Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge 64%

Dan Rentea · 08-09-2019, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

You understand that the point isn't the resolution. The image is still 36 megapixels after the fact. You just have way less noise at a given iso, better color depth and better dynamic range -- basically a better image as a starting place to work with.

I shoot a lot of landscapes and under expose to try to keep highlights in the sky. In the old days I always would bracket, but with pixel shift I typically can use a single exposure that is under exposed by 1.5 to 2 stops and still get plenty of detail from the shadows. I like these results a lot better than the HDR type blends I was doing in the past.

With Sony's 16 shot of course you are going to get higher resolution and I'm not sure how useful that will be (it wouldn't be for me).

Now you've lost me. Let's forget about the names/brands of the cameras. Let's say we have camera A with 36mp and pixel shift and we have camera B with 61mp and 2 types of pixel shift (the normal 4 shots pixel shift that is found also in camera A and a new 16 shots pixel shift). The 16 shots pixel shift seems to further improve the dynamic range, not only the details in files.

Both cameras seems to have similar performance in terms of dynamic range in normal shooting (without pixel shift), but the 61mp files will have more details in files at low ISO where a landscape photographer is normaly shooting (with or without pixel shift). Why camera B is not good, but camera A is?

I don't shoot landscapes, but when I go out or when I talk to landscape photographers they always give me the same 2 advices:
1. To use sturdy tripod
2. To use various filters

The ones who print large have high resolution cameras like D850, 5DsR, A7R III or even medium format cameras and I understand why they paid lots of money for their cameras. The ones who don't print large but are using high resolution cameras with pixel shift and other features what reasons do they have?

I look at images like I look at a painting for example. I don't look at the image zoomed at 100% and I don't get very close to the monitor when I look at them. I don't think I can guess which image was taken with pixel shift and which one was shot without pixel shift at normal resolution. I tried to compare the files when I had K3 II and yes, there was a visible difference when I zoomed to 100%, but that's all. Loved the details but never needed...

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 08-09-2019 at 04:33 PM.

**Rondec** · 08-09-2019, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

Now you've lost me. Let's forget about the names/brands of the cameras. Let's say we have camera A with 36mp and pixel shift and we have camera B with 61mp and 2 types of pixel shift (the normal 4 shots pixel shift that is found also in camera A and a new 16 shots pixel shift). The 16 shots pixel shift seems to further improve the dynamic range, not only the details in files.

Both cameras seems to have similar performance in terms of dynamic range in normal shooting (without pixel shift), but the 61mp files will have more details in files at low ISO where a landscape photographer is normaly shooting (with or without pixel shift). Why camera B is not good, but camera A is?

I don't shoot landscapes, but when I go out or when I talk to landscape photographers they always give me the same 2 advices:
1. To use sturdy tripod
2. To use various filters

The ones who print large have high resolution cameras like D850, 5DsR, A7R III or even medium format cameras and I understand why they paid lots of money for their cameras. The ones who don't print large but are using high resolution cameras with pixel shift and other features what reasons do they have?

I look at images like I look at a painting for example. I don't look at the image zoomed at 100% and I don't get very close to the monitor when I look at them. I don't think I can guess which image was taken with pixel shift and which one was shot without pixel shift at normal resolution. I tried to compare the files when I had K3 II and yes, there was a visible difference when I zoomed to 100%, but that's all. Loved the details but never needed...

As you say, you don't shoot landscape much.

When it comes to megapixels, that is mostly about print size. If you are printing big enough that your current number pixels isn't sufficient, then you need more megapixels. I guess I don't print big enough, but I don't really need more than 36 megapixels. So it feels to me that 61 megapixels is more about cropping ability. If I don't need 61 megapixels then I certainly don't need super resolution which is what you get with 16 shot mode on the A7r IV.

The problem with shrinking pixel size is that you often decrease dynamic range. And while pixel shift boosts it some, it doesn't truly make up for the fact that these tiny pixels don't have as big photon wells as those on their cousins that have fewer but bigger pixels.

I don't know what the perfect pixel size is and maybe tech can work around these deficiencies, but I for one hope Pentax doesn't chase a sensor with this high megapixels.

Dan Rentea · 08-09-2019, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

As you say, you don't shoot landscape much.

When it comes to megapixels, that is mostly about print size. If you are printing big enough that your current number pixels isn't sufficient, then you need more megapixels. I guess I don't print big enough, but I don't really need more than 36 megapixels. So it feels to me that 61 megapixels is more about cropping ability. If I don't need 61 megapixels then I certainly don't need super resolution which is what you get with 16 shot mode on the A7r IV.

The problem with shrinking pixel size is that you often decrease dynamic range. And while pixel shift boosts it some, it doesn't truly make up for the fact that these tiny pixels don't have as big photon wells as those on their cousins that have fewer but bigger pixels.

I don't know what the perfect pixel size is and maybe tech can work around these deficiencies, but I for one hope Pentax doesn't chase a sensor with this high megapixels.

"If I don't need 61 megapixels then I certainly don't need super resolution which is what you get with 16 shot mode on the A7r IV.". Regarding this affirmation, replacing 61mp with 36mp and you will realize that you actually don't need 36mp either.

It's just that Pentax has only the 36mp full frame camera and you got used to 36mp.

Where are the tests confirming that those 61mp are decreasing the dynamic range? Why do people "kill" a new camera with simple speculations? D850 has 14.8 Evs when comes to dynamic range and it has 45mp. K1 has 36mp and 14.6 Evs. If we follow your logic, then D850 should have under 14.6 Evs due to shrinking pixel size.

So you see, I understand if the 61mp cameras are not for you, but people have different needs and again, this A7R IV has a 3500$ release price, not a 6000$ release price like D5/1Dx II. In the world of photography, 3500$ is the amount that lots of photographers are used to. 5D Mark IV is one of the most sold cameras among wedding photographers. D850 is a camera that still is on preorder in some countries, that good is still selling. What these 2 cameras have in common? The 3500$ price at their release.

surfar · 08-10-2019, 12:08 AM

3500,is fair for what Riv provides.

Actually a bargain!....1500 for a crop 26mp plus 2000 for a FF 61mp...10fps and 4K.Highest RES pixelshift so far,tracking AF on crocodiles!What more could ya want.
Well throw in deep buffer,dual UHS2 cardslots .Bells,whistles tamborines.A pretty good package.

Balls in Canons court!

**clackers** · 08-10-2019, 12:15 AM - **1 Like**

Sony now being butchered as less and less people buy their cameras, too.

biz-engineer · 08-12-2019, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

Why a 36mp camera is better than a 24mp camera or than a 45mp camera or than a 61mp camera?

That's a very good question Dan. For me, the best resolution is that resolution that allow to get rid of anti-alias filter without having pixels so small that dynamic range is reduced. I rate those 36Mp, 42Mp and 45Mp sensors from Sony, as best in class for the full frame format, it's the sweet spot for full frame, like 24Mp is the sweep spot for apsc and 60Mp - 70Mp is the sweet spot for medium format. A7rIV images shows leakage between 3um pixels in high light areas, which you won't see on an A7rIII. Also, the lenses don't resolve as much in the corners, making 61Mp FF useful for cropping center frame but overall no better than a 36Mp sensor in the corners. When I make large prints, that's the corners that show weaknesses first, if I see it with my K1 files, I won't be able to enlarge more with a A7rIV files because the corners will look worse... glass is the limit. You have to make prints, than everything become real, making prints reveals a lot of things.

Dan Rentea · 08-12-2019, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

That's a very good question Dan. For me, the best resolution is that resolution that allow to get rid of anti-alias filter without having pixels so small that dynamic range is reduced. I rate those 36Mp, 42Mp and 45Mp sensors from Sony, as best in class for the full frame format, it's the sweet spot for full frame, like 24Mp is the sweep spot for apsc and 60Mp - 70Mp is the sweet spot for medium format. A7rIV images shows leakage between 3um pixels in high light areas, which you won't see on an A7rIII. Also, the lenses don't resolve as much in the corners, making 61Mp FF useful for cropping center frame but overall no better than a 36Mp sensor in the corners. When I make large prints, that's the corners that show weaknesses first, if I see it with my K1 files, I won't be able to enlarge more with a A7rIV files because the corners will look worse... glass is the limit. You have to make prints, than everything become real, making prints reveals a lot of things.

If I pay a penny for each time I hear that lenses won't resolve the high resolution cameras... Tell this to all photographers shooting on K1 with old, vintage lenses.

I keep telling to all that if they want to use K1 at its potential, they need good glass.

Canon RP images taken with RF 28-70mm f2L lens look a lot better than the ones taken with 5D Mark IV and an 85mm f1.8 lens.

I don't know about Sony, but I'm quite convinced that Canon RF lenses can resolve the 70mp resolution (that if the rummors about a high mp Canon mirrorless are true).

And I'm waiting for the A7R IV to become available so that I can put my hands on and see how it performs with the G master lenses. I don't care about the current internet "reviews" for a camera which is not on shelves.

biz-engineer · 08-12-2019, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

If I pay a penny for each time I hear that lenses won't resolve the high resolution cameras...

The vast majority of MTF charts I've seen, I can tell in generally lenses resolve 20% at edges of the frame compared to the center. End of story.

---------- Post added 12-08-19 at 23:38 ----------

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

I don't know about Sony, but I'm quite convinced that Canon RF lenses can resolve the 70mp resolution

70Mp is the average between the center and corners. Except, in a print, you don't care if the center is the image is super sharp in the center and the corners are smeared / blurred, it's the corner that set the max enlargement that you can do. [ not a marketing standpoint, it is user standpoint].

Dan Rentea · 08-12-2019, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

The vast majority of MTF charts I've seen, I can tell in generally lenses resolve 20% at edges of the frame compared to the center. End of story.

At widest aperture? If so, then I don't care much about what's happening in the corners at f1.2 or f2.8.

I don't shoot landscapes or interiors, but I'm pretty much certain that I won't shoot them at the widest aperture.

I test cameras and lenses based on what I shoot and if they work for me, I buy them regardless of the lab tests results and MTF charts. I don't even bother looking at those because they are completely useless to me. When and if a client will tell me that the corners of the images aren't sharp enough for his needs, then I will probably need another camera as long as my lenses are top of the line and I can't get better.

surfar · 08-12-2019, 03:16 PM

Theres a big market selling test charts to clients,the ones from unreleased cameras are the rarest so are in demand.

Dan Rentea · 08-12-2019, 03:36 PM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by surfar

Theres a big market selling test charts to clients,the ones from unreleased cameras are the rarest so are in demand.

Don't forget about the Tony Northrup, DPreview, Jared Polin, etc. reviews. If you miss one, you're in big trouble because you won't know what to buy.

You realise how bad you will look among other photographers if you tell them you bought a camera on your own, without the guidance of the big influencers or without looking at lab charts and tests?!

surfar · 08-12-2019, 07:11 PM

Tony Northrup, DPreview, Jared Polin,

Wouldn't think of it!...actually those 3 are reasonably good for inexperienced folk.They all make errors and the drunk episodes of Cris/Jordan aren't good entertainment.

Sometimes you have to ignore the personality if the content is reasonable.

biz-engineer · 08-12-2019, 10:15 PM

I could observe that test charts translate into reality. Digital images in the center are generally sharper in the center. Please go ahead (without me) with defending your flawed theory about higher res. sensors. The more I shoot practically, the less I buy in canned marketing arguments for the sake of selling new gear. Ciao.

Dan Rentea · 08-12-2019, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

I could observe that test charts translate into reality. Digital images in the center are generally sharper in the center. Please go ahead (without me) with defending your flawed theory about higher res. sensors. The more I shoot practically, the less I buy in canned marketing arguments for the sake of selling new gear. Ciao.

Biz-engineer, first you say that high resolution cameras don't have lenses to resolve the big resolution. Then you say and I quote you " I rate those 36Mp, 42Mp and 45Mp sensors from Sony, as best in class for the full frame format, it's the sweet spot for full frame".

Now you say that test charts translate into reality, but A7R IV is not available and the few people who got the chance to use it had a beta version camera. Come back again after you practically shoot with this new Sony camera and give us a practical experience feedback.

Now we don't have enough informations to work with and when D850 was anounced, the same test charts was used online (not by you) as arguments.

biz-engineer · 08-12-2019, 11:42 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

Now you say that test charts translate into reality

Ok, you don't seem to understand. Lets take an example: The RF 24-105 f4 lens from Canon, it exist and it is tested. At the edges, it gets aberration like 1.5 to 2 pixels wide blurr when tested on an EOS R (30Mpixels sensor). So, do you think that if you mount that lens on an 80Mpixels sensor it will resolve more at the edges? For me, if the 24-105 blurr 2 pixels (at the edges) of an EOS R sensor, it will blurr more pixels of a 80Mp sensor. It's simple. Also, diffraction is not your friend. When shooting landscape, with something in the foreground, I need to stop down the lens to have it all in focus, when I stop down the lens to f11 on my K1, I can see my 36Mpixel are blurred already by diffraction... and in that case how much more detail would I get at f11 with a 60 or 80Mp sensor? Now, I could shoot portraits, lens aperture open, background blurred, and in that case what do I care about having more pixels on the blurr background, I'd only get a little more pixel at the plane of 100% in focus everything else will have some blur where more pixel density brings nothing. No matter how good the lens, even the Zeiss Otus will diffract at f11. You can't get out of that triangle, there's no magic recipe, there only a trade-off with shooting parameters, you can't have it all.

08-12-2019, 01:01 PM	#51
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by Dan Rentea Why a 36mp camera is better than a 24mp camera or than a 45mp camera or than a 61mp camera? That's a very good question Dan. For me, the best resolution is that resolution that allow to get rid of anti-alias filter without having pixels so small that dynamic range is reduced. I rate those 36Mp, 42Mp and 45Mp sensors from Sony, as best in class for the full frame format, it's the sweet spot for full frame, like 24Mp is the sweep spot for apsc and 60Mp - 70Mp is the sweet spot for medium format. A7rIV images shows leakage between 3um pixels in high light areas, which you won't see on an A7rIII. Also, the lenses don't resolve as much in the corners, making 61Mp FF useful for cropping center frame but overall no better than a 36Mp sensor in the corners. When I make large prints, that's the corners that show weaknesses first, if I see it with my K1 files, I won't be able to enlarge more with a A7rIV files because the corners will look worse... glass is the limit. You have to make prints, than everything become real, making prints reveals a lot of things. Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-12-2019 at 01:07 PM.

08-12-2019, 02:35 PM	#53
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by Dan Rentea If I pay a penny for each time I hear that lenses won't resolve the high resolution cameras... The vast majority of MTF charts I've seen, I can tell in generally lenses resolve 20% at edges of the frame compared to the center. End of story. ---------- Post added 12-08-19 at 23:38 ---------- Originally posted by Dan Rentea I don't know about Sony, but I'm quite convinced that Canon RF lenses can resolve the 70mp resolution 70Mp is the average between the center and corners. Except, in a print, you don't care if the center is the image is super sharp in the center and the corners are smeared / blurred, it's the corner that set the max enlargement that you can do. [ not a marketing standpoint, it is user standpoint]. Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-12-2019 at 02:40 PM.

08-12-2019, 07:11 PM	#57
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Miss one! Tony Northrup, DPreview, Jared Polin, Wouldn't think of it!...actually those 3 are reasonably good for inexperienced folk.They all make errors and the drunk episodes of Cris/Jordan aren't good entertainment. Sometimes you have to ignore the personality if the content is reasonable.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Canon Profits Way Down	reh321	Photographic Industry and Professionals	25	07-19-2019 08:44 AM
Reassure me that my K-7 isn't dead	Northern Soul	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	11-14-2011 01:28 PM
Somebody reassure me ..	techmulla	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	04-01-2010 01:50 AM
monkey outperforms investors	Gooshin	General Talk	13	01-18-2010 12:07 AM
Windows 7 64 bit & CS4 64 bit ?	holdgaj	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	10-20-2009 06:12 AM

08-09-2019, 04:23 PM	#46
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by Rondec You understand that the point isn't the resolution. The image is still 36 megapixels after the fact. You just have way less noise at a given iso, better color depth and better dynamic range -- basically a better image as a starting place to work with. I shoot a lot of landscapes and under expose to try to keep highlights in the sky. In the old days I always would bracket, but with pixel shift I typically can use a single exposure that is under exposed by 1.5 to 2 stops and still get plenty of detail from the shadows. I like these results a lot better than the HDR type blends I was doing in the past. With Sony's 16 shot of course you are going to get higher resolution and I'm not sure how useful that will be (it wouldn't be for me). Now you've lost me. Let's forget about the names/brands of the cameras. Let's say we have camera A with 36mp and pixel shift and we have camera B with 61mp and 2 types of pixel shift (the normal 4 shots pixel shift that is found also in camera A and a new 16 shots pixel shift). The 16 shots pixel shift seems to further improve the dynamic range, not only the details in files. Both cameras seems to have similar performance in terms of dynamic range in normal shooting (without pixel shift), but the 61mp files will have more details in files at low ISO where a landscape photographer is normaly shooting (with or without pixel shift). Why camera B is not good, but camera A is? I don't shoot landscapes, but when I go out or when I talk to landscape photographers they always give me the same 2 advices: 1. To use sturdy tripod 2. To use various filters The ones who print large have high resolution cameras like D850, 5DsR, A7R III or even medium format cameras and I understand why they paid lots of money for their cameras. The ones who don't print large but are using high resolution cameras with pixel shift and other features what reasons do they have? I look at images like I look at a painting for example. I don't look at the image zoomed at 100% and I don't get very close to the monitor when I look at them. I don't think I can guess which image was taken with pixel shift and which one was shot without pixel shift at normal resolution. I tried to compare the files when I had K3 II and yes, there was a visible difference when I zoomed to 100%, but that's all. Loved the details but never needed... Last edited by Dan Rentea; 08-09-2019 at 04:33 PM.

08-09-2019, 06:41 PM	#47
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by Dan Rentea Now you've lost me. Let's forget about the names/brands of the cameras. Let's say we have camera A with 36mp and pixel shift and we have camera B with 61mp and 2 types of pixel shift (the normal 4 shots pixel shift that is found also in camera A and a new 16 shots pixel shift). The 16 shots pixel shift seems to further improve the dynamic range, not only the details in files. Both cameras seems to have similar performance in terms of dynamic range in normal shooting (without pixel shift), but the 61mp files will have more details in files at low ISO where a landscape photographer is normaly shooting (with or without pixel shift). Why camera B is not good, but camera A is? I don't shoot landscapes, but when I go out or when I talk to landscape photographers they always give me the same 2 advices: 1. To use sturdy tripod 2. To use various filters The ones who print large have high resolution cameras like D850, 5DsR, A7R III or even medium format cameras and I understand why they paid lots of money for their cameras. The ones who don't print large but are using high resolution cameras with pixel shift and other features what reasons do they have? I look at images like I look at a painting for example. I don't look at the image zoomed at 100% and I don't get very close to the monitor when I look at them. I don't think I can guess which image was taken with pixel shift and which one was shot without pixel shift at normal resolution. I tried to compare the files when I had K3 II and yes, there was a visible difference when I zoomed to 100%, but that's all. Loved the details but never needed... As you say, you don't shoot landscape much. When it comes to megapixels, that is mostly about print size. If you are printing big enough that your current number pixels isn't sufficient, then you need more megapixels. I guess I don't print big enough, but I don't really need more than 36 megapixels. So it feels to me that 61 megapixels is more about cropping ability. If I don't need 61 megapixels then I certainly don't need super resolution which is what you get with 16 shot mode on the A7r IV. The problem with shrinking pixel size is that you often decrease dynamic range. And while pixel shift boosts it some, it doesn't truly make up for the fact that these tiny pixels don't have as big photon wells as those on their cousins that have fewer but bigger pixels. I don't know what the perfect pixel size is and maybe tech can work around these deficiencies, but I for one hope Pentax doesn't chase a sensor with this high megapixels.

08-09-2019, 11:24 PM	#48
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by Rondec As you say, you don't shoot landscape much. When it comes to megapixels, that is mostly about print size. If you are printing big enough that your current number pixels isn't sufficient, then you need more megapixels. I guess I don't print big enough, but I don't really need more than 36 megapixels. So it feels to me that 61 megapixels is more about cropping ability. If I don't need 61 megapixels then I certainly don't need super resolution which is what you get with 16 shot mode on the A7r IV. The problem with shrinking pixel size is that you often decrease dynamic range. And while pixel shift boosts it some, it doesn't truly make up for the fact that these tiny pixels don't have as big photon wells as those on their cousins that have fewer but bigger pixels. I don't know what the perfect pixel size is and maybe tech can work around these deficiencies, but I for one hope Pentax doesn't chase a sensor with this high megapixels. "If I don't need 61 megapixels then I certainly don't need super resolution which is what you get with 16 shot mode on the A7r IV.". Regarding this affirmation, replacing 61mp with 36mp and you will realize that you actually don't need 36mp either. It's just that Pentax has only the 36mp full frame camera and you got used to 36mp. Where are the tests confirming that those 61mp are decreasing the dynamic range? Why do people "kill" a new camera with simple speculations? D850 has 14.8 Evs when comes to dynamic range and it has 45mp. K1 has 36mp and 14.6 Evs. If we follow your logic, then D850 should have under 14.6 Evs due to shrinking pixel size. So you see, I understand if the 61mp cameras are not for you, but people have different needs and again, this A7R IV has a 3500$ release price, not a 6000$ release price like D5/1Dx II. In the world of photography, 3500$ is the amount that lots of photographers are used to. 5D Mark IV is one of the most sold cameras among wedding photographers. D850 is a camera that still is on preorder in some countries, that good is still selling. What these 2 cameras have in common? The 3500$ price at their release.

08-10-2019, 12:08 AM	#49
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	3500,is fair for what Riv provides. Actually a bargain!....1500 for a crop 26mp plus 2000 for a FF 61mp...10fps and 4K.Highest RES pixelshift so far,tracking AF on crocodiles!What more could ya want. Well throw in deep buffer,dual UHS2 cardslots .Bells,whistles tamborines.A pretty good package. Balls in Canons court!

08-10-2019, 12:15 AM - 1 Like	#50
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Sony now being butchered as less and less people buy their cameras, too.

08-12-2019, 02:28 PM	#52
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by biz-engineer That's a very good question Dan. For me, the best resolution is that resolution that allow to get rid of anti-alias filter without having pixels so small that dynamic range is reduced. I rate those 36Mp, 42Mp and 45Mp sensors from Sony, as best in class for the full frame format, it's the sweet spot for full frame, like 24Mp is the sweep spot for apsc and 60Mp - 70Mp is the sweet spot for medium format. A7rIV images shows leakage between 3um pixels in high light areas, which you won't see on an A7rIII. Also, the lenses don't resolve as much in the corners, making 61Mp FF useful for cropping center frame but overall no better than a 36Mp sensor in the corners. When I make large prints, that's the corners that show weaknesses first, if I see it with my K1 files, I won't be able to enlarge more with a A7rIV files because the corners will look worse... glass is the limit. You have to make prints, than everything become real, making prints reveals a lot of things. If I pay a penny for each time I hear that lenses won't resolve the high resolution cameras... Tell this to all photographers shooting on K1 with old, vintage lenses. I keep telling to all that if they want to use K1 at its potential, they need good glass. Canon RP images taken with RF 28-70mm f2L lens look a lot better than the ones taken with 5D Mark IV and an 85mm f1.8 lens. I don't know about Sony, but I'm quite convinced that Canon RF lenses can resolve the 70mp resolution (that if the rummors about a high mp Canon mirrorless are true). And I'm waiting for the A7R IV to become available so that I can put my hands on and see how it performs with the G master lenses. I don't care about the current internet "reviews" for a camera which is not on shelves.

08-12-2019, 02:58 PM	#54
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by biz-engineer The vast majority of MTF charts I've seen, I can tell in generally lenses resolve 20% at edges of the frame compared to the center. End of story. At widest aperture? If so, then I don't care much about what's happening in the corners at f1.2 or f2.8. I don't shoot landscapes or interiors, but I'm pretty much certain that I won't shoot them at the widest aperture. I test cameras and lenses based on what I shoot and if they work for me, I buy them regardless of the lab tests results and MTF charts. I don't even bother looking at those because they are completely useless to me. When and if a client will tell me that the corners of the images aren't sharp enough for his needs, then I will probably need another camera as long as my lenses are top of the line and I can't get better.

08-12-2019, 03:16 PM	#55
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Theres a big market selling test charts to clients,the ones from unreleased cameras are the rarest so are in demand.

08-12-2019, 03:36 PM - 4 Likes	#56
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by surfar Theres a big market selling test charts to clients,the ones from unreleased cameras are the rarest so are in demand. Don't forget about the Tony Northrup, DPreview, Jared Polin, etc. reviews. If you miss one, you're in big trouble because you won't know what to buy. You realise how bad you will look among other photographers if you tell them you bought a camera on your own, without the guidance of the big influencers or without looking at lab charts and tests?!

08-12-2019, 10:15 PM	#58
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	I could observe that test charts translate into reality. Digital images in the center are generally sharper in the center. Please go ahead (without me) with defending your flawed theory about higher res. sensors. The more I shoot practically, the less I buy in canned marketing arguments for the sake of selling new gear. Ciao.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2019, 10:52 PM	#59
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by biz-engineer I could observe that test charts translate into reality. Digital images in the center are generally sharper in the center. Please go ahead (without me) with defending your flawed theory about higher res. sensors. The more I shoot practically, the less I buy in canned marketing arguments for the sake of selling new gear. Ciao. Biz-engineer, first you say that high resolution cameras don't have lenses to resolve the big resolution. Then you say and I quote you " I rate those 36Mp, 42Mp and 45Mp sensors from Sony, as best in class for the full frame format, it's the sweet spot for full frame". Now you say that test charts translate into reality, but A7R IV is not available and the few people who got the chance to use it had a beta version camera. Come back again after you practically shoot with this new Sony camera and give us a practical experience feedback. Now we don't have enough informations to work with and when D850 was anounced, the same test charts was used online (not by you) as arguments.

08-12-2019, 11:42 PM - 1 Like	#60
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by Dan Rentea Now you say that test charts translate into reality Ok, you don't seem to understand. Lets take an example: The RF 24-105 f4 lens from Canon, it exist and it is tested. At the edges, it gets aberration like 1.5 to 2 pixels wide blurr when tested on an EOS R (30Mpixels sensor). So, do you think that if you mount that lens on an 80Mpixels sensor it will resolve more at the edges? For me, if the 24-105 blurr 2 pixels (at the edges) of an EOS R sensor, it will blurr more pixels of a 80Mp sensor. It's simple. Also, diffraction is not your friend. When shooting landscape, with something in the foreground, I need to stop down the lens to have it all in focus, when I stop down the lens to f11 on my K1, I can see my 36Mpixel are blurred already by diffraction... and in that case how much more detail would I get at f11 with a 60 or 80Mp sensor? Now, I could shoot portraits, lens aperture open, background blurred, and in that case what do I care about having more pixels on the blurr background, I'd only get a little more pixel at the plane of 100% in focus everything else will have some blur where more pixel density brings nothing. No matter how good the lens, even the Zeiss Otus will diffract at f11. You can't get out of that triangle, there's no magic recipe, there only a trade-off with shooting parameters, you can't have it all.