50-megapixel Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R (Page 6): That would be correct if we are talking equal technology. But technology gets better and better and we are NOT talking equal tech! That's...

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

CO wrote:

Bugfan wrote:
..... But as long as it's only 35 mm, raising the resolution higher all the time is simply going to further degrade the image. IQ is also dependent on physical pixel size ......
I think Bugfan is correct. IQ is also dependent on physical pixel size. Sensors with larger pixels have a better signal to noise ratio and wider dynamic range.

That would be correct if we are talking equal technology. But technology gets better and better and we are NOT talking equal tech! That's why we have cameras today shooting very clean, noise-wise than a camera just a generation or two old, at VERY high ISO's.
Noise is NOT a physical limitation. Noise is a technological limitation.
Noise-wise the new 50mp camera has the same size pixels as the 7Dmkll and its noise levels are almost exactly the same and the 7ll which shoots very clean at high ISO.
Canon recognized and announced right away that for the kinds of shooting that the cameras were designed for, they don't need high ISO performance and that those problems are better solved using HDR.
The new cameras also have built in shutter delay and geared mirror drives which seems to be a bigger factor affecting IQ than the lenses. Lenses have always been ahead of cameras! Just my tucents. ;-)
SS

Haydon

machia wrote:

I'm only referring to sample shots I've seen, the Nikon images are superior, but if you can coax out equal dynamic range you're better than your average DSLR user. I'm relatively new to digital, so perhaps this forum isn't the place for me. If you can equal the DR of a Canon 18MP to that of a Nikon 24MP I'd like to know how you did it. I know the pixel count isn't the deciding factor here, but the sensor and processor is.

The deciding factor is not the camera but the photographer and without examples of Canon being an inferior product I do believe the subject is closed.

Maybe I'm old but this discussion about DR is not only old but ridicucous because in print you won't see a difference.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

machia wrote:

I'm only referring to sample shots I've seen, the Nikon images are superior, but if you can coax out equal dynamic range you're better than your average DSLR user. I'm relatively new to digital, so perhaps this forum isn't the place for me. If you can equal the DR of a Canon 18MP to that of a Nikon 24MP I'd like to know how you did it. I know the pixel count isn't the deciding factor here, but the sensor and processor is.

DxO Mark will release if Dynamic Range data when the camera hits the market. Then we can base our opinions on fact not fancy. This is from a Nikon shooter (since 1975 when I was stationed at Atsugi NAF, Japan)

Haydon

BobHartung wrote:

DxO Mark will release if Dynamic Range data when the camera hits the market. Then we can base our opinions on fact not fancy. This is from a Nikon shooter (since 1975 when I was stationed at Atsugi NAF, Japan)

Sorry Bob, DxO has problems with their formula. You're liable to have a more accurate representation by adding your height and weight together.

For the longest time they rated a D3200 better than a 1Dx. There's far more to a camera than just a sensor but DxO doesn't recognize that.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Take the sensor from a D7200 and make it full frame and you've got a 55mp sensor. That's all Canon is doing.

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

machia wrote:

I'm only referring to sample shots I've seen, the Nikon images are superior, but if you can coax out equal dynamic range you're better than your average DSLR user. I'm relatively new to digital, so perhaps this forum isn't the place for me. If you can equal the DR of a Canon 18MP to that of a Nikon 24MP I'd like to know how you did it. I know the pixel count isn't the deciding factor here, but the sensor and processor is.

I've got Nikon's but I doubt they are superior to Canon or that Canon is superior to Nikon. i have Nikon's because I already had Nikon lens. And I've used Nikon film camera's so long, learning to use the digital wasn't as hard as it could have been. If your buying a camera and figure one is going to take better photo's than another, you need to stop and think about it awhile.

Haydon

SteveR wrote:

Take the sensor from a D7200 and make it full frame and you've got a 55mp sensor. That's all Canon is doing.

Steve do you have fact or is that your opinion? Wait a minute, isn't this speculation with the camera still unreleased?

Let's digress for a second, the D7000, D7100 and the D7200 all have ths same fps. Isn't that milking the consumer? 6 fps Raw correct?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Haydon wrote:

Mind showing me an example of Canon's poor DR comparitively? If you bring in the debate about noise in the shadows I'll show you a noob that doesn't know what a histogram is and how to properly expose a photograph.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

machia wrote:

I'm only referring to sample shots I've seen, the Nikon images are superior, but if you can coax out equal dynamic range you're better than your average DSLR user. I'm relatively new to digital, so perhaps this forum isn't the place for me. If you can equal the DR of a Canon 18MP to that of a Nikon 24MP I'd like to know how you did it. I know the pixel count isn't the deciding factor here, but the sensor and processor is.

Have you seen the 5DS photos shown? Taken with Canon lenses? I have never seen any other FF camera or APSC for that matter even begin to come close to the quality, dynamic range and low noise as those shown by real cameras.
P.S. I guess you have not seen any Canon 1DX photos in order to make your claim. Look at the latest Shutterbug Mag. Full of incredible Canon shots for virtually every article.

Haydon

Architect1776 wrote:

Have you seen the 5DS photos shown? Taken with Canon lenses? I have never seen any other FF camera or APSC for that matter even begin to come close to the quality, dynamic range and low noise as those shown by real cameras.
P.S. I guess you have not seen any Canon 1DX photos in order to make your claim. Look at the latest Shutterbug Mag. Full of incredible Canon shots for virtually every article.

My turn.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Jim Bob

georgevedwards wrote:

This should trigger a lot of pages. I personally am delighted and hope Nikon's next 5000 series (affordable) camera tries to beat them with 55megapixels, but I have always heard a roar in the background about more megapixels don't mean a better photo. Nikon blew Canon away for a while with 24megapixels. It is like Canon came up with an H bomb against Nikon's old A bomb.

I'm not sure what you mean. The D7100 is a great camera but I doubt any knowledgeable enthusiast would agree it blows away the Canon 70D. I have extensive experience with both cameras and the image quality is very close with Nikon edging out the Canon.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

CO wrote:

It's not the number of pixels on the sensor but the size of the individual pixels. They're having to make pixels smaller and smaller in order to fit more in the same area. Smaller pixels are affected by diffraction at earlier aperture settings when stopping down the aperture. Cambridge in Colour has a good diffraction calculator online:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography-2.htm

You have this completely wrong, diffraction happens due to the light waves being disrupted by the edges of the Aperture. Pixel size has zero effect on this phenomenon, pixels come into action long after the diffraction has taken place. Smaller pixels can resolve more detail so we are more able to detect the result of diffraction on finer detail than the large pixels are capable of recording. That doesn't mean that large Pixels are better; you might as well say that a 2MPix camera is better than a 20Mpix camera because diffraction is less in evidence. Whilst that's true, I don't think many would choose the 2MPix camera.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Bugfan wrote:

..... But as long as it's only 35 mm, raising the resolution higher all the time is simply going to further degrade the image. IQ is also dependent on physical pixel size ......

Peekayoh wrote:

Absolutely no evidence that there is any truth in your statement, rather the reverse.

CO wrote:

..... I think Bugfan is correct. IQ is also dependent on physical pixel size. Sensors with larger pixels have a better signal to noise ratio and wider dynamic range.

A small pixel will have a lower S/N but only pixel peepers will ever see it. What really counts is the S/N ratio of the whole Sensor and given the same technology, that's a function of Sensor Size not Pixel Size.

If large pixels were superior you would expect a camera like the D610 to outperform the D800; it doesn't.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

BobHartung wrote:

DxO Mark will release if Dynamic Range data when the camera hits the market. Then we can base our opinions on fact not fancy. This is from a Nikon shooter (since 1975 when I was stationed at Atsugi NAF, Japan)

Bob, there is no merit badge for having had a Nikon suffed in your diaper! :lol:
You don't really buy a camera based on DXO DR test results do you??
Just say you have too much nikon glass to ever shoot something else, that's a good enough and valid reason.
It's about composition, not DR. If all your shots ooze DR, then yes, I'll buy that. But SHOW me a shoot where you think the DR made all the difference? And I'm not talking about an air conditioner out the back window of your hotel room, unless that's all you shoot. I'm talking about a shot YOU thought is/might be an award winner and would not be so if it weren't for all the DR in that fancy 810 of yours(or whatever you shoot).
My shots are all over UHH and all are shot with the crappiest cameras made, I'll admit it(according to DXO)!! They obviously contain the worst DR on the planet! Yet NOBODY has ever once mentioned the poor DR.
If your a DR junkie, that's OK, nothing actually wrong with that! I'm a speed freak and I'm not ashamed of it. Fast glass gets me shots that would be very hard to get any other way, but I don't see where DR would ever help me out in any way!! Just saying!! ;-)
SS

Haydon

SharpShooter wrote:

Bob, there is no merit badge for having had a Niko... (show quote)

My turn again.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: