• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Canon megapixel camera - Anti-Aliasing (AA) or not? (1 Viewer)

Roy C said:
It remains to be seen what the high ISO noise levels are as we are dealing with a full frame sensor and we are in unknown territory with 50mp - I know that if I crop my FF cam (5D3) to the same FOV as a 1.6 cropper it is still a lot cleaner. The actual ISO range is fairly insignificant to me, If it is clean up to ISO 3200 in crop mode then that would do me fine as I rarely bother to shoot at higher than that (even with the 5D3). The whole point to considering a Camera like this for me is to use it as both a FF landscape/still image Camera and a crop Camera for reach limited situations and occasional wildlife. If it worked out OK I could sell my 5d3 - it may be a better option than using both a 5D3 and a 7d2. I could never give up a FF that's for sure. 5fps again would be fine for me as I do not do much bird snapping these days.
Click to expand...

Of course, actually ISO is meaningless, only noise generated matters. The assumption I am working on is not one of sensor size, but pixel size. To date, full frames may have comparable MP counts, but larger pixels (less pixel density) which typically have responded better in terms of noise. Larger pixel = more ability to mitigate noise through design, due to size being less of a constraint in what you cram into it, is my assumption.

From that perspective, I am extrapolating based on the pixel density of the sensor, which by my logic (which could be complete crap), would predict similar pixel performance from similarly dense sensors. No full frame vs crop frame, just pixel density being the 'real' factor. What this means, generally, is if we applied the same sensor tech in a 1Dx (22MP? I think) to a APS-C with 8.5MP we would get the same results for noise performance (APS-C to FX is 2.6xz the area).

If I am missing a logic fault, I would be happy to know what it is. The pixel density is also the 'reach' factor we get, which in the case of this monster, is negligible (it would have the same reach as the current APS-C, practically)
 
KyleM said:
Of course, actually ISO is meaningless, only noise generated matters. The assumption I am working on is not one of sensor size, but pixel size. To date, full frames may have comparable MP counts, but larger pixels (less pixel density) which typically have responded better in terms of noise. Larger pixel = more ability to mitigate noise through design, due to size being less of a constraint in what you cram into it, is my assumption.

From that perspective, I am extrapolating based on the pixel density of the sensor, which by my logic (which could be complete crap), would predict similar pixel performance from similarly dense sensors. No full frame vs crop frame, just pixel density being the 'real' factor. What this means, generally, is if we applied the same sensor tech in a 1Dx (22MP? I think) to a APS-C with 8.5MP we would get the same results for noise performance (APS-C to FX is 2.6xz the area).

If I am missing a logic fault, I would be happy to know what it is. The pixel density is also the 'reach' factor we get, which in the case of this monster, is negligible (it would have the same reach as the current APS-C, practically)
Click to expand...
All irrelevant and pointless even discussing at this point IMO - wait until the Camera is released before jumping to conclusions ;) 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating' I would certainly not knock the camera until real time reviews are forthcoming that's for sure. BTW If it was all about pixel density we would all still be shooting 4mp Cameras 3:) .
In my experience FF cams have more to offer than just a better high ISO noise performance, I can only speak for the humble 5D3 but the contrast and colour rendition is far better than any other Camera I have shot which is why I am skeptical about going back to any 1.6 cropper again.
 
Last edited:
I could easily relate the above again to pixel size and design constraints (constraints are the devil, they are also where we are forced to get creative), but it is a moot point. At the end of the day we all do indeed have to wait and see, and with bated breath (I would much enjoy a second carry around body, wouldn't mind at all). I would however be much better investing in glass at the moment.

At 50MP, I don't think we can complain either way (maybe we can agree on that? ;)). That is new territory by far outside medium format, and the potential printable size when filling the frame could be absolutely excellent.
 
I'm obviously missing something with my basic understanding: how will these cameras 'switch' to a crop? What will one see in the viewfinder? What is the difference between the camera switching to 1.6 crop and me cropping a full frame image in post processing?
 
Roger P - a good question. The cropping does NOT result in a magnified image in the viewfinder (it may well do when electronic viewfinders become the norm) but instead the 1.3/1.6 cropping is represented in the viewfinder by boxes/lines/dots. Its main purpose is to reduce file size being fed to the storage medium and so improve(?) delays due to memory catching up with the camera and/or filling memory cards too quickly (a 50megapixel RAW + JPEG file can be a beast in terms of file size (50-60 MB?) . The net result is, as you say, a saved image very similar to what you would see when cropping a full frame image from teh same camera in Photoshop or similar.

Of course, Canon may have a surprise up their sleeve but as the 5DS R is based on the 5DIII and even the no AA is a compromise by having a second AA filter to negate the effect of the first AA filter, I don't think there will be any new clever optical tweaks.

The interesting point (that will only be proven when real world images are seen) is what a 1.6 crop image from the 5DIII looks like compared to an image from other bodies such as the 7DII and the 1Dx which moves into areas of pixel densities and sensor sizes that are beyond my skills!
 
Last edited:
I think it can be set to show the FF image but have 1.3 1.6 crop lines or blacked out so you only see the crop.

smaller file size if cropped rather than crop on the computer.

Rob.
 
Hmm! Bit less exciting than at first thought! Thanks for the explanation. As a Canon enthusiast since film days I'm a bit disappointed with them at the moment! At my stage of life and collection of Canon kit I feel locked in. I'm just hoping that a new sensor and improved quality control will appear soon enough for me to enjoy it. Will it happen before DSLRs become extinct?
 
I'm not sure what you are expecting Roger but besides the obvious quality control issues of late which are surmountable surely the technology in Canon cameras has common leaps and bounds in recent years. Maybe other manufacturers have slightly better sensors but they don't offer the same lens advantages to wildlife photographers that Canon do. If and when they do, Canon may well have overtaken them in other areas. As an ex Nikon user I have no regrets in changing brands.
 
petemorris said:
Wow, he can talk, especially as most of it is hypothetical at this stage! Interesting though...
Click to expand...

With some folk it's appears to be a race to get themselves on to a world wide stage to try to get some kind of recognition as a leading expert. That guy lost me very quickly, the presentation appears to go on for over half an hour preaching about the assumed performance of something he's never seen let alone got his hands on. Mad or what !
 
Dave Williams said:
With some folk it's appears to be a race to get themselves on to a world wide stage to try to get some kind of recognition as a leading expert. That guy lost me very quickly, the presentation appears to go on for over half an hour preaching about the assumed performance of something he's never seen let alone got his hands on. Mad or what !
Click to expand...

Some photo bloggers appear to make a decent living doing just that. They usually have links to some commercial hardware vendor on their blog.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Michael Daniel Ho
Canon EOS-1D X vs. EOS-1D Mark IV camera comparison
Replies
2
Views
8K
Dave Williams
D
G
Camera Land's Deal of the Day - 9/26/2013
Replies
0
Views
2K
gr8fuldoug
G
JPAC
D800 36 Megapixels!
Replies
7
Views
4K
pe'rigin
P
G
Camera Land's Deal of the Day 8/13/2013
Replies
0
Views
2K
gr8fuldoug
G
M
Digiscoping with Swarovski 80mm and 65mm Spotting Scopes – Point and Shoot Cameras
Replies
4
Views
29K
barongcw
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top