# Do More Mega Pixels translate in a richer photo?



## sanj (Feb 27, 2015)

I am very confused and would appreciate any thoughts:
Will the extra pixels of the new cameras make images look better - sharper/richer/subconsciously more impact full than 5d3 on my computer screen or a 2ft by 3ft print? 
I think it should. The extra mp is not just for zooming in.
Your thoughts pls...


----------



## sunnyVan (Feb 27, 2015)

I'd tell you that better post processing skill would give you very noticeable improvements. Much more so than a higher megapixel camera


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 27, 2015)

Yes, in a few different ways:

-Higher MP allows you to crop in a lot more - turn what would have been a much smaller image, into one with more detail

-Higher MP also allows you to print larger at equal dpi - at 300 pixels per inch, you get ~ 2x the size

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 27, 2015)

If someone show arguments proving that I'm wrong, I'll swallow my words, :-X but ...

Whereas the only variable is the amount of megapixel who jumped from 22 to 50, will not see any improvement on a computer screen without expand the viewing.
The additional resolution would NOT be noticeably in a 4K computer monitor. Only a 8K monitor would show a more sharp image in a 50 megapixel photo, or printing on paper larger than 1 meter.

Obviously, the new Canon 5DS / 5DSr may further improvements in color filter, bit depth, dynamic range, etc.


----------



## K (Feb 27, 2015)

More megapixels can provide more detail. "Can" is conditional of course, because that depends on the lens, technique and of course the quality of the sensor. More megapixels isn't necessarily better. Usually is, but that is also because the increase in megapixels came along with other advancements in technology.

Detail is all you get.

Sharper? No. Sharp has to do with technique. A 1 megapixel image can be just as sharp as a 50mp. It will have less detail is all.

Richer? No. Rich, bold, dynamic images - the ones you often see pros produce, are a result of excellent technique. This involves mastery of LIGHTING, the single most important factor. After that, post-processing skills and methods. Good glass is important. Camera body is probably 3rd-4th in the hierarchy of IQ importance.

Sensors love light. It isn't the quantity of light, it is the quality of light once an adequate quantity has been reached. Starve a sensor of light... and detail, vividness, contrast, and all other factors which makes the image quality pop with brilliance just goes away. 

Fact is, there is a world of world-class photos out there, all done with older generations of DSLR.


----------



## Skulker (Feb 27, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> Yes, in a few different ways:
> 
> -Higher MP allows you to crop in a lot more - turn what would have been a much smaller image, into one with more detail
> 
> ...




I'll be interested to see if there is any real improvement.


But your first point is exactly what the OP did not want to consider.


Oh and so is your second point.


Your third point is news to me I hadn't realized that the chip size was larger than FF. Well you live and learn.


There will be a lot of people trying to prove that they know if there will be any real improvement. I won't be listening to them. I will look at the images and make my own mind up.


----------



## ajperk (Feb 27, 2015)

Skulker said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, in a few different ways:
> ...



From the specs that were announced, I think the sensor size is the same as all normal Canon full frame CMOS sensors. 

The comment may be in regards to digital medium format sensors. I think much of the advantage in image quality in medium format comes from the fact that as you are using a larger imaging surface, for the same framing of photo, the details themselves that are projected on the sensor are larger. This takes some of the pressure off of lens resolving capability. If you make as well resolving a lens for a medium format as for a 35mm format sensor (obviously taking into account the need for a larger image circle) then the medium format image will look more detailed. 

Of course, I don't own or shoot medium format, so perhaps I am overlooking something.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 27, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> -Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing


I understand that you referred to the 50 megapixel medium format cameras, compared to full frame 50 megapixel Canon in 5DS 5DSr.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 27, 2015)

I actually think that my 4MP computer screen is about halfway from giving the full detail in a 14MP image (produced by the T3/1100D).
My guess is that you only need half the screen resolution to effectively see everything in an image due to the Bayer filter and AA filter (for now I'm just going to pretend that all sensors have one).
So viewing those pictures on a 4K monitor (8MP) should be as good as looking at a high quality full resolution print.
Once we have 5K monitors your 5D3 isn't even going to fully saturate the image a PC is capable of out -putting.
Right now I can't tell the difference between a T3 image and 5D2 image when both are fit to screen, but the sad reality is still that we need to massively oversample images to get the same quality per pixel seen in other formats.
Once 8K hits the market even the 5Ds is only going to be barely good enough.

On a full resolution print it should absolutely make a difference, I just need to print something before I can say for sure.


----------



## chauncey (Feb 28, 2015)

My response is completely based on an apples to apples comparison...same photographer, same glass, 
same generation camera body, same post processing, same everything excepting...difference in MP.

If you take that 50 MP image and, for whatever reason, downsize it to a 22 MP size...you will have a 
better IQ image than you would have had taking that same image with a 22 MP body.

Note that I did not use the term crop, but said...downsize.


----------



## canonistic (Feb 28, 2015)

I had one of the original canon 1d cameras. The 1d mark 2 was just released. I HAD to have one. Think of the improvement from 4 megapixels to 8. I ordered one and did this little test:
(I shoot baseball). 
I stood behind home plate with a 400mm f2.8 lens and shot the pitcher warming up with the original 1d
Then I switched bodies to the mark 2.
Shot the same pitcher from the same spot.

I could not wait to see the images. Imagine the increased detail! Everything would be twice as good!

When I got home, I opened both images in two different windows and zoomed in on the pitchers belt buckle.
And looked and looked. Side by side. 
While you would pick the mark 2 as better, you had to REALLY study them to see any difference at all.
It was extremely close. BARELY different.
I wound up returning the camera.
If I couldn't see any difference with a casual glance, it wasn't much of an improvement.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 28, 2015)

On a 24x36" print? Why not try it? You don't have to make 2 24x36 prints. You can take your 5DIII image, make it 24x36 in photoshop, then crop a 4x6" piece out, and print that. Not do the same for a 5Ds pic. TO have the same pic, maybe go to a camera story and ask if you can take a pic with your lens/memory card... Or get a sample pic off the wen, maybe one of those still life type photos, and make your own similar still life...

I think the difference will be insignificant. I think your money is better spend on lenses, flash or maybe a 7DII if you are well stocked in the lens dept. 

I am not going to tell you lenses have megapixels. (those people are crazy), but as we go from 4 to 6 to 22 to 50MP, we are getting diminishing returns because the lenses are only so sharp. Same thing for teleconverters. They made a ton of sense when we had low MP cameras, but now, how much more detail is there to get?


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 28, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > -Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing
> ...



Yes, but 33x44 is the crop version of medium format (like the 40mp microlensed Kodak chip, etc) most the Dalsa/Kodak stuff is 36x48.

As for the 24"x36" prints, the 50MP will have a much better output, as you're translating ~272 pixels to 1 inch of paper, so close to the 300dpi that your eye can see. I've had folks pull out a loop and flashlight to peak, the files really hold up well.

I'm in line to rent the 5DsR once it's out, and will compare it to the Pentax 645Z ad the Hasselblad H4D-50. It's one of those where depending on the situation, each has their strengths. E-TTL should be huge, with the B1's and such


----------



## sanj (Feb 28, 2015)

Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large? 

Thank you ALL for your insights.


----------



## JClark (Feb 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?
> 
> Thank you ALL for your insights.



It's a hard question to answer because it's hard to isolate the megapixels. I shoot a 1dx as well as an a7r and a couple of Phase one backs, and while I feel that the higher mp solutions are superior in terms of iq, I can't tell you how much of the cause is the sensor vs the lens vs the pixel size etc. I can say, with certainty, that the ultimate quality in the MF system is superior, but I certainly look forward to the canon 50 mp sensor so i can eliminate another variable


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> I am very confused and would appreciate any thoughts:
> Will the extra pixels of the new cameras make images look better - sharper/richer/subconsciously more impact full than 5d3 on my computer screen or a 2ft by 3ft print?
> I think it should. The extra mp is not just for zooming in.
> Your thoughts pls...



It is possible, but it depends on a lot of things. Testers such as DPR find it difficult to get all the increased resolution offered by the sensor without VERY careful technique. A very heavy and stable tripod with a good head on a stable surface after a lot of learning. 

The image will not be worse, but it may not be better if you are not getting the most out of your existing sensor, and many do not. I think we will see some extremely good images from careful photographers, and will hear a lot of complaints from those who go out and buy one, but have the wrong expectations.

I bought a D800 and found the same thing. I could get pixel sharp resolution only under limited circumstances, bright lighting, fast shutter speed, and a static subject. As long as I was careful to stick to the right usage, images were great, but not noticeably better than my 1D MK IV if a image was printed at 16 X 20. The ability to crop depends on getting very sharp images, and did not work for me in low light where the per pixel noise was high.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 28, 2015)

The increased MP will increase perceived sharpness.... The image will appear sharper, but in the end the limiting factor on sharpness is quality of glass. A 28-70 will look horrible compared to a 24-70 II regardless of sensor.
As posted by CR ealier Canon had stated that all lensed after 70-200 2.8L II are optimized for those sensors. So with those you should get good results.

As for richness.... It doesnt only come with lighting. Ive always found Canon dslrs to be a bit on the weak side. Personally I would settle for less pixel and then 2 more stops of dynamic range.

We have old PhaseOne backs in our studio mounted on Hasselblad bodies that has better DR than our 5D III and 6D. Of course they have other drawbacks such as low iso range and a need to be tethered. But for studio use they are quite optimal...

So, Canon have yet to build a dslr that suits all needs and will probably never do so because of the need to make money rather than making the perfect camera.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?


Those people who used 1DS Mark iii, and also 5D Mark ii, both supposedly identical sensor, say the color and sharpness are better at 1DS Mark iii. However, at high ISO 5D Mark ii had advantage.

It is possible that the new 5DS / 5DSr are optimized for color depth, dynamic range, and sharpness. This would give better images, even if you print in small sizes. If no such optimization, the advantages would be perceived only when printing very large sizes or when crop images.


----------



## sanj (Feb 28, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?
> ...



There seems to be no indication of that. But I hope!


----------



## sanj (Mar 1, 2015)

canonistic said:


> I had one of the original canon 1d cameras. The 1d mark 2 was just released. I HAD to have one. Think of the improvement from 4 megapixels to 8. I ordered one and did this little test:
> (I shoot baseball).
> I stood behind home plate with a 400mm f2.8 lens and shot the pitcher warming up with the original 1d
> Then I switched bodies to the mark 2.
> ...



You write with passion… 
Am hoping the comparison between 21 mp and 50 mp will be clear on a casual glance. But lets see...


----------



## deleteme (Mar 2, 2015)

Short answer: No

I started with a Canon 10D at 6MP and was astounded art the quality it could yield _given certain subjects_ and good technique.
I now use 5Dmk3s and while they have a lot of resolution, that resolution is apparent only when I use the best technique and is more apparent on some subjects more than others.
The reality of high res cameras is that the majority of situations we find ourselves are less than optimal thus giving us files that are large without the detail we hoped would be there.
In studio and on location under tightly controlled conditions I can see good results but if I am shooting handheld there is no advantage over my 10D.


----------



## sanj (Mar 2, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> Short answer: No
> 
> I started with a Canon 10D at 6MP and was astounded art the quality it could yield _given certain subjects_ and good technique.
> I now use 5Dmk3s and while they have a lot of resolution, that resolution is apparent only when I use the best technique and is more apparent on some subjects more than others.
> ...



Most of my work is handheld. Tele lenses, 800 odd ISO, f5.6, 1/500. I will not see ANY improvement?  And why is this so? My first camera was 5d2. Now I am using 5d3 and 1dc - they all have similar mpixs. I do not have any experience with significant higher or lower mpixs. So do explain your theory. Pls.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 3, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If someone show arguments proving that I'm wrong, I'll swallow my words, :-X but ...
> 
> Whereas the only variable is the amount of megapixel who jumped from 22 to 50, will not see any improvement on a computer screen without expand the viewing.
> The additional resolution would NOT be noticeably in a 4K computer monitor. Only a 8K monitor would show a more sharp image in a 50 megapixel photo, or printing on paper larger than 1 meter.
> ...


Not entirely true, oversampling still produces better images BUT the key will be the taking lens. The best monitor currently for the masses is the 27" 5K iMac for photo editing its a dream.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 3, 2015)

sanj said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Short answer: No
> ...


I have not seen any controlled test of the new 5DS / 5DSr but I suppose it will not show real advantage over the sharpness of 1DX, while above ISO1600.

On the other hand, I hope that we will see a very noticeable improvement over 1DX, when in ISO100.

Time will tell.


----------



## MaxFoto (Mar 3, 2015)

Shot this on Sunday with the low res 5D3 and the crappy 24-70L II.


----------



## candc (Mar 4, 2015)

chauncey said:


> My response is completely based on an apples to apples comparison...same photographer, same glass,
> same generation camera body, same post processing, same everything excepting...difference in MP.
> 
> If you take that 50 MP image and, for whatever reason, downsize it to a 22 MP size...you will have a
> ...



That is what excites me, not the high mpx but the ability to downsample to a sharp clean image that is still big enough to be useful. At ful res it will have all kinds of cropping room and it may be a really good camera for an unintended market, bird photographers.

I don't think the high mpx on its own will make any difference for viewing at normal sizes but it gives you more to work with. Aside from bigger file sizes I don't see a downside.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 4, 2015)

Since I lost half of my Canon DSLR gear, I was forced to shoot with just 12MP camera + 55mm lens...


----------



## Rocky (Mar 4, 2015)

chauncey said:


> My response is completely based on an apples to apples comparison...same photographer, same glass,
> same generation camera body, same post processing, same everything excepting...difference in MP.
> 
> If you take that 50 MP image and, for whatever reason, downsize it to a 22 MP size...you will have a
> ...


Do you have data to substantiate it?


----------



## candc (Mar 4, 2015)

i think downsampling can give really good results. here is a downsampled d800 to match d3 image. and a downsampled one of mine shown next to the full rez one taken on a 70d. i think for downsampling to be really effective you need to use the bicubic sharper algorithm and go 50% in both directions.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Mar 4, 2015)

I shoot a lot on landscape mode and occasionally like to crop to portrait and recompose the subject to give it a different look. I'm no professional and my humble 6d is no sports camera but I like to shoot a 4-5 shot bursts in landscape of a kid hitting a baseball or blowing out candles and I like to save or post on facebook 2 shots out of the burst. One in landscape and one in portrait or vica versa that I cropped that looks like it was shot with 2 different cameras. It gives that moment a different look... For me the extra resolution doesn't matter too much but I see lots of value there for professional or very serious sports/wildlife guys where they're shooting at fast shutter speeds so the images should be pretty sharp.


----------



## pcdebb (Mar 6, 2015)

Interesting lesson for me here. I've battled with this question for ages, and battling it now as to if I am going to upgrade from a T3. Truthfully i want more glass :


----------



## Ryan_ (Mar 7, 2015)

candc said:


> i think downsampling can give really good results. here is a downsampled d800 to match d3 image. and a downsampled one of mine shown next to the full rez one taken on a 70d. i think for downsampling to be really effective you need to use the bicubic sharper algorithm and go 50% in both directions.


I'm confused about the buzzard image, do you mean you uprezed and then down rezed the buzzard image to get the one on the right(sharper image)? Because they look like exact same photo but that one on the right looks way more detailed. Just wondering how?


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2015)

The one on the right is just downsampled with dxo using the bicubic sharper algorithm shown at 100% The one on the left is full res viewed at 50%. Remember that sensors use a bayer array and each pixel only records either red green or blue. Then Bayer interpolation tries to combine that info into an image with the same resolution. Downsampling with the bicubic sharper algorithm basically combines 4 adjacent pixel which each contain separate color information into 1 pixel. In effect it's like having pixels that are twice the size that record all the color information. So if you start with a 50mpx sensor image and downsample it then it is better than one that uses that same starting resolution as the downsampled image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

candc said:


> The one on the right is just downsampled with dxo using the bicubic sharper algorithm shown at 100% The one on the left is full res viewed at 50%. Remember that sensors use a bayer array and each pixel only records either red green or blue. Then Bayer interpolation tries to combine that info into an image with the same resolution. Downsampling with the bicubic sharper algorithm basically combines 4 adjacent pixel which each contain separate color information into 1 pixel. In effect it's like having pixels that are twice the size that record all the color information. So if you start with a 50mpx sensor image and downsample it then it is better than one that uses that same starting resolution as the downsampled image.



All you are doing there is demonstrating your video cards bad interpolation of a 50% view. You can only judge sharpness on a monitor at 100%, that is it. The reason your downsampled buzzard looks so sharp by comparison is because your graphics card is just passing the 100% signal through, it isn't dynamically resizing it like it is to the 50% view one.

Bayer arrays don't mess with detail or luminance of a pixel, they just, potentially, mess with the colour of a pixel. The AA filter messes with the detail, which is why all images from any one model camera (if it has an AA filter) all require the same level of input/capture sharpening.


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2015)

Right, and when you look at the two images we are really talking about Acutance. The cheetah images are really better at demonstrating what I am getting at which is that an image captured with a higher resolution sensor and downsampled is better than one captured with a sensor of same size as the downsampled image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

candc said:


> Right, and when you look at the two images we are really talking about Acutance. The cheetah images are really better at demonstrating what I am getting at which is that an image captured with a higher resolution sensor and downsampled is better than one captured with a sensor of same size as the downsampled image.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, just your buzzard illustration. But there are lots of caveats to 'better' and any relevant comparisons. 

Here is a 1Ds MkIII and a 7D, both cropped to the same area, the 1Ds MkIII is at 100% the 7D is down sampled to match the resolution. Ignore the slight difference in focus and the dof is, actually, the same, they are both reproduced the same size so there is no dof difference between crop and ff in this specific situation. Same lens, same manual exposure and flash, heavy tripod, mirror up cable release, 10X manual Live View focus on both. The important bit about this comparison is that they are the same sensor area, the same generation sensor tech, just one has over twice the pixels as the other that have been downsampled.

The 7D crop is a downsampled 722,000px, the 1Ds MkIII is a native 323,000px, I cant see the differences at well over twice the pixels, can you?

The other thing with this comparison, I deliberately set it up to favour the crop camera, i'e 200iso (the 7D's optimal iso) and f5.6, again optimal for the 7D with a 300mm f2.8. At more taxing iso levels the differences could be quite different.


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2015)

they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

candc said:


> they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?



That is because the bottom one is back focused slightly, ignore the ruler and look at the paper towel and the bottom one is sharper with more contrast. When doing stuff like this focus is everything, and way beyond AF capabilities.


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2015)

I guess your right then. It seems this "more megapixels" business is over the top and reached its useful real world limit. If you have to look that hard then its not worth dealing with the huge files.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

I have been saying that for a long time 

There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.

There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > they both look about the same but #1 seems to be a bit sharper and more contrasty. which one is which?
> ...



Impossible comparison since they are focused at two different points. Second not all firmware is created equal, for instance the original 7D had quite a bit of head room for sharpening. For a proper comparison they need to be PP for quality to there maximum level then compared. All things need to be equal for an equal comparison. 

Now is it beyond AF capabilities? No it is not. I have done the same comparison with birds and paper using the 7D II, 5D II and 1D IV. You can see the difference in MF on paper and you can see it in real world when you hit the critical focus point of the birds eye. When talking AF capabilities, the 1D body in the sample would be far more likely to hit the critical point of focus than the 7D would have.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I have been saying that for a long time
> 
> There are a few people who need or want these new sensors and fewer who will actually get the best out of them, but even me who is a full time pro and who's work often gets printed big and glossy will rarely see the difference when downsampled. Like I say, noise will be a different test, but the new sensors have been capped low anyway.
> 
> There are some very good uses for the new sensors, and I'd still get one if my work goes that way, but getting 'better' IQ from down sampling isn't a good enough reason.



I would say it pays to know why you need the additional mp and how it will benefit what you do.
Many types of photography will see no benefit and actually loose quality in their work going that way.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



The difference between my opinion and yours is, mine is backedup with actual images that illustrate my point. You are just blowing hot air.

Why do you assume I processed them both the same? I didn't, I processed them both optimally in the software I had (Adobe), that was the point for me, I didn't do these tests for you or the forum, I did them for me to see what advantages buying a 7D would have for me. Turns out I have pretty conclusive empirical results that show that going from 21 MP to a theoretical 46 MP FF sensor wouldn't do much for me if I was thinking downsampling would give me any additional IQ.

As for your AF comments, dream on, I did the same tests with AF and 10x Live View manual focus, AF is nowhere near as accurate and the differences in the above examples equate to around 2" of focus difference at 30' at f5.6 with a 300mm lens, so well within DOF limits and any normal reproduction size. Yes the 1Ds MkIII AF has a much better accuracy rate than the 7D, so what when neither of them is as accurate as live view when we are looking at resolution?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I have been saying that for a long time
> ...



Nobody should lose quality, why do you think they would? More MP won't hurt (other than file size) it just won't often give much more.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



High ISO noise, for those of us who like to shoot in the evening without flash. Lower ISO, lower shutter speed, more camera shake....


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Even equally processed, one back focused and one not kind of negates the test if it is about resolution comparison.
A test for you personally to determine if it affects your work it is fine.
I thought possibly you were making a DOF comparison and that the additional resolution wouldn't matter with the AF ability of the camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



For the same output size a down sampled higher density sensor shouldn't be noticeably worse at any given iso at reasonable output sizes, though obviously, as I already said, the two coming sensors iso's are capped low, but presumably any potential purchaser knows that and if they needed higher they wouldn't be buying one.

How big do you print your handheld evening shots with no flash?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 8, 2015)

Perhaps it is still premature to make any judgments (or evaluations) before actually Canon can deliver a product. The rumor is the end of June. So for now, I'll just wait to hear what the early adopters say. However since Canon has missed the entire shooting season in North America the last part of summer is very dry here in California and so some of my shooting work disappears. When that happens this I plan on doing tests between the new S R Canon, Canon 5DII, and my D810 printed 2' x 3'. I would expect to have the S R do the best. I'll probably use the 14-24 Nikon lens on all the cameras and then try some 2' x 4' and 2' x 5' prints (You can tell my printer is only a 24" printer). For me, that will be the proof of the pudding. How a shot looks on our very low MP monitors just does not interest me. My Canon 10D looked pretty good back 10 years ago. My monitor and video card have improved but not to judge a photograph.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



It is a perfectly legitimate comparison, if you can't see that you are just blowing more hot air. The focus difference is within even the most accurate AF tolerances, the CoC of both images considers both images critically sharp at any normal kind of reproduction size, and both have critical sharpness within the frame. The paper is less than 2" behind the ruler, DOF for the 7D at focus distance is 19", AF accuracy for the 1 series is around 1/3 minimum lens aperture which at focus distance for f2.8 and 300mm is 6", so 2" of maximum accuracy and 19" of DOF.

Not only is the comparison 100% legitimate the focus is considered well inside both accuracy and dof.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Last large print was early morning, handheld and not sure it counts since it was a Pano 30x54.
Additional resolution would not have been required.

Most everything I print is 13 x 19, the additional resolution is nice for crops.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 8, 2015)

sanj said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Short answer: No
> ...



Not a theory but reality. The best handheld technique will still impart slight movement to the exposure that will be especially visible with tele lenses.
I was able to verify this back in the film days when I chose to spend a month shooting landscapes with my 35mm camera locked down tight to a tripod and with the mirror locked up. The images were so much sharper that the difference was easily visible in even an 11x14 print. I tried to equal the sharpness while handholding the camera and even at 1/1000 sec could not.
A flash exposure was a way to ensure sharpness as the brevity of the flash eliminated the recording of movement but this was not always practical or desirable.
On a different topic, I have also stitched together very high resolution images made in studio of very detailed paintings. While the file sizes were larger and the image sharp, the increase in detail was not as great as one would think and when the low res version was printed was indistinguishable from the stitched image even at high magnification.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 8, 2015)

Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...

So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 8, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...
> 
> So, now I'm wondering whether one would get any sharpness benefit from the 5DS R (vs. the regular 5DS) if one only does handheld photography (my case).


According to the comparative tests of Nikon D800 vs. D800E, I believe that the greater theoretical sharpness of 5DSr compared to 5DS, can not be taken advantage holding the camera in his hand.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, interesting...I figured there was a difference but I always assumed that if you just used a faster shutter speed handheld you'd get equivalent sharpness. Very insightful...
> ...



The increased resolution can be seen hand held with the 7D II's pixel density with the 500mm II, its 4 stops of IS and speeds less than 1/500. Why would it not be possible to see this with the 5Ds or 5Ds R.

I could buy that with an older lens with no stabilization you may not be able to achieve a speed fast enough to see the benefit. 

I do not buy this line of discussion. Just not seeing it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



That is probably because you are looking at your results either with an in built bias or your testing isn't like for like or stringent enough.

So here are two more images from my 1Ds MkIII and 7D comparison, though I am certain this kind of thing holds true for any two same generation sensors, it has for every generation I have managed to find good files for.

The 7D is at 100% and that is a single human hair from 30' away. The other image is the same sensor area of the FF camera up sized to match, so again less than half the pixels.

After doing this test, which strongly favours the crop camera/pixel dense sensor, I concluded that a 7D, or a 48MP FF sensor, would do nothing for me in most real world shooting at normal reproduction sizes. Again, mirror lock up, live view 10X manual focus, cable release, 200iso, remote wireless flash, f5.6, massive tripod yadda yadda.

Now I grant you the 7D does have a fraction more detail, and noise, but if you have to go to this level to see this modest a difference then I, for one, don't need it.

Now if anybody anywhere can show me a similar set of images where optimal processing is done to both files and the differences are greater then I would love to see them, every comparison I have ever seen that does show a bigger difference processes the files the same, and that is ridiculous.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I did the same and similar test with the 7D vs 5D II four years ago.
I agree with your results, even if I didn't agree with the focus method on the earlier set. Any benefit was very minimal.

I bought the 7D II with the thought of making the same comparisons. The 7D II does fair better than the 7D. Later when I get time if you are really interested I will sort out the home grown test I did for the 7D II. Will not be today though, I have work I need to finish.

But lets put this in context, all my tests were geared toward the 500mm shooting birds and wildlife. All shots that require cropping. Narrow DOF as well. The 7D II resolution will only be seen if you are focal length limited and need to crop. You get a 15-25% advantage, but the negative is that if you can frame any subject properly the FF advantage is greater than the small resolution advantage you gain when you are focal length limited on a crop body. 

In general it is a narrow set of parameters that the high density crop sensor is a benefit. 
When the high mp sensor is released we will have that pixel density over the entire FF sensor. The term "focal length limited" will not come in to play.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2015)

This second set of images is specifically testing the 'focal length limited' scenario, indeed that was my main interest in the 7D, but as I am sure most will agree, there is not a 25% improvement in one over the other and whilst percentages are impossible to quantify in such subjective analysis, many would say there isn't even a 10% difference even in these optimal for the crop/pixel dense situations. 

DOF is the same for both systems when using the same lens from the same place and the reproduction size is the same, ie, if you crop them both to the same fov and then view them the same size DF is constant.

The real advantages of crop cameras in focal length limited situations are cost, the AF point spread in the frame, better viewfinder magnification of the subject, and easier framing/composition.

My two sets of crops show that we are well within the sweet spot of upsizing and downsizing for most uses, pixel density is a vastly over rated specification.

I'd like to see 5D MkIII and 7D MkII bench comparisons, again, the 7D MkII should show a big improvement over an upsized 5D MkIII image, but I bet it doesn't.

So who is going to see the benefits of the new 50MP FF sensors? Very few people, those that use good lenses and impeccable technique with good contrasty light who print big. The rest of us can easily get by with practically no IQ loss with our 18/24MP crop cameras and 24MP FF cameras and a bit of post processing techniques along with more modest output sizes.


----------



## sanj (Mar 9, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Normalnorm said:
> ...



Ok reality, not theory. Going by this reality and the type of photography I do, there would be no need for me to buy the new 50mp camera. I do need to crop my pictures often but not by a huge margin so guess am ok!


----------



## sanj (Mar 9, 2015)

Hmmmmm.


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> I am very confused and would appreciate any thoughts:
> Will the extra pixels of the new cameras make images look better - sharper/richer/subconsciously more impact full than 5d3 on my computer screen or a 2ft by 3ft print?
> I think it should. The extra mp is not just for zooming in.
> Your thoughts pls...



The short answer is yes. But not always. In these discussions people often disregard that the subject matter is part of the answer. So there is no single answer.

Lots of people will for example pretend that there is a "normal" viewing distance for a picture. There is not. Several factors decide if people will want to move in to pixel-peep a large print or stand at a distance. Including of course where its hanging just for starters.

One thing people generally _can _agree to, is that the ability to downsize can help improve the image. Depending on the subject - for instance night shots - this could make some pictures visibly better - even at screen sized viewing. In the same way you could also see a visible difference on a 2x3 ft picture - again depending on the subject.

apart from this significant gains are for cropping and even larger prints.

Magazines very often crop pictures to fit their layout. In fact my experience is that they almost _always _do. Editors therefore crave every megapix they can get. Another "crop" is making pictures ready for screen presentations. A great portrait picture will sometimes present itself better on-screen by being cropped to fit a landscape screen.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I am very confused and would appreciate any thoughts:
> ...



No, the short answer is no as my two examples illustrate.

Now I hate when people talk all authoritative and won't show simple comparisons to back up their theories. 


Maiaibing said:


> Lots of people will for example pretend that there is a "normal" viewing distance for a picture. There is not. Several factors decide if people will want to move in to pixel-peep a large print or stand at a distance. Including of course where its hanging just for starters.



Anybody that pretends there isn't a _"'normal' viewing distance"_ doesn't understand DOF and CoC criteria. There is a commonly accepted viewing distance that is what all dof calculations are based on, now you can choose to work to your own more stringent numbers, that is up to you, but there is a 'normal'.



Maiaibing said:


> One thing people generally _can _agree to, is that the ability to downsize can help improve the image. Depending on the subject - for instance night shots - this could make some pictures visibly better - even at screen sized viewing. In the same way you could also see a visible difference on a 2x3 ft picture - again depending on the subject.



Now if you'd like to provide evidence that downsizing will improve an image over the same image shot with a lower pixel density sensor then please do. My testing seems to indicate that is not the case.

What can dramatically increase image quality, particularly night images, is averaging stacked exposures. That is a technique that can be used to all but eliminate random noise.



Maiaibing said:


> apart from this significant gains are for cropping and even larger prints.



Again, my examples seem to indicate otherwise. Would you like to show us examples?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 16, 2015)

More MPs are principally about more resolution & finer detail the color imagery is not down to MP in isolation more to do with bit depth. A point many people miss when they talk about "only benefitting with a 4K or 8K monitor" is oversampling. A processed image that has been compressed will always benefit from higher resolution in the original.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 16, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> More MPs are principally about more resolution & finer detail the color imagery is not down to MP in isolation more to do with bit depth. A point many people miss when they talk about "only benefitting with a 4K or 8K monitor" is oversampling. *A processed image that has been compressed will always benefit from higher resolution in the original.*



And would you care to show any two same generation different pixel density images using the same lens that actually illustrate any meaningful difference? 

Certainly my downsampled image comparison shows that the theory doesn't translate to any meaningful, or even visible, improvement.


----------



## Aichbus (Mar 16, 2015)

I am pretty sure that the more megapixels will help a lot if you have to apply distortion / perspective correction or rotation to an image. If you can do that on a 50 Mpix image and downsize it to 22 Mpix, I am pretty sure you have a better image than if you have to do those corrections on the 22 Mpix image.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 16, 2015)

Haven't read all 5 pages, so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

IQ is limited by the weakest link. That is the lens, assuming you shoot on tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release etc. If you compare a small crop sensor body with a large sensor body, but use a bad lens, you will not see any improvements, because the lens if limiting the potential of the large sensor with small pixels. 

The important thing is also not MP count, but pixel size. So that limitation already applies on 20 MP crop sensor bodies that today have the same pixel dimensions as the 5dsr. There are very few lenses than can resolve those pixels. Look a bit more at the microscopy literature, particularly on "empty magnification", which is analogous to small pixels. Higher magnification/more pixels are not giving you more information, but only enlarged/detailed blur circles. Also check out Airy disks under optics. MF bodies with 50 MP backs have much lager pixels sizes, so have a distinct advantage in this respect. Both for resolution/sharpness, as well as tonality and shadow noise.
Bottom line: you want to take advantage of a 50 MP dSLR body, forget about zoom lenses. Some of the best prime glass money can buy may just about be sufficient. 

The downsampling of a 50 MP to a 20 MP file and comparing it to a 20 MP capture most likely does give you a better image, as mentioned by another person. You can do rough image adjustments on the 50 MP file, and tonality gets much smoother on the 20 MP resize, even if you edit in 16 bit/channel. 

my 389'900 cents


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 17, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Haven't read all 5 pages, so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.
> 
> IQ is limited by the weakest link. That is the lens, assuming you shoot on tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release etc. If you compare a small crop sensor body with a large sensor body, but use a bad lens, you will not see any improvements, because the lens if limiting the potential of the large sensor with small pixels.
> 
> ...



I think you mistook cents for Tiyin.

Your opinions are demonstrably incorrect and had you taken the time to read the preceding 5 pages you would have read that.


----------

