# Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to be 30mp? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 27, 2016)

```
<p>We’re told that the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV will come out with a 30mp sensor. This is the first time we’ve heard of such a resolution, but it does come from a “retail source”. We’re cautious that it could be a number that was rounded up or rounded down, because the most popular megapixel counts have been 24 and 28.</p>
<p>30mp would be a nice number for a lot of people and put some breathing room between the EOS-1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV. The 6D Mark II would fit nicely around 24mp.</p>
<p>We hope to hear more soon, and please take this one with a heavy pinch of salt.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## GuyF (Jul 27, 2016)

30mp could be useful for those not needing all 50 of the 5DsR.

Will be interesting to see what Canon can do with the new sensor with regards to noise and (whisper) DR.


----------



## padam (Jul 27, 2016)

Any number of increase in megapixels is just going to hurt video performance (worse rolling shutter with full readout) and video will be an important part of the camera just like the 1DX II.


But of course a separate model with lower megapixels specifically for video is not out of the question, they did it with the 1DC in the past and now they can do it one level lower as well.


----------



## pvalpha (Jul 27, 2016)

I would doubt it myself. Even though I am pretty sure that the sensor would be between 28-32MP... I'd expect 28 more than 30 or 32. What I want to know is if it will have BSI. That would change the game quite a bit for this camera, and would certainly be the herald of a whole bunch of refreshing coming down the pike.


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2016)

Or ... it could be 6Mpixels less than that ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 27, 2016)

Everyone ready?.... 
. 
Rev your engines typing fingers! 
. 
. 
Heerrre weeeee GOOOOOOO! 
. 
Tires Keyboards smoking...


----------



## bvukich (Jul 27, 2016)

I'll be happy anywhere from 24-34 (and preferably 28-32). I could use a bit more resolution then I have now with the 5D3, but I rarely need a much more than that.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 27, 2016)

But a 5D *has* to have more resolution than a 6D! Because it costs more and is better! Because more pixels! :

#clickbait #success

- A


----------



## darekbo (Jul 27, 2016)

There is no turn back to small number of pixels. This Canon should be competitive for next 2 years so It should have around 36-42 mp. Next year every camera even smartphones will have 20-30 mp.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 27, 2016)

darekbo said:


> There is no turn back to small number of pixels. This Canon should be competitive for next 2 years so It should have around 36-42 mp. Next year every camera even smartphones will have 20-30 mp.



That presumes that dunces* are defining the value of all types of cameras based on the number of pixels. This is somewhat/largely true on the lower-to-mid end of the camera spectrum (cell phones, point and shoots, Rebel-level SLRs, etc.) in which the buyer is much less informed than an enthusiast or professional photographer.

(*not remotely implying that you are, hear me out)

But on the higher end of photography know-how comes the wisdom to know that other things matter. In that light, though some pros need high MP rigs, many would be just fine with the 5D# line sitting on or around the 22 MP it sits at now.

And that would mean (gasp) that a 6D2 could sit below the 5D4 for price/features and yet outresolve it with more pixels. That userbase is closer to entry level and values pixels more than the 5D# camp does -- so give it to them!

I'm personally not opposed to more resolving power in the 5D4 so much as I'm opposed to the expectation that it MUST get more resolving power. I would argue the 5D# camp, if offered the choice of: 

+2 fps / +2 stops high ISO / same 22 MP

Same fps, same high ISO as 5D3 / 30 MP

...they would overwhelmingly choose the former.

- A


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> darekbo said:
> 
> 
> > There is no turn back to small number of pixels. This Canon should be competitive for next 2 years so It should have around 36-42 mp. Next year every camera even smartphones will have 20-30 mp.
> ...


+1000 These features would make it a small 1DX.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 27, 2016)

i had speculated in the past that "30" sounds better when compared to "36" instead of "28" compared to "36"

it just "sounds" like it's much closer.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> i had speculated in the past that "30" sounds better when compared to "36" instead of "28" compared to "36"
> 
> it just "sounds" like it's much closer.



Why must it compete/compare with 36MP cameras? Canon already has a 50MP to trump 36MP and 42MP. Instead Canon can market a 28-30MP camera as more a performance oriented camera. It may have a small increase in fps--I think 8fps would be nice; I doubt that Canon would go higher than 9fps for product separation reasons. If it can glean a modicum of improved low-light performance and, yes, better DR than the 80D, I'd line up to get one (I'd line up even if it stayed at 22-24MP if it had these other improvements).


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I would argue the 5D# camp, if offered the choice of:
> 
> +2 fps / +2 stops high ISO / same 22 MP
> 
> Same fps, same high ISO as 5D3 / 30 MP



I would argue that due to direct costs incurred by Canon, the former would be significantly more expensive than the latter and therefore not directly comparable.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 27, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue the 5D# camp, if offered the choice of:
> ...



Why so? Were it 30 or 22 MP, both would represent a standalone 5D4 sensor that other bodies wouldn't use. 

Or would a 30 MP sensor leverage sensor fab equipment that already exists at Canon (that I am not aware of)?

So why would one cost more than the other? Do explain, I'm honestly curious -- I'm fairly ignorant of cost & fab considerations. 

- A


----------



## midluk (Jul 27, 2016)

Problem with the pixel count is that file size (storage space, resources needed for raw development) is proportional to it, while the actual (linear) resolution just increases with the square root of it.
I don't see much point in going higher than what we currently have if you don't need the best resolution possible. But then you have to increase it by a lot (5DS) to see a significant effect and live with the file size.
30MP (compared to 22.3) would give you 35% bigger files for just 16% more resolution.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 27, 2016)

I would speculate that Canon has experimented with the dual pixel sensor simultaneously running two different ISO settings resulting in higher DR. ML has the hack for the video alternating fields operating at different ISOs, so the dual pixel would seem to be better for adaptation of the concept.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jul 27, 2016)

30 MPIX sounds good even if I would prefer 36 MPIX. I may get a 5DIV after all - in fact certainly will if its also 9 fps and has great high iso as in at least 1 1/2 stop better than the 6D (which I expect).


----------



## midluk (Jul 27, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I would speculate that Canon has experimented with the dual pixel sensor simultaneously running two different ISO settings resulting in higher DR. ML has the hack for the video alternating fields operating at different ISOs, so the dual pixel would seem to be better for adaptation of the concept.


No, it wouldn't. Both pixel halves see different parts of the lens, which means different parts of bokeh circles. Especially out of focus highlights would look really strange


----------



## LukasS (Jul 27, 2016)

bvukich said:


> I'll be happy anywhere from 24-34 (and preferably 28-32). I could use a bit more resolution then I have now with the 5D3, but I rarely need a much more than that.


I would be happy with 28-32 range as well.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.

But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 27, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.
> 
> But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.



Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

- A


----------



## kaihp (Jul 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.
> 
> I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.


I'm with you 

With 30MP, I would expect it to stay at 6fps.


----------



## AdamBotond (Jul 27, 2016)

kaihp said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.
> ...



+1 and many more. Moderate MP increase is appreciated, but only as long as it is not at cost of fps, DR and high-iso capabilities. We are talking about 6 MP differential here (between the lowest and highest expected MP count for 5DIV). Maybe its just me, but I don't really see a scenario where you stuck with 24 MP, but 30 MP would save the day. Those who are after high MP and don't care much about fps, DR, high-ISO already have a choice in 5Ds(R).


----------



## gsealy (Jul 27, 2016)

I am thinking that somebody just rounded 28.x MP up to 30 MP.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 27, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> +1 and many more. Moderate MP increase is appreciated, but only as long as it is not at cost of fps, DR and high-iso capabilities. We are talking about 6 MP differential here (between the lowest and highest expected MP count for 5DIV). Maybe its just me, but I don't really see a scenario where you stuck with 24 MP, but 30 MP would save the day. Those who are after high MP and don't care much about fps, DR, high-ISO already have a choice in 5Ds(R).



Agree, of course. We've beaten this to death, but for these two values:

24 MP = 6,000 x 4,000
30 MP = 6,708 x 4,472

That computes to a whopping 1.12x crop at equivalent detail for the 30 MP rig. Why even bother? Because 30 > 24 and therefore we can better rationalize the investment with ourselves?

I fully well appreciate the value of added detail or the ability to crop for those that need it, but incremental bumps are far far far less important than most people think. 

I can't tell if folks are either ignorant of how little impact 24 vs 30 MP has, or if they are in dreamland and want a D810-like 'do everything brilliantly well' (best res, best high ISO, best low ISO DR) sort of sensor.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2016)

*If* this is true (and I think that is a big *if*), then I will be even more pleased that I pulled the trigger on the 1DX II. 

It might be possible that at 30 mp, you can get the same high ISO performance and the same frame rate as the current 5DIII, but I doubt you will see any improvement in either one. You may get better dynamic range at base ISO, but not as good as the IDX II. 

Everything has a price and you can't expect a 30mp sensor from the same generation will match the high ISO performance and dynamic range of a 21.5mp sensor.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 27, 2016)

With all this talk about the 5D4's resolution, I have to say that I'm more interested in it's fps than mp.


----------



## RGF (Jul 28, 2016)

I would like to see 30MP (perhaps even 32).

I doubt that Canon will give us 9 FPS (at 30-32 MP) but 8 maybe likely.

At 30+MP, I will sell both my 5DM3 and 5DsR and go with the new 5DM4

I can only hope.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm not trolling by any means but a question to ask if the 5DIV's sensor is able to compete with Nikon's aged D800 sensor. I realize there is more to a camera than a sensor but undeniably we need to see catch up after sufficient time.


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2016)

Billybob said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > i had speculated in the past that "30" sounds better when compared to "36" instead of "28" compared to "36"
> ...


+1000 A sane person stating the obvious...


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2016)

Billybob said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > i had speculated in the past that "30" sounds better when compared to "36" instead of "28" compared to "36"
> ...



He just said it "sounds" better. :


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.
> ...



More FPS, better high ISO, touch screen, DPAF, Auto AMFA. I don't care about the 8MP, not at all.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> On the other side of the fence, rumors are coming together for a 42MP successor to Sony's A99 (which was not a mirrorless camera.) If Sony can deliver a similar frame rate to the 5DIV but the 5DIV only has 28MP and the A99II has 42MP, the Canon offering is going to look a bit lack luster (rumor also talks of close to 500 AF points.)
> 
> A thirty-something megapixel 5DIV sounds closer to a thirty-something D810 in terms of megapixels than would a twenty-something megapixel 5DIV. (This is the marketing perspective, even if there is SFA difference between 28 and 30 in real life.) How important is marketing? It is reason something costs ninety nine dollars ninety nine rather than one hundred dollars because ninety nine is less than one hundred, even if the reality is a difference of only one cent.



I love Sony ff mirrorless and don't mind spending decent money at a7 series and native lenses. Wish I have more options in ff mirrorless.

I will have hard time spending my money on Sony Dslr, especially when we look at native lens selection and premium price tag.


----------



## noms78 (Jul 28, 2016)

My money is on a 32MP sensor with 24MP Mraw, improved DR (at least 1 stop), same or better ISO performance compared to mk3, 7 fps, improved AF, 4k 24-30fps video (with crop), improved menu and playback functionality, 

Nice to have: automated AFMA?, integrated electronic viewfinder with live histogram? ability to customise buttons to functions (e.g. it would be great to toggle both MLU and 2-4 sec timer with one button press)

The 5D4 needs to be competitive with the D810. The first generation of 5DS/R only beats Nikon/Sony in resolution (it sucks for ISO performance and makes no progress in DR) so I see the 5DS/R as a temporary "bridge camera" not an true answer to the competition. The successor to the 5DS/R (possible BSI sensor with improved DR) will be the real answer but do we really need 50+MP? To appreciate the resolution one needs to have a 30"+ 4k monitor or print insanely large.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 28, 2016)

After some quick googling, I couldn't find any solid charts or anything to back this. However just based on my own observation, I'm figuring 30MP will be _less_ resource-intensive to process than 22.3MP was back in 2012, relative to computer performance of the day.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> After some quick googling, I couldn't find any solid charts or anything to back this. However just based on my own observation, I'm figuring 30MP will be _less_ resource-intensive to process than 22.3MP was back in 2012, relative to computer performance of the day.



Assuming PC users have upgraded, although even if they haven't if their computer handles 130MB tiffs, it'll handle 180MB tiff's pretty well. If they have upgraded and don't use Adobe's glacially slow (at previews) products it'll feel much faster. IS there any slower product for previewing than Bridge or LR?


----------



## tpatana (Jul 28, 2016)

noms78 said:


> My money is on a 32MP sensor with 24MP Mraw, improved DR (at least 1 stop), same or better ISO performance compared to mk3, 7 fps, improved AF, 4k 24-30fps video (with crop), improved menu and playback functionality,



I'd be ok with these, if the FHD is at least 120fps. Also I'd be ok for ~4-5fps for stills.



> Nice to have: automated AFMA?, integrated electronic viewfinder with live histogram? ability to customise buttons to functions (e.g. it would be great to toggle both MLU and 2-4 sec timer with one button press)



Automated afma would be awesome. Live histogram is long shot. If we go there, we could add zebra then too.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 28, 2016)

noms78 said:


> ......print insanely large.



Yes. Printing at 24" x 36" and up I appreciate the extra resolution.


----------



## SchnauzerFace (Jul 28, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> More FPS, better high ISO, touch screen, DPAF, Auto AMFA. I don't care about the 8MP, not at all.



Yesssss to this. I just don't see how +8MP would be worth the tradeoff that we'd likely have to take (more noise in high ISO is my biggest worry, but significantly larger file sizes and fewer fps would be unfavorable tradeoffs, too). 

And as someone who will be using this in (semi)-equally parts for video and stills, I don't see the added MP doing any favors for video. I know there are definitely photogs who need max MPs for extra large physical prints, but I have to believe that share of the market is very, very small. And, I also have to believe that most of those users with specialized needs won't be looking to invest in a 5DIV anyway.


----------



## RGF (Jul 28, 2016)

tron said:


> Billybob said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Canon is using a well known marketing strategy of sandwich competitors products. On the MP front they have the D810 sandwiched between the 5Ds (R) and 5DM3. It would not make any sense for them to increase their sensor resolution to match or exceed the D810. Keeping it below allows a low rez options and the 5Ds offers a high rez options. You might argue about how effectively their products offering is, but overall both Canon and Nikon offer great cameras with minor differences (though at times these differences are noticeable).


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Billybob said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


It doesn't. But then Canon has to make a faster/better 5Ds(R) which most of you tend to forget it exists as well as you tend to forget that maybe 5DIV would have to compete with D750 successor and 6DII would have to compete with D610 successor...


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 28, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> More FPS, better high ISO, touch screen, DPAF, Auto AMFA. I don't care about the 8MP, not at all.



I 2nd that.


----------



## abbebus (Jul 28, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > More FPS, better high ISO, touch screen, DPAF, Auto AMFA. I don't care about the 8MP, not at all.
> ...



I agree. Look at the Nikon D500. Just 20 mp, but wow, what a camera…
I hope canon goes the same way with 5D4. 24 mp, 8-9 fps, better AF (all points cross-type), better DR, touchscreen, gps, wifi. And please, a built in RT flash transmitter!


----------



## pedro (Jul 28, 2016)

I'd hope for a 5DIV although I am not in the race for any camera. After the 5DIII got stolen my current 6D does just fine...Hope its second edition will se a 24 MP sensor or remain at 20, although this is unlikely in times of a 20 MP flagship.


----------



## RGF (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



bad idea if canon matched Nikon.
Canon needs to offer something better than Nikon

5Ds
D810
5DM4
D750
6DM2
D6xx

Canon does not need to match/beat Nikon feature by feature but overall, on major aspects of the camera, they need to lead Nikon.


----------



## pedro (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



so the MP war is as silly as in days gone by 8) if so, then Canon got away from their statements made at a time the 5DIII came out, which went something like this: "We see, that the customers appreciate a decent MP count, so we're focussing on an allrounder camera as far as the 5D line is concerned." Its barely correct, but they really seemed to be puttin off the MP race which I was very happy about. So, an excellent 24 MP allrounder cam for events would do... But Dylan got it right back in his day: The times they are-a-changing...;-)


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jul 28, 2016)

5D mark IV should be 44.7 megapixels... 8192 x 5460
A 16:9 crop from that sensor: 8192 x 4320 would be 8K video... which could be easily down-sampled internally to 4K 4096 × 2160 4:4:4 (full color information for each pixel)

But I know it wont happen 

They did something similar with the 5D mark III, which was exactly 3x the width/height of Full HD video (when you take the 16:9 crop).
5760 × 3840 = full sensor 5D mk III
5760 x 3240 = 16:9 crop from 5D mk III 5760 is exactly 3x 1920 and 3240 is exactly 3x 1080


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Jul 28, 2016)

Have things changed in sensor design dramatically recently ? If not then i presume that squeezing millions more pixels onto the same size sensor is a bad thing as far as light pick and pixel pitch with there being more gaps between the many more pixels. I want to see better high ISO performance not worse in a new camera personally and am not bothered by 4k video. Dual CF or faster SD is a must as is wifi, but pixels happy at 20-24 range. Think maybe they should bring out a 5DW for us wedding togs haha - we tend to recommend professional videographers rather than buying cameras with 4K - we have enough to do 


Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Yes, but certainly D8xx would not supersede 5Ds resolution (Sony went form 36 to 42) so it does not seem plausible for D7xx and D6xx to go near 36Mp. More than 24 possibly but not close to 36. Just my opinion.


----------



## ashmadux (Jul 28, 2016)

What if it had a 18-24mp crop mode? That would be beast.

Since this body is supposed to have a canon 'first', let's look at the goodies that Nikon has- its possible that it's an offshoot from Nikon excellent bodies.


----------



## pvalpha (Jul 28, 2016)

To get into the argument - the only reason Canon has to produce a new sensor fab for the 5D4 is to produce a sensor with some sort of advantage over its current sensor systems. They have ADC on Sensor with current tech, but BSI makes the most sense. A 28-32MP 5D4 with BSI would be the _perfect_ test bed for canon to produce higher density BSI sensors. 

A fab is not about the surface area of the silicon as much as it is about the features and resolution of the lithography. A fab capable of 14nm fin-fet, for example, can produce any size chip for fin-fet down to 14nm. A fab that incorporates layering techniques can use those techniques across the entire silicon surface. So a fab that produces a 28-32MP FF Canon BSI sensor can also produce a 50mp APS-C BSI Sensor and a 120MP FF BSI sensor. Its just that the die-size determines surface yields. So if you have a FF you get X number of chips per wafer, and if you have APS-C you get ~1.6X chips per wafer.  The Fab just determines what features and what size those features can be on your silicon. What changes is the yield per wafer. For example, a piece of silicon with 30nm features on a 14nm process will produce a higher yield than running 14nm features at 14nm process. So a 28-32MP sensor would have a higher yield per wafer than a 50mp APS-C or 120MP FF BSI. And that's base economics, you prove your techniques by using existing designs with new capabilities. Then you work your way up to the limits of the process. 

If we see a 22-24MP chip... then you can expect that this is going to be on old fabs with no new features. If we see 28-32MP, expect new features. BSI on a 28-32MP sensor would give you some impressive light gathering ability. Whether or not that translates into direct gains for the sensor's DR depends on how canon uses it. They do have patents for this technique.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 28, 2016)

midluk said:


> Problem with the pixel count is that file size (storage space, resources needed for raw development) is proportional to it, while the actual (linear) resolution just increases with the square root of it.
> I don't see much point in going higher than what we currently have if you don't need the best resolution possible. But then you have to increase it by a lot (5DS) to see a significant effect and live with the file size.
> 30MP (compared to 22.3) would give you 35% bigger files for just 16% more resolution.



Amen! 

I think too often people forget the non-linear relationship between the scalar, 1 dimensional megapixel value and how those pixels need to be distributed out in 2 dimensions. 

Personally I think 24 MP is more then enough, but understand how marketing might have pushed to cross that 30 mark.


----------



## xps (Jul 28, 2016)

IMO there is another player appearing: Sony

If the current rumors (taken from Sony Alpha rumors )come true (42 Megapixel sensor, 499 AF Points, Dual AF, 4K video recording, Same A7rII IBIS, Dual card Slot, improved flash system+battery), the rumored A99 successor will be an worthy opponent. 
Especially when the current 42MP sensor from the A7rII is inside.


----------



## jeanluc (Jul 28, 2016)

I hope the resolution is in the 30's.........I would like more resolution than the 5D3 but newer sensor tech than the 5DS. I realize if it is 30 then the file size goes up more than the resolution, but every little bit helps.

I have been seriously looking at the 5DSR, but with what seems to be a new generation of sensors in the pipeline I have held off. 

Given the sensor in the now quite dated D800 gives resolution AND better DR etc, I see no reason at all not to expect Canon to at least match the tech of a 5 year old Sony sensor. 

If the resolution is much lower than 30, then the rumor we heard a few months back here of a "quick" 5DSR replacement comes to the forefront, as I suspect the current one was an interim fix to placate us landscape shooters until the newer sensor tech was ready for prime time. I doubt Canon will leave their highest MP offering without a new sensor for long.


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


As far as 5DMarkIV we will know in a month. How much better to sit back and enjoy the wait ? 

We are one month from announcement and all we got is a CR1 about everything!


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 28, 2016)

Interesting, Back Side Illumination would be awesome. 

But, would they not have waited to release the 1DXii so it would benefit as well?

As much as I think it would be awesome, I can't see it. 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Disagree to some extent, Dilbert -- I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Nikon's FF segmentation is good / better / best, whereas Canon is good / best at detail (MP) / best all-arounder (video, burst, high ISO, etc.). Those two schemes don't line up well at all once you leave the starting blocks. 

Sony, on the other hand, is actually fairly well aligned to Nikon, with the exception that they have forgone the starter 'good' rig in favor of a low res / high ISO / video specialist in the A7S line. But the A7 line roughly parallels the D750 and the A7R line parallels the D8XX rigs.

But now that Canon has effectively tipped their hand by bifurcating the 5D line into the 5D3/5D4 and 5DS lines, all eyes are on Nikon. Will they... 


...try to take the next D750 upmarket to compete directly with the 5D4? Remember, that rig is loved for it's performance/price value proposition, but it's a mish-mosh of the D610 and D810 specs-wise: 1/4000 shortest shutter for instance. But were they to offer the FF baby of the D5 and D500 (FF, but burst higher than the current 6.5 fps, top level AF setup, 4K, etc.) they would morph the D750 from a great value into a real 5D4 competitor.


...dramatically climb the next D810's resolution, or keep the resolution similar and build on its terrific DR / high ISO performance? We've all been waiting for the A7R II sensor to end up in a Nikon, but it's been a year! Perhaps something bigger/badder is coming on their top end rig.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.
> ...



A 1/2 stop improvement would be amazing considering a dual pixel 30mp sensor. Sensors are very close to being as good as possible, other techniques are needed to improve sensitivity.


----------



## ehouli (Jul 28, 2016)

I don't care for more resolution, I wish they would take the AA filter off and allow to have sharper images.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is the alignment that you're referring to:
> ...



The only alignment that matters is cost. Which is currently like this:

D5: $6,500
IDX II: $6000
5D s/r: $3,500-$3,700
Df: $3000
D810: $2,800
5D III: $2,600
D750: $2,000
D:500: $2,000
7DII: $1,600
D610: 1,500
6D: $1,500

Parsing features and trying to assign arbitrary slots to bodies is a bit goofy. Hardly anyone who is buying one of these cameras is new to the system (either Nikon or Canon) so they just have to make sure that each has a selection of bodies that fit into a general price range. Nikon's most expensive full frame body is $500 more than Canon's, which isn't significant at that level. Their most expensive crop camera is $400 more than Canon's, which is significant, but it is a bit newer. Their entry level full framers are the same price. Other than that, each has bodies that offer a range for interested customers.

Finally, because Canon is more in demand there seems to be greater price pressure on Canon retailers. I didn't include street prices, but if I did, that would likely give Canon a price advantage in most cases.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> The only alignment that matters is cost. Which is currently like this:
> 
> 5D s/r: $3,500-$3,700 (6/2015)
> D810: $2,800 (7/2014)
> ...



Appreciate the list, but age/lifecycle considerations dramatically impact price. 

Now if you segment by prices stated _at the time they were released_, things 'bucket' somewhat nicely:

$6-7K --> gripped Nikon D# and Canon 1DX# rigs

$3-4k --> Canon 5DS / Canon 5D# / Nikon D8XX / Sony A7R #

$2-3k --> Nikon D75X, Sony A7S #

$2k-ish (at time of release) --> Nikon D6XX, Canon 6D#, Sony A7 #

But even with that making _some_ sense, head to head matchups go to hell that way. No way a wedding photographer with a $2500 body budget is seriously looking that the A7S II vs. a D750. For that person, they'd be lining up _present_ pricing on a 5D3 vs. a D750.

So any way you slice it, it's more complicated than how any of us try to bucket it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 28, 2016)

But I write all this to make a point. The statement that 'Canon needs to keep up with [pick a model]' is a bit of a fallacy in that _the competitors also need to keep up with Canon_. Canon may be outperformed on the sensor front, but we might outperform them on resolution, or fps, DPAF, video, or high ISO performance.

In other words, denizens of a Sony or Nikon forum are quite possibly making similar 'grass is greener' / 'the next Nikon had better have DPAF' statements of their own, but they are simply aimed at different parts of the camera than the sensor.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jul 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But I write all this to make a point. The statement that 'Canon needs to keep up with [pick a model]' is a bit of a fallacy in that _the competitors also need to keep up with Canon_. Canon may be outperformed on the sensor front, but we might outperform them on resolution, or fps, DPAF, video, or high ISO performance.
> 
> In other words, denizens of a Sony or Nikon forum are quite possibly making similar 'grass is greener' / 'the next Nikon had better have DPAF' statements of their own, but they are simply aimed at different parts of the camera than the sensor.
> 
> - A



and sales.


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 28, 2016)

The vast majority of members in this forum are not limited in their creativity by technology anyway...


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jul 28, 2016)

Now I know the vast majority of us here would rather see the 5D with a 28-32MP sensor and not sacrifice ISO noise performance or dynamic range. But we are not designing the camera and its likely be pushed more around 36MP by Canons marketing team to make the camera appear more competitive. And in a sense it will need to be since this camera should be competitive for the next 5 years. Now its is possible Canon may just keep it at 32MP. I personally would like that, lets hope they do and just keep the 5DS line around as the higher MP count variants. 

That said I have seen some crazy comments here about 8FPS! LMAO.. Not going to happen for many reasons, mostly of which this camera is not marketed to sports or wildlife as it would take sales from the 7D2 and 1DX line. 

The 6D will likely 24MP. If anything with the exception of the speed. I can see the 6D being the FF equivalent of the 80D in a mag body and about 6FPS. Which is very possible. The major selling point for the 6D is entry level full frame at an affordable price. So they will rehash current tech to keep the cost down.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jul 28, 2016)

5DSR for me then a year or 2 latter ill get this chump of a camera for allot better price. the new 5D will not pass 35MP heck were lucky if it even passes 24.


----------



## jrista (Jul 28, 2016)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Have things changed in sensor design dramatically recently ? If not then i presume that squeezing millions more pixels onto the same size sensor is a bad thing as far as light pick and pixel pitch with there being more gaps between the many more pixels. I want to see better high ISO performance not worse in a new camera personally and am not bothered by 4k video. Dual CF or faster SD is a must as is wifi, but pixels happy at 20-24 range. Think maybe they should bring out a 5DW for us wedding togs haha - we tend to recommend professional videographers rather than buying cameras with 4K - we have enough to do
> 
> 
> Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria



Gaps are dealt with via microlenses. That packs the vast majority of the light into the photodiode. We probably won't see over 60% Q.E. with a Canon sensor, but over 50% certainly. So there shouldn't be a problem with smaller pixels. Especially on a full frame sensor. I mean, the pixel pitch would still be 5.4 microns! The 5Ds uses 4.1 micron pixels, and most of the 20mp+ APS-C sensors are using sub-4 micron pixels. 

Additionally, when you frame a picture...you care about the whole picture. From a total signal standpoint, the frame size is what matters, not the pixel size. On a normalized basis, on an equivalent basis, 10 micron, 5 micron, 2 micron, it doesn't really matter. You'll have the same signal strength in the end. Considering that smaller pixels generally have less noise, you'll even likely have the same SNR once the images are normalized. 

There is absolutely no reason not to go with more pixels. Especially if the technology of the newer pixels is actually improved over older pixels (and if Canon hasn't improved their technology at this point, truly sad day.)

The only reason Canon hasn't delivered more megapixels outside of the 5Ds so far is they couldn't. Their technology just wasn't up to the task. They have a ton of patents for sensor technology that could potentially give the competition a run for their money. If they employ even half of those technologoes, 30, 32, 36 megapixels...shouldn't matter what they use, the results should still be better than the 5D III.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Appreciate the list, but age/lifecycle considerations dramatically impact price...
> 
> ...head to head matchups go to hell that way. No way a wedding photographer with a $2500 body budget is seriously looking that the A7S II vs. a D750. For that person, they'd be lining up _present_ pricing on a 5D3 vs. a D750.
> 
> So any way you slice it, it's more complicated than how any of us try to bucket it.



No disagreement there. My point was simply that others on this forum use deeply flawed logic and explanations and then shoehorn selective data to support their pre-determined biases.


----------



## bvukich (Jul 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Comparing on cost using current prices does is a bit warped.
> 
> Nobody expects the 5DIV to replace the 5DIII for $2600 - people are expecting a 5DIV for $3600.
> 
> It is the only attribute of the camera that changes over time.



Absolutely agreed there.



dilbert said:


> One way to look at it is that either the 5DIV price needs to be lower (to move it into D750 space) or it needs way more MP than 28 to justify its price next to the D810/A7RII.



Disagree here though. I think the $3599 on launch price is just about right. The 5D3 has (as the 5D4 surely will) advantages over the D810/A7RII, making it more attractive to me at least, regardless of price. And to those that need the resolution instead, there's the 5Ds/R at the same approximate price point (and probably a bit lower after the 5D4 launch).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 28, 2016)

RGF said:


> I would like to see 30MP (perhaps even 32).
> 
> I doubt that Canon will give us 9 FPS (at 30-32 MP) but 8 maybe likely.
> 
> ...



The 5D4's chipset is allegedly good for 240mp/s, so 30mp @ 8 fps is really very feasible from a CPU throughput point of view.


----------



## tron (Jul 29, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see 30MP (perhaps even 32).
> ...


240 also equals 24 * 10 making it a small 1Dx


----------



## lloyd709 (Jul 29, 2016)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > darekbo said:
> ...



Agree. I've been making my living from photography for the last 15 years - doing what I would call light commercial work (basically what ever companies - largish brands mainly in London - through at me). Wait for the gasps now - I shot 99% of my work on medium jpgs and NEVER had a client question or complain. Time and storage space is money and these babies save on both!


----------



## tron (Jul 29, 2016)

lloyd709 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Then I guess you are extra careful/expert as far as exposure and white balance are concerned (as well as other camera settings related to saturation, noise and sharpness of the jpegs). But very practical indeed. I shoot many raw files and find myself overwhelmed when processing them (or not processing them since I am a amateur with no infinite available time).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> One way to look at it is that either the 5DIV price needs to be lower (to move it into D750 space) or it needs way more MP than 28 to justify its price next to the D810/A7RII.



Simply saying _'the other companies have a definitive 'best' non-gripped FF rig, and the 5D4 must keep up with the resolution of those to justify its price'_ implies the 5D4 has no other discernible features than resolution and that Canon only sells *one* top-end non-gripped rig. Neither statement is true.

The 5D4 could come out with a 22-24 MP rig that mops the floor with the D810 or A7R II (or their respective next-gen versions) in frame rate and in low light performance. Imagine a 5D4 with 22-24 MP x 9-10 fps, 2 full stops better high ISO than the 5D3, 1DX2 AF setup, DPAF, anti-flicker, and (surely?) more useful video options than Nikon or Sony. That rig will get its $3000-3500 asking price without any hesitation at all.

And, of course, the 5DS is not exactly yesterday's news. It's _still_ the highest res FF rig on the market.

So the idea that (a) the 5D4 is singlehandedly responsible for competing with Nikon and Sony standard-bearers and (b) resolution is the only way to do it masks a much more complicating market dynamic. I actually give Canon a ton of credit for offering side-by-side 'detail' and 'do-everything-but-detail really well' rigs while the competition chooses the simpler good/better/best model. We've got 'em surrounded! 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

tron said:


> Then I guess you are extra careful/expert as far as exposure and white balance are concerned (as well as other camera settings related to saturation, noise and sharpness of the jpegs). But very practical indeed. I shoot many raw files and find myself overwhelmed when processing them (or not processing them since I am a amateur with no infinite available time).



I'm with you, Tron, I prefer RAW + JPG because I never know when I'll need a bailout on a slightly pooched shot. 

The secret (for me, I'm no professional) is to avoid completism/perfectionism to avoid hoarding + processing all RAW files. My livelihood has nothing to do with photography, so I can afford to be a 'RAW file anti-hoarder' and only process (and keep) RAW files on the best 3% of what I capture. JPGs cover me for the rest.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

bvukich said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > One way to look at it is that either the 5DIV price needs to be lower (to move it into D750 space) or it needs way more MP than 28 to justify its price next to the D810/A7RII.
> ...



+1. Well said in general, but the red bit above is critical. 

What we're all scratching our heads on, of course, is _how_ Canon will pump value into things other than the basic 'horsepower' specs like MP / FPS / ISO limits. How will they make the 5D4 sexy in non-sensor / non-fps ways other than 4K (which is effectively a common feature outside of Canon)?

Will it be something completely unexpected a la silent shutter with the 5D3, anti-flicker with the 7D2, etc.?

Will it be something mind-blowingly useful like a much better manual focus assist, EVF/OVF combo, swappable styles/options of back LCD screens?

Or will it just be a 'nicely appointed' 8 out of 10 at everything rig where Canon puts in the bare minimum to get $3000-3500 to leave our bank accounts?

- A


----------



## drs (Jul 29, 2016)

33.18MP would make sense to me. UHD times four. ;o)

Seriously, the 5D initiated the "HDslr" age, it deserve to be the UHD leader here. But that would be in conflict with the C series, I understand. So back to stills, and please don't even bother with HD ;o)

Anyway, I look forward to the 5dmIV, as the 5D series is my workhorse, simple and good.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 29, 2016)

I'm with the Canon has a crap load to offer, when you take the features in the 1DXii, 80D and the new features found in the Canon Powershot G7 X Mark II (anti-shake, which is an extension of the anyi-flicker logic) in the DIGIC 7, there are a lot of features.

Again, in my way of thinking the 5Div will be the Jack of all, Master of weddings. It will have a kick ass silent shutter mode at 3-5FPS, normal speed close to, if not exceeding 8FPS, and 10FPS in live view mode.

I don't see it having more than 26MP, maybe 28MP, it might, but I would not count on it. It will ave DPAF and everything else the 80D, 7Dii and most of what the 1DXii has, possibly even a better AF engine than the 1DXii.

It will be a very compelling camera.

For the MP obsessed on a budget, I still think you will see the 6Dii hop past the 5Div, but without DPAF. It will be the D610-D750 competitor with ~36MP at 4-5FPS. With the 5DSii having, of course, north of 55-60MP.

I also believe Canon does not need a tit for tat solution to compete against Sony and Nikon. But it will sell 4 FF DSLRs that each have a definite calling.

Just as some weddings pro's will go for a 80D/7Dii, some may opt for the ~36MP 6Dii, but for the pros that want the best AF in the business, 5Div.

It is all semi-educated guesses at this point.

4 more weeks??


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> LoneRider said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I'm entirely on the fence with 6D2 vs. 5D4 resolution. 

The purist in me would say 'give the prosumers the pixel count, I'll take the pixel _quality_', and especially recognizing that the 5D4 has the 5DS sitting alongside it, I could see the 5D4 staying low in pixel count and trying to crush everything else metrics-wise while the 6D2 gets a nice res boost to justify long-time APS-C shooters to make the FF plunge or to get 6D1 users to upgrade. In that light, I could see a 6D2 outresolve a 5D4.

The sad realist in me says that the (photography) internet will break if the 6D2 is given more pixels than a 'do everything' pro 5D4 rig sitting $1000+ higher in price. Because pixels. :

Were the 5DS never to have been offered, then the decision would be much easier. The 5D4 would be Canon's single end-all / be-all non-gripped rig and would be forced to pack more pixels in to compete in a traditional head to head capacity versus Nikon.

- A


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> LoneRider said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



By this logic Canon completely destroyed the 1DXii marketability by having less than 60MP, how could the 1DXii have less MP than the 5DS??

If the 1DXii can have less than the 5Div, then so can the 5Div have less than the 6Dii.

Your assuming Canon has to follow Nikon's marketing strategy, and I believe that is a false assumption. Higher FPS, DPAF, silent shutter, and much better AF will be enough differentiation to justify for many the addition $1200-$1500 for the 5Div over the 6Dii.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



16 MP x 5.5 fps is not exactly a winning value proposition, and that rig had the ergonomic sensibilities of a pregnant yak. The grip was smaller than a Rebel and the top LCD was laughable.

Video = I hear you. Must have. That's that. But don't indict the lower MP rig based on _that_ collector's item / style piece sort of a side project. 

I'm highly confident a (say) 24 MP 5D4 that _gives you something demonstrably better_ by not chasing the pixel count (i.e. much better high ISO, higher fps, etc.) would sell very well.

- A


----------



## Wesley (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> One way to look at it is that either the 5DIV price needs to be lower (to move it into D750 space) or it needs way more MP than 28 to justify its price next to the D810/A7RII.



5D4 is not in the same class as the D750, it would have to downgrade if you want a lower, matched price. Imagine a 5D and 6D hybrid to be a D750. 

It's also no longer the D810/A7RII competitor since the 5DS arrived.


----------



## Wesley (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The DF was a niche camera, throwback to the photo purist. Probably not that purist as ahsanford was thinking of for the 5D4.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

Wesley said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > One way to look at it is that either the 5DIV price needs to be lower (to move it into D750 space) or it needs way more MP than 28 to justify its price next to the D810/A7RII.
> ...



Sure, but I'm curious to see how the next model, a D7_60_ (or whatever they call it), chooses to remain a value-oriented mongrel of the D610 and D810 (a blend of top end and starter-level features) or if it will move upmarket into a 'the great all-arounder' to go head to head with the 5D4.

- A


----------



## Wesley (Jul 29, 2016)

Close match, internally spec wise. Better and worse, here and there but that's to be expected since it came out 2 yrs after 5D3.

However the body is D610 level. I don't expect a D760 to have a body change up to D810 class. 
Rather see a true D700 successor (D700s/D710) to appear against 5D4. 

I also don't expect D820 to have higher MP than 5DS because Sony A99II rumor is 42MP and Nikon has been using Sony sensors.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

Wesley said:


> I also don't expect D820 to have higher MP than 5DS because Sony A99II rumor is 42MP and Nikon has been using Sony sensors.



We've been waiting for the A7R II sensor to show up in a Nikon for a year now. Given this lag, one might argue that Nikon might be going their own way with the D820 (or possibly are waiting for an _even better_ Sony sensor).

- A


----------



## kaihp (Jul 29, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The 5D4's chipset is allegedly good for 240mp/s, so 30mp @ 8 fps is really very feasible from a CPU throughput point of view.



GMC, do you have some sauce on this? - I haven't seen this number before, and extrapolations from the 1DX/5D3 ratio to 1DX2 levels says ~175MP/s.


----------



## Wesley (Jul 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't expect D820 to have higher MP than 5DS because Sony A99II rumor is 42MP and Nikon has been using Sony sensors.
> ...



Never seen a 1yr refresh for an high level Nikon DSLR. 
It was nearly 2.5 years from the D800 to D810. Now it's been 2yrs exactly since D810 came out. 



dilbert said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > Close match, internally spec wise. Better and worse, here and there but that's to be expected since it came out 2 yrs after 5D3.
> ...



Hopefully the newer D700 series _doesn't_ have 36MP ;D
Raw file size jumps from on average D750 27~ MB to D810 43~ MB 
Eats up my HDD space faster and hard drive storage workflow sucks. 
Disclaimer: I'm a Nikon & Sony user. Eyeing the 5D4 because I like the 24-70II and 1DXII sensor pretty good now.


----------



## Wesley (Jul 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Multiple hard drives (two RAID enclosures that get swapped) if you have a backup workflow. 
Preview cache creation and loading takes longer as well. 

I would be dandy if the 5D4 was kept around 24MP.


----------



## noms78 (Jul 29, 2016)

I don't understand people who complain about file sizes 

PC components can be upgraded anytime and are constantly getting cheaper but DSLR bodies are only released once every few years so when they are released they need to be future proof for the release period.


----------



## Wesley (Jul 29, 2016)

noms78 said:


> I don't understand people who complain about file sizes
> 
> PC components can be upgraded anytime and are constantly getting cheaper but DSLR bodies are only released once every few years so when they are released they need to be future proof for the release period.



So...what is your camera, computer, software, and storage setup? ???

I just don't think the advancement of components and lowering price rate is on par with the megapixels going up.


----------



## pedro (Jul 29, 2016)

Wesley said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



So would I. My stolen 5DIII was great but the 6D I have now does the job I need it for, mostly lowlight, nightscapes. Wouldn't mind to see a 24 MP 6DII though, with all the new sensor tech built in and maybe some extras like anti-shake mode 8) Otherwise, I could also imagine to pick up an a7sII once its next itiration hits the shelves. Just for astro along with the 6D as an excellent allround low lighter and also pick up a copy of TBA AF E-mount Samyangs 50 1.4, 14 2.8 or even the Laowa 12 2.8 (if there is an e-mount version available) which was reviewed by Keith recently.


----------



## slclick (Jul 29, 2016)

cr1


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 29, 2016)

Wesley said:


> noms78 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand people who complain about file sizes
> ...



I think the advancement of computer components and lowering price rate is going much faster than 34% MP increase in 4 years. (22.3mp 5d III to 30mp 5d IV)


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 29, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > noms78 said:
> ...



That's true, for shure.

But sensor read out has its analog electronics subsystems and these are more dominated by physics than tech development. The capacity of a 5um sensor photosite has it's capacity and if you need to transfer charge you have currents which are limited by resistance etc.

I think it drives a lot of people in the development departments nuts to optimize between these 10, 20 or 100 boundary conditions!


----------



## Lenscracker (Jul 29, 2016)

I am just amazed that the 5D4 is supposed to get the official announcement in August and the only information leaked is that it may have a 30mp sensor. How can they keep a secret that well? It seems like somebody would have hacked their computers for info by now.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2016)

Lenscracker said:


> I am just amazed that the 5D4 is supposed to get the official announcement in August and the only information leaked is that it may have a 30mp sensor. How can they keep a secret that well? It seems like somebody would have hacked their computers for info by now.



Someone needs to allege there are national security secrets on Canon corporate computers and the information will promptly surface. 

I am amazed how tightly Canon keeps things in-house until the last week. A huge piece of this is that they build their own cameras/lenses in their own factories. But one also wonders how nasty their NDA violation terms are (for outside evaluators) and how many false-flag / deliberate dissemination of false information is going on (internal to Canon and its sales force).

It's not Apple-like, I'm sure, but it can't be terribly far off from that given how tightly things have been kept secret the last few years.

- A


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 29, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Righteeo.. You're speaking a bit above my head, but I'm sure you're right. But from my understanding, Wesley was talking about the computer side of things, not so much the sensor.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 29, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



You are right: It was about post processing and not about the computer performance in the camera ...

About these analog limitations: If you want to transfer an amount of charge (= a bunch of electrons) you create currents. If you like to do that very fast, you have a large current for a short time. Within the sensor design you have only limited max currents. And the signal is "smeared" so it is not a peak but a sth. like a wave.
Think about transferring water through a pipe: If you want to transfer the water faster (=higher flow rate) you need larger pipes or a higher speed of the water (=higher pressure). The speed of charge transfer is limited by ~65% of the speed of light, you can build thicker connections between photo sites and ADCs but this again is limited by the sensor size/available space on the sensor. If you turn on and off the valve you will see a smeared "pulse" at the end of the hose. This limits how fast the signal is transferred through cables (electricity) or water hoses ...


----------



## kaihp (Jul 29, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> But sensor read out has its analog electronics subsystems and these are more dominated by physics than tech development. The capacity of a 5um sensor photosite has it's capacity and if you need to transfer charge you have currents which are limited by resistance etc.
> 
> I think it drives a lot of people in the development departments nuts to optimize between these 10, 20 or 100 boundary conditions!



I understand what you're trying to say: that analog electronics don't follow Moore's law (like digital electronics). 

However, your arguments (parasitic capacitances, finite resistance etc) apply equally to analog and digital circuits. You could consider digital electronics to be highly-non-linear, fully saturated analog electronics.

The analog guys don't go nut over optimizing their designs, usually because they work with a relatively small block (e.g. IO cell, comparator, voltage regulator). Their challenges is "the devil in the details". For digital guys, the challenge is to design a large complex system. That's where their devil lies.


----------



## applecider (Jul 29, 2016)

For those of us trying to calculate possible frame rates from MP size based on throughput, remember that higher iso files increase size. For instance a 1600 iso raw on the 5d iii goes from 22 to 31 MP. A 6400 iso file is 36 MP so for the proposed 5d Iv at 30 MP a 6400 iso file would weigh in at about 52-4 MP.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Lenscracker said:
> 
> 
> > I am just amazed that the 5D4 is supposed to get the official announcement in August and the only information leaked is that it may have a 30mp sensor. How can they keep a secret that well? It seems like somebody would have hacked their computers for info by now.
> ...



it's been a while since a major leak has really happened well in advance.

looking back, some rumors in hindsight with the 70D were pretty accurate.

but everything is pretty much clamped right down until a week or so prior to release.

Sad really


----------



## dak723 (Jul 29, 2016)

noms78 said:


> I don't understand people who complain about file sizes



Seriously? Do you think everyone has money floating around to upgrade their computers all the time. Most folks in the real world are lucky if they can budget a new computer every 6 years or so. Same with a camera. That's why dependability matters!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2016)

dak723 said:


> noms78 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand people who complain about file sizes
> ...



It's not even the cost. I'm closing in on 20 TB of files on multiple drives. File management/backups/physical space/and the need to regularly move files off the computer hard drive to free up internal hard drive space in order to keep Photoshop responsive is a real pain in the rear. 

If every one of my files increases by 50% (going from 20 to 30 mp) that alone is going to mean I'd need to find an additional 10 TB of space for zero increase in images. Yet, for my clients 2000 x 3000 pixel images are more than adequate for their needs. And, if they need something larger, a 20mp image is more than adequate for billboards or a bus/transport van wrap.

So yeah, I'm firmly in the "don't need more mega pixels camp."


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > noms78 said:
> ...



Once again unfocused is the voice of focused reason. For those of us that have to shoot masses of images the 5Ds file size is daunting, and the mraw / sraw very slow to open.


----------



## TW (Jul 30, 2016)

unfocused said:



> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > noms78 said:
> ...



Who buys a $3500 camera and presumably many thousands of dollars worth of lenses and ancillary equipment, and then gripes about a couple of hundred dollars for storage?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2016)

TW said:


> Who buys a $3500 camera and presumably many thousands of dollars worth of lenses and ancillary equipment, and then gripes about a couple of hundred dollars for storage?



I hear you and largely agree. A photographer shouldn't blow *all* of his/her budget on the hardware they take into the field. 

But in fairness, it's more than just a hard drive. You also need to process those files, which requires a peppy computer. 

- A


----------



## tpatana (Jul 30, 2016)

I hate when people say "if you can afford X, then you can afford Y".

It's like saying I like 10% increase on the price.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 30, 2016)

tpatana said:


> I hate when people say "if you can afford X, then you can afford Y".
> 
> It's like saying I like 10% increase on the price.



Well yes and no.. You can't afford to own a car, if all you can afford is the monthly payment- there are other expenses like gas, oil, insurance, tires, licences, etc that come along with the car, but end up costing more than the car itself.

It's not that, "if you can afford X, then you can afford Y", but "think twice if you can really afford X, because it's gonna cost you Y as well".

I do agree with you that a lot of us express the problem incorrectly.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> If every one of my files increases by 50% (going from 20 to 30 mp) that alone is going to mean I'd need to find an additional 10 TB of space for zero increase in images.



I'm not sure I totally follow. Getting a higher-resolution camera isn't going to affect the file size of the 20TB worth of data you have now. It only means that new files will come 50% heaver if shot with a higher-res platform.

How long did it take to run up 20TB? At the rate harddrive space expands, I bet you could keep up easily. I added 12TB last week, and it only cost me 400USD.

I'm not suggesting you do so, mind you, I'm just questioning the premise.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > If every one of my files increases by 50% (going from 20 to 30 mp) that alone is going to mean I'd need to find an additional 10 TB of space for zero increase in images.
> ...



Of course it won't affect existing files. But, it means that future files will take up even more space. And, as I said, the cost is not really the consideration. It's the file management, editing time, etc. that goes with larger files. 

I know there are people who think bigger is always better. That's their opinion. I'm just stating mine, which is that there are a lot of considerations that go into managing and editing large megapixel files that go well beyond the initial cost of storage. And for me, for both my paid and unpaid work, there is no benefit to the larger file sizes. So, in essence I incur added expenses and lose time for no gain in revenue or personal pleasure.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> And for me, for both my paid and unpaid work, there is no benefit to the larger file sizes.



Unfortunately Canon cannot manufacture perfect camera for each person.

There's lot of items that don't benefit _me_ in Canon cameras, and there's lot of missing features that would benefit.

The best we can do is buying the closest compromise for each of our needs.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



That there is no advantage is a totally fair position. In my experience, managing 5D3 files and managing a7r2 files is indistinguishable. The latter take more space, but that's it. Working them (editing), I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 

Either way, carry on.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I get what you're saying, but it's a temporary problem: storage keeps getting faster, cheaper and smaller; CPUs and GPUs keep getting faster and cheaper. Right now it's an inconvenience, in a few years it'll be routine. When did you first start shooting digital? How many old 4MP or 6MP files do you have that you wish were 20MP? Maybe not a high percentage but there are some, I'll bet.

For temporary work, i.e. paid work that won't go in your portfolio, is MRAW an option?


----------



## TAF (Jul 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.
> ...



Could I have +3 stops ISO and the same fps/MP count as my 5D3, please?

I'd even forgo an fps or two for yet another stop of ISO (I rarely use the fast firing rate).

That would be equally interesting.


----------



## Wesley (Jul 30, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> That there is no advantage is a totally fair position. In my experience, managing 5D3 files and managing a7r2 files is indistinguishable. The latter take more space, but that's it. Working them (editing), I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Either way, carry on.


What is your computer setup? 
I have a Samsung SSD (850 Evo) and notice some relative slowdown working with 36+ MP compared to 24.



Orangutan said:


> I get what you're saying, but it's a temporary problem: storage keeps getting faster, cheaper and smaller; CPUs and GPUs keep getting faster and cheaper. Right now it's an inconvenience, in a few years it'll be routine. When did you first start shooting digital? How many old 4MP or 6MP files do you have that you wish were 20MP? Maybe not a high percentage but there are some, I'll bet.
> 
> For temporary work, i.e. paid work that won't go in your portfolio, is MRAW an option?


We still sell 5200rpm HDD. Only real storage advancement would be SSD but that wouldn't be economical for archival with most people. 
CPU speed growth have been stagnant. Just improvements in size and power efficiency...good for laptops.
GPU recently made a huge leap (Nvidia 1080) but slow pace for years prior. 

In 3 years, megapixel availability from 22 (5D3) to 50 (5Ds). 44 and 100MP, after another 3? 
Where is there a price/performance rate for storage & parts that is on par with the MP raising?
I wouldn't be so agreeing with the megapixel jumps.



TAF said:


> Could I have +3 stops ISO and the same fps/MP count as my 5D3, please?
> 
> I'd even forgo an fps or two for yet another stop of ISO (I rarely use the fast firing rate).
> 
> That would be equally interesting.


Heck, I would have 1fps for max improvements in ISO and a 1DX series for fps


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 30, 2016)

Wesley said:


> We still sell 5200rpm HDD. Only real storage advancement would be SSD but that wouldn't be economical for archival with most people.



At present, it is. The historical trend shows prices of all memory types drops exponentially, and SSD drives with TBs of storage are already here.

I suspect SSD storage required for high-res sensors would become affordable long before the lenses would.



Wesley said:


> CPU speed growth have been stagnant. Just improvements in size and power efficiency...good for laptops.
> GPU recently made a huge leap (Nvidia 1080) but slow pace for years prior.



Good point.



Wesley said:


> In 3 years, megapixel availability from 22 (5D3) to 50 (5Ds). 44 and 100MP, after another 3?
> Where is there a price/performance rate for storage & parts that is on par with the MP raising?
> I wouldn't be so agreeing with the megapixel jumps.



A better question would be, IMHO, how many people actually need 100MP? A niche of pros.

Even John Q. Public is realizing his camera's sensor is oversampling the lenses he can afford, and the MP wars are over.


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2016)

TAF said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...


+1000000000000000000 Yeeees! (Although Canon doesn't care about me) I also would like a low light high iso monster but sensor technology does not involve like that. Anyway 1.5 stop (I know I will have to make do with half a stop) would be more than welcome. But 5D4 could be Canon's mini 1DxII if they wished to....


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 30, 2016)

kaihp said:


> TW said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



except 10tb in storage really doesn't add that much cost. not to mention if are so concerned about size, you can shoot sRAW.

the additional pixels will allow for a more sharper 20mb "look" and also less noise than a 20mp camera.

and it's not as if buying a 5D Mark IV will immediately and retroactively add 10TB to storage needs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > TW said:
> ...



It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix. All the people who have been clamouring for 4K are gonna find real hurt once they get it and try to start editing and processing it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 30, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix.



sure it is.. 

I process 50MP 5DSr raws on my laptop without even blinking an eye. the new skylake processors offer more than enough ram and processing power.

4k has nothing to do with Mp's which was the subject of this.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 30, 2016)

Wesley said:


> What is your computer setup?
> I have a Samsung SSD (850 Evo) and notice some relative slowdown working with 36+ MP compared to 24.



Mid-range 2015 i7 w/32GB of RAM. Windows and software are on a SATA3 SSD, and workflow files are on a Samsung 950 Pro M.2. Building previews takes longer, but when I actually sit down to to work, I often have a mix of 5D3 files with A7R2 files in the same session, and can't tell which is which from a "feel" standpoint.

And I'll repeat: I'm not trying to say anyone needs higher resolution files. If they add no value, then don't bother. But from a computer infrastructure standpoint, the cost isn't that significant. Bigger drives are sufficient, and buying 6TB drives versus 4TB drives is not earth-shattering. 8TB drives come with a large price premium per byte, but that will vanish in a few years when 12-16TB drives materialize.


----------



## noms78 (Jul 30, 2016)

Wesley said:


> noms78 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand people who complain about file sizes
> ...



5D3, i5 3570k, 16gb ddr3, samsung evo 840 250gb ssd, 1xSeagate 2TB, 1xHGST 4TB, hd7950 3gb, u2410 monitor. If talking about 5D3 files only - I only have 43GB of raw plus converted jpgs (2923 files). For backup I periodically make two copies of my 5D3 files (so I have three copies of my important files). I use Canon DPP 3.15 for RAW conversion and Photoshop CS3 for straightening, resizing and saving to jpg. 

I am planning to upgrade my computer and monitor eventually. I wish Dell would release a 28" 2560x1600 monitor. Before the 5D3 I had a 350D so it was a nice upgrade


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix.
> ...



It depends what processes you are doing how many layers you are working and how many images you are merging together. But any way you look at it 5 year old computers are almost without exception going to run pretty slowly with thousands of 50MP files. How is that controversial?

If you got a new laptop before you got your 5D MkIII then if the MP go to >30 or you get a 5DS/R then expect a slowdown or the need to invest in a faster processor, not just additional storage. That is common sense and indisputable.



dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Who said it did?

_"It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix."_

Where is the argument in that statement?


----------



## kaihp (Jul 30, 2016)

noms78 said:


> I am planning to upgrade my computer and monitor eventually. I wish Dell would release a 28" 2560x1600 monitor. Before the 5D3 I had a 350D so it was a nice upgrade


Ah, you also want the 16:10 form factor. The closest Dell is getting to your wants is the 27" UHD P2715Q - next step is the 30" 2560x1600, but at a crushing pricepoint.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 31, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I get what you're saying, but it's a temporary problem: storage keeps getting faster, cheaper and smaller; CPUs and GPUs keep getting faster and cheaper. Right now it's an inconvenience, in a few years it'll be routine. When did you first start shooting digital? How many old 4MP or 6MP files do you have that you wish were 20MP? Maybe not a high percentage but there are some, I'll bet.
> ...





> *We still sell 5200rpm HDD*. Only real storage advancement would be SSD



This is not exactly as it seems: while RPM is still 5200, the bit-density is much higher than years ago, so you still have higher sustained transfer rate.



> CPU speed growth have been stagnant. Just improvements in size and power efficiency...good for laptops.


Speed growth has hit a plateau due to lack of demand, not due to capability. Video gamers drive high-end PC specs these days, and there's no point in buying more CPU than needed for your favorite games. GPUs have continued to progress due to gaming demand.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> About these analog limitations: If you want to transfer an amount of charge (= a bunch of electrons) you create currents. If you like to do that very fast, you have a large current for a short time. Within the sensor design you have only limited max currents. And the signal is "smeared" so it is not a peak but a sth. like a wave.
> Think about transferring water through a pipe: If you want to transfer the water faster (=higher flow rate) you need larger pipes or a higher speed of the water (=higher pressure). The speed of charge transfer is limited by ~65% of the speed of light, you can build thicker connections between photo sites and ADCs but this again is limited by the sensor size/available space on the sensor. If you turn on and off the valve you will see a smeared "pulse" at the end of the hose. This limits how fast the signal is transferred through cables (electricity) or water hoses ...



Methods for decreasing resistence and inductance are known by Canon and the industry. We haven't seen them very much yet because less expensive methods still work.

Canon has a patent for backside illumination which allows them to put thick copper traces for the ground plane to speedup readout. Sony has already implemented a similar process in the A7R II, and moved to faster readouts in the A7S II.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's simply bull. 

While a 386 Computer might be cheaper today than it was when introduced, just try running any software on it. With each successive generation you need more computing power to do the same tasks. More memory, more storage, faster processors, better graphics. So, it is definitely not going to be cheaper tomorrow.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> All the people who have been clamouring for 4K are gonna find real hurt once they get it and try to start editing and processing it.



Well, I suspect that many of those who are clamoring for 4K are only interested in bragging rights. But, yes, those who do try to do some editing will be in for a surprise. I found that my i7 processor, with a dedicated graphics card and 12 mb internal memory is still too slow to run Adobe Speed Grade.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has a patent for backside illumination which allows them to put thick copper traces for the ground plane to speedup readout.



I'm confused by this statement. Are they traces or is it a plane? And how do thicker copper digital ground layers increase readout speeds?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 31, 2016)

unfocused said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



what a weird comparison .. change the goalposts much.

Everything is relative, and progressively the costs have decreased dramatically.

I paid 4K for my laptop last year. I don't expect it to last forever.

however it's level of performance simply wasn't even possible a year prior in a laptop.

I run 50MP CR2' on my cheaper laptop without a problem. it's from 4 years back.

on my new one, working with 200-300MP images in photoshop .. not a problem, and that's with 5 servers running on it in hyper-v.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 31, 2016)

unfocused said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



At the same price point, adjusted for inflation, you now have a lot more processing power and storage. In 1995 my work machine had a 120MHz Pentium, with 32MB (yes, that's megabytes) of RAM, and 512 MB (yes, that's megabytes) of disk. It was the hottest thing I could find, and maxed-out my $5,000 budget. According to the CPI calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) the equivalent today would be $7,908. With that money you could now buy your own mini render farm.

Performance-per-dollar has stagnated a little over the last few years due to the use of GPUs instead of CPUs as the major compute engine of game graphics, and due to the need to improve performance-per-watt to accommodate cloud computing. If you want top performance, you may need to build a multi-GPU and multi-CPU system (using a "server" motherboard) with Xeon processors (not i7s). I'm sure you could also build a comparable multi-CPU AMD system.

A system bought at Costco is not likely to be a top video performer.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 31, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



only if you join the two. in theory you should be upgrading your computer equipment continually.

I've heard of people in here whining because their dual core i5 won't run fast with raw files and LR.. 

the computer is part of your optical and systematic workflow, and like getting lenses and cameras it needs the same continual investment.

for any medium to high end computer in the last three years a 30mb raw isn't a problem.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 31, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Yes that is exactly the point I was making, and it isn't cheap. You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



2007 17" MBP >$3,000, 2011 17" MBP >$3,000, 2016 15" MBP >$3,000. I don't see these savings anywhere. Now a computer with the capabilities of the 2007 one is cheaper, but the programs and processes we are trying to run now dwarf the 2007 processes. The 2007 computer handled my 4MP 1D files every bit as fast as the 2016 one handles 5DS files.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 31, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



There's your problem: Macbooks are ridiculously overpriced for the performance. I'm no fan of Microsoft, especially with Windows 10's problems, but your best performance-per-dollar is with a Windows desktop. Money is better spent on CPU, GPU, SSD and memory, not on beautiful design.


----------



## slclick (Jul 31, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



When you are invested in a system; Mac/iTunes for syncing, iphone, ipod, ipad whatnot...buying a WIN pc for post processing needs is not an easy call for most people. This is not unlike having a gaggle of Canon glass and considering a Nikon body for a feature Canon doesn't have. A lot of people are in this situation. Me, I find my Mac with i7 and 16GB RAM is sufficient for anything with stills. Doing video work and needing to buy new machines to keep up with your camera body must be the real $$ pain.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 31, 2016)

slclick said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I completely understand that argument, and mostly agree; however, a _personal_ i-Everything machine need not be the same as your _work_ machine. A pro who needs to crunch through images and video quickly should buy a dedicated work machine. A 5-year old MB is fine for light personal needs, but work is work.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 31, 2016)

noms78 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > noms78 said:
> ...



DPP 4 is so much better than DPP 3. The fine tuning control over WB is much easier and faster to use. They've added an HSL tab. If you have an Nvidea graphic card then it is also much faster rendering previews. Have you tried it?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 31, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Actually...very few apps are fully 64bit compliant. Even fewer are able to utilize more than two CPU cores. For photographic purposes, a fast dual core cpu is more beneficial than a slower quad core cpu. In Photography processing, processing power, memory speed and hard disk speed are the three most important factors to creating a fast workflow. If you a domestic photographer, it's not really a problem. But a professional wedding photographer needs a very fast and efficient workflow, especially during peak season where 3-4 weddings per week is quite possible. Big hard disk space is needed too for archiving, but fast SSD's are needed for processing last quantities of images as fast as possible. Ram is king too. Fast and powerful GPU's are irrelevant, we're not animating or rastering. These days, a top drawer laptop is very close in performance to a top drawer desktop. 
I like Mac products a lot, but there are cheaper and often better specked options in the Dell and HP portfolio.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ...exactly the point I was making.... You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!
> 
> I give up on this place sometimes..........



Actually what I've learned from this discussion is that I saved a ton of money by getting the 1D X II. I got a fantastic camera and I don't need a new $4,000 computer to process 20 mp files.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Derp.

I spent 4k to run 5 servers on a 7lb laptop faster than any single CPU computer can do.

I didn't need it to process 30mb raw files .. my four year old laptop does that just nicely..

Skylake is good and cheap and highly expandable.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2016)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...exactly the point I was making.... You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!
> ...



Sure. If you have the need to run five 2012r2 servers on your laptop .. and can still work with 200-300mp stitched images in PS.. it's worth every penny.

I'm wondering what kind of antiquated computers or hard drives some are running if they are struggling with 20 and fearing 30.


----------



## LSeries (Aug 1, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> There's your problem: Macbooks are ridiculously overpriced for the performance. I'm no fan of Microsoft, especially with Windows 10's problems, but your best performance-per-dollar is with a Windows desktop.



Not entirely true. I'm using a Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) desktop to process my RAW images


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Some people are constantly chasing new technology. They live under the false hope that technology can substitute for talent. They will never learn that a camera does not make someone a photographer any more than a hammer makes someone a carpenter.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Then you're using the wrong apps. All eight cores of my processor max out when I'm batch converting raw files to jpeg using DPP 4. The Nvidia GPU maxes out every time I open a raw file until the preview is rendered from the raw data using the current raw converter settings. It does the same when I open a new folder in thumbnail preview mode.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 2, 2016)

unfocused said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



what a tired overused comment.

or some realize that computers, like cameras and other equipment simply get replaced or parts upgraded over time regardless.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 2, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



but very true...


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



so?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Aug 9, 2016)

I would love for 2 versions, 
Video with AA filter with no major resolution jump, and a photo version with optional AA filter and 30+ resolution...

5D MarkIV Hybrid /24mp
5D Mark IV-R /32mp


----------



## Eersel (Aug 9, 2016)

I don't think having a D810 equivalent 36 MP is necessary... however 28 or 32 would be perfect for my application.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I agree Dilbert, but this is a camera forum and not a photography forum...unfortunately. Cameras get discussed to the point of nauseum...but photos...less so.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2016)

Eersel said:


> I don't think having a D810 equivalent 36 MP is necessary... however 28 or 32 would be perfect for my application.



Canon and Nikon know that to battle on a 1:1 basis is not good business, it devalues the market and margins for both companies. So the trick is to split the range so that neither camera quite competes on the same level. Canon did this with the 6D and 5D3. Then they split the range again with the 5DS/R. So the Nikon D810 doesn't quite compete with any of these cameras and it's current choice of 35mp was quite cleaver. Although it's still trying to regain the lost market of the D800 from the D700. The D800 was a camera that no one wanted and it isolated a lot of Nikon users. The jump from 12mp to 36mp was too steep for many. Also it's interesting that the release cycles of these two brands is 2 years out of phase. So each brand gets to trump each other every two years...when the truth is that it's just a new camera competing against a more out of date camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon and Nikon know that to battle on a 1:1 basis is not good business, it devalues the market and margins for both companies. So the trick is to split the range so that neither camera quite competes on the same level. Canon did this with the 6D and 5D3. Then they split the range again with the 5DS/R. So the Nikon D810 doesn't quite compete with any of these cameras and it's current choice of 35mp was quite cleaver. Although it's still trying to regain the lost market of the D800 from the D700. The D800 was a camera that no one wanted and it isolated a lot of Nikon users. The jump from 12mp to 36mp was too steep for many. Also it's interesting that the release cycles of these two brands is 2 years out of phase. So each brand gets to trump each other every two years...when the truth is that it's just a new camera competing against a more out of date camera.



I am very curious to see what the D810 follow up is. I would have thought Nikon would have simply licensed that A7R II sensor, but they have opted out, either for timing reasons (it was mid-cycle on the D810) or they want to go it alone with their own sensors.

(Also: D5 = Nikon sensor, D810/D750/D610 = Sony sensors, D500 = ? I can't seem to find a clear tell elsewhere online.)

- A


----------

