EOS R5 Mark II In what way does higher a higher resolution sensor impact image quality?

[kudro]

Let’s say I’m not planning on printing on large paper or further cropping. Would using and R5ii, for example, in crop mode image quality be noticeably different than using a similar quality lens that with a 1.6 times larger focal length?

For example, does software use those extra pixels to reduce noise or otherwise improve final image quality?

[SignifDigits]

Wow.  I can totally see why people wouldn't want to wade into this conversation.  It could go on nearly forever.  Questions like "is fewer better pixels better than more pixels that might include the same [better] pixels along with some less better" could be highly lens and settings dependent.

I'll just catalog this one as an equation that contains and unconstrained number of variables.  As such it is unresolvable.

[March411]

I said it early on in this thread, and it never ends......😉

[March411]

Wow. I can totally see why people wouldn't want to wade into this conversation. It could go on nearly forever. Questions like "is fewer better pixels better than more pixels that might include the same [better] pixels along with some less better" could be highly lens and settings dependent.

You crop on a Canon and by nature of the beast a 45MP sensor becomes a 17.6MP. But the light gathering,  resolution and other properties of those pixels do not change therefore sharpness remains the same.

Taking the lens out of the equation it would be great if someone could explain to me how the resolving properties of the cropped sensor have changed to create images that are less sharp. They are the same pixels.

Adding a lens, that is a whole different topic which adds a multitude of variables depending on the single piece of glass you wish to discuss.
 

[jrhoffman75]

"You crop on a Canon and by nature of the beast a 45MP sensor becomes a 17.6MP. But the light gathering,  resolution and other properties of those pixels do not change therefore sharpness remains the same."

A digital image is just ones and zeros until it is displayed on a monitor or printed on paper.

A 45MP file is going to appear "better" compared to a 17MP image assuming the same monitor or same size printer paper; there are more of those sharpness creating pixels on the subject allowing for greater delineation of the detail of the subject. More "pixels per pigeon". Basically "fill the frame" vs "crop in post".

[March411]

But isn't the reality that those pixels are unchanged by the 1.6X cropping, I am speaking just to the reality that it is physically impossible that one is sharper than the other using the same camera and same lens. 

If it were indeed true that the 45MP is sharper than the 17MP then the pixels themselves would have to be altered when using crop.

[jrhoffman75]

You are missing the OP 's question. He is asking is it better to use a 160mm lens and full frame or a 100mm lens and crop to a smaller frame size. The individual pixels are the same but a larger subject size has more pixels. 

[March411]

Hey John,

I was simply posting on where the current direction of the conversation was going not the original post. 

The original question, using full frame 45MP  and the 160mm or a crop using 100mm @ 17.6MP and the lens having an effect field of view because of the crop of 160mm, which is better in my opinion can't be answered definitively. There are so many variables. 

• Are both images exactly the same as it pertains to composition?
• Was the distance to the subject the same?
• Is one or the other going to require a crop in post to be exactly the same image? 
• Were they both shot at the same ISO, F stop and aperture?
• Are the lenses used both of the same quality? Not similar quality lens, the same quality.  Prime vs non-prime or 3rd party, is it RF vs EF with an adapter?

This is completely my opinion, this question is always thrown out as bait. It can't be answered definitively based on fact. It all comes down to pixel peeping and in the end opinion as to the sharpness of each image and which image is superior. If you are using on the net it just doesn't matter, print is more critical. And to the OP's question regarding noise, it's the same sensor, using the same MP, how would cropping or not be impact noise.

Again, too many variables and why I should have gone with my first thought and stayed on the sideline because it's just bait.

[ebiggs1]

"The mechanics of putting a full-frame sensor into crop tells/commands the camera to use and process data from the center portion of the imaging sensor which parallels the size of the smaller APS-C format but, again, it is using prime real estate, the center of the sensor. The sensors pixel size/density does not change; the amount/size of the sensor you are using changes and therefore the clarity of the image is not impacted."

SignifDigits, that is my point exactly.

Adding, perhaps not implicit to this discussion, but JRH eluded to it, "after discarding ~60 percent of the pixels"  there is no data discarded since the data was never there to begin with. It is the same thought that a cropper actually "crops" the image. It does not, it captures exactly what the lens gives it nothing is cropped by the camera.  And in the same thought line a cropper is as FF as a true full size sensor camera is, WYSIWYG.

The other part of this discussion as to whether it is better to use a longer FL lens on full frame VS a shorter FL on a cropper or in crop mode and do the FF crop in post editing is a debate that has no end and will be disputed by both sides to ad nauseam. In some cases the answer is yes and in some cases the answer is no. The amount of variables is innumerable since it is physically impossible to make each component totally equal to make a definitive answer.

[ebiggs1]

"A 45MP file is going to appear "better" compared to a 17MP image assuming the same monitor or same size printer paper; there are more of those sharpness creating pixels on the subject allowing for greater delineation of the detail of the subject. More "pixels per pigeon". Basically "fill the frame" vs "crop in post"."

John the two pictures or images will not be the same field of view, so you can not say the 45 MP image is going to appear "better" with any authority. It is the same ole argument......

"The other part of this discussion as to whether it is better to use a longer FL lens on full frame VS a shorter FL on a cropper or in crop mode and do the FF crop in post editing is a debate that has no end and will be disputed by both sides to ad nauseam. In some cases the answer is yes and in some cases the answer is no. The amount of variables is innumerable since it is physically impossible to make each component totally equal to make a definitive answer."

[March411]

The other part of this discussion as to whether it is better to use a longer FL lens on full frame VS a shorter FL on a cropper or in crop mode and do the FF crop in post editing is a debate that has no end and will be disputed by both sides to ad nauseam.

LOL....yes Ernie and over the years we all continue to take the bait. I tried to stay out but I started twitching and everything got blurry....