How about a 8MP 50D variant?

[tkbslc]

I was just thinking that with the improvements in noise handling in the 50D and 5Dmk2, they should be able to make a lower res APS-C camera that has the noise handling of a FF camera. Looking at the Megapixels vs sensor size, the 5DMk2 and the 20D have the same pixel density. So assuming they used all the tech they used to make the 5Dmk2's sensor and noise processing, shouldn't they be able to make a new 8MP APC-S camera with the same ISO noise? I would assume burst rate could be increased as well with the lower resolution. Any thoughts?

[In2Photos]

I have been wanting the same thing (only in a 1 D or FF variant) for some time now. I don't have the need for anything over 10MP. But I would love to be able to use a higher ISO and get less noise.

[anthony11]

They could, but they seem to feel that the market demands more pixels. And probably the mass market does.

[tkbslc]

Yeah, the 5D had almost half the pixel density of the 5Dmk2, yet the I think the Mk2 does slightly better with all those extra pixels! If they made a 10 or 12MP FF again, I think it would be surprising how good the high ISO would be.

[tkbslc]

They could, but they seem to feel that the market demands more pixels. And probably the mass market does.

You may be right, but I can't beleive that the prosumer crowd would not know better. They could market the hell out of the high ISO performance too, I would think, instead of having to play up MP.

[blue_max]

Its the same with computers. Ever higher processor speeds. Do we really need them?

Seems we do judging by the fact that they still sell them.

Graham

[tkbslc]

I disagree on the computer reference. We can measure and see that a quad core does run faster and hence better than a single core, with no real side effects. But increasing resolution increases noise. Canon has managed to keep up with its 2004 levels by added processing, but if we had left resolution alone, maybe we could all be using ISO 3200-6400 like we do 800-1600 now.

[danpass]

That would be nice.

I noticed it in just a simple compact camera.

My SD880 (10mp) produces sharper pics at the same jpeg settings than the SD870 (8mp) did.

The sensor is just slightly larger. Imagine if they had made that bigger sensor at the 8mp size. :)

[AllenF]

Big difference between faster computers and more Mega-pixels. Since we need more from our computers we need more speed. The only draw back is there is a small price hit for the improvements. MP's however become smaller in size per pixel as the size of the sensor is locked in to a particular size. Here is where the laws of physics fights the law of marketing and consumer demand.

Unless they can design a sensor that is more capable of gathering light than what is currently being used the quality hit will be harder and harder to swallow. Soon there will be no market for tons of nasty pixels. Already there is a growing awareness to this fact.

I do think there is still some room to grow in MP's but not too much. Processing power can and will help but soon the lenses need to be tweeked too. Faced with the need to upgrade bodies AND glass will slow the market due to their limited $$$ or having reached their individual comfort/ quality plateau.

One area Canon has lots of upgrade room is the prosumer line. We still could get 100% viewfinders, more AF points and faster ones too, full real weather sealing, 16 bit files, better WB. etc. Dribble these improvements a little at a time and you can continue for many years as we here will buy them model after new model.

Ain't life grand?

[Duncan Frenz]

It is too late for them to turn it back. The only market would be niche like those of us and pros who are only a small percentage. Marketing MP is much easier than ISO and far sexier. The average consumer does not get what noise is let alone what ISO does or means. Plus, even with the advances made, most of us probably don't grasp the full implications of what goes into making a low noise sensor and if it would translate into a marked increase in clean high ISO with less MP on the same fabbed sensor. You can still downsize files and get an approximation so why go back?

Plus, if sensor fabrication is anything like processor fab, then milions, maybe bllions are spent making the facilities to fabricate them and it is just easier and more economical to improve the current technology than trying to educate the masses and then convince them that less is more. And for some of us, more IS more. There are real benefits to having more MP. .02

[BEEEsH]

Canon needs to apply digic 4/5 and gapless microlens technology to its 12mp 5d sensor, in conjunction with the 50d body/mechanics and call it the 70Ds.

[In2Photos]

It is too late for them to turn it back. The only market would be niche like those of us and pros who are only a small percentage. Marketing MP is much easier than ISO and far sexier. The average consumer does not get what noise is let alone what ISO does or means. Plus, even with the advances made, most of us probably don't grasp the full implications of what goes into making a low noise sensor and if it would translate into a marked increase in clean high ISO with less MP on the same fabbed sensor. You can still downsize files and get an approximation so why go back?

Plus, if sensor fabrication is anything like processor fab, then milions, maybe bllions are spent making the facilities to fabricate them and it is just easier and more economical to improve the current technology than trying to educate the masses and then convince them that less is more. And for some of us, more IS more. There are real benefits to having more MP. .02
Most of the market will never print anything above an 8x10. So there is no "need" for camera with more than 8MP (and that is at 300 PPI). You say that we should just downsize and be done with it, but those larger files still take up more room on my cards, slow down my buffer, fill up my hard drive, and make my computer work harder.

I'm telling you, if Canon made a new camera, perhaps FF, that had 10-12 MP and super low noise up to ISO 6400 or higher, they would sell like hot cakes at the right price. Wedding photogs, sports shooters, PJs, and even the equipment junkies would fall in love (assuming similar specs to current cameras for all else).

[Duncan Frenz]

Most of the market will never print anything above an 8x10. So there is no "need" for camera with more than 8MP (and that is at 300 PPI). You say that we should just downsize and be done with it, but those larger files still take up more room on my cards, slow down my buffer, fill up my hard drive, and make my computer work harder.

I'm telling you, if Canon made a new camera, perhaps FF, that had 10-12 MP and super low noise up to ISO 6400 or higher, they would sell like hot cakes at the right price. Wedding photogs, sports shooters, PJs, and even the equipment junkies would fall in love (assuming similar specs to current cameras for all else).
You are making my point for me. YOU and I will buy them, but the mass market is NOT us. As for downsizing, sRAW1 and sRAW2 are much smaller files inherently.

[tkbslc]

Does the "mass market" buy 50D level cameras anyway?

Also, I do not think an SRAW or downsized image has any less pixel density. The sensor is still the same resolution, they just ditch pixels for the final image. If that were the case, an SRAW from a 50D should equal a 5Dmk2 image for noise.

[In2Photos]

You are making my point for me. YOU and I will buy them, but the mass market is NOT us. As for downsizing, sRAW1 and sRAW2 are much smaller files inherently.
But sRAW does not provide the benefits of less noise, only smaller files.

And you and I are the ones buying 1 series cameras too, and they sell those. ;)

[anthony11]

You are making my point for me. YOU and I will buy them, but the mass market is NOT us. As for downsizing, sRAW1 and sRAW2 are much smaller files inherently.

Smaller, but from what I understand, the space saved is distinctly less than linear wrt the number of pixels.

[Duncan Frenz]

Smaller, but from what I understand, the space saved is distinctly less than linear wrt the number of pixels.

Honestly, I wouldn't know. I don't have any problems with file size, pixels, noise, or storage, and thus haven't even tried sRAW. If I want tiny pics and tiny files, I have a P&S. :D

[René Damkot]

You are making my point for me. YOU and I will buy them, but the mass market is NOT us.


Okay, here's a thought: Everybody on POTN is going to educate 10 people that "Megapixels don't matter (that much)". Then, maybe, camera manufacturers will get the point and deliver a reasonable Mp camera...

On second thought: Nah. Probably won't work.

[Duncan Frenz]

Okay, here's a thought: Everybody on POTN is going to educate 10 people that "Megapixels don't matter (that much)". Then, maybe, camera manufacturers will get the point and deliver a reasonable Mp camera...

On second thought: Nah. Probably won't work.

They'll deliver it, but it will be wrapped up in 50 MP by 2015. By then they'll have introduced some other measurbating standard by which all cameras will be judged, for better or worse. By 2020 we won't even blink at MP, kinda like processor speeds and how many oooh and ahhed over a few MHz. It will always be something. If not MP, then noise. Not noise? Then how about lens resolution and diffraction. Not that? How about.... and on and on and on.

Thankfully, those that know better, will read between the lines, ignore marketing hype, and be happy with what they have until it either breaks or there becomes a limitation, necessity, or desire to pick up a new body. Whatever happens, it will be a fun ride.

[Jimmer411]

Im happy wtih 15mp and the ISO performance of my 50D. 8MP just isnt enough for me. I had a hard enough time with 10mp when cropping.

[tkbslc]

Im happy wtih 15mp and the ISO performance of my 50D. 8MP just isnt enough for me. I had a hard enough time with 10mp when cropping.

They already make a 50D with 15MP. This could be like a 55D, same specs with a smaller resolution sensor that buys maybe an extra stop or 2 of clean ISO. They could probably make the fps a few faster as well.

ANyway, I am not saying the ISO noise is bad on the 50D, only it isn't any better than a 4-5 year old 20D. They have used all their tech to keep noise relatively the same while doubling MP. I would rather they took the other approach. Leave the MP at 8-10 and double the high ISO performance.

[Duncan Frenz]

They already make a 50D with 15MP. This could be like a 55D, same specs with a smaller resolution sensor that buys maybe an extra stop or 2 of clean ISO. They could probably make the fps a few faster as well.

ANyway, I am not saying the ISO noise is bad on the 50D, only it isn't any better than a 4-5 year old 20D. They have used all their tech to keep noise relatively the same while doubling MP. I would rather they took the other approach. Leave the MP at 8-10 and double the high ISO performance.

While I don't agree with your assessment between noise on the 50D vs. the 20D... I doubt Canon will cut their own throat and make a faster FPS or AF XXD body until a 1 series is released that is a generation better (or has one in the pipeline to be released shortly after; can you say 50D---->5DMKII?). One would assume the XXD line will get improvements trickled down from its bigger sibling(s), albeit not necessarily utilizing the same technology but essentially with the same result.

Nikon has arguably already made that mistake with their D3X/D3/D700/D300 series of cameras. Certainly, Canon is evaluating the effects by the in-house cannabilization and won't make the same decision to dig into their own sales and will always have a carrot dangling in front of their prosumer line. (Though, I don't think Nikon ever intended the D3X to be a big seller. It is likely a proof-of-concept camera they decided to release at a sky high price, while utilizing that technology in their other reasonably attainable bodies. Nikon's 'shot across the bow', if you will.)

**edit** Also, why would Canon invest millions/billions in new fab plants for new sensors only to make smaller MP sensors? That would be akin to Intel making a new fab plant to make wafers to support denser processors and then turning around and cutting the density in half because of perception. It hasn't happened and it won't, except to perhaps cripple a sensor to use in the Rebel line and saving cost while using the same fab. It is far more likely and I say inevitable that Canon will keep the MP and continue to increase it while utilizing other technologies to make strides in noise reduction. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.

[René Damkot]

They'll deliver it, but it will be wrapped up in 50 MP by 2015.

Well, at least that's one thing that diffraction will be good for: I'd hope even Canon has the sense to see that most camera's nowadays are diffraction limited at fairly regular used apertures.... A 15Mp P&S might be diffraction limited fully opened ;)

Oh, wait. I guess that means that Canon doesn't have enough sense...

I think my current camera is going to last me long.

:lol:

[blue_max]

I disagree on the computer reference. We can measure and see that a quad core does run faster and hence better than a single core, with no real side effects. But increasing resolution increases noise. Canon has managed to keep up with its 2004 levels by added processing, but if we had left resolution alone, maybe we could all be using ISO 3200-6400 like we do 800-1600 now.

I was merely suggesting that the manufacturers can make quicker chips, so we as consumers rush after the fastest ones. And so the cycle repeats itself. We don't really need multi core mega mhz processors for most users who do more than surf the internet, send emails and the odd word doc.

The same with sensors. There are 20mb sensors out there now. I am sure there will be 30mb soon. And we will buy them. Then no-one will want a mere 8mb.

It's just progress for the sake of progress. Often it's enough to increase the mb at any cost to ensure the new model tempts people to upgrade. It keeps us buying.

Graham

[damnnit]

=) I dont know what time it is in London but its actually MP not mb. To add to the thread, as long as there is people who think higher MP is everything, this will be a continuing trend.

[Mike V]

Tried sRaw?

[In2Photos]

Im happy wtih 15mp and the ISO performance of my 50D. 8MP just isnt enough for me. I had a hard enough time with 10mp when cropping.
Jason, how much cropping do you do? Perhaps you need a longer lens. ;) In all seriousness how much printing do you do? What sizes. I am curious to know how much cropping you do and what resolution you achieve after your crops that you couldn't use a 10MP sensor.
While I don't agree with your assessment between noise on the 50D vs. the 20D... I doubt Canon will cut their own throat and make a faster FPS or AF XXD body until a 1 series is released that is a generation better (or has one in the pipeline to be released shortly after; can you say 50D---->5DMKII?). One would assume the XXD line will get improvements trickled down from its bigger sibling(s), albeit not necessarily utilizing the same technology but essentially with the same result.


I doubt Canon would release what we want either. ;) However, not all "upgrades" come from the 1 series cameras anymore. Several of today's features have come from other cameras, like sensor cleaning, video, DIGIC IV, etc. So it is possible that Canon would do something to a non 1 series first.

[/quote]
**edit** Also, why would Canon invest millions/billions in new fab plants for new sensors only to make smaller MP sensors? That would be akin to Intel making a new fab plant to make wafers to support denser processors and then turning around and cutting the density in half because of perception. It hasn't happened and it won't, except to perhaps cripple a sensor to use in the Rebel line and saving cost while using the same fab. It is far more likely and I say inevitable that Canon will keep the MP and continue to increase it while utilizing other technologies to make strides in noise reduction. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.[/quote]
This argument I do not agree with. Have you seen any netbooks? They use older processors (and subsequently XP SP3 which is not available through Microsoft for retail anymore ;) ). So Intel did take a step backwards in order to create a product that the market desired. Canon could do the same. But what really gets me is that you keep thinking that a smaller sensor is not a "new" sensor. We are not asking for an old sensor to be put into a new camera. We still want a new sensor, one that is better, and has mroe technogy, just less pixels.
Tried sRaw?

As mentioned above in several posts, sRAW does not yield any noise advantage.

[canonloader]

So assuming they used all the tech they used to make the 5Dmk2's sensor and noise processing, shouldn't they be able to make a new 8MP APC-S camera with the same ISO noise?
This is like emasculating a horse. You can still ride it, but it's not good for much else. Instead of making them smaller, they really need to work on pixel density with perfect noise processing. Why stop? Look how far they have come in just a few short years. Let's go for the million pixels per inch, 14 stop dynamic range, no noise, low voltage, instant send data sensor. ;)

[In2Photos]

This is like emasculating a horse. You can still ride it, but it's not good for much else. Instead of making them smaller, they really need to work on pixel density with perfect noise processing. Why stop? Look how far they have come in just a few short years. Let's go for the million pixels per inch, 14 stop dynamic range, no noise, low voltage, instant send data sensor. ;)
And we will need to recreate the ENIAC with modern parts to process the RAW files! :lol:

[canonloader]

And we will need to recreate the ENIAC with modern parts to process the RAW files! :lol:
I got a dollar says processors and RAW files will keep pace with the progress of the sensors that make those files. I am going on 63 years old. The fastest mathematical processor when I was a kid was a hand full of fingers. Look where we are now.

[In2Photos]

I got a dollar says processors and RAW files will keep pace with the progress of the sensors that make those files. I am going on 63 years old. The fastest mathematical processor when I was a kid was a hand full of fingers. Look where we are now.
Just a dollar? :lol:

I am sure that everything will remain relative, I just don't have the capital to keep it all updated! ;)

[Josh_30]

Does the "mass market" buy 50D level cameras anyway?

If my daughter's recent 1st grade awards ceremony is any indication, yes they do. In our small group of about 150 parents, there were 5 dSLR's (all Canon :lol:). Four of them were 40D's and the other was a 30D. Two of us were even using 70-200mm f2.8L IS lenses... and neither of us are pro photographers.

[Duncan Frenz]

Well, at least that's one thing that diffraction will be good for: I'd hope even Canon has the sense to see that most camera's nowadays are diffraction limited at fairly regular used apertures.... A 15Mp P&S might be diffraction limited fully opened ;)

Oh, wait. I guess that means that Canon doesn't have enough sense...

I think my current camera is going to last me long.

:lol:
I agree, which is not to say they won't find a way to do it. The numbers and dates I used were arbitrary, intended to make a point about the evolution of photography. While diffraction may seem to be a limiting factor due to physical limitations, there is nothing to say they won't implement some type of 'process' to get around it, even if it may be artificial(especially for P&S).

And yes, my camera will be lasting me a long time too. Heck, I was still using a fully manual SLR before digital, but didn't have a need for motor drive for the type of imagery I was taking.

[Duncan Frenz]

I doubt Canon would release what we want either. ;) However, not all "upgrades" come from the 1 series cameras anymore. Several of today's features have come from other cameras, like sensor cleaning, video, DIGIC IV, etc. So it is possible that Canon would do something to a non 1 series first.

Agreed, which is why I said they will make similar upgrades but perhaps not by the same methods used in the 1D series. And I couldn't agree more that each platform is used for new technologies and not everything is trickled down. Much like video being introduced in that particular model. Also, I think when it comes to P&S, they will always have 'features' that should never be implemented on an SLR.


**edit** Also, why would Canon invest millions/billions in new fab plants for new sensors only to make smaller MP sensors? That would be akin to Intel making a new fab plant to make wafers to support denser processors and then turning around and cutting the density in half because of perception. It hasn't happened and it won't, except to perhaps cripple a sensor to use in the Rebel line and saving cost while using the same fab. It is far more likely and I say inevitable that Canon will keep the MP and continue to increase it while utilizing other technologies to make strides in noise reduction. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.[/quote]
This argument I do not agree with. Have you seen any netbooks? They use older processors (and subsequently XP SP3 which is not available through Microsoft for retail anymore ;) ). So Intel did take a step backwards in order to create a product that the market desired. Canon could do the same. But what really gets me is that you keep thinking that a smaller sensor is not a "new" sensor. We are not asking for an old sensor to be put into a new camera. We still want a new sensor, one that is better, and has mroe technogy, just less pixels.


As mentioned above in several posts, sRAW does not yield any noise advantage.[/quote]

I am fully aware of netbooks and other technologies that have middling properties where it might lead one to believe they are using older technology. That couldn't be further from the truth, and the Intel Atom processor illustrates this. I wasn't trying to make an apples to apples comparison between the computer industry and photography, but it was similar enough to make my point. I could talk all day about PCs and the technology behind them, but I was trying to keep it photography related despite the intertwined technologies.

I know nobody was saying they were asking for an old technology, which is why I made a reference to crippling newer technologies (in this case sensors) to use in lower lines to save costs.

I am not arguing that it isn't possible to bring a lower MP camera to market successfully(even in a professional body), but to do so will require them to make up for it in other ways, perhaps as the computer industry did with processing speeds. Quad sensors? Take a look at Sigma's Foveon.

[anthony11]

Also, why would Canon invest millions/billions in new fab plants for new sensors only to make smaller MP sensors?
Much better yields and a greater number of salable devices.

[Duncan Frenz]

Much better yields and a greater number of salable devices.

IF it was built to do so, and if I were a betting man, I'd say their newest fab isn't. Plus, their is only a finite amount of devices they can sell anyway. Which is not to say it is not unforeseeable that they would plan to do so provided it offers other advantages which they can successfully market. Unfortunately, what we consume has a lot more to do with the masses and marketability, rather than what may be technically superior or beneficial. How many Hasselbad H3DII-50 systems do you think are sold in relation to a Canon P&S?

[bob-e]

Canon heard you (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12929)

[anthony11]

IF it was built to do so, and if I were a betting man, I'd say their newest fab isn't.
isn't what?
Plus, their is only a finite amount of devices they can sell anyway.
I wrote "devices" in the semiconductor sense. Let's say that 10 20MP sensors can be laid out on a wafer, and that a given wafer on average has 4 flaws on it. 40% of those sensors would get tossed. If we estimate that a 10MP sensor using the same photosite tech is roughly 1/2 the area of a 20MP sensor, that means that the same wafer can fit at least 20 sensors (and probably a couple more since they'll pack better). Four flaws on 20 sensors would mean that just 20% of them would have to get tossed, which means an 80% yield compared to a 60% yield. That's what I mean by increased yields, which means they throw less away and don't have to push as many wafers through.

Yields are one reason why the fastest clock-rate CPU chips in a product line (say, a 3.09GHz compared to a 2.53GHz) cost exponentially more -- yields decrease as a device grows larger or has tighter tolerances (faster clock rates == tighter tolerances). It's also one reason why manufacturers work to decrease die sizes.

[Duncan Frenz]

isn't what?

I wrote "devices" in the semiconductor sense. Let's say that 10 20MP sensors can be laid out on a wafer, and that a given wafer on average has 4 flaws on it. 40% of those sensors would get tossed. If we estimate that a 10MP sensor using the same photosite tech is roughly 1/2 the area of a 20MP sensor, that means that the same wafer can fit at least 20 sensors (and probably a couple more since they'll pack better). Four flaws on 20 sensors would mean that just 20% of them would have to get tossed, which means an 80% yield compared to a 60% yield. That's what I mean by increased yields, which means they throw less away and don't have to push as many wafers through.

Yields are one reason why the fastest clock-rate CPU chips in a product line (say, a 3.09GHz compared to a 2.53GHz) cost exponentially more -- yields decrease as a device grows larger or has tighter tolerances (faster clock rates == tighter tolerances). It's also one reason why manufacturers work to decrease die sizes.

Isn't built for low MP sensors.

And I understand fully about yields, wafers, fabs, etc. and knew I shouldn't have even used computers as a comparison because I suspected it would diverge into a discussion about PCs rather than cameras. Let's just say that we agree.

I would definitely say that if they can they will use lower spec sensors from a fab that produces higher MP sensors if that is possible. I don't know, nor do I care to speculate. All I am saying is that MP is here to stay but will probably slow down while the focus is shifted to other attributes which are conducive to making better products. It is just a matter of marketing it properly, and at least Olympus has taken the first bold step to say 'We are done trying to get more MP on this size sensor'. I just hope the big two follow this initiative and concentrate on other areas so that we can all benefit.

Until something substantial changes in the technology that offers me benefits that I want or need, I plan on using what I have for a long time. Shiny and new is always nice, but I favor an intimate familiarity with the tools I use rather than constantly 'upgrading' to add a new button or some bling.

[tkbslc]

Canon heard you (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12929)

I don't think you read any of my post.

30D is 4 year old Tech.

[basroil]

Canon heard you (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12929)
+1
Tried sRaw?

sRAW 2 is 8MP and other 4MP right? or something like that.



As mentioned above in several posts, sRAW does not yield any noise advantage.

So what makes anyone think an 8MP sensor would? sRAW means binning, which means the same thing as a lower MP sensor.

Well, at least that's one thing that diffraction will be good for: I'd hope even Canon has the sense to see that most camera's nowadays are diffraction limited at fairly regular used apertures.... A 15Mp P&S might be diffraction limited fully opened ;)

Oh, wait. I guess that means that Canon doesn't have enough sense...

I think my current camera is going to last me long.

:lol:

And diffraction limited photography is different how? Diffraction just means that there's no extra information, doesn't mean that the quality is reduced at all. You of all people know that what you said is misleading, since I've seen plenty of your posts on the subject before. Extra density will always be important when not limited. If canon was to do something, they wouldn't stop increasing density, rather they would simply bin pixels at higher apertures, so an f16 shot on a 5dmkii would output at just 4MP rather than the full 21. That should keep pixel peepers happy and professionals who know what the hell they are doing would know that they lose nothing in that tradeoff and in fact gain smaller files. Until the day canon adds this as a C.Fn, people should just be smart enough to use sRAW modes when they are diffraction limited, or just not complain about "sharpness".

And sorry, but P&S cameras don't follow the same path, it all depends on the distance from aperture to the sensor for each individual camera, the density of that camera, and aperture size. Two P&S cameras can have two things equal and have the third different, resulting in different diffraction limits. Same thing happens to SLRs, though the difference is smaller due to the backfocus distance being the same within a mount (so technically you can't entirely compare ef to ef-s unless the aperture is at the same distance)

Personally, I find the thought of an 8MP sensor to be counterproductive to progress in sensors. Look at the new fujifilm camera, has 12mp mode, 6mp HDR mode, and 6MP low noise mode. Even though HDR mode must be done in camera, low noise mode is nothing more than bin/resize in post processing, which you can do just as well. Just decrease the size of your 15MP file to 8MP and you get noise reduction (if you use the right resizing algorithm).

[In2Photos]

So what makes anyone think an 8MP sensor would? sRAW means binning, which means the same thing as a lower MP sensor.

Not quite. A lower MP sensor with current technology would have larger photosites and less gap between pixels. This is how newer sensors achieve more MP without much change in noise. So how would it NOT lower noise?

[tkbslc]

Just decrease the size of your 15MP file to 8MP and you get noise reduction (if you use the right resizing algorithm).

Then why does an SRAW from a 50D not look as good as a 5Dmk2 file for noise? THey have the same pixel density, CPU, and same gen sensors? I don't think downsizing a 15MP file will change anything, the density of the sensor that produced that image are still the same. So you have reduced the file's density, but the noise is based on sensor density. I mean, think about it. Can I just reduce my p&s cameras images from 10MP down to 1MP and suddenly they are as clean as an SLR? No they are not (I've tried).

And the Fuji F200 example is poor. Many tests have show the old 6MP native F30 to be just as good or better, and that is using older NR technology.

[basroil]

Then why does an SRAW from a 50D not look as good as a 5Dmk2 file for noise? THey have the same pixel density, CPU, and same gen sensors? I don't think downsizing a 15MP file will change anything, the density of the sensor that produced that image are still the same. So you have reduced the file's density, but the noise is based on sensor density. I mean, think about it. Can I just reduce my p&s cameras images from 10MP down to 1MP and suddenly they are as clean as an SLR? No they are not (I've tried).

And the Fuji F200 example is poor. Many tests have show the old 6MP native F30 to be just as good or better, and that is using older NR technology.
First, pixel density, cpu, generation of sensor as an argument is completely wrong. 8MP 50d file may be same density as 21MP 5d file, but "cpu" (really not the best way of describing the digic as used in cameras, but close enough) is completely different, digic 3 vs digic 4, where the 4 is much better as is the corresponding adc. The senors can't really be categoriezed into generations anymore, but if you did, starting with 20d as 1st gen (which is wrong), XT, XTi,xs, 30d are first gen,5d 1dmkii 1dsmkii are second gen, 40d, xsi, 50d are third gen, 1dsmkiii, 1dmkiii, 5dmkii are fourth gen. The microlens structure on top of the sensor goes: xt, xti, 20d, 30d first gen, 1dmkii, 5d, 1dsmkii, xs second gen, 40d, xsi thrid gen, 1dmkiii 1dsmkiii 5dmkii 50d fourth gen. Sorry, but 5dmkii is in a different league than the 50d, 50d with sRAW compared to a 30d though is fine, and from all the 100% crops I've seen the 50d commands a small lead.

And the only reason why your point and shoot images are not as clean is because you aren't shooting RAW and resizing with the right algoritms. Use the temporary firmware for canon cameras, shoot raw, then resize with something like bicubic softer step and sharpen after that (the proper way would be to use a sinc type filter that can properly bin the pixels). Should look as good as a 50d's 100% crop. After all, a 12MP point and shoot has about 10x the density of the 50d, so it's not too easy to compare them.

And it's not that the f200 is a bad example, it's just the f30fd is a bad example. Compare the f200 to itself is the only proper way to do it, or compare it to other 6MP cameras (other than f30fd). f30fd is just a fluke of engineering, probably the best point and shoot sensor/lens combo ever designed. Only problem with that camera was the XD memory requirement and odd button layout. In three years after that camera was released not a single competitor, including fuji's own cameras, came close to that quality, including ones where the density was increased only to 8mp from 6.

In2Photos: Sorry, but no company will risk going backwards in pixel density. Even if you assume most people shooting a 50d are photographers, that's not really the case. And it's much cheaper to get one camera released than three of the same. If they released a 16MP 60d and a 8MP 60d-lower pixel count (LPC?), they would have to have two separate lines of production, and the 8MP sales would be nothing compared to 16MP sales. Last company to try something similar was Nikon with the d700 and d3. d700 could shoot almost as fast (8 vs 9 fps) with the grip, yet cost only half, had same sensor and processor, same AF, etc. Even if the prices for both cameras was the same (I would assume lower count one would cost much more, as much as 50% more and have production rate as low as 1/8th), they would sell a lot more of the 16MP ones to "photographers" who decided their 15MP t1i just didn't cut it (when they could probably buy a lens or two, or a intro book to photography instead and get better shots).
Ignoring all the above, you would at most gain the equivalent of 12* pixel width*1/2 gap width. Problem is, we don't know if that increase in area REQUIRES an increase in gap width, since you would suddenly quadruple the current flowing though each wire leading out of the sensor (assuming that charge in the center flows to the edges and doesn't do any fancy hall effect circles). Hell, without knowing all their design limitations we can't really say if smaller pixels are in fact bad or if they are in fact theoretically better but technologically limited. The notion of larger pixels is better is something photographers came up with, not engineers. So until you can find me some articles that say that theoretically larger pixels are better for current manufacturing ideology (with scientific evidence and mathematical proofs), I really can't see the argument against smaller pixels on a marketing, business, or engineering terms.

[tkbslc]

And the only reason why your point and shoot images are not as clean is because you aren't shooting RAW and resizing with the right algoritms. Use the temporary firmware for canon cameras, shoot raw, then resize with something like bicubic softer step and sharpen after that (the proper way would be to use a sinc type filter that can properly bin the pixels). Should look as good as a 50d's 100% crop. After all, a 12MP point and shoot has about 10x the density of the 50d, so it's not too easy to compare them.



That is just so ridiculous that I started laughing out loud. I would LOVE to see a proof of that concept. So a G10 owner could just shoot RAW and output at 1024x768 and who needs a 5D?

[anthony11]

The notion of larger pixels is better is something photographers came up with, not engineers. So until you can find me some articles that say that theoretically larger pixels are better for current manufacturing ideology (with scientific evidence and mathematical proofs), I really can't see the argument against smaller pixels on a marketing, business, or engineering terms.

So your assertion is that light is strictly a wave, with no particle characteristics at all?

[Jimmer411]

They already make a 50D with 15MP. This could be like a 55D, same specs with a smaller resolution sensor that buys maybe an extra stop or 2 of clean ISO. They could probably make the fps a few faster as well.

ANyway, I am not saying the ISO noise is bad on the 50D, only it isn't any better than a 4-5 year old 20D. They have used all their tech to keep noise relatively the same while doubling MP. I would rather they took the other approach. Leave the MP at 8-10 and double the high ISO performance.




Iso 1600 on my 50D is much cleaner than even ISO800 on my 400D, which is on part with the 30D in noise.

[basroil]

So your assertion is that light is strictly a wave, with no particle characteristics at all?

No, simply that our knowledge as photographers is limited, and that we don't know how the process actually works. I was not talking about light at all actually, but if you think about the photoelectric effect, our current knowledge of the method by which it happens indicates a particle characteristic must be there, but then again Einstein never bothered to check his theory on a quantum level since he hated the notion of quantum mechanics.

Either way, your misunderstanding of the phrase is a clear measure of the limited knowledge photographers have. Perhaps the reading of pixels is made easier with smaller diodes, as the charges must be more concentrated. Yes, it could lead to smaller wells and lower DR, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Sensors and sensor technology is much more complicated than just "light hits a photodiode and then gets amplified and converted into a digital pixel", and there's no point in discussing the technology unless you (third person you) are actively involved in sensor design and know what the hell you (third person you) are talking about. Decisions on sensor design and density should be left to the engineers in canon's sensor labs, they have a much better understanding of what makes sensors better.

That is just so ridiculous that I started laughing out loud. I would LOVE to see a proof of that concept. So a G10 owner could just shoot RAW and output at 1024x768 and who needs a 5D?

Who needs a 5d? Anyone that wants more than a 100% crop:rolleyes: Please read the entire thing before jumping in about the first thing you see that looks wierd, I already explained in detail why you are wrong, not going to say it again.

[René Damkot]

Late reply, missed this thread...
And diffraction limited photography is different how? Diffraction just means that there's no extra information, doesn't mean that the quality is reduced at all.

Well, but it does mean that the extra Mps are meaningless. All it does is fill up your drives faster. You gain nothing, but pay extra for it.

You of all people know that what you said is misleading, since I've seen plenty of your posts on the subject before. Extra density will always be important when not limited.

True, but current camera's are already diffraction limited at "normal use" apertures. A 20Mp 1.6 crop camera would be diffraction limited even sooner. Around f/5.6 or f/8 or so I think. So, stop down to f/11 and you might as well have used a 6Mp camera.

For my uses 10Mp is more then enough, 90% of the time. That's one reason I hope that Canon continues to have a seperate 1D and 1Ds line.
If I'd own a 5D2, I'd be using sRaw.

If canon was to do something, they wouldn't stop increasing density, rather they would simply bin pixels at higher apertures, so an f16 shot on a 5dmkii would output at just 4MP rather than the full 21. That should keep pixel peepers happy and professionals who know what the hell they are doing would know that they lose nothing in that tradeoff and in fact gain smaller files.

Would be nice...

Until the day canon adds this as a C.Fn, people should just be smart enough to use sRAW modes when they are diffraction limited, or just not complain about "sharpness".

Agree.

And sorry, but P&S cameras don't follow the same path, it all depends on the distance from aperture to the sensor for each individual camera, the density of that camera, and aperture size. Two P&S cameras can have two things equal and have the third different, resulting in different diffraction limits. Same thing happens to SLRs, though the difference is smaller due to the backfocus distance being the same within a mount (so technically you can't entirely compare ef to ef-s unless the aperture is at the same distance)

Okay. You have a point there, but I'd still think that quite a few P&S are already diffraction limited wide open, so probably all "resolution" above, say, 6Mp is useless.

For instance: The Canon Powershot S3IS. (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page8.asp)
it's likely that the amount of detail is limited by the lens, not the sensor
Personally, I find the thought of an 8MP sensor to be counterproductive to progress in sensors. Look at the new fujifilm camera, has 12mp mode, 6mp HDR mode, and 6MP low noise mode. Even though HDR mode must be done in camera, low noise mode is nothing more than bin/resize in post processing, which you can do just as well. Just decrease the size of your 15MP file to 8MP and you get noise reduction (if you use the right resizing algorithm).

Agree. But I'd rather not pay for a huge Mp camera if it's not adding something and I don't need it anyway.
I'd prefer if Canon added something useful instead of competing in the Mp wars. That's going to help no-one.

[MichaelBernard]

Does the "mass market" buy 50D level cameras anyway?


You'd be surprised at how many people do, just to use them on auto......

[James Salenger]

Canon got it just about right with the 5D, (high diffraction low noise) just needs a few
more focus points, little faster burst rate, cigarette lighter and pull -along wheels
with handle.

[Karl Johnston]

Croppability is much more important to these cropped cameras than noise...Noise control is part of the reason most people go full frame.

[alessandro2009]

I was just thinking that with the improvements in noise handling in the 50D and 5Dmk2, they should be able to make a lower res APS-C camera that has the noise handling of a FF camera. Looking at the Megapixels vs sensor size, the 5DMk2 and the 20D have the same pixel density. So assuming they used all the tech they used to make the 5Dmk2's sensor and noise processing, shouldn't they be able to make a new 8MP APC-S camera with the same ISO noise? I would assume burst rate could be increased as well with the lower resolution. Any thoughts?

I'm agree with you it's a pity that the producers have no intention to implement this type of camera.

Note:
I think is possible obtain the same result even on a 10 megapixel apc-s.