Any EOS D10 users here?

[DaveW]

I presumed you were.

Originally Nikon just made lenses and Canon made cameras, and believe it or not some of the early Canon's had Nikon lenses. Then I guess as the market increased they both decided on a "belt and braces" approach and made both items themselves so they were not dependent on the other. Although compared to Canon, Nikon cameras were late upon the scene, waiting until 1948.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/co ... /index.htm

Since then Canon and Nikon have tended just produce lenses just fitting their own equipment, unlike Zeiss, Leica and Contax which are often now just names stamped on lenses made under licence by others in various fits. Cosina makes the latest Nikon fit Zeiss lenses and even made the a few Nikon entry level film camera in the past! Minolta also used to make recent Leica equipment.

http://members.aol.com/manualminolta/leica.htm

http://www.diecastdeluxe.com/cosina2.html

http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2006/0 ... _name.html

Both Canon and Nikon have put out to subcontractors cameras, lenses or parts for for those they brand with their own names, but these were primarily entry level cameras or kit lenses where others have the expertise to make these more cheaply than Nikon and Canon's top quality higher range cameras and lenses.

In short, these days you really do not really know who makes what part of your marque brand camera, and to be honest subcontracting goes so far back in photography you never really did since all the manufacturers always claimed they were always made in their own factories, which history reveals was a marketing lie.

DaveW

[rjlittlefield]

I only managed to follow a few posts before I got a bunch of question marks in my speech bubble.

Yeah, I know what you mean -- that thread tends to makes my eyes glaze over too, and I wrote a lot of it! It may be another few re-writes before the effects of sensor size become comprehensible.

In any case, I see on re-reading the current thread that the point I raised doesn't really bear on the argument you were making. You're right -- the relative performance of those two cameras does suggest that there's quite a bit of room to increase the pixel count on APS-sized sensors.

One more question, which one would have better quality, an image taken by a 10MP camera or an image taken by a 12MP camera and sampled down to 10MP in photoshop? Assuming other variables are constant of course. Same lighting condition, same lens, same image processing algorithm, etc.

This question is a bit tricky because of artifacts like Moiré that creep in during re-sampling. If you really want a 10 MP image, you'd be better to shoot it that size to start with, and avoid the resampling step.

But change the question a little. Suppose you really want 8 MP, and your choice is to downsample from 10 MP or 12 MP. In that case, you'd be better to start with the 12 MP. The slightly higher noise of the initially smaller pixels will equal out during the resizing, while the initially finer sampling will give less trouble with resampling. Starting with 40 MP would be even better.

In other words, the big problem with smaller and more numerous pixels on the same sensor size is higher cost, not lower image quality. I think that's the idea you were trying to get at, and if so, I agree with you.

The point that Dave makes is also correct -- to get the best quality from a certain number of pixels, you want them covering the largest sensor you can buy. This is especially true for types of photography that can exploit large diameter lenses, notably including landscapes, portraits, advertising, and the like. For most photomacrography, sensor size per se is much less important than other issues that tend to go along with it, such as the ability to change lenses and to shoot modest magnifications from close distances ("wide-angle macro"). These issues can end up favoring either compact or larger formats, depending on what you want to do.

--Rik

[P_T]

Thanks for all the explanation Rik!!

I just thought of another thing. Would a higher dynamic range sensor affect the noise level and overall image quality? Right now we only get 16bit images from RAW. What if it can give us 24 or 32bit images?

That's the only area I see the camera manufacturers can improve on since pixel density will only get higher while sensor size is pretty much a fixed thing.

[lauriek]

My question is, does this mean DSLR image quality can only get worse as pixel density increases?
.

I wouldn't say worse - as the noise reduction algorithms keep improving. Having said that, as Dave says, as pixel density goes up, and it does keep going up, the manufacturers have to do more and more NR in camera.

Personally I don't like that, I like NR turned OFF in camera, even though I have a DSLR with a relatively small sensor (Oly 4/3) - I prefer doing any required NR in PP. (As my computer has a /lot/ more computing power available than my camera, and the NR algos are more easily updated!)

Put it this way. Now I have a 5mp DSLR and a 7.5mp DSLR. And I would under no circumstances buy a higher MP DSLR just for the extra MP. I'd only get a new camera to get a new feature I want or to replace a broken camera!

[DaveW]

I think Lauriek hit's the nail on the head. We all probably have as many megapixels we need, so if manufacturers just kept bringing out new cameras at this megapixel level with only a few cosmetic alterations few would buy them. Therefore as extra megapixels sell, to get people to keep upgrading each new camera has to have more than the last, no matter if it produces no better pictures.

This rather parallels the old mechanical watches that had jeweled movements. There are only so many moving pivots in a watch that could have a jeweled bearing, so once the manufacturers hit this barrier, since extra jewels sold watches, they had to keep adding more useless ones which were simply jeweled dust caps.

We are all suckers for something that purports to give extra performance, even if we will never need it or be able to use it. Some buy Ferrari's but can never find anywhere to use those top speeds and certainly not on public roads. It's nice to tell everybody just how fast it can go though! He with the most gets the bragging rites.

No wonder new camera's are now referred to as the latest male neck jewelry.

DaveW

[P_T]

Yeap, I have my in-camera NR setting turned off as well.

Personally, I would buy a new camera for an extra dynamic range though once the megapixel hit 20+, I will definitely consider upgrading.

I do agree that adding a few megapixels in the next camera model have less and less impact and I think pretty soon camera manufacturers will need to start adding substantial improvement in other areas such as the dynamic range since most people will see very little benefit in spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars just to get a few extra megapixel and a brighter anti-glare LCD screen.

[rjlittlefield]

I wouldn't say worse - as the noise reduction algorithms keep improving. Having said that, as Dave says, as pixel density goes up, and it does keep going up, the manufacturers have to do more and more NR in camera.

But remember that there's a big difference between actual noise reduction accomplished through more efficient photon capture, deeper electron wells, and quieter amplifiers, and after-the-capture noise removal which is what the algorithms do.

Most of the improvement in visible image quality has come from the former, not the latter, and I expect that trend to continue. Eventually we'll approach the point where every available photon gets captured and counted, but as I understand it, current sensors are still way short of that ideal.

--Rik

PS. My DSLR is still an original Canon Digital Rebel, 6.3 MP, nominally 12-bit raw and the last two of those are mostly noise. Even so, for most of what I do, the sensor is not the limiting factor. At some point I'll upgrade, and all the improvements will be most welcome, but that's probably not going to happen until something breaks or I need some capability my current camera just doesn't have.