4 ms·

I have a couple of photography colleagues who use the 50MP Canon 5Ds. The detail they gather is astounding, more than my 21.1MP can grab even with a teleconver

I have a couple of photography colleagues who use the 50MP Canon 5Ds. The detail they gather is astounding, more than my 21.1MP can grab even with a teleconvertor on the lens. So they can shoot with shorter focal lengths, which means less weight and better stabilisation. They can then go into post-processing and "crop the hell outta it" and still end up with more detail than my image. It is a cliché but high-density sensors really are a "game changer". They give so much potential to reframe the photo after shooting, selecting the most relevant area of the frame and still having enough detail to blow-up to prints.

azhenley 9y ago
Exactly this. Being able to crop is why I use a 42MP camera.
antisthenes 9y ago
Top of the line tools really make a difference in photography. Back in 2007 when taking a photography class, you could see the difference in quality between a top of the line DSLR that some senior students had and point-and-shoot cameras without interchangeable lenses. Even though the composition was good from both, the difference in quality really made you biased towards photos produced by the higher end gear. Depth of field, sharpness, noise, all those things. And everything you mentioned as well - not having to take multiple shots, because you can always crop later, not having to get as close to the subject for people photography, so perhaps getting more shots.
qume 9y ago
A good quality 2x teleconverter will make your sensor the equivalent of 80mp in this context. Ie with the same lens, a 20mp camera with 2x teleconverter will resolve more detail than a 50mp sensor.
- dingaling 9y ago
  But it's a losing race; adding a 2x teleconvertor halves the amount of light received, so I have to drop my shutter speed and / or raise the ISO to compensate. Both of which are disruptive to image detail. Plus the distorting effect of the extra glass in the lightpath.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lb1lf 9y ago
    -Unless I am much mistaken, a 2x teleconverter will cost you two stops - meaning 1/4 of the light. (I’ve mostly used a rangefinder in later years; they do not lend themselves well to teleconverters. :-)
    - qume 9y ago
      You lose almost no light. You are changing the area of the sensor the part of the scene is spread over. Its a triviality as a result of us expressing the F number as the ratio of the focal length and the aperture size. The effective SNR of the sensor is increased due to more sensor being used for a given part of the scene, so the lower light level does not increase noise comparatively.
- vardump 9y ago
  Yeah. Teleconverters are true lens "stress" testers.
- qume 9y ago
  People often forget that 2x increase in one dimension equates to a 4x increase in area and number of pixels. I didn't expect that of this community though, which is how I'm interpreting the down voting here. This is my profession so if the down voters know something I don't I'm very interested to hear where I've gone wrong.
dpark 9y ago
> So they can shoot with shorter focal lengths, which means less weight and better stabilisation. It doesn’t mean better stabilization once they crop. The weight isn’t a major factor in stabilization. The effective magnification is.
- Invictus0 9y ago
  I think Dingaling means that, if you're holding the camera in your hand, you'll be able to hold it steadier if it weighs less.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Probably, but it's not really true. It's more comfortable to hold a lighter lens but the heavier lens has more inertia so resists micro-tremors more effectively. In the end it's pretty much a wash.
jdietrich 9y ago
Locked down on a good tripod with a remote shutter release, the very best prime 35mm lenses will resolve about 40Mpix worth of useful detail at their optimum aperture. The pro-level PJ zooms (24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8) will manage about 30Mpix on a good day. Handheld, all bets are off - you're at the mercy of image stabilisation and your own hands. In many circumstances, you'll have no choice but to use a sub-optimal ISO or aperture setting to get the shot, losing even more effective resolution. High resolution sensors are very useful in some applications, but you'll often see little or no benefit in real-world use. All the major manufacturers offer both a >40Mpix and a ~24Mpix sensor option in their high-end cameras, because resolution isn't the be-all and end-all of a sensor.
- dingaling 9y ago
  The Canon Mark II 'big white' primes are said to be designed for 100MP. The smaller Mark II / III zooms are indeed in the 40 - 50 range. Bear in mind that the 24MP crop sensors have been pushing past the 50MP-full-frame-equivalent for several years and really show up any lens flaw. The one example that stands out is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS zoom, which has an ageing early-digital-era reputation for being razor-sharp but never managed that even on my old 1Ds III and looks like mush on a 5Ds. Hence a Mark II is to be released this year. Interestingly the even older non-IS f4 version was on the list of lenses approved for the 5Ds, which shows how difficult adding those extra optics makes lens design: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News...
contingencies 9y ago
I have a 5Ds. Once you have used one, you know that medium format is dead in the water as a category. That said, for most shooting scenarios they are definitely complete overkill, and lens quality becomes paramount.

azhenley 9y ago

Exactly this. Being able to crop is why I use a 42MP camera.

antisthenes 9y ago

Top of the line tools really make a difference in photography. Back in 2007 when taking a photography class, you could see the difference in quality between a top of the line DSLR that some senior students had and point-and-shoot cameras without interchangeable lenses. Even though the composition was good from both, the difference in quality really made you biased towards photos produced by the higher end gear. Depth of field, sharpness, noise, all those things. And everything you mentioned as well - not having to take multiple shots, because you can always crop later, not having to get as close to the subject for people photography, so perhaps getting more shots.

qume 9y ago

A good quality 2x teleconverter will make your sensor the equivalent of 80mp in this context. Ie with the same lens, a 20mp camera with 2x teleconverter will resolve more detail than a 50mp sensor.

dingaling 9y ago
But it's a losing race; adding a 2x teleconvertor halves the amount of light received, so I have to drop my shutter speed and / or raise the ISO to compensate. Both of which are disruptive to image detail. Plus the distorting effect of the extra glass in the lightpath.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lb1lf 9y ago
  -Unless I am much mistaken, a 2x teleconverter will cost you two stops - meaning 1/4 of the light. (I’ve mostly used a rangefinder in later years; they do not lend themselves well to teleconverters. :-)
  - qume 9y ago
    You lose almost no light. You are changing the area of the sensor the part of the scene is spread over. Its a triviality as a result of us expressing the F number as the ratio of the focal length and the aperture size. The effective SNR of the sensor is increased due to more sensor being used for a given part of the scene, so the lower light level does not increase noise comparatively.
vardump 9y ago
Yeah. Teleconverters are true lens "stress" testers.
qume 9y ago
People often forget that 2x increase in one dimension equates to a 4x increase in area and number of pixels. I didn't expect that of this community though, which is how I'm interpreting the down voting here. This is my profession so if the down voters know something I don't I'm very interested to hear where I've gone wrong.

dpark 9y ago

> So they can shoot with shorter focal lengths, which means less weight and better stabilisation. It doesn’t mean better stabilization once they crop. The weight isn’t a major factor in stabilization. The effective magnification is.

Invictus0 9y ago
I think Dingaling means that, if you're holding the camera in your hand, you'll be able to hold it steadier if it weighs less.
- dpark 9y ago
  Probably, but it's not really true. It's more comfortable to hold a lighter lens but the heavier lens has more inertia so resists micro-tremors more effectively. In the end it's pretty much a wash.

jdietrich 9y ago

Locked down on a good tripod with a remote shutter release, the very best prime 35mm lenses will resolve about 40Mpix worth of useful detail at their optimum aperture. The pro-level PJ zooms (24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8) will manage about 30Mpix on a good day. Handheld, all bets are off - you're at the mercy of image stabilisation and your own hands. In many circumstances, you'll have no choice but to use a sub-optimal ISO or aperture setting to get the shot, losing even more effective resolution. High resolution sensors are very useful in some applications, but you'll often see little or no benefit in real-world use. All the major manufacturers offer both a >40Mpix and a ~24Mpix sensor option in their high-end cameras, because resolution isn't the be-all and end-all of a sensor.

dingaling 9y ago
The Canon Mark II 'big white' primes are said to be designed for 100MP. The smaller Mark II / III zooms are indeed in the 40 - 50 range. Bear in mind that the 24MP crop sensors have been pushing past the 50MP-full-frame-equivalent for several years and really show up any lens flaw. The one example that stands out is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS zoom, which has an ageing early-digital-era reputation for being razor-sharp but never managed that even on my old 1Ds III and looks like mush on a 5Ds. Hence a Mark II is to be released this year. Interestingly the even older non-IS f4 version was on the list of lenses approved for the 5Ds, which shows how difficult adding those extra optics makes lens design: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News...

contingencies 9y ago

I have a 5Ds. Once you have used one, you know that medium format is dead in the water as a category. That said, for most shooting scenarios they are definitely complete overkill, and lens quality becomes paramount.