Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge 64%

Dan Rentea · 08-13-2019, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

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.

Let me ask you, what Pentax lenses resolve the 36mp sensor found in K1?

And let me ask you another question: what Nikon lenses resolve the 45mp sensor found in D850?

For both sensors you said they are the sweet spot in full frame category.

And the last question: how much time did you spent with A7R IV and G master lens shooting landscapes so that you can have a verdict?

Again, I'm not shooting landscapes, but as I said, I spend time among the ones who shoot landscapes and live from the printed images they sell. You know why they love D850 beside its resolution? Because it has the focus stacking (focus shift) option in camera so that they don't need to shoot at f11-f13 when they want all in focus. Looking at their printed images it's enough to keep staying away from test charts, internet labs and excuses about how bad are high resolution full frame cameras...

biz-engineer · 08-13-2019, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

And the last question: how much time did you spent with A7R IV and G master lens shooting landscapes so that you can have a verdict?

I haven't spent any time with any G master lens, I know that they diffract as much as any lens when stopped down. You can put perfect glass in a lens, as soon as there is an aperture, the aperture will limit how much resolution the system can resolve, that's what we call a diffraction limited system.

---------- Post added 13-08-19 at 11:13 ----------

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

Again, I'm not shooting landscapes, but as I said, I spend time among the ones who shoot landscapes and live from the printed images they sell. You know why they love D850 beside its resolution? Because it has the focus stacking (focus shift) option in camera so that they don't need to shoot at f11-f13 when they want all in focus.

Yep, focus stacking, it works only on tripod. I've shot landscapes hand held with foreground and background at f8 and f5.6 to avoid diffraction, and when I stacked the frames with Helicon focus, it was enable to align the frame without creating artifacts. I would have needed a tripod etc . etc.. falling into medium format type of setup.

---------- Post added 13-08-19 at 11:14 ----------

There's no free lunch... more pixel density is not a miracle solution.

The benefit of more of smaller pixel is that you can crop, use a wide FoV and open up the aperture. But that's a choice, as it is cheaper to buy an apsc camera than it cost to buy a new full frame camera with more mega pixels for cropping.

**Serkevan** · 08-13-2019, 02:23 AM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post? Additionally, if you're already stacking, wouldn't short tele stitches yield higher detail and more resolution?

Dan Rentea · 08-13-2019, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Serkevan

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post?

With D850 you have to stack them in Photoshop. In camera you only have the option to set the number of shots and the distance between focus from an image to the next one if my memory is correct and the camera will do it automatically instead of you doing the focus shift manually.

---------- Post added 08-13-19 at 09:42 AM ----------

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Yep, focus stacking, it works only on tripod. I've shot landscapes hand held with foreground and background at f8 and f5.6 to avoid diffraction, and when I stacked the frames with Helicon focus, it was enable to align the frame without creating artifacts. I would have needed a tripod etc . etc.. falling into medium format type of setup.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the landscape photographers I know don't leave home without a sturdy tripod. To quote you, it's not free lunch when you want to get the best results. That's why they have all sorts of filters, a rain cover and a tripod with them all the time and some of them walk on mountains for long distances. But they live from this stuff. For the ones who take landscape images for hobby it may be different and some relly on dynamic range and stabilisation when they go out. This brings me back to my initial question: why do they need 36mp cameras?

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 08-13-2019 at 02:44 AM.

**Rondec** · 08-13-2019, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Serkevan

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post? Additionally, if you're already stacking, wouldn't short tele stitches yield higher detail and more resolution?

Yes. It is actually very easy to produce high megapixel images, by shooting panoramas with a little longer focal length. I have stitched 10 vertical frames shot hand held with a K5 and had a very nice panorama shot.

As I have been trying to figure out the point of a really high megapixel camera, I do come to the conclusion that it is either for (a) folks who print very big or (b) folks who may need to crop their images really heavily (like wildlife photographers).

Biz-engineer is right that landscapes are typically shot stop down a fair amount meaning that diffraction does begin to limit. With a 36 megapixel sensor, diffraction begins to kick in around f10, which is fine for most purposes. But if you are shooting at f8 or f10 on a 61 megapixel sensor, how much more detail are you really going to get, even if you are using a sharp lens and a tripod? Maybe not as much as you would think.

I know that the A7r IV images on DP Review are shot with a beta camera, but at this point I am not particularly impressed with the results. Maybe the final version of software will make a big difference, but as for now, I am a bit skeptical.

**Serkevan** · 08-13-2019, 02:50 AM

Yes, I assume that having a 61MP camera that can turn a shot from a 200mm tele into a 15 MP or so 600mm while allowing you to keep track of the darned bird through the VF would be an actual improvement that helps your photography...

biz-engineer · 08-13-2019, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Dan Rentea

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the landscape photographers I know don't leave home without a sturdy tripod.

Yes. And if you can do multishots with a tripod for focus bracketing of a landscape, then you can do multi-shots for stitching, and the multi-shot stitching you can do it with a basic camera. without high resolution. I've turned the equation a lot, and came to the conclusion that a high pixel density camera doesn't bring any benefit beyond the sweet spot of sensors without optical anti-alias filter. As soon as you can do multiple shots , you can do stacking, and even averaging and bracketing, the camera and lens isn't the limitation anymore.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-13-2019 at 03:03 AM.

surfar · 08-13-2019, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Serkevan

darned bird through the VF

Is that a new breed?....A redDot site is the best tracker.

photoptimist · 08-13-2019, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Serkevan

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post?

Sort of. Focus stacking requires a lot of extra computation to both find the sharpest bits in each frame and then compensate for the inevitable focus breathing between frames.

Originally posted by Serkevan

Additionally, if you're already stacking, wouldn't short tele stitches yield higher detail and more resolution?

Focus stacking increases depth of field providing more resolution from the nearest foreground to the deepest background).

Short tele stitches tend to decrease depth of field (stitches only increase resolution in the plane of focus which tends to be shallower for a tele lens). In fact, the Brenizer Method uses this to synthesize a wide angle view with almost everything deeply out of focus except the subject.

08-13-2019, 02:09 AM	#62
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by Dan Rentea And the last question: how much time did you spent with A7R IV and G master lens shooting landscapes so that you can have a verdict? I haven't spent any time with any G master lens, I know that they diffract as much as any lens when stopped down. You can put perfect glass in a lens, as soon as there is an aperture, the aperture will limit how much resolution the system can resolve, that's what we call a diffraction limited system. ---------- Post added 13-08-19 at 11:13 ---------- Originally posted by Dan Rentea Again, I'm not shooting landscapes, but as I said, I spend time among the ones who shoot landscapes and live from the printed images they sell. You know why they love D850 beside its resolution? Because it has the focus stacking (focus shift) option in camera so that they don't need to shoot at f11-f13 when they want all in focus. Yep, focus stacking, it works only on tripod. I've shot landscapes hand held with foreground and background at f8 and f5.6 to avoid diffraction, and when I stacked the frames with Helicon focus, it was enable to align the frame without creating artifacts. I would have needed a tripod etc . etc.. falling into medium format type of setup. ---------- Post added 13-08-19 at 11:14 ---------- There's no free lunch... more pixel density is not a miracle solution. The benefit of more of smaller pixel is that you can crop, use a wide FoV and open up the aperture. But that's a choice, as it is cheaper to buy an apsc camera than it cost to buy a new full frame camera with more mega pixels for cropping. Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-13-2019 at 02:16 AM.

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

08-13-2019, 01:46 AM	#61
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by biz-engineer 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. Let me ask you, what Pentax lenses resolve the 36mp sensor found in K1? And let me ask you another question: what Nikon lenses resolve the 45mp sensor found in D850? For both sensors you said they are the sweet spot in full frame category. And the last question: how much time did you spent with A7R IV and G master lens shooting landscapes so that you can have a verdict? Again, I'm not shooting landscapes, but as I said, I spend time among the ones who shoot landscapes and live from the printed images they sell. You know why they love D850 beside its resolution? Because it has the focus stacking (focus shift) option in camera so that they don't need to shoot at f11-f13 when they want all in focus. Looking at their printed images it's enough to keep staying away from test charts, internet labs and excuses about how bad are high resolution full frame cameras...

08-13-2019, 02:23 AM	#63
Serkevan Site Supporter Join Date: May 2019 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,976	Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post? Additionally, if you're already stacking, wouldn't short tele stitches yield higher detail and more resolution?

08-13-2019, 02:34 AM	#64
Dan Rentea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bucharest Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by Serkevan Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post? With D850 you have to stack them in Photoshop. In camera you only have the option to set the number of shots and the distance between focus from an image to the next one if my memory is correct and the camera will do it automatically instead of you doing the focus shift manually. ---------- Post added 08-13-19 at 09:42 AM ---------- Originally posted by biz-engineer Yep, focus stacking, it works only on tripod. I've shot landscapes hand held with foreground and background at f8 and f5.6 to avoid diffraction, and when I stacked the frames with Helicon focus, it was enable to align the frame without creating artifacts. I would have needed a tripod etc . etc.. falling into medium format type of setup. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the landscape photographers I know don't leave home without a sturdy tripod. To quote you, it's not free lunch when you want to get the best results. That's why they have all sorts of filters, a rain cover and a tripod with them all the time and some of them walk on mountains for long distances. But they live from this stuff. For the ones who take landscape images for hobby it may be different and some relly on dynamic range and stabilisation when they go out. This brings me back to my initial question: why do they need 36mp cameras? Last edited by Dan Rentea; 08-13-2019 at 02:44 AM.

08-13-2019, 02:47 AM	#65
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by Serkevan Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post? Additionally, if you're already stacking, wouldn't short tele stitches yield higher detail and more resolution? Yes. It is actually very easy to produce high megapixel images, by shooting panoramas with a little longer focal length. I have stitched 10 vertical frames shot hand held with a K5 and had a very nice panorama shot. As I have been trying to figure out the point of a really high megapixel camera, I do come to the conclusion that it is either for (a) folks who print very big or (b) folks who may need to crop their images really heavily (like wildlife photographers). Biz-engineer is right that landscapes are typically shot stop down a fair amount meaning that diffraction does begin to limit. With a 36 megapixel sensor, diffraction begins to kick in around f10, which is fine for most purposes. But if you are shooting at f8 or f10 on a 61 megapixel sensor, how much more detail are you really going to get, even if you are using a sharp lens and a tripod? Maybe not as much as you would think. I know that the A7r IV images on DP Review are shot with a beta camera, but at this point I am not particularly impressed with the results. Maybe the final version of software will make a big difference, but as for now, I am a bit skeptical.

08-13-2019, 02:50 AM	#66
Serkevan Site Supporter Join Date: May 2019 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,976	Yes, I assume that having a 61MP camera that can turn a shot from a 200mm tele into a 15 MP or so 600mm while allowing you to keep track of the darned bird through the VF would be an actual improvement that helps your photography...

08-13-2019, 02:58 AM	#67
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by Dan Rentea Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the landscape photographers I know don't leave home without a sturdy tripod. Yes. And if you can do multishots with a tripod for focus bracketing of a landscape, then you can do multi-shots for stitching, and the multi-shot stitching you can do it with a basic camera. without high resolution. I've turned the equation a lot, and came to the conclusion that a high pixel density camera doesn't bring any benefit beyond the sweet spot of sensors without optical anti-alias filter. As soon as you can do multiple shots , you can do stacking, and even averaging and bracketing, the camera and lens isn't the limitation anymore. Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-13-2019 at 03:03 AM.

08-13-2019, 04:38 PM	#68
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by Serkevan darned bird through the VF Is that a new breed?....A redDot site is the best tracker.

08-13-2019, 05:32 PM	#69
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Originally posted by Serkevan Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the focus stack in camera be equivalent to stacking 2 or 3 shots in post? Sort of. Focus stacking requires a lot of extra computation to both find the sharpest bits in each frame and then compensate for the inevitable focus breathing between frames. Originally posted by Serkevan Additionally, if you're already stacking, wouldn't short tele stitches yield higher detail and more resolution? Focus stacking increases depth of field providing more resolution from the nearest foreground to the deepest background). Short tele stitches tend to decrease depth of field (stitches only increase resolution in the plane of focus which tends to be shallower for a tele lens). In fact, the Brenizer Method uses this to synthesize a wide angle view with almost everything deeply out of focus except the subject.