# All new 24mp sensor coming to the next Canon ILC’s [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 17, 2019)

> We’re told that the next generation of Canon CMOS image sensors will begin with an all-new 24mp APS-C sensor inside Canon’s next DSLR and EOS M cameras.
> What sorts of improvements we’re going to see in the next generation of sensors wasn’t divulged to us, but we’re hoping to see some major advancements from Canon in this area.
> Canon is putting resources into updated dual pixel AF, quad pixel AF and stacked image sensors if we go by the patents we’ve seen over the last year or two. APS-C video shooters might also appreciate line skipping being introduced to get rid of the crop. It’d also be nice to get 4K DPAF in these new cameras.
> The next ILC cameras from Canon are an EOS 80D replacement as well as an update to the EOS M5. Neither of these cameras can afford to recycle the current 24mp sensor by just adding direct read 4K.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Tangent (Apr 17, 2019)

Dynamic Range expansion, please...


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 17, 2019)

I want a 7D replacement when it comes to tracking.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 17, 2019)

promissing...
Bring it on, Canon!


----------



## tron (Apr 17, 2019)

High ISO noise reduction please


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 17, 2019)

I maybe in minority but I dont mind cropped 4k video as long as there is minimal rolling shutter effect.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

Is it too much to hope for oversampled 6k-to-4k video at 24/25/30p with no crop and DPAF?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 17, 2019)

If it doesn't have 20 stops of DR and 8K video it is DOA. And I know it is a crop sensor, but it better give MF 4k at least.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

The 24mp APS-C sensor is dead. Long live the 24mp APS-C sensor.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Is it too much to hope for oversampled 6k-to-4k video at 24/25/30p with no crop and DPAF?



In a word yes if they are talking about line skipping. Sony's 24MP sensor in the A9 and A7III are actually 25.3MP just what you need to do full sensor 6K read-out, which is then downsampled to 4K. It will be a big deal if Canon can offer 4K without a crop let alone any notion of them doing 6K capture.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Is it too much to hope for oversampled 6k-to-4k video at 24/25/30p with no crop and DPAF?



yes, you may as well forget about that.

it's not just the sensor it's the processors that have to handle all that. Canon's only done that on their C700. it's not even in their CINI lineup that much, and they have cooling fans.


----------



## Wandor (Apr 17, 2019)

90D, Canon bring it on iam waiting!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2019)

Not sure what to make of this. CR1 so could be nothing.

But, if true and if the rumors of a 70+ mp full frame sensor are also true, that would mean that the full frame sensor would have more pixel density than the APS-C sensor (which works out to about 62 mp in full frame). That would be a first.

A 24 mp sensor that performs better than the current 80D 24 mp sensor would be welcome news for stills shooters, especially if it is the sensor destined for the 7DIII. But a 24 mp sensor that simply offers better video performance without any improvements for stills, will disappoint stills shooters, who still remain the majority of users for the 80D and 7DIII. 

Best to tamp down the hopes and dreams a bit and just see what happens. (I know, nice goal, but *never* going to happen on this forum)


----------



## Stanri010 (Apr 17, 2019)

I think the most interesting thing here is the part about line skipping "APS-C video shooters might also appreciate line skipping being introduced to get rid of the crop.

If they are indeed looking at line skipping as a ways to get rid of the crop, we may actually be in for a full frame no crop 4K experience on all of their cameras in the near future, including the 70MP one. There's absolutely no way to get any reasonable 4K footage out of 70 megapixels if they continue with the existing crop method.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 17, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> video shooters might also appreciate line skipping being introduced to get rid of the crop.



I hope they leave the two modes an option like they did on the T3i. Line skipping is manageable when shooting objects in nature, but the moire and aliasing is unbearable in an urban setting.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 17, 2019)

All-new or "all-new"? Listening to the way Canon talks about it you'd think the sensor in every body was completely unique and independent.


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 17, 2019)

24MP is good news in that it almost certainly means improved continuous shooting rate (and possibly buffer capacity).


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 17, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> yes, you may as well forget about that.
> 
> it's not just the sensor it's the processors that have to handle all that. Canon's only done that on their C700. it's not even in their CINI lineup that much, and they have cooling fans.



The C700's processors cannot handle much oversampling, it's the reason they record in 5.9k at full frame and 4k is cropped.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 17, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> In a word yes if they are talking about line skipping. Sony's 24MP sensor in the A9 and A7III are actually 25.3MP just what you need to do full sensor 6K read-out, which is then downsampled to 4K. It will be a big deal if Canon can offer 4K without a crop let alone any notion of them doing 6K capture.



It's important to note that the A7III/Z6 does not line skip(but the A7RIII/Z7 does), it oversamples the sensor. Line skipping creates more noise and very noticeable aliasing. A good example of why the C100 has a great looking 1080 image is because it oversamples a 4k sensor. The crop mode (while it won't have the best field of view) will have around the same amount of noise as a line skipper, but it looks more organic and doesn't the color mosaic issues of a line skipper.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Apr 17, 2019)

I’m gonna pounce on a 7d3 like a hungry cougar..


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 17, 2019)

Tangent said:


> Dynamic Range expansion, please...



Why?
Canon is very close in base ISO now and knocks the socks off as you go up in ISO. I would rather have great DR at the higher ISOs than just at the base ISO.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 17, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> I maybe in minority but I dont mind cropped 4k video as long as there is minimal rolling shutter effect.


Unfortunately, that's not what Canon cropped 4k has given us.

Considering you start with a 1.6x crop in APS-C to begin with, there's really no justification for Canon not to give non-cropped video aside from their processor capability not being able to handle it. Which, considering the R, RP, and SL3, may well be the case.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 17, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Why?


Because it is the fashionable thing to say.


----------



## BrightTiger (Apr 17, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’m gonna pounce on a 7d3 like a hungry cougar..


*Umm... feline or human? *Concerned citizen asking for a friend


----------



## BrightTiger (Apr 17, 2019)

BSI while dropping the AA filter would be a welcomed minimum change set. Not ground shaking but Canon needs that extra DR and sharpening and this would not be a terribly hard thing to do technically or financially (unless they really did paint themselves in with their sensor design - and I am beginning to wonder if this is the case). 
Quad would be nice but does that really do anything except improving vertical shots? And would the market really give a crap overall, if that's the case? 
Uncropped video.. um sure whatever. Should have happened long ago. Better have bigger batteries. But the batteries look unchanged so I don't see major video improvements unless the new sensor is way more efficient.
Oh boy.. it might be a long summer.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 17, 2019)

I wouldn't hold my breath, at all, that Canon will remove the AA filter.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Apr 17, 2019)

If I understand the current DPAF sensors correctly, the pixel consists of two independent photodiodes (each with their own microlens and light well) and then combines the photoelectrons between the two upon readout to generate a stronger signal before amplification. Would the new 24MP sensors with QPAF essentially work the same way? Four photodiodes with their own light wells per pixel? 

I ask because I can't help but wonder if it would be possible to eliminate the need to demosaic if a micro-Bayer filter was embedded within each pixel - two green (or one green and one white), one red, and one blue color filter over the photodiodes within a single QPAF pixel. And that would of course assume the pixels are of sufficient enough size to generate a decent signal to begin with. A 24MP APS-C sensor would mean a 4 micrometer pixel with less than 1 sq micrometer for each photodiode in a QPAF configuration. That's probably too much to hope for on a crop sensor due to the threat of pixel cross-talk, but it might be workable on a 24MP full-frame sensor with a 6 micrometer pixel.

But who the hell am I kidding? I just want a 7D mark III by year's end


----------



## flip314 (Apr 17, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath, at all, that Canon will remove the AA filter.



I don't understand why people want to see aliasing artifacts in their photos, but what do I know.

I think you could argue that Canon's AA filters are a bit strong, but _in theory_ you should be able to have AA filters that kill the artifacts and have very little impact on actual fine detail.


----------



## Mark3794 (Apr 17, 2019)

Full sensor 4k and and some noise improvements would be enough, i find the 80d/m50 sensor to be already competitive with other manufacturers


----------



## jvillain (Apr 17, 2019)

Isn't every sensor Canon releases touted as a whole new sensor? Odd that they would stick with a 24MP sensor since every crop camera they make currently has a 24MP sensor. I would think they would pump it up a bit to add some differentiation between the SL3 and the 90D and then flow that down to the SL4 over the next year or two. The margin difference between the SL3 and the 80D have gotten pretty hard to justify now that every crop camera Canon makes has acquired the tech from the 80D.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 17, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I don't understand why people want to see aliasing artifacts in their photos, but what do I know.
> 
> I think you could argue that Canon's AA filters are a bit strong, but _in theory_ you should be able to have AA filters that kill the artifacts and have very little impact on actual fine detail.



I made no statement about what I want, but Canon has released what, a single body with AA filter? That makes it extremely unlikely that any other specific body will lack an AA filter. Better to assume it will be there.


----------



## ecpu (Apr 17, 2019)

Well let's see. Canon said the 6DII had an all new sensor... turned out to be not much of a difference from the original 6D. Then they said EOS R had a new sensor... turned out to be not much of a difference from 5DIV... My guess here would be an all new 24MP sensor that is not much different from the 80D. Perhaps with a slight decrease in DR... you know, kuz Canon.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Apr 17, 2019)

Canon is well aware of the areas they're falling behind. I hope that, in normal Canon fashion, they've waited to implement these new technologies until they have them "perfected" in their eyes. I honestly think Canon is pretty annoyed that 4K is expected from their current generation of sensors - which are honestly terrible options for 4K. When you look at their cinema line with their 4K sensors we're seeing some of the most beautiful images off of them, so we know that Canon can create a terrific 4K Dual-Pixel sensor that shoots C-log. The benefits to a sensor with a faster readout also transfer over to photography as well. We get better potential electronic shutter performance, less noise, potential for higher dynamic range, on-sensor AF performance, the list goes on.

I really look forward to the next M5 and a replacement for the 7D Mark II....if they choose to blend it with the 80D replacement, that's fine with me. As long as it becomes a true 7D Mark II replacement.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Apr 17, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> *Umm... feline or human? *Concerned citizen asking for a friend


Hmm,


BrightTiger said:


> *Umm... feline or human? *Concerned citizen asking for a friend



Haha, either! Same reaction!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 17, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Isn't every sensor Canon releases touted as a whole new sensor? Odd that they would stick with a 24MP sensor since every crop camera they make currently has a 24MP sensor. I would think they would pump it up a bit to add some differentiation between the SL3 and the 90D and then flow that down to the SL4 over the next year or two. The margin difference between the SL3 and the 80D have gotten pretty hard to justify now that every crop camera Canon makes has acquired the tech from the 80D.



Yup. “All new” is now meaningless when stated by Canon. They do sometimes release generational leaps, but all releases will be termed “all new.”


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

preppyak said:


> Unfortunately, that's not what Canon cropped 4k has given us.
> 
> Considering you start with a 1.6x crop in APS-C to begin with, there's really no justification for Canon not to give non-cropped video aside from their processor capability not being able to handle it. Which, considering the R, RP, and SL3, may well be the case.



the crop factor for the FF 4K video has to do more with that is a 8-9MP crop from the center of the sensor.

so with an APS-C camera, you still have a 8-9MP crop in the center, that doesn't change.

So no, your theory is entirely flawed here.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

ecpu said:


> Well let's see. Canon said the 6DII had an all new sensor... turned out to be not much of a difference from the original 6D. Then they said EOS R had a new sensor... turned out to be not much of a difference from 5DIV... My guess here would be an all new 24MP sensor that is not much different from the 80D. Perhaps with a slight decrease in DR... you know, kuz Canon.



sure if you have magic scissors that cut each pixel in half for DPAF it was the exact same sensor as the 6D...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 17, 2019)

flip314 said:


> *I don't understand why people want to see aliasing artifacts in their photos, but what do I know*.
> 
> I think you could argue that Canon's AA filters are a bit strong, but _in theory_ you should be able to have AA filters that kill the artifacts and have very little impact on actual fine detail.


I also don't want to see aliasing artifacts in my photos. And I only very rarely see them with my 5DSR, which is why I would like more sensors without an AA-filter as they give sharper images.
Please explain the theory of how you can have AA-filters that kill the artifacts and have very little impact on actual fine detail.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 17, 2019)

Perhaps a little against the grain, but what about today's sensor tech in a 10/12 mp APSC sensor? Think of the potential DR and high ISO performance. This would be worth much more to me!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 17, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> *Umm... feline or human? *Concerned citizen asking for a friend


Why can’t it be both?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 17, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’m gonna pounce on a 7d3 like a hungry cougar..


I skipped the 7DII and got sick of waiting for 7DIII, got the D500 and 200-500 instead. Awesome combo. I'll be surprised if Canon can even surpass that 4 years after it's release.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Yup. “All new” is now meaningless when stated by Canon. They do sometimes release generational leaps, but all releases will be termed “all new.”


Why, it's not meaningless. It now translates to 'the same but slightly tweaked'. An actually new sensor will be called 'revolutionary' or something like that, so we will know.


----------



## Trey T (Apr 18, 2019)

I’m betting the 7D replacement is coming. I’m not sure there’s a significant market for 80D replacement when the RP can match it in most aspects


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 18, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> yes, you may as well forget about that.
> 
> it's not just the sensor it's the processors that have to handle all that. Canon's only done that on their C700. it's not even in their CINI lineup that much, and they have cooling fans.



So, I guess you're saying Canon doesn't have processors that can handle all that inside a DSLR body?


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 18, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> So, I guess you're saying Canon doesn't have processors that can handle all that inside a DSLR body?



It's either that or sensor readout speed that's the bottle neck. The C700 is able to do a full readout fast enough because it's a low resolution sensor. The 5.9k sensor crops for 4k, but it can shoot 5.9k with no crop.


----------



## symmar22 (Apr 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I also don't want to see aliasing artifacts in my photos. And I only very rarely see them with my 5DSR, which is why I would like more sensors without an AA-filter as they give sharper images.
> Please explain the theory of how you can have AA-filters that kill the artifacts and have very little impact on actual fine detail.



I am with you here, I got rid of the AA filter when switching to the 5DSr and and never looked back. Now my backup camera is a Sony A7R and my next camera will likely be the next Canon that doesn't have an AA filter. I do mostly architecture and interieur for a living, and I still have to try to find a single picture that shows any artifacts. Actually when I picture fabrics, I have less (if any) moiré, when my 5D2 with AA was a moiré beast. High Res cameras do not need AA filters, period. I prefer to have 1 picture out of 1000 with a vague artifact in the background than all my pictures with a soft filter. IMO Canon is too conservative on the matter.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2019)

symmar22 said:


> I am with you here, I got rid of the AA filter when switching to the 5DSr and and never looked back. Now my backup camera is a Sony A7R and my next camera will likely be the next Canon that doesn't have an AA filter. I do mostly architecture and interieur for a living, and I still have to try to find a single picture that shows any artifacts. Actually when I picture fabrics, I have less (if any) moiré, when my 5D2 with AA was a moiré beast. High Res cameras do not need AA filters, period. I prefer to have 1 picture out of 1000 with a vague artifact in the background than all my pictures with a soft filter. IMO Canon is too conservative on the matter.


Yes, especially the higher the resolution, the less the need for AA-filters as the artifacts are pushed to higher and higher frequencies.


----------



## degos (Apr 18, 2019)

symmar22 said:


> I am with you here, I got rid of the AA filter when switching to the 5DSr and and never looked back.



Your 5DSR has exactly the same AA filter as the 5DS, it just has a de-AA filter behind it too... it restores most of the original optical path but doesn't replicate non-AA to 100%.

We have never had a Canon camera delivered without an AA filter.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I also don't want to see aliasing artifacts in my photos. And I only very rarely see them with my 5DSR, which is why I would like more sensors without an AA-filter as they give sharper images.



One of my very first shoots with the 5Ds showed moire in the groom's shirt. I would have hated to see it or clean it up without the AA filter attenuating it. While pixel peeping I could also find sections of his jacket and the bride's dress that would have broken out into full moire on a 5Dsr (i.e. they were showing hints of it).

Before buying I went cross-eyed looking at test shots for sharpness and fine detail differences. On sharpness I found the difference amounted to small changes in post sharpening. I sharpen each image to taste any way so I would rather deal with that than moire. On fine detail/resolved detail I could not find a convincing example where one actually resolved more than the other. (I did find a couple examples where the 5Ds shot seemed to suffer from some other factor which the reviewer pinned on the AA filter.)

*That said* it seems the 5Ds filter is weak which would make sense as the 5Dsr has to _cancel_ that filter. It's not actually removed. A lot of other Canon cameras seem to have AA filters which are too strong. I'm in the camp that would like to see Canon continue to use AA filters, just weak ones.


----------



## padam (Apr 18, 2019)

This camera won't have an AA filter (not cancelled like the 5DsR) and it will be fairly weak for video and speed, simple as that. It will be interesting to see it against the GFX and other cameras.

If the highest resolution/IQ at reasonable ISOs is not a priority, it is not the ideal camera for those, so no point in complaining about things that it wasn't intended for. With the CR3 it will have crop modes and compressed Raw, not sure about smaller Raw options.

Of course most people would prefer to just have an EOS R Mark II or something with its missing features added in, but that will have wait for quite a while, and a higher-end, much more expensive model will get those 'fixed' first and other cameras from other manufactures will be released in the meantime. So the banter can continue forever.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 18, 2019)

padam said:


> This camera won't have an AA filter (not cancelled like the 5DsR) and it will be fairly weak for video and speed, simple as that.



source?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> One of my very first shoots with the 5Ds showed moire in the groom's shirt. I would have hated to see it or clean it up without the AA filter attenuating it. While pixel peeping I could also find sections of his jacket and the bride's dress that would have broken out into full moire on a 5Dsr (i.e. they were showing hints of it).
> 
> Before buying I went cross-eyed looking at test shots for sharpness and fine detail differences. On sharpness I found the difference amounted to small changes in post sharpening. I sharpen each image to taste any way so I would rather deal with that than moire. On fine detail/resolved detail I could not find a convincing example where one actually resolved more than the other. (I did find a couple examples where the 5Ds shot seemed to suffer from some other factor which the reviewer pinned on the AA filter.)
> 
> *That said* it seems the 5Ds filter is weak which would make sense as the 5Dsr has to _cancel_ that filter. It's not actually removed. A lot of other Canon cameras seem to have AA filters which are too strong. I'm in the camp that would like to see Canon continue to use AA filters, just weak ones.


Optyczne and lensrentals have measured the MTFs with sharp lenses on the 5DSR and 5DS and found the 5DSR to be significantly sharper - see
https://www.optyczne.pl/324.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds_Rozdzielczość.html
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/
Here are the Optyczne results


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Optyczne and lensrentals have measured the MTFs with sharp lenses on the 5DSR and 5DS and found the 5DSR to be significantly sharper - see



I don't print graphs. Here's the sharpness difference at full size. This is extreme hair splitting that would be invisible in any print with no post processing.




Here it is with 35%/2px applied to the left.



If the three were unlabeled and shuffled I don't know if I could accurately, repeatedly tell them apart while pixel peeping. No human has the eyesight to tell them apart in a print. The difference is less than the difference between fine art papers on an Epson Pro printer.


----------



## symmar22 (Apr 18, 2019)

degos said:


> Your 5DSR has exactly the same AA filter as the 5DS, it just has a de-AA filter behind it too... it restores most of the original optical path but doesn't replicate non-AA to 100%.
> 
> We have never had a Canon camera delivered without an AA filter.



I know it's just a "canceled" AA filter on the 5DSr, the same Nikon did on the D800E. The result tough is equivalent., though my A7R that doesn't have any AA filter, seems a micro hair sharper at pixel level.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I don't print graphs. Here's the sharpness difference at full size. This is extreme hair splitting that would be invisible in any print with no post processing.
> 
> View attachment 183938
> 
> ...


You don't print graphs. I don't use prints of playing cards that lack fine detail to make judgements about resolution of fine detail.

Putting it scientifically, conventional sharpening increases edge sharpness, and so you could sharpen edges from a 5DS image to be very close to that from a 5DSR. But, when it comes to fine detail, like measured by lensrentals or optyczne, the 5DSR has higher resolution.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You don't print graphs. I don't use prints of playing cards that lack fine detail to make judgements about resolution of fine detail.



Considering the size of the cards in the full dpreview test scene they're a valid example. If you want to go 'finer' look at the fabric samples in the Imaging Resource test shots, or the fine print in the dpreview shot. Or hair, eyelashes, and skin pores in model shots. Still no difference that's visible outside of pixel peeping.



> Putting it scientifically, conventional sharpening increases edge sharpness, and so you could sharpen edges from a 5DS image to be very close to that from a 5DSR.



You can manipulate either shot to produce a much higher MTF50 value than LensRentals recorded. However, the level of sharpening that produces the maximum MTF50 value in a test isn't going to look very pleasing to the eye. Such tests can be informative, but understand how they work, what their limitations are, and how they map to the real world. Especially in the age of digital processing.



> But, when it comes to fine detail, like measured by lensrentals or optyczne, the 5DSR has higher resolution.



They didn't test fine detail or resolution, they tested sharpness.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Considering the size of the cards in the full dpreview test scene they're a valid example. If you want to go 'finer' look at the fabric samples in the Imaging Resource test shots, or the fine print in the dpreview shot. Or hair, eyelashes, and skin pores in model shots. Still no difference that's visible outside of pixel peeping.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> They didn't test fine detail or resolution, they tested sharpness.


Read the y-axis of the graph: the units are lpmm = line pairs per mm ie resolution. The MTFs reported are resolution.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Read the y-axis of the graph: the units are lpmm = line pairs per mm ie resolution. The MTFs reported are resolution.



The MTF50 point is not a measure of "resolution" or "fine detail", i.e. extinction resolution. It's the traditional point chosen to measure perception of sharpness.

*Edit:* lpmm at MTF10 is traditionally the measurement point for total or extinction resolution.

*Also:* comparing numbers at one point is ultimately a poor way to judge how two optical elements (sensors; lenses) compare. We've always done it because people have an insatiable need for clear, simple scores. But seeing a full MTF curve is always better.

Let's say that Lens A tests to 80 lpmm MTF50 and Lens B to 60 lpmm MTF50. Is that because Lens B contrast at 80 lpmm is 49% or 11%? 80/60 may indicate very little perceptible difference if the graph for Lens B shows a shallow descent that just happened to dip below the test threshold sooner, or a large difference if the graph is nose diving. Every image comparison I've reviewed or made suggests the former for canceled AA vs. AA sensors (both 5Ds/sr and D800/E).

Again: I think Canon's AA filters in general are too strong. The 5Ds probably has a weak one as a consequence of needing to cancel it for the 5Dsr. But if you shoot weddings/fashion/urban landscape you really don't want to loose it completely. If Canon's next high resolution system is an R with no AA I'll certainly still be happy with it. But if they continue to give the choice I would likely make the same choice again.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Read the y-axis of the graph: the units are lpmm = line pairs per mm ie resolution. The MTFs reported are resolution.


It has the same units as resolution. But it becomes the actual resolution only when your noise is 50% (for MTF50) as strong as your signal.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 19, 2019)

My favourite article on MTF is by Norman Koren, and I quote from it.
*


Understanding resolution and MTF


*
“Perceived image sharpness (as distinguished from traditional lp/mm resolution) is closely related to the spatial frequency where MTF is 50% (0.5)— where contrast has dropped by half.”

“MTF is the _spatial_ frequency response of an imaging system or a component; it is the contrast at a given spatial frequency relative to low frequencies.

Spatial frequency is typically measured in cycles or line pairs per _millimeter_ (lp/mm), which is analogous to cycles per _second_ (Hertz) in audio systems. Lp/mm is most appropriate for film cameras, where formats are relatively fixed (i.e., 35mm full frame = 24x36mm), but cycles/pixel (c/p) or line widths per picture height (LW/PH) may be more appropriate for digital cameras, which have a wide variety of sensor sizes.

High spatial frequencies correspond to fine image detail. The more extended the response, the finer the detail— the sharper the image.”

Those MTF values by Lensrentals and Optyczne show by proper measurement that the 5DSR has significantly higher MTF values than the 5DS and hence higher perceived sharpness. Eyeballing photos of playing cards that lack fine detail that needs to be resolved gives little information on resolution and is certainly no substitute for quantitative measurements.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> High spatial frequencies correspond to fine image detail. The more extended the response, the finer the detail— the sharper the image.”



This last part is false, and that's surprising considering the source. Image sharpness and resolved detail are not only different things, lens designers sometimes find they can trade off one *against* the other. (Not sure how often that comes up with CAD and modern manufacturing, but it came up in the past.)

Edit: Norman's other writings are consistent with what I'm saying. I think the problem here is a poorly worded 2nd sentence.



> Those MTF values by Lensrentals and Optyczne show by proper measurement that the 5DSR has significantly higher MTF values than the 5DS and hence higher perceived sharpness.



Such confidence considering you can't see the actual plot, just one number at one contrast point.



> Eyeballing photos of playing cards that lack fine detail that needs to be resolved gives little information on resolution and is certainly no substitute for quantitative measurements.



You don't have a quantitative measurement of the extinction resolution for either camera. I would challenge you to find it because I looked for it and the problem is that the couple sites that report extinction resolution all found that both cameras out resolved their targets.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

*Reminder:* for me on a 4k monitor (at least) images display larger than 100% on this forum. I find this odd but if you download them they should "pixel peep" normally.

On a 4k monitor 100% should be roughly equivalent to a 40" print. On a traditional FHD monitor it will be roughly equivalent to a 90" print. Give or take based on your specific monitor's dpi (mine is 216). I'll refer to print sizes since 100%/200% is relative to your monitor. For me those values = 40" / 80" print sizes.

With that out of the way...

I'm going to post a series of comparisons similar to (some) of what I did when I was deciding between the two. All crops are from Imaging Resource test RAWs. In all cases I used ACR, Adobe Standard v2, all sharpening and LNR off, and all lens corrections off. Order (left to right or top to bottom) is 5Ds / 5Dsr / 5Ds sharpened (if present).

First sample makes one wonder if there's ANY reason to choose one over the other. Moire shows in the verticals and sharpness is indistinguishable at 40". The verticals are the smallest bit less "rough" on the 5Ds and the moire on the bottom left vertical is ever so slightly less.

If I had gone off this comparison alone I would have bought the 5Dsr simply because I think its badge colors look nicer.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

Here's a subsection of numbers from the above. I thought at 80" I could see a slight sharpness difference, so I wondered what it would take to equal that. Bottom section is 5Ds sharpened 20%/1px.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

Here's a section including the horizontal test lines. At 40" there are slight sharpness differences with the far right sharpened 5Ds sample being the sharpest, indicating a difference of less than 20%/1px between the cameras. Horizontal test lines are fully resolved on both. (As I said, the 5Ds bodies out resolve the target.)


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

Now the fabric section from their studio scene. In this case I sharpened 35%/1px based on the red sections. I didn't feel like 20%/1px cut it. (Expected with lower contrast detail and the color red.) A bigger difference in favor of the 5Dsr! But still the same detail resolution, and still no difference that would survive the full image chain to print at any size.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

Now some text from that scene. Again 35%/1px for the sharpened bottom sample. I have a hard time telling them apart at 80". I can't reliably do so at 40".


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

Same story with this one. At 40" I cannot reliably tell them apart. At 80" I just barely can. The part of the label above this is one of the samples which convinced me I wanted the AA filter, as it had full on moire on the 5Dsr but none on the 5Ds.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

And last one, vertical lines from the resolution chart. In this case I bumped the sharpening to 40%/1px. At 40" I can see the small difference between them. The 5Dsr (middle) is sharper but is also aliasing, and the sharpened 5Ds (right) is the best. If we're splitting hairs one could point out that near extinction resolution aliasing will give you more problems in post than a bit less detail contrast (sharpening).


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2019)

Now that I've posted those comparisons...

Before buying I obsessed more than I should have and I reviewed many more samples than just Imaging Resource and DPReview, and that included some landscape (distant foliage) samples. I did discount two examples where I thought user error was at play. (Not gross user error, but unaccounted for misfocus or motion blur.)

I consistently found the 5Dsr was a bit sharper viewed at 80" but also exhibited a bit more aliasing. I never found a difference in resolved detail, only a difference in detail contrast. In no case did I think the sharpness/aliasing differences would actually matter even in _unprocessed_ prints. More important to me: *I found no difference which would survive post processing. *I was primarily interested in whether or not the sharpness difference would force me to _over sharpen_ to compensate, thereby introducing processing artifacts. (Something I sometimes struggled with on images from Canon crop sensors.) Not even close. The sharpness differences are far below the sharpening I would normally perform on any image to achieve what I feel is optimal for a given print size.

That's why I went with a slightly lower chance of full on moire, because when moire breaks out it's visible in an 8x10 and on the web and it has to be cleaned up.

These two bodies (and the D800 vs D800E) are basically interchangeable. In real life the advice I gave to another photographer was: if you're OCD about being able to claim the mostest sharpest ever! buy the 5Dsr. If you're OCD about moire buy the 5Ds. If you're not OCD choose gold or silver+red for your badge color.

And no, I don't care about one number from a test that's supposed to produce a graph. The full graph can give you some idea about real world performance, but the one number is nearly useless. At the end of the day I care about real world prints of real world subjects.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2019)

I suggest we let the discussion end at this point with a mutual agreement to disagree. It's not like it's for or against the phenomenon of global warning that affects the whole planet and its individual inhabitants but instead merely that you go on happily with the view that AA-filters do not slightly blur images and I take the opposite view that they do slightly blur as they are designed to lower MTFs.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I suggest we let the discussion end at this point with a mutual agreement to disagree...but instead merely that you go on happily with the view that AA-filters do not slightly blur images and I take the opposite view that they do slightly blur



You could have said 'let's agree to disagree' without intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. Sad...


----------

