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).

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.).

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

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)

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.