Ever rising Megapixel count...

I got a thinking...ok, MP increases, this is cool, but I feel at some time we will reach the point of the lens being the weakest link and even I am wondering what the limits on the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX and Canon L lenses, and others are. What's the next generation of lenses gonna be? It makes me wonder if/when we will see more flourite in the lenses, or more ULD lenses and the like.

It was noted that in many instances the 1Ds was incredibly harsh in the way it took pics and I think it was vignetting was a real problem if you didn't used really good glass. I remember reading it, but can't remember where.

What brought this about was that a friend is considering getting a Fuji S7000 and that can give you an interploated 12.3MP image from a 6.3MP image. I was intrugued that it can do that high and it ought to be interesting to have two 6.3MP cameras side by side (the Fugi one and my 10D). Interestingly enough, if I am not mistaken the Fuji has a 35-210mm equivilent zoom on it. Now I know that I have this won hands down, as the sensor on the 10D is way bigger and the L glass factor should be the icing on the cake. However that said, that Fuji goes for $700 and the 10D/Big Ed/pick an L/Sigma EX lens is putting you easily into the $3500 range in short order, and more if you go bigger, and badder (ie: Canon's 100-400L) or another lens of chioce. What also got me is that it can do a 1/10,000 sec shutter speed and some other stuff the 10D can't. Oh well, the proof is in the pics...Game on!

I have a funny feeling that if you took that 6.3mp 10d picture, and ran it through Qimage and increased the size to 12mp using vector interpolation, you would end up with a MUCH better looking picture with alot more detail.
Not to mention that you dont need to spend as much $$$ on huge flash cards to hold those so-called 12mp files.

I have a funny feeling that the noise on the fuji will make higher ISO's unusable, so the 1/10000 sec shutter speed would probably never get used. And when it comes to critical timing that you would need at high shutter speeds, dont forget about that annoying shutter lag you get with those types of P&S cameras.

But then again, you are right about the price.
It all depends on where your spending priority lies.

I am just wondering how it will work, interesting as it is to see P&S 6.3MP cameras. I too was wondering if the 1/10000 sec would even be usable considering shutter lag. Maybe it is to make up for shutter lag? I have a Canon EOS 10D and I am happy with it. I can say that the ISO 1600 on the 10D is about what you get from 35mm film grain, and by 3200 ISO forget about it. I am not impressed with it. I stick with 100-400 ISO and the occasional 800 ISO pic.

We have an S7000 at work and I used to own the previous model, the S602.

The lens let's the Fuji down. That camera has the same 6x optical zoom lens as was on my old Fuji S602zoom. Whilst pretty good by P&S standards (and far better than the lens Fuji fits to the likes of the S5000) it doesn't even compare well with things like the Canon EF 28-135mm let alone Canon L glass or your Sigma 120-300mm EX. The 12MP interpolated mode is just a gimmick.

As for things like autofocus speed, ISO handling and shutter lag... there is simply no comparison. Even as a good a P&S as the Fuji S7000 isn't even in the same world as a 10D.

I think not. I can't see it being in my lifetime when electronic capture can exceed optical output. After that I don't think I'll care.

The increase in sensor capacity while retaining quality is still a way off. This is why a lot of the new 8mp P&S cameras are running into problems, squeezing too much into a small area just to satisfy the lust for more megapixels. It seems to be a case of throwing the quality out of the window just so they can print a large MP count on the side of the camera. I think Canon are just within the limits with the 1D MK-II, but have slid over the edge with the Pro 1 (yes, better than the 828 but still not right).

The Fuji, like a lot of P&S cameras, will look better out of the camera, even compared to a 1Ds until you dig below the surface. Lack of real detail, higher levels of CA, more noise, interpolation artifacts, no workable DOF and (my pet hate) over-saturation. 99% of this is due to the smaller sensor and despite the new design from Fuji, it is still suffers from small sensor problems.

Back to the lens issue. A bad lens is a bad lens, it just looks worse when you stick it in front of a good sensor. The MP count of the camera has little to do with it. I can see the obvious difference between lenses (Sigma and Canon 70-200 for example) with my 4mp 1D. The 10D on the other hand has a more agressive AA filter that masks the differences and is one reason why a lot of people can't see the better image quality out of a $5,000 hunk of L glass compared to a $500 Sigma.

There has to be a quantum leap in sensor design before people start demanding better lens quality. Foveon isn't it and I don't know how far the current CMOS and CCD designs can be pushed (probably not a lot) while remaining affordable. Current quality is good enough for my publishers so I'm not losing any sleep over it and if it takes another 5 years to get there, so what.

Interpolation software is getting better. The algorithms used in Q Image for example are surprsingly good and you can easily print at A3 from a 4mp 1D. Where more MP comes into its own is leaving more room to crop, but shouldn't we be aiming for full-frame shots in the first place? I hold my hands up and admit one of the reasons I will end up adding a 1D MK-II to my kit bag is having more head-room. Will the 8mp images be dramtically better than my 1D, or will I get more published? I doubt it.

I find the spec's on some cameras interesting. I shoot racing photos, but use a film EOS (wishing for a 1d II, but I'll have to wait 'til they come down in price ). I have never used a higher shutter speed than 1/1000 and have only shot a hand full of 800 fillm when the weather was working against me. I guess I just find the marketing interesting compared to what's really needed.

This has become a truly an interesting point of debate over a friendly cup of tea/coffee whichever you prefer.

I was thinking that the 12.3MP interpolated pic will definitely let down, I was looking at some sample pics and I was looking at the noise. In the shadows and other places it was lacking a lot. That said, this is for someone to learn on in the steps to a DSLR. I'm curious to see how the manual setting works on it. My comparison would be jpeg alone and was thinking that the edge will go to me by a longshot considering I have both L glass covering 16-70mm F2.8 and the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX lens in my arsenal if you will. That said at this time, said person can't afford to set up like I have and for $700 compared to the well lots more it isn't looking too horrribly bad. It is true that you get what you pay for. If nothing else it will be interesting to get a snapshot (pun intended) of where the consumer models are. I am really clueless there other then a few models out there. I just know where to find info and go from there.

I was kindof eluding to the fact that with the 10D and Sigma 70-300mm macro ($150 lens) I had, the lens was definitely the weakest link. That's why I sold it. My point is that one day possibly the consumer lenses will not give you the pics you though you should be getting and will not suffice and we will all be shooting w/ pro glass only.

I guess we will have to sit back for now, and wait till said friend gets the S7000 and then let the games begin. I might actually shoot jpeg for a change to make it a closer match. Not! I recon the Fuji can shoot RAW too and that ought to be really cool to see.

Kenny made an interesting point: to 10D it doesn't matter much if you use $500 great glass or $5000 super great glass, because you cannot spot much difference. So if you plan on keeping the 10D for a while, as I do, buying great glass is OK.

And as someone else mentioned selling his cheapo glass - I believe this is the exact right thing to do: keep getting rid of weakest links.

Back to the topic: we live in an information era that could also be called a marketing era. In photography for consumers it is so that people generally don't have a clue about cameras, they just know two characteristics that seem to define the quality of the camera: megapixels and X-zoom. Most of them don't even know a difference between optical and digital zoom. So, marketing people logically screw the public where they can, counting pixels (who cares if they're interpolated) and zoom (who cares if it's digital). Trust me, it is not easy to believe that a 4 mp camera (1D) would make better photos than an 8 mp one (Sony 828). So, the pixels will definetely go up, and up and up. The real question is, why wouldn't it sometime be enough? If one can print 4 mp image to A3 size paper, which I assume people print _extremely rarely_ why would there be a need for 40 mp sensor? But no doubt that a sensor like that (or around that number) will be produced some day. Imagine the data load in PS, those gigs and gigs of data you never get to actually see - since those pixels will get compressed anyway as the print machine in the lab is incapable to print over, I don't know, 400 dpi....

Marketing tricks are very common and this one is quite an innocent one, I once bought a graphic card that was advertized as the first 128 bit one. I have no idea what it meant, it sounded good and fast. Truth was, it was not a bit faster than the competition. Then the cars. New and new engines, dCi, common rail... I don't really care how things are made as long as they deliver what I payed for and the way they are made tells me nothing. When I buy a camera I wan't to see the shots, and then some more shots, followed by a lot more shots, and _then_ I look at the specs.

As mentioned in another post, the FIRST thing people ask when they see my digital camera is "How many megapixels is it?"
This happens EVERY time!

So that just goes to show that the marketing is working.

I just read an article in "Photo Techniques" about lens resolution and sensor resolutions. In short, the 10D, at 6.3 mega pixels, can only yeild about half the resolution that the lens could deliver on the finest of film. The test consisted of using the same lense on a EOS 630 body using, from memory I think it was Provia, and then mounting it on a 10D using controlled conditions and a standard resolution test target.

Stever

To finish my thought - I was intertupted.

According to the article, I draw the conclusion that the resolution of a good lens will be challenged when 14 mega pixels are put into the same area as that of the 10D's 6.3 sensor.

Stever

Cadwell,
I realise 100% it isn't a 10D by any strech of the imagination, but I think it would make a really good camera to learn on for a step above beginner. The 6.3MP nztive resolution ought to be interesting to see. I knew the 12MP was a gimmick, but is sounds cool. It means nothing if you can't use it though. This should be good for now on the steps way up to a DSLR, though. I shot with a Canon EOS 50E for since Dec, 99 until I got the 10D the end of April, 03 and even that was a learning curve. I might actually do a crash course in the usage in the usage of the 10D if the S7000 doesn't come in time for the next outing. I would be happy to let said person use it and see what kind of pics we can get. Now to blow the 9 frame buffer again! That was kinda cool. It isn't cool that the lens lets the S7000 down, I woulda expected more. I guess this is into the difference between DSLR and P&S too. Now undoubtedly I have the edge, even shooting jpeg. I thought the lens would been at least up to that of a consumer Canon/Sigma/Etc lens.

Stever,
I think I might go get me some good film and burn a roll or 2 to see what I can get with L/Sigma EX glass. This ought to be interesting, especially considering most of the pics I had been taking w/ cheap lenses looked like crap. Now there is no excuse, having kicking lenses. Oh, Canon 50E where are you? You are about to get some usage.
I will have to get them developed to CD and posted in due time. This will be really interesting. I have yet to mount any of the new lenses on the 50E. The oldest one is the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX which I purchased mid Aug, 03 and newest is the 24-70 F2.8L purchased in Feb, 04. In the middle we have the 16-35mm F2.8L which I purchased in Oct, 03. No harm done trying. It will be weird though shooting film. It has been almost a year since shooting it last (Jun/Jul, 03).

Personally, if I was looking at P&S cameras like the S7000, I would look more seriously at the new Canon Pro1 8Mpixel.

Silly prediction time

Having talked with several image scientists.
The optimum pixel size is 8um (give or take a micrometer)
those 8MP P&S cameras are at 2.8um (give or take .3 micrometers) which is way too small for good signal to noise.

Finally physics plays a part. Visible light as in Red, Green, Blue goes from about .4um to .75um, so therefore the pixels can not get smaller then .75um and still pickup light. From a practical matter, they can't really get below 1.5um and still pickup any light. So for a P&S camera that fits the size of today's small P&S the limit is about 32MP with a very noisy image.

For a 35mm film and lens sized digital camera you can probably get upto about 50MP before you go below the threshold of little to no return. Personally from my discussions I have had you don't want a camera below about 4um in pixel size or about 22-25MP for a FF DSLR in the 35mm format.

Currently the 1Ds and Kodak SLRc both have pixels around 8um in size, I think the Kodak's are slightly smaller (that or slightly closer together). which is the largest array you can have while being at the optimum pixel size to avoid excess noise.

That said, the marketing geeks will probably create a 50MP DSLR just because it could be done, but professioal photographers will probably stop at 22-25MP in the 35mm format because of quality.

Now after we hit those limits, we go back to medium, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras having value as sensor array size increases. Because you can't get pixels smaller then 1.5um to work well and .75um to work at all.

Disclaimer, all of the above is providing I got my scales between pixel size and wavelenth of light correct.

Point taken, I will suggest it and it comes w/ an L lens.