Why upgrade for more MP

Lets dig in, bypass any marketing SPV and bring on some brain pain :D

If you simply review the specifications of each brand's succession of camera models with ever greater imagers, they also utilize correspondingly ever greater capacity DSP and data transport:

Nikon Expeed DSP ASIC

Canon DIGIC DSP ASIC

Sony BIONZ DSP

Sony Exmor Sensors & DSP

Varients of the Fujitsu, now Socionext Milbeaut architecture processors appear in Leica M and Leica S2, Nikon, already referenced, some Pentax K mount cameras, and the Sigma True-II processor.

Check out - Socionext Milbeaut Image Processors

Here we go, the needed level of technology detail:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lbeaut_M42.gif

Fujitsu Milbeaut M-4 block diagram delivered since 2006.

No offense intended or taken y'all! :- )

I am genuinely impressed by the level of detail provided. I thought I would just drop the Pixel race vs quality of image in and it certainly has produced some great return. I won't dare to compete with the technological know-how of these last posts - I know my limitations. However, I will make one comment... Years ago I got a Canon G7 camera to go hiking with. It's probably regarded as obsolete now but it still takes the great pictures that it did when I bought it.

My Canon 5DMkIII and 7D both have great performance and I expect them to do the same job for some time to come. Interestingly, while I have configured the full size output of the cameras I don't use it. I reduce the images on copies to a much lower size because I don't generate big prints and the image resolution I use on screens is far, far lower. One day I may use the original copies but in the meantime I have a long way to go until I out-grow these sensors and cameras.

What WOULD be handy is if someone would produce an L-series lens with a focal range of, oh say about 10-400, with a f1.4 capability and weighing 300g - and of course pin sharp across all focal lengths and stops.

Any ideas...? :D:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tronhard

What WOULD be handy is if someone would produce an L-series lens with a focal range of, oh say about 10-400, with a f1.4 capability and weighing 300g - and of course pin sharp across all focal lengths and stops.

---

I think you forgot the "for less than $500" part on your wishlist. :D

HI Chaunce,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

---

Let me just state for the record that I can appreciate/respect your due diligence/issues with your seemingly agonizing decision concerning a new shooter.

Typically, a higher resolution camera is desirable because of its potential for better image quality. That is to say that they have the potential to resolve finer detail which becomes evident when printed large format or pixel peeped. And, as I’m sure you are aware, there are some caveats with this statement such as top drawer glass, good or controlled lighting, low ISO values, refined shooting techniques, end use to name a couple, to get the advantages (and less of the disadvantages) of the higher res. sensors of the 5DS(R). This would be useful for commercial photographers or possibly, in your case, folks who want to go big with printing and print a lot of it. It’s not so much use for folks out of this category including folks who primarily display for web use. In a way, these are “special-purpose” cameras and not as well suited for all-purpose use as others.

But I’m not seeing anything mentioned here about image quality from you. All I’m seeing in your OP is a concern (obsession? :D) with attaining higher MP’s or (I assume) file sizes. Then, looking at your recent endeavors I see primarily the smoke manipulations and floral, most of which are also heavily manipulated.

So I am assuming you are aware that higher resolution is not necessarily synonymous with better image quality.

As an example, the more you do in post the more potential image degradation. In your case, what with all the color replacing, BG replacements, warping, twisting, distorting, etc. (esp. smoke stuff) there is hardly a pixel recognizable from the original. By the time you are saving this amount of post-production as a .jpg, I would wonder if a high res camera would have ever done any good to begin with since the vast majority of the final output is computer generated anyway. And again, as you state, you can CG your MP requirements at the same time in post. And again for the record, I’m not saying anything derogatorily either. I’m just calling ‘em like I see ‘em!

With the floral stuff, I would think you could get some benefit because you are satisfying the caveats that these cameras perform best under and could, contrary to your self-proclaimed addiction, do less in post. There could be some of the original shot left (the most important part) that could be highly detailed as resolved in-camera. Superresolution post production methods might not be necessary.

So if I were doing what you are doing photographically, and trying to either talk myself into or out of one of the 5DS (R), and I get it is a fiscal argument, this is what I would be considering and researching. I would be taking a good, hard look at what I am going to do with it that might or might not benefit, in your case, extremely aggressive post production leanings. And since you have made the point that you can do it all in Photoshop, I would think it would have to be some damn good benefits to offset the cost. Unless of course I just took Izzie’s sage advice and get the durned thing and have done with it!

None of us know what your end purposes might be so cannot know what might be the best way to get there. We know nothing about what your ego needs to be gratified and I for one totally get the accomplish-what-you-set-out-to-do thang, but no one can, and has answered your question. Sounds like you may not be 100% sure yourself, which is understandable.

So if it were me, instead of asking the same question in as many different ways as I could think of on here, and getting the same answers stated in just as many different ways, I think I would decide what my questions/goals/emotions really are regarding getting to where I want to be in-camera vs. in post, set up to shoot said, and rent one of these cameras for a few days and find out for myself.

Or maybe I’d just get a new puppy and call it good!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

I think you forgot the "for less than $500" part on your wishlist. :D

---

Good to see you are seeing things my way! LOL!!!:)

Loose Canon,

Well said.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loose Canon

...So if it were me, instead of asking the same question in as many different ways as I could think of on here, and getting the same answers stated in just as many different ways, I think I would decide what my questions/goals/emotions really are regarding getting to where I want to be in-camera vs. in post, set up to shoot said, and rent one of these cameras for a few days and find out for myself.

Or maybe I’d just get a new puppy and call it good!

:)

---

Thanks Terry for recognizing the core of this thread. I was left a bit bewildered after such a need was expressed for a comparative review of post sensor in camera DSP technology that once provided, the thread took a right turn. ( and I just lined up my texts on multicore DSP architectures and programming :rolleyes: )

Quote:

---

I see primarily the smoke manipulations and floral, most of which are also heavily manipulated.

---

You're correct with the manipulations regarding the smoke images, but not nearly so much
with the floral stuff...unless you consider stacking and merging manipulation.

I am a proponent of avoiding WA glass, preferring instead to use longer lenses and merging,
then cropping to the desired FOV. Not sure if that's defined as manipulation. The floral stuff
is accomplished the same way, getting close, using a macro lens, then stacking/merging.
In my mind, it's more akin to "merge to panorama".

Method of achievement is less important to me than is the final product.

Regardless, I do appreciate your input.

I've always looked at techniques like photomerge, HDR and image stacking as a "kludge". This is a nice way of saying that we are using slightly awkward approaches to (mostly) get around limitations we have with our equipment. The only one I have not used myself is focus stacking, so I can't comment on that technique at all.

On the other hand, if you shoot film, you can get panoramic cameras that take panoramic shots on a single piece of film. There are obviously limitations to using these cameras, but one could argue that this is a more "elegant" solution than manual panning and photo stitching.

http://www.kwdo.de/english/noblex/frameset.htm

When it comes to HDR, modern cameras with increased dynamic range reduce the need for this technique. A camera that has a more modern sensor with true 14-bit output is going to reduce blown highlights and blocked shadow detail than say an old 8-bit model (like the first digital cameras I used).

While you can certainly get great looking images with these kludges, there are definitely limitations as to what can be done with them. Nicely said, stationary objects are fine, ones that move (quickly) are going to be very challanging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

You're correct with the manipulations regarding the smoke images, but not nearly so much
with the floral stuff...unless you consider stacking and merging manipulation.

---

Well, not that it is necessarily relevant wm, but yes. I do consider that manipulating an image. The last lily image I saw of yours you claimed was 6-1/2 feet wide. I would definitely consider that very heavily manipulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

I am a proponent of avoiding WA glass, preferring instead to use longer lenses and merging,
then cropping to the desired FOV. Not sure if that's defined as manipulation. The floral stuff
is accomplished the same way, getting close, using a macro lens, then stacking/merging.
In my mind, it's more akin to "merge to panorama".

Method of achievement is less important to me than is the final product.

---

I feel the same way to a point wm, but I also realize method of achievement is tantamount to the final product. I (mistakenly?) thought you felt the same way since you are considering upgrading to a $4000 camera and took time to explain to me what your methods of achievement actually are.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

......
When it comes to HDR, modern cameras with increased dynamic range reduce the need for this technique. A camera that has a more modern sensor with true 14-bit output is going to reduce blown highlights and blocked shadow detail than say an old 8-bit model (like the first digital cameras I used).
.....

---

I don't see any relation between bit depth and dynamic range. Unless you refer to the age solely.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

Another reason offered from https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...hread49772.htm

---

wm if you are going to quote me to bolster your argument you had best not use this quote. I was asking Donald to shoot some comparison shots so i and others could see the difference his camera really makes.
brian

Are you suggesting Brian, that you can discern the type of camera used based on an internet display?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

Are you suggesting Brian, that you can discern the type of camera used based on an internet display?

---

I am suggesting you shouldn't quote me out of context. It isn't polite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

I don't see any relation between bit depth and dynamic range. Unless you refer to the age solely.

George

---

Exactly my point.

Coming late to this thread, most has been said. Still, here is a -rather pedestrian- thought of mine:
With regard to how many MP, the question must certainly be: for which purpose do I want to expose a picture? For the internet - in which case 4 MP should be more than enough? Or for the big, empty wall of an executive lounge, 50x75"? Or for an exhibition/gallery, in a size between 16x24" to 30x40? The latter size should certainly be about enough also for the most representative private living room. The 50x75" mural is most likely not to be looked at from the same distance as an 8x10 print, and given this, I honestly think my own 36MP camera is for most purposes actually a comfortable overkill. Given today's ubiquitous upres-possibilities, I don't think anyone could really distinguish between a 30x40" print from a 24MP file and a 36MP one. In fact, I think most 16MP files would be up to scratch - this at least is what Fujifilm owners stress again and again. So, what counts for a sensor from a certain size onward, once one has become clear about what one wants to do with the own pictures, are really issues like bit depth and dynamic range.
By the way, a similar argument could be made about lens sharpness: most average lenses are completely adequate here. What matters more are points like flare and bokeh, depending on how one intends to use a lens.
So, MP size and lens resolution seem to be selling arguments of the industry as much as anything else.

When I find myself dreaming about a second camera to supplement my workhorse, I imagine a smaller, mirrorless one which can be fitted anywhere and always come along.

Lukas