Good point. Cropping would appear to be a big benefit if the lens used can take advantage of the higher pixel count sensor. Based off your other comment it sounds like most lenses will be able to.Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Good point. Cropping would appear to be a big benefit if the lens used can take advantage of the higher pixel count sensor. Based off your other comment it sounds like most lenses will be able to.
As for the photographer, that's a whole different story.Focus, camera shake, etc.
It occured to me today that the 7D has a greater pixel density, and therefore more pixels on target for those doing more intense cropping. 18MP*1.6*1.6=46+MP if the same sized pixels were put onto a full frame sized sensor. If only current technology would allow eliminating more of the noise inherent in converting photons to electrical charge we could have a much better signal-to-noise ratio for even better high ISO performance.
So, looking at those Nikon photos again, I am starting to wonder if their RAW conversion favours sharpness over smoothness which could help to explain why some are questioning the noise levels of the D800 with its larger pixels when compared to 7D shots at similar gain (ISO) settings. Without having shots of the same subject with both cameras to compare detail sharpness and noise it is of course all conjecture and speculation, but winter nights are long, the temperature is dropping, and more snow is coming tonight.
Well Nikon is upsetting the apple cart.
Did save the landscape photo to open in PS. When I softproofed at the largest sheet size my printer will handle (13x19) the noise disappeared. So did a lot of the other fine details that I would have preferred if they stayed. Come to to think of it the same thing happens with my now inferior camera bodies. I guess I don't need that much resolution after all. Better low light capabilities would be nice. Better AF in 5D package wouldn't hurt either.
Guess I won't start scouring the internet to find an adaptor that allows Canon lenses to speak Nikon after all.
Just some food for thought.
JRW
Safe to say I favor greater pixel count in 95% of my still shooting settings - it just simply provides me with greater flexibility. For those with consistent low light or very low light needs this pixel density becomes a problem.
I am also old enough to remember the Olympus 1/2 from 35mm camera, am thinking the comparision might be for density might be viewed as turn the d800 vertical and either half would be roughly equivalent to a 18mp frame on the 7d-550 sensor - not sure of the precise dimensions but that would provide a 2x focal length conversion at the same pixel count.
I am a little surprised at the video side of the d800 if I understand it correctly. I do enjoy the 60fps on my plastic t31i and HDR rendering that it provides using Magic Lantern (get if you dont have it yet) - takes awhile for the computer to crunch through it - coffee break - I also like the 60 fps as 2 mp still (jack the shutter speed up) for the kiddo's soccer newsletters, etc.
I am looking forward to the Canon equivalent coming out - it really would be something if they put a stepped up HD resoltuion into the video capabilities similar to the 7.6mp capture in c300 - at 30/60 fps (lots o data & I am off my meds but it is only 2x for current density (4x data flow)
my 2 pennies.
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
I think that's only half the story though. You're probably right that you'd get extra noise from averaging the two smaller pixels than from a large one, but that's only the whole story if you're shooting a flat color.
For any object with a shape and edges, the extra resolution also gives you better shape definition, and the resampling to a smaller image may give a nicer anti-aliased edge that using the lower res sensor. Since images often have areas with edges AND areas of flat (or nearly flat) color, you need to find the resolution/noise sweet spot for the imaginary "average picture".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote