# Fewer megapixels please!



## entoman (Sep 5, 2015)

Well done Canon for winning (temporarily) the megapixel race with the 5DsR. I'm sure it will sell by the bucketload to those who are impressed by high numbers and paper specifications.

But how about the rest of us - 99% of advanced DSLR users don't need or want such high resolution. 24-28 megapixels is more than enough for me as a pro wildlife photographer. What is far far more important is the ability to produce high quality noise-free, high dynamic range images at high ISO settings (1600-6400).

The 1Dx achieves this, but is heavy, bulky, very expensive, and most of us just don't need 14fps. Hoping for a 5Dx - 24 megapixels, 6fps, AF and metering system adopted from 1Dx, with high dynamic range and high IQ at high ISO.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 5, 2015)

My thoughts exactly. As someone who photographs people and creates images that are almost always downsized for the web, high megapixel sensors are a waste of resources for me.

I'm glad Canon created the high megapixel monsters for my friends who shoot landscapes for billboard size prints, but my needs lie elsewhere.


----------



## Crosswind (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony actually nailed it with their A7S. Especially its tilting screen, body size and super-high-ISO LiveView are the things I like the most. I'd love to see something similar from Canon in form of a small FF DSLR body. My 6D is still one of the best when it comes to high ISO, but it's missing the things I like so much about the A7S. 

I'm not a Canon fanboy and would be using any system if it fits my needs. Jumping ship is no option for me, as that'd be too expensive for what I actually get. I hope that Canon will make a good FF mirrorless or a 6Da/II sometime in 2016.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 5, 2015)

I have recently had the opportunity to find out just how good the 5DSr is, far exceeded my expectations in versatility, ISO and responsiveness. The IQ was what I expected BL&%$Y marvelous!
However it didn't make my current 18mp FF camera feel lacking in any way. Now if they dropped in a good high ISO sensor in the 20-25 MP range coupled with a small increase in fps I would probably be close to the front of the queue! I think that much of it's image quality comes from the processors/algorithms which I am sure would work just as well (and quicker) on a less populated sensor - 5D Mk4?
For the dedicated landscaper etc I think it will become the tool of choice and it's surprisingly good for wildlife - but I think it could be better for wildlife with a few less pixies!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Sep 5, 2015)

I _am_ a landscaper first and foremost, and I'm with you guys all the way. I need 50 mp like I need a venereal disease. I 'm not a pro, but I'm sure they'll tell you that 24 to 28 good mp is more than enough for any high art or Nat Geo type commercial market. The 5Ds/r are niche cameras for the tiny handful of photographers who sell prints 24"x36" or larger. The reviews of these bodies match my initial expectations for them exactly: increased resolution, of course, and slightly better overall IQ than you would expect from a halving of pixel size. Like johnf3f I attribute this to next-generation noise-suppression algorithms (and the ability to downsample) rather than any fundamental design improvements in the sensor itself.

Sorry for the people who are tired of hearing about it, but what I need a whole lot more than megamegapixels is a camera that can capture a brilliant sunset without turning the framing groundscape into a banded silhouette. You know--more DR, less low-ISO banding. These super-mp cameras strike me as a desperate attempt to staunch Canon's bleeding in the landscape market, by doing what it can do (resolution) rather than what it needs to do--but apparently can't. Does anyone else find it telling that in spite of a doubling of resolution--something that would have been hailed as radical and revolutionary three or four years ago--there has been no attempt to promote these cameras as the next generation of the 5D in spite of the fact that the Mark 4 is now a year overdue and counting.

I'm one of the many people at 5D2 and holding, holding, holding. Yes, the 6D is a nice camera for the dollar, but as a landscape/portrait camera it's not a $2000 upgrade on a 5D2. Worse for Canon, I've now also stopped buying lenses. And that's too bad, because Canon is still at the top of that heap. The 24mm TS-E is a landscaper's dream, and 100-400 L II is perfect for my modest needs as an action/wildlife shooter. But electronics years are like dog years, and (to mix metaphors) I'd be hanging those spendy lenses off the front of a body that is now a Model A verging on a Model T.

The fanbois on this forum have declared Canon's banding and DR issues as off limits for discussion--too tired, too lame, and prima facie evidence of trolling. Heck, Canon's sensor problems are nothing that can't be worked around with a couple of pounds of Lee brackets and GND filters. With a little bit of imagination anybody can bracket a breaking wave.

Well, duh, of course a camera system is a lot more than its sensor, and of course, Canon's UI and lenses are still the industry standard. But for every fanboi whose tired of hearing about these issues, there's someone like me who's tired of fanbois talking about two stops of dynamic range as if it were something Canon can safely ignore: the insignificant difference between 58 and 60 miles per hour. It's a logarithmic scale folks, and two stops is the difference between 20 and 80 mph. And the fact is, when one area of performance becomes so glaringly deficient, it pulls the whole system down. I for one am too old to jump ship. But if I were 25 and getting into photography with my interests, I would probably make a different choice, and that can't be good news for Canon. You see things on this forum you never saw three or four years ago, including lengthy threads about the nuts and bolts of successfully adapting Canon lenses to Sony bodies.

I'm going on record as saying the 5D4 is now the pivot point in Canon's future as a manufacturer of high end camera bodies. The long delay in releasing the camera suggests that the company has, at least, finally acknowledged internally that it has a problem. One would hope that Canon keeps working on it's sensor problem, but if it can't figure it out, or can't beat Sony's patents, then it's time--like Nikon--to accept the inevitable and outsource it's sensors for the time being.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

Curmudgeon said:


> I _am_ a landscaper first and foremost, and I'm with you guys all the way. I need 50 mp like I need a venereal disease. I 'm not a pro, but I'm sure they'll tell you that 24 to 28 good mp is more than enough for any high art or Nat Geo type commercial market. The 5Ds/r are niche cameras for the tiny handful of photographers who sell prints 24"x36" or larger. The reviews of these bodies match my initial expectations for them exactly: increased resolution, of course, and slightly better overall IQ than you would expect from a halving of pixel size. Like johnf3f I attribute this to next-generation noise-suppression algorithms (and the ability to downsample) rather than any fundamental design improvements in the sensor itself.
> 
> Sorry for the people who are tired of hearing about it, but what I need a whole lot more than megamegapixels is a camera that can capture a brilliant sunset without turning the framing groundscape into a banded silhouette. You know--more DR, less low-ISO banding. These super-mp cameras strike me as a desperate attempt to staunch Canon's bleeding in the landscape market, by doing what it can do (resolution) rather than what it needs to do--but apparently can't. Does anyone else find it telling that in spite of a doubling of resolution--something that would have been hailed as radical and revolutionary three or four years ago--there has been no attempt to promote these cameras as the next generation of the 5D in spite of the fact that the Mark 4 is now a year overdue and counting.
> 
> ...



Like this?


----------



## Aglet (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Like this?


you completely missed the breaking wave


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Curmudgeon said:
> 
> 
> > I _am_ a landscaper first and foremost, and I'm with you guys all the way.
> ...



Dilbert, this is a thread bemoaning MP, Curmudgeon, who is living up to his name, is saying he doesn't want more then 28MP, so how is telling him to buy a 42MP camera a solution?

But are you confirming you have actually purchased an A7RII now?



Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Like this?
> ...



Well as you know I have never been one to worry about what I don't have, so for that example I'll go waveless! And laugh at people who _"go on record"_ because they can't get similar results.


----------



## Zeidora (Sep 6, 2015)

We can all agree that the 5Ds/R is a specialty camera. Why can't you be happy for those who like it? 

There is lots of specialty equipment out there:
Canon MPE 65: not for everybody for sure, no AF for crying out loud!
TS-E series: also no AF, absolutely pointless for street shooting and wildlife!
400 f/4 DO: utterly useless for scenery and landscapes!
1Dx: who needs that many frames per second for a sunset?!?
etc.

If DR is that important to you, there is one other manufacturer out there. Have fun with their TS lenses (particularly in the wide angle segment) and the flash system. 

I am also one of those 5D2 shooters. Did not see the point of the 5D3, but jumped on the 5DsR. 5D4? yawn. 1Dxyz? could not care less. Will be happy for y'all once you get your new toy. But for now, it's my time.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 6, 2015)

entoman said:


> Well done Canon for winning (temporarily) the megapixel race with the 5DsR. I'm sure it will sell by the bucketload to those who are impressed by high numbers and paper specifications.
> 
> But how about the rest of us - 99% of advanced DSLR users don't need or want such high resolution. 24-28 megapixels is more than enough for me as a pro wildlife photographer. What is far far more important is the ability to produce high quality noise-free, high dynamic range images at high ISO settings (1600-6400).
> 
> The 1Dx achieves this, but is heavy, bulky, very expensive, and most of us just don't need 14fps. Hoping for a 5Dx - 24 megapixels, 6fps, AF and metering system adopted from 1Dx, with high dynamic range and high IQ at high ISO.



Given that Canon has never lacked in Dynamic Range above ISO 800 and they've stuck at 20MP longer than anyone else, the best that I can do to translate this post into reality would be:

"Good job Canon, don't change a thing."


----------



## e17paul (Sep 6, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> Sony actually nailed it with their A7S. Especially its tilting screen, body size and super-high-ISO LiveView are the things I like the most. I'd love to see something similar from Canon in form of a small FF DSLR body. My 6D is still one of the best when it comes to high ISO, but it's missing the things I like so much about the A7S.
> 
> I'm not a Canon fanboy and would be using any system if it fits my needs. Jumping ship is no option for me, as that'd be too expensive for what I actually get. I hope that Canon will make a good FF mirrorless or a 6Da/II sometime in 2016.



+1

Now if Canon can give a second life to the existing sensor from the 1DX in a low spec low price full frame body, then I may be tempted to update my 6D. Otherwise I will be covetous of the A7 II


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

Curmudgeon said:


> I _am_ a landscaper first and foremost, and I'm with you guys all the way. I need 50 mp like I need a venereal disease. I 'm not a pro, but I'm sure they'll tell you that 24 to 28 good mp is more than enough for any high art or Nat Geo type commercial market. The 5Ds/r are niche cameras for the tiny handful of photographers who sell prints 24"x36" or larger. The reviews of these bodies match my initial expectations for them exactly: increased resolution, of course, and slightly better overall IQ than you would expect from a halving of pixel size. Like johnf3f I attribute this to next-generation noise-suppression algorithms (and the ability to downsample) rather than any fundamental design improvements in the sensor itself.
> 
> Sorry for the people who are tired of hearing about it, but what I need a whole lot more than megamegapixels is a camera that can capture a brilliant sunset without turning the framing groundscape into a banded silhouette. You know--more DR, less low-ISO banding. These super-mp cameras strike me as a desperate attempt to staunch Canon's bleeding in the landscape market, by doing what it can do (resolution) rather than what it needs to do--but apparently can't. Does anyone else find it telling that in spite of a doubling of resolution--something that would have been hailed as radical and revolutionary three or four years ago--there has been no attempt to promote these cameras as the next generation of the 5D in spite of the fact that the Mark 4 is now a year overdue and counting.
> 
> ...



"It" might be a logarithmic scale, but that isn't how our eyes perceive it because of the way our brains compress luminance, to our eyes it is the difference between 58 and 60 miles per hour, which is why there is all this discussion. If you believed any sensor was four times 'better' than the one you have you'd be a fool to not use it.

Meanwhile you have people like Sporgon, actual pro landscape shooters, who have tested the Exmor and Canon sensors next to each other and found the differences truthfully are in the range between 58 or 60 miles per hour. Four times more sounds impressive, but doesn't actually translate to anything like four times more anything with regards output quality.

And don't forget, if you are shooting RAW then the capture and recording is not logarithmic, it is very close to linear, all the logarithmic stuff comes in the RAW converter and screen profile.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 6, 2015)

For people who want their purchases to last longer, wanting fewer MPs when the current pixel densities DO give a "useful difference" in 100% crop detail (sure, we get the ever going debate similar to FF vs Crop vs pixel density), I for one would like to see these pixel densities remain so that when things like 4K and higher becomes standard, and various image processing algorithms are improved, that the extra resolution is still useful. In some ways, limiting yourself to MP is as foolish as was claiming 640K of memory would be enough - it's just that it hasn't come to pass *as* quickly because the physics around improving photography are obviously slower to progress.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 6, 2015)

entoman said:


> 99% of advanced DSLR users don't need or want such high resolution.



Can you substantiate that? I'd prefer people to just spek for themselfes - which is fair enough - or only make such claims based on evidence but not based on an "I represent 99% of the opinions out there anyway" attitude.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Curmudgeon said:
> 
> 
> > I _am_ a landscaper first and foremost, and I'm with you guys all the way.
> ...



The rest of us (which includes me) is NOT getting a Sony A7RII and Metabones III/IV adaptor. YOU are. Speak for yourself but not for me please!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

entoman said:


> ... for me as a pro wildlife photographer...



I find this fascinating. Please provide some more details. Do you do this full-time? Is it your sole or main source of income? What is market? Are you selling prints, selling stock photos, selling to publications? How long have you been doing this and how did you get started?

The only other person I've ever met who earned a living at wildlife photography was a bird photographer during the film days. He had been shooting for 20 years or so and had compiled an extensive library of transparencies of nearly every North American bird imaginable in multiple settings. As he explained it, he was in demand because if a publication was looking for, say, an immature Red-Tailed Hawk in winter catching a mouse in a cornfield at sunset, he could give them three or four good shots to choose from.

I'm sure many others on this forum would like to know more how you made this work.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Then just do like the rest of us are doing: get a Sony A7RII and Metabones III/IV adapter.



Dilbert, do you now have your magical Sony? If so, please post some pictures. I'd love to see what it has done for your photography.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2015)

I've owned cameras with various numbers of pixels from 300K to 32 mp. The images look better as the mp increases. However, since I also sometimes crop a lot and take very high ISO images, cropping a high ISO, High MP image is a recipe for disaster. 

Canon with the 18mp 1D X and 21 mp 5D MK III has found a excellent balance point for being to capture high ISO images and still crop them.

I just sold my 5D classic, and it took beautiful photos, but cropping more than just a small anount was out of the question.

As technology continues to change, I expect to see higher MP bodies that still have superb high ISO and low per pixel noise.

The Sony A7s is good for video, but for stills, its pretty limited for those of us who crop a lot. The A7R II produces good high ISO images and can be cropped moderately, so technology is advancing. For those who stay below ISO 800, even 1:1 crops are possible with low noise.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2015)

entoman said:


> Well done Canon for winning (temporarily) the megapixel race with the 5DsR. I'm sure it will sell by the bucketload to those who are impressed by high numbers and paper specifications.
> 
> But how about the rest of us - 99% of advanced DSLR users don't need or want such high resolution. 24-28 megapixels is more than enough for me as a pro wildlife photographer. What is far far more important is the ability to produce high quality noise-free, high dynamic range images at high ISO settings (1600-6400).
> 
> The 1Dx achieves this, but is heavy, bulky, very expensive, and most of us just don't need 14fps. Hoping for a 5Dx - 24 megapixels, 6fps, AF and metering system adopted from 1Dx, with high dynamic range and high IQ at high ISO.



Wait - the 5D3 has 22MP (is 24 much more?), 6fps, and the 1Dx's AF system (but not metering). It's around 1/2-1 stop behind the 1Dx at high ISO. If the 5D4 came out with your requirements, it would hardly be an upgrade from the current model at all!

Incidentally, it's in wildlife photography that I want more megapixels the most. Cropping! And no images at any ISO from any camera are 'noise free'. Just a quibble


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Curmudgeon said:
> 
> 
> > I _am_ a landscaper first and foremost, and I'm with you guys all the way. I need 50 mp like I need a venereal disease. I 'm not a pro, but I'm sure they'll tell you that 24 to 28 good mp is more than enough for any high art or Nat Geo type commercial market. The 5Ds/r are niche cameras for the tiny handful of photographers who sell prints 24"x36" or larger. The reviews of these bodies match my initial expectations for them exactly: increased resolution, of course, and slightly better overall IQ than you would expect from a halving of pixel size. Like johnf3f I attribute this to next-generation noise-suppression algorithms (and the ability to downsample) rather than any fundamental design improvements in the sensor itself.
> ...



Come on Private, own up. You shot that on a Sony ! 

I suggest Curmudgeon changes now to a Sony a7 or a7s if he doesn't want the high mp, but wants to dig deep, deep into shadow recovery, or severely under expose to improve intense highlight fall off. It's quite clear that it is not a priority for Canon and isn't likely to be in the near future. Private's pleasing picture casts some light onto why this might be.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

Curmudgeon said:


> ...the Mark 4 is now a year overdue and counting....
> 
> ...I'm one of the many people at 5D2 and holding, holding, holding...
> 
> ...



In what universe is the 5D IV a year overdue? By 7D standards we've got at least a year or two more to go.

So you haven't updated since the 5D II and feel you know enough about newer models to dismiss them? Perhaps if you actually shot with a camera that wasn't seven years old you'd feel differently. 

Whenever someone writes "fanboy" or worse yet "fanboi" they have lost the argument. 

Again, what long delay?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Curmudgeon said:
> 
> 
> > ...the Mark 4 is now a year overdue and counting....
> ...



Hey, I shoot with seven year old bodies! ;D


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

entoman said:


> Well done Canon for winning (temporarily) the megapixel race with the 5DsR. I'm sure it will sell by the bucketload to those who are impressed by high numbers and paper specifications.



I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but I can say that I'm very impressed by both the reviews and the comments by those who actually use the camera. As Canon seems to consistently do, when their cameras hit the real world they always seem to perform well above the paper specs. That's been the case with pretty much every recent release. A prime example was the 6D which was originally panned by many as too expensive and under-specked. Until it got into the hands of users who, based on comments in this forum, found it far better than they anticipated. In fact it had a pretty good run on Amazon's top seller list as the best selling full frame camera for a couple of years.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Hey, I shoot with seven year old bodies! ;D



But you aren't using those bodies to critique newer models.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Curmudgeon said:
> 
> 
> > ...the Mark 4 is now a year overdue and counting....
> ...



I'm surprised that Aglet hasn't come riding over the hill, guns blazing, to announce that the 5DII was the worse EOS for deep shadow noise ! Actually he has a point. The fact that I find little practical difference between the 5DII and 6D at low ISO rather proves the point that I don't need shadow recovery in my pictures. However I do acknowledge that if you abuse the 5DII it can turn nasty. Rather ironic then that someone who berates the FPN of Canon uses a 5DII. (In fact Guys; if you're paranoid about FPN and you're still using a 5DII have you considered therapy ?). The more recent models are much, much better in this respect; in fact it is generally acknowledges by impartial commentators that there isn't much practical difference between say the 5Ds and the Exmor R equipped A7rII

I've had a play with the A7rII. Not that it is available in the UK yet; not sure where my source got hers from. If it floats your boat, good for you. I can understand the appeal, but personally, and I'm obviously not alone in this, the dslr is still the most flexible and desirable camera for my needs.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Sep 6, 2015)

So why we restate the concern this way.

Please, Canon use the knowledge you gained from the uber low light camera to provide a very serious i.e. 1Dx level effort oriented to those who seek the ultimate in low light sensitivity, ISO invariant ability to pull detail from shadows with a substantively improved S/N ratio. Key to the functionality of this uber low light is the ability to use the auto focus capabilities.

While we would take the high speed data pathways that allow for high frame rates if that makes your manufacturing more efficient/effective we understand that there may be compromises.

With ever evolving design, materials and manufacturing techniques please continue to stratify the market more precisely. Uber low light/high dynamic range vs. uber frame rate vs. uber resolution. We are impressed with the frame rate (1Dx), the resolution (5DS & 5DSR) (we do note that the 5Ds/r pretty much supplant the 5dIII in function as a generalist). We anxiously await your uber low light/HDR product.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

Busted Knuckles said:


> So why we restate the concern this way.
> 
> Please, Canon use the knowledge you gained from the uber low light camera to provide a very serious i.e. 1Dx level effort oriented to those who seek the ultimate in low light sensitivity, ISO invariant ability to pull detail from shadows with a substantively improved S/N ratio. Key to the functionality of this uber low light is the ability to use the auto focus capabilities.
> 
> ...



Quite simply put, I cannot see a volume market for people that need to regularly shoot stills above 10,000 iso that also want >20MP, but if they do, they already have sub $4,000 1DX's.

I don't want "uber low light" more than we already have it. I don't want Canon sidetracked by another niche, I can see the volume market of high MP FF cameras and the appeal they have to many who don't print big, I don't see the market or need for a low MP "uber low light" surveillance POS that truthfully is better suited, and marketed, to video users.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't want Canon sidetracked by another niche...



That pretty well sums it up, I think.

The 5D series earned its respect and reputation as an all-around shooter's camera. Something that does everything quite well. 

Canon saw a market and demand for a high megapixel version and released that. I have no problem with that.

I also understand that the future path to success for camera manufacturers is probably in specialization. The amateur market is shrinking and all manufacturers are looking for things that appeal to enthusiast and professional subsets. That's why the 7D went from a general purpose DSLR to a sports, birds and wildlife oriented camera. At the same time, Canon has done a very good job of making sure its specialized models still perform well for general purposes. 

I expect the next version of the 5DIV will contain a modest increase in pixel count, a modest improvement in noise at higher ISOs, a modest improvement in dynamic range, a modest improvement in autofocus, a modest improvement in frame rate, DPAF, 4K, possibly a few other video improvements, the focus lever from the 7DII and maybe a few "surprise" features. 

It won't be the "king" or "uber" anything – except for sales. It will be widely derided on forums by "experts" but it will be immensely popular with photographers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

Having said all that I have, I have also said for a long time that I can see logic in spliting the 5D into three distinct models.

The 5D MkIV, the general purpose do it all camera that forums love to kill and photographers love to use.

The 5DS/R, the high MP camera for the 'fine art/studio' crowd and the landscapers who print and many semi pro and enthusiasts who just want 'the best' and think it will enable them to not get a 7D MkII for cropping reasons.

The 5DC, a replacement for the 1DC that was overpriced and underspecced way too quickly for a $10,000 camera. This could be your mythical "uber low light" camera, with a videocentric sensor (4K multiples of MP etc) and feature set. But it wouldn't be a still oriented camera, it would be a video tool that also took very good stills with full EOS functionality.

Now that makes a huge amount of sense to me, save on a lot of tooling and production costs, appeal to the broadest range of users yet lead the field, or at least run in the final, in all areas.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Having said all that I have, I have also said for a long time that I can see logic in spliting the 5D into three distinct models.
> 
> The 5D MkIV, the general purpose do it all camera that forums love to kill and photographers love to use.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Put a flip/touch screen on it. Allow follow focus by touching the screen (like the 70D, but with variable speed). Throw in most of the Magic Lantern video enhancements and add in a few other goodies and you'd got a killer video DSLR.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 7, 2015)

Well, here we are on page 3 and the OP is no-where to be found.

Entoman is probably a fictional character, something that does not use a camera, or interact with other people, just another façade to fill a void in an incomplete life.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Then just do like the rest of us are doing: get a Sony A7RII and Metabones III/IV adapter.





dilbert said:


> Read all of Curmudgeon's post. What he wants is better IQ and their reasoning is that fewer MP will deliver Canon IQ that is better than the 5Ds/R. What I'm saying is that he doesn't need to wait for Canon to downsize the sensor in order to get a camera with better IQ.



First, I am not sure what you mean by the "rest of us", but I am not the one in those "us".. However, if you already got your Sony A7R II, would you show me your great images with your new camera? Or you still have not bought it yet? I just wonder 

I am still doing fine while learning with all of my existing Canon, which you have hated...

"Fall Color Reflecting Off Bishop Creek"


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 7, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Then just do like the rest of us are doing: get a Sony A7RII and Metabones III/IV adapter.
> ...



ishdakuteb: this is the second time I've caught you cheating; that image is clearly correctly exposed which is not acceptable !

Pleasing image !


----------



## quod (Sep 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Like this?


Lift the shadows and then we will see who is smirking. You don't get it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2015)

quod said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Like this?
> ...



I can't tell if you're joking. Are you saying the image as presented needs more shadow lifting? (We don't know how much post processing was already done to it). If so, why?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I neither know nor care. A videocentric camera would have less than zero interest to me, I just put the idea of a three model (three and a half with the current 5DS/R) out there as to me, in my simplistic mindset, it makes a lot of sense. But I am not a camera designer, I have no experience of manufacturing and I don't have the slightest idea of Canon corporate policy or what the camera division is expected to do.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

quod said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Like this?
> ...



The shadows are lifted +100, and the exposure +0.45. Here is a 100% crop of those lifted shadows, a 100% crop of the same area as the file opened and a screenshot of the LR Develop panel. I also include the file as it opened but at reduced size. These are all unsharpened because LR sharpening is very bad compared to PS sharpening, I don't apply any sharpening (all sliders in LR sharpening are at zero) until I move to PS and the printing stage.

It seems I do get it.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Sep 7, 2015)

250 MP in an APS-H,

Well maybe next time.....


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I don't know much about it, but the 1DC was 18MP and did 4K, right? Is that the compromise maybe?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No in 4K the 1DC only uses an APS-H sized crop of the the sensor. This gives a native 4096 x 2160.


----------



## e17paul (Sep 7, 2015)

I have just printed and framed a 2 megapixel image at A4 for a friend. It looks great, providing that I dont reach for the magnifying glass. I'm sure that A3 would stretch the resolution a little far, but then 3 megapixels would do. 

I remember the rubbish output from the 1 and 2 megapixel cameras of 20 years ago. The poor results were due to extreme JPEG compression within the camera, not the resolution. No RAW files back then, there would have not even been room for one on the meagre memory available.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 7, 2015)

Why is 2160p at 16x9 being pushed by manufacturers?

I'm gradually seeing 21x9 displays become more popular as well as 21x9 for cinema content. Is 21x9 becoming the new standard in aspect ratio?

Why not 2160p at 21x9 (i.e. 5120x2160 aka UWTV-4K) using the full sensor width.

Sres = (Hres^2)/AR 
= (5120^2)*2/3
= 17.48 MP (roughly 18MP)


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > "Fall Color Reflecting Off Bishop Creek"
> ...



Thanks Sporgon!... I am trying to learn and play at my best whenever I am having chances... (Preparing for my retirement, though it is still a long time to go LOL...)


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 7, 2015)

I'm a bit torn when it comes to the whole megapixel thing.. Between the primary newspaper I work for and the affiliates of it, they all downsize their images to 2 megapixels max for quick transfer. I do like the 22.3 mp of my 5D3 since I can crop in a heck of a lot and still get 2 megapixels, which absolutely rocks when I'm photographing sports and need more reach. Plus. the extra megapixels are nice for weddings and portraits, since I've had people order pretty large prints before.

On the other side of things, outside of sports I don't do much cropping, so I could really survive with even an 8 megapixel, huge ISO camera for most of my news work.

That said, if Canon can find a good way to increase ISO and MP at the same time, my perfect solution would probably be about 24 or 28 megapixels. I've recently upgraded my storage and computer hardware, so I'm sure I could easily handle a 1dX mark II with 14 fps and 24 megapixels. That would rock if it had less noise.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 8, 2015)

There's plenty of benefit to downsampling, especially if you still have an AA filter, and as time passes I'm betting we're going to see our 20MP images start to show their age.
On a 4K display, 12MP is just enough to fit the screen horizontally.
If you match the native horizontal resolution of a 5K display (Dell and Apple sell these now), you need a 17MP camera, so the 1Dx is just enough, and higher resolution cameras should look sharper.
Once 8K happens (most broadcasters anticipate some form of implementation around 2030, the Japanese are pushing for 2020) you're going to need a 39MP camera to match the horizontal resolution. I'm betting the 5Ds will actually look better than most of the current competition on a display like that.
Images from any Canon camera before the 5Ds are going to be entirely "cropped" on an 8K display. 12MP images in portrait orientation won't even fill the vertical resolution.

But I don't anticipate displays going much higher than that in resolution, so the 5Ds should be a solid choice of camera for the next... well, the foreseeable future. It's going to take an entirely new human interface technology to surpass that level of clarity (unless you sit too close to a big screen).


----------



## RGF (Sep 8, 2015)

Like to see the 5D M4 in the 28-32 MPS range.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2015)

So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.

I'll say it again, but LOUDER:

As a working pro who has used Canon cameras for several years, my message to Canon is NO, NO, NO!

You are going in completely the wrong direction. Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

24-28 MP is more than enough for us, even 36 MP is overkill for many people.

What we want is noise-free images at ISO 3200 and above. What we want is significantly increased dynamic range, to retain shadow and highlight detail in contrasty lighting. What we want is better subject tracking. What we want is image stabilisation incorporated into ALL Canon lenses, or IBIS bodies. What we want is bigger, brighter viewfinders in the APS models.

What we DON'T want or need is ridiculously high megapixel counts!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.



Thank you for assuming the duty of being the spokesperson for what people desire. ;D

Can you tell me what I want for lunch tomorrow, so I can plan accordingly? ;D ;D


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.
> 
> I'll say it again, but LOUDER:
> 
> ...



You posted this on the other thread. Can you maybe rephrase it: YOU don't want this. Fine, we hear you loud and clear (maybe too loud).

I want different things. I'm not arrogant enough to speak for anybody else.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.
> 
> I'll say it again, but LOUDER:
> 
> ...


I don't think they said it was a bayer-type sensor.

Perhaps multi-layer 120MP = 30MP (R-G-B-UV)


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.
> 
> I'll say it again, but LOUDER:
> 
> ...



"YOU" don't want, by stating high ISO requirements, you really have a limited view of reality.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.





AcutancePhotography said:


> Thank you for assuming the duty of being the spokesperson for what people desire. ;D
> 
> Can you tell me what I want for lunch tomorrow, so I can plan accordingly? ;D ;D





scyrene said:


> You posted this on the other thread. Can you maybe rephrase it: YOU don't want this. Fine, we hear you loud and clear (maybe too loud).
> 
> I want different things. I'm not arrogant enough to speak for anybody else.





rrcphoto said:


> "YOU" don't want, by stating high ISO requirements, you really have a limited view of reality.



I hope you are getting the message. It's annoyingly arrogant for anyone to assume they know what others want or need.

But also, do you really think that Canon is capable of only making one camera?

It seems rather foolish to me to think that the technology required to develop a 120mp DSLR would not result in a superior 24 or 28 mp sensor. Canon is not stupid. They consistently deliver market leading cameras that sell very well, earn them a profit and meet the needs and wants of their customer base. It is beyond me why someone would assume that an advancement in technology is going to make that less, rather than more, likely.


----------



## massive (Sep 8, 2015)

so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)

5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3? 

Then throw in very controlled lighting conditions (studio portraiture)

still the same body?

Personally I want low noise (low iso), sharp details and the best IQ I can get. not interested one jot in video, fps or extreme iso.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 8, 2015)

First, Entoman is actually very happy with Canon, Canon has equal or better high ISO performance than anyone else. Always has.

Second, did I call it or what? 8K Cinema? 8K Reference distpay? SWEEET!!!

Canon just threw the gauntlet down in the Cinema market.
If people think that 8K is a waste of time, then you will think the same of IMAX, because they're effectively the same resolution. People have been recording and watching this quality of video for decades.
I love it for the high density detail, so my screen size is more lenient, but you can get the same viewing angle as a modern IMAX screen without re-mortgaging your house.
8K will be expensive for a long time, but it wont be something exclusive to the "super rich" (I'm not talking about technology prices, I'm talking about the feasibility of getting the same viewing angles in your own home).


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 8, 2015)

9VIII said:


> First, Entoman is actually very happy with Canon, Canon has equal or better high ISO performance than anyone else. Always has.
> 
> Second, did I call it or what? 8K Cinema? 8K Reference distpay? SWEEET!!!
> 
> ...



8K at 60fps no less.

this is like shooting a D800 at 60fps


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2015)

massive said:


> so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
> Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)
> 
> 5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3?
> ...



I think now, more than ever before in photography, the question is 'what do _you_ want for pure landscape photography.'?

If we are talking about resolution and definition it would be interesting to see how close people would have to get to a display of four A3 size prints, each one taken on a 5Ds, a 5DIII, a 70D and a G16. 

However technically speaking in landscape we are often wanting to photograph detail that is both small and a long way from the camera, so in theory the larger the format the better because we're using a longer lens, pro rata, and achieving greater magnification. 

If I had to pick, again, theoretically larger format before pixel density. So I have found in the past that for myself, a 13 MP 5D produced a more pleasing landscape image than an 18 MP 650D. 

But with the latest tech, and bearing in mind that there is a limit to how large people want pictures, I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't changing.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2015)

massive said:


> so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
> Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)
> 
> 5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3?
> ...



The elephant in the room is budget. If you can stretch to it, I'd imagine a medium format camera would suit best.


----------



## massive (Sep 8, 2015)

scyrene said:


> massive said:
> 
> 
> > so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
> ...



I guess you are right. Would be interesting the know the difference in quality between a $4-6000 higend canon body and a $10-30,000 entry level MF body


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> But how about the rest of us - 99% of advanced DSLR users don't need or want such high resolution.



Where did you get the 99% figure from? Canon has expressly said that their customers wanted a high megapix camera and that they missed the boat not having it in their line-up earlier. 

If 99% Canon advanced customers did not want more megapixels Canon would not have sent the 5DS/R to the market.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 8, 2015)

entoman said:


> So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.
> 
> I'll say it again, but LOUDER:
> 
> ...


Your fixation with projecting your own needs on all other photographers is amazing.

Canon published marketing surveys showed their customers wanted more mpix - and Canon's Cheif Camera Exec confirmed this in interviews - Canon has now delivered. Do you think Canon made these things up?

5DS/R and 120 mpix may not be for you. But so far I am enjoying my 5DS/R which is a better all-around camera than both my antique 5DII's were and the 5DIII is.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 9, 2015)

I think its great Canon producing a 120MP camera as it shows they are at the forefront of the technology.
I don't think I'd buy one as I am finding storing safely so much data is a bit problem. (At least based on the number of pictures I take a year. 
My idea camera would be
28MP Full Frame
10FPS
Ability to use a Crop Format
Video with capability to shoot at 1000 FPS
Excellent ISO performance up to 12800
14 Stop Dynamic Range
Body size as small and light as possible (ie way lighter and smaller than the current 5D III).


----------



## dufflover (Sep 10, 2015)

People seem to have no problem accepting now saying things like 640KB RAM or 1TB hard disks "will be enough" for the foreseeable future ... yet can't seem to apply that to cameras and megapixels. Maybe not now, but better they start working on it now than when modern day screens are already stretching the older cameras.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 11, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> I'm a bit torn when it comes to the whole megapixel thing.. Between the primary newspaper I work for and the affiliates of it, they all downsize their images to 2 megapixels max for quick transfer.


Don't sell a lot to newspapers. But they normally ask for highest resolution possible to be able to crop themselves.

For Magazines is very simple; they want absolutely MAX megaspixels.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 11, 2015)

quod said:


> Lift the shadows and then we will see who is smirking. You don't get it.



No, you don't. I can - if I need to (which I don't, because I know how to use a camera) - I can lift shadows in my Canon files by up to 5 stops. And just ti head off the question, I worked out the trick simply to see what could be done.

It's easy _if you know what you're doing_. But knowing how to use a camera properly means not stuffing up exposure so much that big shadow lifts are necessary.


----------

