Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Link to Interview with Canon EOS Big Boss  (Read 9529 times)
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« on: October 03, 2008, 10:20:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Read fascinating and revealing interview with head honcho at Canon Cameras, Masaya Maeda:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302...oninterview.asp


Best,
Bruce
Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2008, 11:13:47 AM »
ReplyReply

That seems to explain some of the reasoning behind the 5D2 using what many consider to be an inferior AF system. I don't know if it will sarify the naysayers.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2008, 11:42:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Read fascinating and revealing interview with head honcho at Canon Cameras, Masaya Maeda:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302...oninterview.asp
Best,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps you could get this discussion started by specifying what you think is "fascinating and revealing" about the interview.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2008, 11:49:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps you could get this discussion started by specifying what you think is "fascinating and revealing" about the interview.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the thing that was most interesting was the discussion about reaching the limits of diffraction.

Quote
Now we have tiny compact camera sensors with over 14 million pixels are we getting to the point where resolution is being limited by the lens?

 
Quote
  "Again we can"t go into detail but the lenses themselves are good enough; diffraction is beginning to be the limiting factor when closing down the aperture."
There  was a lot of discussion here about when pixel-pitches get so small as to outresolve the lens.  At that point you are only capturing fuzzy detail, so why bother.  Canon didn't seem to offer any spin on this fact and later admitted that they may need to improve their lens lineup to deal with this.  

At first, digital cameras didn't get as much from the lenses as film.  Now it is getting to the point where the digital cameras are easily outresolving the lenses and may demand upgrades...what a great new revenue stream for Canon. I can see it now "Canon 50mm f/1.0 L-Pro."

Quote
Would you ever consider removing the anti alias (low pass) filter - or using a lighter one - on high end, high resolution models such as the EOS 1Ds Mark III, to improve pixel level sharpness, removing any moiré in software (like medium format cameras)?
Quote
    "We believe the potential for false color moiré effects would be a disadvantage for the customer, so no."

I also was disappointed about their commitment to anti-alias filters.  I have seriously considered sending my camera off to have the filter removed.  If I get the 50D, it might be tempting to have my 30D filter removed.  Too bad it is soo expensive.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 308



« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2008, 03:28:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
Perhaps you could get this discussion started by specifying what you think is "fascinating and revealing" about the interview.

What fike said.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2008, 05:43:46 PM »
ReplyReply

"We believe the users benefit from being able to trim or crop their pictures, and also to produce large prints, and most of these benefits we aim to provide by increasing megapixels."

I believe this is a mistake driven by simplistic marketing.  This was a reply to a question about the G10 and its excessive number of megapixels, but it applies to the 50D and 5DII as well.  Consider that Maeda san is arguing having extra megapixels is primarily a solution to poor framing or lack of lens reach.  Well greater detail is gained in larger prints if the lens is kept at or near wide open, it comes at a cost of noise.  Now you pay the price of larger file sizes for every image you take, even when you will only need those extra pixels very infrequently to print really large.  Ironically, Maeda san concedes that diffraction at smaller apertures also limits the efficacy of these extra pixels and when pressed on this he said, "To some extent I agree with you, which is why we're looking at the possibility of adding diversity to the G10, which would be the answer to those looking for something other than high megapixel count."  However, there is no indication whatsoever, anywhere in Canon's line that they will go in this direction.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 05:45:39 PM by Tony Beach » Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2008, 06:45:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
"We believe the users benefit from being able to trim or crop their pictures, and also to produce large prints, and most of these benefits we aim to provide by increasing megapixels."

I believe this is a mistake driven by simplistic marketing.  This was a reply to a question about the G10 and its excessive number of megapixels, but it applies to the 50D and 5DII as well.  Consider that Maeda san is arguing having extra megapixels is primarily a solution to poor framing or lack of lens reach.  Well greater detail is gained in larger prints if the lens is kept at or near wide open, it comes at a cost of noise.  Now you pay the price of larger file sizes for every image you take, even when you will only need those extra pixels very infrequently to print really large.  Ironically, Maeda san concedes that diffraction at smaller apertures also limits the efficacy of these extra pixels and when pressed on this he said, "To some extent I agree with you, which is why we're looking at the possibility of adding diversity to the G10, which would be the answer to those looking for something other than high megapixel count."  However, there is no indication whatsoever, anywhere in Canon's line that they will go in this direction.

Tony,

What you, DPR, and others who naysay larger pixel density seem to disregard in your arguments is that sensor technology leading to lower noise, greater sensitivity, and deeper wells is evolving and not static.  We have been through this discussion many times, notably most recently on the long 5D Mark II announcement thread.  It is not as though the science is currently up against any fundamental limitations of physics, as far as I know.  The quality of the 5D Mark II pixels is not to be confused with either the quality of 5D pixels or even of 1Ds Mark III pixels, for that matter.  Maeda-san also makes that point in the interview.  (That was one of the "revealing" aspects of the interview, by the way, in partial answer to your earlier question... in essence an admission that the 5D Mark II surpasses the 1Ds Mark III IQ.)  And, Canon technical press releases provide a not insignificant amount of detail as to how Canon has achieved higher pixel performance while increasing density.

And yet, one after another of your forum statements appear to presume that pixel performance (per pixel area, let's say) has been and continues to be static.  That is not a reasonable position.  In as much as you seem to be Nikon-centric, think of it this way:  If IQ per pixel area were static, why is it that D3 IQ is generally considered to be superior to 5D IQ?  Reason: A two-year plus jump in sensor technology.

I fear that you are unreasonably painting yourself into a corner.  What are you going to say when the reviews are published showing the 5D Mark II IQ to be equal or superior to that of the old, 12 mp 5D?  Maybe you will simply disagree with the judgment of the reviewers?  Judging by the queues that are forming to buy the 5D Mark II, it appears that most people get this.

I predict that within 10 years the MF market will have all but dried up because the 1Ds Mark xx (and Nikon equivalents, of course) will be at current-day MF IQ at 40mp and very few photographers will care to spend lavish amounts of money for the tiny incremental gains that MF will provide.

Bruce

 
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2008, 06:48:22 PM »
ReplyReply

As far as I'm aware, Canon have never produced a DSLR which has more noise than a previous model with fewer pixels, when equal size images are compared from same format DSLRs.

Comparing the noise of individual pixels is another matter. The larger pixel then usually has the advantage, but not always. I recall the dpreview comparison between the 1Ds and the D60 which demonstrated that a 1Ds pixel was actually slightly noisier than a D60 pixel, up to ISO 400. However, because a 1Ds image consists of substantially more pixels than a D60 image, noise in the 1Ds image is less noticeable when comparing equal size prints or equal size screen images.

When Canon reaches the point where increasing the number of pixels would actually increases the amount of visible noise in the image as a whole, then that's the point where they should stop.

I don't believe there will be any circumstances where a 15mp 50D will show more noise or fuzzier results than a 20D, 30D or 40D. However, there will be circumstances where a 50D image, using a good quality prime at its optimum aperture, will produce slightly sharper and more detailed results than the previous cropped format models mentioned. (It is assumed in this statement, that we are referring to the same subject and the same lens from the same distance to subject, used at the same aperture and the same shutter speed.)
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2008, 07:30:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BruceHouston
What you, DPR, and others who naysay larger pixel density seem to disregard in your arguments is that sensor technology leading to lower noise, greater sensitivity, and deeper wells is evolving and not static.

You can add the head of the entire camera division at Canon to the list, Maeda san pretty much conceded that higher pixel density limits the resolution attainable at smaller apertures.  This isn't even up for discussion among anyone who understands the most basic fundamentals of the optical properties of lenses and apertures.

Quote
We have been through this discussion many times, notably most recently on the long 5D Mark II announcement thread.  It is not as though the science is currently up against any fundamental limitations of physics, as far as I know.

Right, as far as you know, which is because you have not yet grasped the fundamental limitations of diffraction and how it is recorded by more tightly packed sensors.

Here's the point about the 5DII being better than the 5d in terms of noise -- I never said it wasn't; however, we'll find out eventually when the camera is actually in the hands of its many enthusiasts.  My point is that the 5DII could be better than it is if it had larger photosites, and that's a trade-off that Canon has made to pander to those that seem to think that the solution to their photographic needs is to have more pixels.  Yes, at wider apertures you will be able to use those extra pixels if you print large enough, but 99% or more of all prints coming from these cameras will not require anywhere near the number or pixels they generate.  For most users the price of the one or two huge prints they adorn their homes with will be doubling the size of every file they save on a memory card, store on their hard drive, edit in Photoshop, and have to archive.

Now what I found interesting about the interview was that Maeda san said Canon is considering delivering lower MP cameras to address the needs of photographers who are not caught up in the "more is always better" mentality that grips the industry at this time.   Peculiarly, you wrote that you agreed with Marc, but then you turned around and contradicted that by taking issue with me.  Perhaps you are letting your previously formed opinion about me cloud your judgment; anyway, I will spare myself from arguing with you any further on this and add you to my "Ignore User" list, which I am finding to be quite liberating.
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2008, 07:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fike
I also was disappointed about their commitment to anti-alias filters.  I have seriously considered sending my camera off to have the filter removed.  If I get the 50D, it might be tempting to have my 30D filter removed.  Too bad it is soo expensive.

Optical low pass filters are essential for sampling theory, the basis of digitizing the image coming into the camera to work. They're doubly necessary on a bayer pattern colour filter array camera to avoid the worst of chroma moire and other issues. To ask Canon to not put in an OLPF is to ask them to incorrectly engineer their camera, and although we all have complaints about features of Canon cameras (useless print buttons and mirror lockup lacking a specific button) Canon do engineer things correctly.

If you don't want an OLFP buy a Sigma or a Leica, or one of those medium format cameras that show moire everywhere.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2008, 08:01:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Graeme Nattress
Optical low pass filters are essential for sampling theory, the basis of digitizing the image coming into the camera to work.

I don't have one on my D200 converted to IR, and I have yet to see any moire on it.
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2008, 08:33:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
You can add the head of the entire camera division at Canon to the list, Maeda san pretty much conceded that higher pixel density limits the resolution attainable at smaller apertures.  This isn't even up for discussion among anyone who understands the most basic fundamentals of the optical properties of lenses and apertures.



Right, as far as you know, which is because you have not yet grasped the fundamental limitations of diffraction and how it is recorded by more tightly packed sensors.

Here's the point about the 5DII being better than the 5d in terms of noise -- I never said it wasn't; however, we'll find out eventually when the camera is actually in the hands of its many enthusiasts.  My point is that the 5DII could be better than it is if it had larger photosites, and that's a trade-off that Canon has made to pander to those that seem to think that the solution to their photographic needs is to have more pixels.  Yes, at wider apertures you will be able to use those extra pixels if you print large enough, but 99% or more of all prints coming from these cameras will not require anywhere near the number or pixels they generate.  For most users the price of the one or two huge prints they adorn their homes with will be doubling the size of every file they save on a memory card, store on their hard drive, edit in Photoshop, and have to archive.

Now what I found interesting about the interview was that Maeda san said Canon is considering delivering lower MP cameras to address the needs of photographers who are not caught up in the "more is always better" mentality that grips the industry at this time.   Peculiarly, you wrote that you agreed with Marc, but then you turned around and contradicted that by taking issue with me.  Perhaps you are letting your previously formed opinion about me cloud your judgment; anyway, I will spare myself from arguing with you any further on this and add you to my "Ignore User" list, which I am finding to be quite liberating.

Oops; sorry Tony.  I did not mean to offend you.

Best,
Bruce
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2008, 08:45:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BruceHouston
Oops; sorry Tony.  I did not mean to offend you.

I'm not offended, I just don't have time to read posts like yours.  Being flippant does not compensate for attributing things to me that I did not write; or for exhibiting a lack of understanding of what the limitations are to increasing pixel pitch density, or the costs of generating larger files that will prove unnecessary for the vast majority of users the vast majority of the time.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2008, 09:03:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
I don't have one on my D200 converted to IR, and I have yet to see any moire on it.

Same here with an XT.
Logged

aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2008, 09:09:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
My point is that the 5DII could be better than it is if it had larger photosites, and that's a trade-off that Canon has made to pander to those that seem to think that the solution to their photographic needs is to have more pixels.

Canon's release of the 5DII with the 21MP Full-frame sensor, was not "pandering" to anyone.  The one and only reason why Canon released the 5DII with the 21MP was due to Sony twisting their arm by releasing the A900 Full-frame, with the 24.6MP sensor (announced almost a year back).

Simply introducing a 21MP sensor is just half the story.  This 21MP will need high-end processors to crunch the massive amounts of image data that will come off the sensor - hence taking a hit on FPS.  Also, once the data is processed, the data pipeline further downstream, will need to be robust enough to transport such gargantuan data volumes (especially when shot at say 5FPS at 21MP resolution etc) from the capture area to the buffer/CF-storage.  

All of this high-end componentry that makes all of the above happen costs money, and Canon would have frankly preferred to have come out with a 16MP sensor than the more challenging 21MP sensor - believe it or not !

When Sony's Full-frame camera comes with a 100% viewfinder that is larger than the Viewfinder of the 1DSMKII and the Nikon D3, with IS built into the body thus stabilizing the 35mm primes, the 50mm primes, the 85mm primes, the 135mm primes, the 24-70 f/2.8, the 16-35 f/2.8 etc., along with 5FPS at 24.6MP resolution and pairable with ultra-high-end Carl Zeiss lenses (with Auto-focus), Canon too have to step up their game, since the "full-frame body marketshare" has a strategic impact to long-term viability of the system.  When an electronics giant like Sony snaps up a traditional Photography company like Konica Minolta and then introduce a Full-frame a couple of years later, Canon knows that they don't intend to play second fiddle for too long and they have started to push hard......."pandering" was the last thing on Canon's mind, when they were forced to introduce the 21MP FF sensor in the 5DII, to be quite honest.

Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2008, 01:53:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
Canon's release of the 5DII with the 21MP Full-frame sensor, was not "pandering" to anyone.  The one and only reason why Canon released the 5DII with the 21MP was due to Sony twisting their arm by releasing the A900 Full-frame, with the 24.6MP sensor (announced almost a year back).

Simply introducing a 21MP sensor is just half the story.  This 21MP will need high-end processors to crunch the massive amounts of image data that will come off the sensor - hence taking a hit on FPS.  Also, once the data is processed, the data pipeline further downstream, will need to be robust enough to transport such gargantuan data volumes (especially when shot at say 5FPS at 21MP resolution etc) from the capture area to the buffer/CF-storage.  

All of this high-end componentry that makes all of the above happen costs money, and Canon would have frankly preferred to have come out with a 16MP sensor than the more challenging 21MP sensor - believe it or not !

When Sony's Full-frame camera comes with a 100% viewfinder that is larger than the Viewfinder of the 1DSMKII and the Nikon D3, with IS built into the body thus stabilizing the 35mm primes, the 50mm primes, the 85mm primes, the 135mm primes, the 24-70 f/2.8, the 16-35 f/2.8 etc., along with 5FPS at 24.6MP resolution and pairable with ultra-high-end Carl Zeiss lenses (with Auto-focus), Canon too have to step up their game, since the "full-frame body marketshare" has a strategic impact to long-term viability of the system.  When an electronics giant like Sony snaps up a traditional Photography company like Konica Minolta and then introduce a Full-frame a couple of years later, Canon knows that they don't intend to play second fiddle for too long and they have started to push hard......."pandering" was the last thing on Canon's mind, when they were forced to introduce the 21MP FF sensor in the 5DII, to be quite honest.


Why ? refining a already designed 21MP sensor is a LOT cheaper than designing a new 16Mp sensor.
Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652


« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2008, 09:02:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
I don't have one on my D200 converted to IR, and I have yet to see any moire on it.
OTOH I have seen moire in photos from an unmodified D200.
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2008, 09:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
You can add the head of the entire camera division at Canon to the list, Maeda san pretty much conceded that higher pixel density limits the resolution attainable at smaller apertures.  This isn't even up for discussion among anyone who understands the most basic fundamentals of the optical properties of lenses and apertures.

Your attitude towards diffraction seems to involve a bit of misinterpretation. Any given pixel density has a certain diffraction limit, yes. On, say, the 6mp rebel, lets say you could shoot at f/16 and not get diffraction limitation until f22. Then lets say the 10mp xTi can only go to f11 before you start seeing the resolution drop. And lets say (this probably isn't accurate, but we're being hypothetical) that with the 15mp 50D it shows up at f8. The thing is, at f11, you'd still get the same resolution as the xTi would, and at f16 you still get the same resolution as the rebel. In this scenario, the most resolution you can get from APS-C at f16 is 6mp equivalent, the most you can get at f11 is 10mp equivalent, and the most you can get at f8 is 15mp equivalent. Sure, you could say "we're only going to make it 6mp so that we don't see diffraction until f22" but then you're also limited to 6mp at all the larger apertures. It's not as if diffraction is an effect of the pixel density, it's a property of the light coming through the lens. It's just that we can see the effects more clearly when we have greater pixel densities. If it were, you would get more resolution from the rebel at f16 than you would from the 50D. But you won't you'll get the same.

So why would manufacturers limit pixel density for fear of diffraction? Higher pixel densities will achieve the same resolution at smaller apertures as the lower pixel densities would, and they'll achieve higher resolution at the larger apertures before diffraction comes into effect. Perhaps someday manufacturers will implement a feature that downsamples to account for diffraction depending on the shooting aperture. In this hypothetical, the 50D might downsample all RAW or jpeg files shot at f16 to 6mp, and all shot at f11 to 10mp, like sRAW. That way you wouldn't have to deal with storing and moving around the extra data that isn't really helping you.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2008, 11:15:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Er1kksen
So why would manufacturers limit pixel density for fear of diffraction? Higher pixel densities will achieve the same resolution at smaller apertures as the lower pixel densities would, and they'll achieve higher resolution at the larger apertures before diffraction comes into effect. Perhaps someday manufacturers will implement a feature that downsamples to account for diffraction depending on the shooting aperture. In this hypothetical, the 50D might downsample all RAW or jpeg files shot at f16 to 6mp, and all shot at f11 to 10mp, like sRAW. That way you wouldn't have to deal with storing and moving around the extra data that isn't really helping you.

I would take exception with the first sentence of your reply as my interpretation is essentially the same as the rest of your reply.  As to why would manufacturers limit pixel density, well to keep files from becoming unnecessarily large.

In my opinion, Canon's three most recently released cameras are all suffering from excessive megapixel syndrome.  I think The G10 should be going in the other direction completely, 6 million quality pixels would be much better for such a small sensor.  I think the 50D would be good for use with longer focal lengths when greater reach is desired, for most portraiture though it would be overkill, and for landscapes it would be no better than the 40D for me because I simply have to stop lenses down to around f/11 or the image circle is too small and the lenses' edge performance is challenged.  For the 5DII, I would want a cropped mode as not every image needs to be full frame or 21 MP.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 11:16:12 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2008, 05:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Er1kksen
So why would manufacturers limit pixel density for fear of diffraction? Higher pixel densities will achieve the same resolution at smaller apertures as the lower pixel densities would, and they'll achieve higher resolution at the larger apertures before diffraction comes into effect.

My tests have shown so far that the higher pixel density of the 50D actually shows slightly more detail than the 5D, even at F22, using the Canon 100-400 at 400mm from the same position. Of course, the increase in detail is more obvious at F8, thus confirming that the real benefits of the high pixel-density cropped format are as a lens extender with no exposure penalty.

However, I should mention that such increased detail at F22 would be noticeable only in a very large print upon close inspection, or at 100% enlargement on the monitor. It's more clearly noticeable at 200% enlargement and at 300%, hits you in the eye.

Tony seems to be under the false impression that there's a brick wall regarding diffraction. At one F stop there's a marginal increase in detail, then one stop further down there's zilch. That's not so.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad