# The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 14, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9250"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9250" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9250"></a></div>
<strong>More pixels are coming


</strong>A suggestion that a high megapixel camera is coming from Canon, and could be introduced near the end of 2012. Alongside the camera would come new ultra wide angle lens(es). It was suggested both a zoom and a prime in the area of 16mm.</p>
<p>I warn that this sort of conjecture will be a regular occurrence going forward I think. There is a large number of people in the community that desire a 35  megapixel camera from Canon.</p>
<strong>NAB 2012?


</strong>Some have suggested the upcoming 4K DSLR will be the high megapixel camera. I don’t believe that to be true, as the high megapixel count is definitely a request of the photographic community, and paying for high end video features is probably not something that would make the segment too happy.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Tijn (Mar 14, 2012)

With the Nikon high-megapixel camera (D800) being pretty much on par with Canon's newest camera in that price range (5D mk3) in AF and noise performance however, would this new high-megapixel camera keep the rest of this functionality as well? Looking only at Canon's own lineup, I'd expect Canon to build and deliver a high-megapixel but less-AF-burst-focussed camera, but the Nikon would still be the magical merging of those two things. Looking at Canon's competition, I'd expect Canon to offer something worth choosing Canon for.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm not in a hurry to replace my 5D2 but this is the last chance for Canon to stay with Canon. I don't think though I'm willing to wait longer than Photokina.


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

Ivar said:


> I'm not in a hurry to replace my 5D2 but this is the last chance for Canon to stay with Canon. I don't think though I'm willing to wait longer than Photokina.



Ivar what is you message ???????
Last chance for Canon ???????
Who cares !!!!!

There is more to photography then only the DSLR's
What about lenses ?
For me that is a reason to stay with Canon.

Could you please show us some of your pictures?
I really really wonder what kind of photographer you are that the currend DSLR's (Canon and Nikon) are not good enough.

Please show me your skills instead of all this nonsense about equipment...


----------



## dolina (Mar 14, 2012)

14-24mm zoom makes sense seeming Nikon has one.
17-40/4 with IS zoom makes sense seeming Nikon has one as well.

Both solutions are of little interest to me.

Where's the 35L, 135L & 400/5.6L replacements?


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 14, 2012)

I have little doubt Canon will release a high MP camera. The question is when. This year? Next year? 

I'd personally have bet on next year - but I'm not sure now as they are feeling the pressure from Canon users switching to Nikon.

I'd consider buying one for landscape photography. I don't need it for anything else though.


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 14, 2012)

If the first rumor says late 2012, then in reality it will be late 2014. We've been hearing 5D3 rumors for nearly 2 years before the official announcement earlier this month.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 14, 2012)

I agree that the last chance was rather pathetic. 

NSFW warning but here you go: http://www.modelmayhem.com/255452



Alker said:


> Ivar what is you message ???????
> Last chance for Canon ???????
> Who cares !!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## squarebox (Mar 14, 2012)

dolina said:


> Where's the 35L, 135L & 400/5.6L replacements?




From what i've read there is way more issues with the 16-35L and 24L than the 35L. My bet would be those would be replaced before the 35L


----------



## GL (Mar 14, 2012)

Here we go. We'll probably see new CR1 rumours of a high MP camera until, well, until we actually get one! Like I've posted elsewhere, I just can't see Canon introducing a 30MP+ FF camera with the same IQ as the 5D3 for anywhere near the price of the 5D3, unless they cripple other aspects (pro AF, FPS, build). Could the "entry level FF" everyone seems to be clamouring for - after Canon put the 5D3 just out of reach for cash-strapped enthusiasts - be a 40MP monster with very basic functionality? Unlikely. 

I think the key word here is FF. I can see Canon pulling a rabbit out the hat with a 30-40MP 7D II, similar specs to the current 7D, lower high ISO IQ than any of the FF cams, but decent low-to-midrange IQ and best-in-class resolution. That way it doesn't step on any "pro" toes in terms of ultimate IQ/build, and undercuts Nikon's high-res cam by $1000 or more. 

Personally I'm happy to wait for a 5D Mk IV with 40MP, an extra stop of juice, and a new DiGiC 6 keeping the FPS up around 6. Hopefully by then 128GB CF/SD cards would have dropped in price to affordable levels, and Intel would have cranked out some CPUs capable of dealing with the 100MB+ RAW file sizes (my head hurts just thinking about it). Until then two 5D3's will do the business, literally.


----------



## jrista (Mar 14, 2012)

dolina said:


> 14-24mm zoom makes sense seeming Nikon has one.



Ditto. I've wondered for some time why Canon doesn't add such a lens to their own lineup. I'd love a 14-24 for my landscape and wide-field night sky work.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 14, 2012)

There's a rumor about a 17-40mm f/2.8-4.0, this rumor might refer to it.

I'd rather see a response to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 12-24mm


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm not a high MP guy...so current 5D III is what I'm looking for. *However, I hope this rumor will become TRUE for those looking for high MP body.*

Good Luck Guys,


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 14, 2012)

GL said:


> I can see Canon pulling a rabbit out the hat with a 30-40MP 7D II, similar specs to the current 7D, lower high ISO IQ than any of the FF cams, but decent low-to-midrange IQ and best-in-class resolution.



I'd be surprised by that. I don't think the IQ would be very good, and the people who seem to *particularly* want high MP are studio and landscape guys - neither of whom really want a crop camera.

Not saying it won't happen - I'd just be surprised.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Some have suggested the upcoming 4K DSLR will be the high megapixel camera. I don’t believe that to be true, as the high megapixel count is definitely a request of the photographic community, and paying for high end video features is probably not something that would make the segment too happy.



Would these two areas be mutually exclusive? as a layman with little knowledge of the video side of things wouldnt the processing power needed for 4K video also be useful for a high megapixel body retaining decent FPS?

The main conflict between video and stills for me seems like its potentially limating resolution for superior downscaling but unlike the 5D mk3 the number being banded is significantly higher than expectations at 44 MP.

The "anti video" arguement to me really seems to be anger from stills users at bodies being marketed on improved video features rather than the presence of video itself. There does potentially seem to be alot of crossover to me, smaller cinema productions who want 4K also havign a camera that can take promotional stills, areas like wildlife and sports that pushed HD TV hard would also surely like the ability to take high quality stills?

Having 4K video and decent FPS seems like one way a higher priced Canon high MP camera could differentiate itself even more from MF competision.


----------



## jrista (Mar 14, 2012)

GL said:


> I think the key word here is FF. I can see Canon pulling a rabbit out the hat with a 30-40MP 7D II, similar specs to the current 7D, lower high ISO IQ than any of the FF cams, but decent low-to-midrange IQ and best-in-class resolution. That way it doesn't step on any "pro" toes in terms of ultimate IQ/build, and undercuts Nikon's high-res cam by $1000 or more.



No way that'll ever happen. The 7D's core value is in its APS-C sensor...that will never change. The entire reason people buy the 7D is for the extra reach with pro-grade features. The 7D is already pretty maxed out when it comes to resolution as well with 18mp in an APS-C format. You might gain a bit more by going to 20 or 22mp, but thats going to make it really hard to get sharp shots right down to the pixel level...and you would only be able to do so at a very narrow range of apertures at the center of the lens before diffraction or optical aberrations kill you.


----------



## Alker (Mar 14, 2012)

Ivar said:


> I agree that the last chance was rather pathetic.
> 
> NSFW warning but here you go: http://www.modelmayhem.com/255452
> 
> ...



This is my point. 
Beautiful pictures with the current equipment


----------



## moreorless (Mar 14, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > I can see Canon pulling a rabbit out the hat with a 30-40MP 7D II, similar specs to the current 7D, lower high ISO IQ than any of the FF cams, but decent low-to-midrange IQ and best-in-class resolution.
> ...



That does seem to rather go agenst the 7D line being marketed as a sports/wildlife body to me.

I wouldnt be shocked if we saw a spilt in Canon's crop lineup though with the 7D staying at 18 MP with improved ISO and possibly FPS/AF while the 70D and/or 650D push megapixels. A higher megapixel crop body targetting the lower end and a FF body somewhere above the 5D mk3.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 14, 2012)

They should buy an improved FF version of Sonys 24MP sensor at 54MP.
It should also have crop modes and burst 5FPS at FF and 8FPS in 1.6 crop. Variable step in between.
AF and meetering from 5D3.
Since it will need double Digic the pricetag could be slightly above the current 5D3 level. Perhaps USD 100-200.
5D3 will be cheaper.


----------



## gecko (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm interested even though I don't really need a high MP body. 

Though I'm waiting to see more reviews of the MkIII, especially interesting is the claim of an un-AA function within DPP. Will it really be un-AAing or just another sharpening tool?


----------



## gene_can_sing (Mar 14, 2012)

They need to hurry with the 4K C-DSLR. Sony is kicking Canon's A$$ now in video and a LOT of people have switched to the Sony FS-100, especially now that the Metabones adaptor allows full electronic interface with the FS-100 and Canon lenses. Canon could have owned that market, but they slept on it, so Sony took advantage and came out on top.

The 5D3 is shaping up to be a real disappointment in video since it's still has the soft, up-res'd false HD (at least in the early test models). So yeah, the 4K C-DSLR really needs to come out. And have a FLIP SCREEN for God sake. We need it for video.

If it's not soon, I'm going to have to buy the Sony FS-100. I'm not thrilled about it since I now hate shooting with the video camera form, but I need a better picture.

If the 4K DSLR came out at NAB in April, I would buy it the next day even it it is $6000. I need a better video solution and I cannot wait much longer.

And NO, that is not going to be the high mega-pixel camera from Canon. Video requires low mega-pixels because then the processor has less work to do to down-scale the image into a 2K output (or in this case a 2K to 4K) output.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just did some quick calculations and it looks like:
7D sensor at 18 mp = 46 mp full frame
50D sensor at 15 mp = 38 mp full frame
1D IV sensor at 16 mp = 27 mp full frame.

So, it seems to me that if Canon decided they really need to bring a higher megapixel camera to market quickly, they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Could they just upsize one of their current sensors?


----------



## Wahoowa (Mar 14, 2012)

I agree with some of the above comments. I don't think this will be a camera in the same tier as 5D Mark III. It will have to be a pro body. This might be considered as the 1Ds Mark III replacement, while 1DX is kinda the 1D Mark IV replacement. Maybe it'll be a camera with cropped feature built-in.

Also, I agree that switching to Nikon shouldn't be based on just the body. I mean Canon bodies are really that bad? If I have to start over, I'd still pick Canon over Nikon because of their lens selections. Even for the body, I still prefer 5D Mark III over D800. The only issues I have with 5D Mark III are the slow x-sync and the price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 14, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I have little doubt Canon will release a high MP camera. The question is when. This year? Next year?



... the main piece of information for me in this rumor is: Canon might not believe that 22mp is the perfect number for everyone either.



Wahoowa said:


> I agree with some of the above comments. I don't think this will be a camera in the same tier as 5D Mark III. It will have to be a pro body.



Why would that be? Like Microsoft, Canon seems to have reacted to users' requirements in the past. For example they released the 600D with the video-friendly screen right after the 550D. While I guess they will try to get away with an as high price as possible, if the competitor is the ~3000 bucks D800, they won't concern themselves with disappointed 5d3 buyers. 5dx anyone?


----------



## ruuneos (Mar 14, 2012)

Well nobody doesn't really need that much megapixels, *but* if you do fashion photography then it's OK.
But it's nice to see that Canon is moving forward and fast now


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 14, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> Well nobody doesn't really need that much megapixels, *but* if you do fashion photography then it's OK.



... doing macro work, it would be very welcome too! Not only as a replacement for a microscope, but if you don't need to fill the sensor frame with an object to get a descent print size, you gain more flexibility concerning natural light and flash. For static objects noise won't matter because of a tripod, and dr neither because you can do hdr.


----------



## maxxevv (Mar 14, 2012)

If Canon were to release such a camera, I would think they would go down the route of an improved 5DII/7D amalgam. 

- 40~48MP
- 7D borrowed/improved AF module
- 5DII build quality
- 3~3.5fps
- Improved dynamic range (16bit ADC ??)
- Moderately lower ISO range
- Single CF/SD card

Essentially a landscape/studio oriented camera with pixel binning for video like the C300. 

That's how/where I see the gap is for such a camera.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 14, 2012)

squarebox said:


> From what i've read there is way more issues with the 16-35L and 24L than the 35L. My bet would be those would be replaced before the 35L



The 35L was released in 1998, and the 24L II was released in 2008 along the 5D Mark II, why on earth would they update a lens that is 10 years newer first?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just did some quick calculations and it looks like:
> 7D sensor at 18 mp = 46 mp full frame
> 50D sensor at 15 mp = 38 mp full frame
> 1D IV sensor at 16 mp = 27 mp full frame.
> ...



While you are correct, I hope they would reinvent the wheel because the 50D, in studio applications, at ISO 160, was too noisy for me... The 7d, to me, at low ISO's was a tad cleaner than the 50D... So while they could use similar technologies to make bigger chips, I hope the new digic and gapless lenses and new algorithms leads to reduced noise... Other wise I will be staying with my 5d3 for a verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyy loooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg tiiiimmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeee, which is fine by me.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > A suggestion that a high megapixel camera is coming from Canon, and could be introduced near the end of 2012. Alongside the camera would come new ultra wide angle lens(es). It was suggested both a zoom and a prime in the area of 16mm.
> ...



This is why they should buy the sensor from Sony.
If they could get 54MP (upscaled 24MP sensor) with same DR and high ISO noise as D800. (the Sony 16MP and 24MP are about equal in these terms according to DXO and also to other sites subjective testing)
Meanwhile Canon can upgrade their own thechnology to the same level.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Mar 14, 2012)

this news will make the big MP fans quite happy..! it would be a smart move from canon too


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 14, 2012)

It would be nice if they would be open to new ideas and either allowed some higher MP '5DX' to offer crop modes for more fps, as does Nikon, instead of forcing a 22MP+6fps or 36+ MP+3fps choice. Or even 'daring' to allow the 5 series to use 2 digics (maybe FF mirror/shutter take more power and there is not enough left for a second digic????) to let it also do 6fps. (They can offer high-quality video by simply using a somewhat cropped area of the sensor to grab a perfect downsize pattern for 1920x1080p out of.)

But I really see them NOT offering a moire/aliasing free cropped video mode or any way to get decent body speed out of it. I think they are too stubborn.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 14, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It would be nice if they would be open to new ideas and either allowed some higher MP '5DX' to offer crop modes for more fps, as does Nikon, instead of forcing a 22MP+6fps or 36+ MP+3fps choice. Or even 'daring' to allow the 5 series to use 2 digics (maybe FF mirror/shutter take more power and there is not enough left for a second digic????) to let it also do 6fps. (They can offer high-quality video by simply using a somewhat cropped area of the sensor to grab a perfect downsize pattern for 1920x1080p out of.)
> 
> But I really see them NOT offering a moire/aliasing free cropped video mode or any way to get decent body speed out of it. I think they are too stubborn.



Contact Canon in mass and let them know... regarding the crop mode, while possible, I think, as said before in other treads, it does beg to question whether if they do that, does it open the door to usage of ef-s lenses, which cant go on a full frame camera due to the extended rear... or do they say, crop mode only with EF lenses? And even if they do that, i dont get how nikon, you have to be in crop mode to get 6FPS? the mirror is going up and down anyways so it's not the mirror hindering performance unless the mirror isn't going up and down the full length as FF... But beware what you ask for... i'm sure they canon could produce a camera that trumps the D800E every way possible, but at what cost?


----------



## Ricku (Mar 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Just more megapixels is *NOT ENOUGH.*
> 
> 
> We want *better dyanmic range (DR)* and *lower noise* - and in raw files, *not JPEG!*.
> ...


Agreed.

I want a high MP camera, but the upgrade will be just as useless as the 5D3, if the dynamic range is not dramatically improved. 

I really hope that Canon will some day understand this simple fact. Higher MP is good, but higher DR is the true king.

Heck I'd even settle for the 22MP 5D3 if it's DR had been upgraded!


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 14, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I want a high MP camera, but the upgrade will be just as useless as the 5D3, if the dynamic range is not dramatically improved.
> 
> ...



Another +1

With Westfall already defending the lack of significant MP bump in the 5D3 by stating 22 "is enough", and then expounding by claiming limited megapixels allow for higher FPS burst rates - I have begun losing faith in Canon. So now I'm supposed to believe the stagnant MP count was all part of Canon's genius plan to transform the 5D line into an action shooter's camera?? WTF?!?! I don't need 6FPS in a studio/event/landscape camera you jagoffs!

And now with the latest rumor that Canon will be releasing a "high MP body" by the end of this year, it's clear that they dropped the ball on the 5D3, are scared sh*tless by the d800, and a scrambling to cover their ass before everyone jumps ship to the dark side. "Nono no... hold on JUuuuust a minute... we have a high MP body in the works... it's coming... you know... hopefully by Christmas and such. Meerrrrrrrr!"

Man - this is starting to turn into a huge embarrassment for big C. I wish this was all just a bad dream. Talk about being caught with your pants down. Canon thought Nikon would never dare to cram so many pixels onto a sensor. Now that they have - and got sick images as a result - they look like fools. I'll tell you this - Nikon was pretty damn good at keeping the d800 secret if Canon really never saw this coming - which is starting to look like what happened.

I'll tell you what - I won't be the guinea pig on Canon's 40+MP project crammed out in 8 months in response to Nikon. That's not R&D ... that's playing catch up.


----------



## facedodge (Mar 14, 2012)

How about this....

The XD series turns into the "All Around Camera" Series. It becomes the favorite of hobbyists, wedding and street photographers. 
The XXD Series goes Sports... High FPS... Crop... AF...
The XXXD Series loses the Rebel tag and goes landscape or studio... MP... DR...
The XXXXD Series keeps the Rebel tag.


----------



## SeanL (Mar 14, 2012)

You guys are getting way out in front of a CR1 rumor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in the market for an affordable medium format camera like the 645D for landscape.

Post some online proof that Canon is concerned about the D800 resolution.


----------



## StevenBrianSamuels (Mar 14, 2012)

If Canon does a High MP I really hope they don't put it in a 1d body. Taking price out of the factor (@5k+ if wont compete with the D800/e) the sheer size and weight of a 1d body would be a negative in the studio.

BTW - I looked into the 645D. Great if you dont use flash but it's low sync-speed kills it for me.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 14, 2012)

SeanL said:


> You guys are getting way out in front of a CR1 rumor.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm in the market for an affordable medium format camera like the 645D for landscape.
> 
> Post some online proof that Canon is concerned about the D800 resolution.



Canon will never come out and say "we are scared by the d800," that's just not smart business - but we can read between the lines.  In this interview, Chuck Westfall is defending the great advancements in FPS on the 5D3 by limiting the MP to 22. Since when has the 5D line been about action shooting?? According to Canon central - now that's what the 5D3 is all about...

[quote author=Chuck Westfall]Staying in the 22 megapixel range allowed us to maximize base level image quality, while at the same time enabling us to achieve a maximum continuous shooting speed of 6 frames per second. This is the fastest continuous shooting speed in the 20+ megapixel full-frame sensor DSLR category, and it expands the potential customer base for the EOS 5D Mark III by making it more attractive to photojournalists and entry-level sports photographers. --Chuck Westfall[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned, this is Canon already making excuses for the relatively low-MP of the 5D3 (compared to the d800). They are now trying to use FPS as a legitimate argument for lower MP... in the 5D line? The 5D series has NEVER been about action shooting. 

"_Ohhhhh - we INTENTIONALLY kept MP down to boost that fps rate to 6!! Because, yea... you know... that's what those studio and landscape toggers wanted!!! Wooohooo!! Right? Uh... merrrrr_."


----------



## lol (Mar 14, 2012)

Don't listen to marketing speak. They want to sell you what they have NOW, not what they might have later. They have to talk up the 5D3 and shift as many of them as possible.

Putting that aside, they will eventually address other needs not covered by that. What they think they are and how to fill them are the big questions.

Personally I see two options for a "high MP full frame" body:
1: Take the 5D3, cram in a 30 to 40-something MP sensor. Change nothing else. You get up to double the MP count for half the shooting rate. Everything else can be kept more or less the same to make it easy to manufacture. If they go this route I'd expect it to cost a bit more than the 5D3 as they'd no doubt try to talk it up as a higher position.

2: Do the above, but shovel in another Digic and keep the fps up. Pricing will be creeping ever closer to 1D X territory.


----------



## tt (Mar 14, 2012)

49MP gives a 4x oversampling (and out-MP the D800) - could Csnon just use the sensor in 2 different cameras? 
Have a high MP cinema dSLR and have a high MP stills dSLR?
Or have both and charge top whack.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 14, 2012)

Still the option of the APS-H high mps which would also keep the wildlife shooters happy and totally wipe Nikon out of that segment


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 14, 2012)

What are your thoughts on resale value. I'm shooting a rebel right now and have been putting off the full frame upgrade for about a yera because I figured the 5d mk3 was coming.

If I keep my preorder, but a $3200 camera, and need to sell it again a year later because they do come up with something really awesome - where do I stand.

If the mk3 ends up being like a refined improved version of the mk2, I expect flipping it used will maybe lose me $900 or so. However if the replacement camera isn't so suited to the wedding market, then i expect I'd maybe lose less.

Any thoughts?


----------



## moreorless (Mar 14, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> With Westfall already defending the lack of significant MP bump in the 5D3 by stating 22 "is enough", and then expounding by claiming limited megapixels allow for higher FPS burst rates - I have begun losing faith in Canon. So now I'm supposed to believe the stagnant MP count was all part of Canon's genius plan to transform the 5D line into an action shooter's camera?? WTF?!?! I don't need 6FPS in a studio/event/landscape camera you jagoffs!
> 
> And now with the latest rumor that Canon will be releasing a "high MP body" by the end of this year, it's clear that they dropped the ball on the 5D3, are scared sh*tless by the d800, and a scrambling to cover their ass before everyone jumps ship to the dark side. "Nono no... hold on JUuuuust a minute... we have a high MP body in the works... it's coming... you know... hopefully by Christmas and such. Meerrrrrrrr!"
> 
> ...



Westfall like any manufacturers representive is simpley not going to highlight a products weakness, nore is he going to reveal the companies indepth plans if those plans could potentially hurt short term sales. Do you see Nikon giving out details of a direct sucessor to the D700? I'm sure they hope many users buy a D800 then also buy that body aswell or go with a D4.

The rest of your post just seems like pointless spectulation to me.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 14, 2012)

moreorless said:


> The rest of your post just seems like pointless spectulation to me.



I don't know why you think it's pointless. Evaluating the competition and understanding customers desires is what spurs innovation. And if you don't innovate, you can't succeed. Right now, the dSLR market is all about who is making the biggest advancements in digital imaging technology. And you can be damn sure Canon wants to be #1 in that arena.

At least I hope they do.


----------



## GL (Mar 14, 2012)

lol said:


> Personally I see two options for a "high MP full frame" body:
> 1: Take the 5D3, cram in a 30 to 40-something MP sensor. Change nothing else. You get up to double the MP count for half the shooting rate. Everything else can be kept more or less the same to make it easy to manufacture. If they go this route I'd expect it to cost a bit more than the 5D3 as they'd no doubt try to talk it up as a higher position.
> 
> 2: Do the above, but shovel in another Digic and keep the fps up. Pricing will be creeping ever closer to 1D X territory.



I agree on both counts. Either way a 40MP 5DX will cost much more than the 5D3 (making no dent in demand for the D800), or will be released after the 5D3/7D2 cycle in 2-3 years (and then justifiably be called 5DX). Releasing a 5DX while the 5D2/3 are still in production makes no sense, because it's not a merger of anything. If released this year I expect such a camera to be called a 3D, IQ/DR will be about the same (so as not to threaten 1DX sales), but resolution will be right up there, with maybe another feature or two thrown in.

Those wanting Sony EXMOR-level DR in a 2012 Canon body will be left wanting I suspect. Personally I've been elated with the 5D2 quality, so even a modest improvement + the smorgasbord of new pro features on the 5D3 make me a very happy Canon customer indeed


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2012)

Ivar said:


> I'm not in a hurry to replace my 5D2 but this is the last chance for Canon to stay with Canon. I don't think though I'm willing to wait longer than Photokina.



Seriously can we get an ETD on that? I am getting really tired of reading this whinning in every thread (I am certain most others are too) can the ship jumpers please get on with it already? and let s let the board get back to how it was?


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just did some quick calculations and it looks like:
> 7D sensor at 18 mp = 46 mp full frame
> 50D sensor at 15 mp = 38 mp full frame
> 1D IV sensor at 16 mp = 27 mp full frame.
> ...



The only one of those sensors that i would be happy with the IQ from if it were upsized with no technological advancement is the 1D1V at 27MP

if however they got ontop of the 7D low iso noise, high iso noise and general softness (this is relative softness mind you i'm not saying its marshmallow soft for all the crop lovers out there) fact is the 7D IQ needs improving and I think perhaps a touch of the new sensor tech can give it that lift it needs but of course the crops are going to need a MP jump to beat sony. 
I've said I think they will try and 1 up sony with 27MP (just a guess) now if you make that Full Frame you get 69 Dude!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I've said I think they will try and 1 up sony with 27MP (just a guess) now if you make that Full Frame you get 69 Dude!



+1 for the late evening laugh ;D ;D ;D


----------



## traveller (Mar 14, 2012)

Smite me if you like, I'm getting a bit tired of all the bloody whining that is becoming increasingly hard to avoid on this forum. 

Why is everyone getting so upset about two cameras that they haven't even used yet? Yes, I think that a high megapixel camera would of benefit to some users, but it seems that there are a large group of people here that have convinced themselves that the 5D MKIII is a poor camera based upon internet gossip and pseudo-scientific analysis. If 22MP makes the 5D MkIII a crap camera, then all the pros must be fools because both Canon and Nikon are trying to sell them cameras with "only" 16-18MP. 

For years post after post on this and on other forums have blasted Canon about "mindlessly cramming more megapixels onto their latest sensor", but as soon as Nikon and Sony start doing it then it's fine! It seems that Canon were right all along: screw all other considerations, the average user can't see past the megapixel count. 

Don't get me wrong, I'll criticise Canon on the price of the 5D MkIII, but I'm certainly not going to prejudge it based upon pixel count or files that I've found on the internet.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 14, 2012)

if canon wanted to chase MP, they would have done it with the 5DmkIII.

not happening. not for a long time (over a year). if there is a high MP body, it will be called 1DsMK4 and it will run ya 8 thousand bucks.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 15, 2012)

psolberg said:


> if canon wanted to chase MP, they would have done it with the 5DmkIII.
> 
> not happening. not for a long time (over a year). if there is a high MP body, it will be called 1DsMK4 and it will run ya 8 thousand bucks.



At which point we buy a Pentax or a Mamiya ;D ;D


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

Well, I'm coming directly from dpreview forums and I gotta say...the new images from imaging resource show the D800 with jaw dropping resolution and DR (!!) at low iso compared to 5d3. At high iso, they're about tied. On the jpegs, one can argue the 5d3 is slightly cleaner or it gets there via cooking the jpegs with smearing NR etc. Bottom line they're close...very close at iso6400 using the raws. At low iso, they ain't close...not remotely. Any doubt I had about whether Canon was falling behind Sony is now erased, they are...significantly. D800 for me.

If you want to see what I'm ranting about...go to the *raw* comparison threads at dpreview or better yet, download the raw files yourself. The jpeg comparisons are very misleading.

So yah...Canon needs to figure out some things and introduce some new cameras if they want to compete.


----------



## MazV-L (Mar 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not in a hurry to replace my 5D2 but this is the last chance for Canon to stay with Canon. I don't think though I'm willing to wait longer than Photokina.
> ...


+1
My guess is that when we're able to read the REAL REVIEWS of the 1DX and 5Diii many people are going to be pleasantly surprised at how good these cameras really are.

Passing judgement on them now is just plain premature.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 15, 2012)

MazV-L said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Ivar said:
> ...



A week ago, I would have agreed with you. Not now. The writing is on the wall.


----------



## Kahuna (Mar 15, 2012)

Competition is wonderful ... I hope that this presses both Canon and Nikon to make some serious advancements in sensor designs... I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?


----------



## MazV-L (Mar 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> MazV-L said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



A few months use in the real world by the average users for these cameras and the genuine pros and cons of 1DX, 5Diii & D800 will become apparent.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > I think the key word here is FF. I can see Canon pulling a rabbit out the hat with a 30-40MP 7D II, similar specs to the current 7D, lower high ISO IQ than any of the FF cams, but decent low-to-midrange IQ and best-in-class resolution. That way it doesn't step on any "pro" toes in terms of ultimate IQ/build, and undercuts Nikon's high-res cam by $1000 or more.
> ...



So, what you're saying is teleconverters are useless on a 7D (a 1.4x is like doubling pixel count in the center).

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. I've used stacked 2.8x worth of TCs on an 18MP 1.6-crop sensor with results better than just with a 2x. 2.8x^2*18=141MP.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 15, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just did some quick calculations and it looks like:
> 7D sensor at 18 mp = 46 mp full frame
> 50D sensor at 15 mp = 38 mp full frame
> 1D IV sensor at 16 mp = 27 mp full frame.
> ...



You know - this is an interesting post/idea. Canon has been known to use new bodies as a basis for testing new tech. The 7D was a brand new concept when it launched, and could very well have served as an R&D device inside Canon for developing an uberpixel full frame sensor. With the 3-year anniversary approaching for the original 7D announcement, it would make sense that Canon has been researching how to improve the IQ of that kind of pixel-density to make a 40+MP FF body a real imaging beast and a worthwhile product.

The 5D3 may just be scratching the surface of a whole new era of Canon bodies to come. Curious indeed.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

Kahuna said:


> I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?


then we wouldn't be able to save photos, only view them on the icloud at $1 per view


----------



## maxxevv (Mar 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Kahuna said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?
> ...



lol .... quite possibly indeed !!!


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > GL said:
> ...



I believe you have made this argument before. Lets see if we can end the debate once and for all here with a little bit of math and fact.

I was referring to spatial resolution. The spatial resolution of an 18mp APS-C sensor (3456 lines @ 14.9mm high) is 116lp/mm, where as the spatial resolution of a 22mp APS-C sensor (3820 lines @ 14.9mm high) is 128lp/mm. Real-world MTF tests on Canon lenses show that rather few of them are even capable of resolving 116lp/mm at around f/4-5.6 (where optical aberrations and diffraction tend to normalize in the average lens), and at f/5.6, the maximum spatial resolution physically possible is 123lp/mm, some 5lp/mm less than what a 22mp APS-C sensor would be capable of. 

Magnification and spatial resolution are NOT the same thing. Adding on a 1.4x TC changes magnification, it does not increase spatial resolution. By saying one thing "is like" another does not mean you "actually" have the alternative. Its simply "like" doubling pixel count. All things being equal, tacking on a TC to a high quality lens is more likely to reduce its spatial resolution than increase it due to the greater number of optical elements. Thats nothing to say of the increased effects of diffraction you have to endure with an aperture 2.8 times smaller (i.e. f/8 becomes f/22).

The notion that *more magnification ~= more megapixels* is simply a rough way to determine how much you _might_ be gaining in terms of detail (ignoring the effects of increased diffraction...theoretically, you could never gain enough detail as you might believe by converting magnification into megapixels). By using the nomenclature "2.8x^2 * 18mp" to get "141mp", that simply means IF you had a lens with a large enough unmagnified image circle to project the image of your entire subject onto a 141mp sensor with the same pixel pitch as the original 18mp sensor such that cropping out the 18mp center would produce an identical image as simply using a smaller lens and 2.8x greater magnification on an 18mp sensor in the first place. Thats a really convoluted way to measure magnification...when simply saying 2.8x greater magnification is usually enough, and a better approach would be to say your subject is _7.84 times larger_ than without two 1.4x TC's. 

Sorry...buy if anything is dead wrong here, its the use of the notation:

*additional_magnification^2 * orig_mp = effective_mp_assuming_the_impossible*


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

Agreed jrsta

since the TC are added to the lens the MP remain the same
the change would be the net resolving power of the lens + TC will drop 
resulting in a somewhat lower lp/mm value for the combined optic with a tighter AoV


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

Here is something to think about

A 28MP APS-C sensor of 6480 x 4320 will give you 4x4 pixel binning of 1080P video (Is that correct?)
this would beat sony MP probably make video people happy (correct me if i'm wrong)
on a rebel with a flip screen would probably sell well

extrapolate that to full frame you get over 71MP almost double the D800...

I would guess that the resolving power of the best canon glass is really going to be at its limit if not close to or exceeding it. but fact is megapixels sell cameras.


----------



## Gcon (Mar 15, 2012)

A 28MP APS-C sensor? ewwww.

I'd love their new wide-angle zoom. If it could match the MFT goodness of the new 24-70 then it's going to be one wicked zoom.

I'm going to get two 5D3's (should hopefully have one next week). That'll do me for everything I do including landscapes. Once I've got all the lenses I could possibly want, and then want to blow away some cash on a third body, I'd be mildly tempted by a 36MP full-frame monster, although at that stage I'd probably be more interested in medium-format digital.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

Gcon said:


> A 28MP APS-C sensor? ewwww.
> 
> I'd love their new wide-angle zoom. If it could match the MFT goodness of the new 24-70 then it's going to be one wicked zoom.
> 
> I'm going to get two 5D3's (should hopefully have one next week). That'll do me for everything I do including landscapes. Once I've got all the lenses I could possibly want, and then want to blow away some cash on a third body, I'd be mildly tempted by a 36MP full-frame monster, although at that stage I'd probably be more interested in medium-format digital.



Hey i'm not saying its desirable just possible


----------



## moreorless (Mar 15, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > The rest of your post just seems like pointless spectulation to me.
> ...



His post was based on his guesses of the internal workings of Canon which he seemed to be treating as facts. While its not impossible that he maybe right I don't think Westerfalls comments really provide much evidense either way, they are simpley the words of corperate promotion thats not going to highlight the weakness of a new product.

I'd say your second point is questionable aswell, in terms of druming up interest on the net new and exciting tech always wins(often interest from people who'll never own it though) however on the ground I theres evidense the market is reaching saturation in certain areas. In such a market I'd say that targetting weaknesses becomes more important than innovation which is what Canon seems to be focused on with the 5D mk3.


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 15, 2012)

please stop mixing the concepts of 4K video and and a high-MP sensor: they definitely don't mix well

4K resolution is 4096x2304, so less than 10 Mpix
if you definitely have to go 3:2 aspect ratio on the sensor, it's still a bit over 11 Mpix

and in any case Canon has already said a lot of things about the 4K DSLR: it will have a full frame sensor, but only record video out of a windowed area of about APS-H size, then it will store that in mjpeg
to me, that sounds like it will use the sensor in the 1DX (18mpix, very fast readout times)


----------



## zjp0215 (Mar 15, 2012)

Come on Come on , high megapixels camera , the lowest they have more than 28M , 5d3 22M to tell the truth a little , sometimes a photo not quite enough for this number of pixels belong to a rather awkward number , and sent a little bit .
Later , printing, output , so I have the final say , Canon do not know who to listen to speeches , the whole out of such an embarrassing 5d2 / 3 , underachievement , silent ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> I believe you have made this argument before. Lets see if we can end the debate once and for all here with a little bit of math and fact.
> 
> I was referring to spatial resolution. The spatial resolution of an 18mp APS-C sensor (3456 lines @ 14.9mm high) is 116lp/mm, where as the spatial resolution of a 22mp APS-C sensor (3820 lines @ 14.9mm high) is 128lp/mm.


Sorry, wrong already. You're assuming a monochrome sensor with no micro lenses and no AA filter. All three are wrong. The real-world with Bayer masks, microlenses, and AA filters mean you have to divide those numbers by something like 1.5.


> Real-world MTF tests on Canon lenses show that rather few of them are even capable of resolving 116lp/mm at around f/4-5.6 (where optical aberrations and diffraction tend to normalize in the average lens), and at f/5.6, the maximum spatial resolution physically possible is 123lp/mm, some 5lp/mm less than what a 22mp APS-C sensor would be capable of.



Also wrong. Those tests were either shot on film that can't resolve better than that or shot on digital through an AA filter. Thus, they aren't lens tests but system tests.

Also, your diffraction-limit calculation is wrong. See here:

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

"As an example, a telescope having an f/6 objective and imaging at 0.55 micrometers has a spatial cutoff frequency of 303 cycles/millimeter."

Some of our lenses are now diffraction-limited at f/2.8. That's 650 cycles/mm at 550nm.



> Magnification and spatial resolution are NOT the same thing. Adding on a 1.4x TC changes magnification, it does not increase spatial resolution.



It does increase system spacial resolution if you are undersampling the optics without it. That's exactly what we're doing.

If you don't believe me, go outside with any 200mm lens you like attached to a Canon 1.6-crop 18MP sensor with no TCs and see if you can get a picture of Jupiter that looks like this:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3105%20old.jpg
Or a picture of the moon that looks like this:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3054%20edited.jpg


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you have made this argument before. Lets see if we can end the debate once and for all here with a little bit of math and fact.
> ...



Sure, you can't get exactly correct with bayer sensors, as they have CFA's and low-pass filters. The numbers I've listed are the theoretical maximums for green pixels, but thats largely besides the point. I'm not arguing 99% vs. 100% accuracy here, I'm just arguing about the the way you seem to abuse the conversion of magnification into megapixels, and the much larger inaccuracies of doing so.



Lee Jay said:


> Also wrong. Those tests were either shot on film that can't resolve better than that or shot on digital through an AA filter. Thus, they aren't lens tests but system tests.
> 
> Also, your diffraction-limit calculation is wrong. See here:
> 
> ...



Thats the absolute maximum for diffraction with an MTF at Dawes Criterion. At that level, a sensor would image nothing but smooth, solid, flat gray. Sensors need a greater separation of airy discs for there to be enough contrast in spatial frequencies to be recorded usefully by the sensor. The human eye is, at best, JUST BARELY able to resolve detail with diffraction at 9% contrast...and that is generally too low for a digital sensor to resolve. Usually, an MTF of around 50% contrast is necessary for film or a digital sensor to resolve useful, unmuddied detail. If you have a subject with particularly low contrast, you might get away with slightly less, but as a general rule, MTF 50% is used to determine lens and sensor resolution in a spatial context.

I usually use a table from Luminous Landscape as a quick reference for spatial resolutions at acceptable contrast levels for photography:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

The table there is based on Norman Koren's work. If you have issues with his work, you better take it up with him, as he is highly respected when it comes to lenses, film & sensors, resolving power, sharpness, contrast, etc.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html



Lee Jay said:


> Some of our lenses are now diffraction-limited at f/2.8. That's 650lp/mm.



LOL! Yes, a *PERFECT* f/2.8 lens is capable of 649lp/mm...at *just infinitesimally above 0% contrast!* You wouldn't get any useful detail from such a lens at that level of contrast...other than flat, solid, unbroken consistency of a single tone. The human eye can't even resolve any detail if contrast is less than 9%, and at that level (well below what a bayer CMOS or CCD sensor can resolve) your down to 532lp/mm. Detail is still rather close to monotone at that level of contrast. At 50% contrast, which would be necessary for a sensor to resolve USEFUL detail (i.e. detail where all line pairs are resolved with enough clarity to consistently tell them apart) you are down to 247lp/mm. That is the number most people would normally use when talking about spatial resolution.

As for DSLR lenses that are actually diffraction-limited at f/2.8...there are VERY FEW. Zeiss may have a lens or two that are diffraction limited at around f/1.7...however I believe those were cinema lenses, not DSLR lenses...and highly specialized to boot. MTF's provided by Canon are THEORETICAL most of the time (I believe their book on lens technology may have included a few real MTF charts for some lenses), generated by computing optical performance using computer models of their lenses, not actual lenses. Their MTF charts depict reproduction accuracy of 10lp/mm (for contrast) and 30lp/mm (for sharpness) meridional and sagittal (opposing diagonal) line pairs. Even with a relatively low f/2.8 resolution (such as 50-70lp/mm, which many Canon lenses ARE capable of) you can get very high marks when the most detail you are resolving is 30lp/mm.

Real-world tests of Canon lenses at maximum aperture have NEVER demonstrated resolutions much above 70lp/mm, so its highly doubtful were getting 247lp/mm out of any Canon lenses...let alone 532, or in your rather humorous case, 650! 



Lee Jay said:


> > Magnification and spatial resolution are NOT the same thing. Adding on a 1.4x TC changes magnification, it does not increase spatial resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your still talking about magnification, not spatial resolution. You can magnify a subject and still project it through a lens at THE SAME spatial resolution. Magnification and resolution are disjoint concepts, and as such, they can vary independently of each other. You can magnify a subject to a greater extent while also reducing spatial resolution..and you will see greater apparent detail of your larger subject...even though your actual resolving power is lower. (This is normally the case to a small degree when tacking on teleconverters...the additional optical elements each have their own optical aberrations that reduce resolving power...simple matter of physics there until you stop down to smaller apertures...where in the longer focal length results in a smaller effective aperture, so diffraction takes a much larger toll than without a TC.) Its like moving closer to a highly detailed 600ppi print. If you view it at 8 feet, it looks nice as a whole (i.e. looking at the moon with a 100mm lens), however walk closer to 4 feet, and you can see finer details (i.e. looking at the moon with a 200mm lens). Just because you walked closer to the print doesn't mean your eyes are magically capable of resolving more detail, either optically or via your retina...both remain exactly the same as they are...the subject is simply larger, so given a CONSTANT spatial resolution, more detail can be observed.

This is all pretty basic physics. I recommend reading Norman Koren's work...solid stuff, should clear things up.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> please stop mixing the concepts of 4K video and and a high-MP sensor: they definitely don't mix well
> 
> 4K resolution is 4096x2304, so less than 10 Mpix
> if you definitely have to go 3:2 aspect ratio on the sensor, it's still a bit over 11 Mpix
> ...



You are correct in that native 4k 1:1 sampled video is only about 10mp. However, there IS a direct link between 4k video and high resolution sensors: How many source pixels you can sample to produce the final pixels in 4k video output. This would relate to that 4:2:2 subsampling ratio you may have seen (kind of a holy grail for DSLR 4k video sampling...produces excellent quality at very reasonable space savings.) Full and uncompressed video would be 4:4:4 sampling (four rows of pixels per single output horizontal video line), and that can produce very large files. A 4:2:2 subsampling ratio means that the luma channel is fully sampled, while the Cr and Cb channels are sampled at half resolution. To get full 4k chroma sampling, you need four times as many pixels as native 4k video resolution, so a 40mp sensor would be necessary to achieve that.

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


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 15, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > GL said:
> ...



Fact is that you will get to better result by doubling the number of pixels than using 1.4x converter and 4-doubling the number of pixels will be better than 2x converter. Only if the converters were ideal they could compete with increasing the number of pixels.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Interesting information
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=35719448


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> Interesting information
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=35719448



If you are referring to the discussion about how the 50/1.4 is "sharp" in the corners of a 5D II, thats not surprising. The 5D II, given its pixel pitch, only resolves about 72lp/mm (not accounting for things like the low-pass filter, which probably push that down to 70lp/mm or so). According to DXO's wide-aperture lens tests, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 resolves 60lp/mm at f/1.4 on a 5D II (and at most 63lp/mm in their best test case.) It is not surprising that, at that level of resolving power, the Sigma 50/1.4 appears sharp (its resolving just about as much as the sensor can handle.) In the grand scheme of things, 60lp/mm is only 12% the resolution that a perfect f/1.4 lens is capable of resolving...that should give you an idea of how much potential room for improvement there can be for lenses at very wide apertures (and how hard it really is to achieve perfection in the face of overpowering optical aberrations.)

As for the comment about 300mp in FF to show pixel softness center-frame...I'm rather skeptical of that. I'll have to see if I can find a real-world MTF that actually indicates center-frame sharpness is that high for that lens. If it was possible, it would reach that only at the VERY CENTER pinpoint of the lens, and it would likely fall off rapidly from there due to optical aberrations. Its highly unlikely a 286mp APS-C sensor would be sharp at a pixel-level...the pinpoint center lens resolution is only the absolute maximum, and the bulk of a 286mp APS-C photo would...when pixel peeping...appear extremely soft. Measuring resolution at the center area of the lens is more useful...and tends to be between 50 and 70 line pairs/millimeter for most wide fast lenses. When you move into telephoto territory, where the widest apertures are f/2.8 and supertelephoto territory where the widest apertures are f/4 or f/5.6, diffraction limits your resolution from the get-go, even though its easier to get closer to perfection with such lenses. Assuming you did have a "perfect" f/4 lens, you would only realize that much resolution at a single aperture. Stop down to f/5.6 and you can't resolve more than 22mp APS-C worth, and anything beyond that current sensors are already outresolving lenses.


----------



## Kahuna (Mar 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Kahuna said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?
> ...



Ouch. Just came crashing back down to earth. I'll think next time before I post something so stupid next time. 

You are correct sir.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> Stop down to f/5.6 and you can't resolve more than 22mp APS-C worth, and anything beyond that current sensors are already outresolving lenses.



Interesting information
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33770775


----------



## KitH (Mar 15, 2012)

Kahuna said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Kahuna said:
> ...



Don't worry, I enjoyed that one anyway. I was thinking he's probably too caught up arguing with St Peter about the Pearly Gates having rounded corners to have much time to take pictures. He'll have to make the case by himself, all the lawyers are in the other place.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 15, 2012)

jrista said:


> I'm not arguing 99% vs. 100% accuracy here,



I was talking about more like 67% versus 100%, which is more like a factor of 2 in pixel count. You're ignoring that.



> The table there is based on Norman Koren's work. If you have issues with his work, you better take it up with him, as he is highly respected when it comes to lenses, film & sensors, resolving power, sharpness, contrast, etc.



I've read, created spreadsheets from, and quoted Norman's work many times. What I'm saying is entirely consistent with that work.



> Real-world tests of Canon lenses at maximum aperture have NEVER demonstrated resolutions much above 70lp/mm,



Shot through an Optical *Low-Pass* Filter! Do you not see the difficulty in that approach?



> Magnification and spatial resolution are NOT the same thing. Adding on a 1.4x TC changes magnification, it does not increase spatial resolution.



It does increase system spacial resolution if you are undersampling the optics without it. That's exactly what we're doing.

If you don't believe me, go outside with any 200mm lens you like attached to a Canon 1.6-crop 18MP sensor with no TCs and see if you can get a picture of Jupiter that looks like this:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3105%20old.jpg
Or a picture of the moon that looks like this:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3054%20edited.jpg


> Your still talking about magnification, not spatial resolution.



Fine - show me the images with the same spacial resolution as those shot the way I said. I'll help you out - you can't. I've already done this experiment, and the teleconverters do indeed drastically improve the overall system spacial resolution despite very slightly decreasing the optical resolution. This is exactly why we need more pixels, and a whole lot more - so we aren't undersampling the optics in the first place.

Have you ever wondered why the best amateur planetary imagers operate pixels that are about the size of those on the 40D through optics set at f/30? According to you, they're way, way beyond the capability of those optics, yet they increased focal length to that level in an effort to preserve maximum detail. Why would they use expensive barlows (Televue Powermates) if those small pixels were extracting all the detail from their bare f/11 optics in the first place? Answer - they don't. And that's with monochrome sensors with no OLPFs!!!

Have a look. This was shot at about f/30 with pixels that are about 40D sized:

http://damianpeach.com/barbados10/2010_09_12pic.jpg


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2012)

KitH said:


> Kahuna said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



LOL 
Actually i think you'll find the pearly gates are now a svelte brushed aluminium with a cool white glowing logo.
and st peter now wears a blue tshirt that says "genius"


----------



## jrista (Mar 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Fine - show me the images with the same spacial resolution as those shot the way I said. I'll help you out - you can't. I've already done this experiment, and the teleconverters do indeed drastically improve the overall system spacial resolution despite very slightly decreasing the optical resolution. This is exactly why we need more pixels, and a whole lot more - so we aren't undersampling the optics in the first place.
> 
> Have you ever wondered why the best amateur planetary imagers operate pixels that are about the size of those on the 40D through optics set at f/30? According to you, they're way, way beyond the capability of those optics, yet they increased focal length to that level in an effort to preserve maximum detail. Why would they use expensive barlows (Televue Powermates) if those small pixels were extracting all the detail from their bare f/11 optics in the first place? Answer - they don't. And that's with monochrome sensors with no OLPFs!!!
> 
> ...



Ok, this is my last attempt. Words are certainly insufficient, so hopefully some visual demonstrations will clear things up. Some facts:

1. Diffraction limits resolution at narrow apertures
2. Optical aberrations limit resolution at wide apertures
3. The more lens elements, the more optical aberrations introduced
4. The longer the focal length for a fixed physical aperture, the smaller the relative aperture (i.e. add TC's)

Lets assume we have a hypothetical 200mm lens capable of producing a 1"x1" image circle. Lets assume lens is capable of1.97lp/mm in terms of spatial frequency of the virtual image at the sensor, would roughly translate into a 50x50 "pixel" area within which our subject is resolved. Lets assume spatial resolution is not impacted by the addition of teleconverters. Lets assume our sensor resolution is infinite in the context of this discussion, so we don't have to factor in its effects on resolution. We are JUST talking lens resolution in this case.

Our subject is a small moon.

At 200mm without TC's, the moon is 14 "pixels" in size in the center of our frame. If we slap on a 2x TC and a 1.4x TC, our subject grows to 44 "pixels" in size, nearly filling the frame. Our SPATIAL RESOLUTION is CONSTANT, however we are suddenly able to observe FAR GREATER detail in our subject. If we _reduce_ our spatial resolution by 50%, the more magnified subject IS STILL MORE DETAILED than the original, unmagnified subject (an exaggerated example of the effect of stacking on multiple TC's...which at the very least are going to increase diffraction and therefor reduce spatial resolution.) 

This effect can be seen below in this simple animated gif (frame 2, unmagnified; frame 3, magnified same spatial resolution; frame 4, magnified w/ 50% less spatial resolution). Note, I've purposely kept resolution the same or lower do demonstrate the effect of, say, magnifying Jupiter such that it fills the frame (rather than being a small dot in the center of a largely empty frame) without changing spatial resolution: 







Two TC's are added to a lens *increasing magnification*, spatial resolution *remains constant*, yet we are capable of "seeing" *more detail* in our much larger subject, even at a LOWER spatial resolution. Magnification and spatial resolution are not the same. Magnification and spatial resolution are disjoint concepts that can vary independently. Increasing magnification by adding teleconverters, while keeping spatial resolution constant, DOES increase the *apparent detail* we are capable of observing...because OUR SUBJECT IS LARGER _RELATIVE TO THE FRAME *FOR A GIVEN RESOLUTION*_.

Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.


----------



## Fandongo (Mar 16, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> They need to hurry with the 4K C-DSLR. Sony is kicking Canon's A$$ now in video and a LOT of people have switched to the Sony FS-100, especially now that the Metabones adaptor allows full electronic interface with the FS-100 and Canon lenses. Canon could have owned that market, but they slept on it, so Sony took advantage and came out on top.
> 
> The 5D3 is shaping up to be a real disappointment in video since it's still has the soft, up-res'd false HD (at least in the early test models). So yeah, the 4K C-DSLR really needs to come out. And have a FLIP SCREEN for God sake. We need it for video.
> 
> ...



I can't imagine the 4k DSLR coming out before Winter for one reason:
Summer is the only time you can shoot (without actors whining/dying) in much of the world.

I'm expecting around $6k for 4k as well, but I don't see it happening...
unless they offer $13,000 rebates on the stupid C300.

Don't buy the FS-100.
Buy 10 Gh2s instead.

Nobody can wait much longer for a solution, especially Canon. The ONLY reason the 5Dii broke every camera sales record ever was video. "Video cameras" were poised to destroy film, but they forgot to make them anything like film.

DSLRs swooped up everyone looking for the "film look" for not the price of a car ("video" cams) and not the price of a house (film).
But it's only a matter of days before phones are shooting 4k, global shutter.

We'll be rotobrush/gaussian blurring phone footage to look like the DSLR that never was.
Hollywood is a perpetually dazed Raiden.
FINISH HIM!!

=)


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 16, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> Fact is that you will get to better result by doubling the number of pixels than using 1.4x converter and 4-doubling the number of pixels will be better than 2x converter. Only if the converters were ideal they could compete with increasing the number of pixels.



Yup...100% right! Fortunately, TCs are pretty good.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 16, 2012)

jrista said:


> Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.



Believe me, I understand the science here quite well. You just aren't reading what I wrote.

"It (the addition of TCs) does increase *system *spacial resolution if you are undersampling the optics without it. That's exactly what we're doing."

Note the word "system", meaning lens + sensor + processing. Ideal TCs can only preserve optical resolution (as you seem fond of pointing out, regardless of the fact that this point is not in dispute), not increase it, but they can increase *system *resolution if the sensor is undersampling the optics without them. Since we can extract more real detail with TCs than without them even on our exiting 1.6-crop 18MP sensors, we are obviously undersampling the optics without the TCs. The question is, by how much? And the answer is, A LOT. I can easily demonstrate that we are undersampling by at least a factor of 4 in pixel count, and others have shown up to a factor of 16 on the best lenses. So the idea that 18MP (or 20, or 22 or whatever) is all we'll ever need to squeeze everything out of the best optics is just not even close to correct.


----------



## jrista (Mar 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.
> ...



Here is some reality:

Fact: A Canon 5D III full-frame sensor resolves (at best) 80lp/mm.
Fact: A "perfect" 200mm f/2 lens @ f/8 is physically capable of resolving an absolute maximum of 86lp/mm.
Fact: Two "perfect" 1.4x TCs attached to that perfect 200mm lens reduces f/8 to f/22, limiting the physically possible absolute maximum resolution to 31lp/mm.

Fact: At apertures of f/9 or narrower, even the least-dense sensors of today outresolve lenses.
Fact: Artifacts caused by waveform interference, such as moire, could be minimized or eliminated by increasing sensor resolution up to 2x beyond lens resolution, however sharpness and contrast will not increase (and likely decrease relative to 1x sampling at 100% crop.) 
Fact: A sensor with 2x lens resolution will produce photos that, when viewed at 100% crop, appear very soft.
Fact: Increasing sensor resolution beyond 2x lens resolution produces minimal or imperceptible returns at increasingly disproportionate cost.

Fact: An oversampled photo at 80lp/mm would have to be reduced to an image size with equivalent resolution to 31lp/mm in order to restore original sharpness that was lost to diffraction and oversampling.

FACT: A "perfect" 560mm lens achieved via combining a 200mm f/2 with two 1.4x TCs shot at an aperture of f/8 (which is an effective aperture of f/22) can resolve *at best* 31lp/mm, and a sensor capable of recording 80lp/mm is capable of resolving _every last scrap_ of detail from that lens...and then some. Total system resolution is 31lp/mm of (sharp) actual resolution when the final output is downsampled to the lens native resolution, or 62lp/mm of (soft) oversampled resolution without artifacts when left at native camera resolution.


----------



## ebrakus (Mar 16, 2012)

Lee Jay, you were THIS close to having it right ;D

Lets go back to the question you asked..... Why does the mag seem to make the image come out better.

You guys contest if the lens or sensor is the limiting factor in this system. For sake of argument and example, lets assume the lens has just a bit of headroom left above the sensor.

In that case the magnification will improve (here is the important part) the resolution of your OBJECT OF INTEREST.
It will do this wile simultaneously reducing your system resolution through additional artifact producing elements in LOS.
The (reduced) system resolution is better applied to your magnified object.

Now if we blow away the starting premise, that the lens has some headroom over the sensor, the mag doesn't do a bloody thing for you, it just gives your more precision of less accuracy.

Regarding sensor or lens in this case? Sounds to me like both your guys are operating in the magin of error.

Great posts though, plenty of people reading them would have found the thread to be a good mini-tutorial.

cheers
-E


----------



## jrista (Mar 16, 2012)

@ebrakus: Good way to explain it with "resolution of the OBJECT OF INTEREST".  Like that. 

@those-still-interested:

For reference, here is a little bit of math on "system" resolution. Every element of a system has its own independent resolution that combine to create the final outcome system resolution. System resolution is never as high as the independent resolutions of each component. Converting element resolution into a "blur circle" gives you the finest size "dot" that can be resolved with that element, regardless of the actual size of the source dot that is being resolved. The total resolution of a system is the square root of the sum of the squares of each elements blur circle. In other words:


```
totalBlur = sqrt(blur1^2 + blur2^2 + ... + blurN^2)
```

Total blur increases as you add elements to the system, based on the formula above. Assuming we have a lens @ f/4 and a sensor that both produce a 5.3 micron blur circle. Total system blur is greater than 5.3 microns:


```
sqrt(5.3um^2 + 5.3um^2) = 7.5um
```

Add a teleconverter that produces the same 5.3 micron blur, and your total system blur increases: 


```
sqrt(5.3um^2 + 5.3um^2 + 5.3um^2) = 9.2um
```

Given that there are 1000 um/mm, and twice the airy disc diameter produces a _line pair_ for MTF 50% (um/lp), we can calculate spatial resolution in lp/mm as such:


```
lp/mm = 1000/(totalBlur * 2)
```

With our base lens + sensor system, spatial resolution at f/4 would be:


```
1000/(7.5 * 2) = 1000/15 = 66.665 lp/mm
```

When we stack on the TC (lets say 2x), we either lose resolution both due to the additional lens element and narrower aperture (since our focal length increased), or we lose resolution both due to the additional lens element and the need to use a wider aperture. Assuming we actually have a perfect lens and used a wider aperture, we would then only lose resolution due to the additional lens element. We can demonstrate the first and last cases (as computing lens aberrations is a lot more complex than diffraction). If we leave the aperture as-is, the blur circle for both elements increase to 10.65um:


```
sqrt(10.65um^2 + 5.3um^2 + 10.65um^2) = 16um (airy disc size)
1000/(16 * 2) = 1000/32 = 31.25 lp/mm
```

Adding a single 2x TC has cost us over 50% resolution when keeping the aperture setting the same. If we widen the aperture by 2x to compensate for the TC, assuming perfect optics:


```
1000/(9.2 * 2) = 1000/18.4 = 54.35 lp/mm
```

Even with perfect optics, adding on a TC and increasing the aperture has cost over 18% resolution.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 16, 2012)

Actually Lee Jay is the one who is more correct here.
The system resolution of the object will be the same with an ideal 1.4x as with doubling the number of pixels. If you can gain object resolution with TC you can do the same by increasing the number of pixels.

It has also been shown that 7D with 18MP APS-C doesn't fully oversample a lens at f22 but some more MP is needed as according to the link above.

Lens resolution and sensor resolution are just two completely different things.


----------



## jrista (Mar 17, 2012)

Tuggem said:


> Actually Lee Jay is the one who is more correct here.
> The system resolution of the object will be the same with an ideal 1.4x as with doubling the number of pixels. If you can gain object resolution with TC you can do the same by increasing the number of pixels.



Assuming a wide enough aperture that does not lose resolution to optical aberrations, and is not yet blurring detail beyond the diffraction limit of the sensor, sure. If you start out with a sensor that is limited by diffraction at f/8, doubling its resolution would approximately halve its DLA to around f/4.5. You probably could gain more resolution that way, although I would expect the TC to outperform a larger sensor unless you also widened the aperture when shooting with a larger sensor (and you run the risk of introducing optical aberrations at that point.) As such, I find converting magnification into megapixels to be misleading on both ends...the TC reduces aperture, and a denser sensor requires a wider aperture, to normalize to the same results...so its a very rough approximation. Saying your 2x 1.4x TC stack on a 200mm lens *resolves* 144mp is extremely misleading, when you are actually "resolving" less with the TC. Thats all my point has really been.



> It has also been shown that 7D with 18MP APS-C doesn't fully oversample a lens at f22 but some more MP is needed as according to the link above.



That would only be the case at an 9% contrast, which would resolve 68lp/mm, requiring 136lp/mm for 2x oversampling (which is a bit higher resolution than the 7D). Detail with that low contrast is barely discernible by the human eye. The primary vision center of the human eye is packed with 0.5 micron cones and rods, some 8.6 times smaller and considerably more sensitive than the 4.3 micron photosites in the 7D. If you account for the random distribution of cones and rods, and varying degree of separation of cones from each other of anywhere from less than 0.1 microns to as much as 1 micron, you would have to figure the minimum blur circle for the eye is around 0.7um (for color vision). That would lead to a spatial resolution of about 714lp/mm. Thats just about right to oversample 2x the 370lp/mm resolution our lenses project at the average pupil diameter of 4mm (f/4.1) in normal light. 

Its not surprising the eye can discern detail at only 9% contrast, but its harder for a digital sensor to do the same, and if you could, probably only do it at a very low ISO where noise has the least impact. I guess parts of the surface of the moon (such as a mare) _might_ be a subject wherein you could extract and record greater spatial resolution from than your average photographic subject. Whether you could actually extract 68lp/mm...need to do some careful experimentation and measurement to be convinced (assuming a 4.3 micron 7D pixel...despite the greater sensitivity of say a 5D III or 1D X pixel, they have considerably lower spatial resolution, and are insufficient to double oversample 68lp/mm.) The sample moon photos that Lee Jay has linked a few times, however, clearly exhibit very pronounced diffraction blurring and considerable loss of detail (I assume due to the f/22 aperture.) Some of that may be due to noise reduction (I have to imagine a higher ISO is used at 560mm f/22, so there was probably a lot of noise, and thus a lot of noise reduction.) I have a hard time believing 68lp/mm system resolution there, although I guess wouldn't be surprised if more than 30lp/mm was indeed being resolved.



> Lens resolution and sensor resolution are just two completely different things.



Yes, they are. Each have their own detractors that operate in different ways to degrade resolution. However their spatial capabilities can both be _described_ the same way using the same units. Same would go for film, even though film is also a very different thing with its own nuances.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 17, 2012)

jrista said:


> Here is some reality:
> 
> Fact: A Canon 5D III full-frame sensor resolves (at best) 80lp/mm.
> Fact: A "perfect" 200mm f/2 lens @ f/8 is physically capable of resolving an absolute maximum of 86lp/mm.



Not sure where you got that.

1/(0.000550*8) = 227 lp/mm at MTF 0. I'm guessing you're using MTF 50 which is crazy talk for extinction. Even the Rayleigh criterion is MTF 9, and many people use MTF 5 for extinction. Plus, people do shoot at faster than f/8, and many lenses, such as the 200/2, are diffraction limited at much faster apertures than f/8.



> Fact: Two "perfect" 1.4x TCs attached to that perfect 200mm lens reduces f/8 to f/22



Uh...no, that would be f/16, not that it's relevant.



> Fact: At apertures of f/9 or narrower, even the least-dense sensors of today outresolve lenses.



That's not a fact. Well, it might be if you use the crazy MTF 50 as your criteria. But that's not remotely realisitc.



> Fact: Artifacts caused by waveform interference, such as moire, could be minimized or eliminated by increasing sensor resolution up to 2x beyond lens resolution, however sharpness and contrast will not increase (and likely decrease relative to 1x sampling at 100% crop.)



This is where your thinking has gone off the rails.

Fact: If you are getting pixel sharp shots at 100%, you are undersampling the optics.

In such a case, using more pixels of a smaller size would get you better detail resolving power.


----------



## jrista (Mar 18, 2012)

@Lee Jay: Yes, I use MTF 50, although not necessarily for extinction. (Perhaps thats our disconnect...I've been referring to "useful" resolution, not the point where all detail becomes gray mud.) Using MTF 0 for extinction for digital SLR cameras is insane. Even using MTF 9 is pretty crazy...unless your talking about specialized CCD cameras designed for high end astrophotography, in which case I don't know much about them, and I honestly can't speak to that. However that is an entirely different story to DSLR resolution.

If you have some example studies done that actually demonstrate Canon glass like the 200/2, used on a Canon sensor, actually consistently resolving detail at 9% contrast, I'd like to see it (honest request there). I use MTF 50 because thats what is normally used to demonstrate *camera* resolution. Anything I say about glass is relative to a sensor. Glass is a different story, and obviously a LENS in isolation is capable of being measured at any level of contrast. I'm not surprised at all that the best GLASS, such as the 135/2, 300/2.8, or any of Canon's supertelephotos (like the 600/4 L II) are capable of resolving 370lp/mm with f/4 or 700lp/mm+ at f/2 at MTF 9%. 

The limiting factor is the sensor. Sensors are not like human eyes, and can't resolve the same amount of detail at low contrast. Now, there have certainly been advancements, such as gapless microlenses, or even multiple layers of gapless microlenses; foveon-type stacked photodiodes; hardware level noise reduction mechanisms capable of transporting purer pixel data, etc. However not all of those things are perfect, noise still exists, and the majority of sensors are not monochrome or foveon-style, where every row of pixels is fully capable of resolving all of the image detail they receive. Bayer sensors still impose a significant hit to resolution (despite their densities), and their nature impacts their ability to resolve at lower contrast levels.

I'll certainly give a bit in the argument here...a sensor as dense as Canon's 18mp APS-C, Sony's 24mp APS-C, and now Sony/Nikon's 36.6mp FF sensor, are probably capable of resolving at a lower contrast than MTF 50. I'm still very skeptical they are capable of resolving consistent, accurate data at MTF 9 (especially without a low pass filter like the D800). I don't have readily available charts for MTF 40 or MTF 20, so I don't frequently quote those numbers. I could probably generate some rough mathematically generated data for those contrast levels for conversations sake, but they would only be accurate on a purely hypothetical level. The MTF and ISO 12233 chart data available today for lenses indicates even the highest density sensors start losing spatial accuracy and useful detail around 100-115lp/mm for APS-C sensors. You still get "spotty" detail at finer resolution, but its often obscured or otherwise limited by moire, color moire, and noise.

I'd love to know exactly what Canon glass is really capable of OUTSIDE the context of their cameras or theoretical, mathematically generated MTF charts (which don't even use adequate test images to start with, limited at most to 30lp/mm details.) All "real-world" lens tests that I know of are still performed using a DSLR camera, which always limits system resolution. Sometimes it indicates the lens is the limiting factor (especially for tests done at or near maximum aperture, which really make the tests rather useless), sometimes it indicates the sensor is the limiting factor. I've spent a lot of time looking for accurate MTF charts for Canon glass, and so far its lacking. The tests available indicate that something is limiting system resolution (approaching extinction) to numbers closer to the MTF 50 category than MTF 9, though.

If you are sitting on some magical database full of accurate MTF data for lenses, cameras, and telescopes, please, let me know. I'd love to have more accurate information to work with. I'm often a skeptic, but if I have concrete evidence of something, I'll happily change my mind. (BTW, the photos of jupiter and the moon you have linked a few times appear very, very soft to me. The moon photo seems to lack a lot of the fine detail I've often seen in other high res photos of the moon. I'm not sure those are the best examples of system spatial resolution. If you have something that demonstrates say two comparable shots of the moon, taken with the same 200 + 1.4x + 1.4x, one on a sensor that resolves the same resolution as the lens and one that oversamples the lens, such that they can be compared one on top of the other, I think that would be a much better demonstration of your point that increased sensor resolution does help increase system resolution. 

I'm not sure anything would demonstrate an increase in spatial resolution when adding TC's, however...I'm still holding steadfast on that point.)



Lee Jay said:


> This is where your thinking has gone off the rails.
> 
> Fact: If you are getting pixel sharp shots at 100%, you are undersampling the optics.
> 
> In such a case, using more pixels of a smaller size would get you better detail resolving power.



Sure, not arguing that point, really (I think we diverged a bit too far from the original complaint I had, which was equating spatial resolution to magnification...something I still assert is very, very inaccurate. At the moment, I don't think we really disagree on most of the points you made in your last post.) Scientifically, using more sensor resolution is a good thing, and will pretty usually produce better results (even if you push well past 2x oversampling, more resolution will still increase system resolution (totalBlur) from the standpoint of resolving closer to the resolution limit of a lens...ignoring issues like noise, sensitivity, and DR, which will all eat into those gains as you keep decreasing pixel pitch.)

However most people WANT sharp pictures at 100%. This forums has had several threads in the not to distant past where people have complained a LOT about the Canon 7D and how horribly soft its photos are. I found the complaints to largely be due to a lack of understanding about how very dense the 7D sensor really is (and the likelyhood that it probably has a slightly overaggressive low-pass filte.) I argued the point that the 7D is an excellent camera and that you have to downsample to fully realize its potential, since its oversampling (although probably not 2x oversampling) the lens at apertures wider than f/4 and narrower than about f/5.6 or so (using MTF 50 numbers anyway...which certainly seem to jive with the reality there). Personally, I like that trait in the 7D, as I have to downsample a bit for 13x19" prints (and its certainly more than enough resolution to upsample for large prints viewed at a greater distance.)

That doesn't change the fact, though, that people want SHARP photos AT 100%. So it doesn't surprise me that companies like Canon aim to provide such results as much as they can (which is why I don't suspect they will push APS-C resolution much past 22mp or so, unless they are able to produce a sensor that is far more capable of resolving low-contrast detail. Its also not surprising that they are producing sensors with middle-ground resolution at 18-22mp for their full-frame sensors. Those cameras will undersample lenses by a considerable degree, and there is little chance of the sensor significantly oversampling such that all photos come out looking soft at 100% crop. Its a sad psychological problem, but far too many photographers don't understand the concept of image size normalization when comparing results, and if it doesn't look perfect at 100%, then its crap. Again, personally, I wouldn't mind sensors that twice-oversampled the lens (and at f/2 to boot), I'd prefer it as it does increase system resolution. Practical issues come to mind (immense file size and very slow post processing time come to mind), so again, its doubtful we'll really get sensors that oversample lenses all that much on a regular basis.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 18, 2012)

jrista said:


> Two TC's are added to a lens *increasing magnification*, spatial resolution *remains constant*, yet we are capable of "seeing" *more detail* in our much larger subject, even at a LOWER spatial resolution. Magnification and spatial resolution are not the same. Magnification and spatial resolution are disjoint concepts that can vary independently. Increasing magnification by adding teleconverters, while keeping spatial resolution constant, DOES increase the *apparent detail* we are capable of observing...because OUR SUBJECT IS LARGER _RELATIVE TO THE FRAME *FOR A GIVEN RESOLUTION*_.
> 
> Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.



You seem to be arguing over things he didn't claim and missing his point and fixated on keeping the sensor disjoint.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 18, 2012)

First - you can get more spacial detail from adding TCs, even to already-slow optics. This is a $60 Bayer-sensor webcam, not some high-end astronomical sensor. Pixel size is 5.6 microns - about the same as the 40D. f/30 on the left, f/15 on the right. According to you, the f/30 shot couldn't possibly be better, but it is. I took these:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Jupiter%20f30%20versus%20f15%20comparison.jpg

Second, and this is going to be a little hard to accept for you, but it's fact so I suggest you listen carefully. You're thinking of a TC as a device that increases focal length and decreases aperture. First of all, it doesn't decrease aperture. f-stop = focal length / aperture diameter. A TC can be thought to increase focal length while keeping aperture the same, thus increasing f-stop. However, and this is important, this is only true from the camera's point of view. From the lens' point of view, its focal length, aperture and f-stop remain the same. The TC is, after all, mounted behind it. From the lens' point of view, the TC has changed the camera. How, you might ask? By shrinking the sensor and the pixels on it. If you don't believe me, try this little experiment yourself.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Teleconverter%20optical%20reduction.jpg

The point is, increasing focal length while preserving aperture (and thus increasing f-stop) and decreasing pixel size are equivalent. Here's an example of that:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20versus%20teleconverters.jpg

Finally, if you want to see the effect of diffraction while shrinking pixel size, have a look at the link below. If you prefer, you can think of these as APS-C sensors with 8MP, 16MP, 32MP, and 64MP, all at f/11. The one on the bottom is for reference when using a larger aperture that isn't diffraction-limited. As you can see, even at f/11, resolving power goes up in each case, by ever-decreasing amounts (the so-called law of diminishing returns), just as theory would indicate. I've tested this all the way to oblivion (1.1 micron pixels at f/11), and the MTF 0 spatial cutoff formula I gave you from Wikipedia matches well with real-world testing.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Diffraction%20pixel%20size%20test%202.jpg

As for how good our optics are, I tested my version 1 70-200/2.8L IS at different apertures by mounting telescope eye pieces to it and trying to split double stars. Essentially, this is a test of the Rayleigh criterion (MTF 9). I found that it isn't diffraction-limited at f/2.8 but, amazingly, it is diffraction-limited at f/4 - I could split a double at exactly the Rayleigh equivalent separation angle for a 50mm aperture with that lens given sufficient optical magnification. I think you'd agree that we have several lenses in the line-up that are better at faster f-stops than f/4 than the version 1 70-200 is.

For a little more evidence of that, compare the Jupiter shot I posted above, taken with 125mm of aperture of diffraction-limited f/15 Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope, with one posted yesterday also taken with 125mm of aperture this time in the from of a wide-open 500/4. The detail retained is very, very similar providing further evidence that the 500/4 is diffraction-limited wide open.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=40928248

The take-home lessons are:

- We can extract more detail at finer resolutions than the MTF50 diffraction limit even with Bayer sensors with AA filters.
- We have optics that are diffraction-limited at f-stops much faster than f/8.
- Because of those two facts, we can make use of sensors much more densely packed than current 18MP APS-C sensors.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 18, 2012)

jrista said:


> Tuggem said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Lee Jay is the one who is more correct here.
> ...



Good. Glad we agree.

Let's work on that a bit. Let's do f/4 since we have several lenses that are diffraction-limited by then. Let's use green light (conservative). Let's be further conservative and use Rayleigh instead of MTF5 or MTF0.

MTF 9 = Rayleigh = 1/(1.22*0.000550*f/4) = 373 lp/mm

We need roughly 3 pixels per line pair to resolve them on a Bayer sensor with AA filter.

3 * 373 * 22.3mm = 24,954 horizontal pixels
2/3 of 24,954 = 16,636 vertical pixels

24954*16636 = 415,134,744 pixels, or 415.1MP.

Here's a sample of the equivalent of 288MP:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37493247

Obviously, we have plenty of room between the real limits and the 18MP we have today.

And just in case you think I'm alone in thinking this, here's some information on gigapixel sensors from the guy that invented the type of sensors we use in our cameras:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=30006322


----------



## jrista (Mar 18, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> First - you can get more spacial detail from adding TCs, even to already-slow optics. This is a $60 Bayer-sensor webcam, not some high-end astronomical sensor. Pixel size is 5.6 microns - about the same as the 40D. f/30 on the left, f/15 on the right. _According to you_, the f/30 shot _couldn't possibly be better_, but it is.



I've highlighted where you've misunderstood me. Thats not my argument, and probably where we've made a disconnect. First off, "better" is such an extremely subjective and broad term, its a terrible term for this conversation. Obviously magnifying a subject makes it "better" in the sense that your recording more detail of that subject. Again, that is not my argument. My argument is that neither the lens nor the sensor are recording at a "higher spatial resolution" (which is what it sounds like you are saying when you say that using 1.4x TC's == 141mp...increasing megapixel count in the same sensor area increases the amount of spatial resolution the system can record, but I'm arguing that is not what happens when you tack on teleconverters) when increasing magnification. They are recording a *larger subject* at the *same (or slightly lower, given the math on total system blur) spatial resolution.* I guess to put it another way...the _IMAGE RESOLUTION_, the width and height of your subject, increase, for the same _SPATIAL RESOLUTION_.



Lee Jay said:


> Second, and this is going to be a little hard to accept for you, but it's fact so I suggest you listen carefully. You're thinking of a TC as a device that increases focal length and decreases aperture. First of all, it doesn't decrease aperture. f-stop = focal length / aperture diameter. A TC can be thought to increase focal length while keeping aperture the same, thus increasing f-stop.



Sure, f-stop, relative aperture, same thing. I know the absolute aperture, the physical diameter in mm, stays the same when increasing focal length with TCs. However due to the increased focal length, diffraction is magnified right along with everything else. The effects of a TC on diffraction are real, regardless of how the sensor may appear when looking through the TC. 



Lee Jay said:


> However, and this is important, this is only true from the camera's point of view. From the lens' point of view, its focal length, aperture and f-stop remain the same. The TC is, after all, mounted behind it. From the lens' point of view, the TC has changed the camera. How, you might ask? By shrinking the sensor and the pixels on it. If you don't believe me, try this little experiment yourself.
> 
> http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Teleconverter%20optical%20reduction.jpg



Sure, the size of the pixels, as well as the size of the whole sensor, shrink when viewed through the TC...but the total density of the sensor does not increase for the same size. The former changes magnification, the latter would change the spatial resolution of the system. We are on the same page here, and I think I described this effect well when I described magnification as being the same as recording an image with a much larger (physical size) 141mp sensor, and cropping out the center 18mp. IMAGE resolution of the subject increases, SPATIAL resolution of the system remains the same or decreases with a TC. The image you linked does a good job demonstrating that everything viewed through the TC shrinks in size. If it was a sensor, the whole sensor...not just the pixel pitch, would shrink relative to whatever was being projected through the lens. I call that magnification. The actual width and height of the sensor in pixels has not changed. The distance between pixels has not changed. So spatial resolution is the same. (I'm again not sure were on different pages here...I think maybe we have been discussing the same thing from different angles.)



Lee Jay said:


> The point is, increasing focal length while preserving aperture (and thus increasing f-stop) and decreasing pixel size are equivalent. Here's an example of that:
> 
> http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20versus%20teleconverters.jpg



Not disputing that. It again boils down to the comparison extra_magnification == more_megapixels, which sounds like extra_magnification == increased_spatial_resolution...assuming the rest of the system does not change. That comparison sounds like adding a TC increased the spatial resolution from 116lp/mm to 315.5lp/mm. Even if we do assume that DSLR sensors are capable of resolving fine detail at MTF 9, at f/16 for a 200 + 1.4 + 1.4 on a 7D, total system blur (ignoring any additional potential aberrations from the TC's, there probably aren't any at a physical aperture of f/8, and assuming just about twice the pixel pitch of the 7D for the blur of the sensor itself) is *sqrt(10.8^2 + 8.4^2) = 13.7um*, which translates into a system spatial resolution of about 73lp/mm. Lets ignore the nature of bayer sensors, and assume the 7D is capable of resolving 4.3 micron airy discs. Our system blur becomes *sqrt(10.8^2 + 4.3^2) = 11.63um*, or a system spatial resolution of about 86lp/mm. Decreasing pixel size relative to the subject could also be termed increasing the subject size relative to the pixel. Either way, thats magnification, the increase of object dimensions, or image resolution, not an increase in spatial resolution. The only reason you are resolving more detail is because the subject is larger...thats it. 



Lee Jay said:


> Finally, if you want to see the effect of diffraction while shrinking pixel size, have a look at the link below. If you prefer, you can think of these as APS-C sensors with 8MP, 16MP, 32MP, and 64MP, all at f/11. The one on the bottom is for reference when using a larger aperture that isn't diffraction-limited. As you can see, even at f/11, resolving power goes up in each case, by ever-decreasing amounts (the so-called law of diminishing returns), just as theory would indicate. I've tested this all the way to oblivion (1.1 micron pixels at f/11), and the MTF 0 spatial cutoff formula I gave you from Wikipedia matches well with real-world testing.
> 
> http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Diffraction%20pixel%20size%20test%202.jpg



I'm not really sure what those images demonstrate, outside of the fact that the 6.4 micron pixels are simply incapable of resolving enough detail in the first place. I've never claimed that increasing pixel density doesn't help increase spatial resolution, I've only argued that after a certain point...a sensor with roughly 2x the resolution of the optical image its recording...does increasing resolution stop having a decent cost/value ratio. I don't generally consider f/11 to be severely detrimental to IQ. I consider f/22 and beyond to be detrimental to IQ, regardless of the sensor density.



Lee Jay said:


> As for how good our optics are, I tested my version 1 70-200/2.8L IS at different apertures by mounting telescope eye pieces to it and trying to split double stars. Essentially, this is a test of the Rayleigh criterion (MTF 9). I found that it isn't diffraction-limited at f/2.8 but, amazingly, it is diffraction-limited at f/4 - I could split a double at exactly the Rayleigh equivalent separation angle for a 50mm aperture with that lens given sufficient optical magnification. I think you'd agree that we have several lenses in the line-up that are better at faster f-stops than f/4 than the version 1 70-200 is.



I do agree, I've mentioned many lenses that I think are capable of stellar optical characteristics at maximum aperture. Again, thats not really the point of my argument.



Lee Jay said:


> For a little more evidence of that, compare the Jupiter shot I posted above, taken with 125mm of aperture of diffraction-limited f/15 Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope, with one posted yesterday also taken with 125mm of aperture this time in the form of a wide-open 500/4. The detail retained is very, very similar providing further evidence that the 500/4 is diffraction-limited wide open.
> 
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=40928248



Tough to evaluate this stuff, since the images were the result of some extensive stacking. Stacking completely changes the game, and allows things like superresolution and extreme noise reduction, pushing image resolution well beyond what is possible spatially with physical hardware. Thats all a discussion for another day, and doubt we would disagree much with the benefits of stacking and superresolution.



Lee Jay said:


> The take-home lessons are:
> 
> - We can extract more detail at finer resolutions than the MTF50 diffraction limit even with Bayer sensors with AA filters.
> - We have optics that are diffraction-limited at f-stops much faster than f/8.
> - Because of those two facts, we can make use of sensors much more densely packed than current 18MP APS-C sensors.



1. Still not sure about the first point. I'll make my arguments again below in the final quote.

2. Totally agree we have diffraction-limited lenses at faster f-stops than f/8. That was never a point of argument...I simply used f/8 in my prior posts because that was the aperture you mentioned using for your 200+1.4+1.4 setup to capture the moon. It never intended to portray that I thought f/8 was the first diffraction limited aperture in any lens. I think, outside of some of Canon's top L-series glass starting around 135mm, most of their lenses seem to achieve "best" resolution (normalize optical aberrations with diffraction) somewhere around f/4 (a little less in some cases, a little more in others.) Super fast lenses, like the 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses seem to achieve that normalization around f/2.8-f/3.5, however they are rather wide, and don't magnify their subjects enough for it to matter in the context of this discussion.

3. Agreed that more densely packed sensors are not "bad". Agreed that they can help us oversample optical resolution enough to eliminate sensor aberrations and capture a little bit more detail. Agreed that as we approach the "pixel pitch" of rods and cones in the 2° foveal spot in the human eye (which clear, high detail vision occurs), 0.5um, that our ability to resolve fine detail at lower contrast will increase. I'm not sure I agree that we can do that today at 9%, although I'm happy to offer that we probably can resolve fine detail at a contrast level below 50%.



Lee Jay said:


> Let's work on that a bit. Let's do f/4 since we have several lenses that are diffraction-limited by then. Let's use green light (conservative). Let's be further conservative and use Rayleigh instead of MTF5 or MTF0.
> 
> MTF 9 = Rayleigh = 1/(1.22*0.000550*f/4) = 373 lp/mm
> 
> ...



Here is where your argument breaks down, at least as I am interpreting it. Lets get back to facts:

FACT: A 415mp APS-C sensor with the dimensions 24954x16636 DOES NOT EXIST. It never has existed, and will very likely not exist in the coming decades.
FACT: The 7D 18mp APS-C sensor is certainly not capable of resolving 415mp worth of spatial resolution.
Fact: For a lens that resolves 373lp/mm of resolution, the sensor is the LIMITING FACTOR (both from a resolution standpoint and a contrast standpoint.)
Fact: At 373lp/mm, the airy disc is 2.7 microns. 
Fact: An 18mp APS-C sensor as in the 7D's has a minimum resolvable spot of 4.3 microns, assuming monochrome.
Fact: An 18mp APS-C sensor as in the 7D's has a minimum resolvable full-detail spot of about 2x pixel pitch, or 8.4-8.7 microns, assuming a bayer array, low-pass filter, IR filters, etc.
Fact: System blur of such a system would be about 8.9 microns.
Fact: System spatial resolution of such a system would be about 112lp/mm.

Equating the *increase in subject detail* as resulted from the *addition of teleconverters* to a lens for a *given sensor* as *literally* having a sensor with *more megapixels in the same physical area* is incorrect. That presumes an increase in the spatial resolution of the sensor as a result of increased optical magnification, which is obviously impossible...sensors have a fixed resolution (both spatially and dimensionally.)

So, I still don't understand your insistence on this formula that *TCs == denser sensor*. At best, given the math, your 373lp/mm lens setup and 116lp/mm APS-C sensor boil down to 112lp/mm of system spatial resolution (and I'm still ignoring the fact that adding additional TC's still has a drag on IQ, even though it may be minimal at f/4.) 



Lee Jay said:


> Here's a sample of the equivalent of 288MP:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37493247
> 
> Obviously, we have plenty of room between the real limits and the 18MP we have today.
> ...




I still don't see 288mp in that image. If you could show me an image that literally had the necessary dimensions of around 20756x13844, then I might have to change my mind. The moon image you linked has an image resolution of 1000x1500 pixels (1.5mp), and coming from the 7D, I am going to assume the original non-cropped version was 5184x3456 pixels (which is still 18mp). There is a serious disconnect in the thinking that more magnification equals increased system spatial resolution. Even assuming the optics are capable of FAR superior spatial resolution (which at MTF 9% they are...I still dispute the idea that CFA bayer sensors are even close to resolving detail at that level of contrast), the camera (being the sensor, low pass filters, and any other filtration devices between the virtual image projected by the lens and the sensor) is going to severely limit the total system resolution you are capable of actually recording. What you actually record is really what matters, regardless of how much spatial resolution exists in the virtual image the lens may be projecting at any level of contrast. The more you oversample the lens, the more soft an image will appear at 100%, so while theoretically things may be "better", you require greater and greater downsampling to achieve a sharply detailed image (which is really the ultimate goal anyway, unless you have scientific goals.) As of today, it is not yet possible to record 415mp, let alone 288mp, with a single sensor in a single shot using a DSLR camera. The closest thing I've ever seen to several-hundred megapixel images of stellar bodies are mosaics of hundreds of shots of the moon, usually shot with telescopes with rather high light gathering capabilities.

So, I don't disagree with you on every point. Yes, there is plenty of room for improvement, obviously (on both lens and sensor fronts.) I _strongly disagree_ with you on the point in your last quote...that *TC == denser sensor*. Thats just plain and simply not based in fact.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 18, 2012)




----------



## jrista (Mar 18, 2012)

justsomedude said:


>



LOL. Sorry...for some reason I just can't let this go.  It feels so wrong to claim your capturing a 288mp image of the moon when its STILL AND 18MP IMAGE!! ???


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 18, 2012)

jrista said:


> Sure, the size of the pixels, as well as the size of the whole sensor, shrink when viewed through the TC...but the total density of the sensor does not increase for the same size.



The second part of that sentence is a direct contradiction for the first part. Pixel shrink = increased density.



> The former changes magnification,



You seem to have a problem with the term "magnification".

Magnification = image size on sensor / object size
Enlargement = size of final print or image / image size on sensor



> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, increasing focal length while preserving aperture (and thus increasing f-stop) and decreasing pixel size are equivalent. Here's an example of that:
> ...



Good, since it's correct. The problem is, you do dispute it below:



> Equating the *increase in subject detail* as resulted from the *addition of teleconverters* to a lens for a *given sensor* as *literally* having a sensor with *more megapixels in the same physical area* is incorrect.



So, make up your mind. Correctly, would be nice.

Smaller pixels = more pixel density = higher pixel counts = higher spacial resolution if the optics can support it. And we now agree (I think) that many of the optical devices we have available can support it.


----------



## traveller (Mar 18, 2012)

justsomedude said:


>



+1

This thread is getting close to handbags at dawn!  

I don't want to pour fuel onto the debate that you guys seem to be having fun with, but have you seen Roger Clark's page, which seems to touch on some of the issues that you are discussing: 

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

What are your takes?


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 18, 2012)

traveller said:


> What are your takes?



He equated focal length with pixel pitch just like I did, because they have the same effect on resolving power.

300mm f/2.8 4.3microns 3.0 arc seconds
500mm f/4 7.4microns 3.1 arc seconds

600mm f/5.6 4.8microns 1.65 arc seconds
1000mm f/8 8.2microns 1.7 arc seconds

Teleconverter = longer focal length = smaller pixels = more pixels in the same area.


----------



## jrista (Mar 18, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, the size of the pixels, as well as the size of the whole sensor, shrink when viewed through the TC...but the total density of the sensor does not increase for the same size.
> ...


[/quote]

Pixels shrink, but so does the sensor when viewed through a TC. _The WHOLE SYSTEM shrinks._ But thats only when viewed through the TC (or for that matter the whole lens setup.) Were talking about WHAT THE SENSOR SEES, since thats what actually produces the output image. The physical size of the sensor as it exists inside the camera DOES NOT changed size in any physical sense of the word, so in REALITY, the spatial resolution of the system is SENSOR BOUND. It doesn't matter what we may see when we look down the lens...our eyes are not recording a two dimensional image for presentation on...any medium. The sensor is what matters here, and what the sensor sees according to its perspective...through the backside of the TC's and lens, is what I'm talking about. Sensors are fixed constants, and they output information at a specific density and physical size. No matter how the optics work when observing through the front is immaterial to how the sensor sees through the back. 



Lee Jay said:


> > The former changes magnification,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote]

I'm not sure where this came from. I've been talking about object size *relative* to sensor (or rather, relative to the spatial resolution of the whole system, lens+TCs+sensor) from the start. I haven't even mentioned print or enlargement, as it too is immaterial to the discussion. 



Lee Jay said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, increasing focal length while preserving aperture (and thus increasing f-stop) and decreasing pixel size are equivalent. Here's an example of that:
> ...




The pixels are _NOT PHYSICALLY SMALLER._ You seem to think that what you observe through the front of the lens equates to what the sensor observes through the back of the lens. The sensor is a fixed construct with fixed attributes. IT DOES NOT PHYSICALLY CHANGE SIZE. The only thing that actually changes when adding or removing a teleconverter is the *VIRTUAL IMAGE* that is projected by the lens _ONTO_ the sensor. Without a TC, that virtual image may contain a small circle representing Jupiter in the middle, constituting just under 1/4 the full area of the sensor, at 112lp/mm. With the TC, the virtual image would then contain a large circle representing Jupiter that is nearly the full height of the sensor, also at 112lp/mm. The sensor did not change...the virtual image changed, because the optics projecting it changed.

Since the sensor is the "eye" here, a piece of hardware with actual concrete, immutable, physical characteristics...such as being 22.3x14.9mm in size with 5184 columns of pixels and 3456 rows of pixels, capable of a resolving a *maximum* of 115.97lp/mm (the low-pass filter, IR filter, and possibly microscopic nuances in the microlenses, color filter array, etc are going to diminish that potential maximum)...that is recording and processing visual stimuli, it stands to reason that it is *not* the sensor that actually changes, physically shrinking to produce pixels with a smaller pixel pitch (or more insane yet, remaining the same size while its pixels shrink and multiply to create 288mp or even 415mp by some mystical, magical means), which in turn are capable of recording finer detail at a higher spatial resolution. 

It stands to reason that it is _the world_, say Jupiter, which is being resolved by the lens into a *virtual image* and projected onto the sensor, that is changing RELATIVE to the sensor. As such, the *characteristics of the sensor*...say that 115.97lp/mm maximum real-world spatial resolution it is capable of recording at, do not change relative to the world, and the sensor remains the limiting factor in terms of what fineness of detail can actually be resolved and at what contrast.

Lenses create *virtual* images. By observing the sensor through the lens (or even just a TC), you too are seeing a *virtual* image of the sensor. *VIRTUAL.* The sensor has not actually shrunk. Its pixel density has not actually increased. It is not actually capable of greater spatial resolution than it is if you do not observe the sensor through a lens. Relative to the biological sensor of your eyes, thanks to the lens between you and it, it _APPEARS_ to have shrunk, but it *has not in actuality done so*. If we could magically create more resolution with a few hundred bucks of optics, the sensor megapixel race would have never gotten off the ground. What we see through the front of the lens is immaterial to the reality of what the SENSOR sees _through its end of the lens_, and what the sensor sees is what we (well, most) photographers really care about.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 18, 2012)

So when is the large mps body coming and how many mps will it be??


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> Tuggem said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Lee Jay is the one who is more correct here.
> ...



Just reminding you that you agreed before - with Tuggem, not myself - that increasing focal length with a TC is equivalent to shrinking the pixels on the sensor.

You also agreed with me on that point:



> The point is, increasing focal length while preserving aperture (and thus increasing f-stop) and decreasing pixel size are equivalent.



To which you replied:



> Not disputing that.



For some reason, you dispute the next step, namely that shrinking the pixels results in more pixels in the same area. Thus, adding a teleconverter is just like increasing pixel count in the same space. I don't understand what could be more clear about that.

I also want to point out your own statement that started this:



> The 7D is already pretty maxed out when it comes to resolution as well with 18mp in an APS-C format. You might gain a bit more by going to 20 or 22mp, but thats going to make it really hard to get sharp shots right down to the pixel level...and you would only be able to do so at a very narrow range of apertures at the center of the lens before diffraction or optical aberrations kill you.



That statement is in error, and more to the point, it's irrelevant. Sharp shots down to the pixel level means you are throwing away detail by definition. If people really want that, then we have an education problem. Regardless, even if we use MTF 50, and we agree that many lenses can achieve diffraction-limited performance at f/4 like my now-discontinued 70-200/2.8L IS can, the resolution is:

0.38(0.000550*4) = 172.7lp/mm

Given 3 pixels to resolve 1 line pair, that's 11,554x7,702 = 89 megapixels on APS-c.

So, two conclusions:

*- Teleconverters are just like multipliers on pixel count (1.4x = 2x pixel count), but with reduced field of view which is irrelevant if you're looking at a small portion of the frame anyway.
- We still have plenty of room to grow pixel counts before we are capturing nothing but additional gray sludge.
*
I'd love the next 7D to be 24MP on APS-C and have f/8 AF sensors. Such a system would almost achieve MTF50 at f/8 - certainly it would achieve way above the commonly-used extinction points of MTF9, MTF5 or MTF0. If they can't provide f/8 AF sensors, 32MP or more would be nice.


----------



## jrista (Mar 19, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggem said:
> ...



Yes, *IN REALITY*, not *virtually* by looking at the sensor through the front of the lens!! I agree that _literally_ using a sensor with more megapixels with the original lens without TCs, and cropping the image produced by a higher density sensor is _*similar*_ to using a TC with a smaller sensor: both of them magnify the subject relative to spatial resolution. I've never agreed about anything else.

Using a higher density sensor, though, is not exactly the same. A 116lp/mm 18mp APS-C can double-sample an image produced by a lens+TC combo at f/13 (MTF 50, which is about 56lp/mm). That lens+sensor system, despite the fact that the sensor is double-sampling the virtual image, is still only achieving a total resolution of 52.6lp/mm. Lets drop the TC, and double the number of pixels. We are now at 165lp/mm for the sensor and 82lp/mm for the lens. The sensor is oversampling by almost a factor of three, however our system resolution, while its definitely an improvement over the system with a TC and lower resolution sensor, is still only 73.5lp/mm. I believe it was Tuggem who actually said doubling the number of pixels is actually better than using a 1.4x TC and quadrupling pixels is better than using a 2x TC. Crunching the numbers, it appears to really indeed be true (double the pixels is about 40% better than using a 1.4x TC)...*assuming its actually a LITERAL INCREASE*, as in, you physically use a sensor with double the number of pixels.



Lee Jay said:


> For some reason, you dispute the next step, namely that shrinking the pixels results in more pixels in the same area. Thus, adding a teleconverter is just like increasing pixel count in the same space. I don't understand what could be more clear about that.
> 
> I also want to point out your own statement that started this:
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure its as much an education problem as it is a mental and perceptual problem. People don't spend money on 18mp, 22.3mp, or even 36.3mp to get what they _*perceive*_ as soft photos (regardless of how irrational that may be). Thats more than readily apparent in how much flak the 7D gets from people complaining about how soft it is (at apertures much above or below f/4.) Personally, while intellectually I fully understand the value of oversampling optics and downsampling the results to achieve the level of sharpness I want, that whole psychological bent towards wanting sharp results strait out of the camera still exists (and is actually a necessity if you shoot JPEG for immediate review and publish.) 



Lee Jay said:


> Regardless, even if we use MTF 50, and we agree that many lenses can achieve diffraction-limited performance at f/4 like my now-discontinued 70-200/2.8L IS can, the resolution is:
> 
> 0.38(0.000550*4) = 172.7lp/mm
> 
> Given 3 pixels to resolve 1 line pair, that's 11,554x7,702 = 89 megapixels on APS-c.



Optically, 172.7lp/mm at f/4 is certainly possible, again never disputed that (I believe I've used the number 173lp/mm for f/4 on several occasions in my previous posts.) I've tried to account for low-pass filters (particularly the stronger one on the 7D...although low pass filters are a bit of a wildcard and can never be fully accounted for without a full understanding of their impact on spatial frequencies), and the fact that bayer sensors *require interpolation* to produce "full color" (or final RGB) pixels once processed, and the fact that the spatial phase of the sensor is not always aligned with the spatial phase of the virtual image, by using 4 pixels / line pair. Perhaps a tad conservative (although it is a general practice to assume 4p/lp when discussing bayer sensors, even by astrophotography enthusiasts), however I think using 3 pixels / line pair is a bit aggressive. Perhaps a happy medium of 3.5 would be more realistic. Either way, sure, at the sharpest aperture after optical aberrations are eliminated and before diffraction sets in and starts diminishing maximum potential resolution, you could keep pushing sensor resolution. Its a very narrow window within which you can achieve more resolution, and there are rather few lenses that are not aberration-bound at wider apertures that can currently support higher resolutions than are attainable at f/4 (the majority of which cost a small to moderate fortune.) 

My comment above about 20-22mp is inaccurate on a scientific level, but it wasn't originally intended to be hard core scientific (my desire to be more accurate only came after you decided to conflate the use of TC's with literal increases in sensor spatial resolution.) I think I originally made that comment in the context of the average photographer who usually does suffer from the "psychological impairment" discussed above. I still agree, for most apertures of the lenses the majority of 7D photographers are likely to use, I think the softness of photos caused either by optical aberrations or diffraction around the f/4 "sweet spot" is going to be a turn-off for more photographers than not. I've spent more time arguing the fact that the 7D is not sharpness-impaired, its just that it frequently outresolves the lens at the apertures used, than I have argued my points in this particular thread.  In that context, I don't think pushing APS-C resolution much beyond where we have it now is going to buy the *average photographer* all that much. The window around that sweet spot, wherein you can get very sharp images that keep increasing in detail as you use better and better optics will shrink the closer you get to 70, 80, or 90 megapixels packed into the space of an APS-C sensor. (We haven't even touched on the fact that for all but a few of Canon's L-series lenses, such resolution is also only really possible in the center of the lens, and falloff, sometimes severe, to the corners reduces resolution well below theoretical perfection. There would need to be considerable center-to-corner improvement in lenses to fully support "perfection" across the area of the lens, and in many cases where trade-offs are required...such as wide angle zoom lenses...perfection may be unattainable, at least for the refractive optics of DSLR cameras.) 

I think far greater benefits can be gained at the resolution were at now by improving ISO, lowering noise, etc. instead of chasing a difficult to attain perfect resolution at a very narrow aperture range, where all other apertures achieve less and produce softer and softer photos at higher and higher resolutions. Yes, its all psychological, but thats really what matters _beyond_ the rather narrow bounds we've been arguing within lately. Thats all besides the points I've been making thus far, however. And hopefully my comment to the original quote at the beginning of this post clears up my position.



Lee Jay said:


> So, two conclusions:
> 
> *- Teleconverters are just like multipliers on pixel count (1.4x = 2x pixel count), but with reduced field of view which is irrelevant if you're looking at a small portion of the frame anyway.
> - We still have plenty of room to grow pixel counts before we are capturing nothing but additional gray sludge.
> ...



You are certainly free to conclude all you want, however I still think its factually invalid. The sensor's pixel count DOES *NOT* ACTUALLY *INCREASE*, two fold or any other fold. Thats a fixed constant for any given camera, no amount of optics will ever change that. Neither will they improve the spatial resolution of the system at large unless you replace the lens with something that is closer to perfection than its predecessor (and probably replace the teleconverters as well.) Even if you do replace a less than perfect lens with a perfect lens, the final spatial resolution of the system will never surpass that of the sensor itself...you can only approach it. 

To turn things around, lets assume the lens is the limiting factor, rather than the sensor. The same rules apply to increasing the physical resolution of a sensor. If you are using a lens that is only capable of resolving 150lp/mm, using a sensor capable of 300lp/mm (2x oversampling) will still result in a system resolution of only 134.3lp/mm. *Doubling* the sensor resolution _again_ to 600lp/mm still only gets you to 145.7lp/mm, and the returns diminish well beyond the realm of reason to actually approach 149.99lp/mm. The only thing you can do to increase the resolution of the system as a whole at this point is to physically improve the least effective component...a better lens, in this case. With a perfect lens capable of 173lp/mm and your 300lp/mm sensor, your system resolution is now 149.5lp/mm.

There is no one-piece magic bullet that can instantly improve the resolving power of any system by orders of magnitude. If you want to achieve 173lp/mm, you need to improve each and every component of the system to raise the lowest common denominator high enough that it surpasses your target resolution by a sufficient amount. To actually achieve a system resolution of 173lp/mm, you would need both a lens and a sensor capable of 247lp/mm, and that imposes a minimum aperture of f/2.8 in a perfect lens (or less than perfect lens with an even wider aperture.) It would be at this point, with a _perfect_ f/2.8 lens, that we could finally use everything an 80mp APS-C sensor had to offer. 



As a note on low-contrast photography and astronomical bodies. The use of extremely low contrast photography, at Rayleigh or even as low as Daws, by astronomers is to determine if two extremely close points of starlight are indeed separate points and thus separate...such as a binary star. Using photography for such purposes is not an average case, it is a rather specialized and more scientific case than anything else. One usually has to explicitly know about contrast, diffraction, MTF, etc., and know exactly what they are looking for, to be able to use MTF 0% photography to identify distant binary stars and the like. Special processing techniques are also usually involved when working at MTF 0%, such as multiple image stacking and superresolution that can use computation and algorithms to produce a final high resolution image that is more likely to show the 5% peak dip between two low-contrast points of light at Daws MTF 0. NorthLight images have this to say about digital photography down to MTF 0 (emphasis added):



> So to resolve all data up to a frequency corresponding to 4000 lines—the Rayleigh criterion-- would require a Nyquist frequency of 8000 vertical lines, corresponding to 100 megapixels.
> 
> The Rayleigh criterion was derived based on a simple model that correctly predicted what astronomers could see. More recent astrophotographic techniques allow stars to be distinguished up to the point that MTF drops to zero. This is about 20-25% closer spacing than the Rayleigh criterion, and is referred to as the Dawes limit[14]. If we wished to use this as the criterion for resolution, then the required sensor resolution would be about *150 megapixels*. It is also possible for astronomers to detect whether a star image is a single star or a binary star _even of there is no separation between the two adjacent maxima_: the form of the merged maximum can still be indicative of a binary subject.[15] . _But there is a catch to the latter method: you have to *know in advance* that you are looking for two closely separated points._ If you have no a priori information about what the subject is, this method won’t work. *So it is pretty much useless for normal photography.*



At current digital camera resolutions of 20-35mp, which are well below the 150mp necessary Dawes level photography (0% contrast) and 100mp necessary for Rayleigh level photography (9% contrast), we may be able to achieve useful resolution at less than MTF 50, but outside of specialized cases and potentially specialized processing, we still need considerably more contrast than at either Rayleigh or Dawes for the average type of photography where sharpness strait out of camera is highly desirable.

It should also be noted that much of Rayleigh and Dawes criterion astrophotography for the purposes of identifying binary stars started out with film. Film has better characteristics to gathering detail at low contrast than digital sensors do, so its more capable at resolving fine detail at MTF 9. Conversely, digital sensors are better than film at resolving contrasty detail at closer to MTF 40-50 than film is. For specialized photography, such as astrophotography, where low-contrast detail is supreme, there is probably far more room to grow in terms of digital sensor resolution than there is for general forms of photography, where sharpness and contrast are frequently more important.


----------



## SandyP (Apr 3, 2012)

I hope they are, actually. Here's why...

I shoot weddings, every year, I shoot wedding. I like them, not only because they pay the bills, but because they're fun, and I enjoy that type of shooting. But yes, they're a major money maker for me. I also shoot documentary type stuff a few times a year, which involves shooting thousands and thousands of photos every few days, for upwards of 10+ days at a time. This is taxing. Even with 21MP of my 5D Mark II. 

You can see where this is going. File sizes. Blah blah blah, yes, it matters. I was shooting a lot of stuff in SRAW1 on certain parts of the wedding, and during many parts of the documentary shooting in Cuba. Even whilst I knew that a lot of the stuff was going to print when I got back. 

Anyways, I do shoot a lot of fashion, and portraits and stuff like that. High resolution is absolutely not needed for me, 21MP has always been amazing, (and a good friend shoots all that stuff with a D3s, at 12MP), but let's face it, 36MP would be nice in SOME situations for editing and potential magazine submissions where they like to crop heavily sometimes. 

When I look at the D800, I'm secretly jealous of the resolution. I'm not a megapixel (mega pickles!) junkie, and I don't think the grass is always greener, but I love editing, and when I go to retouch, I'm always at 100% for a lot of the work I do. The D800 is sexy in this regard. DR isn't really my concern, and I see the 5D Mark III isn't quite up to it, but has more then the Mark II. 

When I look at the Mark III, I think about all my sexy L glass, and the Canon files that I've always loved from my Mark II. And I see vast improvements where I've always wished they existed (AF being one). 

I'm not into video, I'll use it now and then, but it's not my thing. 


So, I'd love for Canon to eventually address this market, and I think eventually they will absolutely have to have something to compete with that. And I'll buy that Canon megapixel monster for sure, because I'd like to use specific tools for specific jobs. It wouldn't go to Cuba with me, it wouldn't be at my weddings. But it would be in the studio with me, and it would be at all the on location shoots I do. 

Having both would keep me happy forever. Really. 


As it is right now, I'm choosing the 5D3, because it's a very well balanced camera. It has good resolution, high ISO and great features such as excellent AF, finally. And in the end, we know that creativity, lighting, and vision have 1000x more to do with good photography than megapixels and the brand of camera you use. 

But Canon, wake up a bit more! And surprise us a bit.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 3, 2012)

jrista said:


> (especially without a low pass filter like the D800).



The D800 does have a low pass filter. It's the *D800e* that doesn't. The medium format Pentax 645D also doesn't have a low pass filter. 

I admire the science in this part of the thread - quite baffles me and I'm no dunce. The science of pixel peeping is my first impression. I'll leave viewing photographs to the optimum distance from the appropriate media thank you, that is what art is about. Do you look at a Turner painting with your head against the painting and criticise the brush strokes? I thought not. That's the problem with fora such as these. I think we run the risk of overexamining things and missing what's actually important


----------



## Panurus (Apr 3, 2012)

A lot of people knows that Light is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans. The wave nature of light was first illustrated through experiments on diffraction and interference. 
But who have see samples that show this fact.

The post is : The megapixels are coming.

The last time that I had studied this subject, I had found this:




http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_en/$File/CLN31_English.pdf

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf


http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild1/$File/Image_01.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild2/$File/Image_02.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild3/$File/Image_03.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild4/$File/Bild_04.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild5/$File/Bild_05.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild6/$File/Bild_06.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild7/$File/Bild_07.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild8/$File/Bild_08.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild9/$File/Bild_09.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild10/$File/Bild_10.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild11/$File/Bild_11.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild12/$File/Bild_12.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild13/$File/Bild_13.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/CLN31MTF-KurvenBild14/$File/Bild_14.jpg


If you want to go quickly, then you will look at the crop 13.jpg.
left original center: 24 Mpix right: 12 Mpix

If you want to understand more than you have to read the documents.

After you understand why Canon declare:
"The images produced with the EOS-1D X camera’s new sensor are so clean that files can easily be up-sized if necessary for even the most demanding high-resolution commercial applications."

My 2 words: When white = 100%(RVB 255) and black = 0% (RVB 0)

FTM 50% is a contrast = 75% - 25 % / ( 75% + 25 % ) 

If your optics have a contrast of: 50 % @ 80 lp/mm: 
The contrast will be (87.5 - 12.5) / (87.5 + 12.5) = 75 % @ 40 lp/mm
The contrast will be (93.75 - 6.25) / (93.75 + 6.25) = 87.5 % @ 20 lp/mm
The contrast will be (96.875 - 3.125) / (96.875 - 3.125) = 93.75 % @ 10 lp/mm 

Is far from : 100% - 0 % / ( 100% + 0 % ) 

So when the little lines, on my subject, are white and black. on my captor they arrive black washed and white dirty. So the real questions could it be?: 

howmunch pixels want I to see the transistion from black washed towards white dirty?

Some days, I say 1DIV is not enough, some days 1DX is enough. Some of my friends think 7D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2012)

SandyP said:


> but let's face it, 36MP would be nice in SOME situations for editing and potential magazine submissions where they like to crop heavily sometimes.



Isn't there an option on the Nikon to get smaller raw files, too? Esp. since the dr and noise of the 36mp nikon sensor is like the 21mp Canon one...


----------

