Despite this theoretical consideration, there is no evidence that continuous increases in DSLR photosite density have increased image noise or decreased dynamic range. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true.
This is slightly offtopic, but should be mentioned. For at least the last two generations of "pixel pitch" reduction, Canon has not reduced the size of the "photo diode area," but has reduced the width of the transistor area surrounding each "photo diode area."
Because of this, all the "bad things" that are supposed to happen as pixels get smaller...haven't happened because the actual photo diode area of each pixel has not gotten smaller.
Canon is squeezing more pixels into their sensors because they're reducing the amount of dead space between the photo diode areas.
pahrens wrote:
...I think the ultimate solution here is to get a 5D MII and the 7D. It will be a pain not having them together in one body though. ....
Don't you see that this is the exact conclusion that Canon wants you to draw?
RDKirk wrote:
This is slightly offtopic, but should be mentioned. For at least the last two generations of "pixel pitch" reduction, Canon has not reduced the size of the "photo diode area," but has reduced the width of the transistor area surrounding each "photo diode area."
Because of this, all the "bad things" that are supposed to happen as pixels get smaller...haven't happened because the actual photo diode area of each pixel has not gotten smaller.
Canon is squeezing more pixels into their sensors because they're reducing the amount of dead space between the photo diode areas.
I didn't think it's off-topic...The gapless microlenses in conjunction with the reduction of the transistor area are both relevant upgrades of the 7D. People seem to think it's only about pixel density...which is false.
What bothers me most about people who quote diffraction issues are not even people who shoot at apertures to have issues with it...or parrot figures based on internet theory.
Take some pictures, then you'll know when it shows up. I *always* run a series of shots like I posted on the previous page for my own knowledge and understanding whenever I get a new lens or body. Then review the results in my normal workflow....simple.
Grant808 wrote:
What bothers me most about people who quote diffraction issues are not even people who shoot at apertures to have issues with it...or parrot figures based on internet theory.
Take some pictures, then you'll know when it shows up. I *always* run a series of shots like I posted on the previous page for my own knowledge and understanding whenever I get a new lens or body. Then review the results in my normal workflow....simple.
Grant808 wrote:
Take some pictures, then you'll know when it shows up. I *always* run a series of shots like I posted on the previous page for my own knowledge and understanding whenever I get a new lens or body. Then review the results in my normal workflow....simple.
What a concept!
I think ultimately we can think of extremely small sensels as parallel to digital audio oversampling. Even when shooting at small apertures for extensive DOF, dense pixels can improve image quality by reducing artifacts, though diffraction will limit resolution. As always, the maximum possible resolution will depend upon format size and lens aperture (with "maximum possible" of course presuming an ideal lens). You need enough pixels to capture whatever the lens can provide, but adding more pixels will not make diffraction any more of a liability.
