Canon says more megapixels is bad...

How long before marketing have him shot?
 
so better sell my 7d and get a 20d or better still a 300d :)
Rob.
 
He only said smaller pixels and higher pixel density is worse if on the same sized sensor :naughty:
 
That's probably on small format compacts where the sensors are ridiculously small...
 
I believe this is what nikon have been saying for a very long time. They have had lower resolution sensors that perform much better at higher iso, whereas canon seem to have gone for higher resolution but worse performance at higher iso. It's a fine balance dependent on the primary use of the camera and the main reason for the Nikon D3s and D3x.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I believe this is what nikon have been saying for a very long time. They have had lower resolution sensors that perform much better at higher iso, whereas canon seem to have gone for higher resolution but worse performance at higher iso. It's a fine balance dependent on the primary use of the camera and the main reason for the Nikon D3s and D3x.
Click to expand...

To be fair I have never used a D700/D3s but I love the sensor in my 5D2 - feels at about the sweet spot for me. Results at Iso 3200 are fine as long as I expose carefully.
 
Hodders said:
To be fair I have never used a D700/D3s but I love the sensor in my 5D2 - feels at about the sweet spot for me. Results at Iso 3200 are fine as long as I expose carefully.
Click to expand...

The 5DII sensor in the D700 body would be perfect.
 
^^^
Would be too noisy in the shadows for my uses, as I like to lift shadows to even out exposure, other that though, I would agree.
 
Hodders said:
To be fair I have never used a D700/D3s but I love the sensor in my 5D2 - feels at about the sweet spot for me. Results at Iso 3200 are fine as long as I expose carefully.
Click to expand...


5d2 is brilliant in the studio Ben but less so out and about with moving targets.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I believe this is what nikon have been saying for a very long time. They have had lower resolution sensors that perform much better at higher iso, whereas canon seem to have gone for higher resolution but worse performance at higher iso. It's a fine balance dependent on the primary use of the camera and the main reason for the Nikon D3s and D3x.
Click to expand...

^ Spot on!!^
 
It's a fair point though. Surely there's only so many pixels you can fit on a full frame or cropped frame sensor and keep the quality? Also, with Raw files already approaching 20mb in size and tiff files much larger, storage space is already becoming an issue (if not memory cards then computer HDD space).

My personal opinion (and it's only my opinion), is that although the 12mp from the present Nikon bodies are fine for me up to A2 size, it would be nice to have say 20-24mp for cropping ability, but I wouldn't really wany any more than that. I don't produce poster sized print (and no I can't afford or justify the expense of a D3X).
 
Sootchucker said:
It's a fair point though. Surely there's only so many pixels you can fit on a full frame or cropped frame sensor and keep the quality? Also, with Raw files already approaching 20mb in size and tiff files much larger, storage space is already becoming an issue (if not memory cards then computer HDD space).

My personal opinion (and it's only my opinion), is that although the 12mp from the present Nikon bodies are fine for me up to A2 size, it would be nice to have say 20-24mp for cropping ability, but I wouldn't really wany any more than that. I don't produce poster sized print (and no I can't afford or justify the expense of a D3X).
Click to expand...

Leave the dark side Luke and come into the Canon light - my 1Ds MkII has good resolution at 3200 ISO and once put through Neat Image noise is no real problem.

Apart from that an image size of 4992 x 3328 means that unless I want to print large, a size of 1024 on the longest side will also help to further reduce noise even when cropped.

.
 
Sootchucker said:
It's a fair point though. Surely there's only so many pixels you can fit on a full frame or cropped frame sensor and keep the quality? Also, with Raw files already approaching 20mb in size and tiff files much larger, storage space is already becoming an issue (if not memory cards then computer HDD space).

My personal opinion (and it's only my opinion), is that although the 12mp from the present Nikon bodies are fine for me up to A2 size, it would be nice to have say 20-24mp for cropping ability, but I wouldn't really wany any more than that. I don't produce poster sized print (and no I can't afford or justify the expense of a D3X).
Click to expand...

Storage space (both on memory cards and HDD) is continually getting larger, faster and relatively cheaper (IE less for the same space) - provided it 'keeps pace' with file size increments this is not an issue.

On the actual resolution front - again, technology is continually moving forward - both in terms of resolution possible and noise handling.

However, we have certainly reached a point where the sensor resolution is 'more than adequate' for the majority of users to produce prints (What % ever print as large as A3 even?).

So resolution improvements are now less important than noise handling, and what many want is that at the same resolution the sensor can handle lower light better.

Additional resolution will, however, still be useful, to allow cropping. If you have 2 cameras, identical except for resolution, such that (for example) you could crop a shot from a 300mm lens to get the same image as from a 500mm lens on the lower resolution camera, then that would be useful for many.
 
tiler65 said:
5d2 is brilliant in the studio Ben but less so out and about with moving targets.
Click to expand...

Too true, but the AF is nothing to do with the megapixel discussion. Put a D700 or 7D AF on the 5D2 and you have just about my perfect camera.
 
Didn't they say this years ago when they brought out a G11 with less megapixels than the G10 or G9?
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
Would be too noisy in the shadows for my uses, as I like to lift shadows to even out exposure, other that though, I would agree.
Click to expand...

That is why we expose to the right.
 
petersmart said:
Leave the dark side Luke and come into the Canon light - my 1Ds MkII has good resolution at 3200 ISO and once put through Neat Image noise is no real problem.

Apart from that an image size of 4992 x 3328 means that unless I want to print large, a size of 1024 on the longest side will also help to further reduce noise even when cropped.

.
Click to expand...

Is just not true. That camera had great low iso ability, but when you've used a Nikon full frame camera you'd laugh at how ludicrous a statement that is. And that was my camera you're using so I know!
 
Hodders said:
Too true, but the AF is nothing to do with the megapixel discussion. Put a D700 or 7D AF on the 5D2 and you have just about my perfect camera.
Click to expand...

That would be the 1DsIII then, Ben.
 
^^^
In practice, moving your exposure compensation to the tight hand side in contrasty light is dangerous if you care about highlight detail as the cameras meter isn't magic and your exposing on a knife edge.
It's 'ok' if your in a situation where you can retake the shot after chimping, but if you need to get the shot first time or you don't want have to chimp after each shot (lose connection with subject) ettr is a risky game if the scene has contrasty light.

Also have you seen what it looks like when part of a highlight isn't recoverable? it just looks ugly.
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
In practice, moving your exposure compensation to the tight hand side in contrasty light is dangerous if you care about highlight detail as the cameras meter isn't magic and your exposing on a knife edge.
It's 'ok' if your in a situation where you can retake the shot after chimping, but if you need to get the shot first time or you don't want have to chimp after each shot (lose connection with subject) ettr is a risky game if the scene has contrasty light.

Also have you seen what it looks like when part of a highlight isn't recoverable? it just looks ugly.
Click to expand...

It also depends what the highlight is... if you have the sky its easy enough in a pinch to blow it out completely and then add it back in post (ie take another image exposing for the sky and then mask).

Excluding photoshop, there are times where i prefer to blow highlights than to have large underexposed areas of the image... since especially at high iso this will create lots of ugly noise :)
 
^^^
High ISO (6400) is exactly when I wouldn't want to expose much if any to the left, but I find that if I'm at 6400, I'm usually either indoors or somewhere that light isn't to contrasty.
However there are exceptions for example, as a dark room with small windows, with direct sun coming through etc.

Also the more you increase ISO, the less DR you have.
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
In practice, moving your exposure compensation to the tight hand side in contrasty light is dangerous if you care about highlight detail as the cameras meter isn't magic and your exposing on a knife edge.
It's 'ok' if your in a situation where you can retake the shot after chimping, but if you need to get the shot first time or you don't want have to chimp after each shot (lose connection with subject) ettr is a risky game if the scene has contrasty light.

Also have you seen what it looks like when part of a highlight isn't recoverable? it just looks ugly.
Click to expand...

sounds like you are exposing FAR too the right. If you do it properly you don't clip the highlights at all or very marginally
 
^^^
Depends on how challenging the light is really, and where your exposure priority is, must people who ETTR will try to get the face correctly exposed etc. and then try to recover as much highlight detail as possible.

Below is an example of just such challenging light, if I exposed for his face, there is no way I could bring back his hair and a good portion of his shoulders and the background.

ETTR.jpg
 
but thats because there is an error in your technique . i.e. you should be using either some fill flash from the left or a reflector - or taking it from a different angle. so the natural light is actually on his face and not on the back/top of his head
 
joescrivens said:
but thats because there is an error in your technique . i.e. you should be using either some fill flash from the left or a reflector - or taking it from a different angle. so the natural light is actually on his face and not on the back/top of his head
Click to expand...

Exactly. Don't knock a perfectly useful method employed by any number of pros and experienced photographers because you haven't practiced it enough to trust it.
 
joescrivens said:
but thats because there is an error in your technique . i.e. you should be using either some fill flash from the left or a reflector - or taking it from a different angle. so the natural light is actually on his face and not on the back/top of his head
Click to expand...

There is no errors in photography if it get's you the desired results, only different methods to get there.
No way would I use Fill flash as it's just plain ugly imo, a reflector would have been cumbersome and impractical to use and walk around with on my own, besides I prefer the look of back lighting so generally like to shoot into the light, the subject generally starts squinting if facing the sun, hence your just not going to get good expression.
Also I liked the composition how it was, if I turned him around the background wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good as there were allot more distracting elements, as well as not having any leading lines.

The bottom line is, with the 5Dii sensor I would have had to sacrifice something, as this wouldn't be an option.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=898881
 
Last edited:
ETTR is one thing that is easier with the likes of MFT and (I believe...) the newer Sony DSLR type offerings as you get in view histograme, it's a wonderful thing.

I've no idea what the ideal pixel size and density is and I do find it a little frustrating that we'll probably never get the chance of comparing one of the current state of the art small pixel / high density sensor cameras with a larger pixel / lower density sensor made with exactly the same state of the art design and manufacturing techniques. That'd be a lot easier and more valid than comparing, for example, a 7D to a 20D.
 
MomentCapture said:
There is no errors in photography if it get's you the desired results, only different methods to get there.
No way would I use Fill flash as it's just plain ugly imo, a reflector would have been cumbersome and impractical to use and walk around with on my own, besides I prefer the look of back lighting so generally like to shoot into the light, the subject generally starts squinting if facing the sun, hence your just not going to get good expression.
Also I liked the composition how it was, if I turned him around the background wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good as there were allot more distracting elements, as well as not having any leading lines.

The bottom line is, with the 5Dii sensor I would have had to sacrifice something, as this wouldn't be an option.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=898881
Click to expand...

Why and what would the 5d2 sensor force you to give up?
 
MomentCapture said:
There is no errors in photography if it get's you the desired results, only different methods to get there.
No way would I use Fill flash as it's just plain ugly imo, a reflector would have been cumbersome and impractical to walk around with on my own, besides I prefer the look of back lighting so generally like to shoot into the light, the subject generally starts squinting if facing the sun, hence your just not going to get good expression.
Also I liked the composition how it was, if I turned him around the background wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good as there were allot more distracting elements, as well as not having any leading lines.
Click to expand...

sorry rhys but if you also now think fill flash looks ugly then again you must be doing it wrong. Proper fill flash you shouldn't even be able to see that there is flash there, it would be no different to how you processed your actual photo in the end because essentially what you have done is added a "fake" fill flash. So that doesn't make any sense at all.

it does sound like you are knocking 2 techniques because you just aren't doing them properly
 
Joe, for starters just the catch-light of fill-flash is ugly, and how on earth would I be doing it wrong?
When I started out, I used nothing but flash for just about every shot I took, it was off camera flash with a large modifier attached to it, or if indoors it would be bounced, because direct flash just makes me want to puke, and I would personally only use it if I was desperate, i.e. I couldn't get the shot without it.

At the end of the day though, the argument to use on-camera flash for main or fill comes down to taste and opinion.
This is just my opinion, but for me personally it would kill my images, however that's just my taste, others here may like the look, and that just means we have differing taste, doesn't mean it's wrong for them, just wrong for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top