# Um... is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?



## skoobey (Apr 15, 2012)

I was shooting the XS, then I switched to the 5d2, and I like it, but I can tell right away that it ain't coming even close to medium format resolution, especially after cropping.

So, do you think canon might release something FF in the 30 mpix range in the next year or two? ???


----------



## Astro (Apr 15, 2012)

yes


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2012)

Astro said:


> yes



In the next two years? Imho absolutely, given the competition from Nikon. But until then, Canon has to fortify their corporate hq because they'll have to defend their lives from people who believed their "~20mp is enough" marketing and invested accordingly.

But as with the Nikon D800, only a few lenses will be able to use the resolution, maybe that's why Canon is putting out the ridiculously expensive 24-70ii...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 15, 2012)

Canon will do it because it sells. They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights. 

Its certainly possible to produce a 50mp sensor, probably a lot more, its a trade between file size, image quality, ISO response, readout speed, and frames per second capability. 

The D800 is a reasonable compromise, you will need more memory and file storage space, and be willing to have editing go a lot slower (Its not linear with file size). I expect we will see something similar. Perhaps a 5Ds?


----------



## Abraxx (Apr 15, 2012)

Maybe the up coming 24 & 28mm f2.8 are a hint too.
Why would they add an IS to those?


----------



## cpsico (Apr 15, 2012)

They should try perfecting there 20 megapixel line up first, there is still a lot to improve on in terms of dynamic range


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2012)

cpsico said:


> They should try perfecting there 20 megapixel line up first, there is still a lot to improve on in terms of dynamic range



Afaik, you can either improve on dr or noise. And for _most_ people, the dynamic range of the current lineup should be ok. I'd wish the 18mp crop sensor had more dr, too, but realistically looking at the pictures I'm taking it is ok as it stands when shooting raw, using recovery and some fill lights in Lightroom.

And when the dr of my 60d isn't sufficient it's in typical hdr situations or when shooting a black insect on a white flower. Your mileage may vary as a wedding photog shooting bride and groom. So personally, I'd wish for less noise, then some more mp for macro, and then more dr - but as Ken Rockwell (hey, he got another brownie point for the GoogleBot) always states: That's just me.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > yes
> ...



Canon lenses can resolve the 7D, which has a pixel density similar to the D800. I don't think Canon's lenses will have any problem handling a 30+ MP camera. I use an old 24mm 2.8 (one of the first EF lenses) on my 7D and it's capable of serious sharp details. I think Canon will release a higher res / slower FF camera at some point, as it looks like they are creating all of these separate buckets.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Canon lenses can resolve the 7D, which has a pixel density similar to the D800.



... in the lens' center! What about the parts of the lens that the 7d doesn't see?


----------



## skoobey (Apr 15, 2012)

I don't really care about noise, I like the noise as long as it's not going all crazy and pattern like( H1 and H2 modes on 5d2).

Dynamic range is okaaay, but as far as I can tell 5dIII is worse, and that's why I didn't get it, and is completely lacking in grain, making files look artificial.

My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.


----------



## JR (Apr 15, 2012)

I think oit is coming but very to say when and if it will be even in 2013. Really depends if canon had something already on the drawing board... I personally would like that. It would make a good complement to the 1dx in my case.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 15, 2012)

Abraxx said:


> Maybe the up coming 24 & 28mm f2.8 are a hint too.
> Why would they add an IS to those?


 
Those added IS for video.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > They should try perfecting there 20 megapixel line up first, there is still a lot to improve on in terms of dynamic range
> ...



The problem is Canon is already close to as low as the noise can get but they have a LOT of room to improve lower ISO dynamic range.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 15, 2012)

cpsico said:


> They should try perfecting there 20 megapixel line up first, there is still a lot to improve on in terms of dynamic range


... and if you speak to Nikon can you ask them to sort out their WB algorithm?! It's terrible compared to the Canon one and it costs me about 1/2 hour extra per wedding 'cos my assistant shoots Nikon...!

Neither camera system is perfect. Far from it. However, you have to start using them to *actually take pictures* rather than sitting looking at graphs on the internet to find this out


----------



## moreorless (Apr 15, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Canon lenses can resolve the 7D, which has a pixel density similar to the D800. I don't think Canon's lenses will have any problem handling a 30+ MP camera. I use an old 24mm 2.8 (one of the first EF lenses) on my 7D and it's capable of serious sharp details. I think Canon will release a higher res / slower FF camera at some point, as it looks like they are creating all of these separate buckets.



The 7D is only using the central part of the imaging circle though and alot of the demand for a high megapixel camera comes from users who want boarder to boarder sharpness.

If a high megapixel camera is around the corner then I'd say the new 24-70 and 24/28mm IS primes make alot more sense considering that as resolution increases so will the demand for boarder to boarder sharpness.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 15, 2012)

cpsico said:


> They should try perfecting there 20 megapixel line up first, there is still a lot to improve on in terms of dynamic range



Based on what? The imaginations of DxO?

In the real world there has been about a 1 stop difference between recent Canon and Nikon DSLRs in low ISO DR. Until a reputable (i.e. not DxO) testing site puts the 5D3 and D800 against a transmission step wedge, none of us know where they sit.

Sure, I wouldn't mind another stop of DR, if such a gap continues to exist. But DR has become a severely over hyped meme. FF sensors are in the 11-12 stop range. That's portrait print film territory.

Right now the lack of a 35 MP range FF sensor from Canon is a problem. Nobody is jumping ship over a stop of DR.


----------



## Musouka (Apr 15, 2012)

I guess soon after Nikon releases the D4x (or Sony enters the HMP race)...


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights.



You're basically telling me I'm an idiot because I feel I have a use for 36MP. I don't appreciate that. Choose your words more carefully.

What you really mean is YOU don't think one needs so many MP. Now that's another matter entirely. That's just YOUR little opinion.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 15, 2012)

I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.  

So who still wants 30+mp? You can take the pictures and wait 30 minutes for your consumer level desktop or laptop to catch up to to your workflow. Unless everyone who bought a D800 has a rig that can keep up with the processing resource requirements, I think it might be safe to say that many photographers out there are losing money on time waiting for their computers to render changes of these massive files.


----------



## lol (Apr 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> more MP are better


See what I did there 

Seriously, more MP *are* better. But in a different way that less MP are better. It depends on what you want to do with them. Nikon fanboys previously trained to believe 12MP is all they ever need have been dragged kicking and screaming into understanding where higher MP counts might be more useful. Could use some of that around here too.

As for the processing cost, it's hardly end of the world territory. Taking the D800 as representing the affordable MP limit for now, consider that 36MP is twice 18MP that's used in most Canon crop bodies. Processing time is pretty much linear, so you take twice the processing time. To me, the computer's processing time is still much less than the time you spend deciding what adjustments to make, so in practice it isn't going to affect the workflow speed significantly.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 15, 2012)

If they do not they will receive huge amounts of criticism.
If they do they will receive huge amounts of criticism.

I will work on shooting and selling photos.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 16, 2012)

lol said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > more MP are better
> ...



How long are you used to waiting for your machine to process? I frankly get really irritated when I have to wait for the processor to catch up to my edits. Also, as a system builder, I assure you that a file twice the size of another file will not necessarily take twice as long to process. Interesting theory but it's not relative to allocation of system resources. You have to take into account the processor cache, graphics power, temp memory (RAM), bus speed of mother board, and actual negotiated link speed to your hard drive. So a 10mb file will not take twice as long to process as a 5mb file. It could be less or it could be more, depending on how much data your system can handle and task at a given moment. My point is that the power of most consumer level systems lack the necessary power, memory cache, and actual link speed to compute, render, and write fast enough to keep up with even the most basic of workflows.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 16, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights.
> ...



Whoa there! Gear down big rig! I think someone needs a nap. I think he's saying that *in general*, consumers have been led to believe that more MP are better no matter what and that's what they should look for. The issue between more vs. less isn't so black and white. It wasn't a personal attack, mmk.


----------



## barton springs (Apr 16, 2012)

skoobey said:


> I was shooting the XS, then I switched to the 5d2, and I like it, but I can tell right away that it ain't coming even close to medium format resolution, especially after cropping.
> 
> So, do you think canon might release something FF in the 30 mpix range in the next year or two? ???



problem solved:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=16734&N=4259332394&srtclk=sort


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 16, 2012)

skoobey said:


> My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.



Still not solved.


----------



## skoobey (Apr 16, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.
> 
> So who still wants 30+mp? You can take the pictures and wait 30 minutes for your consumer level desktop or laptop to catch up to to your workflow. Unless everyone who bought a D800 has a rig that can keep up with the processing resource requirements, I think it might be safe to say that many photographers out there are losing money on time waiting for their computers to render changes of these massive files.



Oh, I'm sorry, but what you just said is a complete lie.

I shoot 5dII and I ALWAYS turn the resolution 3x (up to 60 mpix, 40ish when cropped), and even with my files that have over 50 layers everything works great. Only thing I might wait for is liquify. And I am using a 2009 Mac Pro. And I even played with Phase one files of 80mpix and even then everything worked fine.

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

I just wish for Canon to release a successor to the 5dII aimed at the fashion/landscape/portrait crowd.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 16, 2012)

skoobey said:


> I don't really care about noise, I like the noise as long as it's not going all crazy and pattern like( H1 and H2 modes on 5d2).
> 
> Dynamic range is okaaay, but as far as I can tell 5dIII is worse, and that's why I didn't get it, and is completely lacking in grain, making files look artificial.
> 
> My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.



There is more to the difference between MF and FF than just resolution, otherwise Phase One would be panicking years ago, yet they still sell a digital back with a 31mp resolution. xxMP enables you to print bigger or to crop in closer. It can't change the perspective and a photographer that regularly uses higher resolution instead of a different lens or getting closer to the subject needs to look at his technique. 

I own the Pentax 645D as well as the 5DC, 5D2 and 5D3. the difference in the files is more than just the size. My MF shots have more definition to them, although the mkIII shoots some beauties, a mk IV with 50% more pixels won't outperform MF because of other factors like size of sensor (Pentax 645D is 44 x 33mm). The Pentax is a nice camera to hold, a good weight, and lighter with a 33-55mm (35mm equiv: 27 - 43mm) than my 5D3 with 24 - 70L. It might look bulky but it's easy to carry and weathersealed. Mine is in Japan being fixed after a knock or two thanks to Sunsiper straps.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 16, 2012)

skoobey said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.
> ...



Not everyone that buys a pro camera is a professional photographer. I have quite a bit of pro kit (3 film MF 1 digital MF, 3 FF 1 crop (7D) and many many lenses) but I haven't earned a penny from my photography. There are believe it or not people with Mk III's using the green box. A professional camera owner doth not a professional photographer make


----------



## AUGS (Apr 16, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights.
> ...



Actually, I didn't read it that way at all.

Maybe it is my Product Development Manager way of thinking, but Need and Want are two very different market segments. The need is the foundation and creates the opportunity, and in some ways may be guaranteed sales. The want can be fickle and are opportunistic sales, but can make a product a viable proposition. I see dozens of fantastic ideas cross my desk on a regular basis, most of which there is a real market need, but sadly unless they can be sold in sufficient quantities they are not commercially viable on a return on investment and/or opportunity cost basis. So where do the extra sales volumes to make it viable come from - those that want it, either through Marketing (for cameras the big sales message is often megapixels because to Joe Public this is a measureable quantity, after that it can just be techno-babble) or other means (peer pressure?). Not everyone that buys a pro camera is a professional photographer.

As we saw in the leadup to and just after the release of the 5D3 spec lists, many indicated they needed a high megapixel camera (some studio and landscape photographers). What the D800 sales is showing is a substantial market that also want it, and together both could be sufficient to guarantee the investment by Canon.

So as Mt Spokane Photography also said, but was omitted from your quote so it loses some context, 


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon will do it because it sells.



You and others (sometimes myself) may be in the Need category, but it is likely the Wants that will deliver the product for you. I wouldn't take it personally.


----------



## Abraxx (Apr 16, 2012)

@Augs
+1
Well written, couldn't agree more.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 16, 2012)

skoobey said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.
> ...



Something must be seriously wrong with my macbook pro... Although I see a ridiculous difference in boot up speed with the ssd and cache with the ram upgrades, I still chug in aperture, lightroom, and photoshop. Thanks for pointing out that you know more about systems than I do. Are you an IT?


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 16, 2012)

skoobey said:


> Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.



That statement couldn't be more wrong. I see plenty of tourists walking around my city with pro cameras on an auto mode. Having money to buy the gear and having the skill to use it properly are two different things. BTW, I have a set of "pro" golf clubs and I can assure you that I'm not on the PGA


----------



## skoobey (Apr 16, 2012)

@Augs

YOU'RE RIGHT, but I am just thinking that it's the serious amateur/professional community that creates all the hype for a camera to sell, I mean sure, there are average Joe Two-shoes that go into a store and say "gimme the best there is" but many people who shoot 1ds and 5d are ones who think they are great just because they own a "professional" camera.

@Takoman46

DNB locally instead trying to apply a million filters that always look bad anyway. Don't do global things and you'll see it's fine. I mean, PhaseONE crowd is also using that same MacBookPro and everyone seems to think it's OK, and I don't want to question your technique, but if the world's most prominent retouchers can work their magic on a similar, or slower machine, then there is no need for you to complain.

Which brings me to this, I think that the 5dIII is fine, but it's not a reason for me to upgrade. I am willing to pay more for a sufficient upgrade that will last for next 4 year just like my 5dII.


----------



## barton springs (Apr 16, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.
> ...



No what you want is to have a pretty much useless discussion about a future product you probably don't need... which will come out probably as a 5DM4 in less than 3 years BTW to answer your original question. Once you get the perfect 30+ megapixels you'll think you need 40 or 50. (OMG!! 30 just won't do!) These people should jump to medium format and see how they like dealing with all that data.

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=16734&N=4259332394&srtclk=sort


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2012)

barton springs said:


> No what you want is to have a pretty much useless discussion about a future product you probably don't need... which will come out probably as a 5DM4 in less than 3 years BTW to answer your original question.



Or probably sooner seeing the competition from Nikon who released a useless product that for some reason people still buy... I guess if saving for a 5d3 it's a valid though if there will be a 5dx body much sooner than the 3 years cycle or even a entry level full frame body that replaces the 5d2.


----------



## lol (Apr 16, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> How long are you used to waiting for your machine to process? I frankly get really irritated when I have to wait for the processor to catch up to my edits. Also, as a system builder, I assure you that a file twice the size of another file will not necessarily take twice as long to process.


Looking at my previous processing time test results I ran with DxO 7, I was averaging under 10 seconds per raw CPU only (i7-2600k not overclocked) and if I turn on GPU acceleration too (with HD5850), that was under 5 seconds per raw average. Note this is for batch processing so it makes good use of parallel processes. If I just want to do a single raw, it still takes about 10 seconds. This is with much processing turned on e.g. lens corrections and other adjustments. I guess it could be even faster if you want to do less.

I know that computing processes are not necessarily linear, but I think for the purposes of this discussion it is close enough. The fractional percentage differences caused by other effects are insignificant outside of benchmarks. raw processing isn't really that demanding that I think compute (CPU or GPU) is the most significant limiting factor.

Of course, other software may behave differently.


----------



## TokyoDekopon (Apr 16, 2012)

Yesterday I had a chat with a friend who is working for CMJ (Canon Marketing Japan). So far there is no plan of releasing any 30mp+ full frame camera within this year but if D800 sells very well, there could be a surprise. He cannot tell me any more than that because of NDA of course.


----------



## skoobey (Apr 16, 2012)

There are other areas, you know.

Setting a camera to aperture priority, or shutter priority and firing away is not really art, now is it? And also ,lighting is mostly set to begin with at the arena's and stadiums etc. So, it's about speed and capturing the moment.

I am into completely different area, and I mostly shoot beauty images, and I do need the resolution, so speak for your self.

Aslo, those people sayin "it takes 10 seconds to process a file", well if you are serious about retouching it, it'll take hours for you to do your part anyway, so those 5 seconds won't mean a darn thing.

So, it won't be within a year, so thanks for the info.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 16, 2012)

barton springs said:


> I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.
> 
> It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.



I do agree with you. 

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.


----------



## JR (Apr 16, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> barton springs said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.
> ...



Good insight phil. Very interesting points about the pro market...I think the pros are probably less fussed about the MP then the avid amateur photographers...


----------



## JR (Apr 16, 2012)

TokyoDekopon said:


> Yesterday I had a chat with a friend who is working for CMJ (Canon Marketing Japan). So far there is no plan of releasing any 30mp+ full frame camera within this year but if D800 sells very well, there could be a surprise. He cannot tell me any more than that because of NDA of course.



I am not surprised by your comments. I always thought if canon goes high mp it will be only in 2013...


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Apr 16, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> barton springs said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.
> ...



You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 16, 2012)

Abraxx said:


> Maybe the up coming 24 & 28mm f2.8 are a hint too.
> Why would they add an IS to those?



Sharper handheld images, ability to shoot with longer shutter speeds, more stable video. On an APS-C sensor the 28mm is approaching 50mm so it definitely wouldn't hurt.


----------



## barton springs (Apr 16, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > barton springs said:
> ...



So you're saying you are in the business of graphic design and that is your area of expertise? .... and you also are saying you need photographers to submit files (enormous RAW files of course) from a 30+ megapixel DSLR as a preference? Or would you rather have files submitted from a medium format camera more typical in high-end graphics. If I was in that position and my workflow allowed for those type of file sizes I'd seek out the medium format highest end 5-star photogs.

The bodies such as what I use (Mark IV's) at 16.1 megapixels should work for anything. I had to check how many megapixels I have just now since it is so much more than what I need. It's the other features that I care about not megapixels. I quite caring once it got over 10. No matter how many megapixels a camera has people somewhere will always have an argument for why they (or somebody else) could need more.

Re-read Phil's post. It is right on the mark. Do pros really need to investment in a newer 30+ megapixel body? Do they know how to effectively use the technology they already own?

In that vain right now I'm wrestling with having to maybe replace my Mark IV bodies with the newer Mark X at over $6600 a piece. Canon has priced me out of doing this at least on the short term. How about a 200-400 for $11,000? Nope.

IMO these new high megapixel bodies such as the Nikon D800 will be mostly purchased by avid amateur's but they won't use it at "full power" once they see how much time it takes to deal with those file sizes... unless they have a personal assistant that doubles as a photo assistant/photo editor ;-)


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 16, 2012)

I suppose another way of looking at this, as a pro, is "I have $5000 to spend out of my turnover that is just sitting there doing nothing".

As a business (that's what a pro - or semi-pro - is) you need to look at ROI. I could spend that $5000 on:
* Photography training
* A new lens or two or three
* Marketing
* Sales training
* New admin systems
* Sample albums for venues
* A new body from Canon
* A switch from Canon to Nikon
* A new website

As a pro, you can't have everything. That's the point of a business - once the money is gone, it's gone. Which of these things will get the pro the best ROI? I'm not here saying it's this or that, but the pro should be looking at their own weaknesses *as a business*, and not specifically as a photographer. 

A pro photographer is a *business* that sells photographs. It's not that different to a business that sells other products in that they need various functions to stay upright: product, admin, accounting, marketing, sales. If any "leg of the stool" that makes their business up is "shorter" than the others, the stool will topple.

I know we all like kit - we wouldn't be here otherwise - but when people say "think of the possibilities you could get with 4 stops more DR" I'm sitting there thinking "think of the extra turnover I could get if I was more effective in sales" or "think of how much happier my customers would be if I was totally on top of my admin". Boring but true. 

I also think "Think how much happier *I* will be when I know my camera is focussing at the level I want it to without taking 20 shots to be sure" and "Wow - won't my customers look great with that 135f2" and when I bought LR4 "Great! I have control of my highlights now so I won't have to underexpose and push the shadows!". I've decided to get a 1dx since it'll work for me for years and I need a focus system that works just anywhere in any conditions, but it was a struggle to decide to spend that much.

But what I'm most MOST certainly not thinking is "Wow! I'll be able to print 25% larger with this new body if I throw $5k at changing systems". 

What I do know for certain is that the UK's highest paid wedding photographer shoots with a 1d3 (or 1d3s - I forget) and in JPEG.

YMMV


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 16, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.
> 
> Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.


I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.

If not it's just slightly bigger prints. Slightly cleaner shadows. Stuff my clients will never notice. Stuff that even my photographers friends won't notice.

(and I do a lot of beauty editing, so I know it's easier to edit on larger images: www.phildrinkwater.co.uk . However, I think the 25% difference on the d800 will not make a large difference to editing ability).

**Hmm.. the more interesting post was on the previous page. Don't you hate it when something ends up on the previous page **


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Apr 17, 2012)

barton springs said:


> ZEROrhythm said:
> 
> 
> > PhilDrinkwater said:
> ...



No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills. 

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market. 

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 17, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.
> 
> I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.
> 
> ...



I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.

Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?

You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.

Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc

I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.


----------



## barton springs (Apr 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ZEROrhythm said:
> 
> 
> > No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.
> ...



Zero I don't want to continue a debate or discussion once I see a person isn't understanding ours posts and worse than that saying I'm clueless. There isn't much a person in my position doesn't understand about picture taking. You don't know me so I'll give you a pass on that but there are other pros that speak the same language as I do and vice versa that know what I'm talking about. With the present day level equipment such as Mark ll or especially the newest Mark lll someone just like you should have the results you need if the *professional* *knowledgable* photog using that body is using it correctly... correct lens, tripod, settings, etc. Again I'll point out the data issue. If a person is using that new Nikon D800 or any future body with 36 megapixel capability we are talking about a workflow that will require dealing with files over 200+ megs. It would seem to me that the graphics folks that want that or have the time to deal with that would be using medium format as a solution and want the very best. Or on the other hand you'll have avid amateurs who will always feel the need to have the most megapixels money can buy but for all the wrong reasons.

The only thing people think they know about cameras is megapixels. "Hey that's a nice camera you have there. I have one just like it. How many megapixels does yours have" If I have a nickel for every time that happened.......


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 17, 2012)

barton springs said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ZEROrhythm said:
> ...



... I wouldn't be pressing max bet on the mega bucks every time I'm in vegas hoping and praying that I'll hit it and be set for life!


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Apr 17, 2012)

barton springs said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ZEROrhythm said:
> ...




I do understand where you are coming from, but it's really one side. You're not trying to grasp the reason why a person would need a high mega pixel camera, you are really fixated on your ways of thinking. 

You have no clue what my work flow is , and yes I do have a 5d mark 2 with L lens and I don't want to jump ships cause of my gears. Why the heck would I need a medium format camera? I don't need to lug it around . I don't do studio shots . I don't have special lighting( all my lighting are virtual anyways). All I need is a high mp camera cause I get more real estate to play with. Yes I'm really happy with mark 2 it take beautiful pictures, but the need for more Mp is always there because of the flexibility I have with more.

My 3d projects can fill 100gb with in a day work with all my PS files and 3d mesh. 200 mb files wouldn't hurt my work flow.

I'm not out there to take wonderful photos, I just take photos of random things like rust , garbage , human skin, eyes , so on and on. I don't need anything other than a high end camera that I can walk around with, to build my library. 

Having clear images with high mp means, I can go back to those photos and take anything out of those images for my art.

there always a market for that, that's why the d800 is such a big success, it's out selling the mark3.

If you're satisfied with what you have that's great, but you can't say that for everyone else. Blaming people and calling them amature cause they need more Mp doesn't make you any better.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 17, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> Why the heck would I need a medium format camera? I don't need to lug it around . I don't do studio shots . I don't have special lighting( all my lighting are virtual anyways). All I need is a high mp camera cause I get more real estate to play with. Yes I'm really happy with mark 2 it take beautiful pictures, but the need for more Mp is always there because of the flexibility I have with more.



- MF cameras go to at least 80mp
- MF are not only for studios and they dont need special lighting

You need to get your head round the fact that high mp = MF

If you have to stick with DSLR then try getting less in an image - 20mp of a image 1m square is the equivalent to 80mp taking an image of 2m square. Take multiples and stitch them - try googling panorama. Landscape shooters often stitch several together getting well over the equivalent of 100mp


----------



## skoobey (Apr 17, 2012)

Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.

Not everything is a business, some people are ARTISTS, and yes we do live from selling our art, but we would continue to do so even if we couldn't afford it.

And also, while I do understand that most people here thinks that photo taken on a wedding is as good as it gets, there are simply other things out there.

MF are clunky, expensive, and you do not want to take it with you int a rainforest, or in the warzone, or in the most locations, 35mil is just so much more reliable.

Also, for me it is not economical to go MF just for the sake of the MF, I was just gathering information weather or not higher MPs are on Canon's agenda.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 17, 2012)

skoobey said:


> Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.
> 
> Not everything is a business, some people are ARTISTS, and yes we do live from selling our art, but we would continue to do so even if we couldn't afford it.
> 
> ...



I tell you how to get round the issue, giving you 2 different options - and you call me clueless.

I am an amateur so I dont treat photography as a business. I guess that makes me an artist - just not the kind of artist you seem to be


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Apr 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.
> ...



so you are saying I need to go out and spend a lot of money for higher mega pixel cause I need a MF camera? Which would make it so bothersom to use for my needs. 

Canon can't release something like the d800?
Wow, you're logic is messed up. 
I rather spend my money on my comp for faster render time. And like I stated before I'm. Not going to jump ship, I love my canon lens. I guess I will happy with my 5d mark 2 a little longer.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 17, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> so you are saying I need to go out and spend a lot of money for higher mega pixel cause I need a MF camera? Which would make it so bothersom to use for my needs.
> 
> Canon can't release something like the d800?
> Wow, you're logic is messed up.
> I rather spend my money on my comp for faster render time. And like I stated before I'm. Not going to jump ship, I love my canon lens. I guess I will happy with my 5d mark 2 a little longer.



If you had read my response then you would have spotted _*TWO*_ options

1. A MF body that gives you the high mp you asked for

2. Create a virtual high MP body by stitching several images together.

And you call us clueless


----------



## moreorless (Apr 17, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.
> 
> If not it's just slightly bigger prints. Slightly cleaner shadows. Stuff my clients will never notice. Stuff that even my photographers friends won't notice.



To be fair not all photography businesses are the same and how sucessful they are doesnt nesserally denote how much they need extra megapixels.

A semi pro landscape photographer being able to put a tack sharp 30 X 20 inch print on the shop wall rather than say a 24 X 16 print is going to potentially create more impact and charge more.


----------



## Kernuak (Apr 17, 2012)

moreorless said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.
> ...


A 30x20 inch print from the 5D MkII would be output at 187 pixels/inch. On the wall of a shop, I very much doubt that any customers walking in would see any visible loss of sharpness at that resolution. You would need to start looking up close to have any chance and even then, I doubt many would notice. Lens quality would have a much bigger impact and realistically, when it comes to landscapes, provided it is acceptably sharp in the first place, the colour and composition has a much bigger impact. Uneven sharpness (either due to corner lens softness or insufficient depth of field) is much more noticeable than slight, even softness across the frame.
Very few customers are discerning enough to take a forensic level look at whether an image is critically sharp, in fact many of our rejects would probably sell just as well as some of the images we actually put up for sale. I expect most pro or semi-pro photographers (and alot of amateurs/hobbyists fall could easily put their work against pros and semi-pros) are over-critical, as that is what constantly drives improvement.


----------



## skoobey (Apr 17, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> barton springs said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



EXACTLY!


----------



## moreorless (Apr 17, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> A 30x20 inch print from the 5D MkII would be output at 187 pixels/inch. On the wall of a shop, I very much doubt that any customers walking in would see any visible loss of sharpness at that resolution. You would need to start looking up close to have any chance and even then, I doubt many would notice. Lens quality would have a much bigger impact and realistically, when it comes to landscapes, provided it is acceptably sharp in the first place, the colour and composition has a much bigger impact. Uneven sharpness (either due to corner lens softness or insufficient depth of field) is much more noticeable than slight, even softness across the frame.
> Very few customers are discerning enough to take a forensic level look at whether an image is critically sharp, in fact many of our rejects would probably sell just as well as some of the images we actually put up for sale. I expect most pro or semi-pro photographers (and alot of amateurs/hobbyists fall could easily put their work against pros and semi-pros) are over-critical, as that is what constantly drives improvement.



Of course the megapixels alone are not going to makeup for any other weaknesses but why not give yourself that extra strenght? seems more logical than buying a 5D mk3 that offers high FPS and ISO performance you'll probabley never use.


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 17, 2012)

Guys, please present your arguments without calling other forum members clueless!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 17, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Guys, please present your arguments without calling other forum members clueless!



+1


----------



## JR (Apr 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, please present your arguments without calling other forum members clueless!
> ...



+2


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Guys, please present your arguments without calling other forum members clueless!



But there's some entertainment to be found in biased arguments and name calling  ... no, really, I think it's a pity that there's no Canon Rumors Wiki because there are often good arguments on both sides, but because of the thread structure they get lost and people comment only on some sentences they randomly pick. Not to mention arguments are repeated all over again, "what's the best uwa on aps-c anyone"?

Looking at the mp war, it's really no matter of clueless vs. "clueful", but just who might improve their work (i.e. not exactly *need*) more mp in which situations and what drawbacks/tradeoffs it produces.


----------



## studio1972 (Apr 18, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.
> ...



The 5D3 is very similar to the D800, I would recommend getting that.


----------



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

I wouldn't touch a Canon 30MP camera if made this year...they either need to improve their low ISO abilities or partner with Sony to defeat the low ISO banding. 

Hate to sound so pessimistic, but if the 5d3 really has little improvements over the 5d2 at less than ISO 400, imagine what the banding on 30MP would look like? This is probably why they barely increased the resolution on the 5d3 and DECREASED it on the 1DX. That's my thoughts, anyway.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 19, 2012)

birdman said:


> I wouldn't touch a Canon 30MP camera if made this year...they either need to improve their low ISO abilities or partner with Sony to defeat the low ISO banding.
> 
> Hate to sound so pessimistic, but if the 5d3 really has little improvements over the 5d2 at less than ISO 400, imagine what the banding on 30MP would look like? This is probably why they barely increased the resolution on the 5d3 and DECREASED it on the 1DX. That's my thoughts, anyway.



No, I think it is a general reduction of resolution the very top models. Nikon D4 anyone? D3x was 24.6 D4 16.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 19, 2012)

birdman said:


> I wouldn't touch a Canon 30MP camera if made this year...they either need to improve their low ISO abilities or partner with Sony to defeat the low ISO banding.
> 
> Hate to sound so pessimistic, but if the 5d3 really has little improvements over the 5d2 at less than ISO 400, imagine what the banding on 30MP would look like? This is probably why they barely increased the resolution on the 5d3 and DECREASED it on the 1DX. That's my thoughts, anyway.



Actually, regarding the 1Dx, I think it's the other way around. Canon increased megapixels from the 1D Mark IV and maintained the image quality performance of the 1Ds Mark III. Just think that the 1Ds Mark III never had the continuous shooting speed and ISO performance of the 1D Mark IV so by combining both previous generation models into a single body and still managing to make further advancements in performance is a great thing in itself. It's easy to look at the negatives and criticize. At first it was hard for me to see the advancement as well knowing that the 1Ds Mark III was higher resolution than the new 1Dx.


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Apr 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ZEROrhythm said:
> 
> 
> > so you are saying I need to go out and spend a lot of money for higher mega pixel cause I need a MF camera? Which would make it so bothersom to use for my needs.
> ...



I have nothing against briansquibb. I bet you are a great photographer and know your ways around your equipments and gears, but when you go into a thread and start posting why High Mega Pixel is unimportant, when the person only ask when is the next High MP camera coming out, makes you clueless. you should be posting your information in the d800 vs 5d mk 3 thread.
When you start giving advice to other people about what they need to do with out knowing what they do, what type of programs they use, what are their pipeline structure, and most importantly, what they do with their photos, makes you really clueless.

I do not tell you what type of camera you need to use, what type of gears you need to carry around, how you should take photos, and what you should do with your photos. So what gives you the rights to tell me why I don't need a High Mega Pixel camera or any one else? Do you work in my field? Do you use the same software as I do? Do know my work flow? Do you even know why I need a High Mega Pixel camera?

I will always need more Mega Pixel has I will always need more Polygons it's part of my work and part of my art. I'm a detail freak. I work in the pixel level in Photoshop as I do in the polygon level with my 3d. I value every pixel and polygon I am given because I've worked on video games, I know consoles have hardware limitation, but I have to get the most out of it. I also work with million and billions of polygons sometimes. I will always want more to push myself and my art farther and father. That is why I started doing photography to build my library of stock photos so i can use them anytime, for my needs. The more details I'm given the better, down to every strand of hair, every cloth fiber, every blade of grass, every thing. I use them for texture maps, alpha maps. displacement maps, and so forth. I stitch, modify, paint over, and create my own images too from my photos. Given more Pixel means I have a lot more real estate from every photo i take, which means I can take more out of the photos. I sample many tiny things sometimes, hair, buttons, scars, what ever catches my eyes.

Please if you can't understand why a person needs so many mega pixel try to understand where they are coming from and understand why they would need it.

Here's is some of my personal stuff and a photo i took of my wife on my 5d2.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 19, 2012)

ZEROrhythm said:


> I have nothing against briansquibb. I bet you are a great photographer and know your ways around your equipments and gears, but when you go into a thread and start posting why High Mega Pixel is unimportant, when the person only ask when is the next High MP camera coming out, makes you clueless. you should be posting your information in the d800 vs 5d mk 3 thread.



1. I have never said that high MP is unimportant

2. I suggested ways round the non high mp dslr bodies

3. I have not posted anything in this thread about the d800 vs 5DIII



ZEROrhythm said:


> When you start giving advice to other people about what they need to do with out knowing what they do, what type of programs they use, what are their pipeline structure, and most importantly, what they do with their photos, makes you really clueless.



I did not tell you how to do your work - just how to get the high megapixels you obviously are after. The advice I gave you did not relate to your workflow or what you do with your photos.

And your response is yet again to call me clueless.




ZEROrhythm said:


> I do not tell you what type of camera you need to use, what type of gears you need to carry around, how you should take photos, and what you should do with your photos. So what gives you the rights to tell me why I don't need a High Mega Pixel camera or any one else? Do you work in my field? Do you use the same software as I do? Do know my work flow? Do you even know why I need a High Mega Pixel camera?



I didn't tell you what camera you need to use - just passed on the fact that MF are the highest mp at the moment. Seems more than reasonable to me in response to your question


> "is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?"


 You didn't stipulate any further limitations such as budget, environment etc so my response answered your question



ZEROrhythm said:


> Please if you can't understand why a person needs so many mega pixel try to understand where they are coming from and understand why they would need it.



When advice is offered you have the choice whether to take it or not. Being rude and libellous is not an appropriate way to respond


----------

