stanj wrote:
So you saying that the DR of the D30 was better than that of the 50D? Or that of the 1Ds better than that of the 1Ds3? I don't know, thats why I was asking the question, but I got a question back
Emmet Otter wrote:
I don't know, thats why I was asking the question, but I got a question back
You started out by saying that you'd be dissapointed (sic), without giving any reason, other than speculation that the DR would somehow automatically be worse. My point is that all the people who have been historically decrying more pixels as a bad thing for reasons of noise, DR, this and that, have pretty much always, with very few exceptions, been proven wrong.
Going to FF (vs. 50D) gives an improvement of 1.35 f-stops, if my calculation is correct, aside from any sensor quality improvements. Higher resolution doesn't (necessarily) impact the dynamic range of the whole image. It just means that you are not always getting as much additional detail information as you are hoping for, since the additional resolution may be counter-balanced by more noise per pixel.
stanj wrote:
You started out by saying that you'd be dissapointed (sic), without giving any reason, other than speculation that the DR would somehow automatically be worse. My point is that all the people who have been historically decrying more pixels as a bad thing for reasons of noise, DR, this and that, have pretty much always, with very few exceptions, been proven wrong.
Thats just the thing, I do read a lot of people wishing for canon to maintain the same MP for those reasons. I dont have a FF camera yet but was taking the majoritys word into consideration for IQ concern. I am not a sensor/processor geek but I am concerned about image quality.
tayo wrote:
Going to FF (vs. 50D) gives an improvement of 1.35 f-stops, if my calculation is correct, aside from any sensor quality improvements. Higher resolution doesn't (necessarily) impact the dynamic range of the whole image. It just means that you are not always getting as much additional detail information as you are hoping for, since the additional resolution may be counter-balanced by more noise per pixel.
(Edited)
Edited by tayo on Sep 10, 2008 at 03:47 PM GMT I guess i'm learning something new everyday. I just need these things to be explained in lamens terms
Emmet Otter wrote:
Thats just the thing, I do read a lot of people wishing for canon to maintain the same MP for those reasons. I dont have a FF camera yet but was taking the majoritys word into consideration for IQ concern. I am not a sensor/processor geek but I am concerned about image quality.
Well then it's about time to start forming your own, educated opinion. I don't think there's any argument that the D30 had more noise than the 50D, despite having 1/5 of the pixels in the same area. People always freak out (and there's really no other word for it) assuming that all things stay the same and only the pixels get smaller, forgetting that the whole camera has changed. It's like comparing a (pick your displacement) engine from 1930 to today's. No, it didn't make nearly as much progress as one may wish for, mainly because there was no desire to do so, but come on, just because it has more HP per displacement it doesn't consume any more fuel.
The viewfinder hump definitely takes cues from the Mark III 1-series bodies. It's not completely smooth like the 5D's or the pre-Mark III bodies, but instead has those two edge lines along the length of the hump. Could be nothing, or could mean 100% viewfinder.
When i first noticed that eosfun put eosfun in his messages I thought it was odd, and sometimes a bit contrived. Maybe even annoying if you're in a bad mood. Then after reading a few more of his posts, I realised that he was a cheerful, friendly, helpful and interesting character, who is always having... fun. These days I always look forward to his posts because of his uplifting attitude and insight. eosfun, thanks for always encouraging us to have fun with our eos. Your farts smell of roses. Keep up the good work.
If 24MP is true the native Iso imo could still be 6400 at the current 1600 IQ. That would match my needs in Iso and overrun resolution. It would make 170 DPI instead of the 150 DPI (90x60cm prints) I wished. Much freedom for crops and future.
Well then it's about time to start forming your own, educated opinion. I don't think there's any argument that the D30 had more noise than the 50D, despite having 1/5 of the pixels in the same area. People always freak out (and there's really no other word for it) assuming that all things stay the same and only the pixels get smaller, forgetting that the whole camera has changed. It's like comparing a (pick your displacement) engine from 1930 to today's. No, it didn't make nearly as much progress as one may wish for, mainly because there was no desire to do so, but come on, just because it has more HP per displacement it doesn't consume any more fuel....Show more →
The argument now (not my argument by the way--I welcome more resolution, if the quality of everything else can be kept at least the same) is that Canon would certainly be able to reduce noise if they weren't "squandering" R&D on more resolution.
AFAIK, resolution may be a much easier technical problem. At any rate, even the medium format back makers are into a breakneck resolution race, and Canon probably correctly deduces that their intended market for cameras like the 5D and 1Ds are looking at them more as cheaper and faster high-IQ machines. It's true enough that among American portrait and wedding photographers, it has been the resolution of the 5D that has pulled them away from their Mamiyas.
bobbytan wrote:
If Canon can cram 21 megapixels into the 1Ds3 successfully with a Digic III processor, why can't they increase another 3 megapixels with Digic IV?
