Again! Another camera goes soft with a pixel jump!!

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Mar 25, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Pentax K10D to K20D, 10 to 15 megapixel jump, images got soft.
    Olympus E-410/510 to E-420/520 (no pixel jump but more NR) images went
    Now, the newest Canon, same thing. It's obvious something, high
    powered in-camera NR, whatever, is softening up the images.
    RichA, Mar 25, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Get lost Guest

    Oops! Sorry. Some other posters on dpreview have now pointed out
    that it appears the samples provided by the new Canon have...focus
    problems! Big ones!! What a surprise! So we can't really judge the
    camera until they fix that issue. Come back to it in about 8 months
    then. :)
    Get lost, Mar 25, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Also true of the 1Ds Mk III and especially the 5D Mk II.

    The level of detail obtainable from the 5D Mk II is way below what you
    would expect of a 21.8 MP DSLR, and not so much better than the output
    from the original 5D.
    Bruce, Mar 25, 2009
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    I don't know for sure, but the reduced pixel pitch probably causes more
    noise and the increased amount of noise reduction required probably
    blurs the detail.
    Bruce, Mar 25, 2009
  5. RichA

    Wally Guest

    Increased resolution should improve sharpness.

    Wally, Mar 25, 2009
  6. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    It is more likely that the sensor is outpacing the capabilities of the
    glass and end user combined. Are the images still soft on a tripod and
    taken in good light at the optimum f ratio for diffraction limited imaging?

    Sharpness sells so a lot of the lower end cameras by default do some
    fairly brutal in camera sharpening to add extra punch. The high end
    cameras tend to record more accurately what the lens actually saw.
    The search of ever larger numbers of pixels is running out of steam. If
    the pixels are too small you get poor signal to noise (not that it will
    stop the marketeers fooling Joe Public with their uber-megapixel race).

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Mar 25, 2009
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Exactly, but it doesn't always. Packing more pixels on a sensor of the
    same physical size means more noise, which requires more noise
    reduction, which blurs detail.
    Bruce, Mar 26, 2009
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    For web display, 2 MP is more than enough.
    Bruce, Mar 26, 2009
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce, Mar 26, 2009
  10. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    What an impressively well-reasoned rebuttal.
    Zoom lenses don't count, and especially not the cheap ones.
    Ray Fischer, Mar 26, 2009
  11. ... and in this case the sensor is actually /smaller/, IIRC.

    David J Taylor, Mar 26, 2009
  12. It means more noise per pixel, but not necessarily more noise per
    image. If there is no more noise per image, then with the same amount
    of noise reduction you could get more detail. It's also the case that
    if you want the maximum detail from a noisy image you shouldn't remove
    all noise.
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 26, 2009
  13. RichA

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Indeed, that is what I was going to comment on. The higher the
    resolution of a new film or a new camera, the more focus and other
    imaging faults show up. And, of course, with digital, we can always blow
    up the images so simply with fat pixels in image editing programs, so we
    can really see any imperfections.

    Now, that to me is not a reason to AVOID high-res cameras, it is just
    tht the higher the resolution you use, the more craftsmanship it takes
    to make use of that higher res :)

    This is assuming, of course, that the rest of the system can make use of
    the higher pixel count- i.e, it really is a higher res system.
    Don Stauffer, Mar 26, 2009
  14. RichA

    Charles Guest

    The tried and true weak link maxim. The emphasis on sensor resolution was
    once important, but is now mostly a tiresome marketing ploy.
    Wow, how true this is with beginners who see sharpness above all factors but
    seem to miss (ignore?) the ugly artifacts.
    Noise really shows up with the crammed sensors. The fixes fuzz the picture
    and the EFFECTIVE resolution is less than what can be achieved with a
    reasonable design.

    Alas, the horsepower race and the watts per channel race and the digital
    cameral MP race will never completely die because consumers are too often
    keyed in one or two issues.
    Charles, Mar 26, 2009
  15. RichA

    Get lost Guest

    Some modern zooms are equal or better than any old prime designs. Old
    crap from the 1980s don't count.
    Get lost, Mar 26, 2009
  16. The 20D (8Mpix, crop) and the 5D II share the same pixel density.

    What that means re "the 5D II has not enough detail" or "too
    small pixels" is an easy exercise for the intelligent reader.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 28, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.