# Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 24, 2014)

```
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>jmfoots; a contributor on our forum has done a “quick and dirty, hand translation” of the interview question below.<strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong>From Maeda Masaya</strong><em>

“We are currently making efforts toward high-resolution cameras. User needs are broadly divided into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers.</em></p>
<p>We are thinking of a high-resolution camera for users wanting high resolving power, and it will be out soon. It will be a camera preserving pixel quality while boosting resolution figures. We are extending interchangeable lens groups (unsure what this actually means). We want to add one line to our EF lenses…I can’t say any more than this. Please don’t ask anymore (laughs).”</p>
<p><strong>Original Post</strong>

In an interview with Digital Camera Watch, Canon Inc. Senior Managing Director Image Communication Business Division Maeda Masaya confirms the development of a high megapixel camera. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/12/high-megapixel-camera-coming-in-2015-cr3/" target="_blank">A camera we confirmed would be coming in 2015</a>, although we don’t know exactly when it will arrive.</p>
<p><em>Below is a Google translation of the confirmation from Maeda Masaya.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>Q: Image sensor or will toward the size and high pixel size?</strong></em>

<em> A: I am working in the high pixel camera. There are two ways of roughly divided into high pixel and high sensitivity to user needs. Although Canon was not preceded the high sensitivity system and say either, I think the future is to be going to move (overlooking the high pixel) In order to meet such as graphics-based user, also in the direction in which to go up the number of pixels.</em></p>
<p><em>High pixel camera towards users who want high image of the resolution will not believe, you soon out. This is the camera, such as was up the number of pixels while maintaining the pixel quality. Interchangeable lens I will expand as a “group”. The …… now that I want to add a new one line to EF lens any more does not say, please do not ask any more (laughs).</em></p>
<p><strong>Other tidbits from the interview</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The days of the annual product cycle are over, new models will come with big advancements in technology</li>
<li>A “new line” of EF lenses is on the way.</li>
<li>Canon believes lenses are the most important part of EOS</li>
<li>We will see electronic shutters soon.</li>
<li>There’s “no comment” on a full frame mirrorless (probably a good thing) and Canon is still interested in medium format.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/special/dcm_int_2014/20141224_681230.html" target="_blank">DCW</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Tugela (Dec 24, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> A: *I am working in the high pixel camera*. There are two ways of roughly divided into high pixel and high sensitivity to user needs. Although Canon was not preceded the high sensitivity system and say either, I think the future is to be going to move (overlooking the high pixel) In order to meet such as graphics-based user, also in the direction in which to go up the number of pixels.</p>
> <p>High pixel camera towards users who want high image of the resolution will not believe, you soon out. This is the camera, such as was up the number of pixels while maintaining the pixel quality. Interchangeable lens I will expand as a “group”. The …… now that I want to add a new one line to EF lens any more does not say, please do not ask any more (laughs



Lol....confirms what we have always suspected


----------



## jmfoots (Dec 24, 2014)

A somewhat more accurate, if quick and dirty, hand translation:

_We are currently making efforts toward high-resolution cameras. User needs are broadly divided into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers.

We are thinking of a high-resolution camera for users wanting high resolving power, and it will be out soon. It will be a camera preserving pixel quality while boosting resolution figures. We are extending interchangeable lens groups (unsure what this actually means). We want to add one line to our EF lenses...I can't say any more than this. Please don't ask anymore (laughs)._

I'm on vacation from my translation job, figure I'll keep sharp.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 24, 2014)

jmfoots said:


> A somewhat more accurate, if quick and dirty, hand translation:
> 
> _We are currently making efforts toward high-resolution cameras. User needs are broadly divided into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers.
> 
> ...


Thanks, and welcome to Canon Rumors!

A new line of EF lenses? Intriguing...


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 24, 2014)

lintoni said:


> A new line of EF lenses? Intriguing...



There was that patent about using the aperture in creative ways...maybe?


----------



## IsaacImage (Dec 24, 2014)

hmmm interesting, let's see how fast they gonna bring it :-X


----------



## jmfoots (Dec 24, 2014)

lintoni said:


> jmfoots said:
> 
> 
> > A somewhat more accurate, if quick and dirty, hand translation:
> ...



No problem, and thanks - I actually just registered because I hate Google Translate and like good translations, I doubt you'll see me much around here until CP+ when I post a few things I get from speaking to Canon people here in Yokohama. 

And it does seem like he does want to add a new line. I can't really elaborate on whether that refers to a new classification (normal vs. L lens) or a different kind of zoom or even something beyond crazy stuff like T/S, but it sounds interesting.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 24, 2014)

I like the bit about new bodies/lenses coming out as technology progresses, rather than annual releases. Makes a lot more sense, especially since big technological changes are coming either slower, or in bunches. Although, I imagine they'll still have an annual consumer line of stuff, since that still seems to be the thing with all of the manufacturers.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 24, 2014)

Maybe the "new line of EF lenses" will be an expansion of DO offerings.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 24, 2014)

The new line of lenses will probably be a total refresh of the lower end lenses, not the newest "L" lenses. The marginal IQ lenses are the ones whose flaws would be amplified most glaringly by the higher resolution sensors. 

They will still have to have lower-cost lenses to offer the lower price point customers, but the higher res cameras will force them to give better IQ optics, just to make them work acceptably. Hopefully that means the prices won't be/can't be priced drastically higher.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 24, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> Maybe the "new line of EF lenses" will be an expansion of DO offerings.


Maybe, but it seems unlikely. He'd have been talking about extending a line, not dropping a cagey hint about something new.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 24, 2014)

JC said:


> I decided to go with Nikon...at least there is something there worth having



In what sense? What, specifically, is inadequate for your needs about the 5D3?


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 24, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> The new line of lenses will probably be a total refresh of the lower end lenses, not the newest "L" lenses.



They've already started doing that with the STM lenses. If it's something he doesn't want to talk about, after having spilled about the high MP body, it's something fundamentally different. What would be different enough to warrant a new "line?" MF? FF mirrorless?


----------



## mjbehnke (Dec 24, 2014)

Maybe the New EF Lens line will have the Rear lens further in the lens itself for use with a bigger (close to) Medium format sensor? The lens would still work on a FF the way an EF lens works on a APS-C body?? 

Just my 2 Cents Worth.. Will be interesting!

Matthew


----------



## Eagle Eye (Dec 24, 2014)

I could also see Canon rolling out an upper line of prime L's, 82mm filters and increasing from there, maybe up to 105mm. These would have the resolving power and frame coverage to handle a sensor resolution and sensor size push into medium format, 30x45 or something. Canon would essentially be redefining "pro" glass in their non-tele line-up and be able to charge $5-10K for it. Pro sports photographers are already throwing that kind of money down. High-end wedding photographers would certainly be able to afford glass like that. And I could be wrong about the science of the mount, but my understanding is that Canon shifted from FD to EF precisely for future capability enhancements. This would potentially put Nikon in a place where to compete on the lens front, they'd have to develop a new mount system that would not be backwards compatible. Anyone know more about the FD to EF switch?


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 24, 2014)

Great news .. of course not for all shooters, but being a landscape guy, and wanting to print and frame my images LARGE ... then this is what I want.
I am about to buy a second hand Phase One kit, only a P45+ back and 645DF+ body though with Schneider lens. I know the importance of using good glass when you step up into higher MP class .... I'll also be looking at high quality (very expensive) Rodenstock lenses to then use with a technical camera body.
I know they cost a ship load of money, but I know if I want high IQ, then that comes with the territory.
There is NO point having a high MP body with out a high quality lens to resolve that detail.
So IMO I see, or would like to see, Canon's new range of lenses to be complimentary to the high MP body ...
No use putting out a body without the lenses to make use of it .. so I see Canon as doing the right thing down this line, holding off and not putting out a high MP body just for the sake of it without the back up of a decent lens line.


----------



## TheGreatOwl (Dec 24, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> JC said:
> 
> 
> > I decided to go with Nikon...at least there is something there worth having
> ...



I'm too planing on jumping the ship, the only thing that fends me off is the megapixel count, the reason I'm switching its because they habe a more flexible RAW file in terms of dybamic range and shadow banding as I'm a landscape photographer, and of course the detail that brings a non-existent low pass filter


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 24, 2014)

It has begun.

My bet is that the new "EF" line is going to be similar to the "Otus" and Sigma "Art" lenses, which sounds like the best thing to release alongside a high resolution body.
Starting with 50mm? Maybe we can finally get a new 135mm?

I see potential for Canon to refresh lenses they wouldn't have otherwise with a new branding and higher price tag.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Dec 24, 2014)

JC said:


> Who cares? Not me that's for sure... "not sure when but sometime in 2015", sorry, life is not never ending, I waited a long time and had hoped for the 5D Mark IV to be announced at Photokina, yet nothing and then in NYC in October, again, nothing.
> 
> I decided to go with Nikon and although I think they are putting products out too fast, at least there is something there worth having, there was no way I was about to drop almost 2k on a 5D Mark lll and I just got tired of waiting, sorry Canon, some indicator of when would have been nice but at this point, all there is as usual are rumours, meanwhile, I need a camera to actually get on with taking photos.




Flaming post removed by Admin


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 24, 2014)

Maybe a line of super premium primes to compete with Otus, but with AF?

Would go well with a high resolution sensor.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 24, 2014)

camerabug said:


> JC said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares? Not me that's for sure... "not sure when but sometime in 2015", sorry, life is not never ending, I waited a long time and had hoped for the 5D Mark IV to be announced at Photokina, yet nothing and then in NYC in October, again, nothing.
> ...



Seriously. +1. There actually is a NikonRumors site, you know.


----------



## Ditboy (Dec 24, 2014)

New EF lenses--- EF-M for the mirrorless line up they say they are serious about. They have 4 lenses now and several patents for more have been discovered. I would love a EF-M 35mm 1.4 & 55mm 1.4 to use with a new APS-C chipped "M" rangefinder style that competes with the Sony and Fuji


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 24, 2014)

I'm going to start saving money aside for this in case it turns out great. And if it doesn't end up deserving my money, hey, I can buy another lens.  But I'm really hoping Canon gets it right this time.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 24, 2014)

Regarding the new EF line, I don't remember who posted it, but it was rumored not too long ago on this site that canon would make a new EF mount for a mirrorless camera. Perhaps the new camera will be mirrorless?


----------



## erjlphoto (Dec 24, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> Maybe the "new line of EF lenses" will be an expansion of DO offerings.



That would seem to be a good avenue for Canon to pursue.


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 25, 2014)

Anyone else thinking of a high-resolution camera being medium format, and the new line of lenses being medium format adaptable for ef? If the medium format had a deeper flange depth, it should be simple enough to adapt..


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 25, 2014)

IglooEater said:


> Anyone else thinking of a high-resolution camera being medium format, and the new line of lenses being medium format adaptable for ef?



What would be the incentive for the majority of the MF users? Coming up with a complete system costs a lot, and you can't take shortcuts and expect to draw people out of their upgrade/trade-in cycles. To the contrary it would take extraordinary effort.
On the other hand products based on sensors smaller then 645 can be challenged with a properly specced 35mm system.


----------



## JonB8305 (Dec 25, 2014)

EF Leaf Shutter Primes. they will be call EF-LS


----------



## lintoni (Dec 25, 2014)

JonB8305 said:


> EF Leaf Shutter Primes. they will be call EF-LS


I'm trying to work out the joke, but it's gone straight over my head.


----------



## JonB8305 (Dec 25, 2014)

lintoni said:


> JonB8305 said:
> 
> 
> > EF Leaf Shutter Primes. they will be call EF-LS
> ...



Not a joke, just my uneducated speculation about the new lens.


----------



## MonkeyB (Dec 25, 2014)

this is wonderful news, especially if the current EF lineup will become considered "old and inadequate" and have a corresponding price drop. woohoo!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 25, 2014)

There are lots of ways to interpret the comments. EF lenses are *E*lectronic *F*ocus lenses, we have three lines, EF, EF-s, and EF-m. Extendeding the EF line likely means a new FF mount for mirrorless as many expect. But, it could also be a new line for Medium format, and a 100mp MF body to go with them. Food for thought.

It is much more likely to be a new FF mirrorless Camera / lens line, its a area that Canon is missing entirely. Undoubtedly, there will be a adapter to allow use of the existing lens line while new lenses are being developed over the next few years.


----------



## quiquae (Dec 25, 2014)

mjbehnke said:


> Maybe the New EF Lens line will have the Rear lens further in the lens itself for use with a bigger (close to) Medium format sensor? The lens would still work on a FF the way an EF lens works on a APS-C body??
> 
> Just my 2 Cents Worth.. Will be interesting!
> 
> Matthew



No. Elsewhere in the interview, Maeda specifically denies Canon going to medium format in the near future.

A more comprehensive translation is available on DPReview forum.


----------



## wtlloyd (Dec 25, 2014)

high resolving glass for high resolution sensors - nothing else makes sense.

If you hadn't noticed, R&D costs haven't gotten any cheaper, so why reinvent the wheel?

Plenty of people are willing to pay for L glass designed in the last century; so don't tell me we now need to update the low end of the lens lineup.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 25, 2014)

Flaming post removed by Admin


----------



## Perio (Dec 25, 2014)

9VIII said:


> It has begun.
> 
> My bet is that the new "EF" line is going to be similar to the "Otus" and Sigma "Art" lenses, which sounds like the best thing to release alongside a high resolution body.
> Starting with 50mm? Maybe we can finally get a new 135mm?
> ...



Seems to be quite possible, but I'm wondering how many customers are ready to pay $3-4k per lens?


----------



## TeT (Dec 25, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> JC said:
> 
> 
> > I decided to go with Nikon...at least there is something there worth having
> ...



Probably can't take pictures in the dark...


----------



## dlee13 (Dec 25, 2014)

I really hope the new EF lenses include updates to the 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 135L!


----------



## sanj (Dec 25, 2014)

camerabug said:


> JC said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares? Not me that's for sure... "not sure when but sometime in 2015", sorry, life is not never ending, I waited a long time and had hoped for the 5D Mark IV to be announced at Photokina, yet nothing and then in NYC in October, again, nothing.
> ...



Does that matter? He is perhaps just checking around what is going on with Canon. And face it, CR can be quite fun with a cup of coffee.  I actually prefer broader spectrum of members/opinions to have different viewpoints for me to learn from.


----------



## Zv (Dec 25, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There are lots of ways to interpret the comments. EF lenses are *E*lectronic *F*ocus lenses, we have three lines, EF, EF-s, and EF-m. Extendeding the EF line likely means a new FF mount for mirrorless as many expect. But, it could also be a new line for Medium format, and a 100mp MF body to go with them. Food for thought.
> 
> It is much more likely to be a new FF mirrorless Camera / lens line, its a area that Canon is missing entirely. Undoubtedly, there will be a adapter to allow use of the existing lens line while new lenses are being developed over the next few years.



This makes the most sense to me too. That would mean them creating a new lens mount though would it not? Something like a FF mirroless type. I could see them making an adaptor to use existing EF and EF-S lenses on the new mount much like the EOS M adaptor. However that means these new lenses couldn't be used on EOS DSLRs which would be less than ideal. 

Another option could be a mirrorless body in the shape of a DSLR with an EF mount that takes these new line of lenses and existing EF lenses. That way these new line of lenses could be mounted on our existing EOS bodies. Economically this would be the easiest to implement. Just take the shell from a 5D3 and modify it. Bung in a new high MP sensor (from Sony?), make a few new lenses and bam - job done and release in mid 2015. Or not.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 25, 2014)

JonB8305 said:


> EF Leaf Shutter Primes. they will be call EF-LS



Leaf shutters have jumped the shark, they offer very little over focal plane shutters whereas electronic shutters are the answer to any and every shutter syncing question.

I would think that if they do come out with a 135 format 50mp camera the new line of lenses will be higher quality higher resolving 'regular' EF lenses, with a massive Cine-esque premium. There is a market of $5,000 normal focal length lenses and Canon are perfectly positioned to leverage that. 

The high resolution camera will work with all EF lenses, but the new line will get the best out of it. EF-HR with a blue ring.

I don't see any way ultra conservative Canon are going to come out with a FF mirrorless mount and line of lenses soon, especially considering the mediocre worldwide take up of the M, sure some markets embraced it (as did I) but it hasn't been the commercial success they'd need it to be to look to expand that thinking.


----------



## Cochese (Dec 25, 2014)

"
•A “new line” of EF lenses is on the way.
" 

I'm wondering if this and this new "high megapixel" noise has to do with a possible Medium Format camera. 
Or perhaps it's in reference to a new "line" of lenses that are made to specifically utilized a higher resolution sensor. Either way, here's to hoping for some more official news soon.


----------



## RGF (Dec 25, 2014)

lintoni said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the "new line of EF lenses" will be an expansion of DO offerings.
> ...



Or could it refer to MF lenses? Lenses which throw a larger image on the sensor?


----------



## RGF (Dec 25, 2014)

Other tidbits from the interview</strong></p>

The days of the annual product cycle are over, new models will come with big advancements in technology</li>
[/quote]

DPReview attributes this comment to entry level bodies. Canon has already slowed the pace of new mid and especially high-end bodies. wonder if the pace of 5D and 1D bodies will be slowed down even further? with even bigger improvements between releases. NB: Nikon tends to provide much smaller, incremental releases.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Dec 25, 2014)

I'm super stoked for a high mp body from Canon. As a landscape shooter, the new 16-35 is without equal. I had been using the D800 + 14-24, but the 14-24 is heavy and does not easily accept filters, not to mention having to deal with all that for less than a 30% lateral gain in resolution. All else being equal, I'd obviously take 36mp over 22mp. Unfortunately, that's not the case. For a backpacker, weight is critical. The 16-35 provides IS, jaw dropping sharpness, lightweight, and the ability to easily use filters. It will be all the more amazing if it is able to get paired with the suspected 46-50mp body that rumors state.

Of course, it could be something other than high MP FF. On this point, I think many will disagree, but I think the anticipation and not knowing is part of the fun. There are potential possibilities for many different kinds of cameras, and it's fun thinking of what could be coming out.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 25, 2014)

What I read between the lines of "there are two ways of roughly divided into high pixel and high sensitivity to user needs" and "up the number of pixels while maintaining the pixel quality" is -

Canon is going to cater to those who need high ISO performance.

Canon is going to cater to those who need high resolution, without hurting pixel level performance.

Canon is *not* going to improve DR at low ISO.

If I needed better sensor IQ at low ISO (more DR, no banding, etc), I would have switched to Nikon tomorrow morning.


----------



## bartoloman (Dec 25, 2014)

Hopefully they get it right this time, high res., high DR, ... and this for a very competitive price. A lot of damage has been done due to the slow time trail. Meanwhile I invested a lot in glass, a new innovative body for landscape and
architectural photographers would be much appreciated.
We cross our fingers, Canon.


----------



## sanj (Dec 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> > The days of the annual product cycle are over, new models will come with big advancements in technology
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what "big advancement" means in Canon terms? Is the 7D -> 7D2 an example of that?


----------



## pedro (Dec 25, 2014)

well, it might be a very intresting phase from 2015 onward into 2016. Hope they do two 5D lines. High ISO allrounder and high pixel count studio beast...I'd be in for anything with better IQ in high ISO. Merry Christmas then...;-)


----------



## crashpc (Dec 25, 2014)

Well, it´s time. There is EOS M/M2 1,5/2,5 years with us, there is 700D almost two years with us, there is 70D 1,5 years with us, there is 6D almost 2,5 years with us, there is 5D III three years with us, there is 1Dx almost three years with us. It´s about time, Canon!


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 25, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> Regarding the new EF line, I don't remember who posted it, but it was rumored not too long ago on this site that canon would make a new EF mount for a mirrorless camera. Perhaps the new camera will be mirrorless?


+1, but still capable of using EF lenses with an adapter. That's my guess.

Update: Also, consider the possibility that the new 50MP sensor might support 4:1 binning, resulting in a 12.5MP sensor capable of ridiculously high ISOs (409K??). Because there is no mirror and because Canon develops a new image processing architecture, the camera is also capable of taking 24FPS at 12.5MP as well as 6FPS at 50MP. Would that make up for the loss of an OVF? Hey, a fella can dream.

Meanwhile Samsung develops a 16MP sensor for a variant of their NX1, also capable of 24FPS full resolution images per second, and the race is on!!


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 25, 2014)

Nice with yet another confirmation of a high megapix camera from Canon comming "soon". 

Anyone else share my worry 2014 could be the year that makes or breaks Canon as the DSLR market leader? 

Not that Canon will not continue to be leading sales numbers for now and at least some years to come (the gap down to Nikon is still significant and seems to have stabilized this year). But if Canon again is seen as failing to match the competition's DSLR bodies 2015 this would underscore that Canon has given up on offering the best DSLR's for the best price but instead bets on getting people to buy into its lens range. 

Interview could in fact be interpreted as hinting this.

Anyway. Next announcement will decide if I stay or go so I really hope its a good one!


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Dec 25, 2014)

2014 was to be Year of the Lenses. Yes, we got a nice lens or two, but...

2015 is to be the Year of the Megapixels? Hmmm... I have a strange feeling that Sony/Nikon will still be leading the charge by the end of next year.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 25, 2014)

How long was the span between the 1DX announcement and general availability? 

This "Development Confirmation" seems to mean little... not that I would be in the market for a new piece of $4k-$10k hardware. At some point, enough is enough.


----------



## dolina (Dec 25, 2014)

Until an actual announcement is made of an actual product then it becomes a largely academic discussion.

Ring me when it's time to make a reservation.  Looking to replace my 5D2!


----------



## David Hull (Dec 25, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> I like the bit about new bodies/lenses coming out as technology progresses, rather than annual releases. Makes a lot more sense, especially since big technological changes are coming either slower, or in bunches. Although, I imagine they'll still have an annual consumer line of stuff, since that still seems to be the thing with all of the manufacturers.


I think that the camera feature set is at a relatively mature state. In other words, all the low hanging fruit has been gathered. I think that if Canon were to figure out how to match the read noise of Sony/Nikon and, of course add the high MP device to their lineup that we are discussing here, there would be little left to bellyache about. People will always find something though.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 25, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Nice with yet another confirmation of a high megapix camera from Canon comming "soon".
> 
> Anyone else share my worry 2014 could be the year that makes or breaks Canon as the DSLR market leader?



Yes, as long as the technophiles lead the discussion as to what photographers want. Despite the fact that many reviewers have stated that there is virtually no difference in practice between a 20Mp and 36 Mp camera and that you can't get the best resolution without a tripod and the best lenses - and even then the only advantage may come from printing very large, technophiles cry out that we "need" higher MP. My guess is that very few "need" a higher MP at all. The disadvantages are many - unless you spend all your time pixel peeping. Photography - as most art - is about the composition of big shapes. Too much detail can actually be a distraction. Portrait shooters shouldn't want the detail of every pore. Even landscape photographers shouldn't want the detail of every leaf. It detracts from the composition as a whole. These are basic art principles. Sorry if you don't get it. 

If you care about photography, about quality lenses, about dependable cameras, about excellent color, about ergonomics - well, then Canon can easily continue to be the market leader.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 25, 2014)

David Hull said:


> I think that the camera feature set is at a relatively mature state. In other words, all the low hanging fruit has been gathered. I think that if Canon were to figure out how to match the read noise of Sony/Nikon and, of course add the high MP device to their lineup that we are discussing here, there would be little left to bellyache about. People will always find something though.



There's plenty of low-hanging fruit, but with the exception of an electronic global shutter and DPAF everywhere, the low-hanging fruit is mostly software at this point, and Canon doesn't seem to care about that aspect of their gear. For example:


Automatic AFMA using DPAF
Dark background metering modes
Focus bracketing
In-camera RAW adjustment tools for quick adjustments
Better Wi-Fi support (more like a traditional OS, with automatic joining of multiple networks with passwords)
Android app support for more flexibility

And so on.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 25, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Yes, as long as the technophiles lead the discussion as to what photographers want. Despite the fact that many reviewers have stated that there is virtually no difference in practice between a 20Mp and 36 Mp camera and that you can't get the best resolution without a tripod and the best lenses - and even then the only advantage may come from printing very large, technophiles cry out that we "need" higher MP. My guess is that very few "need" a higher MP at all.



Anyone who occasionally has need for shooting small things far away would benefit from higher MP counts. In particular, anyone who uses a crop body for reach, but uses a full-frame camera for everything else would benefit by being able to carry only a single camera instead of two.

For example, bird photography benefits greatly from being able to crop further before the resolution becomes too low to use. Mind you, there's a limit to how much you benefit from increased pixel density, and by the time you're at... say 50 MP on crop, 130 MP on full-frame, you probably aren't going to gain much by cranking the resolution higher, but we're nowhere near those limits yet in the Canon world.



dak723 said:


> The disadvantages are many - unless you spend all your time pixel peeping. Photography - as most art - is about the composition of big shapes. Too much detail can actually be a distraction. Portrait shooters shouldn't want the detail of every pore. Even landscape photographers shouldn't want the detail of every leaf. It detracts from the composition as a whole. These are basic art principles. Sorry if you don't get it.



No, there is *never* a disadvantage to having more resolution available. It is trivial to throw away resolution after the fact, and to soften (blur) images to achieve the artistic look you want. By contrast, it is impossible to get back resolution that was never there to begin with. So a high-res camera can satisfy both of our needs, but a low-res camera can't.


----------



## fish_shooter (Dec 25, 2014)

RGF said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...



Do you mean MF as in manual focus or MF as medium format?
I can see Canon responding to the Zeiss Otus lenses with a new super-premium line, maybe branded as double L as in EF-LL, and super expensive as well! However, I think Canon would be more upscale than Otus by being AF as well.
Merry Christmas!!
Tom


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 25, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Despite the fact that many reviewers have stated that there is virtually no difference in practice between a 20Mp and 36 Mp camera and that you can't get the best resolution without a tripod and the best lenses - and even then the only advantage may come from printing very large, technophiles cry out that we "need" higher MP.



Just so you know, people that make those two claims ("no difference..." and "without a tripod") are entirely, completely, and demonstrably wrong.


----------



## Woody (Dec 25, 2014)

Canon used to be highly secretive.The only reason they now feel compelled to reveal their development plans must be the loss of customers to other camps.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 25, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Anyone else share my worry 2014 could be the year that makes or breaks Canon as the DSLR market leader?


 
No.


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 25, 2014)

A medium format 50mp Sony sensor would need a new line of EF lenses.

Juss sayin'


----------



## lintoni (Dec 25, 2014)

wockawocka said:


> A medium format 50mp Sony sensor would need a new line of EF lenses.
> 
> Juss sayin'


And Canon will not be releasing a medium format camera in the near future. Not with a Sony sensor. Not with a Canon sensor.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 25, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, as long as the technophiles lead the discussion as to what photographers want.
> ...



Thank you from sparing me the effort of explaining that not everyone has the same needs. I wounder if dak723 still is shooting 4 megapix? Of course not... But his argument would be the same and just as irrelevent. And btw I'll take 100 megapix if I can get it. Thank you very much.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 25, 2014)

Woody said:


> Canon used to be highly secretive.The only reason they now feel compelled to reveal their development plans must be the loss of customers to other camps.



+1,000 

After Canon admitted being presured by their customers wanting a high megapix offer, this seems to be second time around they are trying to make sure customers do not give up on them too early. Well timed too. My heart was sinking for lack of a 5DIV announcement this year. I for one would be thrilled to be convinced to continue with Canon - but they have to act now - so Canon: Just do it!


----------



## infared (Dec 25, 2014)

I won't buy it.
I have a 32" Print in a gallery right now...(actually I don't''' it sold)...it looked fantastic and it was shot at 2500 ISO. I did a lot of post on it...but it was the shot that came thru. The camera, My 5DIII is VERY good...as are many other cameras, right now.
If Canon:
Gave me a low noise sensor at no more than 24MP (just don't want to move the files or buy a whole new PC).
I want black blacks like some other WAY-less-expensive cameras have on the market right now.
Gave me focus point across 90% of the VF (that I could set the camera up to move with one touch (not two).
Gave me a faster frame rate.
..and kept the price below $2500...then I would consider buying a new body. The competition is serious.
The market has changed...its a new era.....
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Until then ....I will just keep shooting and buying software!


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 26, 2014)

I would like more resolution in the sensor at higher ISO's. 

Usually I have a lot more heartburn about loss of resolution at moderately high ISO (like ISO 800 or 1600) than I do about grain/noise, which I don't really notice much until ISO 3200 or more. I find it irritating, for example, when the camera does not record eyelashes or eye or lip detail, and I see it doing that at those ISO's before I really see much noise. 

Would the higher res sensors deliver more lines of resolution at the higher ISO's?


----------



## crashpc (Dec 26, 2014)

Maybe better postprocessing? I can get lashes detail at up to ISO 1600 with poor crop sensor performance from Canon (18Mpx).You propably do something wrong. Anyway this loss of resolution happens with every sensor. It´s how things work.


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 26, 2014)

I don't personally feel 50mp belongs on a 35mm sensor.
Then again I'm sure someone said the same thing about 21mp in the years gone by.

Anyone tried the Pentax 645z yet? I've one here on loan and it's lovely.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

wockawocka said:


> I don't personally feel 50mp belongs on a 35mm sensor.
> Then again I'm sure someone said the same thing about 21mp in the years gone by.
> 
> Anyone tried the Pentax 645z yet? I've one here on loan and it's lovely.



I remember people saying the same thing about 8MP on an APS-H sensor (1D->1D2).

They were wrong then and you are wrong now.

50MP on full frame is the same size pixels as those on the 70D and 7D2, and that's no big deal. We could easily go half that size (200MP on full frame).


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 26, 2014)

wockawocka said:


> I don't personally feel 50mp belongs on a 35mm sensor.
> Then again I'm sure someone said the same thing about 21mp in the years gone by.
> 
> Anyone tried the Pentax 645z yet? I've one here on loan and it's lovely.



I agree with you here: the problem is that we are restricted by the format - unless optics and sensors become perfect and defy the laws of physics. Resolution isn't just pixels, it's requires optics and light as well, among other things. Exactly the same thing with 'reach' on crop sensors; the only thing you are increasing is the number of pixels on target, all the other major factors remain the same. This is why you don't see as much improvement from the extra numbers of pixels as you would expect, even after up sampling the cropped FF sensor. 50 mp on a FF sensor is OK as long as it doesn't come at a per-pixel cost in IQ. Of course it will come at the cost of much bigger files, and even sRAW or mRAW takes longer to process than the full file.

The other thing is that you can create a format larger than a 645z with FF by stitching. OK there are many instances when this is not practical, but given what a 645 would be used for it's as likely as not that you could use this method. 

The problem is that if we are going to split hairs - and we are most of the time - then a larger format uses more light to make the image. The larger area records more light, the longer focal length lenses pass more light and magnify the subject more; the differences go on and on. More pixels are just one small part of the formula.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 26, 2014)

There was a mention earlier that Leaf Shutters had jumped the shark. I have the Fuji X100s and the best thing about it is it's Leaf Shutter. It's a big advantage for strobist work. 
I'll be interested how this camera works out. Resolving power is what would interest me. The 5D Mark III is a great all rounder but I still crave more resolved detail.


----------



## zim (Dec 26, 2014)

wockawocka said:


> I don't personally feel 50mp belongs on a 35mm sensor.
> Then again I'm sure someone said the same thing about 21mp in the years gone by.
> 
> Anyone tried the Pentax 645z yet? I've one here on loan and it's lovely.



+1 
If I was a pro and actually needed high mp for my business, that's exactly what I'd be doing not waiting for a 3d or whatever it will be called. I trust Canon to keep the 5div to around 24mp.


----------



## mustafa (Dec 26, 2014)

Ditboy said:


> New EF lenses--- EF-M for the mirrorless line up they say they are serious about. They have 4 lenses now and several patents for more have been discovered. I would love a EF-M 35mm 1.4 & 55mm 1.4 to use with a new APS-C chipped "M" rangefinder style that competes with the Sony and Fuji



Amen to that. Add in a 24mm and we're fixed. What I want is a Canonized version of the a6000/X-E2/GX-7, optimised for street/travel photographers. I'm optimistic, because I sense that Canon does build its products around the needs of specific groups of users - press (1D-X), sports/wildlife (7DII), portrait/video (5DIII), landscape (upcoming 50mp), etc, etc. It's a sensible approach from a marketing point of view. Given that Canon does most things very well (build quality, colour rendition, exterior design, ergonomics, lenses, touch screens, etc., I'm still confident that I made the right decision all those years ago to go 100% with them.


----------



## sfunglee (Dec 26, 2014)

Canon - Awakening~~~


----------



## chauncey (Dec 26, 2014)

I keep thinking that this is nothing more than a 7D II sensor upsized to a Full Frame sensor...voila 50 MP.
Tell me I'm wrong...I'll still buy it though. ;D


----------



## vscd (Dec 26, 2014)

The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly *no* lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810. The few who can resolve at least about 30 MP, are expensive primes... and even the Otus can't fully get the 36 MP on the RAW.

The most used Zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 are between 20-27 MPixel, so if you really "need" 50 MPixel you should also change your daily workflow. For landscape shooters primes are mostly the way to go, but for the rest there is no way to take advantage of the sensor in any way. But you probably get the backdraws like 80MB RAWs and a slow fps-rate.

Thats also the reason why the Sigma Merril cameras are resolving details like a Nikon D810 (sometimes more, sometimes less). They just need lenses for 15 MPixel to get details around 30-33 MPixel (45 MPixel as claimed are far too much in my opinion). I recently read some optical document about the limitations of optical systems and there is a sweet spot around 30-32 MPixel for fullframe... of course you can get workarounds on this as the PhaseOne/HasselBlad Back are already doing it. They shift the sensor for half Pixels and interpolate the results. Maybe Canon introduces something like that, the shifting of the Bayer-Layer (without the groundlayer) was also a recent patent.

For me, the pixelcount is nothing to be concerned about, I like the way the Sony A7S "thinks". If I need more resolution I stitch together with longer focallenghts, but I know this is just for wider angles and without movements. I'm really interested in the next Canonproducts. For the rumours about a new EF-Line... I think there is a mirrorless fullframe Line coming, adaptable to standard-EF with an adapter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

vscd said:


> The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly *no* lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810. The few who can resolve at least about 30 MP, are expensive primes... and even the Otus can't fully get the 36 MP on the RAW.



I advise you to take DXO's equivalent megapixels rating for lenses the way you take campaign promises from politicians. It's just about as accurate.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2014)

While we are waiting for Canon and Nikon to introduce pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, Canons announcement about a 50 MP Bayer? DSLR? might seem a bit odd. Especially considering that Canon presently offers no lenses that would give justice to a 50MP sensor. At the same time Canon admits the need for a new line of lenses. The real reason why both Canon and Nikon are having difficulties breaking into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras has to do with lenses, and more specifically with lens mounts. A properly designed mirrorless camera takes advantage of a shorter flange distance. Hopefully not as short as Sony's 18mm, but not as long as Nikon's present 46.5mm or Canon's 44mm.
If Canon managed to bring out an innovative DSLR? using a shorter flange distance, say 25-30mm, and a new line of high resolution lenses, Canon would be in a superb position to smoothly transition into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras.
With a little foresight this new lens mount would have a large enough throat diameter to allow for an adapter to present EOS lenses.
Whichever ways Canon and Nikon choose to get to pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, I predict some interesting camera days ahead.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

Bengt Nyman said:


> While we are waiting for Canon and Nikon to introduce pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, Canons announcement about a 50 MP Bayer? DSLR? might seem a bit odd. Especially considering that Canon presently offers no lenses that would give justice to a 50MP sensor. At the same time Canon admits the need for a new line of lenses. The real reason why both Canon and Nikon are having difficulties breaking into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras has to do with lenses, and more specifically with lens mounts. A properly designed mirrorless camera takes advantage of a shorter flange distance. Hopefully not as short as Sony's 18mm, but not as long as Nikon's present 46.5mm or Canon's 44mm.
> If Canon managed to bring out an innovative DSLR? using a shorter flange distance, say 25-30mm, and a new line of high resolution lenses, Canon would be in a superb position to smoothly transition into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras.
> With a little foresight this new lens mount would have a large enough throat diameter to allow for an adapter to present EOS lenses.
> Whichever ways Canon and Nikon choose to get to pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, I predict some interesting camera days ahead.



Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.


----------



## vscd (Dec 26, 2014)

> I advise you to take DXO's equivalent megapixels rating for lenses the way you take campaign promises from politicians. It's just about as accurate.



It's just a starting point, you can get similar results with imatest or dpreview. It's basically all about pixelsize/microns. The Diffraction Limited System [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system] gets you anyway 



> Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.



Muahahaaa... no way.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2014)

vscd said:


> The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly *no* lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810.


I agree with most of what you said, except for accepting a limited sensor resolution for that reason.
I shoot D800E and D810 with the best AF primes available up to 300mm f/4, not to be a snob but to keep my equipment light.
I use liberal cropping rather than soft zoom lenses to produce my final images.
I agree that for high sensor resolution to make sense the lens PMP should reach reasonably close to the sensor MP.


----------



## clarksbrother (Dec 26, 2014)

Here's my two cents...

There's too little info on the lenses to really even speculate so I'm going to leave that one alone.

I'm going to assume this is the 5D Mark IV or a "3D" of some sort. 

1) Megapixels are alright but much past 25-30 and you're appealing to a much smaller segment of the market (BTW... for the record... I do a lot of Gigapanning - so I theoretically could be counted among that smaller segment... but even so - super high megapixel doesn't thrill me tremendously as it can come at the cost of other things)

2) Sensitivity, color depth and lack of noise will win the day. At this point I fully expect 14-bit color depth. 16 would be a pleasant surprise... but I doubt it. To see a sensor with sensitivity even close to that of the Sony A7S would be very exciting... but once again... I doubt it. Noise processing and cleanliness of signal is left to be seen but I suspect we'll see significant improvements in noise processing. 

3) Improved AF - pretty much a given

4) 4K Video - assuming the 5D Mark IV does come in at $3799 (Body), for it to NOT have 4K/60 (or at least 30fps) video would be an absolute dealbreaker. In a world in which a $500 action camera can capture VERY passable 4K footage, to not include that would be a huge mistake. With the lifespan on these cameras of around 4 years or so - imagine how much more ubiquitous the format will be in that time. NOT including it would relegate the camera to obsolescence almost immediately. 

For reference, I currently shoot with a 5D Mark II with several pieces of L glass. If Canon fails to include 4K capability in the next generation, there's a very real chance I will jump ship over to Sony. I've been a big fan of Canon over the years - one of the things that attracted me to the brand was A) The quality glass and B) Their ability to innovate. I'm concerned their losing their edge in both categories - the glass not so much that they've declined (or even failed to get better), but that their competitors have just gotten that much better (especially with the new Sigma glass). As for innovation - the 5D Mark II was a huge step forward... but they almost don't seem to know what to do past that point - shoehorn video in everything and then...what? (Not great improvements in usability there either). 

Only time will tell if they decide to step up and decide to shake up the market with great innovation again - here's hoping they do!


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.


If you are used to images from a 24MP sensor and accept that level of quality, I agree.
However, if you expect to take advantage of the 50MP sensor and see closer to 40PMP images you are dead wrong.


----------



## tron (Dec 26, 2014)

zim said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I don't personally feel 50mp belongs on a 35mm sensor.
> ...


I would like that but trust is a strong word! I just hope so!


----------



## vscd (Dec 26, 2014)

...and even if he got lenses with the best IQ and Resolution he would run into diffraction at F4 or more. 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

So the lense should be tack sharp while shooting wide open @f2.8 or faster. This would be the next physical challenge  In some studio environment this could be done theoretically, but the cost will explode. 

There was and still is a good reason why photographers with needs >40MP always switch to medium format. It's about pixelsize and diffraction limits. If you push the small full frame sensor into it's limits you loose on every other aspect like ISO, Color Accuracy, Depth of Field (Diffraction). Is it worth it? Sometimes I don't want to be in the skin of the manufacturers. They have to please the customers, regardless of the sense of it :-\


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 26, 2014)

vscd said:


> The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly *no* lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810. The few who can resolve at least about 30 MP, are expensive primes... and even the Otus can't fully get the 36 MP on the RAW.



I wonder about that. When you look at the comparision shots between the Canon 5DIII and Nikon D810 the difference in resolution and detail is so plain to see that its scary. And these are with comparable lenses - often general purpose zooms such as 28-70's. 

The same is true for the SONY A7R. More resolution and detail than the 5DIII can ever match. And not with super lenses but just plain "good" lenses.

To me its obvious that for now more megapix = better resolution and detail. I'd love for someone to explain how and when optical resolution does in fact become a limit. But its not at 36 megapix for sure. And I doubt a lot it will be true at 50 megapix either - since then one should think we hit the limit with the crop format sensor already (and we did not).

That you also can get better low iso etc. on top pretty much seals the deal. 

This is why I am hoping and calling for Canon to respond in kind.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 26, 2014)

vscd said:


> ...and even if he got lenses with the best IQ and Resolution he would run into diffraction at F4 or more.



Only if you had removed the color filters and limit yourself to BW. While conveniently forgetting about what MTF actually measures and how arbitrary thresholds are therefore.
It gets into involuntarily comedic territory when People consider Pixel densities lower then what's currently available impossibly high though.


----------



## mustafaakarsu (Dec 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The other thing is that you can create a format larger than a 645z with FF by stitching.



Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 26, 2014)

mustafaakarsu said:


> Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?


In theory: yes.
But you run into a myriad of problems as you have to account for factors that would simply vanish in landscape photography.
And then you also want to use focus stacking to actually gain from the larger sensor estate - let's hope your subjects are patient.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 26, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> mustafaakarsu said:
> 
> 
> > Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?
> ...



Agreed. Any larger format has less dof as you are using a longer lens for a given framing, but focus stacking is much easier on one frame, assuming the lens doesn't have much focus breathing. I have used FF stitching for macro shots ( not something I do much off), but my aim was to produce a shallow dof image, even then at f11 ! 

There are many people who like the idea of a greater mp on a FF sensor, maybe even enough to make it viable for Canon to produce one, but, as many people on this thread have pointed out, the physics of it all means we are ultimately format limited.


----------



## vscd (Dec 26, 2014)

> Any larger format has less dof as you are using a longer lens for a given framing



But you can compensate the lower DOF easily with a smaller aperture. The resulting loss of light can be compensated with a higher ISO on the larger sensor. I don't want to get with a mediumformat camera into the field hunting insects, but technically the smaller sensor gives you no advantage except of the size and weight from the body, build around 



> I wonder about that. When you look at the comparision shots between the Canon 5DIII and Nikon D810 the difference in resolution and detail is so plain to see that its scary.



I don't speak about the difference between the 24MP and the 36MP, there is enough room for the Nikon to get the results you mentioned. But even the Nikon users know which lense is capable of the best results (ask D800/D810 owners). I speak about the problems of a real 50 MP Sensor, not 36 MP. 33-36 MP on Fullframe is (in my opinion) the upper spot, together with the best glass. 50 MP is quite another world.


----------



## Spiros Zaharakis (Dec 26, 2014)

Although I don't think there is such a chance, I really wish that Canon would use a crop of the 50mp Sony sensor found in Pentax 645z.
It would turn out at 30MP which is a substantial increase in megapixel count and still not too intimidating.


----------



## photonius (Dec 26, 2014)

"We are extending interchangeable lens groups (unsure what this actually means). We want to add one line to our EF lenses...I can't say any more than this. Please don't ask anymore (laughs)."

My interpretation is rather basic:
We are adding new lenses to our existing lens groups (ef, ef-s, ef-m). (not create a new range). Some announcements, patents, hints for such lenses have already been made.

The one lens that needs to be added to the EF lens group is a high-resolution UWA lens that can deal with the high res senors. Tele's and standard range have been updated already. The missing lens is probably the rumored/patented EF 11-24 (? I forgot the upper end focal length) zoom that hopefully would provide better sharpness in the corners.


----------



## crashpc (Dec 26, 2014)

EF-M 11-22 is already here, so few of us only need tha 32-36Mpx APS-C body...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.
> ...



No, I'm not.

I routinely run Canon lenses at the equivalent of 80MP on full frame, and I have run them at the equivalent of 370MP on full frame.

Do you think 50MP on medium format is okay with decent lenses at f/8?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

vscd said:


> ...and even if he got lenses with the best IQ and Resolution he would run into diffraction at F4 or more.
> 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm



That calculator is wrong witch is trivial to check when you realize that it means you can't get a sharp shot from any lens in a 70D or 7D2 at f/5.6 (which is obviously false).


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > mustafaakarsu said:
> ...



Diffraction a limited resolution is the same for all formats.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 26, 2014)

mustafaakarsu said:


> Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?



There was a stitched macro photo and setup description in a recent Really Right Stuff catalog, and it may also be online.

So yes, you can stitch macro images.

Practicality is another important variable.


----------



## sanj (Dec 26, 2014)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.
> ...



Pls help me learn: Many Canon/Nikon lenses are supposed to be on par. How does Nikon get away with 36mp cameras with it's lenses? Thx. (Genuine question)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Bengt Nyman said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



That statement is incorrect so there's really not much to learn. Many of Canon lenses would be good enough for a 100 MP FF sensor, at least at f/4.


----------



## jrista (Dec 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > What I read between the lines of "there are two ways of roughly divided into high pixel and high sensitivity to user needs" and "up the number of pixels while maintaining the pixel quality" is -
> ...




No, in the _*context *of the interview_, sensitivity means high ISO. That is very clear from what they were saying...that Canon already focused on high sensitivity, now they are focusing on high resolution. The only mention DR MIGHT come from their mention of "preserving pixel quality"...which to me does not sound like any kind of improvement, simply that they are maintaining current pixel quality while concurrently increasing pixel count.


----------



## jrista (Dec 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Bengt Nyman said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




Nikon doesn't really get away with it. Nikon lenses affect output resolution, and in many cases limit it. Unless your using a Zeiss lens on a D810, or maybe the 14-24 Nikon or their new 800mm f/5.6, it's unlikely your going to get close to the resolving power limit of the 36.3mp sensor.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Many of Canon lenses would be good enough for a 100 MP FF sensor, at least at f/4.


Sure, if you settle for a 20+ PMP image. But if you do, why pay for a 100 MP image sensor.
Canon's sharpest lens reaches 20 PMP on the 22.3 MP sensor. I would not expect it to reach over 30 PMP on a 100 MP sensor. If it does Canon is leaving money on the table every time they make this lens.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 26, 2014)

Bengt Nyman said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Many of Canon lenses would be good enough for a 100 MP FF sensor, at least at f/4.
> ...



Thanks for demonstrating why rating lenses based on data that has been obtained via a setup with more then one variable is less then useless.


----------



## vscd (Dec 26, 2014)

> That calculator is wrong witch is trivial to check when you realize that it means you can't get a sharp shot from any lens in a 70D or 7D2 at f/5.6 (which is obviously false).



I didn't say that you cant get a sharp shot beyond f5.6, it says it wont't get sharper until it runs into diffraction. So the resolution peaks @f5.6 if the lense is constructed well otherwise. Please go to a lensreview side of your choice, for example http://www.photozone.de/ , select any Canon APS-C lens and show me one example where you get better results on f8 or f11 than on the center of f5.6. 

On Fullframe you'll get into this 1-2 stops later (with both sensors having an comparable pixelpitch). This peak will go even lower to the max-aperture when you minimize the pixel more and more. But you don't have to believe on physics, just buy and belive in your mojo.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Thanks for demonstrating why rating lenses based on data that has been obtained via a setup with more then one variable is less then useless.


Correct.
Your clue to the absolute performance of a lens is to compare the PMP of the lens to the MP of the sensor.
If a lens produces 21 PMP on a 22 MP sensor you know that it has the potential to go beyond 22 PMP.
Whereas a lens producing 21 PMP on a 36 MP sensor has already reached its own resolution limit.
The only way to know for sure would be if the industry started publishing charts showing image contrast as a function of line pair density. Today they typically only publish MTF charts based on a couple of very low line pair densities, typically 10 and 30 LP/mm. A 36 MP sensor corresponds to 104 LP/mm and a 50 MP sensor corresponds to 144 LP/mm, so you would like to know how the lens performs in this area.


----------



## Suri JV (Dec 26, 2014)

After 7D II, Canon may think of L class lenses for EF-S sensors. They will be light and much in demand.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 26, 2014)

> Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?


I do it all the time using a 180 macro lens mounted on my dated 1Ds3 and using stacking and merging in 
PS CC...no problem to cough out 30-40" images @ 300 dpi/ppi.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Dec 26, 2014)

You're, of course, right to wonder.

I've heard similar comments each and every time there's been a bump in pixel count. I heard this when the first 5D came out. It was the same thing when the 5D MkII and more recently the Nikon D800 were introduced. 

So many people continue to predict the _need_ for better optics... and... well, as you point out "good" lenses still out-perform the current high-resolution sensors.

If people want to buy new lenses, I figure it's their money. Whatever it takes for them to "feel good" about their equipment "needs". Yet from a physics perspective old lenses and new will continue to out-perform a 50mpixel FF sensor down through f/11.



Maiaibing said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly *no* lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810. The few who can resolve at least about 30 MP, are expensive primes... and even the Otus can't fully get the 36 MP on the RAW.
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 26, 2014)

vscd said:


> > That calculator is wrong witch is trivial to check when you realize that it means you can't get a sharp shot from any lens in a 70D or 7D2 at f/5.6 (which is obviously false).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The peak is both irrelevant and misleading. First of all, you can still get more resolution from a 50MP sensor at f/11 than you could from a 24MP sensor at the same f-stop. Second, many of Canon's better lenses are now diffraction limited below f/4 which means there's a long, long way to go before there's no point in adding more pixels even way beyond 50MP on full-frame.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

"User needs are broadly divided into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers."

So MP count and high iso SNR matter and otherwise it's crickets from Canon?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > What I read between the lines of "there are two ways of roughly divided into high pixel and high sensitivity to user needs" and "up the number of pixels while maintaining the pixel quality" is -
> ...



That is true, but considering that it's DR that they have been being pounded over you'd think anyone with any marketing brains would try to go to some effort to make it clear that it was also DR that was being improved and not phrase it in a way that makes one as wary as could be so I'm kind of not so liking the sound of it all.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Nice with yet another confirmation of a high megapix camera from Canon comming "soon".
> ...



You do realize that people complained about banding and DR only because they found issues in photography and not in lab right? Sorry if you don't get it.

And have you ever heard of say wildlife photography where it can be very tricky/not allowed/expensive/etc. to get close and having a higher MP count can add more detail to such shots even at web resolution?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

vscd said:


> The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly *no* lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810. The few who can resolve at least about 30 MP, are expensive primes... and even the Otus can't fully get the 36 MP on the RAW.
> 
> The most used Zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 are between 20-27 MPixel, so if you really "need" 50 MPixel you should also change your daily workflow. For landscape shooters primes are mostly the way to go, but for the rest there is no way to take advantage of the sensor in any way. But you probably get the backdraws like 80MB RAWs and a slow fps-rate.
> 
> ...



1. DxO is terrible for rating lenses
2. Most of their scores are taken from lenses shot wide open or near so
3. It's trivial to see that a 7D captures a LOT more detail than a 5D3 of a subject the same distance away when using the same lens so if the resolution is such a waste then how come the difference is so trivial to produce real world?
4. total resolution depends upon a mix of the lens and sensor and even when a lens doesn't seem to make the most of a sensor that doesn't mean it won't deliver more in total at the end from a higher res sensor and don't forget that a lens might fail at the corners on a sensor but still excel over most of the area and I mean just because you took 30MP out of 36MP delivered doesn't mean you'd get 30MP out of 50MP delivered. First of all, you'd likely automatically get some bump just because total res is based on senor res+lens res in a combination that doesn't clip out the way you think it does and second, supposing the lens was doing ultra well over most of the frame and just getting blurry at the edges so maybe you'd get way better detail over most of the frame at 50MP even if the edges were still only at say 20MP equivalent or something


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



It does sadly really have the ring to it of a 7D2 sensor just times 1.6 and 1.6. If that it all they could after this many years and it's taken that long to respond to higher MP from other makers.... yikes. It means they really have no care at all. They could've responded much earlier if that is all they were going to do but since the 5D3 still sold some they didn't care. They just are followers and milkers and won't release anything until forced.

I mean maybe not. I still have some silly hope, but it sadly seems silly.


----------



## adventureous (Dec 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Bengt Nyman said:
> ...




Nikon 810 and Zeiss is probably the best possible combination of digital available today unless you need autofocus. Hopefully this is the quality Canon is striving for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "User needs are *broadly divided* into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers."
> 
> So MP count and high iso SNR matter and otherwise it's crickets from Canon?



Sounds like Canon – a company that spends a significant amount of ¥ on market research – seems to think those clamoring for more low ISO DR are a *minority*. I think I've heard that stated elsewhere...here, perhaps? :


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 27, 2014)

To be fair, Canon can only upgrade their bodies so much. Every upgrade brings them one step closer to making the last camera that they ever make.
That doesn't sound like a process that you want to go very quickly.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2014)

They can:

1. Improve hardware by changing their production line to make sensors that compete with SONY. OK this is EXPENSIVE but I guess it will put Canon to top again (and in that way pay itself in the long run).
2. Improve hardware by implementing their patent with dual amplification channels ( Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent I think).
3. Improve software by implementing everything ML has done up to now.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 27, 2014)

adventureous said:


> Nikon 810 and Zeiss is probably the best possible combination of digital available today unless you need autofocus. Hopefully this is the quality Canon is striving for.



You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras *and* better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).


----------



## bmpress (Dec 27, 2014)

Perhaps "expand the eos line" refers to the addition of a medium format camera line...
If true, Canon might keep the 5D line growing by incorporating advanced processor features within the body, rather than mucking it up with higher resolution sensors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> adventureous said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon 810 and Zeiss is probably the best possible combination of digital available today unless you need autofocus. Hopefully this is the quality Canon is striving for.
> ...



What unmitigated hyperbole.

Anybody that believes _"the best possible combination of digital available today"_ is a 135 format Nikon needs to get out more, there is a very reasonable digital medium format market that makes D810 files look like P&S's, but it costs, and that is the reason a Nikon/AF Zeiss combo wouldn't impact anything, there are very few people, some but very few, who would happily pay that kind of money for an incremental step in IQ that nobody could see at most reproduction sizes.

People are generally motivated by a cost/IQ payoff, I could give my clients 10% more for 4 times the money, but none of them want that.


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 27, 2014)

There are quite a few in this thread that, if they bought stock according to their own predictions, would be piss poor sooner than my shutter stops working.


----------



## vscd (Dec 27, 2014)

> You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras and better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).



Haha. You forgot one important fact in your equation. Nikon is based on photography, only. Canon is a huge company where photography is just a minor part of the income. That's also a reason why they don't focus on everybodys body-wishes all the time. And to be honest, Nikon already gave up at the sensor-war. They couldn't compete.

There is an old phrase...Why should the oak tree care if the pig is scratching on it's trunk?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2014)

vscd said:


> > You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras and better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1

There are quite a few people on these boards compared to whom that oak tree-scratching pig has better business acumen.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > "User needs are *broadly divided* into the two areas of high-resolution and high-sensitivity. Canon has been progressing the high-sensitivity side more, but we feel that we also must respond to graphics-related users (hoping for high resolution) and increase resolution numbers."
> ...



1.

I wouldn't be smiling over such things, since it's hardly a good thing for a Canon user if all 100% true. In fact, it's a rather bad thing.

2.

They also thought that their was zero market for the SONY RX100 camera and a Canon executive scoffed and laughed at such a camera and said that their team had clearly determined that there was no market for such a camera and that they had no plans.....

.....well until now, after the Sony RX100 series has proved to be a run away success and they suddenly come out with a clone, two years too late and a dollar short.

It's hardly like their research marketing department is infallible.

3.

It may not have anything to do with what their marketing discovers that people want, but just with what they are able to bring to the table without investing too much money and what they can manage to get away with doing. It's very common for companies to start acting like this once they hit the top. A great many of them eventually fail. Of course cameras are an unusual business so they may have more leeway.

4.

They have already given up a lot of the low-mid end video DSLR revolution market that they themselves had created just a few years back.

5.

Who is to say that their sales would not have been far more dominant and climbing instead of declinging had they pushed things forward more?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



1. Smile:  Eye roll: : See the difference?

2. – 5. Discussed to death, why bother?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras *and* better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).



Nope - Zeiss will _never, ever_ make anything to compete with the Big Whites.

Besides - all Canon would have to do to counter such a move by Nikon is _likewise_.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2014)

chauncey said:


> > Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?
> 
> 
> I do it all the time using a 180 macro lens mounted on my dated 1Ds3 and using stacking and merging in
> PS CC...no problem to cough out 30-40" images @ 300 dpi/ppi.



Would you be able to post/link to some examples? This is really intriguing. Thanks!


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> adventureous said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon 810 and Zeiss is probably the best possible combination of digital available today unless you need autofocus. Hopefully this is the quality Canon is striving for.
> ...



I thought the Zeiss MF zealots claimed that AF was left off because it compromised image quality? I don't think you can just slot in AF motors/algorithms (or IS/VR for that matter) into an existing - supposedly near-perfect - MF design. Tech guys, right?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2014)

Reading through all this has raised a question in my mind. Sorry if it's obvious. But since we are told resolution is dependent on both sensor and lens, how can you measure the resolution of a lens independently?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Reading through all this has raised a question in my mind. Sorry if it's obvious. But since we are told resolution is dependent on both sensor and lens, how can you measure the resolution of a lens independently?



You can test the lens and the sensor independently, the lens on an optical bench and the sensor by the numbers, you can also work out theoretical limits for both, but when used together they interact and mean that you can never achieve 100% of the lowest capacity item in the system.

People saying this or that lens is only good for xMP are idiots, if you put a higher MP sensor behind it you will get more resolution, how much more and if it is worth the trade off is the lesson all those clamouring for a high MP 135 format body will learn once they get one. 

I believe Canon have held off on a high MP body because they know they will be a comparative disappointment, they know the sweet spots for the formats. Just look at the outright resolution difference between any same generation crop and FF camera, the crop cameras put down over twice the pixels per area but the resolution difference, even in optimal conditions (that we practically never shoot in), is small at best. I have asked people many times to show me same generation crop vs cropped FF images and with a touch of optimal processing to both (that is, not the same processing to both) it is practically impossible to tell them apart, I have shown my own too.

If 35 or 50MP would actually give me something tangible then I'd be all for it, I know it won't so I'll be keeping my money when and if one does come out.


----------



## vscd (Dec 27, 2014)

> I thought the Zeiss MF zealots claimed that AF was left off because it compromised image quality? I don't think you can just slot in AF motors/algorithms (or IS/VR for that matter) into an existing - supposedly near-perfect - MF design. Tech guys, right?



Right. 

You can adjust metal tubes with very tight differences way better than an USM driven Autofocus, but hey facts don't count, just blame something in a strong and loud font, on a recent board and you will be heard


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Nope - Zeiss will _never, ever_ make anything to compete with the Big Whites.



Really? 







Do you think Canon will ever make anything to compete with the Zeiss 1700mm f/4?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 27, 2014)

Rumors on the Zeiss 1700mm f/4 were in the 1-5 million dollar range. I'm not sure that's really competition for the Canon superteles. Nevertheless...

Canon 5200mm f/14.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon 5200mm f/14.



5200mm / 14 = 371mm

1700mm / 4 = 425mm

Put a 3x TC behind the Zeiss, it's a 5100mm f/11 lens (are there 3x TCs for a Hasselblad 6x6 camera?).


----------



## jrista (Dec 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Nope - Zeiss will _never, ever_ make anything to compete with the Big Whites.
> ...




I wouldn't say there is any "competition" going on between that Zeiss and Canon lenses at all. Look at that Zeiss thing...that's a funktastically wackadillyc monstrosity of a lens there...and it was a special order design that required very special focusing mechanisms and only works with one particular Hassy 6x6. That isn't a mainstream product that has regular availability. If Canon wanted to, they could special-order something up like that as well (that's basically what the 1200mm lenses were.) I think the comparison here is irrelevant.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody that believes _"the best possible combination of digital available today"_ is a 135 format Nikon needs to get out more, there is a very reasonable digital medium format market that makes D810 files look like P&S's, but it costs ...



and it weighs. There's a decided tradeoff. Let me restate that. You'd have the best combination of hardware *in both of the traditional DSLR form factors*—that is, APS and APS-C.




privatebydesign said:


> there are very few people, some but very few, who would happily pay that kind of money for an incremental step in IQ that nobody could see at most reproduction sizes.



There are also very few people, percentage-wise, who pay the extra cost of L lenses, either, but the ability to step up to better lenses helps sales considerably.




vscd said:


> Haha. You forgot one important fact in your equation. Nikon is based on photography, only. Canon is a huge company where photography is just a minor part of the income. That's also a reason why they don't focus on everybodys body-wishes all the time. And to be honest, Nikon already gave up at the sensor-war. They couldn't compete.



Fair enough. Canon would still make some really nice color copiers and laser printers, and some inkjets that clog too easily. 






scyrene said:


> I thought the Zeiss MF zealots claimed that AF was left off because it compromised image quality? I don't think you can just slot in AF motors/algorithms (or IS/VR for that matter) into an existing - supposedly near-perfect - MF design. Tech guys, right?



Compromise IQ? Almost certainly not. It would however, require a very different focusing system, so it would probably compromise manual focusing.


----------



## JoseB (Dec 27, 2014)

Just a though:
What about a 18 MP x 3(or x5) layer sensor? That would solve the problem of the pixel size, right? :-\
There is already a patent for that!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2014)

Flaming post removed by Admin


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

JoseB said:


> Just a though:
> What about a 18 MP x 3(or x5) layer sensor? That would solve the problem of the pixel size, right?



There is no problem of pixel size.


----------



## vscd (Dec 28, 2014)

> There is no problem of pixel size.



<physics>There is. </physics>


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Smile:  Eye roll: : See the difference?
> ...



Smiling because some people aren't getting what they want from Canon? The rolleyes was for all the people on these forums who seem unable to grasp that they're in the minority, and who are upset that Canon is failing to cater to their personal needs, and predict doom for Canon as a result. If anything, it's sad. I don't smile at things that I find to be sad.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

vscd said:


> > There is no problem of pixel size.
> 
> 
> 
> <physics>There is. </physics>



Yeah...let's talk about that.

I decided to calculate diffraction-limited resolution. Here are the assumptions: Green light (550nm), Bayer full-frame sensor, AA filter, MTF10 cutoff. Here are the results:

f-stop Maximum MP count
1.4 8,333
2.0 4,167
2.8 2,083
4.0 1,042
5.7 521
8.0 260
11.3	130
16.0	65
22.6	33
32.0 16

So, does that seem like a problem to you for the foreseeable future?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > There is no problem of pixel size.
> ...



Well seeing as how current lenses, support, lighting, AF, IS, AA filters etc etc seem hard pushed to give us much more usable resolution than current crop camera pixel density even in the center of the image circle, I don't see a problem with your maths, just your idea. 

'Resolution' means usable realisable resolution to me, if I can't see it then I can't use it, that is why I never bought a crop camera to 'give me more reach'. 99.9% of the time in real world shooting, outside one or two very narrow fields, the same generation crop camera doesn't actually realise any more 'resolution' despite putting over twice the MP on a subject.

Don't bother showing us your different generation crops again, or the 100-400 shot of the moon. Show me some real world same generation crops from crop and FF cameras taken in real world shooting and I'll show you why there is very little point for most people most of the time in even 36MP sensors. As for >100MP on a 135 format sensor, at this point in consumer optical technology it is either a pipe dream, or a marketing departments wet dream, it has no practical use other than filling HDD's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



I agree, right up until your last statement. Technically, another practical use could be filling SSDs, and I bet SanDisk and Lexar would just love to see 100 MP dSLRs!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.



Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that, could you point me back to the post where you compared two same generation cameras, a crop camera and a ff one, against each other either as a repeatable bench test (as I have done many times) or in real world shooting that demonstrated a usable and marked increase in resolution for the crop camera when optimal processing was done to both files?

It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 28, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras *and* better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).



Canon dominates the dslr market because (for whatever reasons) it sells more cheap dslr kits than anyone else, so if by "kill" you mean something like "make their camera market share become trivially small", these new Zeiss/Nikon lenses would have to be mass-marketed, dirt cheap and demonstrably superior to those who buy such cameras. The AF primes Zeiss makes for/with Sony are all expensive ($900-$1000 seems rather a lot for 35mm 2.8 and 55mm 1.8, impressive though they are), and it's not clear why the same wouldn't be true of lenses they made for Nikon. The high-end expensive stuff that everyone's obsessing over and speculating about here is more interesting, of course, but it's pretty marginal in terms of company survival, isn't it?

As for higher resolution sensors requiring Zeiss Otus, etc., maybe 50MP is different, but I'm more than happy with the performance of many "lesser" lenses on my Sony a7r, such as run-of-the-mill EFs like 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8, not to mention many a cheap, elderly MF lens. It will be interesting to see how this speculation pans out in practice.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 28, 2014)

High megapixel camera? To quote Monty Python:

"I already got one!"

My 7D has 18!!! How many more would I need? My 5d MK II has 21 or something... Yes, I know they are old...

"Bring out your dead!!! Bring out your dead!!!"


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

vscd said:


> > There is no problem of pixel size.
> 
> 
> 
> <physics>There is. </physics>




The only physical limitation on pixel size is when they become as small or smaller than the wavelengths of light you need to image. Outside of that, there are no physical limitations on how small pixels can be. We can always benefit from smaller pixels...although beyond a certain point, at common apertures (f/2.8 and smaller) you enter the realm of severely diminishing returns. 


At diffraction limited fast apertures, lenses will always resolve more than the smallest physics-limited pixels, which is around 800nm (0.8um)...manufacturers are already wary of implementing 900nm pixel sizes...the smallest so far are 1000nm, which are already smaller than the 1100mm infrared limit for silicon based sensors.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.
> ...



You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply. What you are essentially saying is that changing focal length without changing aperture doesn't change resolving power. In essence, you're saying a 400/5.6 doesn't have a resolving power advantage over an 85/1.2.

I've demonstrated this repeatedly with bench and field tests and every time I do you make up a new excuse as to why my test is invalid. You're latest one is that I wasn't using current generation sensors as if that had anything to do with anything as far as resolving power at low ISO. Guess what? Teleconverters still work and they still do exactly the same thing as reducing pixel seize does.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.




You are taking so many things I've said way out of context there, it's unbelievable. First, I've never said the 7D had a mere 15% advantage over the 5D III. I did say it might be about 25% on average for the average use case (i.e. no tripod, less than ideal focus, etc.) The 60% statement was qualified with the fact that ignores the bayer array or AA filter...i.e. it's the raw, monochrome mathematical advantage of the 7D's pixel size. 


I believe under more ideal conditions, the 7D can realize about a 45% advantage over the 5D III. That is just a resolving power advantage, which when were talking about micrometer sized pixels, isn't something that jumps out of the screen at you...that would be something more like a 200% or 300% advantage, which at the moment only small form factor sensors have with 1.0-1.2 micron pixels.


You and I see different things, which is why subjective comparisons are useless. Maybe I sit closer to my screen than you do, who knows. I see the advantage of the 7D, you do not. Neither of us is right until someone actually does a proper test with proper testing tools and gets some actual resolution numbers. However we all know how well real numbers go down here on these forums as well...so again, it's all entirely pointless.


Simple fact: smaller pixels resolve more detail. I think that has been demonstrated thoroughly well over the last decade, throughout the continual march towards ever smaller pixels paired with frequently improving optics.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 28, 2014)

In order of priority, my cameras are the 1DX, then the 5DIII and then 7DII. Prior to getting the 7DII, I had the 7D, but never used it. My reasons for using the 7DII today is to some extend resolution on long reach, where I have to crop too much with the FF cameras. But the main reason for using the 7DII is the ability I get to position my focus points correctly, especially when photographing small birds at max aperture.

The old 7D did not have an AF system good enough to compete with the 1DX anyway and I would rather crop an 1DX image severely, than substitute it with a 7D alternative. With the 7DII though, that situation has changed, provided I have enough light. i don´t have a clue what the actual scientific resolution differences are, but I see that I do get images I can print in larger formats with the 7DII, than I would have with the 1DX, if I had to crop the 1DX image too much.

Looking back at the resolution difference between the 5D and the 5DII, I expect to see similar improvements going from the 5DIII to the 5DIV or 3D or 1DX-II or whatever they will call it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.
> ...


I agree that smaller pixels can resolve more detail if the lens has sufficient resolving power.

In practice, does pixel size affect low light performance for the same sensor area?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply.



As is yours, but thanks for trying. I have ample experience determining theoretical system resolution, then trying to achieve that theoretical performance with an actual system in the real world (and even going beyond those theoretical limits with optical and digital 'tricks', e.g. superresolution microscopy). 

The fact remains that many people with only an APS-C camera tout the advantages of smaller pixels, while most people with both APS-C and FF bodies prefer to use the FF bodies because, while the advantages of smaller pixels are real, they are only evident in very specific use cases, and far smaller in practice than theory would predict.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> In practice, does pixel size affect low light performance for the same sensor area?



In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply.
> ...



In have both full frame and crop cameras, and use my crop camera when focal length or magnification limited and my full frame when light limited. This will remain unchanged when I replace them both in the coming year. The difference is obvious and easy to practically realize. It's quite obvious that the difference is not the ratio of pixel sizes as that would require optics of infinite resolving power. But in practice modem lenses are so good that it's closer to the ideal than it is to zero in most cases where you aren't stopping down severely for DOF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> You are taking so many things I've said way out of context there, it's unbelievable.



You've developed an unappealing habit of thinking everyone is talking about you. The cave...remember your failure at the cave... Like the 'noticeably better shadow IQ of the Exmor sensor' that turned out to be a Canon sensor, I suspect you've been easy prey for the bait in another of PBD's little traps. 

Look back over some of AlanF's posts from a couple years ago, his calculations of the theoretical resolving power of the 7D and his feather test shots with the 7D that apparently confirmed those calculations, then forward to his posts after getting a 5DIII and performing actual comparisons, and his calculations based on the DPR sample images...maybe you'll see some numbers there that align well with PBD's statements.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are taking so many things I've said way out of context there, it's unbelievable.
> ...



;D

Darn it Neuro, you unwrapped my Christmas gift to myself. 

Flaming of member removed by Admin.


----------



## sulla (Dec 28, 2014)

Excuse me, if the following has been said before:

When Canon sees the world devided into

sports and
studio
type-of-work, then I would expect

terrific autofocus, fast cameras like the 1Dx, with a rather lower pixel count and high fps & ISO, and
high MP, slow cameras like the one in development, with a large sensor (why not square?) and high pixel count, but inferior autofocus and low-light capabilities, like the 5D2 with a high resolution sensor.

I honestly do not hope for both: the best autofocus and the highest resolution.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 28, 2014)

sulla said:


> Excuse me, if the following has been said before:
> 
> When Canon sees the world devided into
> 
> ...



I'm struggling to think of any situation where high-MP would be useful without great AF. For bird and nature photography, you need great AF. For landscapes, if you really need a high-MP landscape photo, you can save a few thousand bucks by just stitching multiple shots together, because landscapes aren't moving.

I'm pretty sure if they don't put great AF in the high-MP camera, it will go down like a lead balloon.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 28, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Anyone else share my worry 2014 could be the year that makes or breaks Canon as the DSLR market leader?



Why do you care whether Canon remains "the DSLR market leader"? I certainly don't - all that matters to me is that it's able to keep producing impressive lenses and cameras, and servicing them efficiently as required. Concern about whether it's #1 or #2 smacks of sports team nonsense.


----------



## sulla (Dec 28, 2014)

> I'm pretty sure if they don't put great AF in the high-MP camera, it will go down like a lead balloon.



I don't quite think so. For studio work AF is not necessary at all, strictly speaking. Neither for landscape work. If we are talking about a 50 MP (as suggested by Canon) studio camera, you will need a tripod anyway to make use of all those pixels. And if you take all the time to set everything up properly, AF is not of concern. Focussing by live-view would be enough and preferred anyway. So a simple AF system would suffice for such a camera.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 28, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> I'm struggling to think of any situation where high-MP would be useful without great AF.



Fashion & Commercial. A clean 4k output would be intersting, 2k is ok though. But AF? Thats the second choice, - if it works at all in the first place.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > In practice, does pixel size affect low light performance for the same sensor area?
> ...


Why is the red line above the orange line?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> For landscapes, if you really need a high-MP landscape photo, you can save a few thousand bucks by just stitching multiple shots together, because *landscapes aren't moving*.



Lol. Do you ever look at nature? Oceans, rivers, wind, lots of stuff moving in nature.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 28, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Despite the fact that many reviewers have stated that there is virtually no difference in practice between a 20Mp and 36 Mp camera and that you can't get the best resolution without a tripod and the best lenses [....]



How much difference there is between 20Mp and 36Mp and whether it matters rather depends on what sort of photos you take and how you look at them - what's virtually none to A may be significant to B. 

As for the rest, I don't understand why there's so much concern in this forum with getting the *ultimate* resolution from a higher MP sensor when Canon releases a camera containing one. That inquiry is fine if that's what you want, but it's hardly obvious why anyone *should* want that. I would have thought that what mattered more was the practical question whether any given lens, when you attach it to a higher resolution sensor, can create images that have better resolution and/or otherwise look better than it does on a sensor with lower resolution. 

I currently own 3 FF cameras, Canon 6D (c. 20Mp), Sony a7r (36mp) and Sony a7s (12Mp), and owned until recently a 5DIII, and of the lenses I own I can't think of a single one which can't at least "keep up" on the a7r or which makes photos that look better via the a7s - even a fairly elderly Minolta Rokkor X 50mm f1/4 for which I paid c. $50 at KEH last year (and they all look better on any of these cameras than they do on my Canon SL1 and Sony a6000). (Cf one of Roger Cicala's blog posts where he notes, among other things, that although the Canon 24-70 II has greater resolving power than the Tamron equivalent, the latter on a Nikon D800 outresolves the former on a 5DIII.)

The same goes for shooting hand-held: I see no more evidence of camera-movement-induced blur on my a7r than I do on my other cameras. This is all anecdotal, of course, but others seem to have similar experiences; at any rate, warnings about the need to spend a fortune Zeiss Otus lenses and use tripods at all times strike me as a mild form of theory-based scare-mongering. 

Or will a 50Mp sensor create problems along these lines that a 36 Mp sensor doesn't? I guess we'll find out before long....


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Different sensors, entirely. The A7S has higher QE and lower read noise, neither of which goes with larger pixels.


----------



## vscd (Dec 28, 2014)

> At diffraction limited fast apertures, lenses will always resolve more than the smallest physics-limited pixels, which is around 800nm (0.8um)...manufacturers are already wary of implementing 900nm pixel sizes...the smallest so far are 1000nm, which are already smaller than the 1100mm infrared limit for silicon based sensors.



This is just *one *barrier. It's not even an optical one (because we just speak about apertures). So the used glas has to be very clean and with each optical element you loose light, arrange new lightsplitting effects, reflections and so on. With the new apochromatic calculations, better with IS elements and 18 Elements in 12 Groups or more you get really a difficult formula. To get 50 MP on the chip itself was a difficult work 10 years back... that's not the problem anymore. The problem is to serve them...



> Simple fact: smaller pixels resolve more detail. I think that has been demonstrated thoroughly well over the last decade, throughout the continual march towards ever smaller pixels paired with frequently improving optics.



Theoretically you're right, but in real live this isn't true...



> I believe under more ideal conditions, the 7D can realize about a 45% advantage over the 5D III



This have to be quite good conditions. Don't forget that the 7D uses the sweet spot of a fullframe-lens, to get the same resolution on the full sensorplane you should use mediumformat-lightcircles on fullframe. That's the reason why the Fuji GX680 performs excellent, it uses large format circles on medium format.

But to get back to the APS-C/7D Owners claiming more resolution. Let's check the facts. I will use DXO, but there are more sources on this. So screaming out "this is no test, I see more than the lab can say in numbers... here are at least measurements (still better facts than private opinions on boards, I think)

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D__619

Let's summarize it on 3 Bodies:







I choosed the 70-200 L IS II 2.8 as it is wellknown as one of the best performers out there, at least on Canonlenses. So the lense shouldn't be the weak point here. What can you see there? Even the old fullframe 5D outperformes the "18MP" 7D Body. The 5DM3 is *way beyond* the 12MP from the 7D. Nearly double. So how can this be? More pixels are theoretically better on resolution. I could explain it to you, but please entertain me with a counterproof  But please more than "DXO is nothing to trust on".


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 28, 2014)

vscd said:


> I could explain it to you, but please entertain me with a counterproof



Go to DPreviews Scene comparison tool, select the 5D3 and D8x0 or A7r and look at the shrinking text bits.
If the text remains legible to different lines the idea that the additional resolution doesn't change a thing is absurd.
If not one should better see the doctor...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


How about "5D-III vs 1D-X" or "A7R vs D4"? (see attached)
Are those equal sensor technologies?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Virtually identical as you can see, plus DXO's testing doesn't for why smaller pixels win, which I posted up thread with samples.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

vscd said:


> Let's summarize it on 3 Bodies:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, let's compare.
7D - 12MP
5DIII - 21MP
5D - 13MP

7D pixels on a full-frame sensor (46MP) = (1.6^2)*7D = 1.6*1.6*12MP = *30.7MP*.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 28, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else share my worry 2014 could be the year that makes or breaks Canon as the DSLR market leader?
> ...



You are right - and I do not. It only reflects on what you write next, which is the real issue: does Canon have the gear to satisfy my needs?

So my worry is really that I may have to sell my Canon gear in 2015 as I upgrade from my excellent but aging 5DII's next year - something that will be time consuming & expensive at the very least. And could be futile at its worst.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Virtually the same... So how exactly is it that small pixels are better in low light? ??? I remind you that you earlier said: "*In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better.*"

In general smaller pixels appear to be ever-so-slightly-worse with SNR. If you consider the Dynamic Range you'll see that larger pixel are clearly superior at higher ISO. Colour sensitivity is virtually identical. I'm failing to see how smaller pixels (with equivalent technology) are any better in low light. In what way are they doing "better"?

As for your post on why smaller pixels win, how about this: 20MP, at 200mm f/4 which is sharper?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=819&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Virtually the same... So how exactly is it that small pixels are better in low light? ??? I remind you that you earlier said: "*In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better.*"



I'll explain it again.

Larger pixels do nothing but block-average versus smaller pixels. However, modern noise reduction software is far superior at removing noise and preserving details than simple block averaging. So, after modern processing is applied, you can usually end up with both more detail and lower noise when starting with smaller pixels in larger numbers. And here's an example. Everything is the same between these two shots - focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, light, distance, processing from raw, final size - everything I could hold constant I did. But the pixel size (area) is different by a factor of 16. This is so that any small other differences are swamped out by the enormous difference in pixel size. Small pixels on the left, big pixels on the right. Which has a better detail-to-noise ratio in your opinion?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> As for your post on why smaller pixels win, how about this: 20MP, at 200mm f/4 which is sharper?
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=819&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



I'll remind you of a phrase in your original question: "...for the same sensor area...". Obviously, those images are not from the same sensor area.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


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




By "for the same sensor area", I assume you mean when your subject fills the same absolute area of sensor (i.e. you would need to crop the FF to get the same FoV as the APS-C). In that case, the pixel size isn't really going to affect things much. Assuming same lens, same aperture (which would be necessary for identical subject size and DoF at the sensor), then your going to gather the same amount of light in total for your subject, regardless of which sensor you use. The FF could have bigger pixels, or it could have the same size pixels as the APS-C. The pixel size doesn't really matter...it's just an arbitrary factor. In the end, for an APS-C sized crop of an FF sensor, you gathered the same amount of light as the APS-C itself. Therefor, noise should be the same once the results are normalized. If the FF has the same pixel size as the APS-C, then simply cropping would be enough to normalize. If the FF had larger pixels than the APS-C, then downsampling the APS-C to the same image dimensions as the FF would average pixel data together, resulting in the same noise. 


Now, if you framed the subject the same with both cameras, and used the same aperture with both, then the FF camera, regardless of pixel size, is going to perform better. 


Pixel size, ultimately, affects resolving power. Smaller pixels, higher resolving power. If you move from an FF sensor with 10 micron pixels to an FF sensor with 5 micron pixels, your going to resolve more detail. Strait out of camera, the image made with smaller pixels will appear noisier...unless you downsample it to the same dimensions as the 10 micron image. Then noise will appear the same, however the 5 micron image will still be sharper and more detailed. 


Smaller pixels, assuming same or better technology, can never be a bad thing. On a normalized basis, smaller pixels mean more detail (all else being equal.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...




The image comparison there is flawed, as it is same-framing, rather than same subject distance. It doesn't matter what you do, if you put more pixels on subject, then your going to get a better result. The 6D has larger pixels AND more pixels, so when that test chart is framed identically, your putting more pixels, and more sensor area, onto the chart. Of course it is going to be better.


When you frame such that the subject fills the same absolute sensor area (in other words, the chart would have to fill only the central 1.6x crop area of the FF sensor that matches an APS-C sensor), then the smaller pixels are going to resolve more detail (all else equal...the 6D uses newer pixel technology, so all else is NOT equal.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually the same... So how exactly is it that small pixels are better in low light? ??? I remind you that you earlier said: "*In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better.*"
> ...



Utterly meaningless without the camera details. So which two same generation crop and ff cameras were these? 

It would be easy to post something similar showing how much 'better' a cell phone camera resolution is than a Hasselblad H5, but I know which will take 'better' pictures.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Utterly meaningless without the camera details. So which two same generation crop and ff cameras were these?



They are cameras that came out within three months of each other but have pixels different in size by a factor of 16. 



> It would be easy to post something similar showing how much 'better' a cell phone camera resolution is than a Hasselblad H5, but I know which will take 'better' pictures.



A cell phone camera will crush an H5 for the same sensor area. The H5 has an advantage because it has more area not because it's better per unit of sensor area, which it isn't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Utterly meaningless without the camera details. So which two same generation crop and ff cameras were these?
> ...



Your unwillingness to answer a direct, specific question with a direct, specific answer says a lot about your credibility. I have little respect for anyone who conducts a test but refuses to fully disclose their methods, nor do I accept at face value the data from such 'tests'.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Utterly meaningless without the camera details. So which two same generation crop and ff cameras were these?
> ...



So they are not a relevant comparison, just yet another academic illustration that doesn't apply to the specifics of the actual thread.



Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It would be easy to post something similar showing how much 'better' a cell phone camera resolution is than a Hasselblad H5, but I know which will take 'better' pictures.
> ...



I know that is why I said it would be easy to demonstrate it.


----------



## vscd (Dec 28, 2014)

> Go to DPreviews Scene comparison tool, select the 5D3 and D8x0 or A7r and look at the shrinking text bits.
> If the text remains legible to different lines the idea that the additional resolution doesn't change a thing is absurd.
> If not one should better see the doctor...



The Tests on dpreview have a totally different base, as for example even the focal lengths and the whole lenstypes differ. To get the different sensortypes out of the equation we should only compare the same Manufacturer and the same lens, otherwise the whole test has too many different sideeffects. For example, the sensor from the A7R and Nikon D800 are even the same sensors, but the results differ. Explain it. And the Sigma Merrill as APS-C even beats the Medium Format Pentax 645.

(f.y.i.: http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/sigma.png)

I just posted a picture that, for example, *a Canon 7D with 18 MPixel was not able to get the sharpness of an old Canon 5D with 13 MPixel*. The same cam was totally outperformed by the 5DM3. I choosed the same lense on purpose and the same manufacturer (Canon). On your theory (was it yours?) the pure resolutionpower of a 7D (>40 MP calculated up to the 5D Sensor), should always be better than Cam with less MPixel; at least get their very own 18 MPixel covered. 

Can you see the results? If not, one should better see the doctor.




> Yes, let's compare.
> 7D - 12MP
> 5DIII - 21MP
> 5D - 13MP
> ...



Muahahahaaa... are you a politician? Turning existing results into the opposite? The 70-200 2.8 L IS II is even in it's centered "APS-C"-sweet spot not able to resolv the 18 MPixel of the 7D (*that was the conclusion of the test*) . Sampling the Resolution from the 7D up to a 40MPixel fullframe would have even poorer results as the corners of the lens are even weaker. It's an old truth that small sensors need better optics. 

If you know a Nikon Pro with a D800/D810 ask him what lenses are able to resolve the full resolution of the cam. There are 3 known lenses from Nikon and 3-4 Zeiss. And we speak of 36MP, not 50.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

post removed by Admin


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

vscd said:


> > Yes, let's compare.
> > 7D - 12MP
> > 5DIII - 21MP
> > 5D - 13MP
> ...



I just gave you the facts. The 7D has a lot less area than the other two cameras so I extrapolated its results to a sensor of the same size. That's it.



> The 70-200 2.8 L IS II is even in it's centered "APS-C"-sweet spot not able to resolv the 18 MPixel of the 7D (*that was the conclusion of the test*) .



So, the "sweet spot" doesn't mean as much as the reduced enlargement factor of the larger sensor. That's correct. So I compensated for that factor so we could compare sensors of the same size.



> Sampling the Resolution from the 7D up to a 40MPixel fullframe would have even poorer results as the corners of the lens are even weaker.



You just contradicted your own argument. You really think a 46MP full-frame sensor would have less resolution than an 18MP crop camera? Get real.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay, the 7D had 18 megapixels...not 12...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



This thread is about keeping sensor area the same (full-frame in this case) and dividing that area up into more pieces (50MP versus 22MP). That's exactly what I compared - same area, different number of pixels. It's thus exactly relevant to this thread.



> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Glad you agree that it's true, since it is. The smaller pixels (and higher performance) of the cell phone sensor would give it much better performance for the same sensor area. Of course, that's going to be entirely dominated by the absolutely huge difference in actual area so the MF system will still win easily, but not because of larger pixels, because of larger sensor area (and thus larger lens aperture at the same f-stop and framing).


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay, the 7D had 18 megapixels...not 12...



He was using DxO's insane perceptual megapixels or whatever they call it for lenses.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




Why not just provide the names of each camera? That isn't difficult to do, and Private isn't the only one who cares. Being specific about your test is the only way for it to be taken seriously. Personally, I agree with you that smaller pixels are not a bad thing, but don't be so obscure...it really DOES make you seem like you are hiding something, and that does go to your credibility. (Especially on these forums... : )


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Fine, S3, 5D, not that it matters at all.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




Well, it matters enough that it stopped the conversation. ;P At least now we can move forward.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Still not a direct, specific answer to the question. But thanks for finally 'fessing up. 




vscd said:


> Muahahahaaa... are you a politician?



Indeed...politicians are well known for evasive, semi-truthful answers to simple questions.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed...politicians are well known for evasive, semi-truthful answers to simple questions.



I'm a research engineer and scientist doing, among other things, data acquisition at a national laboratory.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


When I say same sensor area I mean when comparing:
a) full-frame to full-frame
b) APS-C to APS-C

The 6D was released in September 2012, 7D-II has a newly developed sensor and was only just released in 2014. 7D-II also has been reported to have a higher QE than the 6D. Is it really fair to say that the 6D has newer pixel technology? Also, I just opened some CR2 files to look at the actual flie resolution. 6D resolution is 5472x3648 (19.96MP) and the 7D-II resolution is 5472x3648 (19.96MP). So in practical terms, no difference.

On my "flawed" normalizing:
1) Would you agree that a photographer should frame the subject as they intend to print it? 
2) Should photographers use different composition rules when shooting on Full frame than they do when shooting APS-C? (i.e. Should Full frame users only frame their images in the tiny APS-C-equivalent portion of the frame?)


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> When I say same sensor area I mean when comparing:
> a) full-frame to full-frame
> b) APS-C to APS-C
> 
> The 6D was released in September 2012, 7D-II has a newly developed sensor and was only just released in 2014.



So why are you comparing full-frame to crop?


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 29, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> On my "flawed" normalizing:
> 1) Would you agree that a photographer should frame the subject as they intend to print it?
> 2) Should photographers use different composition rules when shooting on Full frame than they do when shooting APS-C? (i.e. Should Full frame users only frame their images in the tiny APS-C-equivalent portion of the frame?)


For this comparison you should frame as if both cameras had the same sensor format as the goal is to get an impression of how a full frame sensor with higher pixel density would perform.
Framing as intended to print implies different magnifications - leading to a massively oversized picture for the uncropped 4.7µ-Sensor. Your option 1 introduces an error of about the magnitude you would have between a 5D3 and the ancient 20D/30D.


----------



## jrista (Dec 29, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...




I didn't say it was your flawed normalizing, simply that the comparison itself was flawed, in the context of determining if one sensor resolves more than another, because the comparison was "same framing" rather than "same distance." Simple distinction, very important. 


Regarding the 7D II, as far as I know the camera in discussion thus far was the 7D, not the 7D II. Still, it doesn't matter much. In a same-framing comparison, even if you have the same pixel count, the 6D is a full-frame sensor. Again, pixel size is irrelevant here...the larger sensor gathers more light. Period. More light, stronger signal, less noise. It's a very simple equation. Pixel size is immaterial to noise on an absolute-sensor-area basis in the grand scheme of things. Other factors about the pixels or sensor design, such as presence or strength of a CFA, the use or lack thereof of an AA filter, etc. can affect such comparisons...but when it boils down to pixel size and pixel size alone, it doesn't matter as far as noise goes. Bigger sensor, more light, stronger signal, less noise. That's all there is to it. 


If you put more pixels onto a sensor, FF vs. FF or APS-C vs. APS-C, or FF vs. APS-C in a same-distance comparison, smaller pixels resolve more. Again, it's relatively simple. This should be obvious, of course smaller pixels resolve more. The key, when comparing FF to APS-C, is to make sure you've properly normalized. If you compare a full-frame camera to an APS-C camera in a same-framing context, then, relative to the scene, the pixels of the FF are smaller on a relative basis, thus they resolve more. Hence the reason it is important to compare FF and APS-C in a same-distance context. You could have fewer pixels on the APS-C, more pixels on the FF even, it doesn't matter. What matters is the total light gathered in your crop area. If the APS-C had larger pixels than the FF, and the FF was cropped to 1.6x size then downsampled, your STILL going to have the same noise...only the downsampled FF crop is going to be sharper.


Pixel Size <==> Resolving Power
Sensor Size <==> SNR/Noise


As for your two questions, they are irrelevant in the context of comparing two sensors on an objective basis. However, not everyone has the ability to always fill the frame with every sensor. Birding and wildlife are two great examples of reach-limited photography. You aren't always able to fully utilize the entire sensor surface with a FF sensor....sometimes you are FORCED to use only the central region (and possibly even less than a 1.6x crop equivalent area.) If you always have the ability to more tightly frame your subject, then the bigger the sensor, the lower the noise. Simple as that. If you are reach limited, then more resolution in a smaller sensor isn't going to hurt you over using a larger sensor with less resolution at the very least, and at best it would mean you have more detail with the same noise if you normalized (which, if your publishing to web, is pretty much always going to be the case.) 


In a comparison of the 7D II vs. the 6D, which one wins? It entirely depends on what your shooting, and what your options are when shooting. The 6D will do better when you can utilize all it's pixels. The 7D II will do better when you are forced to shoot at a distance (and certainly when you need faster, more accurate AF.) The 7D II is packing the same pixel count into half the sensor area, so of course it's going to resolve more detail in a reach-limited situation. Conversely, of course the 6D is going to have less noise in a same-framing situation. If you had a 6D II with the same pixel size as the 7D II yet was still a full-frame and had an awesome AF system, then you would have the best of both worlds...resolving power, light gathering power, cropping power, sheer resolution. 


This is pretty elementary stuff. I am always surprised that everyone has such a hard time with it. Not everyone shoots the same things, not everyone has unlimited budgets. Therefor, some people are always going to be able to fill the frame given what they shoot (portraits, weddings, street, studio, etc.), thereby maximizing the benefits of ever larger sensors. Concurrently, other people are always going to be reach-limited, always needing longer focal lengths and/or higher resolution sensors given what they shoot (birds, wildlife, landscapes, sports, etc.), thereby maximizing the benefits of ever smaller pixels. (Note, ever smaller pixels, damn the sensor size, it doesn't matter...you could have 7D II pixels in an APS-C or FF package...the reach-limited will always be able to use more resolution.) There will also always be some who want the best of every world, and those are the most demanding customers...wanting a balance of frame rate, AF performance, sensor size and pixel count. If it was possible to build a 15fps FF sensor with 80mp, someone would have done it, they would sell it for a mint, and they would have ecstatic customers from every walk of photographer life.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed...politicians are well known for evasive, semi-truthful answers to simple questions.
> ...



Then I must say your reluctance to disclose methods used to generate data which you presented is all the more disappointing. 

A few recent meta analyses have suggested that of the data published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, only somewhere around 30% of experiments are reproducible. That figure is a reasonable match for what I've seen in trying to reproduce published work as part of my own research. Incomplete disclosure of methods is part of the reason for that high failure rate, as is outright falsification of data.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Know your audience, and give them only what they need to know.

I did give you the method. Same everything but pixel size. Use any sensors that you like, you'll get the same result if you follow what I said to do.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A few recent meta analyses have suggested that of the data published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, only somewhere around 30% of experiments are reproducible. That figure is a reasonable match for what I've seen in trying to reproduce published work as part of my own research. Incomplete disclosure of methods is part of the reason for that high failure rate, as is outright falsification of data.



I was the lead test engineer for the most comprehensive experiments of its kind ever. The data were collected in 2000. Since then there have been over 1,000 publications from researchers all over the world and no one has ever found a problem with any of the data I collected. I designed every part of that data system, from the instruments to the custom DAQ system to the software to the processing. I had a very small team (6 people including myself) help with that test, and none of us were full-time. The test preparation took 13 years overall, with 7 intensive years and four years near the end just for this specific test run. More than 2,200 data sets were collected in more than 1,700 conditions. Some tests were repeated after an hour, after a day or after a week to verify repeatability, which tended to be within 0.1% which is unheard of for this type of measurement.

In that experiment, I was dealing with the best of the best researchers world-wide so we published absolutely everything. Here, not so much with some people.


----------



## skoobey (Dec 29, 2014)

Had they made two versions of the 5D III, they wouldn't have lost so much market to the D800.

Better late, then never, but at 50% more the price...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Had they made two versions of the 5D III, they wouldn't have lost so much market to the D800.



Ahh, so _that's_ why Nikon released the D810...because the D800 was so popular it was taking significant market share from the 5DIII. Makes perfect sense. :


----------



## jrista (Dec 29, 2014)

Heh...clearly business as usual here on CR... : 


I'm going to get back to my photography. I like not being here so much anymore...


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 29, 2014)

sulla said:


> > I'm pretty sure if they don't put great AF in the high-MP camera, it will go down like a lead balloon.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite think so. For studio work AF is not necessary at all, strictly speaking.



Yeah, but how many studio shooters care about high megapixel counts? The reason I care is because it provides a fallback for reach-limited situations, where the practicalities of shooting limit my ability to change lenses, thus forcing me to crop photos after the fact. In a studio, that would almost never be necessary, so the only studio shooters who would likely care about high megapixel counts are those doing very large format printing. I doubt that's a large enough percentage of the market for Canon to break even on its R&D costs.

But stick the Mark III's AF system on it, and for the exact same R&D cost (and a negligible difference in BOM cost), you can also sell it to the birders, many of the sports shooters, etc.




neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > For landscapes, if you really need a high-MP landscape photo, you can save a few thousand bucks by just stitching multiple shots together, because *landscapes aren't moving*.
> ...



Yes, and nature photography also includes wildlife, which screams for a good AF system.

Like I said, I struggle to think of a category of photographer who would desperately want higher resolution, but who would settle for a subpar AF system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Know your audience, and give them only what they need to know.



A viewpoint I've heard espoused by those who fear their methods or data won't withstand critical review.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



Yes, if you believe that *landscapes don't move*, I see why you struggle. They move, but not in a way that requires anything more than manual or contrast-detect AF. Or perhaps you're suggesting that landscape photographers don't constitute a 'category of photographers'?

: :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.
> ...



And yet poster after poster has posted carefully done tests where the 7D clearly shows a lot more detail than the 5D2 or 5D3 when using the same lens shooting the same target at the same distance.

I'll try to dig up my link to test shots one again if need be.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply.
> ...



And yet wildlife guys sure seem to love the high density sensors.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 29, 2014)

vscd said:


> > Go to DPreviews Scene comparison tool, select the 5D3 and D8x0 or A7r and look at the shrinking text bits.
> > If the text remains legible to different lines the idea that the additional resolution doesn't change a thing is absurd.
> > If not one should better see the doctor...
> 
> ...



You are mixing up total detail resolved over the entire sensor with detail resolved per area of sensor.

DxO does a poor job of lens measuring.

DxO generally scores lenses at or near wide open and not at the crispest setting.

DxO scores over the entire sensor area and that means you can get insane central sharpness averaged in with perhaps poor edges and terrible corners and thus a low overall score even though the whole central region might be delivering in spades, so it's not at all useful for claims as to whether a high density sensor can provide more reach or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And yet wildlife guys sure seem to love the high density sensors.



Do they? Are 'wildlife guys' flocking to the D800/810 or a7R? Not that I've seen. But I do see a lot of crop bodies used by 'wildlife guys'. Now...is that because of the higher pixel density, or is it because of the *real* crop factor advantage – lower cost? I suspect the latter, even if not everyone is willing to admit it.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 29, 2014)

Understandable, especially if you don't own a lot of Canon lenses



JC said:


> Who cares? Not me that's for sure... "not sure when but sometime in 2015", sorry, life is not never ending, I waited a long time and had hoped for the 5D Mark IV to be announced at Photokina, yet nothing and then in NYC in October, again, nothing.
> 
> I decided to go with Nikon and although I think they are putting products out too fast, at least there is something there worth having, there was no way I was about to drop almost 2k on a 5D Mark lll and I just got tired of waiting, sorry Canon, some indicator of when would have been nice but at this point, all there is as usual are rumours, meanwhile, I need a camera to actually get on with taking photos.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 29, 2014)

+1
I won't jump ship, I will patiently wait until a worthy upgrade is available for my wants. Right now I'm happy with my 5D2/4, but would love (don't need) to see a 5D4 or a 1DXII- I won't spend 6K-7K on a 3 year old technology. 




Maiaibing said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Canon used to be highly secretive.The only reason they now feel compelled to reveal their development plans must be the loss of customers to other camps.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And yet wildlife guys sure seem to love the high density sensors.
> ...




Quite a few birders now use the D810 for it's higher resolution and "crop mode" option with higher frame rate. The results are pretty amazing, especially with dark birds with white highlights, like Loons, against brighter backgrounds.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > When I say same sensor area I mean when comparing:
> ...


These are two different portions:
1) "FF vs FF" or "APS-C vs APS-C" was related to my original question to low light performance for the same format size. Some people claim that at "moderate to high ISO smaller pixels do better". I am still not convinced that this statement is accurate.

2) 6D vs 7D-II is for you to see if 20 small megapixels resolves better detail than 20 large megapixels. Surely if you take a picture it should be identically composed. If you take a headshot of someone with a full frame camera you would not shoot a "nose-shot" with APS-C. In order to take a useable shot you would either:
a) select an equivalent focal length and shoot from the same position. 
e.g. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=245&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
or 
b) Change perspective by moving back until you have the same subject size.
e.g. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=819&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


I did provide a sample.


> 2) 6D vs 7D-II is for you to see if 20 small megapixels resolves better detail than 20 large megapixels. Surely if you take a picture it should be identically composed.



Okay, you missed the point there.

The question is whether dividing the same sensor area into lots of smaller pixels or a smaller number of larger pixels will result in better resolution. Some people above erroneously claim that there will be little or no difference for various reasons (technique, lens sharpness, whatever). So, that one is about the same focal length and subject distance just with a different number of pixels (see the title of the thread).


----------



## Jan (Dec 29, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...
> The days of the annual product cycle are over, new models will come with big advancements in technology
> ...
> We will see electronic shutters soon.



I like the idea of longer product cycles for the sake of "big advancements in technology". I still hope Canon and I got the same definition of "big advancements" though.  
Electronic (global) shutter sounds good (for video). 

PS: @Canon rumors guy: your forum system messes up formatting/quotes if HTML formatting(?) is used (I deleted all <li>'s and <p>'s and the like)


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The original premise of the thread is the higher MP speculated on for a Canon EOS 135 format sensor, it was subsequently suggested that current APS-C sensors have similar, though lower, pixel densities to the rumours. This in turn led to the fact that even those crop camera pixel density 'resolution advantages' are practically impossible to realise in real world shooting except for a very few specific situations. As same generation crop and ff cameras use very similar technology and, very importantly, the same lenses, we can get real practical advance knowledge of what to expect from a next generation high MP sensor.
> 
> If one does actually compare same generation crop and cropped ff sensors when mitigating as many variables as possible, ie lenses, support, etc etc and use the optimal processing for both files I have never seen a set of comparison images that shows a marked crop camera resolution advantage (and I am far from alone). If somebody wants to point me to some then have at it, I am especially looking forward to a set of 5D MkIII and 7D MkII files.
> 
> That is the only relevant and practical comparison to make when trying to gauge what we might achieve with a 35-50MP 135 format sensor, especially considering it will be using those same EF lenses. Going off at tangents claiming all kinds of things that nobody disputes is just a smokescreen. Is an iPhone 'better' than a H5? Well it does resolve more per sensor area, nobody disputes that, but it doesn't use the same sensor tech or lenses and it can't take the same images, it is an irrelevant comparison.



Without wanting to wade into a row, and admitting I know very little about all this technical stuff, would a relevant study be to use the same lens on successively higher resolution sensors of the same size? The original 5D versus the 5D2, for instance. If you did it with enough resolutions, could you plot the increase in actually resolved detail, and make a prediction for as yet unreleased resolution sensors? I imagine the hypothesis is, the higher you go, the smaller the increase in actual resolution per extra megapixel?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 29, 2014)

The tests comparing different resolutions of sensors, but size, lenses and all else being equal, show diminishing returns sharpness by increasing the amount of megapixel.

Everyone here agrees that more megapixel is useful when you need crop to adjust the frame. But most of us agree that to enjoy dramatic increases of megapixel requires better lenses.

The great mistake of Nikon to launch the 36 megapixel sensor was the short supply of lenses capable of approaching the theoretical sharpness of the sensor.

Canon (and Sigma Art) are renewing their line of lenses to allow effective use 50 megapixel, but we do not know until limit will continue gaining real sharpness in full frame sensors. Maybe 100 megapixel?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The tests comparing different resolutions of sensors, but size, lenses and all else being equal, show diminishing returns sharpness by increasing the amount of megapixel.
> 
> Everyone here agrees that more megapixel is useful when you need crop to adjust the frame. But most of us agree that to enjoy dramatic increases of megapixel requires better lenses.
> 
> ...



For bird photographers who want to crop more (like me!), the super telephoto primes are probably well placed to take advantage of extra resolution, right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The question is whether dividing the same sensor area into lots of smaller pixels or a smaller number of larger pixels will result in better resolution. Some people above erroneously claim that there will be little or no difference for various reasons (technique, lens sharpness, whatever). So, that one is about the same focal length and subject distance just with a different number of pixels (see the title of the thread).



There will be more pixels on the subject. Whether those additional pixels result in significant additional measurable spatial resolution depends on many factors. Practically speaking, the increased resolution generally falls well short of what one would extrapolate from the difference in pixel size, in many cases so far short as to result in no significant gain from the smaller pixels (in other words, the gain is small enough to not be readily observable in everyday shooting/viewing).


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The question is whether dividing the same sensor area into lots of smaller pixels or a smaller number of larger pixels will result in better resolution. Some people above erroneously claim that there will be little or no difference for various reasons (technique, lens sharpness, whatever). So, that one is about the same focal length and subject distance just with a different number of pixels (see the title of the thread).
> ...



It should only fall far short or have "no significant gain" if one of three things is going on - horrible lens quality, lousy technique, or poor atmospheric seeing conditions.

It's simple enough to calculate the gain if you know the lens performance. Unfortunately no one site I know of does lens tests, they only do system tests so we don't have lens data.

To resolve that issue, one can stress test the lenses using teleconverters. Teleconverters effectively do the exact same thing as shrinking the pixels. If teleconverters produce increased spacial resolution, then so would smaller pixels. If not, not. Here's a test I did long ago on that topic. All images shot with the same lens from the same location. So, did the teleconverters add resolution? It looks to me like they did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.


----------



## erjlphoto (Dec 29, 2014)

Would be very surprised if Canon goes with a Sony sensor.
I appreciate that Canon makes their own rather than buying them from someone else.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.



Once you understand that this topic is about a high resolution camera and how flash photography works you'll realize why this is relevant for everyday usage.
That's even if we disregard the quality of the average column stand.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.



You don't need a tripod and static subjects to get little or no relevant movement during an exposure. Good technique, fast shutter speeds, and IS can all combine to get pixel-level performance equal to the best you can get in the lab, and I do it regularly. I shoot a lot of airplanes and often have final images that are 1:1 pixel crops from a crop camera with a 2x teleconverter mounted.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 29, 2014)

I'd be happy with a 6D-like camera with the current D810 sensor characteristics (MP and DR), to be used for landscapes - for that matter, I would be happy with a 6D, same 20MP, better DR.

Most local serious amateur bird photographers using supertele lenses use Canon bodies, with the expected combinations along the line of cost: FF with 400, 500, 600 mm f/4 primes; APS-C with 400 f/5.6L (that's me!), 100-400 f/variable L IS, various third party zooms reaching 400 mm or longer. Sure, APS-C is a compromise. Perhaps with the advent of the inexpensive Tamron zoom, more Nikon shooters will give bird photography a try.

A lot of MF users state that the color fidelity and subtlety is better with MF than FF, so MF users aren't just going after high numbers of pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.
> ...



That will be of great benefit to the <4% of my shots which use flash. Woot. Granted, the majority of Rebel shooters use flash a lot more frequently. I love watching popup flashes firing when the subject far outside the effective flash range...


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That will be of great benefit to the <4% of my shots which use flash.



Well, some consider shutter count a sensible metric - taping down the button will make you great really fast.
OTOH flash wins hands down in terms of income generated. Followed by the combination movie lighting and solid stands. To sad that getting things right the first time doesn't create impressive file numbers...can't have everything after all.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 29, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The great mistake of Nikon to launch the 36 megapixel sensor was the short supply of lenses capable of approaching the theoretical sharpness of the sensor.



Why was that a "great mistake"? Regardless of whether lenses "capable of approaching the theoretical sharpness of the sensor" would make a significant difference, higher resolution sensors are also appealing if other "inferior" lenses perform better on such sensors than they do on lower resolution sensors. In my experience they do (though obviously I've not used a 50Mp ff sensor, only 12-36 Mp ff sensors), but my experiences are merely anecdotal and thus aren't likely to be of much interest to anyone else. But Roger Cicala has done some testing that's relevant here, including his conclusion, where among other things he points out that while the Canon 24-70 II outresolves its Tamron equivalent, the difference more-or-less vanishes when you compare Canon 24-70 on 5DIII vs Tamron on D800 (I misdescribed his conclusion in an earlier response to someone else):

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

The Canon on a higher Canon Mp body would presumably trounce Tamron on a D800. Of course, whether the performance of "lesser" lenses matters will depend on who you are, how you see, what your standards are, etc., etc.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo – your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.
> ...



You are _*so*_ wrong there. Granted you may; or may not. For the bayer pattern of pixels to describe everything accurately any microscopic movement and your four three colour arrays will receive confused information. Frequently the data from a hand held shot can looked clogged up - if you're going to be really picky about it, and that is infantisimal movement. IS _does not_ produce the same data as a genuinely stable shooting platform, and remember just because it's on a tripod doesn't mean it's totally stable. 

So when you say "good technique, fast shutter + IS = as good as in the lab" ( by the 'lab' I presume you mean rock steady platform etc etc.) then that statement is both misleading and wrong.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I don't believe that pure landscape photographers are the ones screaming for high megapixel count, for the most part. The photographers who want high megapixel count are mostly either people who shoot candids (where you want maximum ability to crop because Canon has no readily carried superzooms) or people who do two radically different kinds of shooting, e.g. landscapes *and* birds. In both of those categories, the reach-limited photographer is likely to want both high megapixel count *and* good AF.

I maintain the correctness of my original statement. Landscapes don't move. They may have some *elements* that move, like rivers, leaves, etc., but the scene as a whole does not move, and even the elements of the shot that do move usually do not move much. Thus, stitching is generally an acceptable way to get higher resolution if you really need it (unlike, for example, photographing people, animals, moving cars and so on). Is it perfect? No. Is it good enough? Usually.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2014)

Damn...I need to make more popcorn...

I haven't really shot on my 7D in a while, but all this debate is making me want to dust it off again. 6D vs 7D pixels. Looking at some of my 8x10 portrait prints from a few years ago on the 7D with an old 172E Tamron 90mm Macro produced some very lovely and well detailed results.

Looking forward to 2015 for Canon. I rent the 1DX for dance recitals anyway. If they make a great high MP camera with 11pt AF (a la 6D) I'd probably get it because most of what I do is portrait anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That will be of great benefit to the <4% of my shots which use flash.
> ...



When did I mention numbers? Do you require remedial math education to learn the meaning of the percentage (%) symbol? 

Also, since I don't generate income from my images, that's a useless metric as far as I'm concerned. Then, there's this thing called natural light, I like it and can certainly 'get it right the first time' using it...but I understand it's not for everyone.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 29, 2014)

That's all fine. Unless that's all they can come up with. I personally still don't get the high resolution thing other than for the ability to crop or to display things billboard size. Other than that printing technology is so far behind that I don't see very little value in anything over, say, 12MP. Still see no need to give up on my 5DII in fact.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2014)

7enderbender said:


> That's all fine. Unless that's all they can come up with. I personally still don't get the high resolution thing other than for the ability to crop or to display things billboard size. Other than that printing technology is so far behind that I don't see very little value in anything over, say, 12MP. Still see no need to give up on my 5DII in fact.



If your 5D2 is giving you (and your clients, if for hire) everything you want, then no, you are correct sir. That said, like all things, something new comes out and you try it and then wonder how you ever got by with the old one ;-) Doesn't make the 5D2 a bad camera all the sudden though.


----------



## erjlphoto (Dec 29, 2014)

7enderbender said:


> That's all fine. Unless that's all they can come up with. I personally still don't get the high resolution thing other than for the ability to crop or to display things billboard size. Other than that printing technology is so far behind that I don't see very little value in anything over, say, 12MP. Still see no need to give up on my 5DII in fact.



To the "masses" a higher megapixel count means a better picture. They understand no other standard by which to judge a camera. If you are just showing your pics on an iPad or computer the extra pixels won't make a difference, but the casual user will feel gratified they are there none the less.

Basically, some of the appeal will be to increase sales, I doubt most photographers will find just extra pixels of much help. 

Hopefully the new camera brings more to the table than increased number of pixels.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Well, then you're both wrong.

What a tripod buys you is reliability. But I often shoot shots for photogrammetry that are handheld out of necessity and they are pixel-sharp. Shooting at 200mm and 1/3200th is one way to do that. The other way is to shoot many shots using IS and good technique along with modest shutter speeds around 1/f and some will be near-perfect and some will be soft due to motion blur.

As I said, I regularly produce 1:1 pixel crops for final images and it's fairly common for me not to have enough pixels left over. That's why I want a higher pixel density camera for when I'm focal length limited.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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



Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.



I don't see a lot of motion blur in this shot.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or perhaps all three of you are right, but two of you have more stringent standards for pixel-level sharpness than the third.
> ...


Looks sharp except for the prop. I like the prop blurred.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That picture is too small to judge much, but I think we must all accept "critically sharp" is a subjective term. Indeed, even for a single person, it depends on how a photo is to be used/viewed. I'll accept lower sharpness for an image I won't be cropping (much), because it's going to end up downsampled for online viewing or printed - and it's rare I print big.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

scyrene said:


> That picture is too small to judge much,



It's a near 1:1 pixel crop.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I don't like my pictures over-sharpened and this was taken with a 2x teleconverter.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > That picture is too small to judge much,
> ...



In that case it's sharp enough to me - judging by the fine wires. But as I say, it's down to personal taste.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



As a hopefully impartial observer, could I ask you post a shot you deem critically sharp? So we have an idea what you mean. I'm intrigued how people differ on this


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> So what? It is not critically sharp, Neuro was right, our ideas of critically sharp are completely different.



Anything sharper than that is crunchy, and ugly.

Any motion blur in that shot is much less than half a pixel.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

Here's another one. This plane is going about 200mph and is around a quarter of a mile away. This is also a near 1:1 pixel crop.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No problem.



Do you realize that hair, fur and feathers are naturally going to be perceived as higher in detail than something like Monokote, which is iron-on heat-shrink plastic?

That shot is no sharper than the ones I posted, and it's of a stationary subject that appears to be quite close.

Maybe you just aren't familiar with how to judge sharpness of subjects that are furry. Here's a 100% crop that's far, far easier to get than the previous ones I posted.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 29, 2014)

scyrene said:


> As a hopefully impartial observer, could I ask you post a shot you deem critically sharp? So we have an idea what you mean. I'm intrigued how people differ on this



This is a single frame from a new pano, shot on 5DII + 40mm pancake, 1/20. f7.1, ISO 100, two second timer, mirror lock, 16 pound Manfrotto 058. 

The whole picture is reduced for this website, the crop is full size. There will be some air diffusion as I was beside a river and the temperature was falling rapidly from about +5c to below freezing. However I am close enough to the subject for it not to make much difference. 

The only sharpening applied to cancel out the AA is 100% of 0.3 pixel, threshold level 1. Obviously you could sharpen this as much as you wanted.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

Okay, here's a branch in your shot versus a flying wire in my shot, both at 400%. Both are the same width (1-2 pixels). The feathers in the bird shot are 1-3 pixels wide.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, here's a branch in your shot versus a flying wire in my shot, both at 400%. Both are the same width (1-2 pixels). The feathers in the bird shot are 1-3 pixels wide.
> ...



Those are largely JPEG artifacts, and now we know for sure that you can't judge an image. Both images has the same width of minimum feature size, yet you claimed one isn't sharp and one is, in the context of using a tripod which is for removing motion blur. If my shot had motion blur, it's minimum feature size wouldn't be 1-2 pixels as that would be impossible.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

Here's another not critically sharp shot for you.


----------



## jrista (Dec 30, 2014)

Heh, this thread is absolutely hilarious. The debate about immeasurable differences in "critical sharpness" is beyond inane. All of these photos are critically sharp, ppl!! Your making mountains out of grains of sand. The mole hills are off to the left...why not at least make a mountain out of a mole hill, if you must make a mountain out of something pointless.


???


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> Heh, this thread is absolutely hilarious. The debate about immeasurable differences in "critical sharpness" is beyond inane. All of these photos are critically sharp, ppl!! Your making mountains out of grains of sand. The mole hills are off to the left...why not at least make a mountain out of a mole hill, if you must make a mountain out of something pointless.
> 
> 
> ???



And you, my dear friend, have never tried to make a molehill into a mountain? Go look for some unmistakable Exmor shadow smoothness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



And you are questioning my abilities when you can't even make a 312 px under 5mb jpeg without artifacts when you have the original file?

Utterly amazing.


----------



## TeT (Dec 30, 2014)

ONLY! 

....that cracked me up

Sincerely,
Easily Amused


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 30, 2014)

I understand that with current picture usage patterns, people are less concerned about high resolution/printing/etc., because the screens we currently use don't really require much resolution. But I'm leery of relying on this in the long-term because of an experience I've over the past couple decades. 

I was involved in the creation of some of the early web sites for major companies, back when the internet bloomed after pictures were introduced popularly into HTML with the advent of the Mosaic browser. 72 DPI was the order of the day. We made lots of pictures, icons, etc. (all embarrassingly terrible, of course, when you look back on them). Then, some years later, with the introduction of larger screens, people started using higher resolutions, and our old graphics looked fuzzy and pixelated. By this time, a client had switched agencies once or twice since the first site went up, and due to internal turnover, etc., they couldn't locate the original files that created the graphics. So they went through an expensive production process to create a new site. 

I saw this happen again when it became popular in the last couple of years to create sites that are sensitive to the technology viewing them - whether it be on a mobile screen, etc. 

Point is, I don't need much more than 20 mp now, but I like the images I take of my family, and I want to be able to exploit the best printing methods/etc. 20 years from now for some of them. Pictures of my infant son won't get old for me (he was cute and couldn't talk!), but they too might start to look fuzzy relative to what we're using in 2035.

Conclusions:
- Investing in great glass will have rewards (big fan of Art series lenses, and those Canon cliches, like the 70-200 2.8 IS II).
- High MP coupled with great glass will have rewards, but some of those benefits might be deferred.
- The counterpart to the above conclusion is that when we have 20k monitors and better printing tech in the home, our older images may stand out as being a bit low-resolution.
- Those benefits will be apparent in shots that are lucky enough to have somewhat optimal conditions, such as environmental seeing conditions, light, stability, etc. Those benefits will likely NOT be present in the the many other pictures that don't have those optimal conditions. This will stretch out the continuum of the perceived technical quality among the pictures in our personal portfolios. 
- And, finally, the shots that we will like the most 20 years from now are the ones that rely less on sharpness, clear representation and other technical issues (assuming these things are more taken for granted in the future), and more on the art of photography, which tends to stand up regardless of the tech used. Aside from the subject matter photographed, like family photos, the things that will signify will be composition, realized vision, creativity, etc.

Separately:
Especially important for Canon and Nikon is that the higher mp trend is one of the few things that really demands the DSLR camera type. It is unlikely that camera phones would be able to out-megapixel the mount types that allow for the interchangeable lenses with 50mm-100mm front lens elements. The physics of light may just demand that the camera phones sit this out. 

I look at the telescope market, where you have lots of small primary mirror diameters in the casual hobbyist market, and then you need to spend a few thousand dollars to get something that can really resolve things - which demands significant glass and a bigger light bucket. Physics defines this, not just the marketing departments of the manufacturers. High megapixel cameras may prove to be a similar moat of protection for Canon and Nikon's high end segments. This implies that they will be trying hard to get to the 50mp-100mp level as soon as possible and make that advantage toll with better glass so as to give the market the impression that this matters, and that their iPhone isn't a solution. Canon may also see this as a printing market opportunity.

-tig


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> And you are questioning my abilities when you can't even make a 312 px under 5mb jpeg without artifacts when you have the original file?
> 
> Utterly amazing.



This is your MO. You latch on to irrelevant details (JPEG compression) and entirely ignore the main point (that motion blur can be dealt with without a tripod). I can't really tell if you do this repeatedly because you're dishonest or just don't know any better.


----------



## photonius (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > There is no problem of pixel size.
> ...




your calculations seem off. For FF at f/4.0 a 115 Mp sensor would be diffraction limit.
see
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 30, 2014)

The new Rumor that the high megapixel camera will scale up the 7D II sensor to full frame gives us an opportunity to see the resolution possibilities NOW. Just take a look at your 7 D II images.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

BeenThere said:


> The new Rumor that the high megapixel camera will scale up the 7D II sensor to full frame gives us an opportunity to see the resolution possibilities NOW. Just take a look at your 7 D II images.



Yes, now my pictures will be 1.6 x 2 sharper. Hopefully the new sensor will have a crop feature to only use the center portion so I can still get the 1.6x reach. Or maybe even an option to crop up to 2x so my 500mm can be a 1000mm lens.

But on a serious note, the difference will be that the small real world 20-30% resolution benefit we see with the 7D II will be spread over the entire frame. Provided you have a good lens and a steady hand.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 30, 2014)

.
I haven't read through 19 pages of comments...

But I believe if this is the 5D4, a lot of people will be using the 5D3 for a lot of years to come.


----------



## brianleighty (Dec 30, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> I haven't read through 19 pages of comments...
> 
> But I believe if this is the 5D4, a lot of people will be using the 5D3 for a lot of years to come.


Yeah seems kind of weird. Although one possibility would be to make the 6D mark ii a lot more pro level. Makes sense considering how big an upgrade the 7d mark ii was.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

If this 52MP camera really is going to be the 5D Mark IV, then it really, really needs better ways to reduce file size in-camera, including cropping (i.e. 1.4x, 1.6x, 2.0x) and way better reduction methods than mraw and sraw, such as the ones used in the new DNG spec. I'm not really interested in 100,000 100MB raw files. That's 10TB!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

brianleighty said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



I said this earlier. The 6D Mark II could be a dual-pixel version of the 6D sensor in a 70D or 6D-like body with an evolved version of the 5DIII focusing system (that's what they did with the 70D, which is a dual-pixel sensor with an evolved version of the 7D's focusing system) while the 5D line becomes the high pixel count line with faster frame rates and a magnesium alloy body and weather sealing like the 7DII. So, the 5DIV would be a full frame version of the 7DII while the 6D becomes a plastic body version of the child of the 6D and 5DIII.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I'm not really interested in 100,000 100MB raw files. That's 10TB!



Do you really keep 100.000 files? My ratio of keeper versus shutter releases are 1:3.
And 10TB (2x 5TB) costs about 400€, so below 500 USD - so what?
But if you do have 100.000 files after year(s) of usage, the price should be lower, maybe half...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

davidcl0nel said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not really interested in 100,000 100MB raw files. That's 10TB!
> ...



No, 200,000.


> And 10TB (2x 5TB) costs about 400€, so below 500 USD - so what?



I keep four copies - two laptops that are sync'd and two backups on externals. 10TB would cost over $2,000 and be unable to fit in my laptops since the biggest laptop drive you can get is 2TB and my laptops can only hold three drives.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> *If this 52MP camera really is going to be the 5D Mark IV*, then it really, really needs better ways to reduce file size in-camera, including cropping (i.e. 1.4x, 1.6x, 2.0x) and way better reduction methods than mraw and sraw, such as the ones used in the new DNG spec. I'm not really interested in 100,000 100MB raw files. That's 10TB!



I concur that better lossless compression would be welcome, but why does it matter what they call it? Seems weird.



Lee Jay said:


> I keep four copies - two laptops that are sync'd and two backups on externals. 10TB would cost over $2,000 and be unable to fit in my laptops since the biggest laptop drive you can get is 2TB and my laptops can only hold three drives.



What are you using for workflow? If LR, now that it allows for the native files to be offline, you don't necessarily need to maintain them on your laptops. External drives + smart previews will save you a bundle in the era of 8TB drives for under 300 dollars.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > *If this 52MP camera really is going to be the 5D Mark IV*, then it really, really needs better ways to reduce file size in-camera, including cropping (i.e. 1.4x, 1.6x, 2.0x) and way better reduction methods than mraw and sraw, such as the ones used in the new DNG spec. I'm not really interested in 100,000 100MB raw files. That's 10TB!
> ...



Has nothing to do with what they call it. mraw and sraw have white balance baked into the channels. DNG's version is still scene referred so it isn't. This is a MAJOR advantage of the DNG approach. Further, DNG allows you arbitrary reduction in resolution and the choice between lossless and lossy compression. DNG lossy compressed raws at full resolution are far, far superior to mraws and they are smaller as well.


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I keep four copies - two laptops that are sync'd and two backups on externals. 10TB would cost over $2,000 and be unable to fit in my laptops since the biggest laptop drive you can get is 2TB and my laptops can only hold three drives.
> ...



I like having all my files with me, and I don't like "smart previews" as they are not full resolution and so can't be used to determine focus or motion blur.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 30, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> I haven't read through 19 pages of comments...
> 
> But I believe if this is the 5D4, a lot of people will be using the 5D3 for a lot of years to come.


The 5DIII was nearly perfectly aimed at event photographers. I don't get why they would change that with the 5DIV unless it had two modes, one for ultra resolution/large file size and another that maybe used pixel binning to create smaller higher quality images that allow it to be an improvement over the 5DIII for event photographers. 

But, barring something like that, I think you are right.


----------



## tron (Dec 30, 2014)

It would be stupid to make a 52Mp 5DIV. 22 and 52 Mp cover people with different needs (speed & low light/resolution)

It would be much better to do it like Nikon a top Mp model and a medium Mp flexible one.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Just making sure. The "if this is going to be the 5D Mark IV" leadin made it sound like you might live with large files in a for example 1DxS, but not a 5D4. 



Lee Jay said:


> I like having all my files with me, and I don't like "smart previews" as they are not full resolution and so can't be used to determine focus or motion blur.



I agree, they're not as good as having native data local, but they're great for archived stuff. At the very least, they allow me to see on my laptop (which only has 256GB capacity) my full library as-processed on my desktop (which currently has 12TB capacity using "only" 4TB drives in addition to two SSDs for software and workflow), and know what images look like without the annoying 'not found' error I'd get if I merely broke the link between the catalog and the data (i.e. viewed a standard preview without the native data local).

But hey, to each his own.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2014)

photonius said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Just as a benchmark, that site also claims that sensor size has no real meaningful effect on DOF.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Well, my laptops currently have 1.75TB expandable to 6TB. Everything fits right now with about 500GB to spare.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Well, my laptops currently have 1.75TB expandable to 6TB. Everything fits right now with about 500GB to spare.



Fair enough, but that 6TB will cost you significantly. I could go to 24TB today for under a thousand dollars (but god help my online backup solution if I have to).

Anyway, this is neither here nor there. Carry on with actual camera speculations


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 30, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Just as a benchmark, that site also claims that sensor size has no real meaningful effect on DOF.



They're correct, the only way sensor size directly affects DOF is due to the relationship between circle of confusion and sensor size.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > As for your post on why smaller pixels win, how about this: 20MP, at 200mm f/4 which is sharper?
> ...


I apologize, if I had seen this post earlier then I would have clarified sooner and perhaps we would have avoided talking at cross-purposes. I agree with you that sensors with higher pixel density, create higher resolution files when shot from the same distance, using the same focal length, and we ignore the impact of AA-filters.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

photonius said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



I don't know where you got that number, but it doesn't appear on that page and the numbers on that page are pretty consistent with my numbers.

For example, for MTF9 (I used MTF10) and 555nm light (I used 550nm light) they get a cycles/mm number of 373 at f/4. They use 2 pixels per cycle (which is bunk) and I used something a little higher (can't remember if it was 2.5 or 3 at the moment). But 373 cycles/mm for a full-frame sensor would equate to 751MP for 2.5 pixels per cycle or 1,082MP for 3 pixels per cycle. I got 1,042MP so I probably used 3 pixels per cycle for the calculations I did above.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Just as a benchmark, that site also claims that sensor size has no real meaningful effect on DOF.
> ...



Which is a totally legitimate, real, and not-ignorable way.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Just as a benchmark, that site also claims that sensor size has no real meaningful effect on DOF.
> ...



So then there is some some effect.

We assume a constant viewing/output size. Most DOF calculators assume that and have a set CoC value for each sensor size. Magnification is therefore different and if I'm standing at 15 meters away from a subject and shoot with a 70D with a 100mm lens, at f/3.2, then I have a DOF value. If I merely switch cameras to a 5D3, keep everything else the same, I get a different DOF. The 5D3 requires less magnification to our output size and therefore has a deeper DOF than in the 70D in those conditions. Even at equal subject size, the DOF is different. It might not be the actual sensor doing this but it is certainly an effect and certainly affects DOF.

But that's not the point of this thread and I don't want to go here. 

My point is how simplistic that site is. Personally I'd trust Lee Jay's calculations over theirs', but that's just me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



True...but it's a relatively minor effect, in the opposite direction from and totally overwhelmed by the effect which most people consider (changing distance/focal length, which obviously is not directly an effect of sensor size).


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



It's not minor. It's linear with sensor size (smaller sensor = smaller DOF). Changing focal length of subject distance is quadratic in the other direction (longer focal lengths for larger sensors mean smaller DOF) which is why the combined result is linear (inversely proportional, actually) in the opposite direction (larger sensors have smaller DOF) for the same framing. This holds true for DOF<<SD or, equivalently, SD<<HD.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



exactly!

and if we make a FF camera with the exact same pixel pitch as an APS-C camera, what happens to the depth of field? if you take the central 40 percent out of the FF image, it should be absolutely identical to the APS-C image... including DOF..


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Nothing.



> if you take the central 40 percent out of the FF image, it should be absolutely identical to the APS-C image... including DOF..



True, but then it isn't a full-frame image.


----------



## jrista (Dec 30, 2014)

photonius said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...




He is probably using Rayleigh (MTF9) rather than MTF50. At Rayleigh you can resolve more detail, but it is at ultra low contrast, so fine differences in detail require intense scritinization to detect with the human eye. Personally I prefer using MTF50, as that's the standard contrast level for the very, very vast majority of photographic systems testing, and has been for years.


That said, neither case is wrong...so long as your clear about what MTF contrast level your basing your numbers on. In Lee Jays's numbers, it's all MTF9 (or maybe MTF0, sometimes he uses that as well...although that is entirely irrelevant for regular daytime photography, the only time it really applies is when analyzing multiple star diffraction patterns at excessively high magnification). In your case, I'm guessing it's MTF50.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You know, my assumptions were all up there.


----------



## cmh716 (Dec 30, 2014)

Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Agreed, and the article in question spends several paragraphs talking about this. The other poster implied either that LL didn't understand the effect of CoC on DOF or that there was some other factor that directly related sensor size to DOF.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

"Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II"

I sure hope not, since that means it won't touch Exmor. And if Canon has struggles to get 8 year old tech at that res at decent yield at FF that's really pretty discouraging.

Hopefully this is just more nonsense rumors.

Although the talk from Canon about how there is the high ISO camp and then there is the high MP camp sounds discouraging on all fronts. Not a peep about DR either.


----------



## vrpanorama (Dec 30, 2014)

For me, who take 360 photography with the minimum of shots possible, it will be the perfect camera if the dynamic range is not compromised. I am saving money toward it!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And yet wildlife guys sure seem to love the high density sensors.
> ...



Yeah they do. Lots use 7D/7D2 type high density APS-C cams or used the 1D4 (the highest density larger frame cam at the time).

I never said they were flocking to the A7R for wildlife. That has some feebleness as a general use camera.

The D810 is quite nice in that you can get your awesome landscape camera AND a very nice wildlife camera all in one without having to drag along a second body. I don't know that strict wildlife shooters are dumping off high density APS-C cams or 1D4 for it, but the extra reach is surely being appreciated by those buying into a new general camera and maybe even by those getting a first wildlife cam.

Sure aps-c gets you more reach for less money. There is nothing wrong with that. Why it is so high and mighty to shoot with an 800mm lens instead? PLUS, it also can mean weight savings and if you can get away with a smaller super-tele that can be a heck of a bonus so many consider it a flat out plus never mind the cost. Plus, there are many times when even 800mm is that much reach, so the density can often be a flat out plus even never mind the cost.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



yes


----------



## jdavis37 (Dec 30, 2014)

cmh716 said:


> Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.



Is hard to please everyone with a single body, and I also question the numbers who are switching to other brands. Forums are rarely a good indicator of what the average buyer is or is not doing. People complain loudkly in forums and yet Canon sales remain good. Just as CMH desires a high MP FF sensor, I am quite the opposite. The last thing I want is a crop sensor appearance to my FF files. I am perfectly happy with Canon making a 52+ MP FF camera body for those who desire it. But if this becomes the 5 series I won't be buying another 5 series body in near future and may have to save and consider a 1 Series.

The 5D3 was an all around good for a lot of things body while perhaps not specializing in any one thing. It has a maximum frame rate of 6 fps (cuts down to about 4 fps as battery weakens) and a very good AF. Its 22 MP has never shorted me when doing landscapes and printing fairly large though I never go beyond 20 x 30 inches. It has sufficient frame rate that it is acceptable shooting action (birds and running dogs). File sizes in RAW are about 30 MB, large but acceptable, and computer processing time is fine.

A 52 MP FF sensor would turn into what, another 2.5 fps camera body? Maybe 3.5 fps? Why not just use the old 7D AF system with improved sensitivity because such a camera would be totally unsuitable for action. Noise would be very visible when viewed at any decent % viewing on screen and when a bird is cropped out of the center of the photo high ISO noise would also be more visible on screen. I would just as soon have a medium format camera if I wanted to do 50+ MP landscapes where high ISO is not a concern or frames per second.

All this just shows that different people have different wants and to produce any camera body to please the masses is impossible. I hope this body does come out for those desiring it. I also pray it is NOT a 5D MkIV. I really do not want to pay $6800 for a body but going forward I may not have other good options. The 5D3 is really a great all around camera body and is a good little brother to the 1d-X. My 3 pennies worth!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The question is whether dividing the same sensor area into lots of smaller pixels or a smaller number of larger pixels will result in better resolution. Some people above erroneously claim that there will be little or no difference for various reasons (technique, lens sharpness, whatever). So, that one is about the same focal length and subject distance just with a different number of pixels (see the title of the thread).
> ...



The extra reach from the 7D (top and bottom) seems pretty clear to me over the 5D2 and 5D3 (middle) no?

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7502/15529699533_ca4db67669_o.jpg

So much for all of the talk by a few that the extra reach is just a myth.

Also note I say this as someone who no longer even owns the APS-C camera so it's not like I'm defending what I own. At times I do miss my APS-C and I will readily admit it. But it was too much money for me at the moment to carry a 5D3 plus an APS-C. That is something a bit cool about the D810 type cameras, you get your FF (and at top most quality) and then you can go into a crop mode and get a decent reach (if a bit shy of top aps-c) and decent fps all in one body. The 5D2 was sort of like that a bit when it first came out since the aps-c were topped by the 40D then which only had a bit more reach and bit more speed.


----------



## jdavis37 (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II"
> 
> I sure hope not, since that means it won't touch Exmor.



7DII versus A77II (Exmor). Seems like the 7DII wins at all ISOs above 200, which is where it counts.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 30, 2014)

If it is just using the same process as the 7DII that's fine by me.

From what I've seen, banding noise has been far more detrimental than the actual DR limitations in Canon's past sensor lineup. Given that DR above ISO 800 is virtually identical across the industry it's really just the noise that gets everyone excited, and that's not a problem resulting from the manufacturing process.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

9VIII said:


> If it is just using the same process as the 7DII that's fine by me.
> 
> From what I've seen, banding noise has been far more detrimental than the actual DR limitations in Canon's past sensor lineup. Given that DR above ISO 800 is virtually identical across the industry it's really just the noise that gets everyone excited, and that's not a problem resulting from the manufacturing process.



Yes, I agree. The fixed pattern noise in the 7DII is very dramatically lower than in the 5DIII.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > "Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II"
> ...



1. Who says that is the only place where it counts?
2. So winning by like 1/8th stop, which you can't even notice counts, but losing by a couple stops at lowest ISO doesn't count?
3. The differences are more stark comparing 810 to 5D3.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, 'everyday shooting/viewing' doesn't comprise tripod mounted static subjects cropped to 100%. If that's your usual method/subject, then bravo –



First of all, why do you mention 100% :. How the heck do you expect to see gains in resolution if you look at say 25% view? : : :

Second, it's just not that hard to get similar results off tripod. Yeah maybe if you shoot 1/60th at 400mm you may struggle, but who says to do that.

I don't have it online at the moment, but I have a real world test shot of Hairy Woodpecker with same lens, same spot, same distance, same time on 7D and 5D3 and I noticed the same increase in detail with the 7D shot AND these shots were even at ISO2500 to ISO3200 no less! So much for the myth that sure you see a big gain in reach at ISO100 but above ISO200 there is nothing to ever be gained from 7D reach over a 5 series no matter the bird type.

And if it is sooo impossible, then how come many people regularly use 1.4x TC on lenses used with 5D3 cameras AND even 7D series cameras?? They just toss on the TC and lose a stop of light and some AF performance and waste money and add CA for nothing? 



> your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.



:
Why not? In fact it's actually giving your side an unfair advantage since there is no extra loss due to higher sensor density but there is a bit of extra loss due to optical defects.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



That's right. Any extra performance where performance is already very limited (high ISO) is most welcome. Any extra performance at base ISO where performance is already excellent is of marginal value.



> 3. The differences are more stark comparing 810 to 5D3.



We aren't talking about the 5D3 pixels, we're talking about the 7DII pixels.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

erjlphoto said:


> Would be very surprised if Canon goes with a Sony sensor.
> I appreciate that Canon makes their own rather than buying them from someone else.



I used to appreciate that back when they were clearly the best for stills and back in the 5D2 era when it also led to have the best video quality in a DSLR. Now that they cripple the video and are well behind for low ISO high DR shooting, not so much.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> That is something a bit cool about the D810 type cameras, you get your FF (and at top most quality) and then you can go into a crop mode and get a decent reach...



Crop mode doesn't get you reach, it gets you smaller files.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > your results have validity as far as comparing teleconverters vs. pixel interpolation for increased resolution, which is certainly not the topic at hand.
> ...



Correct, and you've understood something most people don't.

Shrinking pixels and adding teleconverters are the same thing, except the teleconverter is not perfect optically.

Since a TC is mounted between a lens and a camera, you can either think of it as mounted to the lens and thus affecting what the lens does (that's the conventional way) or as mounted to the camera and thus affecting what the camera does. If you do the later, the focal length and f-stop don't change, but the sensor shrinks by the TC ratio (and, obviously, the pixels on it do as well). In fact, it's easy to see this effect if you look through a TC from the lens' side.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > That is something a bit cool about the D810 type cameras, you get your FF (and at top most quality) and then you can go into a crop mode and get a decent reach...
> ...



And faster frame rates.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



This is 16MP APS-C density equivalent (reached through TCs which even puts this at a great disadvantage since you have TC optical loss which pure sensor density increase would not), shot hand held, a heavy lens too, without even any particular care taken and yet it is sooooo blurry that both aliasing and sub-pixel color moire show up ;D.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8588/15963861117_0545e61388_o.jpg


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 2. So winning by like 1/8th stop, which you can't even notice counts, but losing by a couple stops at lowest ISO doesn't count?
> ...



hmmmm

So a literally impossible to notice difference matters at high ISO, but it can never, ever matter for anyone under any circumstance that there is a 2-3 stops clearly visible difference at low ISO since no shot could ever possibly under any circumstance ever need more DR than a 5D3 already delivers at ISO100.

hmmmmm 




> We aren't talking about the 5D3 pixels, we're talking about the 7DII pixels.



then compare 7D2 to D810 it's still more stark difference


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > That is something a bit cool about the D810 type cameras, you get your FF (and at top most quality) and then you can go into a crop mode and get a decent reach...
> ...



Yeah I know. It was maybe a bit confusing hwo I put it, but I meant the pairing of reach and speed in crop mode on the D810. I meant that you can go into that mode and get the decent reach (which you already had in FF mode) AND your decent fps at the same time. And, as you also mention, which I forgot to, you save a lot of space too. Who wants to store 30MP worth of junky outer borders.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I did blind testing between these two cameras. The difference is more the noticeable and every one of my viewers picked the 7DII as the winner, and not by a small amount.



> but it can never, ever matter for anyone under any circumstance that there is a 2-3 stops clearly visible difference at low ISO since no shot could ever possibly under any circumstance ever need more DR than a 5D3 already delivers at ISO100.



In my experience, no. Even with LR's controls pushed to -100 and +100, Canon's older 18MP sensor delivers more DR at base ISO than I need for any scene. If a crazy situation comes up, a 7DII can shoot two shots 6 stops apart from each other in a tenth of a second resulting in a blended image having 18 stops of DR.



> then compare 7D2 to D810 it's still more stark difference



That's a different sensor size.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> In my experience, no. Even with LR's controls pushed to -100 and +100, Canon's older 18MP sensor delivers more DR at base ISO than I need for any scene.



Yes, maybe for you, which is fine enough, but you are not everyone and all it takes is something as simple as walking up to a forest dappled in sunlight and you are past the DR that any Canon can comfortable handle.



> If a crazy situation comes up, a 7DII can shoot two shots 6 stops apart from each other in a tenth of a second resulting in a blended image having 18 stops of DR.



I've not personally found that to work out so well in practice. I always get minor alignment issues which slightly rob the shot a bit or even leave bits of a weird look here and there and little branches and leaves and can whip around a lot even in such a short time.




> That's a different sensor size.



It is, but Canon DR at low ISO tends to be the same across all sensor sizes for a given generation (and for the most part even across generations for quite a while now).


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience, no. Even with LR's controls pushed to -100 and +100, Canon's older 18MP sensor delivers more DR at base ISO than I need for any scene.
> ...



I've posted this before.

The top is the normal exposure - the way an out-of-camera JPEG would look. The middle is exposed for the highlights so the roof and sky aren't blown out and the bottom is exposed for the shadows so the dark areas underneath everything are visible.





Realize, this is one exposure. This is what it looks like with LR's controls pushed to their extremes.





Personally, that looks a little flat and unnatural to me (too much DR squashed into too little final viewing space). I like it with a little less DR and a little more contrast.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



And generally more "reach" (resolving power) because they actually do have smaller pixels.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It'll have more "reach" than the 5DII or 5DIII.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> If this 52MP camera really is going to be the 5D Mark IV, then it really, really needs better ways to reduce file size in-camera, including cropping (i.e. 1.4x, 1.6x, 2.0x) and way better reduction methods than mraw and sraw, such as the ones used in the new DNG spec. I'm not really interested in 100,000 100MB raw files. That's 10TB!



It seems like it should be possible to take advantage of the spatial locality to significantly reduce file size in a lossless way, in much that JPEG does it lossily. The higher the bit depth, the more bits that are likely to match from pixel to pixel. Basically, start with a lossy compression like JPEG, decode it, compute the difference from the original data, and RLE the resulting stream of mostly zeroes.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 30, 2014)

Looking forward to seeing this camera. I'll wait to see actual performance and not spend much time and thought on speculation about how much it might suck. :


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2014)

I am interested in practicalities based on experiment. My basic query to myself over the last week or so has been: for routine lightweight telephoto use, do I use my new 100-400mm II on my 7DII or the 100-400mm + my 5DIII + 1.4x TC III? Bryan of TDP has the 5DIII marginally better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

and I find the same from my own extensive tests with my particular lens and cameras. But, the difference is pretty small. Both out-resolve the bare 100-400 on the 5DIII. Based on my current usage, I would only ever use a high MP FF in its crop mode for bird photography, and the rest of the pixels would be wasted on me. For, the remainder of my photography, I am not pixel limited and so higher MP wouldn't interest me anyway.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 30, 2014)

cmh716 said:


> Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.



You are most certainly not! 

5DIII had nothing worthwhile compared to 5DII as an upgrade so the wish list remains very long before Canon even matches the competition. I trust we will se a lot of real improvements this time and not a half hearted effort. 

One remark not much noted from the Canon Exec. in the latest confirmation of a high pixal Canon body "soon" was that new bodies would be fewer - but each of them would be a _significant _step upwards.

5DIV should not only have a lot more megapix to work with but also better low iso, excellent native iso up to at least 50K, better dynamic range, gps and wifi, markedly better AF than the 5DIII, 5.5 fps+ with a boatload of cross-type focus points and some of the smart AF tracking programs that makes the competition's AF run circles around what Canon currently offers. 

Am I dreaming? No. All this would only put Canon more or less on par with the competition. We should believe Canon will try to do even better. Especially since they acknowledge that they have ground to make up towards the competition.

And oh. The price. If the same as the asking price for the 5DIII at launch its specs better be really, really good news.

Canon - I have my check ready - impress us!


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 30, 2014)

jdavis37 said:


> cmh716 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.
> ...



They are not. According to Canon financial statements their DSLR sales have been into a double digit fall in both 12/13 and 13/14... So I'd say - and I'm pretty sure the board room talk is - "Canon DSLR sales are dismal and we need to act now before its too late".


----------



## Synkka (Dec 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> cmh716 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.
> ...



Not sure if this post was joking, but there are plenty of worthwhile upgrades from the 5d2 to 5d3 they may just not have been what you want.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 30, 2014)

Synkka said:


> Not sure if this post was joking, but there are plenty of worthwhile upgrades from the 5d2 to 5d3 they may just not have been what you want.



None I ever noticed when using the two. But of course YMMV. More precisely I'd say you would have to have a very specific reason to prefer the one over the other. 

I did not not see any improvement in any aspect of my photographic results (it did however have some noticible improvements in its handling which I miss on the 5DII).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And likely far higher fps and better buffer performance (per frame at least, if maybe not per MB).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> And that a high MP camera will use a 7D2 sensor design is the final nail in the coffin for me buying it. Sony A7R or A7RII it will be for me. Maybe the Sony will have fewer MP than Canon's new camera but they will be better MP than what Canon will be offering.
> 
> Thanks Canon for trying.



Yeah, if it's just a 7D2 sensor that is larger. No sale . I guess I'll have to do the messy mix of 5D3 plus Sony A7R (II?) or some such or just give up and go Nikon and not have to deal with dragging two systems around (although sadly then giving up Canon lenses and UI entirely). But whatever I do mixed old body Canon+Canon lenses+Sony or all Nikon, in either case it's no new Canon bodies for me.

I hope they deliver something else.

If they don't, then I also think we are talking at least another five years after this comes out until they catch up to Exmor at low ISO and maybe even ten.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> cmh716 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.
> ...



I sure hope you are not dreaming. I'd be all over what you propose.
I have a bad feeling that it is not what Canon will deliver though. They don't seem be talking along those lines. But maybe they just want to preserve the next couple months worth of sales of old stuff more than they worry about people going over to the Nikon side?


----------



## NancyP (Dec 30, 2014)

I would settle for 20 - 24 MP FF with better dynamic range at base ISO. However, I think that Canon lenses are good enough to handle the 36 to 52 MP existing and proposed sensors. Canon needs to make a camera that demonstrates the quality of their best lenses, since lenses are a major product and strength.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Exmor has produced some amazing results, and I'm waiting for the A7S2 to arrive myself. I think that sensor sets Sony apart more than anything, and Canon particularly seems to have little interest in being truly competitive with image quality in the prosumer level. Obviously their DSLR codec shortcomings and not-really-clean HDMI output have put a albatross around their necks. Out somes the 7D2 with an amazinf feature set for shooting video ... and they handcuff it behind the same poor HDMI output. Shame.

All that said, I think Canon will answer the High MP cries more soundly with a 3D/5D4 whatever. I would agree that if we see a mere upscaling of the 7D2, it would be met with 50% excitement and 50% sigh. I would look to an A7R2 at that point with metabones for my landscape stuff. Otherwise I've been very pleased with the 6D performance for portrait and general shooting.

Again, I'm going to give the Canon the benefit of the doubt this last time for 2015.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > And that a high MP camera will use a 7D2 sensor design is the final nail in the coffin for me buying it. Sony A7R or A7RII it will be for me. Maybe the Sony will have fewer MP than Canon's new camera but they will be better MP than what Canon will be offering.
> ...



I think that's the millionth time we've discovered that forum users are not the prime demographic that Canon is pursuing, I'm having Déjà vu compounded on itself a dozen times over with the Inception theme playing in the background.

(Have fun on NR, really, do have fun. I told Jrista before and I'll say it again, go get the camera you want and enjoy it!)


----------



## Synkka (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Synkka said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if this post was joking, but there are plenty of worthwhile upgrades from the 5d2 to 5d3 they may just not have been what you want.
> ...



Not sure if you would say "very specific" but the improved AF, fps, high ISO, build and weather sealing along with bracketing are features I enjoy, oh and having a 100% viewfinder.

I think the AF improvements are the biggest draw card for me, this is a big part of the majority of my photography.

On the topic of a high megapixel camera, I can't see this being the 5d4 unless they have multiple models, or are creating multiple 1d series again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2014)

9VIII said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



+1000


----------



## lo lite (Dec 31, 2014)

What I don't get are those odd resolution numbers. Why not going to 54MP right away? Then you get a resolution like 9000 x 6000 which has much more friendly dividers and not such weird number like 8760 x 5840 ( = (2*2*2*5*73)^2 * 2 * 3) or 8850 x 5900 ( = (2*5*5*59)^2 * 2 * 3) or whatever the actual resolution would be like. What is the actual reason for such weird resolutions?


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 31, 2014)

lo lite said:


> What I don't get are those odd resolution numbers. Why not going to 54MP right away? Then you get a resolution like 9000 x 6000 which has much more friendly dividers and not such weird number like 8760 x 5840 ( = (2*2*2*5*73)^2 * 2 * 3) or 8850 x 5900 ( = (2*5*5*59)^2 * 2 * 3) or whatever the actual resolution would be like. What is the actual reason for such weird resolutions?



This was one of my favorite features of the Sony A7; the files are exactly 6000x4000 pixels.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 31, 2014)

It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor. 

The 5D3 is a great wedding/event/portrait camera and sometime sports body. While I don't shoot professionally, this is me. I'm not looking for more resolution, especially if it means a step backwards in high ISO performance. If anything, I'd like the 5D4 to incorporate the 7D2 sensor technology with larger, full-frame pixels for even better low light performance. AF during video would be a nice plus (even thought video is a more distant interest for me).

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I'll look at a 20 MP 5D4 with a nice bump in low light performance long before considering a 52 MP body. I still think the 52 MP body has a different audience than those who currently buy the 5D line. It actually makes more sense to put the 52 MP in the 6D2. But, it makes the most sense to spawn a new line of bodies for the high MP sensor.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 31, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.



I would take the speculation that this will be a 5DIV with a massive dose of salt.

Going back to the original interview, Canon understands that there are two primary markets: Those who need high ISO sensitivity with excellent noise control (which Canon nailed with the current generation of full frame cameras) and those who want higher resolution (which Canon apparently did not feel was a sufficiently large market to place an immediate emphasis on, but they apparently now feel they need to compete in that market)

I am certain that the high resolution Canon full frame (5D HD?) will not be a direct replacement for the 5D III. This "5D HD" (high definition) may surface in 2015, with the 5D IV (or 5D High Sensitivity) version showing up sometime near the end of the year or more likely in 2016. 

(As an aside: apparently the low ISO, high dynamic range market is such a small niche market that Canon doesn't see it as sufficiently large enough to warrant a major release at this time. However, I can certainly see a scenario where the 5D IV/High Sensitivity would see at least a modest boost in dynamic range)


----------



## tron (Dec 31, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.
> 
> The 5D3 is a great wedding/event/portrait camera and sometime sports body. While I don't shoot professionally, this is me. I'm not looking for more resolution, especially if it means a step backwards in high ISO performance. If anything, I'd like the 5D4 to incorporate the 7D2 sensor technology with larger, full-frame pixels for even better low light performance. AF during video would be a nice plus (even thought video is a more distant interest for me).
> 
> ...


+100000 Finally someone sensible!


----------



## Tugela (Dec 31, 2014)

unfocused said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.
> ...



I think it is unwise to assume to know what Canon understands, since recent history suggests that they do *NOT* understand many things


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> After Sony put the 3 stop IBIS in the A7II, I think it is definitely worthwhile waiting for the A7RII. Sony may also fix other issues such as using a proper metal mount and dealing with vibration (will IBIS help with vibration?)



Yeah and hopefully they get rid of the lossy RAW files too, it's not much damage at all, but it should not be there.



> Yup and I'm not really interested in waiting that long for Canon to catch up in sensor technology.



Yeah, I mean at some point enough is enough, then you are talking over a decade of shooting with old style low ISO sensors. That's a long time. Think of how many shots and how many places, some you might not get back to again for years at best.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



We'll see. Don't forget 5 series is not a Rebel. The average camera buyer is not spending many thousands on a body. Those who do may be pickier about such things as this. We'll see if simply bumping the MP but not the rest of the image quality is enough. I'd almost bet that more people would prefer 25MP and more low ISO DR than 50MP and the same DR and I bet that would go to hugely more people would prefer 36MP and more low ISO DR than 50MP and lesser low ISO DR.

yeah the extra MP would be good for dual landscape/wildlife shooters, but without the extra DR the landscape upgrade is somewhat compromised and there are cheaper ways to get pure reach so a $4000 50MP with the same old Canon DR seems less exciting to me than a 36MP cam for less moeny with more DR and maybe more fps.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2014)

lo lite said:


> What I don't get are those odd resolution numbers. Why not going to 54MP right away? Then you get a resolution like 9000 x 6000 which has much more friendly dividers and not such weird number like 8760 x 5840 ( = (2*2*2*5*73)^2 * 2 * 3) or 8850 x 5900 ( = (2*5*5*59)^2 * 2 * 3) or whatever the actual resolution would be like. What is the actual reason for such weird resolutions?



Well it's not like people go around calculating with the numbers so what does a round 9000 or such bring? More sense would be to fit into binary numbers since computers store things in sets of 8,16,32,64,128 bits mostly or things that work out well for video (like 1920 multiples or things that allow for 2x2 or 3x3 style binning down for video).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2014)

unfocused said:


> (As an aside: apparently the low ISO, high dynamic range market is such a small niche market that Canon doesn't see it as sufficiently large enough to warrant a major release at this time. However, I can certainly see a scenario where the 5D IV/High Sensitivity would see at least a modest boost in dynamic range)



Or more likely they can't pull it off without having to outsource and lose face or without spending a lot of money so they, like any good little market, play it down. I mean in the last interview the guy pretended that nobody at Canon has even ever heard of DxO and he claimed that nobody at Canon had any idea that Canon sensors for DSLRs were not the best in all ways, I mean come on.

Maybe they, in addition to not being able to pull it off (at least not a cost they like), they also think it doesn't matter too much. But marketing is not always infallible. Heck, just look to what they said about the Sony RX100. They said they had no plans for such a thing since it was clear that there was no demand for such a thing. A now after two years of gangbuster sales for the RX100 Canon is all like ooops we did it again.


----------



## dufflover (Dec 31, 2014)

> Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II, not the long-in-the-tooth 4.3 micron design of the 18mp APS-C sensors


Guess the people waiting for that "evolution" will still be waiting ...

I like DPAF and all but for the application of a hi-res FF camera I'd still rather have seen that first step in a new sensor design even if it's not perfect. At least show it's not constantly flogging the old thing.
(FYI I love my 70D)


----------



## lo lite (Dec 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't get are those odd resolution numbers. Why not going to 54MP right away? Then you get a resolution like 9000 x 6000 which has much more friendly dividers and not such weird number like 8760 x 5840 ( = (2*2*2*5*73)^2 * 2 * 3) or 8850 x 5900 ( = (2*5*5*59)^2 * 2 * 3) or whatever the actual resolution would be like. What is the actual reason for such weird resolutions?
> ...



The closest resolutions based on 1920 multiples would be 9600 x 6400 which amounts to 61.4MP or 7680 x 5120 which are just 39.3MP. Another half way decent resolution would be 8640 x 5760 which amounts to 49.8MP. But why has it to be such a silly number like 52MP? I don't get this.


----------



## pedro (Dec 31, 2014)

unfocused said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.
> ...



I hope things will happen this way. But as mentioned here, maybe the 6DII will move up in the segment and kind of "replace" the 5Ds as the allround body, who knows. I hope it won't, or it would receive some enhanced features first. As my 5D3 is good for a few more years, it's the perfect gear for a thouroughly non commercial oriented amateur like me. I hardly sell some of my photographs. Enhanced low light capacity and IQ would be great by 2016, so there's time for savin' up or even skip the next body...happy new year to everyone!


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 31, 2014)

If they implement a mRAW mode with ~24MPix and a sRAW mode with 13MPix - why not? At 13 MPix we have 4 subpixels per image pixel - good for excellent color reproduction.

But some of you are right: If it's a sensor with DPAF managing 104 Million pixels would need a quad DIGIC array to be fast and that might reduce the battery life dramatically. So this camera will be a slow cam. And no 5D mark iv ...

For me a very precise and accurate AF with wide coverage + the above mentioned modes with better noise characteristics/smaller files + very low shutter lag + 2 fps would make a good "high quality slow cam".
A faster crop mode with 5fps in 7D ii quality might keep file sizes compact and delivers reasonable speed.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 31, 2014)

lo lite said:


> The closest resolutions based on 1920 multiples would be 9600 x 6400 which amounts to 61.4MP or 7680 x 5120 which are just 39.3MP. Another half way decent resolution would be 8640 x 5760 which amounts to 49.8MP. But why has it to be such a silly number like 52MP? I don't get this.


If you fill a 135 sized sensor with the pixels of the 70D/7D2 you get about 52MP.
Multiples of 1920 are only beneficial if you can't read out the whole sensor - i.e. if you have to bin sensor cells. Considering that binning only increases the amount of collected light but leads to a lower color sampling density then a full readout the other option would be preferable.


----------



## zim (Dec 31, 2014)

tron said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.
> ...



x2 ;D

That's been my thoughts for some time although I've never thought about the 6D2 in that way but you are correct.

I'm looking forward to seeing both cameras although the 5DIV would be the one for me.

The only thing that's niggling at me is the thought that Canon will split features such that there will be some thing only in the other camera that really should be in both ie something like an advancement in the RT flash system. Hope I'm wrong on that!

Happy new year to everyone!
Regards


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 31, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.



I think you're grossly overestimating the size. On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB). The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG. The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP. So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 31, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.
> ...



He does - a lot. 

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).


----------



## tron (Dec 31, 2014)

I agree ... partially: Personally, I'd be happy with a 22 MP (not MB) 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

That and 2 fps more (with the new AF system of course ;D )


----------



## scyrene (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > FTb-n said:
> ...



Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency). I think people have to accept that if you want to go a lot further with low light, you have to start looking at dedicated solutions - like the amazing video sensor Canon showed off a while back, or a bigger sensor, like the 645z. Standard DSLRs can't make leaps in every area forever (until and unless someone invents a new type of sensor).


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > FTb-n said:
> ...



Hopefully you are right. I see a lot of 30+ MByte files from my 600D (good lens, tripod etc) from very detailed objects. I would expect roughly 80 MByte files from a 52 MPix camera - "worst case" (if detailed images are such a case ...).

A sampling depth of 14 bit must result in a max file size of about 100 MByte and a higher dynamic range will more often converge to the max file size ...

On the other hand: What are 100 MByte today? 10 000 images on a 50 EUR/$ HD means 0.5 ct per stored image or 1 ct per stored mirrored (=backup) image. Compared to the TCO of just one Kodachrome image of roughly 50 ct (inflation corrected) and under the assumption that not each image is perfect you would see some EUR/$ per stored image ...

Or another calculation: A 5D mark ii costs 300000 ct and the shutter will last 200000 exposures - just releasing the shutter means 1.5 ct of costs (without any operating costs eg. new batteries, lenses, travel fees, etc.). Or 7.5 ct. per second (!) for continups shutter mode ...


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 31, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



+1

I have an idea how to increase sensitivity by a factor of three: put an optical grating in front of each pixel and use 10 or 20 photodiodes per pixel to make a rough spectral scan. No loss in a color filter array. Different angles of incidence (of different optics) can be corrected by software ("which photodiode corresponds to which wavelength). No longer 3 color channels but the chance to track colors more detailed.

The only problem: I have no machine at home to produce that sensor and I am shure no one has. But perhaps just a matter of time because a 52 MPixel DPAF sensor has 100 Mio photodiodes to read and this seems possible!


----------



## Pitbullo (Dec 31, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.
> 
> The 5D3 is a great wedding/event/portrait camera and sometime sports body. While I don't shoot professionally, this is me. I'm not looking for more resolution, especially if it means a step backwards in high ISO performance. If anything, I'd like the 5D4 to incorporate the 7D2 sensor technology with larger, full-frame pixels for even better low light performance. AF during video would be a nice plus (even thought video is a more distant interest for me).
> 
> ...



It was some rumors about Canon wanting to move 6D upmarket, if that is the case, then it does make sense to give the 5D4 52mpx, if the 6D then becomes the "real" 5D4, under the cover of the name 6D2. Hopefully it stays below 36 mpx as well.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 31, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency).



Seems to me SONY made a quantum leap in high iso. If we can get amazing high iso w/12mb I would find it difficult to understand if we cannot get somewhat better at 36-40 mb. Time will tell.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.



250 MB edited files are nothing, I have many files that go over the 2GB PSD and the 4GB TIFF format max sizes. I have many >4GB PSB files (the default for photoshop files over 2GB). But that isn't the point, the point is how much more data is a bigger capture file going to give me, how much additional storage are those capture files and their backups going to take, and, how much will it slow down my computer. 

Bearing in mind every, single, file, will take at least twice the processing power to display, zoom, compare etc etc. I know at this point in time the capture technology just isn't worth the time, effort, and expense for 135 format 50MP sensors.

Here is a huge difference between working on one large file in PS with many layers and edits, it is quite another for every single capture file to take additional time to render in LR just to view. Mt Spokane has often said he found the same thing when he bought a D800, just hadling the files was a major hassle for him and he sold it,, not just because of the hassle, but because the additional hassle wasn't worth any benefits.


----------



## heptagon (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > cmh716 said:
> ...



Sales are falling across the board. The most reasonable way to improve figures is to cut research and up on marketing. Those who buy cameras don't even know what we are reasoning about here in the forums.


----------



## heptagon (Dec 31, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> It was some rumors about Canon wanting to move 6D upmarket, if that is the case, then it does make sense to give the 5D4 52mpx, if the 6D then becomes the "real" 5D4, under the cover of the name 6D2. Hopefully it stays below 36 mpx as well.



This actually makes a lot of sense. Providing the 5D4 with the 6D sensor and keeping the rest of the 5D3 wouldn't sound as good an upgrade than providing the 6D2 with the 5D3 focusing system. - The result is the same but now the 5D4 leaves an open space where a new high-resolution sensor could find place.

Or they may as well call it the 2D, 3D, 4D, 8D, 1DXs, 5Ds... whatever.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> I have an idea how to increase sensitivity by a factor of three: put an optical grating in front of each pixel and use 10 or 20 photodiodes per pixel to make a rough spectral scan.



Get right on that.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9334927048/panasonic-promises-high-sensitivity-sensors-using-micro-color-splitters
http://news.panasonic.com/press/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/02/en130204-6/en130204-6.html


----------



## lintoni (Dec 31, 2014)

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

lintoni said:


> There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/



Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

Always great to come here and learn so much from so many technically proficient folks! Thanks to everyone!

As a more marketing minded person myself, (and this is all purely academic BS at this point obviously ;0)), I don't think Canon changes the successful formula for the 5D series. That seems to be their sacred cow. If the new High MP camera is indeed to be branded the 5D4, I'd be very cautious about price setting. You want to lure your existing base of 5D users and be competitive with the D810. That means $4000 or under.

So far as the 6D goes, I think they will do whatever they can to improve the 2nd generation without breaking the $1999 ceiling. I think the 6D has been one of the most important cameras created with a street price for an amazing FF rig is $1500. I think the biggest thing they could and will do is go from 11 to 19pt AF system (hopefully more) with more of them dual cross type. Whether they also include DPAF is another thing. And we get it with current 5D3 sensor perhaps, but I like the one they have now! Still does 4 fps. Still not meant for sports per se. Faster sync speed would be nice too- 1/250th. but I realize they have to hold something back for upper end models. However if they turn the 5D4 into a 50MP camera then you're not stepping up for a half stop faster sync hahaha

Remember, 7D2 was speculated to be $2500. I said no, it'll be $1999 max. 100-400 Mk2, same thing. People here freaking out with 3-4K figures. I said $2000-2400. I'm hoping to keep my streak going for everyones sake ;D If Canon is going to make a $5000 machine I would suspect they brand it other than a 5D, but I wouldn't dare price this more than 10% over the Nikon D810.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

lintoni said:


> There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/



+1000 Spot on


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.
> ...



And I agree with that as well LeeJay. But ONLY if Canon can create this machine without breaking North of $4000. It's got be in the same range as the 5D3 and D810. Otherwise I'd not call it a 5D4


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.
> ...



I agree with lintoni on this: the 5 series is the top end 'general purpose' camera, with the emphasis on 'event' style photography. 23 mp _*is*_ high mp, that's the whole point. As private has stated, when shooting hundreds of images, even thousands maybe, massive files are a pain. SRaw etc can reduce file sizes but also slows down processing, so it's far from being an ideal solution. The true resolution that can be obtained from 23 mp on FF when each pixel is true is amazing. 

Also 50 mp on FF will not give you the full potential of a larger format, because the larger format always has more magnification, larger capture and greater volume of light for the same framing. 

Canon will recognise this. They probably also recognise that there are (just) enough punters out there who desire greater mp on FF than mid twenties to make it worthwhile in producing one, but it will be a separate, more specialist body. Certainly not the 5D IV.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



$2,999 should be the target MSRP, in my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.
> ...



Well, you may want them to do that, as may I and many others...and you're right that it's likely technically achievable. But then, it seems to me that Canon may not _want_ to make this, as you put it, 'even more of an all-rounder'.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...


Not least among reasons for Canon not wanting to do so is that the processing required for Lee Jay's options is non-trivial and would place significant demands on battery power, which already has to cope with all the other camera and lens systems... we're not talking about a 1D size battery capacity with the smaller 5D type body.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



Well, there's no accounting for marketing.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-10-20/


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



That would be something! I'd love it but I dont think it will get that low. MSRP of the 5D3 at release was $3500, was it not? It will probably be there or maybe 10-15% more. They are going to have to leave measurable space between it and the 6D... this is unless of course they keep the 5D3 around even after the new boy comes to school and they do a modest price drop on it, which wouldn't be a bad idea. Unless of course there is a 6D2 coming out right behind it within a few months that would negate the need to keep the 5d3... Isn't this fun and silly?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



I'm still waiting to see my first real-world landscape image where the amount of DR you can get from a Canon sensor at base ISO is insufficient. All I ever see is contrived scenes or scenes where compressing all that DR into the final image makes it look like crap.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > FTb-n said:
> ...



My file size guess -- and it is a guess -- was based on a friend's experience with 75 MB RAW files from his Nikon D800. Which is corroborated by the Imaging-Resource review of the D800 below (see the conclusion):

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A.HTM

Of course, this assumes that Canon will follow Nikon's path in algorithms for saving data. Hopefully, Canon will be able to improve upon Nikon's performance.

In contrast to the Nikon, the Hasselblad H5D-60 is a 60 MP camera with RAW files that average 80 MB in Blad's RAW compressed format -- 180 MB using TIFF.

http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h5d-60.aspx

Taking a closer look at my experience, I get 26 MB RAW files from my 18 MP 7D for a 1.44 MB/MP ratio. I get 31 MB RAW files from my 22 MP 5D3 for 1.4 MB/MP ratio. Projecting this out to a 52 MP sensor suggests 73 MB RAW files. If dynamic range is increase, it stands to reason that there will be more data to record and another bump in file size. 

Note that my frame of reference is with high ISO images, a norm for event and sports photography. High ISO images produce more noise which means more data to record. If the 52 MP sensor is based on the 7D2 sensor, then noise and correlating data will likely increase over the current 5D3 sensor with its larger pixels.

This is pure speculation, but I think it's a safe bet that a 52 MP Canon sensor will produce RAW files above 70 MB. Perhaps 90-100 MB is a high guess, but I still think it's in the ballpark.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 31, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency).
> ...



Did they? The A7S is a bit better than, say, the 5D 3, but not it's not a quantum leap in my opinion. Dpreview did a comparison a while back. Looking at it, I'd say the A7S has maybe a 2-stop advantage at the top end. From what I've seen, the 1Dx is about a stop better at the top end than the 5D3 (impressionistically). So a stop better maybe than what the best Canon sensor can do. That's great, but a lot of people round here would say it was evolutionary, I think. You're losing potential resolution too (I dunno if that makes any difference, and compare them normalised, but the 5D3 and even 1Dx have extra res when you need it, which you sacrifice with the Sony).


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

Let me propose, again, another approach Canon could potentially use.

Let's say this camera has 7DII pixels, and 52 million of them.

That means it has 104 million separate pixels because of the dual pixel design of the pixels.

The pixels can obviously be read separately or they wouldn't work for phase detection focusing in live view and video.

So, let's say the camera has a mode where the two halves of each pixel are read at different ISOs. For sake of argument, let's say ISO 100 and ISO 1600 are used.

The result would be that the top four stops would have twice the shot noise they would have if you didn't do that because half of your data is clipped there. But who cares? The top four stops have so much signal that it really doesn't matter. The overlapping range would be the same. The bottom of the range would have something like 3-4 more stops of shadow performance due to the far lower read noise at ISO 1600.

Combine these two in a way similar to the way Magic Lantern dual-ISO works and you have a 15 stop or so DR image at 52MP.

Now, that 15 stop image won't fit into a 14 bit raw so you generate a 16 bit raw from your 14 bit * 2 raw data sets.

Now you have 80+MB raw files, give or take, with 52MP and 15 stops of base-ISO DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > As private has stated, when shooting hundreds of images, even thousands maybe, massive files are a pain.
> ...



That is a stupid thing to say. 

I often work composite files with 50-100 RAW files in them, each and every one of them adds something none of the others do. It is not uncommon for me to shoot 200 images on a tripod for a key image. I have to shoot many angles and keep all of them because i never know what my clients will want altered. And this is from a conservative shooter that averages 430 shots at an all day and evening wedding.

Now I know that may not be a common scenario, but just ask the photographer who shot, and kept, the completely uninteresting image of Clinton hugging Lewinski before the scandal how seemingly worthless images can have huge significance later on.


----------



## switters (Dec 31, 2014)

Of course we'll all have to wait and see, but I can't help feeling disappointed by this rumor and what it might imply for the direction Canon is taking. I realize that more MP is exactly what a lot of people want. Unfortunately for me, I'm not one of them. 

For me, the 5DIII has all the resolution I'll ever need. What I'm looking for are incremental improvements in the IQ, high ISO performance, and shooting experience—at a fair price. 

Nikon seems to be excelling in this area, with the D750 as an example. It's an extremely well-regarded camera with incredible DR, features like the ability to spot meter from selected AF point (something available only on the 1D series in Canon); better auto-ISO implementation (ability to select minimum shutter speed of up to 1/2000, or designate 5 different multiples of the focal length of the lens); an AF system that is apparently equivalent in practice to the 5DIII, including 3D focus tracking (though it does have fewer cross-type sensors); dual SD card slots; and face detection (not gimmicky if you shoot a lot of portraits), to name a few. All of this costs $2,300, compared to >$3,000 when the 5DIII first came out. 

Nikon has also made a bunch of relatively fast, compact, lightweight primes in their "G" series that have great IQ and are almost universally well-reviewed.

Seems to me that Nikon is more focused on making a "prosumer" full-frame system for folks like me that want high quality, but aren't working pros and can't justify spending $4k on a camera body and >$1k on primes. 

As for the 6D, right now the D750 is far superior IMO. If Canon updates the 6D and it's still not on par or better than the D750, what's the point? I'm already tempted by the D750, and I have a 5DIII. I don't need more megapixels, I want better IQ and an improved shooting experience.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 31, 2014)

Tugela said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > FTb-n said:
> ...



Such a silly comment is hardly worth responding to. Canon understands their market extremely well. There is ample evidence of that for anyone paying the least bit of attention. Understanding and meeting the market demand is the *only* thing that counts. Just because they may not find it profitable to produce exactly what you may want does not mean they don't understand a lot more than you can imagine.



privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


Consider the source. 



lintoni said:


> There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.



Exactly my point...



unfocused said:


> ...I am certain that the high resolution Canon full frame (5D HD?) will not be a direct replacement for the 5D III. This "5D HD" (high definition) may surface in 2015, with the 5D IV (or 5D High Sensitivity) version showing up sometime near the end of the year or more likely in 2016.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.
> ...



I remember the same thing being said when the 5D went from 12.8MP to 21MP in the 5D -> 5DII transition. By the way, those were the same size pixels as in the 20D and 30D. Now we're talking about a 5D with the same size pixels as the 70D.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Let me propose, again, another approach Canon could potentially use.
> 
> Let's say this camera has 7DII pixels, and 52 million of them.
> 
> ...



I have read this theory before as well. I would love to see them come up with this sort of thing. Flip a switch and turn this setting when the need arises. I just wonder how complicated it is to have the DPAF system actually employ 2 totally different sensitivities simultaneously. Would this require enormous extra processing power? Could it work with Dual Digic 6? Or would that much even be needed? I figure this will be at most a 5 or 6fps camera


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I have read this theory before as well. I would love to see them come up with this sort of thing. Flip a switch and turn this setting when the need arises.



Maybe that 150,000 pixel metering system could decide automatically if the scene contrast was high enough to need it.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I have read this theory before as well. I would love to see them come up with this sort of thing. Flip a switch and turn this setting when the need arises.
> ...



I have on occasion done HDR shots on my 6D and 16-35 f4 L. I've done both "in camera" with a resulting JPEG and by simply bracketing 3 RAW exposures usually around +/- 2 stops and then HDR combining in Photoshop. More often than not I am happier with the results I get from pushing shadows in a single shot from the group. I've never tried the DUAL ISO ML hack. How does that work? Is it a simultaneous exposure?? Or is it a bracketed composite more like traditional HDR?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



My experience as well.



> I've never tried the DUAL ISO ML hack. How does that work? Is it a simultaneous exposure?? Or is it a bracketed composite more like traditional HDR?



It's one exposure, but half the pixels are read at a high ISO and half are read at a low ISO.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/?topic=7139.0


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2014)

Oh well then the question has been answered. Obviously firmware can be built to do it. But breaking up a 22mp sensor vs 50mp sensor obviously demands far more CPU power. But assuming the Digic 6 (or perhaps 7 in a 5D4 or whatever this is) can. Very interesting. I'd love to find a RAW shot done with this ML HDR hack.

I'll have to read the article. I always had issues with multi shot HDR because "landscapes DO move" even the slightest breeze moves leaves and branches and blades of grass and aligning all that to recover a sharp multilayer shot is a beast


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 1, 2015)

Ok now I'm even more perplex. The blog mentions "taking advantage of the full 14 stops of DR the sensor IS CAPABLE of" So now I gotta ask....if the sensor is CAPABLE of it....what the hell are we talking about with bad DR? Granted the base Canon firmware doesn't allow for dual ISO HDR single shooting... but it seems the sensor CAN produce it given the right tweak. I guess I'm wondering if the DR issue is really a sensor issue...or a Canon firmware issue? I need people way better versed on this than I am to help me. Glad ya'll are here LOL


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Ok now I'm even more perplex. The blog mentions "taking advantage of the full 14 stops of DR the sensor IS CAPABLE of" So now I gotta ask....if the sensor is CAPABLE of it....what the hell are we talking about with bad DR?



The sensor can produce it, but the way the data is read out of the sensor is noisy enough to raise the noise floor a couple of stops from that of the sensor itself.


----------



## photonius (Jan 1, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Let me propose, again, another approach Canon could potentially use.
> 
> Let's say this camera has 7DII pixels, and 52 million of them.
> 
> ...




i proposed that already a long time ago when the 70d came out. 
It seems canon is aware of this, but maybe cant make it work that easily (from some cryptic comments in interviews)
They may have even tried for the 7D II (causing the delay, extra firmware update for 7D).


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 1, 2015)

Ahhh hence all the talk from jrista and others about Canon's "read noise" problem. Gotcha. And as far as the 70D goes.... if ML can do it on a non-dual pixel format, I would think could easily do it a DPAF system. It's the IDEAL sensor type to pull this very thing off. And a DPAF 52MP sensor...well good lord. Sounds like Canon already has the ability to smoke out serious DR from the sensor, but the noise from reading it is the issue. I'm catchin up. Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> I always had issues with multi shot HDR because "landscapes DO move" even the slightest breeze moves leaves and branches and blades of grass and aligning all that to recover a sharp multilayer shot is a beast



No, landscapes don't move. It must be true, dgatwood said so. :


----------



## jrista (Jan 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Ok now I'm even more perplex. The blog mentions "taking advantage of the full 14 stops of DR the sensor IS CAPABLE of" So now I gotta ask....if the sensor is CAPABLE of it....what the hell are we talking about with bad DR? Granted the base Canon firmware doesn't allow for dual ISO HDR single shooting... but it seems the sensor CAN produce it given the right tweak. I guess I'm wondering if the DR issue is really a sensor issue...or a Canon firmware issue? I need people way better versed on this than I am to help me. Glad ya'll are here LOL




Most SENSORs these days are not that noisy in the grand scheme of things. If Roger Clark's data is anything to go by, Canon sensor DR is anywhere from 14.3 to 15.7 stops. Canon's most significant problem is the introduction of noise from downstream (off-die) electronics. Primarily, read noise introduced by their high frequency ADC units, of which there are four, eight or sixteen separate units on the PCB board, between the sensor and the DIGIC processor(s). It's that electronics that adds some quantity of noise to every single image read off the sensor. 


If the sensor starts out with 14-15 stops of DR, it's the introduction of read noise from other non-sensor electronics that is basically "eating away" at dynamic range. Canon's off-die electronics, given that their sensors usually have around 11 stops of DR, are apparently reducing dynamic range by 3-4 stops! Canon's problem isn't necessarily their sensors (not explicitly)...it's the way they read the sensor signal out. The solution to Canon's problem is to reduce the operating frequency of readout electronics, and reduce trace paths along which pixel data is transferrred. The best way to do that IS to improve their sensors...by moving ADC units onto the sensor die, by increasing ADC parallelism, and by employing other technologies allowed by CMOS sensor designs to increase Q.E. and reduce sources of additional noise (outside of the amplifiers in each pixel themselves.)


That's what Sony did...they moved all the readout electronics onto the sensor, hyperparallelized the ADC units (one per column), and employed a number of other techniques to reduce noise futher (i.e. moving high frequency components, such as the clock, to remote areas of the die so they don't risk injecting additional noise into the pixel data as it's read out, use of digital CDS, use of per-column tuning in each ADC unit to eliminate vertical banding, etc.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



Maybe if you'd read a little more carefully, you'd have discovered your question had already been answered...



privatebydesign said:


> I often work *composite files with 50-100 RAW files in them, each and every one of them adds something none of the others do*. It is not uncommon for me to shoot 200 images on a tripod for a key image. I have to shoot many angles and *keep all of them because i never know what my clients will want altered*.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Sunset? Sunset? That's overkill.
Here is an owl that was clipped on both ends of the DR scale... you can run out of DR on a cloudy day....


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Ok now I'm even more perplex. The blog mentions "taking advantage of the full 14 stops of DR the sensor IS CAPABLE of" So now I gotta ask....if the sensor is CAPABLE of it....what the hell are we talking about with bad DR? Granted the base Canon firmware doesn't allow for dual ISO HDR single shooting... but it seems the sensor CAN produce it given the right tweak. I guess I'm wondering if the DR issue is really a sensor issue...or a Canon firmware issue? I need people way better versed on this than I am to help me. Glad ya'll are here LOL
> ...




So then my next question would be "Can Canon not employ a similar design? Is such a design patented by Sony?" "If they can, what's stopping them from doing this if a solution has already be discovered? Would putting the ADC right on the chip be some radically expensive redesign?"


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 1, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Such a silly comment is hardly worth responding to. Canon understands their market extremely well. There is ample evidence of that for anyone paying the least bit of attention.



Since a Canon Executive has just given an interview saying that they missed their customer's need for a high megapix camera its fair to say Canon think's they actually got the market sentiment wrong on this count. 

Also, Canon DSLR sales are not only plummeting but also doing so at a much faster rate than Canon expected only 12 months ago (leading to two downwards revisions of their estimated 2014 DSLR sales during this year). 

Doubt the Canon board members are as impressed as you are.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I did that once, and I didn't have enough DR. However, a little math showed that I needed 30 stops of DR for that shot. So 1 or 2 extra stops from a Sony sensor would have done me exactly no good. Even bracketing didn't get the job done.

I've never yet found a shot that needed just a little bit more base ISO DR than I can get from a Canon sensor, but not too much for a Sony sensor.


----------



## jrista (Jan 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> So then my next question would be "Can Canon not employ a similar design? Is such a design patented by Sony?" "If they can, what's stopping them from doing this if a solution has already be discovered? Would putting the ADC right on the chip be some radically expensive redesign?"




Both Canon and Sony have patents for column-parallel ADC implementations. Canon filed for a Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent a couple of years ago, and quite probably had functional prototype (i.e. 120mp APS-H) sensors years before that (based on Canon's descriptions of the technology used in that sensor prototype.) Both Canon and Sony have patents for a variety of hardware level noise prevention concepts.

The real question is, why hasn't Canon employed technology they already own? Canon achieved high speed 9.5fps readout from a ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MEGAPIXEL APS-H sensor...YEARS ago. They have patents for backside illuminated five layer full frame sensors (as well as a host of additional patented innovations to improve the sensitivity and reduce light loss in such a sensor, something critical to a layered sensor's success against bayer designs). They have patents that should reduce dark current to obscenely low levels. They have demonstrated some of the most sensitive sensors on the planet. Why aren't they employing this amazing technology in their consumer products? While Sony, which has many similar patents for many very similar technologies, IS employing it all, and continues to employ new innovations as they are made? Same thing goes for Samsung...similar patents, similar technologies, and they are employing those technologies in consumer products. 

That's the one thing about Canon I really don't understand. They aren't any innovative slouch...they are one of the most innovative companies in the world. They just don't seem to employ a LOT of the innovations they create. Canon sits on awesome technology, letting it rot away in some R&D corner of the company somewhere. I just hope 2015 is a year of radical change for Canon...I hope we SEE that layered BSI sensor in an actual product. If 2015 closes out without a hint of any truly ground breaking new sensor technology from Canon, I'll be pretty bummed. And confused...it makes no sense for a company to innovate and never actually employ the technology they own.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > So then my next question would be "Can Canon not employ a similar design? Is such a design patented by Sony?" "If they can, what's stopping them from doing this if a solution has already be discovered? Would putting the ADC right on the chip be some radically expensive redesign?"
> ...



I think we can make a good guess at the answers to these questions: it's because they haven't had to. It costs money to re-tool for innovative new tech, and that cuts into both profits and R&D. Sony and Nikon have had to push out their best efforts to remain competitive; Samsung needs to put out their best to get into competition.

My hope (though not my rational expectation) is that Canon will push far enough ahead in their next retool to last for several iterations of the product cycle. Maybe that's what will be at work with the new high-MP camera: the megapixel count could be an opportunity to take it out of competition with the 1-series so they can put in the new sensor tech. 

Let's hope Sony, Nikon and Samsung put more pressure on Canon.

Happy New Year to all. Go out and take some pictures!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's say the camera has a mode where the two halves of each pixel are read at different ISOs. For sake of argument, let's say ISO 100 and ISO 1600 are used.
> ...



The ISO 1600 shots have less noise (by a lot) in the shadows than the ISO 100 shot taken at the same exposure. So the shadows are greatly less noisy that way.


----------



## jrista (Jan 1, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...




Your probably dead on. The bummer about Canon doing that is it pushes out any real competitive sensor IQ tech out another three years. So, if they just slide by again in 2015, maybe reemploying the evolutionary improvements in the 7D II in a high MP FF sensor...then it's probably going to be 2018 before we see a layered sensor. If they skip the layered sensor (or any other competitive new sensor tech) in 2018, it'll be 2021 before we see something truly new. Despite the lower dark current of the 7D II, it still "feels" like the last time Canon really did something amazing with their sensor technology was with the 5D II. I just hope I don't feel the same way in 2018 or 2021.  Canon IS my preferred brand...but it's getting old "getting old" waiting for them to stop being...old.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 1, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Such a silly comment is hardly worth responding to. Canon understands their market extremely well. There is ample evidence of that for anyone paying the least bit of attention.
> ...



DSLR sales are down across the industry -- it's not unique to Canon, nor is it a sign of losing competitive advantage. Rather, it's the combined impact of years of weak economies plus the ubiquity of smart phones equipped with pretty decent and ever-improving cameras. The point-and-shoot segment is evaporating, and with it revenue that would be driving more R&D, retooling, et cetera.

For a market leader, revenue drops like this move a company into more conservative strategies for long-term viability. Unless you're Sony (trying to make a splash or die trying) or Samsung (trying to enter the market as a legitimate competitor), market conditions like these are not favorable to parading out your best technology. You can gamble and go all-in with what you have, or you can keep an eye on the market and act when necessary.

Despite what goes on in forums, I suspect that DSLR sales across the market are not down because of pent-up demand of people waiting on the sidelines for a breakthrough in sensors from Canon. Why waste amazing technology on a generation of cameras that is not going to sell as well as they would with healthier economies around the world, especially if current models are selling well enough?

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses. 

I know, I know -- landscape often demands more dynamic range. I get it. Perhaps, though, landscape is only a slice of the market Canon is supplying. : Weddings, portraits, wildlife, sports -- they seem to be doing pretty well with Canon gear. Canon need not panic over a few vocal photographers switching to Sony. Note that I said "panic" and not "pay attention". Canon does pay attention. When market share and long-term strategy requires it, Canon will bring out its tech.

I say, keep it coming, Sony and Samsung! Put the pressure on! In fact, everyone that complains about Canon sensor low ISO dynamic range, go buy a Sony! That's the best way to motivate Canon to blow us away in the next sensor generation...unless...there aren't enough of you to make a difference...


----------



## jrista (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Yup. I am even more convinced now than ever before that I've bought my last Canon DSLR. Pity.




I'm not saying I'm done with Canon, nor that I've bought my last Canon DSLR or lens. It's more that I'm no longer interested in locking myself into a single brand. It's more likely that I'll by a different brand's camera next time I do, unless Canon has stepped up their game and provided me with the things I want (primarily, more DR...I don't really care if they do it at ~20mp or ~50mp, resolution isn't as important to me as more DR, preferably LOTS more DR, like 16 stops DR; I'll take more resolution, but I want lower noise, across the board, less noise in every respect) by the time I'm ready to buy another DSLR. 


Personally, Canon now has some time with me. I'll be investing in more astrophotography equipment this year, including at least one new OTA, a mono CCD and a bunch of filters (some of which might cost as much as a grand each), and possibly a higher end mount. That will likely set me back for a couple years, so here's to hoping Canon puts the time to good use and releases something extremely compelling by year end (yes, it is now 2015, pplz!! Happy new year!)


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Jan 1, 2015)

I used to shoot different Canon 5DXXX with zoom lenses and I got good results. However, there came a time when I wanted better resolution. So I switched brand and decided to use strictly prime lenses. The result has been excellent and so far I have stayed on that path. The higher resolution image sensors plus the prime lenses gives me a new freedom to crop radically if and when needed.

It will be very interesting to see images from the new 52 MP Canon image sensor.

My real concern has to do with lenses. Having had extensive experience with Canon lenses I am convinced that Canon will have to invest in higher grade lenses for the 52 MP camera.

Every lens has its own maximum resolution and the weakest link, whether it is the lens or the image sensor sets the maximum resolution for the pair.

A lens that produces an image PMP close to the MP of the camera is a superior lens with the ability to do better on a better image sensor.

For example, The Zeiss Otus 55mm produces 21 PMP images on a 5DIII 23.4 MP sensor.
The same lens produces 33 PMP images on a 36 MP sensor.
This lens will probably produce close to 45 PMP images on a 52 MP sensor.

The Canon 24-70mm zoom lens produces 18 PMP images on the 5DIII 23.4 MP sensor.
This lens would probably produce around 25 PMP on a 52 MP sensor.

Every lens will produce a little bit higher image resolution on a higher resolution sensor, however, for most lenses the difference will not be worth spending the money on a better camera. A better camera in most cases also needs better lenses.

The new 52 MP Canon sensor and a new line of high resolution lenses sounds like a very expensive proposition for Canon. It will be interesting to see the final retail prices for the 52 MP camera and corresponding 40 PMP lenses, or if Canon settles for producing lenses for 30 PMP images to match present Nikon D810 camera and lens performances.


----------



## 100 (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.
> ...



Last week I visited an exhibition in the Rijksmuseum called Modern Times about photography in the 20th century https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/modern-times
Art is not about equipment, it’s not about more resolution, it’s not about a couple of stops more dynamic range, it’s not about ISO, it’s not about how much you can push a file, it’s not about brand A, B or C, etc.
In a couple of years almost no one will know or care which camera and lens were used to take the few iconic photos made in this decade. 

Better gear is nice but it will have little impact on how other people (the 99% non-gearheads we share the earth with) perceive our work.


----------



## lintoni (Jan 1, 2015)

100 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...


+1 
100% correct, well said.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 1, 2015)

Famateur said:


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



1) I agree that the falling DSLR sales are not Canon specific and indeed maybe there was nothing they could do about it (??).

However, my comment was directed at the claim from "unfocused" that "Canon understands their market extremely well" and it was "silly" beyond reason for anyone to say otherwise. 

This is an unwarrated statement. The fact that Canon acknowledges they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales _at all _in 2014 underlines that Canon currently has a difficult time understanding the current market conditions.

2) I love that a discussion on the merits of Canon market research is suddenly diverted into a discussion on Canon sensor tech - but hey it maybe helps save the numbers of posts in this thread ;D

Happy shooting!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 1, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> The fact that Canon acknowledges they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales _at all _in 2014 underlines that Canon currently has a difficult time understanding the current market conditions.



Please provide a citation for Maeda Masaya (or another Canon executive) who said they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales "at all" in 2014.

That was not in the interview referenced by this thread, but perhaps you have some additional information you care to share with the rest of the community.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2015)

100 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



For me, photography isn't about art, and most of the time I don't care a bit how other people perceive my work.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2015)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Every lens has its own maximum resolution and the weakest link, whether it is the lens or the image sensor sets the maximum resolution for the pair.


That isn't how it works at all, and lenses are far higher in resolution than you think they are.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.
> ...



Yes, and as an artist with over 35 years experience I can say with a great deal of knowledge that the majority of artists prefer Contrast over a wide Dynamic Range. Artists also understand the principle that you want detail in either the lights or the shadows - not both. So, too much shadow lifting creates washed out, low contrast images that can be (and usually are) less artistic than high contrast images. 

The greater DR of the Exmor sensors is such a minor issue to many - and bears noting that the advantage is at a very limited low ISO range. In mid to higher ISOs, the Canons perform as well or even better. I understand the noise and banding issues have been a problem to a few photographers - especially those into astrophotography. Their concerns are real - but seem to apply to a very small number of photographers. They should seriously consider switching brands, but their impact on Canon sales should be minor. As long as they stop bashing Canon at every opportunity and continually promote that all photographers (artistic or otherwise) need more MP and higher DR. They don't. If I need a new Camera in the next few years and all the choices are in the 36 to 50 MP range - then I will look for a used 6D or 5Dmk3 to keep my MP count reasonable and workable. And my primary subject is landscape - so the idea that all landscape photographers need higher MP is just another piece of baloney dished out by the techno junkies.

And I think that is why - excepting those technio junkies that are into pixel peeping and spec analyzing - that the person looking for high quality photos will continue to buy Canon at least on an equal level with Nikon and Sony. All these companies make excellent cameras and in most cases it will come down to personal preferences.
I have recently shot with a entry level Nikon D3300 and compared it to the Canon SL1. I preferred the Canon by a considerable margin mainly due to far more pleasing color. Again, just a personal preference, but color and contrast and sharpness and ergonomics do matter. 

And the bashing of the new rumored high MP Canon before it has even appeared just shows the agenda of some of the folks here. It can't possibly be any good because its not Exmor. How about we wait until the camera actually appears and then judge in on actual experience.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 1, 2015)

100 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...


+1

Art is about vision. Artists will use whatever medium and tools needed to support there vision. That said not all photography is about art. And some art photography is all about resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2015)

dak723 said:


> And I think that is why - excepting those technio junkies that are into pixel peeping and spec analyzing - that the person looking for high quality photos will continue to buy Canon



Exactly. As I've often said, those clamoring for a bit more DR are in the minority. 




dak723 said:


> And the bashing of the new rumored high MP Canon before it has even appeared just shows the agenda of some of the folks here. It can't possibly be any good because its not Exmor. How about we wait until the camera actually appears and then judge in on actual experience.



Awww, where's the fun in that? :


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 1, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that Canon acknowledges they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales _at all _in 2014 underlines that Canon currently has a difficult time understanding the current market conditions.
> ...


Apart from the fact that Maeda does say they are missing a high megapix camera in his last interview, already back in SEP he admitted Canon customers missed and wanted a high megapix camera:
"Currently no Canon camera offers more than 22MP. Do your DSLR customers ask for higher resolution? 
Yes. We know that many of our customers need more resolution"

According to Canon financial statements/releases/disclosures they originally predicted DSLR sales at 8 mio. units in 2014 later downgraded it to 7,65 mio. units and once more to 7.0 mio. units. (There was also a report floating of a downgrade to 7,6 mio units, but I believe this was just a rehash of the report based on the 7.65 mio. unit estimate). 

Maeda never speaks for Canon on their finances - it would in fact be illegal for him to do so (apart from quoting official financial releases).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2015)

And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?

The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?
> 
> The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.



That's only because of the *poor, sub par, unacceptable sensor IQ*. If Canon would improve it by 2-stops of low ISO DR or just buy Exmor sensors, they'd certainly sell millions thousands hundreds a few dozen more cameras to the people for whom such things are absolutely critically important. 

:


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 1, 2015)

Thanks to everyone up the chain who helped answer the question about the ADCs on the Sensor die and Canon's ability to adjust the design. I suspected something similar. That said, I think their hand will get forced by market pressures sooner than later.

I went and did some light painting with the kids and my buddy last night for new years. Perfect time. Tripod, 6D, and 50mm Sig Art or Canon 16-35 f4L. 

Either of these lenses would resolve beautifully on a 50MP sensor. Glass isn't digital. There isn't some hard ceiling of how high it will resolve. Granted, the manufacturing process used can alter some of the ultra fine detail via CA (or lack there of) barrel distortions, etc.... but I'd bet even an old FD L lens (which I have 3) would resolve some very pretty images on that sensor. They may not be as "critically sharp" as my ARTs or even my "dinosaur" 135L but so what? If that lens resolves 90% sensor capability now at 19-20MP on a 5D3 but it only gets me 80% capacity on a new 52MP camera... Ok that's still 40MP .... I'm still doubling my resolving power. Who's going to really complain? (LOADED QUESTION FOR SOME FOLKS ON HERE ))

And yes ALL DSLR sales have been hammered by iPhones and 42Fake-A-Pixel cameras from Nokia and Samsung and so on. Why anyone would buy a point and shoot these days (apart from the small percentage of people who know better like us) is beyond me. I'm not sure you'll see as much at the cheap end of that spectrum much longer. Eventually you'll have smart phones, then upscale P&S like RX100s and G7Xs and XT1s etc... and maybe a handful sub $300. I just do not see people with so slim a budget or taste for cameras even bothering to buy one when a $200 iPhone is getting them what they want for facebook. (In the USA, at least)

DSLRs and even more pro grade mirrorless will dwindle as well. They will probably become the niche venue of mainly professionals and Mom-Tographers. Everyone is getting slapped. It's sad, because most folks (the masses) are not too concerned with quality anymore in much anything. Hot fast and cheap. Lord I hope I'm dead wrong


----------



## crashpc (Jan 1, 2015)

PureClassA: The main thing is that we are not for one even on "resolution term". For example it has been shown, that with 24Mpx FF sensor, with lens set at f/32. there is still plenty of moire. Until f/64, which is two more stops, there is strong moire visible, that way the lens resolves more than sensor does. 
It seems that for some detail under MTF 50 is not important, but when this unimportant fallse detail shows, it is hugely important to the viewer. That way I´d not bother for the current lenses. Everything up to 256Mpx on FF and 128Mpx on APS-C is very cool, and will give significantly more detailed results, especially after processing.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 1, 2015)

crashpc said:


> PureClassA: The main thing is that we are not for one even on "resolution term". For example it has been shown, that with 24Mpx FF sensor, with lens set at f/32. there is still plenty of moire. Until f/64, which is two more stops, there is strong moire visible, that way the lens resolves more than sensor does.
> It seems that for some detail under MTF 50 is not important, but when this unimportant fallse detail shows, it is hugely important to the viewer. That way I´d not bother for the current lenses. Everything up to 256Mpx on FF and 128Mpx on APS-C is very cool, and will give significantly more detailed results, especially after processing.



Ok f32. (I'm not personally aware of any glass that stops down to 64). But don't most resolution tests show peak resolve around f 5.6 to f8? Personally I prefer the charts dpreview uses when testing. It shows a color graph of sharpness varying from center frame to corners. Much more informative than DxO. DxO seems to test glass only at wide open. Which I understand is a legit measurement as people buy fast glass to shoot wide open, but that doesn't ever show the full capability of what the glass can do. I'm totally thrilled with wide open on my ART glass, but not so much on my 135 even though it's still very pretty at f2. I usually stop down to f4 or 5.6 for portraiture 

Any of the lenses I own would show substantially increased resolving power on a more refined sensor. They may not give a 1 to 1 perfection of 52MP but my point is that if they give me a near 100% step up to 35-40MP I'd be a very happy camper as would the vast majority of folks on here. Seems like too many folks are trying to split hairs (literally in terms of resolution) on here, and while a I appreciate their opinions, I don't see them as being the case for most folks in real world shooting as opposed to under exposing by 3 stops with the lens cap on in a Transylvanian graveyard at midnight on Halloween ;D


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?
> 
> The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.



1) I have no clue what Canon can expect to sell of a 52 mp camera that does not exist (and may never do so). Is your number based on Nikon 800/810 sales numbers or just wild speculation/guessing?

2) Thank you for agreeing with what I already wrote: "falling DSLR sales are not Canon specific and indeed maybe there was nothing they could do about it"


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?
> ...



1/ It is a logical estimation guessed at from some numbers we do know. For instance EF lens sales 100,000,000, number of people that buy a DSLR and don't buy a lens outside the kit lens/es, 97%. That means the total number of all DSLR sales of all EOS cameras ever that goes to pros, semi pros and keen amateurs (the groups that almost certainly would get another lens) is around 3,000,000. If you thought every single one of those pros, semi pros and amateurs was to buy a 52MP camera (and we know they won't) and only they had no choice but that one 52MP camera, since 1987 they would only have sold 3,000,000, or around 100,000 a year. Give a camera a marketing shelf life of 5 years puts sales at an absolute maximum of 500,000 units if every single person who bought a seperate EF lens was to buy one.

2/ You are welcome. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was pointing out that no 52MP camera is a panacea for any camera company, if Canon come out with one it will not turn their business around, it might stop them losing a very small number of the ever dwindling DSLR sales numbers, but it is such a small niche within a niche it is all but inconsequential. All the hyperbole about Sony are slaughtering Canon, or Canon have to do X to compete or they will die is ridiculous. People need to see the company from a far greater perspective, sure that might not help you shoot the entire DR of your next sunset (but truthfully who gives a damn about another sunset?) but it will stop people being so self centric as to not see the wood for the trees. 

Canon owe us nothing, we owe Canon nothing, get the camera and system that best suits your needs. A 52MP 135 format camera will not suit my needs.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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


well said!
Few of us seem to realize that it is the low end cameras that make up the vast bulk of sales.....


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 1, 2015)

Yes. Hence my point that DSLR sales will continue to erode. It's not about mirrorless. It's about smart phones and the microwave generation(s). When 90% of people are only looking to do things like low grade duckface selfies on instgram, they don't give a flying poop about quality DSLRs. Canon is not going make its nut on a 5D3 even being the cash cow of the pro world. If Canon had some sense, they would get in bed with an Apple or Nokia or LG and create cameras and/or lenses for other companies' smart phones. That said I believe from a quality of work perspective and prestige, they will continue to make strides at being competitive in the pro arena.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 1/ It is a logical estimation guessed at from some numbers we do know. For instance EF lens sales 100,000,000, number of people that buy a DSLR and don't buy a lens outside the kit lens/es, 97%. That means the total number of all DSLR sales of all EOS cameras ever that goes to pros, semi pros and keen amateurs (the groups that almost certainly would get another lens) is around 3,000,000. If you thought every single one of those pros, semi pros and amateurs was to buy a 52MP camera (and we know they won't) and only they had no choice but that one 52MP camera, since 1987 they would only have sold 3,000,000, or around 100,000 a year. Give a camera a marketing shelf life of 5 years puts sales at an absolute maximum of 500,000 units if every single person who bought a seperate EF lens was to buy one.



The 100,000,000 number is for Canon EF lenses, it ignores all other EF lenses. I have no idea if that number is significant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 1/ It is a logical estimation guessed at from some numbers we do know. For instance EF lens sales 100,000,000, number of people that buy a DSLR and don't buy a lens outside the kit lens/es, 97%. That means the total number of all DSLR sales of all EOS cameras ever that goes to pros, semi pros and keen amateurs (the groups that almost certainly would get another lens) is around 3,000,000. If you thought every single one of those pros, semi pros and amateurs was to buy a 52MP camera (and we know they won't) and only they had no choice but that one 52MP camera, since 1987 they would only have sold 3,000,000, or around 100,000 a year. Give a camera a marketing shelf life of 5 years puts sales at an absolute maximum of 500,000 units if every single person who bought a seperate EF lens was to buy one.
> ...



I was rounding, the EF munber, which I assumed to include all TS-E, MP-E and certainly EF-S and EF-M, but the core numbers can't be far wrong. The market for a 54MP camera might be very vocal, but it is comparatively tiny.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?
> ...



You are delusional if you believe reviews drive anything much, they mainly serve to reinforce our preconceptions, and history has shown that that is what they do, revisit some of them and you will see what utter garbage many of them are.

But, to believe reviews open up a market is even more delusional, a review might sway some impressionable fool from one brand to another when they should be concentrating on their own needs and experience, however it will not create new purchasers into the DSLR buying pool.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 1/ It is a logical estimation guessed at from some numbers we do know. For instance EF lens sales 100,000,000, number of people that buy a DSLR and don't buy a lens outside the kit lens/es, 97%.



Unfortunately, specific camera sales data are not available - so we end up guessing a lot.

Still, I venture you underestimate the high end market with a wide margin. Also your method does not allow for the much higher numbers of lenses Canon currently sells (10 to 12 mio. units /year 2011-13)

The difference between Nikon and Canon Interchangable/DSLR sales trajectory 2012/13 probably tells us something about how much sales a strong new DSLR offering can bring to one of the leading camera companies: 2012/13 Canon DSLR sales fell from 9.2 mio. units to 8.0 mio. units. meanwhile Nikon Interchangable/DSLR sales jumped from 4.7 mio. to 7.0 mio units. A whopping ~50% increase for Nikon. I do not know how that was distributed between their models - but I believe its unlikely that the D800 did not make up a sizeable part of those 2.3 mio. _additional _ Interchangable/DSLR units (while also contributing to Nikon's baseline sales).

Based on this I _speculate _a succesful 5DIV (whatever megapix it will get) could potentially help boost Canon sales a lot more than just a 100.000 units /year.  

If Canon ever releases numbers for the best selling DSLR ever - the 5DII - or Nikon does so for the D800/810 we would know much more.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 1, 2015)

Sometimes I think applying figures and statistics to an otherwise organic subject can be a bit confounding.

There's much talk about resolution and the ability of a lens to resolve it but from practical experience I can wholeheartedly say it's a load of crap.

I've had a Pentax 645z on loan for a few weeks. I've got 30 year old glass on it and it resolves just as well, if not better than any of my Canon glass with little or no distortion or CA when wide open. I've always maintained that beyond a certain point of development and design the importance of super duper statistically perfect glass falls away.

It's just my opinion, but it's always been about the sensor for me. Sure, the mk1 version on the 24-70 was a bit of a dog compared to the mkii. But we're now at a point where the lenses are pretty much bang on.

I struggle to get over the image quality from small sensors with a high mp count on. Really I do. I bet you that if Canon does dump a 52mp 35mm Canon designed sensor on us (The Sony MF sensor is 51.9mp btw) then I say dollars to donuts the majority will rip it to shreds on here because it'll be noisy and have poor dynamic range.

That's unless they've really come up with something special. It's now mostly about the sensor size and the quality of the pixels on it. There's nothing wrong with having a 35mm sensor but the pixels have to be good ones not just an all you can eat buffet with as many as possible on.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 2, 2015)

Quality Reviews make a lot of hay. There are great technical reviews like dpreview and digital picture. Then are great (and funny) real world use video reviews from guys like Digital Rev TV on youtube. For Pete's sake Kai Wong has 1,000,000 youtube followers on that channel.

Reviews play a huge part of the Camera World, otherwise these companies and rental places wouldn't bother sending these guys gear to test and play with.

Maybe to some folks they don't amount to a hill of beans, but they are most people's chances to see how gear works in various situations before they buy. I didn't have affinity for Sony products and thought if I went to video I'd ML hack a 5D3...

After extensive research and tons of various reviews I'd read and watched, I want a Sony A7s and a Shogun. Lots of power in reviews


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > The closest resolutions based on 1920 multiples would be 9600 x 6400 which amounts to 61.4MP or 7680 x 5120 which are just 39.3MP. Another half way decent resolution would be 8640 x 5760 which amounts to 49.8MP. But why has it to be such a silly number like 52MP? I don't get this.
> ...



It's hard to do full read out of a sensor with tons of MP though. The A7S has only 10MP for instance.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Such a silly comment is hardly worth responding to. Canon understands their market extremely well. There is ample evidence of that for anyone paying the least bit of attention. Understanding and meeting the market demand is the *only* thing that counts. Just because they may not find it profitable to produce exactly what you may want does not mean they don't understand a lot more than you can imagine.



And what of Canon marketing saying that the RX100 was a silly idea that would have zero sales?

What about when Canon marketing couldn't imagine anyone would want manual exposure control for video?

What about when Canon marketing decided that AutoISO was some astonishing high-end feature that deserved to be dribbled out over more than a decade (and even still the 7D2 and 1DX don't quite give AutoISO as well as other brand's Rebel level stuff does in some cases, and it's like a ten cent, ten minute feature to implement)?

etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> So then my next question would be "Can Canon not employ a similar design? Is such a design patented by Sony?" "If they can, what's stopping them from doing this if a solution has already be discovered? Would putting the ADC right on the chip be some radically expensive redesign?"



It's impossible to create enough circuity on the sensor using 500nm fabs. The circuits come out too big and don't fit. They either need to start making DSLR sensors on their newer P&S fabs or build new fabs (very pricey) and both things cost money, money they don't wanna spend it seems.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Just go to a forest where the sun is dappling in and you hit a scenario that needs more DR than Canon delivers but where Exmor DR is just enough.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 2, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's hard to do full read out of a sensor with tons of MP though. The A7S has only 10MP for instance.



The NX1 reads it's 28MP at 240fps - even with 52M dual pixels that would allow for 60fps, not bad and obviously within the realm of the possible. Or, if you limit phase detection to a really dense (like 750*500) grid of cross type sensors, you'd get 4k/LV/FPAF at up to 120fps.


----------



## jrista (Jan 2, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Sometimes I think applying figures and statistics to an otherwise organic subject can be a bit confounding.
> 
> There's much talk about resolution and the ability of a lens to resolve it but from practical experience I can wholeheartedly say it's a load of crap.
> 
> ...




Regarding the quality of a lens, I'd be curious to know what aperture you shoot at. Beyond a certain aperture, pretty much every lens is going to produce similar results, because they are all diffraction limited. If you shoot every lens at f/16, regardless of format, your circle of confusion is (barring a particularly bad lens) going to be wholly diffraction limited.


I do agree that for the most part, modern lenses, from almost any manufacturer these days, are more than good enough. Most people won't have any problem with most lenses. 


For the discerning photographer, the improvements in recent Canon and Zeiss lenses offer meaningful benefits, and further improvements could be realized that some photographers (who knows how many, but I'd say enough to warrant continued improvements) will recognize. One of the biggest improvements that can still be realized is corner and edge performance. Lenses perform superbly in the center, not all lenses perform well in the peripheries. A lot of improvements in lens quality, from Canon, Zeiss, even Sigma, in recent lens releases have had to do with corner performance. Prior generations had HORRIBLE CA and blurring in the corners, while the new generations perform quite well to exceptionally well (i.e. Otus) in the corners.


Sure, most lenses are good enough for a majority of photographers. However, there are nuances and complexities when it comes to lens design that will continue to warrant improvement in lenses for years to come. Canon's wider angle lenses, particularly their zooms, were (and really still are in some cases) in desperate need of an update, not for resolving power in the center, but for overall IQ and resolving power at the periphery. I think Canon has been succeeding immensely in that area, with the 24-70 IIs, the 16-35 f/4, etc. The Zeiss Otus line is utterly incredible, and should be the icon of lens quality for a decade or more to come. Every manufacturer should strive over the long term to approach the quality of the Otus line.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 2, 2015)

"Sure, most lenses are good enough for a majority of photographers. However, there are nuances and complexities when it comes to lens design that will continue to warrant improvement in lenses for years to come. Canon's wider angle lenses, particularly their zooms, were (and really still are in some cases) in desperate need of an update, not for resolving power in the center, but for overall IQ and resolving power at the periphery. I think Canon has been succeeding immensely in that area, with the 24-70 IIs, the 16-35 f/4, etc. The Zeiss Otus line is utterly incredible, and should be the icon of lens quality for a decade or more to come. Every manufacturer should strive over the long term to approach the quality of the Otus line." - jrista

+1000 Amen. And I think they are already making stride towards that Otus level. You see it with Sigma ART at 1/4th the price. I think it's also why Sigma has in part delayed their 85mm ART to tweak it to the new Otus level as they did with their 35 and 55mm. Tweak as close to a $4k lens in a $1K package as possible.

It looks like the new 100-400 Mk2 has also fixed a great deal of corner sharpness. This is probably where things will continue to go.


----------



## martti (Jan 2, 2015)

My 85mm L started finding eyelashes at f/1.2 when I adjusted it for back focus. 
Will the next EOS microadjust automatically with a little accessory plugged in the USB port? 

An interesting finding on the local buy/sell site: Somebody wants to exchange his Fuji XT1 setup to either a Canon 5DIII or a Sony 7S. Obviously, the hype the Fuji flagship has received did not correspond to the actual hands-on experience.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 2, 2015)

I like using old glass, I have resurrected some manual lenses from the back of the cabinet - but- there is no question that lens design has improved in some respects. I love my old "Planar" (double Gauss) design normal lenses (AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 and Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4), but they are full of aberrations wide open, though very nice indeed stopped to f/2.8. So, if I want "dreamy", head to the Nikkor at f/1.2. If I want "scary sharp with bokeh", I would be better off with the Sigma Art 50 at f/1.4 (or Otus, but that isn't happening).


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 2, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's hard to do full read out of a sensor with tons of MP though. The A7S has only 10MP for instance.



I'm not sure why you say that. The effort scales linearly in the number of pixels. If you have twice as many pixels, you just throw twice as much hardware at the problem. With a two-sided or stacked chip, I'd think that it would be possible to pack all the needed processing on the back side of the sensor die, with room to spare.

What makes high-MP sensors hard is yield. The more pixels you have, the higher your tolerance for stuck pixels has to be&mdash;particularly as the feature size approaches the limits of their lithography technology.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 2, 2015)

dgatwood said:


> What makes high-MP sensors hard is yield. The more pixels you have, the higher your tolerance for stuck pixels has to be&mdash;particularly as the feature size approaches the limits of their lithography technology.



Speaking of which, has anybody gathered any statistics on dead/stuck pixel rates across the different sensor manufacturers?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 2, 2015)

dgatwood said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > What makes high-MP sensors hard is yield. The more pixels you have, the higher your tolerance for stuck pixels has to be&mdash;particularly as the feature size approaches the limits of their lithography technology.
> ...


Good question. :
I am not an advocate of "the more megapixel best". ??? But I know that a 0.1% rate pixel killed in a 52 megapixel sensor would be much less problematic than 0.1% of dead pixel on a 12 megapixel sensor.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 2, 2015)

_*Just go to a forest where the sun is dappling in and you hit a scenario that needs more DR than Canon delivers but where Exmor DR is just enough.*_

Ahhh yes. Forgot about dappling in sun forest photography.


----------



## crashpc (Jan 2, 2015)

It would be not that huge problem to do normal mapping of pixel of very high resolution sensor. It would not be that deffective as big pixel would be. With 256Mpx I couldn´t care less if there was 20px dead as long as these wasn´t grouped, because mapping these would make about no damage to the image. Another win of technology over physics so to speak...


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 2, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> I would like more resolution in the sensor at higher ISO's.
> 
> Usually I have a lot more heartburn about loss of resolution at moderately high ISO (like ISO 800 or 1600) than I do about grain/noise, which I don't really notice much until ISO 3200 or more. I find it irritating, for example, when the camera does not record eyelashes or eye or lip detail, and I see it doing that at those ISO's before I really see much noise.
> 
> Would the higher res sensors deliver more lines of resolution at the higher ISO's?



Scotty, the individual pixels get much more noisy as they get smaller. However, if you reduce the resolution, then the noise is not as apparent. DXO reduces the resolution of the sensors they test to 8MP, for example. Then they declare the low noise winner.

There seems little advantage to buying a high MP sensor camera and then reducing the resolution to make the high amount of noise look better, but it does work. It keeps you from making severe crops, which I sometimes want to do. My reason for buying a high MP body was to allow me to make those extreme crops. It was a big mistake, and I resold my D800.

At low ISO's where there is little noise, then you actually are able to use the resolution you paid for. Right now, going to medium format is the only sure way to get high MP and low noise, but its expensive. There are other limitations as well, so its a bit specialized.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 2, 2015)

Bengt Nyman said:


> While we are waiting for Canon and Nikon to introduce pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, Canons announcement about a 50 MP Bayer? DSLR? might seem a bit odd. Especially considering that Canon presently offers no lenses that would give justice to a 50MP sensor. At the same time Canon admits the need for a new line of lenses. The real reason why both Canon and Nikon are having difficulties breaking into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras has to do with lenses, and more specifically with lens mounts. A properly designed mirrorless camera takes advantage of a shorter flange distance. Hopefully not as short as Sony's 18mm, but not as long as Nikon's present 46.5mm or Canon's 44mm.
> If Canon managed to bring out an innovative DSLR? using a shorter flange distance, say 25-30mm, and a new line of high resolution lenses, Canon would be in a superb position to smoothly transition into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras.
> With a little foresight this new lens mount would have a large enough throat diameter to allow for an adapter to present EOS lenses.
> Whichever ways Canon and Nikon choose to get to pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, I predict some interesting camera days ahead.



Its more difficult to design a lens for short flange distances, due to the requirement to bend light more in order to cover a FF. Expect either poorer lenses, smaller aperture lenses, or more expensive and complex good lenses.

Existing EF lenses have no problem with 52 MP, after all, a 7D MK II is a cropped 51.7 MP FF sensor. Same for Nikon.

I'd expect a newer existing EF lens to work well with a 100mp sensor.


----------



## KingTut (Jan 2, 2015)

I have been a Canon guy for well-over ten years. On a recent trip to Africa I took a GH4, partly for size (a 600mm equiv lens was 1lb!) and partly for 96p slomo & 4K video features. On a previous trip I found the 5D nearly useless for wildlife video. However, this experience convinced me that trying to do video and stills in one camera is mistake for a *multitude* of reasons. The GH4 is a very impressive camera, but ends up comprising both. So, I will return to Canon for stills when this thing comes out. And I will do video with a video camera.
*Note:* that a 2x2 pixel average for improved sensitivity will still be a 12mp image, the same as Sony A7s. That is, you have a higher res A7r and A7s in one package. One hopes Canon exploits this, and outputs a raw image format that is pre-averaged, preferably in hardware.
The GH4 is mirrorless, which obviously has some advantages, especially for video. But as I said if you're serious about doing both, get two cameras. The other advantages are using the menus in bright sun through the view finder, and lots of nice graphic helpers superimposed over the image. Unfortunately, you end up watching the world on TV instead of being there. On African safari (anywhere, really) you want to be there, not watching on a video screen. DSLR lets you see the real subject, but not the final result. Someday we'll have a camera that combines the best of both.
*Lens:* For wildlife, where size and weight are critical, a 600mm DO that fits in an overhead compartment would be lovely.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 2, 2015)

KingTut said:


> *Note:* that a 2x2 pixel average for improved sensitivity will still be a 12mp image, the same as Sony A7s.



You know, if they did to this sensor what they do to the C100 sensor (8MP sensor binned 2x2 into a native full-HD image), you'd have a native 3-color 4k video system using almost the full sensor width. You'd be left with a horizontal crop factor of something like 1.14 or so.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Know your audience, and give them only what they need to know.
> ...


 
Yes, some quote the P-MP DXO numbers which are dumbed down for dummies. If they looked at the actual measurements and tried to understand them, they might not come away with the same opinion.


For example, the P-MP number DXO gives on the 70-200mm L MK II with the 7D MK II is apparently quoted with the lens stopped down so that resolution is limited by diffraction. Check their measurement data, and at f/2.8 aperture, their data shows a jump of P-MP from 7 to >20!

The Actual DXO measurements are not perfect, but their P-MP numbers are very misleading to those who do not understand them, or don't want to.


----------



## crashpc (Jan 2, 2015)

CR Backup admin: it seems that there is no apparent problem with shorter flange distance, as M lenses are excptional ones, and for good price.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2015)

dgatwood said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to do full read out of a sensor with tons of MP though. The A7S has only 10MP for instance.
> ...



I thought Canon was having heating issues doing more than 8MP or so full reads from their sensors.
And most of the cams are line skipping or on chip binning and not doing full reads at huge MP counts.
Maybe this new NX1 actually does, I don't know, but I hadn't heard of any other really high MP count sensors doing full reads yet.

Whatever the case others are doing, Canon and it's sensors and DIGICs has been far away from doing 50MP full sensor reads. Maybe they should be able to do it by next year, but that doesn't mean they will with the way they;ve been going.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> _*Just go to a forest where the sun is dappling in and you hit a scenario that needs more DR than Canon delivers but where Exmor DR is just enough.*_
> 
> Ahhh yes. Forgot about dappling in sun forest photography.



You appear to make it sound like that is some freakish thing. It's a super common type of photography.
Of course it depends where you live I suppose. If you live in the desert in Arizona maybe you don't hit the scenario up much. If you live in a Redwood forest or basically most forest areas then maybe you do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2015)

crashpc said:


> CR Backup admin: it seems that there is no apparent problem with shorter flange distance, as M lenses are excptional ones, and for good price.



Yes, but those lenses are designed for an APS-C image circle, which greatly simplifies the design. Lenses of similar focal length, aperture, and flange distance with an image circle sized for a full frame sensor would either be much more expensive, or if similarly priced would deliver substantially worse IQ, particularly away from the center.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 2, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > _*Just go to a forest where the sun is dappling in and you hit a scenario that needs more DR than Canon delivers but where Exmor DR is just enough.*_
> ...


I shoot several thousand images in such conditions every year, both here in Norway and abroad.

In many (most) of those cases the DR delivered by Canon sensors is good enough. But you better get your exposure right. Example; chasing a bird, getting your framing and your focus right, very often ends up with exposure being a bit off. A little headroom for adjustments in post processing would help a lot. In other cases the contrasts are such that, even with correct exposure, I would be very happy to have a few stops more.

So I am crossing my fingers that this next camera isn´t just a 7DIIx2, but a genuine 810E trasher. If not, since there are alternatives out there, I´ll have to make up my mind if I believe my life is long enough for more waiting :


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 3, 2015)

CR Backup Admin said:


> Its more difficult to design a lens for short flange distances, due to the requirement to bend light more in order to cover a FF. Expect either poorer lenses, smaller aperture lenses, or more expensive and complex good lenses.



Or lenses with a permanently recessed rear element. There's no law that says the rear element has to stick out from the rear of the lens. From a lens robustness perspective, moving the rear element inwards could be a serious win. 

Mind you, doing that wouldn't make the lenses any shorter, but it would be a reasonable design approach for long lenses that wouldn't really get much shorter with a shorter flange focal distance anyway. And it could potentially allow mechanical adapters to short-flange-focal-distance EF-M lenses so you could use the cameras with existing lighter, shorter wide lenses (using a zoom mode that blows up the center 40% of the image).


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 3, 2015)

Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?


----------



## jasny (Jan 3, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?



Not sure high megapixel sensor will have DPAF. Manufacturing could be expensive. And even decent Full HD alone could be expensive (in terms of scaling all that ~ 52MPix down to only ~2 for video).


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 3, 2015)

jasny said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?
> ...



If they're talking about scaling up the 7D Mark II sensor, it will. I just hope they have the good sense to include a touchscreen so that live view focusing won't be such an epic pain in the a**.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 3, 2015)

dgatwood said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



I have a hunch that the AF part of DPAF is only scratching the surface of what this tech may realise, so I think it will have the dual pixel, with, hopefully, more to it than just live view AF.


----------



## jasny (Jan 3, 2015)

dgatwood said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Then they should scale DIGiC 6 either


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon owe us nothing, we owe Canon nothing, get the camera and system that best suits your needs. A 52MP 135 format camera will not suit my needs.



Amen!


----------



## LorneKwe (Jan 5, 2015)

100 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



I agree that better gear isn't going to help you out that much if your composition skills are weak, your post-treatments are tasteless, or you've got a variety of other skill related issues working against you.

However, in the hands of someone who is truly fantastic at what they do, better gear could mean higher quality or larger prints. It could also mean getting out strong images in tougher situations without having to make compromises.

Forest photography or sunsets are a great example I think, where if you were given a magic sensor that can capture 20 stops of DR without noise, you could have the ability to create much more beautiful pictures in those two shooting environments.

Better lenses and more MP = more beautiful prints...so those are always welcome upgrades too. Right now, even a D810 with a flawless lens only gets you a perfect print of ~26" @ 300dpi.


----------



## jrista (Jan 5, 2015)

LorneKwe said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...




+1000


This is why so many pros (and avid enthusiasts like myself) have $30,000 - 50,000 kits. They are exceptionally skilled, and can maximize the potential of that gear.


----------



## vscd (Jan 11, 2015)

> This is why so many pros (and avid enthusiasts like myself) have $30,000 - 50,000 kits. They are exceptionally skilled, and can maximize the potential of that gear.



And Sebastião Salgado or Steve Mc Curry can make a picture better than those, with a used 200$ Canon/Nikon and a bunch of TriX Rolls and a bottle of D76. 

Of course, good gear takes the pro a few steps further... but it always comes with tradeoffs or high cost. The RAW Files of my DP3M or a Nikon D810 from a friend are already to large for the daily postprocessing. Or let me say, I would not use the full resolution everytime. But, the drawbacks, like lower ISO (more noise) will be there everytime I use the cam.

If the rumours are true I will like the way Canon thinks about the 5D line... just different sensortypes like the A7, A7R or A7S. So everyone can choose the camera, which fit's his needs best... great times ahead, I think.

For me, the sweet spot is something around 16MP/18MP on fullframe (like the D3s or 1DX), but that's just my opinion.

Btw. the interesting proof for a correlation between ISO and dynamic range is the new A7 II from Sony. Given the same sensor as the A7 had, the DR got lower while the ISO rised up  So, while Canon has better High-ISO capabilties... the DR is lacking. It's a commitment to High ISO, I think. The rest is physics. Giving up the pace on ISO would help Canon to come to the same DR as Sony does, but they don't seem to want this way. 

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-A7II-sensor-review-Mighty-mirrorless/Sony-A7II-sensor-measurement-Same-sensor-similar-scores


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 11, 2015)

vscd said:


> And Sebastião Salgado or Steve Mc Curry can make a picture better than those, with a used 200$ Canon/Nikon and a bunch of TriX Rolls and a bottle of D76.



Not of subjects that many shoot they couldn't.

They are good at their chosen subjects, but those chosen subjects are not gear intensive type shooting scenarios, besides, Salgado is post processing driven and McCurry has been mediocre and formulaic for many years.

There is no right answer for so many of these questions.


----------



## martti (Jan 12, 2015)

"Better pictures" is a highly subjective thing which can be expressed also as "pictures that I like better".
The technical quality is another matter, much more exact. With the high-tech equipment available today we can get technically excellent pictures in situation where it was impossible in the heydays of Tri-X and D76 and Magnum.

Some photographers take excellent pictures with iPhone, others with view cameras.
There are so many right answers if you know how to ask your questions.


----------



## vscd (Jan 12, 2015)

> Some photographers take excellent pictures with iPhone, others with view cameras.
> There are so many right answers if you know how to ask your questions.



Yepp, that's what I wanted to express... hunting for new technologies can be the answer. But what was the question? Remember, even if Canon makes a really nice new Sensor with >50MP, the next medium format would have answered the question 4-5 years before


----------

