thedigitalbean wrote:
The so-called \"mazing\" artifact is unrelated to pixel density and indications are that its a QC issue given the differences between bodies.
You are right – the \"mazing\" artifact is not caused by the pixel density itself.
The \"mazing\" results from a technique that Canon is using on the 7D sensor where the color filter is more transmissive to light - but at the same time more color-blind.
This color-blindness is correctable in software at the expense of small color artifacts.
QC issues are only exacerbating these artifacts, which in its worse form look like mazing in pictures.
Without the QC issues, the color artifacts would be smaller.
The color-blindness technique is used to combat noise.
If the 7D had a smaller number of megapixels, the color blindness technique maybe wouldn’t have been necessary and the color artifacts would have been avoided.
Btw, this technique so far has been used only on P&S cameras.
There is actually nothing wrong with having 18mp on an 1.6x sensor – provided that these are high quality, crisp, noise-free, and artifact-free megapixels. Can\'t say this is the case with the 7D.
If the new 1D4 is any indication, Canon has the technology to make a ~12mp 1.6x sensor with fantastically high, pro-level image quality (the 1D4 has the pixel density of a 10mp 1.6x sensor).
For some reason they chose 18mp with so-so image quality.
To me, 12mp with fantastically high image quality beats 18mp with so-so image quality any day.
But I guess Canon felt that so-so image quality is OK for a $1699 camera .
Nov 15, 2009 at 04:13 PM
Previous versions of jorkata's message #7779167 « 7D not good for landscape? »
.