If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
RichA wrote:
I don't think so. For resolution freaks, this will be welcome, provided it doesn't cost $2500. This is apparently a cheaper 5D II. Now, the only question is, will Nikon facing two high res camera at low prices from Canon bring out their own? One good thing, the lenses don't need to be hyper-expensive like for the FF cameras in order to properly support this chip. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...os7d.asp#specs Seems a stretch, but will impress all the wrong people. At least Canon are quite the noise masters, so could work out well (vice Sony's 14 Mpix underachiever, the 350/380/550 which is a bit soft/noisy). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
RichA wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: RichA wrote: I don't think so. For resolution freaks, this will be welcome, provided it doesn't cost $2500. This is apparently a cheaper 5D II. Now, the only question is, will Nikon facing two high res camera at low prices from Canon bring out their own? One good thing, the lenses don't need to be hyper-expensive like for the FF cameras in order to properly support this chip. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...os7d.asp#specs Seems a stretch, but will impress all the wrong people. At least Canon are quite the noise masters, so could work out well (vice Sony's 14 Mpix underachiever, the 350/380/550 which is a bit soft/noisy). I can't figure that out. Sony did not over do the noise reduction on the A850, not by a long shot so why would they do it on the lesser models? I've seen several detailed images from the Sony a350, and while okay noise wise (lower ISO) they were soft in appearance. The pixel density is very high and there is enough noise (or variance) in dynamic, so processing contributes to a softer look. A lot of that likely gets down sampled out when printing to 8x12 inches - by 16x24 it is probably noticeable - David Kilpatrick may provide more info. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
Alan Browne wrote:
I've seen several detailed images from the Sony a350, and while okay noise wise (lower ISO) they were soft in appearance. The pixel density is very high and there is enough noise (or variance) in dynamic, so processing contributes to a softer look. A lot of that likely gets down sampled out when printing to 8x12 inches - by 16x24 it is probably noticeable - David Kilpatrick may provide more info. The A350 is not really soft, it just happens to have been sold with slightly less impressive lenses. It makes too many demands on the 18-250mm which is overwhelmingly popular (that lens is actually at its best on the 10 megapixel models), it's pretty good on the 16-105mm but that lens is a medium contrast design, and it outclassed the old 18-70mm kit lens so much that very few ever kept using the 18-70mm on 14.2 megapixels. I tested the A350 using the CZ 16-80mm and got outstandingly fine detail and surprising dynamic range from raw - the colours are very realistic, and quite unlike typical Nikon colours (good and punchy) or Canon (only good and punchy if you avoid settings like Neutral or Faithful for JPEGs, which are flat and dull). I liked the non-yellowy greens, non-cyan skies, and pinkish-tendency skin tones compared to the other Sony models which tend towards a yellow warmth. The A350 has a pink warmth. Let's just say that I did not keep the A100 or A200, but I kept the A350. The A700 is in safer hands (my wife) and she does not like the A350's small finder, and hates live view composition - really does not like composing on an LCD screen at all, prefers optical finders. I find the LCD composition can be useful sometimes. I bought a second A350 because our daughter has access to some very good stock library subjects, and gave her the new body along with the 16-105mm and 55-200mm. I kept the 16-80mm. She's done some very good work, but I emphasise the need to stay below ISO 400, and this has cost her a few shooting situations. The success rate is much higher than it was when she used a Canon 400D, mainly I guess because the exposure is so much more accurate in program/matrix type mode. The 400D was all over the place, it only took a hint of bright sky and the ground would be black. I got the 400D in exchange. I thought it would have some high ISO benefits but really it doesn't. It's no better than any of the current 10 or 12 megapixel Sony models. I remember it was a lot better than the A100 - its contemporary - at the time. I now have an A380 and the new 18-55mm SAM lens does provide enough for the 14.2 megapixel image to be justified (it's not wonderful at shorter lengths wide open towards the edges, but it has plenty of company in that respect). I think the A380 kit will be sold on. I've used it for a while, written my tests, concluded there is no image quality gain over the A350. The only thing I did which might need more work was to set the A380 up on a pole, with the live view visible from below, and use a £6 IR remote made by Jianisi (slightly more powerful than Sony's trigger) to shoot pix from 12-15ft above ground. I could not really see the screen well enough to do anything except check the horizon position. But I may keep the A380 for its light weight in this context, and try the same using a long HD cable and a small HDTV compatible monitor with a longer sky-pole. I'd like to make a very low cost rig able to do 30-50ft with 14.2 megapixels. ISO 100 of course... David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: I've seen several detailed images from the Sony a350, and while okay noise wise (lower ISO) they were soft in appearance. The pixel density is very high and there is enough noise (or variance) in dynamic, so processing contributes to a softer look. A lot of that likely gets down sampled out when printing to 8x12 inches - by 16x24 it is probably noticeable - David Kilpatrick may provide more info. The A350 is not really soft, it just happens to have been sold with slightly less impressive lenses. It makes too many demands on the 18-250mm which is overwhelmingly popular (that lens is actually at its best on the 10 megapixel models), it's pretty good on the 16-105mm but that lens is a medium contrast design, and it outclassed the old 18-70mm kit lens so much that very few ever kept using the 18-70mm on 14.2 megapixels. I tested the A350 using the CZ 16-80mm and got outstandingly fine detail and surprising dynamic range from raw - the colours are very realistic, and quite unlike typical Nikon colours (good and punchy) or Canon (only good and punchy if you avoid settings like Neutral or Faithful for JPEGs, which are flat and dull). I liked the non-yellowy greens, non-cyan skies, and pinkish-tendency skin tones compared to the other Sony models which tend towards a yellow warmth. The A350 has a pink warmth. Let's just say that I did not keep the A100 or A200, but I kept the A350. The A700 is in safer hands (my wife) and she does not like the snip David From the phots I've seen, I'd not have anything to do with an APS-C over 12 Mpix, regardless of the lens. Looking at pix densities, the Canon 7D is really packing them in: For comparison: Canon 7D: 54,000 px/mm^2 Sony a380: 38,000 Sony a900: 28,550 Canon 5D2: 24,000 Will be interesting to see - though the samples I looked at on dpreview (70-200 f/4 L) suggest that it is a bit soft - same impression I get with the a350. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
... David Kilpatrick wrote: Alan Browne wrote: I've seen several detailed images from the Sony a350, and while okay noise wise (lower ISO) they were soft in appearance. The pixel density is very high and there is enough noise (or variance) in dynamic, so processing contributes to a softer look. A lot of that likely gets down sampled out when printing to 8x12 inches - by 16x24 it is probably noticeable - David Kilpatrick may provide more info. The A350 is not really soft, it just happens to have been sold with slightly less impressive lenses. It makes too many demands on the 18-250mm which is overwhelmingly popular (that lens is actually at its best on the 10 megapixel models), it's pretty good on the 16-105mm but that lens is a medium contrast design, and it outclassed the old 18-70mm kit lens so much that very few ever kept using the 18-70mm on 14.2 megapixels. I tested the A350 using the CZ 16-80mm and got outstandingly fine detail and surprising dynamic range from raw - the colours are very realistic, and quite unlike typical Nikon colours (good and punchy) or Canon (only good and punchy if you avoid settings like Neutral or Faithful for JPEGs, which are flat and dull). I liked the non-yellowy greens, non-cyan skies, and pinkish-tendency skin tones compared to the other Sony models which tend towards a yellow warmth. The A350 has a pink warmth. Let's just say that I did not keep the A100 or A200, but I kept the A350. The A700 is in safer hands (my wife) and she does not like the snip David From the phots I've seen, I'd not have anything to do with an APS-C over 12 Mpix, regardless of the lens. Looking at pix densities, the Canon 7D is really packing them in: For comparison: Canon 7D: 54,000 px/mm^2 Sony a380: 38,000 Sony a900: 28,550 Canon 5D2: 24,000 Will be interesting to see - though the samples I looked at on dpreview (70-200 f/4 L) suggest that it is a bit soft - same impression I get with the a350. Better to use pixel pitch :-) www.dxomark.com : Pixel pitch (in micrometer) a380 - 5.1 a900 - 5.9 5D - 8 5DII - 6.4 The 7D has probably 4.3 as pixel pitch The smallest pixel pitch of 1.7 you'll find at Panasonic an Olympus. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:00:40 +0200, OldBoy wrote:
For comparison: Canon 7D: 54,000 px/mm^2 Sony a380: 38,000 Sony a900: 28,550 Canon 5D2: 24,000 Will be interesting to see - though the samples I looked at on dpreview (70-200 f/4 L) suggest that it is a bit soft - same impression I get with the a350. Better to use pixel pitch :-) www.dxomark.com : Why is that better? Their pixel pitch is simply calculated by dividing sensor size by the number of pixels. Just like the number of pixels per square cm or mm, it doesn't say anything about the size/sensitivity of the pixels. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
OldBoy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... David Kilpatrick wrote: Alan Browne wrote: I've seen several detailed images from the Sony a350, and while okay noise wise (lower ISO) they were soft in appearance. The pixel density is very high and there is enough noise (or variance) in dynamic, so processing contributes to a softer look. A lot of that likely gets down sampled out when printing to 8x12 inches - by 16x24 it is probably noticeable - David Kilpatrick may provide more info. The A350 is not really soft, it just happens to have been sold with slightly less impressive lenses. It makes too many demands on the 18-250mm which is overwhelmingly popular (that lens is actually at its best on the 10 megapixel models), it's pretty good on the 16-105mm but that lens is a medium contrast design, and it outclassed the old 18-70mm kit lens so much that very few ever kept using the 18-70mm on 14.2 megapixels. I tested the A350 using the CZ 16-80mm and got outstandingly fine detail and surprising dynamic range from raw - the colours are very realistic, and quite unlike typical Nikon colours (good and punchy) or Canon (only good and punchy if you avoid settings like Neutral or Faithful for JPEGs, which are flat and dull). I liked the non-yellowy greens, non-cyan skies, and pinkish-tendency skin tones compared to the other Sony models which tend towards a yellow warmth. The A350 has a pink warmth. Let's just say that I did not keep the A100 or A200, but I kept the A350. The A700 is in safer hands (my wife) and she does not like the snip David From the phots I've seen, I'd not have anything to do with an APS-C over 12 Mpix, regardless of the lens. Looking at pix densities, the Canon 7D is really packing them in: For comparison: Canon 7D: 54,000 px/mm^2 Sony a380: 38,000 Sony a900: 28,550 Canon 5D2: 24,000 Will be interesting to see - though the samples I looked at on dpreview (70-200 f/4 L) suggest that it is a bit soft - same impression I get with the a350. Better to use pixel pitch :-) www.dxomark.com : Pixel pitch (in micrometer) a380 - 5.1 a900 - 5.9 5D - 8 5DII - 6.4 The 7D has probably 4.3 as pixel pitch The smallest pixel pitch of 1.7 you'll find at Panasonic an Olympus. That is the better metric for signal/noise, yes. But I'm also thinking of resolution that for many lenses will be wasted. The actual pixel pitch of the 7D is 4.3 um (Congrats to your Google skills). Hoping that backlit sensors get to APS-C and even FF soon (soon = 2 to 4 years for APS-C and FF resp.). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
For what it's worth, I did not like the 50D/500D results much. I know
exactly what Alan means by the softness - it's a kind of vagueness to the detail, more like a consumer cam even with raw development, and because it looks this way fine noise is more visible. The A350 and the Pentax K20D do not quite reach this point. With Canon I have had one problem - the lens quality. I've gone back to Canon and even sent in raw files (5D MkII) where needed. Even the 'L' designation is not enough to ensure the required result if the lens is a wide or wide-to-portrait/tele zoom. I assume the new 15-85mm is there to address this problem - it is specifically listed as a high quality standard zoom. They may also have picked up on my (and others) repeated mention that 18-XXX is not the same on 1.6X as it is on 1.5X and that Canon needed a 15mm-XXX to compete with others 16mm-XXX designs. Especially the Nikon 16-85mm VR which is brilliant bit of design, one of the best such lenses ever (better than the Sony CZ 16-80mm in many ways, especially CA). I'll wait to see the 7D hopefully with the 15-85mm. Canon have faced more competition than ever before, in the past they have made the effort and beaten it off. I would not be surprised if they prove to have done the same again. I see that one photolibrary newsletter mentioned the 7D today as a possible major turning-point - one of those cameras which might change things. David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
David Kilpatrick writes:
I see that one photolibrary newsletter mentioned the 7D today as a possible major turning-point - one of those cameras which might change things. Did they mention why? The small amount of extra resolution doesn't seem revolutionary. -Miles -- Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?
Miles Bader wrote:
David Kilpatrick writes: I see that one photolibrary newsletter mentioned the 7D today as a possible major turning-point - one of those cameras which might change things. Did they mention why? The small amount of extra resolution doesn't seem revolutionary. What about (from the POV of Canon cameras anyway) in an "affordable" APS-c camera: 100% viewfinder of a decent size for a crop camera. On-demand gridlines Virtual horizon 8fps continuous shooting AF system to keep up (hopefully) Weather sealing Integrated flash commander There are probably others I missed. It's a very significant upgrade. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far? | Giftzwerg | Digital SLR Cameras | 125 | September 17th 09 01:14 AM |
18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far? | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 13 | September 3rd 09 08:14 PM |