Canon should focus on dynamic range, focus accuracy, and
lens quality, along with overall quality control. They are already decent
in these areas, but there are very few occasions where I wish I had more
pixels and many, many occasions where I wish I had more stops between
full white and full black.
full frame 21mps,12 stops of DR,no noise at iso 6400,16bit/32bit,10 fps,in a new pro series body...F-1D...f as in future proof design titanium/carbon fiber
I think 30 megapixel will be next then that will be it for a while. Glass will be next to improve and the final ground will be based upon body features and other advancements in i.q.
I'm glad the war has been about pixels though. Had we still been using 6-8 megapixel cameras then clearly the technology would have been way to slow. We need to be where we currently are.
Diminishing returns. You get to a point where more pixels simply don't add anything of value. (well, d'uhh!!!) It will take time, but if 15 Mpixel is enough to print at Super A3 (12"x19") size (and be indistinguishable from 45 Mpixel, see that item on Luminous Landscape) people will slowly come to realise that you don't have any use for very high pixel counts. 6 Mpixel is sufficient for 8"x12". Add plenty of extra leeway to crop and then even 24 Mpixel will feel like enough.
(HAH! Somehow I think the above might just be wrong, dunno why )
Tentacle wrote:
One more way to postpone the resolution limit is to move into Foveon territory again. Of course, you have to compensate for the weird way Foveon counts pixels (each of the three layers gets counted).
A 3x10 Mpixel Foveon-like sensor would have the equivalent resolution of a 16 Mpixel sensor with Bayer RGB pattern, with the pixel pitch of only a 10 Mpixel sensor. Since therer is no Bayer interpolation that needs to take place, you can get more detail from resolution limited glass.
Isn't that the technology that Sigma was/is using in their DSLR's?
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Canon were criticised for offering only 10mp with the 40D while Nikon had 12. Now they're in front, they're criticised for having too many mp. Can they ever win?
It would appear not.
It seems the most rabid mauling of Canon comes from those who have recently switched to Nikon. Kind of like those irritatingly self-righteous "reformed" smokers. I think that with folks like that anything short of a £800 D700 with a Canon badge will be met with howls of derision.
Having said that I do think there is an element of marketing to this - Especially in the consumer/prosumer markets - Megapixels sell cameras. I may be wrong here but I'm guessing that many, possibly most, x0D users will be using a kit lens and never venture outside of the green box. ie. The kind of user swayed by megapixels and little else.
To suggest that only Canon is trying to tap into this market is ridiculous though.
The problem as I see it, is that the low end to mid-range DSLR market has become a mass market. And when you want to sell your product to millions of consumers, most of them having little technical knowledge, the megapixels number is a marketing feature too atractive to ignore fpr th marketing folks. It's always much easier for a salesman to say "camera X is better than camera Y because it has more megapixels" rather than saying the lower megapixels camera has better dynamic range or high iso.
So unfortunately I don't think the megapixels war in the APS DSRL has ended yet.
Then again, as someone mentioned, the processor GHz wars ended. Intel gambled big on an architecture that was trading off instructions-per-cycle against higher clock speeds, and they ran head-on into a thermal barrier.
The Pentium 4 a.k.a. NetBurst architecture was meant to hit 6+ GHz. They stranded at 3.6. And they went back to an older CPU architecture and build on that to deliver us the Intel Core Duo, Core Quad and Core i7 processors. At lower clock frequencies... So who knows...
pcd72 wrote:
The problem as I see it, is that the low end to mid-range DSLR market has become a mass market. And when you want to sell your product to millions of consumers, most of them having little technical knowledge, the megapixels number is a marketing feature too atractive to ignore fpr th marketing folks. It's always much easier for a salesman to say "camera X is better than camera Y because it has more megapixels" rather than saying the lower megapixels camera has better dynamic range or high iso.
So unfortunately I don't think the megapixels war in the APS DSRL has ended yet....Show more →
It depends on how much they are going to sell of the 50D... Let's educate the masses
Tentacle wrote:
Then again, as someone mentioned, the processor GHz wars ended. Intel gambled big on an architecture that was trading off instructions-per-cycle against higher clock speeds, and they ran head-on into a thermal barrier.
The Pentium 4 a.k.a. NetBurst architecture was meant to hit 6+ GHz. They stranded at 3.6. And they went back to an older CPU architecture and build on that to deliver us the Intel Core Duo, Core Quad and Core i7 processors. At lower clock frequencies... So who knows...
Yeah I'm waiting for the the new Quad sensor 1D IV and dual sensor 60D - they will smoke Nikon.
Tentacle wrote:
Then again, as someone mentioned, the processor GHz wars ended. Intel gambled big on an architecture that was trading off instructions-per-cycle against higher clock speeds, and they ran head-on into a thermal barrier.
The Pentium 4 a.k.a. NetBurst architecture was meant to hit 6+ GHz. They stranded at 3.6. And they went back to an older CPU architecture and build on that to deliver us the Intel Core Duo, Core Quad and Core i7 processors. At lower clock frequencies... So who knows...
Dude, if Intel was making imaging sensors, we would have ISO 100k by now, haha
Naaah, dpreview / whoever can say anything they want, megapixels are going up.
Tentacle wrote:
Then again, as someone mentioned, the processor GHz wars ended.
Not really, the newer dual/quad core revisions are still being released with not much more than a faster clock speed.
It simply slowed down as the hardware develops way too fast for the software counterpart. For something relevant to photographers, it's only very recently Adobe released 64 bit Photoshop CS4 that also utilises GPU acceleration. I'm not sure if CS4 really take advantage of multi cores either. 64 bit has been around for several years now and GPU acceleration itself have been used by PC games for even longer.
Clock speed increase remains the best, most obvious, option for Intel/AMD to "upgrade" their CPU. I'm guessing it's the same with MP in digital cameras.
n0b0 wrote:
Not really, the newer dual/quad core revisions are still being released with not much more than a faster clock speed.
[...]
Clock speed increase remains the best, most obvious, option for Intel/AMD to "upgrade" their CPU. I'm guessing it's the same with MP in digital cameras.
Then why do both AMD and Intel give their processors rating numbers now?? I recently got myself an Intel Core Quad Q9550. Or I could have gotten an AMD Phenom X4 9950, had I gone with the other platform... They don't advertise in clockspeed anymore.
Both companies stopped optimising for speed and opted for optimising for instructions per clockcycle. Of course they still marginally improve on clock speed too, but the biggest gain is in better IPC.
looking at this post is of real interest to me as ive been deciding for some time whether to get the new 5d2 at 21mp or get the 1d3 at 10 mp. the conclusion ive come to is that people have been selling photos at A1 and A2 size in galleries using the 1d3 for ages now. will someone looking to buy a print in a gallery say "I dont like that picture, it's only 10mp" I don't think so.
the only reason i can see for the added mp is that you can crop more. why not get the right lens or get closer so you dont have to crop.
id rather see improvements in focussing, and colour ect.
Tentacle wrote:
Then why do both AMD and Intel give their processors rating numbers now?? I recently got myself an Intel Core Quad Q9550. Or I could have gotten an AMD Phenom X4 9950, had I gone with the other platform... They don't advertise in clockspeed anymore.
Both companies stopped optimising for speed and opted for optimising for instructions per clockcycle. Of course they still marginally improve on clock speed too, but the biggest gain is in better IPC.
Who knows why they choose that? marketing? The old AMD Athlon proved that higher clock speed doesn't mean better performance so I supposed it's logical for them to move away from advertising clock speed as the mark of performance.
What do they really improve in their newer chips apart from increasing clock speed, FSB and cache anyway?
It is obvious you have not done much bird or wildlife photography. I use a 500mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera and most of the time cropping is vital. (And I also use TCs) Cropping is a way of life in bird and wildlife photogrqphy. You just can not get closer or the subject is gone. Or, in the case of wildlife, it just may not be safe to get closer. Oh, the 600mm lens does not give a significant distance advantage and it sure weighs a lot more which, agian for birds and wildlife, is a major concern due to the miles you have to carry the beast over a year's time.
jaypod wrote:
looking at this post is of real interest to me as ive been deciding for some time whether to get the new 5d2 at 21mp or get the 1d3 at 10 mp. the conclusion ive come to is that people have been selling photos at A1 and A2 size in galleries using the 1d3 for ages now. will someone looking to buy a print in a gallery say "I dont like that picture, it's only 10mp" I don't think so.
the only reason i can see for the added mp is that you can crop more. why not get the right lens or get closer so you dont have to crop.
id rather see improvements in focussing, and colour ect....Show more →
)