New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 7 8 end

Archive 2011 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #1 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

alundeb wrote:
ragebot wrote:
Do you think this pix would benefit from more MP

Many interesting answers so far.

First I want to mention that I want higher resolution cameras, with the current sensor technology something in the range between 40 and 60 MP would make sense to me.

In this particular example, I have to say no, I don't think it would benefit much from more pixels. It is based on what I see, there is quite heavy sharpening applied, with strong sharpening halos, more than 1 pixel wide. Yet the detail is not sharp at pixel level. This suggests to me that the focus is ever so slightly off. It could also be a small amount of motion blur, but my guess is that the dominant limiting factor here is focus error.

IMO, different processing with interpolation of the unsharpened image, and then careful output sharpening, would not be significantly worse than an image with more pixels.

true (and I pointed this stuff out as well) but let's also just stress again the key point that such a photo, taken in bright light, with an easy background could easily have come out focused correctly and been taken with a higher shutter speed, so a photo just LIKE that one absolutely could have made use of a higher density sensor even if that exact shot with the perhaps missed AF or trace of motion would not but that seems to me to be somewhat missing the key point since if we judge everything by missed shots well then at some point you may as well just leave the lens cap on and say a 0 MP camera will do the job just fine

a white bird under direct sun is usually not something where it's crazy hard to take advantage of more MP, you can easily shoot at high enough shutter speed and have enough light, still, to not go to high isos

(although it also shows that deep in a jungle or with a poorly working af system etc. the higher density sensor may be mostly just wasting storage space)

Dec 08, 2011 at 10:20 PM

ragebot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #2 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

PetKal wrote:
ragebot wrote:

Do you think this pix would benefit from more MP

Not likely at all. Resolvable detail of action shots that distant is almost always limited by target/lens relative motion blur as well as AF inaccuracies. Then, the lens resolution comes into play including light on the target and exposure. The very last in significance would be the camera resolution.

For the sake of argument lets ignore the post processing and let me rephrase the question. Do you think this pix would benefit from my using my 1d4 instead of my 1d2 (which was the only body I had in the spring of 2008).

Dec 08, 2011 at 11:01 PM

artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #3 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

ragebot wrote:
PetKal wrote:
ragebot wrote:

Do you think this pix would benefit from more MP

Not likely at all. Resolvable detail of action shots that distant is almost always limited by target/lens relative motion blur as well as AF inaccuracies. Then, the lens resolution comes into play including light on the target and exposure. The very last in significance would be the camera resolution.

For the sake of argument lets ignore the post processing and let me rephrase the question. Do you think this pix would benefit from my using my 1d4 instead of my 1d2 (which was the only body I had in the spring of 2008).

Well we can all debate theoreticals but I think the easiest way to demonstrate the answer to this question would be to shoot a static target object with each of the two bodies and then crop/enlarge each accordingly. With all else being equal, my bet would be that you will see less pixelation and fewer artifacts from the sensor with more pixels.

Dec 08, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Trevor Sowers
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #4 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

Wow !!! I can't believe this thread is plugging on

I was just out with my 5D MKII taking photos and really enjoying what I own today!

Dec 08, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #5 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

artd wrote:

Well we can all debate theoreticals but I think the easiest way to demonstrate the answer to this question would be to shoot a static target object with each of the two bodies and then crop/enlarge each accordingly. With all else being equal, my bet would be that you will see less pixelation and fewer artifacts from the sensor with more pixels.

No make it a moving target so technique comes into play. The 1D IV should be better, but you may have to alter technique somewhat to get the best out of it.

Dec 09, 2011 at 12:01 AM

artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #6 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

Pixel Perfect wrote:
artd wrote:

Well we can all debate theoreticals but I think the easiest way to demonstrate the answer to this question would be to shoot a static target object with each of the two bodies and then crop/enlarge each accordingly. With all else being equal, my bet would be that you will see less pixelation and fewer artifacts from the sensor with more pixels.

No make it a moving target so technique comes into play. The 1D IV should be better, but you may have to alter technique somewhat to get the best out of it.
Pixelation has nothing to do with technique. Pixelation has to do with interpolation from upsizing an image or piece of an image. Less interpolation means less pixelation. More megapixels means less interpolation.

So again, all other things being equal, if you crop an image and blow up a small piece of it, the more megapixels you start with, the less pixelation you will end up with.

(The pixelation evident in the bird photo example is not a result of motion blur or inaccurate focus.)

Dec 09, 2011 at 12:28 AM

splathrop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #7 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

Another point worth mentioning: With long distance photography atmospheric conditions often limit useful resolution. I don't think you could prove that wasn't a factor in this case, with the evident over-sharpening used in an attempt to compensate. If that did happen, then using a higher-resolution body will generally just make you more conscious of the problem. You get a better picture of the static. For those old enough to remember, it's like upgrading your speakers so you can find out that everything else in your stereo system sucks.

Dec 09, 2011 at 02:34 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #8 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

splathrop wrote:
Another point worth mentioning: With long distance photography atmospheric conditions often limit useful resolution.

Exactly. This is a bigger issue than some seem to realize.

And it illustrates the fact that image quality does not come down to any single thing, but is rather related to things including sensor photo site density, lens qualities, camera stability, subject motion, aperture selection, light and color issues, ability to get the subject under the AF point, and more.

Dan

Dec 09, 2011 at 02:45 AM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #9 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

ragebot wrote:
PetKal wrote:
ragebot wrote:

Do you think this pix would benefit from more MP

Not likely at all. Resolvable detail of action shots that distant is almost always limited by target/lens relative motion blur as well as AF inaccuracies. Then, the lens resolution comes into play including light on the target and exposure. The very last in significance would be the camera resolution.

For the sake of argument lets ignore the post processing and let me rephrase the question. Do you think this pix would benefit from my using my 1d4 instead of my 1d2 (which was the only body I had in the spring of 2008).

absolutely

edit: ok some days maybe you get some bad atmospheric effects but on average and assuming you didn't chose ISO6400 and 1/30th and 10 stop ND filter and shoot on a bad day etc. yeah it would help for a shot like that most, although true certainly not all, of the time

Dec 09, 2011 at 04:10 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #10 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

artd wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
artd wrote:

Well we can all debate theoreticals but I think the easiest way to demonstrate the answer to this question would be to shoot a static target object with each of the two bodies and then crop/enlarge each accordingly. With all else being equal, my bet would be that you will see less pixelation and fewer artifacts from the sensor with more pixels.

No make it a moving target so technique comes into play. The 1D IV should be better, but you may have to alter technique somewhat to get the best out of it.
Pixelation has nothing to do with technique. Pixelation has to do with interpolation from upsizing an image or piece of an image. Less interpolation means less pixelation. More megapixels means less interpolation.

So again, all other things being equal, if you crop an image and blow up a small piece of it, the more megapixels you start with, the less pixelation you will end up with.

(The pixelation evident in the bird photo example is not a result of motion blur or inaccurate focus.)

I never mentioned pixelation in any of my posts, but feel free to add it into the argument.

You have chosen to ignore what I was saying and that's fine. Do your own experiments.

Dec 09, 2011 at 04:59 AM

alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #11 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

artd wrote:
So again, all other things being equal, if you crop an image and blow up a small piece of it, the more megapixels you start with, the less pixelation you will end up with.

(The pixelation evident in the bird photo example is not a result of motion blur or inaccurate focus.)

I agree that more pixels and less pixelation gives a nicer look even when we are beyond the point where we do not get more detail.

Just to make it clear, my opinion is just that the pixelation is the smallest of the problems in the image. The softness before sharpening is the biggest problem, and reducing pixelation would only give a minor benefit.

If you want to see examples where pixelation is a big problem, I recommend visiting the Alternative forum and find some 100% crops from the Leica M9 of architectural photos taken by denoir.

Dec 09, 2011 at 06:48 AM

Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #12 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

kewlcanon wrote:
Best available ? C'mon

David Baldwin wrote:
"5D MK II ist the best available (and afordable) camera imo up to date. So what is wrong in using it and beeing happy?"

David qouted MY comment from one page ago. It was just not shown as a "quote".
"imo" says "in my opinion". And yes this is it. 5D MK II in my opinion is the best available and still affordable camera I could and wanted to purchase.

That does not mean, there is no space for improvement for a follow up or any new competitors body.

And David is right: 7Ds AF (as long the center does not get worse) in a 5D III would be an improvement to me, too. 30MP would be fine, too (as long there is a "raw 2" mode at about 15-20MP). 2 FPS more can be a great improve, when I ever choose to use them. ISO 25k at actuals 6.400 IQ would be the biggest gift to me. If they can keep the 5D MK IIs pricing that body would be my next choise still using 5D MK II as a backup.

1D X has all what I wich and need (as long it is working

). But this camera is already priced at about 10.700- 12.000 $! (preorders including VAT) here in germany. That is far bejond I am able (and willing if I could) to spend for any camera body.

Ralph

Edited on Dec 09, 2011 at 01:16 PM · View previous versions

Dec 09, 2011 at 11:55 AM

kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #13 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

Thanks for clarifying.

Ralph Conway wrote:
kewlcanon wrote:
Best available ? C'mon

David Baldwin wrote:
"5D MK II ist the best available (and afordable) camera imo up to date. So what is wrong in using it and beeing happy?"

And David is right. 7Ds AF (as long the center does not get worse) in a 5D III would be an improvement. 30MP would be fine, too (as long there is a raw 2 at about 15-20). 2 FPS more can be a great improve, when I ever choose to use them. ISO 25k at actual 6.400 would be the biggest gift to me. If they can keep the 5D MK IIs pricing that would be my next choise still using 5D MK II as a backup.

1D X has all what I wich and need (as long it is working

). But this camera is already priced at about 10.700- 12.000 $! (for preorders, including VAT) here in germany. That is far bejond I am able (and willing if I could) to spend for a camera body.

Ralph

Dec 09, 2011 at 12:53 PM

artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #14 · New 5D Mark 3 Rumors

Pixel Perfect wrote:
artd wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
artd wrote:

Well we can all debate theoreticals but I think the easiest way to demonstrate the answer to this question would be to shoot a static target object with each of the two bodies and then crop/enlarge each accordingly. With all else being equal, my bet would be that you will see less pixelation and fewer artifacts from the sensor with more pixels.

No make it a moving target so technique comes into play. The 1D IV should be better, but you may have to alter technique somewhat to get the best out of it.
Pixelation has nothing to do with technique. Pixelation has to do with interpolation from upsizing an image or piece of an image. Less interpolation means less pixelation. More megapixels means less interpolation.

So again, all other things being equal, if you crop an image and blow up a small piece of it, the more megapixels you start with, the less pixelation you will end up with.

(The pixelation evident in the bird photo example is not a result of motion blur or inaccurate focus.)

I never mentioned pixelation in any of my posts, but feel free to add it into the argument.

You have chosen to ignore what I was saying and that's fine. Do your own experiments.
At the risk of petty debate about who is ignoring who's argument, I would say you ignored that I did mention pixelation in my post first, to which you replied no use a moving target so technique comes into play, to which I replied no, pixelation has nothing to do with technique.

I am not saying technique has no effect on image sharpness. I am saying it has nothing to do with pixelation. With all other things being equal (which for the sake of argument would include using technqiue such that both photos would have the best possible accuracy of focus, sufficiently fast shutter speed etc.) more megapixels would provide an improvement to the image by reducing the amount of resulting pixelation from blowing up the crop.

Regardless how perfect the technique, it would not improve the pixelation evident in the bird example, only more pixels would. I am not denying any of the other limiting factors present that affect sharpness. But the original question was would this photo be improved if it had more megapixels and the answer is yes because it would have less pixelation and fewer artifacts regardless of those other factors.

Dec 09, 2011 at 05:00 PM

1 2 3 … 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 7 8 end