From: DRS on
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:snt7p6-rdf.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de

[...]

> Canon has concluded that they need to sell cameras and to sell
> cameras they need to compete in features and marketing numbers.
> Megapixel record numbers belong there.

Yes and no. They dropped the megapixel count on the G11.



From: ColinD on
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: EOS 7D and resolution
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com>
To:
Date: 29/09/2009 12:33 p.m.

> Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
>
>> My 50D is less than a year old, so I have no dog in this hunt. But if I were
>> in your shoes, with a once excellent APS-C camera that's gone a bit long in
>> the tooth,
>
> The camera is about as good as it was on the day it was made.
> It's even better in my hands than it was there in the beginning
> since I have learned a lot about the dos and don'ts with that body.
> :-)
>
> So, I have an excellent APS-C camera that is eclipsed by some even
> more excellent offerings. Life is good whether I upgrade or not.
> Isn't that great? :-)
>
>> I think I might be more likely to replace it with a 7D than with a
>> 5D2.
>
> I don't think I represent a majority or important minority.
>
>> But that wasn't my point. My point was that a lot of people may feel that way.
>
> It seems a lot of people are, uhm, a bit megapixel crazy.
>
> A chain being only as strong as the weakest link, I feel that
> resolution is already being limited by most lenses outside
> their best apertures at lower than the present megapixels.
> (I don't think you'll get a noticeably better image from a wide
> open EF 50mm f/1.4 at 18MPix than at 8MPix + sensible upscaling
> (e.g. Lanczos scaling) where needed, for a drastic example.)
>
>> And that Canon may have concluded that that's where the future is, at least in
>> the near term. Your vigorously defensive reaction syggests to me that you may
>> secretly suspect that I'm right. ;^)
>
> Canon has concluded that they need to sell cameras and to sell
> cameras they need to compete in features and marketing numbers.
> Megapixel record numbers belong there.
>
> If suddenly a serious part of the camera buyers(!) would decide
> cameras needed to look like puppys and smell of burned toast ---
> well, Canon would be stupid to not offer them exactly that.
>
> As for *me*, that's not where *my* future lies, yes.
>
> -Wolfgang

Even if the lens cannot equal the sensor for resolution, the image will
still be better than with fewer pixels. The resultant resolution is
always a function of both lens and sensor. I've pointed this out
several times in the past.

The maximum resolution obtainable in practical photographic work is
limited both by the camera lens and by the film/sensor. The formula
often used to predict the resolution of a camera original is:

1/Rt2 = 1/Rs2 + 1/RL2 (Higgins, G.C.Appl. Opt. 3, v.1, 9, Jan 1964)

Rt = Resolution of the system (lens + sensor)

Rs = Resolution of the sensor

RL = Resolution of the lens

As you can see, system resolution is not just lens resolution alone.

--

Colin D.
From: ColinD on
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: EOS 7D and resolution
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com>
To:
Date: 29/09/2009 12:33 p.m.

> Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
>
>> My 50D is less than a year old, so I have no dog in this hunt. But if I were
>> in your shoes, with a once excellent APS-C camera that's gone a bit long in
>> the tooth,
>
> The camera is about as good as it was on the day it was made.
> It's even better in my hands than it was there in the beginning
> since I have learned a lot about the dos and don'ts with that body.
> :-)
>
> So, I have an excellent APS-C camera that is eclipsed by some even
> more excellent offerings. Life is good whether I upgrade or not.
> Isn't that great? :-)
>
>> I think I might be more likely to replace it with a 7D than with a
>> 5D2.
>
> I don't think I represent a majority or important minority.
>
>> But that wasn't my point. My point was that a lot of people may feel that way.
>
> It seems a lot of people are, uhm, a bit megapixel crazy.
>
> A chain being only as strong as the weakest link, I feel that
> resolution is already being limited by most lenses outside
> their best apertures at lower than the present megapixels.
> (I don't think you'll get a noticeably better image from a wide
> open EF 50mm f/1.4 at 18MPix than at 8MPix + sensible upscaling
> (e.g. Lanczos scaling) where needed, for a drastic example.)
>
>> And that Canon may have concluded that that's where the future is, at least in
>> the near term. Your vigorously defensive reaction syggests to me that you may
>> secretly suspect that I'm right. ;^)
>
> Canon has concluded that they need to sell cameras and to sell
> cameras they need to compete in features and marketing numbers.
> Megapixel record numbers belong there.
>
> If suddenly a serious part of the camera buyers(!) would decide
> cameras needed to look like puppys and smell of burned toast ---
> well, Canon would be stupid to not offer them exactly that.
>
> As for *me*, that's not where *my* future lies, yes.
>
> -Wolfgang

Even if the lens cannot equal the sensor for resolution, the image will
still be better than with fewer pixels. The resultant resolution is
always a function of both lens and sensor. I've pointed this out
several times in the past.

The maximum resolution obtainable in practical photographic work is
limited both by the camera lens and by the film/sensor. The formula
often used to predict the resolution of a camera original is:

1/Rt2 = 1/Rs2 + 1/RL2 (Higgins, G.C.Appl. Opt. 3, v.1, 9, Jan 1964)

Rt = Resolution of the system (lens + sensor)

Rs = Resolution of the sensor

RL = Resolution of the lens

As you can see, system resolution is not just lens resolution alone.

--

Colin D.
From: ColinD on
Oops. Sorry for the double post. Damn news client said it failed to
send, but it didn't, obviously.

Colin D.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
ColinD <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote:

>> A chain being only as strong as the weakest link, I feel that
>> resolution is already being limited by most lenses outside
>> their best apertures at lower than the present megapixels.
>> (I don't think you'll get a noticeably better image from a wide
>> open EF 50mm f/1.4 at 18MPix than at 8MPix + sensible upscaling
>> (e.g. Lanczos scaling) where needed, for a drastic example.)

> Even if the lens cannot equal the sensor for resolution, the image will
> still be better than with fewer pixels.

Sure, if you use arbitrary wrong definitions for 'better'.

> The resultant resolution is
> always a function of both lens and sensor. I've pointed this out
> several times in the past.

Point out as much as you want. Doesn't mean it's true or relevant.

> The maximum resolution obtainable in practical photographic work is
> limited both by the camera lens and by the film/sensor. The formula
> often used to predict the resolution of a camera original is:

See how you went from "better image" to a "*prediction* of
resolution"?

By your logic infinitely small sensor sizes, unable to capture
even a single photon, would produce 'better' images than any
other sensor with the same lens. Even you should be able to
see several catches with that.

Your claim, *as it stands*, is obviously wrong.

And misses a very important word to be relevant to practical use,
"noticeable" or "visible".

> 1/Rt2 = 1/Rs2 + 1/RL2 (Higgins, G.C.Appl. Opt. 3, v.1, 9, Jan 1964)

Ah, yes, a formula from the good old days a decade before the
first digital image sensor, back when higher resolution meant
slower films with finer, less notable grain.

> As you can see, system resolution is not just lens resolution alone.

I can see that you probably don't understand 'better' or
'noticeable' --- or what tinier pixels do unless you raise the
technology in between.

Maybe you should look at the independent lens test sites and
see if your formula comes up with the right answers as you test
the same lenses at the same format size against different sensor
resolutions ...

-Wolfgang