Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 05 Feb 2015 (Thursday) 07:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

 
jocau
Goldmember
Avatar
1,838 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Belgium
     
Feb 21, 2015 20:09 |  #676

Shadowblade wrote in post #17443015 (external link)
That's simply incorrect.

If both sensors have the same whole-image noise performance, the noise performance for the larger sensor won't be worse at the same print size simply because it has poorer per-pixel performance. It makes up for this by having many more pixels - the number of photons captured is the same, but the higher-resolution sensor just samples them more finely.

The sensor with the better whole-image noise performance will give you a less noisy image and better noise performance at any given print size. The higher-resolution sensor will also give you more spatial detail, regardless of the print size. The per-pixel noise performance is completely meaningless.

Do you only read the sentences you want to read in my post? What I said couldn't be more correct. I'll help you by putting important words from my previous post in bold.

When going for a large print, I would ALWAYS opt for a larger print with the larger resolution camera regardless of ISO. At that point there is no advantage anymore for the high MP camera because its noise performance will be worse than the smaller, lower MP camera when it's a high ISO picture.

If that's still too hard: I don't care about the same print size, I care about the same ppi. For any given large print I will order in my life, I will target a ppi value (preferably one that's equal to the native dpi of the printer) whether I have a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 50 or more MP camera. I don't care about print dimensions when I'm going large as long as it fits my wall (since larger prints are more immersive) and as long as the print company can deliver those dimensions, I'm fine with it. With this in mind, each printed dot will consist of the same number of pixels (yes, I know paper doesn't work with pixels, but you get the idea) regardless of which camera is used and this way pixel level performance DOES matter.

I've already shared my view on this many posts ago and yet you keep trying to shove your opinion and/or so called "facts" down my throat. Trust me, it won't work, I'll only get more annoyed (like when a mosquito is constantly trying to bite me). You have your opinion on how noise in an image should be evaluated and I have mine. There's nothing wrong with both views. Either you leave it at that, or we're still replying to each other's posts 5 years from now.

Oh and by the way, I thought this topic was about the 5Ds (R) instead of how one should evaluate the high ISO performance of a camera? This discussion has been going on for way too long. It's about time to get on-topic again, don't you think?


550D | EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm F/1.8 II | EF 70-200mm F/4L IS | Speedlite 580EX II | LumoPro LP180 | Gitzo GT3541XLS | Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1 SP | ONA Bowery (black, non-leather) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jocau
Goldmember
Avatar
1,838 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Belgium
     
Feb 21, 2015 20:15 |  #677

BigAl007 wrote in post #17443059 (external link)
I'm with David on this, I just don't think he is willing to learn anything. It's not like he is actually printing from a low res FF sensor camera anyway. From his gear list, in his sig line, he is shooting with an 18Mpix crop camera, the 550D, with sensels roughly the same size as those that will be found on the 5DS.

Alan

It's not about learning something. I know exactly what he means and I understand it perfectly, but I don't share that opinion. I have my own opinion regarding evaluating noise in an image.

At this point it's still the 550D even though I'm completely sick of that camera and I'm planning on replacing it when my financial situation gets a bit better (probably going for an A7II or newer E-Mount camera, unless Canon releases something that really interests me).


550D | EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm F/1.8 II | EF 70-200mm F/4L IS | Speedlite 580EX II | LumoPro LP180 | Gitzo GT3541XLS | Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1 SP | ONA Bowery (black, non-leather) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
THREAD ­ STARTER
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,579 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2198
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Feb 21, 2015 20:21 |  #678

David Arbogast wrote in post #17443011 (external link)
At this point I have warmed up quite a bit to the 5DSR. One thought I have been mulling is the idea of selling my TS-E 17mm in favor of the 11-24mm (if it proves to be a good sharp lens). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the TS-E 17mm may have an 11mm image circle (or is that the 24mm?). So, for an architectural shot I might be able to use the 11-24 @ 11mm with the camera level (same practice as with the TS-E) and simply crop off the un-wanted image in post (doing in post what the TS-E does in camera). Of course that is a lot of cropping, but I wonder if I still wouldn't be left with a similar resulting resolution using the 11-24mm @11mm on a 5DSR as I would with the TS-E 17mm on the 5D III.

My main thought here is that, on the whole, an 11-24mm seems overall more useful than the TS-E (if it is sharp, and doesn't suffer too much distortion, CA, flares, etc.).

Thoughts?

i agree. granted, it's been 20 years since i was using 4x5 with tilt shift movements, but i've been using a 16-28 Tokina with some real estate type shots and think you're on the right track. I've been using Capture One and it's Keystone tool makes fixing perspective distortion a snap. The resolution of the 5DS would allow for use of that tool and throwing away a bunch of pixels around the edge. The samples i've seen from the 11-24 are drool worthy.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 21, 2015 20:54 |  #679

jocau wrote in post #17443081 (external link)
Do you only read the sentences you want to read in my post? What I said couldn't be more correct. I'll help you by putting important words from my previous post in bold.

When going for a large print, I would ALWAYS opt for a larger print with the larger resolution camera regardless of ISO. At that point there is no advantage anymore for the high MP camera because its noise performance will be worse than the smaller, lower MP camera when it's a high ISO picture.

If that's still too hard: I don't care about the same print size, I care about the same ppi. For any given large print I will order in my life, I will target a ppi value (preferably one that's equal to the native dpi of the printer) whether I have a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 50 or more MP camera. I don't care about print dimensions when I'm going large as long as it fits my wall (since larger prints are more immersive) and as long as the print company can deliver those dimensions, I'm fine with it. With this in mind, each printed dot will consist of the same number of pixels (yes, I know paper doesn't work with pixels, but you get the idea) regardless of which camera is used and this way pixel level performance DOES matter.

I've already shared my view on this many posts ago and yet you keep trying to shove your opinion and/or so called "facts" down my throat. Trust me, it won't work, I'll only get more annoyed (like when a mosquito is constantly trying to bite me). You have your opinion on how noise in an image should be evaluated and I have mine. There's nothing wrong with both views. Either you leave it at that, or we're still replying to each other's posts 5 years from now.

Oh and by the way, I thought this topic was about the 5Ds (R) instead of how one should evaluate the high ISO performance of a camera? This discussion has been going on for way too long. It's about time to get on-topic again, don't you think?

No-one cares about your opinion, nor mine. Science and mathematics are neither subjective nor democratic. The only thing that matters is the facts, represented by what the numbers say. An opinion not based on fact is worthless when it's in regards to something that can be objectively measured or calculated - it's like having an opinion on the mass of the earth or the value of pi.

And you've contradicted yourself there. You said that you want a large print, and that you also need 300ppi, and then you've gone ahead and said that you'd take the lower-resolution sensor - which, by definition, either won't give you 300ppi, or won't give you a large print. Unless your definition of 'large' is variable depending on the resolution of the sensor.

Not only that, you're also factually incorrect. A high-resolution sensor with the same whole-image noise as a low-resolution sensor will never be noisier than the low-resolution sensor, regardless of what ISO you shoot at or what size you print at. If the read noise across the sensor is the same and it's collecting the same number of photons across the sensor, the noise will be the same, regardless of whether you've divided it into one massive pixel or a hundred million tiny ones.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,273 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 7882
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Feb 21, 2015 20:55 |  #680

Shadowblade wrote in post #17443018 (external link)
You should be able to do this. Only thing is, you'd then be using a much smaller effective sensor area and suffer poorer image quality due to this. Also, you lose the tilt control and can't shift-stitch with it.

On the other hand, the nine-bladed aperture will do a much better job with sunstars and point source lights than the eight-bladed aperture of the TS-E 17L - you'll get 18-pointed stars instead of 8-pointed splotches.

This is encouraging. For one, only extreme cases would require significant cropping. I generally haven't encountered many scenarios where I had to shift to the TS-E 17mm's maximum shift. Subjects that can fit into a 14mm frame, for instance, would require less cropping. I don't love the TS-E 17mm to the same degree as the the fine TS-E 24mm II and only use it as a fallback when I encounter subjects that cannot fit in the 24mm frame (typically interiors). At worst, I suppose, cropping an 11mm frame to replicate a TS-E 17mm shifted image would essentially turn the 5DSR into a 7D II. Given the rarity of needing that amount of shift, that's not a bad compromise. Especially when the compromise means that I end up with an overall more useful lens.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17443094 (external link)
i agree. granted, it's been 20 years since i was using 4x5 with tilt shift movements, but i've been using a 16-28 Tokina with some real estate type shots and think you're on the right track. I've been using Capture One and it's Keystone tool makes fixing perspective distortion a snap. The resolution of the 5DS would allow for use of that tool and throwing away a bunch of pixels around the edge. The samples i've seen from the 11-24 are drool worthy.

Good, I'm glad that seems logical; that I am not guilty of too-wishful thinking. :D

I haven't done the geometry, but an 11-24mm zoom range seems pretty impressive to me in terms of the FOV range. I hope it can come close to or even exceed the corner to corner sharpness of the Nikon 14-24mm. If so, then that lens should be very impressive on the 5DS. Since Canon unveiled both lens and camera at the same time my hope is they tailored the optics to work superbly on a 50MP sensor.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 21, 2015 21:01 |  #681

RDKirk wrote in post #17442378 (external link)
What?

Putting a higher resolution sensor in a camera does not create any new camera shake problems. The dimension of movement blur across the sensor is precisely the same regardless of the resolution of the sensor. Obviously, if the detail is lost to blur, you're not getting the benefit the sensor can provide, but it's certainly not pictorially or physically worse than it would have been with a lower resolving sensor.

The issue here is that high resolution breaks the shutter speed / focal length rule. That is to say a 50mm lens on the A7r or the 5Ds for that matter is going to be blurry if shot at 1/50. You really need 1/80 or 1/100 to ensure a sharp shot.
This is something crop camera shooters have been dealing with for many years however to full frame shooters it is forcing a change of habits and they're complaining.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17442973 (external link)
So, what's wrong with having a camera you can print really large with when the ambient light allows a lower ISO, and still performs no worse (and, in many respects, better) than a low-resolution camera in low light when you're shooting at a high ISO. You can print really large when shooting at low ISO, and you can still print at the same size as a low-resolution camera at high ISO, while retaining the advantage in detail and moire/aliasing artifacts.

By the way, if you insist on 300dpi, you won't even make it to 20x30" with the 5D3, which is a small print. Larger prints necessitate a lower number of original pixels per inch. Luckily, they can get away with it.


Ok this is a digital age. The print is not the only thing I'm thinking about. I'm aware that these days people have high DPI screens and the DPI of computer screens is only going to increase over time. A 27" iMac for example has an LCD screen with 15MP. And with Internet bandwidth being what it is today photography sites such as Flickr have introduced zooming. Therefore one should shoot with the assumption that the audience may be using very high resolution consumption devices and many want to zoom in to take a peak at details in the shot.
Times are changing and photographers need to be aware that digital devices and the web are starting to provide a greater level of detail than prints are.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jocau
Goldmember
Avatar
1,838 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Belgium
     
Feb 21, 2015 21:25 |  #682

Shadowblade wrote in post #17443130 (external link)
No-one cares about your opinion, nor mine. Science and mathematics are neither subjective nor democratic. The only thing that matters is the facts, represented by what the numbers say. An opinion not based on fact is worthless when it's in regards to something that can be objectively measured or calculated - it's like having an opinion on the mass of the earth or the value of pi.

And you've contradicted yourself there. You said that you want a large print, and that you also need 300ppi, and then you've gone ahead and said that you'd take the lower-resolution sensor - which, by definition, either won't give you 300ppi, or won't give you a large print. Unless your definition of 'large' is variable depending on the resolution of the sensor.

Not only that, you're also factually incorrect. A high-resolution sensor with the same whole-image noise as a low-resolution sensor will never be noisier than the low-resolution sensor, regardless of what ISO you shoot at or what size you print at. If the read noise across the sensor is the same and it's collecting the same number of photons across the sensor, the noise will be the same, regardless of whether you've divided it into one massive pixel or a hundred million tiny ones.

I've not contradicted myself. You know what "an ideal situation" means? That's right, a situation that's perfect, but almost never occurs. I've never said all my large prints will always be 300ppi, but that doesn't mean that I don't want it to be like that (a man can only dream). Cameras are all about making compromises. For my 18MP camera, 60cm by 40cm prints are LARGE prints to me given that I don't want to go any lower regarding ppi (even though I don't consider 60cm by 40cm to be large, rather medium or medium-large). I've told you before I would go higher (read: bigger prints) if I had a higher MP camera.

Like I said before: whole-image noise performance is the last thing on earth I care about. I only care about pixel level noise performance. Also, I don't buy your statement. I'd rather go by hard evidence and the best example is the A7 series. Compare the A7R (36MP) to the A7S (12MP) on pixel level (i.e. 100% or 1:1) and you'll see the difference is night and day when shooting at high ISO.


550D | EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm F/1.8 II | EF 70-200mm F/4L IS | Speedlite 580EX II | LumoPro LP180 | Gitzo GT3541XLS | Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1 SP | ONA Bowery (black, non-leather) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,974 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 513
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited over 4 years ago by RDKirk.
     
Feb 21, 2015 21:53 |  #683

Mornnb wrote in post #17443139 (external link)
The issue here is that high resolution breaks the shutter speed / focal length rule. That is to say a 50mm lens on the A7r or the 5Ds for that matter is going to be blurry if shot at 1/50. You really need 1/80 or 1/100 to ensure a sharp shot.
This is something crop camera shooters have been dealing with for many years however to full frame shooters it is forcing a change of habits and they're complaining.

There is no such "rule"--that's the first fallacy. Seventy years ago, when few people attempted to print an image larger than 8x10 from the 24x36mm format because of the crudeness of the tools and materials, that "thumbrule" was promulgated because it appeared valid at that point in the art. The "average" person could hold a 50mm lens steady enough at 1/60 shutter speed that an uncropped 24x36mm negative wasn't offensively blurred when enlarged to an 8x10 print viewed at normal reading distance. Each of those particulars was a necessary factor of the "shutter speed/focal length" thumbrule.

Those of us who were using thin-emulsion, high-acutance films 'way back in the latter 60s already knew that as tools and techniques made 11x14 and 16x20 images from 24x36mm easily feasible, the rule had no validity. You always needed a higher shutter speed--anyone comparing a tripoded shot with a handheld shot easily saw that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,273 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 7882
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Feb 21, 2015 22:00 |  #684

RDKirk wrote in post #17443195 (external link)
There is no such "rule"--that's the first fallacy.

You're being needlessly nitpicky. Have you never heard the phrase "rule of thumb". It's a saying. It's a rule of sorts, yet it's not a rule. The 1/focal length "rule" is a rule of thumb. Of course there are no set "rules" or laws for such things.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,974 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 513
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited over 4 years ago by RDKirk. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 21, 2015 22:08 |  #685

David Arbogast wrote in post #17443206 (external link)
You're being needlessly nitpicky. Have you never heard the phrase "rule of thumb". It's a saying. It's a rule of sorts, yet it's not a rule. The 1/focal length "rule" is a rule of thumb. Of course there are no set "rules" or laws for such things.

Then there's nothing to be said about "breaking" it.

As I said, it depended on a very narrow set of circumstances--especially that the image not be enlarged more than about 8x--for it to have ever had any validity at all. I don't know why anyone ever revived it after the 70s...I suspect it took the "Internet lens effect" to get repeated to the point of people thinking it was useful.

It was never useful beyond an 8x enlargement.

What I'm arguing against with all this is the completely erroneous idea that there is ever a problem caused by "too much resolution." All those issues were always already present, merely not seen because previously they were hidden by the lack of resolution. But they are never, ever made worse than they ever really were by having more resolution. At the same print size, you get an image with the higher resolving system no worse and usually better than you got with the lower resolving system. But if you prove shakey with a 50mm lens at 1/60 of a second, the fact is that you were always that shakey--you just had never enlarged a sharp image enough to see it before.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
Feb 21, 2015 22:08 |  #686

http://www.digitalcame​raworld.com …camera-systems-got-wrong/ (external link)

Ease up guys.... Different things work for different people.

Great photographers using great systems, you guys included.;-)a




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
Feb 22, 2015 00:53 |  #687

The only real advantage to bigger pixels is that smaller files let the camera process them easier. IE, they require less throughput. A 12fps 50mp camera would have pretty poor battery life at this point (maybe not, but it would certainly require a lot more computing power inside your camera than a 50mp 5fps one). There is also storage space but storage space is so inexpensive that it's not really worth worrying about. One thing that *may* be an issue is micro lenses, but since we have 24mp APS-C sensors with great ISO performance I don't think it's much of an issue.

Making an argument that per pixel performance matters while neglecting the big picture is kind of silly. Arguing against more pixels because then you'd want to print bigger is like arguing against having a car with more mpg because you'd want to drive more or something. It's kind of esoteric. I mean one can make whatever decisions one wants, but arguing more pixels is bad because the view at 100% might look worse is like arguing about the marital status of the number 3. It doesn't make any sense, lol.

Having more MP is always an improvement as long as the technology isn't getting worse or something (and it hasn't been).

The best analogy I have come up with is this:

Think of the light as raindrops.

Then imagine you have a large 100ft x 100ft yard. You then have a ton of square buckets. You could cover the yard with 5 gallon buckets or you could cover it with 1 gallon buckets.

At no point will having the smaller buckets be worse--except for when it comes to going around and emptying them, it'd be more work I suppose. =p All the extra buckets gives you is some extra knowledge of where the raindrops fell. It doesn't change the amount of water you'd collect. This is like your camera sensor. Having more buckets won't make your water collection worse.

Instead, what one would be concerned about is the size of the yard. Obviously having more area lets you collect more rain. (this is your sensor size) Then you'd also care about making sure the rain all went into the buckets, so you'd use funnels if there were gaps between the buckets (aka micro lenses).

On the other hand, having stronger or weaker color filters and things like that can have some negatives and positives. Like I've said before, the stronger filters could be nice for many things. But having tweaked "weak" color filters also has advantages. You'll notice things like the 1dx, d4, 5d3, 6d, etc--they have pretty nice skin tones even in bad lighting. It's tweaked to be that way on purpose as far as i know! :)

Also, something to think about in the more pixels realm. Note how great the 28-300mm Nikkor does on the D810. It was regarded as kind of meh on the D700/D3.

Oh, and you know that DPP DLO feature? That will work better and better the more pixels you have. :)


amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Feb 22, 2015 00:59 |  #688

RDKirk wrote in post #17443216 (external link)
What I'm arguing against with all this is the completely erroneous idea that there is ever a problem caused by "too much resolution." All those issues were always already present, merely not seen because previously they were hidden by the lack of resolution. But they are never, ever made worse than they ever really were by having more resolution. At the same print size, you get an image with the higher resolving system no worse and usually better than you got with the lower resolving system. But if you prove shakey with a 50mm lens at 1/60 of a second, the fact is that you were always that shakey--you just had never enlarged a sharp image enough to see it before.

Agreed.

There seem to be two basic perspectives on "an increase in MP" and these are not always disclosed by folks participating in these discussions. The two ends of the range are
1) I always print at 300 (or name your own) original ppi, so I will automatically (be able to) print bigger.
(and assume everyone else discussing the subject will see the world this way)
2) What will the extra MP do for me, because I only ever print as big as X x Y inches?
(Why would I, or anyone else, think to print bigger?)

Group 1) are the folks who need to be aware that they will be enlarging any "Blur" (whether from subject or camera movement, diffraction or plain OOF) to a greater extent so such blur may now cross the threshold and be "visible" i.e., it has grown bigger than the circle of confusion (related to viewing size and distance, in proportion to sensor size). Those who print with area proportional to the MP, but then step back from the big print to keep the viewing angle the same will not need to worry, because that greater viewing distance cancels out the increase in blur (and resolution). Those who print bigger because of more MP, and view from the old distance will just need to improve their technique to keep blur sizes down to the new circle of confusion. Those who try to get the biggest possible print for their viewing distance and acuity of vision should, for example, use the pixel size for their CoC in calculating DoF for critical work. Diffraction might actually be detectable at the limits "the tables" indicate (they are based on pixel size with the assumption that people "print to the max"). These same considerations apply to those who appreciate the benefit of being able to crop more, especially when focal length limited, but those folks are usually already aware of the effects of this approach, but will appreciate a camera that has "crop" pixel density combined with high MP FF when not focal limited. Count me in the latter category - when the first 18MP crop came out, I loved it for wildlife but still preferred an 18-21 MP FF for landscape. The 50MP FF could achieve both goals in one camera and allow me to make bigger landscape prints to boot (assuming I use good technique, of course).

Group 2) won't need to do much if their X x Y images are already at their acuity limits from their current 20-odd MP cameras. The appeal of 50 MP is much lower than for group 1. Indeed, they may well moan and groan about the size of the files and the need for computer upgrades etc :D, because that's ther main downside of this factor - other features such as ergonomics and fps etc may be deciding factors for purchase decisions etc, but more MP does not make anything worse per se.

I have a hard time understanding the comment about pixel level noise - I've never copied one pixel from an image into a blank Photoshop document and tried to assess how noisy it is:) It's only in association with the surrounding pixels in an image that I can assess the noise and that means accounting for geometrical enlargement - if that pixel has been enlarged three times more than the area of another one (as in the 12 MP vs 36 MP comparison at 1:1 on screen), of course it will look "noisier", simply because it collected only ~1/3 the number of photons - can't beat physics. However, this is only relevant to Group 1) above who print a 36MP image at 3x the area of a 12 MP image and view from the same distance. The effect is not from the smaller pixels but from the greater enlargement of the original optical image.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,273 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 7882
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast. (4 edits in all)
     
Feb 22, 2015 01:13 |  #689

RDKirk wrote in post #17443216 (external link)
Then there's nothing to be said about "breaking" it.

Of course you can "break" a rule of thumb. But "break" and "rule" should be taken lightly and not as some sort of absolute rule of law.

But, I fear you have mistaken me for someone interested in diagreeing with your argument. My interest with you was limited only to your unwillingness to allow terms like "rule" to have a not-so-weighty meaning. You chastized someone for referencing a rule of thumb and I merely thought that was out of order. There are "rules of thumb" and such "rules" can indeed be said to be broken. Ever heard if the "rule of thirds"? It's a "rule of thumb". "Rules of thumb" are merely helpful guidelines. "Rules" meant to be broken. :)

But, then again perhaps it is I who am out of order. Perhaps I am giving Mornnb too much credit and he really does believe there is a hard and fast "rule" in the sense you are interpreting it. If he indeed comes forth to insist on such an absolute law, then you will be proved right.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,273 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 7882
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Feb 22, 2015 01:47 |  #690

I am looking forward to using my Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 on a 50MP sensor. I suspect it will resolve tremendous detail. If they would make a wide-angle Otus, that would be pretty fantastic with this camera.

But, speaking of lenses, is it perhaps another Internet fallacy, that some lenses will somehow perform worse on a higher resolution sensor? Can a lens truly look great on a low-resolution camera but look terrible at a hgher resolution Just curious.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

299,757 views & 241 likes for this thread
OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mskwood32
1018 guests, 331 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.