More shots in the Megapixel Wars

<p>The latest noise reduction advances seem to be sparking another round in the megapixel wars. Sony and Samsung are off the mark with 20+ megapixel interchangeable lens cameras. The Sony has some 24 MP translucent-mirror cameras and a new NEX 7, while Samsung just has their 20 MP mirrorless camera. </p>

<p>I am curious to see if Canon retaliates with a high-megapixel rebel in the near future. I honestly don't care much about more megapixels, but marketing people probably do care. I am waiting on a rebel-sized camera with better controls or a 7D style camera with a swivel screen and fast AF in live view.</p>

<p>I think Canon will wait for Nikon to do something first, so they can then introduce something bigger and better.</p>

<p>I ask you, has that not been the history of these 'advances'?</p>

<p>Canon has stumbled on a downed UFO and has a huge bag of alien technology that they draw on.<br>

The facility is called "Area 6D". ;)</p>

<p>Sony has had a 24MP camera out for some time now. 24MP is insignificantly more photosites than Canon's 21MP body. That said, there will certainly be cameras with more photosites in the full frame format before long.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think Canon will wait for Nikon to do something first, so they can then introduce something bigger and better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It takes years to develop a camera model so whatever Nikons and Canons of this world might announce this year already exists in a finished form. Yeah, each company may have several similar models with different pixel count, etc., in the wings, sort of waiting for one another's move before deciding which one to release, but if Canon announces- say - a 36 megapixel camera next month, Nikon will not match Canon anytime soon unless they too already have such a camera ready to go.</p>

<p>MP will climb higher and higher, there is no good reason for them not to and many good reasons for them to. In ten years I'd be surprised to not have 200 mp ff cameras, that is just the same as today's P&S cameras scaled up so the technology is already there.</p>

<p>The full frame equivalent of the Sony would be 57 Megapixel and the Samsung is 47. I find my 7D tends to outperform my lenses a little and this is the full frame equivalent of a 47 mega pixel full frame sensor. Thus I think that 36 MP on full frame is probably where Canon and Nikon head next (or 32 or something) but as they approach 50 I think IQ will start to suffer. Since my lenses are all Canons best (the weakest ones are the 50 F1.4 and 35 F2 - after that the next poorest is the 16-35 F2.8 II - I am not counting my Sigma 8mm fisheye) and they are pushed to the limit on the 7D I can only wonder what consumer grade zooms (e.g. 18-270mm superzooms) produce on a sensor as densely packed as the Sony. I am guessing that we will get to about 60 MP full frame equivalent and then sense will prevail. We may well see the Hassy sensor shift technology at some point. Based on the glass I have I would imagine a full frame 200 MP sensor will just show up lens performance.</p>

<p>Jeez, Michael L, I suppose you didn't see the part about Area 6D, eh?</p>

<p>Area 6D? Is that in Roswell, too? ;-)</p>

<p>Ok, a little sanity check here if you please. "I find my 7D tends to outperform my lenses a little and this is the full frame equivalent of a 47 mega pixel full frame sensor." 18 times 1.6 equals 28.8, not 47. and full frame twice in the same sentence,... redundant much? also area 6D is in Towadako Japan. It is a secret underwater laboratory in the crater made by the UFO crash. The Japanese government covers it up by saying it is an extinct volcano, but you can always find the Canon test shooters there with the future generations of Canon equipment in their mitts prowling the landscape testing the test gear with test shots of testy tourists. :-{))</p>

<p>Theres enough information here to start a new rumor...</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p> Philip is correct. The maths isn't difficult but is so misunderstood. A 7D sensor is 329 mm² a 5D MkII sensor is 864 mm², the FF sensor is not 1.6 times bigger, it is 864 / 329, or 2.63 times the size of the crop camera. 1.6 is a linear measurement, not an area measurement, we are comparing areas so 1.6 is not the factor to use 2.63 is. </p>

<p>18mp x 2.63 = 47,340,000.</p>

<p>Michael 1.6 is the lens relationship. The 7D has a sensor that is 22.3mm by 14.9mm this has an area of 332mm square. full frame is 36x24 which is 864mm square - thus as Scott says the full frame sensor is 2.6 times the area of Canon's APS-C . You could look at it your way and find that since the Angle of view is equivalent to a lens of 1.6 times the focal length you have a horizontal and vertical factor of 1.6 so 1.6 x 1.6 is 2.56 (i.e. the same 2.6 above allowing for rounding by Canon on the FL multiplier). Perhaps the bigger question is do others agree with my statement that the 7D is getting to the limit of lens performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 7D is getting to the limit of lens performance.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>People have been saying that since the Nikon D2x was released and we're double the MP count already.</p>

<p>Jack - the 5DII is hard on lenses but the results seem fine, the &D in my opinion is getting to the limit but it is a complex topic. This article may help but I was actually interested in hearing if others are able to visibly detect a potential issue. I believe I am but wondered if other 600 / 60 / 7D users were able to (of course it helps if you also have a 1DsIII or 5DII for reference)</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml</p>

<p>When it comes to the "performance level" question, there are only three logical options:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>The best lens and sensor have equal resolution.</strong> In the real world, this is simply an impossibility. No two lenses have the same resolution, and resolution varies even with a single lens both on the basis of aperture and where you measure in the frame. </li>

<li><strong>The best lens has higher resolution than the sensor.</strong> To the extent that you want to produce the highest resolution image possible in a print, it is hard to see how this is the best possible outcome - and most photographers faced with this situation would not mind seening the development of higher resolution sensors, as long as the cost in financial terms and other aspects of image quality was not an issue.</li>

<li><strong>The sensor has higher resolution than the best lens.</strong> As long as the sensor can produce an image that is otherwise of high quality and do so without the cost being far too high, this seems like the best option. Even if the lens "can't keep up" with the sensor resolution, there are other advantages in terms of rendering smooth gradations in the image and in reducing the need for strong AA filters.</li>

</ul>

<p>Some will object that increasing photo site density will lead to unacceptable noise or reduce dynamic range. However, those folks have been raising that objection since the increase was from 3MP to 4MP. If their concerns were valid in a way other than the theoretical, we would have seen a steady decline in the noise characteristics of DSLRs and their ability to deal with large dynamic range as photo site density has steadily increased. In fact, the opposite has been the case. It is also worth noting that in inflation-adjusted terms, the cost of these more capable cameras has gone down as well.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>I have the 5D2 and I don't really believe it is hard on lenses. I can happily shoot with my 15 year old £99 Soligor 100mm macro and get razor sharp images, even less worry with Canon's L lenses. This argument seems to crop up each and every time a new higher MP range of DSLRs come out. Like I said, people were saying the 12MP Nikon D2x was pushing the boundaries when it was first released. I am sure when the 30-40MP 1Ds4 appears there'll be more people saying the same thing. I am sure Canon run tests on their prototype DSLRs with various lenses. If a sensor ever did outresolve a lens you can be sure Canon will know before us.</p>

<p>Well structured Dan - I think we are heading to your case 3 over the next decade but I suspect that at some point the basis of competition will shift from sensor megapixels. Just like in other markets this will take time (look how long it took for people to realize that RAM and graphics rendering were a bigger constraining factor on their experience than processor clock rate with PCs). However, I think this will happen somewhere in the 50-100 MP range. In terms of noise - we will get advances in signal processing, improvements in sensor cooling and efficiency and better amplifiers. However, in the end Shot noise and amplifier noise will be limiting factors. I think we will se continued improvement for a while but the pace of improvement will slow as we reach the limits of our current optical / electronic technologies. I suspect that in the longer term the next major breakthrough will be when we can operate the front end systems of a camera in an all optical manner - i.e. when the light to electricity interface takes place deeper in the camera processing and not at the sensor (the image capture amplification and some of the processing taking place at optical frequencies) but this is quite a way off.</p>

<p>An interesting discussion about pixel density and the megapixels wars, as it is the reference to the manufacturers new products portfolios, focusing on two brands that still didn't enter the mirrorless market segment.<br>

And this suggests me a question: while we look at larger sensors (namely FF) and more megapixels as the trend, even if that will materialize, can we take for granted that the new technologic advances (photosites, sensors, processing circuits and signal processing) will keep them in that direction or will they be looking for other market segments where they consider to be the money to be made?<br>

Nikon points to a smaller sensor fot their mirrorless cameras and what about Canon?<br>

How can the tech advances change the way we look at smaller sensors? Could this allow them to design new lenses to match the higher megapixels counts and the competition or/and threats posed by cell phones and other segments where they think the largest future demand will be?<br>

We will have the DOF issues and other aspects that will keep FF well and alive, but will this market segment give them the demand and sales volume to be their main marketing bet?<br>

For the time being these are more question marks than views on clear directions the consumers can consider for their short/medium term buying decisions (specially the professionals and prosumers), but can we afford to put them away?</p>

 

<p>I'm confident the megapixel war is over, the new war is dynamic range.</p>

<p>For example, are you aware it takes 4x the MP to double the quality? If you have a 12MP camera, a 48MP camera will have only twice the quality. Then, there's crop factors and resolution, after around 12MP on a crop factor anything more is useless. I saw a test comparing the 18MP Rebel to some other brand 12MP equivalent, and the other brand was slightly sharper with more detail. How is that possible? The end result was since the 18MP Ti was a 1.6x crop factor camera vs the 1.5x the image quality sacrifices made to the Rebel for more MP combined with the bigger crop factor causing lenses used on it to have less ability to resolve put it behind in the sharpness/detail. So, if you wanted a sharper camera you were better with the 12MP other brand than the 18MP Rebel. Combined with, more MP means more susceptability to hand shake (so does more crop factor), more noise, less ability in lower light so 18MP 1.6x vs. 12MP 1.5x actually helped you get blurrier images in real use and whose pictures took up more hard drive space.</p>

<p>Dynamic range though, seems to be the new battle. Being able to get 2-3 more stops of data in the highlights and shadows over the competitor is far more useful over more MP as the MP war is over. More and more are beginning to learn and understand RAW images and how to get detail out of shadows & highlights and that the dynamic range of the camera is more useful than cramming more MP. I'd personally take dynamic range over MP :) There are still so many others as mentioned that think MP is all that matters, and I REALLY like the poster who mentioned the CPU of the computer as an example... and now people are realizing it's the graphics card more than the CPU. More & more, I'm seeing people answer that MP at this point doesn't matter and sometimes saying more MP comes at a cost to image quality when used in real life, which is nice to see.</p>

<p><em>"If you have a 12MP camera, a 48MP camera will have only twice the quality"</em></p>

<p>No, you have twice the resolution, you have four times the information, how much of a quality improvement gets you is moot, but a 16mp camera gives considerably more than twice the quality of a 4mp camera, I know I own two.</p>

<p><em>I think Canon will wait for Nikon to do something first, so they can then introduce something bigger and better.</em><br>

<em>I ask you, has that not been the history of these 'advances'?</em></p>

<p>That may have beenso, but Canon has failed to match either the D3X's resolution of detail, or the D3s' high ISO performance. I think it is Nikon who is waiting for Canon this time. In any case these cameras take years to develop so they will announce what they have ready to announce largely independently of the other's announcement. Of course the relative success of the different cameras will affect the future development of the next generation but not so much the immediate announcements.</p>

<p>I don't think Nikon and Canon are really competing against each other anymore. I mean, I know the companies are, but their strategies and marketing seem to show otherwise.</p>

<p>Take any Nikon/Canon/Sony models in about the same price point and at about the same age. The Nikon one will usually be built the sturdiest, and will often be the best at doing traditional camera things, like ISO performance and autofocus accuraccy. The Sony will usually be the best at new tech, like megapixels, video mode, and in-camera HDR/panorama/etc. The Canon will be right in the middle. Canon models have worse video than comparable Sonys and are not as solid as comparable Nikons, but they're more reliable than those Sonys and have better video than the Nikons.</p>

<p>I realize that there are exceptions, but as a general rule Nikon courts the old-fashioned types, Sony courts the techies, and Canon goes after the all-around market. This is why a comparison between them, barring new models introduced by Nikon or Canon this fall, is irrelevant. My experience in both sales and education tells me that most people - even complete newbies - make up their mind as to what brand they want pretty quickly, and only a small amount give any weight to spec sheets when deciding brands. As long as all three brands stay competitive, it doesn't much matter which one actually has more whatever-it-is.</p>

<p>And as for megapixels vs. quality, that's bs. More megapixels does not equal a better image, regardless of what the charts say. More megapixels means a bigger print at the same quality; and even that notion is highly suspect. Most people tend to forget that one generally views a poster print from several feet away, and won't be able to see minor pixellation at that distance. I don't have a chart to quote, but I would gamble that a 10 megapixel image printed at 16x20 and viewed at 5 feet will visually appear to be the same quality as a 10 megapixel image printed at 20x30 and viewed at 10 feet. After all - moving twice as far away makes the size of the 'pixel' on the paper half the size in relation to the eye.</p>

<p><em>"moving twice as far away makes the size of the 'pixel' on the paper half the size in relation to the eye"</em></p>

<p>Zack, and what about the inverse square law, does that not apply to your pixels? If you double the viewing distance the size of the pixel is a quarter the size it was.</p>

>> I honestly don't care much about more megapixels.

 

Just enough to begin a discussion of more megapixels.

 

 

>> but Canon has failed to match either the D3X's resolution of detail, or the D3s' high ISO performance.

 

But for 2500 bucks US, Canon offers a camera that nearly matches all of the D3 family's features simultaneously and

revolutionized the film and TV industry along the way. 20+ MP at ISO 3200 can be an amazing tool, except you'll

never experience it if you dropped $13,000 on two Nikon bodies. The 5D2 is within ten percent of the D3x's resolution,

which is impressive given that the Nikon's pixel count exceeds Canon plus ten percent. And don't get me started on

Nikon's implementation of Live View. Granted the Canon has less dynamic range, but all in all they've turned out an extremely capable camera which has sold like hotcakes.

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZHCu"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 02, 2011; 09:00 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"moving twice as far away makes the size of the 'pixel' on the paper half the size in relation to the eye"</em><br>

Zack, and what about the inverse square law, does that not apply to your pixels? If you double the viewing distance the size of the pixel is a quarter the size it was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Were it light, maybe. I'm not sure how the maths work with physical ink droplets. Either way, the fact is that increasing the megapixels only increases the resolution if you're viewing it from a constant distance that is near enough for the eye to perceive differences. I don't think whether it's twice or quadruple is relevant if the viewer can't perceive either.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZHCv"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 02, 2011; 09:01 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>>> but Canon has failed to match either the D3X's resolution of detail, or the D3s' high ISO performance.<br>

But for 2500 bucks US, Canon offers a camera that nearly matches all of the D3 family's features simultaneously and revolutionized the film and TV industry along the way. 20+ MP at ISO 3200 can be an amazing tool, except you'll never experience it if you dropped $13,000 on two Nikon bodies. The 5D2 is within ten percent of the D3x's resolution, which is impressive given that the Nikon's pixel count exceeds Canon plus ten percent. And don't get me started on Nikon's implementation of Live View. Granted the Canon has less dynamic range, but all in all they've turned out an extremely capable camera which has sold like hotcakes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So the Canon is a better camera, despite the fact that it comes second to the various D3 cameras at high ISO, megapixels, and dynamic range? Even the D700 has better high-ISO performance. Isn't that like saying an Olympian with two silver medals is a better althete than an Olympian with a single gold medal? Certainly the guy with two silvers is more consistent, and I'd want him on my team more than a guy with the one gold. But having said that, I know I'd trade lots of silver medals for a single gold, and I'm pretty sure most other people would too.</p>

<p>I'm not saying this means Nikon is a better company mind you - but it's very clear that the companies are taking different approaches.</p>