Canon R3

[DavidEccleston]

HD, don't throw shade on the discussion... it will increase read noise.

[Kayaker72]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[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.

[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

[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