# Unsharp pictures with more mpix?



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

So many photographers on this forum are saying that with the 5ds, due to its high mp, the photos run a risk of being shaken/soft. They saying - "tripod is a must."

Can anyone explain to me how this works? Thank you!


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> So many photographers on this forum are saying that with the 5ds, due to its high mp, the photos run a risk of being shaken/soft. They saying - "tripod is a must."
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how this works? Thank you!



I don't think you have phrased that quite right: a very stable platform is a must in order to realise the full resolution _potential_ of the tiny pixels covering a large area. So on the 5Ds you run the risk of photos not being as sharp as they could be.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> So many photographers on this forum are saying that with the 5ds, due to its high mp, the photos run a risk of being shaken/soft. They saying - "tripod is a must."
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how this works? Thank you!


Hi sanj! 

This topic was already discussed with the introduction of the 36 MP D800. 
And I suppose you could find this also with lower MP count but not with an easy to see effect.

The high MP count gives you much more resolution. That's why people want this. 
With this high MP count the camera transforms more and more into a high precission measuring device.
(I don't know if you know the "This lens is soft" article, also displayed on CR. This here is the next step).

The high resolution now makes slight movements of the camera visible that were not so prominent before.
The movements could come from shaking while holding, therefore you'll probably need a sturdy tripod or a really high shutter speed. 
But it is also possible, to detect the vibration coming from the mirror mechanics when the mirror is moving.
Therefore a lot of magazines gave the advice to use not only a tripod but also mirror lock up and remote trigger, 
so nothing makes the camera move. (but don't forget wind and footsteps  )

As I am doing 98% of my shots handheld exactly this argument is leading me to 20+x MP is more than enough for me.
But I understand, that others not only want but need more.
Now everybody has his tool and maybe high MP count will lead to a real avantage for mirrorless over DSLR.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 27, 2015)

The question is simpler than it sounds.

Imagine two cameras mounted on a tripod, with everything exactly the same except that a camera has 8 megapixel, and the other has 50 megapixel.
The tripod vibrates 0.1mm and this is not noticeable in a print with 30 cm size.

The 8 megapixel camera allows you to print sharp images (300dpi) paper up to 30 inches long, while the 50 megapixel camera lets you print sharp images on paper up to 80 centimeters.
It turns out that the higher magnification (80 cm) becomes noticeable vibration tripod.

Assumptions:

1 - Use the 50 megapixel camera and print a paper size 80 cm will bring up the vibration of the tripod.

2 - Use the 50 megapixel camera and print a paper size only 30 cm, it will not bring up the vibration of the tripod because the lowest magnification "hides" the vibration.

3 - Use the 8 megapixel camera and print a paper size 30 cm, it will not bring up the vibration of the tripod because the lowest magnification "hides" the vibration.

4 - 8 megapixel camera Use and print a paper size 80 cm, will make the unclear picture, not by vibration, but because of the lack of resolution (120dpi below).

To Sum Up:
When the camera vibrates, print larger size will make it visible.
If the vibration is visible, more megapixel will not improve the sharpness.


----------



## RobPan (Mar 27, 2015)

A non problem, as anyone who can afford a 5Ds will also be able to afford a stable tripod. No one in his right mind would use a 5ds for hand held photography only. Of course a tripod is a must, and not only a stable tripod but one should perhaps also use the self-timer. 

About the hypothetical unsharpness in a 80 cm print: one should not look at a 80 cm print from a distance of 25 cm, but from a distance of at least one meter. Unsharpness gone!

Kind regards,

Rob.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 27, 2015)

RobPan said:


> About the hypothetical unsharpness in a 80 cm print: one should not look at a 80 cm print from a distance of 25 cm, but from a distance of at least one meter. Unsharpness gone!


You suggest that one should observe an impression of only 80 cm at the correct distance, and more comfortable to the human eye? :

And lose the chance to brag and envy in others?  "My camera is sharper that his" 8)... AKA "My dick is bigger than yours."


----------



## candc (Mar 27, 2015)

i think this whole thought that you have to shoot these new cameras from a tripod is unfounded. 100% crops from the 5ds will look the same as 100% crops from the 7dii all else being equal. plenty of people are getting nice sharp shots and crops from the 7dii (or any other crop body) handheld.


----------



## zim (Mar 27, 2015)

candc said:


> .... 100% crops from the 5ds will look the same as 100% crops from the 7dii all else being equal. plenty of people are getting nice sharp shots and crops from the 7dii (or any other crop body) handheld.



That's the bit I don't understand

The way I'd look at it is, would a pic taken at 1.6 crop on the 5dS not have exactly the same sharpness (all else being equal) as a 7D2?


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 27, 2015)

zim said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > .... 100% crops from the 5ds will look the same as 100% crops from the 7dii all else being equal. plenty of people are getting nice sharp shots and crops from the 7dii (or any other crop body) handheld.
> ...



If you cropped it out to be identical then you would be using the same focal length lens on both cameras, so the magnification would be the same. 

However in shooting for the same picture, framed the same for the different format size, the 7DII will have a shorter focal length lens than the 5Ds, and so shake will be less magnified, and so the 7DII - in this situation - will be more forgiving.

However I do find that in practice shooting a picture in portrait orientation sections and stitching them together is less demanding on technique compared with using a larger format camera, despite the fact that in these two situations you are using similar focal length lenses. I have to say I don't know why this happens.


----------



## zim (Mar 27, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Thanks

I did say I didn't understand! 

As for stitching I do find myself looking for opportunities with my 40 that's your fault ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



If you are using the same lens and if by chance it were a zoom opened up to exactly 35mm on both cameras. You are using the exact same focal length on both bodies. The body doesn't magically change the focal length you just have a smaller sensor.

If all things are *equal*, meaning you have the same lens and you are the same distance from the subject and you crop the 5Ds it will have almost exactly the same number of pixels on target. If the sensors are identical except size all things are equal. In crop mode you will have turned your 5Ds in to a slower form of 7D II.


----------



## photonius (Mar 27, 2015)

candc said:


> i think this whole thought that you have to shoot these new cameras from a tripod is unfounded. 100% crops from the 5ds will look the same as 100% crops from the 7dii all else being equal. plenty of people are getting nice sharp shots and crops from the 7dii (or any other crop body) handheld.



There is of course the rule for crop to use a faster shutter speed than on FF (1.6x faster) for a particular focal length, since the angle of view is narrower for a particular focal length.

But let's say, you stand 10 meters away from a 2 meter poster. You use two different focal lengths on FF and crop to get the right field of view. Your ff sensor has 8688 pixels horizontally, and your crop has 5472 pixels horizontally. So, both have equally small pixels. Now assume your handshake is a twist horizontally of 0.1 degrees. We don't even need to bother to calculate how much that is, let's just say it would be 0.1% of your horizontal axis (that's where the focal length would come in. That translates
into a blur of 8.7 pixels in FF, and 5.5 pixels on crop. So, it's not pixel size, but pixel density that determines how sensitive the image will be to shake. In this example it's just a coincidence that it turns out to be 1.6x, since the pixel size of both is similar.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 27, 2015)

The issue was that those who handhold their camera and walk around snapping photos may not see the increase in sharpness that they see in the carefully done test images posted on the internet. The images will not be worse, and will usually be better, but to take advantage of the potential resolution, it takes some extremely careful setups and even then, some of the test labs have noted difficulty. Canon has stiffened up the tripod mount, apparently because they found the old mount allows too much vibration. That's the kind of attention to detail needed to get the full potential.

What this means is that buying the new camera for all around use might be a waste of money because its not intended for that use. I expect that the 50mp models will sell, and that users will be pleased with the better colors, if nothing else, so its definitely going to be excellent in the right hands.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue was that those who handhold their camera and walk around snapping photos may not see the increase in sharpness that they see in the carefully done test images posted on the internet. The images will not be worse, and will usually be better, but to take advantage of the potential resolution, it takes some extremely careful setups and even then, some of the test labs have noted difficulty. Canon has stiffened up the tripod mount, apparently because they found the old mount allows too much vibration. That's the kind of attention to detail needed to get the full potential.


You said a few words, what I tried to explain.

I understand that people should buy 5DS / 5DSR if they are to have a meticulous use. Otherwise, 5D Mark iii (or maybe Mark iv) can have the same results.

Someone who is used to make pictures with Canon 135L, using speed 1/125 and print paper size 50 cm, you should use more refined technique (perhaps 1/250) to print paper size 1 meter.

After all, why spend a lot of money in 5DS is able to print larger sizes, and maintain the sharpness he is accustomed to see on your 5D Mark iii.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about all this and these seem to come from confusion over, or ignoring, viewing conditions.

First off, you need to set your viewing criteria, are you going to judge at 100% view, or are you going to judge at same image size? Common sense would indicate he latter, after all, if we 'Fill Screen' with one, surely we would do that with the other? If we wanted a 18"x24" print we want that from both, right?

But if we compare percentage viewing conditions the image with more pixels will be enlarged more. Add in the fact that people keep trying to draw conclusions from comparable density crop cameras without making equivalence calculations and you see why there are so many different opinions about a comparatively simple, and logical, idea.

So, if you and I stand next to each other, you with a 5DSR and me with a 5D MkIII and we take the same shot with the same settings, focal length, shutter speed etc, if we then go home and look at both images on the computer 'fill screen', then both images have exactly the same motion blur characteristics. If we print them both to (any same size) the images have exactly the same subject motion, dof, diffraction everything. The 5DSR should have more detail, but everything else is identical. If, however, we view both images on screen at 100% the 5SDR image will appear more blurred with less dof, but this is not because of the pixel numbers, it is because of the magnification, the 5DSR image is considerably bigger on the screen and needs more scrolling.

In effect the 5DSR image will never be worse (for IQ at the same settings) than a lower pixeled image when viewed at the same size, but if used properly the 5DSR should have the potential to realise more detail than a lower pixeled image. My testing of comparable density crop cameras has left me in no doubt that any gains, certainly with the 5DS, will be very modest.

Now when people throw in the crop camera comparisons they fail to allow for viewing magnification, photonius has done this in his example. If the camera moves, for example, 0.1º during the shot, it moves 0.1º in the resultant image (for simplicities sake), it doesn't matter how many pixels that covers, the arc of movement is the same in both pixel density images so is the same in a same sized end reproduction, so the blur is the same. Only when you view at same percentage values does the higher pixel density image appear more blurred, but any feature in the image will be bigger, the subject included, so that isn't a fair comparison.

In essence, the new 50MP camera will be perfectly usable handheld, you do not need to make any changes to your image taking to get exactly the results you currently get and the two new cameras won't illuminate any image quality issues more or less than a lower pixel density camera when the resultant image is viewed at the same size. But, if you want to come close to realising the potential of those new sensors then good technique/contrasty light/high shutterspeeds/flash etc etc is the only way to get it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 28, 2015)

No one is saying that 5DS will have images softer than 5D Mark iii, when the two cameras are mounted on a tripod.

What the OP asked, refers to the "weakest link" ... And we must remember that 5DS intended to be used in low ISO, requiring slower shutter speed.

If I print a paper size of 1 meter with 5D Mark iii holding hand; the amount of megapixel is the weakest link for that use.

If I print a paper size of 1 meter with 5DS holding hand; the megapixel will NOT be limiting factor for sharpness, and the weakest link is the motion blur. Then just print paper size 60 cm to hide the motion blur. But then that I would spend money on a 50 megapixel camera and neglect the technically necessary to enjoy more sharpness?


----------



## Mantadude (Mar 28, 2015)

I have been considering the 5DsR for Underwater photography. Let's say my typical settings are 160 ISO, f11, and 1/200th shutter. Being underwater and no tripod, do you think I am going to benefit from the megapixel increase? I am currently shooting with a 5d mark II, and would like a better autofocus system, along with some more pix to crop out unwanted bubbles, fins of other diver etc, while still being able to print large. Normally don't shoot over 640.

Another thing to think about will this introduce a ton of backscatter? Backscatter is particles in the water illuminated by the strobes. Always a problem for underwater shooters. 

Thoughts on this as an underwater camera would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 28, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I have not read any posts here, saying that 5DS will have images softer than 5D Mark iii, when the two cameras are mounted on a tripod.
> 
> What the OP asked, refers to the "weakest link" ... And we must remember that 5DS intended to be used in low ISO, requiring slower shutter speed.
> 
> ...



Reality is I bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two cameras anyway on a 1 m wide print at normal viewing distances, assuming perfect technique for both, because if the 5DIII had zero motion blur, and each pixel has true definition interpolation up is very effective.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

Mantadude said:


> I have been considering the 5DsR for Underwater photography. Let's say my typical settings are 160 ISO, f11, and 1/200th shutter. Being underwater and no tripod, do you think I am going to benefit from the megapixel increase? I am currently shooting with a 5d mark II, and would like a better autofocus system, along with some more pix to crop out unwanted bubbles, fins of other diver etc, while still being able to print large. Normally don't shoot over 640.
> 
> Another thing to think about will this introduce a ton of backscatter? Backscatter is particles in the water illuminated by the strobes. Always a problem for underwater shooters.
> 
> ...



In short, no.

If you are specialising in nudibranch/goby style macros in very clear water with a twin light setup then possibly, but with the water killing the clarity and contrast the majority of the time the extra pixels will give you no advantage.


----------



## Mantadude (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mantadude said:
> 
> 
> > I have been considering the 5DsR for Underwater photography. Let's say my typical settings are 160 ISO, f11, and 1/200th shutter. Being underwater and no tripod, do you think I am going to benefit from the megapixel increase? I am currently shooting with a 5d mark II, and would like a better autofocus system, along with some more pix to crop out unwanted bubbles, fins of other diver etc, while still being able to print large. Normally don't shoot over 640.
> ...



We do quite a bit of macro work..You can check it out at our site www.oceanshutter.com. But we do wide angle as well. But what I am gathering is that it won't hurt the image either, so it might be worth it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

It will never be worse, but on web output you will never see the difference. For the macro stuff then possibly if you print big or heavy crop, then you might get an advantage, but the differences will always be small in your particular shooting situation.

It is very easy to get swept up in the excitement of a new release without really analyzing what kind of difference any particular addition will make to our own personal shooting. In your particular case I'd think the money would be better put into almost anything else.


----------



## Mantadude (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> It will never be worse, but on web output you will never see the difference. For the macro stuff then possibly if you print big or heavy crop, then you might get an advantage, but the differences will always be small in your particular shooting situation.
> 
> It is very easy to get swept up in the excitement of a new release without really analyzing what kind of difference any particular addition will make to our own personal shooting. In your particular case I'd think the money would be better put into almost anything else.



I think there are a couple things that are compelling...The Autofocus is much better the mark II. Which can yield more keepers for sure. And the Megapixels could be advantageous for cropping and printing large. ISO performance is slightly better than the Mark II as well. Ideally, I would like to be in the 36 megapix range, but thats not what is being offered. I don't need fps. And I don't need great low light capability.

I'm not sold on it yet. I have preorderd it just to get in line, but can easily cancel it. Another thing that is nice, is that I could pick up a used underwater housing because it is the same form factor as the MkIII. Thats why choosing a camera is so critical, I not only have to buy the camera but a $4000 housing that generally only works with 1 camera...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

Mantadude said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It will never be worse, but on web output you will never see the difference. For the macro stuff then possibly if you print big or heavy crop, then you might get an advantage, but the differences will always be small in your particular shooting situation.
> ...



In your situation the 5D MkIII seems to make more sense, yes the 5D MkII AF is not good, but the MkIII is, the iso is much better etc etc. 

The rumours of the 5D MkIV are for latter this year as well, so if you are not in too much of a rush it might be interesting to see what that might bring to the table.


----------



## Mantadude (Mar 28, 2015)

In your situation the 5D MkIII seems to make more sense, yes the 5D MkII AF is not good, but the MkIII is, the iso is much better etc etc. 

The rumours of the 5D MkIV are for latter this year as well, so if you are not in too much of a rush it might be interesting to see what that might bring to the table.
[/quote]

I am planning on getting the 5d IV assuming it has 4k video (I'm the video guy). My wife is the photo person. which is who the 5dsr would be for. 
While the 5dIII is cheap, I don't want to invest that kind of money into old tech.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

Mantadude said:


> In your situation the 5D MkIII seems to make more sense, yes the 5D MkII AF is not good, but the MkIII is, the iso is much better etc etc.
> 
> The rumours of the 5D MkIV are for latter this year as well, so if you are not in too much of a rush it might be interesting to see what that might bring to the table.



I am planning on getting the 5d IV assuming it has 4k video (I'm the video guy). My wife is the photo person. which is who the 5dsr would be for. 
While the 5dIII is cheap, I don't want to invest that kind of money into old tech.
[/quote]

It is exactly the same tech as the 5DSR! 

You sound like you are trying to make reasons to buy a 5DSR, you don't need any, buy one because you want to. Don't, however, buy one thinking it will make a difference to your images, it almost certainly won't.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 29, 2015)

sanj said:


> So many photographers on this forum are saying that with the 5ds, due to its high mp, the photos run a risk of being shaken/soft. They saying - "tripod is a must."



By now you've read privatebydesign's responses, I hope. Let me just add that unless 50mp is significantly different from 36mp - people said the same things about the D800 when it was new - depending on your technique and what you're shooting and under what conditions, a tripod may not be a must; I never use one with my Sony a7r (presumably one will be less necessary when its successor with IBIS comes along later this year), and I disregard Roger Cicala's warning to renters not to shoot at f/1.4 (I sometimes go as wide as f.95 on my a7r). But you probably won't want to casually shoot one-handed and then go home and view the results at 100%....


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2015)

sdsr said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > So many photographers on this forum are saying that with the 5ds, due to its high mp, the photos run a risk of being shaken/soft. They saying - "tripod is a must."
> ...



+1

I recently printed a 44x66" print for a gallery showing, shot with D800e and stabilized 200mm lens, handheld, at 1/6 second, 3200 iso.

it is acceptably sharp, even with a little NR applied.

YMMV


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 29, 2015)

Mantadude said:


> I have been considering the 5DsR for Underwater photography. Let's say my typical settings are 160 ISO, f11, and 1/200th shutter. Being underwater and no tripod, do you think I am going to benefit from the megapixel increase? I am currently shooting with a 5d mark II, and would like a better autofocus system, along with some more pix to crop out unwanted bubbles, fins of other diver etc, while still being able to print large. Normally don't shoot over 640.
> 
> Another thing to think about will this introduce a ton of backscatter? Backscatter is particles in the water illuminated by the strobes. Always a problem for underwater shooters.
> 
> ...



Also consider the UW housing ports, which are not made as true optical elements, so have comparatively speaking a lot of irregularities in them. For macro with a flat piece of glass, you get just a bit of magnification. With WA, and even much worse with WA zooms, all hell breaks loose optically. There are few lenses that can resolve the 4 µm pixels, and by adding a blur filter (aka port glass) in front of the lens is further decreasing optical resolution of lens plus port system. 

Furthermore, you say to typically shoot at f/11, but diffraction blur sets in at f/6.7 on a 4 µm sensor body. 2 F-stops over introduces visible blur. You can try that today with MPE 65 if you shoot at 5:1 at f/11 (effective f-stop 66) and compare to f/5.6 (effective f/stop 33.6).

If you really want to get 50 MP UW images, you may have to go medium format.
With 5ds you will get larger files, but that's about it. I very much doubt that you will get more information. 
You also did not specify what your output format usually is, or what you are targeting. That is a critical factor in the 20 vs. 50 MP decision.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 29, 2015)

Even with today's cameras, tripod and mirror lock-up are beneficial. So really nothing too new with 5ds. It is more of a question of degree. 

If you plan on posting on Facebook, no change necessary because of the massive downsampling. For that, however, a 5ds is pointless overkill.
If you want to print every last pixel, you want to be very careful.
Another way of looking at motion blur is with angular movement. That is where the old longest handheld time = 1/focal length comes from. It is not a fixed time, but relative to the collecting angle of the lens. With smaller pixels, it takes a smaller amount of angular movement to move an object point off the target pixel. Given that the angular movement is a linear measurement vs. pixel count is an areal measurement, the comparable linear difference of the two bodies is 50/20exp0.5 = 1.6. For a bit of safety margin, round that to 1/(2 x focal length). No guarantee, but a reasonable first approximation.

If you are not accustomed to shooting on tripod, maybe 5ds is not for you. Or you can look at it as an opportunity to learn a new style. I got heavily influenced after doing large format, where tripod is non-negotiable. Since then I shoot much more on tripod also with SLRs.


----------



## photonius (Mar 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about all this and these seem to come from confusion over, or ignoring, viewing conditions.
> 
> First off, you need to set your viewing criteria, are you going to judge at 100% view, or are you going to judge at same image size? Common sense would indicate he latter, after all, if we 'Fill Screen' with one, surely we would do that with the other? If we wanted a 18"x24" print we want that from both, right?
> 
> ...


Exactly, the shake will always be 0.1% of the image, or whatever it happens to be, whatever the sensor size. However, the whole point now is that people want to pixel peep to get the last bit out of their 50Mps (doesn't even matter whether FF or crop), they want to have more than the 10, 18, 24 Mps, they want to see that pixel sharp. But because your shake now covers more pixel with the higher density, it becomes more visible. 
Is it a fair comparison? If you have your postersize 1 meter and stand 1 meter away, it will perhaps not matter. But for those people who take then a magnifying lens and stand 10cm from the 1meter poster, it will.


----------



## sanj (Apr 6, 2015)

The fact that Canon has reduced mirror slap vibration in these cameras must mean something. Or perhaps that is a progression in mechanics and will filter down to all new models. Perhaps..


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 6, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Even with today's cameras, tripod and mirror lock-up are beneficial. So really nothing too new with 5ds. It is more of a question of degree.



+1, there's really nothing wrong with using mlu, and that always has to be better than a reduced mirror vibration.

Btw Magic Lantern implements a very nice "handheld mlu" mode, basically it's delaying the shutter release for a second after you press the button so shake from you disturbing the camera a bit (by the very act of shutterpress) is gone.



privatebydesign said:


> You sound like you are trying to make reasons to buy a 5DSR, you don't need any, buy one because you want to. Don't, however, buy one thinking it will make a difference to your images, it almost certainly won't.



With this attitude, you're the doom of enthusiasts' forums like CR ... people want and need the hope that you can get better shots simply putting money on the table :->


----------



## sanj (Apr 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mantadude said:
> 
> 
> > In your situation the 5D MkIII seems to make more sense, yes the 5D MkII AF is not good, but the MkIII is, the iso is much better etc etc.
> ...



It is exactly the same tech as the 5DSR! 

You sound like you are trying to make reasons to buy a 5DSR, you don't need any, buy one because you want to. Don't, however, buy one thinking it will make a difference to your images, it almost certainly won't.
[/quote]

Why on earth would anyone want to buy 5ds/r if it does not make a difference to the images? There has to be some improvement or Canon would not make it. See, I am trying to convince myself as well. 

When the 5d3 came out everyone said (almost rightly) that besides the autofocus, the images would look the same. All in focus pictures DO look the same. But we all bought the 5d3 and never looked back.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mantadude said:
> ...



Why on earth would anyone want to buy 5ds/r if it does not make a difference to the images? There has to be some improvement or Canon would not make it. See, I am trying to convince myself as well. 

When the 5d3 came out everyone said (almost rightly) that besides the autofocus, the images would look the same. *All in focus pictures DO look the same. But we all bought the 5d3 and never looked back.*
[/quote]

I didn't, I didn't need the new AF system for a FF so I still use the 5D II. 
However if the 5D III would have been manual focus and 50mp I would have pre-ordered one at release.


----------



## kunza (Apr 6, 2015)

Okay, If all of the above is true, (and I certainly can't dispute it), why, when the Canon Powershot models go as low as 1.34 micron pixel pitch can I still get a sharp hand held photo. My 7D2 has 4.08 micron pixels and it delivers sharp photos and the 5Ds has slightly larger (4.13 microns) than the 7D2. I'm confused. Help me out here.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2015)

kunza said:


> Okay, If all of the above is true, (and I certainly can't dispute it), why, when the Canon Powershot models go as low as 1.34 micron pixel pitch can I still get a sharp hand held photo. My 7D2 has 4.08 micron pixels and it delivers sharp photos and the 5Ds has slightly larger (4.13 microns) than the 7D2. I'm confused. Help me out here.



The focal length lenses used on your Powershot are so short, and the magnification so low due to the small sensor size, that any movement is not magnified as much - literally. 

Also you have a much greater depth of field for a given framing.


----------

