# Why Canon doesn't Care about high MP photographers: a theory



## thatcherk1 (Mar 7, 2012)

This is just a theory. And let me first off say that I am a landscape photographer. I shoot some news and weddings, but primarily landscape. And I'll say that I was disappointed that the 5Diii wasn't higher MP.

I wonder if the reason that almost all the new and updated features in the new 5D are geared for wedding, sports, nature, news shooters because these are the types of shooters that DSLRs are geared toward naturally. Would it be true that most studio and landscape shooters that make the serious dough use medium format digital and full frame film. Where those who are on more limited budgets settle for DSLRs as a budget option. Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality. Aren't optics more difficult when needing to put a mirror in the way of the lens and sensor vs. a rangefinder system.

I'm not saying that professional landscapers and studio shooters don't use DSLRs and some make a good chunk of change. But in general DSLRs are designed for the exact audience that the new 5D seems to be geared for.

So I think that canon looks at the bottom line and realizes that no matter how many people want more megapixels there is simply a bigger market that wants low ISO, FPS, etc.

My hope is that Canon comes out with a camera that does fit that niche market. I'd pre-order it in a second.

Like I said, I'm just proposing a theory. Anyone have thoughts?


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm going to plagiarize myself from another thread, but I think your assessment is spot on.

I'm far from the best photographer out there, but I'm fortunate enough to earn a living doing this. From a creativity and logistical execution standpoint, I find the low-light and dynamic range limitations of the current crop of DSLRs are far more of hindrance than the sheer number of megapixels that are available. Most pro photogs I know fall into this same category. It doesn't mean we're better than anyone else or that our needs are more important than that of the average hobbyist. It's just the predicament we find ourselves in most of the time. I think Canon knows this, and geared the 5DIII for this market segment instead of catering to pixel peepers.

Even so, I do acknowledge that the truly [email protected] mofos in this business (commercial photogs, high-end fashion photogs, etc) really do need a ton of resolution. From what I've observed, however, they have so much budget at their disposal that they're already shooting medium format. We're talking guys that show up to a shoot with two 18-wheelers full of equipment and a dozen assistants. These are guys with so much budget, a lot of them don't even own their equipment. They just rent out gear, and bill their clients for it. I'm sure the form factor and convenience of a 35mm body would be appealing for them if the resolution and IQ were up to snuff. That said, this elite realm of photography represents such a small percentage of the market that I don't think there's a sense of urgency to prioritize the development of such a product. For every commercial photog I know, there are 100 "run-of-the-mill" pros (OK, that's not a scientific number, but you get the idea) who do well, but just aren't one of the elite [email protected], or care for the lifestyle required in that realm of photography. 

That's not to say Canon won't develop a mp monster, but considering the specs of the 1Dx and 5DIII, they obviously felt the bulk of the market wanted all-around performers with great low-light abilities.


----------



## StevenBrianSamuels (Mar 7, 2012)

And yet the D800/E is pre-selling like crazy...

Theories are nice but in the end it's wait and see. I'm hoping Canon will pull out a MP monster by the end of the year, or sooner (I could only dream they will have a non AA filter version but I doubt it). If not...well, I do want a poor man's MF but would hate to sell my glass, my lenses, and bodies and switch to a company with an inferior lens lineup. 

I guess all us landscape & studio guys are just holding our breath, praying, or both. At least we are not alone


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

I think people are creating a bit of a warped idea of what "high resolution" DSLR photography is with the advent of the D800 and its 36.3mp sensor. The resolutions we have been getting out of digital cameras these days is really incredible, and the fact that quality has not only remained high, but keeps improving as resolution grows, begs a tip of the hat to the likes of Canon and Nikon both. I think the fact that the resolutions we have today are more than adequate for anything but the _most demanding_ professional cases, except for one, can be proven as well.

For one, Canon DOES care about high resolution photographers. When they released the 5D II @ 21.1mp, it was the highest resolution digital camera on the planet, by about a 72% margin (over the 10-12mp cameras that were available at the time.) Its been selling like hotcakes ever since it was released, and there still seem to be more than a few people who would prefer to buy a 5D II at $2000 than a 5D III at $3500. There is also plenty of time left in this year, and there are still outstanding rumors that a 40mp+ monster is in the works by Canon (potentially the competition for the D800, probably released by Photokina.) Over the last four years, plenty of photographers, professional and otherwise, have been taking 21.1mp photos, as well as photos of much lower resolutions, and blowing them up to huge multi-foot dimensions with stunning quality. Personally, I've taken the meager 12.2mp images of my old 450D, and blown them up to 60x40" size (about 5x3.3 feet) as part of some experimentations on digital photography, printing, resolution, and quality in rough comparison to film (and outside of 300dpi drum scans of 4x5 transparencies, digital outperforms 35mm film and many medium format films without question.) From a quality and enlargement standpoint, 36mp is not a _necessity_, and unless you intend to print at a high print resolution at immense dimensions, will probably never actually be a necessity (not in the general sense.) 

Landscape photographers (such as myself, I do landscapes, birds, and wildlife) tend to prefer their whole photograph, and the only time cropping really comes into play is when you accidentally include something you did not want (i.e. due to a less than 100% CF VF) or when you need to level the horizon. Digital enlargements begin to break down when you blow things up beyond about 2-3 times larger than their original size, so if you print at 10 feet, you might indeed actually need more resolution. If you normally print on 17x22"/A2 size or smaller, 21.1mp is enough for a native resolution print with standard fine art border. If you normally print 34x44"/A0 size, 21.1mp is plenty for enlarging without any visible loss in detail at an appropriate viewing distance (even if you did print at 300ppi.) If your primary mode of display for your photography is via the web, then a simple 8mp camera is more than you would ever need, since you need to downscale most of the time to shrink the huge native resolution of a modern DSLR photo to a size that can be reasonably viewed on the average computer screen.

Personally, I like 24x36 and 34x44 sizes for my landscape photos hung on my walls at home (and I like John Fielder's work hung on the walls at my workplace at similar sizes.) At those dimensions you're already at multi-foot size. Unless you have some extremely large walls to hang your work on or fancy and unique gallery representations for your work that would actually warrant a 60x40 size print or larger (and even then, you can often print at lower resolution, so your still not enlarging more than 3x in such a case), there is no actual *need* for higher resolution from a print standpoint.

There is one case that I think can legitimately demonstrate a need for more resolution. Personally, I would prefer more resolution for this very thing, however it comes with a couple caveats, although those caveats are mitigated more and more with improvements to DSLR technology. The real legitimate case for more resolution is _*CROPPING POWER.*_ Its a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a $3500 camera, or for that matter even a $7000 camera, if it has enough resolution to allow you to slap on a 400mm lens and capture photos of distant subjects, then crop to compose and fill the frame properly. Without cropping power, you might very well need a $13,000 super telephoto lens to capture the same photo. Even with cropping power, your not going to match the same level of IQ as you could get from that $13,000 lens...but its *thirteen grand*! For that much money, you could get 3 5D III's and the brand new 24-70 L, or two 1D X's! You could also spend $3500, bank the $9500 difference (earn some interest on it), and buy some less expensive lenses, or even buy the 1D X as well as the 5D III, and still have money left over. 

*CROPPING POWER*...its the real value of higher resolution that I can see, at least for those who shoot distant subjects, want more magnification, but don't have ten grand or more to drop on a supertelephoto. But its largely useless for landscape photography, and I would presume for wedding, studio, still life, street, and most other kinds of photography as well. Unless your printing at _GARGANTUAN_ size...and even then...from a native print size standpoint, compare the 5D II and III to the D800 (300ppi):



*Model**Length**Width*D80020.48"13.6"5D III19.2"12.8"5D II18.72"12.48"

Given these differences, if your printing at 34x44, 50x40, 60x40, the native image resolution of the camera really doesn't matter, the differences are negligible when enlarging so much. You get far greater benefit from improvements to dynamic range, ISO, and reductions to noise than you really get from increased resolution.

Assuming you do get a high MP camera for its cropping power, you have to deal with the drawbacks. No matter how much spatial resolution your camera has, there is really no substitute for optical magnification power. If you really need maximum quality and the only way to get it is with a 600mm lens, then all the cropping power in the world isn't going to help you. From a physics standpoint, smaller pixels mean the random nature of photons will increase noise over larger pixels. There are also other electrical and physical limitations with smaller pixels that limit how much IQ you can extract from them.

So, unless you really have some extreme or unique requirements, are a professional who necessarily demands high resolution for the work they do (and even then, the argument can be made that we have enough resolution) or can't afford a $10k+ lens and need ever increasing cropping power, just about any modern digital camera from 12mp onwards will produce photos that can be displayed on the web or blown up to very large sizes _without any real concern that you actually don't have enough image resolution._



So, all that said, yes, I agree that there is a larger market that wants better ISO, lower noise, higher FPS, better AF and tracking, better metering, etc. There is a really good reason fewer people are asking for more resolution...the need for it is not as real as some may think.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 7, 2012)

No question in my mind that Canon has listen to the most vocal group: wedding and small event photographers (like high school basket ball games).
It was tempting decision to, because was cheaper to develop that kind of hybrid with virtually same sensor but only with noise reduction software tweaks.
Question is if that was smart thing to do.
Success of 5D line was in my mind due to excited amateurs in millions around the world discovering that it is much funnier to be some mysterious photographer behind avatar on Flickr, collecting compliments, occasionally selling a photograph than bored house wife next to the stove.
We all will find out soon enough just how many of them will go somewhere else to get the dream camera even if it is that ignorant, unnecessary dirty "Megapixel Monster" as you are trying to make everybody to call it.

How about that digic 5, maybe there is a problem? They really have hard time to release it on time, maybe this 18-22 mp is all that this processor can handle?


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 7, 2012)

It may be premature to say Canon doesn't care about high MP shooters. Just because the 5D mkIII wasn't the high MP body some were hoping for doesn't mean that Canon doesn't have something up its sleeve.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 7, 2012)

Its pretty simple, actually. When Nikon came out with the 12 mp D700, they were beatup pretty badly by their users, and one of the executives said that future cameras would have high MP.

Canon, on the other hand decided to concentrate on better high iso and sensor improvements also there were a ton of complainers saying 21mp was too much.

I'd think that there is room for both, a high mp version and a high iso version. I recall canon saying when the D1 X was released that they would be watching sales and, if customers demanded high ISO, they would provide.

Actually, I'd like to have some of the D800 features with the 5D3 sensor. I plan to use the ISO 12800 and possibly the 25600 as well, so I am happy with the MK III, except for the price.

I think the lower price combined with that larger mp number is a psychological thing for those who think they should be charged by the mp. Canon has stepped away from their philosophy of providing a lower cost camera that is good enough. That has worked well for them for many years, but a company can get into a hole very fast if they make a major slip.

So far, Canon 5D Mk III's have been selling pretty good, and they have setup a really high volume production line to be able to flood the market. That might hurt Nikon, if they can't produce enough to meet demand, and that results in months long waiting lists for a D800.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 7, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> This is just a theory. And let me first off say that I am a landscape photographer. I shoot some news and weddings, but primarily landscape. And I'll say that I was disappointed that the 5Diii wasn't higher MP.
> 
> I wonder if the reason that almost all the new and updated features in the new 5D are geared for wedding, sports, nature, news shooters because these are the types of shooters that DSLRs are geared toward naturally. Would it be true that most studio and landscape shooters that make the serious dough use medium format digital and full frame film. Where those who are on more limited budgets settle for DSLRs as a budget option. Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality. Aren't optics more difficult when needing to put a mirror in the way of the lens and sensor vs. a rangefinder system.
> 
> ...



Actually the most likely reason why Canon hasn't gone up in resolution is that it's pointless to do so. There are almost no Canon or Nikon lenses that can resolve more than 18 megapixels outside of the center quarter of the frame, even Zeiss lenses have issues. The only advantage over the overwhelming majority of the frame of going past 18 megapixels is the incidental benefits of capturing the gradiation between all the blury lines that you will be putting on the sensor. By capturing contrasting edges better you can help resolution a little.







This image illustrates the issue best. Versus a 21 MP sensor, a 36 megapixel sensor would be able to extract about 7% more resolution from a very high end lens simply by rendering the gradiation between the multi colored lines more cleanly.

So in conclusion the reason Canon doesn't go higher in megapixels is because nobody would notice difference and it would be a huge drain on storage and processing resources.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

I think that yesterday's focus for DSLRs was mp, todays focus is high iso

From a personal point of view shooting in the near dark at iso 25600 leads to other issues in terms of IQ such as low contrast, shadows and AF. Yes you will get a good picture, clean and with little noise - but what about the quality of the light in the picture?

I have found that even with the 5D2 the picture light quality starts to drop off over iso 1600. I did a theatre shoot on Sunday, one camera with full flash (3 flash off 1D4 camera) the other (5D2) using the house lights. The 1D4 pictures came came out vibrant with almost studio quality contrast and clarity, the 5D2 were just flat and lifeless even after a lot of pp work. Sure the 5D2 pictures were near noiseless and sharp (at iso 3200) - just terrible pictures that showed up the uselessness and deficiencies of the house lighting for photography.

If I was Uncle Bob and just bought a new camera that promised to shoot in the near dark I probably would have been very disappointed at the quality of the picture (not the IQ of the image).

I wonder if there is a practical limit beyond which the image suffers from lack of light.

For me the real use of high iso is for bumping the shutter speed rather than shooting in really low light.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Mar 7, 2012)

helpful said:


> There is no such thing as a high MP photographer yet. No one even has their D800(E)s, so what exactly are you talking about?
> 
> And even afterwards, it is ridiculous to invent a so-called category of photographers as you have done.



So you've never heard of a 40, 50, 60, 80 MP medium format digital back? or a 4x5 or 8x10 film scan?
I'd say that photographers who demand this kind of megapixel would be considered a high mp photographer.

Then there are those of us who are landscape photographers, sell some prints, but not enough yet to justify dropping $20k+ on a camera, yet we still need to print 24x36" prints and larger, and are hoping Canon will come out with a higher than 22mp camera that will help us out for under $10k.

I hardly find it ridiculous to label "high mp photographer" when we are talking about different camera features that often butt heads with one another. When it comes down to it, there are those who need MP above speed, AF, sensitivity; then there are others who need it the other way around. And many of us prefer not to have it all in one camera because that would be quite costly.

But alas, I should have known. This is such a lightning-rod subject for so many nasty people. I fear I have angered people on all sides of the spectrum. Nothing better to do while I wait for my new 5D. Just trying to make sense of Canon's decisions.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Mar 7, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Actually the most likely reason why Canon hasn't gone up in resolution is that it's pointless to do so. There are almost no Canon or Nikon lenses that can resolve more than 18 megapixels outside of the center quarter of the frame, even Zeiss lenses have issues. The only advantage over the overwhelming majority of the frame of going past 18 megapixels is the incidental benefits of capturing the gradiation between all the blury lines that you will be putting on the sensor. By capturing contrasting edges better you can help resolution a little.
> 
> This image illustrates the issue best. Versus a 21 MP sensor, a 36 megapixel sensor would be able to extract about 7% more resolution from a very high end lens simply by rendering the gradiation between the multi colored lines more cleanly.
> 
> So in conclusion the reason Canon doesn't go higher in megapixels is because nobody would notice difference and it would be a huge drain on storage and processing resources.



You do have a point to a degree with lens resolution. However, I don't know where you get 18mp from. Maybe you can share. And I'm sure this particular topic has been covered to high heaven in the past. If what you say is true, then if I cropped a 5Dii to a 1.6 image, and compared it to a 7D image at full size there wouldn't be any resolution difference. But I find from my non-scientific tests that the 7D resolves sharper at it's full field of view as compared to a 5Dii that's been cropped to the 1.6 field of view. Also I'll point out that there are the exceptional lenses, TS-E 17mm and 24mm, which many landscape photographers use all the time, but are exceptional...meaning they are the exception to most photographers. These two lenses I have no doubt could resolve quite satisfactorily on the edges on a 36mp+ sensor. Ok, I have some doubt because I've never seen it. But I wouldn't be surprised. hows that for scientific?!
Also, you have to look at the bayer pattern and see how the different color channels resolve. Green channel is always perceptibly sharper than the other two channels because it has twice the photosites. So hypothetically if you doubled the number of all the photosites, then you may have far more green than you need, but then you have red and blue photosites that are as sharp as the green was.

Enter counter argument... Or just shut this thread down because it's going to turn into what so many of these threads turn into: unscientific scientific arguments about megapixels!


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

didnt canon state that they have the capability to rapidly respond to the D800 if they thought it was necessary?
this leads me to believe they have High MP prototypes out there that are still under NDAs which they can move into production quickly


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Actually the most likely reason why Canon hasn't gone up in resolution is that it's pointless to do so. There are almost no Canon or Nikon lenses that can resolve more than 18 megapixels outside of the center quarter of the frame, even Zeiss lenses have issues.



first of all the center quarter of the frame can be key for wildlife and second people notice that adding a 2x tc to a 300 2.8 still makes for a more detail image on even a 7D (48MP FF equivalent)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> With all of the talk on the Internet about how bad the DR/IQ was with the 5D Mark II, it would seem that Canon focused on fixing those problems rather than the problem of not having enough megapixels.



I hope they did, but an early result showed 5D2 ISO 100 read noise 6.1 ADU and 5D3 ISO 100 read noise 6.0 ADU. Not much of an improvement if the result hold up.


----------



## tt (Mar 7, 2012)

Maybe because they don't talk about unannounced products?

If they were to do a concept cam that did say 39MP, it could do high MP pictures, and also oversample 4x potentially. And take the crown from the D800. Canon doesn't have to be in too big a rush. 

They might not, but I guess we'll know a little bit more by Photokina.


----------



## Eric (Mar 7, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality.



Ignore, for a moment, my lack of understanding on R&D, production, marketing, science, etc. to make this dream a reality.

Canon has amazing skills at cramming MP into small sensors. They also make beautiful landscape lenses like their wide angle TS-E's. It would be great if they would make a camera specific to the landscape artist that fits an artist's budget.

When I think about the camera I've used for my best landscape work: it had no weather sealing, nor was it rugged--in fact, it was made of wood; it had no autofocus--it had bellows (TS-E lenses can't autofocus); it had no pentaprism or mirrors--just had a groundglass; it had no high FPS--I had to load an 8x10 sheet of film for each exposure; it had no metering--I used a hand-held spot meter (tilting a TS-E screws up your meter reading); it had no video capabilities; the knurling of brass knobs was the only thing you could call ergonomics; you see where this is going. What it did have was amazing IQ potential.

I would love to see an affordable "wooden box" with a good live view 'groundglass' (laterally reversed image, please), a high MP sensor with high IQ at low ISOs, and an EF mount (but you can leave the electronics out of the mount). Kit it with a TS-E. Cut costs everywhere else. Single card slot, no JPEG engine, no hot shoe, etc. Yeah, they wouldn't sell many, but one engineer could design the thing in a day and take off early. You know they have the sensor on a shelf in R&D already.


----------



## Flake (Mar 7, 2012)

You can always go back to a monorail camera such as a Sinar, which can be picked up quite cheap, and a scanning digital back, and providing you're willing to not use the latest technology it's affordable. Image quality which blows MF away, but unfortunately very inflexible, and it takes an age to shoot an image, movement in the image is impossible to capture.

Here's a web page of one of the manufacturers with some very nice images.

http://www.betterlight.com/


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the most likely reason why Canon hasn't gone up in resolution is that it's pointless to do so. There are almost no Canon or Nikon lenses that can resolve more than 18 megapixels outside of the center quarter of the frame, even Zeiss lenses have issues. The only advantage over the overwhelming majority of the frame of going past 18 megapixels is the incidental benefits of capturing the gradiation between all the blury lines that you will be putting on the sensor. By capturing contrasting edges better you can help resolution a little.
> ...



That would probably be 18mp APS-C, which is equivalent to 47mp FF. That is roughly 116lp/mm in terms of spatial resolution, which according to Canon's theoretical MTF's is supposedly the highest resolution their best L-series lenses can achieve. Real-world MTF's generated for the same Canon L-series lenses generally seem to indicate significantly lower resolution than that around the lenses peak (which tends to f/4-5.6 or so). I'm a bit skeptical of both tests myself (and growing more skeptical the more I research). Canon's are theoretical (essentially reproduction accuracy of 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm diagonal line pair test targets...FAR lower than the levels modern sensors are capable of.) DXO's real-world lens tests only seem to address wide-open aperture performance, where resolution tends to be obliterated by optical aberrations that reduce resolution well below the diffraction limit. DXO tests are also limited by the spatial resolution of test cameras, which are often the key limiting factor in terms of resolution. Other lens resolution tests (such as TDP's ISO12233 charts, which are not exactly MTF's, although they aim to demonstrate the same thing) are often based on images captured by older, lower resolution sensors (where spatial resolution tops out at around 75 lp/mm...also well below the theoretical max at f/4...173lp/mm, and well below the theoretical max of an 18mp APS-C/47mp FF.)

The MTF's for Canon's lenses, which theoretically test 10lp/mm targets for contrast and 30lp/mm targets for sharpness (the two factors of spatial resolution), reproduction accuracy for their newest releases (i.e. 24-70 f/2.8 L II, 600mm f/4 L II, 500mm f/4 L II, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, etc.) is approaching perfection. If we trust Canon's own word, their lenses are technically capable of resolving around 45mp worth of full-frame spatial resolution (center of lens...falloff to edge differs per lens, so I won't bother with edge resolution here). In my own comparisons of resolution between my 450D, which is 12.2mp (96lp/mm), and my 7D which has that 18mp sensor capable of 116lp/mm, there is a significant improvement with my best lenses (I use the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, as its optically superb and produces excellent...although not perfect...resolution at f/4). I'm not sure I'd say its capable of 116lp/mm at f/4, but its certainly capable of more than 96lp/mm. I know the 135mm f/2 L @ f/4 is a slightly sharper lens than the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, so I believe it is indeed possible for Canon's best of the best lenses to reproduce 45mp FF worth of spatial resolution. The likes of the 500mm and 600mm f/4 L II lenses could quite possible be near-perfect optics (one would certainly hope for over ten grand a lens), capable of resolving nearly 173lp/mm wide open. At that level, you could have a 103.4mp FF sensor.


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > With all of the talk on the Internet about how bad the DR/IQ was with the 5D Mark II, it would seem that Canon focused on fixing those problems rather than the problem of not having enough megapixels.
> ...



You really need to stop replicating that everywhere unless you are willing to back it up with links to your reference material, forum topics, articles, etc. There is *nothing* to indicate that the 5D III has ANYWHERE NEAR the amount of read noise as the 5D II, which had pretty bad low-ISO read noise at over 27 e-.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 7, 2012)

I think the bigger issue is canon doesn't have much choice when it comes to what you get. look at their full frame lineup all custered at 18-22MP. It is practically all the same.

nikon's full frame lineup
12-16-24-36 MP.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm not sure it's what people think it is:
* Resolving power of lenses - will most really be able to make the most of the sensor?
* Diffraction on the D800 will start at f8, which reduces the sharpness. Landscape photographers (I believe) tend to shoot at f11 a lot?
* The resolution of the 5diii is exactly 4 times that of HD resolution. That can't be a coincidence...

.. and finally, in terms of resolution, the D800 is only something like 30% more than the 5diii.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 7, 2012)

While I dont know and probably will never know, I would presume that canon polled a lot of it's top pro's who they figure were their target audience was and figured out what their needs and wish list were... I've received a few impromptu surveys via email from Canon on satisfaction of their products and I would guess they figured they vast majority of their target audience needed higher IQ, higher ISO, and MP was fine where it was. I could be wrong but I dont think theres a conspiracy.


----------



## AJ (Mar 7, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> It may be premature to say Canon doesn't care about high MP shooters. Just because the 5D mkIII wasn't the high MP body some were hoping for doesn't mean that Canon doesn't have something up its sleeve.


Good theory.

Maybe their 36 mpix sensor got delayed because of the tsunami and floods. Maybe it's still coming. 5Dx?

I would think that if you mount a lens like 17 TS, you'll resolve more lines than the same lens mounted on a 22 mpix cam.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 7, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> This is just a theory. And let me first off say that I am a landscape photographer. I shoot some news and weddings, but primarily landscape. And I'll say that I was disappointed that the 5Diii wasn't higher MP.
> 
> I wonder if the reason that almost all the new and updated features in the new 5D are geared for wedding, sports, nature, news shooters because these are the types of shooters that DSLRs are geared toward naturally. Would it be true that most studio and landscape shooters that make the serious dough use medium format digital and full frame film. Where those who are on more limited budgets settle for DSLRs as a budget option. Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality. Aren't optics more difficult when needing to put a mirror in the way of the lens and sensor vs. a rangefinder system.
> 
> ...



Most MF camera are DSLR's aswell of course but I do think its a good point, the 1DX is arguebley the best high end FPS/AF/ISO tool money can buy with the 5D mk3 not far behind so they tap into a higher end market. High megapixel FF DSLR's on the other hand are operating in the middle ground between normal FF/Crop ones and MF.

Ther 1Ds mk3 wasnt a great seller not just due to competision from the 5D mk2 but also from MF like the 645D coming down in price. Nikon's D3X wasnt a great seller either and that lacked any competision from a cheaper Nikon SLR with the same sensor afterall.

The recent interviews with Canon on this subject did seem to give the impression that it was going to be a "wait and see" with reguards the D800's performance. 

I'm actually supprized that there hasnt been some form of mirrorless MF camera(well besides scanning backs) since to me that seems like a great fit just as it was for MF rangefinders and film. The savings in size/weight/cost obviously get greater the larger the sensor and if your dealing with landscape and studio users alot of the lenses are going to be in the wide/normal range where mirrorless could save space there too. The weakness in AF is less of a problem for such users and with an EVF not being able to see the effects of filters isnt a problem anymore either


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> * The resolution of the 5diii is exactly 4 times that of HD resolution. That can't be a coincidence...



Actually, the 5D III is only 3 times that of 1920x1080 HD resolution (horizontally, its about 3.5 times vertically.) You would need a 39.3mp camera to be exactly 4 times HD resolution horizontally (which would be about 4.7 times vertically.) That would be why there are rumors about a Canon ~40mp HDSLR, since that would support true 4:2:2.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > * The resolution of the 5diii is exactly 4 times that of HD resolution. That can't be a coincidence...
> ...


Oops. I meant 3. Just typed it wrong..


----------



## Radiating (Mar 13, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> You do have a point to a degree with lens resolution. However, I don't know where you get 18mp from.



It's where the resolution of most lenses tends to settle around over the majority of the frame (off center) based on resolutions tests. It's a very rough figure that will vary +/-30%




> Maybe you can share. And I'm sure this particular topic has been covered to high heaven in the past. If what you say is true, then if I cropped a 5Dii to a 1.6 image, and compared it to a 7D image at full size there wouldn't be any resolution difference.



This topic has been covered in a bit of a misguided way, using crop sensors as a bassis for analysis is NOT a good way of doing it. The frame of a APS-C crop sensor only covers 30% of the frame of a full frame. 

The very corner resolution on a crop frame is going to be the CENTER resolution at the very center on a full frame. If we use a 50D and 5DII as examples, and the 24-105mm F4.0 IS then at 24mm f/8.0 it resolves 3400 lp/ph on full frame and 3600 lp/ph on crop at around the same position.

In other words. At 24 Megapixels it resolves 92% of the available resolution but at 39 megapixels it only resolves 72% at the center. At the corners at 39 megapixels it's using only 60% of the resolution. 

The center resolution of the 24-105mm at 24mm f/8.0 is therefore around 22-24 MP (in terms of pixel density), the mid frame 17-19MP and the corners 15-18 MP.

The 24-105mm is clearly outresolved by the sensor and the gains from a 39 megapixel sensor would all be incidental. You're doubling the sensor resolution but only gaining 10% more final resolution, sure it's a difference but some would say this is wasteful.





> But I find from my non-scientific tests that the 7D resolves sharper at it's full field of view as compared to a 5Dii that's been cropped to the 1.6 field of view. Also I'll point out that there are the exceptional lenses, TS-E 17mm and 24mm, which many landscape photographers use all the time, but are exceptional...meaning they are the exception to most photographers. These two lenses I have no doubt could resolve quite satisfactorily on the edges on a 36mp+ sensor. Ok, I have some doubt because I've never seen it. But I wouldn't be surprised. hows that for scientific?!



There is no doubt that there are a few gems in the Canon line-up that could handle a 39+ megapixel sensor. The issue that I'm presenting is that the majority of Canon's lenses would be wasted on such a sensor with only minor incidental gains. A sensor over 22 MP would have benefited a few niches while burdening everyone else with a doubling of processing overhead. Some would argue that this would be worth it, others would not welcome it. 






> Also, you have to look at the bayer pattern and see how the different color channels resolve. Green channel is always perceptibly sharper than the other two channels because it has twice the photosites. So hypothetically if you doubled the number of all the photosites, then you may have far more green than you need, but then you have red and blue photosites that are as sharp as the green was.



Right I'm not denying there are many incidental benefits to higher resolution. I'm just trying to outline the argument. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 13, 2012)

Well just buy urself some canned food and ask urself if it really needs a high MP photo on it 
I think really high MP is a quite special area. High MP is good unless "normal" people cant make use of it anymore. Then it becomes special and doesnt sell so well anymore imho. And i guess all camera manufacturers make most of their money with their cheapcompact cam/entry dslr cameras. I might be wrong. Plus i think ppl are more educated about high mp doesnt make a good photo.


----------



## bycostello (Mar 13, 2012)

if high MP and landscape is your bag, you prob wanna go to large format cameras....


----------

