# A Big Megapixel Discussion



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 11, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/a-big-megapixel-discussion/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/a-big-megapixel-discussion/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Development announcement before years end?

</strong>There has been a bit of discussion lately about the upcoming “big megapixel” camera body from Canon. The camera is slated for release some time in 2014. We’re told that there is a possibility that the camera will get a development announcement before the years end.</p>
<p>We’re told there is still discussion in regards to form factor of such a camera. There’s probably an even 50/50 split in preferences between an EOS-1Dx style body or a EOS 5D Mark III style body. I fall into the latter category, the smaller, the better for me. However, there are lots of people that love the ergonomics of the EOS-1D X. I guess it’s possible there could be a mix of both styles of body.</p>
<p>A different source says there are 3 different sensors currently in development, all of which are above the 35mp pixel count. Canon is apparently quite motivated to make industry leading sensors again, as we should see some of that in the EOS 7D Mark II and perhaps even the 70D in the summer.</p>
<p>The EOS-1D X is apparently slated for replacement in late 2014 or early 2015, and Canon would like to have a large megapixel camera on the market before that happens.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RGF (Jun 11, 2013)

I am torn between 1D series and 5D series for the body. I love the feel of the 1D but the cost could be close to $10,000. With a 5D type body, hopefully the cost would be close to $3,500 (though more likely to be around $5,000).

Perhaps they will come up with both - unlikely but possible.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> I am torn between 1D series and 5D series for the body. I love the feel of the 1D but the cost could be close to $10,000. With a 5D type body, hopefully the cost would be close to $3,500 (though more likely to be around $5,000).
> 
> Perhaps they will come up with both - unlikely but possible.




I'd actually say it's very likely because there is demand for both. The question is really how will the specs differentiate. What features will go into the 1d style and what will be stripped from that for the 5d style.


----------



## pierlux (Jun 11, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told there is still discussion in regards to form factor of such a camera. There’s probably an even 50/50 split in preferences between an EOS-1Dx style body or a EOS 5D Mark III style body. I fall into the latter category, the smaller


Me too. Both for the big megapixel camera and for the 7D MkII.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 11, 2013)

It's a flagship so I want all the features. But the same sensor will probably come in a re-vamped 5D later with lesser features...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 11, 2013)

I'm satisfied with 22mp. Large enough to print big, Small enough to save some space.


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I'm satisfied with 22mp. Large enough to print big, Small enough to save some space.



Unfortunately the market place is in the driver's seat here and this camera is most likely geared for the landscape crowd.

You will have a nice 22MP camera or maybe slightly more when the 5DIV comes out.


----------



## pierlux (Jun 11, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> It's a flagship



Not necessarily. The 1D series will continue to be the flagship, I don't know how the big MP camera will be numbered, but most probably it won't be 1, IMO.


----------



## RGF (Jun 11, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> It's a flagship so I want all the features. But the same sensor will probably come in a re-vamped 5D later with lesser features...



Perhaps There are several ways to measure flagship - MP, S/N, FPS, high ISO, ...

No camera can do all. 

Question is positioning. If they decide this is a landscape camera, then 5D form factor. If they decide this is studio, run ways, .. then possibly 1D form factor.

Or will the 5DIV be 45 MP, 4-6 FPS and the 1Dx2 be 36 MP, 10 FPS - not sure that they could hit either FPS but this is only for illustration purposes.


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 11, 2013)

i really dont care about this at the moment, all i care is for the 60D and even more, the 7D successor, damn it canon!!


----------



## Dantana (Jun 11, 2013)

pierlux said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > It's a flagship
> ...



I'm not sure what you are basing that on. This could very well be the 1D Xs.


----------



## pierlux (Jun 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> Or will the 5DIV be 45 MP



That's one possibility, that the 5D Mk IV is going to be the big MP camera, and eventually a future 6D Mk II will gain a better AF and more FPS...



Dantana said:


> I'm not sure what you are basing that on. This could very well be the 1D Xs.



Speculation. It's fun. Sure, it could be called 1D Xs. But again, I don't think so, especially if it's going to be a non-integrated grip body, which is my preferred option. In the other case, why not? But unlikely. Remember Canon introduced the "X" to represent the merging (crossing) of the 1D and 1Ds lines, and now what? Splitting in two the 1 series again and keeping the X, though both FF?


----------



## rawbphoto (Jun 11, 2013)

1Dexcess indeed


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2013)

"Canon is apparently quite motivated to make industry leading sensors again"

Well I sure like the sound of that. I just hope that it is true.

As for the form factor. I'd really hope for 5D-sized (hopefully it wouldn't need a giant battery to drive 6fps, 7D2 manages dual-digic with a small battery although ti does have a small mirror). 39MP or so might be video friendly.

5D-sized, 39MP, 6fps, top quality video, superb low ISO DR, would be pretty awesome


----------



## frumrk (Jun 11, 2013)

How about a 45+ mp camera with the ability to do a lossy compression RAW file... similar to Adobe's dng format with lossy compression. I am sure that the Digic 5+ (or 6 when it is incorporated) can more than handle the workload of compressing the files. And you should be able to get a filesize comparable to the current RAW files on the 21/22mp sensors.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 11, 2013)

Its great news, and about time Canon woke up to the advances being made by Sony and Nikon. I hope its the long awaited replacement for the 1Ds3, a high MP camera with award winning DR and noise control in a 1Ds style body.

That's why I've stuck with my 5d2, in the hope that Canon would eventually come to their senses and realise that we don't all want video cameras, some of us have other requirements.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2013)

Dantana said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



Might be basing it on Nikon. Their flagship has 16 megapixels.


----------



## zim (Jun 11, 2013)

This should be a real specialist camera, not for everyone. Not going to happen but I’d love to see Canon go for the jugular design this camera around the 2 ¼ sq form and be modular.


----------



## dstppy (Jun 11, 2013)

Well that tears it! I'm switching to Nik . . awww who cares, you gotta do that stuff on the first-page :'(

Seriously though, this is really nice to hear . . . someone mentioned a 5DmkIV??? I'm pretty sure Canon will milk that for 3-4 years . . . it's really an all-around winner, although, I mean at the $2500 price-point that I am once again holding out for ;D


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I'm satisfied with 22mp. Large enough to print big, Small enough to save some space.



Same here. In fact, I shoot my 5D3 in 10mp RAW mode most of the time. I only ramp up to 22mp when the client demands it, I need to print big or I intend to do substantial cropping.

If the pixel count of the 5D4 is significantly higher than the 5D3's, I'll look forward to snapping up a second 5D3 at a discount.


----------



## Pi (Jun 11, 2013)

The elephant in the room is the read noise, not the pixel count.


----------



## johnhenry (Jun 11, 2013)

I don't think there is a lot of head room in the APS C format. Just how many pixels can you cram into that sensor size?

I calculated once that it would take over 46M pixels in a FF sensor to equal the density on the 7D.

Problem is moving that much data onto your memory card to keep a high frame rate


----------



## daniela (Jun 11, 2013)

Do not always think of an high end Camera.
I hope this Camera meets the D800, not the D4. Replacing the midlevel-series. 
My Japanese girl-friend rumored, that Nikons replacement of their highend bodies will be a mixture of the d800 with the performance of the D4 with an superb low iso.

I am sorry, but Canon is 1 generation behind Nikon. If they would not have the dust-problem, I would switch too. A D600 would be great. Much cheaper then the 5D3, much better then the 6D.

And if they struggle to get back on the Camera-Olymp, I hope they do not see this as an chance of exponential rising of the prices.


----------



## docholliday (Jun 11, 2013)

motorhead said:


> Its great news, and about time Canon woke up to the advances being made by Sony and Nikon. I hope its the long awaited replacement for the 1Ds3, a high MP camera with award winning DR and noise control in a 1Ds style body.
> 
> That's why I've stuck with my 5d2, in the hope that Canon would eventually come to their senses and realise that we don't all want video cameras, some of us have other requirements.



Amen to that - it's why I still have 1DsMkIIIs. I could care less about video, otherwise I'd be shooting a CineAlta or ARRI Alexa with Zeiss Master Primes in PL mount.

If the high MP cam does low read noise, and 40mp+ (needs to double resolution to truly be 'better'), then great. And, keeping the large 1-series frame. The smaller cameras hurt after shooting all day. And the grips suck.

If not, it'll be 1DsMkIIIs for longer or Hasselblad H4/H5 from then out.


----------



## traveller (Jun 11, 2013)

At last, proper rumours return!!!  

On a serious note, it interests me that this rumour mentions "Canon is apparently quite motivated to make industry leading sensors again". My question would be why they lost that motivation in the first place; did they believe that sensor technology had reached a (temporary) plateau? Was it economic conditions that caused them to scale back R&D? Maybe Chipworks' article about DSLR sensors shed some light on Canon's reasoning:

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/ see also part I: 

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/23/full-frame-dslr-cameras-part-1-nikon-vs-sony/

The issue that concerns me most about Canon's position is economies of scale. Given the fact that fab facilities are an enormous fixed cost to establish and equip for a given technology level, if Canon are fabbing their own sensor chips in low volumes (compared to mobile devices and compacts), surely they are at a disadvantage compared to manufacturers (e.g. Sony) that can spread the costs over a larger volume of chips? Unless Canon can find a leaner method of producing their sensors, the only way that I can see them keeping costs down is by sticking with older fabrication processes for longer. This means that they will always be behind the curve for a larger proportion of the time than Sony (who have higher volumes that can support more frequent updates) or Nikon (who outsource production or design + production to third parties).


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 11, 2013)

AND IT NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER THAN THE 1DX OTHERWISE WE MAY AS WELL USE MEDIUM FORMAT DIGITAL


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 11, 2013)

This would be the 'Big Megapixel' flagship for images that benefit from the pixels. You would also have a speed-oriented camera like the 1DX that would also be a flagship. As regularly noted, no camera can do it all.


----------



## chauncey (Jun 11, 2013)

File size...file size...get a life, hard drives are cheap.
I would have already a MF if I woulda been able to figure out how to use 10-15 grand in canon glass on an MF camera body.
I trust Canon to have a decent sensor with adequate ISO performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> WE WANT BETTER PIXELS
> 
> NOT JUST MORE OF THEM!



Your pixels will be smaller....


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 11, 2013)

Plus 100 to the two people who said we do not all want video. My first (and so far only) DSLR is the 5D2, which is renowned for video, but honestly I do not even know or care how to turn on the video recording. If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.

I also do not see why anyone needs more megapixels than the current full frame offerings. I have photos in my place blown up to 40x60 inches, from 5d2 and from 100 speed film, and they look fantastic! Are people really doing six foot or eight foot enlargements that they need more megapixels?


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 12, 2013)

2n10 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm satisfied with 22mp. Large enough to print big, Small enough to save some space.
> ...


 You'll be waiting awhile for the 5DIV. Let's hope Canon will have a solution very soon...


----------



## pierlux (Jun 12, 2013)

traveller said:


> At last, proper rumours return!!!



Agreed! 

Let's see what the 70 D sensor is going to be like, they are delaying it so long with respect to Nikon's D 7100 that hopefully it may mean a new tech sensor will be introduced with Canon's next camera which, according to rumors, should be just around the corner... that's why I'm waiting for it so eagerly. But I've no idea what this tech could be about, just shrinking the fab process from 500 nm to 250 or 180 or less is not enough to obtain considerably better DR, further innovation is mandatory. Could it be the use of something else instead of pure silicon for the CMOS (apart from Cu in back-end-of-line), like Intel did with its 45 nm process employing hafnium in their hi-k metal gate for a completely different purpose? 

Well, I admit I'm ignorant in this respect, but I'm throwing this idea in with the hope that someone well-informed may contribute with some hint; as I said earlier, speculating is the most fun to me on Canon Rumors and learning from those technically skilled members here is the best part of it. I suspect that composite materials and composite nanostructures may represent the future of imaging sensors.


----------



## gecko (Jun 12, 2013)

johnhenry said:


> I don't think there is a lot of head room in the APS C format. Just how many pixels can you cram into that sensor size?
> 
> I calculated once that it would take over 46M pixels in a FF sensor to equal the density on the 7D.



And if you look at the sensor in the Sony RX100 - scaled up to FF, that around 150 MP.


----------



## tiger82 (Jun 12, 2013)

My 2 cents, large MP bodies appeal to landscape shooters so a smaller body is more appealing. Nikon made the same decision with the D800 series. Sports and photojournalist shooters need higher frame rates which is mutually exclusive from high megapixels. If Vanon has any sense, a high MP camera will be in a small body.


----------



## Greatland (Jun 12, 2013)

This is an interesting discussion...If this new medium format sized camera is not going in the 1DX type body then I suspect that it will be in the $4K price range? Seems to me that if they get much beyond that they have the same problem that they have now competing with Nikon's D800, which clearly gets better marks than does the 5D MK III
I am more interested in what this new sensor technology, as applied to a replacement for my 1DX will look like, be, and cost....I mean, how many fps does a wildlife or sports shooter need, 20? Or more?? I have seen DSLR technology come a long way in the last 10 years...and the current techology today, at the high end of the $$ scale, is pretty amazing...I guess it will be fun, if not EXPENSIVE, to see where it goes next.....we have seen what the latest lens costs are, $18K for the new Nikon 800mm and the 200-400 costing as much as the 600 II costs...oh well, I will be waiting....but I don't expect to see any replacement for the 1DX actually hit the streets before the end of 2015....thoughts??


----------



## TAF (Jun 12, 2013)

OK, if they really want to impress everyone:

Either 34.56mp (4800x7200) or 56.62mp (6144x9216; extra credit for seeing why I chose the latter numbers).

ISO native to 102K (H2 is 408K); 12fps (24fps with the optional pellical mirror); Dual or Triple DIGIC 6 as required; high speed video mode (640x480 at 4800 fps).

Modified 1D body with dual battery compartments and built in thermoelectric cooler.

Less than 1 million yen.

I'd save up for that.

If they build it as a mirrorless at 750K yen, I might think about it. And make those Leica folks jealous.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 12, 2013)

There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread, with many hoping it will be in a 5D-type body - especially as that could indicate a more affordable price as compared to a 1D ?.

Personally I cannot see that happening. The 1D S makes more sense from where I am sitting. They make a flagship studio camera to go along with the flagship sport / high fps camera, and then remove certain features to eventually get down to a 5D Mark IV.

If they do call the new Megapixel camera the 1DS or the 1DXS what will they call the new 1DX in end-2014 early 2015?

It's all good, no matter what.


----------



## Pi (Jun 12, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread, with many hoping it will be in a 5D-type body - especially as that could indicate a more affordable price as compared to a 1D ?



Yeah, what do you think this is, Nikon?


----------



## paulrossjones (Jun 12, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> AND IT NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER THAN THE 1DX OTHERWISE WE MAY AS WELL USE MEDIUM FORMAT DIGITAL



you obviously don't have a medium format! they are a pain in the ass to use, so far behind in technology. price isn't everything, i want it to do the best job it can, price isn't the most important factor for a big chunk of the market.

what i need as an advertising photographer is more speed, more iso and lots of megapixels. my p65+ has enough pixels, it just cant be used in many situations. if canon can release a decent high megapixel camera that can do iso 800 at 3-5 fps, they will own the high end of the market. 

paul


----------



## bardamu (Jun 12, 2013)

Releasing a 1-series big MP camera still wouldn't really solve the `problem' of enabling Canon to compete with the D800. $3000 & $7000-$10,000 are different brackets altogether. It depends how desperately Canon feels the need to do this. Maybe they don't. I'm guessing the 5D iv will have about 30MP, but that won't happen for 2 years or more surely.

And no way will Canon name the camera 1d-"excess". Canon is a conservative company and that would not be conservative marketing.

Definitely one thing that is happening, and will continue to happen, in the camera market is more differentiation in FF options. In 2003 Canon had only 1, in 2005 2, currently 3 (not counting the 1DC). Clearly there will be more, probably an RX1-like camera, and more differentiation in 1 & 5 series bodies. Whether this will suck one option out of the APS-C lineup, who knows, I doubt it somehow.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 12, 2013)

TAF said:


> Either 34.56mp (4800x7200) or 56.62mp (6144x9216; extra credit for seeing why I chose the latter numbers).



1920*3=5760

5760*1.6(crop)=9216

So it's the same pixel density as a 1.6 crop sensor with three horizontal pixels per output horizontal pixel in full HD video mode.


----------



## M.ST (Jun 12, 2013)

RE to: AND IT NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER THAN THE 1DX OTHERWISE WE MAY AS WELL USE MEDIUM FORMAT DIGITAL

That make sense, because medium format cameras as my H5D-60 are much cheaper than the 1D X and everyone can afford such a camera. (big grin)

How much megapixels do you really need? Do you make printouts for big walls or big campaigns?

No DSLR can beat the image quality of a medium (mid) format camera. But the new professional big megapixel cameras from Canon and Nikon (not on the market yet) are very good.


----------



## dhofmann (Jun 12, 2013)

M.ST said:


> How much megapixels do you really need? Do you make printouts for big walls or big campaigns?



Or do you ever crop?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I'm satisfied with 22mp. Large enough to print big, Small enough to save some space.


+1


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 12, 2013)

Now I'll be happy when I see 6D Mark II with the same sensor technology as this future 1DS albeit at a lower MP, and 7D-like AF coverage with at least 9 cross-type current, 6D center point performance and priced just like 6D during initial intro. I think for most of us, that's the real deal unless you're rich or you're earning money from photography.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jun 12, 2013)

I have both the Canon 5D3 and the Nikon D800 and D800E. I'm starting to do 24x60 inch prints quite a bit more regularly solely because I like them, they sell, and I can do them with visibly better quality using Nikon 800's than with my Canon gear. I do miss some of my Canon glass but I'll just have to wait. How long I'll wait is up to Canon. A 14-24 competitor to the Nikon version would be a great place to start once they start delivering a new 36+ MP camera. I don't care anymore about announcements - delivery is the only thing that matters. The Nikons are treating me just fine for now and I assume that Nikon won't introduce any more landscape type products for awhile. But I really do want them to deliver more tilt shift lenses like the Canon design - Canon tilt shift rocks. The Canon 70-300L also rocks but the Nikon 300mm D also is great for some landscapes. Too bad they don't fit Nikon bodies. How about a special telextender that converts Canon lenses to Nikon -- maybe 1.1 mag?


----------



## RVB (Jun 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> WE WANT BETTER PIXELS
> 
> NOT JUST MORE OF THEM!



I want more better pixels... a 40MP sensor with 12stops DR like the D800E and no pattern noise or banding.. and it needs to be lighter than the brick like 1DX.. and have backlit buttons for working in low light. a 14-24 that is even better than Nikon's is also needed.. and should not be too difficult to make,the Nikkor is getting long in the tooth at this stage..


----------



## AdrianAllen (Jun 12, 2013)

I wish they would just announce/release thier 70d/7dM2 before new rumors come out and make people expect more.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2013)

Would like to see a 34mp+ 5d X with same AF from excellent 5D MK 3 and fps around 6 mark and also the excellent Mraw, Sraw functionality as well coupled with CF and SDXC card slots. Would be good if Canon could roll down 4K across their range as well to get march on their competition - as this will be the next big thing.

Doing a competitive 5D X in the price range of the 5D MK III will sell like hot cakes.

Hopefully Nikon could do a D800s / D800es with improve video and faster fps.


----------



## Ricku (Jun 12, 2013)

Pi said:


> The elephant in the room is the read noise, not the pixel count.


Spot on. I'm sure Canon can make a high MP sensor, but will it come with a significant bump in DR? Will it be free from Canon's trademarked banding?


----------



## klickflip (Jun 12, 2013)

My 2 cents from a Pro advertising, fashion & corporate perspective is. 

Canon we really need this, but we need it to be really well designed and produced, with pixel performance to match. 

That means 40MP+ and most importantly at least equal to or better than the D800 sensor in DR and shadow noise banding (when pulled up) Anyone who's used a D800 will tell you its fantastic you can lift the shadows 3 stops and no banding or breaking up or colour noise. Even many Hasselblads and Phase Ones are not as good.

Lower noise at ISO 50-200, would also welcome lower noise around ISO 200-800. And tbh I wouldn't expect a really clean file above that.. I myself don't shoot actual work that needs to be super high res in dark environments anyway.. Often I'm being paid because it's all about lighting and how I can make a scene look and feel.. not just capture it. 

Flash sync to be 1/500 sec min, most guys like me use proper studio / location flash a LOT and being able to control the mix with ambient light would make it a MF killer. 

Thunderbolt or USB 3 is a must and some really good built in wifi could be welcomed that could facilitate realtime raw file transfer ( but we are maybe still a couple of years away form this) 

5 FPS is prob enough for a camera like this, with current 5D III autofocus also. 

Form factor I don't mind but at least a 5D III size and feel, I think I'd prefer a 1D but slightly smaller vert grip and lighter. But I would like it feel very solid, tactile.. quality rubber and plastics even nicer buttons esp the main top shutter speed wheel. And sound like a proper camera.. cluunk! not a snap klackety klack (coughs 5D III boo) 

Video.. No I've got my 5DIII for that which I dont use that often for video anyway. Unless their R&D could get a 2.5K or 4K clean uncompressed out like Magic lantern have, but I suspect this would completely cut into 1D Cinema sales. 

Cost.. we dont mind say £4-5K for a good piece of kit and would rather that than a D800 direct competitor/ price buster thats cut down on features and quality. 

I strongly believe if they met these specs then EVERY PRO ( in Advertising, fashion and corporate) would instantly have one in their bag. In the UK most other pros in this sector use Canon, often alongside Hasselblad or Phase one. But everyone prefers to shoot with their Canon, and importantly everyone loves the colours from RAW file more than Nikon and it's also the quality of L primes that keeps us on Canon. And very importantly its the user interface is much nicer than Nikons, simply quicker plus the C1-3 are invaluable too. 

Now to all the haters here, if you don't need the MP or maybe would like one at 5D price then you're not getting it.. what Canon are hopefully taking their time making. 
Nikon went 'hey look a 36 MP sensor thats great'. Yes it really is a great sensor but the camera is much much a lesser tool, the 5DIII is very very good in that respect and thats what Canon have been working on, and probably trying to hang on to their current sensor process as long as possible. 
And Canon know there's a big proper pro segment of the market that would love such a camera, but I'm slightly nervous that Canons Marketing will want to jump on the D800/ amature photo pixel peeper bandwagon that actually don't need such a camera.. 

Yes what many say is 22MP is FINE for most situations, even many pro ones. BUT when we do a job that needs to be used billboard size or for a wall sized shop display then 22MP starts to break up, also under heavy stylish processing and retouching which is very often required in our work we really start to notice how the file starts to get noisy and break up. 

If there are any Canon staff reading this.. please GET IT RIGHT for the PROS with this one - read my specs wish list and what everyone else is saying most importantly NOT JUST MORE PIXELS.. BUT BETTER PIXELS, then release a cut down smaller cheaper version in a year or so to keep all the amature pixel counters happy (90% will never actually need it tho, just think they need it!) 

Peace!


----------



## RVB (Jun 12, 2013)

klickflip said:


> My 2 cents from a Pro advertising, fashion & corporate perspective is.
> 
> Canon we really need this, but we need it to be really well designed and produced, with pixel performance to match.
> 
> ...



High res allows down sampling which creates a cleaner file.. I can't see 1/500sec flash sync being achieved,MF still rules in that regard...

1DX form would be brilliant if they could match the Nikon D4 weight.. or even beat it...USB 3 is a must,and super fast XQD memory cards in both slots would be nice...


----------



## deleteme (Jun 12, 2013)

I know they will offer a high MP camera if only to placate those demanding it. 
It will be nice to see improvements in IQ but in truth does the pro in studio or in the field actually need the resolution?
The desire for a high flash sync, IMO, is the best feature we could get on a new camera of any sort.

In the studio we carefully control every element of the scene. Huge DR is not an issue as we alter the DR of the scene. (Just like pros since.....forever).
In the field we have less control but still a one stop increase in DR is not going to let you read the shadows significantly better especially when going to press.

And THAT is where the real issue is. Just how much different will the image be in the final usage?

Already we see scores of images in Vogue or AD that are made on a diverse range of cameras and we would be hard pressed to see the difference. Yes, I know we may be able to if we really, really try and are lucky at guessing. (See Michael Reichmann's comments on his test results with pros on this score) but as the vast majority of images go to the web and even billboard images do not need the res we think they do, we are really fooling ourselves in believing that we NEED the camera. We WANT the camera.
What would help is better lenses and AF and that higher flash sync that lets us control the amount of fill outdoors.


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 12, 2013)

RVB said:


> I can't see 1/500sec flash sync being achieved,MF still rules in that regard...



They "only" need to implement a global electronic shutter. That would be great for video as well as allow sync speeds that would make everyone exchange B4s for Moves. 
Explaining the the average customer why the speedlights don't really work well at full power will get interesting.


----------



## bycostello (Jun 12, 2013)

think been said, but do we really need more MP?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jun 12, 2013)

bycostello said:


> think been said, but do we really need more MP?



Perhaps the more relevant question as far as Canon is concerned: Will Canon be able to sell a camera that is equal or better than the Nikon D800E? I will buy one if it is under 5K. Why? I have a large investment in Canon glass but my Nikon D800 and D800E are much better landscape cameras with the 14-24mm lens but I want to use my Canon tilt-shift lenses again which I think are great.

Perhaps we are talking about a "Want" more than a "Need." As far as Canon is concerned, they Want sales and I'm willing to Buy. It is up to Canon whether they produce a product that I want and be able to deliver it before Nikon delivers an even better product. The clock is ticking.....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> The desire for a high flash sync, IMO, is the best feature we could get on a new camera of any sort.



See it all depends upon what you shoot. I wouldn't mind it, but that would be at the very bottom of my list of hopes and expectations for it.



> In the field we have less control but still a one stop increase in DR is not going to let you read the shadows significantly better especially when going to press.



The thing is it is not just one stop, it is more like 3 full usable stops better for some of the competition.
That is quite a lot. And for certain natural world stuff there is no way to add fill umbrellas or flash or anything.



> And THAT is where the real issue is. Just how much different will the image be in the final usage?



You could take an infinite number of shots where it would make zero difference. You could take an infinite number where it would make a rather noticeable difference. It depends.



> but as the vast majority of images go to the web and even billboard images do not need the res we think they do, we are really fooling ourselves in believing that we NEED the camera. We WANT the camera.
> What would help is better lenses and AF and that higher flash sync that lets us control the amount of fill outdoors.



Again it depends what you shoot. More MP sure are helpful for distant wildlife shots. A 38-48MP FF camera would put a lot more pixels on your duck than the 5D3. Just look at how the 7D does better than the mighty 5D3 when you are distance limited (under most circumstances, and under ANY if you compare to the 5D2).

If you want crazy crisp landscapes where you can walk right up and admire every last little marvelous texture in the rocks and tree bark, etc....

For me the DR most of all and then the MP hitting like 38MP say (might be better for video than more) would mean infinitely more than higher speed flash sync which I might use once in a blue moon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.



Why??? How does having it hurt you? At the very least you'd be a fool since you'd pay the same for something that would have less retail value and yet behave EXACTLY the same in hand for you.

Why do so many still photographers have such hatred for video? I thought photographers were supposed to be creative, open-minded types always wanting to explore new things? Even if you don't want to, all the talk about paying as much or even more just to get a body with video disabled sounds utterly nuts to me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread, with many hoping it will be in a 5D-type body - especially as that could indicate a more affordable price as compared to a 1D ?.
> 
> Personally I cannot see that happening. The 1D S makes more sense from where I am sitting. They make a flagship studio camera to go along with the flagship sport / high fps camera, and then remove certain features to eventually get down to a 5D Mark IV.



Do they want to sit there with nothing to compete with D800 until 2015 or 2016 though? If it is some giant $8500 1DsX that will hardly compete with the D800.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Again it depends what you shoot. More MP sure are helpful for distant wildlife shots. A 38-48MP FF camera would put a lot more pixels on your duck than the 5D3. Just look at how the 7D does better than the mighty 5D3 when you are distance limited (under most circumstances, and under ANY if you compare to the 5D2).
> 
> If you want crazy crisp landscapes where you can walk right up and admire every last little marvelous texture in the rocks and tree bark, etc....
> 
> For me the DR most of all and then the MP hitting like 38MP say (might be better for video than more) would mean infinitely more than higher speed flash sync which I might use once in a blue moon.



I take your points.
In that case it would seem a high res version of the current 1D body would set you up just fine. For me, I came from a Hasselblad studio background where ultimate image quality and the sync speed (coupled with glorious lenses) were king. Weatherproofing? Shoot inside or bring an umbrella. High frame rate?(How fast can you wind?)Rugged build? Bring a hammer. Even then ultimate image quality for some clients was 8x10 transparency.
Once I have the IQ (5Dmk3 is just fine thanks) all I want is sync speed.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2013)

Could be battling with the Rumoured D4x - D800 sensor / 2nd generation 36mp Sony FF chip ?


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 12, 2013)

paulrossjones said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > AND IT NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER THAN THE 1DX OTHERWISE WE MAY AS WELL USE MEDIUM FORMAT DIGITAL
> ...



You noticeably didn't read my sig. I use a H4D50 for wedding, studio and landscape photography.

Medium format is cumbersome to use but well worth the grief. The Hasselblad lenses are the best in the world, the colour, also world class.

The majority of people using such large file sizes will be studio and landscapers. Run and gun wedding togs just don't have the need (in general) for such high file sizes. I use mine for wedding stuff for things like flowers, panoramic building shots, group shots but the rest the 1DX is used for.

I would trade down my H4D50 but the camera would have to be CHEAP because I know for a fact I would be losing out on the quality medium format affords me. When it comes to high resolution sensors I'm not fussed about ISO performance but ultimate IQ. I know that to squeeze than many pixels onto 35mm is a compromise. As are the lenses. They just aren't good enough compared to H series stuff.

Heck I may even buy a big mp Canon and keep the Hassy. It's that good. I wouldn't dream of shooting a whole wedding on a big MP Canon though. I hear about D800 owners downsizing all their image files to fit onto a DVD.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.
> ...



It's even more nuts when you realize that DSLRs are really video cameras anyway. You can't "take out" video unless you just want to use the camera as a doorstop. And, as has been discussed many times on this forum, the video recording features reduce the per unit cost of the camera. People who say they would "pay more" for a camera that can't do video recording have no idea just how much more they would have to pay.


----------



## RVB (Jun 12, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> paulrossjones said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...



Don't sell your Hassy,you will regret it.the file's from the H4d-50 are fabulous and I doubt any 35mm camera will give the same look,Having both the new high res canon body and the H4D sounds like the charm..


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread, with many hoping it will be in a 5D-type body - especially as that could indicate a more affordable price as compared to a 1D ?.
> ...



Good point, though if they did release a big (1D) mp camera in 2014 then a watered down 5D Mark IV - which could compete with this D800/D800E - could follow soon after.

Personally, unless the new high mp camera has very goof fps then I am much more interested in what they have planned for the new 1DX ii. Plenty of time for them to get that right (just hope they remember a headphone jack this time!). ;D


----------



## The Flasher (Jun 12, 2013)

16bit RAW image capture, not megapixels, would define progress in the DSLR market. 

J


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread, with many hoping it will be in a 5D-type body - especially as that could indicate a more affordable price as compared to a 1D ?.
> ...



Depends on what you mean by "compete." If you're talking about sales, the 5D3 was already way ahead.


----------



## chauncey (Jun 13, 2013)

If you don't need more MP, why are you even in this sandbox...some of us want/need those MP...why berate us?


> High res allows down sampling which creates a cleaner file


Add "superior" to "cleaner"...downsizing a large file creates a better image than does native resolution. And cropping a large file increases DOF for macro shooters.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



Maybe so, but that still wouldn't sell an $8500 1Dsx, that would just sell more 5D3 and a few more D800 for those who want that and gave up on Canon at that point because of the price or nothing as some wait for the 5D4.

But I guess they could try to gouge out some big profits on however many 1Dxs they could manage to sell and then quickly dump out a top 5D4. I suppose. That would probably gun shy most 1Ds users from anything such in the future though.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2013)

A 46 megapixel FF camera will have the same pixel density as an 18 megapixel APS-C camera.

The most critical limitation on the camera will be the glass used. On an APS-C camera, if you want a sharp picture you have to use top-of-the-line lenses, the sharpest lenses that canon offers. Use anything else and image quality suffers.... perhaps this is why there has been so much effort updating Canon Lglass.... so that when a high megapixel camera comes out, it can have glass that works with it. (Are you listening Nikon?)

The second limitation is caused by the smaller area of the pixels. You can expect the same IQ as that of any of the APS-C cameras, unless the release of this new camera is coupled with newer and better sensor technology.

I do not believe the doom and gloom predictions of slow frame rate because of a larger sensor. The time spent reading a sensor is small enough to be ignored.... time spent processing the data and storing the data onto a memory card are the big killers.... but one can increase the buffer memory enough to allow a string of several dozen pictures to be taken at a high frame rate... and the speed of compact flashes is steadily going up... you can now get ones that write at 145MB/second. I have some 4X speed (600KB/s) 1MB cards.... It has come a long way since then and I will be very surprised if we do not soon see 2000X speeds. Likewise, we now have Digic6. How long before we see dual Digic6... or even quad or hex????. A data processing/storage system able to handle files twice the size is not a big jump.... After all, the world did not end when cameras jumped from 10Mpixels to 18...


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 13, 2013)

Wasn't the whole point of the 1Dx was that it was going to consolidate the two 1D models into one model to rule them all? Would a high-megapixel camera in a body with a stupid permanent grip (can you tell my opinion on this yet?) go against this philosophy?

I hate vertical grips, and 1D bodies are way too heavy and cumbersome, no thanks!

Echoing what everyone else has said, yes, DR improvements are more important than megapixel improvements. But other companies have proven you can, indeed, have both.

*tangent: anyone else think it was odd that the 1D*s* models were the ones NOT intended for *sports*? dumb. confusing.


----------



## art_d (Jun 13, 2013)

The Flasher said:


> 16bit RAW image capture, not megapixels, would define progress in the DSLR market.
> 
> J


Well...not really. Not unless those 16 bits are actually used for something other than just quantizing noise. That's all the current 16 bit systems do. Those extra bits don't really carry useful data. In practical terms the only thing 16 bits provides over 14 bits is: 1) making the raw file unnecessarily larger; and 2) give marketing people stuff to talk about that really doesn't affect image quality.


----------



## art_d (Jun 13, 2013)

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work. 

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.


----------



## TAF (Jun 13, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Either 34.56mp (4800x7200) or 56.62mp (6144x9216; extra credit for seeing why I chose the latter numbers).
> ...



Fascinating. That was not what I was looking at at all.

I was thinking 256 pixels per mm (vice 200 pixels per mm for the 7200). I like your answer better. Well done.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 13, 2013)

TAF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > TAF said:
> ...



I figured it was just that the first one was 34560000 pixels, which is a cool number.


----------



## docholliday (Jun 13, 2013)

art_d said:


> I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.
> 
> Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.



...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 13, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



+1 

I look forward to high number of mega-pickles if they are sharp per pixel - and don't impact DR and noise too much - coz that's good for cropping!


----------



## M.ST (Jun 13, 2013)

All prototypes with the big megapixel sensors are in big bodys.

I like to see one in an big body and one in an body bigger than the 5D body, but smaller than the 1D body. 

Today I send a big mail to the Canon development center with wishes and tests results.


----------



## dolina (Jun 13, 2013)

Will ship by January.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2013)

M.ST said:


> All prototypes with the big megapixel sensors are in big bodys.
> 
> I like to see one in an big body and one in an body bigger than the 5D body, but smaller than the 1D body.
> 
> Today I send a big mail to the Canon development center with wishes and tests results.



Hey M.ST, you are back to spouting your garbage I see, I thought you had said you were only going to do that directly to the site owners. Maybe you did but they found your imaginary nonsense as laughable as anybody else with half a brain.


----------



## eml58 (Jun 13, 2013)

dolina said:


> Will ship by January.



Proactive & Optimistic thinking, Love it, you did of course leave yourself a get out, the year ??


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 13, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> 1920*3=5760



Although 39MP would make more sense. 
4K-video has 3840 pixels on the long side, and to get 4:4:4 from a CFA sensor you need to bin a full RGGB-cluster, so we're at 7680*5120.
And considering how difficult it is to get the max. theoretical resolution from such a camera due to environmental factors one would get more actual detail by removing those choke points first.


----------



## dflt (Jun 13, 2013)

Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success.

Just think about the magic lantern RAW hack... it works with a 50d, which is a 5 year old camera... and now, Blackmagic sorta shot themselves in the foot.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2013)

dflt said:


> Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success...



I've wondered the same thing. Obviously Canon knew exactly what the market was for the 5DIII (Wedding and event photographers) and knew they could charge an initial premium because the high ISO performance offered ipeople a tool they could use to gain a competitive edge. 

I've never figured out what market Nikon was aiming for with the D800. They had an embedded base of users who were already invested in Nikon equipment, but the market for the D800 was ill-defined at best. Perhaps they found they were losing market share to Canon and assumed it was because of their smaller megapixel count. Not sure it's really worked out all that well for Nikon.

I'm not sure why Canon would feel compelled to follow Nikon off the high-megapixel cliff. I've always felt the only way it makes some sense would be if they just switched out the sensor in an existing body (most likely the 5DIII) and slapped an "HD" on the description (5D HD). That would keep production and development cost low (especially if they just upsize the 18mp APS-C sensor with a few tweaks). But, I just don't see launching a new high resolution "flagship" when there doesn't appear to be much of a market demand for it.

If you think high megapixels are the end-all and be-all, ask yourself why the flagship Nikon has 16 mp and the flagship Canon has 18 mp.


----------



## torger (Jun 13, 2013)

Big megapixel is a "medium format killer", just as D800 currently is. It's targeting a specific genre, high resolution photography. It's not a journalist camera like the flagships. Sure, for typical 35mm photography high resolution is just a waste of disk space. But a high resolution 35mm is there to stretch into medium format territory, just as medium format digital stretched into large format film (think 4x5 and 8x10 view camera) territory. In other words expand what you can do with a 35mm system. A pro Canon shooter could have a 1DX for fast handheld action work, and a big megapixel camera for studio/still life/architecture/landscape.

Probably the high resolution genre is smaller, but every landscape hobbyist will want it (those are many!), and some of the pro shooters that use medium format today will drop the costly MF system and use only 35mm for convenience. I think Canon need this type of camera in their lineup in the long-term to provide a cameras for all genres users nowadays expect 35mm to be good at.

In the medium format forums the only camera that is considered as real competition with MF is the D800, and indeed several has ditched MF in favour of the more user-friendly, all-around and cheaper D800. In the same forums Canon is still used as an example to show off how "bad" 35mm is compared to MF, as it still has poor dynamic range and color rendition at base ISO compared to MF, while the D800 actually is competitive and even better in some aspects.

Not a single recent sensor out from Canon is even remotely close Sony Exmor sensors in terms of base ISO performance. I'm still waiting to see that Canon actually _can_ produce a sensor which has the properties high resolution photographers desire - ie great dynamic range and great color fidelity at base ISO. High ISO performance (which Canon indeed is good at!) is not irrelevant, but much less important than in traditional 35mm photography.

I shoot medium format digital myself for my landscape photography hobby, and use my Canon system for everything hand-held. I follow the developments closely, a good high resolution camera could be a game changer for users like me. But it must deliver competitive image quality per pixel, not just resolution.


----------



## pedro (Jun 13, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm satisfied with 22mp. Large enough to print big, Small enough to save some space.
> ...



Same here, Jon. I shoot mine at 10MP as well. Whatever the MP count may be. I always will do so most of the time, maybe with the next 5D S RAW will give you 10 MP ;-)

*And someone was speculating about 102k native ISO. Would be great! Waiting for that. Maybe in about 6 years from now via the 5DV? 102 k like my 25k on the 5D3...wow. * 8)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 13, 2013)

pedro said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



The more I use the 5D3, the more I'm glad I didn't switch for the D700 years back. Nikon would've disappointed me when the D800 was released. Plus, No 600RT's either.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 13, 2013)

What I love about this whole topic is the disconnect with the reality of how Canon deals with its product cycles. 

I see so many saying that the 1dx is being replaced or that this will be the successor to the 5d3. What kool-aid are you guys drinking? Maybe in the rebel world we would see such a rapid move to push out a new product, but not with pro level gear, or near pro level (XXD line). Canon hasn't put out a replacement for the 60D yet, which is a line that gets updated every 1-2 years. So to think we'll see even a rumor for the 5d4 in 2013 is a dream idea - more likely we'll see the dev rumors in 2015, with a potential release in 2016. (Id say the idx will follow a similar pattern...

Big MP --- I am pretty positive that a big mp body will be aimed at a niche audience - studio, landscape, architecture - where the 5d3 is aimed at weddings and event shooters and the 1dx is for wedding, events and sports (5d3 can do sports too, but the slower frame rate). 

tech is advancing, but, I keep hearing it from my nikon friends --- while the d800 is a great camera, it's niot their body of choice for weddings. Most rely on the d3s, or d700. I know a few who roll with the d3s and the d800 - but the d800 only comes out for the formals portraits (reasoning - because thats where the strength of the big mp sensor currently is (Low ISO shots), the advantage of the big MP's goes away once you get into the receptions.

I think nikon jumped the gun a little bit with big mp's by trying to make such a camera to act as an all around work machine. 

Just a shot in the dark here, but my guess is that we'll see 2 big MP bodies in 2014, a 1d style and a 5d style (not sure what they will name them). Both will probably get the 1dx AF system, digic 6, one will be in the 8k range and the other in the 3-4k range. Neither will have fast frame rates, guessing 2-4 frames per second (1d style will probably get the 4 fps, 5d style would get 2 fps). Emphasis would be on IQ not speed. This would enable canon to funnel this tech into the next round (yes, this would be the 1dx2 and the 5d4). it's a sensible plan - get the new sensor out into its niche market, then by 2016 we'll have digic 7 or 8, our PC's will be that much faster, memory card speeds will be faster and their capacity will be greater and their cost will go down, how about some usb 4 maybe? (Imagine transfering over 2000 45 MP images via usb2, lol, you have lost productive workflow time before you can even begin the workflow at that rate!!!!) -- all of that will lead to bigger mp's in the 1dx2 and 5d3 without comprising on the speed or high ISO performance because how many sports shooters (or wedding shooters) will want to deal with less fps, and a smaller buffer??? (flip that coin too -- DR, yeah, we want more DR, but DR goes away as the ISO increases which is where the current 1dx and 5d3 shine). 

I'd much rather wait for the other tech to catch up so we can enjoy the benefits we currently have in canon bodies + more MP's, rather than compromising on certain things like one must do with the current nikon offerings...(again, nikon wedding shooters are hunting for d700's because the price gap to the d3s is too steep, the d600 isn't as good as many thought it would be and the d800 isn't what they hoped it would be).

LOL, the grass is always greener - on the canon boards it's all about more DR and MP and canon has fell behind, on the nikon boards it's people wishing they could have great high ISO with reasonable files sizes and in the 2-3k price range...and that ain't there for them...


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 13, 2013)

The new MP camera will compete with the new D4x and will use the same sensor tech as the 7D mk ii but tweaked for the pro end. I'd love Canon to address low iso along with dr etc if they're aiming for landscape photographers

And I think they'll consider a body in between the 1d and 5d - the infamous 3D - to appeal to prosumers as this can be legitimately released without alienating 5d III owners...

Just my 2p


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2013)

unfocused said:


> dflt said:
> 
> 
> > Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success...
> ...



?? Landscape shooters (great DR and MP)? Nature with more reach for wildlife (and it gets you 5fps and 6fps in cropped modes which are perfect and don't waste pixels for distance limited wildlife)?

What exactly was the 5D2 base then compared to the 5D if the D800 wasn't defined??


----------



## TAF (Jun 14, 2013)

pedro said:


> *And someone was speculating about 102k native ISO. Would be great! Waiting for that. Maybe in about 6 years from now via the 5DV? 102 k like my 25k on the 5D3...wow. * 8)



That was me; high ISO was why I bought the 5D3 (the 1DX was out of scope both due to money and physical size), and I really look forward to the next improvement in the ISO department. Rather like the jump from pushed Tri-X at 1600 to 2475 Recording Film pushed to 6400 and IR film with a filtered flash; there is no going back.

Having always been an 'available light' photographer, complete with the limitations that implied in the past, I am loving the stuff I get from the 5D3. But of course I want 'more', and I know it's coming.

After all, that's how these suppliers of photographic crack stay in business.


----------



## pedro (Jun 14, 2013)

TAF said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > *And someone was speculating about 102k native ISO. Would be great! Waiting for that. Maybe in about 6 years from now via the 5DV? 102 k like my 25k on the 5D3...wow. * 8)
> ...



+1. I am all for high ISOs. Used to push Tri-X film to 1600 as well back in the day. Same reasons for purchasing a 5D3 as yours led me to go for it. Maybe you've seen this posted before. Here's my late cat at 51k:




Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I see so many saying that the 1dx is being replaced or that this will be the successor to the 5d3. What kool-aid are you guys drinking? Maybe in the rebel world we would see such a rapid move to push out a new product, but not with pro level gear, or near pro level (XXD line). Canon hasn't put out a replacement for the 60D yet, which is a line that gets updated every 1-2 years. So to think we'll see even a rumor for the 5d4 in 2013 is a dream idea - more likely we'll see the dev rumors in 2015, with a potential release in 2016. (Id say the idx will follow a similar pattern...



You are nuts if you think it makes sense for them to wait another three years to catch up on sensors.



> Big MP --- I am pretty positive that a big mp body will be aimed at a niche audience - studio, landscape, architecture - where the 5d3 is aimed at weddings and event shooters and the 1dx is for wedding, events and sports (5d3 can do sports too, but the slower frame rate).



Landscape is niche? General landscape and scenics are some the major usages for DSLRs.

5D3 was aimed at all around, landscapes (although they got left behind for DR), weddings (again with the DR), sports where your job is not riding on having THE frame ALL the time, it's decent for wildlife (only the reach is a little low compared to current APS-C cams or a D800), etc.



> I think nikon jumped the gun a little bit with big mp's by trying to make such a camera to act as an all around work machine.



If you are bit more biased towards wildlife or landscapes than run and gun PJ or weddings, maybe they didn't.



> Just a shot in the dark here, but my guess is that we'll see 2 big MP bodies in 2014, a 1d style and a 5d style (not sure what they will name them). Both will probably get the 1dx AF system, digic 6, one will be in the 8k range and the other in the 3-4k range. Neither will have fast frame rates, guessing 2-4 frames per second (1d style will probably get the 4 fps, 5d style would get 2 fps). Emphasis would be on IQ not speed. This would enable canon to funnel this tech into the next round (yes, this would be the 1dx2 and the 5d4). it's a sensible plan - get the new sensor out into its niche market, then by 2016 we'll have digic 7 or 8, our PC's will be that much faster, memory card speeds will be faster and their capacity will be greater and their cost will go down, how about some usb 4 maybe?



Really so they will put out a TWO fps 34-40MP camera for $4000 in 2014 when Nikon has a D800 for $2500, 36MP and 4fps (5fps at APS-H and 6fps at APS-C and with grip) out in 2012? So a product that is two years later, almost a cycle later than the D800 will not go up 2fps to 6fps FF but will drop to 2fps??



> (Imagine transfering over 2000 45 MP images via usb2, lol, you have lost productive workflow time before you can even begin the workflow at that rate!!!!)



You can get a half-speed USB 3.0 card for a PCI slot or a firewire PCI slot card if you don't want to upgrade motherboards yet.

One place is way ahead now, largely thanks to Magic Lantern, is video. Man the 5D3 video utterly blows to pieces anything you get out of Nikon.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 15, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I see so many saying that the 1dx is being replaced or that this will be the successor to the 5d3. What kool-aid are you guys drinking? Maybe in the rebel world we would see such a rapid move to push out a new product, but not with pro level gear, or near pro level (XXD line). Canon hasn't put out a replacement for the 60D yet, which is a line that gets updated every 1-2 years. So to think we'll see even a rumor for the 5d4 in 2013 is a dream idea - more likely we'll see the dev rumors in 2015, with a potential release in 2016. (Id say the idx will follow a similar pattern...
> ...



See inside the qoute for replies...


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

It's not fun uploading 2000+ 21MP RAW images to your desktop or laptop then backing all that up. Can't imagine doing that with 36MP images. And then there's the processing time, I would need a lot more processing power to cope. 
If I was a wedding or sports shooter I prob would stick with a 5D III / 1DX. That's not to say that some photogs need those extra megapixels. Maybe the reason Canon hasn't brought this out yet is that they're still figuring out where in the line-up to stick it? We already have 3 full frame lines. A fourth? I guess Canon 2,3 and 4D are up for grabs!


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 15, 2013)

I think a good idea. By the time it is here. Computers able to crunch these huge files will be cheap. Storage will be cheaper. Just a win win for me.


----------



## art_d (Jun 15, 2013)

docholliday said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.
> ...


I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2013)

art_d said:


> docholliday said:
> 
> 
> > art_d said:
> ...



You mean like the 1Ds Mark III? High frame rate and low MP's?


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 15, 2013)

Zv said:


> It's not fun uploading 2000+ 21MP RAW images to your desktop or laptop then backing all that up. Can't imagine doing that with 36MP images. And then there's the processing time, I would need a lot more processing power to cope.



I do this frequently and have no problem with it. Doesn't take so long.

Having a camera that fulfils your needs is only part of the job, having the processing power to match is equally as important - some would say a prerequisite.

I would love 36MP Raw files if the camera can also do 12 fps like the 1D X, or even faster. Don't mind at all.


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > It's not fun uploading 2000+ 21MP RAW images to your desktop or laptop then backing all that up. Can't imagine doing that with 36MP images. And then there's the processing time, I would need a lot more processing power to cope.
> ...



Well, that's fine and why I also said some people need the extra megapixels. Though high fps and 36MP just makes me shudder! That's a lot of data, too much for me to handle - ratatatat 128Gb used up in just a few minutes!


----------



## Cannon Man (Jun 15, 2013)

pierlux said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Or will the 5DIV be 45 MP
> ...




I have always understood that what they meant with "merging of the 1D and 1Ds" meant the actual merging of 1D IV and 1Ds III cameras not the actual 1D and 1Ds "lines" meaning that they forever excluded the possibility of a high speed 1D and a big megapixel 1D. Watch the official announcements again after you read this post, they didn't say exactly what you thought.

Another take that i think could be possible is that they meant that the 1D and 1Ds lines merge in to a 1DX which does not exclude a 1DXs line.

Big companies sometimes say things that is useful for marketing but customers take them too seriously.

Just watch and see. It will be in a 1D body. It has been clear ever since they launched the 1DX.. most 1D users are happy with 18MP on a full frame BUT there is definitely a need for a 1D body that rivals medium format cameras.

It just makes sense. If Canon wants a shot at medium format cameras they WILL release it on a 1D because it would be stupid to give better image quality for half the price of the 1DX and the camera would be stripped down on functions as well..


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 15, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



+100

That's pretty much exactly what i think that's going on which is why i keep saying that whatever these big mp bodies end up being, they aren't replacing the current line up, they are adding to it. Think about it ---with all the sports shooters out there enjoying their 12 fps and reasonable file sizes (many of which shoot in jpeg for quick uploading), will they really rush to trade in their 1dx for a 45 MP body that can maybe do 5-6 frames per second if your lucky (oh, more if you shoot in mRAW or SRAW)? No! No! No! no!!!!

And it would be a mistake to do that. the 1dx and the 5d3 have their place. The big MP bodies will have their place too. Many 1dx users will buy a big MP body, not to replace the 1dx, but to supplement it - to get that big planned tripod mounted shot of the stadium, or other fun stuff like that. You aren't shooting a basketball game with a 45 MP body though. Many 5d3 users will also buy a big MP body as well too. As a wedding shooter that does portraits and some fine art, hell yeah will I buy a big MP body. That body would rock the hell out of the formal portraits and the solos with the B&G. But ---it would sit in the bag during the reception (maybe it would come out for the first dance, but even then it would just be to supplement what your getting from your 5d3).

Back to the point, I totally agree. The 1dx and the 5d3 are the jack of all trades bodies, the big MP bodies will fill the nich of users that mostly shoot at low ISO's and not in huge volume!!!!


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 15, 2013)

Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have

Meanwhile develop the next sensor tech to support them for perhaps the next 7 to 10 years (given previous cycles), and also watch and see how the market responds to the d800 - this in itself takes a reasonable time before you can reasonably assess the impact. And while you wait that new sensor tech is still useful for the whole of your product line.

It will be a pro body as I said earlier, and a body in between this and the 5d. Finally it will be in the 7d ii but perhaps a higher pixel density. Interesting times...


----------



## pierlux (Jun 15, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Dantana said:
> ...



From Canon: “The EOS-1D X represents the re-invention of the EOS-1Ds and EOS-1D *series*" ... (Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies and Communications Group, Canon U.S.A.).

Series, lines... the meaning is clear. Of course, 1D IV and 1Ds III cameras were representative of both series at that time, can you imagine Canon stating that they were merging the 1D, 1DII, 1DIIn, 1DIII, 1DIV and 1Ds, 1DsII and 1DsIII cameras? Don't look too much inside words, the meaning is clear. And marketing paths for the next 5-6 years, maybe longer, were already set by Canon at that time, so it's not a matter of Canon saying "things useful for marketing but customers take them too seriously".

Anyway, I used the words "possibility", "maybe", "could", "unlikely". You'll never hear from me statements of certainty about things not already established. I'm speculating, but I'm trying to use common sense when doing so.

Apart from this, there are other reasons for not going for an integrated grip body for hi-MP cam. Some of them have already been reported by others in this thread. Another one, never really being considered, is that both Canon and Nikon have their (relatively) low-res, high-speed cams embodied by big integrated grip bodies. Those cams are primarily (but of course not exclusively) intended for high speed- high ISO- low light-oriented photography. As Neuro once said, even his P&S takes beautiful photos when plenty of light is available. When we look at stunning high resolution images, or at images taken to test a body and/or a lens, these are taken on sturdy tripods, with mirror lockup and low ISOs. What would be the point of shooting handheld, low light, a 12 fps burst with a 36-45 MP camera (assuming such a camera could exist) if doing so you'll not gain better resolution over a 10-12 MP one due to noise, camera shake and vibration introduced by mirror and shutter? Sure, a photographer sporting a BIG cam looks cool, more macho, sweating manliness from every pore, but if he's using handheld a 45 MP camera @ 12 fps and 12800 ISO (again assuming such a camera existed!) he's also a fool (or the Manufacturer that makes such a camera).

So, let me say again that I think the next Canon bigMP cam is more likely to be a non-integrated grip body. And I really hope so. How can you be so sure to say that it will be in a 1D body?

Cheers!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have
> ...



OMG! Canon does not attend meetings at Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sony to discuss sensors! I am shocked!

And they can not increase the number of pixels without using the compact sensors? (1.6*1.6*18M = 46M, they could build a 46Mpixel FF sensor with the same technology and pixel size as APS-C). 

There is no indication that Canon has invested in new sensors? I would assume that in the 6 years since the current tech was introduced in APS-C that if the design division had not done anything more than playing cards and surfing the web, that they would have all been fired.... Just because you or I don't know the details does not mean that they are all asleep. Oh wait.... there are new sensors... on the p/s cameras... I guess they have been working....

Canon has the ability to do finer lithography on it's circuits than what we see on APS-C and FF sensors. The P/S lineup is proof. (They get the new technology first because that's where the money is).

This is a rumours site. The only thing we can state about future offerings is that we don't know. In looking at the big picture, it helps to realize that that it is not cameras like the 1DX and $10,000 primes that drives Canon...The big money is in the small items.. P/S cameras are more important than Rebels. Rebels are more important than 60D's and 6D's.... which are more important than 7D's and 5DII's, which are more important than 1DX's... Canon will make a lot more profit on a $350 50-250 zoom than the just released 200-400... If you want to guess what will happen at the top, look to the bottom.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 16, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have
> ...


Well I agree with the "maybe", as this is just guessing on all of our parts... 

But I was suggesting that there's more to development of a big MP camera than just the sensor, and given the amount of money involved, then it makes sense to develop the whole ecosystem and choosing where you get best return on your money, especially as new sensor tech as you state costs billions of dollars.

Everyone wants Canon need to do is improve their sensor tech - they know that, and they know that other companies aggressively develop their own further. But of those you mention, except for Sony, I don't believe the others make full cameras (so less revenue streams, more dependency on 1 line). Of course it means other (camera) companies can use their sensors, but again I'm reminded of Tom Hogan who when asked about the 1DX, 5D III, D4 and D800 essentially stated that you can take very good pictures with any of them. 

Ultimately, as you say, we'll have to see what they release. But for me personally, it's still about the whole ecosystem (AF, Sensor, Ergonomics, Lens Range, Lens Quality, Build, SW Support). Your and other peoples' mileage may differ....


----------



## art_d (Jun 17, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > docholliday said:
> ...


No. I don't mean like that.

In the context of the present day, Canon doesn't really have a high MP body. (Though Canon's present flagship high volume work camera, the 1DX, does have slightly fewer megapixels than its current 5 series body.) 

But looking at Nikon: there is the high megapixel D800 which is roughly speaking at the level of a 5-series body, and the D4 which is their flagship high volume workhorse. The D800 is 36mp, the D4 is 16mp. This makes sense, because in general the high volume shooters using a D4 are not going to value a high megapixel sensor. 

I would think a similar logic would apply to Canon. Why dump a big megapixel sensor into a 1 series body when the 1 series is built for high volume work?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2013)

I see. So like a 1Dx/(High MP body) to Canon as is the D4/D800 to Nikon.


----------



## docholliday (Jun 17, 2013)

art_d said:


> docholliday said:
> 
> 
> > art_d said:
> ...



Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.


----------



## klickflip (Jun 17, 2013)

docholliday said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > docholliday said:
> ...



+1 

I think what we're seeing is who thinks they know about photography and who actually is a photographer. Sure everyone who has a camera is a 'photographer' but really only those working in it day in day out actually know what they need for the use, and even within that there are differing views anyway. 

Seems like people are getting mixed up about high volume and fast. many 1Dx press/ sports/ wildlife owners will shoot really fast in short bursts, but maybe not all day. But studio & advertising photographers will also shoot in short or longer bursts, not quite as quick though but will prob tend to shoot much more all day. We can easily get through 30gb a day on Canon and 60gb a day on Hasselblad. 
Dont let people mislead you, Hasselblads get battered and keep on shooting all day every day by photographers requiring top quality under lots of pressure. 
I'd say there are much much less that do low volume fine art or landscape work on their Hassy, that may be what most amatures think of a typical Hassy/Phase one owner (Phase one may be the worst for creating this myth on their videos tho!)

If the big MP comes in a 1D type body that will be good, also if its in a 5Dish body fine for me too as I shoot a lot tripod'd but what I dont want or any other pro would want is a smaller body, and generally smaller = more plasticky & more fiddly & less robust. 
We need a pro camera that shoots all day everyday. 

I'm going to divert slightly but to compare to the D800 typical user, what I have seen is most Nik users have bought one just because they are so damn cheap and its a bragging factor. But everyone I know that has one really doesnt need one, and they complain of the file size and how long it takes to transfer images, plus processing & photoshopping them is slow on mediocre systems. And these are predominantly wedding/ social portrait and event photographers, I've also see amatures & students with them and they just got them because they were the 'latests and best ' 
Which does prove two things, give them more at a cheap price point they will buy it regardless of whether they really need it or not and it will actually be detrimental to their workflow in many cases. 

The people here who are wishing for a 5D ish / D800 equivalent are symptomatic of this, and prob not really thought about the whole picture, especially workflow vs clients needs. And if you dont have clients then I suppose a bragging high MP camera at sub 3K is nice expansive toy for those that like to buy such things. 

Where it will shine for me is when a art director wants a landscape format image then his client changes the breif afterwards and decides he would like a vertical crop out of that format to say run on a bus shelter or building or in store ad board. thats when 

I'm not being elitist but having this as a full pro camera will help Canon and its users all round. If the dev of it is on a pro level then it should be a better camera for it (with a price to match, but we can soak up the cost easily) . 
I really hope the sensor tech is being pushed for the next generation. Why Canon have not released one yet to directly compete with the D800 is they want to aim higher and set a real new standard. Or are they really struggling with their sensor tech? I hope not.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> yes they have the ability to produce finer circuits when it comes to smaller sensor sizes and it was also mention earlier by me.
> And regarding 46Mp, the question is if they can expose a 24x36mm surface in one seance and if they the have the lenses and peripherals that meet this requirements, and will Canon is continuing with their old readout technique?
> it requires considerably higher demands from equipment to expose a large 24x36mm sensor surface than a small compact camera surface in one seance



Agreed!

They have demonstrated thier ability to go into production with the finer lithography. At some point the yields will be high enough to go into larger size components.... I suspect that they are there, or at least close too it... only time will tell.... but is quite possible that they are not quite there and that this is what is holding up announcements on new bodies... but this is just speculation, I have no inside knowledge.

There are lots of "interesting" indications of something going to happen. There is a push to update/create high end lenses that have the resolving power to handle a high megapixel body, hybrid focusing, digic6 into p/s cameras, finer lithography, and rumours of some very different sensors under field testing. If it all comes together, the next year could be a large step forward for APS-C and FF cameras.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 17, 2013)

klickflip said:


> docholliday said:
> 
> 
> > art_d said:
> ...



+100 to each of these replies, especially the bit about durability and ruggedness of the 1 series. That's why my take on this is a little different than many here who are having d800 envy - the d800 is a fine body, but in thinking of the whole picture - the d800 is really the poor mans MF. Big MP is approaching MF resolution and quality. So in thinking of big MP bodies, I have been considering them on the scale of an MF body. A one series body with 45 MP's with a retail price of about $8k - yeah, rebel users will say thanks but no thanks - but, those working day in day out in their studios will see it and say...$8k for this or keep saving for the $40K MF. I brought up the extreme view, that a 1 series big mp would give you 4-5 fps and a 5d series one would be in the 2-3 fps range. I got scoffed at -----but, why? Look at Medium format:

The $21,000 Leica S has a frame rate of 1.5 fps

The $7000 Pentax 645D has 1.1 fps

The $25,000 H4D-50 has 1.1 fps

And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2013)

chauncey said:


> File size...file size...get a life, hard drives are cheap.
> I would have already a MF if I woulda been able to figure out how to use 10-15 grand in canon glass on an MF camera body.
> I trust Canon to have a decent sensor with adequate ISO performance.



It is not just the storage space that can be a concern...editing performance also drops as megapixel count increases. Personally, this fact does not bother me, as I build my own computers, and upgrading a few parts to accommodate the processing power required to pound more pixels is not nearly as expensive as the camera itself. Editing performance IS a concern to a lot of people, though. I think we will have a broad enough range of pixel counts that each individual can get what they can handle. If someone is not capable of pushing around 40+ million pixels, they can always fall back onto a 5D III for 23 million pixels.


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.
> ...



Well, it can hurt in one way. If Canon is prototyping 39mp, 45mp, and 50mp+ sensors, and they opt for the 39mp one because it is better for video....well, that hurts me. I want all the pixels I can get my hands on (preferably with 14 stops ISO 100 DR) for my landscape photography. 

I would be pretty dismayed if Canon opted to limit the megapixel count because of a video factor...and I know I am not alone in that camp. I think Canon could also produce an ultra high MP FF camera that had more flexible video options...including say a 39mp APS-H framing option that would allow for proper 4k oversampling. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Why do so many still photographers have such hatred for video? I thought photographers were supposed to be creative, open-minded types always wanting to explore new things? Even if you don't want to, all the talk about paying as much or even more just to get a body with video disabled sounds utterly nuts to me.



I don't think it is as much a hatred for video as it is an annoyance that video options influence the final design of still photography cameras. It IS nice having the extra features, and I know many photographers who use both...but from a majority standpoint, people buy still photography cameras to do still photography. Quite frankly, it IS very annoying to see camera features limited because of video aspects. As I mentioned above...I'll take a 50mp-60mp camera in a heartbeat, and we know Canon is prototyping something in that range. I really would be a bit miffed if Canon drops a $5000 39mp videostills monster on us instead. I'd ultimately still buy it...but it wouldn't be what I really wanted.


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 17, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.


You can see that sacrifice in the ubiquious 5D3 vs. D800 discussion. The faster an ADC of a given complexity works the less resolution it has. Canon refined the ADC design as much as possible, but each of them has to deal with magnitudes more of pixels. Cue shadow noise and banding.


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> The $21,000 Leica S has a frame rate of 1.5 fps
> 
> The $7000 Pentax 645D has 1.1 fps
> 
> ...



None of those cameras use sensors with any of the modern parallel read and ADC advancements you can find in the DSLR world. People seem to forget...Canon has already prototyped a 120mp APS-H sensor capable of 9.5fps using parallel readout and ADC technology. If Canon can achieve 9.5fps @ 120mp, why can't they achieve 10fps at 40-60mp?



Lawliet said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.
> ...



The banding noise issues are the result of high frequency components, particularly when they are off-die. Sony Exmors design was implemented in the way it was implemented to achieve more than just high dynamic range at low ISO. Fundamentally, Exmor's Column-Parallel ADC is designed to support high speed digital readout. Certainly, increasing frame rate from 4fps to 10fps will increase noise contribution a little (that's the consequence of high frequency logic), but Exmor has such a low read noise level that you could effectively double it, and still have one of the cleanest readouts in the world.

It is not improbable that we could see high res, high readout rate sensors at 8-10fps within the next couple of generations of DSLR sensors. I don't suspect it will happen by next year, but I do expect it to happen.


----------



## jrista (Jun 18, 2013)

torger said:


> Big megapixel is a "medium format killer", just as D800 currently is. It's targeting a specific genre, high resolution photography. It's not a journalist camera like the flagships. Sure, for typical 35mm photography high resolution is just a waste of disk space. But a high resolution 35mm is there to stretch into medium format territory, just as medium format digital stretched into large format film (think 4x5 and 8x10 view camera) territory. In other words expand what you can do with a 35mm system. A pro Canon shooter could have a 1DX for fast handheld action work, and a big megapixel camera for studio/still life/architecture/landscape.
> 
> Probably the high resolution genre is smaller, but every landscape hobbyist will want it (those are many!), and some of the pro shooters that use medium format today will drop the costly MF system and use only 35mm for convenience. I think Canon need this type of camera in their lineup in the long-term to provide a cameras for all genres users nowadays expect 35mm to be good at.
> 
> In the medium format forums the only camera that is considered as real competition with MF is the D800, and indeed several has ditched MF in favour of the more user-friendly, all-around and cheaper D800. In the same forums Canon is still used as an example to show off how "bad" 35mm is compared to MF, as it still has poor dynamic range and color rendition at base ISO compared to MF, while the D800 actually is competitive and even better in some aspects.



I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers". I would probably term it "medium format intruders". When the most important thing for your work is pixel count, there is no denying that medium format has the edge. Medium format sensors have both higher megapixel counts (80mp, or even more with advanced hardware like Hassy's 200mp multishot), as well as larger pixels than any relatively comparable FF DSLR (i.e. the pixel on a 40mp MFD are going to be meaningfully larger than a 40mp FF DSLR). Granted, I think that the per-pixel technology and per-pixel quality is probably a bit higher on DSLR sensors...CMOS sensor technology has been pushed very hard, very far, very fast over the last few years, while the primary innovation in the MFD sector has been...yup, more pixels. I definitely think FF DSLRs are closing the gap, and are indeed intruding on MFD territory...but they aren't far along enough yet to call them medium format killers (and they will probably never really reach that point...in the areas where MFD rule, the only thing that really matters is raw pixel count...and with more surface area per sensor, you can always pack in more pixels than you'll ever get on FF DSLR, even if the DSLR pixels have higher per-pixel IQ.) 



torger said:


> Not a single recent sensor out from Canon is even remotely close Sony Exmor sensors in terms of base ISO performance. I'm still waiting to see that Canon actually _can_ produce a sensor which has the properties high resolution photographers desire - ie great dynamic range and great color fidelity at base ISO. High ISO performance (which Canon indeed is good at!) is not irrelevant, but much less important than in traditional 35mm photography.



Canon's problem here is high frequency off-die components (i.e. ADC). With a die shrink (not confirmed by any means, but I think likely, if not even necessary to achieve higher pixel densities), Canon could drop a lot of their off-die components right onto the CMOS sensor die, go column-parallel, and get considerable improvements at low ISO. It should be noted that Canon's per-pixel CDS performs better than Sony Exmor D-CDS at higher ISO...read noise on an Exmor doesn't go below ~2.6e-, where as on a Canon it drops to as low as 1.5e-, which is part of the reason Canon high ISO output is so clean.

I would also dispute the notion that high ISO is less important in digital than in film. There are far more photographers who use higher ISO settings these days than those who use only ISO 100. Sports, wedding, journalists/paparazzi, studio (not ultra high, but frequently enough higher than ISO 200), wildlife, birds, airshows, and pretty much anything with action. Even in good light, when you need to freeze action, it is not very hard to fin yourself at at least ISO 800. Most of the wildlife and bird photographers I follow are increasingly becoming comfortable with ISO settings as high as 10k, and in some cases I've seen a couple professional quality, printable photos taken at ISO 16k taken with a 1D X!! Don't forget night photography, street photography, night sky/deep sky astrophotography (which is usually between ISO 800 and 3200), etc. 

The types of photography where ISO 100 is king is far lower. Landscape photographers are probably one of the most obvious groups, studio photographers are also a group that can make good use of low ISO. Still life photography, product photography...probably anything static where you are manually, directly lighting your subject is likely to use ISO 100 and 200. Still, add up all the photographers in the world who do this kind of photography, and you'll still fall far short of sports photographers alone, let alone the entire community of photographers who rarely use an ISO setting below 400. The MFD market is small because it can be small...not as many people need both superior ISO 100 performance AND unparalleled pixel counts. For every studio photogapher with a couple Hassy H4D-50's, there are 50 sports photographers.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers".



Agreed! And we must not forget that as technology advances and the pixel count and quality of FF advances, so will the MF cameras....

Everything has it's plusses and minuses.... as sensor format sizes get larger, so does the lens mm size needed for the same field of view... and the area of the lens is squared.... and the weight is cubed..... and the cost!!!!
For studio work, it's hard to compete with MF.... but if you are lugging a camera up a mountain to attempt some bird photos, then FF or even APS-C can't be beat. Can you imagine the size/weight/cost of the MF equivalent of a 600mmF4?


----------



## art_d (Jun 18, 2013)

docholliday said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > docholliday said:
> ...


I agree the 1 series is about high volume work and reliability, easier and more comfortable to work with for daylong handheld shooting. I agree totally and completely. I don't understand where you think I've said something to the contrary?

Yes, I know that some MF shooters will shoot a thousand shots a day. I also know such shooters make up a relatively small portion of the market. When I say "high volume" I am typically refering to photojournalists, sports photogs, high end wedding shooters...people who generally will take speed and reliability over megapixel count.

But at the risk of getting hung up on semantics: 21mp is not really "high megapixel" anymore. 

I've got a friend who is a high end wedding photographer. He's shot Nikon forever...he picked up a D800 and tried it out for a wedding. Loved the images but hated the big files and slower workflow. The benefits of a high res sensor might be noticeable in a fine art print...but not to his wedding clients. He gained no upside from the bigger sensor.

The point is that in general photographers who as a practical matter want more than 18-21 megapixels are more likely to be shooting low volume work. This being an internet forum I of course must explicitly spell out the disclaimer: not ALL cases...in GENERAL. We're talking in broad brush strokes here. Landscape photography, architecture photography, fine art, etc. These are the types of shooters who most frequently want more than 21mp. These are also the types of shooters who benefit less from the more robustly performing 1 series bodies.

(Nikon already has recognized this logic which is why their top performing, highest priced flagship camera is not their highest megapixel camera.)


----------



## jrista (Jun 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers".
> ...



Good point about the weight. Not that I think MF really fits the bill for action shooters who need 600mm lenses, but even with wider angle lenses, there is a greater heft to medium format gear for sure. The difference in weight between APS-C and FF is negligible in most cases, which makes FF an ideal balance of sensor area and pixel count with overall weight.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 18, 2013)

After attending a Pele Leung presentation last night, it is very interesting to see how some professionals have countered the limitations of a 16mp sensor through stitching techniques. Many of his images end up being more than 100mp in size with exceptional detail and sharpness. Bit of an eye opener to see what's possible, but just makes me want a high MP camera!


----------



## M.ST (Jun 18, 2013)

No DSLR is a medium format camera killer. I like the images from the H5D-60. If you are in the fashion and fine arts business this camera is the one and only.

But the new big megapixel camera(s) from Canon are really good.

I don´t have such a strap (maybe a fake or new) and no type label on my camera.

I expect the EOS 7D Mark II (and or 70D) announcement in August/September 2013 and the EOS 3D (2D) announcement in October 2013. 

Different prototypes are tested over a long time. The big question is: Can Canon produce the cameras quickly and without quality problems.

But Nikon is not sleeping. I expect the big megapixel D4X announcement as well in October 2013.

Hint: I don´t know what Canon put on the market, but the 46.1 MP, 5 frame per second, Dual DIGIC 5+,
ISO 50-12800, 1DX AF, 2 CF Card slots works really good.


----------



## Zv (Jun 18, 2013)

Confused about this whole medium format thing. So why do you need 100 megapixels for fashion? Is that for advertising on billboards? Other than that am I missing something? Better image quality?


----------



## M.ST (Jun 18, 2013)

The camera has only 60 megapixels.

Customers want the best image quality and high megapixel images for big worldwide campaigns (big prints for walls, facades and billboards). 

What the customer get ins only what the customer want. 

No DSLR is a medium format camera killer = No DSLR can beat the image quality of a medium format camera until now. On the other side the DSLR is much faster, weather sealed, good in low light and able to use fast shutter speeds.

There is no one-for-all-camera. Every camera has it´s pros and cons.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > WE WANT BETTER PIXELS
> ...



Strewth Don, I had to strain my eyes to read that ;D At first I thought it was some grey line or error!


----------



## jrista (Jun 18, 2013)

M.ST said:


> No DSLR is a medium format camera killer. I like the images from the H5D-60. If you are in the fashion and fine arts business this camera is the one and only.
> 
> But the new big megapixel camera(s) from Canon are really good.
> 
> ...



Are you claiming that you have actually USED a Canon "Big Megapixel" prototype? So far, there have only been rumors about such things, no concrete information whatsoever. Your claim sounds a little far fetched, but if it is true, then it would be pretty major rumor news for CR...


----------



## Fleetie (Jun 19, 2013)

jrista said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > No DSLR is a medium format camera killer. I like the images from the H5D-60. If you are in the fashion and fine arts business this camera is the one and only.
> ...


M.ST has been posting stuff for quite a while now that makes it clear that he is one of those who get to test out Canon's cameras before we get to hear about them officially.

He's clearly subject to an NDA.

So (IMO) let's keep listening to what he has to say and let's not push him to reveal more.

I am prepared to believe he has access to the information he shares, so I enjoy reading his "hints".


----------



## jrista (Jun 19, 2013)

Fleetie said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



Well, if that's the case, then I have to say that 46.1mp, 5fps, and 61pt AF sounds pretty damn nice. The ISO range makes me curious as well...starting at ISO 50....really makes me wonder if DR will be extremely good!  I'd be pretty happy with that for my landscape and astrophotography work. 

I am extremely curious about the 46.1mp count specifically, though, as such a sensor wouldn't necessarily need a new CMOS fabrication process to achieve...Canon could produce it with the same process, same exact pixels, as the current 18mp APS-C sensor. Canon's 18mp sensor isn't well known for its IQ....

I really hope this camera uses a new fabrication process...something other than the ancient 500nm process that Canon has been using for the last decade. I really want the IQ of this sensor to excel, and offer maximum DR at base ISO, maximum Q.E. at max ISO, and superior quality overall.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 19, 2013)

Fleetie said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



M.ST is has been shown on many occasions to have no advanced or insider knowledge what so ever. Do not put any thought into anything he posts, he even promised to stop doing it once but obviously he can't help himself M.ST is a charlatan.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2013)

One of the points that everyone is missing when comparing a very high MP FF camera to MF, is that the latter uses a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. This is even more pronounced on a LF camera.

Ever wondered why a landscape shot on a 10x8 has a certain _je ne sais quoi_ ? It's not just the resolution.


----------



## pedro (Jun 19, 2013)

jrista said:


> The banding noise issues are the result of high frequency components, particularly when they are off-die. Sony Exmors design was implemented in the way it was implemented to achieve more than just high dynamic range at low ISO. Fundamentally, Exmor's Column-Parallel ADC is designed to support high speed digital readout. Certainly, increasing frame rate from 4fps to 10fps will increase noise contribution a little (that's the consequence of high frequency logic), but Exmor has such a low read noise level that you could effectively double it, and still have one of the cleanest readouts in the world.
> 
> It is not improbable that we could see high res, high readout rate sensors at 8-10fps within the next couple of generations of DSLR sensors. *I don't suspect it will happen by next year, but I do expect it to happen.*



Hopefully it happens with a 5DIV (frequently shooting a 5DIII) or 5DV. Wrong camp, I know, but I guess new tech will be applied in other bodies too. As I am all for highest possible ISOs...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> One of the points that everyone is missing when comparing a very high MP FF camera to MF, is that the latter uses a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. This is even more pronounced on a LF camera.
> 
> Ever wondered why a landscape shot on a 10x8 has a certain _je ne sais quoi_ ? It's not just the resolution.



What's the relationship between focal length and _je ne sais quoi_? 

Note that when one uses a longer focal length with a larger sensor to acheive the same FoV as a shorter lens with a smaller sensor, there's no difference in perspective.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > One of the points that everyone is missing when comparing a very high MP FF camera to MF, is that the latter uses a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. This is even more pronounced on a LF camera.
> ...




True, but there is a difference in magnification


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 19, 2013)

It will be interesting to see if Canon can actually achieve parity with the current SOA sensor, regarding those attributes that people like to argue about. What would be mind blowing, is if Canon actually exceeds those attributes...regardless of the pixel dimensions. It seems to me that if the number is closer to 60MP rather than 45, the performance might be more compromised. Certainly it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 19, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> One of the points that everyone is missing when comparing a very high MP FF camera to MF, is that the latter uses a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. This is even more pronounced on a LF camera.
> 
> Ever wondered why a landscape shot on a 10x8 has a certain _je ne sais quoi_ ? It's not just the resolution.



The reason 8x10 images are so distinctive has nothing to do with the lenses, which are comparatively poor performers when compared to good 135 format lenses, or resolution, or indeed format size, it is because people only ever shoot black and white images of rocks, dead trees, and swamps with them. 

Equivalence takes care of all the rest. The difference in magnification is taken care of by a larger coc that is needed by the poor lenses. At 350mm for a standard lens you need heaps more aperture to achieve the same dof, a fast lens that is totally unusable wide open is an f6.5. 8X10 cameras and lenses were designed for contact prints, not scanning and enlarging, you need to do a lot of work on a scanned 8X10 sheet to make it look good enlarged.

Now find me one person that can tell the difference between an 8x10 contact sheet print from an 8X10 camera and a 24mm TS-E image from a 5D MkIII shot for equivalence, and I will show you somebody who understands the zone system and tonal gradation. Your _"je ne sais quoi"_ has nothing to do with the lenses or format, it has everything to do with sensors and film.


----------



## Pi (Jun 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> What's the relationship between focal length and _je ne sais quoi_?



He did tell you that he did not know...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2013)

I have to wonder if the convergence of technologies may soon make the big megapixel discussion obsolete or at least more complicated.

Software solutions for upscaling are becoming extremely sophisticated. I recently used On-One's Perfect Resize on some cropped 7D images that I wanted to print at 20 x 30. I was amazed at the quality. Adobe's latest Photoshop CC has a new resizing engine as well. 

In theory, upscaling may not be as good as having the original image shot at the desired resolution, but "in theory" doesn't always match real world practice, especially when it is impossible to tell the difference in the final print.


----------



## Pi (Jun 19, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I have to wonder if the convergence of technologies may soon make the big megapixel discussion obsolete or at least more complicated.
> 
> Software solutions for upscaling are becoming extremely sophisticated. I recently used On-One's Perfect Resize on some cropped 7D images that I wanted to print at 20 x 30. I was amazed at the quality. Adobe's latest Photoshop CC has a new resizing engine as well.
> 
> In theory, upscaling may not be as good as having the original image shot at the desired resolution, but "in theory" doesn't always match real world practice, especially when it is impossible to tell the difference in the final print.



_No mathematical trickery can remedy lack of information._ Cornelius Lanczos


----------



## jrista (Jun 20, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> It will be interesting to see if Canon can actually achieve parity with the current SOA sensor, regarding those attributes that people like to argue about. What would be mind blowing, is if Canon actually exceeds those attributes...regardless of the pixel dimensions. It seems to me that if the number is closer to 60MP rather than 45, the performance might be more compromised. Certainly it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii.



Remember that total system resolution is effectively (closely approximated by) the root mean square of the resolution of each component that makes up the system. In a DSLR, to keep things simple, the final resolution of the photographs you make is the RMS of the resolutions of the lens and the sensor. There is no such thing as one outresolving the other. Increasing the resolution of either lens or sensor increases the resolution of the system as a whole, and produces higher resolution photographs. 

You get the most bang for the buck by increasing the lowest common denominator, but if you have a lens, like the 24-70 II, and you use it on a 60mp FF camera...you WILL realize better results (all other things being equal...i.e. assuming the best tech available is used to produce said 60mp sensor.)


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see if Canon can actually achieve parity with the current SOA sensor, regarding those attributes that people like to argue about. What would be mind blowing, is if Canon actually exceeds those attributes...regardless of the pixel dimensions. It seems to me that if the number is closer to 60MP rather than 45, the performance might be more compromised. Certainly it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii.
> ...



That was not my point. My point was as stated. I never said the overall results would not be "better". To belabor my point, since you are intentionally missing it...I will quote myself: "...it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii." 

I stand by this. Your point does not disprove my point. You might have your own idea about how you define the phrase "make use of all that resolution". I have mine. My point was never that you could not get improved resolution and image quality, from a higher megapixel sensor. Only a fool would argue that. Yet you seem to want to believe that's what I meant. I wonder why? Up to your same old tricks I see.

As for "bang for buck", that is an entirely separate issue altogether, which I hope you realize...and has nothing to do what my point.


----------



## jrista (Jun 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



I am not _intentionally_ trying to misquote you... Simple matter of the facts. 

I does not matter whether you are talking about resolution at the center of the frame, edge of the frame, or corner of the frame. The basis of "system resolution", which is a *convolution *of the effects of each and every component, holds true regardless of which region of the frame you apply it to. Sure, poorer quality lenses and wider angle lenses tend to have more detractors to resolution in the corners. That does not mean that suddenly the rules that govern overall system resolution change. Just as much as a higher resolution sensor will improve the outcome of what the lens resolves at the center, so too will it improve the outcome of what the lens resolves at the edge. A higher resolution sensor can never produce WORSE results than a lower resolution sensor, all else being equal.

A horrible lens is a horrible lens, and while you might see marginal improvements in corner resolution with a higher resolution sensor, you experience *diminishing returns*. An excellent lens, such as the 24-70 II, which performs quite well in the corners, will realize a greater benefit from a move to a higher resolution lens than, say, the 16-35 II (which performs only moderately well in the corners), both of which would benefit considerably better than say the EF-S 18-55mm, which performs terribly in the corners.

The benefit boils down to a matter of degree for every component involved, not _whether or not_ you get any benefit at all outside of the center of the lens. You don't "make use" of resolution...you convolve a result via a functional process as a real-world image passes through each and every lens element, the aperture, the sensor's filter stack, the CFA, and even the pixel well itself. A higher resolution sensor, assuming equivalence in terms of noise, *could never "compromise" IQ in any way.* Even with a _relative_ increase in noise, a higher resolution sensor, when its image size is normalized to that of any lower resolution sensor, would still produce results that are as good as or better. (The only time I believe a higher resolution sensor can be detrimental to IQ is when there is a disproportionate increase in the amount of noise due to smaller pixels, which to some degree is the case with the 7D (a fact I blame on Canon's 500nm process, which wastes a lot of photodiode space resulting in disproportionately smaller light sensitive photodiode area relative to sensors with larger pixels...a defect I believe a move to a smaller process, such as 180nm, can resolve.))

A far greater concern, in my opinion, for high density sensors than "making use of" any given lenses resolving power would be avoiding softening from camera shake. As pixel sizes shrink for both APS-C and FF sensors, the effects of camera shake will become increasingly magnified. The slightest vibration caused by even a light wind across a camera on a tripod is likely to introduce detrimental softening on a 24mp APS-C or 61mp FF sensor. I've experienced moderate winds that, even on my very stable GT3532LS tripod, introduce some softening, and the 7D is becoming something only moderately dense as sensor technology continues to evolve and push the envelope towards smaller and smaller pixels.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 21, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Where are you quoting "system resolution"? I made no mention of it. I agree on the point of camera shake making its presence more known as sensor resolution increases. Vibration from the mirror, and to a lesser degree the shutter, are also factors. But I'm sure you will find a way to disagree with me on that, or otherwise tell me I am thinking of it in the wrong way.


----------



## jrista (Jun 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



System resolution describes the resolution of the final output of any _optical system_, which is what a camera with a lens attached is. It's a mathematical concept, thus easily provable. I don't disagree about mirror slap and shutter vibration...definitely two things that can contribute to camera shake, and affect IQ as pixel size diminishes.


----------



## Pi (Jun 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Where are you quoting "system resolution"? I made no mention of it. I agree on the point of camera shake making its presence more known as sensor resolution increases.


Actually, with smaller pixels. the effect of camera shale _decreases_ slightly. Blur due to camera shake is no different than blur due to a soft lens, for example. Relatively, as a percentage of the total blur, it _increases_. In absolute terms, camera shake blur _remains the same_. Go figure.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> (The only time I believe a higher resolution sensor can be detrimental to IQ is when there is a disproportionate increase in the amount of noise due to smaller pixels, which to some degree is the case with the 7D (a fact I blame on Canon's 500nm process, which wastes a lot of photodiode space resulting in disproportionately smaller light sensitive photodiode area relative to sensors with larger pixels...a defect I believe a move to a smaller process, such as 180nm, can resolve.))



Definitely true, but personally, I doubt that Canon will move from 500nm to 180nm technology on their sensors. It is a big thing to change fabrication processes..... everything has to be re-designed and tested, and then you need to set up the production facilities and debug that... It isn't worth it to go down one step.

90nm designs for IC's came out in 2004 or 2005.... That's certainly long ago enough to work the bugs out. I would be willing to bet that Canon will skip over 180nm to 90 or even 60nm. It seems far more reasonable to take one big step than 2 or 3 small steps, particularly since the cost in dollars and time would be about the same.


----------



## jrista (Jun 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > (The only time I believe a higher resolution sensor can be detrimental to IQ is when there is a disproportionate increase in the amount of noise due to smaller pixels, which to some degree is the case with the 7D (a fact I blame on Canon's 500nm process, which wastes a lot of photodiode space resulting in disproportionately smaller light sensitive photodiode area relative to sensors with larger pixels...a defect I believe a move to a smaller process, such as 180nm, can resolve.))
> ...



I am not sure. Process shrinks in the sensor world aren't quite the same as they are in the IC world. If you dig around into more recent CIS patents, you'll find that a LOT of them are based on a 180nm process. I don't know if the body of 90nm CIS patents and fabrication knowledge is as large or as viable. It may be that the time is right to make the next jump...and if Canon does, I certainly am not complaining. I haven't seen any patents from Canon that would indicate such a thing, however. (For that matter, neither have I seen any patents that seem to indicate a jump to 180nm, though.)



Pi said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Where are you quoting "system resolution"? I made no mention of it. I agree on the point of camera shake making its presence more known as sensor resolution increases.
> ...



True, assuming you intent to publish images from a higher resolution sensor at the same size as a lower resolution sensor. If you use a higher resolution sensor in order to publish larger (i.e. larger prints), then the per-pixel blur, rather than per-frame blur, is what matters. The same would hold true if you get a higher density sensor to support cropping.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I was speaking of "per pixel" blur...actually.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I was speaking of the ability to make use of all the resolution allowed by the pixels of the sensor, and where they would make less of an improvement towards the periphery. I stand by this. Again, I never said the overall resolution would not increase.


----------

