Canon R3

[Kayaker72]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fast Glass]

Again, all of those statements are true. The reason why I even brought this up is the exchange you had with Kari about aurora photography. Low light/nightscape images are a scenario where read noise becomes more of an issue, thus there would be a negative impact for Kari's type of photography of more megapixels. For blacks, where signal to noise ratios are low, lower megapixel cameras still show a benefit over higher MP cameras. Now part of that discussion was motion blur, but even that could be effected as if you dial in your ISO to have acceptable noise in the blacks, a higher ISO would allow for faster shutter speed and less motion blur.

To sum up, I find it misleading to state that there are not trade offs going to higher MPs.

So you are not understanding this correctly at all. There is a stop in noise because there is over double resolution, but not in the real world.

If I were to print both images at 150 DPI, and then say the 45mp image has lots more noise that would be correct. But you are looking at an image that is larger n comparison.

If we both printed them at say 20x30, then you will not notice a huge difference in noise because that is more of a function of the output size and not zooming into all the noise. The 20mp is be slightly cleaner, but nearly like it would be if you viewed them both at 100%.

This is the part where you cannot use the readout noise as a guide. It just doesn't translate here because it's only telling you the readout noise at per pixel level. Not what it would look like at the same output size.

To prove this just take a typical night time shot with lots of deep dark shadows, either print them out on a large print or downres the R5 results to R6 dimensions. You will find there would be only minimal differences in noise.

I didn't say there is no trade off's, but they are not nearly as big as you might think or what just the readout noise would suggest at a pixel level.

To clarify what I said about modern tech minimizing the differences, I'm talking about the efficiency losses associated with adding more resolution. And they have gotten pretty dang good at adding pixels and not wasting light in the process. In a perfect world, we technically could just be adding as much resolution as processing power will allow or till the pixel wells start not being efficient at gathering light. Technically it wouldn't matter at that point. And in the case of 20 vs 45, that is really minimal the efficiency losses and the bigger question is not noise. It's do I need or want the resolution or not. And cost associated with that.

It's not about how many pixels you add, it's about how many you can add without wasting light. And modern tech has done a really good job of that. Besides that, a 50mp image is equivalent to 21mp 1.6 crop camera. It is not that small in the first place, many 1.6 crop cameras exceed this by a considerable margin. So it's not like we are even pushing the limits of sensor tech at a pixel level in the first place.

[Fast Glass]

I think you need to read up on Bryan's Sony A1 review where he talks about this very thing, because I don't think you or a lot of you here understand how resolution works.

[Karsaa]

One thing also, which i look when i choose my camera, since i shoot 95% at night is pixel size.

R5 Pixel Size 4.39µm vs R6 Pixel Size 6.56µm is clear choice for me. Another thing is that since doing milky way etc shots, i allways stack images, with some calibration frames to get the most out of them.

Just saying that the needs for everyone are different. If i would be more of a macro/landscape etc. after, definetly would look more higher resolution body's.

Should have my basic deep sky setup ready next week, so can finally see, how my R6 serves me there.

[Fast Glass]

Smaller pixels are not the way to look at it. How many pixels is not the important part, it's the overall sensor noise at a particular output size that is critical.

As I said before read up on the Sony A1 review and he will say basically the same thing. At a particular output size, all the issues of higher resolution are negated. Only obstacle is how much efficiency do you loose in the process. Not what it looks like at 100%.

And in the case between the R5 and R6 it is really minimal.

Also there are the really old threads with Daniel Browning in which he gets super technical about it. If they still exist on here it's a good read.

But, in a nut shell what Daniel Browning said. Larger pixels don't gather more light, larger sensors do.

And this is a fallacy that has been promoted for a very long time, that larger pixels gather more light. They don't.

[Karsaa]

Naturally larger sensors get more light, larger area. If you go on the single pixel level, larger physical size pixel still gather's more light. But like said, current day's tech is more advanced and gives more options. Think this is quite good text about this in whole https://clarkvision.com/articles/doe...l.size.matter/.

The optimal pixel size for getting light would be that 1 big one...image would be non existent though =) so there has to be the balance. But like i said, for me as more of astrophotographer lower resolution and bigger pixel size is the way to go, since i use other methods to get that detail (stacking, calibration frames etc.)

This is also good read about the pixel sensitivity https://www.pco.de/fileadmin/user_up...tivity_105.pdf

[DavidEccleston]

But, in a nut shell what Daniel Browning said. Larger pixels don't gather more light, larger sensors do.

And this is a fallacy that has been promoted for a very long time, that larger pixels gather more light. They don't.

You're missing a key component. Before the micro lens layer above the sensor, you really did miss light with more pixels, as some percentage of light fell between the photosensitive parts of the sensor and was lost. This likely still happens with the micro lenses, but to a lesser extent.

Despite the micro lenses, which I believe my 7D2 was one of the first to get the micro lens treatment, and the level of visible noise at ISO 100 on a 7D2 is surprisingly visible. That noise exists, and didn't on my 7D. With micro-lens and only a minor resolution bump that absolutely shouldn't be true... but it is. If it isn't the smaller pixels, where is this noise coming from? The fallacy may be what part of the process the noise is being attributed to, but the extra noise IS there.

[HDNitehawk]

Daniel did say many things that were correct, and at times things that he believed that turned out to be incorrect. In the end he left Canon for Nikon and we hear from him no more.

In my shooting, which is primarily wildlife, resolution is far more important than noise. Overall an improvement in one stop of noise allows for 8.5 minutes of additional shooting in the morning and evening. The pictures taken in that time frame are usually only good for documentation and never presentable. Resolution however I can utilize all day long.

The balance between FPS, Buffer and Burst Rate can be more important than Resolution with action.

For me, just IMO for my shooting, with the limitations cameras have now the debates concerning noise tend to be over emphasized.

[Fast Glass]

@David.

There was a bit more difference back then, especially since sensor performance was not nearly as good as it is today. So those differences definitely were important back then.

But looking at the down sized R5 results. They are within a very small margin of each other indicating very minimumal loses. I know others will point out read noise, but without looking at a dark image downsized to the same dimensions. I'm going to bet money they will more or less parallel the well lit ones. Simply because they are the same basic sensors with the same tech for both. And because of how over all noise is only fairly judged at the same output. Not at the pixel level or the read out noise at the pixel level.

Now there is a place for knowing how good the noise/overall image quality is at a pixel level. Very large enlargements is one such application that comes to mind, you want awesome pixel level image quality at it's max resolution.

I think my argument is that some are probably not using a more suitable camera because they believe it's "Not useful" to them because they just look at 100% crops and are misled thinking it's just magnifying issues when it's actually not. When a high resolution body like the R5 or 5Ds R is actually what you really want. Think of it as lower resolution adding another level of IQ disadvantage and blurriness (Think big enlargements here) vs have more than double the resolution and defining the scene much better. Sure it will mask blemishes in a large print, but in the worst way possible. By bluring it. It's not what you want.

Now this is not an argument for those that simply have no need for high resolution or those that are totally fine with say 20mp and rather have say the benefits of smaller file size, cheaper bodies, cheaper computer to run effectively ect. Those are valid points.

I'm just saying the way many look at high resolution, especially how it pertains to noise and defects in the image, is not correct.

[Kayaker72]

And the hands on reviews start.

Vanessa joy, canon EOL.

https://youtu.be/LYa_aFeM5Ks

https://youtu.be/LzQM_RLJgVw

https://youtu.be/8VSZk1tyAgY

https://youtu.be/vizib_1Hk1U

https://youtu.be/oYFLrRj8ODE

Have to run, only been through 1.5 of these. But generally as expected: minimal rolling shutter, great AF, great IQ, no heat issues (thus far, and fast. Confirmed surprise is video goes past 30 minutes (first for non cinema milc). Potential pleasant surprise is high iso looks clean. But the examples I saw were jpg, so I’ll wait for RAW comparisons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk