Affinity Photo - professional photo editing with 50% off!

50 Mega pixels.


ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
28 Apr 2015 12:11PM
Prancing horsepower!

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

themak 6 1.0k Scotland
28 Apr 2015 12:39PM
Not very Italian, lining them up with a stringline.
StrayCat 15 19.1k 3 Canada
29 Apr 2015 8:16PM
Here's a reply to Arthur Morris by a Canon engineer concerning the new Canon SLRs. It's long, but if you're interested....

Canon’s Rudy Winston:

Hi Artie,

The basics are as follows…

1. Canon’s engineers believe strongly that a low-pass filter is an important aid, IN GENERAL, to image quality with digital SLRs. We’ve had one in-place immediately in front of the image sensor on all previous EOS D-SLRs to date.

2. Low-pass filters basically attack problems with false colors and especially occasional moire patterns that can arise when fine, repeating patterns (think of the weave in some fabrics, for instance) begin to line-up with and approach the size/frequency of the patterns of pixels on an image sensor. Low-pass filters work by spreading the incoming light by the width of approximately ONE PIXEL horizontally (left and right), and a second low-pass filter layer does the same vertically, splitting it up and down.

3. This scattering of light in effect produces a slight blurring effect (usually easy to correct with slight Unsharp Mask-type sharpening in the computer, after the fact, or judicious use of the in-camera sharpening via Picture Style control). But the by-product is far less tendency to give psychedelic-looking moire patterns with certain subjects, in certain conditions (and of course, you never see these moire patterns in the viewfinder, before the fact).

(Note: To learn more about moiré and see two good example photos, click here. Moiré is rarely a problem for nature photographers. There are many pronunciations: “mwahr” is the most common and the most widely accepted.)

4. The filter array that includes the two different low-pass filters mentioned above is a part of the optical system, even though it’s sandwiched right up against the front of the imaging sensor. The total filter array includes at least one layer of IR-absorbing glass, a dichroic mirror layer to reflect infrared and UV illumination, and what they call a phase plate, which changes the polarization of incoming light into circular polarization. In other words, it’s a pretty sophisticated optical sandwich, even though to the naked eye it appears as a super-thin layer of glass in front of the sensor.

5. All that said, it is true that if we were to remove the low-pass filter component, in theory, we’d have the potential of greater initial, out-of-the-camera sharpness in many situations. And, it’s definitely true that the moire pattern risk mentioned above won’t occur in the majority of images, unless you were shooting things like fabrics or products with very fine, repeating line patterns on a regular basis. (For the type of bird imaging you normally do, or most landscape applications, I’d guess the risk of moire is pretty much nil most of the time.)

6. As a parenthetical note, these moire patterns, IF they do occur, can usually be moderated or even eliminated in some cases with various image-editing techniques… Photoshop gurus have a multitude of them, and some RAW file processing software now contains anti-moire tools for these occasions. Still, it’s an extra step — sometimes a fairly sophisticated set of them — to reduce or remove moire completely from an image, if it does occur.

7. Because the afore-mentioned low-pass filter array is a part of the optical path, you can’t just remove it — you’d change the effective length of the optical axis, and have to re-design the entire camera body slightly, including the AF system’s optical path, to accommodate such a change. Since Canon made the strategic decision to offer TWO high-resolution cameras, a different technique was needed to achieve removal of the low-pass filter effect, without upsetting the optical system within the camera body. And, without the expense of (in effect) having to design an entirely new camera from scratch, with slightly altered internal dimensions.

8. All that said, here’s what Canon has done: they need two low-pass filter layers in-place to preserve the same optical length within the body. The traditional EOS 5DS of course does just that, with Canon’s typical low-pass filter approach. With the EOS 5DS R, they also have two low-pass filter layers in-place. The first scatters the incoming light by spreading it vertically, similarly to how it’s done in the standard 5DS camera. But the next low-pass filter layer bends the incoming light VERTICALLY again, in the reverse direction — back to ONE single ray path, so the scattered light is effectively “un-scattered” and re-focused into a single optical beam. Thus, the low-pass filter effect is “cancelled.”

9. The result of this cancellation of the low-pass filter effect in the EOS 5DS R is a slight — but noticeable, in many instances — increase in the overall contrast and sharpness of fine detail, lines, and texture in subjects. Canon is clear that photographers need to understand that a by-product of this is a risk of moire patterns appearing occasionally, and that it’s up to the shooter to work with post-processing to limit this effect if and when it happens. But I have no doubt that there would be a bit more detail and texture in things like feather detail in birds, for example. I don’t want to over-state the improvement in sharpness in the EOS 5DS R vs. the standard 5DS model… you can see it when you start magnifying images and look for it, but it’s not an “in-your-face” type of obvious difference that my Mom would immediately spot when viewing on-screen at 100%.

10. Bottom line: we anticipate that the majority of sales of our 50.6 million pixel camera will be the standard 5DS camera, and that in the eyes of most users, the 5DS R will be seen as something of a specialty version. Buy the latter for the right reasons, and it’ll delight you. We just want all potential buyers, and dealer staff, to understand that along with its added initial image sharpness does come a risk of occasional optical imperfections in certain shooting situations. I’ll finish where I started: overall, Canon’s engineers remain very firm that in their opinion, OVERALL digital image quality is enhanced by the use of traditional low-pass filter design in digital SLRs. We’ll let the market be the ultimate judge!
Just Jas 17 26.3k 1 England
14 Jun 2015 12:36PM
Regular practise makes for good sax Grin

But only if the player is capable of improvement Sad
Just Jas 17 26.3k 1 England
14 Jun 2015 12:39PM

Quote: "it is the silence between the notes that makes the music".



Or the space between the pixels that makes the picture? Smile
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
14 Jun 2015 9:59PM

Quote:
I didn't get this...


Quote:Put another way you can get more image resolution with a "so-so" lens if you use it on a 50 MP body rather than a 21 MP body, though not as much image resolution as putting 50 MP on a top quality lens.


So basically, if i put any cheap quality lens on a 50 MP camera, the quality of the image will be better than if it was on a 24 MP camera.



Absolutely Smile
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
14 Jun 2015 10:02PM

Quote:
Quote:So basically, if i put any cheap quality lens on a 50 MP camera, the quality of the image will be better than if it was on a 24 MP camera.


Not always, the more resolution the more it highlights a lens imperfections, this is particularly so when it comes to defraction.


This is a myth Sad
If you restrict a 50 MP camera to the image size you can reasonably obtain from 24 MP lens imperfections are not highlighted Smile
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
14 Jun 2015 10:04PM

Quote:
Ten years ago, anything over 10mp was considered extravagant, and people were producing great images with less. Now, even amateurs are clamouring over 36+ mp. In terms of quality, there is a real case of diminishing returns, as many people never print, and those that do, rarely above A3. There is a significant difference if you blow up to several meters, but for the vast majority, there is little practical difference between 16 and 36mp.
I'd suggest most photographers would be better off saving the money for a 50+mp camera and instead spend it on a couple of decent lenses.

Only pixel peepers worry about what their camera won't do. Real photographers concentrate on what it can do.

Nick


+1.
Well said.
Just Jas 17 26.3k 1 England
15 Jun 2015 10:28AM

Quote:Real photographers concentrate on what it can do.



Quite so: "Always look on the bright side" Smile


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.