simonius]

They do:
Taking for example the 24-70/2.8L;
See bottom of page
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503

they mostly do ... if limited:D

[soupdragon]

They do:
Taking for example the 24-70/2.8L;
See bottom of page
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503

Sorry, I could not find them first time I looked.

[Longwatcher]

The MTF charts used to be in the camera museum, but for some reason they took them out of there about year and half ago and moved to lens page where they didn't used to be. I also thing there are still about 3 or 4 lenses (such as I think 18-55) without MTF charts.

Maybe you hit one of those pages when looking.