# Is a brand new 32.5mp APS-C sensor from Canon on the way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2019)

> There has been a flurry of sensor talk over the last few weeks, though we haven’t posted much about it because most of it cannot be confirmed with any sort of certainty.
> We’re now told that a brand new 32.5mp APS-C sensor is slated to arrive in an EOS M camera as well as in a DSLR sometime in 2019. This comes shortly after being told that an all-new 24mp APS-C sensor was on the way.
> The source claims they’re “100% certain” that this sensor is coming in 2019.
> I cannot confirm this information, so please take it with a grain of salt. It is rated [CR1].



Continue reading...


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Apr 19, 2019)

Why don't CaNikon give big, bright 100% magnification OVFs for their top of the line APS-C bodies? That will be a really useful upgrade! Such EVFs are already available from PanyOly and Fuji on their action focused cameras.


----------



## Joules (Apr 19, 2019)

Seems pretty legit to me. Looks like the sensor that was registered along with the RP and it makes a ton of sense.

Scaled up to full frame, this yields a 83 MP sensor. Which may well be what the 70+ sensor for the high res R camera is going to be.

And this 32 MP sensor is for the M5 and 80D/7D replacements. I personally find that much more interesting than all the R and RP related topics. I mean, would Canon really push resolution this aggressively, seeing as they already struggle so much with sensor speed? Looks to me like a sign that they are changing something about that issue and want to exploit it by going all out on resolution.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 19, 2019)

If this is true, does it mean I can register on a Sony forum and complain about Sony recycling 24mp sensors? _That's it! I'm leaving for Canon! _


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 19, 2019)

The existing sensor is plenty of MP, but many if not most buyers of entry level cameras still think that the number of photosites is the key thing to consider in selecting a camera. 

Camera sellers usually know what the competition is doing, so look for similar high resolution sensors in Sony and Nikon. bodies this year.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 19, 2019)

Yeah, I'm not sold on this for a variety of reasons. I wrote about it on our site. Personally, I think it's too high for one leap with DIGIC 8 and 180nm fabrication.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 19, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I so hope this is for the M5 coming. Add IBIS and I will have my M5 I have been looking to get so I can use my FD and older Canon lenses. Many are beautifully compact and the excellent FD/FL 100-200mm f5.6 would look (and work) great on the M5.


----------



## BrightTiger (Apr 19, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The existing sensor is plenty of MP, but many if not most buyers of entry level cameras


The M5 was and is clearly intended as the mirrorless sibling of the 80D and actually represented the first but quiet transition of merging the 7Dx line and x0D line, that Canon has recently opened up to. Look at the specs of the 80D and M5 and it is quite clear just from specs that in a number of ways the M5 exceeded the 80D (e.g. 50% higher display resolution) for as little it conceded to the 80D (Canon could not completely cut the legs out from the 80D). Assuming Canon is moving forward with the merging of the 7Dx line and x0D line, then an even higher spec'd M5 II makes sense (along with a bump in price). 
TLDR: The M5 is not really meant as an entry level camera, given the M50 and M100. a 32.5 MP would be great even if Canon did not significantly improve the ISO (Canon: you better) from the sheer fact that, like the A7R II/III, you can use that bigger image to downsize back to a 20+ MP image where the noise is reduced by downsampling.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 19, 2019)

I can see wildlife shooters excited but that's too many MP for APS-C IMO. Give us an improved 24mp sensor with overall better performance.


----------



## sdz (Apr 19, 2019)

Joules said:


> Seems pretty legit to me. Looks like the sensor that was registered along with the RP and it makes a ton of sense.
> 
> Scaled up to full frame, this yields a 83 MP sensor. Which may well be what the 70+ sensor for the high res R camera is going to be.
> 
> And this 32 MP sensor is for the M5 and 80D/7D replacements. I personally find that much more interesting than all the R and RP related topics. I mean, would Canon really push resolution this aggressively, seeing as they already struggle so much with sensor speed? Looks to me like a sign that they are changing something about that issue and want to exploit it by going all out on resolution.



A new sensor platform and new processers will appear -- eventually. Soon, I suspect.


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 19, 2019)

Thanks, but no thanks.

24Mpx is enough for me. More mpx means storage headaches as I need more hardware to store the images.
I'm all for quality improvements.


----------



## Juangrande (Apr 19, 2019)

tarjei99 said:


> Thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> 24Mpx is enough for me. More mpx means storage headaches as I need more hardware to store the images.
> I'm all for quality improvements.


If your having storage problems with 24mp crop sensor files you need to upgrade that 1990’s computer hardware your using


----------



## woodman411 (Apr 19, 2019)

tarjei99 said:


> Thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> 24Mpx is enough for me. More mpx means storage headaches as I need more hardware to store the images.
> I'm all for quality improvements.



Why not use Canon's excellent compressed raw (cr3's)? They are only 15-19 MB's (on the 30MP EOS R) and as tdp analysis showed, there is very little degradation over uncompressed.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 19, 2019)

I am a nature & wildlife shooter, so I have a bias. If we are truly getting new sensor technology, here is my wish list: 

Keep the 24-26 mp range for both the M5 II and x0D
Deliver image quality comparable to my 1dxII or 5dIV
ISO performance equal to or surpass my 1dxII
more dynamic range would be nice
Frame rate in the 12 FPS range with an unlimited RAW buffer
100% viewfinder
Single slot in the M5II, dual in the x0D.
Full sensor width video @4k 60fps, although I am not a video shooter
blazingly fast and accurate Eye AF (Human & animal)

I know I am asking more than will ever be delivered, but you can dream. I would love to have this camera in an M5 body so that I could throw it in the bag as a backup for my 1dxII. I would pay comparable prices for a Canon M5 II that meets or exceeds the Fuji X-T3 with my Canon lenses. I like my M5, but it certainly has its issues. 

David


----------



## Adelino (Apr 19, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> If this is true, does it mean I can register on a Sony forum and complain about Sony recycling 24mp sensors? _That's it! I'm leaving for Canon! _


You could but you would not because only Sony fan boys do something like that. ;-)


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 19, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> I am a nature & wildlife shooter, so I have a bias. If we are truly getting new sensor technology, here is my wish list:
> 
> Keep the 24-26 mp range for both the M5 II and x0D
> Deliver image quality comparable to my 1dxII or 5dIV
> ...



"ISO performance equal to or surpass my 1dxII"

This can't and won't happen. Unless they make an 8MP sensor. 

What i want is an improved 24-26 MP sensor which produces sharp images. I feel the current 7DII is somewhat soft.


----------



## WilliamJ (Apr 19, 2019)

If the pixel density is the same as the new R, this might imply an 83.2MP EOS R high res model?


----------



## Proscribo (Apr 19, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> This can't and won't happen. Unless they make an 8MP sensor.


Neither would that help, the sensor would still be a lot smaller than the one in 1DXII and the tech isn't that much newer.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 19, 2019)

WilliamJ said:


> If the pixel density is the same as the new R, this might imply an 83.2MP EOS R high res model?


At some point, more megapixels will become a negative for many buyers. I don’t know where that point is for the typical high Rez buyer, but at 70+ megapixels, i’m there.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 19, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> "ISO performance equal to or surpass my 1dxII"
> 
> This can't and won't happen. Unless they make an 8MP sensor.
> 
> What i want is an improved 24-26 MP sensor which produces sharp images. I feel the current 7DII is somewhat soft.



I didn't see my 7dII as being soft, but the image degraded as you hit ISO 800 and above. Yes, I know it was not too bad in bright daylight but poor light conditions seriously impacted the image.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 19, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> Neither would that help, the sensor would still be a lot smaller than the one in 1DXII and the tech isn't that much newer.



As I said, it is a dream. I am getting older and would like to scale back on the heavy gear (1dx II + 200-400, etc.), but I just can't give up the high ISO capability of my 1dx II and the image quality produced by the big whites. I would much prefer that Canon use new tech to improve higher ISO & overall image quality rather than getting into a mpix race. I hope they are not following the strategy of keeping the performance the same and just adding more megapixels. It gets down to what is the point matching the MP spec of Sony/Nikon if you don't equal the performance.


----------



## neonlight (Apr 19, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What i want is an improved 24-26 MP sensor which produces sharp images. I feel the current 7DII is somewhat soft.


As a 7DII user, that is what I would like too. 24MP is enough if it were sharp. Many have said that the softness of the 7DII is due to the AA filter. I've written to Canon too to ask for noAAF, I'd really be pleased if it competed with the N**** D500, but I've got too much Canon glass to change.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 19, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> If this is true, does it mean I can register on a Sony forum and complain about Sony recycling 24mp sensors? _That's it! I'm leaving for Canon! _


Nobody, absolutely nobody is allowed to criticize Wonderful Sony!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 19, 2019)

neonlight said:


> As a 7DII user, that is what I would like too. 24MP is enough if it were sharp. Many have said that the softness of the 7DII is due to the AA filter. I've written to Canon too to ask for noAAF, I'd really be pleased if it competed with the N**** D500, but I've got too much Canon glass to change.



Yes, i think so too. At the moment i like images from all manufacturers better, Fuji, Sony and Nikon. But Canon's lens selection is still unmatched, especially in the tele range.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 19, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, i think so too. At the moment i like images from all manufacturers better, Fuji, Sony and Nikon. But Canon's lens selection is still unmatched, especially in the tele range.


Yes I'd agree too as I move up in ISO the 7DII image gets more and more squidgy. I've like a better quality 24MP rather than even more Megapixels.


----------



## jvillain (Apr 19, 2019)

This rumor makes more sense than the new 24MP one. But I also agree that 32.5 doesn't sound like Canon unless there is an RF mount APS-C coming and a replacement for the 5D IV is coming with a densor sensor. I suspect some thing more like 28MP. Time will tell.


----------



## hoodlum (Apr 19, 2019)

32mp would be fine if the sensor finally reached same IQ as Sony sensors. The pixel density would be the same as the latest 20mp m43 senor and you can always downscale back to 24mp for less noise while having greater detail when required.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 19, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> ISO performance equal to or surpass my 1dxII
> more dynamic range would be nice
> Frame rate in the 12 FPS range with an unlimited RAW buffer
> Full sensor width video @4k 60fps, although I am not a video shooter


Well...

The 7DII shoots ~10fps, though far from an unlimited RAW buffer. A new x0D might not even match that, and will take another iteration at least to reach that (so, maybe by 2022-ish?)

I'll be kind and say Canon saw about a stop high ISO noise reduction between the 60D and 80D (in ~6 years). So to get your 1DX performance, you're talking maybe 2030.

There's no indication we're getting uncropped 4k in any Canon body that doesnt say CINE going forward, and both sensor size and processing speed say Canon isnt putting 4k60 in any <$5k camera in the next gen cameras either. I'd be willing to bet Canon stops making APS-C DSLRs (and moves all mirrorless) before they put 4k60fps in one.

Fuji's the only company making something close to what you want in APS-C (in terms of fast shooting and 4k60), and Sony's a7 III is about as close as you'll get in terms of DR/ISO and fast shooting in any sized sensor.


----------



## mpb001 (Apr 19, 2019)

I am not sure how they are going to push a 30+ MP crop sensor without it generating more noise at higher ISOs. Maybe they have some magic up their sleeve or its marketing. I personally think that Canon would be better off refining a 24 MP sensor or even a 20MP sensor if it would have fantastic low light capability.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Apr 20, 2019)

Are the EOS M zooms up to the challenge of resolving 32.5MP? I'm honestly curious, not trolling EOS M. I know there's a couple of excellent primes in that system: 22mm F/2, 28mm F/3.5 Macro, and the new 32mm F/1.4 - and those could handle 32.5MP without any issues I'm sure, but are the variable aperture zooms (the bulk of the EOS M system) capable of resolving that level of detail?


----------



## Randywayne (Apr 20, 2019)

neonlight said:


> As a 7DII user, that is what I would like too. 24MP is enough if it were sharp. Many have said that the softness of the 7DII is due to the AA filter. I've written to Canon too to ask for noAAF, I'd really be pleased if it competed with the N**** D500, but I've got too much Canon glass to change.



I shot with a 7D II for a few years as well and always felt like less than half of the pictures I took were ever "acceptably" sharp and VERY few were tack sharp. (My 5D IV is MUCH better!) It does seem like the AA filter should take much of the blame but also felt like I had a less than stellar copy of the camera since so many photos just seemed to miss focus completely.

My dream camera would be to take my a7III and drop it in the 7D II's tank like body -along with the Canon interface.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 20, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Are the EOS M zooms up to the challenge of resolving 32.5MP? I'm honestly curious, not trolling EOS M. I know there's a couple of excellent primes in that system: 22mm F/2, 28mm F/3.5 Macro, and the new 32mm F/1.4 - and those could handle 32.5MP without any issues I'm sure, but are the variable aperture zooms (the bulk of the EOS M system) capable of resolving that level of detail?



Why every lens need to resolve the maximum? If a zoom is only good for 24MP on the 32MP sensor, why is that worse than having a 24MP. At least you have an option to have higher resolution with a prime, a macro lens or high-end zoom.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 20, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Are the EOS M zooms up to the challenge of resolving 32.5MP? I'm honestly curious, not trolling EOS M. I know there's a couple of excellent primes in that system: 22mm F/2, 28mm F/3.5 Macro, and the new 32mm F/1.4 - and those could handle 32.5MP without any issues I'm sure, but are the variable aperture zooms (the bulk of the EOS M system) capable of resolving that level of detail?


No lens will resolve 32.5MP on a 32.5MP sensor. Resolution is roughly the product of the constituent elements. Improving one improves the whole.


----------



## bgoyette (Apr 20, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> At some point, more megapixels will become a negative for many buyers. I don’t know where that point is for the typical high Rez buyer, but at 70+ megapixels, i’m there.


I made several 40x60 and 44x65 inch landscapes for a client this week and 50mp is still holding on pretty well. I'm pretty happy with 50, and would probably take a little more DR and less shadow noise over more resolution, but I don't see an end, at least personally till we get into the triple digits.


----------



## bgoyette (Apr 20, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> No lens will resolve 32.5MP on a 32.5MP sensor. Resolution is roughly the product of the constituent elements. Improving one improves the whole.


There are theoretical maximums for any pixel pitch and most of the best manufacturers produce lenses that meet (and exceed) those numbers in the center of the lens. I've yet to see a quality lens that isn't improved by a better sensor...we're not at the point where the best sensors are outpacing the best lenses.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 20, 2019)

If they actually release it, 32mp APS-C might make a good lightweight secondary landscape camera for hiking, providing it has a good DR. In fact it may become the only landscape camera for a lot of people.
But I suspect its DR will be around 80D, not 5DIV.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 20, 2019)

bgoyette said:


> we're not at the point where the best sensors are outpacing the best lenses.



Right, that’s a nonsensical situation. Making the lens better or the sensor better increases system resolution; as a whole it approaches the weakest link.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 20, 2019)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> Why don't CaNikon give big, bright 100% magnification OVFs for their top of the line APS-C bodies? That will be a really useful upgrade! Such EVFs are already available from PanyOly and Fuji on their action focused cameras.


Doesn't 7DII have just such an OVF?

100% magnification high quality bright OVF in the form of solid glass polished pentaprism is very costly, requires very precise adjustment during manufacturing process and is heavy. Only top class camera with a price tag to match can have it. The rest will have do with cheap pentaprism and smaller coverage and lower magnification.

In the mirrorless world all of these problems go away. EVF is opto-mechanically trivial, has 100% coverage with no adjustment by definition and brightness is adjusted electronically. Also the mirror dissapears and with it complex separate AF and AE sensors.

This is why we probably won't see 7DII replacement.

Please also note that other technical trade offs have changed. With the elimination of OVF, continued improvement of EVFs, falling prices of sensors and higher density of electronics the price difference in manufacturing an APS-C or full frame body becomes rather small. Hence, I think that the APS-C cameras will slowly fade away. 

Around year 2000 there were full frame film SLRs on the market for about $500 for a body.

I think that in about 5-7 years we'll see a return of a full fram, interchangeable lenses camera body for about $500. 

By this time the cameras will have electronic shutter. Thus they will no longer have any complex optical or mechanical parts in them except perhaps for sensor stabilisation. It will be all electronics. The only opto-mechanical components of complexity will be in lenses. And we know that electronics can be miniutarised, integrated and manufactured cheaply on automatic production lines. Camera bodies will become cheaper.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 20, 2019)

Randywayne said:


> I shot with a 7D II for a few years as well and always felt like less than half of the pictures I took were ever "acceptably" sharp and VERY few were tack sharp. (My 5D IV is MUCH better!) It does seem like the AA filter should take much of the blame but also felt like I had a less than stellar copy of the camera since so many photos just seemed to miss focus completely.
> 
> My dream camera would be to take my a7III and drop it in the 7D II's tank like body -along with the Canon interface.



I felt the same way about the original 7D. An amazing camera in every respect but it was let down by a very poor sensor. In some ways the 7D paved the way for Canon's next gen AF system and pretty much led to the host of pro-body upgrades that led to the 5DmkIII. But I was never particularly happy with the image quality. Sure, I got some great images from it but I found the images noisier and softer than any other Canon DSLR I've owned and the RAW files couldn't take a lot of processing. But every thing else about the camera was amazing. Even at 400 iso I found noise every where. So I passed on the 7DII, which seemed to have similar issues. I loved the extra reach that the 1.6x crop offered and on paper the camera looked like a very capable 1DxII lite...but the image quality wasn't in the same league. 
Instead I went for a pair of 5DIII's and haven't looked back. Still using them today....sure I'd like to upgrade to a pair of 5D4's but the mkIII's are still working well for me.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 20, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Doesn't 7DII have just such an OVF?
> 
> 100% magnification high quality bright OVF in the form of solid glass polished pentaprism is very costly, requires very precise adjustment during manufacturing process and is heavy. Only top class camera with a price tag to match can have it. The rest will have do with cheap pentaprism and smaller coverage and lower magnification.
> 
> ...



Yes I agree, I still think that there will always be a market for a 5Dx range of DSLR with it's mirror box and optical view finder. Some photographers (like me) will always prefer an optical view finder over an EVF. I think the fact that ef lenses work on both EF and RF mounts is an important feature going forwards. It opens up a photographer to both systems and allows both strengths to be utilised. But the 1.6x crop sensor range is a different market entirely. Price and size are paramount considerations. I can't see anyone choosing an higher priced OVF over an EVF especially considering the slew of XXXD users that have only one or two f5.6 zooms.

It's a curious thought that when Mr Lecia invented the 35mm format, he built it as a range finder design. The SLR mirror box / penta prism came later. It seems that the mirror less design is going back to what Mr Lecia originally designed or intended. His format was based on the 35mm film stock, so he could use the cheap film stock in a stills camera. Kind of funny to think of a 35mm camera as a cheap format. With a advent of movie modes in most modern DSLR's....things really have returned to their origins. The Eos R has pretty much become the Digital version of Lecia's original dream.


----------



## degos (Apr 20, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Kind of funny to think of a 35mm camera as a cheap format.




Oh no, 35mm was always the butt of jokes by the medium-format brigade. And then even within the 35mm community we negative-shooters were considered cheap happy-snappers by the slide-shooters who felt that they were doing Proper Archival Work.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 20, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's a curious thought that when Mr Lecia invented the 35mm format, he built it as a range finder design. The SLR mirror box / penta prism came later. It seems that the mirror less design is going back to what Mr Lecia originally designed or intended. His format was based on the 35mm film stock, so he could use the cheap film stock in a stills camera. Kind of funny to think of a 35mm camera as a cheap format. With a advent of movie modes in most modern DSLR's....things really have returned to their origins. The Eos R has pretty much become the Digital version of Lecia's original dream.



Small correction. 
The original Leica 35mm camera was invented in 1913 by Oskar Barnack. The original idea was to have small sturdy camera for landscape photography when hiking. No cumbersome bellows. The price to pay was the need for enlargement for very small negative.

Serial production commenced only in 1925 at Ernst Leitz Optische Werke in Wetzlar, Germany. All settings were manual of course, including focus set up by just guessing the distance to your object. 

The first Leica with a rangefinder (Leica II) appeared only in 1932. Things were moving slowly then. 

The real first 35mm format SLR was the Ihagee Kine Exakta, produced in 1936 in Germany. This camera used a waist-level finder with upside down image.

The SLRs with pentaprism appeared on the market in 1948 (Rectaflex) and 1949 (Contax S). Purely mechanical of course.

For those interested:

*








Leica Camera - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org













History of the single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




*


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 20, 2019)

squareroot(32.5/24) = 1.16 - so a 16% improvement in linear resolution. Is that worth a new image size, smaller photosites, the need to open you aperture a little bit more to exploit the resolution gain, record more lens aberrations in you images instead of more detail. I don't know. I see no real "profit" in terms of IQ simply by increasing the number of the pixels by such a small margin, 48 MPix would make more sense to gain twice the area for final prints in terms of "same lateral resolution increase by sqareroot(2)".

Because video is not as good compared to other companies offers it may have to do with a ~ 4655 x 6982 pixel sensor layout - perhaps Canon found some better ratios between photsites and movie image pixels in HD / FullHD / UltraHD ? I don't see any pattern which makes click in my brain (as a 7680 pixel width would do)

Another idea is a hybrid IBIS which compensates for lateral movements via sensor readout but does rotation via actors to reduce the heat development by the IBIS system - but moving the readout frame by 10% means that you leave the image circle for EF-M and EF-S lenses ... but not with EF lenses ...


----------



## Joules (Apr 20, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> squareroot(32.5/24) = 1.16 - so a 16% improvement in linear resolution. Is that worth a new image size, smaller photosites, the need to open you aperture a little bit more to exploit the resolution gain, record more lens aberrations in you images instead of more detail. I don't know. [...]
> 
> Because video is not as good compared to other companies offers it may have to do with a ~ 4655 x 6982 pixel sensor layout


Might allow for some internal 6k video readout with a good margin for digital IS and downscaling to 4k. I doubt we'll see that though, ubless these crop bodies are priced closer to the R than the RP.

If you want to argue that just from a rwlative point of view the increase doesn't natter, you could do so for any recent Canon release. The resolution increase was always very similar, if you just look at the relative numbers:

24 to 32 = 1.33 (80D to 90D?)
18 to 24 = 1.33 (60D to 80D)
22 to 30 = 1,36 (5D III to 5D IV)
20 to 26 = 1,30 (6D to 6D II)

The sensor of the 70D/7D II doesn't match that patteen, neither does the 1DX II. I guess beeing the first dual pixel sensor and prioritzing high fps over resolution will have something to do with it.

Looks to me like Canon thinks a just over 1.3 increase in resolution is enough to benefit the market, seeing as it is the increase they went for with all but their niche cameras. I certainly appreciate the difference between my 600D (T3i) and 80D.

You can also look at higher MP as bringing the point closer, where diffraction handles the job of the low pass filter, making it truly unneccessary.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> squareroot(32.5/24) = 1.16 - so a 16% improvement in linear resolution. Is that worth a new image size, smaller photosites, the need to open you aperture a little bit more to exploit the resolution gain, record more lens aberrations in you images instead of more detail. I don't know. I see no real "profit" in terms of IQ simply by increasing the number of the pixels by such a small margin, 48 MPix would make more sense to gain twice the area for final prints in terms of "same lateral resolution increase by sqareroot(2)".
> 
> Because video is not as good compared to other companies offers it may have to do with a ~ 4655 x 6982 pixel sensor layout - perhaps Canon found some better ratios between photsites and movie image pixels in HD / FullHD / UltraHD ? I don't see any pattern which makes click in my brain (as a 7680 pixel width would do)
> 
> Another idea is a hybrid IBIS which compensates for lateral movements via sensor readout but does rotation via actors to reduce the heat development by the IBIS system - but moving the readout frame by 10% means that you leave the image circle for EF-M and EF-S lenses ... but not with EF lenses ...


If you are reach limited with telephotos, every small increase helps. A 600mm lens with a 1.16x linear resolution is equivalent to a 700mm lens. For me, that is worthwhile and I would welcome it.

To put it in perspective, a 1.4xTC gives only a 20% increase over a 1.16x increase in pixel resolution, and that comes with a degradation of IQ from the glass in the TC, an amplification of aberrations from the lens, an ~30 loss of field of view, a stop loss of aperture so pushing up the iso or slowing down the shutter speed, and slowing down of the AF. My own experience for telephoto work is that increasing the pixel density is a better alternative to using a TC (though I do use both for much of the time!).


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 20, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Please also note that other technical trade offs have changed. With the elimination of OVF, continued improvement of EVFs, falling prices of sensors and higher density of electronics the price difference in manufacturing an APS-C or full frame body becomes rather small. Hence, I think that the APS-C cameras will slowly fade away.



Making a chip with 40% the surface area will always be cheaper, allow faster readout and smaller cheaper lenses (up to a certain focal length). I expect crop cameras to stay around for the same two markets - low end & sports.


----------



## analoggrotto (Apr 20, 2019)

Assuming there is a single camera user left on planet mfk'in earth after the next wave of Sony derangement syndrome hits this fall with the A7S-3.


----------



## caffetin (Apr 20, 2019)

i would say "JUST WAIT AND SEE".canon is not from yesterday.and sony is just problematic player at any technic. always.canon,nikon,fuji,leica are real photography producers since ever.and to be honest,how many of us are taking photos with iso above 1600 in real world. Martin Osner.Any problem with 5d iv.


----------



## koketso (Apr 20, 2019)

I'm anticipating an EF-M shake-up in 2019. I think Canon is possibly making an M7 with this sensor, which will launch alongside the M5 MkII that comes with a new 24-26MP sensor. Both these cameras will use the E-17 battery used by the current EOS RP, M5, M6, 250D.

*Canon M7:*
This M7 will be the EF-M flagship, effectively replace the 7D MkII, and add some weather-sealing as well as a top display. Such a camera will also make room for some new M-mount lenses down the line that wildlife shooters will appreciate since they will be a better fit for this larger M body. This will also be the first M camera with a battery grip option. Regardless, I expect the now patented EF-M 15-130mm f/3.5-6.3 to launch with this M7 as a kit option too. Metal mount of course, unlike the current 18-150mm. The M7 will be pricey, costing more than the EOS RP.

*Canon M5 MkII*
As for the next M5, it will come with a vari-angle screen, new 24-26MP sensor, and all the dials found on the existing M5. It won't be enough for existing M5 users to upgrade but it will seriously target the XT-3 and A6400 at $1300 with new 16mm-50mm kit lens. The elephants in the room will still be the lack of IBIS and cropped 4K but it will a nice upgrade for those looking to step up from an M50.

*Photokina 2020:*

90D with the new 32mp sensor, still a DSLR with headphone jack
M6 MkII
M200
Wide angle EF-M prime
50mm EF-M prime without IS but hopefully with f/1.4


----------



## dpc (Apr 20, 2019)

I notice a number of comments about the sharpness, or lack thereof, of the 7DMll. I’ve been using one for several years along with a 5DMll and Fuji X-T10. Quite frankly, I find the sharpness of the 7D more than sufficient. I don’t find softness an issue at all. This is a matter of personal perception, I guess. I would prefer a camera with an AA filter. On the other hand, I’m ambivalent about the files coming from the Fuji. They sometimes have an unnatural “graphic” quality to them that I find unpleasant. Each to his/her own.


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 20, 2019)

caffetin said:


> i would say "JUST WAIT AND SEE".canon is not from yesterday.and sony is just problematic player at any technic. always.canon,nikon,fuji,leica are real photography producers since ever.and to be honest,how many of us are taking photos with iso above 1600 in real world. Martin Osner.Any problem with 5d iv.



I think the numbers shooting ISO 1600 or more might surprise you. Pretty much anyone shooting sports or wildlife will be pushing in the ISO 1600 range or greater.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 20, 2019)

32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.

When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> 32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.
> 
> When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
> What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?


It's one of the benefits of coughing up a large wad of cash for an f/4 telephoto. Even with an f/5.6 lens, like the 100-400mm II, there will be a benefit as the loss of resolution on going through the MTA is not a sharp cut off.

In one of my more geekish moments, I plotted the MTFs measured by ePhotozine and Opticallimits of the best lenses on the 5DSR vs f-number. On going from the DLA of 6.6 to f/8, there is only a loss of 3.5% in MTF50.


----------



## BillB (Apr 20, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> 32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.
> 
> When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
> What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?


I am sure there are a lot of people out there happily shooting their 24 mp aps-c cameras stopped down to f8.0 and beyond, not noticing the effect of diffraction limitations.


----------



## Pape (Apr 20, 2019)

Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 STM IS seems actually doing its best on f8 ,depends from lens quality too


----------



## crashpc (Apr 20, 2019)

Diffraction? Don´t give me that BS. Look at what sensors are mounted in mobile phones. Obviously, these are diffraction limited, but that means that 32Mpx APS-C sensor is nowhere near being diffraction limited. I compared my EOS M and EOS M6, and the difference was significant (small resolution difference considered). Right now, I sold my M, M6, and use my mums M100 I gave her. Any other camera needs to have more resolution in order to motivate me to buy it...


----------



## TAF (Apr 20, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Making a chip with 40% the surface area will always be cheaper, allow faster readout and smaller cheaper lenses (up to a certain focal length). I expect crop cameras to stay around for the same two markets - low end & sports.



Don't forget the "industrial" type uses, such as photo traffic enforcement (speed and red light cameras). They are typically APS-C units these days.


----------



## Whopper (Apr 20, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Small correction.
> The original Leica 35mm camera was invented in 1913 by Oskar Barnack. The original idea was to have small sturdy camera for landscape photography when hiking.
> ...


 -- Greetings from Germany.


----------



## slclick (Apr 20, 2019)

degos said:


> Oh no, 35mm was always the butt of jokes by the medium-format brigade. And then even within the 35mm community we negative-shooters were considered cheap happy-snappers by the slide-shooters who felt that they were doing Proper Archival Work.


Oh man, now you have me reminiscing for that color and contrast. Slide is such a treat yet a tough craft. Small amount of latitude but when you get it right it's rich and gorgeous. The queen of film.


----------



## BroncosFan (Apr 20, 2019)

Hopefully the MP count won’t be this high. It’s difficult enough to get a sharp image hand holding a large wildlife lens as it is. The higher resolution will only make this task more difficult. Not to mention noise will be equal to if not worse than current sensors. 26 and other image improvements is more than enough.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2019)

crashpc said:


> Diffraction? Don´t give me that BS. Look at what sensors are mounted in mobile phones. Obviously, these are diffraction limited, but that means that 32Mpx APS-C sensor is nowhere near being diffraction limited. I compared my EOS M and EOS M6, and the difference was significant (small resolution difference considered). Right now, I sold my M, M6, and use my mums M100 I gave her. Any other camera needs to have more resolution in order to motivate me to buy it...



Mobile phones are usually not diffraction limited as they have have very wide aperture lenses, like f/1.8 for the new iPhones, which is less than their DLA of f/2.25.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 20, 2019)

Why all the negativity about 33% more resolution? Canon has almost always been slightly less DR than Sony sensors while being slightly higher pixels. Somewhere around 5 years ago they missed knowing how big 4k video was going to be, and how popular mirrorless was going to get. But a new sensor design from the ground up takes time. The lack of truly new sensors in the past few years shows that most of their team are working on something else. This and the associated full frame version of this sensor will most likely be better than the current Sony sensors and probably as fast or faster too. However I'd expect the next generation of Sony to be faster yet.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 20, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> 32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.
> 
> When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
> What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?



It is always a battle between optical resolution from increasing the pixels vs diffraction. IMO ore pixels always wins (30D vs 7D vs 7D2) - unless you can show me the same image shot with high and low MP presented at the same viewing size that shows me any different.


----------



## Marximusprime (Apr 21, 2019)

dpc said:


> I notice a number of comments about the sharpness, or lack thereof, of the 7DMll. I’ve been using one for several years along with a 5DMll and Fuji X-T10. Quite frankly, I find the sharpness of the 7D more than sufficient. I don’t find softness an issue at all. This is a matter of personal perception, I guess. I would prefer a camera with an AA filter. On the other hand, I’m ambivalent about the files coming from the Fuji. They sometimes have an unnatural “graphic” quality to them that I find unpleasant. Each to his/her own.



Agreed. I've always found crappy lenses to be the limiting factor in the images I get from my 7D II. If the lens is sharp, the images will be sharp (the Tamron G2 70-200, Canon 100-400 MII, the Sigma 60-600, and the Canon 500 F4 II I just bought come to mind as being sharp lenses).


----------



## -pekr- (Apr 21, 2019)

koketso said:


> I'm anticipating an EF-M shake-up in 2019. I think Canon is possibly making an M7 with this sensor, which will launch alongside the M5 MkII that comes with a new 24-26MP sensor. Both these cameras will use the E-17 battery used by the current EOS RP, M5, M6, 250D.
> 
> *Canon M7:*
> This M7 will be the EF-M flagship, effectively replace the 7D MkII, and add some weather-sealing as well as a top display. Such a camera will also make room for some new M-mount lenses down the line that wildlife shooters will appreciate since they will be a better fit for this larger M body. This will also be the first M camera with a battery grip option. Regardless, I expect the now patented EF-M 15-130mm f/3.5-6.3 to launch with this M7 as a kit option too. Metal mount of course, unlike the current 18-150mm. The M7 will be pricey, costing more than the EOS RP.
> ...



There is imo no chance something like 7D III is going to happen in an EF-M mount. First - ergonomics / size aspects - you want your 7D III being larger than M5, right? Second - with EF-M, there is no upgrade path to the RF mount lens. I think that if something like the 7D III is going to be released one day, it is going to be the RF version. And once that happens, it is going to be the last nail in the coffin of an EF-M mount, not that it will die off, but anchoring it definitely in the hobby segment.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> If you are reach limited with telephotos, every small increase helps. A 600mm lens with a 1.16x linear resolution is equivalent to a 700mm lens. For me, that is worthwhile and I would welcome it.
> 
> To put it in perspective, *a 1.4xTC gives only a 20% increase over a 1.16x increase in pixel resolution,* and that comes with a degradation of IQ from the glass in the TC, an amplification of aberrations from the lens, an ~30 loss of field of view, a stop loss of aperture so pushing up the iso or slowing down the shutter speed, and slowing down of the AF. My own experience for telephoto work is that increasing the pixel density is a better alternative to using a TC (though I do use both for much of the time!).



A 1.4 TC is the same like DOUBLING the pixel count - it lifts a 600mm lens to a 960mm lens. Because the image area is blown up by a factor of 1.4² = 2 you loose 50% of the light per area = 1 stop. So a 1.4x TC is a 40% increase compared to the 16% increase from 24->32 MPixels.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 21, 2019)

BillB said:


> I am sure there are a lot of people out there happily shooting their 24 mp aps-c cameras stopped down to f8.0 and beyond, not noticing the effect of diffraction limitations.



Yes - for the web and e.g. 20x30cm prints. With the EF-M 32 you will see strong differences between f/5.6 and f/16. While with f/5.6 the lens is pixel perfect the resolution degrades to ~ 6MPix at f/16. Which is well enough for fine 20x30cm prints and maybe good enough for 30x40 prints.
If you want to print 100x150cm f/5.6 is the better choice with a 24MPix sensor and the above mentioned lens. But who prints 100x150cm ? I would like to do that but it is expensive and wall area is limited  
EDIT: And the number of photos who are worth artistically is much more limited ...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> A 1.4 TC is the same like DOUBLING the pixel count - it lifts a 600mm lens to a 960mm lens. Because the image area is blown up by a factor of 1.4² = 2 you loose 50% of the light per area = 1 stop. So a 1.4x TC is a 40% increase compared to the 16% increase from 24->32 MPixels.


You have misunderstood what I wrote: a 1.4x is a 20% increase over a 1.16x increase, by which I meant 1.4/1.16 = 1.2, in other words a 1.4 gives 20% more resolution than a 1.16!


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 21, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Yes - for the web and e.g. 20x30cm prints. With the EF-M 32 you will see strong differences between f/5.6 and f/16. While with f/5.6 the lens is pixel perfect the resolution degrades to ~ 6MPix at f/16. Which is well enough for fine 20x30cm prints and maybe good enough for 30x40 prints.
> If you want to print 100x150cm f/5.6 is the better choice with a 24MPix sensor and the above mentioned lens. But who prints 100x150cm ? I would like to do that but it is expensive and wall area is limited
> EDIT: And the number of photos who are worth artistically is much more limited ...



You shoot whatyou have to. If you are doing landscape f5.6 will probably give too little DOF - sometimes these diffraction comments ignore the necessities of the art and end up being purely philosophical.
Can you show me an image where a high-res sensor 'diffration limited' photo has less resolution than a lower-res sensor image that (in theory) is less 'diffraction limited'??


----------



## crashpc (Apr 21, 2019)

AlanF: Sony IMX 586, 1/2", f/2, 48Mpx. That makes it 1100Mpx for FF sensor area. That is pretty close to that point. I am not exactly going to argue the precise position of that point. It laso depends on what do you mean by the limit. I was arguing FOR more resolution, as dedicated cameras are nowhere near of being diffraction limited.

mb66energy: Teleconverters always have more losses than more pixels. There is glass in bitween, which "damages the image" to a point... Therefore if you had 1,4x more square amount of pixels, and just cutting the area, the outcome would be better than with TC.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 21, 2019)

crashpc said:


> mb66energy: Teleconverters always have more losses than more pixels. There is glass in bitween, which "damages the image" to a point... Therefore if you had 1,4x more square amount of pixels, and just cutting the area, the outcome would be better than with TC.



But that's not how photography works (or rather how photographers think) , is it? you could treble the pixels on a sensor and people would still put a teleconverter on it because they will want even more reach. Otherwise people like me who started with a 8MP 30D would never use a teleconverter because sensors are now 30MP.


----------



## FairlyKors (Apr 21, 2019)

Juangrande said:


> If your having storage problems with 24mp crop sensor files you need to upgrade that 1990’s computer hardware your using



If you shooter with the basic 1-bit per pixel JPEG setting it’s like a 2-3MB file, but push it to the HQ setting and add RAW, and your looking at 30MB plus per picture. That 10X increase is what most people who shoot for quality and flexibility are referring to when they talk about storage sizes getting out of hand. There’s also a tax on the processing bandwidth. If you’re not using a fast SSD system, all the handing off of from one program or process to the next plus DAM system requirements can easily slow down a decent modern laptop, tablet or PC/Mac.

If everyone got what they wanted, e.g., RAW 14-bit video and 80MP lossless RAW stills, only the über-anal with exacting data management and strict, regular culling and backup procedures would be left standing. The majority of users who want these high data-rate features would be not just running out of room, but they’d also be misplacing files, failing to back everything up, leaving files on memory cards, and totally plugging the toilet.

It’s easy to give in to the allure (and maybe it’s a totally justifiable endeavor) but a lot of people with 40MP to 50MP cameras and professional video cameras have dealt with it, and though it gets almost zero attention in gear reviews and the groping pat downs of new equipment, it’s just as important to msnGe as any other part of the process.

So I fully agree with a _better_ 24MP sensor on APS-C than a “new and improved” 33MP version. I think 20-24MP is the format’s reasonable upper limit anyway. Fujifilm’s new 26MP sensor doesn’t appear to provide any IQ improvements over the 24MP version—in fact it seems to take a small hit.

To me 32.5MP looks like the result of achieving an 8K video spec more than it does optimizing still photo quality. And given Canon’s refusal to give their photo cameras real full sensor 4K, this appears to be destined for a Cinema EOS camera anyway, so if this comes to a photo camera I’d be weary of the hype—since you might be taking one for the pro video team rather than scoring yourself a real upgrade.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 21, 2019)

Mikehit: Sure! That wasn´t the point though. There was a claim with this meaning: "You are better off putting on the TC, instead of more pixels". No. More pixels are better, and more pixels with good TC are even better. But we already have teleconverters. We do not have pixels available to us :-D 
You have a good point with photographers thinking though. It is not that easy to pick the right amount of zoom,magnification and pixels to "general random photography". You never know how wide angle of view you need to catch the right image. Sometimes it is too little, sometimes it is too much. That´s where more pixels help to a certain point, because you will end up with "more pixels on the bird" so to speak.


----------



## FairlyKors (Apr 21, 2019)

crashpc said:


> AlanF: Sony IMX 586, 1/2", f/2, 48Mpx. That makes it 1100Mpx for FF sensor area. That is pretty close to that point. I am not exactly going to argue the precise position of that point. It laso depends on what do you mean by the limit. I was arguing FOR more resolution, as dedicated cameras are nowhere near of being diffraction limited.
> 
> mb66energy: Teleconverters always have more losses than more pixels. There is glass in bitween, which "damages the image" to a point... Therefore if you had 1,4x more square amount of pixels, and just cutting the area, the outcome would be better than with TC.



What do you mean by “dedicated cameras are nowhere near of being diffraction limited.”?

On APS-C at 24MP f/8, sometimes lower, is where diffraction starts to creep in, and on FF the same’s true for f/11 and 36MP. So if you’re talking about not being limited yet it seems like you’re talking about shooting at bright apertures and giving up high quality results with image that requires deep focus?

As far as I know, between Nikon, Canon and Sony there still hasn’t been an APS-C BSI sensor, let alone a stacked sensor. Those are improvements I think crop shooters would rather have in their day-to-day photography than giant MP counts that seem to be in the rightful domain of FF (unless that’s pushed to over 80MP too—in which case you can forget anything stacked and likely a top burst rate of 3FPS barring a ultra top secret decade long innovation that Canon’s about to release). Or finally buying modern sensors from Sony or maybe Samsung soon.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 21, 2019)

FairlyKors: There always been a limit. Rewiewers told us 3Mpx is optimum, 8Mpx optimum, 12 too much, then optimum, then 16-18, now 24 is optimum. It is obvious, that it is not objective optimum. It was optimum for the time and technology.... I would like to have 100Mpx cameras, no problem. You always can downsize.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 21, 2019)

FairlyKors: Exactly. The diffraction limit needs more specification to it, to discuss it properly. 
Yes, diffraction starts to creep in with higher apertures. That can be taken as diffraction limitation. but at f/8, if you put 100Mpx sensor behind it, you still would get more resolved. That way, one could say you are not diffraction limited. My daily driver was Canon EOS M6 + 22mm f/2 lens. Most shots were taken at f/2, and the rest 99% at f/2,8-f/4. So the camera was not diffraction limited. The image was "sensor resolution limited" in cases the resolution was needed.
Sensor resolution definitely is cheaper than lens resolution at this moment. Yet it is put as some kind of niche, even by manufacturers. I do not understand that. 
The war is over, image is good. Just put as many pixels on the sensor as technology allows, and that´s it. We´re done with this topic (now talking to manufacturers and marketing)...

AFAIK there was BSI FF sensor available, and I´d guess Sony has some BSI APS-C?
The more pixels request is not here as a sacrifice to other image quality aspects. It has been proven time and time again. 
There is speed and storage issue always, but that is not problem for everyone. There is market for hi-res....


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2019)

crashpc said:


> AlanF: Sony IMX 586, 1/2", f/2, 48Mpx. That makes it 1100Mpx for FF sensor area. That is pretty close to that point. I am not exactly going to argue the precise position of that point. It laso depends on what do you mean by the limit. I was arguing FOR more resolution, as dedicated cameras are nowhere near of being diffraction limited.
> 
> mb66energy: Teleconverters always have more losses than more pixels. There is glass in bitween, which "damages the image" to a point... Therefore if you had 1,4x more square amount of pixels, and just cutting the area, the outcome would be better than with TC.


I am also in favour or more resolution, so we are in agreement. But, I was pointing out the that the good cellphone cameras are not diffraction limited - they are about the same as an f/5.6 lens on a 5DSR or 7DII, a popular combination on this site. In contrast, the Nikon P1000 is about 3x over the DLA!


----------



## Joules (Apr 21, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> 32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.
> 
> When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
> What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?


With all this talk about diffraction, I decided to have a little play with it myself.

I set up my 24 MP 80D with the sharpest lens I own, the Sigma 35mm 1.4. Put it on a tripod in the garden and shot some newspaper text behind a small bird feather in full sunlight. Attached is a compilation of the results. The upper row is made up of unprocessed (just whitebalance) crops from the center of the frame with all apertures I'd consider interesting. Below each is the same crop, deconvoluted in Photoshop CC using smart sharpen with the radius written below the aperture values. The radius where set by eye, looking at the contrast of the i in the "mit" to the right of the feather. I increased it, until tiny halos became visible, and dialed it back again slightly, to get it natural. Using some more advanced method for deconvolution may yield nicer results, but for now I get along with smart sharpen best.

Seeing as these are really hefty crops (about 350px wide each, from the 6000px full width), I'd say all the processed crops would pass as sharp at less magnification. At this magnification, you can start to see detail getting lost due to diffraction in the tip of the feather at f/11. And at f/16 it's quite noticable - but it's not really blurry. And thanks to the larger depth of field, it may actually look sharper over all, if the subject included any depth (This is just laying on the ground). It just lacks the finest of detail. And as for the 2.8 and 5.6 image - with more pixels you could pull out even more detail from those.

Also, I think with 32.5 MP, the pixel density is enough that even Canon won't hesitate to eliminate the AA filter, making the images all a bit more detailed yet again.

I think it may not be necessary for the most cases to go above 24 MP, but it certainly doesn't seem useless to me. And diffraction is not a thing that causes any image at higher apertures to become automatically useless or blury.


----------



## BillB (Apr 21, 2019)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 21, 2019)

Alan F: Then it depends what phone camera are we looking at. I´m looking at newer Sony IMX586, which is usually coupled with f/2 lens (28mm eq), and my math tells me it is f/11 equivalent for FF lens. That is getting into this diffraction limited territory with 48Mpx.


----------



## masterpix (Apr 21, 2019)

26MP APS-C, 32.5MP APS-C, no 7DIII... does it sound wired that Canon will not have a 7DIII but work on new APS-C sensor? if they are slowly closing the XXXD XXD XD lines, while making even cheaper R (FF) body (why even go for R-APS-C when a pro-R is the real goal)? Those rumors sound very contradicting to each other. So where is the "logic" unless those vague rumors are just, rumors.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2019)

crashpc said:


> Alan F: Then it depends what phone camera are we looking at. I´m looking at newer Sony IMX586, which is usually coupled with f/2 lens (28mm eq), and my math tells me it is f/11 equivalent for FF lens. That is getting into this diffraction limited territory with 48Mpx.


The iPhone has 1.4 µ pixels, which give a DLA of f/2.25, larger than its f/1.8 lens. The 48 mpixel sensor on the Sony is unique, and I don't really understand it. Its pixel size is 0.8 µ, which would be give a DLA of f/1.3. But, it has what is described as "Quad Bayer" technology, with each pixel a member of a block of 4, with an effective size of 1.6 pixels. It seems to me that the true resolution may well be that of a 12 mpixel sensor of a DLA of f/2.6. Can you tell me more about it?


----------



## Pape (Apr 21, 2019)

crashpc said:


> Alan F: Then it depends what phone camera are we looking at. I´m looking at newer Sony IMX586, which is usually coupled with f/2 lens (28mm eq), and my math tells me it is f/11 equivalent for FF lens. That is getting into this diffraction limited territory with 48Mpx.


 No idea what math you using .but i think when F amount is announced it refers f amount counted from true focal lenght not about salesman trick focal lenght


----------



## crashpc (Apr 21, 2019)

Alan F: I think that they might have some issues with doing so small CFA. So they use CFA for quadruple of pixels. But these pixels are still accessible as separate pixels. So with some additional color error, you still get more resolution from it. 
And once aperture is between f/1.8-f/2 on this sensor model, it is diffraction limited sensor for sure. How about Huawei? They use 40Mpx sensors, and Samsung also has 48Mpx.  
I pick these because these are also quite large in area, compared to other sensors. Usually 1/2" or 1/1,7", which is nice to have. I would be happier if they went right to 1" 

Pape: Yes, I wrote "f/11 equivalent for FF". It was not for lens comparisons purposes, it was for diffraction effect purposes comparison between two systems.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You have misunderstood what I wrote: a 1.4x is a 20% increase over a 1.16x increase, by which I meant 1.4/1.16 = 1.2, in other words a 1.4 gives 20% more resolution than a 1.16!



Alan: Sorry for misinterpreting your post ! You are right with your numbers. And I built in a mistake, a 1.4 TC converts 600 mm to 840 (not 960) mm - I run into the APS-C factor accidentally.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 21, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> You shoot whatyou have to. If you are doing landscape f5.6 will probably give too little DOF - sometimes these diffraction comments ignore the necessities of the art and end up being purely philosophical.
> Can you show me an image where a high-res sensor 'diffration limited' photo has less resolution than a lower-res sensor image that (in theory) is less 'diffraction limited'??



I just wanted to explain why there are only a few shooters which observe diffraction limitation and not the majority of people. I see a clearly visible difference on the display of my M50 between f/5.6 and f/16 but you are absolutely right with your remark that the gain of DOF may be worth of some loss in resolution in landscape and macro work.

I can NOT show such an image because I haven't tried it. I would always take a higher res sensor without hesitation because it helps in a lot of situations if ... the general IQ isn't degraded e.g. by smaller total photosite area/well capacity which might be the case if you cannot scale down some readout electronics which is in front of the sensor - but I think just this is well mitigated by the microlenses which at least increase effective sensor area.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Alan: Sorry for misinterpreting your post ! You are right with your numbers. And I built in a mistake, a 1.4 TC converts 600 mm to 840 (not 960) mm - I run into the APS-C factor accidentally.


Thanks! We are on the same wavelength.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 21, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> I can NOT show such an image because I haven't tried it.



I apologise if I am wrong but it seems you were arguing against higher MP sensors on the basis of diffraction limitation happening at wider apertures which I presumed meant you had some knowledge of it.



mb66energy said:


> ... the general IQ isn't degraded e.g. by smaller total photosite area/well capacity which might be the case if you cannot scale down some readout electronics which is in front of the sensor - but I think just this is well mitigated by the microlenses which at least increase effective sensor area.



This seems to be saying that diffraction may not be an issue, but well capacity?
If this is a concern you have (which is fair enough) how would you get the information you need to make a buying decision?


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 22, 2019)

FairlyKors said:


> As far as I know, between Nikon, Canon and Sony there still hasn’t been an APS-C BSI sensor, let alone a stacked sensor.



Not really. The sensor in Sony A6400 camera is BSI, and its predecessor A6300 was also using a BSI sensor. So Sony has been using APS-C BSI sensors for at least 4 years now.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Not really. The sensor in Sony A6400 camera is BSI, and its predecessor A6300 was also using a BSI sensor.


Where did you get that info?

As I see on Wikipedia, A6300 uses IMX284, and it is not BSI.

As I seen on sony-semicon.co.jp, Sony's APS-C sensor with BSI is 26.2 MP. Sony's APS-C 24.2 MP sensors are not BSI.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 22, 2019)

masterpix said:


> 26MP APS-C, 32.5MP APS-C, no 7DIII... does it sound wired that Canon will not have a 7DIII but work on new APS-C sensor? if they are slowly closing the XXXD XXD XD lines, while making even cheaper R (FF) body (why even go for R-APS-C when a pro-R is the real goal)? Those rumors sound very contradicting to each other. So where is the "logic" unless those vague rumors are just, rumors.


The logic is based on the following factors:

Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and will become even cheaper in the future with falling prices of electronic components.
Mirrorless cameras may be much smaller than equivalent DSLR. Market in general wants this.
Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 22, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Where did you get that info?
> 
> As I see on Wikipedia, A6300 uses IMX284, and it is not BSI.
> 
> As I seen on sony-semicon.co.jp, Sony's APS-C sensor with BSI is 26.2 MP. Sony's APS-C 24.2 MP sensors are not BSI.



I got this information from DXOMARK here:
*








Sony A6400 sensor review - DxOMark


After some three years since the introduction of the A6300, Sony has launched its follow up the A6400. Featuring a familiar rangefinder-style body, the design is mostly unchanged from that earlier model and it shares many of the same features, such as the OLED EVF, touch-enabled, tilting rear...




www.dxomark.com




*It says that this is a BSI sensor.

Admittedly this is a murky area.

For example. Wikipedia, in the entries for A6300 and A6500 have Exmor RS sensor. This is the same sensor as in A6400. Exmor RS sensors are backlit and stacked. However, Wikipedia in the list of Exmor RS sensors has no APS-C sensor. On the other hand they list A6300 and A6500 against IMX284 sensor, as you found out. And this sensor is neither backlit nor stacked. It is plain Exmor sensor.

Sony in the technical specs for A6300. 6500 and 6400 says - Exmor sensor.

So there are contradictions here.

I think that the Wikipedia entry for Exmor sensor and Sony A6300/a6400/a6500 specs are right. Conversely, DXOMARK and Wikipedia entries for A6300/A6500 are wrong.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> I got this information from DXOMARK here:
> *
> 
> 
> ...



The A6xxx series are most certainly not stacked sensors. the only stacked sensor in Sony's cameras is in the A9.

I'm pretty certain that only the 26MP APS-C sensor that Fuji is now the only ones currently using is BSI, the rest are FSI including the ones in the A6400.

DXOMark is the only source that seems to be stating it's BSI. it's an error IMO.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 22, 2019)

canonnews said:


> The A6xxx series are most certainly not stacked sensors. the only stacked sensor in Sony's cameras is in the A9.



I believe Sony’s Venice also uses a stacked sensor.


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 22, 2019)

masterpix said:


> 26MP APS-C, 32.5MP APS-C, no 7DIII... does it sound wierd that Canon will not have a 7DIII but work on new APS-C sensor?



Nope. New cameras need new sensors.



masterpix said:


> (why even go for R-APS-C when a pro-R is the real goal)?



It's *a* goal. Canon has more than one.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 22, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I apologise if I am wrong but it seems you were arguing against higher MP sensors on the basis of diffraction limitation happening at wider apertures which I presumed meant you had some knowledge of it.



Maybe it was my non-native english: diffraction limitation occurs only at small aperture diameters / large f-stop numbers.



Mikehit said:


> [...]
> 
> This seems to be saying that diffraction may not be an issue, but well capacity?
> If this is a concern you have (which is fair enough) how would you get the information you need to make a buying decision?



Judging the technical IQ is at least a question if it is *comparable* to the rest of the bunch now e.g. best APS-C cameras from Fuji or Sony who have very good sensors. IMO noise and missing detail can spoil IQ independently. Canons sensors show for my eyes/brain often a little bit more noise but also more detail while Fuji sensors have very low noise but fine details are on the mushy side. And if you check the noise in different colors (dpreview, itten color circles) I see some fine tuning for different sensors/CFAs - I think it has to do with the spectral width of the R, G and B filters which color exhibits more noise: A narrow filter spectrum reduces the amount of light which reaches the sensor but gives maybe cleaner final colors.

If a 32.5 MPix sensor shows a little bit more detail compared to the current 24 MPix sensor but has a little bit more noise I would judge both sensors as comparable. If the well capacity would be reduced significantly I would expect much more noise and judge the 24 MPix sensor as the better sensor.

I use dpreview, tdp, photonstophotos to check the scenes and diagrams to get some picture of the situation without splitting hairs.

At the moment I am very satisfied with M50 and 200D technical IQ while the 200D seems to have slightly smother transitions without being soft: I observed that the grip gets warm while taking photos, maybe they have the voltage conversion displaced in the larger grip far from the sensor which keeps the sensor cool and out of the stronger electromagnetic fields of modern voltage converters.

Just a chip layout as top view would not help to judge about well capacity ... if a chip producer finds a way to use the 3rd dimension to store charge well capacity could be increased by a large factor compared to current systems. The only drawback would be a decrease in ISO but having ISO 25 or 12.5 would be something like a no-cost ND filter replacement!

As you can see: my buying decisions are made between gut instincts and physics knowledge!


----------



## crashpc (Apr 22, 2019)

mb66energy: Diffraction limitation as we perceive it, is rather the function or ratio between entrance pupil, pixel size and display size. 
If you dowsize diffraction limited image enough, then it is not diffraction limited.  It´s very hard to discuss such thing with so many variables and dimensions, because most people are caught be incomplete set of aspects.

You are right about qualities and parameters to the image. They are mostly in series chain making the final quality.


----------



## masterpix (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> The logic is based on the following factors:
> 
> Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and will become even cheaper in the future with falling prices of electronic components.
> Mirrorless cameras may be much smaller than equivalent DSLR. Market in general wants this.
> Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.


As all you said is correct, still the question remains: if FF RF body is less expensive than its DSLR "rival", and soon the prices of FF sensors will decrease even more, and as you said, mirror-less will become the main line, why will anyone buy a 32MP M series camera when they can get the RF (or other less expensive R body) for virtually the same price? The RF brings 26MP (which is over-kill for most people) and you have an adapter that you can use virtually any glass that exist on it. I still don't see the logic, the facts you mentioned are correct, but the logic leads to better FF sensors, not APS-C.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 22, 2019)

masterpix said:


> As all you said is correct, still the question remains: if FF RF body is less expensive than its DSLR "rival", and soon the prices of FF sensors will decrease even more, and as you said, mirror-less will become the main line, why will anyone buy a 32MP M series camera when they can get the RF (or other less expensive R body) for virtually the same price? The RF brings 26MP (which is over-kill for most people) and you have an adapter that you can use virtually any glass that exist on it. I still don't see the logic, the facts you mentioned are correct, but the logic leads to better FF sensors, not APS-C.


Canon may drop the M series. Or de-emphasize it as they say. Be that as it may, a 32 MP APS-C sensor can be used in an RF mount camera. Canon may decide to manufacture RF cameras with APS-C sensor. They may also introduce RF mount lenses with smaller image circle for such cameras. RF-S anyone? These cameras may still be cheaper than FF RF cameras e.g due to smaller battery and cheaper lens. Every cent counts in manufacturing costs.
Whatever path they will choose they have the flexibility to offer a price competitive product that market will want.
We really do not know how the market will develop. We all know that it is shrinking fast and that affects all manufacturers.
Perhaps the right solution in the shrinking market will be to drop M series, drop all APS-C DSLRs , drop all FF DSLRs except for 1D and 5D follow-ons and concentrate all efforts on FF RF cameras. 
The bottom of the range FF RF cameras can be made very cheaply with falling prices and increasing integration of electronics. Put it in a plastic body. Add cheap plastic 28-55mm zoom and you can market it for $500 or so. Not now, but certainly in a 3 to 5 years time this will be the reality of the market..
Around year 2002 Minolta was selling 35mm film SLR Maxum/Dynax 4 for about this price.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.



The lack of a mirror does not make code development and integration easier. Using it may require one addition step, mirror lockup, which most every recent mirrored camera likely already has available.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 22, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The lack of a mirror does not make code development and integration easier. Using it may require one addition step, mirror lockup, which most every recent mirrored camera likely already has available.


In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> The logic is based on the following factors:
> 
> Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and will become even cheaper in the future with falling prices of electronic components.
> Mirrorless cameras may be much smaller than equivalent DSLR. Market in general wants this.
> Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.



Got any data to support the claim that production of MILCs is cheaper than for DSLRs? Even if they are cheaper to make, does that automatically mean lower prices for the buyer? Do you believe that cost of goods is the only or even the main driver of retail prices?
If the market wants much smaller cameras, why are DSLRs outselling MILCs?
There’s a long history of adding new gizmo features to DLSRs, no reason that won’t continue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.


So? You suggested those features are important for marketing. That holds true even if the feature is only available with the mirror up. 4K video doesn’t work through the OVF. Canon has advertised ‘5-axis image stabilization’ which is only available for video and with an IS lens attached, etc. 

Sorry, your logic is falling apart...


----------



## st jack photography (Apr 22, 2019)

With the current technology, I want to see a 51mp full frame sensor, same in my 5DSr, but better ISO, better dynamic range, redesign the low pass to be variable, add focus peaking, improve the viewfinder whether mirrored or not, but do not go past 60mp or so unless you put 4 DIGIC 8's in it, haha. I like my 5DSr, but it could be SO MUCH BETTER, and do not get me started on its weaknesses vs its unique strengths. I am going to call bull&#%* on this one because I don't think Canon has solved their biggest engineering problem yet, and when they do, it will be to reveal a mirrorless 1DX that far surpasses in burst speed a mirrored 1DX, and look for it to shake up the market like EOS/EF did back in '87. They wouldn't waste a clever engineering work-around on introducing an APSC sensor if the technology that enables that high mp/burst shooting/pixel density also works too on full frame and ff mirrorless. A Canon sensor of 32mp APSC certainly is a bad step Canon WOULD make, Canon having not a distinct clue what they are doing when it comes to body/sensor design and what people want, but some of the R/RP/RF designs seem to have had user input, so maybe that is all the more reason a 32mp apsc is not happening.

Bottom line I just don't see that happening on an APS-c. They really need to reassure the product/landscape shooters that want a pro-level high-mp body that they are working hard on a solution, because I see all my EF L glass, and I look at my obsolete mirrored 5DSr, and medium format is starting to look tastier and tastier. Please Canon, please......


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.


Right, hence entering lock-up mode to use it, as mentioned.


----------



## mpmark (Apr 22, 2019)

If this information is taken seriously, then you are looking at a 80MP sensor full frame camera coming as well.


----------



## Cryve (Apr 22, 2019)

the new high megapixel mirrorles camera from canon will either have 62mp ( rumored apsc 24mp sensor upscaled) or about 84mp (rumored apsc 32,5 mp sensor upscaled)

the 5ds(r) sensor was the 20mp sensor from the 70d/7d ii upscaled to full frame. the same thing is going to happen here agin.
there is no other choise, there will be no "better 50mp sensor". it will be either of those.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Got any data to support the claim that production of MILCs is cheaper than for DSLRs? Even if they are cheaper to make, does that automatically mean lower prices for the buyer? Do you believe that cost of goods is the only or even the main driver of retail prices?
> If the market wants much smaller cameras, why are DSLRs outselling MILCs?
> There’s a long history of adding new gizmo features to DLSRs, no reason that won’t continue.



MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one. This essentially leaves only digital electronics. There is a well documented trend since circa 1975 that digital electronics components typically drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity. 
Cheaper to make does not automatically translate to lower prices for the buyer, of course. Manufacturers would like to increase their margin, but competition is likely to force them to lower prices in the end. However, looking at it from the point of view of a manufacturer is is very desirable to have low production cost. You can then can higher margins and still be competitive.
DSLRs are outselling MILCs because the bottom range DSLRs are actually quite cheap. At least until recently their prices were generally lower than those of MILCs. Rebel T6 with kit zoom lists on Canon US web site for $399.99 and the street price is much lower.
I would respectfully disagree with your view that adding gizmos to DSLRs can continue. In my view, this is not the case and certainly not on the scale possible in a MILCs. In the AF area the main limitation is the number of AF points in a DSLR. The other limitation is that you by definition cannot display all these gizmo visual effects in the OVF. Of course, you can display them on the LCD in Live View, but then why to have a mirror and OVF, you could just as well use your phone + Instagram. Well, it is actually obvious to me that DSLRs reached maturity. Of course, sensors still change slowly, but the main concept of the DSLR remains more or less constant. The last revolution apart from transition from film to digital was autofocus, but that was 35 years ago still in the film days. The maturity is a good thing in a way and this is why I still use a DSLR.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> With the current technology, I want to see a 51mp full frame sensor, same in my 5DSr, but better ISO, better dynamic range, redesign the low pass to be variable, add focus peaking, improve the viewfinder whether mirrored or not, but do not go past 60mp or so unless you put 4 DIGIC 8's in it, haha. I like my 5DSr, but it could be SO MUCH BETTER, and do not get me started on its weaknesses vs its unique strengths. I am going to call bull&#%* on this one because I don't think Canon has solved their biggest engineering problem yet, and when they do, it will be to reveal a mirrorless 1DX that far surpasses in burst speed a mirrored 1DX, and look for it to shake up the market like EOS/EF did back in '87. They wouldn't waste a clever engineering work-around on introducing an APSC sensor if the technology that enables that high mp/burst shooting/pixel density also works too on full frame and ff mirrorless. A Canon sensor of 32mp APSC certainly is a bad step Canon WOULD make, Canon having not a distinct clue what they are doing when it comes to body/sensor design and what people want, but some of the R/RP/RF designs seem to have had user input, so maybe that is all the more reason a 32mp apsc is not happening.
> 
> Bottom line I just don't see that happening on an APS-c. They really need to reassure the product/landscape shooters that want a pro-level high-mp body that they are working hard on a solution, because I see all my EF L glass, and I look at my obsolete mirrored 5DSr, and medium format is starting to look tastier and tastier. Please Canon, please......




*IF *the readout speed is vastly increased, I could see digic 8 being fast enough to handle an aps-c sized processor with increased pixel density. It's handling a full frame right now just fine with eye-af, especially with the new firmware. The big hangup has been how fast the speed readout from the chip is. If it was mirroreless, more than likely you'd be able to get 7dMkII like FPS with that setup as well since it's only having to process af points from a much smaller chip, *and the 90d will not be displaying that real time*. Even with increased pixel density it's still less points than the current R when in live view. If you use the digic 8 to interpret phase detect focal systems it will not even begin to tax the chip.

The 2020 olympic ready mirrorless sports 1dx type camera would need both the increased readout speed AND a newer Digic 9 chip. If they release a full frame version of this newly designed chip in the 70-100 megapixel range the increased readout speed of the sensor would make the current Digic 8 chip work in a hypothetical 5ds replacement, but with slower fps than the R, just like the 5ds versus 5dIII. 

The more I think about it, the more getting rid of the 7D line makes sense from what I always considered the primary reason why the line existed: *Fast fps, 1dx level tracking*
Both the RP and the R exhibit tracking on par with the 1dx, even if they can't fire off shots as fast as it can. This level of tracking will be in ALL future mirrorless bodies and all future bodies with live view. The only differentiation is in FPS speeds. The 80D already was only 2 fps lower than the 7dMkII, and had a better sensor to boot. So why wouldn't they add in the 1dx tracking and use the digic 8 to handle it? Even with that advanced setup, in some respects it will have worse tracking than the R and RP outside of speed! If you add that in, at that point what you are losing is better weatherproofing and a joystick. And I'll bet we'll see at least one of those on the upgraded (and upgraded price) body.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 22, 2019)

Could someone confirm that the RP and R exhibit tracking on par with the 1dx - I have no direct experience and am very intrigued. And with what lenses?


----------



## Kit. (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one.


Can you name a MILC without a mechanical shutter?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one. This essentially leaves only digital electronics. There is a well documented trend since circa 1975 that digital electronics components typically drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity.
> Cheaper to make does not automatically translate to lower prices for the buyer, of course. Manufacturers would like to increase their margin, but competition is likely to force them to lower prices in the end. However, looking at it from the point of view of a manufacturer is is very desirable to have low production cost. You can then can higher margins and still be competitive.
> DSLRs are outselling MILCs because the bottom range DSLRs are actually quite cheap. At least until recently their prices were generally lower than those of MILCs. Rebel T6 with kit zoom lists on Canon US web site for $399.99 and the street price is much lower.
> I would respectfully disagree with your view that adding gizmos to DSLRs can continue. In my view, this is not the case and certainly not on the scale possible in a MILCs. In the AF area the main limitation is the number of AF points in a DSLR. The other limitation is that you by definition cannot display all these gizmo visual effects in the OVF. Of course, you can display them on the LCD in Live View, but then why to have a mirror and OVF, you could just as well use your phone + Instagram. Well, it is actually obvious to me that DSLRs reached maturity. Of course, sensors still change slowly, but the main concept of the DSLR remains more or less constant. The last revolution apart from transition from film to digital was autofocus, but that was 35 years ago still in the film days. The maturity is a good thing in a way and this is why I still use a DSLR



The 'drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity' certainly hasn't happened in the MILC segment so far. I suspect it won't even after global shutters are the norm.
Prices for some m4/3 MILC models are equivalent to entry-level DSLRs (<US$400 for a kit). So much for that argument.
You can certainly disagree. But consider that you stated that the popularity of DSLRs was due to the bottom end of the market (and I agree that the low end drives the market overall, but as stated that doesn't differentiate MILCs). Still, the low end driving popularity means there are plenty of higher end features – for both DSLRs and MILCs – that will trickle their way down the lines.
MILCs aren't a 'revolution'. Autofocus took over the market in about 10 years. Digital took over the market in less than 10 years. MILCs in current form have been around for over a decade, and still haven't managed to capture simple majority of the ILC market, much less come to dominate it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Can you name a MILC without a mechanical shutter?


No no no. He means in the future. Some unspecified future time at which he may actually be correct,.


----------



## neonlight (Apr 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The iPhone has 1.4 µ pixels, which give a DLA of f/2.25, larger than its f/1.8 lens. The 48 mpixel sensor on the Sony is unique, and I don't really understand it. Its pixel size is 0.8 µ, which would be give a DLA of f/1.3. But, it has what is described as "Quad Bayer" technology, with each pixel a member of a block of 4, with an effective size of 1.6 pixels. It seems to me that the true resolution may well be that of a 12 mpixel sensor of a DLA of f/2.6. Can you tell me more about it?


From what I can see, I'm guessing that the pixels really are 0.8 microns, arranged in conventional RGGB Bayer colour filter format, and I'm supposing that in low light they are used in pairs so that two neighbouring reds are operated in parallel to generate an effective 1.6 micron pixel to reduce noise. That's not, though, how Sony's diagrams appear: they suggest the sensor works the other way round, starting with 1.6 micron pixels in 2x2 format are somehow subdivided to make a 4x4 array with RGGB layout in each sub-block using software. So I too am a little puzzled by this.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 22, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.


I've been hoping for pet-eye-Af for a long time. My bearded dragon moves fast when the cat is chasing him around the house. Pet-eye-AF will be a Godsend. Though, I have to wonder whether the camera would confuse the lizard eye with the holes in my Fruit Loops if he happens to be near the bowl. Any word on insect-eye-AF development?


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Prices for some m4/3 MILC models are equivalent to entry-level DSLRs (<US$400 for a kit).



around here, it ranges from $650 for an OMD-Em10 II with a 14-42 lens, to $3900 for an OMD-E-M1X body.... the same price as a 5DIV body!


----------



## Dantana (Apr 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've been hoping for pet-eye-Af for a long time. My bearded dragon moves fast when the cat is chasing him around the house. Pet-eye-AF will be a Godsend. Though, I have to wonder whether the camera would confuse the lizard eye with the holes in my Fruit Loops if he happens to be near the bowl. Any word on insect-eye-AF development?


Sure, but what if I want the Fruit Loops in focus? How will the camera know whether to use the Lizard AF Algorithm or the Cereal Hole Detection De-focus Mode?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> around here, it ranges from $650 for an OMD-Em10 II with a 14-42 lens, to $3900 for an OMD-E-M1X body.... the same price as a 5DIV body!


Do you have Olympus blinders on, or is it just that they don’t sell Panasonic or Fuji MILCs in Canada?  The Lumix GX85 w/ 12-32mm kit lens can be had for under US$400 (list is $500). The Fuji XA5 (APS-C) w/ 15-45mm lens also lists for $500, although the discount offers are not as good because it’s a much newer camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you have Olympus blinders on, or is it just that they don’t sell Panasonic or Fuji MILCs in Canada?  The Lumix GX85 w/ 12-32mm kit lens can be had for under US$400 (list is $500). The Fuji XA5 (APS-C) w/ 15-45mm lens also lists for $500, although the discount offers are not as good because it’s a much newer camera.


The low end Panasonic is the same price here, but of course I use Canadian Dollars


----------



## canonnews (Apr 22, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> *IF *the readout speed is vastly increased, I could see digic 8 being fast enough to handle an aps-c sized processor with increased pixel density. It's handling a full frame right now just fine with eye-af, especially with the new firmware. The big hangup has been how fast the speed readout from the chip is. If it was mirroreless, more than likely you'd be able to get 7dMkII like FPS with that setup as well since it's only having to process af points from a much smaller chip, *and the 90d will not be displaying that real time*.


There really no guarantee that it's the readout sensor speed, versus the speed of DIGIC itself. unless you've seen some data, in which I would really be interested in seeing it, because I'm geeky that way 

Someone on dpreview did a quasi test of the sensor readout speed of the EOS R and it came out to ~75-83ms to read out the sensor on the EOS R. This equates to 12fps from the sensor itself. Assuming the problem isn't the mechanical shutter fps, that would lead one to believe that the problem is on DIGIC that limited the speed to 8fps with full AE/AF lock which means the hangup isn't DPAF either.

At times it's sensor speed as well, for instance the 24MP APS-C sensor that is in the M5 has to be dropped down to 12bit to achieve it's highest continuous burst mode. But is that the data transfer rate versus heat in the camera? who knows really.

Therefore in theory at 240MP/sec a 32.5MP sensor running with DIGIC 8 would be around 7.4fps. Even though a M5 right now shoots at 9fps max. I think it would be the first time that even with a resolution bump, that Canon has downgraded fps significantly from one version to the next, with the exception of the 50D to 60D when they downgraded the entire camera.


----------



## Franklyok (Apr 22, 2019)

I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask. 

If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 23, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... *would that be too much to ask.*


Yes.


Franklyok said:


> If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.


Not necessarily. depends on whether or not they make the 90D physically bigger like the 7D, or simply drop the 7D and add a few features into the 90D and call it a day.
if they add a dual DIGIC, viewfinder, weathersealing,etc. - then it's a 7D Mark III, not the 90D that got killed. I think that's an important distinction to be made. I take that rumor as if they'll up the performance to "7D-like" and essentially leave the camera as is, and kill the 7D off. they aren't going to merge them back together, because you really can't without taking away what makes the 90D a 90D. Size and weight.

So in otherwords, if the 7D mark III is no more, then you can forget getting a high performance, solid camera body like the 7D Mark II was.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 23, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.



Without a surprising new sensor, it’s highly unlikely. To achieve the “zero blackout,” the A9’s sensor reads in something like 1/150s. Most sensors read in closer to 1/30s.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 23, 2019)

BillB said:


> I am sure there are a lot of people out there happily shooting their 24 mp aps-c cameras stopped down to f8.0 and beyond, not noticing the effect of diffraction limitations.


So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression. 

Of course there is diffraction at f/1.4, and even more at f/32. The effect becomes noticeable gradually. I would guess that the "limited" moment comes when diffraction starts to be the limiting factor more so than anything else. But I don't know for sure.

I've not done extensive tests in various contexts, but I did a series of shots at various apertures with my 100mm macro on the T3i at 1:1 magnification of a millimeter scale to see how much depth of field there was at each one. Diffraction was not that noticeable until the f/32 shot. There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.) 

If that is the effect with tiny white tick marks on a black rule shot beyond f/16, I can easily imagine that with less contrasty and detailed subjects, then there is no reason for sudden panic at f/8 in an APS-C camera.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 23, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.
> 
> If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.


20 fps is generally fine for sports and wildlife but using a TFT display for that purpose e.g. with a 4.0 600mm isn't that ergonomic.

My solution would be a EVF-active-during-mirror-up system which also helps for (1) e.g. f/5.6 optics with 2x TC, (2) composition by setting AF points everywhere and (3) video.

But I think that such a solution is too expensive for the mass market and contradictory to todays mainstream of "cameras have to be small". Maybe in a 7D miii @ 2000 EUR with 12 fps or 3500 EUR with 20 fps.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2019)

stevelee said:


> So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression.
> 
> Of course there is diffraction at f/1.4, and even more at f/32. The effect becomes noticeable gradually. I would guess that the "limited" moment comes when diffraction starts to be the limiting factor more so than anything else. But I don't know for sure.
> 
> ...


I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212


----------



## degos (Apr 23, 2019)

stevelee said:


> There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.)



It is totally unpleasant and work-ruining when the subject needs to be tack-sharp, for publishing or whatever. Which leads to the use of ND filters in order to keep the f-stop below f/8 which in turn slightly degrades the image but hopefully less than diffraction will etc

I'm not surprised that the 1D series topped-out at about 2.5 MP/cm2, that gave just enough leeway with diffraction for it not to be too much of a nuisance when trying to get The Shot.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Can you name a MILC without a mechanical shutter?


You might have noticed that I used the future tense in my statement. It is not now yet, but will happen in 2 to 4 years I think. What is required is sensors with many more channels of parallel processing. And more processing power. This is only a matter of time before Sony has that, and I would say short rather short amount of time, as the rewards are huge and technologically this is not insurmountable. The current Sony sensors have up to16 independent channels and the processing chips do the processing in 16 channels. But in the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) world there are already chips doing 2,048 independent channels, albeit currently at a higher power consumption level.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 23, 2019)

Chris Jankowski said:


> You might have noticed that I used the future tense in my statement. It is not now yet, but will happen in 2 to 4 years I think. What is required is sensors with many more channels of parallel processing. And more processing power. This is only a matter of time before Sony has that, and I would say short rather short amount of time, as the rewards are huge and technologically this is not insurmountable. The current Sony sensors have up to16 independent channels and the processing chips do the processing in 16 channels. But in the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) world there are already chips doing 2,048 independent channels, albeit currently at a higher power consumption level.


If Moore's law still works, then what you want will happen in 15-20 years from now.

Not sure if ILCs would still sell in noticeable amounts by that time.


----------



## Xavitxaung (Apr 23, 2019)

Why not a Canon EOS 80D Mark II? Why not a Canon EOS 8D for full frame DSLR? Canon sold to many 5D bodies; 5D, 5D Mk II, 5D Mk III, 5D Mk IV, 5Ds and 5Ds R. I'm thinking about it is time for a new DSLR name, like a EOS 3D or 3 twice (8).

A new Canon EOS 7D Mk III? Why? It is a better option an 80D Mk II for APS-C sensors and to replace the 5D Mk IV, and EOS 8D it sounds much better, perfect connection between APS-C and FF series.

What about the new EOS 1Dx Mk III? It is going to be the last professional DSLR camera? Maybe it is going to be the last DSLR camera with an EF mount (and RF adaptor), with a twice viewfinder, mirror and mirror less, the perfect body for Pro photographers. What about resolution? Most probably a 30 mp, but, why not a brand new 42 mp sensor?


----------



## neonlight (Apr 23, 2019)

Well, I like the features and build of the 7DII. I hope that this is for the 7DIII without AA filter, (but 24 MP will do) which probably means it will be a 90D instead.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2019)

neonlight said:


> As a 7DII user, that is what I would like too. 24MP is enough if it were sharp. Many have said that the softness of the 7DII is due to the AA filter. I've written to Canon too to ask for noAAF, I'd really be pleased if it competed with the N**** D500, but I've got too much Canon glass to change.



If the 7DII replacement has no AA filter, then I'm out, and I'll keep my 7DII.

No AA filter = images you can't trust. If I'm going without one, I have to be diffraction limited at all apertures, and that means gigapixel sensors.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212


Yes, that was very helpful. You'll note that I responded to the thread at the time. All of our settings involve compromise, and the better we understand the factors, the better we can choose.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> If the 7DII replacement has no AA filter, then I'm out, and I'll keep my 7DII.
> 
> No AA filter = images you can't trust. If I'm going without one, I have to be diffraction limited at all apertures, and that means gigapixel sensors.


Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?


----------



## stevelee (Apr 23, 2019)

degos said:


> It is totally unpleasant and work-ruining when the subject needs to be tack-sharp, for publishing or whatever. Which leads to the use of ND filters in order to keep the f-stop below f/8 which in turn slightly degrades the image but hopefully less than diffraction will etc


Yes, one needs to decide what is important in making the compromises. Obviously the choices will be different in shooting a misty woodland scene from doing product photography.

For the 2017 total solar eclipse, I was shooting with my T3i. My only telephoto lens at the time was the rather bad 75-300mm that has a lot of chromatic aberration, among other faults. I was concerned about diffraction, but also needed focusing leeway from depth of field, since I didn't dare look through the OVF, and focusing on the screen, even shaded was rather difficult. I also presumed that stopping down would help minimize the CA. Graphs I saw on line suggested that f/11 was the best choice at 300mm on that lens. Days before, I put the filter on the lens and practiced shooting the sun. Even keeping the sun in the picture was a challenge, even through I had swung the floppy screen into the shadow of the camera itself. It turned out that f/11 gave sharp looking pictures with that less than optimal lens. Sunspots showed up very clearly. My eclipse pictures turned out about as well as those by people using superior equipment.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212



I have added some JPEGs I had made from the shots from f/11 to f/32 on that thread. I still haven't got around to trying the test with my 6D2 to see how sensor size might affect the result.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?



By definition.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I have added some JPEGs I had made from the shots from f/11 to f/32 on that thread. I still haven't got around to trying the test with my 6D2 to see how sensor size might affect the result.


Great. I have added some as well.


----------



## degos (Apr 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?



For a start the 5DsR does have an AA filter, plus an attempted-cancellation filter. So it's not a bare sensor.

But a lot of the 'detail' allegedly seen in non-AA photos is actually not real detail, it is the hard contrast boundary between photosites on the sensor. With an AA filter the transitions are softened.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2019)

degos said:


> For a start the 5DsR does have an AA filter, plus an attempted-cancellation filter. So it's not a bare sensor.
> 
> But a lot of the 'detail' allegedly seen in non-AA photos is actually not real detail, it is the hard contrast boundary between photosites on the sensor. With an AA filter the transitions are softened.


I know full well that there is always a nitpicker who tries to be clever by saying that the 5DSR has a self-cancelling AA-filter system as if I didn't know that and I thought that the 5DSR doesn't have one. Which is precisely why I wrote "which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter". "Equates to" means "consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another" or "(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another)." or *cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value". Just google "equates to" + meaning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> No AA filter = images you can't trust.


The above is an assertion I don’t trust.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 24, 2019)

degos said:


> For a start the 5DsR does have an AA filter, plus an attempted-cancellation filter. So it's not a bare sensor.



There's very little difference between "canceled" and "no AA", though there is some judging from D800E vs D810 images.



> But a lot of the 'detail' allegedly seen in non-AA photos is actually not real detail, it is the hard contrast boundary between photosites on the sensor. With an AA filter the transitions are softened.



I wouldn't use the term "detail" but I understand what you're getting at. Edge transitions can be harsh without an AA filter. The difference between the D800E (canceled AA) and D810 (no AA) isn't sharpness or resolved detail at extinction, but rather how harsh the edges look. So even a canceled AA filter is helping edge aliasing some what.

At the end of the day through, for most print sizes, you won't see a sharpness advantage or edge aliasing (assuming a weak AA filter vs canceled/no filter). The one thing that can stand out is moire when it actually breaks out. If you want to see how little of a difference exists, head on over to the "All new 24mp" pixel thread page 4 where I posted a bunch of 5Ds and 5Dsr comparisons.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The above is an assertion I don’t trust.



Then look up the proper application of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem 

(emphasis added)

"...if the Nyquist criterion is not satisfied, adjacent copies overlap, and it *is not possible in general to discern an unambiguous X(f).* Any frequency component above




is *indistinguishable from a lower-frequency component*, called an _alias_, associated with one of the copies. In such cases, the customary interpolation techniques produce the alias, rather than the original component. When the sample-rate is pre-determined by other considerations (such as an industry standard),



is usually filtered to reduce its high frequencies to acceptable levels before it is sampled. The type of filter required is a lowpass filter, and in this application it is called an anti-aliasing filter. "

So, without an anti-aliasing filter, it is not possible to discern a low frequency component from an aliased high frequency component.

I saw a brilliant example of this once and wish I had saved it. It was a picture of a picket fence and it looked mostly okay. But a tighter view showed that the number of pickets per section in the wider view didn't match reality. In reality, the fence had many more, smaller pickets, but those were aliased down to many fewer, wider pickets in the image by reflection about the Nyquist frequency. In other words, the original image was lying about the size and quantity of the pickets.

This isn't open to debate, it's a proven, mathematical theorem that's been known for about a century.

Camera engineers know this and that's why they put an expensive anti-aliasing filter into their cameras. They don't add cost to annoy customers, they do it so their cameras produce trustworthy results.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 24, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> Camera engineers know this and that's why they put an expensive anti-aliasing filter into their cameras. They don't add cost to annoy customers, they do it so their cameras produce trustworthy results.



Well...they did until "no AA filter = better" became a meme.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> Then look up the proper application of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
> 
> ...


Trust or lack thereof is your own value judgement. The camera will behave as designed, with or without an AA filter (or OLPF, if you prefer). As pixel pitch decreases (or sampling frequency increases, if you prefer), the number of real-world scenes in which aliasing occurs drops. 

Besides, your statements indicate that you believe an OLPF precludes all aliasing. It doesn’t, it merely alters the range of subject frequencies at which aliasing is evident. In other words, you can still get moiré with an AA filter. So by your logic, you can’t trust any camera. Guess you’ll just have to give up photography. How sad.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Trust or lack thereof is your own value judgement. The camera will behave as designed, with or without an AA filter (or OLPF, if you prefer). As pixel pitch decreases (or sampling frequency increases, if you prefer), the number of real-world scenes in which aliasing occurs drops.
> 
> Besides, your statements indicate that you believe an OLPF precludes all aliasing. It doesn’t, it merely alters the range of subject frequencies at which aliasing is evident. In other words, you can still get moiré with an AA filter. So by your logic, you can’t trust any camera. Guess you’ll just have to give up photography. How sad.


Too true Neuro. Here is a discarded shot of a waxwing using the 5DIV and the 400mm DO II + 2XTC, a combination that is not the sharpest. The waxwing is slightly soft and even then the back wings have Moire. You have to download to see the full extent of the Moire. I occasionally do see Moire because the repeating fine structure of bird wings is prone to that in close ups, and I discard those. Otherwise the extreme cropping I have to do gives images that never have Moire, and the absence of an AA-filter helps because I have to sharpen less and so do not increase noise.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Trust or lack thereof is your own value judgement. The camera will behave as designed, with or without an AA filter (or OLPF, if you prefer). As pixel pitch decreases (or sampling frequency increases, if you prefer), the number of real-world scenes in which aliasing occurs drops.
> 
> Besides, your statements indicate that you believe an OLPF precludes all aliasing. It doesn’t, it merely alters the range of subject frequencies at which aliasing is evident. In other words, you can still get moiré with an AA filter. So by your logic, you can’t trust any camera. Guess you’ll just have to give up photography. How sad.



No, it's not a value judgement, it's fact. Every single scene will have frequencies beyond Nyquist.

And, yes, OLPFs are not perfect, but they don't fail the way you say because they can't alter frequency. The way they fail is to allow smaller amplitudes of the frequencies present to be aliased. Less false information is preferable to more, obviously.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 24, 2019)

I'm going to preface this by saying that "aliasing" and "moire" are two related but separate things in my book.



neuroanatomist said:


> As pixel pitch decreases (or sampling frequency increases, if you prefer), the number of real-world scenes in which aliasing occurs drops.



Aliasing is always there at high contrast edges. It's just less apparent or invisible at normal view/print sizes at higher resolutions. AA filters do very effectively eliminate aliasing.

Moire is visible even at web page sizes. Higher resolution does reduce the number of situations where moire will occur, but I don't know why people act like it's a thing of the past. At 50mp it still occurs fairly often with man made objects. A strong AA filter pretty much precludes moire. A weak one will still show it, but less often and less severely.



Lee Jay said:


> No, it's not a value judgement, it's fact. Every single scene will have frequencies beyond Nyquist.



While I think the entire AA discussion is "mountain out of an ant hill", I have to agree with the statement that scientific accuracy in a digital sample suffers without a lowpass filter. You won't find anyone suggesting a scientific instrument doesn't need a lowpass filter, or will work better without one, unless they are absolutely certain that instrument's sampling frequency is higher than anything they will sample.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> No, it's not a value judgement, it's fact. Every single scene will have frequencies beyond Nyquist.


*trust* /trəst/ _verb_
1. believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of.

Sorry, trust requires belief in a fact, it's not the fact itself. That means it's a value judgement. The occurrence of aliasing is a fact. Frequencies beyond Nyquist are a fact. Your lack of trust in those occurrences *is* a value judgement. Trying to claim your opinions are facts is one of the worse forms of intellectual dishonesty, hubris, and often outright stupidity. As I stated, the camera/sensor will behave as designed, OLPF or not. That is also fact. You believe you won't like the results from an AA-less sensor, that's your _belief_ – a value judgement. If it was fact that lack of an AA filter resulted in poor images, no one would ever have bought the Nikon D800E/810, Canon 5DsR, Sony a7III/a9/etc., PhaseOne MF cameras, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> While I think the entire AA discussion is "mountain out of an ant hill", I have to agree with the statement that scientific accuracy in a digital sample suffers without a lowpass filter. You won't find anyone suggesting a scientific instrument doesn't need a lowpass filter, or will work better without one, unless they are absolutely certain that instrument's sampling frequency is higher than anything they will sample.


The discussion was not about 'scientific accuracy', it was about 'trust'. Moreover, a camera (in the context of a photography forum) is not a scientific instrument (unless Lee Jay was being paid to accurately document the number of pickets in a particular fence and his count was wrong due to the lack of an AA filter...in which case, even though the instrument was performing as designed, the person who paid him for the job should not have _trusted_ someone who would pick the wrong tool for the task at hand ). 

My superresolution and other confocal microscopy systems do not have an OLPF, although I do routinely sample at ~2.3x the optical resolution to satisfy Nyquist.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The discussion was not about 'scientific accuracy', it was about 'trust'. Moreover, a camera (in the context of a photography forum) is not a scientific instrument (unless Lee Jay was being paid to accurately document the number of pickets in a particular fence and his count was wrong due to the lack of an AA filter...in which case, even though the instrument was performing as designed, the person who paid him for the job should not have _trusted_ someone who would pick the wrong tool for the task at hand ).
> 
> My superresolution and other confocal microscopy systems do not have an OLPF, although I do routinely sample at ~2.3x the optical resolution to satisfy Nyquist.


If I were in the lab solving a novel protein complex by cryo-electron microscopy, then I certainly would use low-pass filtering. However, if I am taking a photo of my grandson blowing out the candles on his birthday cake, then I am confident that my 5DSR will not add a year or two to his age or make him younger by aliasing the candles and I do trust that my camera would not add an extra pair of wings to an eagle to turn it into the avian equivalent of a biplane.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 24, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I felt the same way about the original 7D. An amazing camera in every respect but it was let down by a very poor sensor. In some ways the 7D paved the way for Canon's next gen AF system and pretty much led to the host of pro-body upgrades that led to the 5DmkIII. But I was never particularly happy with the image quality. Sure, I got some great images from it but I found the images noisier and softer than any other Canon DSLR I've owned and the RAW files couldn't take a lot of processing. But every thing else about the camera was amazing. Even at 400 iso I found noise every where. So I passed on the 7DII, which seemed to have similar issues. I loved the extra reach that the 1.6x crop offered and on paper the camera looked like a very capable 1DxII lite...but the image quality wasn't in the same league.
> Instead I went for a pair of 5DIII's and haven't looked back. Still using them today....sure I'd like to upgrade to a pair of 5D4's but the mkIII's are still working well for me.



I felt the same way about the original 7D. Much less so about the 7D Mark II. It's still an APS-C camera, though.

I shoot a lot with both the 7D2 and the 5D3 and each have uses where they outshine the other.

In flickering light (i.e. stadiums and gyms) the flicker reduction feature introduced with the 7D Mark II that times the shutter release with the peak of the lights gives you almost an extra stop over setting exposure for the average between peak and trough. You also get more consistent color from frame to frame and have very few to no frames where one side is bright and blue and the other side is dim and brown when shooting at Tvs faster than 1/120 (which is way too slow for sports).

The 5D Mark IV, of course, also has flicker reduction. The 5D Mark III, however, does not.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> *trust* /trəst/ _verb_
> 1. believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of.
> 
> Sorry, trust requires belief in a fact, it's not the fact itself.



Belief is acceptance without evidence that justifies such a conclusion. This is a proven mathematical theorem, thus no belief is required. It's simply a fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> Belief is acceptance without evidence that justifies such a conclusion. This is a proven mathematical theorem, thus no belief is required. It's simply a fact.


Semantic BS.  You can trust the 'proven mathematical theorem' (which is a tautology, since a mathematical theorem is proven by definition, although a theory is not and cannot be proven), but your distrust of the camera/sensor is not a theorem, it's your own opinion and value judgement. I've already stated my viewpoint on those who claim their opinions are facts. You continue to demonstrate the accuracy of that viewpoint.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 25, 2019)

caffetin said:


> i would say "JUST WAIT AND SEE".canon is not from yesterday.and sony is just problematic player at any technic. always.canon,nikon,fuji,leica are real photography producers since ever.and to be honest,how many of us are taking photos with iso above 1600 in real world. Martin Osner.Any problem with 5d iv.



Anyone who shoots night/indoor amateur sports all the way up to medium colleges lives at ISO 3200 or above. Lots of event/wedding photographers. Concert/theatrical photographers. Photojournalist covering spot news at night. The list is near endless.

About the only folks that don't need high ISO these days are most landscape specialists, studio portraitists (including those who move their lights outdoors), product photographers, daylight sports and wildlife shooters who can choose to only work in ideal light, and some real estate shooters that have enough time and budget to light the interiors they shoot.




Mikehit said:


> It is always a battle between optical resolution from increasing the pixels vs diffraction. IMO ore pixels always wins (30D vs 7D vs 7D2) - unless you can show me the same image shot with high and low MP presented at the same viewing size that shows me any different.



It's the difference in viewing size that gets a lot of people. They don't realize that when pixel peeping a 20 MP image at 100% (one image pixel = 1 screen pixel) on a 24" HD monitor they're looking at a piece of a roughly 54x36 inch full display size, but then when they look at a 50 MP image at 100% on the same monitor they're looking at a piece of a roughly 96x64 inch display size.

That also goes for noise and motion blur. If the display size is the same, the sensor size is the same, and the focal length is the same, then the same amount of camera movement will produce the same amount of motion blur regardless of the comparative sensor resolutions.



-pekr- said:


> There is imo no chance something like 7D III is going to happen in an EF-M mount. First - ergonomics / size aspects - you want your 7D III being larger than M5, right? Second - with EF-M, there is no upgrade path to the RF mount lens. I think that if something like the 7D III is going to be released one day, it is going to be the RF version. And once that happens, it is going to be the last nail in the coffin of an EF-M mount, not that it will die off, but anchoring it definitely in the hobby segment.



The "hobby" segment is by far the biggest part of Canon's total sales units of ILCs and lenses. Maybe even the biggest part of revenue and profits from ILCs and lenses.




Mikehit said:


> You shoot whatyou have to. If you are doing landscape f5.6 will probably give too little DOF - sometimes these diffraction comments ignore the necessities of the art and end up being purely philosophical.
> Can you show me an image where a high-res sensor 'diffration limited' photo has less resolution than a lower-res sensor image that (in theory) is less 'diffraction limited'??



At the DLA, diffraction _begins_ to be evident when pixel peeping at 100%. If you're not pixel peeping at 100% on a monitor that allows your eyes to resolve a single pixel, diffraction will not be evident at the DLA. As the aperture is closed down further, the effect increases. It's just like depth of field. If you look at an image at 8x10 it has more DoF than if you look at the same image from the same distance displayed at 16x20.




Chris Jankowski said:


> MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one. This essentially leaves only digital electronics. There is a well documented trend since circa 1975 that digital electronics components typically drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity.
> Cheaper to make does not automatically translate to lower prices for the buyer, of course. Manufacturers would like to increase their margin, but competition is likely to force them to lower prices in the end. However, looking at it from the point of view of a manufacturer is is very desirable to have low production cost. You can then can higher margins and still be competitive.
> DSLRs are outselling MILCs because the bottom range DSLRs are actually quite cheap. At least until recently their prices were generally lower than those of MILCs. Rebel T6 with kit zoom lists on Canon US web site for $399.99 and the street price is much lower.
> I would respectfully disagree with your view that adding gizmos to DSLRs can continue. In my view, this is not the case and certainly not on the scale possible in a MILCs. In the AF area the main limitation is the number of AF points in a DSLR. The other limitation is that you by definition cannot display all these gizmo visual effects in the OVF. Of course, you can display them on the LCD in Live View, but then why to have a mirror and OVF, you could just as well use your phone + Instagram. Well, it is actually obvious to me that DSLRs reached maturity. Of course, sensors still change slowly, but the main concept of the DSLR remains more or less constant. The last revolution apart from transition from film to digital was autofocus, but that was 35 years ago still in the film days. The maturity is a good thing in a way and this is why I still use a DSLR.



By that logic, the Canon 5D Mark II was useless for video, since it could only record video with the mirror locked up in Live View. Ditto for every DSLR since the 5DII that has offered video recording. No one would ever think of using the 5D Mark II, the original 7D, the 1D X, the 1D C, 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, etc. to record award winning films, would they?




criscokkat said:


> *IF *the readout speed is vastly increased, I could see digic 8 being fast enough to handle an aps-c sized processor with increased pixel density. It's handling a full frame right now just fine with eye-af, especially with the new firmware. The big hangup has been how fast the speed readout from the chip is. If it was mirroreless, more than likely you'd be able to get 7dMkII like FPS with that setup as well since it's only having to process af points from a much smaller chip, *and the 90d will not be displaying that real time*. Even with increased pixel density it's still less points than the current R when in live view. If you use the digic 8 to interpret phase detect focal systems it will not even begin to tax the chip.
> 
> The 2020 olympic ready mirrorless sports 1dx type camera would need both the increased readout speed AND a newer Digic 9 chip. If they release a full frame version of this newly designed chip in the 70-100 megapixel range the increased readout speed of the sensor would make the current Digic 8 chip work in a hypothetical 5ds replacement, but with slower fps than the R, just like the 5ds versus 5dIII.
> 
> ...



Increasing readout speed by that much by 2020 is a BIG _if_ since it hasn't seemed to move at all for Canon in the last 5+ years.

What do you think is the reason for _only_ 30fps 1080p with full frame sensors?

What do you think is the reason for increasingly higher crop factors for 4K video as the sensor resolutions increase?

What do you think is the reason for the dismal AI Servo frame rate with the EOS R?

For all of the above it is sensor readout speed and probably nothing but sensor readout speed.

The EOS 1D X Mark II has dual DiG!C 6+ image processors, plus a DiG!C 5 processor for combining distance information from the PDAF sensor with color information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to assist in tracking moving subjects using EOS iTR AF. The 7D Mark II has dual DiG!C 6 image processors plus another non-DiG!C designated processor to handle EOS iTR AF.




CanonFanBoy said:


> I've been hoping for pet-eye-Af for a long time. My bearded dragon moves fast when the cat is chasing him around the house. Pet-eye-AF will be a Godsend. Though, I have to wonder whether the camera would confuse the lizard eye with the holes in my Fruit Loops if he happens to be near the bowl. Any word on insect-eye-AF development?



I _must_ have Reptile Eye AF (REAF) in the next Canon model or I'm switching to Hasselblad!




3kramd5 said:


> Without a surprising new sensor, it’s highly unlikely. To achieve the “zero blackout,” the A9’s sensor reads in something like 1/150s. Most sensors read in closer to 1/30s.



BINGO! it's all about sensor readout speed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 25, 2019)

stevelee said:


> So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression.
> 
> Of course there is diffraction at f/1.4, and even more at f/32. The effect becomes noticeable gradually. I would guess that the "limited" moment comes when diffraction starts to be the limiting factor more so than anything else. But I don't know for sure.



Diffraction Limited Aperture is the aperture at which the airy disc of a point source of light at the focus distance becomes larger than the pixel pitch. It's where it _starts_ to become noticeable only if one is viewing at a display size large enough that one's eyes can barely differentiate a single pixel from another.




stevelee said:


> Yes, one needs to decide what is important in making the compromises. Obviously the choices will be different in shooting a misty woodland scene from doing product photography.
> 
> For the 2017 total solar eclipse, I was shooting with my T3i. My only telephoto lens at the time was the rather bad 75-300mm that has a lot of chromatic aberration, among other faults. I was concerned about diffraction, but also needed focusing leeway from depth of field, since I didn't dare look through the OVF, and focusing on the screen, even shaded was rather difficult. I also presumed that stopping down would help minimize the CA. Graphs I saw on line suggested that f/11 was the best choice at 300mm on that lens. Days before, I put the filter on the lens and practiced shooting the sun. Even keeping the sun in the picture was a challenge, even through I had swung the floppy screen into the shadow of the camera itself. It turned out that f/11 gave sharp looking pictures with that less than optimal lens. Sunspots showed up very clearly. My eclipse pictures turned out about as well as those by people using superior equipment.



Here's how I dealt with seeing the non-flippy screen on my cameras during the eclipse: foam board with holes cut just the right size to slide them onto the lens (from the rear before attaching it to the camera).


----------



## stevelee (Apr 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Here's how I dealt with seeing the non-flippy screen on my cameras during the eclipse: foam board with holes cut just the right size to slide them onto the lens (from the rear before attaching it to the camera).



I'll think about that if I head to Dallas in 2024, I think it is. There will probably be fun stuff going on on the SMU campus, where I went to grad school. 

As it was, even with the flippy screen shaded by the camera, it was hard to see. I sent the friend I had come with back to the car to get a black umbrella. He eventually got back, after chatting with a radio crew and a woman who had come from France. And I could see decently well as long as he was patient enough to hold the umbrella. My first few pictures were not usable. I posted some of them and an assembled video at http://www.stevelee.name/eclipse/index.html

If I had not practiced on the sun a few days before, I could not have done much during the eclipse. I had to deal with the realization that to photograph the sun, one has to be out in bright sunlight. The flippy screen helped, but moving the camera to keep the sun in view was harder, because the direction of movement was uncoordinated with how it appeared on the angled screen.


----------

