Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: CptZar on January 01, 2015, 03:05:11 am
-
I found this at Canonrumors:
>>Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
What does that mean? The new sensors will, beside higher resolution, in terms of DR behave like the ones used for the 7DMKII?
-
I found this at Canonrumors:
>>Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
What does that mean? The new sensors will, beside higher resolution, in terms of DR behave like the one used im the 7DMKII?
That would be surprising and disapointing. I can't believe a second that this would be the case.
This would mean that Canon has completely misunderstood the reason why many of their customers have bought a7r or gone the D8x0 route.
The main purpose of such a body would be to reach new heights of image quality, resolution is only a small part of the equation.
So my bet is that Canon rumors got their info wrong again.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Years ago the same rumors site said the high resolution Canon would be introduced in 2012, and at every major show since. They also said the 7D-II would be introduced at Photokina 2012. There are always "leaked" technical details that make the rumors seem viable. Maybe Canon seeds these rumors or maybe they're started by techno-geek fantasies, but they seem to have no basis in reality until, after being reported for a few years, Canon introduces some camera that coincidentally does some of what was reported. The rumors sites always remind us that these are only rumors, but whenever there's a new one the Internet starts buzzing. Based on the track record it's crazy to put faith in this stuff.
http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-are-these-the-eos-3dx-specs-more-supposed-details-leaked-a-mini-1dx/
-
I have reasons to believe that this rumor is overall for real, but I just cannot believe the "pixel quality" part.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have reasons to believe that this rumor is overall for real, but I just cannot believe the "pixel quality" part.
Cheers,
Bernard
It may well be true, as most eventually are within a few years, but I won't be astonished if it's once again false. With no inside information my reason for thinking it might be true is because the rumors usually start reporting things about two years before a few of them actually happen, and this one is way past due. ;) If it is, I just hope the time between announcement and availability is nothing like the 18 months we had for the 200-400 F/4 zoom.
I'm thinking about the super-high resolution 1D-whatever that, just a couple days after it was rumored to be a sure thing for Photokina 2014, morphed into a 7D2. That was two years after it was rumored that the 7D2 would appear at Photokina 2012, so I have some very sound logic behind this! But this high res rumor has thwarted the logic. Just days after the rumor creators realized the their crystal ball had malfunctioned regarding the Photokina 2014 high resolution camera introduction, they consulted it again and reported the camera would appear in New York in October, but it didn't. I think by now they've probably had enough time to repair the crystal ball and also to consult the stars so this is a definite maybe!
Of course I'm mostly kidding and wouldn't base any decision on these rumors, but perhaps it'll be an interesting year.
Happy New Year to all.
-
I found this at Canonrumors:
>>Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
What does that mean? The new sensors will, beside higher resolution, in terms of DR behave like the ones used for the 7DMKII?
I would find that disappointing. Obviously, the higher resolution would be nice, but even the 3.9 micron pixel density, 24MP DX (1.5x) sensor in the $500 D5200 has better DR under 1600 ISO and better high ISO performance than the 7DmkII.
And while I don't find the extra 12MP (and associated files size) overhead of the D810 a big deal and it still causes people to opt for the D750 instead. At 50MP there would be a market, but it would be much smaller than the D800/D800e turned out to be. Not sure I would opt for a 50MP camera as a general use camera as I did the D810.
-
The rumors sites always remind us that these are only rumors, but whenever there's a new one the Internet starts buzzing. Based on the track record it's crazy to put faith in this stuff.
I don't know about the site being discussed here as I have only a passing interest in Canon since selling up but I do read the Sony and MFT rumour sites, just for fun, and they do seem to have a pretty good record for accuracy and the closer to product launch date we get often the accuracy increases. They do get things wrong but I wouldn't write them all off every time as sometimes they undoubtedly get it right and not just with hindsight.
I can't see myself being interested in a very high MP count camera but I'm sure many will be.
-
Increasing pixel count automatically increases dynamic range. Not at a pixel level, but on the overall image which is what really matters. Once scaled to the final output size, the more Mpx in the source the higher SNR, and hence DR.
So even if they use the same photosites on the 7D II's sensor the new camera will have more dynamic range.
Regards
-
Increasing pixel count automatically increases dynamic range. Not at a pixel level, but on the overall image which is what really matters. Once scaled to the final output size, the more Mpx in the source the higher SNR, and hence DR.
Indeed. It can be demonstrated (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93565.msg763396#msg763396) that images, which have a Poisson/Gaussian type of noise spectrum, reduce noise perfectly in line with downsampling. So read-noise and other (e.g. shot) noise reduces with downsampling, and the signal (if remaining resolution allows) stays the same, hence Dynamic range increases. That means that for anything smaller than full size output, Megapixel count is beneficial, even if it doesn't have higher dynamic range at the sensel level.
So even if they use the same photosites on the 7D II's sensor the new camera will have more dynamic range.
Yes, although it would be much better if the dynamic range was actually improved at the same time, because it is possible (as shown by Sony's sensors).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, dynamic range will increase but don't get too excited, since the increase is minimal.
According to http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization), the formula that relates DR and pixel count is:
DR(new) = DR + Log2 (Square root(N / N (new)))
Where
DR: Original DR
N: Original Megapixel count
DR(new): resulting DR
N (new): Downsampled Megapixel count.
Lets compare the values from the Nikon D810 to those of the Canon 7D MkII using the values from DXO Mark. (The value for DR to be used is the "screen" value, which correspond to the pixel values).
D810
DR (screen)=13.67
7D MKII
DR (screen)=11.11
Let's suppose that Canon produces a FF 50 Mpixel camera with the same quality as the 7D MK II, The DR (screen) will then be = 11.11
Now we apply the formula to downsample those 50 Mpixel camera to the D810
DR (new) = 11.11 + Log2 (Sqrt(50/36))
DR (new) = 11.11 + 0.237
DR (new) = 11.34
Results:
D810= DR 13.67 Stops
Rumored 50 Mpx camera downsampled to 36 Mpx = DR 11.34 stops
So, even with the increased DR due to the larger pixel count, the D810 will still have more than 2 stops of additional DR.
-
Results:
D810= DR 13.67 Stops
Rumored 50 Mpx camera downsampled to 36 Mpx = DR 11.34 stops
So, even with the increased DR due to the larger pixel count, the D810 will still have more than 2 stops of additional DR.
Hi Frank,
That's correct. Of course, that's the same dynamic range as the (21 MP) EOS 1D Mark III which still produces great images, but at somewhat smaller output. So an increase of output-size potential is still progress, although I'd prefer both Megapixels and Dynamic range. With most output sizes requiring less than 36 MP, the noise characteristics would still offer an improvement (in noise/DR and deconvolution sharpening capabilities).
Cheers,
Bart
-
While they make ubber mp sensors they should also make a good film sensor that will give you real film like results with pixels that look like grain and clean blacks like film.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Biker_no._134_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/832px-Biker_no._134_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg
-
Canon Rumors site is for fun, not for serious predictions.
I sure hope that Canon is working out a high DR sensor.
If the Nikon D750 eats 5D3/upcoming 5D4 for lunch, maybe Canon will wake up.
-
Parallel rumours are that such a camera would use a Sony sensor (not a Canon sensor) - and that would be promising given Sony's input to Nikon models.
-
that's the same dynamic range as the (21 MP) EOS 1D Mark III which still produces great images,
Hi Bart,
I agree, a competent photographer can produce great images with the Canons (as there is plenty of evidence) and even with less DR than that. In my experience the main benefit of an extended DR is the ability to recover shadows.
What I really like is when the relation between DR and ISO is linear, which allows to shoot in "ISO-less" mode
-
Parallel rumours are that such a camera would use a Sony sensor (not a Canon sensor) - and that would be promising given Sony's input to Nikon models.
I believe that this not correct. It will be a Canon sensor.
This is coming from credible sources, I wouldn't mention it otherwise.
On the DR topic, an additional is the possibility to under-expose on purpose some images to reduce the risk of blown highlights in very contrasty/changing light. I had one example yesterday (cannot post this image) where I had to under-expose 2 full stops and got an amazing, noise free ISO64 image in return that I had to brighten up selectively in C1 Pro 8. There is zero concern doing this with high DR bodies.
Cheers,
Bernars
-
Saying you can take a great images with [Insert Camera Brand Here] is a non argument when discussing the relative merits of specific models or the absolute merit of a single camera, especially since it ignores the user and the artistic aspect of image making.
What is missing in all these discussions is an understanding of Marginal Value. The D810 is 'marginally' better than other DSLRs. That is because not all photo opportunities, for example, require 14.7 EV of dynamic range and not output formats require 36MPs. The 5DmkIII for example has 22MP, not 0MP. So all outputs that only require 22MP are within it's performance capabilities to the exact same extent as the D810. The D810 is only marginally better! And it only matters when the situation requires that marginal increase in performance AND the photographer knows how to utilize it!
What higher performance levels provide is the potential to take images lesser performance cameras do not provide. It also opens additional options and provides more forgiveness. Interestingly, better photographers gain most from the additional options while lesser photographers benefit most by getting some additional forgiveness. As an example, on my wall is a small sunset image. The mountains are for the most part in deep shadow or totally blocked up. I personalty like the line of dark mountain peaks as it frames the colorful and interesting sky. That was not totally by choice, but was dictated by my decision to not blow the highlights. A camera with higher dynamic range than the D70 that was used would have allowed detail to be retained in those shadows. It opens up the option to do that in the final print if one would choose. Or I could have ended with the same basic image even with a exposure miss (forgiveness) within the DR of the camera.
-
Shooting, now, with both the Sony A7r and the Canon 5D mark III, I do accept the marginal value argument however I will say that for the specific application of static (on the tripod) landscape/cityscape imaging that the A7r substantially outperforms the 5D mark III.
Although the resolution increase is nice the real clincher for me is massive improvement in usable dynamic range. Being able to shoot single images and capture the entire dynamic range of the scene without resorting to exposure bracketing to later merge to HDR in situations where the light is changing rapidly such as around sunset or after (my favourite time to shoot) is a major advantage, especially if one is also planning a several shot panorama as well.
The additional advantage of being able to manipulate tone in post without worrying about noise or the muddy colours so characteristic of the 5D mark III when lifting the shadows means that none of that fine detail captured by the A7r is wasted in crushing the noise.
So, despite the fact that the performance of the A7r is incremental compared to the 5D mark III the A7r has actually changed the way that I can shoot in the sense that the process is so much simpler and the result is so much better.
So, onto the presumed 50MP sensor from Canon. Hopefully it does eventuate and hopefully it does have 14 stop+ dynamic range. I don't think that I will buy it unless it has that dynamic range that I want resolution notwithstanding.
Tony Jay
-
Shooting, now, with both the Sony A7r and the Canon 5D mark III, I do accept the marginal value argument however I will say that for the specific application of static (on the tripod) landscape/cityscape imaging that the A7r substantially outperforms the 5D mark III.
Although the resolution increase is nice the real clincher for me is massive improvement in usable dynamic range. Being able to shoot single images and capture the entire dynamic range of the scene without resorting to exposure bracketing to later merge to HDR in situations where the light is changing rapidly such as around sunset or after (my favourite time to shoot) is a major advantage, especially if one is also planning a several shot panorama as well.
Tony Jay
I own a D810 myself for that reason. But again, the DR is great for Sunrise/Sunset and Nightscape images. But that is a small subset of all photo opportunities. If for example you are shooting studio portraits, it doesn't play at all! And for general landscape images even, the 11 or so EV of DR the 5DmkIII gives you is enough. Of course, the fact that it is priced way over it's capabilities would deter me.
-
On the DR topic, an additional is the possibility to under-expose on purpose some images to reduce the risk of blown highlights in very contrasty/changing light. I had one example yesterday (cannot post this image) where I had to under-expose 2 full stops ...
I would say that if the exposure is what is needed to avoid blown highlights, it is not "under-exposure", it is just correct exposure! (Correcting for the default exposure metering of most digital cameras, which assumes no more than about three stops between the average illumination and the peak illumination in the scene.)
There is still this strange idea that digital cameras have "less highlight dynamic range than film" even though most system cameras now have far more dynamic range than (color) film, due simply to default exposure metering that leaves only about three stops between the metered average level and the clipping level, even when the sensor then has nine or more usable stops below the metered average level. (Yes, I am happy to have a camera whose default metering and signal processing positions metered mid-tones about four or more stops below the maximum raw level; I can adjust my exposure up ["over-expose"!?] when it is more important to reducing noise in deep shadow regions at base ISO speed than to avoid blown highlights -- which is rare for me!)
Back to the rumor! It could very well be a correct guess, but tracking back the sources quoted, it seem no more than that: an anonymous tipster's guess that Canon will use its most recently revealed pixel design (as in the 7DII) in its next 36x24mm sensor.
-
There is still this strange idea that digital cameras have "less highlight dynamic range than film" even though most system cameras now have far more dynamic range than (color) film, due simply to default exposure metering that leaves only about three stops between the metered average level and the clipping level, even when the sensor then has nine or more usable stops below the metered average level. (Yes, I am happy to have a camera whose default metering and signal processing positions metered mid-tones about four or more stops below the maximum raw level; I can adjust my exposure up ["over-expose"!?] when it is more important to reducing noise in deep shadow regions at base ISO speed than to avoid blown
For some reason camera makers do not calibrate their exposure metering (i.e. effective ISO) according to the dynamic range of modern sensors, usually wasting a good amount of it.
Specially for Sony's ISOless sensors, with a huge DR at base ISO that quickly vanishes when pushing ISO, in my opinion exposure metering should allow much more highlight headroom for the lower ISO settings than they currently do, since shadows can be lifted with a strong tone curve still maintaining a good SNR. This would prevent more easily skies and other highlight sources from getting blown in the camera JPEGs.
For higher ISO settings highlight headroom from the exposure meter could be reduced to keep a good balance of shadows vs highlights DR.
Regards
-
Back to the rumor! It could very well be a correct guess, but tracking back the sources quoted, it seem no more than that: an anonymous tipster's guess that Canon will use its most recently revealed pixel design (as in the 7DII) in its next 36x24mm sensor.
That is how you might guess it would work...just use the current pixel pitch of the 7DmkII APS-C (1.6x) on the new 5DmkIV full frame. But then if Nikon followed that pattern, the D810 (4.8 micron pixel pitch) would have the 3.9 micron pitch of the 24MP D7100 APS-C (1.5X) sensor and end up with basically 48MP instead of 36MP. But given the same technology of two sensors, while smaller pitch increases the resolution, it also decreases the SNR which Canon is already having issues with. They seem to have tempered the noise some on the 7DmkII at higher ISO with a better gain strategy, but a 50MP camera would be designed more for base ISO shooting.
-
That is how you might guess it would work...just use the current pixel pitch of the 7DmkII APS-C (1.6x) on the new 5DmkIV full frame. But then if Nikon followed that pattern, the D810 (4.8 micron pixel pitch) would have the 3.9 micron pitch of the 24MP D7100 APS-C (1.5X) sensor and end up with basically 48MP instead of 36MP. But given the same technology of two sensors, while smaller pitch increases the resolution, it also decreases the SNR which Canon is already having issues with. They seem to have tempered the noise some on the 7DmkII at higher ISO with a better gain strategy, but a 50MP camera would be designed more for base ISO shooting.
On the Nikon side, it would in fact be 54mp if you simply scale the D7000 sensor design, but I believe that Sony/Nikon understand that DR is an order of magnitude more important than resolution and there is no way they would release a new high res sensor/camera with less DR than their respective current FF champion (a7R or D810).
So I believe than they will stick to a less agressive AA filter less 46mp sensor and cross the 15 stops DR barrier.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On the Nikon side, it would in fact be 54mp if you simply scale the D7000 sensor design, but I believe that Sony/Nikon understand that DR is an order of magnitude more important than resolution and there is no way they would release a new high res sensor/camera with less DR than their respective current FF champion (a7R or D810).
So I believe than they will stick to a less agressive AA filter less 46mp sensor and cross the 15 stops DR barrier.
Cheers,
Bernard
48MP/54MP same damn thing. And I agree that no company would sacrifice DR for additional resolution, especially at the additional expense of throughput and the smaller market size. Which means, if Canon actually does release a 50MP sensor they would have made a significant technology breakthrough that has eluded them for years or they bought it.
-
Which means, if Canon actually does release a 50MP sensor they would have made a significant technology breakthrough that has eluded them for years or they bought it.
Yes, that's my guess as well. From what I hear, it seems certain that it will be a Canon sensor though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
48MP/54MP same damn thing. And I agree that no company would sacrifice DR for additional resolution
...
I am guessing that practically all cameras sacrifice some DR for some resolution. I.e. that there is a trade-off to be made, and if you don't care much about one, you can do somewhat better at the other.
I do, however, disagree with some "megapixel-haters" in that I believe that there is a pragmatic sweet-spot for each technology/generation, where you get sensible DR and sensible resolution, and sacrificing one will only buy you small amounts of the other.
I am sure that some photographers would find a 50+MP 24x36mm camera useful, even if it offered only moderate DR at low ISO (was not some films in that cathegory?). For me, however, I would rather have it the other way around.
-h
-
I would say that if the exposure is what is needed to avoid blown highlights, it is not "under-exposure", it is just correct exposure! (Correcting for the default exposure metering of most digital cameras, which assumes no more than about three stops between the average illumination and the peak illumination in the scene.)
There is still this strange idea that digital cameras have "less highlight dynamic range than film" even though most system cameras now have far more dynamic range than (color) film, due simply to default exposure metering that leaves only about three stops between the metered average level and the clipping level, even when the sensor then has nine or more usable stops below the metered average level. (Yes, I am happy to have a camera whose default metering and signal processing positions metered mid-tones about four or more stops below the maximum raw level; I can adjust my exposure up ["over-expose"!?] when it is more important to reducing noise in deep shadow regions at base ISO speed than to avoid blown highlights -- which is rare for me!)
Back to the rumor! It could very well be a correct guess, but tracking back the sources quoted, it seem no more than that: an anonymous tipster's guess that Canon will use its most recently revealed pixel design (as in the 7DII) in its next 36x24mm sensor.
I continue to shoot film and regarding the DR comments mostly come from those who have not shot film or don't
DR has improved hugely with digital (over the last 10 years) Normal procedure for colour (or b&w) negative film is to expose for the shadows depending on the emulsion used it's not really that easy to blow out negative film in the highlights working this way (expose for shadows) is quite easy and liked by many (I dislike slide film for it's limited DR)
Digital requires a different approach but we're at a level now where the best sensors have excellent "film like" DR albeit with a bit of shadow pulling or HL recovery in post.
It's far less a problem..unless you shoot Canon in which case you're in for a rough ride you can't aggressively pull the images at base ISO like you can on other sensor makers, the DR and latitude just isn't there. So the DR issue isn't really one anymore, but it is if you're stuck in the Canon timewarp (which includes full frame)
Regarding the "big pixel count" body it looks like something yet again that has little practical beneift for most people big numbers likely very expensive one for the boy racer camera users of the world
-
Regarding the "big pixel count" body it looks like something yet again that has little practical beneift for most people big numbers likely very expensive one for the boy racer camera users of the world
All the former medium format studio, landscape and advertising photographers who have moved from Hasselblad or Leica to the D800e/D810 would argue otherwise.
As would anyone who regularly makes huge prints of highly-detailed subjects.
-
All the former medium format studio, landscape and advertising photographers who have moved from Hasselblad or Leica to the D800e/D810 would argue otherwise.
As would anyone who regularly makes huge prints of highly-detailed subjects.
So should others. It can be about achievement or, for me, OPTIONS.
I bought the D810 as a general use camera and with 36MP in FX it also gives 24MP in 1.2X crop and 15.6MP in 1.5x DX crop. Basically, I can choose to bring the D810 instead of the D7100 where I might want both. Or it gives one the option to only have 1 camera.
In addition, for single row, multi shot images, it gives the option to shoot in landscape instead of portrait, shooting less images to get to the whole, if one believes they might never need the extra size.
Finally, because I do like to print big, I have always been a frame filler. While it has served me well, there are times that I have limited the use of a particular image because I had no crop/aspect change space around my subject. Sometimes I can work it in Photoshop and sometimes not.
-
Like it or not, one of the BIG drivers in high pixel count cameras is getting the pixels in the long dimension up high enough to allow 4k video by binning (3840x2=7680, ideally 4096x2=8192). Since video is a long, skinny frame, the vertical dimension will automatically work if there are enough horizontal pixels. Beyond that, I'd imagine that they might try and use existing designs, or at least common technology - how's the DR on the Sony 24MP APS-C sensor (which becomes 54 MP at full frame?
Dan
-
Like it or not, one of the BIG drivers in high pixel count cameras is getting the pixels in the long dimension up high enough to allow 4k video by binning (3840x2=7680, ideally 4096x2=8192). Since video is a long, skinny frame, the vertical dimension will automatically work if there are enough horizontal pixels. Beyond that, I'd imagine that they might try and use existing designs, or at least common technology - how's the DR on the Sony 24MP APS-C sensor (which becomes 54 MP at full frame?
Dan
I own the APS-C 24MP D7100. This sensor is about 1 year older than the D810, but it's performance is consistent. The D810 outpaces it by 1EV at base ISO because the base ISO of the D810 is 64 while for the D7100 is 100.
Bottom Line: Given the same technology, smaller pixel size will mean somewhat less DR and high ISO performance. It's simple matter of less energy entering each pixel and less signal generated with a somewhat constant electronics noise for both.
-
I own the APS-C 24MP D7100. This sensor is about 1 year older than the D810, but it's performance is consistent. The D810 outpaces it by 1EV at base ISO because the base ISO of the D810 is 64 while for the D7100 is 100.
As a side comment, I believe that the D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor as opposed to the Sony part used in the D810.
The measured DR level of the Toshiba part is similar to the Sony 24mp part (and significantly ahead of any Canon sensor till date), but there is some banding in the deep shadows of the Toshiba sensor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bottom Line: Given the same technology, smaller pixel size will mean somewhat less DR and high ISO performance. It's simple matter of less energy entering each pixel and less signal generated with a somewhat constant electronics noise for both.
That's on a per-pixel basis.
Normalised to a set standard resolution (or print size), the performance will be the same, assuming gapless microlenses.
-
I would be surprised if many required such a high pixel count I find 24mp overkill for most shooting conditions 50mp isn't something most would need though it will sell cameras
It doesn't matter what you give some folks 50mp or 100mp they will always want more, hence the term "boy racer" no matter how fast the car is 3mph extra is so much faster except it isn't not really
I doubt you will find the move from 36mp to 50mp that big the more mp you have to start with the less you see the extra pixels it's quite small really. 16 to 24mp is barely noticeable even with good primes we're at a level where resolution simply isn't an issue for 97% of shooters.
-
I would be surprised if many required such a high pixel count I find 24mp overkill for most shooting conditions 50mp isn't something most would need though it will sell cameras
It doesn't matter what you give some folks 50mp or 100mp they will always want more, hence the term "boy racer" no matter how fast the car is 3mph extra is so much faster except it isn't not really
I doubt you will find the move from 36mp to 50mp that big the more mp you have to start with the less you see the extra pixels it's quite small really. 16 to 24mp is barely noticeable even with good primes we're at a level where resolution simply isn't an issue for 97% of shooters.
Depends how big you print.
My large prints with a 36MP sensor (either single-frame or shift-stitched panoramas using a tilt-shift lens) are noticeably more detailed than my older ones with a 21MP sensor and the same lenses.
If you shoot for web or for small print sizes, you may not notice a difference. But it won't be worse, either (even the increased file size can be mitigated by pixel binning) and the greater resolution gives you more options as to what you can do with the image.
It's like anything else in photography - it makes no difference to you unless you're already operating at the limits.
Resolution matters to me because I print at huge sizes. I'm operating at the limit. If you're only publishing to web or making small prints, you're not at the limit and any improvement makes no difference to you.
Low-ISO dynamic range matters to me because I'm already pushing the limits at both ends when shooting high-contrast landscapes. If you shoot in studio and can control your lighting, or mainly shoot in limited-DR situations, it may not matter to you because you're not operating at the limit - if your scene only contains 5 stops of DR, it makes no difference whether your sensor can record 10 or 15 stops.
Colour gamut matters to me because I shoot very colourful scenes. If you shoot in black and white, you're not encountering the limits, so any improvement has no impact on you.
For most purposes, AF doesn't matter to me because it's not even switched on, except on the rare occasions I shoot action. It's nice to have the capability in the camera, though, so I don't have to drag around extra bodies for combined landscape/wildlife trips. If you mainly shoot action, you're at the limit and any improvement makes a difference.
High ISO capability doesn't matter to me because I operate well below the limits of performance - base ISO for landscapes, up to maybe ISO 1600 (very occasionally 3200) for wildlife in dim conditions. If you shoot live music or stage performances, then you're operating at the limit and every extra stop makes a huge difference.
Frame rate doesn't matter to me because I usually shoot at less than 1 frame a second - shooting at that rate, it makes no difference whether the camera can shoot at 4fps or 14fps. If you're shooting sports, then you're operating at the limit and every extra frame per second makes a difference.
-
I would be surprised if many required such a high pixel count I find 24mp overkill for most shooting conditions 50mp isn't something most would need though it will sell cameras
It doesn't matter what you give some folks 50mp or 100mp they will always want more, hence the term "boy racer" no matter how fast the car is 3mph extra is so much faster except it isn't not really
I doubt you will find the move from 36mp to 50mp that big the more mp you have to start with the less you see the extra pixels it's quite small really. 16 to 24mp is barely noticeable even with good primes we're at a level where resolution simply isn't an issue for 97% of shooters.
There are advantages to more resolution, beyond just printing big.
But the customer demand curve is certainly not linear when it comes to resolution. As MP count increases, the demand will drop will much faster. Camera manufacturers know this. Some of it will be due to the performance, file size penalty. Some of it just lack of need and cost. I suspect that Nikon outsold their D800/D800e projections though, which is why the D810 appeared so swiftly.
As I said before, I bought the 36MP D810 over the 24MP D750 and I'm glad I did. The extra MP, while not always neccessary for general use, has its advantages in flexibility. But for general purpose use, I probably would have waived off of a 48-50MP camera. Don't know where I sit on the curve, but seeing that tons of people have gone the D750 route, at least partly due to being scared of 36MP, I figure I'm further than most.
-
As a side comment, I believe that the D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor as opposed to the Sony part used in the D810.
The measured DR level of the Toshiba part is similar to the Sony 24mp part (and significantly ahead of any Canon sensor till date), but there is some banding in the deep shadows of the Toshiba sensor.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have no idea who manufacturers the sensor in the D7100, but I find that it and the omission of the OLPF make it the sharpest APS-C camera I have run across. And I have not experienced significant shadow banding...thank goodness. I would recommend it to folks as the closest APS-C camera you will come to the D810 on a budget! And right now you can get a Nikon refurb for like $798. I see rumors of a D7200 which likely has a new sensor, but other than more buffer (same 6fps speed) and flippy screen, doesn't appear to offer much...at least for stills.
-
Sadly, the Nikon lens universe doesn't have a lightweight inexpensive fast-AF prime supertelephoto like the Canon EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS, which is a joy to use with birds in flight or on hikes.
-
Sadly, the Nikon lens universe doesn't have a lightweight inexpensive fast-AF prime supertelephoto like the Canon EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS, which is a joy to use with birds in flight or on hikes.
Are you talking about this thing?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1072/5123904498_08ee954d27_z.jpg)
While weight is relative, not sure I would call 2.75lb light, nor f/5.6 fast.
Might try the new Nikon 300mm f/4 VR at 1.6lb with the TC-14EIII 1.4x Teleconverter.
(http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS800x600~sample_galleries/4847688276/2341142504.jpg?v=3036)
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Nikon-AF-S-TC-14E-III-teleconverter.jpg)
The 300mm w/o the TC:
(http://www.nikon-asia.com/tmp/Asia/2419865273/3760176746/2586568015/3411514853/1064510860/817764466/87004660/3015334490/365508689/1887721864/1610705767/3150104748/2909332022/277913499.jpg)
-
While weight is relative, not sure I would call 2.75lb light, nor f/5.6 fast.
Weight aside, it's always preferable to have a prime lens of the right focal length rather than a shorter lens plus a teleconverter that gives the same focal length. Lenses with teleconverters are noticeably slower to focus and have noticeably lower contrast and resolution than the lens alone. Resolution of a high quality lens and teleconverter is better than cropping the image, but not by much. The slower focus is a killer when photographing birds. There are plenty of great lenses that are faster, like the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 at 10.2 pounds and a Canon 400 f/2.8 at 8.5 pounds, but you can't easily hand hold them. Hand holding a 2.75 pound lens with camera attached is no problem.
-
like the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 at 10.2 pounds and a Canon 400 f/2.8 at 8.5 pounds, but you can't easily hand hold them. Hand holding a 2.75 pound lens with camera attached is no problem.
For what it's worth, the Nikon 400mm f2.8 E weights 8.37 pounds.
I did shoot it handheld a couple of times and it can be done... but isn't very enjoyable for sure. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For what it's worth, the Nikon 400mm f2.8 E weights 8.37 pounds.
I did shoot it handheld a couple of times and it can be done... but isn't very enjoyable for sure. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry if I got the weight wrong. I got it from http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/ (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/)
I've seen people hand hold these things too, and even 600mm f/4 lenses, but I did say "...you can't easily hand hold them", which I think is true. I used a 400 f/2.8 for many years and mostly use a 600 f/4 now because I've tended more toward photographing birds versus mammals over the years. I've never used either handheld because it's unreasonable to do for any length of time. For tracking birds a full gimbal tripod head helps immensely.
But Canon's 400mm f/5.6 is a huge favorite among bird photographers because of its focal length, the fact it's easy to lift up and lock onto a bird, and unlike the faster lenses it acquires focus fast even with lower voltage battery packs, not to mention that it's relatively inexpensive and has good optical quality. It's fairly ubiquitous in the bird photographer community.
-
Such pussy's ...
(http://www.videostest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/whey-products.jpg)
-
Let's say Canon or somebody else comes out with a new 48, 50 or 54 mp camera, there are a few practical issues at hand aside from size and weight:
1) Battery power. The more MPs your sensor has, the more power it needs. Also you will some pretty good processors in that camera to handle files that big if you want somethng that shoots more than 3-4 frames per second. That kind of processor also sucks up power like crazy. So either have a hokin' huge battery pack or lots of spare batteries.
2) Computer processing power.
I just see it now - 5 shot HDR combined exposure. Then try spooling and printing it. We're gonna need a room sized super computer that would make the NSA green with envy. :)
3) Hard drive space.
Dunno about the rest of you guys, but I just bought an external 4 terrabyte HD, to handle files from my D800. Maybe we can get 10 TB external hard drives soon. :)
4) Memory cards.
I thought those 32 and 64 GB compact flash cards for my D800 were expensive, for a 50MP camera you are gonna want or need what - 128GB and on up?
5) lenses
How long after they come out with the first 50 mp camera before somebody complains on some photo forum somewhere that thier $5,000 Zeiss Otus lens isn't good enough for the new snesor? I am serious. Sometimes I get "attitude" from other places because I am "only using a ZF2 lens" on my D800 and not an Otus version.
It isn't the camera that will cost you a fortune, it will be all the associated upgrades. Short of winning a major lottery, for myself, I just do not see the need. Your mileage may vary, but as the other thread on this forum points out, in the day and age of cell phone photography, and most commercial photography of consumer goods now all going CGI, how will you find need for such a beast?
later
-
Such pussy's ...
Yeah!
-
I find 36MP to be a good cut-off for me at least for now. It makes for a great general camera. A great in-camera down sampling algorithm would be real helpful to make a high pixel camera more useable as a general camera.
And yes, processing capability and onboard power will be the 2 areas where camera advancement will be made to enable significantly more capability. But it's not insurmountable. Do you remember when you got 36 exposures on a card (roll of film). Learn to make those exposures count.
Let's say Canon or somebody else comes out with a new 48, 50 or 54 mp camera, there are a few practical issues at hand aside from size and weight:
1) Battery power. The more MPs your sensor has, the more power it needs. Also you will some pretty good processors in that camera to handle files that big if you want somethng that shoots more than 3-4 frames per second. That kind of processor also sucks up power like crazy. So either have a hokin' huge battery pack or lots of spare batteries.
2) Computer processing power.
I just see it now - 5 shot HDR combined exposure. Then try spooling and printing it. We're gonna need a room sized super computer that would make the NSA green with envy. :)
3) Hard drive space.
Dunno about the rest of you guys, but I just bought an external 4 terrabyte HD, to handle files from my D800. Maybe we can get 10 TB external hard drives soon. :)
4) Memory cards.
I thought those 32 and 64 GB compact flash cards for my D800 were expensive, for a 50MP camera you are gonna want or need what - 128GB and on up?
5) lenses
How long after they come out with the first 50 mp camera before somebody complains on some photo forum somewhere that thier $5,000 Zeiss Otus lens isn't good enough for the new snesor? I am serious. Sometimes I get "attitude" from other places because I am "only using a ZF2 lens" on my D800 and not an Otus version.
It isn't the camera that will cost you a fortune, it will be all the associated upgrades. Short of winning a major lottery, for myself, I just do not see the need. Your mileage may vary, but as the other thread on this forum points out, in the day and age of cell phone photography, and most commercial photography of consumer goods now all going CGI, how will you find need for such a beast?
later