Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: dalethorn on March 10, 2009, 01:28:46 pm
-
Two quotes from DP Review's review:
"....There were a couple of key trends that surfaced at PMA 2009. The first is the rise of the compact 'super zoom' - a sector created by Panasonic with its TZ series and now a target for virtually every major camera manufacturer."
"....It was refreshing to see the focus of attention turning to what's inside the camera (rather than the usual emphasis on megapixels, zoom range, screen size and body style)."
I'm misunderstanding the transition in their analysis from superzooms being "a target for virtually every major camera manufacturer" to "attention turning [away from] zoom range."
Maybe that Simon Joinson guy grew up on MTV and doesn't have a more than two-paragraph attention span.
-
when taken in context it makes perfect sense what he wrote
"......The first is the rise of the compact 'super zoom' - a sector created by Panasonic with its TZ series and now a target for virtually every major camera manufacturer. It's easy to see the appeal of a pocket camera with a 10x or greater zoom lens for those wanting to travel light"
the appeal here is the size of the camera not just the zoom range.
and
"......We might not quite yet be in 'quantum leap' territory, but it was refreshing to see the focus of attention turning to what's inside the camera (rather than the usual emphasis on megapixels, zoom range, screen size and body style). Fujifilm has introduced the promising Super CCD EXR sensor, and the ultra fast performance of the latest CMOS sensors has already been put to use in several different ways, and the future promises even more exciting developments."
New and better sensors are what he is talking about
-
when taken in context it makes perfect sense what he wrote
"......The first is the rise of the compact 'super zoom' - a sector created by Panasonic with its TZ series and now a target for virtually every major camera manufacturer. It's easy to see the appeal of a pocket camera with a 10x or greater zoom lens for those wanting to travel light"
the appeal here is the size of the camera not just the zoom range.
and
"......We might not quite yet be in 'quantum leap' territory, but it was refreshing to see the focus of attention turning to what's inside the camera (rather than the usual emphasis on megapixels, zoom range, screen size and body style). Fujifilm has introduced the promising Super CCD EXR sensor, and the ultra fast performance of the latest CMOS sensors has already been put to use in several different ways, and the future promises even more exciting developments."
New and better sensors are what he is talking about
Actually, no. He's talking about several things, yes, but mainly he's ranting against the small cameras for two things he doesn't like: 1) More pixels, and, 2) Long zooms where priority is to the long end, not the short end which he prefers, obsessively.
One reason he's so wrong is that more pixels is always desirable, since at the end of the day, pixels is all you have. He doesn't trust the mfr's to make those pixels "good pixels", and I do trust them. The other reason is that users have spoken thunderously on zooms - they prefer long to short.
Read MR's informal review of the G10 - totally at odds with Joinson.
-
One reason he's so wrong is that more pixels is always desirable, since at the end of the day, pixels is all you have. He doesn't trust the mfr's to make those pixels "good pixels", and I do trust them. The other reason is that users have spoken thunderously on zooms - they prefer long to short.
Read MR's informal review of the G10 - totally at odds with Joinson.
I'd have to disagree with that. I'd clearly prefer 6 MP of good quality rather than the mess delivered by the G10 for instance.
By themselves, the pixels of the G10 look OK, just compare them with a top DSLR like the D3x and you see that there is something wrong going on...
Is the G10 still able to deliver OK prints? Yes, but considering the usage most of us are making of cameras like the G10, we'd be a lot better off with better DR and less shadow noise at 6MP. Really, what are the odds we need to print an image shot with a compact digital at a size larger than A4, maybe A3 once in a while.
More DR/less noise would hugely increase the quality of all the images we shot casually with the G10, while more pixels only helps with those very rare cases when an image shot with such a secondary camera needs to be printed large.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
In my view there is little merit to have much higher pixel density than what's limited by diffraction. Some oversampling may be useful. To my understanding 4/3 is diffraction limited around f/5.6 with the present 10-12 MPixels. APS-C may have a limit around 15 MPixels at f/8. With smaller formats obviously much less pixels are useful.
Best regards
Erik
I'd have to disagree with that. I'd clearly prefer 6 MP of good quality rather than the mess delivered by the G10 for instance.
By themselves, the pixels of the G10 look OK, just compare them with a top DSLR like the D3x and you see that there is something wrong going on...
Is the G10 still able to deliver OK prints? Yes, but considering the usage most of us are making of cameras like the G10, we'd be a lot better off with better DR and less shadow noise at 6MP. Really, what are the odds we need to print an image shot with a compact digital at a size larger than A4, maybe A3 once in a while.
More DR/less noise would hugely increase the quality of all the images we shot casually with the G10, while more pixels only helps with those very rare cases when an image shot with such a secondary camera needs to be printed large.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd have to disagree with that. I'd clearly prefer 6 MP of good quality rather than the mess delivered by the G10 for instance.
By themselves, the pixels of the G10 look OK, just compare them with a top DSLR like the D3x and you see that there is something wrong going on...
Is the G10 still able to deliver OK prints? Yes, but considering the usage most of us are making of cameras like the G10, we'd be a lot better off with better DR and less shadow noise at 6MP. Really, what are the odds we need to print an image shot with a compact digital at a size larger than A4, maybe A3 once in a while.
More DR/less noise would hugely increase the quality of all the images we shot casually with the G10, while more pixels only helps with those very rare cases when an image shot with such a secondary camera needs to be printed large.
Cheers,
Bernard
Lessee, the G10 images were so good that MR was comparing them to MF - there were all those print comparisons he described, etc. I could go on for hours with all those descriptions. And you sum it up with the G10 delivering "a mess". What planet are you on? I'd say the voters are stacked way against you, and you have as much chance with that opinion as Ralph Nader of making president. Less chance, actually.
The real problem with your opinion is not that you shouldn't have a 6 mp toy camera to play with as you please - you should have it! But you would prefer to disallow the rest of us to enjoy a 15 mp camera that under average daylight conditions will produce a photo far superior to your 6 mp toy camera. It's that attitude that "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't have it" that I think marks you as a, hmmmm, camera censor. Bad. Very bad.
Before you say "I didn't say that", I'd like to point out that Joinson makes no bones about it, and your post here is intended to support his position.
-
sorry, but i'm with Bernard - a quality compact camera should have the greatest usability under ALL conditions -- including low light and high dynamic range. Not only do i want a camera that is useable for street shooting, low light, etc., a large portion of the people i see using these cameras are snapping away without regard to lighting conditions assuming that the flash will do something useful if necessary -- resulting in crap (which they may or may not care about) - decent results might be a revalation to some.
I'm sure there is a market for a camera that can take high resolution images in perfect light, but equally sure that there is a market (largely ignored) for a camera that can capture very good (though not excellent) photos under more demanding conditions.
-
Lessee, the G10 images were so good that MR was comparing them to MF - there were all those print comparisons he described, etc. I could go on for hours with all those descriptions. And you sum it up with the G10 delivering "a mess". What planet are you on? I'd say the voters are stacked way against you, and you have as much chance with that opinion as Ralph Nader of making president. Less chance, actually.
So there are some people who took that article seriously then?
Forgive me, but as a G10 owner I did not. Let me explain you why.
- all those prints comparison he described are in fact mostly one sample of a particular scene where DR is not a real factor because it is too large for all known capturing devices
- the image quality of the P45 displayed on that sample is no where close to what even my D3x can deliver. It was clearly shot in a non optimal way,
- if you are satisfied with the pixel quality of the G10, I have to ask you, what do you normally shoot with? In what world do you live?
As far as the importance of DR, I am at a loss as to why anyone would think that the G10 is even remotely close to being satisfactory here. Does it means that it cannot be used to produce good images? No.
The real problem with your opinion is not that you shouldn't have a 6 mp toy camera to play with as you please - you should have it! But you would prefer to disallow the rest of us to enjoy a 15 mp camera that under average daylight conditions will produce a photo far superior to your 6 mp toy camera. It's that attitude that "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't have it" that I think marks you as a, hmmmm, camera censor. Bad. Very bad.
A puzzling comment for sure... you do realize that the very contrary is true, don't you? You are the very person doing what you are accusing me of doing.
There are plenty of compact digital cameras with high pixel count, so I don't see how my opinion would threaten the availability of these.
On the contrary, opinions like yours have resulted in a dramatic of shortcoming of compact digital cameras able to answer the needs to these many photographers who do not only shoot daylight scenes with limited DR. Fuji is in fact the only company trying to address seriously this market as we speak.
The whole point is positioning. The high end compact digital cameras do in fact target only a very narrow set of users:
High end DSLR/MFDB users who need a compact camera to take with them when the DSLR is not convenient for space reasons.
What this means is that a high end compact should be usable in a variety of non controlled conditions, including many cases where DR is high, where the light level is low. I don't believe that day light situations where a high resolution is required fit into that category. I use my DSLR in such circumpstances.
So all this calls for compact digital cameras that are good generic tool, and I don't believe that the G10 meets these needs well, a 6MP compact with one stop more DR would be a much better solution for most of the likely buyers of such a camera.
Final comment on this thread.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am a happy user of the G10 and I agree totally with Bernard.
Isn't that a contradiction? Well, no. Fortunately, most of my picture taking with the G10 is under good light situations with limited dynamic range in the scene, so it lets me get photos that I wouldn't get when I can't or won't lug my 5D around.
But if I could trade some of the megapixels for better dynamic range, even I would be able to get many more usable pictures.
-
I'd have to disagree with that. I'd clearly prefer 6 MP of good quality rather than the mess delivered by the G10 for instance.
By themselves, the pixels of the G10 look OK, just compare them with a top DSLR like the D3x and you see that there is something wrong going on...
Is the G10 still able to deliver OK prints? Yes, but considering the usage most of us are making of cameras like the G10, we'd be a lot better off with better DR and less shadow noise at 6MP. Really, what are the odds we need to print an image shot with a compact digital at a size larger than A4, maybe A3 once in a while.
More DR/less noise would hugely increase the quality of all the images we shot casually with the G10, while more pixels only helps with those very rare cases when an image shot with such a secondary camera needs to be printed large.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think it useful to regard the relation between digicams and DSLRs in terms of photons captured. The G10 sensor is about 1/20 the area of a FF DSLR. So at base ISO 80 it is capturing about the same number of photons as a FF DSLR at ISO 1600, when both are properly exposed (ie same placement of the histogram). That is fundamentally why there are problems with DR and shadow noise. Reducing the MP count will not do anything to affect these problems at a fixed spatial scale in the image; using coarser pixels simply moves the goalposts by coarse-graining the image to larger scales; the finer-pixel image typically has the same DR and noise at that scale too, only if one compares apples and oranges by displaying the images at different output sizes does one see an appreciable difference in noise and DR. Many comparisons of this sort were done with the 40D and 50D with the result being that the 10MP and 15MP cameras have the same DR and noise when compared at the same output size. Much the same is apparent if one properly interprets the results of DxO's testing.
Finally, does the FF DSLR warrant only 6MP of resolution at ISO 1600? Interesting question, I don't know, but my rough expectation is that it can deliver more than that. If so, then the digicam can make use of it too.
-
Hi,
In my view there is little merit to have much higher pixel density than what's limited by diffraction. Some oversampling may be useful. To my understanding 4/3 is diffraction limited around f/5.6 with the present 10-12 MPixels. APS-C may have a limit around 15 MPixels at f/8. With smaller formats obviously much less pixels are useful.
Best regards
Erik
More pixels are useful any time you want to do image manipulations. Any time one corrects for geometric distortions (did you ever look at an LX3 RAW at the wide end?), straightens horizons, resamples, does NR, reduces motion blur, sharpens, etc etc, the outcome is better if there are more pixels to begin with. More image information is better; less is worse. More pixels is more information.
-
I like my G10 but I too wish it were a 8 Mega pixel, lower noise camera!!!
Marc
-
I just want one really big pixel. Stitching can take care of the rest of it.
-
I just want one really big pixel. Stitching can take care of the rest of it.
That's the way to go!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A puzzling comment for sure... you do realize that the very contrary is true, don't you? You are the very person doing what you are accusing me of doing.
There are plenty of compact digital cameras with high pixel count, so I don't see how my opinion would threaten the availability of these.
On the contrary, opinions like yours have resulted in a dramatic of shortcoming of compact digital cameras.....
Cheers,
Bernard
The contrary is true, of course. My real-world example is the LX3, 10 mp on a 1/1.63 sensor - much less dense than the average 10-12 mp 1/2.33 sensor.
In certain situations, i.e. as a "party" camera shooting people indoors without flash, makes usable 8x11 prints from ISO 800 images, which the denser-sensor cameras don't do as well. In most other situations, it's no better than the average high-density sensor camera. I noted particularly the low light outdoor photos of trees and other nature subjects with the LX3 were very muddy, and that's with the noise processing turned down as much as possible (-2).
So the bottom line is that people like Simon are fighting a losing (and very dumb) battle trying to reduce resolution on compact cameras, when the general public (who aren't that dumb) know what works and what doesn't. People who want lower noise should be buying bigger more expensive cameras anyway. DUH.
-
quote name='DarkPenguin' date='Mar 10 2009, 07:12 PM' post='266660']
I just want one really big pixel. Stitching can take care of the rest of it.
[/quote]
A recent landscape taken with my 4 pixel FF camera, nice!
Marc
[attachment=12070:4px.jpg]
-
To my understanding 4/3 is diffraction limited around f/5.6 with the present 10-12 MPixels. APS-C may have a limit around 15 MPixels at f/8. With smaller formats obviously much less pixels are useful.
Not obvious at all, once you allow that the main need for higher aperture ratios is more DOF, and with a smaller image format, the same DOF is achieved at a f-stop that is lower in proportion to the reduction in image size and thus in focal length, so that in the end, with a given sensor pixel count, the apertures giving equal DOF also give an equal diffraction effect on resolution.
Only when sensor resolution is so high that avoiding diffraction effects would requires apertures larger than maximum for the lens, or larger than the "sweet spot" aperture at which the lens is sharpest, is a format up against a resolution disadvantage due to diffraction.
In my understanding of actual observations, not sloppy theory, noticeable diffraction effects only occur with Bayer CFA sensors when the f-stop is about twice or more the pixel spacing in microns, so about f/9 for the latest 12MP 4/3" sensors, still well above the sweet spot aperture for most Four Thirds lenses, as that is often around f/4. So maybe diffraction will limit Four Thirds to the resolution of about a 50MP sensor, but I expect other factors like DR, lens resolution limits due to optical aberrations, and lack of interest from most customers, to set a lower resolution limit than that. An Olympus rep. interviewed by CNET at PMA 2009 indicated that Four Thirds will not go beyond 20MP in the foreseeable future.
-
It's difficult to understand what some of you guys are arguing about. If you are convinced that there are benefits to having fewer but larger pixels on a sensor of a given size, relax. Fujifilm are now catering to your needs.
Here's a description of the remarkable properties of the Fujifilm Finepix F200EXR.
High Resolution mode, which deploys all twelve million pixels, and is designed to offer the finest detail of intricate subjects when light is full and even
High Sensitivity and Low Noise mode, which caps two adjacent pixels together to produce 6 million large photodiodes, which are big enough to absorb light in the darkest of conditions, to produce low-light shots of extraordinary quality with minimal noise and grain; and
Wide Dynamic Range mode, which captures different exposures with two sets of six million pixels, which, when combined, gives an excellent level of detail in highlights that would otherwise be lost.
I think this might be the P&S for me, but I'm disappointed it does not support full HD movie mode.
-
An Olympus rep. interviewed by CNET at PMA 2009 indicated that Four Thirds will not go beyond 20MP in the foreseeable future.
Actually the Olympus manager stated that they intend to stick to 12MP for the 4/3 sensors, and improve other aspects of imaging.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html)
-
A recent landscape taken with my 4 pixel FF camera, nice!
Marc
[attachment=12070:4px.jpg]
Pretty amazing composition.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's difficult to understand what some of you guys are arguing about. If you are convinced that there are benefits to having fewer but larger pixels on a sensor of a given size, relax. Fujifilm are now catering to your needs.
Here's a description of the remarkable properties of the Fujifilm Finepix F200EXR.
I think this might be the P&S for me, but I'm disappointed it does not support full HD movie mode.
My next 2 cameras are the GH1 and ZS3 by Panasonic, so I will be skipping the Fuji. However, it would be *very* interesting to me to see if they can best what Panasonic did with the LX3, which IMO is useful in only a few situations. i.e. if the Fuji can perform well in a majority of scenarios, that might make it a good bet for a one-camera-does-all when the big camera isn't handy. I've never been convinced by any of the less-dense sensor arguments for small cameras, so far at least, but it's possible that a step-down to 6 mp might make a good image if the result isn't muddy like the LX3's are in so many scenes I've shot. For this to work (I think), Fuji would have to have very limited noise processing, or the ability to turn the noise reduction off, at least for cases when the camera steps down to 6 mp.
-
Actually the Olympus manager stated that they intend to stick to 12MP for the 4/3 sensors, and improve other aspects of imaging.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html)
That follows what Panasonic is doing, which sounds good given the price they're charging for these cameras. I'll bet somebody who's reading this knows the game plan for the next couple of years, and if they want to make an anonymous prediction, that would be welcome.
-
My next 2 cameras are the GH1 and ZS3 by Panasonic, so I will be skipping the Fuji. However, it would be *very* interesting to me to see if they can best what Panasonic did with the LX3, which IMO is useful in only a few situations. i.e. if the Fuji can perform well in a majority of scenarios, that might make it a good bet for a one-camera-does-all when the big camera isn't handy. I've never been convinced by any of the less-dense sensor arguments for small cameras, so far at least, but it's possible that a step-down to 6 mp might make a good image if the result isn't muddy like the LX3's are in so many scenes I've shot. For this to work (I think), Fuji would have to have very limited noise processing, or the ability to turn the noise reduction off, at least for cases when the camera steps down to 6 mp.
Both the Ricoh CX1 and Finepix F200EXR look very interesting with the sort of features that attempt to overcome the inherent DR limitations of the P&S. I'm not sure which I would prefer. I like the fact that the CX1 has a higher resolution LCD screen and a longer focal length than the F200EXR. I particularly like the fact that the CX1 can do focus autobracketing, in macro mode and normal mode, and the fact that in macro mode the minimum focussing distance is 1cm, as opposed to the minimum 5cm of the F200EXR. I like also the CX1's relatively fast frame rate of 4 frames/sec at full resolution
However, my main gripe with P&S cameras is that ultimately, whatever the bells and whistles, basic image quality even at its best seems lacking in pixel sharpness compared with a DSLR. This might be due to jpeg compression and default noise reduction which can't be turned off. Whatever the cause, I find it discouraging after the novelty of using a new toy has worn off.
The GH1 might be a better option, particularly as a result of its HD movie mode with more flexible control than the 5D2.
-
Actually the Olympus manager stated that they intend to stick to 12MP for the 4/3 sensors, and improve other aspects of imaging.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html)
Actually, no such definitive claim of "never more than 12MP" is made, despite that being the way that many people read his statement. My reading is that Olympus feels that
1. resolution increases are now a lower priority than improving other aspects of IQ, so big or rapid increases in pixel count beyond 12MP should not be expected
2. 20MP is the limit for the foreseeable future for all formats smaller than 35mm full frame.
I would go only so far as to predict that the next few 4/3 models with offer "12MP" sensors with the current pixel spacing, but improvements in other respects. Panasonic already claims as much for the new GH-1 sensor, and the 10MP sensors went through several such incremental improvements. I severely doubt that the 4/3 partners will stick stubbornly at 12MP if APS-C DSLR's get to the point of having smaller photosites than 4/3, meaning going beyond 20MP. Panasonic uses the same MOS sensor technology in phone sensors of far smaller pixel size, so the technology is not close to its minimum possible size.
Below are some quotes, with emphasis added. (Aside: Olympus has now officially accepted the neologism of using "full frame" as a synonym for 24x36mm format!)
The first comment sounds a lot like something that Michael R. said in a recent essay ... but his new camera has a bit more than 12MP!
"Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need," said Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department ...
"We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System,"
Instead, Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting.
"We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 20 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models"
-
"Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need," said Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department ...
So the conclusion I would draw from the above is that Olympus, with their thin slice of the market, would try to create products that will cater to most of the applications such products would be used for and which would fully meet the needs of most customers. Basically, they don't have the vast resources to create esoteric products and leave the development of such products to the bigger manufacturers with larger resources.
"We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 20 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models"
Yes, the above essentially means (as I interpret it), we personally will stick to 12mp and improve the other aspects of imaging. People who have a real need for large 20+MP resolutions (something that a 14mp or 15mp or 16mp etc will not satisfy), should go toward large full-frame sensors.
From their perspective, a person who is thrilled by 14mp or 15MP or 16MP or some such number (that lies between 12 and 20MP), would be perfectly satisfied with 12MP (as long as the other aspects of imaging are significantly better in the 12MP product) but once the "resolution need gap" gets much wider - like say 20MP and beyond - a buyer may not be satisfied with 12MP at all, and thus should look at large sensors that will not have to stuff in too much pixel density to get to a large gross MP number.
-
Pretty amazing composition.
Cheers,
Bernard
You can properly stitch 20 million shots done with marcmccalmont's 2x2 pixel camera and will get a better quality image than with a single shot on your Nikon D3X.
PS: you will get old as well. The way to go?
-
Yes, the above essentially means (as I interpret it), we personally will stick to 12mp and improve the other aspects of imaging. People who have a real need for large 20+MP resolutions (something that a 14mp or 15mp or 16mp etc will not satisfy), should go toward large full-frame sensors.
That is also consistent with what was said. But there is enough ambiguity that I would not bet one way or the other on Olympus staying forever at 12MP in Four Thirds. (I would bet on Four Thirds to stay at 12MP for all of this year's models.)
At several stages Canon had a lower pixel count in it its top EF-S model than in a less expensive one, and in some competing products: 30D vs 400D and D200, 40D vs 450D and D300. At one point, a Canon rep. explained this in terms of a preference by customers for this level of camera for beter pixels over more of them, as if staying at a lower pixel count was a deliberate quality decision. Of course the 40D rather quickly caught up with the 400D and D200 at 10MP, and the 50D made the big jump to 15MP not so long after the 450D and D300.
Likewise, Nikon talked cagily about there not being much need for 35mmFF DSLRs, and about not having any current plans for such a product, while never explicitly ruling one out.
I see the Olympus comments in the same light; a vague indication of plans, carefully phrased more as opinion of the speaker than as official organizational policy and avoiding rigidly ruling out any response to future development in technology and market demand.
-
That is also consistent with what was said. But there is enough ambiguity that I would not bet one way or the other on Olympus staying forever at 12MP in Four Thirds. (I would bet on Four Thirds to stay at 12MP for all of this year's models.)
At several stages Canon had a lower pixel count in it its top EF-S model than in a less expensive one, and in some competing products: 30D vs 400D and D200, 40D vs 450D and D300. At one point, a Canon rep. explained this in terms of a preference by customers for this level of camera for beter pixels over more of them, as if staying at a lower pixel count was a deliberate quality decision. Of course the 40D rather quickly caught up with the 400D and D200 at 10MP, and the 50D made the big jump to 15MP not so long after the 450D and D300.
Likewise, Nikon talked cagily about there not being much need for 35mmFF DSLRs, and about not having any current plans for such a product, while never explicitly ruling one out.
I see the Olympus comments in the same light; a vague indication of plans, carefully phrased more as opinion of the speaker than as official organizational policy and avoiding rigidly ruling out any response to future development in technology and market demand.
Actually, Nikon seem to have surfed the better pixel wave quite nicely with the D3/D700. If they put the D3 sensor in an MF back it would do 6400 ISO, without binning, and look better than my P45+ at ISO 400. I fail to understand why the junk technology goes in the MF backs, while the dSLR crowd are anouncing their move to back-thinned sensors, after delivering *functional and usable*in-camera live view, lens or body stabilization, and adequate video? Or maybe is it that there are about 10x design hours more going into the cheapest Rebel than into the most expensive digital back ? Maybe Sony and Canon and Sony have actually invested a significant amount of time into creating new consumer technology, while Dalsa and Kodak just recycle existing designs into military gear? Does Kodak still manufacture anything related to consumer electronic imaging, actually, or are the S2 buyers going to be the last contributors to the dividends of a dying 20th century company ?
Edmund
-
You can properly stitch 20 million shots done with marcmccalmont's 2x2 pixel camera and will get a better quality image than with a single shot on your Nikon D3X.
PS: you will get old as well. The way to go?
Yes, yes and most probably.
I was already thinking of investing in a UX21 and Painter 11 anticipating the day when carrying the tripod would become too much but your proposal is even more cost effective.
Now, I would argue that at most print sizes, the result of the 20 million shot stitch will be hard to distinguish from a uniform color computed to the average RGB value between the 4 patches... Either way, I will speak with the good folks at Autopano and PTgui to see if they can add 2x2 pixels images to their critical test samples.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Overall I like what Panasonic is doing, although given the lower-priced end of the quality-camera market they're serving, I think they're being too conservative with pixels (I know, I know, but ya gotta compete, and they're not crowding Nikon or Canon - yet.) Anyway buying a new camera for $1000 every six months is very affordable, with great new choices in the next few weeks. I see ever-more expensive Nikons and Canons at Best Buy now, so maybe along with the "convergence of stills and video" we are also headed for the "convergence of SLR and compact" in various sizes and shapes, based on EVIL designs.
-
I wonder where the limits will prove to be? There really hasn't been much improvement in overall image quality from compact cameras since somewhere in the 5-8 mp range. 12 mp APS-C DSLRs work pretty well, while the 15 mp Canon 50D has gathered mixed reviews. It DOES seem to outresolve 12 mp cameras, but not by as much as expected, and its noise control may not be as good as some had hoped for (15 mp may work slightly better on the marginally larger 1.5x APS-C format, rather than Canon's 1.6x). The 24 mp FF DSLRs are very usable with good lenses, and there may be more room above that (probably not very much).
Will this be where we start to lose so much to diffraction, noise, etc... that the benefits of cramming in more pixels are outweighed by the costs?
Compacts - already way over what makes sense - rational number between 5 and 8 mp?
APS-C - 12 (4/3) to 14-16? (1.5x Nikon/Sony/Pentax format)?
FF35 - 25-32 mp?
645 - (medium format) 60 (36x48mm) to 75-80 (FF 645) mp - if the lenses can handle it?
-Dan
-
I wonder where the limits will prove to be? There really hasn't been much improvement in overall image quality from compact cameras since somewhere in the 5-8 mp range. 12 mp APS-C DSLRs work pretty well, while the 15 mp Canon 50D has gathered mixed reviews. It DOES seem to outresolve 12 mp cameras, but not by as much as expected, and its noise control may not be as good as some had hoped for (15 mp may work slightly better on the marginally larger 1.5x APS-C format, rather than Canon's 1.6x). The 24 mp FF DSLRs are very usable with good lenses, and there may be more room above that (probably not very much).
Will this be where we start to lose so much to diffraction, noise, etc... that the benefits of cramming in more pixels are outweighed by the costs?
Compacts - already way over what makes sense - rational number between 5 and 8 mp?
APS-C - 12 (4/3) to 14-16? (1.5x Nikon/Sony/Pentax format)?
FF35 - 25-32 mp?
645 - (medium format) 60 (36x48mm) to 75-80 (FF 645) mp - if the lenses can handle it?
-Dan
I don't think it ever gets worse. There is something to be said for capturing diffraction completely and accurately. It just means that the individual pixels might not be as pristine as those generated on the happy side of the diffraction limit.
As to the 50D it is my understanding that it pretty much shows the increase in resolution one would expect. Look around for some more reviews. This was much discussed. (Particularly after the DPreview review.)
-
I don't think it ever gets worse. There is something to be said for capturing diffraction completely and accurately. It just means that the individual pixels might not be as pristine as those generated on the happy side of the diffraction limit.
As to the 50D it is my understanding that it pretty much shows the increase in resolution one would expect. Look around for some more reviews. This was much discussed. (Particularly after the DPreview review.)
Diffraction never does get worse - it just stops the image from getting any BETTER. At standard compact camera image sensor sizes, a 15 mp image is limited to somewhere around 5 to 8 by diffraction at most reasonable apertures. According to the diffraction calculator posted by Cambridge In Colour (the best online one I've found), a 14 megapixel compact is diffraction limited by f2.8 unless it uses a 2/3" sensor - an unusual size found primarily in some older Olympus hybrid cameras. With more standard 1/1.7" or 1/1.8" image sensors, even an 8 mp compact is diffraction limited before f2.8. How many compacts actually have f2.0 lenses (almost nothing is diffraction limited at f2.0)?
The infamous 50D is NOT diffraction limited at f5.6 (so even a slow lens actually has one full resolution stop on it), but it IS before f8, so slower lenses are only theoretically capable of delivering full resolution wide open - for the most part these coincide with the consumer lenses that don't deliver good performance in other respects wide open. The 50D DOES have extra usable resolution when used with a prime lens or an expensive high-speed zoom.
For resolution that disappears into diffraction, we seem to be giving up some noise performance and dynamic range (high-pixel compacts have notoriously poor dynamic range). Is it worth it, or should the engineers be concentrating on making cameras with existing (or in the case of compacts, lower) resolution levels, but better performance in other regards?
-Dan
-
Diffraction never does get worse - it just stops the image from getting any BETTER. At standard compact camera image sensor sizes, a 15 mp image is limited to somewhere around 5 to 8 by diffraction at most reasonable apertures. According to the diffraction calculator posted by Cambridge In Colour (the best online one I've found), a 14 megapixel compact is diffraction limited by f2.8 unless it uses a 2/3" sensor - an unusual size found primarily in some older Olympus hybrid cameras. With more standard 1/1.7" or 1/1.8" image sensors, even an 8 mp compact is diffraction limited before f2.8. How many compacts actually have f2.0 lenses (almost nothing is diffraction limited at f2.0)?
The infamous 50D is NOT diffraction limited at f5.6 (so even a slow lens actually has one full resolution stop on it), but it IS before f8, so slower lenses are only theoretically capable of delivering full resolution wide open - for the most part these coincide with the consumer lenses that don't deliver good performance in other respects wide open. The 50D DOES have extra usable resolution when used with a prime lens or an expensive high-speed zoom.
For resolution that disappears into diffraction, we seem to be giving up some noise performance and dynamic range (high-pixel compacts have notoriously poor dynamic range). Is it worth it, or should the engineers be concentrating on making cameras with existing (or in the case of compacts, lower) resolution levels, but better performance in other regards?
-Dan
There's a clear conflict here between the mathematical calculations of Airy disc diameter and the results the eyes see. Which do you believe?
There's a Canon EOS Digital Camera forum which concerns itself only with Canon cameras at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
I remember a few years ago, some apparently knowledgeable poster whom I shan't name, started a thread titled, to the effect, that the stoping down beyonf F11 with the D60 serves no purpose and that Canon engineers were aware of this and that Canon were therfore hoodwinking the public.
His assertion was based upon a standard mathematical calculation of Airy disc size. At F11, the Airy disc (or blur) due to lens diffraction was as big as the D60 pixel. As a consequence, the D60 could not deliver any greater resolution than the 3mp D30, when stopped down beyonf F11.
This view was not supported by any comparison images and the thread continued for many pages. In fact, the thread became one of the longest on the forum. As I recall, it was only exceeded in length by one other thread which encouraged posters to show pictures of their empty Canon equipment boxes.
Some years after the thread had begun, I posted a few comparison images demonstrating that even at F22 the 20D captured more detail than the D60 at F22. Did this have any effect on the OP's view? Of course not. We were into the religion of mathematics here. The maths must be right, and I must be wrong. My test images must be flawed.
I had a dejavu experience recently on this forum when I tried to demonstrate that the 50D captured marginally more detail than the 40D even at F22. Some character by the name of Slough (who later claimed to be a PhD) vehemently disagreed with my results for no rational reason whatsoever that I could discern.
-
I had a dejavu experience recently on this forum when I tried to demonstrate that the 50D captured marginally more detail than the 40D even at F22. Some character by the name of Slough (who later claimed to be a PhD) vehemently disagreed with my results for no rational reason whatsoever that I could discern.
I said no such thing, as you well know. But don't let reality get in the way of a 'good' story.
I recall some while back that the limit of your ability to argue your point of view was to call me a wanker. I also recall that you had trouble with logic, and clarity of expression. You took Humpty Dumpty's view that a word would mean exactly what you wanted it to mean.
-
Are you trying to be offensive? I recall some while back that the limit of your ability to argue your point of view was to call me a wanker.
I said no such thing, as you well know. But don't let reality get in the way of a 'good' story.
No. Just trying to get at the facts. Trying to help you to be more rational. I'm trying to make the point that you seem to have a belief in a theory like a theologian has a belief in God, and that no amount of rational argument or empirical evidence will change your view. That's my sincere opinion.
-
No. Just trying to get at the facts. Trying to help you to be more rational. I'm trying to make the point that you seem to have a belief in a theory like a theologian has a belief in God, and that no amount of rational argument or empirical evidence will change your view. That's my sincere opinion.
You should try reality. You might like it.
-
You should try reality. You might like it.
I like my reality. My studio's outside of the metropolitan madness. I commune with nature. I love my wallabies and parrots and I think Australia's the best place on earth. I wouldn't swap it for quids with your reality. (No offense, mind you ).
-
Actually the Olympus manager stated that they intend to stick to 12MP for the 4/3 sensors, and improve other aspects of imaging.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html)
This is now clarified as not meaning a permanent 12MP limit, in another PMA 2009 interview at http://news.fourthirdsphoto.com/node/14 (http://news.fourthirdsphoto.com/node/14)
a. We believe the most important factor for excellent image quality are the lenses. From the view point of the sensors and engine development, we have focused both to increase the MP and to reduce noise. Now, I think 12MP is covering most photo applications by the majority of users, and we should not be in a hurry to increase the pixel count as has been the case before. This does not mean we will stop at 12MP, but rather would like to focus the priority of our efforts on improving other characteristics of a sensor.
-
....Now, I think 12MP is covering most photo applications by the majority of users, and we should not be in a hurry to increase the pixel count as has been the case before. This does not mean we will stop at 12MP, but rather would like to focus the priority of our efforts on improving other characteristics of a sensor.[/i]
This *seems* reasonable, since improvements in areas other than pixel count are forthcoming, and being in a *hurry* to increase pixel counts is a non-starter. However, looking at actual 12 mp images, I see missing info I would like to have. Today, a photo of a photographer shooting a bride prepping for the big day, I clearly captured the bottom plate of the camera, as well as other details. But I can't read the bottom plate, even though the image is sharp, due to lack of pixels. So claiming that "12 mp is enough" for nearly any purpose other than abstract art is simply a denial of reality, literally and figuratively.
-
This *seems* reasonable, since improvements in areas other than pixel count are forthcoming, and being in a *hurry* to increase pixel counts is a non-starter. However, looking at actual 12 mp images, I see missing info I would like to have. Today, a photo of a photographer shooting a bride prepping for the big day, I clearly captured the bottom plate of the camera, as well as other details. But I can't read the bottom plate, even though the image is sharp, due to lack of pixels. So claiming that "12 mp is enough" for nearly any purpose other than abstract art is simply a denial of reality, literally and figuratively.
Nobody will disagree with you that more detail is a good thing if it can be had all other things being equal and sufficient.
My contention though is that properties like DR and noise are not sufficient with today's 10+ megapixel compact digital sensors, by a large margin. It would seem that Olympus product manager does agree with me on this, even for larger 4/3 sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nobody will disagree with you that more detail is a good thing if it can be had all other things being equal and sufficient.
My contention though is that properties like DR and noise are not sufficient with today's 10+ megapixel compact digital sensors, by a large margin. It would seem that Olympus product manager does agree with me on this, even for larger 4/3 sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
Olympus and Panasonic do seem to be leading the charge toward a higher quality pixel, or putting it differently, a more responsible allocation of features on cameras of 4/3 size and smaller. It will be interesting to see what Nikon and Canon do in response, since they're not butting heads with Oly and Pana just yet, in DSLR's anyway. I'm happiest when there is disagreement among the mfr's, since I don't trust "trends", where everyone thinks alike. Too many things go wrong that way.
-
... claiming that "12 mp is enough" for nearly any purpose other than abstract art is simply a denial of reality ...
Dale,
it amazes me how people keep reading far more into statements than is actually there, like the previous common misreading as "never more than 12MP for Olympus Four Thirds", now refuted.
The words of the Olympus rep., with my emphasis, are I think 12MP is covering most photo applications by the majority of users, which is a far less sweeping claim than your talk of "nearly any purpose other than abstract art".
Olympus clearly acknowledges the obvious fact that some tasks are better suited to larger formats, like the previous comment that for more than 20MP, one would be better of with 24x36mm format. I imagine that Canon and Nikon have always acknowledged (at least to themselves) that MF can do some things better than 35mm format.
-
To use the PNCL single-pixel portable printer effectively for stitching you need considerable training, however some exceptional individuals are known to have produced high quality renderings with such primitive equipment, albeit with hundreds of thousands of carefully manually stitched pixels.
Edmund
Yes, yes and most probably.
I was already thinking of investing in a UX21 and Painter 11 anticipating the day when carrying the tripod would become too much but your proposal is even more cost effective.
Now, I would argue that at most print sizes, the result of the 20 million shot stitch will be hard to distinguish from a uniform color computed to the average RGB value between the 4 patches... Either way, I will speak with the good folks at Autopano and PTgui to see if they can add 2x2 pixels images to their critical test samples.
Cheers,
Bernard