# 5D Mark III Information [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 30, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/5d-mark-iii-information-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/5d-mark-iii-information-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>5D Mark III Information?

</strong>Itâ€™s mentioned that a 5D Mark III will be aimed at â€œcleaning upâ€ the DSLR video market. It will complement the 1 series video DSLR mentioned at the recent Hollywood Cinema EOS presentation.</p>
<p>The camera will be no more than 18mp. It was mentioned not to expect a big mp camera from Canon in the immediate future.</p>
<p><strong>Via: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d3.html">NL</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## HTCahHTC (Nov 30, 2011)

No more than 18mp? It sounds like a freaking good news to me.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 30, 2011)

Does [CR1] mean "very-implausible information", or just "wishlist" these days  :


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 30, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Does [CR1] mean "very-implausible information", or just "wishlist" these days  :



It means I don't know who said it, and I sourced the first place it appeared on the web.


----------



## Radiating (Nov 30, 2011)

I welcome our new 18 MP high iso overlords. I could really use some more iso, as long as the camera is definitely 18 MP. I can't do with less than 18.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 30, 2011)

One more for the compost heap.

By springtime, we'll be fertilizing a terrific garden!!


----------



## hutjeflut (Nov 30, 2011)

i personaly dont really mind more megapixels however seeing the lenses at the moment cant deliver enough detail for the 18+ mp sensors its a good point to stick to 18MP sensors for a year and perfect those.
maby if they find a way to imporve lenses further there is a point in adding more megapixels for this cheapass cropfreak.


----------



## arussarts (Nov 30, 2011)

Thank god I bought my "crappy" high-res 5d2!


----------



## insider (Nov 30, 2011)

Yeayyyy i seriously dun wan the rumored 36mp+ to appear in 5D III. More 5d III rumor pls ;D


----------



## AG (Nov 30, 2011)

Waiting for these rumours to come with an ETA for the 5D3.

Don't want to shell out $2500 on another mk2, if the new model is due March 2012. 

I can go without for another 3 months if these rumours are true.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Nov 30, 2011)

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of less megapixels and better iso and hopefully dr performance.


----------



## Eric (Nov 30, 2011)

I find it interesting that in 2007 Canon developed a 50MP sensor, then a 120MP sensor in 2010, and in 2011 they seem to be saying fewer MP's are better. Why even work on multiple proof-of-concept sensors like that if the concept is inherently flawed? I think we are being fed some marketing lines (again).

In my film days I never shot higher than 800 ISO and more commonly shot 200 or less. I did, however, shoot 8x10 film partly out of a desire for higher resolution. Is the market really clamoring to shoot in a dark closet, or is that just the next Nikon rivalry now that Canon can make APS-H sensors with 120MP?

It is my hope that after developing the C300 and EOS C, that Canon will get back to making still cameras that focus on photographing stills.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 30, 2011)

Hmm...not sure if the "cleaning up the DSLR video market" is encouraging for a 5Dm3 replacement or not. I primarily shoot still's, and while a reduce MP might be fine (as long as I get even better high ISO performance), if it's aimed more at video and less at stills (hello, we need a good auto-focus system!!!), than not sure I like the idea of it. Unless they introduce a new FF stills camera that maybe does some video as well.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 30, 2011)

meh


----------



## Andreos (Nov 30, 2011)

Just get it OUT already! And make the auto focus work at least as well as a point and shoot (for a change).


----------



## psycho5 (Nov 30, 2011)

MUSIC TO MY F-ING EARS... save the 36mp sensors for the point and shoots and the best buy shoppers... 

1Dx sensor here we come... best rumor ever on this site!


----------



## mrgazpacho (Nov 30, 2011)

Drizzt321 said:


> Unless they introduce a new FF stills camera that maybe does some video as well.



I like your thinking. 

Leave specialist video to the C300, high-end video to the 1DX, and the new 5DIII can focus less on video and more on still image quality.


----------



## psycho5 (Nov 30, 2011)

mitchell3417 said:


> I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of less megapixels and better iso and hopefully dr performance.



yes, and add the option to adjust DR up to 12 stops... now wouldnt that be revolutionary?


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 30, 2011)

arussarts said:


> Thank god I bought my "crappy" high-res 5d2!



haha ditto, 

I really do want to see the real world quality of the high iso that will come from these new sensors though i know lots of people use 3200 on the 5D2 but I generally try to draw the line at 1600. realistically I will be suprised if they get 6400 to = current 1600 levels. 2 whole stops is a big ask but they will need to deliver that to keep everyone happy i think.


----------



## willrobb (Nov 30, 2011)

It's going to be good to see what the 5DIII has to offer.

1. They must have sorted out the gripes with the AF.
2. Less MP than the 5DII but with a better sensor would be pretty awesome.
3. FPS, going to be way less than the 1DX (or even the 1DmkIV), but an improvement on the 5DmkII. Maybe about 5-6FPS?
4. Build quality, probably about the same, but maybe an upping on the estimated shutter life from 150'000 clicks to 250'000 clicks?

Basically it's going to have to be a bit better than the current 5DmkII, but not nearly as good as the 1DX so as not to cut into 1DX sales like the 5DmkII did to the 1DsmkIII.

Exciting times, wonder when the release will be though. With the big price drop in 5DmkII bodies it could be sooner than we anticipate.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 30, 2011)

I would hope they impove the AF,
Body size stay the same would be good, beef up the weather sealing better card door and battery door, 
dual cards? (one can hope)

Interestingly Prior to the 1Dx anouncement I was watching 1D mk4s second hand and there were lots popping up on ebay quite a few between 3500 and 4000 final selling price, after the announcement I cant see and second hand and new ones seem to be holding their price, I think everyone that has the 1D mk4 are going to keep it, I would expect to see a similar thing with 5D2 sales as people shooting landscape etc that use tripods and ISO100 really dont care about high ISO still makes the 5D2 an awesome landscape camera.

I'm also not sure about valididty of comments about lenses not resolving greater than 18MP whats that all about anyway?


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 30, 2011)

Eric said:


> I find it interesting that in 2007 Canon developed a 50MP sensor, then a 120MP sensor in 2010, and in 2011 they seem to be saying fewer MP's are better. Why even work on multiple proof-of-concept sensors like that if the concept is inherently flawed?



Because you don't know what you can (or can't) do until you try. As Thomas Edison said: "I have not failed. Iâ€™ve just found 10,000 ways that wonâ€™t work."


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 30, 2011)

They had better not apply this low-res madness to the 7D. I will rage! Or cry. :'(

Seriously, I just do not see the point in this. If you don;t like 36 noisy megapixels, down res them to your 18 clean ones and be amazed!

Cropping, however, is critical to my photography. I can't afford the 800 5.6 and the tripod etc to go with it, so it will remain a 600 5.6 (300 2.8 + 2x TC) for me and a whole lot of cropping. My 18 MP crops look great! If I had 24 MP to work with, this could make things perhaps e'en better! 36 might be stretching things a bit with the diffraction...


----------



## Doodah (Nov 30, 2011)

If the source is NL, then we should take it with a pinch of salt...


----------



## t.linn (Nov 30, 2011)

I would have to see a SIGNIFICANT increase in low light capabilities and, more important, dynamic range before I would consider moving backward in resolution. As others have said, a 36MP sensor can be down sampled to a nice clean 18MP image if size or noise is a concern. Going the other direction is problematic, as is cropping a lower res image. I, for one, hope this is bunk.


----------



## Isaac (Nov 30, 2011)

1. If the 5D3 got 18mp, why do you think Canon would put in the 1Dx sensor?

2. Why 18mp? Canon have always increased their megapixels eg. 5D, 5D2

3. How many mp does someone really need truthfully?


----------



## catz (Nov 30, 2011)

This might be exactly what I want/need:
- a full frame SLR form factor camera that does very high quality video (with excellent low light capability) without moire/aliasing with quality comparable to series of 1920x1080 still images. Video compression is ok if the bit rate is in the realm >=50 Mbit/s. If the moire is absent, the encoder will be more efficient and the false details do not need to get encoded and the overall quality will be much higher even if the bit rate did not increase at all over 5D2.
- and does also stills with excellent dynamic range and excellent low light capability (I am still looking for a camera that can take good pictures of my black cat)
- one that accepts my L-lens collection and possibly/preferably is compatible with electronic follow focus
- camera price in the realm of 5D2 or maximum ~1000 more (5000 would be already too much to justify purchase - as priorities are lenses first and body second)
- body preferably smaller than 1DX
- autofocus is not highly important, as in many cases I manual focus. Would be nice though. But I will take video without aliasing rather than any autofocus any day.
- extreme still speed is not highly important (would be nice though, but not absolutely mandatory), as I am not expecting a sports camera as I am not a sports photographer
- audio / XLRs etc. are not important, I am recording audio separately anyway with dedicated audio recorder and mics and I don't plan going back to internally recorded audio as my audio recorder lives its own upgrade path now.
- I have rigs, steadicams etc. and I don't need any video handles in the camera. As clean and simple as possible is better. That would be also easier to balance to the steadicam.

The Cinema* models from Canon would have been far beyond my budget (as nobody pays me at the moment anything for the video content I create because my job/income is in a different industry), but if this 5D3 is really finally coming, then this probably is my next camera. After that my 5D2 becomes the B-cam or mainly still cam (as my eyes are now so trained to see moire that I nowadays see it everywhere, even where others can't see it, e.g. even in scenes that do not contain any straight horizontal lines and it bugs me like a broken tweeter (which distorts) in a loudspeaker).

So this is the most promising rumor to the date about future Canon models. The previous announcements have been disappointing. The crowd is waiting for a 5D mark III and not a hyper expensive Cinema camera that costs more than RED. A big part of the video DSLR revolution was the price-value ratio of the camera and also the versatility to use the same camera for stills and video. If either of these are absent, it is no longer revolutionary and just a yet another (potentially inferior unless only reliability is the criteria) competitor (with questionable price-value ratio) for cameras like RED Scarlet and Arri Alexa. Canon should put out the 5D mark III fast because this is what I and I believe so many others have been so long waiting for for very good reasons. I hope the 5D3 will live up to its expectations and also I hope that Canon comes up with it fast. 5D3 is needed soonish (January/February 2012 at the latest) and not a year from now.


----------



## siebzehn (Nov 30, 2011)

"no more than 18mp" sounds like open decision between the 18MP of the 1Dx or a sensor of the video fraction. Probable we will see a 5C instead a 5DIII.
Interesting is how the price gaps between 7D, 5DIII and 1Dx are filled. What is with the rumored low price FF camera?


----------



## Archangel72 (Nov 30, 2011)

On my opinion this could be a great news for "Canon lovers".
Don't be afraid of small cut down in resolution, benefits of new sensor in combination with DIGIC 5 (DIGIC5+) are yet to be revealed.
I think we will be more than pleased with final results for stills & video in new 5D .

My guess for 5D Mark III:

1. Single DIGIC 5+ supporting up to max 6 raw pictures in sec. (+1 for JPG)
2. Very usable ISO 6400 for stills, max ISO for video 12800, camera max ex. ISO 51200
3. AF for video
4. Audio control - same as 1Dx
5. Articulated LCD screen (trust me, this is very usable in real life situations)
6. Double CF slot (same as 1Dx)
7. Weather sealed body (slightly different than 1Dx)
8. Improved AF in 19 points for stills (better than 7D)
9. Price range - from 2.990,00$ - 3.490,00$ body only.

I think these specifications will be applied for new 5D.

Archangel72


----------



## UncleFester (Nov 30, 2011)

Picture this (no pun): you shot your model from the waste up but you want just a head shot for what ever reason. But you're effed because your camera is no longer a 21 but an 18. That would suck.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

Seems unlikely to me that a 5Dmk3 would be that similar to 1DX. A 7D2 that is similar to 1DX in performance but with an APS-C sensor and a high res 5Dmk3 makes much more sense to me. But we'll see...


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 30, 2011)

No more than 18mp - That is great news for me. No need to pay for something I don't need! Just don't know how they will differentiate it from the 1DX....


----------



## RobS (Nov 30, 2011)

sorry about my bad english
i care some about megapixels. i am a stock photographer, there are some agencies they have a price gap near 18mp. lower than 18mp i earn less than equal or over ... so if the camera has only 18MP a can not crop pictures beacause i will loose money i have a lot oft those sales above this price gap in a day... so in the moment i would loose about 50 dollars every day if i would use a 18mp camera. The other option would be a hasselblad or a phase one but those monsters are too expensive. if nikon brings a fulll frame 36mp camera with sufficient picture quality and canon only a 18mp camera i will definitvely change to nikon.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

that will be interesting times in the future.

given the rumors are true and nikon is releasing a 36MP D800 im curious what new DSLR customers will buy. for years canon was raising MP and nikon was saying less MP are better.

now it seems the positions have suddenly changed.

many nikon buyer already complain about a (not released) D800 and how much noise it will have and canon buyer complain about a (not released) 5D MK3 and how it lacks resolution details compared to the MK2 or a (not released) D800. 

most amateurs who have no clue still think more MP will make a better image. 
even after years this is still stuck in their heads.
especially canon buyer have this idea planted into their brains.
and how can you blame them.. that is what canon more or less told them all the years.

i think there is a sweet spot for overall image quality with the current CMOS technology.. and so thinks canon as it looks.

18 MP are fine for me when ISO, dynamic range and noise are improved. 

also canon said the (real world not theoretical) MTF resolution of the new sensor is better then the 21 MP sensor. we will see if that is true and if it is true for low iso or only high iso.



> "Canon's new EOS-1 DX DSLR will produce the same resolution as the 21-million-pixel EOS-1 Ds Mark III despite having three million fewer pixels according to the company's senior general manager of photo products, Tsunemasa Ohara."
> 
> 'We have designed the Canon CMOS sensor for the EOS 1DX so that it is much thinner than before and so that the photodiodes are closer to the surface of the sensor. This way the pixels collect more light and produce a better, clearer, signal.
> 
> 'With less noise, and our new improved processing algorithms, the camera is able to reproduce more detail. While using MFT is perhaps not the best way to measure the resolution of the camera, if you did use this method the results for the EOS-1 DX and EOS-1 Ds Mark III would be very similar.'


----------



## GeorgeMaciver (Nov 30, 2011)

All sounds very exciting!


----------



## pedro (Nov 30, 2011)

Hoping for more information to be leaked soon. That means: before Christmas. 8) Sounds great. An 1Dx sensor-ish 5D, wow.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Nov 30, 2011)

"5D Mark III will be aimed at â€œcleaning upâ€ the DSLR video market" that sounds promising! and at 18mp is more than enough! apart for some print guys.. i hope january brings us some good news!


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Picture this (no pun): you shot your model from the waste up but you want just a head shot for what ever reason. But you're effed because your camera is no longer a 21 but an 18. That would suck.



have you ever taken photographs or are you just talking about gear?

how much (in theory) difference in resolution are 18 vs. 21 MP?
do the math you may be suprised! and now keep in mind that this says nothing about the real difference, who is influenced by more then just math.

i mean what i read here is often so much nonsense.... i canÂ´t believe you guys actually go out and take pictures. ;D
and if you make picture are you just pixelpeeping on a 30" monitor or are you printing the images?

itÂ´s more like these PC overclocking websites where people tune PCÂ´s but never ever actually DO something with them.

i read from "landscape photographer" who talk about cropping and how it will affect them to crop a 18 MP image vs. a 21 MP image. 
well i rather crop a 12.8MP canon 5D image then a 16 MP image from a point and shoot camera.

what counts is real world resolution .. not MP.
you can have a 20MP sensor that has less resolving resolution then a 12MP sensor.
and cropping that worse 20MP image or downsampling will not help you gain resolution. 

image quality is determined by much more then just a single and simple MP number.
and even resolution is affected by more then the number of MP.


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 30, 2011)

catz said:


> This might be exactly what I want/need:
> - a full frame SLR form factor camera that does very high quality video (with excellent low light capability) without moire/aliasing with quality comparable to series of 1920x1080 still images. Video compression is ok if the bit rate is in the realm >=50 Mbit/s. If the moire is absent, the encoder will be more efficient and the false details do not need to get encoded and the overall quality will be much higher even if the bit rate did not increase at all over 5D2.
> - and does also stills with excellent dynamic range and excellent low light capability (I am still looking for a camera that can take good pictures of my black cat)
> - one that accepts my L-lens collection and possibly/preferably is compatible with electronic follow focus
> ...




Uhh, I'll second all of that!

Bit rates - agreed! The gh2 pulls off incredibly fine detail with negligible artifacts at a lowly 24mb/s

For those obsessed with moire...
http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf-5d2.html

If the digic 5 is as awesome as it should be, the term artifact will become an artifact.

My question is: In which ways will they flex gimping to keep the 5d3 from cannibalizing c300 sales??
My guess - HDMI out, fully selectable frame rates (clearly).
I know it's even more "niche" but how easy and incredible would it be:

Pmovie mode w/optional:
- auto 180 degree shutter (change shutter - visible frame rate indicator adjusts)
- auto WB that doesn't change after hitting record.
- auto iso - adjusts at variable rate depending on how dramatic the shift, staying constant whenever possible.
- follow focus preset marks
- you could even set approximate marks, while in record a half shutter press begins the rack...it stops once the object in that approximate location gets focus confirmed.

The follow focus is more a pipe dream.
Canon will never be influenced by Hollywood to perfect a feature so incredibly intuitive that it would put every focus puller on the street.
At the very least i hope there is an lcd sensor so i can rack focus w/o touching the camera w/ a new even more Magical Lantern =)
And yeah, I'd be surprised if a firmware update couldn't fix the usb follow focus buzz kill.

The iso would be the hardest to perfect and least used, due to intermediate issues.

Features are so easy to add (Canon's greatest mistake was revealing that fact).
But even easier to withhold until the competition (or lack there of) forces you to do so.
Allowing you more reincarnations of the exact same camera.

5d2 (7d2 + t2i + t3i + 60d)

Consumers eat up 3 year old technology with a new face if they don't know better.

Dual audio will always be the choice of audiophiles.
Software has made any difficulty arguments against it moot as hell.
In fact, it has removed any need for "pro" features like timecode.
But shhh...

They aren't supposed to know.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

Fandongo said:


> [The follow focus is more a pipe dream.
> Canon will never be influenced by Hollywood to perfect a feature so incredibly intuitive that it would put every focus puller on the street.



why not?
if it reduces cost for the studios... they will want and use it.

we saw other professions disappear.


----------



## catz (Nov 30, 2011)

Archangel72 said:


> My guess for 5D Mark III:



How did you guess these because these do not make much sense.



> 1. Single DIGIC 5+ supporting up to max 6 raw pictures in sec. (+1 for JPG)
> 2. Very usable ISO 6400 for stills, max ISO for video 12800, camera max ex. ISO 51200



How would you have a camera with different ISO for stills and video while 5D mark II can do 25600 ISO for video. Where did you come up that with better sensor + bigger pixels + better DIGIC it is going to be worse than 5D mark II? This does not make slightest sense. I have been shooting some night scenes at 25600 despite it admittedly sucks especially now that I have couple of hot pixels which become visible at high ISO video.

I am expecting ISO 102400 at least and it would be usable for both stills and video. 18 mpix sensor + full frame + more sensitive sensor than previous generation + better processing in DIGIC V your prediction sounds low.

I am expecting ISO 25600 to be still usable (comparable to 5D2 ISO 6400) based on assumptions on improvements on sensor technology, pixel size and DIGIC. 



> 3. AF for video



Unlikely, if it follows the lead of the 1Dx. And for the HDSLR people this is much less priority item than a aliasing free image that really is 1920x1080 pixel by pixel sharp.



> 4. Audio control - same as 1Dx



This has been already in 5D2. Having that in 5D3 would be no news. Of course the new audio meters of 1Dx are nice.



> 5. Articulated LCD screen (trust me, this is very usable in real life situations)
> 6. Double CF slot (same as 1Dx)
> 7. Weather sealed body (slightly different than 1Dx)
> 8. Improved AF in 19 points for stills (better than 7D)
> 9. Price range - from 2.990,00$ - 3.490,00$ body only.



With these I could agree. However, how did you came up with these? Wish list/speculation?
I am looking forward to seeing more than CR0 level information about spec list.


----------



## catz (Nov 30, 2011)

> Pmovie mode w/optional:
> - auto 180 degree shutter (change shutter - visible frame rate indicator adjusts)
> - auto WB that doesn't change after hitting record.
> - auto iso - adjusts at variable rate depending on how dramatic the shift, staying constant whenever possible.
> ...



Well if I was working for Canon as a product owner (assuming they are not living still at stone age with waterfall process, project and program management and all the unnecessary work which does not help the consumer to get the products on time the consumers want), I would surely try to include these features. Lockable follow focus to an object is in software perspective feasible. It would not be very easy feature to implement, but it would be something that would make the camera to do something revolutionary instead of evolutionary. There are plenty of other things that could be done for the picture as well, which currently nobody is doing. However, the case is that I am not working for Canon. 

Sounds like features like this would be more likely to come from one Cupertino company if they would ever venture to SLR cameras. 



> They aren't supposed to know.



Sometimes I wonder the product decisions made by companies. Sometimes they seem to do so dumb decisions that it is incredible how they can survive such fiascos. Instead of answering to a market need or creating a new market breakthrough, they companies tend to do evolutionary products without inventing anything new innovative. And then they sell that crap to customers because customers are expected to be sheeple and not care about what they buy. Maybe at the Internet age a change might eventually happen that selling crap over and over again will not work anymore and consumers, prosumers and professionals are more aware on what they want and what they will buy. Here would be a incredible chance for some small startup to come up with a total Canon/Nikon killer that would run circles with their products at a price that would completely kill the market for the traditional camera companies. Technically it could be done but it would require some serious venture capital and investors who have some vision rather than just looking the next quarter.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm fine with 18mp and better ISO across the entire range. Peak ISO performance is at the top of my wishlist. Would like to see ISO 50 included. I'd say that a close second would be improved video performance (fixed rolling shutter and similar head-ache inducing capture issues). Too bad the 18mp and ISO is still just a rumor. 18mp works fine for me, I don't shoot or print any style of photo atm that would benefit from Poster Sized and larger images and expect them to be viewed as you would the distance one views a wallet photo. There's also enough editing play room inside of 18mp for me to aggressively re-crop and print high-quality images at any size under optimal viewing distances. And if the info about the resolution of current lenses in this thread is true, even more reason to hope they do this and not go chasing a white rabbit just so they can print larger numbers in ads and specs.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

Wishing for higher resolution from a fullframe camera is not insane . While APS-C may be close to what can reasonably be resolved with current lenses (Sony's new 24 megapixel APS-C does not provide much real resolution compared to say an 18 megapixel), fullframe cameras have so far had HUGE pixels, and fullframe lenses are not *that* bad.

Of all formats out there, 135 fullframe is probably the must underutilized concerning resolution, because ISO performance is usually of higher interest (photojournalism, sports, street, handheld in general). For us that shoot from a sturdy tripod and want as much resolution possible, somewhere 35 - 45 megapixels is suitable for fullframe. If the manufacturers want to they can take yet a chunk from the medium format market by pushing 135 fullframe as far as the lenses allow. Yes, you would need the best lenses working at limited apertures to get all the resolution and still accept a bit worse corner performance, just as in the medium format world.

I do make prints, and I use stitching now and then just to get more resolution. Say having 36 mp instead of 18 would make a great difference for me, it would get me over the "decency level" in several cases when I otherwise would need to stitch or compromise. Reducing from 21 to 18 would not be a great loss of course, but I also doubt that increase in DR will provide significant better results in practice at ISO100, which is the ISO I shoot at 99% of the time for landscapes. That is there would be little reason for a landscape photographer to upgrade from 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk3 if it comes with an 18 megapixel sensor.

Canon's TS-E 24mm II and TS-E 17mm are great lenses that would work well with a high resolution sensor, providing a very good system for architecture and landscape photographers, an cost-effective alternative to medium format. I would be somewhat surprised if Canon does not aim to provide at least one camera that make use the potential in the still-life oriented lenses they do have.

For those that shoot handheld, it is a whole different story. Actually I think 10-12 megapixel is enough for handheld, and ISO performance at 3200+ is a priority -- totally different needs than for a landscaper. A 40 megapixel camera which has a 10 megapixel bin mode perhaps could be the perfect all-around fullframe camera .


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> given the rumors are true and nikon is releasing a 36MP D800 im curious what new DSLR customers will buy. for years canon was raising MP and nikon was saying less MP are better.
> 
> now it seems the positions have suddenly changed.



If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup. Sometime in the next year or so I would like to improve my ability to make large landscape prints from a single frame. An 18 MP 5D3 will offer me nothing in this regard over my 18 MP 7D. Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

The bummer is that Canon has the best T/S lenses and they scream for more MP. *I couldn't care less about movie mode Canon! You need a high pixel count FF body for landscape and studio use.*



> most amateurs who have no clue still think more MP will make a better image.
> even after years this is still stuck in their heads.



For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.


----------



## Zuuyi (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't need ultra high iso in my studio camera. They removed the top end studio camera, now they are attempting to remove the second tier pro studio camera. I know people will just buy used 5d2 for the extra pixels and deep discounts.

I can see them keeping the 7D2 at 18mp but not the 5d3. I just want some new camera announcements. And if Nikon pushes pixels with the rumored 36MP camera; Canon will have to compete.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 30, 2011)

Isaac said:


> 3. How many mp does someone really need truthfully?



If I had the money I would be shooting a 40 MP 645D. If I had my wish the 5D3 would be 36 MP. It may not be quite as good as the 645D, but it would allow me to produce substantially larger landscape prints at a much lower price point than MF.

Go look at the Imaging Resource 645D samples and tell me again that more MP are bad. There is a completely new dimension of detail in those studio samples. They reveal textures and fine details that don't show up on any current DSLR.

36 MP FF is still a lower pixel pitch then the 7D. I'm fine with large (i.e. 24") 7D prints to at least ISO 800. I don't need to shoot black cats in dark coal mines. I would like to get even more detail from the landscapes I wish to shoot.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup.



I've thought about the same thing. My major cost is in lenses, not in camera body. Unfortunately due to flange focal distance there is no Nikon to Canon adapter (the other way around exists though), that is you cannot for example use a 36mp Nikon D800 (if it appears  ) with a Canon TS-E 24mm. But you can use a Canon 5D with Nikon lenses. For landscape having total manual control of the lenses is no problem... but as said Nikon body with Canon lenses won't fly :-\.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

dilbert said:


> Problem is, folks that shoot low-iso are in a minority these days.
> 
> Everyone wants to take hand-held, flash-less photographs of their children, pets, etc, around the house/sporting events/parties/etc.



Yes, I've thought about that too, that maybe us high res folks are just too few. On the other hand, a genre like landscape photography does seem to be very large among "serious amateurs" (judging from competition entries), perhaps even the largest when it comes to amateur photography, and there are surely more amateurs than professionals.

Also, those recent and great TS-E lenses indicate that they have some interest in this genre. Canon may also think that they cannot let down the 1DsIII professional customer segment, that is that they must provide a competitive product in all genres, not only in the most profitable ones.


----------



## lol (Nov 30, 2011)

Since the 1D X was announced I thought it likely they would recycle the sensor into another body. So I wouldn't expect less than 18MP, just 18MP. 

I'm still hoping for a future high MP body though. The shake up in the 1D space seems to leave a gap to me.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.



so you prefer shooting landscapes with a 16MP point and shoot compared to a 12MP canon 5D for example?

if only image quality was as easy as MP counting...


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.



yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.



> A typical setting for use on an overcast day would be f/8.[8] For blue visible light, the wavelength λ is about 420 nanometers.[9] This gives a value for x of about 4 Âµm. In a digital camera, making the pixels of the image sensor smaller than this would not actually increase image resolution.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk



for FF 36MP are ok until around f10 i think. 

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) itÂ´s released.


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 30, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > given the rumors are true and nikon is releasing a 36MP D800 im curious what new DSLR customers will buy. for years canon was raising MP and nikon was saying less MP are better.
> ...


Have you used the TS/E to produce a 3 shot landscape which you can easily merge into a pano which is close to a 36MP equivalent? For landscapes I have used this quite a bit. Not in every situation of course, but it works well, is quick to do the 3 shots and the stitching tends to be very clean just because of the way it is taken. No need for a pano-head...

I came across a photographer at the weekend, IIRC using a 5D. He shot a single photo using both 3 shot exposures and multiple focus distances and ended up doing focus stacking and HDR in Photoshop. I think the single shot was made up of 33 individual pictures. Again, does not cater for every scenario, but does illustrate that there could be some solutions that could work without the need for a higher res sensor. Horses for courses...

Ultimately, Canon has to chose what it thinks will be best for the majority of it's customers (current and future), and there will always be fallout. Given the D3X and the D3S, I am suprised that Canon has concluded that 18MP is the ceiling, but I guess people will decide when the dust has settled, the reviews are in, and we've hand hands-on experience with the new bodies.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
> and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.



Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The resolving power of many lenses wanes after about f/8 (some faster lenses even have their peak resolving power wider open), so you are trading DoF for lens image sharpness. photozine.de does nice graphs of aperture vs resolving power of lenses on various cameras. If you've already chosen a less sharp image from the lens, why would you then be worried about airy discs?
> 
> As long as the diffraction limit kicks in after the peak of the lens' resolving power, I'm happy.



well it seems you misunderstand things here.... I dont want 36MP sensors for FF cameras.

what i say is that the 21MP sensor of the 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited for f16 (and i donÂ´t even start speaking about lenses). 

so what are 36MP FF sensors worth for landscape photographers?
they say we need more detail and more MP.... but as it seems they wonÂ´t get it from 36 MP sensors.
at least not with the usual landscape apertures......


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?



obviously you do.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
> and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.
> 
> im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
> but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) itÂ´s released.



Perhaps you should look into using tilt-shift lenses. With tilt you can optimize depth of field and in many cases use say f/8 instead of f/16 or more to get the DoF you want (or close to it). You may want to look into the techniques that large format photographers use, they have had the "problem" with too high resolution from the start. The modern version of this is medium format tech cameras, such as Arca Swiss or ALPA with Phase One IQ180 digital back, but these systems are insanely expensive and thus not accessible to amateurs.

It is true though that often you cannot make a "mathematically perfect" all-is-sharp picture when you have really high res, you need to make a compromise and learn to master this, make the picture sharp where it counts. For example if the foreground has large structures and the background small (common), you may have the close foreground slightly out of focus. Sometimes focus stacking is used too.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?



read a few books from ansel adams and the f64 group.
after that read books about composition (foreground, middle ground and background interest).


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

torger said:


> Perhaps you should look into using tilt-shift lenses. With tilt you can optimize depth of field and in many cases use say f/8 instead of f/16 or more to get the DoF you want (or close to it). You may want to look into the techniques that large format photographers use, they have had the "problem" with too high resolution from the start.



again.. im perfectly fine with 18 MP. i donÂ´t do billboard prints. 

other user here say they want and need 36MP to have more details for landscape images.
all i say is, i doubt they will see a huge increase in real detail for landscape images where diffraction (small apertures) is a problem.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

dilbert said:


> It would seem like the 1DX would be the perfect camera for you - except for its cost, of course - right? A step down in MP allowing for more DoF due to being able to use a higher f-stop, not to mention the purported IQ raise.



well you should take a closer look on my profile. 
i have no problem to afford gear. i own a camerastore i can use demo cameras. ;D 



> You appear to be asserting that landscape photographers need f/16 in order to take photographs and that the airy disc problem at f/16 on 36MP sensors will make a 36MP sensor unattractive. You appear to be ignoring the fact that f/16 is already beyond the sweet spot in resolving power of most, if not all, lenses.



no i do not. 

the probelm is you donÂ´t understand what im saying.
the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just *MORE* nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor. :

to be precise, if the sweet spot of a lens would be way higher then the diffraction limit of a tiny sensor i donÂ´t care if i go beyond the lens sweet spot. 
itÂ´s the limitation of the sensor resolution that is ultimately the important factor when we speak about camera *sensors*. 

lenses can make real world resolution worse but they canÂ´t make the theoretical sensor resolution better. there is no question about that.



> I'm asserting that if a landscape photographer is chasing the maximum resolution from the lens/camera combination then they will shoot at the sweet spot of the lens first and arrange the shot second so that everything that they need is in focus and thus as long as the diffraction limit is greater than the airy disc, this will not pose a significant problem for photographers.



DoF itÂ´s not a problem?
well itÂ´s physics.

if you want/need a certain depth of field you have to choose a certain aperture.

if you want that stone in the foreground sharp and the barn a mile away you will have no luck with f4. 

sure you could drag a small stone near to the barn.... but lets be honest thatÂ´s unlikely and not what your really had in mind. ;D

your argumentation shows the difference between gearheads and photographers.
i mean i donÂ´t arrange my photos after lens sweetspots an MTF diagrams.
if i need f22 to make the image i have in mind and have everything sharp from foreground to background i use f22.
i look out for COMPOSITION not the most technical perfect image.


----------



## jbwise01 (Nov 30, 2011)

I like the direction Canon is headed with their DSLRs. I seriously can't believe all these posts about high ISO performance not being important. The truth is, High ISO performance is simply a higher priority for DSLRs going forward. As mentioned earlier, canon proved that they can easily expand MP count. 

Benefits of High ISO development:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Better low light performance 
[*]Expands capability of "Slower" lenses 
[*]Allows higher shutter speeds to be used at narrower apertures 
[*]Lens development can shift focus to increasing Sharpness overall without striving for wider apertures for low light performance 
[*]Video performance is increased for all lighting conditions 
[/list]

Letâ€™s face it, this Move by Canon makes total sense. Itâ€™s not about increasing MP counts to appease uninformed enthusiasts; itâ€™s about making the each pixel better. Once they have really pushed the limits of what we can expect out of each pixel, only then should they should move forward for high MP camera. 

Its kinda like the car industry, they shouldnâ€™t make cars with bigger engines with higher HP just because they can, they should be getting more out of the engines and HP they have to increase efficiency and performance of the car. The benefits increased efficiency far outweigh the benefits increased â€œpower!â€


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 30, 2011)

catz said:


> > Pmovie mode w/optional:
> > - auto 180 degree shutter (change shutter - visible frame rate indicator adjusts)
> > - auto WB that doesn't change after hitting record.
> > - auto iso - adjusts at variable rate depending on how dramatic the shift, staying constant whenever possible.
> ...



It is a damn good thing us nerds use the internet.

Have you seen tech commercials these days?
I think the rule of thumb is: If you see a commercial for it, DON'T buy.
It's old, underpowered, they made too many and they want _you_ to take the rest off their hands.
i5?? Intel is advertising i5 processors?

Never saw a Sandy Bridge-E commercial.
Remember how much Pentium II was hyped?
I kinda wonder if we'll see a repeat with Ivy.

Red is a small startup (relative to Canon) and they are a great example of just how hard it is for a smaller company to match the consistency demanded from professionals.
You can take more risks (like throwing a totally inept video mode into a beastly 5d) buy from wholesale suppliers at a massive savings, and sell much closer to the cost per unit because you have your hand in other industries raking in big bucks. I bet people who shoot on Canons are tempted that much more to print Canon. =)

Sigma hinted that they need to split lens lines for photo/video.
Panasonic brought the classic video camera style rocker lenses and some damn good stabilization.
I hope the _need_ doesn't imply that a smooth electronic follow focus can not be achieved smoothly with still lenses as they currently are. I wagered the purchase of L's on the hope that it was just a matter of time, otherwise woulda went Zeiss, sacrificing sharpness for color/bokeh/great MF.

But i agree with you certainly, _someone_ needs to step up.
I was expecting it to be Samsung.
...Still could be.

I don't understand the new Canon Motto: Match, don't push, never lead.
They started with the goal of "*destroying film*"
Man did they do a good job...
Cinema was a fluke, lets not mess with that. WHAT?!?!



Archangel72 said:


> > 3. AF for video
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely, if it follows the lead of the 1Dx. And for the HDSLR people this is much less priority item than a aliasing free image that really is 1920x1080 pixel by pixel sharp.



A lot of people jump on the "they don't want it, nobody would use it" train.
But it's an entirely arbitrary statement.

They've never had the opportunity to use it without it hunting all over the place stupidly.

It's wrong for consumer products to be better and simpler at achieving the goal while the higher end stuff lags behind. But it happens all the time, mostly due to product cycles. 
And people in the prosumer forums saying: 

"Why would we need this?" 

"That's stupid and I'm all pro!"

and of course...

"Don't advance things. I hate when things get better. I like my cameras like my women - old, not able to do many things, and desperate for someone to use them...preferably in the $3,000 range."

Pixel to pixel sharpness is almost an irrelevant advance (except for cropping) when people can't point out the 5d shots in a theater.

Average people can't tell the difference between:

1) 35mm film of their ass
2) m4/3rds video of their ass.
3) full frame video of their ass.
4) their ass

The advances in numbers and perfecting those that are there just feeds us stupid pixel peepers with an insatiable lust for MORE.
Hopefully the Digic 5 can at least match the gh2...
But I'd choose features over numbers with a mantra.

The power of one.


----------



## Yasmin (Nov 30, 2011)

We started out as a Nikon shooter. 

In early 1990, we switched to Canon due to their fast USM lenses. As you can imagine, we took a huge loss. 

We are photojournalists. What we need is a sensor which can deliver printable images at low light levels. And I mean low light levels (EV 2-4). FPS does matter to us but we do not need 1DX's 12fps and 5D Mark II is too slow for us.

On lenses front, almost all of us carry the usual f2.8s. The 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L and 50mm f1.2L.

We don't care about video. If we need video, we will buy a video camera. 

Although almost all of our equipment is Canon, guess what else is creeping slowly into our collection over the last year or so?

*Nikon D3x !*

Yasmin.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> again.. im perfectly fine with 18 MP. i donÂ´t do billboard prints.
> 
> other user here say they want and need 36MP to have more details for landscape images.
> all i say is, i doubt they will see a huge increase in real detail for landscape images where diffraction (small apertures) is a problem.



Actually I don't think huge billboard prints are the main use for high res.

Medium sized (15-25 inch wide or so) fine art prints is a good application for high res. Note that the native 3:2 format is rarely used so often some of the resolution is cropped away. When you step close, and people do if it is a detailed picture, you can appreciate 300-400 ppi depending on print technology (and also on a distance high res is more easily appreciated than the usual models assume). A fine art print that looks sharp even up close gives it an extra touch of quality, just like a high quality frame, glass and paper. How important this aspect is a matter of taste of course.


----------



## phischeye (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is what I think. 

Canon needs / wants a lower priced FF video DSLR (â€œcleaning upâ€ the DSLR video market). To me it makes perfectly sense to reuse the 1DX sensor. That would be with a 5DM3 (or 5DX) at 18MP - video, HD and 4K, gets no advantage from a 36MP sensor. 

I am thinking 18 high quality MP, good ISO, ok speed, less weather sealing, single CF slot. 

Now of course, there is a high demand for high MP. This could be the introduction of a perfect studio cam - lets call it a 2D, 3D or 4D (what ever works for you) - with 36MP, good speed but no Video. That's cleaning up the video market for me.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but... For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format. Or perhaps this is the section a non-video FF DSLR could cover, reasonable ISO (not ultimate/amazing sounding words) but with massive mega-pixel and an over-all focus on entry-level FF price with video features omitted entirely. I see improved ISO performance across the range and improved video features to be among what most 5D MKII owners would come to expect. 

Also really don't understand what amazing improvements you guys expect to get at 36mp for your landscapes. On any size screen with the entire image in view you are going to be interpreting a scaled down version of the image, so it's unnecessary even if you got to display your work at an I-Max theater, and on any print of a poster or larger size, you are not supposed to be looking at it with your nose smudging the print, and even Ansel Adams would agree.


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but... For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format.



Medium format is still a lot more expensive, and entry level systems are aimed at studio photo not landscape, not really good at wide angle and tilt/shift. Sure, If I could afford it, I'd use a Arca Swiss RM3Di, Rodenstock lenses and IQ160 back . Entry level Hasselblad or Pentax 645D is not all as attractive, due to huuuuge flange focal distance and limited lenses, and not even twice the sensor size compared to 135 FF.

Canon's wide angle TS-E lenses are quite unique. High resolving power, low distortion/abberation, more freedom of movement than even some tech cams have (diagonal tilts/shift), large image circle. Not making full use of them is missing an opportunity. Hopefully the 45 and 90 get updated too. Then you have a decent tech cam system at a fraction of the cost and weight, and you can use the body for other types of photo too. Those using medium format usually have a 135 system too, to have the flexibility.

The best ISO improvement we can see in a new 18 mp sensor compared to 5Dmk2 is probably 1.5 stop or so, plus possibility to shoot 51200. Important to those that need it but not huge for ISO400-ISO1600 shooters. So one can argue that an ISO improvement is unnecessary too . Also, a modern 36 megapixel sensor would still have better ISO performance than the current 5Dmk2, and there is sRAW modes when you don't need the resolution. So you can make a good all-around camera on a high res sensor too. Not just as good as 1DX on high ISO, but definitely better than the 5Dmk2.


----------



## Zuuyi (Nov 30, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but... For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format. Or perhaps this is the section a non-video FF DSLR could cover, reasonable ISO (not ultimate/amazing sounding words) but with massive mega-pixel and an over-all focus on entry-level FF price with video features omitted entirely. I see improved ISO performance across the range and improved video features to be among what most 5D MKII owners would come to expect.
> 
> Also really don't understand what amazing improvements you guys expect to get at 36mp for your landscapes. On any size screen with the entire image in view you are going to be interpreting a scaled down version of the image, so it's unnecessary even if you got to display your work at an I-Max theater, and on any print of a poster or larger size, you are not supposed to be looking at it with your nose smudging the print, and even Ansel Adams would agree.



They want their single purpose tool to actually progress in a manner it has since the first digital camera, in Megapixels. Why should they have to leave Canon because they want their next generation camera to have more Megapixels then a previous generation camera. They could just as easily tell individuals who really want more video options to go get a dedicated camcorder and stop wanting the camera to do double duty.

And regards to printing; you wouldn't need more than about 8MP for 20x30 print. So do you want to revert to 8MP cameras. 4k video isn't much more in pixel count. So why even request 18MP might as well revert.

Photographers have different needs for whatever reasons we all choose Canon; so it's fair for them request what they need and to be upset when they feel they're being slighted.

I plan to either get the 5d3 or 5d2(when the 5d3 comes out) because I want Full-Frame but I would be disappointed if they lower the pixel count, but I will do. But if my need was video I would just get a camcorder and not expect my DSLR to become a top-end Camcorder.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

dilbert said:


> I've tried f/16 and f/22 - the pictures are visibly soft when compared to f/8. I avoid them for that purpose.



lol.. say that to david noton and other guys who earn their money with landscape photography and shoot all day with f16 or f22. ;D

honest everyone making money with landscape photography will tell you that you use f22 when you have too. and you are bothered?



> Look, this is pointless. You're claiming that the diffraction limit trumps all other issues when taking photographs



no im not...
well maybe itÂ´s my bad english or maybe you donÂ´t want to understand me but you still donÂ´t get it.

so one more time....

I SAY... a 36MP sensor makes no real sense for FF cameras and landscape photography (using small apertures for huge DoF) when 21MP sensor FF cameras are already diffraction limited (by sensor design) at f13 or so.

if you are an rare landscape photographer who shoots f2.8 only then 36MP is maybe fine for you.....

but thinking that a 36MP sensor will magically break the barriers of physics will not happen.
you will not resolve more detail with more pixels once the diffraction limit of the sensor is reached.

and as you noticed... lens diffraction limits will makes things even more worse.


----------



## motorhead (Nov 30, 2011)

Lens difraction is raised a lot and it is simply assumed that its a cross we have to bear. From the reading I've done I am led to believe that is not quite true and in fact its simply a matter of "is the effort (and hence the final cost) of improving this lens going to be worth it".

So as camera MP numbers head ever higher, lens designs will inevitably improve as the shortcomings in the present designs become apparent to the users.

Given this, I am firmly in the camp that wants ever more MP please. Hearing that the 5D mk3 might only have 18MP and be a killer video machine is not good news for me. However as the owner of a brand new 5D2, by the time I will be considering switching again no doubt we will be discussing 60MP or even more.

Yes, I also want less noise and greater DR, but I see no reason why the scientists cannot manage that at the same time.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 30, 2011)

Less noise even at ISO 800 and 1600 further, which are all already quite use-able, but do have noise... Improving that towards noiseless is HUGE.

I do understand what you are saying about the medium format points though. I just don't know enough about it to respond. I do know however, that you can make a super nice 400DPI magazine paged prints from 18MP, and as you start getting into poster sizes and larger, you cannot tell the difference in DPI at recommended increases in viewing distance that the larger sizes begin to command. Even a smaller 24 inch poster should be viewed at least 1.25-1.75 feet away, one could make a good argument that the reduction in DPI of an image printed at that size and viewed at a recommended distance would leave the viewer with no less impression of clarity and image quality, our eyes can't see detail that small from that far away. Super high resolution beyond 18 makes the most sense for being able to do large re-crops and for weird, scientific-like images that are intended to be just as interesting with your face buried in them as they are viewed at a normal distance. I'll take the 1DX ISO improvements in the smaller FF body over that for the time being. And to boot, if bigger mega-pixel is where 5D is headed and not ISO improvement I might just stick with the Mark II model.


----------



## arussarts (Nov 30, 2011)

What i don't understand about these "debates" is how no one is stating the obvious. Higher MP and ISO performance would be great together! Yeah Yeah, diffraction limits... But seriously, most of the pros I know need both high MP and ISO

I photograph both architecture and landscape and I DO make 40x50" prints. (Notice the 4x5 proportion... thus I'm cropping a little) I also do a lot of work at night, so what I need is higher MP and ISO.

I'm happy to shoot at F8 on my 17tse or 24 because it's SHARP and I can control DOF with my tilt if I need to. Although, I tend to shoot a more selective focus aesthetic these days.

I suppose the real reason I want Canon to come out with a higher MP and ISO performer is because I'm tired of taking my ARCA and P1 back out with a laptop and a bunch of batteries and cables. My 5d2 and lenses and laptop fit in a medium sized backpack!

Also worth mentioning, the 5d2, gives me way better/easier RAW files at high iso than the P1. I actually think it's a better capture device than the P1 and have grown tired of P1 producing mediocre backs with RAW files that require a ton of post at a ridiculous price point with terrible high ISO performance.

Overall, if I had a camera that was functional in low light and gave me files that printed at 40x50 at native resolution, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

motorhead said:


> Lens difraction is raised a lot and it is simply assumed that its a cross we have to bear. From the reading I've done I am led to believe that is not quite true and in fact its simply a matter of "is the effort (and hence the final cost) of improving this lens going to be worth it".



well you still have the sensor diffraction limit then. :
even when you have a perfect lens. you are bound to physics.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 30, 2011)

Aren't your 40"x50" prints after cropping viewed at least 2 - 3 feet away? You aren't going to notice the difference in resolution at those distances.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

dilbert said:


> gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > honest everyone making money with landscape photography will tell you that you use f22 when you have too. and you are bothered?
> ...



itÂ´s a rethoric question... when guys like david noton who earn their living with landscape photography (and earn good money) use f16 or f22 .... why donÂ´t you?




> But obviously people such as yourself and others are already shooting at f16 and higher on 21MP or greater FF cameras, so obviously this is not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.



itÂ´s no deal for me at all .... because I DONÂ´T CARE ABOUT MORE DETAIL!!
I DONT NEED 36MP.... I CARE ABOUT OTHER THINGS.

but if you one of those who think 36MP will give you more detail then i tell you DIFFRACTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL LIMIT RESOLUTION and it does already with 21 MP cameras and small apertures.

sorry for caps but at some point you have to get it.... ;D

what are 15MP more worth for landscape photography when diffraction of the sensor limits the resolution?
in the end you get 15MP more of useless data when using f13 and above.

itÂ´s this specific scenario i speak about.
in landscape i canÂ´t always choose f4 or f5,6 because that is limiting my DoF.


----------



## arussarts (Nov 30, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Aren't your 40"x50" prints after cropping viewed at least 2 - 3 feet away? You aren't going to notice the difference in resolution at those distances.



I totally agree... except that people (non-photogs and photogs alike) always walk up on the print to take a closer look. If you've ever seen a print from an 8x10 neg, a la Ansel, then you know much of the beauty is in seeing the richness of detail up close. Can anyone honestly say that they always view and consume a photograph at the optimum viewing distance?


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 30, 2011)

Here's a funny idea. Wouldn't improved performance of ISO 800 and right on through allow landscape photographers to get super creative in the shade.... We might actually get new photographs from the same lenses that weren't fully feasible before.


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 30, 2011)

Considering apparent money frenzy culture at Canon, I see something entirely different emerging from all recent events. 
Canon is setting stage to offer ultra pro high res camera at the price point of medium format camera. 
Yes we will get 40 MP camera similar like the C300, with some huge announcement at Metropolitan Museum Of Art in the photography department or something.
Be prepare, they may even produce couple Super Wide angle "Terra" lenses $20,000- $60,000 a piece.
Our expectations for entry level FF camera body will look so silly soon...
I will have to research who is really behind all of this. It does not look very Japanese to me.
Welcome to the globalism.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

dilbert said:


> You don't care about detail but you care about diffraction.
> 
> What does diffraction do, if not limit the detail in a picture?



sorry but you seem to be unable to get what i care about.
i donÂ´t "discuss" with you any longer. 
read my postings again and read them carefully... maybe you will get it.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > You don't care about detail but you care about diffraction.
> ...




ROTFL... i get what you mean and you are right.



gothmoth said:


> itÂ´s no deal for me at all .... becasue I DONT CATE ABOUT MORE DETAIL!!
> I DONT NEED 36MP.... I CARE ABOUT OTHER THINGS.
> 
> but *if you one of those who think 36MP will give you more detail * then i tell you *DIFFRACTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL LIMIT RESOLUTION * and ist does already with 21 MP cameras and small apertures



i mean what is so hard to understand?

resolution of a sensor will increase with more pixels as long as diffraction does not kick in as limiting factor. 
once diffraction limits the resolution more pixel will not result in more detail.
because the pixels are then smaller then the airy circle. 

while the diffraction limit is not reached on todays fullframe cameras when using big apertures it is an problem with small apertures.
unfortunately when you shot landscapes you often want small apertures (see ansel adams when you donÂ´t know why  ).

so if a 21 megapixel sensor is already diffraction limited at, lets say, f16.
then it begs the question what is a 36 megapixel sensor worth for you when you need small apertures?


----------



## torger (Nov 30, 2011)

Professional landscape photographers do care about diffraction optimum detail etc. What they don't do is to let it take over, that is not taking a great picture because it cannot be made at the highest possible resolution.

When working with a high res system not all of the pictures you make get to the peak what the system can do resolution-wise. Technically it's all about making the "perfect compromise", how to get the best possible technical quality out of the composition you have chosen. Sometimes the composition (and weather conditions) does not allow the system to work at its peak, but if it will be a great picture, just shoot.

About the diffraction discussion -- it is not a gating limit it is a soft onset and can be reversed to some extent with deconvolution. Tilting and focus stacking is other ways to fight the problem. Also high res photographers are rarely fundamentalists when it comes to DoF -- rather have one important part of the picture tack sharp and let the rest be reasonably sharp, but at close range detectable less sharp. This way you don't need f/32 on all your pictures , and the resolution is appreciated anyway.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

torger said:


> Professional landscape photographers do care about diffraction optimum detail etc. What they don't do is to let it take over, that is not taking a great picture because it cannot be made at the highest possible resolution.



right, thatÂ´s what im saying.
when david noton or ansel adams need(ed) a small aperture they use(d) it. 

in the end the motive matters not the best possible resolution.




> For all we know, he's shooting at f/22 with a MFDB. A quick browse of his website does not show any mention of gear.



well i know all his books and videos and he is shoothing 35mm most of the time and some MF.
nikon film then canon digital.

from his website: 



> Over the years Iâ€™ve used all sorts of cameras and formats. On the 35mm front I started with the Olympus OM system, which was a delightfully compact set up with good optics. Olympus abandoned the professional market though and the later OM 3 & 4s were not reliable. When my OM3 locked up on me whilst trekking in northern Thailand in 1992 I made the decision to switch to Nikon. My Nikon F4 and lenses took a swim in the sea off Godrevy Point in Cornwall in 1995 when a monster wave engulfed me so I took the opportunity to update to the F5. This camera was my workhorse for 10 years; I had two bodies, which never missed a beat in my countless journeys to the four corners of the globe. In my opinion itâ€™s the best film SLR ever made; tough, reliable, with excellent metering and simple to use. In March 2005 I made the big change to digital capture and so followed a reluctant switch to the Canon EOS 1Ds mkII, (see Despatches August 2005). When I was a student virtually all pros used Nikon, but over the last 10 years Canon seem to have stolen a march on them. Nikon have been playing catch up to Canonâ€™s trailblazing, particularly with digital cameras. Nikonâ€™s insistence on using a â€˜half frameâ€™ image size in their DSLRs lost them many loyal customers, myself included. The EOS 1Ds mkII has proved to be a phenomenally flexible and reliable camera over the last 3 years of travel. I am now a complete digital convert. The quality the full frame Canon has produced is very impressive, superior to medium format film in my opinion. Iâ€™ve now upgraded to the 21.1 megapixel EOS 1Ds mkIII.


----------



## King Conquer (Nov 30, 2011)

sticking with MKII.


----------



## UncleFester (Nov 30, 2011)

It's *than* and not *then*. And no, my cameras just sit except for when I pick them up to pet them and dream about being a *real* photographer like you. 



Canon-F1 said:


> UncleFester said:
> 
> 
> > Picture this (no pun): you shot your model from the waste up but you want just a head shot for what ever reason. But you're effed because your camera is no longer a 21 but an 18. That would suck.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Picture this (no pun): you shot your model from the waste up but you want just a head shot for what ever reason. But you're effed because your camera is no longer a 21 but an 18. That would suck.



I bet all those photographers using a D700 are doubly effed, right? I guess it must be true that Nikon photographers are just better, because with only 12 MP they can never, ever crop a shot... :


----------



## dgb (Nov 30, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Isaac said:
> 
> 
> > 3. How many mp does someone really need truthfully?
> ...


the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um. Pixel size on an 18mp Full Frame sensor is about the same as on a 40mp 645D (around 7um).

Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm glad to see how much interest the 5DIII still seems to be getting. I am not forcasting or even expecting. What I am doing is stating what will make be buy a new Canon camera. I have all the x0D bodies except the 30D, and both the 5D and 5DMK2. I was hoping that the 1DX was at least 21 MP but that is not to be yet. I do lanscapes, sea scapes, and wildlife photographic prints up to 2x3 feet. I want to use digital and don't want the hassle of medium format backs. I've made a significant investment in Canon lenses so I'm not planning on jumping ship but I have started shooting with a Nikon for test purposes. Of course Canon will do whatever it feels is right for their business but I want two things from the next 5D ???? that I will buy. 30+ MP so I can crop wildlife and print even larger wall sized prints. I would like noise to be somewhat better than the current 5D2 but for me, the 5D2 is very good right now. But I would like focusing like the 7D and since they have already produced it with the 7D I couldn't understand technically why this shouldn't be a base requirement for the new 5D ????. These are my requirements. I will wait as long as I have to. For my compact I have the G10 for my pocket that I only shoot at ISO 80 and I can make very nice 16x20 prints. Message: I skipped the G11 and G12. As long as what I have works I will use what I have and not wait for Canon. I am very pleased with the 5DMK2. I look forward to an "Improved" 5DMK3. I may have a long wait - time will tell.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

dgb said:


> the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
> ...
> Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.



donÂ´t bother... that info is wasted on most of the readers here.
they will repeat and repeat and repeat that they need 30 or more megapixel on a FF camera. 8)



Isaac said:


> Go look at the Imaging Resource 645D samples and tell me again that more MP are bad. There is a completely new dimension of detail in those studio samples. They reveal textures and fine details that don't show up on any current DSLR.



makes you think if this guy noticed that the 645D has a medium format sensor...... :


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 30, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> Fandongo said:
> 
> 
> > [The follow focus is more a pipe dream.
> ...




Americans are on a ridiculous jobs kick.
Not to be confused with the Jobs kick.

They don't care how much better a computer can do the same job.
They want jobs so bad they're willing to lose their jobs to protest the lack of jobs.
Jobs jobs jobs, I created 2,000 jobs.

It doesn't make sense, people should protest the existence of inverse pyramid organisations - particular those of the government's own making and managing.
Not reward with praise the existence of fundamentally flawed futile jobs.

Studios spend cash like it's candy.
Arri knows this, and charges accordingly.
In DSLR replacing 35mm film land, $3500 for a follow focus is not OK.
In the scope of their absurd expenditures, an extra body to focus is nothing.
It's easy to see how it snowballs. If a camera costs more than a house...several houses with all the film once it's all done, just for the technical ability to roll film.
Everything has to be perfect along the way, and they all get hired to do their one thing.
Don't even look into permits anywhere near LA... Outrageous.

Cutting the focus, and keeping ridiculously fancy catering, tons of grips, and 100 PAs would be unlikely.
If they switch to these cameras they might start cutting all of the slack...
It'll get the snowball rolling the other way.
People might start screaming "off with their heads"
I don't see Hollywood dropping the focus puller or any set slaves, even after it becomes commonplace.

Because of the inherent advantage that kind of functionality would give the indy...
There's no way they'll release it any time soon.
It puts too many jobs in danger.

Of course, they're more than welcome to prove me wrong.
Hopefully with the 4k DSLR.

Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Scorsese are producing kids movies.
G movies pull almost unfair profits.
They're preparing for rocky waters that the imminent over-saturation will cause, while making things an indy CAN'T do by himself with a 5d.
Of course, nobody with just a 5d and some cfls/leds has proven that they can do Scorsese or Jackson.
Yet.

Consider how absurdly easy editing has become... And so smooth.
Millions of dollars couldn't get 3 years ago what kids have on their quad core Macbook Pro with Adobe.

"What's it like to ONLY be a director?" 
- a 12 year old kid asks Scorsese in 2014 after shooting a movie in 2 days that generates blockbuster revenue.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2011)

18-24mp is enough for a FF body with todays technology. However, better DR and higher ISO performance can be achieved, and I'd pay for that. I don't take video, I've done that, and know the professional level video takes a lot more than just a camera body and lenses, its only 20% of the cost.

If they had good autofocus during video so that it could be used more like a camcorder, it would be useful for informal videos like shooting the kids soccer games, or other quickly moving subjects.

I admire those with the patience to master Canon DSLR video capabilities, and, I use them occasionally, but my primary use is still images.


----------



## minestrone (Nov 30, 2011)

That's NOT GOOD. 

I didn't wait 3+ Years for Canon to go backwards in the Megapixel count. I own a 5D Mark II and was really interested in seeing a 30MP or more 5DMIII.

All that talk about lenses not being able to handle more than 18MP right now is tech talk with no really solid evidence to back it up. I'm using a 5DMII at 21MP and shooting Macros and Landscapes and all my L-Lenses seem to be holding up just fine. Perfectly fine. 

If you don't want more than 18MP just set your 5D Mark II to a smaller RAW file. 

I often have requests to do huge landscapes and wedding portaits, even the occassional product shot which can be no less than 21MP for my clients. In fact, most of my clients are use to going with guys using Medium Format. But I also work at *ony and our product shots, almost 100% of them are now shot on the 5D Mark II. And again for lenses that aren't able to handle more than 18MP of detail, these photos come out amazingly. I'm not talking about 10-20 product shots a week, *ONY has hundreds taken of upcoming products each month by industry pros using the 5DMII. 

Bottom line is, I've always been annoyed by people screaming for lower megapixel and higher ISO. I'd demand BOTH instead of picking one. It can't be done? I dunno we'll see. Either way, extremely disappointed by an 18MP 5DMIII.


----------



## lol (Nov 30, 2011)

From my perspective, take the 7D sensor which is already "good enough" and scale it up for about 46MP. That'll be me done 

And before you ask, I often need to crop the 7D output anyway, so having a bigger sensor with the same density would effectively extend the wide end of my existing lenses. And before you go there, I'm not asking for 46MP at 8fps! Just don't drop below 3fps and I'm happy.

Diffraction - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor. It's all about final output, and it is a lot easier for me to work on higher starting resolutions. Also don't forget we're using bayer colour filter sensors and anti-aliasing filters on top of that, so the actual colour resolution is far below the nominal MP count suggests. Having much more MP would help offset those effects until everyone has a foveon like sensor.


----------



## UncleFester (Nov 30, 2011)

Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war. 



Canon-F1 said:


> K
> oh du hast einen fehler in meinem beitrag gefunden, gratulation!
> sind sicherlich noch viel mehr drin.
> nÃ¤chstes mal kÃ¶nnen wir uns auf deutsch, franzoesisch oder italienisch unterhalten.
> ...


----------



## CowGummy (Nov 30, 2011)

Yikes... sounds like things are getting a bit too hot in here.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Nov 30, 2011)

OK...totally confused!!! From what I am reading, I can surmise:

[list type=decimal]
[*]No professional photographer is using a Nikon D700 for landscape and/or wedding photography where photos need to be blown up to a large size (16-inch or larger)
[*]Landscape photographers need a very high resolution because they print at really huge sizes and/or crop so much that they end up with the middle of the image only
[*]People are habitually pixel peeping billboard sized prints
[/list]

Maybe someone can help explain? I was always under the impression that beyond a particular size, the larger you print the lower the DPI requirement. A 5DII has just over 5000 pixels in the horizontal dimension. So, if you are printing a billboard, the typical resolution is 30DPI and that will give you an image that can be 166 inches wide. So why the need for insane MP resolutions? And if you are printing at smaller sizes, how much does 600 DPI really improve things versus 300 DPI?


----------



## Isaac (Nov 30, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> dgb said:
> 
> 
> > the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
> ...



Sorry, you quoted something I didn't say. I never made any post regarding 645D etc.


----------



## dgb (Nov 30, 2011)

Isaac said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > dgb said:
> ...



I think something got lost in all the quoting of quoting. What I originally quoted was you questioning "how many megapixels do you need anyway"


----------



## moreorless (Nov 30, 2011)

dgb said:


> the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um. Pixel size on an 18mp Full Frame sensor is about the same as on a 40mp 645D (around 7um).
> 
> Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.



As I understood it though the changes in sensor size and so appatures used to get the same DOF effectively even out the effects of difftraction. That is for a given megapixel count and field of view diffraction will be at the same level at the same DOF no matter the sensor size. That doesnt of course mean that image quality will be the same given that the smaller FF lens and pixels have to work harder but difftraction isnt as I understand it an issue.


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 30, 2011)

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.


----------



## UncleFester (Nov 30, 2011)

Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours 

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"


----------



## ghosh9691 (Nov 30, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:
> 
> Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
> Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
> Ansel Adams still rocks.



And those that want the exact megapixels as you are all Ansel Adams!


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 30, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours
> 
> "WE'RE SINKING!!!"



It's a tough crowd out there...


----------



## KacperP (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, I'm in the camp of those pleased that Canon withdrawn from MP race and went after better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. That's where progress was slow.
IQ from higher pixel count is partially dampened by lenses, but DR and ISO performance is not.
High megapixel landscapes? I still would prefer better DR + ISO and keep stitching mulitiple photos.


----------



## mccrum (Nov 30, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:
> 
> Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
> Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
> Ansel Adams still rocks.


Best summary ever. Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.


----------



## Justin (Nov 30, 2011)

Thanks! Agreed this is the straight dope summary. I almost [email protected] a brick at this CR1 rumor, then watched the video of the C300 below and got super excited about super high ISO. Then I remembered that I suck at video production and prefer taking stills. Back to being pissed off about how Canon are somehow now afraid of megapixels. Grrr. I smell Canon marketing sh!t and we're all about to step in it. 



mccrum said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:
> ...


----------



## AJ (Nov 30, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:
> 
> Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
> Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
> Ansel Adams still rocks.



I didn't wade through all of it.

I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3. Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away? Doesn't make sense to me. I'm still thinking 36 Mpix. Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.

FWIW, the diffraction thing. 36 mpix is the same pixel density as 14 mpix on crop. So from my experience with 18 mpix and 10 mpix crop sensors: you're good at f/6.3, okay at f/8. At f/11 you start to see degradation and f/16 is for smaller prints only.

People have fretted about the diffraction thing every time a new crop sensor has come out. IMHO 36 FF (and 14 mpix crop) is just about optimal, and beyond that, you start to get into diminishing returns.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

> All that talk about lenses not being able to handle more than 18MP right now is tech talk with no really solid evidence to back it up. I'm using a 5DMII at 21MP and shooting Macros and Landscapes and all my L-Lenses seem to be holding up just fine. Perfectly fine.



sure 18 MP for a FF sensor is not too much.
21-24 MP would be fine for me too.

but 36MP and above on a FF sensor.... as i wrote makes no sense for me when using small apertures. 

i guess canon engineers know it better then forum members and thats why they choose 18MP.



minestrone said:


> Bottom line is, I've always been annoyed by people screaming for lower megapixel and higher ISO. I'd demand BOTH instead of picking one.
> Either way, extremely disappointed by an 18MP 5DMIII.



and i want to travel faster then light.

and i want a sensor that is not affected by lousy physics.
i mean who make this rules for nature anyway?
why do we have a diffraction limit?

i want a FF sensor with 60MP that has a better resolution then what is physical possible at f16.
dissapointed by the law of physics.....


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

lol said:


> Diffraction - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor.



well but you donÂ´t get any better either. when you reached it.
you only waste storage space then.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.



vietnam? 
or the war against saudi arabian airplane pilots?

and who is "we"?

and what has it to do with canon?


----------



## Window Frame (Nov 30, 2011)

What does "cleaning up" mean? As far as video is concerned, I am a bit lost as to what they're going to do with the 5D MKIII. Maybe it will be like the 1DX?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.




tu non hai capito un sola parola.....idiot.. giusto?


----------



## lol (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > Diffraction - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor.
> ...


If you always shoot diffraction limited, that might be the case. But who does that? You have more potential most of the time.


----------



## arussarts (Nov 30, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:
> 
> Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
> Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
> Ansel Adams still rocks.



AWESOME summary! Thanks for the truth and levity.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.



The 7D's pixel pitch is smaller than the pixel pitch would be for a 36 MP FF sensor, and it yields resolution gains over 12 MP APS-C sensors at landscape apertures. I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.



> most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
> and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.



Learn and use your hyperfocal distances.


----------



## Picsfor (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, i've got a couple of genuine 21mp 5D2's - 
any one want to make me an offer so i can trade in for a single 1DX? 

One of them is just 3 months old with less than 300 shot on the clock!
The other comes with battery grip - and both are fitted with the gridded focusing screen

As said, 21mp is more than enough for me, and i can afford to drop a couple!


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> the probelm is you donÂ´t understand what im saying.
> the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just *MORE* nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor. :



Not every landscape is shot at f/16 or f/22. Using hyperfocal focusing, T/S lenses, or focus stacking one can shoot at apertures which yield more detail.

Diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for the same desired FoV and DoF. I've spent 2 years getting a true 18 MP out of a 7D while shooting landscapes with near foreground objects, typically just by using nothing more complicated than hyperfocal focusing. That means I could get a true 45 MP just as often out of FF if such a sensor was available. Canon's T/S lenses open even more opportunities for shooting at optimum apertures yet having everything in focus from very near to infinity.

I should also point out, since this discussion includes what is/is not the sweet spot of a lens, that the final resolution of any system is not bound in the way most people think. Most people think there's a fixed number for, say, a lens at a given aperture, and if that number is lower than the sensor number then that's the final resolution. Nope. I would have to look up the exact formula, but resolution is:

* Always less than the weakest part of the system.

* Comes closer to approaching the weakest part as other parts increase.

If your lens MTF50 resolution is 60 lpmm and your sensor is 80 lpmm, final resolution will always be <60 lpmm, but increasing sensor resolution even further will actually help you get closer to 60 lpmm.

Resolution is also an MTF curve, not a single number, and modern software is exceptionally good at increasing MTF in post (sharpening). So if you're theorizing about maximum MP's from a sensor based on MTF50 numbers for a lens, you are way off what's possible.


----------



## ejenner (Nov 30, 2011)

Justin said:


> Thanks! Agreed this is the straight dope summary. I almost [email protected] a brick at this CR1 rumor, then watched the video of the C300 below and got super excited about super high ISO. Then I remembered that I suck at video production and prefer taking stills. Back to being pissed off about how Canon are somehow now afraid of megapixels. Grrr. I smell Canon marketing sh!t and we're all about to step in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, but even looking at the 1Dx and the rhetoric of consolidating the 1D line, there it this uneasy feeling of a shift away from what a landscape photographer might want. That's why any post like the OP hits some raw nerves. One reason I decided to buy a 5DII recently, rather than wait any longer for the mythical Mk III. Even if the sensor makes most people happy or is much 'better' - whatever that means, I'll bet the functionality is no better for landscapes (or more precisely working on a tripod). Perhaps a somewhat better AF system - but for what? Sports? Action? - OK more/better AF points would be nice for shooting portraits at f1.4 but that's about it as far as I am concerned.

And sod the MP. There are good reasons to have 36MP and good reasons to have 12MP and everything in-between. But for a MkIII I don't see Canon sacrificing high ISO IQ in a 5D series camera. Wonder which one would get the best DxO score for the same technology?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.



and how is that possible when you use small apertures?
when you have a diffraction limit already for 21 megapixel FF sensors at f13.

lets say i want everything from 1m to infinity in focus (not uncommon for landscape images as i want foreground interest), even with hyperfocal distance i need f16 for a 24mm lens on a FF body.




> I should also point out, since this discussion includes what is/is not the sweet spot of a lens, that the final resolution of any system is not bound in the way most people think. Most people think there's a fixed number for, say, a lens at a given aperture, and if that number is lower than the sensor number then that's the final resolution. Nope. I would have to look up the exact formula, but resolution is:



you canÂ´t resolve smaller details then the size of the airy circle.
thatÂ´s simple, no need to discuss this.
and that maximum has nothing to do with lens quality or other things... itÂ´s pure physics.
lens quality will only reduce this maximum of possible resolution.

so if you make your pixels smaller then this airy circle and you use a aperture where the airy circle is bigger ... you gain nothing then useless data.

you agree or not?


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 30, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.
> ...



Did you even read the entire post?



> i want everything from 1m to infinity in focus (not uncommon for landscape images as i want forground interest).
> even with hyperfocal distance i need f16 for a 24mm lens on a FF body.



f/11 should work actually. But does every landscape you shoot really need DoF from 1m to infinity? Even when I get on top of foreground elements I'm usually further than 1m, sensor to nearest element.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

> Did you even read the entire post?



yeah yeah your workarounds are nice. 
tilt shift lenses, focus stacking. but you also know that has downsides as well.

to be honest i would prefer to spend money on a MF camera.



dtaylor said:


> f/11 should work actually.



that would be a near limit of 1.62m if my tables are correct.



> But does every landscape you shoot really need DoF from 1m to infinity?



of course not.
thatÂ´s one example where i use a small aperture.
one other example is macro shots.

what i think is that the "leaves counter" are to enthusiastic when it comes to more MP. 
itÂ´s not as if you get the 36MP for free.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 30, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> > Did you even read the entire post?
> 
> 
> 
> yeah yeah your workarounds are nice.



They're not just nice, they work. If I could buy a 36 MP DSLR and a T/S lens and consistently produce larger, more detailed prints then I can now for less then I would have to spend on a MF body alone, why wouldn't I?

And again I will point out that diffraction does not hit any format more than any other, and I don't often jump through special hoops to get the full 18 MP out of APS-C. That means I could be getting 45 MP out of FF if it was available.



dtaylor said:


> f/11 should work actually.



that would be a near limit of 1.62m if my tables are correct.[/quote]

DoF calculator shows f/11 would just work with a focus distance of 5.7 ft. In the field it's not always possible to be so precise so you would probably be at f/13 for that example. But it is an extreme example.



> what i think is that the "leaves counter" are to enthusiastic when it comes to more MP.
> itÂ´s not as if you get the 36MP for free.



I'm not counting leaves. I want larger prints and I'm on a budget.


----------



## UncleFester (Dec 1, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> UncleFester said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.
> ...



Name callin' now, eh? Tsk tsk.

Not a word of it, to answer your question. Let me guess...23, 24ish?


----------



## dealaddict (Dec 1, 2011)

Although I like it to be 18MP, I find it hard to believe. In fact, i don't think Canon will "go backwards" to put a sensor with less resolution than today. I think at the minimum, they will keep it the same. Unless they want to reduce the resolution to increase the burst rate, which also unlikely IMO. I think the weakest link of the 5D2 compared to Nikon D700 is the AF. If Canon can keep resolution the same, improve the high ISO noise further, and improve the AF, then it is good for me.


----------



## samueljay (Dec 1, 2011)

I still don't understand the people who are saying that putting Auto Focus into movie mode will make it's way into Hollywood, and make the role of a focus puller redundant. In films you need to have someone pulling focus because the focal point often changes within the one shot, how can auto focus know when to pull from person A to person B when it's their turn to be in focus? Unless it all becomes electronic and you can pull focus without actually turning the focus ring, you would still need someone to select the focal point, which wouldn't get rid of a focus puller, just change the way they do things.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Dec 1, 2011)

There's no substitue for a good manual focus pull, especially in Cinema. It would be hard for a computer to replicate

With that said, Auto focus in video has it's place also. For example, I was doing this macro video shot of these little crabs running around. It was really had to manually focus because they were moving so fast. That's when autofocus might be a benefit.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 1, 2011)

I usually shoot my 7D around f1.4-5.6. If shooting landscape, I may shoot 8-11. But that is it. I really don't need to shoot super high f-stops unless I want to (waterfalls at day time with a polarizer...) 

The point very simply is, that I really do need cropping power, and the more the merrier. 24-28mp would be the jam! Those who don't want that big a file can shoot mRaw! And those who want smaller mp count do have a D300s available... ;D


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 1, 2011)

If I were a photojournalist, I would be interested in the 1Dx. If I were a wedding phorographer, I would be interested in the 1Dx. Since I am a wildlife and nature guy with a cheap bent and a love for hand-holding, I love my 7D and its crop sensor. I hope that the megapixels grow evermore and ever more. I would lose My 300 2.8 would be much shorter on a 1Dx...


----------



## moreorless (Dec 1, 2011)

AJ said:


> I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3. Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away? Doesn't make sense to me. I'm still thinking 36 Mpix. Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.



The 1DX is in rather a different situation to the 1Ds mk3/5D mk2 though, the flagship body this time is being marketed more to a sports/jurno/wildlife crowd with both FPS and AF being big selling points aswell as the sensor

A 5D mk3 with 18 megapixels, and maybe marginal improvements in AF and FPS sold relatively cheaply wouldnt really be much of an alternative to the 1DX for those users. I could see it being very sucessful at the lower end of the market aswell since combined with a 24-105 it would provide a very versatile system without the need for large appatures.

I do have trouble believing that Canon will just give up on megapixels though given that they've released a number of lenses clearly geared to the studio/landscape market(and indeed to coping with the effects of difftraction) in recent years such as the new versions of the 14mm and the TSE's. The problem I'd say might be that trying to please former 1Ds users and FF newbies with a single body is simpley not possible. If Canon were to fudge it then they could end up with a camera too expensive to appeal to the lower end of the market and not high spec enough for the higher end.

The 1DX to me seemed like less an effort to merge the 1D userbase and more an effort to merge the sports, jurno,wildlife userbase onto one body(and get them all buying more expensive lenses). I could see Canon doing the same thing with the landscape/studio market aswell, ditch the dual grip and high end AF from the 1Ds that most of those users don't need and give them a 5D sized body with 1D build, a 100% viewfinder and high megapixel count that they do at a cheaper price, but still one significantly more than tradisional 5D levels.


----------



## Gcon (Dec 1, 2011)

I wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII is just a incremental bump in AF, weather sealing and a "downgrade" to the 18MP sensor to save costs rather than developing a whole new sensor.

The only fly in the ointment with this theory is the purported 36MP in the Nikon D800. Really though is video that big a market that they need dedicated video cameras and bang on about video in the stills cameras? As a stills-only landscape shooter I'm not feeling the love from Canon - seriously thinking of going the Nikon way with a D800 if they don't look after me.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 1, 2011)

Gcon said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII is just a incremental bump in AF, weather sealing and a "downgrade" to the 18MP sensor to save costs rather than developing a whole new sensor.
> 
> The only fly in the ointment with this theory is the purported 36MP in the Nikon D800. Really though is video that big a market that they need dedicated video cameras and bang on about video in the stills cameras? As a stills-only landscape shooter I'm not feeling the love from Canon - seriously thinking of going the Nikon way with a D800 if they don't look after me.



What is hilarious is that Nikon was the low MP one (D700 only 12MP!!! D300s only 12MP!!!). Now Canon wants to jump on the bandwagon Nikon is leaving!?!?!

Technology advances. And will continue to advance. And hopefully, the pixel count will decide to advance in the next offings instead of fail backwards. A 5d mkII is interesting to me. An 18 MP 5D would be boring and useless to me. And a less than 18 MP 7D anathema!

So, anyway, it will be interesting to see where this will go... But, seriously, I can totally see a whole lot of people jumping to the darkside if the 5D3 has only 18MP...


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 1, 2011)

What I find clear from this conversation is that two 5D sized cameras are needed. And not because they are actually needed IMO, but because that's what people seem to be demanding.

One group wants 36mp FF images, and are saying they care about that more than bleeding edge ISO performance, which became possible by keeping the pixel size larger which requires lower mp total. This same group doesn't seem to care about video features either. Makes perfect sense then to just give them what they want... Maybe this can be done cheaper, perhaps not. I suspect there is very little if any actual cost savings here but perhaps there is a way.

Smaller form factor 5D sized body with ISO improvements and improved generation 2 video, in FF, and you have the other group covered nicely and I suspect this is also what all the 'new' customers that gathered to the 5D out of no-where during the video boom and others as well have come to expect out of a next-gen replacement.

Between the two, I'll take the second one. I don't care if it comes out in early 2012 or not for another year, that bit really doesn't make or break anything for me.

Problem solved, close the conversation. lol.


----------



## UncleFester (Dec 1, 2011)

Not everybody shoots the same. Some could use more data, others find they could use better iso performance.

I, for one, don't see an iso problem with the current model. It's an incredible performing cam, even w/o lights, and even better with.

However, the way *I* shoot, more megapixels really frees up my creativity in pp. I'm now used to it and more will take me a step further. Providing IQ follows.


----------



## torger (Dec 1, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> What I find clear from this conversation is that two 5D sized cameras are needed.



I agree. Or they could make a "1DXs", a high res version of 1DX, and make 5Dmk3 more consumer-like, smaller body etc. I don't think they can in the long term ignore the professionals that seek a 135 system that can fulfill their medium format needs, if Nikon will provide. There are 1DsIII users (studio, landscape ,architecture) out there wondering if Canon are abandoning their market just because their share is smaller. There is a value in being a complete provider of camera equipment, that is having a product for all segments and uses, rather than just the best selling categories (I guess then they would only do compacts...).

For me personally (I'm an amateur) I'd like to see a high res camera a bit higher end than current 5Dmk2 (which I find a bit toyishly built, I like the 7D build more), but less than 1DX to not make it too expensive. Say a price around $3500 - $4000, the extra dollars would pay for build quality and ergonomics.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 1, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> One group wants 36mp FF images, and are saying they care about that more than bleeding edge ISO performance... This same group doesn't seem to care about video features either.
> 
> Smaller form factor 5D sized body with ISO improvements and improved generation 2 video, in FF, and you have the other group covered nicely and I suspect this is also what all the 'new' customers that gathered to the 5D out of no-where during the video boom and others as well have come to expect out of a next-gen replacement.



So which will be called the 5D3, and which the 2/3/4D? (i'd say 5D3 should be the high-iso see in the dark, 3D should be the Megapixel monster). And which will be priced as what? (More importantly, what happens if the 36MP shrinks to a better-looking file than the 18MP at the same ISO?)

Speaking of which, has anyone shrunk a 24MP D3X photo to the same size as a 12MP D3s and made any comparisons?


----------



## torger (Dec 1, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Speaking of which, has anyone shrunk a 24MP D3X photo to the same size as a 12MP D3s and made any comparisons?



You can look at dxomark and select "print" in comparison mode to get that type of comparison. D3x is then better at base ISO, and about 2/3 stop worse at high ISO. The real use of high ISO performance is however generally not slightly less noise in the range ISO200-ISO3200, but that you can get useful pictures at and above ISO6400. D3s can produce decent pictures at ISO25600, which is valuable for photojournalism etc.


----------



## EOS 5D Mark III (Dec 1, 2011)

_"The camera will be no more than 18mp. It was mentioned not to expect a big mp camera from Canon in the immediate future."_

So what is "immediate future" for Canon? I don't see a launch of the EOS 5D Mark III until september-october 2012. I don't call that "immediate future".


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 1, 2011)

I don't care which is called what myself, no matter, various names can be anywhere from 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D or even something like 5.5D or 5Ds depending on where they want to stick it. I really am geared up for a body in a 5D size though, I don't appreciate the 1DX size, at all, (but I do like dual card-slots), otherwise the 1DX features are more or less what I am after, but the price and size is not. Prices can come down, the size is permanent... I do need both stills and video in one camera, if I didn't, I wouldn't even be here. I also need two cameras, but both of which do stills and video, and work with one set of lenses. I also want the build quality to be good on both bodies but I imagine this can be customized (voiding warranty) after the fact but that seems kind of, not so much fun. It's going to be interesting seeing what they finally come up with, my guess, is that there is too much money for them to be making overall, lens sales included, to want to disappoint anybody and I'm hesitantly getting some confidence back after the C300 announcement that Canon won't disappoint with the new product announcements in 2012. One thing, if they do make two 5D sized cameras, they should probably let both camps know at the same time or people are going to flip out and this thread has made that obvious.


----------



## te4o (Dec 1, 2011)

We can make this thread even 20 pages and there will still be NO CAMERA announced... :-\
And we can argue about the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in MPs and ISOs and landscapes but there are many gusto's and still NO CAMERA... :-\
So, better discuss more real things which make sense and have a teaching impulse, Canon will do their job some day and deliver a low light DSLR AND a High MP DSLR so we can all have one of each .


----------



## KeithR (Dec 1, 2011)

mitchell3417 said:


> I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of less megapixels and better iso


Even though the one has sweet FA to to with the other...


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 1, 2011)

hutjeflut said:


> i personaly dont really mind more megapixels however seeing the lenses at the moment cant deliver enough detail for the 18+ mp sensors its a good point to stick to 18MP sensors for a year and perfect those.
> maby if they find a way to imporve lenses further there is a point in adding more megapixels for this cheapass cropfreak.



I've heard this before and find it hard to believe. Do you have any data to back up that claim? The top shelf lenses today have (give or take) been around for decades in one way or another and have always been resolving high enough for film. How could they be not good enough for 18 or 21 or whatever MP sensors? There are certainly many issues today that could see improvement. Lens quality doesn't seem to be one of them really to me (other than the fact that we're pretty much married to AF these days and that lenses aren't that haptically appealing anymore).

There is a reason by the way why Leica decided to develop M-series cameras that take all of their old lenses. Seems to work really great.


----------



## dgb (Dec 1, 2011)

KeithR said:


> mitchell3417 said:
> 
> 
> > I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of less megapixels and better iso
> ...



That's kind of the point of all this talk about MPs , one has everything to do with the other.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 1, 2011)

te4o said:


> We can make this thread even 20 pages and there will still be NO CAMERA announced... :-\
> And we can argue about the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in MPs and ISOs and landscapes but there are many gusto's and still NO CAMERA... :-\
> So, better discuss more real things which make sense and have a teaching impulse, Canon will do their job some day and deliver a low light DSLR AND a High MP DSLR so we can all have one of each .



My path to 7D High ISO ultra performance is to shoot at 6400, noise process it, and downres it, and glory at the wonders....

But I do marvel at how a CR1 managed to get 11 pages in like 2 days...


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 1, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> te4o said:
> 
> 
> > We can make this thread even 20 pages and there will still be NO CAMERA announced... :-\
> ...



I'd like to give this a go. Normally, it's firm POLICY for me not to touch pics in post, ever.

But I do sometimes want to use high-ISO.

However, I run Linux, and only have (The) Gimp installed. I'd like to do 2x2 pixel binning, for a 4.5MPix
result from my 7D pics.

Anyone know how to do that binning in Gimp?

Thanks.

Martin


----------



## LifeAfter (Dec 1, 2011)

Hi all

I don't know why a 5DII with digic 4 can have 21mp and 3.9/fps (14 bit a/d), and the 5DII would have 18mp digic 5 (perhaps) with 5 or 6 fps (while 7d has 18mp, 8fps two digics)...

I don't know if i'm clear with my English (sorry), but if it's true (the rumor) than it should have a hell of a DR and NOISELESS ISO, it should really be a great step forward, otherwise there isn't any logic to all of this

thank you


----------



## Radiating (Dec 1, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > i personaly dont really mind more megapixels however seeing the lenses at the moment cant deliver enough detail for the 18+ mp sensors its a good point to stick to 18MP sensors for a year and perfect those.
> ...



All you have to do is look at MTF data taken from test charts. The simple fact that we can even get an MTF figure by shooting a test chart with a camera means that the lens at some point cannot out resolve the sensor. MTF is actually a measure of resolution, just like megapixels, and you can convert between the two without much difficulty. If you look at the MTF data at the mid frame and use that as a marker for the whole lens you will find that many Canon zoom lenses can only resolve 10-18 megapixels at their sweet spot a kit lens generally resolves 10 and an L lens or some high end non-L lenes resolves 16.5-18. Many Canon prime lenses also only resolve 18 megapixels. ONLY a very select few super expensive lenses resolve more and are probably good for 30-40 MP, which we can figure out by looking at APS-C test charts.

The sharpness of a good lens is usually relatively consistent over the image circle, except at the very corners. The sharpness tends to vary less than 30% across the vast majority of the frame, so there are benefits to having more mexapixels to some of the image, but the majority of it will not benefit. Around 24 megapixels you see less than around 90% of the frame gaining from additional resolution.

Canon would not benefit from going up in megapixels until it introduces a new series of primes and normal zooms for full frame. They have the technology to make these high resolution lenses, but simply do not have products capable of doing the job. 

I was personally hoping that Canon would introduce a much sharper line of lenses along with pushing the megapixels higher but obviously that's not been the case.

With the current state of the Canon lens line up I think that an 18 MP camera with much better image quality in a 5D III is the best solution.


----------



## jbwise01 (Dec 1, 2011)

Itâ€™s quite clear with demonstrated ISO capabilities of the c300 are quite important. It seams that the rumor alludes to these High ISO performance features to be a major part of the 5D MIII.

Why doesn't everyone understand that improving the ISO performance is a HUG HUGE accomplishment? 

High ISO performance is not just about shooting in low light. Let relax and remember exactly what ISO is all aboutâ€¦ speed

Higher ISO means faster shutter speeds and larger DOF which increase the crispness and clarity of a photo under challenging conditions. High MP are surely the next step, but what MOST people complaining about megapixels donâ€™t get is that increasing the megapixel count is NOT as important or as useful as increasing the ISO capabilities, and for that reason the MP jump will not come after the5D III.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Dec 1, 2011)

For a lot of people high ISO means nothing. Landscape and studio photographers, barring extremely fringe situations will never use an ISO setting above the base or L value.


----------



## torger (Dec 1, 2011)

Radiating said:


> With the current state of the Canon lens line up I think that an 18 MP camera with much better image quality in a 5D III is the best solution.



It depends on what you expect. A 7D shows how the center portion will look of a 46 megapixel full-frame sensor. You will see dropoff in the corners, especially at large apertures of course, but at say f/8 you'll see good performance from many current lenses.

Here's a few example of current lenses that I think would work well with a high resolution sensor (in the 36 - 48 mp range):
TS-E 17, TS-E 24 II, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, TS-E 90, 100/2, 135/2, 70-200/2.8 II, 400/5.6, + high end tele lenses. These will provide good corner-to-corner performance at f/8, noticably less sharp when pixel-peeping yes, but no extreme differences. In short DoF photography corner performance is usually not very important. At 36 megapixels the pixel pitch is only 25% smaller than current 5Dmk2, so it is not extreme resolution increase we are talking about. If lenses were really bad at 36 megapixels, it would clearly show already at 21.

Wide angle and standard zooms will probably show the weakest performance (70-200 is a much better performing zoom range), and won't be the choice for a high res photographer. On the wide end we have the new TS-Es which are great, but I'd like to see a new TS-E 45mm, the current is not too good from a high res perspective.

Getting the most out of high res sensor does require expensive lenses on the wide end and on the tele end, but in the range 50 - 100 sharp is cheap.

It is not necessary to limit the sensor to what the worst lenses can provide. There will be binning modes, sRAW etc, for hand-held, high ISO, and less sharp lenses, you won't have to use max resolution when you don't need it.

There's also another aspect - "sharp pixels" (=aliased, jaggies) don't enlarge well. Is is good if the sensor has so high resolution that you get fairly soft pixels which can be stretched around in PP and enlarging without showing any artifacts. Low-res images without AA filter (i e Sigma) is the worst for enlarging.


----------



## jbwise01 (Dec 1, 2011)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> For a lot of people high ISO means nothing. Landscape and studio photographers, barring extremely fringe situations will never use an ISO setting above the base or L value.



I would argue that for the majority of the 5D MIII market, the ISO improvements would be more welcome than increase in MP. Personally, I would rather be able to shoot at ISO 8000 without worrying about noise, that would give me a lot of flexibilty and increase the usablility of my L zooms. Shooting wide open usually is out of the sweet spot for most lenses in terms of sharpness. 

Would I like more MP? Sure, but if I had to choose between the MP and ISO i would choose ISO, everyone is different, but i think there are a lot less large print photos coming out of the curretn 5D cameras than these landscape photographers suggest.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Dec 1, 2011)

Personally, my biggest fear is that Canon would segment out the place that the 5D currently holds. When it came out, it offered a top of the line resolution, low light capability, video features in DSLR form and all that at a reasonable price. This combination is what made the 5D such a hit with an extremely wide variety of users. Now, more than three years later, taking into account the extremely fast pace of progress in electronics, from a technical point of view I don't think it is outrageous to expect a camera that improves on all of the capabilities of the 5DII and maintains the same price. 

On the other hand, from a marketing point of view, I can see Canon wanting to segment out the 5D into an ISO camera, a high MP camera and video camera. And while it depends on exactly how much they would differentiate the products, it would be a disappointment to me if I find myself in the position of having to buy two different bodies to get the features and quality that three years of development could have brought to a single 5D body from a technical point of view.


----------



## spaceheat (Dec 1, 2011)

dilbert said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > i guess canon engineers know it better then forum members and thats why they choose 18MP.
> ...


I remember filling out a survey for Canon this past year that covered these exact topics. One of the questions was something like... What improvement would you like to see most in future camera bodies... Increased Resolution or Increased ISO and Dynamic Range? You had to pick one or the other. You could not answer "both". They also asked some questions about mirrorless systems. For the record, I answered more dynamic range and ISO... even though I only really care about the Dynamic Range. I think the ISO performance of the current generation is fine.

I am guessing that this survey led to their decision to take the path that they have.

I personally would prefer to see them develop a medium to large format solution for everyone crying for increased resolution.


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 1, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> But I do marvel at how a CR1 managed to get 11 pages in like 2 days...



The answer is quite simple - and has been for quite some time.

The 5D2, apparently, seems to have been the most popular and well received digital camera of all time ???

When every thing gets measured against a camera as it does the 5D2, you can expect any upgrade/ future path for such a camera is going to evoke some fairly strong feeling.


The problem is, the camera is so good killed off a whole pro line for Canon.
Nikon have never come close to producing anything that matches it, and often roll out the D3s as "there you go" (does any one ever mention the D3X?)
The video industry discovered they could turn out professional quality staff at a fraction of the price
The large print/ landscape market found a camera that could achieve their needs without paying MF & LF prices

11 pages in 2 days? I think we've had it lightly. All we've had is opinions and techno babble - we haven't even got to ranting and abuse yet! :-X :-X


----------



## Radiating (Dec 1, 2011)

torger said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > With the current state of the Canon lens line up I think that an 18 MP camera with much better image quality in a 5D III is the best solution.
> ...



25% is actually a huge difference. Keep in mind we're talking about area here, the pixels would be 42% smaller. Lenses are already struggeling at 21 megapixels. If you make the pixels 42% smaller the problems will be severe.

That list of high resolution Canon leneses is more or less comprehensive, the 400mm f/5.6 does not belong there, and the TS-E 17 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are limited around 24 MP based on APS-C tests. There are a few other rarer lenses missing from the list, but yes those are the ones one would have to work with, most of which would have to be stopped down. Realistically with a 36mp camera you'd just see etremely marginal benefit outside of the 24mm TS-E, 70-200mm, and the supertelephotos, which isn't very good at all. 

There are definitely some exceptions to the limited resolution of Canon's current lenses and even some cheap lenses the could eek out marginal benefit from a few more MP, but the reasonable conclusion is that the benefit of more resolution is just too marginal at this point. On the other hand more DR and iso has a much much more wide reaching benefit.




> Wide angle and standard zooms will probably show the weakest performance (70-200 is a much better performing zoom range), and won't be the choice for a high res photographer. On the wide end we have the new TS-Es which are great, but I'd like to see a new TS-E 45mm, the current is not too good from a high res perspective.
> 
> Getting the most out of high res sensor does require expensive lenses on the wide end and on the tele end, but in the range 50 - 100 sharp is cheap.
> 
> ...



I think the biggest benefit of going to 36mp would be a 10% or so bump in resolution accross the board by the presumed removal of the AA filter. There are definitely many side benefits to more megapixels. 


The thing is just that even most landscape photographers would have very marginal benefit from a 36mp camera, and going with an 18mp one that has way more DR and iso is much better for everyone.

I personally want Canon to release a 36mp camera even without the right lenses for it because it will drive innovation but if I worked at Canon I would make their 18 mp sensor a priority and the 36mp one a niche product.


----------



## sarangiman (Dec 1, 2011)

> " Canon zoom lenses can only resolve 10-18 megapixels at their sweet spot a kit lens generally resolves 10 and an L lens or some high end non-L lenes resolves 16.5-18. Many Canon prime lenses also only resolve 18 megapixels."



Where are you getting these numbers?

As I understand it, the resolving power of a system is roughly:

1/R(system) = 1/R(sensor) + 1/R(lens)

Hence, increasing the resolution of the sensor without increasing the resolving power of the lens will typically still lead to an increase in resolution of the system until you've reached the point where the resolving power of the lens is severely limiting. If one does a simple plot of this equation (see below), that ends up being when the resolution of one component is an order of magnitude greater than the resolution of the other component. At this point, increasing the resolving power of the higher resolution component leads to severely diminishing returns. See plot below:







So what I'm saying is I seriously doubt Canon's lenses resolve anywhere near 10-fold less than their sensors... which means resolution increases in sensors even without new glass will still lead to increases in MTF.

I hope people remember that just b/c a pixel looks soft on a higher resolution sensor doesn't mean that the increased sampling resolution is useless or detrimental. A higher resolution sensor will always, barring other unforeseen variables, produce at least as sharp as an image as a lower resolution sensor once you've appropriately scaled both images to the same size. 

That being said, I'm more in favor of higher dynamic range sensors & I'm hoping that the tradeoff will be worthwhile in the 1Dx.
Rishi


----------



## torger (Dec 1, 2011)

Radiating said:


> That list of high resolution Canon leneses is more or less comprehensive, the 400mm f/5.6 does not belong there, and the TS-E 17 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are limited around 24 MP based on APS-C tests. There are a few other rarer lenses missing from the list, but yes those are the ones one would have to work with, most of which would have to be stopped down.



How do you define "limited"? 50mm/1.4 limited to 24 MP means that it cannot do more than about 9 megapixels APS-C, that seems to me as a low number. I think 12 megapixels is more reasonable as the breakpoint "of diminishing returns" for APS-C, yielding 31 megapixels fullframe. However, I think one can push farther past this point, perhaps unnecessary to go as far as 7D has gone (46 megapixels fullframe) which I still think is not extreme (I'd say Sony 24 mp APS-C is over the top though), but as said some softness at pixel level is beneficial for post-processing and enlarging. 36 seems perfectly reasonable. I could go higher than that, say 40 and a nice 10 megapixel bin mode for handheld use.

I think it is not really good if the sensor is a limiter in the system. I rather have lens and diffraction being the clear limiters.


----------



## torger (Dec 1, 2011)

To clarify the pp argument. I've been upscaling images some for prints. From that I've come to the conclusion that upsizing software with spline algorithms etc (photozoom etc) does not yield pleasing closeup results, and is also totally unnecessary if the input file has properly outresolved diffraction and/or lens. Then you can upscale to any size you want with normal bicubic scaling, never any artifacts. This is also beneficial in lens distortion correction, rotation and deconvolution sharpening.

Therefore I think it is healthy to have a high resolution sensor, which is pressing somewhat past what the lens can deliver. Based on APS-C measurment results extraploation I would think 36 MP is on the lower end of that scale, ~42 or so being optimal compromise and more than 48 would be unnecessary. Binning modes may benefit from a bit higher resolution though, 48 would give a nice 1/4 12 mp bin mode, I think 12 mp is ideal for hand-held photography (ok I know I said 10 mp in my previous post, but I just changed my mind...  ).


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 1, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> What I find clear from this conversation is that two 5D sized cameras are needed. And not because they are actually needed IMO, but because that's what people seem to be demanding.
> 
> One group wants 36mp FF images, and are saying they care about that more than bleeding edge ISO performance, which became possible by keeping the pixel size larger which requires lower mp total. This same group doesn't seem to care about video features either. Makes perfect sense then to just give them what they want... Maybe this can be done cheaper, perhaps not. I suspect there is very little if any actual cost savings here but perhaps there is a way.
> 
> ...



we can only dream, i would take 1 of each if that was the case and thats why they wont do it unfortunately because that will canabalise 1Dx sales


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 2, 2011)

Canon could indeed make a baby 1DX, but must not make it a 5DIII or a 7DII. And they had better not merge the 5D-7D line into it!

They could call it the 9D. Or a 9DX. Or even 5Dx and 5Ds.


----------



## Blaze (Dec 2, 2011)

Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 2, 2011)

That's what I'm talking about Blaze, with video and FF stills for me though. And my money is reserved precisely for that. They can call it anything.


----------



## stefsan (Dec 2, 2011)

Blaze said:


> Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.



So would I! I'd love to get a camera like that â€“ especially as a landscape shooter who often is in the mountains. I would happily trade in some Megapixels for *very* good ISO performance (clean up to at least ISO 6400) because I quite often have to shoot handheld (sturdy tripods are wonderful when you don't have to carry them through the mountains) and under weather conditions where you don't want to set up your tripod first (wind, rain, snow). For the same reasons I would not want a body with lesser weather sealing than the 7D.


----------



## willhuff.net (Dec 2, 2011)

That is what carbon fiber tripods are for. I spent what was necessary to get a Gitzo after my 8lb tripod was too much for multiday trips up 4,000 feet of vert. It's now down to 2lbs.



stefsan said:


> Blaze said:
> 
> 
> > Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
> ...


----------



## Justin (Dec 2, 2011)

Yes, but attach a good ballhead to it and you've addednearly another 2 lbs. I have a nice gitzo as well, but the ballhead, L-bracket, light tripod combo adds up on climbs. 

On the other hand, maybe we all need to excercise more and then a few extra lbs wouldn't be a problem. 



willhuff.net said:


> That is what carbon fiber tripods are for. I spent what was necessary to get a Gitzo after my 8lb tripod was too much for multiday trips up 4,000 feet of vert. It's now down to 2lbs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stefsan (Dec 2, 2011)

Justin said:


> Yes, but attach a good ballhead to it and you've addednearly another 2 lbs. I have a nice gitzo as well, but the ballhead, L-bracket, light tripod combo adds up on climbs.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe we all need to excercise more and then a few extra lbs wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> ...



The weight is not my main concern here (I too have a carbon fibre tripod, but the ballhead adds considerably to it). For two reasons wind and weather are more of an issue as well as time: I often don't have the time to set up a tripod before shooting because I want/need to reach a summit/hut in time. And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either. Therefore I shoot handheld and therefore I need higher shutter speeds and these depend on higher ISO settingsâ€¦


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 2, 2011)

Perhaps you could consider a monopod?


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 2, 2011)

dilbert said:


> stefsan said:
> 
> 
> > And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either.
> ...



I can stand/sit on a 4" railing. Never had much luck getting a tripod to work there.


----------



## jacobpays (Dec 3, 2011)

I have a 5dm2 and 5 Canon L lenses. If the 5dm3 were in the 28mp+ range I would place an order for it right now. Even if it cost double what the 5dm2 cost me.

I have ZERO need for high frame rates.
I have ZERO need for ISO < 3200.w

I do have a HIGH need for more megapixels.
I do gave a HIGH need for significantly faster autofocus.

Canon wants to wait and see if there if an 18mp 5dm3 s demand?

Here is my answer Canon. *I will not be buying an 18mp 5dm3*.
And frankly, the 1Dx is a dissapointment for a camera that's been in development for so long.

jp -- one minus vote on an 18mp 5dm3


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 3, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > stefsan said:
> ...



Gorillapod to the rescue!


----------



## jrista (Dec 3, 2011)

This is my first post on CR forums, but I have to respond to this one. I've read a LOT of comments from people saying "18mp is GREAT, as long as I get better ISO!" Thats all well and good if you need low res shots in near darkness, but this is NOT a great solution for high-res landscape photographers who need high resolution at LOW ISO. I'm a landscape photographer, and I've held off getting a 5DII because I was hoping the 5DIII would come out with something around 26-28mp. When it comes to printing out feet x feet sized prints of stunning landscapes,* low ISO and high resolution ARE KING!!* Additionally, macro photographers and even perching bird photographers who need cropping power also need higher resolution sensors. A loss of nearly 17% pixel density is really going to hurt both landscape photogs and croppers.

The 5D II is the camera of choice for landscape photographers looking for a good-performing high-res DSLR, and can't afford tens of thousands of dollars for a digital MF. The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.) While I wouldn't be put off with MAINTAINING resolution at 21.1mp and improving ISO and maybe AF, this whole trend with Canon of REDUCING mp on cameras where MP is a key factor for a significant portion of their customers is *RIDICULOUS*! There needs to be at least one high-resolution camera in the Canon lineup to support the needs of those who print at very large sizes or crop and therefor need that resolution.

This post got a CR1 rating, and I'm not really sure whether to believe that or not. There was no mention about how reliable the source of the information was, it was simply tagged CR1. If this truly is a CR1 rumor, it really saddens me to hear Canon is reversing direction on a camera who's resolution was key to the people who used it. Sure, an endless race to 50mp without improving the other qualities of the sensor is pointless. However its been demonstrated that the 21.1mp of the 5D II seems to be at or near a sweet spot for many types of photograpers, and I don't see the need to shrink resolution to improve other aspects of the sensor. Given what I have seen with the 18mp 7D (which is great for wildlife and bird action photography), thats just not enough resolution for the other types of photography I do, and that many macro and landscape photographers do.

This is a *really* disappointing rumor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2011)

jrista said:


> The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.)



I don't really understand this in the context of the rest of your post. The 5DII uses the same sensor as the 1DsIII, which would seem to make it a quite viable 'cheaper alternative' to the 1Ds series (whereas the 7D is the cheaper alternative to the 1D series). The uses which you mention - landscape and macro - do not require the main things that differentiate the 1DsIII from the 5DII - substantially better AF performance and better build quality. So I'd think for those usees, the 5DII would be almost the perfect cheaper alternative - instead of a 1DsIII, you could buy a 5DII and another to serve as a backup, and _still_ have enough for a very nice L-series lens...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 3, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.)
> ...



I think jrista was meaning the 1Dx line .....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I think jrista was meaning the 1Dx line .....



Makes sense that s/he means specifically 1D, not 1Ds. But the 5D like is so obviously not a baby 1D that it didn't occur to me abyone would even need to state that...


----------



## Rocky (Dec 3, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> The top shelf lenses today have (give or take) been around for decades in one way or another and have always been resolving high enough for film. How could they be not good enough for 18 or 21 or whatever MP sensors? There are certainly many issues today that could see improvement. Lens quality doesn't seem to be one of them really to me (other than the fact that we're pretty much married to AF these days and that lenses aren't that haptically appealing anymore).
> 
> There is a reason by the way why Leica decided to develop M-series cameras that take all of their old lenses. Seems to work really great.


The real reason for Leica M body will take ALL old lens has got nothing to do with resolution. In fact the older lenses has less resolution than the newer lenses. The real reason behind it are the followings:

1. The older lenses are uncoated. It give certain "glow" to the B/W pictures that the newer coated lens will not provide. The M2 was delveopped in the early 50's and majority of the people are doing B/W. By the way, a screw mount to M mount adapter (specific to the focal length) is required for screw mount lenses to be used with the M body.

2. Economic reason. Leica lenses are not cheap. People do not want to layout a large amount for new lenses with the new body.

Nikon is doing the same thing. Theorectically, you can use any Nikon SLR lens on any Nikon SLR body if you can give up certain feature.


----------



## sarangiman (Dec 3, 2011)

The only reason I can see a landscape photographer needing a 1D series (preferably full frame) camera is for its weather sealing.

Otherwise, it's just overkill. It weighs more than the 5D series & no landscape photographer should need better AF (especially w/ the advent of Live View).

More megapixels are certainly nice for lanscapes. I would probably even take more MP over higher DR for my landscapes, b/c DR can be well controlled w/ polarizers, graduated ND filters, & HDR. IMHO, a tripod is irreplaceable for landscape photography, no matter how good the high ISO performance. Landscapes/large prints just look better at the lowest ISO possible.

The point is: if you're a landscape photog, the 5D II is more than ample (just keep one of these rainsleeves handy: http://tinyurl.com/42wjd6n). You don't *need* Canon to release a new camera to take better landscape photos, which I would argue is *not* the case for wedding/portrait photographers who seriously *need* a better full-frame body that can actually focus accurately with <f/2.8 lenses for non-centered compositions. I suppose for that purpose the 1Ds III suffices, but, man that's old tech.


----------



## jrista (Dec 3, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.)
> ...



Sorry, I was referring to the 1D/1DX, not the 1Ds. The 1Ds is done and gone now, so I think its a moot point to compare that. The 1D and now the 1DX have always been geared towards action/sports photographers, which greatly differs from the market the 5D line caters to (or at least, DID cater too...with it getting a bunch more video features and a lower resolution sensor in the 5DIII, I think it is going to cater to an entirely different audience than the 5DII).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 3, 2011)

sarangiman said:


> The only reason I can see a landscape photographer needing a 1D series (preferably full frame) camera is for its weather sealing.



Not all photographers specialise - although I appreciate a lot do. So on a walkabout I might take a macro, a bird and a landscape - so I take the best body that will cater for all eventualities - in this case it might be the 1d4 + 24-105 and 70-300L.

Personally I just take pictures of anything that looks interesting - I met a person that ONLY took pictures of birds flying, seems too limiting to me. Probably explains my shop levels of kit ;D


----------



## mrjimmy (Dec 3, 2011)

jrista

One as to ask just what camera are you using now. You dont own a 5D2 and your printing out photos that a 7D can't handle at just 18MP........ wow 

also in another post about the 7D you say (I think its at the limit of lens resolving power with 18mp, so there likely wouldn't be an increase in resolution) so what lens are you GOING to be using on a 30 MP 5D mk3


----------



## RobertG. (Dec 4, 2011)

Hi,
I would like to see the new 5D III with more megapixels than better iso, videp features etc... But I'm concentrating mainly on landscape, architecture and macro, so that's natural. At the moment a pricy but good work-around for more resultion is this:





Source: http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Zu-Besuch-bei-Zoerk

I got this rear-shift-adapter today and it seems to be worth the 214â‚¬ (180 + shipping + VAT). Parallax errors are no more an issue and 3-4 verticals easily stiched together offer more than enough resolution. BTW, the 3/8 mount of the adapter is in the nodal point of the TS-E 24 II, so that's an additional plus for extra wide panoramas.


----------



## jrista (Dec 4, 2011)

mrjimmy said:


> jrista
> 
> One as to ask just what camera are you using now. You dont own a 5D2 and your printing out photos that a 7D can't handle at just 18MP........ wow
> 
> also in another post about the 7D you say (I think its at the limit of lens resolving power with 18mp, so there likely wouldn't be an increase in resolution) so what lens are you GOING to be using on a 30 MP 5D mk3



I only have one camera at the moment. I would own a 5DII, but I was holding out for a 5DIII hoping it would up the resolution and improve the AF (which is truly atrocious for a professional-grade camera, used for landscapes or not.)

Regarding resolution, you forget that the 7D is an APS-C cropped sensor, while the 5D is a FF sensor. Assuming the two formats had identical resolution, a FF 35mm size sensor would need 46.7mp to reach the same pixel density as the current 18mp 7D. You can see the math in my answer here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2319.msg49501.html#msg49501

So, assuming the 5D III was 30mp, I wouldn't sweat a drop...there would still be 16.7mp of headroom before you outresolve the lens. Additionally, I'm less concerned about the diffraction limited aperture where diffraction *starts* affecting sharpness...and more concerned about where sharpness is visibly degraded...which is usually several stops later. See my answer to the following question for a visual example of how optical aberrations wide open have a far greater impact on sharpness than diffraction at much tighter apertures:

http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/8339/124

Regarding print...I like my work to be huge.  When I can afford it, I prefer to print at 55" x 36", or about 4'5" x 3' (my home has a surprising amount of expansive walls in every room and down every hall that need something large to fill out. My living room wall, which is still empty, could really use something more along the lines of a 6'x4' print.) At native resolution without scaling, the 21.1mp sensor of the 5D II, which produces images 5616x3744 pixels in size, can produce a print 18.75" x 12.5" @ 300ppi in size...smaller than my preferred size three-fold (i.e. I could fit 9 whole 18x12 prints in one 55x36 print)! 

If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size. Thats a native print size of 41"x28" @300ppi! Much closer to my preferred print size (about 75% there), and close to the print size many of my favorite landscape photographers (who tend to use 4x5 Velvia 50 LF film printed at around 50"x40"). So, as far as I am concerned, so long as we are not out-resolving lenses and diffracting our way to fuzzieness, more resolution can only be useful, not bad. Going from 21.1mp to 18mp is a step backwards, when the physics and the math tell us that were not even close to the limit yet, and advancements in sensor fabrication keep lowering noise, improving color depth, and enhancing dynamic range all while still increasing resolution.


----------



## jrista (Dec 4, 2011)

RobertG. said:


> I got this rear-shift-adapter today and it seems to be worth the 214â‚¬ (180 + shipping + VAT). Parallax errors are no more an issue and 3-4 verticals easily stiched together offer more than enough resolution. BTW, the 3/8 mount of the adapter is in the nodal point of the TS-E 24 II, so that's an additional plus for extra wide panoramas.



So, if I understand correctly, that adapter can automatically shift/tilt the TS-E 24mm lens and create stitchable images automatically?


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 4, 2011)

A few extra megapixels with a Digic 5 could make a serious 7D mk II... Cannot wait until it comes out...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 4, 2011)

jrista said:


> I only have one camera at the moment. I would own a 5DII, but I was holding out for a 5DIII hoping it would up the resolution and improve the AF (which is truly atrocious for a professional-grade camera, used for landscapes or not.)



That comment alone proves you have no experience of the 5DII.


----------



## Dave Sucsy (Dec 4, 2011)

Regardless of all the pro/con discussion of MP, image quality, sensitivty, noise, etc:

I shoot stock for a living. It is all I do. 

I started with a 1Ds2. I switched to a 5D because it gave me better IQ and made me more profitable. I thought the 5D was good enough. 

I resisted the 5D2 for over a year because it made me mad. Who needs more than 13MP for stock. Max size needed is double-truck, for which a 5D does just fine. (well, not really, because now I have customers wanting to do large display prints and even small murals suitable for close viewing distances)

But I continued to inspect the 5D2 files from time to time. Finally I jumped. I wish I had not waited a minute. 
The 5D2, along with today's software, gives me files that are just plain better than the 5D files. Even when I reprocess my old 5D files with new software. And the improved quailty is something I need to keep my customers happy. The improved quality is visible in the sizes used in my business. Resolution, noise, smooth tonal transitions, croppability, etc.

21MP is enough to meet the current demands of my job and customers. But just barely enough. Almost everything I shoot is with controlled lighting, so I don't need great high ISO performance except when shooting aerials from a helicopter at dusk. And for that I can rent a 1DX.

What I really need now for my work is 25-30MP. A little more resolution and a little better noise and image quality performance. Plus better lenses. Lenses that are truly good enough. I'd like Canon to re-do the 24-105, because the existing version is so marginal (I've tried 5 different copies so far).

The quality of my work would benefit by moving to MF. But the cost of the total kit (bodies, plus backs, plus lenses) would make the move NOT cost-effective. It would hurt my bottom line significantly. So MF is out.

Therefore my vote is:

5D3 with 25-30MP, even if it costs up to $3k. But PLEASE give me better focusing with wider spread on the focus points.
Better lenses (24-105 IS and 100-400 IS) that can easily more than handle 25-30MP. Even if they have to cost $1500-$3000 to be good enough. A $1000 lens that isn't quite good enough is NO bargain.


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 4, 2011)

jrista said:


> If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size.



No, it wouldn't. That would be very close to 103 megapixels. Where did you get those numbers from?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 4, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size.
> ...



FYI: 10328 x 7760 is the Phase One IQ180, at 80MP it's the biggest MF sensor available, just beating Leaf Aptus' 10320 x 7752 (disregarding specialist telescope sensors and scanning backs).


----------



## tt (Dec 4, 2011)

To me, "we want to see what the actual sales numbers will be for the 1D X and so determine how many customers we might be losing if we do not introduce a higher resolution camera" 
says - you ain't seeing a Higher res camera until
a) The 1DX has launched
b) They have analysed the sales numbers

but they also said "and if the projected profitability of a higher resolution 24Ã—36 mm format camera will justify development, marketing, and manufacturing investments"

If it was nearer ready, why would they be talking about development costs?

"or if there is a sustainable market for the even greater costs of development, marketing, and manufacturing medium format cameras and lenses â€“ an area where we have no internal expertise."

Ie - we haven't even started much if any development for a medium format camera, we haven't really done much yet on a higher res camera, and we're waiting out the 1DX launch and feedback.


Putting that to one side - Canon on the intro to the 1DX did say that basically the 1DX was angled more for a niche, and that whilst they had some video options, the trade offs were in order ot make the camera better (eg the ethernet port meant losing some connections useful for video work, I think they mentioned in an interview).

What if they angle the 5D Mark II more to video (through incremental upgrades)? Some side effects will be useful (ISO, grain). Watching a course on making video with the 5D it seems there were needed work arounds for things that Canon could potentially fix, eg
- For your Z-finder - a higher resolution screen would help
- Having an AV jack that could at least take headphones
- Improving Live view (eg the issues of changing output format whilst watching when filming vs playback)

As photographers would like better low light performance, less grain banding, better ISO, better AF, so the video community would presumably want - less rolling shutter, better output connections. 

If Canon just bumped the 5D's low light ISO capabilities, and their AF, maybe 3-4 more MP, would people buy? Seems there's a decent enough steady stream of customers.

What'll be more interesting is maybe in a few years time, seeing the low light power of the 5D MkII trickling down to more consumer products.


----------



## jrista (Dec 4, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size.
> ...



Apologies, you are indeed correct. I kind of half-mathed/half-guessed the number, and I'm not sure what I did wrong. I think the correct image dimensions would be around 8382x5588 for a 46.7mp FF sensor. So certainly not as good as it sounded from a print standpoint before, but still a lot better than 21.1mp. Thats about a 30"x19" print, which is around 50% of the size I wish to print at (where as the native 21.1mp print is around 30% the size). From a scaling standpoint, scaling up to 2x is usually ok, where as scaling beyond 3x without special tools or better ways to fabricate information tends to produce terrible results.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

What in god's name are you talking about jrista....


----------



## jrista (Dec 4, 2011)

@Jettator: Sorry, correcting a previous post. I was explaining before why I find more MP useful, as I prefer to print at very large multi-foot dimensions. I was stating how scaling post-process holds nothing to having more native resolution, hence the reason I don't think the sensor race should end at 20-some MP.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 4, 2011)

You don't have to scale in post processing to print pictures larger. You leave the pixel resolution (scale) alone and only tell the software what size in inches/mm's you want your print to be, and it will tell you before you print what DPI that will be. If you are scaling the image or forcing the DPI before printing without some sort of special up-rezing technique that you have tested well to work, then you might very well be doing something wrong.


----------



## jrista (Dec 5, 2011)

If you simply tell the printer to print at a certain size (WxH) and resolution (PPI), it will scale for you, however printer driver scaling is usually the worst kind possible. I always manually scale my images to exactly the correct PPI (not DPI, its a misnomer to use DPI to refer to printed pixels, as that refers to device units not pixel units) and physical size. I also fine tune sharpness for the specific target print size and paper (i.e. I don't care quite as much on a rough paper or canvas as I do on a smooth photo rag). I am pretty meticulous about scaling for my prints, as I prefer to keep as much detail as I can. I use the best scaling technique to eek out the best results as well, be it an iterative bicubic, s-spline or fractal approach. Despite all that, when scaling an image some 3 times or more its original size, its tough to keep it from ending up soft. 

Hence the desire for more native resolution at an affordable cost. I do have to commend Pentax for their 645D medium format camera. I just hope someday that kind of technology is more within the realm of a prosumer budget.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 5, 2011)

Dave Sucsy said:


> Regardless of all the pro/con discussion of MP, image quality, sensitivty, noise, etc:
> 
> I shoot stock for a living. It is all I do.
> 
> ...




I like this too, except I would like to see it in a 7D...


----------



## Dave Sucsy (Dec 5, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> Dave Sucsy said:
> 
> 
> > I like this too, except I would like to see it in a 7D...
> ...


----------



## mathino (Dec 5, 2011)

I want to see 18-21 Mpx sensor in 5D-isch body with 7D AF - Ill buy it. I really dont care much about video features as I am a stills guy. But sadly, there is no camera without video and I think there will be no camera without video in the future. I think many of us need/want better DR and noise in trade off for less video features. If you wants to shoot video you need to invest even more in good rigs for camera and lenses to make it at least a bit professional (not look of you shooting but look of captured video).


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 5, 2011)

That makes a bit more sense than what you were talking about before jrista. You were really making it sound like certain dimensions of printing were permanently linked to specific (edit pixel dimensions.

edit: My language in describing this is also very bad. I'm using DPI and PPI interchangeably even though I am always referring to PPI. And I also often use the word resolution when I really mean pixel dimensions.


----------



## catz (Dec 5, 2011)

mathino said:


> I want to see 18-21 Mpx sensor in 5D-isch body with 7D AF - Ill buy it. I really dont care much about video features as I am a stills guy. But sadly, there is no camera without video and I think there will be no camera without video in the future. I think many of us need/want better DR and noise in trade off for less video features. If you wants to shoot video you need to invest even more in good rigs for camera and lenses to make it at least a bit professional (not look of you shooting but look of captured video).



Why are all (well not all, but many canonrumors readers) stills people expecting that better DR and noise is not needed for video? Because these are specifically needed for the video. And also inclusion of a video feature will not be away from any still feature because with the computer chips the cameras have nowadays in them it comes for almost free. In fact, it would be really stupid to not include the video because there would be absolutely no benefits on not including it.

Ideally a video-DSLR (actually it needs to be mirrorless to do that) will produce a still image sequence at speed of 25 frames per second at full sensor resolution like it produces stills today. That would be truly revolutionary. And this still sequence could be directly ingested to Blender3D and it could be composited with CGI without any transcoding in between. That would be awesome workflow that most of the video guys do not have any slightest idea about and still guys don't know where they would need 25 fps still shooting. But I can tell you that would change the fundamentals of photography as there would be no division between stills and motion, motion would be just a sequence of stills in a steady rapid pace. I am quite sure this is the way of the future if this is not ruined by ignorant product managers who have no idea what they are going to do and what customers might want tomorrow but they only base on their assumptions what is there today and what the consumers are used to today. Video by definition (separated from stills) is so 1980s thing. For stills guys this high fps would produce huge advantage to take exactly the right moment and judge that afterwards the capture has been done instead of being lucky capturing exactly the right moment as it would be captured anyway in the frames in the between. If you don't need all the frames, you could just discard those which you don't need and keep the still that you want while the video people can keep the motion as it is. Photography and videography suddently will be the very same thing and it is not a bad thing, but a good thing. This would be very ideal for myself if I shoot for example airplanes. I can keep it rolling motion all the time and then I can later find the perfect shot from the frames of motion and it will be as perfect as a still.

25 fps is achievable with foreseeable technology. It will require next generation processors to do 60-120 fps at that resolution with low battery consumption but that will be the way of the future, no matter if Canon or someone else does it first. The super high capture rate would come with an advantage for not needing to use motion blur for the captured images to keep the motion smooth (in other words fast shutter speed can be used) and that would enable better still captures from the motion frames. The large amount of frames could be also alternatively combined in camera or in post production to reduce noise and create better dynamic range and it could be reduced to either still images or to lower fps video.


----------



## infared (Dec 5, 2011)

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2011)

infared said:


> When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way? AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
> Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?



What, exactly, should they remove from a dSLR with video that will reduce the cost of the camera?


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 5, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way? AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
> ...


Those very extensive parts of the firmware that have to do with the video functionality.
And the amortised cost of the R&D for that firmware.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 5, 2011)

dilbert said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
> ...



I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes. 

However, a bet a lot of people would have said that the X100 would have never worked...


----------



## jbwise01 (Dec 5, 2011)

It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-	to be a great professional landscape camera
-	to be a studio camera
-	to make large prints similar to 4â€ x 5â€ + film
-	making a majority of photos over 16â€ x 20â€

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-	photo-journalist type work
-	wedding/event photographers
-	walk around FF camera
-	indie videographers
-	making most photos less than 16â€ x 20â€

Pleaseâ€¦ Temper your criticism of this cameras proposed feature set. Landscapers.. come on? A real â€œproâ€ landscape photographer would be using either 4â€ x 5â€ or 8â€ x 10â€ film, unless of course they really wanted to splurge and get a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system. Ok so youâ€™re thinking maybe they get a pentax, its more affordable, yea $9,995 is really affordable. Im sure pentax is having a hard to meeting the demand for this camera! 

SO again, before we criticize, letâ€™s remember the purpose of the 5D, and know that if canon was going to make a medium format digital system (which is what everyone complaining about lack of MP is really saying it should be... for under $3k) it wouldnâ€™t be coming with the 5D mrk III and it most likely would be a new product altogether. Funny how rumors of a medium format camera quickly followed the rumors that the 5D Mrk III wouldnâ€™t see a MP increase this time around!


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 7, 2011)

dilbert said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Which the problem is that there is not cheap solution. I'd love a 7D with a built in grip, and a 600 F4 as a kit lens, for 900.00. This will never happen. Unfortunately, we get what we pay for. Either we lower price and lose features, or specialize and and gett awesomer gear for emptier wallets... Anyway I had forgotten the originaal intent of the post, along the lines of cheapness...

The best cheap fullframe is probably a used 1V... Otherwise, a person will have to shell out the bucks....


----------



## funkboy (Dec 7, 2011)

infared said:


> When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
> Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?



I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten,
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land where I was born in, early on a frosty mornin',
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.

Then I wish I was in Dixie, hooray! hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie,
Away, away, away down South in Dixie,
Away, away, away down South in Dixie.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 8, 2011)

dilbert said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 9, 2011)

dilbert said:


> jbwise01 said:
> 
> 
> > It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.
> ...



Maybe they were guessing? I don't own one, but the guy I work for just got one, and he is crazy about it. He is an old film guy who used a 5D mark 1 for a while, and regularly made 16x20 and larger prints with it (and they look great!).

My question would be, what camera are we to make >16x20 prints with? Should we bust out Crown Graphic 4x5's? Those old press guys really had it down for style, if nothing else, when using it!


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2011)

jbwise01 said:


> It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.
> 
> The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
> -	to be a great professional landscape camera
> ...



I'm sorry, but I entirely disagree here. The simple *fact* is that a SIGNIFICANT portion of 5D Mark II owners use it for landscape photography. I've spent years on DeviantArt.com, and more recently 1x.com and 500px.com. The sheer volume of landscape photographers who primarily or exclusively use the 5D II is astonishing! Thats not to say that its not ALSO used for studio & wedding work (I personally know people who use this camera for both purposes), and obviously its become particularly popular for cinematography. I also know (or know of) quite a few photographers who use the 5D II to support prints of huge photos in multi-foot dimensions, both landscapes and studio work.

While the 5D line certainly does not service all types of photography (its lackluster AF certainly limits it), it _is_ one of the most popular Canon DSLR's in existence, and has a very broad range of uses. Canon can either maintain its customer base, and release a 5D III that supports everyone who already uses the 5D II (and possibly then some), or they can gimp it, narrow its range of use, and piss off an ungodly number of customers who DO use the 5D II today for your entire list of "is not" uses.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 12, 2011)

jrista said:


> jbwise01 said:
> 
> 
> > It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.
> ...



Seems to me likewise that LOTS of people use the 5D mk II as a landscape camera... Certainly, 20x16 is a better landscape format, but seriously, how many use it?

The 7D is even a great landscape camera! I've done a few large prints with it, and they really do look great!


----------

