# The rift between the vocal "ISOers" and the "MPers"...



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

There was a topic here a little while ago, however it seems to have been deleted. It reiterated a growing theme that I've been observing here since I joined, and in larger scope across the net in general. I think is high time the highly vocal opinions of the Pro-ISO Anti-MP crowd be re'butted. As someone who understands the value of BOTH improvements to ISO and continued increases to MP, and is sick and tired of getting beaten down (and seeing others beaten down) by the ISO crowd, here is my reply to that deleted topic, as it was directed at the ISO crowd in general:

First off, I hear the term "bragging" thrown around a lot by people who seem to abhor continued increases in MP count. That term is completely inappropriate, and entirely unwarranted. I can't recall the last time I ever actually heard ANYONE *brag* about _ANY_ of their gear. I've never once encountered a professional photographer who "_laughed_" at my gear, inwardly or otherwise. At worst, I've had some very enlightening debates about the merit of large format film (i.e. Velvia 50 4x5) and drum scans over digital, and learned a few interesting things about digital full-frame mosaic photography that can produce images just as high or higher resolution as a 300dpi 4x5 scan with FAR GREATER clarity! Perhaps I simply hang out amongst more mature crowds, I can't be sure, but its not about bragging rights. It is, quite _literally_ and _truthfully_, about *NEEDS*. It doesn't matter if those needs are from a professional or a _hardcore hobbyist_! Just because someone is serious about their hobby doesn't nullify their NEEDS! The far-too-oft spouted "If you need more MP, get a digital MF!! Stop bitching!" is REALLY getting old! The Pentax 645D is the cheapest option out there, and the body alone costs ten grand!! Thats nothing to speak of the need to reinvest in a whole new line of lenses and accessory gear!! The cost of upgrading to MF is *EXCESSIVE* and almost _incomprehensible_, even for many professionals who don't have fifty to a hundred grand to drop on an entirely new brand and type of gear. So, "Stop bitching, get digital MF" is one of the most naive responses the i-hate-more-mp crowd has conjured up.

Second, there IS a measurable, demonstrable benefit from increases in MP, up to the levels we have today. Mathematically and physically, it can be demonstrated (or simply concluded, if you prefer) that CONTINUED increases to MP can STILL produce benefit. From the standpoint of FF sensors, were a long way from being maxed out. There is no reason to assume that continued increases in FF pixel density will increase noise when you factor in improved manufacturing techniques, better sensor design and layout, purer materials, etc. When you consider that current top of the line 18-24mp APS-C sensors are equivalent in density to 46.7-56.7mp FF sensors, and the quality people are eeking out of the 7D is *STUNNING* (http://500px.com/alwaysbj182), its hard to argue that high density sensors "suck and only produce unacceptable noise". A FF with 46-56mp is more than DOUBLE the current pixel density we have now with 21-24mp FF sensors from Canon and Sony...LOTS of room to grow there. Its a _demonstrated fact_ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747761) that everything else being equal and without significantly out-resolving the lens, more MP means more actual resolution. In the case of Canon, with their mRAW and sRAW formats (which utilize more bayer pixel information per RGB pixel, producing a clearer, cleaner output akin to Foveon sensors), continued benefit could be gained well beyond the point where we out-resolve the physical maximum resolution of a "perfect" lens.

Finally, we have to put to rest that continued advancement on digital technology on ALL fronts INCLUDING resolution is a "waste", and that only improvement to ISO really matters anymore. Compare nature documentaries from merely a decade ago, and from the decade before that, to the unfathomable quality, both artistically and technically, that the BBC has been pumping out since Planet Earth and the advent of high resolution ultra high speed digital cinematography gear. Combine highly skilled cinematographers who are true artisans, possibly some of the greatest artists alive in the world today, with that incredibly advanced technology that many people would have called completely unnecessary a decade or two ago (and many who quite possibly still do today)...and you get something *mindblowingly phenomenal*. This ideology that what we have now is enough, that no more MP is necessary, that only better low-noise high ISO will ever help anybody else ever again, _is about as naive as it gets!_ MP is just as important as ISO, just as important as reducing noise, just as important as improving optical resolution, just as important as improving the fundamental technology of the sensor itself (such as readout wiring, readout rate, etc.) Its all important!

As someone who wants it all...better ISO AS WELL AS more MP, I'm sick and tired of being considered a bragging fool by the "stop bitching, all you need is ISO, get digital MF!" camp. Not everyone needs astounding high-ISO performance at 52,100 and beyond. Not everyone needs a 14fps frame rate that might cause anime lovers to blush! Not everyone needs professional-grade video recording capabilities in every single one of their DSLR's. Not everyone needs extremely high resolution, either. Advancement needs to occur on all fronts, to meet the needs of everyone, and having one camp continually complain about another camp when they voice their opinions is nonconstructive and fundamentally annoying. _Stop it._


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 12, 2011)

As I've said many times - MP and high ISO capability go hand-in-hand. Lowering MP to improve ISO cleanliness is simply rebalancing two parameters, but it isn't done in a vacuum, with no other variables affecting MP and ISO.

With this in mind, it's helpful to remember that high MP shots are often not the first goal of many shooters, either. I've seen claims that one can shoot a two-page spread with "just" 3 MP, and the higher pixel counts also directly impact many other things a PJ prefers negatively - number of shots remaining on the card and in the internal camera buffer (for bursts) especially. A camera shooting smaller files could theoretically shoot them faster as well (in practice the shutter mechanism seems to be a limiting factor for the highest FPS cameras, i.e. the 1D X). So for these photographers, the balance between ISO and MP is naturally weighted towards ISO.

In truth, I think that landscape or studio photographers can get away with a bit less in the way of ergonomics than sports / PJ / wildlife photographers do, so there doesn't seem to be a huge problem for most users in having the 'top of the line' cameras weighted towards ISO and having some of the "cheaper" full-frames keep high MP.

Of course there are many whose shooting styles do not allow this (many wildlife photographers and enthusiasts, like myself, put a premium on both dense pixel counts and high ISO capability, to get the most out of lenses and challenging lighting).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

It has been the case that the higher ISO the lower the IQ. With the advent of cleaner high ISO where is the break point where high ISO really affects the IQ?


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> It has been the case that the higher ISO the lower the IQ. With the advent of cleaner high ISO where is the break point where high ISO really affects the IQ?



From what I've read about Sony's sensors, and some tidbits I've read or speculated about Canon's 1DX sensor, I think its a bit of a circuit ordering problem. Sony changed some of the electronics the readout circuitry in their sensors to order ADC and amplification in such a way as it amplified at the point where electronic noise from the whole circuit was lowest. I think Canon has done the same thing with their new 1DX sensor, as reading about how they handled ISO for their previous sensors clearly indicated that there was a circuitry ordering issue that caused a lot of the noise (that, and they only seemed to use analog amplification at full-stop settings, effectively "cheating" for 1/3 stop settings, pushing or pulling exposure and possibly enhancing noise at some low settings so it appeared worse than at higher settings.) If Canon has really made ISO52100 as clean as prior ISO6400, given how noisy ISO3200 and 6400 are on current sensors like the 1DsIII/5DII sensor, then I would guess that the IQ limit is somewhere around 12800/25600 with 1DX-style sensors. 

Some noise simply can't be controlled, like photon-shot noise. Some noise seems to be controllable by building the ADC and amplification circuitry such that amplification occurs when electronic noise in the read circuit is at its lowest. Thermal noise could be controlled either by developing more effective methods to draw heat away from the sensor and image processing units (and any other heat-generating circuits), or by including active cooling technology (i.e. maybe a peltier and fancy heat sinks or heat pipes). 

I think noise management is an area that will boom for a while, now that its an area of growing competition. One thing about manufacturers, particularly the biggest ones like Canon...they tend to sit on existing tech as long as they possibly can to eek as much out of it as they can before investing in new tech when there isn't enough competitive pressure. In Canon's case, they seem to have waited as long as they possibly can before introducing something new (which gives them the benefit of hindsight vs. their competitors, and the drawback of not appearing to innovate as much). In Nikon's case, they seem to have shifted to using Sony sensors in some of their newer products, offloading the burden of having to deal with innovating sensors at all (which gave them the benefit of more time to focus on everything else they do control, such as AF and metering systems, ergonomics, expanding into new mirrorless markets, etc.) 

To me, the recent innovations in ISO performance and reducing noise is a _complementary_ factor to continuing to push resolution and readout rate, improving AF and metering sensors, etc. I don't see any reason it has to take the place of continued increases to megapixels...the two should progress simultaneously.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> A camera shooting smaller files could theoretically shoot them faster as well (in practice the shutter mechanism seems to be a limiting factor for the highest FPS cameras, i.e. the 1D X). So for these photographers, the balance between ISO and MP is naturally weighted towards ISO.



As I understand it, the 1DX uses some kind of automatic continuous mirror lockup for their highest framerates. If that is indeed the case, mirror flap rate wouldn't be the limiting factor. That would leave the rate at which they can fully read all the pixels off the sensor, convert, amplify, and process them into an image, and save that image to flash the limiting factors. Since we have something to the tune of 100mbs CF cards these days, I don't think the write speed of the flash itself is the primary limiting factor. Image processing with two dedicated DIGIC 5+ chips probably aren't significant limiting factors either, since it would alternate between them. That leaves the sensor itself as a key limiting factor for FPS. (This is of course largely speculative, but I think its logical.)


----------



## Rocky (Dec 12, 2011)

I am look at it from a practical point of view. 

It was well documented in this site that 7D at low ISO is more noisy that the 12MP XSi ( both straight out of the camera in jpeg format). After post processing the Noise is much lower for the 7D. Sure, high MP will give us more information with more noise and slow down both the camera anfd the computer at the same time. How many of us will constantly made 40" X 60" prints?? How many of us are willing to sit in front of the computer and do post processing for every picture that has been taken?? At that same time, most of us will like a DSLR body with the feature of a 7D or more if we can at the same time most of us are not willing (or able ) to pay for a 18 MP FF 1Dx. 

So, for me the happy medium may be a 10-12 Mp APS-C or 21-24 MP FF, both with the lastest sensor technology. Either one will give me low noise at low ISO in jpeg ,straight out from the camera, without any post processing. The high ISO performance is just a bonus. If the technology has been advanced to a point that high MP will give us low noise without degrading the detail, then I will be glad to take both high mp and low noise at the same time. Even then I will need a 10GHz CPU in my computer to keep up.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

Rocky said:


> I am look at it from a practical point of view.
> 
> It was well documented in this site that 7D at low ISO is more noisy that the 12MP XSi ( both straight out of the camera in jpeg format). After post processing the Noise is much lower for the 7D. Sure, high MP will give us more information with more noise and slow down both the camera anfd the computer at the same time. How many of us will constantly made 40" X 60" prints?? How many of us are willing to sit in front of the computer and do post processing for every picture that has been taken?? At that same time, most of us will like a DSLR body with the feature of a 7D or more if we can at the same time most of us are not willing (or able ) to pay for a 18 MP FF 1Dx.
> 
> So, for me the happy medium may be a 10-12 Mp APS-C or 21-24 MP FF, both with the lastest sensor technology. Either one will give me low noise at low ISO in jpeg ,straight out from the camera, without any post processing. The high ISO performance is just a bonus. If the technology has been advanced to a point that high MP will give us low noise without degrading the detail, then I will be glad to take both high mp and low noise at the same time. Even then I will need a 10GHz CPU in my computer to keep up.



Well I for 1 shoot in RAW and post process each image. That is why people have batch programs to do it for us rather than on a one by one basis (such as DPP, Lightroom, DxO etc etc)

The only people that seem to have a real reason to shoot in jpeg are the sports journos who transmit as fast as they take - pp is done by the editorial staff.

High MP is required for people to crop. I take a lot of pictures nowadays in 16:9 aspect ratio so throw away a lot of mp when cropping from 3:2. My 18mp turns into about 12mp for full frame shots.

Shooting at low ISO is highly desirable - however it isn't always possible, such as wildlifing at dawn/dusk or indoors/concerts etc where higher iso is needed to keep up the shutter speed.

Modern day PC's do have the processing power, such as the i5/i7 and the software has kept up with efficient multithreading to maximise the power. 64 bit apps give the memory space to process huge images.


----------



## candyman (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I take a lot of pictures nowadays in 16:9 aspect ratio so throw away a lot of mp when cropping from 3:2.



Interesting. Can you describe what you do? I like to learn.


----------



## pedro (Dec 12, 2011)

"If Canon has really made ISO52100 as clean as prior ISO6400, given how noisy ISO3200 and 6400 are on current sensors like the 1DsIII/5DII sensor, *then I would guess that the IQ limit is somewhere around 12800/25600 with 1DX-style sensors.*" 


Is it likely that these noise characteristics and sensor types will be fully transferred to 5Diii?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

candyman said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I take a lot of pictures nowadays in 16:9 aspect ratio so throw away a lot of mp when cropping from 3:2.
> ...



When I compose I leave space at the top/bottom then crop in pp. You can use the full width.

I do this so people can use my photos as wallpaper. They like to display the family/pets etc. Widescreens are 16:9 regardless of which hd the display.

This is also a good, default, landscape aspect ratio too as a bonus

Image below is just an example, nothing special


----------



## candyman (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I understand. So you compose the photo in a way that you can cut it 16:9. 
So no "tricks" with multiple photos merged to a 16:9 panorama 

Thanks for your reply


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

candyman said:


> I understand. So you compose the photo in a way that you can cut it 16:9.
> So no "tricks" with multiple photos merged to a 16:9 panorama
> 
> Thanks for your reply



Yep - no tricks - just simple composition.


----------



## motorhead (Dec 12, 2011)

Rocky posed the question earlier:

*"Who wants to spend all day in front of the computer"* and then used that to argue for a 21 to 24 MP imit on full frame. I can tell him that I for one, as a keen amateur, am perfectly happy to have the very highest quality RAW (sorry, never shoot jpeg) files and then its my decision whether to spend time on the image in Photoshop. I have never understood why the "high ISO/low MP" users don't see that.

I certainly am keen on improving DR and noise at low ISO levels, but ISO speeds have gone beyond a joke and are ridiculous in the latest cameras.


----------



## tjshot (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> Second, there IS a measurable, demonstrable benefit from increases in MP, up to the levels we have today. Mathematically and physically, it can be demonstrated (or simply concluded, if you prefer) that CONTINUED increases to MP can STILL produce benefit. From the standpoint of FF sensors, were a long way from being maxed out. There is no reason to assume that continued increases in FF pixel density will increase noise when you factor in improved manufacturing techniques, better sensor design and layout, purer materials, etc. When you consider that current top of the line 18-24mp APS-C sensors are equivalent in density to 46.7-56.7mp FF sensors, and the quality people are eeking out of the 7D is *STUNNING* (http://500px.com/alwaysbj182), its hard to argue that high density sensors "suck and only produce unacceptable noise". A FF with 46-56mp is more than DOUBLE the current pixel density we have now with 21-24mp FF sensors from Canon and Sony...LOTS of room to grow there. Its a _demonstrated fact_ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747761) that everything else being equal and without significantly out-resolving the lens, more MP means more actual resolution. In the case of Canon, with their mRAW and sRAW formats (which utilize more bayer pixel information per RGB pixel, producing a clearer, cleaner output akin to Foveon sensors), continued benefit could be gained well beyond the point where we out-resolve the physical maximum resolution of a "perfect" lens.



I agree.
More megapixel actually means better contrast, even when operating beyond diffraction limit for a sensor; it's mostly due to better sharpening potential.
I've proposed a quantification of effective performance increase upgrading from 21 Mpxls full frame to 32-36 Mpxls and 50 Mpxls, both in terms of contrast (MTF50%) and resolution (MTF 10%) in the digital image and in the final print, for different enlargements.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2412.0.html

Results are interesting: even in the final print, where printer performance limits the quality boost from a denser sensor, in optimal conditions, a 50 Mpxls full frame will perform at size A2 like a 21 Mpxls one (actual EOS 5d MKII) at size A3.
A more stringent DoF requirement being the only real issue, but still manageable with proper sharpening.
That's a very relevant performance boost.


----------



## psycho5 (Dec 12, 2011)

what do u think of this statement:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm one of those "MPers", that said I would be satisfied nif the 5dmkIII was 25MP. Although it'd be better to combine the two - high MP and high, clean ISO without losing image quality. But hey, we can't have it both ways (maybe in the next 10-15 years we can). Just my 2 cents


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> As someone who wants it all...better ISO AS WELL AS more MP... Advancement needs to occur on all fronts, to meet the needs of everyone, and having one camp continually complain about another camp when they voice their opinions is nonconstructive and fundamentally annoying. _Stop it._



There have been a number of posts explaining the physics of why higher MP does not automatically result in lower IQ (either noise or DR). To me, the question is not whether it can be done, but whether it can be done at comparable price. It seems to be true that smaller electronic structures are more expensive to design and manufacture. 

Can we have it all? Sure, for a price. However, if I had to strike the balance *at my price point*, I would rather have IQ (especially DR).


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 12, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who wants it all...better ISO AS WELL AS more MP... Advancement needs to occur on all fronts, to meet the needs of everyone, and having one camp continually complain about another camp when they voice their opinions is nonconstructive and fundamentally annoying. _Stop it._
> ...



Heck, I could argue that's what canon has been doing for the last past decade... every models (or every other in the xxd line) has seen upgrades in MP and also has had better high ISO (albeit perhaps not as good low ISO to some people)... I remember on my 6MP 10D i used to have, anything over 1000 ISO looked like film 1000 ISO... looked horrible, like someone sneezed on the camera... now i wouldn't think twice shooting ISO 1600 on my 18MP 7d... I'll give you there are two separate generations and refinements of technology yada yada yada... just saying..


----------



## celliottuk (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm an ISO'er. 
50% of what I do is shooting Rock bands. The headline acts are always well illuminated and never an issue, but the guys who come on first sometimes get nothing more than 1 red and 1 green 100W "floodlight", and an occasional other 100W light rotating through colours .
To be able to capture them with minimal blur and noise would make them, and me, very happy
The other 50% is Birds i_n Fligh_t. Again, shooting between April and September is no problem, but for the winter....Unless it's one of those rare bright blue days, or it's snowed, I leave my camera at home


----------



## pedro (Dec 12, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I'm one of those "MPers", that said I would be satisfied nif the 5dmkIII was 25MP. Although it'd be better to combine the two - high MP and high, clean ISO without losing image quality. But hey, we can't have it both ways (maybe in the next 10-15 years we can). Just my 2 cents



*What type of improvement can be expected, knowing that I am talking about a phantom body, given that an D800 equivalent of the rumored 5D3 might have 36 MP. Compared to a still to be released 1DX, what is the compromise? Will 36 MP on 5D3 yield one stop high ISO improvement at RAW over 5Dii applying the new sensor technique? Or is that unlikely combined with such an MP number?*

I am no tech, therefore the question.


----------



## torger (Dec 12, 2011)

pedro said:


> *What type of improvement can be expected, knowing that I am talking about a phantom body, given that an D800 equivalent of the rumored 5D3 might have 36 MP. Compared to a still to be released 1DX, what is the compromise? Will 36 MP on 5D3 yield one stop high ISO improvement at RAW over 5Dii applying the new sensor technique? Or is that unlikely combined with such an MP number?*
> 
> I am no tech, therefore the question.



The big compromise will be that a 36 MP will not have decent ISO 25600 and 51200. However, the ISOs it does provide it will probably do rather well. Usable ultra high ISOs is probably also a thing that Canon would want to reserve for the flagship, so I don't think we will se more than 25600 in any case.

36 MP fullframe is exactly the same pixel density as the fairly new Nikon D7000, so that can give us a lead of what performance can be expected. Per pixel the small D7000 pixels perform about as good as the larger 5Dmk2 pixels, at low ISO the D7000 has considerably better noise performance though.

Based on this I would think that a 36 MP 5Dmk3 would yield a ~2/3 stop ISO improvement over current 5Dmk2, and substantial noise improvement at base ISO.


----------



## pedro (Dec 12, 2011)

Thanks. This would do for me. Having never shot a 5D2, from what I see in posts 25k especially in BW looks pretty well. As I come from the filmdays and do like Robert Frank's photography it would seem like the perfect camera to me at a "moderate" price point for amateurs: 3 to 3.5 k.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 12, 2011)

celliottuk said:


> I'm an ISO'er.
> 50% of what I do is shooting Rock bands. The headline acts are always well illuminated and never an issue, but the guys who come on first sometimes get nothing more than 1 red and 1 green 100W "floodlight", and an occasional other 100W light rotating through colours .
> To be able to capture them with minimal blur and noise would make them, and me, very happy
> The other 50% is Birds i_n Fligh_t. Again, shooting between April and September is no problem, but for the winter....Unless it's one of those rare bright blue days, or it's snowed, I leave my camera at home



What's wrong with shooting birds when its overcast? Some of my best pictures are taken in the winter on an overcast day...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2011)

While opinion and wishes are nice, and Yes, I'd like a higher MP image, I've seen nothing in the long rambling article to convince me that with current technology, cameras and lenses, that we will continue to gain in resolution with smaller photosites. 

In fact, the person who invented CMOS, Eric Fossum, is now a Yale professor, and has a list of inventions, papers, and awards flatly states that there is a limit to the size of photosites that will result in higher resolution due to diffraction from the lenses we currently use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Fossum

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JkBh71zZKrM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


http://academic.research.microsoft.com/author/678550?form=BA

Who would you believe??


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 12, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Who would you believe??



Rarely the naysayers. History is replete with philosophers and scientiest and inventors saying "it can't be done" only to have someone else do it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Who would you believe??



The people on this forum, obviously, like the guy who said that the lens doesn't factor into the effect of diffraction.... Why would the guy who invented CMOS sensors know anything about them and their limitations?


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

Someone please tell me if I'm missing something. I've always understood pixel density and noise to be related in this way:

Below is a non-real world example.

If I have a 5MP FF sensor, I will have x amount of noise at ISO100. If i have that same size sensor, but instead it's 20MP, I now have 4x the pixels, and they are 1/4 the size of those in the 5MP sensor. Each pixel receives 1/4 the amount of light that the 5MP sensor pixels did because their surface area is 1/4 the size. So to get the same brightness, the sensor needs 4x the amplification to read the same brightness measurement of ISO100. This makes the 20MP image 4x noisier than the 5MP image when viewing the two side by side at 1:1pixel view on a monitor, or lightjet printer. The big difference is that the 20MP image is 200% bigger at 1:1 than the 5MP image. Now if you want to convert the 20MP image to be the same resolution as the 5MP image, you can use Photoshop and it's smart algorithms to take every group of 4 pixels and average them to make 1 pixel. Now, if you take 4 high-noise pixel samples and create one new one by averaging them, you will get a pixel that is 4x the accuracy of any single one of those pixels, thus rendering the noise to be 1/4 of the pronouncement. Noise by definition is a variation in pixel brightness (per channel) that is introduced into an image due to imperfect electronic capture. So averaging 4 varying-brightness pixels into 1 pixel will dramatically increase the accuracy of that one pixel.
In doing this down-sampling from a 20MP to 5MP image, you essentially get 1/4 the noise, and 50% the resolution, thus matching that original 5MP image that was captured with 1/4 the amplification and 50% the resolution of that of the 20MP captured image.

If the above example is true, then I can have a 20MP camera that shoots an acceptable noise level at ISO100, I can blow it up nice and big, and look at it nice and close. Or if I'm in a low light situation shooting ISO3200 and my 20MP gives me more than the acceptable amount of noise, I can down-res the image to 50% size in order to kill much of the noise. I can do this in photoshop/lightroom, or in-camera with mRAW or sRAW, thus also yielding me smaller file sizes.

There are several more factors in discussing resolution and MP usability: lens sharpness, moire patterns, OLP filter, viewing distance at different print sizes, camera processing speed, file size, etc.

But the above is a way to hopefully look only at the relationship between Signal-to-noise ratio vs. pixel density.

The two variables that might cause my logic and calculations to be flawed are A. the rate of noise introduction when doubling voltage to a sensor. If it's 1:1 ratio of noise intensity to voltage increase, then my calculations are correct. And B. If when you make a pixel 1/4 the size, does it receive less than 1/4 the light. If anyone has any input on this please let me know.

A third variable is, if you average 4 pixels that are 1/4 the size and 4x the noise of another single pixel, do you actually end up getting an even more accurate pixel than the one larger pixel due to some kind of law of averages?

note: I didn't use the term photo-site at all. I just used pixel as a universal term to refer to photo-sites and digital pixels.

Also, the above example is based on quadrupling the MP and pixel density because it's easier to understand than just doubling. But the principle still applies to any rate of multiplication of pixel density.

I can show photo examples of my principle stated above if anyone would like a better explanation.

Please feel free to comment on my thoughts above and where I might have gone wrong. But don't be a jerk. I personally shoot for a newspaper where ISO is more important than resolution, but my personal photography/art is high res, low ISO landscape and portraiture. So I have no specific desire for one type of camera or another.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

psycho5 said:


> what do u think of this statement:
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm



I think Rockwell is a self-proclaimed twit, and I take his articles in that spirit.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 12, 2011)

psycho5 said:


> what do u think of this statement:
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm



He says "Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back."

And how, exactly does he know where I stand? 8)


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> psycho5 said:
> 
> 
> > what do u think of this statement:
> ...



He certainly has some decent articles that I've learned from. But you have to weed out his personal biases with actual universal facts of information. I wouldn't go as far as "twit", but certainly biased and "sure of himself".


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I'm one of those "MPers", that said I would be satisfied nif the 5dmkIII was 25MP. Although it'd be better to combine the two - high MP and high, clean ISO without losing image quality. But hey, we can't have it both ways (maybe in the next 10-15 years we can). Just my 2 cents



I believe it would be EASY to have both 25mp and clean ISO. Noise is a combination of factors...some we cannot control, some we can control to a degree, and some we have a lot of control over. The noise floor of recent Sony sensors is around 12% that of Canon sensors prior to the 1DX. Mainstream Canon sensors have a funky way of boosting ISO, and in many cases they perform analog gain amplification when electronic read noise is quite high, amplifying all that noise right along with the rest of the image. Reordering circuits, cooling circuits down, etc. can all have a positive impact on noise levels, even at higher resolutions than we have today. I believe the technology already exists in the 1DX sensor, so a lower-FPS, low-ISO sensor that doesn't need ISO52100 should be able to see considerable gains in ISO levels up to ISO6400 or so.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

Lets go a very large, low density, low noise sensors which would be cheap to manufacture. Maybe 6x4 size

Ah.... Canon are rumoured to be going that way


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Lets go a very large, low density, low noise sensors which would be cheap to manufacture. Maybe 6x4 size
> 
> Ah.... Canon are rumoured to be going that way



The cost would be enourmous. The size is the biggest factor in cost by far. And, are you ready to buy $15K lenses?


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > I'm one of those "MPers", that said I would be satisfied nif the 5dmkIII was 25MP. Although it'd be better to combine the two - high MP and high, clean ISO without losing image quality. But hey, we can't have it both ways (maybe in the next 10-15 years we can). Just my 2 cents
> ...



I'm hoping for ISO 51,200 on my 7D mkII! With 24MP. And I am sure it will work great and look great; moreover, I am certain that people will continue to complain about the noise levels in the blue skies at ISO 400...


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

thatcherk1 said:


> Someone please tell me if I'm missing something. I've always understood pixel density and noise to be related in this way:



Pixel density is a factor of image noise. There are many things that affect image noise:

* Photon shot noise (randomness of light particles)
* Thermal noise (random noise generated by heat from the sensor and other electronic components)
* Electronic noise (noise generated by electronic circuits themselves)

Photon shot noise is something we can't control...its a matter of physics and the nature of light. The other types of noise we can control. Thermal noise is pretty easy...we can use passive or active cooling technology to draw heat away. 

With higher density sensors, there are more electronic circuits packed into the same area, so that increases electronic noise. That kind of noise can be controlled to a certain degree by changing how we fabricate sensors, how we design column/row activate and readout logic, in what order we amplify the signal, convert it to digital, etc. If it was truly the case that the more pixel dense a sensor was the noisier it was, sensors would have become unusably noisy LONG ago. At 100% on a per-pixel basis, the 7D appears to be fairly noisy compared to say a 50D. In reality, the amount of additional noise in the 7D is only marginally greater than the 50D at ISO100 (a matter of a fraction of a percent), not to mention that noise tends to be more even in the 7D than even the 5D II. And the 7D uses older technology to handle readout, amplification, and ADC.

Canon demonstrated a couple of radical new prototype sensor designs this year, one with an unbelievable amount of low-light sensitivity, and one with 120mp packed into an APS-H sensor, with manageable noise and a reasonable readout rate. I think tech from both those prototypes have made it into the 1DX 18mp sensor. Its obvious that they have managed to greatly improve the levels of noise in the sensor, as it supports 3 stops more light sensitivity at the same noise levels as prior ISO6400 sensors.

The story with noise is not quite as simple as "more density means more noise". There are a multitude of factors that contribute to noise, and many of them we can control. The 1DX 18mp sensor is considerably better than the 16mp 1D IV sensor, even though its higher density. I think that lends some strong evidence in support of the idea that we can get both better ISO/lower noise and more MP at the same time.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> I think that lends some strong evidence in support of the idea that we can get both better ISO/lower noise and more MP at the same time.


And we see the exact same trend _everywhere_:

7D better than 40D better than 30D better than 10D;
Nikon D7000 better than D300 (much!) better than D200;
Pentax K-5 better than K-x;
5D Mk II better than 5D;
1D Mk IV better than Mk III better than Mk II better than 1D.

And so it goes, _always_ in the same direction - newer cameras, more pixels, better noise performance.

*Yet the Flat Earthers still argue that if we want better noise capability we need fewer pixels. Never mind the evidence, they just shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and spout the same old crap regardless...*


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2011)

KeithR said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think that lends some strong evidence in support of the idea that we can get both better ISO/lower noise and more MP at the same time.
> ...



I've had Digital cameras for many years, since the 1990's, and noise does indeed go down with each new generation. However, it only drops a little. There is little difference from generation to generation, because, in addition to new technology, the increase in MP off sets what might otherwise be a larger gain.

Balancing the noise and light sensitivity against gains in resolution by adding more MP is what we are discussing. As photosite sizes decrease, we have new technology to off set some of the detrimental effects.

However, none of the noise reduction technology ofsets the degradation due to lens diffraction. Fortunately, its a gradual degredation, not a sharp cutoff, so the complex relationships between these things are only determined by the sensor and camera manufacturers who build prototypes for that purpose.

There are two sides, the sales side knows more pixels sell, while the engineering side knows that there is a point of diminishing returns to adding more MP. No one knows exactly where that point is, but around 4 microns has been mentioned as a reasonable figure by the Engineering experts. That number may go lower.

Its not a matter of designing a better lens, all lenses have diffraction, its just that with smaller photosites, we see the effects better until we reach a point where it actually reduces resolution.

You can see this very well by viewing some of the test figures from lens testers. The resolution of a lens appears to drop with smaller and smaller apertures. What causes this is diffraction.

As bodies get smaller photosites, the point at which resolution decreases comes at a larger aperture. This means that there is a point where smaller photosites (More MP) no longer increases resolution. It does not get worse, you just don't get improvement proportional to the MP increase.


This is engineering, not Flat Earther thinking, its been determined over and over again by facts.

Calling people names is only the mark of childish thinking.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While opinion and wishes are nice, and Yes, I'd like a higher MP image, I've seen nothing in the long rambling article to convince me that with current technology, cameras and lenses, that we will continue to gain in resolution with smaller photosites.
> 
> In fact, the person who invented CMOS, Eric Fossum, is now a Yale professor, and has a list of inventions, papers, and awards flatly states that there is a limit to the size of photosites that will result in higher resolution due to diffraction from the lenses we currently use.
> 
> ...



Sure, there are physical limits, no question about that. However, the highest density DSLR sensors these days resolve well below the theoretical maximum at Rayleigh (MTF 9%) for a perfect lens. A perfect diffraction-limited f/2.8 can resolve about 523 lp/mm at 9%, however the 7D's 18mp nyquist rate is 116 lp/mm, and the Sony A77's 24mp nyquist rate is 128 lp/mm. Granted, modern lenses are not "perfect", but they are damn good. A perfect lens @ 9% at f/11 resolves 135lp/mm, still above the rate of the Sony 24mp APS-C sensor. That tells me there is room to grow, so long as lenses keep approaching diffraction-limited perfection.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

I guess I should clarify my position here, as some comments seem to assume a different position. I am not saying every camera should always have more MP. Thats not the case at all. What I am saying is that there shouldn't be a single focus from camera manufacturers. Right now, the rumors seem to indicate that Canon is REDUCING MP on most of their sensors in favor of RADICALLY improving ISO. Its GREAT that Canon is listening to many of their customers by doing so with the 1DX, and for some of the things I do, a lower MP, better ISO, lower noise camera will serve me perfectly.

However, I do not think its good for Canon to solely and unequivocally cater to ONE vocal group...the ISOers, at the cost of the needs of other groups, like the MPers. For that matter, I don't think its good if they are focusing intensely on ISO and low noise if it costs dynamic range, as many people need better dynamic range at low ISO far more than they need high MP res or low-light performance.

My argument here is that its not possible to create a one-size-fits-all sensor, and camera manufacturers shouldn't try. The ISOers got their wish with the 1DX and its fantastic lower-res, high-ISO sensor. However, every time someone opens their mouth to ask for a high MP 5D III, the ISOers come out of the woodwork to beat them down with anecdotal evidence that more MP offers no benefit, and that the only thing that could ever make sense these days is a lower-res 5D III with the same ISO/noise characteristics as the 1DX (oh, yeah, and 7D AF...which is again just as naive.)


----------



## eaw213 (Dec 12, 2011)

KeithR said:


> 7D better than 40D better than 30D better than 10D;
> Nikon D7000 better than D300 (much!) better than D200;
> Pentax K-5 better than K-x;
> 5D Mk II better than 5D;
> ...



I wouldn't quite say that's what people are arguing for. At least, it's not what I'm arguing for. Think of it as points you get to apply to upgrades on a new camera. Canon gives you three points, and you can upgrade technical features, ISO quality, or MP. You say that you'd apply one point to each category, and get a camera better at everything! More features, more MP, and still better ISO. Okay, fine. If it were me though, I'd apply one point to new snazzy features, two points to ISO, and no points to MP increase. I don't think it's quite fair to claim people would apply one point to features, one point to ISO, and non to MP just to spite you. In other words, I think what people argue for is an _even bigger_ jump in ISO performance at the expense of more MP.

Consider the following statement:

1. "If you were to compare a 1DX as designed now with 18MP with a 1DX that has 36MP, I think the ISO would be better in the 18MP version."

I think the statement above is true, but it's important to note that it says nothing about what I think of the 36MP 1DX compared to the prior cameras. If you're curious, I would also add this statement

2. "I think even a 36MP 1DX would still have better ISO than prior cameras."

I think the two statements are perfectly valid and can coexist as well. I think the main difference comes down to whether we are talking about "better" ISO or "even better" ISO. You'll get better ISO either way, but if you want to really start focusing on ISO, then not having big or any MP jump might be one possible path to go down. It's all a balancing act.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> thatcherk1 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone please tell me if I'm missing something. I've always understood pixel density and noise to be related in this way:
> ...



Remember, the context of what I said was a direct comparison of pixel density vs. ISO noise performance. The given in my example is comparing two sensors of identical technology, but with small pixels vs big pixels. It was theoretical.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

eaw213 said:


> 1. "If you were to compare a 1DX as designed now with 18MP with a 1DX that has 36MP, I think the ISO would be better in the 18MP version."



Wait a second. Have you seen a 36MP 1DX sensor? It doesn't exist. The 1DX has an 18MP sensor. You can't argue the quality of a sensor that is a figment of your imagination. Because in my imagination there is a 200MP 1DX sensor that is capable of an ISO of 234585848438493000.

Also, are we comparing noise intensity at 1:1 crop? Because as soon as you down-sample a 36MP image to equal the resolution of an 18MP image, much of the noise goes away.

When we say that an old camera has only a little worse ISO sensitivity than the latest camera, we are always comparing in 1:1 crop. As soon as you match resolutions to the older camera, it goes away. When you compare the two images side by side in a 12x18 print, you'll see the higher res image is much better quality, and the noise is much less noticable because the pixels that make up the noise are much smaller.

I'm surprised so many people complain about higher resolution being contrary to lower noise. Doesn't it make sense that if you have a massive resolution image, you can down-sample it, thus killing significant amounts of noise. At least that's what I observe when I shoot 6400ISO stuff on my 5D, then give it a lower res output.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The problem with topics like this is that someone is assuming that those that want more MP don't want better sensor performance when it comes to noise at a given ISO. That's false.



I think there is a thought that although overall sensor performance goes up from generation to generation, there is still a degree that higher MP hinders ISO performance. I think everyone acknowledges that we all want better everything. But there are those who think that to have a lot better MP means only a little better ISO, and they would rather have a lot better ISO and a little better MP. And then there are those who believe that we have maxed out MP and it's pointless to go bigger and it's only a marketing thing. See Ken Rockwell's link on page 2.

Now I don't necessarily subscribe to either of the above ideas. I don't think that higher MP inherently hinders ISO (unless someone can explain correctly how this is the case). I also think that people see things with their own experience. A landscape photographer with a tripod might look at ISO and say "why the heck would you need such high ISO?!?! There is no need for that! I shoot everything at 100, and I use ND filters. But boy do i like printing 40x60 prints with lots of detail". A concert photographer might say "Megapixel? who needs that? photos only end up on websites, and at worst put on 5" CD covers or desktop backgrounds. But boy do I need that high ISO to capture wild rockers in a dark room".

Of course these are the two extremes. But some photographers only do one type of photography, and are blind to the needs of others. And many of us either do several types of photography, or are just educated on more aspects of photography than our own.

The silliest thing which even I am susceptible to is thinking it is productive to engage in this kind of conversation. I have a suspicion that Canon doesn't surf forums to look at "wishlists" or see whether photographers want ISO performance vs. pixel count in their next camera. Maybe they do. But if they do, they probably don't put a ton of weight into it. I figure they have various well-known photographers who test their gear, give input etc. But also all these Japanese electronics manufacturers are notorious for ignoring what users desire and need in equipment and end up going with what nerds in lab coats randomly decide to do. This is especially true in the cinema world (which is why Sony, Panasonic and Canon are losing to Red[US] and Arri[German]), and I think it's true in photography too.

But alas, when we photographers need a break from shooting and it's a rainy day with no jobs to prepare for, then we can come and entertain ourselves and each other talking about what's wrong with our current gear and what we wish we could have exist, or afford. And then argue about it.

I love the internet.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

thatcherk1 said:


> eaw213 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "If you were to compare a 1DX as designed now with 18MP with a 1DX that has 36MP, I think the ISO would be better in the 18MP version."
> ...



You aren't reading all of my posts. I'm comparing the new higher-resolution 18mp 1DX sensor with the relatively new but still current-gen 16mp sensor of the 1D IV. The 1DX and 1D IV are very similar in their target audience, if not flat out identical. Adjusting for 1.3x crop, they are about the same from a density standpoint, however the 1DX sensor FAR outpaces the 1D IV sensor in every other way. In the case of ISO and noise, its SIGNIFICANTLY better.

Assuming we don't need an extremely high readout speed or native ISO52100 (the 1DX locks its mirror up at 14fps, so mirror flap isn't the limiting factor there, the sensor readout rate is the logical bottleneck), taking all of the other advantages from the 1DX sensor...do you honestly believe that 18mp is the highest we can go with lower noise? Photo shot, thermal, electronic, and readout mechanics...those are the factors that affect noise. Only one of them is beyond our control, the other three are entirely within our control. Given the trend with sensors over the last five years, which has seen 2-3 fold increases in pixel density with marginal increases in noise without _significant_ refactoring of readout mechanics until recently... Well, logically, given both current Sony and 1DX noise floors, I don't see any reason why we can't increase pixel density in a 5D III to 30mp (which, btw, is still FAR less tense than the 18mp 7D or 24mp A77) and ALSO improve noise characteristics.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 12, 2011)

thatcherk1 said:


> Wait a second. Have you seen a 36MP 1DX sensor? It doesn't exist. The 1DX has an 18MP sensor. You can't argue the quality of a sensor that is a figment of your imagination.



First of all, theoretical is not the same as imaginary. At this point the entire existence of a 1DX is theoretical, because no one owns a production copy of it. So to have a theoretical 36MP (which is the rumored sensor in the Nikon D800) is a perfectly valid concept for discussions of an idea.

And secondly, as this is a rumors site, a lot of what we discuss here aboslutely is the figment of someone's imagination.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> First of all, theoretical is not the same as imaginary. At this point the entire existence of a 1DX is theoretical, because no one owns a production copy of it. So to have a theoretical 36MP (which is the rumored sensor in the Nikon D800) is a perfectly valid concept for discussions of an idea.
> 
> And secondly, as this is a rumors site, a lot of what we discuss here aboslutely is the figment of someone's imagination.



True, no one has seen a production copy of 1DX. But there is an existent 1Dx 18MP sensor. There isn't a 36MP 1Dx sensor. Maybe there is a 36MP Nikon sensor. There are many factors that cause a sensor to have certain properties. You can't take one existing sensor that is 18MP and theorize that a sensor that is identical in every aspect except the number of photo-sites is going to perform in a predictable way.

But I'll play your little game. If you take a 36MP image that presumably has higher noise, and compare it to an 18MP image at 1:1 you will see more noise in the 36MP image. But practically speaking, as soon as you down-sample the image to match the resolution of the 18MP image, I am willing to bet there wouldn't be much difference between the two. One of the biggest effects that down-sampling has on an image is it averages out extremes in pixel variation, which (pixel variation) is exactly what noise turns out to be.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

thatcherk1 said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, theoretical is not the same as imaginary. At this point the entire existence of a 1DX is theoretical, because no one owns a production copy of it. So to have a theoretical 36MP (which is the rumored sensor in the Nikon D800) is a perfectly valid concept for discussions of an idea.
> ...



I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point. You always have to normalize samples for comparison before comparing. I think that was the point dtaylor and myself tried to get across on the "Earthshatteringly Disappointed" thread, but it seems to be lost on most people.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> You aren't reading all of my posts. I'm comparing the new higher-resolution 18mp 1DX sensor with the relatively new but still current-gen 16mp sensor of the 1D IV. The 1DX and 1D IV are very similar in their target audience, if not flat out identical. Adjusting for 1.3x crop, they are about the same from a density standpoint, however the 1DX sensor FAR outpaces the 1D IV sensor in every other way. In the case of ISO and noise, its SIGNIFICANTLY better.
> 
> Assuming we don't need an extremely high readout speed or native ISO52100 (the 1DX locks its mirror up at 14fps, so mirror flap isn't the limiting factor there, the sensor readout rate is the logical bottleneck), taking all of the other advantages from the 1DX sensor...do you honestly believe that 18mp is the highest we can go with lower noise? Photo shot, thermal, electronic, and readout mechanics...those are the factors that affect noise. Only one of them is beyond our control, the other three are entirely within our control. Given the trend with sensors over the last five years, which has seen 2-3 fold increases in pixel density with marginal increases in noise without _significant_ refactoring of readout mechanics until recently... Well, logically, given both current Sony and 1DX noise floors, I don't see any reason why we can't increase pixel density in a 5D III to 30mp (which, btw, is still FAR less tense than the 18mp 7D or 24mp A77) and ALSO improve noise characteristics.



You apparently aren't reading the post that you are quoting of me. Notice how I only quoted one sentence in your post. That means I'm only commenting on that sentence. I don't remember mention of a 1Div being a part of that sentence. What I do remember is a statement about a hypothetical 36MP sensor being noisier than a real 18MP sensor.

I also don't remember saying anything about the 1Dx not outpacing the 1Div sensor. I don't recall saying anything about 18MP being the highest we can go with lower noise.

In fact I would agree with you so much so that I disagree with you. I think there is a long way we can go in fighting noise performance. You speak of Photo shots which aren't controllable by us mere mortals. Sure we can't destroy them, but we can tame them by increasing pixel density to capture all the variations, then downsample, evening them out (hypothetically of course).

I don't know where you get the impression from my post that I think we can't improve ISO performance and pixel density.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2011)

If Nikon puts out a 36mp camera in a pro level body, then I'd expect it to be good! I think that 36mp is approaching the area where with todays technology noise will be acceptable. If not, they won't make it.

I'm always in favor of seeing different manufacturers develop new products and offer options. It would really be boring if they were all the same, photographers need a choice.

Still, as long as I get enough pixels to crop my FF image, I'd go for low noise and better light sensitivity if that was a option. I did not get a D3S because 12 mp did not meet that criteria, but 18mp does.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

@thatcherk1: Perhaps I misread, I'm not sure. I've been trying to make the point that I don't think there is anything physically that would prevent us from increasing MP and maintaining or even reducing noise...without the need to downsample. That at a 100% crop comparison, given some of the read mechanics improvements made by Sony in some of their sensors, and some of the known problems with the read mechanics in Canon's sensors from the last several years, and the apparent improvements with the 1DX sensor, we should be able to improve both MP and noise at the same time. It sounded like you were saying that wasn't possible, but apparently that it isn't necessary in apples-to-apples (normalized, i.e. resized) comparisons.

I completely agree that in a normalized context, even if they appear noisier at 100%, more MP will rarely if ever be worse than a lower MP image when properly normalized. So...I guess we agree.


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm always in favor of seeing different manufacturers develop new products and offer options. It would really be boring if they were all the same, photographers need a choice.



Yup! Thats exactly my point, too!


----------



## thatcherk1 (Dec 12, 2011)

Well jrista, I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 22, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If Nikon puts out a 36mp camera in a pro level body, then I'd expect it to be good! I think that 36mp is approaching the area where with todays technology noise will be acceptable. If not, they won't make it.
> 
> I'm always in favor of seeing different manufacturers develop new products and offer options. It would really be boring if they were all the same, photographers need a choice.
> 
> Still, as long as I get enough pixels to crop my FF image, I'd go for low noise and better light sensitivity if that was a option. I did not get a D3S because 12 mp did not meet that criteria, but 18mp does.



Ahhh... the joys of competition in the free market world... If they do make one, I can't wait to see the "I'm switching to Nikon" threads popping up! ;D Seriously, though, tech progresses, and perhaps, our grandchildren's grandchildren may not even know what SLR means...


----------

