# A leaked document suggests that Canon has a 63mp full frame image sensor in the works.



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 23, 2019)

> *Update* After speaking with a couple of people, it turns out that this image sensor has no chance of ever making it to a consumer product. One person said its likely application is security if it ever actually makes it into production.
> Without giving specifics, the source said that the format of the document removes the chance of this being for consumer photography applications.
> 
> A leaked document shows that Canon has a full frame 63mp image sensor in the pipeline. There is no way to verify this information or this document’s authenticity, but from reading the document below, things do look legit.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 23, 2019)

Good one. Seen the analysis on canonnews. They say its performance looks the same as the sensor in 6DII. Which means, pretty poor performance. Hope it won't actually go to the high-end high-res R-series camera.


----------



## Cryve (Apr 23, 2019)

this is good news as this would would lead to the conclusion that the new apsc-sensor is 24mp and not 32,5 (as that would lead to a 84mp full frame sensor)


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 23, 2019)

This has almost exactly the same pixel pitch as a 24MP APS-C sensor. Which may or may not be a coincidence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

Cryve said:


> this is good news as this would would lead to the conclusion that the new apsc-sensor is 24mp and not 32,5 (as that would lead to a 84mp full frame sensor)


Huh? If you find a pebble on the ground, does that lead to the conclusion that IBM stock will rise? Feel free to support your claim with examples from Canon’s history where the pixel pitch of different sensor formats has been aligned.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 23, 2019)

Cryve said:


> this is good news as this would would lead to the conclusion that the new apsc-sensor is 24mp and not 32,5 (as that would lead to a 84mp full frame sensor)



It's very interesting news (in case this sensor is going to be used in the next Canon camera) but not good news. The performance will be below 6DII. Also I'm not sure how it's related to the prospective APS-C sensor, or why it should be related.


----------



## Cryve (Apr 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Huh? If you find a pebble on the ground, does that lead to the conclusion that IBM stock will rise?



i get that it is a far strech and we cant conclude anything reliably, but we have more clues about a new 24mp aps-c sensor now than we have about a 32,5mp aps-c sensor, if we can take anything from the one case that we have : 5ds sensor supposidly beeing an upscaled 7d ii sensor


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

Cryve said:


> i get that it is a far strech and we cant conclude anything reliably, but we have more clues about a new 24mp aps-c sensor now than we have about a 32,5mp aps-c sensor


Sorry, if you are suggesting this leaked document offers any clues about a forthcoming APS-C sensor, that’s like jumping over the Grand Canyon on your leap to a conclusion.


----------



## lglass12189 (Apr 23, 2019)

Is this an exercise site? Seems a lot of people get a good workout jumping to conclusions


----------



## Cryve (Apr 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, if you are suggesting this leaked document offers any clues about a forthcoming APS-C sensor, that’s like jumping over the Grand Canyon on your leap to a conclusion.


it sure is, i just wanna spur on some discussion. i mean this is a rumor forum after all.

in the end it couldnt mean anything and you are absolutly right that its very far fetched.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 23, 2019)

Cryve said:


> i get that it is a far strech and we cant conclude anything reliably, but we have more clues about a new 24mp aps-c sensor now than we have about a 32,5mp aps-c sensor



this wouldn't show a "new" 24MP sensor. it has a higher read noise and lower DR than the current generation 24MP sensor. we won't even get into it's sensor readout speed.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 23, 2019)

Its a slow news day. Let pump out garbage.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 23, 2019)

Maybe it's an old sensor Canon decided not to release years ago?


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 23, 2019)

Cryve said:


> this is good news as this would would lead to the conclusion that the new apsc-sensor is 24mp and not 32,5 (as that would lead to a 84mp full frame sensor)


Alternatively it is a sensor design deduced from current 24 MPix sensors which might come into an EOS RPS body or it's simply a design for some type of observational imaging systems. If I am right the 18 MPix sensors came some years before the EOS 5Ds cameras and it needed to ripe for FF use with similar pixel densities ...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> Its a slow news day. Let pump out garbage.


This is Canon_rumors_ so it's doing what it is meant to do.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 23, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's very interesting news (in case this sensor is going to be used in the next Canon camera) but not good news. The performance will be below 6DII.


How do you figure that?
Yes, the pixels are smaller, but you can resample the image down to the size of the 6D2 images and gain about 1.5 stops of DR doing so.... and they should be sharper... and with a higher density sensor you don’t need as strong of an AA filter, so a bit more improvement, plus, it will be a newer design!


----------



## caffetin (Apr 23, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Good one. Seen the analysis on canonnews. They say its performance looks the same as the sensor in 6DII. Which means, pretty poor performance. Hope it won't actually go to the high-end high-res R-series camera.


I can see, I am going to fuji


----------



## slclick (Apr 23, 2019)

That's it, I'm switching to Rolleiflex


----------



## cayenne (Apr 23, 2019)

Is it possible that Canon is angling towards a more medium format model camera?

You don't need speed performance there....perhaps this is for a model somewhat in line for the market that the FUJIFILM GFX 50S is shooting for these days?

cayenne


----------



## canonnews (Apr 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> How do you figure that?
> Yes, the pixels are smaller, but you can resample the image down to the size of the 6D2 images and gain about 1.5 stops of DR doing so.... and they should be sharper... and with a higher density sensor you don’t need as strong of an AA filter, so a bit more improvement, plus, it will be a newer design!


it's NOT a newer design. If you look at the pinouts from a 6D Mark II sensor, it uses an on board ADC and is probably the same tech level as this sensor.

it has the exact same DR response as the 6D Mark II sensor. it doesn't follow the response curve of say, a 5D Mark IV,etc. this is not a new design. it's the prior generation similar to what the 6D Mark II was.


cayenne said:


> Is it possible that Canon is angling towards a more medium format model camera?
> 
> You don't need speed performance there....perhaps this is for a model somewhat in line for the market that the FUJIFILM GFX 50S is shooting for these days?
> 
> cayenne


No, it's a 35mm sensor, and i'd say 3 fps is the slowest you could have a camera shoot at reasonably and this wouldn't even hit that.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> How do you figure that?
> Yes, the pixels are smaller, but you can resample the image down to the size of the 6D2 images and gain about 1.5 stops of DR doing so.... and they should be sharper... and with a higher density sensor you don’t need as strong of an AA filter, so a bit more improvement, plus, it will be a newer design!



I didn't figure that, the potential DR was figured by Canonnews. Anyway I doubt resampling/downsampling will help gain DR. Even if it would, I don't need a new camera, I just keep using my 5DIV. This sensor looks like (another) step back from 5DIV actually.

I do know it's all rumours. But if Canon really puts this or similar sensor in their upcoming high-res camera, it'll really be time to move. Most likely to Sony, as I'll be able to use my EF lenses. For landscape photography, I'd welcome a 60+mp sensor, but I'd also like to see the DR performance on par with A7rIII or at least on par with 5DIV.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 23, 2019)

caffetin said:


> I can see, I am going to fuji


Good news!


----------



## canonnews (Apr 23, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I didn't figure that, the potential DR was figured by Canonnews. Anyway I doubt resampling/downsampling will help gain DR. Even if it would, I don't need a new camera, I just keep using my 5DIV. This sensor looks like (another) step back from 5DIV actually.
> 
> I do know it's all rumours. But if Canon really puts this or similar sensor in their upcoming high-res camera, it'll really be time to move. Most likely to Sony, as I'll be able to use my EF lenses. For landscape photography, I'd welcome a 60+mp sensor, but I'd also like to see the DR performance on par with A7rIII or at least on par with 5DIV.


Funny. I fired CR an email this morning when I saw this at 1am last night and said if they make this into a camera I may have to start a sonynews.com website up.

I think if people read what I wrote about it, they can deduce that I wouldn't be impressed by it at all.

For reasons I wrote on CanonNews, I think this is a legit sensor, but Canon was exploring B2B applications with it and not putting it into a camera.


----------



## JBSF (Apr 23, 2019)

caffetin said:


> I can see, I am going to fuji



Can we help pack your bags?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 23, 2019)

Canon does not make up this kind of document for sensors used in their cameras. If its not fake, then its for something that they plan to market. More likely, its a fake.


----------



## Pape (Apr 23, 2019)

Hmm maybe canon doesnt even want higher DR . Photographic look for those who want take photographs . and improved faster HDR mode for those who want painting looking pictures.
They are number 1 . They can make cameras what they think are good. Other brands need listen photographers .
I am sure HDR mode can be made fast enough for windy landscapes . And those who use high mpixel camera for birds wont need lowest isos anyway.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 23, 2019)

Move along. Nothing to see here.


----------



## SV (Apr 23, 2019)

Meh


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> How do you figure that?
> Yes, the pixels are smaller, but you can resample the image down to the size of the 6D2 images and gain about 1.5 stops of DR doing so....


How do you figure that? Been drinking the DxO Koolaid? A mathematical increase in DR does not recover image information clipped at image capture.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 23, 2019)

Pape said:


> Hmm maybe canon doesnt even want higher DR . Photographic look for those who want take photographs . and improved faster HDR mode for those who want painting looking pictures.



What is a photographic look? If it's blown out highlights and/or totally dark shadows, thanks but I don't need that look. But if you mean certain colour/tonal rendition, it's all about postprocessing. Low DR doesn't make a photograph look more photographic. High DR actually leaves you more room for postprocessing and rendering painterly or photographic or instagramic or whatever look you want. And HDR itself has nothing to do with the so called HDR look. The so-called HDR look is all about certain postprocessing techniques, not specifically about 'high dynamic range'. HDR look is a bad name.



Pape said:


> They are number 1 . They can make cameras what they think are good. Other brands need listen photographers .
> I am sure HDR mode can be made fast enough for windy landscapes . And those who use high mpixel camera for birds wont need lowest isos anyway.



Canon makes great cameras, but it doesn't mean other manufacturers don't listen to their customers. Ultimately, photography is about getting pictures, and in digital photography, the image is mostly about lenses and sensors. Ergonomics, weather-sealing, fps etc are hugely important but still secondary factors. Long story short, if Canon instead of improving the sensor performance, implements a fast HDR mode for windy landscapes, I won't be happy as a customer. I don't care if the new camera sells well to bird photographers and Canon runs out of storage for huge profits. I care about a camera for me and I choose from what's on the market including Sony, Nikon etc.


----------



## timmy_650 (Apr 23, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon does not make up this kind of document for sensors used in their cameras. If its not fake, then its for something that they plan to market. More likely, its a fake.



It add to that, they could be going to the market with this sensors and It wouldn't matter to anyone here. An example is the 120mp sensors, that is hit the market but they never put it in a production camera.


----------



## Adelino (Apr 23, 2019)

Sounds like a really bad sensor. Maybe an old document?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 23, 2019)

Adelino said:


> Sounds like a really bad sensor. Maybe an old document?


Whats bad about it? Tell us. Give us a example of a 63 mp FF sensor that is better.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 23, 2019)

Oh boy, I really hope the leaked document is fake. Come on, who needs those extra MPs if the camera cuts useful highlights and renders shadows terribly noisy. I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images. If this news is true and Canon releases this as a follow-up to the 5Ds line, I can't even imagine favoring it over my trusty old 5DsR, especially given that this new sensor seems to have half a stop worse DR at the base ISO.
This must be one heck of a terrible joke. Honestly, I don't wish to see that on the market. I'd like to see somethinig competitive and actually great and USEFUL.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 23, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Whats bad about it? Tell us. Give us a example of a 63 mp FF sensor that is better.


The bad thing is its usefulness for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.
There is no other 63mp sensor out there and that's probably the point - it seems pretty useless.
Tell me one lens that can outresolve even a 50mp full-frame sensor.

...not even thet best of Zeiss lenses do and what are those extra megapixels for if you won't get that information through the lens that's sitting in front of the sensor?


----------



## caffetin (Apr 23, 2019)

JBSF said:


> Can we help pack your bags?


Yes


----------



## Kit. (Apr 23, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Tell me one lens that can outresolve even a 50mp full-frame sensor.


This one, for example.

Actually, quite a lot of lenses would benefit from such a sensor. Even EF 100-400 II would.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do you figure that? Been drinking the DxO Koolaid? A mathematical increase in DR does not recover image information clipped at image capture.


Neuro, your sarcasm detector is broken 

Resample to 16Mpixels and gain 2 stops of DR
Resample to 1Mpixel and gain 6 stops
Resample to 1Kilopixel and gain 16 stops
Resample to 1 pixel and gain 26 stops

You will only have one pixel, but think of the DR!


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> This one, for example.
> 
> Actually, quite a lot of lenses would benefit from such a sensor. Even EF 100-400 II would.


I see the MTF. It is not THAT much better than the Batis 2.8/135 in the center and it is worse in the edges anyway. The Milvus 2/135 is better and the Milvus 1.4/35 is even better than that. Neither of them outresolve the 50mp sensor, although they are not far from it.

It is true that having a few more megapixels can extract a bit more resolution from the same lens (whatever the lens is), but the gain is rather marginal and then again, for static scenes where you really wish a lot of resolution, like landscapes or architecture, you can shoot panoramas with a longer lens and get 400mp easily with a much less resoluted sensor.

Consider also that more megapixels means more storage demands and a notable slow-down to the workflow. The gains are not that huge.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Neuro, your sarcasm detector is broken
> 
> Resample to 16Mpixels and gain 2 stops of DR
> Resample to 1Mpixel and gain 6 stops
> ...


Right, either this is a joke or it needs some correction. You can get better noise by downsampling, but not more DR. Ever seen deeper shadows lifted, even on a medium format digital camera like the Fuji GFX? You will be lifting mud, because the texture information is simply not captured. As written in the post to which you answer, no resampling will help you recover lost highlights or lost detail in the shadows (only reduce noise). Therefore, it will not help you gain more DR, just reduce noise, and these two things are not equivalent, although related. Neither will mean-stacking help you gain more DR. You'd need to resort to exposure blending or HDR, the former of which tends to yield better results, but is more demanding.

If I need to capture good detail in most of the picture including shadows, I simply need to pick a proper exposure and then one or more overexposures, which I bring down a lot, and overlay the darkened, non-clipped parts, over the normal exposure. The more contrast (DR) in the scene, the more such exposures one needs to take and blend. That actually gives you more DR, not resampling nor mean stacking.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> This one, for example.
> 
> Actually, quite a lot of lenses would benefit from such a sensor. Even EF 100-400 II would.


Spot on. Opticallimits.com have tested several lenses on the 5DSR and some do resolve 5500 lines/picture height. 50 mpx is enough for me though as a compromise between file size and resolution, but I could live with 60mpx.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 23, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> I see the MTF. It is not THAT much better than the Batis 2.8/135 in the center and it is worse in the edges anyway. The Milvus 2/135 is better and the Milvus 1.4/35 is even better than that. Neither of them outresolve the 50mp sensor, although they are not far from it.


It highly likely outresolves a monochrome 50MP sensor, and it definitely outresolves a Bayer pattern sensor for objects of high color saturation (or for just dark enough objects of any non-neutral color).



mk0x55 said:


> It is true that having a few more megapixels can extract a bit more resolution from the same lens (whatever the lens is), but the gain is rather marginal and then again, for static scenes where you really wish a lot of resolution, like landscapes or architecture,


Look at the "Show your Bird Portraits" thread on this forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> The bad thing is its usefulness for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.
> There is no other 63mp sensor out there and that's probably the point - it seems pretty useless.
> Tell me one lens that can outresolve even a 50mp full-frame sensor.
> 
> ...not even thet best of Zeiss lenses do and what are those extra megapixels for if you won't get that information through the lens that's sitting in front of the sensor?


Thanks for demonstrating in one short post that your understanding of photography is limited and your comprehension of optics is moreso.

Your implication is that current Canon sensors are useless outside of the studio. Sorry, the world has clearly proven that to be a fallacious and asinine argument. As for optics, system resolution is what matters, and increasing sense a resolution will increase that even if the relative increase decrements at higher pixel densities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Neuro, your sarcasm detector is broken


I’ll get that tested soon.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 24, 2019)

So many leaks about products that'll we'll never see, what about what we will see. I suspect Canon doesn't want leaks of more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 24, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So many leaks about products that'll we'll never see, what about what we will see. I suspect Canon doesn't want leaks of more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.


Canon doesn't want us to see what we want to see, and we do not want to see what Canon wants us to see. That basically recapitulates the contents of this and many other discussions on this forum.


----------



## GoldWing (Apr 24, 2019)

Well if the new 1DXMKIII is 50MP's what the heck is this even getting press?


----------



## Adelino (Apr 24, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Whats bad about it? Tell us. Give us a example of a 63 mp FF sensor that is better.


The 63 MP sounds good but the low DR, noise, slow readout and other specs that were mentioned sound bad. Other than the 63 MP what do you think sounds good about it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Canon doesn't want us to see what we want to see, and we do not want to see what Canon wants us to see. That basically recapitulates the contents of this and many other discussions on this forum.


The bit that recapitulates much of the trolling on this forum is, “...more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.” Personally, I’m still wondering when the competition will come up with a FF sensor with >50 MP or a sensor with millions of AF points, both of which Canon has offered for years while their competitors have trailed behind. But people will go on thinking their opinions represent those of the majority despite evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The bit that recapitulates much of the trolling on this forum is, “...more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.” Personally, I’m still wondering when the competition will come up with a FF sensor with >50 MP or a sensor with millions of AF points, both of which Canon has offered for years while their competitors have trailed behind. But people will go on thinking their opinions represent those of the majority despite evidence to the contrary.



But again I don't care about the majority. I don't care if I represent the majority in this instance. I'm choosing a camera for _me_. Ok this thread is all speculations, but still I speculate about a camera for me and I don't care about the majority who maybe wants millions AF points instead of high DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But again I don't care about the majority. I don't care if I represent the majority in this instance. I'm choosing a camera for _me_. Ok this thread is all speculations, but still I speculate about a camera for me and I don't care about the majority who maybe wants millions AF points instead of high DR.


True. But the troll to whom you were replying stated ‘disillusion the faithful,’ meaning he believes he knows how others feel.


----------



## Pape (Apr 24, 2019)

it sounds like plan B sensor if that next generation camera fails get reliable enough for release.
At least they managed avoid reusing 5ds sensor


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 24, 2019)

Wow...this thread spun into name calling fast...
For me, the megapixel race was over once I hit 20-ish full frame mp and that was a long time ago. A good photo is a good photo regardless of the quantity of pixels over that particular boundary. I have no desire for a 5DSR even though I take a lot of landscapes. In my humble and probably biased opinion...anything over 24mp is koolaid and pushed by camera marketers and people who photograph walls and lens charts. Give me a well rounded and super versatile camera like a 5Dmk4 any day over a 5Dsr or what ever the latest super high mega pixel bragging monster will be. It's a bit like the frame rate argument....I've never seen the need for 14 fps either and I've shot on many wildlife workshops. Anything over 5 fps is more than adequate if one times their shot. Only the "pray and spray" shooters seem to need more. I can't see many clients choosing images because of a greater system resolution vs a great photo.


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 24, 2019)

Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?


I suppose you could argue that full frame is overkill for security cameras in general, but for those applications the more resolution the better. Generally the goal is to cover a large area, and the wider the FOV the higher resolution you need.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 24, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> In my humble and probably biased opinion...anything over 24mp is koolaid and pushed by camera marketers and people who photograph walls and lens charts. Give me a well rounded and super versatile camera like a 5Dmk4 any day over a 5Dsr or what ever the latest super high mega pixel bragging monster will be.



But 5DIV is 30mp which is more than your 24mp limit.
In terms of landscapes, high mp count is needed for large prints and also for postprocessing. You have more room for cropping to start with.
Not that 24mp is too little, but I wouldn't mind to have up to 60-75mp, providing the dynamic range doesn't degrade.


----------



## Pape (Apr 24, 2019)

we need all possible megapixel so can save back from carrying too long teles


----------



## Diko (Apr 24, 2019)

*1/On spam....*
Damn! Like first page... weird off-topic flaming. At least someone posted that link to "_dat_" gorgeous and swe-e-e-t little baby (the pre-production *Sony FE 135mm f1.8 GM*) with its verdict: "_if you are shooting a 90-megapixel camera, this lens will be the one that wrings the most detail out of that sensor_" it's not such a waste of time.

*2/ On motion blur*
The following quote also made me think about on sensor stabilization:


mk0x55 said:


> ...I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.



I wonder if in the speculated next iteration of 50MPish DSLR body (they are still going to make it a DSLR, right?) is going to come with _in(DSRL)camera _sensor stabilization. Currently with 50MPs in order to ensure good quality results along with state of the art lense one also needs to consider controlled light or speed. There are fewer lenses that could accommodate perfect results with own in-lense stabilization.

*3/ On lense sharpness*


mk0x55 said:


> ...I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.



As for the lense VS sensor resolution - let us not forget ISO, please. Sure - the current about 43 is about 43 (_perceptual resolution_) and that is on few primes only. And yet due to the higher count of pixels as mentioned above to avoid motion blur I have to shoot higher speeds, which requires either more light or higher ISO. Noise reduction from 50MP easier than from 10 or 20MP. I am talking from my own experience. Especially and usually when the output final image is with lower resolution. Bare in mind that the talk is of
"8-9 out of 10 photos that are sharp" kind of experience. So to have the freedom to choose from wider variety. I don't go extreme on ISO for lack of DR, but on speed will always push as higher as possible to better my chances on big PXL bodies.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for demonstrating in one short post that your understanding of photography is limited and your comprehension of optics is moreso.
> 
> Your implication is that current Canon sensors are useless outside of the studio. Sorry, the world has clearly proven that to be a fallacious and asinine argument. As for optics, system resolution is what matters, and increasing sense a resolution will increase that even if the relative increase decrements at higher pixel densities.


I don't see how what I wrote implies what you claim. I'm a Canon shooter and don't claim that my current camera is useless although it doesn't match its competition as far as the overall performance goes. What I claim in that post and those few previous to it is that if I got to choose between 13 extra megapixels or even half a stop of extra DR, I'd go for the latter. And I would accept no decrease in DR.
The resolution is useful mostly for cropping or if you wish to print really huge. The first problem you can solve by getting a longer lens. The second problem seems more legit to me although largely unfaced, because you [almost] only can make panoramas of static scenes.

I can understand however how dear that resolution becomes to bird photographers who rely heavily on cropping. For most other photography, it mostly means asking for more data demands, slower workflow, earlier diffraction and lower DR.

Let me clearify further: As long as they improve on the DR, I don't mind increased resolution. The former is just more important to me at this time; and I believe to most photographers out there (perhaps except birders). I'm seldom hindered by resolution limitations; but very often by DR limitations.

Good that the sensor indeed doesn't seem to be intended for the photography market.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 24, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?


It's handy if you want to actually discern poorly lit faces in wide-angle scenes.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 24, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Wow...this thread spun into name calling fast...
> For me, the megapixel race was over once I hit 20-ish full frame mp and that was a long time ago. A good photo is a good photo regardless of the quantity of pixels over that particular boundary. I have no desire for a 5DSR even though I take a lot of landscapes. In my humble and probably biased opinion...anything over 24mp is koolaid and pushed by camera marketers and people who photograph walls and lens charts. Give me a well rounded and super versatile camera like a 5Dmk4 any day over a 5Dsr or what ever the latest super high mega pixel bragging monster will be. It's a bit like the frame rate argument....I've never seen the need for 14 fps either and I've shot on many wildlife workshops. Anything over 5 fps is more than adequate if one times their shot. Only the "pray and spray" shooters seem to need more. I can't see many clients choosing images because of a greater system resolution vs a great photo.


I largely agree with your argumentation. What I like about the 5DsR is that extra 3D-pop it tends to render, especially when paired with good lenses like Zeiss primes. I also very much like that the anti-aliasing filter is cancelled out as I really don't miss it and it mostly just blurs out pictures.

On the other hand, the resolution of displays increases (Full HD --> 4K --> soon 8K... however pointless 8K is with regards to the limits of human vision and common viewing distances, but that's another story) and cropping also occurs dependent on the type of photography we do and the motives we capture. This is where resolution becomes dear to people, especially birders and wildlife photographers I imagine. However, the utility is largely about probability of needing it versus the costs of having it. I can nothing else than fully acknowledge that even my years old 5DsR is a very niche camera, and the 5DIV is simply better for all-round photography -- unless you often face the needs to crop in or print really huge.

EDIT: Similarly I see use of high fps for a few photographers who need that to capture the moment, the occurrence of which happens in times that fall beyond our human reflex times. I'm again thinking about bird and wildlife photographers, but also sports and such stuff where things happen very fast and spray-and-pray is the only way to reliably capture the best moments. One should keep in mind that those are all corner cases with regards to some sort of "virtual" average of photography needs.

That said, I believe there is a need for those niche features and performance levels. However, I see that all-round cameras and typical photographers will more likely be limited by baking these in just to make them look competitive on spec sheets because of all the ungrounded hype out there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> I don't see how what I wrote implies what you claim. I'm a Canon shooter and don't claim that my current camera is useless although it doesn't match its competition as far as the overall performance goes.



The background, from the source who analyzed the 'leaked' (or fabricated) information:


canonnews said:


> it's NOT a newer design. If you look at the pinouts from a 6D Mark II sensor, it uses an on board ADC and is probably the same tech level as this sensor.
> it has the exact same DR response as the 6D Mark II sensor.



Your claim:


mk0x55 said:


> The bad thing is its usefulness for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.



The obvious inference is that Canon cameras are useless outside the studio (except perhaps the 5DIV). The 1D X, the 5DIII, 5Ds/R, etc., all have similar DR to the 6DII and thus to this rumored 63 MP sensor. So you implied they are useless outside the studio. Clearly ridiculous. 




mk0x55 said:


> Let me clearify further: As long as they improve on the DR, I don't mind increased resolution. The former is just more important to me at this time; and* I believe to most photographers out there *(perhaps except birders). I'm seldom hindered by resolution limitations; but very often by DR limitations.


You may believe that, but your belief doesn't make it any more true than the beliefs of Flat Earthers. Lots of members here have explicitly stated they don't _need_ more DR, others the opposite. Even for those who need/want more DR, do you really believe that 'even half a stop of extra DR' would be sufficient for most people? Personally, it would really make little difference. The frequency at which 13 stops of DR is not enough to capture full scene DR but 13.5 stops will do so is vanishingly low. Granted, more is always better. But usually a little more isn't enough, and once you're exposure blending (HDR, luminosity masks, whatever), that extra 0.5 or 1 stop of DR is irrelevant.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The obvious inference is that Canon cameras are useless outside the studio (except perhaps the 5DIV). The 1D X, the 5DIII, 5Ds/R, etc., all have similar DR to the 6DII and thus to this rumored 63 MP sensor. So you implied they are useless outside the studio. Clearly ridiculous.


There it nothing obvious about it to me. The 6DII is not a bad camera, but it is an entry-level full-frame camera, not really a pro-grade model (yes, you and a ton of other people can argue about that).
I wouldn't accept any lesser DR than the 5DsR has, and even that I only tolerate in light of what the competition has had for almost a decade and what I actually so often would benefit from in my shooting.
The fact that Canon released the 6DII sensor and optimized it for high-ISO performance at the cost of low-ISO performance is something that makes that camera utterly uninteresting to me (with regards to my shooting, mostly landscape, architecture, and portrait).
Lastly, your claim is correct about that the 5DIV, 1DXII and 5Ds* and eventually also EOS R cameras are the only ones from Canon that appeal to me (EDIT: they all have better base-ISO DR than the 6DII: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II___1009_1106_1170 ). The other ones I don't even consider due to their performance limitations. I owned a 7D before and while the camera served me well and helped me grow in photography, it really doesn't match the image output of the 5DsR for my shooting, not to talk about some of Canon's competition nowadays.
I own quite some Canon glass and I like several aspects of Canon cameras. That makes me stick with them and wait until they close the gap between them and their competition when it comes to image quality. And it's about time. I think that says it from my side.


----------



## Diko (Apr 24, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Well if the new 1DXMKIII is 50MP's what the heck is this even getting press?


 Keep on dreamin' ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> There it nothing obvious about it to me. The 6DII is not a bad camera, but it is an entry-level full-frame camera, not really a pro-grade model (yes, you and a ton of other people can argue about that).
> I wouldn't accept any lesser DR than the 5DsR has, and even that I only tolerate in light of what the competition has had for almost a decade and what I actually so often would benefit from in my shooting.
> The fact that Canon released the 6DII sensor and optimized it for high-ISO performance at the cost of low-ISO performance is something that makes that camera utterly uninteresting to me (with regards to my shooting, mostly landscape, architecture, and portrait).
> Lastly, your claim is correct about that the 5DIV, 1DXII and 5Ds* and eventually also EOS R cameras are the only ones from Canon that appeal to me (EDIT: they all have better base-ISO DR than the 6DII: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II___1009_1106_1170 ). The other ones I don't even consider due to their performance limitations. I owned a 7D before and while the camera served me well and helped me grow in photography, it really doesn't match the image output of the 5DsR for my shooting, not to talk about some of Canon's competition nowadays.
> I own quite some Canon glass and I like several aspects of Canon cameras. That makes me stick with them and wait until they close the gap between them and their competition when it comes to image quality. And it's about time. I think that says it from my side.


“I wouldn’t accept...,“ and, “...appeal to me,” fine and no argument. “Useless for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.,” not so much.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 24, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.



Each to their own, but I used the 5Ds exactly as I had done the 5D3 and aside from slightly faster shutter speeds I didn't change my technique at all (I think tere's a lot of mystique around these high MP cameras that doesn't chime with my experience).


----------



## Diko (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You may believe that, but your belief doesn't make it any more true than the beliefs of Flat Earthers. Lots of members here have explicitly stated they don't _need_ more DR, others the opposite. Even for those who need/want more DR, do you really believe that 'even half a stop of extra DR' would be sufficient for most people? Personally, it would really make little difference. The frequency at which 13 stops of DR is not enough to capture full scene DR but 13.5 stops will do so is vanishingly low. *Granted, more is always better. *But usually a little more isn't enough, and once you're exposure blending (HDR, luminosity masks, whatever), that extra 0.5 or 1 stop of DR is irrelevant.



I guess I switched sides.... the other day I pulled from a photo from a sunny day with deep shadows on a photo (the usual nightmare without additional light). The LR Auto Tone did a decent job on the RAW photo, but tried to brighten the shadow to the end and pushed the Highlights..... I had the DR and yet it looked HDR unnatural to me already.

Where HDR is needed one can pull it off with an HDR bracket from hand so I really don't see a lot more to ask for DR unless in specific photography field.​​Go check my posts. Coming from 40D background I was begging for DR, but now with LR 8 and 5D4 I could hardly want more. Of course I would be NOT expecting anything less for the new DSLR 5DSr (gee! what retarded moron made the same naming nomenclature for the MILCs and the High MP DSLR bodies?!*@!).​​Here is an example of how far things can be pushed from a single cr2 file and for me that is so unnatural and yet covering it all as information.​​​


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> “I wouldn’t accept...,“ and, “...appeal to me,” fine and no argument. “Useless for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.,” not so much.


Right, I take the latter part (about uselessness) back - it was an exaggerated statement put in context of what camera competition is out there nowadays and what challenges I often face in my own photography (that is not birding).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

Diko said:


> I guess I switched sides.... the other day I pulled from a photo from a sunny day with deep shadows on a photo (the usual nightmare without additional light). The LR Auto Tone did a decent job on the RAW photo, but tried to brighten the shadow to the end and pushed the Highlights..... I had the DR and yet it looked HDR unnatural to me already.
> 
> Where HDR is needed one can pull it off with an HDR bracket from hand so I really don't see a lot more to ask for DR unless in specific photography field.​​Go check my posts. Coming from 40D background I was begging for DR, but now with LR 8 and 5D4 I could hardly want more. Of course I would be NOT expecting anything less for the new DSLR 5DSr (gee! what retarded moron made the same naming nomenclature for the MILCs and the High MP DSLR bodies?!*@!).​​Here is an example of how far things can be pushed from a single cr2 file and for me that is so unnatural and yet covering it all as information.​


My point (inaccurately summed up as more is better) is really that more doesn't hurt. Given a choice between having 12 stop s of DR and having 12.5 or 13, as long as I'm not giving anything up, why not? 

Regarding 'had the DR and yet it looked HDR unnatural to me already', I agree. Sometimes shadows should be dark!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Right, I take the latter part (about uselessness) back - it was an exaggerated statement put in context of what camera competition is out there nowadays and what challenges I often face in my own photography (that is not birding).


Fair enough, thanks.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 24, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Your claim


You can do the math yourself if you wish and compare it against DXO's 6D Mark II results that measures it in nearly the same fashion. you'll quickly discover the DR EV curve matches the 6D Mark II. It does not, for instance match the DR curve from the 80D/5D Mark IV,etc sensors.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> The resolution is useful mostly for cropping or if you wish to print really huge. The first problem you can solve by getting a longer lens. The second problem seems more legit to me although largely unfaced, because you [almost] only can make panoramas of static scenes.



One doesn't solve the need for cropping by getting a longer lens. You get a longer lens and you still need to crop from time to time.

Also with large prints, you'll struggle to print a 6000x4000 image even on A2 at 300ppi, and if you crop, you'll struggle even more.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

Diko said:


> ​Here is an example of how far things can be pushed from a single cr2 file and for me that is so unnatural and yet covering it all as information.​​View attachment 184015​



What is it exactly that looks unnatural to you in this image?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What is it exactly that looks unnatural to you in this image?


Dogs wearing balloons. It's just weird.


----------



## caffetin (Apr 25, 2019)

well,i am I'm a little confused cos I am new in photography.can somebody explain me why is canon EOS-1D X Mark II best camera pro with only 20mpx compared with lets say 5ds/r or the upcoming 70+ mpx r.


----------



## -pekr- (Apr 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The bit that recapitulates much of the trolling on this forum is, “...more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.” Personally, I’m still wondering when the competition will come up with a FF sensor with >50 MP or a sensor with millions of AF points, both of which Canon has offered for years while their competitors have trailed behind. But people will go on thinking their opinions represent those of the majority despite evidence to the contrary.



There is imo no evidence to the evidence of the contrary - there's just a majority, which does not care. Off course there is many ppl always lusting for a better gear, more emotionally, than rationally, being quite vocal - myself included. We don't make your life easier, do we?


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dogs wearing balloons. It's just weird.



Not a single cat in the photo with so many dogs and you call this natural? But seriously, that image look and feel reminds me a marmalade candy. Uh, you know what. A lollipop is a better word to use that describes my initial response.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 25, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> There is imo no evidence to the evidence of the contrary - there's just a majority, which does not care. Off course there is many ppl always lusting for a better gear, more emotionally, than rationally, being quite vocal - myself included. We don't make your life easier, do we?


Yes, you do, indeed!
Please sell or trade in you cameras and lenses for the latest and greatest shiny new toys the moment Sony/Oly/ who-ever-not announces the new photographic miracle that is oh so amaZing. 
I will gladly buy your instantly outdated pro quality lenses and old-fart pro grade Canon DSLR for pennies in the dollar.  pretty please, my friend!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

caffetin said:


> well,i am I'm a little confused cos I am new in photography.can somebody explain me why is canon EOS-1D X Mark II best camera pro with only 20mpx compared with lets say 5ds/r or the upcoming 70+ mpx r.



Best for what?


----------



## caffetin (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Best for what?


well I am interested generally for macro,extreem macro and street photo.but onе thing I can steel not understand are mega pixels.if y have more than y are able to get more details.Does it mean that the less mxp I have I am loosing more details?


----------



## -pekr- (Apr 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yes, you do, indeed!
> Please sell or trade in you cameras and lenses for the latest and greatest shiny new toys the moment Sony/Oly/ who-ever-not announces the new photographic miracle that is oh so amaZing.
> I will gladly buy your instantly outdated pro quality lenses and old-fart pro grade Canon DSLR for pennies in the dollar.  pretty please, my friend!



Can't serve you actually, as I did not buy 6DII to make you happy  While upset at the 6DII release, I went with the 5DIV instead. Along with 70-200/2.8 II IS and 24-80/2.8 II, I think, that so far we kind of still have the latest and greatest. As for MILC to accompany/replace our 5DIV, I wait for some mysterious new sensor to appear in 1-2 years timeframe. Not looking into any competing brands - am too lazy/conservative to move my butt.

But as for Canon, I have new gripe to moan about - the .cr3 support. I am an on1 user and it seems Canon did not provide specs to anybody just Adobe. Others have to reverse engineer it. With the RP, there are some comments out there, stating the'Ve changed something and even LR/ACR has problems to support it. Once again - does Canon try to capitalise / licence here, do they support only Adobe, because they are still kind of testing the format? Or are they complete dorks again?


----------



## Diko (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Best for what?


 Exactly! The question arises due to the idiotic marketing messages coming from CANON. "1Dx - our flagship". It's not just the sensor though. Indeed have tested both 1Dx - I & II. Faster AF, better DR, lower Noise. Images are... awesome. However IMHO best for sport, birds, kids and anything moving fast. Night photography... haven't made side-by-side tests with 5D4 for comparison after down-sampling final images. But hey - what do I know. They need to sell something awkwardly expensive. Actually pro sport photography is the most expensive in reality both as bodies and lenses (as investment, have no idea how well are they paid, AFAIK usually the press photo agencies give them the equipment). 



Quarkcharmed said:


> What is it exactly that looks unnatural to you in this image?


 The image is flat. It is surreal.

Just was playing around what I can pull off these days from the usual equipment. 

Do you see the sky - how dark it is with saturated blue on a sunny day? The shadows are near to non existent. Go out and see with your eyes. The regions where there are highlights and shadows are NOT supposed to be so saturated at all that much! Your eyes wouldn't register it that way. Unless I PS the cat in to show it's a... lollipop child's dream it's totally fake. This here is obviously an event. Really it was  And not some piece of an art fart.

And having in mind I agree "more is always better to have and not always use" concerning DR, there are people that have shifted the aesthetic (10x 2 mobile photography possibilities) to kitsch. The age of not restraining to *always* max out have led to FB being full with this "plastic and unreal" caricatures instead of photos.

Maybe I am old. 

Enough off topic. I would enjoy the 63 MP ex-beast to be the next security thing though maybe even for that it's not good enough. AFAIK HDR video capabilities are already on CMOS implemented with dual exposure or iso like capabilities in mind. 

On the other hand when I think of it. 63MP that's between 33 MP (8k) and 133 MP (16K), so maybe it is dual something 8K. But hardly that would be for video, since the overheating would be tremendous and the data to be processed would have "from-the-future-rates". Way too cutting edge - better refrain myself from day dreaming.

Since there's no mention of something new (е.g. IBIS) for photography in that datasheet it's USELESS when superior in-house sensors are available already. 

Another possibility it to be a leak of an old "from the recycle bin" or forgotten archived data sheet. Hardly a publicity stunt since it would be a bad PR for CANON )))

Last possibility that most of you would dismiss is "ear-hunt". The good old "leaking on purpose fake info that is changed to regions or security levels". If that is the case I bet the mole is not tech savvy since he/she would be aware the data is weird.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 25, 2019)

*-pekr-*



> .... As for MILC to accompany/replace our 5DIV, I wait for some mysterious new sensor to appear in 1-2 years timeframe. Not looking into any competing brands - am too lazy/conservative to move my but....



not sure what is the big deal with the sensor there. I will buy Pro 5D-ish styled MILC from Canon the moment it landed provided (being an event shooter):


dual memory card configuration
joystick, please
-5 EV over viewfinder AF sensitivity
in viewfinder histogram
RF 28-70 F2.0 lens compatible.
5fps minimum
5D style (sized) magnesium body.
weather resistant
US$3000-ish priced.
I will keep my second 5D IV body and use for assignments where OVF works better than EVF


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

caffetin said:


> well I am interested generally for macro,extreem macro and street photo.but onе thing I can steel not understand are mega pixels.if y have more than y are able to get more details.Does it mean that the less mxp I have I am loosing more details?



Ok, but 1DXMkII won't be 'the best' for macro and street. In fact it'll be ok for macro and probably the worst for street. Only a medium-format film camera mounted on a tripod will attract more attention in the streets than 1DXMkII. 

As to the details, yes, the level of details depends on the sensor resolution, but it also depends on the lens resolution. It's always a system as a whole (basically lens+sensor) that determines the resolution.


----------



## caffetin (Apr 25, 2019)

and what do y suggest.eos r or some canon crop sensor basically for macro because macro is my basic interest.


----------



## -pekr- (Apr 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> *-pekr-*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It did not want to make it sound negative, just pragmatic. After all - we did our local small photo business in our studio using 70D. Right now, we've got 5DIV, we do weddings too. But each market is different - we charge 350-500 USD per wedding. Average sallary here is around 1200 USD and most ppl don't reach that. Hence we are used to consider what we spend our money for. And we've already got the 5DIV, right? I don't need the second one right now. I am also not sure the tracking speed is there with the R equivalent. So as for the future - it will almost definitely be some R MILC, in e.g. 2 years period. I wish / expect Canon to deliver some advancements. Technology advances, you know. IBIS, better sensor, faster tracking, better eye focus, whatever is better, is better. Then we will buy and 5DIV will move to become second body.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 25, 2019)

caffetin said:


> and what do y suggest.eos r or some canon crop sensor basically for macro because macro is my basic interest.


I think EOS RP will be better for you than EOS R, 5Ds or 1Dx series.

It is lighter, easier to use, less conspicuous and has focus bracketing.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

Diko said:


> Exactly! The question arises due to the idiotic marketing messages coming from CANON. "1Dx - our flagship". It's not just the sensor though. Indeed have tested both 1Dx - I & II. Faster AF, better DR, lower Noise. Images are... awesome. However IMHO best for sport, birds, kids and anything moving fast. Night photography... haven't made side-by-side tests with 5D4 for comparison after down-sampling final images. But hey - what do I know. They need to sell something awkwardly expensive. Actually pro sport photography is the most expensive in reality both as bodies and lenses (as investment, have no idea how well are they paid, AFAIK usually the press photo agencies give them the equipment).



That's the market. They sell it for the price buyers are ready to pay. Also there's little competition. In that niche, only Nikon can compete, and Sony is trying to crawl into this segment with their A9.



Diko said:


> The image is flat. It is surreal.



It's flat because it was nearly midday. Also it's a bit too bright. Decrease exposure by about 0.5 stops, pull the shadows down a bit and decrease saturation, it'll become more 'natural':



However it was ok even before I tweaked it, as a random shot from dogs competition. A bit too soft though, maybe because of a slightly off focus or a motion blur.



Diko said:


> Just was playing around what I can pull off these days from the usual equipment.
> 
> Do you see the sky - how dark it is with saturated blue on a sunny day?



Hmmm I don't know, the sky is ok. Do you want it to be just white/blown out? But we don't see white sky on a sunny day. We see it as pale blue.



Diko said:


> The shadows are near to non existent. Go out and see with your eyes. The regions where there are highlights and shadows are NOT supposed to be so saturated at all that much! Your eyes wouldn't register it that way. Unless I PS the cat in to show it's a... lollipop child's dream it's totally fake. This here is obviously an event. Really it was  And not some piece of an art fart.



If the shadows are non-existent, they can't be saturated...  If the shadows are saturated, it's because the whole image is too bright and oversaturated.



Diko said:


> And having in mind I agree "more is always better to have and not always use" concerning DR, there are people that have shifted the aesthetic (10x 2 mobile photography possibilities) to kitsch. The age of not restraining to *always* max out have led to FB being full with this "plastic and unreal" caricatures instead of photos.
> 
> Maybe I am old.



Probably not as old as pictorialism vs straight photography argument.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> One doesn't solve the need for cropping by getting a longer lens. You get a longer lens and you still need to crop from time to time.


Sure, sometimes it is desirable and I don't even have a super telephoto lens, which hinders me from taking certain shots. The extra sensor resolution would help with that a bit, the question is if it's worth the other tradeoffs to you or me. 



Quarkcharmed said:


> Also with large prints, you'll struggle to print a 6000x4000 image even on A2 at 300ppi, and if you crop, you'll struggle even more.


Right, but considering the normal viewing distance... I have a hard time seeing that as a major problem. I don't mean pixel peeping with a loupe or scrutinizing the image quality of the print from the closest distance your eyes can focus. 
If you make an exhibition and need/want to absolutely impress people by the crispiness of your large prints and can't shoot a panorama, then I get the point though.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What is it exactly that looks unnatural to you in this image?


The whole image looks artificial.

After your correction, the skies still look artificial, while the rest looks just boring (not your fault, though; it's how it is supposed to look in this light).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

Kit. said:


> The whole image looks artificial.
> 
> After your correction, the skies still look artificial, while the rest looks just boring (not your fault, though; it's how it is supposed to look in this light).



The sky is nearly overexposed (on the right side it's completely overexposed) but it's not too bad for this scene. Overexposed tips of balloons are worse. But tbh that's not because of the lack of DR, likely the original shot was overexposed a bit, otherwise it would probably be possible to recover the balloons (but not the sky).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 25, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Right, but considering the normal viewing distance... I have a hard time seeing that as a major problem. I don't mean pixel peeping with a loupe or scrutinizing the image quality of the print from the closest distance your eyes can focus.
> If you make an exhibition and need/want to absolutely impress people by the crispiness of your large prints and can't shoot a panorama, then I get the point though.



Ok, at 200ppi the max size of uncropped 24mp image will be 30x20" which is enough for A2. But that's not the best quality. But in many cases it'll be good enough, that's true.


----------



## Diko (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's flat because it was nearly midday. Also it's a bit too bright. Decrease exposure by about 0.5 stops, pull the shadows down a bit and decrease saturation, it'll become more 'natural'.


 Nahh. The edges. The edges are the evident culprit still. Otherwise you are right. 


> ...A bit too soft though, maybe because of a slightly off focus or a motion blur.


 24-70 mark 1 (about 16MP perceptual) on a 30 MP body. Still love this lense. Don't like the mark 2. 


> Hmmm I don't know, the sky is ok. Do you want it to be just white/blown out? But we don't see white sky on a sunny day. We see it as pale blue.


 I redid it just to check the camera capabilities and yes. In the original pale blue to white.


> If the shadows are non-existent, they can't be saturated...  If the shadows are saturated, it's because the whole image is too bright and over saturated.


 Yes. Exactly.

Generally posted the image to make an argument that what yesterdays scene was a photographer's nightmare could be today with current cameras easily recovered not only in its glory but (if correctly edited) to accommodate the need it was taken in first place (e.g. something important hidden in the shadows or to set the positive feeling of the event by making the sky more blue-ish than it was). But definitely not all-in-one as here.  

I hardly believe we would need 63 MP unless in photojournalism (event and wedding including) where while shooting one main thing the real moment could be in the 1/5th of the frame. Landscapes as well. Always! And photo-editorial, of course. Currently the right body - about 30-40ish MPs with great glass could do you the job perfectly.

Depth maps! I don't know if with the IR freq. one could create them, but depth maps are the future. Especially for us! Already enough examples are here. Artificial bokeh (yeah - I know and I love the smart selection tool in PS) in no time. Light accents here and there. The future should bring this on the table. And not a 63 MP body with... unkown purpose.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?


Canon has slowly been staking out sensors for speciality applications where there is currently no overwhelming competition. Security and surveillance for military, industry, law enforcement and other high end areas is a growth industry. A sensor is the primary requirement for developing new applications. Canon has previously stated that selling specialized sensors is part of their game plan, I've been expecting to see more and more. No one talks about the sensors that are on military satellites, for example, but there are lots of them, and they are very secret. They are not off the shelf, and highly specialized. Who's to say that some of these are not finding their way into space? They have a lot of extra requirements, but that is often compensated for by packaging them to meet radiation, temperature and other esoteric needs. Semiconductors do not like radiation for sure.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 25, 2019)

Diko said:


> Depth maps! I don't know if with the IR freq. one could create them, but depth maps are the future. Especially for us! Already enough examples are here. Artificial bokeh (yeah - I know and I love the smart selection tool in PS) in no time. Light accents here and there. The future should bring this on the table. And not a 63 MP body with... unkown purpose.


I also think that system camera makers have a lot to get inspired by from modern cell phone cameras like that of the new Huawei.
Yes, system cameras have 14+ bits per pixel and phones just 8-12, but phones do a lot of computation on the data captured by their otherwise inferior sensors. 
You could get a depth map by quickly make several exposured in burst, with different apertures. Similarly, you could truly max the DR and image fidelity (including texture detail in shadows) by stacking such bursts of different exposured captured in an immediate sequence or perhaps even added on top of each other. Any of these could drastically reduce noise. 
While this would not be perfectly applicable to all scenes, having the capabilities in our cameras would save a lot of our time and struggle as well as improve the image quality for many types of shots to a major degree.

This would actually legitimize the continuation of the megapixel race, but we have yet to see such features in system cameras from Canon, Nikon etc. In some other cameras, pixel shift is some sort of a beginning, I guess.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 26, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> I also think that system camera makers have a lot to get inspired by from modern cell phone cameras like that of the new Huawei.
> Yes, system cameras have 14+ bits per pixel and phones just 8-12, but phones do a lot of computation on the data captured by their otherwise inferior sensors.
> You could get a depth map by quickly make several exposured in burst, with different apertures. [..]



The Dual Pixel AF should have enough information for a depth map already, especially if it focused before taking the picture.


----------



## Diko (Apr 26, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The Dual Pixel AF should have enough information for a depth map already, especially if it focused before taking the picture.


 Yes. But way too limited.


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has slowly been staking out sensors for speciality applications where there is currently no overwhelming competition. Security and surveillance for military, industry, law enforcement and other high end areas is a growth industry. A sensor is the primary requirement for developing new applications. Canon has previously stated that selling specialized sensors is part of their game plan, I've been expecting to see more and more. ...


 Yes...

Ubdeed Canon are having *this *and* this. *They even *offer* industry standardized CMOS sensors officially. I couldn't find but have read that they build custom single CMOS sensnors (costing hundreds of thousand of $), but couldn't find it to show it.

An yet here the talk is of a mere 63 MP capable CMOS _only_, when there is officially 120 for sale and they have done APS-H 250 already in the pipeline?

I don't think so ;-)



mk0x55 said:


> You could get a depth map by quickly make several exposured in burst, with different apertures.


Yeah! Magic Lanterns sole existnce is due to lack of extra functionalities in the vendor's firmwares. A good example would be dual ISO. And yet could hardly ingnore the fact that Canon has bracketing.

Why not making depth maps with brackets and implementing in a new file format altogether. ;-) E.g. "*3D RAW*" photo or something.It's a question of pure automation and hard-coding it on a chip. Everyone would love it. Especially the Marketing department! ))

Have to check that with brackets and depth maps. Any recommendations where to start?

Edit: I found only *this*.


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It's handy if you want to actually discern poorly lit faces in wide-angle scenes.



I get the wide angle part, but I'd think the discern poorly lit part is a matter of dynamic range.


----------



## GoldWing (Apr 29, 2019)

Diko said:


> Keep on dreamin' ;-)


50mp at 15fps RAW with multipoint auto AWB and full cross points across the entire frame. Auto MA with group A lenses and a built in radio for wifi and canon flashes. New "quad" focus system and AI case (7) that learns as you shoot. OVF now goes -3 to +4. New paint with better adhesion to magnesium body.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 29, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> I get the wide angle part, but I'd think the discern poorly lit part is a matter of dynamic range.


I'd think that in a security product in particular, it is a matter of high ISO noise.


----------

