# POLL: How many mp do you want anyway?



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2015)

Is Canon being driven into releasing a high-mp camera by Sonikon trolls, or is there an actual demand for more resolution even beyond what the competition delivers?

Vote here how much metapixies you require for your *general* shooting style - either for wall-sized prints, selling stock, zoooooooming in macro, cropping for reach, changing aspect ratio or just for showing off!

_Note that the poll *is not meant as "get it for free"*, but as in *"pay more for money for it" and "trade-off resolution vs. noise"* - so please consider for a moment or we we'd just get a "more is better" result._


----------



## Eldar (Jan 30, 2015)

I voted 50MP. I cannot see any need for more than that. 

I believe that may be the point where resolution will move over to the no-longer-an-issue basket. We will continue to bash the suppliers over the other IQ elements. Noise, colour, high ISO, DR ... and not to forget all the functional gadgetry we cannot live without :.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 30, 2015)

I am ok with either 36 or 50mp as long as it meets my needs for:

Marcro
Portrait
Landscape
Architecture.

I have zero need for:

Video
DPAF
AA filter
Machine Gun Shutter

I would love to have:

14-16bit depth rate
3-5 fps is more than enough
ISO invariant files
crop factors
-4ev AF capabilty
Ability to capture reds without blowing them out of orbit


----------



## Click (Jan 30, 2015)

I voted 36 MP, it's more than enough for my needs


----------



## dak723 (Jan 30, 2015)

Absolutely no desire for more than 18 or 22 MP. I can print landscapes up to 30" now with my 6D. More MP - as seen in many reviews on the internet - is not necessarily better. And given the choice, I'd prefer larger pixels compared to more. Not to mention file sizes that will be too cumbersome for my current computer. But if a few people clamor loud enough, I guess they get what they want.


----------



## Angmar (Jan 30, 2015)

26-28. 8)


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jan 30, 2015)

dak723 said:


> given the choice, I'd prefer larger pixels compared to more.


+1


----------



## Actionpix (Jan 30, 2015)

I believe around 50MP will be fine. More MP will make the image smoother but not sharper because of diffraction limitations. 50MP on FF is the equivalent of 20MP on crop. As long nobody complains about 20MP being to much on crop nobody should complain about 50MP on FF. Camera's will get faster and memory will get cheaper. Not skilled photographers should not zoom in to much though. Skilled photographers on the other hand will finally be able to use skills and lenses to the maximum. I also most of the time would like to be able to use lower ISO instead of higher. I even use ND filters just because of that. The new camera would do fine for me. Only would liked to have seen it 5 years ago.


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 30, 2015)

Hard to vote on this one (and I haven't yet): I don't mind 50 MP on a FF sensor, but I wouldn't like to see all those pixels crammed into a APS-C. Good, clean, and well-behaved pixels are more important than a huge number of pixels. For way too many years there's been a focus on the capacity to capture photos at high ISOs (mostly marketing gibberish), but most of that is about post-sensor amplification of signal (and noise), I would love to see focus shifting over to making the sensor deliver a cleaner image with sufficient dynamic range and a tonality that seeks to get closer to what we can get from a medium format sensor. After reaching (or, at least, getting closer to that goal) we can go back to increasing the ISO and the number of MP we cram out of the sensor.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 30, 2015)

I'm happy with the 12.8 of my 5D for my photography needs. I'd stick with somewhere in the 12-18 range for either crop or FF.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 30, 2015)

I voted 36.

If there had been an option for 8 I would have voted for that.

I want really good UHD video and would prefer 8MP very large photosites with high base ISO, if the market wouldn't sustain such a beast then something that may allow a 16:9 aspect crop and still maintain 32MP or thereabouts for nice down conversion to UHD.

Oh yeah, and can it be APS-C please.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 30, 2015)

I wonder: ???
If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X



I imagine the d800/d810 *are* a big success, so much that people wishing for more resolution and dynamic range have dumped Canon for good and thus don't show up over here anymore. Those who could wait for 3+ years for more resolution are either die-hard Canon fanbois or don't really "need" it.


----------



## lol (Jan 30, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I wonder: ???
> If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X


I'd argue the D800 series is a success, but no use if you have a ton of Canon lenses. How many are willing to either convert or go multi-system with Nikon? You need deep pockets to do that. The Sony suffers from the "not enough lenses" problem with any new mount. MP count isn't the only problem people have.


Personally, before I give an answer to "how many MP", I have to say my answer will rather require a different mindset than is current. I'd say, for an APS-C sensor, I'd like a minimum of 150MP. For the "why" I'd argue not every pixel matters. To me, the bayer pattern sensors have always been a cheat by the manufacturers, but as almost everyone does it, it cancels out. In essence we're not sampling RGB at every single point, and the software has to make it up, sometimes better, sometimes worse. By having a ton of pixels, particularly more than you ever need for output, you get more colour resolution. What about noise you say? Well, noise isn't noise. It will have characteristics. By downsampling to your actual output size, you keep the increased colour resolution and reduce the higher spatial frequency noise. 150MP is roughly what is easily attainable by scaling up compact camera sensors from a few years ago. By today's technology it could be much higher.

Obviously the way we handle this data may need a different strategy also.

The Foveon type sensor doesn't have that problem, but comes with a load of different problems.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 30, 2015)

When I say "sales success", I mean sell many units, compared to its competitors. But what are the competitors of EXMOR 36 megapixel? None so far.

When Canon finally offers its 50 megapixel camera, let's find out if EXMOR remains the king in this niche market. I understand that some people really need 50 megapixel, but I think it is not most photographers.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 30, 2015)

I voted for 20ish MP. It's more than enough for my needs. However, the world is not perfect. Canon goal is to make $, having higher MP bodies can generate more $. I'll look forward to see their high-ISO bodies.


----------



## zim (Jan 30, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Is Canon being driven into releasing a high-mp camera by Sonikon trolls, or is there an actual demand for more resolution even beyond what the competition delivers?



personally I really have no need for any more that 24 but I'd like to think that the drivers for Canon are a little more than intertwat trolls!
I'm sure that they are talking (and listening) to pros and the new 5Ds/r will be superb. For me the most exciting thing about the announcement is where this positions the 5DIV


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 30, 2015)

I voted 18. Why? Because I have an 18mp FF sensor and any more MP would be detrimental to my images. If and when Canon (or anybody else) can make a camera that will give me clean images at 8000 ISO and a decent buffer (my camera currently takes 50+ RAW files before slowing) as well as good build quality and FPS at 30/40/50 Mp then they will be interesting. However if this (future) technology was applied to an 18/20 Mp sensor then that would probably still have advantages for me.


----------



## Joe M (Jan 30, 2015)

This is an interesting question that I've changed my mind over as the years went on. What I used to want eventually became merely adequate over time and cameras with more pixels became welcome. I have to wonder if in the future, I'll be glad I got 30 or 40 million of them and will look back on my 23 as ok-ish. However, at this moment in time, I am content with what I have in the 5D3. For me and what I do, it's enough but not too much. The high density sensors do not intimidate me at all. I see nothing wrong with Canon providing them to the customers that want and can make use of them. As long as Canon keeps making a camera that reasonably fulfills my needs (mid twenties for now), I'm all good with that and it appears they will.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2015)

Joe M said:


> I'll be glad I got 30 or 40 million of them and will look back on my 23 as ok-ish.



I guess the real test is the real world usage, and not the spec sheet. Once you get actual benefits, advanced tech grows on you ... for example I'd love to have a 50mp ff for macro as it means loose framing, more cropping power and the ability to change the aspect ratio w/o loosing too much resolution.


----------



## LarryC (Jan 30, 2015)

I shoot a D800 and was very skeptical about "needing" 36mp at first, but I think it's a lot like cars - if you drive a Civic you probably can't, or don't want to, imagine needing 400hp, but after you drive a faster car for a few years, you find it hard to imagine getting around without that extra "emergency" horsepower. Likewise, those 36mp that seemed excessive to me at first, have saved more than a few shots for me with the ability to crop heavily yet retain a printable image. That and the detail in landscapes I've printed as large 30" x 40" is absolutely amazing. I would never go back to a lower mp primary camera. 

I will say that file size is an issue even at 36mp, even with lossless compressed. Hard drives may be cheap, but if you're shooting at these mp, plan on buying a few of them. And multi-image Photoshop composites? Get used to .PSB files. 

I think 36mp is enough, but would not turn down 50mp, and I'm sure it's coming to Nikon as well as to Canon, but I'm not sure I would see much improvement at my largest print size, or crop requirements. It would have to come with other performance improvements, notably FPS, DR and high ISO IQ before I would upgrade.


----------



## Tanispyre (Jan 30, 2015)

When I would scan my Velvia on a good film scanner I would get files that are about 30 MP in size. I have always felt that was about the best that I could get out of the my film with a 35mm slide. Still, modern lenses can out resolve my best film age lenses, so I would love to see what the files would look like from a 50 MP sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 30, 2015)

I voted MORE, I still want more!

I won't be happy until at least 250 Mpixels. I need more detail for pictures of cats and squirrels to post on facebook.....

Seriously though, my first DSLR had 4.9Mpixels, 3 AF points, and went all the way up to ISO800.... It doesn't matter what camera you get now, they are all great.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 31, 2015)

I have a problem voting, because I can see the value of THREE different possibilities:
20 - 24 MP all-around camera (5D4/1DX2 for FF, 7D2 for crop)
12 - 15 MP low-light king (currently exemplified by the Sony A7s, the astrophotography choice for those who shoot using consumer full color cameras (as opposed to monochrome CCD cameras with filter wheels)
36 - 50 MP studio/ landscape king.

What I would REALLY like would be a full frame Foveon sensor of the Merrill type (not Quattro), same pixel density as current APS-C Merrills WITH PRO-GRADE SOFTWARE, not the current buggy, annoying, Sigma Photo Pro software. Attach this to a mirrorless with good live view, provide functional adapters with pass-through of aperture and focus info/commands to/from EF lenses. Add an electronic (mini-plug or pins) shutter release port for remote release (can you believe that the Sigma Merrills didn't have this?). Voila, a really great landscape camera, to be used at ISO 100-400 on tripod. The color subtlety and microcontrast on the existing Merrills is really something to behold. This may never come to pass with adapters to EF mount lenses due to the basic technical premise of the sensor, unfriendly to light coming from an angle (wide angle lens designs for EF).


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 31, 2015)

I think there is an optimal number of megapixels. I think that is between 25 and 30.

It is not the number of megapixels, but the quality of each pixel.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 31, 2015)

.
I don't want any megapixels. I want good pictures.


----------



## x-vision (Jan 31, 2015)

I voted 22mp although I'd prefer a 28mp sensor. 
The DR and ISO performance must be like on the A7/D750, though.

Basically, I want a 6DII that is the same as the D750 - but with a 28mp sensor (although 22mp would be OK too).


----------



## Aglet (Jan 31, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X
> ...



+1 I've had my d800s since they first shipped, thoroughly pleased with them. And I will happily continue shooting with them for years to come, they provide perfectly suitable performance for my large format output. But I didn't originally get them to get more MP, I got them to get _better_ pixels. I was grossly disappointed with noisy raw files since I got a 7D and 5D2.



AcutancePhotography said:


> I think there is an optimal number of megapixels. I think that is between 25 and 30.
> 
> It is not the number of megapixels, but the quality of each pixel.



Once I started printing images larger, it wasn't so much the lack of pixels, it was the noisy raw files that were limiting.

I can mangle my ABC camera's raw files much more than I could when I shot Canon, that gives me a lot more artistic latitude without having to be a photoshop pro.



LarryC said:


> I shoot a D800 and was very skeptical about "needing" 36mp at first, but I think it's a lot like cars - if you drive a Civic you probably can't, or don't want to, imagine needing 400hp, but after you drive a faster car for a few years, you find it hard to imagine getting around without that extra "emergency" horsepower. Likewise, those 36mp that seemed excessive to me at first, have saved more than a few shots for me with the ability to crop heavily yet retain a printable image. That and the detail in landscapes I've printed as large 30" x 40" is absolutely amazing. I would never go back to a lower mp primary camera.
> 
> I will say that file size is an issue even at 36mp, even with lossless compressed. Hard drives may be cheap, but if you're shooting at these mp, plan on buying a few of them. And multi-image Photoshop composites? Get used to .PSB files.
> 
> I think 36mp is enough, but would not turn down 50mp, and I'm sure it's coming to Nikon as well as to Canon, but I'm not sure I would see much improvement at my largest print size, or crop requirements. It would have to come with other performance improvements, notably FPS, DR and high ISO IQ before I would upgrade.



Yup, I'm very happy having more MP than I ever had with Canon gear. AND, they are BETTER quality pixels than I had with Canon within the ISO ranges I need to work, and that's up to 3200 w no problem with the best and biggest improvements at base and low ISO where I do most of my shooting.

if canon puts out a new body, with more MP, and hopefully better raw file noise characteristics than they've had since they came out with Digic 4 and newer, then maybe some die-hard canon fans will discover what they've missed out on for the past few years. But that's only if you're pixel peeping, AKA, printing large.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 31, 2015)

Me, I'm waiting for an 18 megapixel APS-C Mirrorless from Canon  Meanwhile I'll continue to use my APS-C Sony mirrorless


----------



## tpatana (Jan 31, 2015)

My shooting style:

18MP is enough
I'd love super-clean ISO6400
10+fps desired


----------



## Zv (Jan 31, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> Me, I'm waiting for *an 18 megapixel APS-C Mirrorless from Canon*  Meanwhile I'll continue to use my APS-C Sony mirrorless



You just described the EOS M.


----------



## Zv (Jan 31, 2015)

My current 18 / 20Mpx set up seems to be doing just fine though I wouldn't mind a tad more on my FF for when I crop images in post so that I have enough resolution left over for a nice high quality large print. So maybe 22 to 24Mpx would be perfect. I guess I should just work on my technique and frame better!


----------



## greger (Jan 31, 2015)

I voted for 18. My files from my 7D are from 22 - 28.5 MB files. It's enough work for me to reduce the size down from
raw to jpeg to email my pics to friends. Maybe Canon can design the 20.2 megabyte sensors to work flawlessly on FF
as well as crop because the 18 mb sensor is so disliked by many people.


----------



## Christina (Jan 31, 2015)

I'd like to see enough pixels, or a better alternative to Bayer filter grids that eliminate the need for low-pass filters and post-processing to remove moiré and aliasing artifacts. Maybe something along the lines of Foveon's X3, though that sensor doesn't do well at higher ISOs. Anyway, it seems silly to pay for high pixel counts then degrade the image detail with a low-pass filter.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 31, 2015)

I selected 36 because I wanted more than my current 5d3 provides.

In all honesty, I really only want a modest amount more. I just want to be able to routinely print 13x19 at 300dpi without enlarging. In all honesty, 36 is probably more than I really need. I'm guessing the 5d4 will be on the money with the slight MP increase. 50 megapixels would be awesome if I wanted to really print big, but I don't currently have a need for quite that many pixels. I'm sure others do though.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 31, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I selected 36 because I wanted more than my current 5d3 provides.
> 
> In all honesty, I really only want a modest amount more. I just want to be able to routinely print 13x19 at 300dpi without enlarging. In all honesty, 36 is probably more than I really need. I'm guessing the 5d4 will be on the money with the slight MP increase. 50 megapixels would be awesome if I wanted to really print big, but I don't currently have a need for quite that many pixels. I'm sure others do though.



5D4 is not going to be even close to 50MP, I'd be surprised if it goes even above 30.

Reason: 5DS already exists so 5D4 should compete on the other aspects like high-ISO and fps. Both of those get hit if you increase pixel count -> 5D4 will not have high pixel count.


----------



## crashpc (Jan 31, 2015)

How many? All of Them! There will be no resolution fight anymore. Only sensor size, type and lens quality will determine resolution. This means 256Mpx for APS-C and 600Mpx For FF..


----------



## Diko (Jan 31, 2015)

IMO it all depends on the pictures you make. Fashion-wise it has quite to offer. Although it all depends on the price tag.

After all the *Pentax 645Z* with its *$8500* is a good rival and most importantly with its* 200k ISO* and its *51.4MP Medium Format APS-C CMOS* sensor is quite the rival. 

In the end aside from the price the little things will be the arguments to decide. 
Factors like:


focus speed and usability 
FPS 
image quality
number of memory slots

After all this also very hard to compare due to the glass as well. But I am very more excited about this little monster and its MPs than for the 5Ds FF pixels.

Back to the question: IMO yes 50 MPs are a sweet deal even if used seldomly but ONLY if in bundle with sensitivity and other regular features.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 31, 2015)

Tanispyre said:


> When I would scan my Velvia on a good film scanner I would get files that are about 30 MP in size. I have always felt that was about the best that I could get out of the my film with a 35mm slide. Still, modern lenses can out resolve my best film age lenses, so I would love to see what the files would look like from a 50 MP sensor.



How much of that 30 mp is emulsion grain ?


----------



## Diko (Jan 31, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Tanispyre said:
> 
> 
> > When I would scan my Velvia on a good film scanner I would get files that are about 30 MP in size.
> ...


 Good point


----------



## sanj (Jan 31, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I wonder: ???
> If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X



I do not know if they are successes or not, but if they were utter failures, there is no way Canon would be coming out with 50 mp camera.


----------



## infared (Jan 31, 2015)

25MB is fine with me...I just want black blacks, and increase DR.
I have a 5DIII....I will not be buying one of the 50MP cameras...and I doubt that I see a 5DIV in my future.
The camera I own is REALLY quite suitable for my needs. Does it compare to some newer offerings out there...no..but at this point if you have a good photograph...no one is really going to notice!
...but that is no excuse for Canon not to improve.


----------



## celltech (Jan 31, 2015)

I would not mind something more than what my 5D3 already has, but Lightroom is already slow enough when messing with the raw files.

What can be done to speed up the file manipulation process? I already know my desktop is more powerful than what 95% of the world has.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 31, 2015)

Id take the new flagship, but "given the choice" for me means a lot more $ than just the cost of the 5ds, (new computer, better lenses, etc) so it's really not an option. Otherwise I'd say 18 or 22.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 31, 2015)

I voted 22, but only because that's what my 5DIII has. 

I upgraded from the original 5D more for the AF system than anything else. I still have my 5D and 20D, both of which I still use regularly, and I usually shoot the 5DIII in mRAW mode (10mp), which I find more than adequate for excellent 12x18 prints (I look at those prints, framed and under glass, from a few feet away, not under a loupe).

As others have opined, I don't want more pixels. I do want cleaner and purer pixels (more DR, less noise, sharper, better color fidelity).

I can certainly understand those users who will always want more pixels; I say more power to them. I would just like for the lower end of the FF market to stabilize around 20mp, with continuing improvements in image quality and camera performance, without raising resolution. Given the current tech, what I'd really like is the 6D sensor wrapped in a 5DIII body, with in-camera cropping.


----------



## lo lite (Jan 31, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Is Canon being driven into releasing a high-mp camera by Sonikon trolls, or is there an actual demand for more resolution even beyond what the competition delivers?
> 
> Vote here how much metapixies you require for your *general* shooting style - either for wall-sized prints, selling stock, zoooooooming in macro, cropping for reach, changing aspect ratio or just for showing off!
> 
> _Note that the poll *is not meant as "get it for free"*, but as in *"pay more for money for it" and "trade-off resolution vs. noise"* - so please consider for a moment or we we'd just get a "more is better" result._



6000x4000 or maybe 6144x4096 would be perfect for me since those numbers have nice divisors or factors which is important to avoid artifacts when scaling down.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 31, 2015)

I am totally fine with something around 20 mp on FF. Maybe I could also live with up to 30 but not more. 

I want very good highISO performance, really low noice all over the place and at all ISO.

A foveon-like design with that would be best (but not easy to design).


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 31, 2015)

Zv said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Me, I'm waiting for *an 18 megapixel APS-C Mirrorless from Canon*  Meanwhile I'll continue to use my APS-C Sony mirrorless
> ...



The EOS M is a Kitty-Kamera. My Sony is a fully controllable camera that can deliver pro results. When and if Canon comes out with a Pro/Prosumer mirrorless camera, I'll be the first inline.


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 31, 2015)

MP isn't a feature I want/demand/insist on when I look at a camera. There are certainly other aspects that far outweigh MP. 

That being said, I imagine I should distinguish between the MP need for different genres of photography and it does seem that landscape photography may deliver better images with more MP. Just where MP ranks against DR or noise performance at ISO 100, is beyond my experience as a photographer or technical understanding.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 31, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I selected 36 because I wanted more than my current 5d3 provides.
> ...



I'm well aware that the 5D4 will not have 50 megapixels. You misunderstood my post. The 5D4 will probably have ~24 megapixels. That's all I currently need.


----------



## rpt (Jan 31, 2015)

I want 22/24 and 50. I voted 50 as there was no chance of a multiple choice. I am very happy with my 5D3 and just got a 7D2 (which is 51.2/(1.6*1.6))

I will not be buying another camera for a loooong time...


----------



## Zv (Feb 1, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



I don't know what you mean by Kitty Kamera. Have you even used the EOS M? With the exception of a viewfinder it has the same features and IQ as any Canon Rebel DSLR. It gives you full manual control and a hotshoe which is all I need in a camera to do pretty much anything from a fashion shoot to landscapes. Add ML and you have a tidy little package with full functionality.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 1, 2015)

I honestly want a Gigapixel camera, but that's probably never going to happen (photo-cells that small might have trouble reading colour). Hopefully we pass the 100MP mark in the next five years, and should have 512MP sensors at some point in the long term future.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Feb 1, 2015)

Zv said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



I'm guessing he means that it's very low end consumer.

I wouldn't know if that's accurate though. I've never even held one. I'm looking forward to the EOS-M3.


----------



## Tinky (Feb 1, 2015)

The EOS M had two problems:

1. It couldn't be used practically out of the box in green square mode.

2. It was those kind of users who would want one.

This meant poor reviews for what is acutally a decent little camera. AF is pedestrian but there are work arounds..
Use one shot, switch off continuous af, use the centre cell or central group of grids and recompose (bin button before focusing)

The 22mm is as good a lens as canon make. In this format it's a great pocket camera.

But they are now so cheap.. It's basically a 650D but without an OVF. Great for video, especially if travelling and if you aren't scared to take control of a camera it repays with crisp clean saturated shots.

Thank you to every reviewer who slagged it off and thank you to Canon for getting your marketing so badly wrong, and thanks also for fw2.

I have two of these which make a great matched pair for video interviews. The noise is lower than my digic4 cameras and it breaks the 12min recording cap, which is also excellent.

I'm thinking of buying a third to run ML on for timelapse, it's just that trade off between there being stock left and the prices dropping even further.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 1, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I honestly want a Gigapixel camera, but that's probably never going to happen (photo-cells that small might have trouble reading colour).



I guess most people want super-hi-res, even if knowing that they'll seldom require it - even if it would mean using "cooked" m/s-raw modes more often. The poll says otherwise, but might simply indicate people want what they are used to.

Problem is: for my wildlife photography, other sensor specs have to scale with it, esp. noise. If something moves even slightly, you need *significantly* higher shutter speed for a higher res sensor (to gain 100% crop capability), meaning the camera would need *better* sensitivity than lower res models. But of course, as it stands, the reverse is true.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 1, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> So, clearly no educated ppl here then.
> 
> 70mm Film = ~2,200mp
> 
> ...



Bullshit.

What film? What film speed? What are you using to estimate that figure? Are you scanning with a digital sensor? Resolved film grain is not detail, or are you extrapolating from some fantastical grain figure? 

The 36MP Sony 135 format sensor delivers far more detail than all but technical films the same size, that puts a 70mm film in the 100-300MP area.

I have many 135 format Velvia 50 24"x36" Cibachrome prints, they don't have the detail I get from my 21MP sensor and the same lens when printed to the same size.


----------



## Zv (Feb 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> The EOS M had two problems:
> 
> 1. It couldn't be used practically out of the box in green square mode.
> 
> ...



Fair point there! If it wasn't deemed a flop by all the reviewers I probably wouldn't have one in my kit today. 
Best value for money ever IMO! 

They should market the M line to DSLR owners who need a second body instead of handbag space savers and first timers. 

I wonder if the M reputation is beyond salvage at this stage regardless of what they do with the next one.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 2, 2015)

I'm still toting a 12mp X100 and a 16mp 1Ds MkII. Never thought there was anything wrong with them...until now. Is this what they call pixel envy?

Re Eos M - I assume you all know that is a high selling, successful camera worldwide? In most placed, the Eos-M outsells all Fuji mirrorless cameras combined and gives Canon a middle ranking in the mirrorless market share. In Japan, one Eos M is sold for every three Sony cameras (with their extensive range). We might see problems, but Canon sees a worldwide hit (ignoring that country between Mexico and Canada). I tend to believe Canon's claim that they will be number one in mirrorless by 2017.


----------



## SDFilmFan (Feb 2, 2015)

The biggest printer I use (at my local Costco) is 12" by 18" at 300 ppi, for a native 19.4 MP. So, theoretically my 5D3 is already overkill, and my SL1 is almost there. But that assumes no cropping. If I want to cut just 20% off of width and height, I'd need 30.4 MP to avoid interpolating. More than that if I want to run and gun and shoot wide and recompose in post to move the central focus point to a rule-of-thirds node.

That said, I've printed pics from my old 10-MP XTi on that same printer and think they look pretty good despite the enlargement. 

What I'm more interested in than more resolution is better low-light quality. A 50 MP camera only good to ISO 6400 doesn't really interest me. A 30-ish MP camera at least as good as my 5D3 in low light, with some of the focus improvements (and the anti-flicker) of the 7D2 might tempt me. Likewise, a FF camera the size and weight of my SL1 would be appealing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2015)

SDFilmFan said:


> The biggest printer I use (at my local Costco) is 12" by 18" at 300 ppi, for a native 19.4 MP. So, theoretically my 5D3 is already overkill, and my SL1 is almost there. But that assumes no cropping. If I want to cut just 20% off of width and height, I'd need 30.4 MP to avoid interpolating. More than that if I want to run and gun and shoot wide and recompose in post to move the central focus point to a rule-of-thirds node.
> 
> That said, I've printed pics from my old 10-MP XTi on that same printer and think they look pretty good despite the enlargement.
> 
> What I'm more interested in than more resolution is better low-light quality. A 50 MP camera only good to ISO 6400 doesn't really interest me. A 30-ish MP camera at least as good as my 5D3 in low light, with some of the focus improvements (and the anti-flicker) of the 7D2 might tempt me. Likewise, a FF camera the size and weight of my SL1 would be appealing.



No you wouldn't, with today's printers and their dithering and rasterizing algorithms 300dpi is complete overkill, besides, I don't believe there is a printer with a native 300dpi so all your data is dithered anyway.

Do a test, take a test image and then get it printed at 320dpi, down sample to 300dpi, do the same at 240dpi then see for yourself. Most people can't see a difference until around 200dpi.


----------



## cervantes (Feb 2, 2015)

The actual answer that would get most votes is missing:

*Doesn't actually matter - but it must be more than that nikon guy has.*

:


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2015)

cervantes said:


> Doesn't actually matter - but it must be more than that nikon guy has.



Oh no - the evil Sonikon empire is rumored to go for *54*mp 



Hillsilly said:


> I'm still toting a 12mp X100 and a 16mp 1Ds MkII. Never thought there was anything wrong with them...until now. Is this what they call pixel envy?



You'd better get envious, or how else will Canon continue to sell bodies f their Rebel wouldn't fall apart anymore and people long-lasting 1d cameras would either being kept in use or sold to the next one not buying a new camera 



SDFilmFan said:


> That said, I've printed pics from my old 10-MP XTi on that same printer and think they look pretty good despite the enlargement.



Stuff the facts, it's really about "more is better", esp. for online stock photography.*If* you think about actual benefits beyond the few that actually *require* more resolution for print/sale, what I'd like to have 50mp+ for is...
... changing aspect ratio from one source raw
... raw "crop mode" essentially obsoleting a 2nd "crop" camera for "reach" or "macro magnification"
... (anything I've missed?)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 2, 2015)

40MP is enough for my higher-quality full-frame lenses. I estimate my best lenses max out in the low 40s and my other lenses max out in the low-to-mid 30s. So for me, anything above 40MP would be wasted.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 2, 2015)

I am looking forward to see what the Zeiss primes can deliver on a 50MP sensor ...


----------



## RVB (Feb 2, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I am looking forward to see what the Zeiss primes can deliver on a 50MP sensor ...



The Otus lenses will deliver all 50mp,and I suspect the Sigma Art series will do pretty well.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 2, 2015)

RVB said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking forward to see what the Zeiss primes can deliver on a 50MP sensor ...
> ...


Regarding the Otus lenses, I don't think so. The 135mm (which is not an Otus) probably will, but the 55 and 85 are slightly softer in the corners. Of course they will be better than most lenses but will probably not deliver full 50MP worth of detail. IMO the two lenses capable of extracting all the detail of a 50MP sensor are the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM II and the Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/2. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2015)

Meh, I'm used to being in a minority. I see more megapixels as being akin to greater focal length for what I do. Both offer diminishing returns, but those returns can still be worth the trade up. I shoot at 1000mm a lot of the time and still have to crop pretty agressively when the bird is small and I can't get any closer. While I continue to work on my fieldcraft to address the latter point where possible (often it's not), I'll take any technological help, and more pixels is one such. When I don't have to crop, I'll just go for the smaller image size.

As for 'I don't want more pixels, I want better pixels' or 'I want cleaner high ISO rather than more pixels' etc - are these actually based on fact? I've read so many differing opinions on the subject I don't know what to believe. Some say more pixels offers no disadvantage (in image quality, rather than processing speed/fps) because you can always shrink the image and lose the noise/gain sharpness. Others say bigger pixels provide better quality. I'd love a definitive answer on that one (both extremes seem implausible - a one pixel sensor or an infinitely-divided sensor offering the best theoretical 'quality').


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Some say more pixels offers no disadvantage (in image quality, rather than processing speed/fps) because you can always shrink the image and lose the noise/gain sharpness. Others say bigger pixels provide better quality. I'd love a definitive answer on that one (both extremes seem implausible - a one pixel sensor or an infinitely-divided sensor offering the best theoretical 'quality').



I don't know if there are any scientific comparisons on this, but from my personal 60d & 6d experience I can tell you that the "noise" is only part of the equation. You can indeed downscale to "reduce" noise, so more mp don't necessarily hurt except for the larger raw file size...

... BUT color fidelity and postprocessing elasticity are much, much better with "bigger" pixels; dynamic range seems to be somewhat tied, too. This are all "hidden" sensor specs you cannot improve upon by downscaling, and I admit I didn't imagine how big this effect is until I got my 6d.

As I usually do a lot of postprocessing (esp. color channel operations, look at the gradients afterwards), I've definitely become a follower of the "big pixel" religion - no matter if it's actually the size of the pixels or whatnot causes these effects.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 2, 2015)

I'm waiting for a more modest MP count in the 5D4 and more body improvements in the AF, video, and comms department. 22-40mp would be ideal for me.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Some say more pixels offers no disadvantage (in image quality, rather than processing speed/fps) because you can always shrink the image and lose the noise/gain sharpness. Others say bigger pixels provide better quality. I'd love a definitive answer on that one (both extremes seem implausible - a one pixel sensor or an infinitely-divided sensor offering the best theoretical 'quality').
> ...



Thanks. That's worth bearing in mind. I suppose it's a matter of where each of us draws the line - A 12MP sensor might give me better pp latitude than a 50MP one, but if the bird is just a few pixels wide in the smaller one, I don't think I'd personally make that compromise


----------



## Cet (Feb 2, 2015)

I voted for 50 MP (on a FF) as I love to "dive" into the picture when looking at it at 100% and see details that were not visible for my eyes. It gives me a lot of room for cropping and it gives me a lot of reach in the form of "digital zoom", so with a prime lens I can have the same effect as with a zoom lens.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 2, 2015)

Being a hobby photographer, I don't _need_ the extra MP because I will almost never print large enough to get the benefits the extra MP provide. That said, I wouldn't mind getting one anyway.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2015)

Cet said:


> I voted for 50 MP (on a FF) as I love to "dive" into the picture when looking at it at 100% and see details that were not visible for my eyes. It gives me a lot of room for cropping and it gives me a lot of reach in the form of "digital zoom", so with a prime lens I can have the same effect as with a zoom.



Yes, that is cool.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Being a hobby photographer, I don't _need_ the extra MP because I will almost never print large enough to get the benefits the extra MP provide. That said, I wouldn't mind getting one anyway.



Don't forget cropping! Depening on what you shoot of course


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 2, 2015)

*To Marsu42, re: m/s-RAW modes*



Marsu42 said:


> I guess most people want super-hi-res, even if knowing that they'll seldom require it - even if it would mean using "cooked" m/s-raw modes more often.



I usually shoot my 5DIII in mRAW mode, and I've looked far and wide for any technical information on how Canon downsamples the full RAW data from the sensor to m- or sRAW sizes in camera, but can't find anything.

I've read other references you've made to m- and/or sRAW modes in previous threads, and I'm curious to know if you are using the term "cooked" as a pejorative.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ... with today's printers and their dithering and rasterizing algorithms 300dpi is complete overkill, besides, I don't believe there is a printer with a native 300dpi so all your data is dithered anyway.
> 
> Do a test, take a test image and then get it printed at 320dpi, down sample to 300dpi, do the same at 240dpi then see for yourself. Most people can't see a difference until around 200dpi.



That's been my observation, as well, on my series of wide-carriage desktop Canon inkjets (S9000, Pro-9000, Pro-100), although I believe you meant "ppi" where you wrote "dpi" in all instances above, except for "printer with a native 300dpi."

For that reason, I typically shoot my 5DIII in mRAW mode (3960 x 2640), which yields 220 ppi at 12x18 print size. I read an web article a few years back that recommended, when -- at print size -- an image is less than 300 ppi (for Canon printers) to upsample the image to achieve 300ppi, in order to achieve maximum print quality. I tried that, and didn't see an appreciable difference.


----------



## sjprg (Feb 2, 2015)

At this point in time, the pixal size is not the problem. The problem is the ADC which is a current hog, which is why they limit it to 14 bits. What is needed is a 16Bit ADC, BUT seeing as how everyone seems to want 300+ shots per battery charge, high resolution is screwed. If people would settle for 50 shots per charge the current would be available for a 16Bit ADC which alone would really improve the quality of even a 12 MP sensor.
Think about the analogy of climbing a 100 foot ladder and the spacing of the rungs. Why do you think Medium Format images look so good? They use 16Bit ADCs. The manufactures rely on the fact that relatively few photographers are engineers and even fewer are familiar with the workings of ADCs. Until we all start demanding 16bit ADCs even at the expense of other criteria we will stay limited to the sensor hype.
Regards
Paul


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 2, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly want a Gigapixel camera, but that's probably never going to happen (photo-cells that small might have trouble reading colour).
> ...



I'm largely thinking of macro use, and with the 400f5.6 outside my shutter is usually sitting at 1/1000 and up, there isn't much possibility of low-light shooting.
I don't see any problem with applying the same technique to shorter focal lengths if you want a really sharp image. 
I can agree that you would never want really high Megapixels for low-light, but there seems to be enough of us spending enough time on a tripod to make it worthwhile.
I did start my photography kit with a heavy gimbal as well, I haven't used it a lot, but it's there if I need it.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2015)

sjprg said:


> At this point in time, the pixal size is not the problem. The problem is the ADC which is a current hog, which is why they limit it to 14 bits. What is needed is a 16Bit ADC, BUT seeing as how everyone seems to want 300+ shots per battery charge, high resolution is screwed. If people would settle for 50 shots per charge the current would be available for a 16Bit ADC which alone would really improve the quality of even a 12 MP sensor.
> Think about the analogy of climbing a 100 foot ladder and the spacing of the rungs. Why do you think Medium Format images look so good? They use 16Bit ADCs. The manufactures rely on the fact that relatively few photographers are engineers and even fewer are familiar with the workings of ADCs. Until we all start demanding 16bit ADCs even at the expense of other criteria we will stay limited to the sensor hype.
> Regards
> Paul



How many people would be happy with 50 shots per charge?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2015)

*Re: To Marsu42, re: m/s-RAW modes*



JonAustin said:


> I've read other references you've made to m- and/or sRAW modes in previous threads, and I'm curious to know if you are using the term "cooked" as a pejorative.



Nope, I just just the term as a marker that these "raw" files aren't "direct" sensor data, nor simple pixel binning, but modified along the way according to Canon's secret recipe - which seems to vary from camera to camera, which is probably why dxo doesn't support m/s-raw.

Afaik the major drawback to be aware of is that these "raw" formats don't have lossless wb adjustment anymore, one of the main advantages of shooting "raw" in the first place: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_compression/file_types_raw_sraw_and_jpeg.do

http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/#sraw
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13916
https://www.kolja-engelmann.de/blog/2013/05/canons-raw-mraw-und-sraw-format/

If s/m-raw is the opportune format to do the job that's great, personally I'd rather shoot full raw and then convert to lossy dng (there are also downsized lossy dng options in Adobe's dng converter) as this doesn't appear to be as "black box" to me.


----------



## SDFilmFan (Feb 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> SDFilmFan said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest printer I use (at my local Costco) is 12" by 18" at 300 ppi, for a native 19.4 MP. So, theoretically my 5D3 is already overkill, and my SL1 is almost there. But that assumes no cropping. If I want to cut just 20% off of width and height, I'd need 30.4 MP to avoid interpolating. More than that if I want to run and gun and shoot wide and recompose in post to move the central focus point to a rule-of-thirds node.
> ...



Actually, we did this test as part of photography class I took, printing the same photo at a variety of resolutions. We saw improvement as resolution increased up to 300 ppi (not dpi), and no improvement past that. Since then, I've believed the techs running the printers as to what the optimum resolution is.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 2, 2015)

You need to tweak the choices a bit - it's the a7s that's 12MP, not the a7r (someone may have pointed this out already).

Anyway, it's hard to say. I own three FF cameras - 6D (20MP), a7r (36) and a7s (12) - and most of the time any of them is more than good enough for my purposes in all sorts of ways, including resolution. I was bowled over by the images obtainable via the a7r when I first bought it and still am and perhaps the similar quality in 50MP would be even more appealing for cropping purposes (not to mention the the sheer pleasure of peering closely and finding details you didn't realize were there). But at the other extreme there's much to be said for the a7s with it's 12MP, and the difference in processing speed and resulting file size is far from subtle (with the 6D somewhere in between); and when you throw in such bonuses as a completely silent shutter and being able to easily use a very good f/.95 lens on a really low noise sensor it becomes more appealing still. Plus, I prefer small and mirrorless. 

In other words, to state the obvious, mere resolution isn't dispositive. If someone (I guess we'll have to wait longer for Canon to do it) were to conjure up a camera with >36MP sensor + mirrorless + smallish + at least a7s noise performance + IBIS, I would certainly be interested. (Unless something magically weird happens between 36 and 50 MP, worries about lens performance seem unfounded - all manner of lenses, new and old, perform superbly on 36MP.) I expect the new Canon dslrs will be great, but they're not for me, regardless of how many MP they have.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 2, 2015)

*Re: To Marsu42, re: m/s-RAW modes*



Marsu42 said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I've read other references you've made to m- and/or sRAW modes in previous threads, and I'm curious to know if you are using the term "cooked" as a pejorative.
> ...



Thanks for your response and for the links. As you've noted, Canon uses a "secret recipe" for producing the m- and sRAW files. I confess that the implications of the lack of "lossless WB adjustment" are lost on me, as these files open and "behave" in PS and Lightroom identically to "native" RAW, as far as I can tell. But I haven't read the linked articles yet ... I will do so!


----------



## Spiros Zaharakis (Feb 2, 2015)

SDFilmFan said:


> Actually, we did this test as part of photography class I took, printing the same photo at a variety of resolutions. We saw improvement as resolution increased up to 300 ppi (not dpi), and no improvement past that. Since then, I've believed the techs running the printers as to what the optimum resolution is.


I also did that very same test also on a photography class and most people had a hard time find the difference between the 200ppi and the 30ppi prints.
Most of the viewers could not tell any difference between prints of 120ppi and above from a distance of 50cm and most found the 150ppi prints to be acceptable even in close viewing distance.
At 1m even the 72ppi image looked acceptable.
However there is a big difference between capture resolution and print resolution, No matter the print size higher capture resolution will give you more image detail regardless.
The difference is similar to 4k video downscaled to 1080 compared to native 1080p footage.
My opinion is that higher resolution can be very useful sometimes and it's good to have a camera that can offer you that when you need it.


----------



## Crosswind (Feb 2, 2015)

*around 10mp (...I'm not kidding)*

Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to read over here 

If I could choose, I'd like to have a medium format sensor with 10 or 12 Megapixels, specifically designed for low-light-shootings, seriously.

I shoot a lot in the night and do panoramas. Excellent high-iso performance, large sensor, large pixels - and 10 mp would be more than enough for my purposes, 'cause after stitching the images are usually between 100 or 200 mp's anyway. 

I just wish that I had _extraordinary big pixels_ so I can stop down my (prime-)lenses to get even better performance and still have very clean images with ISO 102400 for example... or to be able to use much shorter exposure times.

Now, I mostly shoot with ISO 3200, f2.0 and around 14-15 secs with my 35mm prime. But my Canon EOS 6D is good enough for basically anything in low light, except beyond ISO 6400. Well, people's needs are very different. Can't wait for the 6D mark II version. I expect it to have around 24 or 26 Megapixels, but I wish it would go down instead of going up  

Hope for a significant improvement in *high-iso-performance, no matter what's inside*.


cheers

btw. I'm from Austria and my english isn't really perfect, so... excuse me 

P.S.: And even 12 or 15 megapixels would be more than enough for most people imo.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 2, 2015)

*Re: around 10mp (...I'm not kidding)*



Crosswind said:


> Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to read over here
> 
> If I could choose, I'd like to have a medium format sensor with 10 or 12 Megapixels, specifically designed for low-light-shootings, seriously.
> 
> ...



May I be the first to welcome you to the Canon Rumors forum, and -- as a native English speaker who speaks German as a second language -- I think your English is excellent.


----------



## sjprg (Feb 3, 2015)

Karlpeddel: Its obvious that you do not have an extensive knowledge of ADCs and maybe less of binary math.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 3, 2015)

3,201 MP! That's 1 MP more than the new telescope imaging facility being built in Chile. ;D


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 3, 2015)

I want as many as will best future proof my work for the longest possible time.

I remember when people were saying there was no need to shoot in Full HD, now everyone is clambering for 4K and we are already talking about 8k and up.

So it's not really what I want, but what will work best for all those fancy toys many of us want to buy in the future.


----------



## keemikpoiss (Feb 3, 2015)

I felt that 22 MP (as provided by my current highest pixel count camera) or even 15 MP (as provided by my current highest pixel density camera) will be sufficient for my needs and wants for a long time. I say that considering the "ecosystem" I see myself working with in the next several years. I may have one or two lenses that significantly out-resolve these cameras under ideal setting but only one of these lenses does it over a broad range of f-stops and off-center areas. I am not really in a position to afford or even justify lenses such as Carl Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 any time soon.

In terms of output, I just upgraded my display to a rather nice IPS QHD monitor but my typical crops are still larger than the display can fit at 100%. It has been very long time since I had to blame low pixel resolution to blurry prints; the issue is usually between the camera and the ground. In a few cases where I suspect the result will be printed large (The largest I have printed was 39x19 on three sheets) I will shoot panoramic and stitch. 

In general, I am for fewer, bigger, cleaner pixels and better dynamic range. More than once I wished I could have taken a single shot rather than rely on HDR with all its motion-related problems.


----------



## Cet (Feb 3, 2015)

Cet said:


> I voted for 50 MP (on a FF) as I love to "dive" into the picture when looking at it at 100% and see details that were not visible for my eyes. It gives me a lot of room for cropping and it gives me a lot of reach in the form of "digital zoom", so with a prime lens I can have the same effect as with a zoom lens.



I have to correct myself, I did not meant "digital zoom" as this implies enlarging the picture beyond 100% by using interpolation of pixels with subsequent loss of image quality (therefore I never go beyond 100%) but I meant zooming into the picture by simply cropping.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 3, 2015)

1 more than whatever they deliver ;D

(and oh what a critical 1 that will be)


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 3, 2015)

*Re: around 10mp (...I'm not kidding)*



Crosswind said:


> Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to read over here



Willkommen, something seems to be wrong with German-speaking forums lately, more people showing up around here  ... personally I chose CR because an international community is so much more versatile and interesting than just one's own country.



Crosswind said:


> btw. I'm from Austria and my english isn't really perfect, so... excuse me



There's a surprisingly high amount of non-native speakers here, so don't worry - though still some simply assume you pay in $ and live in the center of the universe (the US, that is ).



Crosswind said:


> Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to reaIf I could choose, I'd like to have a medium format sensor with 10 or 12 Megapixels, specifically designed for low-light-shootings, seriously.



This indeed seems to be a market, and Canon certainly has ultra-low light sensors in their security cams. But Canon dslr is so mainstream that I somehow doubt that they'll release something for these people esp. as they would have to divide sales with the Sony a7s. Sony seems to be quicker at servicing into market niches.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 3, 2015)

*Re: around 10mp (...I'm not kidding)*



Crosswind said:


> Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to read over here
> 
> If I could choose, I'd like to have a medium format sensor with 10 or 12 Megapixels, specifically designed for low-light-shootings, seriously.
> 
> ...



I reckon your English is excellent!

I'd love amazing high ISO performance - and let's face it, progress in that area has been huge already. The 645z does amazing things from what I've seen, you should check it out!

But this new Canon is not aimed at that, and that's fair enough. A lot of people say 'I want more MP, not better high ISO', so this is probably aimed at them.


----------



## Zerg2905 (Feb 4, 2015)

Hello everyone!
I have voted 50 Mp, because I'm really curious about what results the 50 Mp sensor+ MP-E 65 combo might bring...


----------



## RGF (Feb 4, 2015)

Biggest factor here is quality of lens. I will take all the MP my lens can handle for Landscape and macro.

For wildlife, i'd like a crop camera with 1D build, good IQ at 6400 ISO, and 10 - 12 FPS and 25 MP.


----------



## Diko (Feb 4, 2015)

Spiros Zaharakis said:


> The difference is similar to 4k video downscaled to 1080 compared to native 1080p footage.
> My opinion is that higher resolution can be very useful sometimes and it's good to have a camera that can offer you that when you need it.


AFAIK since 4k production/broadcasting is still quite expensive... Aside from Netflix whose *"House of Cards"'s reviews* are still somewhat with mixed feelings. And yet there's been some time since 4K production equipment is already available it is mostly used for *cropping and reframing*. 

As for the Capture Resolution - never forget that it depends not only on sensor but also on lens, which makes the glass more important since the iterations there are seldom.



StudentOfLight said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


 Where the hack did you read that? Or you have one yourself? I hardly believe it. :-(((



Crosswind said:


> Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to read over here



_*Herzlich willkommen*_. This is a great site to spend some free time. Here you will learn a lot. People are interesting non-haters and rarely there are troll post. People never stop bringing new resources and usually show quite strong arguments no matter contra or pro regarding versatile topics.

As a foreign speaker I can assure you that your English is great. I am no example myself due to too fast writing and bad focus (usually have at least 10 tabs opened).


----------

