# Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 4, 2011)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; margin: 70px 0 0 0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/nikon-d800-at-36mp-will-canon-respond/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 -50px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/nikon-d800-at-36mp-will-canon-respond/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/nikon-d800-at-36mp-will-canon-respond/"></a></div>
<strong>The megapixel war is on

</strong>We were <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/big-megapixel-camera-next-week/">told a while ago</a> about a big megapixel camera coming from Nikon, the date of the announcement was wrong, but it doesnâ€™t appear the camera is.</p>
<p>Nikon Rumors is <a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2011/10/03/the-name-will-be-nikon-d800-the-sensor-will-be-36mp-99-probability.aspx/">reporting a 36mp D800</a> coming in the next 30-60 days at a 99% probability.</p>
<p><strong>Why does a Canon site care?

</strong>Lots of people speculated Canon was waiting for a Nikon announcement to decide how to proceed. If Nikon announces this camera and is able to delivery before the year closes out, I donâ€™t think Canon has any choice but to respond in some way.</p>
<p>What about responding to a big megapixel camera with a small megapixel, high ISO performance full frame camera <strong>[<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/more-new-full-frame-rumors-cr1/">here</a>]</strong> & <strong>[<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/a-new-entry-level-full-frame-camera-cr1/">here</a>]</strong>?</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TW (Oct 4, 2011)

Here we go folks, the ride is starting. Hold on tight!


----------



## tt (Oct 4, 2011)

Which Canon line best matches the D800? Price wise, in the UK the D700 seems to match the 5D MkII on sale at the moment. Maybe the 7D's successor at initial full price?
Presumably, now with a DIGIC V PowerShots out of the bag, the Canon response will need to be the first proper Canon DIGIC V dSLR?


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Oct 4, 2011)

The big question is how the current lenses will hold up to a 36mp+ camera


----------



## tt (Oct 4, 2011)

And also the differences between lenses for video, and lenses for stills. Aren't current L lenses hindered by their small relative rotation of the focus ring to go from close up to infinity? Ease of focusing for video, AF, optical qualities, price and weight seem opposing characteristics! Is it to say Canon could have made better L lenses already optically, or just that they'd need an even more expensive super-L range?


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 4, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> The big question is how the current lenses will hold up to a 36mp+ camera



How well do the current lenses hold up to a 16-18MP DX APS-C sensor? I think the proper way to look at this isn't that a marginal lens suddenly becomes a piece of junk if you exceed some resolution threshold but, rather, that you don't see all of the improvement theoretically made possible by a higher resolution sensor. There's always room for improvement in lens resolution but what will have to be foregone: having to use a prime instead a zoom, having to pay a lot more for the lens, having to carry around a heavier lens, etc?


----------



## obyphotography (Oct 4, 2011)

36mpx RAW files are really huge! I'm a 5DII user and I have to fight everyday with storage space and performance with my Macs. 5DII it's "only" 21mpx!

Honestly I agree more with the previous Nikon's philosophy: Less pixels, more ISO quality at hight ISO.


----------



## caruser (Oct 4, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> The big question is how the current lenses will hold up to a 36mp+ camera



How will my harddisk hold up to 50-60 MB RAW files?

Srsly, I'm quite happy with 21 MP and hope they don't jump too far ahead, more DR and better high ISO would be much more welcome than more pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2011)

More MP? Bring 'em on, especially for a FF camera. Not so densly packed that diffraction starts to affect IQ at f/5.6, like the new 24 MP APS-C from Sony, but a 36 MP FF sensot would be just fine.



obyphotography said:


> 36mpx RAW files are really huge! I'm a 5DII user and I have to fight everyday with storage space and performance with my Macs. 5DII it's "only" 21mpx!



Storage is cheap. Do you really need every RAW image you've ever shot on your HDD, all the time? Aperture manages multiple libraries, including ones stored externally. My 17" MB Pro handles the 21 MP 5DII files with ease, even when they bloat to edit as TIFs in CS5. Frankly, even my 13" MB Air does fine, especially with the performance boost of an SSD instead of a spinning platter.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2011)

neuro, you know more about the nitty gritty but if a 5dii roughly matches a 20D crop, then a 36mp would roughly come out to a 13.7mp sensor crop? Am i on the target... the 40D (12mp) was infamous for image quality and the 50D (15mp) was starting to break apart... perhaps this will fall in that happy medium. Regarding the storage, I just bought a 1tb hard drive with 800 firewire connectivity for a hair over $100... I'm sure I could pick up a 2TB USB for about that price... I know it's an inconvenience, but just like how you had to organize film in the old days, you got to organize digital files. Plus unlike film, we can delete the bad images to save space... I'd say bring it on provided image quality and ISO performance doesn't suffer...


----------



## Meh (Oct 4, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > The big question is how the current lenses will hold up to a 36mp+ camera
> ...



Bob is correct. The lens will continue to resolve what it always resolved and that will represent the resolution limit in the system (lens + sensor). I recall reading somewhere on this forum that Canon's stated goal with the new lens designs was to resolve to 40MP in FF. Does anyone know if that was an official statement from Canon?


----------



## Tarrum (Oct 4, 2011)

I think this will be a fine camera, basically an improved D3x at a lower price.

First, there's going to be a gap at Nikon, the D700 is right now at $2600, the D800 will be $4000. I think something at $$2600-3200 wouldn't be bad to release, especially because I think many Nikon users want a new FF camera, just not with that many pixels. So either a D800, D700x that has 24-30MP with faster performance.

That means Canon has to announce a 5D Mark III and another camera, either 5Ds Mark III that could have also improved video, or perhaps a 3D/6D line to compete with Nikon's second model (not the D800).

And about file sizes - luckily it has USB 3.0 so at least at transferring it won't be so long. Editing and saving - well, that's horrible but no one is forcing you to buy the camera. SSD disks are getting cheaper (though not as cheap as most of us would want them to be), speeds are getting better and sizes are increasing. 

And about lenses not resolving details - I am very confident all lenses out there, especially prime, will be able to match up to such high pixels.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2011)

Tarrum said:


> I think this will be a fine camera, basically an improved D3x at a lower price.
> 
> First, there's going to be a gap at Nikon, the D700 is right now at $2600, the D800 will be $4000. I think something at $$2600-3200 wouldn't be bad to release, especially because I think many Nikon users want a new FF camera, just not with that many pixels. So either a D800, D700x that has 24-30MP with faster performance.
> 
> ...



What makes you think that the D800 isn't the D700 replacement at it's rough price point and the D700 will drop in price, just like when the 5d mark II came out and dropped the 5d in price? Nikon and Canon has done that in the past such as when the D300 took over the D200 series and such... I dont think the D800 would be just a new camera in the series but a replacement for the D700...


----------



## Meh (Oct 4, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> More MP? Bring 'em on, especially for a FF camera. Not so densly packed that diffraction starts to affect IQ at f/5.6, like the new 24 MP APS-C from Sony, but a 36 MP FF sensot would be just fine.



True but you'd still have the improved resolution wider than tha f-ratio limit and be no worse off narrower. Besides you only start to resolve it at that limit... I think it's a few more stops before the improvement in sensor resolution is completely offset by resolving the diffraction and we can never do better than a diffraction limited optical system anyway. Do you know of any paper that attempts to define a sensor spatial-resolution limit above which there is no value from the increased resolution?

Besides, that Sony sensor scaled up to FF would be about 60 MP and not likely we're getting anywhere near that with FF in the foreseeable future.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm willing to bet it falls over on IQ


----------



## Polansky (Oct 4, 2011)

I find this rumour very hard to believe.

If true it would kill ALL sales of Nikon 3Ds and 3Dx.
A Prosumer camera that would have more megapixels than its top of the line model for 1/3 of the price.
Probably would have better ISO performance as well then above mentioned two camera's due to technology progressment.

Though Mr. Nikonrumours is 99% sure... I think he misses 298% of his brains to think that Nikon would kill all of its professional equipment overnight.

If true (very hard to believe) and Canon doesn't respond, then Canon will loose all of its userbase within month.
Lets be fair the 5D2 has a supergood sensor and changed the cameramarket with its video capabilities, but its AF sucked from the beginning. 

Either the D800 is crippled by e.g. lack of a proper AF system, or this camera will make many Canon users to hop over to the other side.

But lets wait and see. 
(Meaby Mr. Nikonrumors was misinformed and got the specs of a new Canon camera to be released on the 26th of october).


----------



## Meh (Oct 4, 2011)

wockawocka said:


> I'm willing to bet it falls over on IQ



Maybe but don't be so sure. Taking the new Sony sensor as an indication of what's possible the full well saturation is almost as high as some current FF sensors and they got the noise way down leading to very large DR. A similar design used for a 30-40 MP FF sensor might just result in improved DR, ISO performance, etc. than what we have in FF sensors today.

As I'm digesting Nikon possibly releasing a 36 MP FF sensor, I'm considering Nikon's historical position that they would not sacrifice IQ for resolution. So the question is have they caved to the MP race or has technology advanced to the point they can offer 36 MP without sacrificing IQ. I suspect the latter is the case.


----------



## Flake (Oct 4, 2011)

I wonder how Nikon users will deal with the double think a camera like this will have them spouting. For years they've been saying that 12MP is in fact better, less is more and other such- more images per GB - clients don't need or want such big files, bigger pixel sites etc etc. A 36MP camera will suddenly turn all that on its head, and they'll be having to argue the same words that Canon FF users have been using all these years.

They do have a point with some of their defence of low MP counts 36MP files will triple the processing time needed, 100 images on a D3 pushed through DxO or Capture one will take 3x as long, many will be forced to upgrade PCs and buy new storage which won't hold as much.

I'm happy with 21MP I've never yet been asked for more MP (though I know Nikon users who have been), I'd rather see the technology advances give me better dynamic range / noise; more fps; more shots in the buffer; than a similar performing camera with more MP. Alternatively I'd be happy for a choice of two cameras one 21MP 7-8fps and a 40MP camera at 3-4fps


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2011)

Flake said:


> I wonder how Nikon users will deal with the double think a camera like this will have them spouting. For years they've been saying that 12MP is in fact better, less is more and other such- more images per GB - clients don't need or want such big files, bigger pixel sites etc etc. A 36MP camera will suddenly turn all that on its head, and they'll be having to argue the same words that Canon FF users have been using all these years.



I was wondering the same thing


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 4, 2011)

Polansky said:


> If true (very hard to believe) and Canon doesn't respond, then Canon will loose all of its userbase within month.



This cracks me up. You really think that pro photographers are chomping at the bit to be able to take 7,311 x 4,874 pictures instead of 5,616 Ã— 3,744? They will cast off all their thousands of dollars in Canon lenses and flashes and go buy the equivalent Nikon gear? Taking pictures that are 1700 pixels wider is an overwhelmingly compelling feature to a pro? I guess they feel limited artistically by the extra resolution? Get real.


----------



## Gothmoth (Oct 4, 2011)

i hope canon will stay way below 30 MP with itÂ´s next FF camera.
there are more important things to improve then the MP count.

and even average joe customers now know that more and more MP are not that important. 

if i have to choose 36MP and 1 stop less dynamic range or 28MP and 1 stop more dynamic range i go for the later.




> If true (very hard to believe) and Canon doesn't respond, then Canon will loose all of its userbase within month.



the idiots... maybe. but i would not care.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 4, 2011)

Flake said:


> I wonder how Nikon users will deal with the double think a camera like this will have them spouting. For years they've been saying that 12MP is in fact better, less is more and other such- more images per GB



Nikon also said a photographers ability is dictated by the equipment they use. 

For me it's exciting to think what 4 years of development will bring. I wholely believe that 36mp is possible with great IQ and ISO performance. What I would expect though is a high number of shooting resolutions available relative to the sensor size.

I'm still happy to shoot 21mp at a wedding but for studio I'd prefer to work as large as possible.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2011)

bchernicoff said:


> Polansky said:
> 
> 
> > If true (very hard to believe) and Canon doesn't respond, then Canon will loose all of its userbase within month.
> ...



I'm a pro photographer and I would look forward to a canon equivalent to this camera.... I'm too invested and shot too long with canon to switch but I on occasion shoot for backgrounds on tradeshow displays... Now I either shoot in peices and merge the photos in Photoshop to create one large photo or upsample in fractals to get the large print... less upsampling or less piecing together to get a natively suitable shot at 150DPI, the better... and no, medium format or large format digi backs aren't in mine or my clients budgets...


----------



## Stuart (Oct 4, 2011)

Smile  i like how this rumour site is commenting on another rumour site.

Personally i most liked the idea of the low MP FF Canon for a low price. This Nikon one seems to have a poor ISO which is odd.

Come on Nikon publish for real, i want to see Canon & Sony's response - its boring with no announcements.


----------



## eos650 (Oct 4, 2011)

The 5D Mark II is a great camera. I know several people that have and love them, but I can't bring myself to buy three+ year old technology, believing that a replacement is right around the corner. I have to admit the wait is killing me.

Based on Moore's Law, Canon should be able to get four times as many pixels in their sensor, now, as they could have, three years ago. Of course, it's not always about more pixels, as has been pointed out. There are trade-offs, such as reduced heat, power, noise, etc. Still, I would be surprised if Canon couldn't make a FF sensor that is one or two stops better and still increase the pixel count.

The 5D was announced on August 22nd, 2005. 
The 5D Mark II was announced on September 17th, 2008.

Here are a few things that changed, during those three years (8/2005 to 9/2008):
Megapixels 12.8 increased to 21.1 (60% increase)
Maximum ISO 3200 increased to 25,600 (3 Stop Improvement)
Added 1080p video

Given a similar 3 year time-frame (8/2008 to 10/2011), I believe it's possible that Canon could produce a 5D Mark III with:
33.9 megapixels
Maximum ISO 204,800

Canon has a lot of options and trade-off's to consider when implementing newer technologies and I don't necessarily expect to see a 33.9 megapixel camera with 204,800 ISO, but in theory, based on the leap from the 5D to the 5D MKII, they could.


----------



## marginwalker (Oct 4, 2011)

It might be a stretch but perhaps the new sensor on the D800 is a 3 layer sensor like the Sigma foveon? That keep the file sizes the same as 12MP file sizes.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 4, 2011)

For those of you worried about Canon's response I would like to point out something. The 
7D has a 22.3mm x 14.9mm sensor (area of 332.27 sq mm) and takes images that are 5184 x 3456 (17915904 pixels). 

17915904 / 332.27 = 53919.72 pixels / square mm 

A full-frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm (864sq mm). If Canon used the 7D sensor technology that packs 53919.72 pixels/sq mm on a full-frame sensor it would be 53919.72 * 864 = 46586638.08, which is a little over 46.5 mp.

Canon, using 2 year old sensor technology, _could _release a 46.5mp full-frame camera with 7D ISO performance. I wouldn't speculate on whether they will choose to do so.

UPDATE: Another thought occurred to me. 46.5 is a little more than twice the 5D Mk II. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was an HDR mode to this sensor which took a 23.2mp image with half the photosites set to one ISO and the other half at a higher ISO?


----------



## kubelik (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm absolutely with neuro in that I would prefer a high-MP machine rather than a low-MP. when I shoot low light I am using a tripod or lighting, either of which negates the need to shoot at some insane ISO. also, given the amount of time that Canon's spent working on the sensor, I don't believe we need something below 21 MP in order to achieve better image quality.

my relatively modest laptop setup has no problem chewing through 5DII files unless I am trying to stitch together large panoramas; even then, I just need some patience and it will still get there. you can get a 1TB hard drive nowadays for as much as you spend on a single high-speed CF card; no reason not to invest equally in both in-camera memory and permanent hard drive storage.

I think 46 MP would be a little unnecessarily high, but something in the 30-40MP range would be perfect. it's just a question of, will canon feel the need to top Nikon at 37MP, or will they be happy with a ~32MP or so camera.


----------



## ronderick (Oct 4, 2011)

Since we're on the topic of the D800, I can't help but wonder if the rumored 36 MP sensor is made by Sony or a Nikon-original? 

What makes it more interesting is for people who follow Sony stories, you'd probably know about the discontinuation of Sony's FF Camera - and many people suspects that a replacement is also around the corner.

It'll be quite a sight if the announcement of the new baby D collides with a Alpha 900 successor with both using the same sensor technology.


----------



## Jackson_Bill (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm hoping Canon will come out with a full frame with the pixel density of my 7D. I'm not sure I see the advantage of a high ISO (and have not had good experience with using it) over sharpness. On the other hand, what Nikon does really doesn't make a lot of difference to me - I can't afford a new set of lenses.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Oct 4, 2011)

This is nice no matter what because Canon will have to do something. I would just prefer a decent pixel 5D3 with incredible video features. 36mp is way too high and unnecessary for most people. I would even prefer the current high performing ISO 12 mega pixel D700 over a lower performing ISO with huge megapixels. But then again, I'm not the target audience because I mostly do video.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 4, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> The big question is how the current lenses will hold up to a 36mp+ camera



No, that is not the big question. Even the 50D has a higher density sensor than this.
The big question is is Canon management capable of responding?
Now Nikon has a semi-fast (6fps) cam with hi-res and reach (36) in FF with video and pro-level AF in a compact body. What was that from that Canon exec a few years ago who said Nikon was hopelessly far behind Canon in every single respect and that Canon merely had to sit on top and do nothing??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 4, 2011)

caruser said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > The big question is how the current lenses will hold up to a 36mp+ camera
> ...



yeah the HD gobbling is a little scary though


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 4, 2011)

bchernicoff said:


> Polansky said:
> 
> 
> > If true (very hard to believe) and Canon doesn't respond, then Canon will loose all of its userbase within month.
> ...



it's more pro-level AF in a SMALL FF body with high HP and at least 6fps plus video


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 4, 2011)

eos650 said:


> The 5D Mark II is a great camera. I know several people that have and love them, but I can't bring myself to buy three+ year old technology, believing that a replacement is right around the corner. I have to admit the wait is killing me.
> 
> Based on Moore's Law, Canon should be able to get four times as many pixels in their sensor, now, as they could have, three years ago. Of course, it's not always about more pixels, as has been pointed out. There are trade-offs, such as reduced heat, power, noise, etc. Still, I would be surprised if Canon couldn't make a FF sensor that is one or two stops better and still increase the pixel count.
> 
> ...



i dont think 5d2 was 3 stops better than 5d, don't go by max listed ISO!!
and the limits are so close to what can be done compared to then so you can't expect 6 stops better than 5D, certainly not for SNR, canon DR has been low at ISO100/200 so there maybe you could almost do that, that certainly would be awesome


----------



## eos650 (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm hoping to see both increased pixels and higher ISO, as follows:

29 Megaipixels+ would allow the same zoom factor for a given lens as the 7D, once cropped down to the same 18 Megapixel resolution and secondly, I am hoping for a 1 to 2 stop improvement in sensitivity, while keeping the same or lower level of noise.

An increase in sensitivity would be a huge improvement in both convenience and cost savings. For example a one stop improvement would be the difference between an f2.8 and a f4.0 lens. Meaning the f4.0 lens on the new camera would act similarly in low light as an f2.8 lens on the older camera. A f2.8 lens generally costs 2 to 3 times as much as an f4.0 lens and usually weighs about 2 to 3 times as much, as well. A two stop improvement, would let you shoot at f5.6 in situations, where f2.8 might currently be needed.

Of course, if you still want or own the f2.8, you could shoot in situations that you can only dream of, now. My 50mm f1.4 can practically take pictures in the dark. Imagine doing that with a 70-200mm f2.8.


----------



## eos650 (Oct 4, 2011)

I don't know if Moore's Law applies here or not, but the technologies have been improving at a rapid pace, regardless.

In general, I presume the R&D for the 5D started roughly 3 years before the 5D Mark II, when ever that was. Regardless, we are talking about three years of improvements, between the 5D and the 5D Mark II and another three years of improvements from the 5D Mark II to present. I'm sure that Canon hasn't been sitting on their hands.


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 4, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> Nikon Rumors is reporting a 36mp D800 coming in the next 30-60 days at a 99% probability.
> 
> Why does a Canon site care? Lots of people speculated Canon was waiting for a Nikon announcement to decide how to proceed. If Nikon announces this camera and is able to delivery before the year closes out, I donâ€™t think Canon has any choice but to respond in some way.



If the 5Dmk3 has 36MP, I wouldn't buy it unless it makes coffee *and* give head better than my girlfriend.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 4, 2011)

marginwalker said:


> It might be a stretch but perhaps the new sensor on the D800 is a 3 layer sensor like the Sigma foveon? That keep the file sizes the same as 12MP file sizes.



I like that Idea!


----------



## Fleetie (Oct 4, 2011)

marginwalker said:


> It might be a stretch but perhaps the new sensor on the D800 is a 3 layer sensor like the Sigma foveon? That keep the file sizes the same as 12MP file sizes.



Er, how's that?


----------



## theuserjohnny (Oct 4, 2011)

I honestly doubt that Canon will come back with a 5D Mark III. I kinda agree with what has been given in terms of speculation and that Canon will come back with the new-entry full frame camera that will sit below a Mark III. 

When the Mark III comes out Canon is aiming for both video and photography and at the moment if the rumors hold up Canon is already aiming at the video people for November 3rd. So it would only make sense that they release a new-entry camera for the photographers and then save the big guns heading into next year with the Mark III.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 4, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> it's more pro-level AF in a SMALL FF body with high HP and at least 6fps plus video



That's a good point. As a total package, that would be very compelling. I keep a 7D for action and a 5D Mk II for everything else. If Nikon introduced a body that was the best of both and Canon didn't, that _would _be a compelling reason to consider switching.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 4, 2011)

I hope people switch and sell off their lenses.

Lower prices for me


----------



## rumorzmonger (Oct 4, 2011)

Nikon has to do something to stay ahead of the iPhone in the megapixel race...


----------



## kubelik (Oct 4, 2011)

dilbert said:


> eos650 said:
> 
> 
> > Based on Moore's Law
> ...



well ... sorta. Moore's law applies where it applies to something that it can properly be applied to, which in the case of sensors, is the pixel count. it would mean that the maximum possible pixel count on a given sized sensor will double every two years. whether or not camera companies choose to actually put that many pixels in a sensor is a different issue.

light sensitivity, however, has to do with the absolute properties of the materials actually being used to collect light in a sensor. it's not something where pure quantity wins the day. some of this has to do with the electronics of it, in terms of finding ways to manage the noise baseline through more efficient data channels and better cooling, but probably a lot more of it is materials science. and, having worked in materials science, I can guarantee we don't double the efficiency of materials every two years. if we did, we'd all be traveling around the country on a single gallon of gas, and perfectly insulating our houses with a sheet of paper.


----------



## spaceheat (Oct 4, 2011)

K-amps said:


> marginwalker said:
> 
> 
> > It might be a stretch but perhaps the new sensor on the D800 is a 3 layer sensor like the Sigma foveon? That keep the file sizes the same as 12MP file sizes.
> ...



I have been waiting for Canon to switch to this approach before I upgrade any of my camera bodies. I would like to see a 3 X 8.2mp, 3x12.7mp, and a 3x16.7mp... which basically would be foveon style versions of the 1D2n, 5Dc, and 1Ds2 sensors. These sensors should allow for the per pixel sharpness of these models, which IMO looks better than the newer models, and should give great color and DR.

You should be able to enlarge those images to hearts content.


----------



## victorengel (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm already on record as predicting a jump in megapixels by Canon.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=36434409

I think the chart needs to be adjusted by 6 months for the earthquake/tsunami. That still leaves a chart pointing to something over 36 MP, in my opinion. I think 40 MP would be great. Then a 2:1 (linear) sraw format would be 10 MP, which is much better than what we have now. 

If 1080P video is to be easily spread across the sensor, it would make sense for there to be a 4:1 ratio, kind of like there is a 3:1 ratio with the 5D II. That would result in a 3:2 sensor size of 39 MP. With 2:1 pixel mapping, you could fit 4K video onto a 44 MP sensor. In any case, I think the next full frame Canon sensor will be somewhere in the 39-45 MP range. Maybe there will be another model with a smaller pixel count.


----------



## Fleetie (Oct 4, 2011)

I want the 5D3 or this new "other" FF to be super-good at high-ISO, and I'd be delighted to sacrifice all video functionality in the "lower" model to facilitate that, price-wise. 24MPix would be fine for me.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 4, 2011)

theuserjohnny said:


> I honestly doubt that Canon will come back with a 5D Mark III. I kinda agree with what has been given in terms of speculation and that Canon will come back with the new-entry full frame camera that will sit below a Mark III.
> 
> When the Mark III comes out Canon is aiming for both video and photography and at the moment if the rumors hold up Canon is already aiming at the video people for November 3rd. So it would only make sense that they release a new-entry camera for the photographers and then save the big guns heading into next year with the Mark III.



The 5D mk3 could of course be the new entry level FF model if we see one with the infamous 3D sitting at the $3000-4000 price point, use the established name to add legitiamncey to the lower end model since it would still probabley outspect the mk2.

Personally I feel it could be the entry level model(either one having it and the other not or one outspecing the other) that gives one brand the real advanatge over the other unless one of them comes up with a massive leap in ISO or DR. Just upping megapixels on high end models is afterall pretty predictable and I'd be supprized if Canon werent expecting it way before the rumours.

The smart move would IMHO be anticipating that many users don't need to move beyond 20-25 MP and that dropping 5D mk2 prices(plus cheap 5D mk1's) have created a new lower end FF market which $4000 bodies won't tap into.


----------



## theuserjohnny (Oct 4, 2011)

moreorless said:


> theuserjohnny said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly doubt that Canon will come back with a 5D Mark III. I kinda agree with what has been given in terms of speculation and that Canon will come back with the new-entry full frame camera that will sit below a Mark III.
> ...



I get what your saying but I highly doubt it. Canon knows the importance that the 5D Mark III will have upon most the world so I think that they'll want to announce it on a big stage and not announce it just because Nikon made an announcement on their end. I think that they'll announce this new full frame that's similar to the 6D (I think?) in which it'll have a lower megapixle count yet have improved iso (as they called it the Nikon killer) and then maybe drop the price on the 5D2 and 5D1 (sort of what you were saying) and that should be enough to at least cut into Nikon's announcement and give them enough time heading into next year and focusing on a 5D2/7D replacement.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Oct 4, 2011)

I think the yet to be announce 6D, aka low mega-pixel full frame will be the video oriented DSLR, and they will give the 5D3 back to the stills people. This only makes sense because video is much better with lower megapixels = less line skipping.

I'm hoping for that the yet to be announced 6D or whatever it's called is just 12 megapixels (ideal for video) with high performing ISO.

I think this would actually make Canon seem like an innovator with an opposite spectrum type of camera, as opposed to just upping the pixel ante which nobody really seems to keen on anyways.


----------



## nikkito (Oct 4, 2011)

those worried about the megapixels can always use S size


----------



## Meh (Oct 4, 2011)

rumorzmonger said:


> Nikon has to do something to stay ahead of the iPhone in the megapixel race...



Love it. +1


----------



## kubelik (Oct 4, 2011)

nikkito said:


> those worried about the megapixels can always use S size



bingo. canon has actually built a function in to their equipment that specifically addresses a concern that apparently lots of people have. why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?


----------



## puqq (Oct 4, 2011)

I had a dream of Canon stopping the useless megapixel race years ago (12-14mpix for APS-C, 20-25 for FF). They have not done it so far, it is quite unlikely they will now. 

There ' s nothing left, but to go to the Internet and complain


----------



## macfly (Oct 5, 2011)

> why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?



I gotta agree with this, all you people who want a slower car go buy a slower car, but stop telling the manufacturer not to make fast cars, because some of us have races to win.

Seriously, on my current EOS you can do RAW or RAW S if you want a little files, and a bunch of different JPGS to go smaller still, so what's the problem? 

As I said if you don't want a fast car, go buy a slow one - but don't make me party to your mediocrity because I actually want 42MP in FF, and will take 60 happily if it's offered, just give me anything serious to save me from the hideous Hasselblad system I hate so much, but am forced to work with.


----------



## Gcon (Oct 5, 2011)

eos650 said:


> Based on Moore's Law, Canon should be able to get four times as many pixels in their sensor, now, as they could have, three years ago. Of course, it's not always about more pixels, as has been pointed out. There are trade-offs, such as reduced heat, power, noise, etc. Still, I would be surprised if Canon couldn't make a FF sensor that is one or two stops better and still increase the pixel count.



The most misquoted law around 

Moore's law is that the quantity of transistors in silicon will double for a given price point every 18-24 months.

There are some similarities with digital camera pixels over recent years but it's definitely not Moore's law.


----------



## thien135 (Oct 5, 2011)

Well nikon usually price their cameras a bit higher than canon. So ~300,000 yen for D800 is like $3900-4000. Then, 5D3 would be around 3500-3800???????? Oh well, I ordered new 5D2 from Henrys(Canada) for $1970( including shipping to US). It should suit me well till 5D3 price drops.


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 5, 2011)

nikkito said:


> those worried about the megapixels can always use S size



DxO will not process S (or M) raw files. I've asked for those formats to be supported, and was told it's on low on their priorities list.


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 5, 2011)

macfly said:


> > why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Canon no longer makes "slower car" - as far as cheaper than 5Dmk2 models go, one can choose between 18MP (just a little slower) and a 1100D.

Also, DxO will process neither Raw S nor Raw M files.

That means I would have to choose between downgrading to 1100D, giving up DxO, spend extra on megapixels somebody else needs, or staying with the 5Dmk2. I'm going to stick with the 5Dmk2.


----------



## macfly (Oct 5, 2011)

Why not live on the wild side, and actually upgrade your camera, and give yourself the option of making a giant print, or crop into a frame of that random plane crash on the other side of the river you didn't have time to change lens for?

The cost of storage has come down so much these days that it just doesn't make sense to penny pinch on your sensor size, and I will not here any complianing about storage cost. A roll of 35mm purchased, processed and contacted used to be around $15-17, so for the cost of 15 rolls of film you can store the equivilant of 900 rolls shot in high rez Raw and low rez Jpeg. 

http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10177


----------



## Zuuyi (Oct 5, 2011)

macfly said:


> The cost of storage has come down so much these days that it just doesn't make sense to penny pinch on your sensor size, and I will not here any complianing about storage cost. A roll of 35mm purchased, processed and contacted used to be around $15-17, so for the cost of 15 rolls of film you can store the equivilant of 900 rolls shot in high rez Raw and low rez Jpeg.



Agreed. A 2TB Hard Drive is $80 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245; external version is $100 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148662

So for a max of $100 dollars you can house 40,000 or so ~50MB raw files. So Nikon & Canon feel free to push MP to 50 or 100 MP. I will deal with needing a cheap HDD so I can crop to a relatively small portion of the picture and still blow it up for commercial usage.

If you have issues with the MPs go get a Canon 1D (4 MP) and give up the 5D2.


----------



## rowanlamb (Oct 5, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> I want the 5D3 or this new "other" FF to be super-good at high-ISO, and I'd be delighted to sacrifice all video functionality in the "lower" model to facilitate that, price-wise. 24MPix would be fine for me.



+1 on this - my customers never ask for video, and to be honest, I'm not interested in offering it. I would, however, love love love love to be able to shoot totally noise free at 6400.


----------



## torger (Oct 5, 2011)

I think 36 mp is a really nice number, pixel size corresponds to about 14 megapixels on APS-C. It seems to suit quite nicely the resolving power of today's lenses. It would be nice if they do away with the AA-filter too.

Of course for hand-held action and photojournalism 36 mp is meaningless, but I personally rather want a still life and landscape optimized product, closing in on digital medium format.


----------



## Flake (Oct 5, 2011)

It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance. On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases. The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable. Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

To counter this a new lens mount is needed (plus some new lens designs), but who in all honesty wants to see all their EF lenses obsolete? Cropping is not the answer because the widest zoom only goes to 16mm, if everything needs cropped then you might as well abandon wide angles.

Hopefully Canon will not overdo the MP race with the next camera


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 5, 2011)

Do you think this would keep (almost) everybody happy?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1719.msg25265.html#msg25265

In retrospect, I should revise the timing of the 5D3 and 7D introduction to February-March 2012. That was what I was thinking, but not what I wrote.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 5, 2011)

Gcon said:


> eos650 said:
> 
> 
> > Based on Moore's Law, Canon should be able to get four times as many pixels in their sensor, now, as they could have, three years ago. Of course, it's not always about more pixels, as has been pointed out. There are trade-offs, such as reduced heat, power, noise, etc. Still, I would be surprised if Canon couldn't make a FF sensor that is one or two stops better and still increase the pixel count.
> ...



wait, what are your sensors made of? mine are ... transistors in silicon.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Oct 5, 2011)

Since there is talk about storage, I am curious myself on the experience of others.

Knowing external hard drives have the possibility of failure in the future, and at times even for amateurs the need for firewire over a cheaper usb alternative doesn't cut it, the convenience of wanting a mirror drive to back up files, and the backing of a reputable brand (LaCie or Western Digital?)...the costs easily add up. I am currently using western digital firewire 800 studio versions that are 2TB or 1TB (after mirrored) and they are running just under $200 each and I am hesitant to buy a cheaper brand/model and possibly put my image library at risk - what have you guys been doing? On a side note I'd say for almost the 3rd year I've used a 5d2 as an amateur, I am currently on my 2nd 2tb/1tb studio drive. 

On another note of megapixels increase, there is that issue to those that choose to do a little heavier post processing (DxO, photomatix, photoshop/layering/panos?, etc). I also don't like to batch process my images and go through them individually. With my current desktop setup of a 3.0ghz quadcore and 8gigs of ram, I have noticed increased processing times and occasional freezing in my work flow (after making the step up from a 5d to 5d2). I am hesitant on how my current setup will hold up to a 36+mp raw file size for post processing.


Flake said:


> It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance. On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases. The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable. Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.



I've noticed this too and the corner sharpness has been a big issue for me. Stopping down to f/16 with the trade off of diffraction is not cutting it for me either. I am sincerely hoping for some new ultra wide lens designs to improve corner performance - hopefully in a 14-24 zoom focal range!


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 5, 2011)

*Re: Too many megapixels?*

As I have previously pointed out, the number of megapixels have increased _much slower_ than harddrive storage space.

In 2000, a D30 had 3 Mpix and the harddrives were 10 GB.

In 2010, the 60D had increased the pixel number *by a factor of 6* to a total of 18 Mpix, but the harddrives had increased in storage size _*by a factor of 100*_ to 1 TB. 

Harddisk space is thus a factor of 15 less of an issue now compared to 10 years ago, so please let go of the argument that raw files take too much space. There are more interesting things to argue about.


----------



## eos650 (Oct 5, 2011)

I handle my storage and backup, as follows.


I shoot the images (only copy is in camera)
As soon as possible/practical, I import the images into my PC (now I have two copies, the camera and the PC)
I have a low power file server that is available 24/7. I immediately run a script on my file server to pull a copy of my images from the PC (now I have three copies)
Each evening, my file server makes a backup of my new and changed images to a second drive. (now I have 4 copies)
At this point, I'm comfortable deleting the images from the camera. I have multiple memory cards that I rotate through, so I don't usually delete the images until I need the card, again. (once deleted from the card, I'm back down to three copies)

After I accumulate 25GB or so of images on my PC, I burn and verify, three copies to blu-ray data discs. These discs run about .75 each. I store two of these in a safe and take the third to another location. (now I have six copies)
I then delete the copy from my PC, leaving me with 5 copies. My copies are the file server main copy, the file server backup and the three blu-ray data discs. I retain the copy on the file server for easy access and the file server backup copy for easy recovery. The blu-ray discs are my insurance policy, in case of total file server failure or destruction.

Also, I know that a memory card can fail at any time. There isn't much that you can do about that. I would like to see a camera with dual memory slots that could be configured as raid 1 (mirrored), or independently (pictures/video), etc., based on your shooting situation. For now, any time I introduce a new memory card into my workflow, I do it on a non-critical shoot and avoid using it for anything important, until I feel comfortable with it.

This is probably pretty anal, but I can sleep at night.

Disk space is cheap. In fact my entire file server cost less that most Canon accessories.......

NOTE: I always get my blu-ray discs from at least two different spindles, preferably from two different brands and I burn on two different burners. This reduces the risk of having all of my copies go bad, due to a bad batch or burner. ..... Ok, so I'm really anal.... What can I say?


----------



## JonJT (Oct 5, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Since there is talk about storage, I am curious myself on the experience of others.
> 
> Knowing external hard drives have the possibility of failure in the future, and at times even for amateurs the need for firewire over a cheaper usb alternative doesn't cut it, the convenience of wanting a mirror drive to back up files, and the backing of a reputable brand (LaCie or Western Digital?)...the costs easily add up. I am currently using western digital firewire 800 studio versions that are 2TB or 1TB (after mirrored) and they are running just under $200 each and I am hesitant to buy a cheaper brand/model and possibly put my image library at risk - what have you guys been doing? On a side note I'd say for almost the 3rd year I've used a 5d2 as an amateur, I am currently on my 2nd 2tb/1tb studio drive.
> 
> ...



You're paying a bit much at $200 each for your 2TB externals. I've been eying a set of internal Hitachi Deskstar 3tb drives that come in at just under 200 each. Their 2tb equivalent drives are 120 dollars, each. You can have a mirrored backup external setup for under 300 if you go with something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153112
300 is a lot of money but, is parsimonious in comparison to the cost of the camera you shoot with.
Western's drives (and whatever Lacie uses), don't have monopolies on reliability. I use mostly Western but, I also have Seagate drives, both of which have failed on me at some time in the past. I usually buy whatever meets the specs I need and, has decent reviews at a reputable retailer like newegg or zipzoomfly. Avoid individual drives (not manufacturers) with a known QC problem and make sure to back up your data regularly. That's the best insurance against failure, far better than sticking with a particular brand of drive.

My workflow isn't as detailed as yours is as I'm very much a newbie. But, I'm using Lightroom and GIMP on an ancient overclocked Opteron 165 with a paltry 2 gigs of RAM. I don't have issues with freezing while editing a single image at one time or, batch processing a whole bunch of photos. I shoot with a 60D. I doubt the extra 3 megapixels would take a much better bit of hardware to its knees simply because of the increased load. I'd wager that your instability issue is a software problem, not a hardware one.

Having said that, I will still upgrade my computer, mostly because it's nearly 6 years old and the hardware doesn't function like it used to. That, and I need to build a flexible backup NAS to insure all the music, video, pictures and data I've accumulated over the years.

Edit: With the NAS, I'll have 6tb of redundant storage space. One copy on my workstation, one copy on my NAS. The most important data (financial information, personal documents, music and photos) with be triple redundant with a second local copy at my work station. Aside from a ravaging house fire, I don't see my data going anywhere for decades to come (knock on wood).


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 5, 2011)

Flake said:


> It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance. On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases. The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable. Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.



Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness? architecture? Landscape? If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS? That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers. 17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect. That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag. I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2011)

The Microsoft Translator does a slightly better translation of the japanese post.

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=Internal&from=&to=en&a=http://digicame-info.com/2011/09/d800d7003600.html

If I intrepret it correctly, announcement is rumored for October 26 with availability on November 24.

It makes the big Canon announcement on November 3 sound more interesting. A pixma product and a EOS product if you believe the logo, coupled with a WPPI connection surely is hinting at a 5D MK III.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 5, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Knowing external hard drives have the possibility of failure in the future, and at times even for amateurs the need for firewire over a cheaper usb alternative doesn't cut it, the convenience of wanting a mirror drive to back up files, and the backing of a reputable brand (LaCie or Western Digital?)...the costs easily add up. I am currently using western digital firewire 800 studio versions that are 2TB or 1TB (after mirrored) and they are running just under $200 each and I am hesitant to buy a cheaper brand/model and possibly put my image library at risk - what have you guys been doing? On a side note I'd say for almost the 3rd year I've used a 5d2 as an amateur, I am currently on my 2nd 2tb/1tb studio drive.
> 
> On another note of megapixels increase, there is that issue to those that choose to do a little heavier post processing (DxO, photomatix, photoshop/layering/panos?, etc). I also don't like to batch process my images and go through them individually. With my current desktop setup of a 3.0ghz quadcore and 8gigs of ram, I have noticed increased processing times and occasional freezing in my work flow (after making the step up from a 5d to 5d2). I am hesitant on how my current setup will hold up to a 36+mp raw file size for post processing.



well, I've been using 1TB hard drives as backups, which cost somewhere between $100 and $150 apiece. each of these holds about 28,000 images (RAW+JPG, average 35 MB), which as a hobbyist, is about as much as I shoot in a year. if I double that so I have a backup, I'm spending ~$250/year on storage. which is an affordable amount as far as I'm concerned. film development cost me way more back in the day. again, as the cameras double their file sizes, storage becomes at least equally cheaper so while there may be some brief see-sawing in dollars-per-image-stored, but it will even out in the long run.

in terms of processing, I predominantly use my laptop, which is a dual-core 2.6GHz processor, 4GB ram, and budget graphics cards. it crunches through 5D II files at an acceptable rate with no freezing, and I do use Photomatix, Color Efex Pro, and other software. when I do large stitches, I take it onto a graphics workstation with a quad-core 2.8GHz, 12 GB RAM, and Crossfire 2GB AMD Radeon 6950 cards. this thing will stitch 8 TIFF images out of the 5DII together with no problem.

you might want to look into getting some production graphics cards to augment your machine, as your base specs seem to be pretty good and shouldn't warrant any freezing. the only other thing I can think of is boosting your RAM futher so that you don't run out of cache. Photoshop and other Adobe applications have a nasty habit of building up detritus in your RAM memory and eventually freezing themselves out.


----------



## JonJT (Oct 5, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance. On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases. The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable. Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.
> ...



I donno man. I think it is wasteful to only consider the most specialized tools for a particular job, particular when the less specific tool has some advantages over the more particular one. 

Photographers, both "prosumer" and professional don't have unlimited resources. And, sometimes the 17mm TSE just isn't going to cut it, for whatever reason. That's where those zooms step in. Nikon understands this, in my opinion. That's why the 14-24 exists. Crop shooters have the super sharp Tokina 11-16. Why can't FF shooters have better performing glass, too?


----------



## kubelik (Oct 5, 2011)

and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.


----------



## pedro (Oct 5, 2011)

+1 on this - my customers never ask for video, and to be honest, I'm not interested in offering it. I would, however, love love love love to be able to shoot totally noise free at 6400.
[/quote]

@rowanlamb:
ISO 6400 noise free: That means at least 3 stops better high ISO's than my trusty "rusty" 30D. I took some candids during a wedding reception this past weekend (mostly candle light and some artificial light) at ISO 1600 to 3200. Applied some Chroma noise reduction in PP (DPP Chroma NR: @+13) and I am quite happy with the outcome. I was not the main photographer...;-) So ISO 6400 would be my dream ISO for low light shooting well exposed to the right. I'd pay USD 3500 for a 5Diii being able to do that.
Question:
How likely is noisefree ISO 6400 on a next 5D body? I do not know too much about physics and camera tech anyway. So, your suggestions are very welcome. Cheers, Pedro.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 5, 2011)

pedro ... everyone's definition of acceptable "clean" ISO is different, and often can be off by as much as 1 or 2 stops. I know people that are comfortable shooting the 5D2 at ISO 3200, others that refuse to shoot above ISO 800. personally, I find ISO 1600 is pretty much as high as I prefer to go in most circumstances, but ISO 3200 can work with some noise reduction applied and downres-ing.

If the 5D Mark III can deliver noise-free 1600 and clean 3200, a gain of 1 full stop, I'd be pretty darn happy with that. I'm sure others will be pickier. frankly, I think a 2-stop gain is asking for miracles in technology, which 3 years is not quite enough for.


----------



## pedro (Oct 5, 2011)

Thanks for your update on tech, kubelik. Especially for your differentiation of noise free and clean, which appearantly isn't the same. So I hope for clean ISO 3200 on my future cam and some very usable ISO 6400 to follow your line. As my low-light photography often aims at robert frank type b/w, it will suit me fine. Pedro


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2011)

kubelik said:


> pedro ... everyone's definition of acceptable "clean" ISO is different, and often can be off by as much as 1 or 2 stops. I know people that are comfortable shooting the 5D2 at ISO 3200, others that refuse to shoot above ISO 800. personally, I find ISO 1600 is pretty much as high as I prefer to go in most circumstances, but ISO 3200 can work with some noise reduction applied and downres-ing.



Post processing matters here, too. I'm comfortable shooting at ISO 3200 on my 5DII as long as I am shooting RAW and processing images with DxO Optics Pro (and I alway shoot RAW and process with DxO). But with DPP, I'd keep it to ISO 1600, and with in-camera JPGs, probably even lower.


----------



## pedro (Oct 5, 2011)

@neuroanatomist: thanks. ISO 1600 on a 30D is quite fine, well exposed in RAW. ISO 3200 is my "either-you-do-it-this-way-or-forget-it" option. DxO pro: heard about it. Planning on purchasing some PP software along with the new body, what serves best for my type of photography? LR or Dx0 pro? Thanks in advance. Pedro


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 5, 2011)

Whatever the ISO level I'd rather get a grainy shot than a blurry shot or no shot at all.

I used to be very picky about ISO settings but I'd rather just get the shot. If I don't have or can't use a flash I'll just have to do what I must. You can always use NR in Lightroom and convert to B&W if necessary.

I don't like to do it, but if I have to I will.


----------



## theuserjohnny (Oct 5, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Microsoft Translator does a slightly better translation of the japanese post.
> 
> http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=Internal&from=&to=en&a=http://digicame-info.com/2011/09/d800d7003600.html
> 
> ...



I'd have to disagree if anything it just hints at the rumor that CR has been getting about that full-frame camera (that would sit below a 5D3) with lower megapixles and high preforming ISO. The rumor said that it'd be announced sometime in late October (which this event is).


----------



## victorengel (Oct 5, 2011)

nikkito said:


> those worried about the megapixels can always use S size



Of course, the S sizes use a different color model.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 5, 2011)

kubelik said:


> and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.



per dollar the gaming cards deliver way more than quadro
sometimes, other than memory, they simply deliver more, regardless


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 5, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Do you think this would keep (almost) everybody happy?
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1719.msg25265.html#msg25265
> 
> In retrospect, I should revise the timing of the 5D3 and 7D introduction to February-March 2012. That was what I was thinking, but not what I wrote.



no, not good


----------



## theuserjohnny (Oct 5, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think this would keep (almost) everybody happy?
> ...



As much as I hate it, its really the most realistic option they have. Heading into next year they'll go all out... these next few months seem to be dedicated to their new "video camera". Next year they have their 25 year anniversary and Photokina. Its the perfect storm for Canon to have the photographers world at the palm of their hands to market the crap out of these new products.


----------



## AJ (Oct 5, 2011)

Ideally Canon will release:

(1) a 36 mpix cam for landscape and studio work. No blazing fast fps and high iso here. Maybe the 5D3?

(2) an 18 mpix FF photojournalism/sports cam with beefy build quality, dual card slots, top-of-the-line AF, 7-10 fps, and amazing high iso. Maybe 1Ds4?

(3) no more APS-H. 1D5 = 1Ds4.

Not a prediction, just thinking about ideal uses. This way the 5D3 doesn't really compete with the 1Ds line like it has in the past. It would also align things better with Nikon's D800/D3 line.

Question then is price. $3k is fine for camera #1, but $8k for #2 would be a problem. Maybe they can give #2 a 7D like build quality, price it at $3-4k, and call it 3D.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 5, 2011)

JonJT said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35 and $1000 more than the 17-40. If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is. I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2011)

pedro said:


> @neuroanatomist: thanks. ISO 1600 on a 30D is quite fine, well exposed in RAW. ISO 3200 is my "either-you-do-it-this-way-or-forget-it" option. DxO pro: heard about it. Planning on purchasing some PP software along with the new body, what serves best for my type of photography? LR or Dx0 pro? Thanks in advance. Pedro



LR does double-duty - RAW conversions with Adobe Camera RAW plugin, and photo library organizing. I think DxO does a slightly better job at RAW conversions than LR (both do better than DPP, but only DPP uses Canon's Picture Styles, ALO, etc., so if you really like those, you're stuck with the Canon software). DxO's lens corrections (distortion, vignetting, etc.) are based on lab tests, Adobe uses profiles that many times are submitted by users. But, DxO doesn't do library organization - personally, I use Aperture 3 for that.


----------



## JonJT (Oct 5, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> JonJT said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Not gonna argue with that.


----------



## Ivar (Oct 5, 2011)

Lovely rumor if true - big future SLR-cameras *must* be better than smaller sensor companions in every respect to justify their existence. As Sony has shown, a big chunk of MP can be moved quickly these days ([email protected]). More pixels are never worse than less, it is the sensor size what defines the IQ and outside factors like lenses, but more MP enable the possibility for better IQ (even ISO is no worse on print than exactly the same sensor with less MP).


----------



## kubelik (Oct 5, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35 and $1000 more than the 17-40. If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is. I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths...



awinphoto makes a pretty good point here. I have the feeling that canon does know that this is a bit of a hole in their lineup, and just as they recently cranked a [stunning] 200-400 f/4 to match/surpass Nikon's, I have a feeling it won't be long before we see a 14-24mm f/2.8 L from Canon. after all, it's very clear the demand is there, and that people are willing to pay the premium for this lens, so it's just money waiting to be earned by Canon.

the recent comments about canon now diverting focus to its wide angle lenses makes perfect sense as they have pretty much run the gauntlet as far as telephotos go at this point (expect perhaps updating the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 ... but those will probably wait a couple of years until everyone has bought the high-end II-series lenses)


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 5, 2011)

kubelik said:


> awinphoto makes a pretty good point here. I have the feeling that canon does know that this is a bit of a hole in their lineup, and just as they recently cranked a [stunning] 200-400 f/4 to match/surpass Nikon's, I have a feeling it won't be long before we see a 14-24mm f/2.8 L from Canon. after all, it's very clear the demand is there, and that people are willing to pay the premium for this lens, so it's just money waiting to be earned by Canon.
> 
> the recent comments about canon now diverting focus to its wide angle lenses makes perfect sense as they have pretty much run the gauntlet as far as telephotos go at this point (expect perhaps updating the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 ... but those will probably wait a couple of years until everyone has bought the high-end II-series lenses)



Thanks... You know, I dont envy the canon lens design engineers... Not only do they have to find new ways to design these lens elements to bend light and not only meet up in unison to create a sharp image, but also get enough light lined up to create a sharp image across the entire frame, and oh yeah, consumers want a 2.8 aperture, oh and it cant be too similar to Sonys/Nikons/Carl Zeiss/etc patents... And then once it's all done, how to make it at a price point where people would want to buy it... Then again thats why they make the money they do... To invalidate "lesser" lenses such as the 17-40/16-35 especially compared to the 14-24 is just not the same, they are two separate animals, different strengths... I do think at one day sooner than later Canon will once again own not only the telephoto lineup but also the ultrawides, but until then there are options... There's TSE lenses which you can rent if need be if you need those critical shots, do pano style shots with 50% overlaps so the sweet spot of the lenses cover the entire scene you wish to cover, merge in photoshop... Quick, easy, and can make stunning photos... That's how I made many of my architecture shots...


----------



## scokar (Oct 5, 2011)

macfly said:


> > why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta agree with this, all you people who want a slower car go buy a slower car, but stop telling the manufacturer not to make fast cars, because some of us have races to win....



Since we're going with silly analogies -- 

When your primary goal is to make the fastest car, you make tradeoffs for that car - safety. cargo capacity, passenger capacity; affordability; comfort

I don't have a race to win, but I do want consistent, quality, focused images that don't need a main frame to process or fiber optics to get images out of the camera.

TODAY. Right Now. the % of people NEEDING (life depends on it) 35+ megapixel images is a corner case. if you want one, then you are a part of that corner. it just so happens its is easy for Canon to address the needs of this corner case and THEN , improve on DR, noise characteristics (note: NOT quantity), improving ISO quality over entire range.

some are asking Canon to slow down the drive for megapixel supremacy and put the SAME energy into the other aspects of exposure that a camera creates


----------



## Zuuyi (Oct 5, 2011)

kubelik said:


> and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.



I will take the GTX 570 over a Quadro 5000. And if you really want the best get a GTX 580. Seeing that they are Adobe certified cards; both of the GTX cards have more Cuda Cores than the Quadro 5000, 480 & 512 respectably.
All 3 are 320 bit cards.

The one main advantage is less energy demand from the Quadro cards. Because you can get a GTX card with 3gb or 2.5gb of ram now. And I'll happily save $1500 on a video card.

Quadro cards are amazing in Autodesk & Maya; but for photography and adobe based video a GTX card will do more than enough for a fraction of the price.

Most people here would be better off with a 2GB 560 Ti, 120 GB SSD, and $1300 than a Quadro 5000.


----------



## fotoray (Oct 5, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > If the 5Dmk3 has 36MP, I wouldn't buy it unless it makes coffee *and* give head better than my girlfriend.
> ...


----------



## puqq (Oct 5, 2011)

macfly said:


> > why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta agree with this, all you people who want a slower car go buy a slower car, but stop telling the manufacturer not to make fast cars, because some of us have races to win.



It's not that a high mpix count is bad per se, it's that it withdraws attention from more important technical aspects.

Building on your example, unless you are a pixel peeping show off, you do not a car with that is capable of 500km/h top speed but cannot take a sharp turn at 50km/h. In other words, 36mpix is cool, but having several additional ISO steps would permit so much more (imagine street photography in night or candle-lit portraits), let alone higher Dynamic Range- think about perfectly exposed shadow and still detailed blue sky. A real racer will not look at the top speed of a car, but at its acceleration and handling.


----------



## Picsfor (Oct 6, 2011)

For me, 36mp for portraiture is just too much. I would rather see less MP, better focusing and higher ISO.

I love to shoot at 6400, it gives a lovely grainy feel to a mono shot; but think how much nicer it would be if I could do that in even lower light.

Every one craves grain free, but grain can be a good thing!

Sorry, noise for the non film users :

The 5D2 is only really lacking a decent focusing system. It has demonstrated over the last few weeks just how good a camera it really is during opposing lighting conditions that change by the minute...

A 36mp D800 would be interesting and most definitely bring about a release by Canon, who I believe pretty much already know what the D800 specs are, but would it be at a price that people are willing to pay - given the price of the 5D2's?


----------



## obscura (Oct 6, 2011)

Zuuyi said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.
> ...



I have to second this. I regularly use Avid, Premiere, After FX, Lightroom and Photoshop on both on an old 9series GeForce and a brand new $1800 Quadro 5000 - there is no discernable difference. I've worked many years in digital media and the Quadro cards give you nothing over a $200 nvidia 'gaming' card when using the aforementioned software. I know it may be hard to believe since you'd naturally equate such a vast difference in cost to some sort of gain, but there is none. Poke around the internet and you'll find other testimonials.


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 6, 2011)

fotoray said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


----------



## Blaze (Oct 6, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> For me, 36mp for portraiture is just too much. I would rather see less MP, better focusing and higher ISO.
> 
> I love to shoot at 6400, it gives a lovely grainy feel to a mono shot; but think how much nicer it would be if I could do that in even lower light.
> 
> ...



You can always add grain in post. It's a bit trickier to take it out. I'm definitely hoping for a big improvement in high ISO performance. There's never enough light when I shoot indoor sports.


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 6, 2011)

*Re: Grain*



Picsfor said:


> Every one craves grain free, but grain can be a good thing!



Sure, but we want pretty grain, not ugly grain! That is, homogeneous isotropic random noise is fine but please reduce the ugly "pattern" noise that the 5D2 suffers from.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 6, 2011)

obscura said:


> Zuuyi said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



hi guys, thanks for correcting me on that. you're right, I was thinking of 3D applications when I wrote that, but for 2D photo work, the gaming cards are indeed a better bang for the buck. I appreciate the catch.

the original point stands as regards to the poster's computer setup; I would be very surprised given the quad core 3 GHz and 8 GB of RAM that he would have any issues with processing images off of the 5D Mark II; the only thing I can think of is getting 1 or 2 graphics cards to do some extra lifting.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 6, 2011)

One thing to consider is that Canon might actually have a mirrorless as there "cheap" FF body. That would likely steal Nikon's thunder even if it didnt outspec the D800.


----------



## eos650 (Oct 6, 2011)

I was reading up on the Sony SLT-A77 with the translucent mirror and found myself thinking that a hi-bred might be a nice solution. Imagine a camera with a translucent mirror, like the Sony, that could operate in both modes (fixed or reflex).

In the fixed mode you would have live view, with fast, continuous focusing and high frame rates. The Sony goes up to 12fps. The disadvantage is that only about 70% of the light reaches the sensor.

In the reflex mode, the mirror would operate similar to today's DSLR's, where it would flip up, to take the picture and back down, to view and focus. The disadvantage would be that the view finder would only get about 30% of the light so it would either need to be electronic (yuck) or it would appear darker.

I wonder if they could make a translucent mirror that has variable reflectivity. Maybe the mirror could have some sort of electronically activated coating or possibly a lcd that has reflective crystals. This could allow the mirror to be more reflective when in reflex mode and more translucent, when in fixed mode. Hmmm...


----------



## JonJT (Oct 6, 2011)

kubelik said:


> obscura said:
> 
> 
> > Zuuyi said:
> ...


Eh, I'm not convinced a dual card setup is more cost effective than just buying a faster single card, particularly for 2D applications.

I do some CAD work with small assemblies and relatively simple parts occasionally, in addition to 2D photo work. I'm going to stick with a Radeon 6850.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 6, 2011)

JonJT said:


> Eh, I'm not convinced a dual card setup is more cost effective than just buying a faster single card, particularly for 2D applications.
> 
> I do some CAD work with small assemblies and relatively simple parts occasionally, in addition to 2D photo work. I'm going to stick with a Radeon 6850.



wasn't trying to convince you away from a Radeon 6850 as it's a very capable card. I only use my Xfire Radeon 6950's for huge images, otherwise I'm on a laptop that is running like a 3-generation old Nvidia mobile graphics card ... and it processes my 5D Mark II images fine.

again, the point was, someone else was wondering why their well-specified system was freezing while processing 5DII images. I couldn't think of anything other than the fact that maybe he might benefit from a video card.

as far as 1-card vs 2-cards go, the newer Nvidias appear excellent at scaling when performing 3D tasks, I don't know if they distribute 2D tasks as efficiently. If they do, then a 2-card setup would still present a bargain over a single high-end card... but, that's assuming your motherboard will support SLI/Xfire and your power supply is adequate.


----------



## Zuuyi (Oct 6, 2011)

I said a singe card setup; the reason I said a GTX 570 or 580 is for Cuda Support in Adobe Applications. Here's a benchmark of the change CUDA support made in Adobe Premiere. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-580-gf110-geforce-gtx-480,2781-13.html

Otherwise a Radeon card is just as good as a Nvidia card. But I don't game, or do 3d Modeling so Nvidia Cuda is a winner for me. And CS5.5 doesn't use the second card in a SLI setup so I would just do a single GTX 570 or 580 (if you can afford it).


----------



## kubelik (Oct 6, 2011)

Zuuyi said:


> I said a singe card setup; the reason I said a GTX 570 or 580 is for Cuda Support in Adobe Applications. Here's a benchmark of the change CUDA support made in Adobe Premiere. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-580-gf110-geforce-gtx-480,2781-13.html
> 
> Otherwise a Radeon card is just as good as a Nvidia card. But I don't game, or do 3d Modeling so Nvidia Cuda is a winner for me. And CS5.5 doesn't use the second card in a SLI setup so I would just do a single GTX 570 or 580 (if you can afford it).



Very cool to know. Thanks for sharing that bit of info!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 8, 2011)

The GIMP freeware editor is close to releasing a rework of the entire processing engine to use only non-destructive, graphics card-accelerated processing.

nVidia used to make my favorite graphics cards...but CUDA is just another attempt to try to force a split in the market with some nonstandard proprietary garbage - the other big negative story out of nVidia on this track is PhysX, of course. I also view their 3D driver as useless but everybody's big on that (even outside personal computers) so I guess that's a "platform agnostic" problem. Say what you will about Microsoft and AMD - they've been big on developing and sticking to standards (DirectX - although that isn't so big a presence in 2D applications - and OpenGL; there's also OpenCL which AMD uses to push out its Accelerated Parallel Processing, which replaces ATI Steam). Absent the sudden bankruptcy of AMD, Photoshop is certainly going to improve its support for AMD cards even more in the future - last I checked AMD had made up most of the lost ground already (though I could be wrong on this detail).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 8, 2011)

Stuart said:


> This Nikon one seems to have a poor ISO which is odd.


That would be odd; what are you basing this off?





bchernicoff said:


> For those of you worried about Canon's response I would like to point out something. The
> 7D has a 22.3mm x 14.9mm sensor (area of 332.27 sq mm) and takes images that are 5184 x 3456 (17915904 pixels).
> 
> 17915904 / 332.27 = 53919.72 pixels / square mm
> ...


Your major assumption seems to be that it is no more difficult or expensive to create a sensor with a larger surface area than another, but with the same pixel pitch (and also that the size of camera pixels isn't dependent on the production process, and also that there is no improvement in production processes in two years). Even with two years' development time, this could (I can't say for certain, not knowing the ins and outs of Canon's tech roadmap and which facilities they use for which processes) require using a more expensive process than they currently use for full frame sensors (of the same generation as the 7D, that is) and they also probably would have to lock down the reject rate (I'm not saying it is cheaper to have lots of rejects if they only take up a smaller part of the silicon wafer at the plant, however).

By the time all that work has been put in, what I think they're actually going to do is just produce the sensor with the best qualities that makes use of the current production technology, which will give them the smallest feature size at no higher cost. It might not cost much to keep older tech lines going a while longer, but if the 18mp sensors use an older, "coarser" production process it might actually cost them money while not putting them at the forefront of the race with technology.

To pull all the technobabble out of the post - if Canon now uses newer factory machinery to make their sensors than were available for the 18mp sensor in 2009, the features of the new sensor will be mostly determined by that new process. They would not use the older process because it puts them behind in technology while giving them no real benefit in cost savings because everybody else is rolling out newer tech as well.

All that junk aside, I think you're onto something - as a baseline that is probably easily achievable for Canon given it already has had something out for a couple years with a pixel pitch that would let you make a high resolution sensor, as you said.

As for your HDR mode idea - that's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work with current technology, unless you want your pictures to have the appearance of an interlaced or dithered image (at best). I think the DIGIC's probably equipped to process pixels the fastest when all pixels are assumed to be at the same ISO - of course this doesn't mean it isn't possible but it may end up being very slow or even cause some accuracy problems, as before the DIGIC can work with the raw photosites they have to undergo an ADC process, and again I would wonder if the design is such that you can just specify some exact, arbitrary pixel is going to have different gain applied to it than the last and next ones.

The bigger problem is how to mesh what are actually different images taken from different locations into one, because in your model you have to offset one image to "fit" the other, which means interpolation, which further means inaccuracy and real data is lost. In your theoretical HDR camera, the "second" frame of DR is either every other pixel, which means it's not taken from the same location, and different details will be recorded (as I said - this would be worse than halving resolution), or it is every other line, which is funky as well.

All the same I would love it if they did some pixel binning or something similar to help extend DR, if possible.


----------



## onkel_wart (Oct 8, 2011)

I'll probably not have the money to chip in on those machines, but I would want a FF with not more than 18mpix but iso quality bordering on nightvision. They should leave out all the gimmicks no one really needs (except marketing departments and those nerds comparing useless features, they'll never ever use (correctly)).
But of course the logics of the free market are not always logical....


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 8, 2011)

onkel_wart said:


> But of course the logics of the free market are not always logical....


Apparently the logistics of producing high technology gadgets aren't logical, either  High ISO comes hand in hand with high resolution in most all cases. Even if ISO isn't "great" you get far more detail to fight noise with.


----------



## onkel_wart (Oct 9, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> onkel_wart said:
> 
> 
> > But of course the logics of the free market are not always logical....
> ...


I think it's rather the problem of doing something better versus doing something new. I have worked in software development for thirty years now. The new stuff always wins management over....


----------

