# Canon EOS sensors, and technology



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 8, 2014)

What I find odd in a number of sensor discussions and comparisons of 35 to MF, The size of the sensor takes the main topic of focus while other aspects are sidelined and  one of those is more simple and an integral reasons why MF is better quality. 

I read a number of posts saying that its only for enthusiasts and such, which is not true. There are legitimate fields of photography beyond landscape that the MF is crucial, such as high end product, and many other macro related shooting that needs details, also some medical segments. Just because many things get dummied down to the web doesn't mean that's it. There are fine print publications and most importantly, trade shows that surge our economy and industries world wide... they need large clear prints.

So the main feature MF renders better IQ is simple. Its the AA filter I have been asking Canon to make optional for a decade now. 

There's a reason why Nikon with D800E, and Sony A7R have product lines without the AA filter.
There's a reason why you read in PRO and top forums the bridge from MF and 35 is getting tiny due to the D800E, and A7R!
There's a reason why you have some shooters waiting for Canon, while others are switching to Sony or Nikon for the need.(I'm holding out as much as I can, and at the threshold).

The other reason used to be the photosite size. MF used to be 11-12, 9 microns. Even Canon 1Ds had large ones.
But the tech is getting cleaner, and sophisticated with lenes and such..as we see MF dB's even scale down the microns to around 5-6 to get higher mpixel count. 
Anyway...

Bottom line is that the AA free images have a 3D quality mainly due to the image not getting filtered. I remember shooting with the old Kodak DSLRc. The images were very comparable to the PhaseOne P25 files IQ(never mind the color issues it had). Except one was 14~mp vs 22~mp. Like the MF. 

It would be my dream for canon to have its own Foveon-like sensor in a 30-40mp of the highest IQ.

No DOUBT Foveon has something special. No doubt they are being protective about it too long for their own good as other technologies develop. License the thing, or use a Canikon mount and let developers find solutions for the megapixel limit. I wonder if Sony has their own version? I think Fuji does with the "Honeycomb" pattern.

CANON!!! Please come up with a 28+mp AA FREE CAMERA!!! How long do we have to wait? If its so important for a few scientists that have little real world expereince, how hard is it to give the option of putting some filter on the sensor, on the glass, or just a model option for those rare niche shooters who do close-up textile work, or those that worry about moire. It rarely happens and is easy to correct. Don't look at it as a flaw. Or buy Foveon from Sigma and make a real IQ based camera. Blow the doors off others and take that segment too!!! DO IT NOW!!(in my best Arnold voice).


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 8, 2014)

Have you seen the comparisons between AA filtered and non-AA filter cameras? The differences are miniscule, even at 100% and only then using the best lenses at their sharpest (usually f/5.6) apertures. To me, it's more of a marketing gimmick, but Canon has reduced the intensity of their AA filters over the years. If you really want sharp landscapes, buy the TS-E 24 II or 17 lenses. These lenses and their Tilt will give you way sharper and way more in-focus images than you'll see by removing the AA filter.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Have you seen the comparisons between AA filtered and non-AA filter cameras? The differences are miniscule, even at 100% and only then using the best lenses at their sharpest (usually f/5.6) apertures. To me, it's more of a marketing gimmick, but Canon has reduced the intensity of their AA filters over the years. If you really want sharp landscapes, buy the TS-E 24 II or 17 lenses. These lenses and their Tilt will give you way sharper and way more in-focus images than you'll see by removing the AA filter.



To you, YES. NO to all other counts relative to IQ.
Maybe miniscule in people, landscapes and the like. For many product macro shoots, it is a very different story. It's obvious you haven't needed to photograph macro products, or even needed the use of multiple systems and testing. If you did, you would never say this. I also know of some medical use that a AA free sensor will gain from. So for your needs, this conversation doesn't really make a difference.

For someone who has actually used the Canon's or Nik since/before the 10D, 1Ds, 5Dm2... against OLDER(than the 1Ds/5D) sensors like a Kodak Pro SLRc, it is easy to see that the non AA sensor has the IQ, and 3D like sharpness and look of the MF( CCD also plays a role). Why do you think Foveon users are such lovers of their cameras, (until they hit the mpixel limit)? Its not debatable. Look at DXo. Look at the D800E, the A7R. Then tell me it is a gimmick. Have you used these cameras? The difference is a good chunk of a bite they gain. I opt for Medium Format because what I shoot demands it. My customers demand it. Life would be MUCH easier if I didn't have to bust out a 4x5/MF dB for a shoot. Work would be much smoother.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 8, 2014)

and not to forget about moire either, now that is something that will actually ruin images whereas an AA filter will make then slightly less crisp.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 8, 2014)

Hannes said:


> and not to forget about moire either, now that is something that will actually ruin images whereas an AA filter will make then slightly less crisp.



How long have you been shooting for?

I keep hearing this, and from a scientific standpoint, it maybe something to consider. Do you think Nikon AND Sony would launch it if it were as big an issue as you think?

Do you think ALL MF camera users would use the optional AA filter if they had to? We don't, unless we shoot some close up textile stuff. It just makes it easier for post.

Otherwise, with about 400K images in my database, I think I came across this happening once, and all it took was a click in editing. DONE! Sorry if I come off strong on this, but it is sad to hear this song played everytime the AA conversation comes up. In real world experience it is hardly an issue. I think an EASY choice to not have it for image quality.
Yes some sensor specs and sizes make it more atuned to getting moire, yet I don't see anyone care about it except in the lab.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 8, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> CANON!!! Please come up with a 28+mp AA FREE CAMERA!!! How long do we have to wait? ...DO IT NOW!!(in my best Arnold voice).



Okay. Here we go again. 

People get upset when told this, but the truth is, it all boils down to economics. 

You believe there is a market for the product you want. But, is that market large enough and sufficiently competitive to justify Canon to take the action you request? The only one who knows for sure would be Canon and they are not talking.

No company can survive going after 100% of potential customers. There are always customers that have to be left on the table because it just isn't possible to serve them and make sufficient profit – the people who want to buy a 5DIII at $1,200; those who want a Medium Format body at half the price of current competitors; etc. etc. 

Companies have limited resources and a responsibility to put those resources where they will offer the best return. Canon has emphasized cinema in recent years. They obviously have determined that the market justifies their investment. That may be why they haven't released a high megapixel camera yet...the market may not justify the investment.

The hard truth is this: What we as individuals want is irrelevant. What we in the aggregate, comprising tens of thousands or even millions of like-minded consumers want is all-important. 

Killing off the AA filter just isn't important enough to enough consumers to justify it at this point, regardless of whether or not it might improve image quality.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2014)

Let's start with a bit of logic.....

A medium format sensor is typically in the 50mm x 40mm size range..... about 2000 square mm's

A FF sensor is typically 36mm x 24mm, or about 860 square mm's

A crop sensor is typically 22.4mm x 14.8mm, or about 330 square mm's

The technology is the same for all of them.... yes, the number of pixels and the size of the pixels varies, but the underlying technology is the same.... light shines onto a sensor where the photoreceptors are arranged in a simple geometric pattern. the only significant difference between them is that with more surface area, a larger sensor can have larger pixels and that means better low light performance. With the ratio in size, and given the same level of technology and number of pixels, that give FF about 1.5 stops better performance than APS-C and MF about 1.5 stops better performance than FF.... The FF/MF debate is the same as the APS-C/FF debate...

If the image that you are trying to capture also has a geometric pattern, there will be an interference pattern created between the two geometric patterns. The closer these two are in size, the more pronounced the pattern is.

Some people claim to never have problems with moire... and they are right! For the images they shoot they don't have the problem of geometric pattern interference.

Some people claim that moire is a big problem.... and they are right! For the images they shoot, geometric pattern interference is a problem.

The AA filter is a half-way measure.... it does not eliminate all moire, but it gets rid of a lot... it is a balancing act between artifacts and sharpness.... it was chosen as the best GENERAL PURPOSE solution because there is no way that Canon is going to come out with ten cameras with AA filters ranging from strong to none.

There is no almighty "one solution for all"... but there is one general consideration here... As focusing gets better and as the quality of your lenses gets better, and as your technique gets better.... pictures become sharper and moire is more noticeable.

We should all remember that just because we do not have a problem, it does not mean the problem does not exist. And we should also remember that because we do have a problem, not everyone is affected.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

> There is no almighty "one solution for all"... but there is one general consideration here... As focusing gets better and as the quality of your lenses gets better, and as your technique gets better.... pictures become sharper and moire is more noticeable.
> We should all remember that just because we do not have a problem, it does not mean the problem does not exist. And we should also remember that because we do have a problem, not everyone is affected.




Unfocused...What does it mean "OK, here we go again" ? Is it maybe that this voice is getting louder? Maybe?

One thing is certain. If Canon DOESN'T do anything about the still image evolution, and squarely concentrates on Motion-video, they will drop a large segment of users. A very small insignificant amount have already adapted to the A7R for lens options, crisp clear sharp images, portability, mpixel, very well suited for landscape, architecture, automotive, product, and many other things. For a numberi of users it has been the alternate for MF.

I'm certainly not saying for Canon to jump into MF market. I am saying to up the pixel count and give the OPTION of having no AA filter. (maybe a clever way of a insert between the lens and sensor. That's what the top engineers are for).

Don your response is most logical and agreeable.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Phil Indeblanc said:
> 
> 
> > > There is no almighty "one solution for all"... but there is one general consideration here... As focusing gets better and as the quality of your lenses gets better, and as your technique gets better.... pictures become sharper and moire is more noticeable.
> ...



It is hard to guess the future....

So what happens if Canon goes mirrorless on their DSLR's.... If they keep the existing lenses you now have all this space where the mirror used to be.... perhaps they could have an AA filter that slips in and out... and perhaps you can have the option of replacing the AA filter like we replaced focus screens back in the good old days...

There is always a way...

P.S. If there are a bunch of Canon engineers reading this and saying "Brilliant! why didn't we think of that"... feel free to ship me a free 600F4


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Its not debatable. *Look at DXo.* Look at the D800E, the A7R. Then tell me it is a gimmick. Have you used these cameras? The difference is a good chunk of a bite they gain.



You are arguing that lack of an AA filter results in a sharper image, and citing DxO as evidence? Please point to a DxO reference where they state that they test sensor sharpness, or point to examples of the same lens tested on a D800E or a7R compared to that lens tested on a D800. 

Comparing the D800E to the D800, images from the latter are much more amenable to sharpening in post, and when properly sharpened, images from the two are not significantly different. 



Phil Indeblanc said:


> One thing is certain. If Canon DOESN'T do anything about the still image evolution, and squarely concentrates on Motion-video, they will drop a large segment of users. A very small insignificant amount have already adapted to the A7R for lens options, crisp clear sharp images, portability, mpixel, very well suited for landscape, architecture, automotive, product, and many other things. For a numberi of users it has been the alternate for MF.
> 
> I'm certainly not saying for Canon to jump into MF market. I am saying to up the pixel count and give the OPTION of having no AA filter. (maybe a clever way of a insert between the lens and sensor. That's what the top engineers are for).



Nikon released the D800 and the D800E, and expected to sell fewer of the D800E. The 5DIII, with its AA filter and lower MP count, has outsold both. Where's that 'large segment of users' that Canon has dropped?

I'll echo 'here we go again' – another prediction of doom for Canon if they don't make the product *you* want. This is a common refrain from people who don't seem to realize or cannot accept that they are in the minority.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

> You are arguing that lack of an AA filter results in a sharper image, and citing DxO as evidence? Please point to a DxO reference where they state that they test sensor sharpness, or point to examples of the same lens tested on a D800E or a7R compared to that lens tested on a D800.




I'm not arguing the point, it is a fact.



> Comparing the D800E to the D800, images from the latter are much more amenable to sharpening in post, and when properly sharpened, images from the two are not significantly different.



No such thing as creating real information in post. Refer to answer one.



> Nikon released the D800 and the D800E, and expected to sell fewer of the D800E. The 5DIII, with its AA filter and lower MP count, has outsold both. Where's that 'large segment of users' that Canon has dropped?



Didn't the D800E outsell the D800?! 

OK, I shouldn't say large segment. But "ground breaking" changes or improvements are what big tech companies need to keep the spirit of innovation alive, don't you think? People who echo these sometimes small, and sometimes game changing innovations are what can snowball the market direction.



> I'll echo 'here we go again' – another prediction of doom for Canon if they don't make the product *you* want. This is a common refrain from people who don't seem to realize or cannot accept that they are in the minority.




Doom for Canon? No. 
I am certainly aware that I'm in the minority. 
What you might be saying is that minorities don't have a voice in large organizations that only tailor product to the general standard/mediocre requirements for the simple equasion of maximum profit gain for the minimal output? Are you saying Canon has no more canon-balls? If other companies are using such innovations to gain market share, doesn't Canon have the right to protect its integrety and say, "Ya, we know all about that, and yes that is cool, But, BAM!, try this on for size!" And keep the band marching? I certainly don't expect for Canon to be quiet and say, "Hmmm, that sucks, they did it first, so we will ignore it and just work on more video related stuff...If we ignore it, it will go away".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> > You are arguing that lack of an AA filter results in a sharper image, and citing DxO as evidence? Please point to a DxO reference where they state that they test sensor sharpness, or point to examples of the same lens tested on a D800E or a7R compared to that lens tested on a D800.
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing the point, it is a fact.



Yes, it is a fact. The magnitude of that difference is not so obvious. Detail that is present but blurred in a predictable manner can be brought out in post. (Side note - optical microscopes can now resolve beyond the Abbé diffraction limit, and one way of achieving that uses post-processing analysis of moiré resulting from patterned illumination, i.e. since the pattern is predictable, detail not present in the image can be extrapolated mathematically.)

Also, depending on the lens much of that extra detail may not be there to begin with, which is why the D800 with a Nikon 24-70/2.8 barely outresolves a 5DIII with a Canon 24-70/2.8 II, despite the 60% higher MP count of the D800's sensor. 

Regardless, your statement, "Look at DxO," has absolutely no bearing on the fact at hand. Why invoke a completely irrelevant source of information to support your contention? It certainly does not benefit your credibility.



Phil Indeblanc said:


> OK, I shouldn't say large segment. But "ground breaking" changes or improvements are what big tech companies need to keep the spirit of innovation alive, don't you think? People who echo these sometimes small, and sometimes game changing innovations are what can snowball the market direction.



Dual pixel AF could be considered a 'groundbreaking' innovation. Canon can certainly innovate, however they tend to bring forth innovations that impact large market segments rather than niche market segments.



Phil Indeblanc said:


> Doom for Canon? No.
> I am certainly aware that I'm in the minority.
> What you might be saying is that minorities don't have a voice in large organizations that only tailor product to the general standard/mediocre requirements for the simple equasion of maximum profit gain for the minimal output? Are you saying Canon has no more canon-balls? *If other companies are using such innovations to gain market share*, doesn't Canon have the right to protect its integrety and say, "Ya, we know all about that, and yes that is cool, But, BAM!, try this on for size!"



The question is, _are_ those other companies gaining market share? In particular, Nikon cited slower than expected sales of high end dSLRs (i.e., the D800) as a reason for the YTD loss they posted last quarter. It's also relative - a significant gain for Sony (not that there's evidence of that) would be a minor loss for Canon.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Have you seen the comparisons between AA filtered and non-AA filter cameras? The differences are miniscule, even at 100% and only then using the best lenses at their sharpest (usually f/5.6) apertures. To me, it's more of a marketing gimmick, but Canon has reduced the intensity of their AA filters over the years. If you really want sharp landscapes, buy the TS-E 24 II or 17 lenses. These lenses and their Tilt will give you way sharper and way more in-focus images than you'll see by removing the AA filter.
> ...


LOL, you're in your own world, and obviously there's no arguing with you.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> OK, I shouldn't say large segment. But "ground breaking" changes or improvements are what big tech companies need to keep the spirit of innovation alive, don't you think? People who echo these sometimes small, and sometimes game changing innovations are what can snowball the market direction.



I think we are on the edge of a shift in digital cameras.

We need to step back and ask "why mirrors". In the days of film, you needed the mirror and optical viewfinder to know what you were looking at and we needed focusing screens to know if we were in focus.... Then came digital sensors and we treated them like film... because that is what we were used to.

A digital sensor is NOT film. It has different strengths and different weakness.... and the mirror is no longer the only way to see through the lens. A decent mirrorless camera (and there are several on them out there) will be designed to the strengths of digital technology. They already do many things better than DSLRs, but a great mirrorless camera will have to do everything better. Right now, the two big stumbling blocks are focusing and viewfinders.

Dual pixel technology may well be the end of the focusing dilemma... and as it matures we should be able to have far more capable focusing systems on mirrorless cameras than with DSLRs... the point I keep bringing up is that we should be able to recognize a bird and track it as it flies through the air, even though the operator is not steady. We already have P/S cameras that recognize individual faces and can even tag them for use on social media and I have a waterproof P/S that has "cat mode" and "dog mode" and when you put it in "cat mode" it tracks the face of the cat and not the dog so please don't tell me this is a far-fetched idea... It's not coming, it's already here!

The second stumbling block is viewfinders. Right now, optical viewfinders are better than EVFs.. A few years ago EVFs were garbage... there are some real nice ones now.... who knows what the future will bring? At some point, people will stop trying to design an EVF to be like an optical viewfinder and design them to the strengths of digital... perhaps they will get a bit bigger... perhaps you will have a little window open up on it to check focus at 10X... or exposure preview.... or whatever... but until they stop pretending it is optical they will be inferior. I am sure that what is currently in the labs is good enough for the real world.... we are that close.

I can see Canon coming out with a new camera that shakes things up. I would love to see a quad-pixel technology 7D mirrorless camera where you could address the sub-pixels individually for a 24megapixel image with similar ISO and noise to the 70D, or bin them together for a 6megapixel low-light camera that had better low light performance than a 1DX....

Canon has a HUGE R+D department.... they are not all siting on their rear ends playing solitaire... something is coming and the delays to the successor to the 7D may just mean that the change is big.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I opt for Medium Format because what I shoot demands it. My customers demand it. Life would be MUCH easier if I didn't have to bust out a 4x5/MF dB for a shoot. Work would be much smoother.



Are you using a digital back on your 4X5? If so, which one and do you like it?


----------



## unfocused (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Unfocused...What does it mean "OK, here we go again" ? Is it maybe that this voice is getting louder? Maybe?



No. It means exactly what I wrote in my post. Someone convinces themselves that there is some feature that they absolutely have to have and then they make the leap that if they don't get it, Canon is making a huge and costly mistake. So they start a thread on this forum to whine about it.

You are fixated on the AA filter. 

This same thread gets repeated over and over again with the only difference being the obscure feature that the individual has fixated on -- dynamic range, shadow banding, sensor size, number of megapixels, the list goes on and on.

The only voices getting louder are the imaginary ones in people's heads.

Canon is a business. A very successful business. There isn't anything anyone on this forum can come with that Canon has not considered and researched in far greater detail. 

If it comes to a point where a business case can be made for changing the AA filter, they will change it. But, starting a forum thread and shouting "Hurry up Canon" isn't going to change anything.


----------



## jrista (Apr 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Phil Indeblanc said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I shouldn't say large segment. But "ground breaking" changes or improvements are what big tech companies need to keep the spirit of innovation alive, don't you think? People who echo these sometimes small, and sometimes game changing innovations are what can snowball the market direction.
> ...



Very well put. Especially that last bit...the change would really have to be big like that, for it to be justifiable. Otherwise, it's just a demonstration of a major Canon blunder, if the 7D II comes out and is a mediocre improvement over the 7D, and not much in terms of competition against counterpart offerings from other brands. 

Regarding the two points about viewfinders and focusing. I'm not sure were "nearing the end" of the issues. I think DPAF marks the beginning of finally moving down the right path, however I think there is a lot of innovation along that path that needs to take place before you start seeing action photographers seriously think about dumping their dedicated AF sensors and familiar AF points for a mirrorless image-sensor-based AF system. DPAF should at least become QPAF, so we can detect phase in at least two directions. I think we may ultimately need to see one further innovation, dual-direction QPAF, where you have horizontal and vertical with one half of the sensor's pixels, as well as phase detected diagonally in two perpendicular directions with the other half of the sensor's pixels. Only then would you be technologically similar to how dedicated PDAF sensors are designed, and only then could you really start building advanced firmware to really produce high rate, high accuracy AF without a dedicated AF sensor. 

There is still another problem, however, that mirrorless AF systems will need to overcome before they can really achieve parity with their dedicated AF system counterparts: Low Light Sensitivity. Modern dedicated AF systems are sensitive to light down to the -2 to -3 EV range. Not only that, each dedicated PDAF point receives a tiny fraction of the total light entering the lens (thanks to passing through a half-silvered mirror and an AF unit splitting lens), and each line sensor that comprises an AF point recieves at most half of that tiny fraction of total light. All that, down to at least f/5.6, and in "pro" grade cameras, down to f/8. Dedicated PDAF sensors are ludicrously sensitive to the smallest amount of light...and largely thanks to the fact that they can be fabricated independently of the image sensor, so they can be explicitly designed with huge photodiodes in each line sensor that have massive SNR. I'm not sure how camera manufacturers will overcome this issue, as even at very high ISO settings, image sensors are nowhere near as sensitive as the photodiodes in PDAF sensors. I'm sure one of the big manufacturers will figure out something brilliant to solve this problem...but I think it is definitely something that needs to be dealt with. 

(BTW, I am aware that Canon's current DPAF supports live view focusing up to f/11, however the speed of that focusing is nowhere even remotely close to as fast as a dedicated PDAF unit. The slower speed gives DPAF a bit of an advantage in that area...similar to the advantage Canon creates when they force a slower AF rate when attaching one of their teleconverters to a lens.)

As for EVFs, I can only hope they get significantly better. I'm very curious to see what Canon does with their Hybrid VF...I wonder how that will ultimately work, and whether it will be as flexible and user configurable/selectable as it really needs to be to be a success. I suspect it will be rather inflexible, and only activate the EVF under very specific circumstances (such as recording video).


----------



## tolusina (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> ........What does it mean "OK, here we go again" ? …...


It means that temple guy has been here already, now he's gone. Are you he?



Phil Indeblanc said:


> ..... sensor discussions and comparisons of 35 to MF …...


Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.




.


----------



## verysimplejason (Apr 9, 2014)

Hmmm... Just buy a Sony A7R + EF adapter. Since you're doing food photography and other macros, you don't need that "better" AF. ;D You don't need to stay with one brand (and I know you don't). Give some love to other brands also.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

> Yes, it is a fact. The magnitude of that difference is not so obvious. Detail that is present but blurred in a predictable manner can be brought out in post. (Side note - optical microscopes can now resolve beyond the Abbé diffraction limit, and one way of achieving that uses post-processing analysis of moiré resulting from patterned illumination, i.e. since the pattern is predictable, detail not present in the image can be extrapolated mathematically.)
> 
> Also, depending on the lens much of that extra detail may not be there to begin with, which is why the D800 with a Nikon 24-70/2.8 barely outresolves a 5DIII with a Canon 24-70/2.8 II, despite the 60% higher MP count of the D800's sensor.



I thought DXO showed the D800E as having the highest IQ if not almost as high as the Phase One IQ280 ? I could be wrong as I didn't study it, it was something I read in discussion of MF DB's. If that is not the case, please do list the top 3-5 markers of IQ in the DXO testing.

Do all the calculations you want. I am shooting for over 20 years now.
I have done my side by side apples to apples test using a Leica R Macro 60 lens mounted on each on a studio stand with controlled lighting. If you shoot jewelry, you will know the difference without a second thought. 

Yes Don, I use a P25/P45 and have used, Kodak pro back, Blad CF39, Sinar evol75 on a Sinar 4x5. I have used Nikon before, but focus was horrible about 10+ years ago. Switched to Canon and have loved it for the product and service. I think they can do better in specialized features.

I use it in the studio on still subjects. For people I often use it for portraits that are slow moving. Otherwise I use the 5D mark2. 

There is a significant difference in the lowest end which is the P25(22MP) DB vs a 5D mark2. Regardless of all the numbers these guys want to crunch. A good portion and I don't hesitate to say it is due to the AA filter.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> Hmmm... Just buy a Sony A7R + EF adapter. Since you're doing food photography and other macros, you don't need that "better" AF. ;D You don't need to stay with one brand (and I know you don't). Give some love to other brands also.



That is exactly what will happen. But I am patient as I have alternatives.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

Don, we are on the edge. I believe this also. It is the companies that are willing to take a risk that will pull forward. Ricoh cannot afford doing so much longer(Didnt they just merge?), Sigma is stuck with low mpixels. Lytro is just budding....But yes, the form itself is changing. The way we hold the device to our faces can evolve in time. We shall see. 

Canon can afford taking risks. Not necessarily big ones. Start with optional AA.

So what if I am of the minority. Who knighted you as the silencer of wishful thinking?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.
> 
> .



There are plenty threads. Who said stop and reply to this one


----------



## tolusina (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.
> ...


Your inanity suggested it.


----------



## jrista (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> > Yes, it is a fact. The magnitude of that difference is not so obvious. Detail that is present but blurred in a predictable manner can be brought out in post. (Side note - optical microscopes can now resolve beyond the Abbé diffraction limit, and one way of achieving that uses post-processing analysis of moiré resulting from patterned illumination, i.e. since the pattern is predictable, detail not present in the image can be extrapolated mathematically.)
> >
> > Also, depending on the lens much of that extra detail may not be there to begin with, which is why the D800 with a Nikon 24-70/2.8 barely outresolves a 5DIII with a Canon 24-70/2.8 II, despite the 60% higher MP count of the D800's sensor.
> 
> ...



First, you put too much weight on DXO's numbers. As far as their sensor tests go, they do not actually measure "sharpness" or anything like that. It's actually extremely difficult to objectively test a sensor in terms of sharpness, as you have to use a lens to do so, in which case your not testing a sensor, your testing a sensor and lens combined, which totally changes the outcome (and the reasons why you get that outcome). The other problem with lens+sensor tests is they are bound by the least capable component...if the lens is the weak point, then no matter how good the sensor is, your output resolution is limited by what the lens is capable of...you can never resolve more than the lens resolves, period. Similarly, if the sensor has limited resolution and the lens is a powerhouse (like the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4), then your output resolution is limited by the sensor...you can never resolve more than the sensor resolves, period. That makes determining how sharp a sensor is a very muddy issue, one that cannot be definitively pinned down. Hence the reason DXO measures things like SNR and dynamic range and color sensitivity in it's sensor tests...that's all they CAN measure.

Regardless of what DXO has to say about the D800 or D800E sensors, the removal of an AA filter does not increase image quality. Actually, in all too many cases (quite possibly the majority of cases), removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality, thanks to increased aliasing in general, moire specifically. This is clearly evident by all the numerous standardized image tests done with cameras over the years...while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire. DPReview has plenty of examples where the removal of AA filters in Nikon cameras, or even just the weakening of the AA filter in many brands (including Canon) has greatly increased the amount of moire that occurs. (A great baseline for comparison on DPR is the 7D...it has an appropriately strong AA filter and doesn't suffer from moire at all. You can compare any newer camera with a sensor that is supposedly "better" than the 7D because of the removal or weakening of the AA filter...those images will be sharper, but they are usually riddled with moire.) 

If the things you photograph have no regular/repeating patterns, and do not contain any elements with clearly defined edges, then increased aliasing due to having no AA filter is not an issue. There are not very many forms of photography where that actually turns out to be the case...landscape photography is probably one of the very few. Even say insect macro photography, for example, will suffer from the removal of the AA filter...things like antenna, feelers, legs, wing veins, anything thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings will end up with clearly aliased edges, and not even a highly optimized AHD demosaicing algorithm will be able to hide that fact. 

The only thing removal of the AA filter MIGHT do is increase the acutance between pixels, which ultimately has the potential to increase sharpness. This increase in sharpness is only possible if the lens is already resolving enough detail that the real image resolved at the sensor plane is not being oversampled by the sensor. Someone using the Nikon 14-24mm zoom lens on a D800E to photograph landscapes would probably be in heaven without an AA filter. There is a whole host of Sigma lenses that would probably fit quite well on the D800E also. I know I'd love to have such a kit for my landscape photography. For just about anything else, however, I'll take a camera with a properly designed OLPF. Sharpness is not the sole defining trait of image quality, it is only one of many (the others being things like SNR, dynamic range, color fidelity, spatial resolution). 

Furthermore, the kind of blurring caused by an optical low pass filter (aa filter) is regular, predictable, and well-understood. That means it is very easily reversed (deconvoluted) with mathematical algorithms in software, and since it is a small effect at a specific and narrow range of spatial frequencies, it can be nearly entirely reversed. All it really takes is a light application of your basic unsharp mask to do a darn good job, and smarter algorithms that come with photo editing tools like Nik or Topaz suites can do an even better job. This is what Neuro was talking about.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 9, 2014)

I think once Canon introduces their high MP full frame camera, you will see most Canon fans line up behind it. As for medium format, I definitely don't see it happening for Canon in the very near future. In the other threads where this was discussed, I said it was my feeling that a (smallish) medium format, would likely take over the full frame 35mm format, in the relatively more distant future. 

So really, what we should all be wondering about, is just how good, and how much dynamic range, is this next full frame Canon camera going to have? Is it possible it still won't compare to the D800's dynamic range? And if so, will this not keep the hordes of Canon fans (myself included) from lining up behind it as the "best" Canon sensor? I guess it depends on how close it gets to the Exmor, if not exceeding it in any way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is still another problem, however, that mirrorless AF systems will need to overcome before they can really achieve parity with their dedicated AF system counterparts: Low Light Sensitivity. Modern dedicated AF systems are sensitive to light down to the -2 to -3 EV range.



The Sony a7S has autofocus senstivity down to *-4 EV*, meaning according to the specifications that mirrorless it can AF in 1/4 the light of the 1D X/5DIII and 1/2 the light of the 6D.



jrista said:


> As for EVFs, I can only hope they get significantly better.



The report on the potential 1D X issue with AF in cold temperatures reminded me of an issue with EVFs - my OVF allows me to continue shooting after the LCD blacks out from exposure to sub-freezing temps. Would an EVF work in those conditions?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I thought DXO showed the D800E as having the highest IQ if not almost as high as the Phase One IQ280 ? I could be wrong as I didn't study it, it was something I read in discussion of MF DB's. If that is not the case, please do list the top 3-5 markers of IQ in the DXO testing.



Clearly you didn't study it - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. DxO measures dynamic range and color depth at base ISO, and they measure noise at higher ISO, and throw those numbers into a black box formula with undisclosed weightings for the various factors, a formula which apparently changes from camera to camera. FWIW, the reason that the D800/D800E/a7R sensors score higher than MFDBs in DxO's tests is because the ISO noise score of those Sony sensors is around 2800, and that's higher than most MFDBs can even be set.

The bottom line is that you were discussing sharpness, and you invoked DxO, but *DxO does not test sensor sharpness*.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Don, we are on the edge. I believe this also. It is the companies that are willing to take a risk that will pull forward. Ricoh cannot afford doing so much longer(Didnt they just merge?), Sigma is stuck with low mpixels. Lytro is just budding....But yes, the form itself is changing. The way we hold the device to our faces can evolve in time. We shall see.
> 
> Canon can afford taking risks. Not necessarily big ones. Start with optional AA.
> 
> So what if I am of the minority. Who knighted you as the silencer of wishful thinking?


I am not the silencer of wishfully thinking.... As the person in this thread who asked why you can't have a replaceable AA filter like a focus screen used to be, or why in a mirror less camera you couldn't have one move in and out like mirror, and who thinks something big is about to come from canon, I am probably the king of wishful thinking.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Phil Indeblanc said:
> ...


That's why I'd like to see quad pixel technology with bigger pixels and the ability to address the sub-pixels....


----------



## jrista (Apr 9, 2014)

@Don: What do you mean by "address the sub pixels"? For DPAF, or QPAF, to work, the "subpixels" have to be underneath the CFA. If you are thinking you could get a higher resolution image by "addressing sub pixels", I don't think that would actually work. 

I think this is the same mistake people make when they thing DPAF can improve DR...it really can't. MagicLantern improved DR by reading FULL pixels at two different ISO settings, and blending the result. But if you read half pixels at one ISO, and half pixels at another ISO, you are actually getting quite a bit less light for both your high and low ISO "channel". Theoretically, you could improve the noise of the low ISO channel by applying the high ISO channels the way ML does, but since you are effectively doubling noise in the first place by using half pixels, your net gain in the end is effectively nothing...you end up roughly back where you started (i.e. if you started by binning the two halves (or four quads)).


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

> Clearly you didn't study it - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
> The bottom line is that you were discussing sharpness, and you invoked DxO, but DxO does not test sensor sharpness.



The bottom line is that I said if it doesn't apply, Then pardon me...so get over DxO. Stop spewing some simple fact you simply know, yet doesn't help develop the conversation. Talk about a little knowledge!

Don, 
I'll take wishful thinking and king of wishful thinking or daydreamer over any fact checkers, derailleurs, "don't think, just do as you're told" mental blockers any day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I'll take wishful thinking and king of wishful thinking or daydreamer over any fact checkers, derailleurs, "don't think, just do as you're told" mental blocks any day.



The cold, hard realities of optical physics and marketing trump wishful thinking and daydreams, at least in the real world. I can't speak for what goes on behind mental blocks.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

> First, you put too much weight on DXO's numbers. As far as their sensor tests go, they do not actually measure "sharpness" or anything like that. It's actually extremely difficult to objectively test a sensor in terms of sharpness, as you have to use a lens to do so, in which case your not testing a sensor, your testing a sensor and lens combined, which totally changes the outcome (and the reasons why you get that outcome). The other problem with lens+sensor tests is they are bound by the least capable component...if the lens is the weak point, then no matter how good the sensor is, your output resolution is limited by what the lens is capable of...you can never resolve more than the lens resolves, period. Similarly, if the sensor has limited resolution and the lens is a powerhouse (like the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4), then your output resolution is limited by the sensor...you can never resolve more than the sensor resolves, period. That makes determining how sharp a sensor is a very muddy issue, one that cannot be definitively pinned down. Hence the reason DXO measures things like SNR and dynamic range and color sensitivity in it's sensor tests...that's all they CAN measure.



This is not news. Lets leave DxO out. I am sorry I even mentioned them for this discussion. I mixed some info and used them as a point of reference. Its something that can happen with the amount of info I go through. Please accept my blunder as a simple error as DXO is often the reference point for sensor quality, and I understand it is not of sharpness of the sensor, and more with DR and ISo, and the related.



> Regardless of what DXO has to say about the D800 or D800E sensors, the removal of an AA filter does not increase image quality. Actually, in all too many cases (quite possibly the majority of cases), removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality, thanks to increased aliasing in general, moire specifically. This is clearly evident by all the numerous standardized image tests done with cameras over the years...while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire. DPReview has plenty of examples where the removal of AA filters in Nikon cameras, or even just the weakening of the AA filter in many brands (including Canon) has greatly increased the amount of moire that occurs. (A great baseline for comparison on DPR is the 7D...it has an appropriately strong AA filter and doesn't suffer from moire at all. You can compare any newer camera with a sensor that is supposedly "better" than the 7D because of the removal or weakening of the AA filter...those images will be sharper, but they are usually riddled with moire.)





> while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire



The moire is subjective. I'm not too interested in the DPReview samples showing loads of moire issues. I have plenty personal samples I can stand by to tell you otherwise. Many samples in those cases are looking to show moire, and samples of it. 



> removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality



Be more specific. As with this statement, in this discussion you are saying that fullframe or larger sensors that are not using AA have lower image quality. How do you figure?




> If the things you photograph have no regular/repeating patterns, and do not contain any elements with clearly defined edges, then increased aliasing due to having no AA filter is not an issue. There are not very many forms of photography where that actually turns out to be the case...landscape photography is probably one of the very few. Even say insect macro photography, for example, will suffer from the removal of the AA filter...things like antenna, feelers, legs, wing veins, *anything thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings will end up with clearly aliased edges, and not even a highly optimized AHD demosaicing algorithm will be able to hide that fact. *



The underlined falls under EXACTLY what I shoot on a regular basis, and I, with all the respect I have for your knowledge as I have read much of your posts, I think you are simply flat wrong about this. I have worked with about 20 digital camera systems in the past 24 years. I certainly don't have the understanding of sensors, and electro engineering you do, or even in the realm of it. I know I have shot just about everything there is to shoot, and I specialize in macro work WITH dealing of " thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings ". I uesd the Kodak 14mpixel SLRc camera, and if it didn't have issues with handling light, I would continue using it. The images from that didn't suffer the things you claim. Nor do the MF backs, tossing the optional AA filter aside. (never used one to this day). Has moire EVER happened? Yes. Can I remember it being a problem or can I even count on my 10 fingers vs over 400K frames (with half using filter free cameras)? NO.

Earlier in the post someone mentioned that as one gets better at shooting and images get better focus and sharper you will see moire show up often. This maybe a true statement on its own. Just doesn't apply to me, as I shoot much of my stuff in studio. I use Schneider, Leica and Rodenstock from the APOs to HRs to the digitar. 




> The only thing removal of the AA filter MIGHT do is increase the acutance between pixels, which ultimately has the potential to increase sharpness....
> 
> The only thing removal of the AA filter MIGHT do is increase the acutance between pixels, which ultimately has the potential to increase sharpness.
> 
> *This increase in sharpness is only possible if the lens is already resolving enough detail that the real image resolved at the sensor plane is not being oversampled by the sensor.* Someone using the Nikon 14-24mm zoom lens on a D800E to photograph landscapes would probably be in heaven without an AA filter.




Which maybe all MF mfg's formulate this in making the sensor (to lens)?
Kodak SLRc was by design AMAZING at this (using Leica lenses)?

Yes, I don't worry AT ALL about AA when doing street, portrait, or events shooting.
In my product work, it is an ISSUE to overcome.

Did you discuss the bold area I highlighted above (about the ratio between lens to sensor) a bit more in detail someplace? This is likely the feature I'm looking for to be optimal, and likey what the D800E, and A7R have factored in. It is my next criteria for my future camera/sensor purchase.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:



> The cold, hard realities of optical physics and marketing trump wishful thinking and daydreams, at least in the real world. I can't speak for what goes on behind mental blocks.



Physics NEVER trumps wishful thinking/daydreaming/imagining. These laws simply regulate the possible.
Unless "regulate" is your idea of superiority ?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

So silly to argue about this from a personal standpoint. Why not from a technical one?

If anyone here really understood it, and I think there are a couple that do here (surely not including me). You would simply explain it rather than knocking others thoughts.

Here is a sample conversation, or reply to my original post:

"Its an idea you have that has been thought of plenty time Phil, I personally am not interested in sharpness ALL THAT much. I'm happen with the AA and the protection it gives me from moire....Besides there are a few things you say that are totally off...Futhermore, it may not be in the interest of Canon. BUT this is the problem of taking this idea and implementing it...(explained)XYZ.

I understand Nikon/Sony sensor has done it, and this is why they have done it successfully....(explained)XYZ. and this is how Canon sensors differs from Nikon/Sony".

My reply would be. Oh! I'm so glad to know this. Thank you for explaining. 
I will likely continue shooting with the gear I have use each one optimally for its purpose, and either wait for some changes, or opt for the alternative. Do you think it maybe economics that CANON cannot modify something like this, or it would take a entirely new sensor , or would it be looking negative for CANON to do something thats been done since day 1. Issues occured, resolved, and reintroduced, solved, etc...

 ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Physics NEVER trumps wishful thinking/daydreaming/imagining. These laws simply regulate the possible.
> Unless "regulate" is your idea of superiority ?



How many pictures have you taken with cameras you dreamed up? Personally, I have taken zero images with imaginary cameras. Dreaming and wishing are fine, but if you want to take pictures with a camera, 'the possible' is far more relevant. 

Canon dreams, too…and at some point we might be taking pictures with the Wondercamera – but not today.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

Wow...what is that thing, and what can it do? 

(I may have seen this in PopSci mag some time back)?


My pre 2015 imaginary camera is close to the A7R, except I wish I couple slap on my Canon glass without an adapter. Maybe the EV be a bit better for low light, tethering would be great....

Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus with Foveon like sensor but in TRUE 50-100mpixel in a open source RAW format(this I can live without). I would think it would be more in the form of a monocular on my head.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2014)

I couldn't find this yesterday, but now that I have, I'll let DPReview's comparison (with 100% crops) do the talking:

"To get the absolute best resolution, naturally you need to shoot within your lens's optimal aperture range. At large apertures, lens aberrations will limit resolution, while diffraction will have a similar effect as you stop down. *What this means is that, while the D800E will in principle always offer higher resolution than the D800, the difference may not always be huge in practice.*"

"At F2.8, the slight blurring from lens aberrations is sufficient to narrow the gap between the D800 and D800E to the point you'd probably not be able to see any real difference in normal shooting. *It's only at the lens's very sharpest apertures, i.e. F4 - F5.6, that the difference between the D800 and D800E is really pronounced. The latter gives clearly higher contrast, but at the expense of the more-prominent moiré that we noted earlier*."

"However the gap narrows again even at F8, with slight diffraction blurring reducing both the contrast and the false colour of the D800E's image. *At F11 - scarcely an unrealistic aperture to use with full frame, indeed one many landscape photographers may well use a lot of the time - the D800E shows just marginally higher contrast, and by F16 diffraction blurring has become sufficiently pronounced that there's scarcely any visible difference between the two cameras at all.*"

"So the overall message is that the while D800E can indeed provide higher resolution than the D800 (although with the risk of accompanying false colour), *you'll only obtain this across a specific aperture range, and (of course) when using impeccable technique.*"


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus



Doesn't the lytro "focus" mathematically? If you're happy with light field algorithms, why not deconvolving AA filtered images? 


"Here is a sample conversation, or reply to my original post... [/snip]"

But your original post comes across as very self-centered and demanding. While that may not have been your intent, it is not inviting of the type of reply you suggest. Rather, people will by and large either move along, or they will argue. And later on, you merely dug yourself a hole by triumphantly citing a non-applicable source.


Sure, it's fun to have a list of dream features. Maybe all I care about is superb OOF rendering, so why not muster my best Arnold accent to demand that canon produce 300mm f/0.7 fixed (round) aperture lenses? Paired with my 58MP 8 color-per-pixel 64-bit sensor, I'm going to get rainbow bokeh like the world has never seen! DO IT NOW!

But really, it seems kinda silly to hope that one company introduces a niche product when there are other companies already serving that niche. Would it be nice to not have to use system 1 for one purpose and system 2 for another? Yah. But is that economically realistic? Not really. Canon serves a mass market. If they offered a camera without AA filtering, likely many people would unknowingly buy them, and a big upwelling of "my new canon has weird distortion" would ensue online. Nikon has a smaller market and may be less susceptible to people inadvertently purchasing the "E." Sony is frantically trying to get into any market it can. Canon tends to play it safe. Some sports cars allow drivers to disable traction control systems, but I don't think we'd see Hyundai doing that any time soon.


----------



## jrista (Apr 9, 2014)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> > First, you put too much weight on DXO's numbers. As far as their sensor tests go, they do not actually measure "sharpness" or anything like that. It's actually extremely difficult to objectively test a sensor in terms of sharpness, as you have to use a lens to do so, in which case your not testing a sensor, your testing a sensor and lens combined, which totally changes the outcome (and the reasons why you get that outcome). The other problem with lens+sensor tests is they are bound by the least capable component...if the lens is the weak point, then no matter how good the sensor is, your output resolution is limited by what the lens is capable of...you can never resolve more than the lens resolves, period. Similarly, if the sensor has limited resolution and the lens is a powerhouse (like the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4), then your output resolution is limited by the sensor...you can never resolve more than the sensor resolves, period. That makes determining how sharp a sensor is a very muddy issue, one that cannot be definitively pinned down. Hence the reason DXO measures things like SNR and dynamic range and color sensitivity in it's sensor tests...that's all they CAN measure.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not news. Lets leave DxO out. I am sorry I even mentioned them for this discussion. I mixed some info and used them as a point of reference. Its something that can happen with the amount of info I go through. Please accept my blunder as a simple error as DXO is often the reference point for sensor quality, and I understand it is not of sharpness of the sensor, and more with DR and ISo, and the related.


[/quote]

It's not a problem to use sources like DXO as a point of reference. It just helps to have all your facts strait before doing so, so you don't mislead or confuse or otherwise sidetrack readers with incorrect or inconsequential information. ;P



Phil Indeblanc said:


> > Regardless of what DXO has to say about the D800 or D800E sensors, the removal of an AA filter does not increase image quality. Actually, in all too many cases (quite possibly the majority of cases), removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality, thanks to increased aliasing in general, moire specifically. This is clearly evident by all the numerous standardized image tests done with cameras over the years...while sharpness has increased in some newer cameras by a small amount, so too has moire. DPReview has plenty of examples where the removal of AA filters in Nikon cameras, or even just the weakening of the AA filter in many brands (including Canon) has greatly increased the amount of moire that occurs. (A great baseline for comparison on DPR is the 7D...it has an appropriately strong AA filter and doesn't suffer from moire at all. You can compare any newer camera with a sensor that is supposedly "better" than the 7D because of the removal or weakening of the AA filter...those images will be sharper, but they are usually riddled with moire.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, moire is a concrete, immutable artifact of repeatable patterns near nyquist interfering with the sensor grid. It not only leaves behind funky color and monochrome patterns...they are neigh impossible to correct in post...there IS no full moire removal in any RAW editor for a very good reason: It's impossible. You can reduce color moire, however depending on the tool, you might end up with color desaturation, blurring, etc. as a result. Even after removing color moire, the underlying monochrome moire pattern remains, and it cannot be removed (at least, not without significant blurring.)

We aren't talking about a subjective factor if IQ here, we are talking about a detrimental, and permanent, factor of IQ that gets introduced when the AA filter is removed. The DPReview sample images are not intentionally trying to show moire...they are simple sample shots of their standardized test scene. Moire occurs in their samples as a CONSEQUENCE of weak or missing AA filters. You can't simply brush moire and aliasing to the side and call it a non-issue...it is a critical issue to a great many photographers.



Phil Indeblanc said:


> > removal of the AA filter is guaranteed to REDUCE image quality
> 
> 
> 
> Be more specific. As with this statement, in this discussion you are saying that fullframe or larger sensors that are not using AA have lower image quality. How do you figure?



I explained it in the text you failed to quite. 



Phil Indeblanc said:


> > If the things you photograph have no regular/repeating patterns, and do not contain any elements with clearly defined edges, then increased aliasing due to having no AA filter is not an issue. There are not very many forms of photography where that actually turns out to be the case...landscape photography is probably one of the very few. Even say insect macro photography, for example, will suffer from the removal of the AA filter...things like antenna, feelers, legs, wing veins, *anything thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings will end up with clearly aliased edges, and not even a highly optimized AHD demosaicing algorithm will be able to hide that fact. *
> 
> 
> 
> The underlined falls under EXACTLY what I shoot on a regular basis, and I, with all the respect I have for your knowledge as I have read much of your posts, I think you are simply flat wrong about this. I have worked with about 20 digital camera systems in the past 24 years. I certainly don't have the understanding of sensors, and electro engineering you do, or even in the realm of it. I know I have shot just about everything there is to shoot, and I specialize in macro work WITH dealing of " thin, strait, with high contrast to it's surroundings ". I uesd the Kodak 14mpixel SLRc camera, and if it didn't have issues with handling light, I would continue using it. The images from that didn't suffer the things you claim. Nor do the MF backs, tossing the optional AA filter aside. (never used one to this day). Has moire EVER happened? Yes. Can I remember it being a problem or can I even count on my 10 fingers vs over 400K frames (with half using filter free cameras)? NO.



It's fine to have personal preferences. To base the entire discussion of "Canon EOS sensors and technology" solely on your personal preferences kind of makes it difficult to have a coherent discussion. Your personal preferences should really be left out of an objective discussion of the fundamental technology behind sensors, otherwise were just in the muddy territory of subjective muck, and anyone can make any argument to justify their own personal opinions. I personally try to remain objective when discussing technology, and leave my own personal preferences out of the discussion. 

Regarding whether moire is a problem on MF cameras, Leicas, etc. If you do a few quick web searches, you'll find that they are a huge problem. There are countless threads on the subject, dating back many years, with MF and Leica users (and increasingly Nikon users) complaining about how bad the moire and aliasing can be on their incredibly expensive cameras. The solution, for many, is to use the lens so act as the AA filter. Either stopping down beyond the diffraction limited aperture of the sensor, or slightly defocusing, etc. One way or another, people have to deal with moire and aliasing if it occurs. If you have to constantly perform a very slight defocus, that makes using an autofocusing system very tedious. Concurrently, having to stop down more than you really want to in order to force diffraction blurring to soften the image is also less than idea.

You say you have used a lot of cameras over a lot of years. I'd be willing to bet many of them were film cameras, in which case moire was never a problem thanks to the random distribution of grains. When it comes to digital cameras, until recently, lenses, while good, were never as good and sharp as they are today (at least, in the DSLR world...for MF, most lenses have always been rather exceptional.) The softer lenses of the past helped to deal with the problem of missing or weak AA filters. Today, we have a convergence of several things that can only lead to significant problems with moire and aliasing: Radical improvements in lens quality, pushing their maximum resolving power to new limits; sensor resolution increasing at a slower pace than lens resolution; removal of AA filters. This is kind of a perfect storm...some manufacturers are apparently doing everything in their power to make moire a very serious problem for a lot of DSLR photographers, which will ultimately put them in the same boat as Leica and MFD owners: Having to defocus or stop down to force blurring and use the lens as an artificial AA filter. 



Phil Indeblanc said:


> Did you discuss the bold area I highlighted above (about the ratio between lens to sensor) a bit more in detail someplace? This is likely the feature I'm looking for to be optimal, and likey what the D800E, and A7R have factored in. It is my next criteria for my future camera/sensor purchase.



If you mean the fact that output resolution is based on the convolution of lens+sensor, I've discussed it so many times all over this forum, it shouldn't be hard to find a topic with all the details. The detail in an image (raw file) is the result of a complex convolution of real-world details. In mathematical terms, assuming gaussian-like blurring behavior (which is reasonable), output resolution is roughly equal to the root mean square (RMS) of the input resolutions. Well, to be more specific, the size of the blur kernel that represents the output image is approximated by the RMS of the blur circles of the lens and sensor. 

So, if your lens blurs by 3µm and your sensor has 5µm pixels (the lens resolves more detail than the sensor), then the output blur is SQRT(3µm^2+5µm^2), or 5.83µm. Notice that the output resolution is lower than BOTH your sensor and lens. If you improve your lens resolution as far as possible, let's say 0.7µm blur circle (the wavelenght of red light), your output blur is 5.04µm. Your maximum resolution is limited by the sensor...no matter how good your lens is, you can never resolve more detail than the sensor is capable of. This goes the other way as well. Let's say your lens blur is 3µm and your sensor has 2µm pixels. Your output blur is 3.6µm. If you reduce your sensor pixels to 800nm (0.8µm), your output blur is 3.1µm. You can never get any better resolution than your worst performing component. 

That's why I always say the whole notion of sensors or lenses "outresolving" the other is more myth than fact. In one sense, I understand why people think about it that way. In reality, the two work together to resolve your image...without both, you have no image, so there really isn't one outresolving the other. The real fact of the matter is your output resolution is never as good as the potentials of your lens or sensor, and your output resolution can never be higher than the least capable of the two. Further, lenses have non-linear performance...as you stop the aperture down, their performance drops. It's tough to say a lens outresolves a sensor in general...at what aperture does it "outresolve"? And by how much? Enough to matter? Or is the lens just outresolving by a tiny bit? When you stop down to f/8, is the sensor outresolving? These questions really don't matter...the thing that really matters is how the output image looks, and regardless of which thing you change, more resolution is pretty much always a good thing, sometimes a neutral thing, but never a bad thing.

The D800/E sensor is definitely higher resolution than the 5D III, for example...however Canon lenses outperform most Nikon lenses, so in most cases, the better Canon lenses paired with the lower resolution 5D III outperform, by a small margin, the D800/E. Even DXO's own lens data shows that. The D800 sensor will certainly make the absolute most out of Nikon lenses, but until Nikon improves their lens designs, the D800 does not actually perform better, in the real world, than the 5D III. Ironically, it is thanks to that very fact that moire with the D800E is not a bigger problem than it is...the lenses soften detail enough that moire tends to occur minimally. The day Nikon lenses perform as well as Canon lenses, however, keep your eyes and ears peeled: The wrath of the moire-hating D800E user will be heard around the world. ;P


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 9, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Phil Indeblanc said:
> 
> 
> > Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus
> ...



Very logical and true reply. I apologize for those Canon fans that took it personally, and I too am a Canon fan of course..And thank goodness you read into my sarcastic approach to all this, as I am a realist outside of the tech field, and accept whatever hits the market floor for us mortals to enjoy.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> *you'll only obtain this across a specific aperture range, and (of course) when using impeccable technique.*"



In studio and product, that's all there is. A margin of about half F for max sharpness. In the HR optics on MF the F blades don't refract up to about between 11 and 16 ). But using a 35 would increase dof. I haven't really tested the limits of Canon glass. I usually used the Leica with the 35 bodies for studio work more than 5 years ago.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 10, 2014)

Jrista
Your points about removing AA filters are spot on, moire and alaising will always be present and higher performance lenses will definately show the problem faster I would not buy any camera without one. However AA filters themselves are very difficult to produce especially in large volume and keep consistent. The AA filter is part of the optical system and taken into consideration when designing lenses and well designed and manufactured AA filters now have a minimal impact on resolution. Lateral chromatic abberations are still visable in most Canon lenses including L lenses and this will have an affect on apparent sharpness particularly further out to the edges of the frame and Canon will need to address this going forwards especially as Zeiss roll out more of their Otus range I see this as more of an issue rather than the affects of the AA.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 10, 2014)

JRISTA, I will need to get back to work before I can take all the info, as well as others posts. Yes, there are a couple that I didn't fully read from the 2nd page. I'll will get to them, as I appreciate them, regardless.


----------



## jrista (Apr 10, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jrista
> Your points about removing AA filters are spot on, moire and alaising will always be present and higher performance lenses will definately show the problem faster I would not buy any camera without one. However AA filters themselves are very difficult to produce especially in large volume and keep consistent. The AA filter is part of the optical system and taken into consideration when designing lenses and well designed and manufactured AA filters now have a minimal impact on resolution. Lateral chromatic abberations are still visable in most Canon lenses including L lenses and this will have an affect on apparent sharpness particularly further out to the edges of the frame and Canon will need to address this going forwards especially as Zeiss roll out more of their Otus range I see this as more of an issue rather than the affects of the AA.



Canon's shorter focal lengths, under ~200mm (including the 70-200) do need improvement in the corners. The worst of Canon's lineup are their wider angle lenses. The 24-70 II improve things, however it's corner performance (as even indicated by Canon's MTF charts) is still quite poor. I don't know why Canon has such a hard time with wide angle corners, but it's their Achilles heel, for sure. I think that is one of the main reasons Sigma has been making such major strides...they found the weak spot in the biggest photography manufacturer in the world, and have been exploiting it as much as they possibly can. 

These days, I'm less concerned about a manufacturer's ability to produce AA filters of consistent quality, and more concerned about their ability to produce them strong enough. Sadly, I think the (uneducated) demands of the consumer for no AA filters are winning out in this arena, despite how non-beneficial that is for IQ. People want "sharp out of camera", and don't seem to understand the consequences of the tradoff that is REQUIRED to make that happen. An appropriately strong AA filter that minimizes moire to the point where only the strongest interference patterns make it show up is what we really need. I'd rather have slightly soft out of camera without moire, as I can easily sharpen in post, than have razor sharp out of camera with a bunch of aliasing and moire. 

The AHDD, or Adaptive Homogeneity-directed Demosaicing algorithm used in Adobe ACR/LR is highly optimized. It is capable of interpolating in such a way as to utilize the raw luminance information in EVERY pixel, and only really suffers the resolution loss when interpolating the color channels. That means were getting the vast majority of the resolution our sensors are capable of with modern RAW editors like Lighroom, and only really suffering some loss in resolution and color fidelity in the color channels. That doesn't much matter, though, as we aren't as sensitive to softness in color as we are to softness in luminance detail. 

Not to mention the fact that most cameras offer far more resolution than a growing majority of photographers need, what with publication on the web at relatively small sizes (compared to those required for print) being the primary means of sharing photography...from your average instagram and facebook uploads to your avid amateurs to your professionals.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2014)

On the subject of cameras and technology.... I took this shot with an SX-50 on the way home today... I put it into "green box mode" and the image was taken handheld at full zoom (1200mm equivalent) plus another 4X digital zoom..... in other words, handheld at the equivalent of 4800mm! Yes, I know it's a cheap P/S and I know the picture is not national geographic quality... but for a toy camera at 4800mm handheld I think that this is amazing. A lot of research went into making this work as well as it did...

P.S. I couldn't tell it was a wood duck until I saw it through the camera EVF....


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> > I don't know why Canon has such a hard time with wide angle corners, but it's their Achilles heel, for sure. I think that is one of the main reasons Sigma has been making such major strides...they found the weak spot in the biggest photography manufacturer in the world, and have been exploiting it as much as they possibly can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> P.S. I couldn't tell it was a wood duck until I saw it through the camera EVF....



4800MM! That is pretty cool. Reminds me when I had the Oly C2500L, then the UltraZooms came in, and I had the UZ730, I still have a 740 in a drawer. But 30+optical zoom was rather great. Sure the mpixels were around 4!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 10, 2014)

Its funny here everyone wants more resolution & more DR. The guys shooting for our movie screens or TV are trying to break it down to get a more organic look. a look that they feel film used to give them however VFX want it as clean as they can get it there is no squaring the circle.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 10, 2014)

Whilst removing an AA filter(depending obviously on how strong that filter was) can aid sharpness a little(with certain trade offs) I think the lack of one became a bit of an easy way for people to explain the superior performance of MF digital.

Just pointing to a lack of an AA filter as some kind of magic bullet(especially when all mainstream 35mm and smaller sensors had one) was a lot easier than going into the indepth reasons of why a larger format will generally offer better performance even if the number of MP's on the sensor are similar, most obviously that lenses won't be pushed anywhere near as hard.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Phil Indeblanc said:
> 
> 
> > Otherwise more distant future.....I think it maybe a mix of how the Lytro can focus
> ...


----------



## gargamel (Apr 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> [...]
> 
> I think we are on the edge of a shift in digital cameras.
> 
> ...



Exactly, plus, for some photographers, battery life can be an issue with mirrorless cameras. Especially travel and nature photographers, who cannot easily charge batteries when they are "on tour", should consider this. Mirrorless cameras suck power for EVERYTHING. With a DSLR you can look through the OVF and check composition even when your camera is switched off. With an EVF the cameray needs to be on, all the time, and the mini tv set, called EVF, needs power.

Since my old 5D1 died I am looking around, what my next camera might be, and as I don't own a lot of expensive glass, I am open for other systems, too. While many Canon shooters go for Sony, it seems, I got even more interested in Fuji's X system. However, I found that I can get only about 300 photos with an X-M1, when I was able to take about 800+ photos with a 6D (had both for a rent for one day).

Regarding (not only) AA filters, Fuji is lighting the way. As has been said here, Moire (sorry, no diacritic characters on the keyboard I am using right now) was no problem with film, due to its amorph distribution of grain. No geometric pattern, so no interference with other geometric patterns. Simple as that. And it's exactly this, what Fuji is trying to achieve with its X-Trans sensors.
So, while I agree with most of the arguments that AA filters are useful, these arguments apply more (if not only), if the pixels on the sensor are arranged in a geometric pattern, that could interfere with a geometric pattern in the image, which is less likely with an X-Trans sensor than with a "classic" sensor, where the pixels are arranged in the Bayer pattern.

BTW, while better lenses may increase Moire, the way out, apart from other, more chaotic arrangements of senser pixels, is to increase the megapixel count. Only when they reached 24+ MP, Nikon and Sony dared to make cameras without AA filters. Why? Because, the finer the structures and the smaller the areas that can possibly cause Moire are, the less of a problem they will be in the resulting images.
Well, I am not a techie, and maybe some expert can give more detail, and maybe someone with more didactic experience can explain this a lot better than me, but I hope, I was able to give correct facts. (Otherwise, please correct me!)

Finally, for those of you who want to have AA filter or not as an option, the Pentax K-3 should be a very interesting piece of technology.... 

gargamel


----------



## jrista (Apr 11, 2014)

Speaking of battery life in DSLRs. When I attach my battery grip to my 7D and use fully charged batteries, I can get well over 2500 shots (which is usually about the limit for what I get on a shoot these days, not because of no battery power, but because by then the sun has set, or the animals/birds moved on, or something.) I rarely use my batteries below the 50% mark when using the grip, so it's possible I could get quite a bit more than 2500 out of one pair of fully charged batteries.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 12, 2014)

Make it stop already!


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2014)

MF is used not solely for its IQ. While it's IQ will always be better to that tiniest nth degree, it is better but we will soon see that gap widen with new CMOS sensors now being made in MF.

MF has the very best optics and is less demanding on the glass too. I remember my beat up scratched 80mm zeiss 2.8 being sharper than any 35mm lens because of the lower magnification. 

MF backs can be attached to technical cameras with movements you can't get with a sensor buried in a body.

MF also has high true sync speeds with leaf shutters. A lustful trek for any strobist.

MF gear may give a client an impression of professionalism. Not always true but it not a camera you mom could have. 

Is it worth 30K for a top end system? It depends but I am slowly purchasing my body, lens, And an older back to get those sync speeds.

What I'd like to see is a series of lenses from canon with a leaf shutter that works with any canon camera in live view. I can get the super sync speed without having to buy MF gear.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 15, 2014)

RLPhoto

All those points are valid and true. The other point is depth of field which is shallower than on 35mm which means focus is more critical.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Sep 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Phil Indeblanc said:
> 
> 
> > I opt for Medium Format because what I shoot demands it. My customers demand it. Life would be MUCH easier if I didn't have to bust out a 4x5/MF dB for a shoot. Work would be much smoother.
> ...



Sorry for the long time gap. I haven't been getting email notifications.

I currently use the Phase One P25 often. I also use a H25backup, and have used a Hasselblad CF39, Phase One P45, and a more current IQ180

I'm sorry and understand I sound stubborn about this. It is only because I see this segment getting zero attention from Canon, who I have over $20K into. 

On the flip side I DO see SONY, and Nikon address these areas. I also see Pentax 645z in action, and ALL MF dB's in the same common denominator. Even Sigma(As there is no need)...So Canon is alone. It is now so commonly spread, that having no AA as become a marketing tool. When working with difficult subjects like reflective product, and you have ZERO absorption surface. Everything is reflective high polish you can see how big a difference AA vs no AA is.

I think mirrorless is surely the direction, and yes, an in-between mirror space gap can make it much easier. I forget the brand years back, I briefly worked with a camera years back that would take filters on the lens mount.


----------

