Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 50D @ 15MP  (Read 98212 times)
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2008, 11:57:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What does F11 have to do with resolution and/or MP?

Nothing, unless a caca lense provides too early diffraction, yea? Usually that happens at F16 or down from there, lens depending
You may be an expert in caca issues, but you need to catch up a bit regarding diffraction.
Logged

Gabor
lovell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2008, 12:09:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You may be an expert in caca issues, but you need to catch up a bit regarding diffraction.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps you need to catch up on how MP, and sensor size can benefit landscapes, and how they effect enlargements ;-)

In other words, MP does in fact matter.
Logged

After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2008, 12:47:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What raw processor are you using? I would not say there is a lack of sharpness with processing Canon files with Raw Developer.

Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I usually use DPP though I have used Raw developer and it is really very good, though DPP is only a hair away from it. I still find sharpness to be lacking though for the look I want. You should see a phase P21 file with Raw developer.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2008, 01:06:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In other words, MP does in fact matter.
I did not mention MP at all. In fact, higher MP is making diffraction worse. Judged from the 40D, diffraction will be strongly noticable on the 50D already at f/11.
Logged

Gabor
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2008, 01:13:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did not mention MP at all. In fact, higher MP is making diffraction worse. Judged from the 40D, diffraction will be strongly noticable on the 50D already at f/11.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How about we wait for the thing to come out and we'll see some tests eh? These hypothetical pseudo-scientific discussions get a little tiresome.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2008, 01:17:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How about we wait for the thing to come out and we'll see some tests eh? These hypothetical pseudo-scientific discussions get a little tiresome.
You should simply ignore the subjects you don't understand.
Logged

Gabor
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2008, 01:24:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How about we wait for the thing to come out and we'll see some tests eh? These hypothetical pseudo-scientific discussions get a little tiresome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I couldn't agree more!  It is amazing how we can take the fun and excitement out of a new product announcement by speculating about how crappy it is going to be based upon "hypothetical pseudo-scientific" criteria.  (Great term woof75)

There are lots of great features that we can discuss in a more deterministic way.  

I am pleased to see a higher resolution LCD.  I have always thought that great displays go a long way to improving usability of a product, whether it is a phone, laptop, TV, or a camera.

The micro-focus feature looks really cool too.  The ability to calibrate my lenses to my body could improve focus results, particularly for things like macro or other very shallow depth of field applications.

I am using a 30D and perhaps the most desirable feature to me is the viewfinder display of the ISO.  I can't tell you how many times I have accidentally shot at too high an ISO. ( I know that was in the 40D.)

Adjustable noise reduction sounds good, especially if I am shooting jpg candids that I don't intend to post-process.

It appears that with the custom menus the user will be able to move the mirror lockup function farther up out of the bowels of the menu-system....I guess that is progress.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2008, 01:28:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The micro-focus feature looks really cool too.  The ability to calibrate my lenses to my body could improve focus results, particularly for things like macro or other very shallow depth of field applications.
I'm betting its main use will be by idiots who will screw with it for days and weeks before resetting it to 0.

Quote
It appears that with the custom menus the user will be able to move the mirror lockup function farther up out of the bowels of the menu-system....I guess that is progress.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can do that on the 40D.  But turning live view on serves much the same purpose as MLU with the added advantage that you can pick the opportune time to hit the shutter.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2008, 01:38:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You should simply ignore the subjects you don't understand.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do and you should too.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2008, 01:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm betting its main use will be by idiots who will screw with it for days and weeks before resetting it to 0.
....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The optimism around here is positively infectious.

Another feature that I like the sound of is the ability to take smaller RAW images, particularly if it is part of a tradeoff with very high ISOs.  If I am taking indoor, nighttime, available-light photos, I am very willing to lower the resolution to have an image with lower noise.  Sounds like a trade I would take any day.  I can see using this for family gatherings or events with my 50 f/1.4 when I am using my camera in a completely different modality than when I hike in the wilderness with a long lens and a tripod.  This gives the camera a split-personality that I think increases flexibility.  

Highlight tone priority is another one that has me curious.  I can see looking at a snow-scene or a waterfall and thinking that I want to get the whites perfect and let everything else fall where it will.  That might produce some decent results.  

I will assume that this new camera will build upon the success of the 40D quality until  we have image samples that prove it is inferior.  Otherwise, all we have is a case of preemptive, premature pixel-peeping.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 01:47:05 PM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2008, 02:00:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
*clip*
I will assume that this new camera will build upon the success of the 40D quality until  we have image samples that prove it is inferior.  Otherwise, all we have is a case of preemptive, premature pixel-peeping.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not going to assume anything about it.  I need to see reviews of this one.
Logged
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2008, 02:20:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your statement is exceedling far from the truth. For landscapes, MP matters. Lots.

Or perhaps you just print 4" x 6" prints?

What does F11 have to do with resolution and/or MP?

Nothing, unless a caca lense provides too early diffraction, yea? Usually that happens at F16 or down from there, lens depending.

For landscapes, one cannot get enough MP. Of course DR is more important, but lets not throw the MP out with the bathwater.

By the way at 16" x 20" prints, you will see a difference between 40D & 50D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While the 50D looks like a VERY nice camera, I can assure you that you'll be treading into diffraction limited waters once near or past F/8 and purely from a resolution standpoint, if you shot the 40D and 50D at F/11, you'd quite likely end up with about the same overall resolution simply because of the pixel pitch of the higher MP sensor in the same APS-C space. Has nothing to do with the lens at this point.

I shoot on the other side (Nikon) with the D2X and can absolutely tell you that F/11 is the limit (probably more like F/10 if you're really critical) before diffraction robs you of sharpness - and that's with some of the very best glass Nikon makes (200/2 VR, etc), so it's not the glass - it's the pixel pitch of the sensor. This is commonly known - I'm not just talking out of my head or making something up to slam a competing brand. If Nikon comes out with a 15mp DX framed camera I'd be saying the exact same thing - in the cropped sensor, 12mp is about the sweet spot for a landscape shooter IMO.

So that's the big problem - not just with Canon, but with anyone (Nikon, Pentax, whomever) who is trying to move beyond about 12mp on a DX/APS-C cropped sensor - the pixel pitch is getting too bloody small and diffraction rears it's ugly head.

And we won't get into the higher demands on the lenses (you think the less-than-spectacular Canon wide zooms are going to shine on a 50D?) and also focus accuracy and problems with subject/camera movement. High pixel density is nice *when* you get everything right, but it requires far more technical discipline out of the photographer and requires that everything in the "chain", from support system to aperture (that isn't in diffraction city) to focus to technique is optimized or you'll never realize the full megapixel capability fo the camera. And that's with any brand - again, I'm not just picking on Canon here.


--------------------

Ultimately what I do hope is that Canon takes the sensor *technology* from the 50D and applies it in the 5D replacement. The thought of a FF camera that's affordable (relative to the 1ds-III) and maybe 18-20mp with a very nicely done sensor is somewhat of a holy grail amongst landscape folks, I think. Such a beast won't be so problematic in terms of pixel density/diffraction problems, yet it still will have decent resolution, and hopefully have nice DR. That's preferable (getting the combination correct) versus just playing marketing megapixels...

YMMV of course.

-m
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 02:41:42 PM by NashvilleMike » Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2008, 02:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Highlight tone priority is another one that has me curious.  I can see looking at a snow-scene or a waterfall and thinking that I want to get the whites perfect and let everything else fall where it will.  That might produce some decent results
You don't need to wait for any camera to achieve the same. Simply reduce the exposure by one stop, that is namely what HTP does.

Or better, you can reduce the expoxure by 1/3 or 2/3 stop and lose less of the dynamic range.

Even better, you can change to a setting, which makes the in-camera histograms resembling the raw histograms; thus you can expose "perfectly" (the technic does not guarantee a correct exposure, it only guarantees, that you can *see if* the exposure was correct).
Logged

Gabor
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2008, 03:06:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You don't need to wait for any camera to achieve the same. Simply reduce the exposure by one stop, that is namely what HTP does.

Or better, you can reduce the expoxure by 1/3 or 2/3 stop and lose less of the dynamic range.

Even better, you can change to a setting, which makes the in-camera histograms resembling the raw histograms; thus you can expose "perfectly" (the technic does not guarantee a correct exposure, it only guarantees, that you can *see if* the exposure was correct).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Obviously I can manually manipulate the exposure to get a perfect histogram.  I do that already.  This feature may make it a bit quicker and easier.  

If I understand the idea, this is like looking at your photo and picking out a pure white location and metering that instead of finding something 17% gray and metering on that.  By using the white reference instead of the 17% gray, you guarantee a well exposed image that generally follows the expose to the right rule.

Quote
You don't need to wait for any camera to achieve the same. Simply reduce the exposure by one stop, that is namely what HTP does.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you are over-simplifying.  In some cases it might reduce the exposure, in others, it might increase the exposure.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2008, 03:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you are over-simplifying.  In some cases it might reduce the exposure, in others, it might increase the exposure.
I was one of the first analyzing the effect of HTP with the 40D on the unadultered raw data. There is nothing special about that: it simply reduces the effective ISO by one stop (that's the reason it does not work with ISO 100). As the exposure remains unchanged, this is equivalent to underexposing the shot by one stop. Of course the intention is not underexposure but prevention of overexposure.

HTP is for JPEG, not for raw.
Logged

Gabor
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2008, 03:46:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow.  This camera is really getting noticed.  Right on the front page of google news from cnet:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10025886-39.html

I thought my 40D was killer deal... especially at f/8, on tripod, MLU and timer, bracket exposure, pan and stitch up to 6 shots together to create a monster 40" print of some 50-60 MP.

I guess with 12500 ISO I can tape shut the flash door.  
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2008, 03:51:59 PM »
ReplyReply

15MP on an APS-C sensor?  Isn't that overkill?  Didn't Canon learn their lesson with the 1DSMK3?

My guess is as long as the manufacturers can convince the lemmings they need more megapixels, they'll continue down this silly path, while real improvements will trickle in slowly.

I'm one of the Lemmings, the 1DsmkIII is a cracking camera and yes I'd have more pixels if they were available. The 1DsmkIII 21mp work really well.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2008, 04:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I guess with 12500 ISO I can tape shut the flash door. 
The highest real ISO of the 40D is 1600. The 50D may get 3200, but 6400 and 12800 will be faked, i.e. almost the same as to boosting the "exposure" in post processing (but the fake ISOs are reducing the DR). The Nikon D3 with much larger pixels goes up to 6400.
Logged

Gabor
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2008, 04:37:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your statement is exceedling far from the truth.  For landscapes, MP matters.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm]http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm[/url]

Read and learn, and then you can do what Thom Hogan and others (including myself) have done, and do comparisons between various pixel pitch DSLRs at various apertures and see for yourself.



As you can see, a 12 MP DSLR was reduced to no better than a 6 MP DSLR at f/16; I'm not sure why the 12 MP DSLR pulls ahead at f/22 (probably a smoother shutter), but since they both look like crap I hardly care.

As recently as today, Thom Hogan has posted at DPR on this very topic:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29080207

Quote
By the way at 16" x 20" prints, you will see a difference between 40D & 50D.


You must have done direct comparisons to make such a bold statement.  Why do I think you are blowing smoke?

The issue will be at f/11, and I will bet you that at f/8 you will see an improvement but at f/11 the 40D will pull even with the 50D because the 50D will have become diffraction limited at f/8.
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2008, 05:47:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no connection to microlenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Tell Canon.

(From PDN interview with Chuck Westfall...)

Westfall said one of the keys about the 50D is its enhanced noise reduction which is "a stop to a stop and half better than the 40D."

"Despite the fact that the pixels are smaller and one camera has a 10.1MP sensor and the other has a 15.1MP sensor, you'd think you'd have more noise but you have less," he said. "The end result is better image quality all around which allows us to extend the ISO range to 12800.

The 50D is able to achieve this because of new "gapless microlenses" on the image sensor which capture more light and generate less noise.

"It's the further evolution of a concept we've already explored. It's gotten to the point where the microlenses are totally gapless and larger which produces the best efficency on a per pixel basis. Consequently the light senstiviy portion of the pixel has increased while the non-light sensitive protion of the pixel has been shrunk down," he said. "Another part of the reason you have a cleaner signal coming out is DIGIC 4 is considerable more powerful than the DIGIC 3 and offers better noise reduction."
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad