# If Canon releases a high MP DSLR, would our lenses fall victim to obsolescence?



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 1, 2014)

I remember hearing earlier this year that the EF 16-35 f/4L IS was intended to be sharp enough for a possible (rumored) upcoming high MP camera.

If true, I expect to see some impressive performance from next month's this month's (rumored)100-400 ii.

What I'm wondering though is whether the development and eventual release of a higher megapixel DSLR/MILC (who knows which it will be for sure) - means that many Canon folks would need to purchase updated versions of almost all of their lenses to take full advantage of such a technology?

I wonder how Nikon dealt with an MP jump.

Fortunately all I have is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS ii. Sharpness is what it does best. I just hope that it's sharp enough. I'm getting rid of my EF 24-105 f/4L for numerous reasons. None of which are that it's a bad lens - it's a great lens - it's just become apparent to me that for my needs, f/2.8 or better is necessary, with exceptions made for lenses that aren't made with that large of an aperture and don't have any similar lenses that do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2014)

*Re: What if Canon does have a high MP camera in the works? Are our lenses affected?*

A high MP body will 'affect' lenses in that they'll all resolve more detail. How much more depends on the lens.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 1, 2014)

I think a high MP camera tends to make the photographer's techniques obsolete more than any lens. 

I know I had to ditch the old rule of shutter being 1/f and move to more like 1/2f when I moved to a higher MP camera system. It was not the lens that was holding me back.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 1, 2014)

Not for me.


I don't think I want more MP's. MegaPixies don't constrain my photographic endeavors very much. I seldom want to crop so much that I cant output at the size I need for prints or digital files. To the contrary I normally reduce the size of the image.


Would bigger files give me more quality in the crops I use? Well maybe at the extreme of my cropping. If I was to find that a problem I might look at the 7D2, for more pixies on a pin head. (this reminds me of the dark ages debates about how many angels can fit on a pinhead.)


Bigger numbers don't impress me much. (to para phrase Shania Twain)


----------



## keithcooper (Nov 1, 2014)

Generally, No...

More MP will certainly help bring out more detail in my architectural work - already good lenses will just show more.

Who knows, I might even take up using a tripod for my landscape work ...but then I wondered about that when I went from an 11MP 1Ds to the 21MP 1Ds3, and never quite did get round to it ;-)


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 1, 2014)

I am sure Canon would want to release a new camera that is so advanced that it renders all the existing models obsolete. 

It sounds like a very good sales approach. Maybe they can change the mounting system also.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 1, 2014)

If you look at Nikon, the lenses that were mediocre with the D700 are shit with the 3x higher resolving D810... 
I believe that for instance the 17-40 or the 24-105 will perform badly on a high MP body.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 1, 2014)

There are two answers. The first comes from the guys who want to sell you something new. From them you'll hear you _need_ new lenses to take advantage of the additional megapixels. So go out and buy buy buy!!! Their strong implication is that current optics are somehow "insufficient" to the task.

The second answer comes from those who have studied optics and imaging systems in the real world, talked with optical physicists and design engineers. Their short answer is no, there is nothing to worry about, even with your current lenses.

The reason is that current commercially available optics from all major camera manufacturers will all out-resolve the sensor (APS-C or Full Frame, it doesn't matter) from wide open down through f/11 (or f/16 if you use a 5D MkII or MkIII or 1DX). The sensor is the limiting factor to resolution. Period.

I hope this helps.



Mitch.Conner said:


> ...What I'm wondering though is whether the development and eventual release of a higher megapixel DSLR/MILC (who knows which it will be for sure) - means that many Canon folks would need to purchase updated versions of almost all of their lenses to take full advantage of such a technology?...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2014)

Ever use a FF lens on a crop camera?

If Canon comes out with a 50Mpixel FF camera, it will have the same size pixels as the latest round of crop cameras.....

The lenses will work just fine.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 1, 2014)

After checking the post of Don, which came up while I was writing ...
True, 40D equals to 26 MPixels for FF sensor size, 600D for roughly 50 MPixels.

My FF compatible lenses perform very well on the 40D and well on the 600D / EOS M so I see headroom up to roughly 50 Megapixels for these lenses at least in the center region of the image and the borders (not the corners perhaps).

I see also the chance that transistions are reproduced better by a higher Pixel count ... not only details.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2014)

As sensors reach 100MP+, then we will begin to see a slower rate of improvement at higher MP. However, a higher MP sensor will always improve resolution, the rate of improvement just lessens.

The first area to be affected is the small sensor point and shoot cameras, where the much greater pixel density of the sensor does make it difficult to get big gains merely by doubling the sensor resolution.

The linear sensor resolution in terms of pixels per unit length goes up at a very slow rate.

For example, 

a Canon 5D Classic 12.8 mp FF Sensor has a 4368 x 2912 pixel layout.

A Canon 5D MK III 22.3 MP FF Sensor has a 5760 x 3840 pixel layout.

Even though there are 1.74X the number of pixels, the actual increase in linear horizontal resolution is 0.31, not 1.74 as many think. ((5760-4368)/4368) When we again double the sensor resolution to about 45 mp, we will see a similar gain. The gain is significant, but current lenses will support it. 

The 70D and 7D MK II sensors are 20.2MP which is equivalent in density to a 51.7MP full frame sensor, and current lenses handle that fine.

If you happen to recall the days when the 12.8 MP 5D was replaced by the 21.1MP 5D MK II, self proclaimed experts cried that lenses would not support that many MP, even though experts said it was no problem. Nikon's lenses are no better than Canons, and they seem to work fine with their 36MP sensor. Sure, you can always gain by putting a higher resolution lens in place, but there again, the gain is incremental, a little improvement for a lot of money.


----------



## LarryC (Nov 1, 2014)

I shoot a D800 and my conclusion on this issue is that the notion that you have to buy new lenses is nonsense. You may choose to if you plan to crop heavily and want to maintain sharpness at the maximum achievable with the sensor, but in no way does image IQ suffer with existing lenses at even moderate crops as compared to the IQ of images from current lower MP sensors - there is no "loss" of IQ. I've printed ~2'x4' landscape panos shot with the 16-35 f/4, a nice but not awesome lens, with the most amazing details. I do typically shot landscapes on a tripod, but I did before I got the D800. Same for 13x19 portraits and other works. 

High MP may not be for everyone, and the files are large and a tad slower to work with than images half the size, and you will want a fast computer and some ram, but I think when Canon comes out with their offering that you will find it will produce amazing images, cropped or not, with your current L lenses, regardless of whether Canon tries to convince you otherwise.


----------



## amazin (Nov 1, 2014)

Hi,

more MP means you will see everything better ... it will improve qualities of our lenses... but it will improve defaults also!

When a lens as vignetting or chromatic aberrations issues... it will show up even more on MP bodies.
There should be no problems with the latest flawless L lenses (ie 24-70 2.8 L II) but older ones will render then point of having MP useless.

Put a great L lens on a low range body, you'll still get great photos.
On the contrary, put low range lens on a high end body... good luck to bring the best out of this !


----------



## sdsr (Nov 1, 2014)

tayassu said:


> If you look at Nikon, the lenses that were mediocre with the D700 are S___ with the 3x higher resolving D810...
> I believe that for instance the 17-40 or the 24-105 will perform badly on a high MP body.



I keep reading that only a very select few Nikon lenses make the most of their 36mp ff cameras, along with comments like yours, but based on my experience attaching a wide range of lenses to my Sony a7r I don't believe it. It may be true that, when you view an image made with such a sensor at 100%, the resulting increase in magnification you get (compared with viewing an image made with a 20MP sensor at 100%) reveals more clearly any flaws a lens (not to mention the user) may have. And, conversely, it may be true that the very best lenses (and techniques) yield even better results on such a sensor. 

But I'm constantly amazed at just how good the images are than I get via my a7r, not just via the two excellent Sony/Zeiss primes but also current L primes, such "lesser" lenses as the EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 85mm 1.8, and even a whole raft of cheap old manual lenses (with one exception which, for all I know, may simply be because it's a bad copy). As well as the two zooms you mention - the images they produce on my a7r look at least as good as they do on my FF Canon bodies (not that I use them much - I've been developing a fondness for manual primes). Sharpness, clarity, detail, etc. are fantastic - as, I'm sure, they will be when Canon gets around to similar sensors of their own.

(I'm also skeptical of the oft-encountered contention that you will need to use a tripod and can't use very fast lenses. I never use a tripod and often use very fast lenses wide open with my a7r and don't think my success rate is noticeably different; I doubt there's anything special about my hand-holding technique.)

Of course, Nikon & Canon etc. would like us to believe that we need to buy new lenses when we buy cameras with higher MP sensors, but we don't have to play along....


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Ever use a FF lens on a crop camera?
> 
> If Canon comes out with a 50Mpixel FF camera, it will have the same size pixels as the latest round of crop cameras.....
> 
> The lenses will work just fine.



Though FF corners might not look as good as the APS-C sensor area (= center).


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 1, 2014)

As long as the mount will remain the same, I don't think we would need to bother too much.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 1, 2014)

*Re: What if Canon does have a high MP camera in the works? Are our lenses affected?*



neuroanatomist said:


> A high MP body will 'affect' lenses in that they'll all resolve more detail. How much more depends on the lens.


+1, with greater improvement being seen with the higher quality, generally more expensive lenses.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 1, 2014)

sdsr said:


> (I'm also skeptical of the oft-encountered contention that you will need to use a tripod and can't use very fast lenses. I never use a tripod and often use very fast lenses wide open with my a7r and don't think my success rate is noticeably different; I doubt there's anything special about my hand-holding technique.)



Having shot film cameras for very many years, I relied heavily on the 1/focal length rule and it served me well. I absolutely agree with Accutance that moving to the 20-odd MP 5DII changes that fundamentally. I now find that with 1/focal length, camera movement often limits the resolution of the image. If I am to get the maximum resolution out of my current system I need to use at least 2x 1/focal length, or better still use a tripod.

Other factors also start to come into play, such as depth of field where OOF areas become more evident (which is not always a problem).

In terms of the original question, it is interesting to compare the MP figure provided by DXOMark (without getting into the DXOMark debate) of a good lens (such as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art) on a 5D with the same lens on a D800. The D800 resolves more detail. But compare a mediocre lens and the increase is less marked. 

Cheers


----------



## scyrene (Nov 1, 2014)

amazin said:


> Hi,
> 
> more MP means you will see everything better ... it will improve qualities of our lenses... but it will improve defaults also!
> 
> ...



Why would vignetting be any worse? It's worse with a given lens on a larger sensor (ff v aps-c for instance) because the latter is cropping the middle of the image circle, but why would subdividing the same size sensor into more pixels make any difference?


----------



## Eldar (Nov 1, 2014)

I have two monitors on my desktop. One where I am reading posts from CR, the other, an Eizo, where I edit my images. Right now I have a portrait of a 76 year old great man, shot with the 1DX and Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 and I am looking at the image at 200%. This is one that I did not have to crop a single percent. And I was wondering what it would look like with a 50MP/14 stop DR sensor. I know that I argue for a new Canon body, with more resolution and more DR. But looking at this portrait, I wonder if I´m just caught up in a constant chase for more and more and more ...

What I do know is that I am nowhere near pushing the limits of these lenses.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I have two monitors on my desktop. One where I am reading posts from CR, the other, an Eizo, where I edit my images. Right now I have a portrait of a 76 year old great man, shot with the 1DX and Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 and I am looking at the image at 200%. This is one that I did not have to crop a single percent. And I was wondering what it would look like with a 50MP/14 stop DR sensor. I know that I argue for a new Canon body, with more resolution and more DR. But looking at this portrait, I wonder if I´m just caught up in a constant chase for more and more and more ...
> 
> What I do know is that I am nowhere near pushing the limits of these lenses.




I'm not looking for more MP or more DR, only because I don't think I have a use for the extra pixels, and I don't find problems with exposure that DR will help with.


So I'm generally on the other side of the fence from you. BUT I have no objection to the idea of more MP's or more DR. Its just I don't have use for them so I'm not fussed.


I do worry that some, even many, people get carried away with the "need" for more MP or the "lack" of DR. 


Its great to see your post and a considered opinion.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I remember hearing earlier this year that the EF 16-35 f/4L IS was intended to be sharp enough for a possible (rumored) upcoming high MP camera.
> 
> If true, I expect to see some impressive performance from next month's this month's (rumored)100-400 ii.
> 
> ...



For the edges the newer ones would help, but that is already true today and going as far back as the 1Ds3 at least. For the center, it's no different than what APS_C users deal with, they are shooting like 50MP equivalent.
A lot of people have upgraded to the likes of 24 T&S II, 24 1.4 II, 24 2.8 IS, 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, 70-300L, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 2.8 IS II already since stuff like the 24 T&S I, 24-105, 24 1.4 I, 17-40, 24-70 2.8, 70-300 non-L, 70-200 2.8 older models, 24 2.8 non-IS, etc already suffer since 1Ds3 days.

Anyway, you won't do worse, of course even with the old lenses, you'll still do better even with them, you just might not do as much better as you could.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

sdsr said:


> But I'm constantly amazed at just how good the images are than I get via my a7r, not just via the two excellent Sony/Zeiss primes but also current L primes, such "lesser" lenses as the EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 85mm 1.8, and even a whole raft of cheap old manual lenses (with one exception which, for all I know, may simply be because it's a bad copy).



The 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are not lesser lenses. Stopped down just a little they are actually very sharp, edge to edge even on FF. The 50 1.4 is better at the edges than even the 24-70 2.8 II. The 85 1.8 is up there for sharpness with any L zoom at that range. Those are actually quite sharp lenses other than near wide open.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 11, 2014)

We might be using tripods more. I have already adapted to the utility of tripods for landscapes, have equipped all my camera bodies with custom L brackets which are mounted 100% of the time. So, I will adapt. Aberrations are likely to be more obvious. I may decide to go for the new Sigma Art 50 rather than make do with film era manual 50mm lens.


----------

