# 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2015)

```
<p>We’ve heard a few times that there are going to be 2 version of the upcoming high megapixel camera, one with a low pass filter and the other without.  Nothing has changed on that front, as we continue to hear that will be the case.</p>
<p>We’ve been told a few times that this is coming in the first half of 2015, now we’re hearing the cameras will be announced in March. So by the sounds of things, don’t expect anything high megapixel related at CP+ in Japan next month.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## bartoloman (Jan 24, 2015)

Fingers crossed, once again. Like everyone, I hope they do it right this time !!


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 24, 2015)

So I should wait before I buy a 5D classic until I know the prices and the specs ...

After owning a 4k TV (to view EOS 20D images near their original resolution) I am interested in more pixels and waiting for a 10k Display ...


----------



## siegsAR (Jan 24, 2015)

I won't be able to afford it when it comes, but 50mp - I'm just eager to know what it brings.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 24, 2015)

I gave up waiting and bought a 645z

Don't hate me.


----------



## Joey (Jan 24, 2015)

Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)


----------



## pulseimages (Jan 24, 2015)

It will be overpriced for sure but I agree I hope they don't screw up the sensor.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 24, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I gave up waiting and bought a 645z
> 
> Don't hate me.


There is no reason to hate our friends who practice polygamy.

If I needed 50 megapixel at this point, I would also choose Pentax 645Z for those images that do not require agility and portability. For the other types of pictures I like Canon, apezar of sensors that look backward.


----------



## sanj (Jan 24, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I gave up waiting and bought a 645z
> 
> Don't hate me.



Good for you!!! How cool.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I gave up waiting and bought a 645z
> 
> Don't hate me.



I think a lot of us would do that if we could afford to commit that much money, and still keep our DSLR kits for more general purpose work.


----------



## Mars1954 (Jan 24, 2015)

Joey said:


> Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)


 I have this same question somebody please explain thank you.


----------



## sanj (Jan 24, 2015)

Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….


----------



## rs (Jan 24, 2015)

Joey said:


> Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)


Yes, they are one and the same thing.

Explanation: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Dilbert says:
> bad sensor bad quality bad iq


We don't know anything about the new sensor yet other than it's rumored to be 50mp.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 24, 2015)

Joey said:


> Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)


Yes, the low-pass filter is the same as AA filter. These filters aims to avoid moiré and aliasing, which occur because of the repetitive format of pixels (all the same size and shape).

In ultra-high resolution cameras with low quality lenses, the AA filter does not lack. But put a razor sharp lens, as Sigma 50mm Art, moiré and aliasing will be visible. I'd rather have an AA filter and not worry about jagged edges and false colors in my images.


----------



## Mars1954 (Jan 24, 2015)

So I guess my question would be why would there be two versions what are the advantages of each I confuse easily Thank you


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 24, 2015)

sanj said:


> Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….



Not really, they've made a few 'a' models especially suited for astrophotography. Compare:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_60d

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_60da


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 24, 2015)

Mars1954 said:


> So I guess my question would be why would there be two versions what are the advantages of each I confuse easily Thank you


If the objects in focus in the image NOT have straight lines, and has NO repetitive geometric shapes, the AA filter is not required.

A camera with no AA filter, using a high sharp lens produces images that can be printed in very large sizes while maintaining sharpness. But objects like fabrics, screens, grids, and other highly subject to moiré can ruin a photo without AA filter.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 24, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….
> ...



I remember talking to a rep at the show about the 60da and i was going to get one due to its sensitivity level vs the 60 but never bothered this looks like the same trend these 2 bodies will have and one will be cheaper i am guessing.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Mars1954 said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess my question would be why would there be two versions what are the advantages of each I confuse easily Thank you
> ...


I understand what your saying here about the AA filter that's great info to know but saying it will ruin a photo without the filter is a little over board here, im sure there's more to a photo than just a filter pass, it's good to have it if one can but it's not that serious. so many great images out there without this filter in camera's but I get your point here on the advantages of having one in the camera. Thanks.


----------



## surapon (Jan 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)
> ...



Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. ajfotofilmagem .
I have learn some thing new and great knowledge from you to day , about Low-Pass Filter.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## DSLR (Jan 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Mars1954 said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess my question would be why would there be two versions what are the advantages of each I confuse easily Thank you
> ...



way overstated in ref to "ruin a photo". Nikon has been offering this for years and haven't heard any complaints.


----------



## ScottyP (Jan 24, 2015)

How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does? My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary. 

It seems fairly straightforward and not subject to any patent issues vs. Fuji. How could anyone patent "any pattern in the world other than Bayer"?


----------



## drjlo (Jan 24, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> We don't know anything about the new sensor yet other than it's rumored to be 50mp.



Is it just me who thinks 50 mp is not a good idea unless the sensor size is substantially larger than even full frame?


----------



## nvsravank (Jan 24, 2015)

If it is the same as the quality of the 7D mark II then I will pass on it. 

For my purposes I need clean pictures and the quality I want I get up to ISO 1600 on 5D mark III. The 7D mark II comes upto ISO 800 at that quality. I need ISO 1600 regularly at the dances I shoot for the spot lighted sequences. I am going to rent the 7d mark II this year to test it myself before making a decision.

Even if it is good enough for me, I think I would prefer two cameras with different lenses so that I don't have to do the switching dance as much. I don't expect the same AF system on this 50mp behemoth. 

Lots of choices coming for canon shooters. Maybe that will put an end to the switchers!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 24, 2015)

nvsravank said:


> If it is the same as the quality of the 7D mark II then I will pass on it.
> 
> For my purposes I need clean pictures and the quality I want I get up to ISO 1600 on 5D mark III. The 7D mark II comes upto ISO 800 at that quality. I need ISO 1600 regularly at the dances I shoot for the spot lighted sequences. I am going to rent the 7d mark II this year to test it myself before making a decision.
> 
> ...



It doesn't sound like you need 50mp for your purposes either... :


----------



## tron (Jan 24, 2015)

I prefer my 44Mpixels (two 5DMkIII cameras     )


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 24, 2015)

If that camera does come, then it should have atleast USB 3.0 as it will be needed to transfer large files within decent amount of time.


----------



## Perio (Jan 24, 2015)

I hope Canon doesn't mess up with the price...


----------



## chauncey (Jan 24, 2015)

> I gave up waiting and bought a 645z


I would have followed suit...but I do to much macro work and it my impression that you need a lot 
of extension tubes. :-\


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 24, 2015)

sanj said:


> Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….



Fourth time - 20D/20Da, 60D/60Da, 6D/6Dn are the first three.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 24, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> So by the sounds of things, don’t expect anything high megapixel related at CP+ in Japan next month.



So, what will be at CP+?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 24, 2015)

Joey said:


> Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)


 
A low pass filter is often used as a anti-aliasing filter. Its the simplest. 

A low pass filter allows lower light frequencies to go thru, but blocks higher ones. Kinda like a UV filter that blocks UV light.

The high frequencies cause Moiré in the final image which is difficult to eliminate. As pixel count increases, the need for a optical low pass filter is reduced.

A low pass filter can be done in the electronics or optically, but its typically done both optically and electronically. We are talking elimination of the optical low pass filter, not the electronic one. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing_filter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency

Several years ago, Panasonic produced a video called Demystifying Digital Cinema Camera Specifications

It covers many common questions and is reasonably easy to understand.

There are seven parts, and its worth while to view them all. It gives you a appreciation for the compromises that go into designing digital cameras, and explains why no one system is the best at everything.

The link is to part one, its easy to find all seven parts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqq8QKMmtYg


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….
> ...



The two Da versions are relevant, the 6Dn isn't, that is like saying the 600-EX and 600-EX-RT are different, technically they are, but the exclusion of locally restricted radio transmissions isn't a big deal.

But you are missing the big ones, 1D-1Ds, 1D MkII-1Ds MkII, 1D MkIII-1Ds MkIII, 1DX-1DC, the last two might be very similar but have very different capabilities and do have different hardware and firmware.

Canon will make what they think they can sell, and leveraging the 5 series family will likely prove much more profitable than the 1 series. I still like the common sense of a 5D MkIV (MkIII but 'better'), a 5DS (high MP), and a 5DC (video orientated), to me that makes a whole lot of sense.


----------



## siegsAR (Jan 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….
> ...


Plus the 70D, the ones that has wifi, and the ones that don't - if that counts. ;D


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2015)

drjlo said:


> Is it just me who thinks 50 mp is not a good idea unless the sensor size is substantially larger than even full frame?



Yes. Still happy shooting 8 megapix? ;D

Seriously, Canon acknowledges that their users want and need a high megapix camera. Everyone else can just stay with one of the old models. No problem. I'll post samples here.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2015)

nvsravank said:


> If it is the same as the quality of the 7D mark II then I will pass on it.


So would I for sure.



nvsravank said:


> Lots of choices coming for canon shooters. Maybe that will put an end to the switchers!


Not if the above is true. 

However, I hope and expect Canon will take a leap now and show us that they can outdo Nikon.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jan 24, 2015)

Joey said:


> Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)



AA filter = Low Pass filter is my understanding. I have the D800 with the filter, the D800E where the filter stack has been neutralized, and the D810 and the D7100 that have no AA filter. The cameras without the filter have all better resolution. In order to see that better resolution, a person needs to use a tripod and a cable release, probably live view and use either the 3 second delayed exposure or the MUP/electronic shutter of the D810. Of course a top notch lens is also required. My highest res photo was of a harbor shot from above using the Nikon 85mm 1.4 at F11. Even now I'm amazed at the 3 foot x 2 foot print it made and the detail it shows that I've never seen before in such a shot. For landscape work I would be buying a camera without the filter for sure. For landscape work, moiré does not seem to be a problem. Even with chain link fences taken at a distance I can resolve the chain but I see no moiré. Other type of photography may encounter the problem but I just haven't run into it. I keep my D800 around on the off chance that I run into it.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve been told a few times that this is coming in the first half of 2015, now we’re hearing the cameras will be announced in March.



This has to be one of the weakest rumours ever even for this site. No new info here. :'(

I'd say CR-1 on this one as much as I am hoping/expecting/guessing Canon's new high megapix camera will hit stores in April.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)
> ...



The image of the pool balls is not a representation of an AA filter on a camera.

That's a digitally rendered image with anti-aliasing digitally applied, very different from a screen that manipulates light before it gets to a camera sensor.
Most types of digital Anti-Aliasing (Multi-Sampling or Super-Sampling) only appily the effect where it's needed, and can even bring out detail in a digitally rendered image that would not have been there otherwise. It maintains sharpness while fixing certain problems.
The AA filter on a camera would be comparable to a post processing AA filter, like FXAA, which simply blends every pixel on the screen with its neighbour, which eliminates both aliasing and crisp edges.
I would never recommend using a post process AA filter with a 3D rendered image.
The AA filter on your camera is a necessary evil because without it certain patterns will trick the debayering algorithm into producing patterns that don't exist (AKA Moire, the first example).


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 24, 2015)

nvsravank said:


> For my purposes I need clean pictures and the quality I want I get up to ISO 1600 on 5D mark III. The 7D mark II comes upto ISO 800 at that quality. I need ISO 1600 regularly at the dances I shoot for the spot lighted sequences. I am going to rent the 7d mark II this year to test it myself before making a decision.



If you compared images taken at ISO 1600 with a FF'd version of the 7D2 sensor and a 5D3 with both downsampled to the same resolution, the FF'd 7D2 sensor would almost certainly be cleaner due to the significantly higher QE.


----------



## Freddie (Jan 24, 2015)

*It will depend on the image dynamic range and shadow detail.*

If Canon will produce a sensor with the dynamic range and relatively noiseless shadows of the Sony sensor, I will consider it. I did consider buying the Nikon D800 when it was first available. That was not because of the resolution which is excessive for most usage but for the quality of the image shadow details.
I really don't have much use for such high-resolution image files although I could change my mind if the dynamic range is an improvement.


----------



## Joey (Jan 24, 2015)

Thanks all for filter explanation. I understand the concept of an anti-aliasing filter now. Still a bit puzzled about the low pass filter. Several have said the low pass filter is an anti-aliasing filter - but if it passes low frequencies and not high ones, how does that help - and why doesn't it mess with the colour balance of the image?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 24, 2015)

Joey said:


> Thanks all for filter explanation. I understand the concept of an anti-aliasing filter now. Still a bit puzzled about the low pass filter. Several have said the low pass filter is an anti-aliasing filter - but if it passes low frequencies and not high ones, how does that help - and why doesn't it mess with the colour balance of the image?



AA filter = low pass filter. In fact, they're often called OLPF (Optical Low Pass Filter).

The corner frequency is set somewhere near the nyquist frequency. The idea is to filter out the spacial frequencies those the sensor can capture.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 24, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> It will be overpriced for sure...



Possibly, but the introductory prices of the 70D and 7DII, as well as some of the recent lens releases, might point to the possibility of a pleasant surprise for the price point. Add in the weak yen, and (at least in North America), we might see a very reasonable price.

That said, this will be a huge jump in resolution for Canon, so I won't be surprised at high intro price...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 24, 2015)

If it's March and given the Canon 5d MKiIII was launched in Birmingham, England at Focus on Imaging the show successor The Photography Show is a good bet because Canon is already promoting their presence their in January and the show is expanding this year. I expect they will not be the only ones as all the main manufacturers are all attending. 
I'm going to visit for the first two days and the Canon stand will be my first port of call.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 24, 2015)

nvsravank said:


> If it is the same as the quality of the 7D mark II then I will pass on it.
> 
> For my purposes I need clean pictures...



I don't believe pixel density is the reason the 5DIII produces cleaner images at a stop higher ISO than the 7DII. It's about the fact that the full frame sensor gathers so much more light. With the improvements in quantum efficiency others have mentioned, I would expect a full frame sensor scaled up from the 7DII to be quite clean (at least as good as what the 5DIII can do, and perhaps a bit better.

I'm not an expert on this, though, so I'll let Lee Jay, jrista, Don, Nancy, Neuro and others chime in if they feel so inclined...


----------



## Gary Irwin (Jan 24, 2015)

As the owner of a 36MP (D800) I think 50MP is getting into overkill territory for most folks. Consider all of the threads about soft images and "AF" problems from the 7DII...and I'll bet 99% of the complaints can be traced back to poor technique/mishandling of the camera. I predict you're going to see a lot of similar threads for this 50MP body too.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 24, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)
> ...



Thanks for the links!


----------



## Jeffrey (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm not excited about 50 megapixels in that my 1D-X does everything and more than I need. I suppose if I were to determine I needed a monster file size I'd go rent the camera for a day or two. I'm more interested in increasing my glass arsenal with a the newest Canon 600mm lens and if Zeiss comes out with something new in the wide angle arena for my 1D-X I'll be keenly interested. 

I have to wonder how many people actually need huge files as compared to the megapixel marketing war that is taking place. If you really want file sizes that will choke your computer, go rent a Phase One IQ280 back that shoots 80 megapixel files!


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 24, 2015)

Always the next show


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 24, 2015)

Famateur said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > If it is the same as the quality of the 7D mark II then I will pass on it.
> ...



You are correct.

In fact, the 7DII's sensor is better than the 5DIII sensor. It's just under 1 stop behind, but the size difference should make it 1 1/3 stops behind. Scale that sensor up and it will automatically be 1 1/3 stops better.


----------



## canonvoir (Jan 24, 2015)

Why wait until March and not CP+?? At this point, a month shouldn't make a difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2015)

canonvoir said:


> Why wait until March and not CP+?? At this point, a month shouldn't make a difference.



A month means greater ROI on the existing model.


----------



## Omni Images (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm excited ! .. even though I just dropped AU$15K on a second hand Phase One 645DF+ with a P45+ back and two lenses 35mm and 80mm.
I want to print my images big to go onto peoples walls. I have been able to do that with stitching, but more and more I am taking images that are just one image shots with moving subjects. I shoot a lot of beach/ocean with moving waves, and stitching is really hard to do with moving lines of water, or shots from the water into moving waves such as shots like Clark Little's images.
I also like to shoot wildlife, so a longer lens is needed, and you can't get the reach needed using medium format.
So for me yes a larger file size is needed to print big.
Looking forward to seeing what Canon brings.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > nvsravank said:
> ...



That sounds suspiciously like a sensor to look forward to. :-X


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonvoir said:
> 
> 
> > Why wait until March and not CP+?? At this point, a month shouldn't make a difference.
> ...



Or possibly this; (cut from Wikipedia)

"The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is a professional full-frame digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera made by Canon. It has a 22.3 megapixel CMOS image sensor. Succeeding the EOS 5D Mark II, it was announced on 2 March 2012,[2] the 25th anniversary of the announcement of the first camera in the EOS line, the EOS 650. It was also Canon's 75th anniversary."

What better way to mark the 28th and 78th anniversary than by releasing another new body with a sensor that out specs the competition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > canonvoir said:
> ...



Yeah, anniversaries are nice and all...but shareholders prefer ¥.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jan 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > nvsravank said:
> ...



Roger that! Another way of looking at it would be to put a (hypothetical) 1.6x teleconverter on the 5D3 to compensate for the crop factor of the 7D2. The exposure factor would ~ wipe out the 5D3's ISO advantage.


----------



## tphillips63 (Jan 24, 2015)

Gary Irwin said:


> As the owner of a 36MP (D800) I think 50MP is getting into overkill territory for most folks. Consider all of the threads about soft images and "AF" problems from the 7DII...and I'll bet 99% of the complaints can be traced back to poor technique/mishandling of the camera. I predict you're going to see a lot of similar threads for this 50MP body too.


I had this happen to me too when I first used the 7D Mk II, a lot of soft images VS 1DX on the same shoot. I figured it was me. I've not read other posts about it yet but will have to use it some more and determine where I'm messing up. I'll still get a higher MP full frame body when it comes out though.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



These days, they might even prefer $.


----------



## Freddie (Jan 24, 2015)

*Low-Pass Filter*

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter


----------



## gdanmitchell (Jan 25, 2015)

Joey said:


> Explanation please? What is a low pass filter in this context? What is it for and if it's necessary, why build a camera without one? Is it the same as an anti-aliasing filter (another term I don't understand...)



It is essentially a "low pass" filter that "smoothes" image data that could otherwise produce moire distortion patterns. In general this is not a negative thing, and you can produce extremely detailed photographs from such images. On the other hand, some cameras now come with sensors that do not have a the "low pass" (or "anti-alias") filters. Nikons D810 doesn't have one, nor to the Fujifilm X-trans sensor cameras. The idea is that they might produce slightly sharper images in some cases, with a slightly increased chance of moire/aliasing distortion with some subjects.

If none of this makes sense to you, frankly you can probably just ignore it.



drjlo said:


> Is it just me who thinks 50 mp is not a good idea unless the sensor size is substantially larger than even full frame?



If things advance the way they have though the previous development of DSLR sensors, the higher MP sensor will have the same or better low light performance, dynamic range, noise performance, and cost. Unless something changes this time around, there is no disadvantage to the higher MP sensor.

(Some will tell you that they will need more computer storage, faster processors, and so forth — but in the grand scheme those things also advance at a rate that keeps their cost relatively stable or declining.)

In the best of circumstances — very careful photographer, excellent lenses, good aperture and focus decisions — there are image resolution advantage to higher MP. Even in cases where the image isn't going to be resolved with greater sharpness, a large print will require less interpolation to deal with potential pixelation. (This is an issue for those who make very large prints.) It is also possible that denser pixels can produce smoother gradients, and they also reduce the "grain size" of any noise.


----------



## erjlphoto (Jan 25, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I gave up waiting and bought a 645z
> 
> Don't hate me.



Hope you will relate you experience with the 645z in future posts.
You know we are all secretly jealous....right?


----------



## erjlphoto (Jan 25, 2015)

Gary Irwin said:


> As the owner of a 36MP (D800) I think 50MP is getting into overkill territory for most folks. Consider all of the threads about soft images and "AF" problems from the 7DII...and I'll bet 99% of the complaints can be traced back to poor technique/mishandling of the camera. I predict you're going to see a lot of similar threads for this 50MP body too.



Don't know how to pose this question without the engineer types jumping down my windpipe, I am certainly not one of those. Is it actually an existing dual pixel sensor reworked to 48-50mp or really a brand new sensor??? For some reason this sounds too good to be true, hope to be wrong. 

TIME WILL TELL!

btw, not a Sony fan boy....love my Canon


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes they do prefer money, and what better way to pump up share holders confidence than announcing a ground breaking camera and point out how the EOS line is 28 years strong and the company is still moving forward in the market place after 78 years. It is all in the spin. Money is nice but spin is free, in todays market place you have to keep those share prices up .


----------



## canon eos 50d (Jan 25, 2015)

you think this will be the EOS 3D?


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2015)

canon eos 50d said:


> you think this will be the EOS 3D?



Wouldn't it require two lenses to be a 3D camera?

I think 2D would make more sense.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 25, 2015)

I am not sure about the specifics vis a vis the low pass filter, but I do know that Moire patterns are a serious matter when doing video. They can pop up anywhere and you have to remind the 'actors' not to wear finely patterned or striped shirts. Sooo. . . maybe this 'feature' will be a factor when choosing the version of the camera to buy. If you are going to use it for video then maybe you go with the low pass filter? I guess we will find out.


----------



## Machaon (Jan 25, 2015)

erjlphoto said:


> Is it actually an existing dual pixel sensor reworked to 48-50mp or really a brand new sensor???



My understanding is that the "high resolution" 5Ds is rumoured to pack the 7D Mark II (22.3 x 14.9 mm, APS-C DPAF CMOS) sensor scaled up to Full Frame (36 x 24 mm).

That would make sense, it terms of leveraging the R&D costs for the newly-released DPAF CMOS technology. The production issue then becomes one of making Full Frame sensor yields from a given silicon wafer economical using existing manufacturing processes.

Just scaling up the 7D II sensor suggests that a 5Ds might have a 51.9 MP sensor with the same pixel pitch and - I imagine therefore - sensitivity performance as the 7D II.

In contrast, the rumour for the 5D Mark IV seems to be of a novel sensor.

At the end of the day, who outside of Canon's "circle of trust" really knows until they announce something? All of the above is just hearsay, rumour and inference!


----------



## e17paul (Jan 25, 2015)

The real competitor for this camera will not be other full frame cameras, but the Pentax 645Z


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

e17paul said:


> The real competitor for this camera will not be other full frame cameras, but the Pentax 645Z



Not really. Anybody that has owned a crop camera then moved to a ff camera and then left the crop camera to gather dust knows the intrinsic difference that sensor size makes, well that happens again going to medium format digital, throw in the lack of AA filters on medium format and the differences become even bigger.

In the same way that crop can't ever deliver what ff can (though I am not saying crop cameras are not very good and have several key advantages over ff cameras in specific situations), ff will never be able to deliver what medium format digital can. The point at what each sensor size becomes 'good enough' for each individual is an entirely personal call.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > The real competitor for this camera will not be other full frame cameras, but the Pentax 645Z
> ...



I use a crop camera and a full-frame camera side-by-side all the time. I just usually use a lens on the crop camera that's one stop faster than the lens on the full-frame camera allowing me to use one stop lower ISO on the crop camera. The resulting images are virtually indistinguishable from each other.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > e17paul said:
> ...



I don't care what your opinion of the differences are, or are not, as I very clearly said. 



> *The point at what each sensor size becomes 'good enough' for each individual is an entirely personal call.*


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



You missed the point. The differences are removed if the smaller sensor shoots at a lower ISO.

A full-frame sensor is like a faster lens. The difference between 1.6-crop and full-frame is 1 1/3 stops.


----------



## ScottyP (Jan 25, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does? My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary.
> 
> It seems fairly straightforward and not subject to any patent issues vs. Fuji. How could anyone patent "any pattern in the world other than Bayer"?



Yes, I am bumping my own question. I don't oftrn do that but I really wonder what others think of the question. If they omit the filter, there are compromises. Why not go the Fuji x-trans route and use a less simple pixel pattern?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


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



I didn't miss your point, I ignored it. 

How do you shoot with a lens 1 1/3 stop faster on your crop camera if you are shooting on your ff camera with a 1.2, or a 1.4? How about if you are shooting 2.8 zooms all around? What if you are going big with a 300/400 f2.8 on the ff, or a longer f4?

There are an awful lot of people here who did exactly what I laid out, owned a crop camera and then got a ff one and hardly touched the crop camera again afterwards, virtually every one of them will say they see the difference in their images, if you can't in yours then that is up to you.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

I didn't miss your point, I ignored it. [/quote]

Even worse.



> How do you shoot with a lens 1 1/3 stop faster on your crop camera if you are shooting on your ff camera with a 1.2, or a 1.4?



You can't. That's the biggest reason I own a full-frame camera. It's capable of shooting in areas outside the performance envelope of the crop camera.



> How about if you are shooting 2.8 zooms all around? What if you are going big with a 300/400 f2.8 on the ff, or a longer f4?



If you use a longer f/4 (say, 500/4), then a 300/2.8 on crop will pretty much do the same thing.



> There are an awful lot of people here who did exactly what I laid out, owned a crop camera and then got a ff one and hardly touched the crop camera again afterwards, virtually every one of them will say they see the difference in their images, if you can't in yours then that is up to you.



I can - it's a stop, same as I can see the difference between f/4.5 and f/2.8.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



I have no intention of getting drawn in to one of your back and forth black holes either dilbert.

But APS-C have more advantages than the spurious pixel density which has been illustrated time and time again to be largely meaningless in real world shooting of same generation sensors. There is the cost advantage, the features advantage (fps, swivel screens etc), the AF area as a percentage of the frame advantage, size advantage, weight advantage etc etc.......


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> But APS-C have more advantages than the spurious pixel density which has been illustrated time and time again to be largely meaningless in real world shooting of same generation sensors.



Other way around. It's virtually always to be proven to be real and about what the math would lead one to expect.


----------



## ScottyP (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does? My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary.
> ...



That is a good point. I had not thought of it. 

HOWEVER, Fuji is Fuji. Canon is Canon. Adobe always does the quickest updates for Canon cameras.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jan 25, 2015)

if the new camera has enough FPS.
[/quote]

Touche! It would be amazing if it could do 10 fps like the 7D2 while shooting raw full-sized full-res. images!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 25, 2015)

Joey said:


> Thanks all for filter explanation. I understand the concept of an anti-aliasing filter now. Still a bit puzzled about the low pass filter. Several have said the low pass filter is an anti-aliasing filter - but if it passes low frequencies and not high ones, how does that help - and why doesn't it mess with the colour balance of the image?


When someone speaks low pass filter refers to the spatial frequency, not the frequency of light rays (between the infra red and ultraviolet).

Spatial frequency is a series of alternating lines (black and white) in a given physical space. Imagine a test chart with thousands of black and white lines that alternate. As the thinner the line, the higher the spatial frequency.

When the spatial frequency of the test chart coincide with the spatial frequency of the sensor (sensor pixels and lines chart is the same size) moiré occurs.


----------



## sanj (Jan 25, 2015)

Our favorite expert says "D800E is very slightly sharper, and somewhat more susceptible to moiré patterns and aliasing artifacts.

Aliasing and moiré are potential problems only when photographing man-made things like fabrics, brick walls, screens and tiled roofs that have fine, repeating patterns. The only other potential problems are when photographing star fields or sparkles from the sun on the tops of waves on the sea.

Moiré never happens with natural subjects, except if you're a bug photographer. In any case, you have to work at it to find subjects for which aliasing and moiré are problems, so for me, the slight sharpness improvement of the D800E is more than worth it."


----------



## drob (Jan 25, 2015)

Question is...is there a need for 50mp cameras or just updates to the cameras they have out now? I can't imagine selling too many 50mp camera (price tag guessing $3500+). How about updating the 6D and 5DMarkIII? I see that appealing more to the masses than a 50mp specialty camera that no one can afford.


----------



## Omni Images (Jan 25, 2015)

drob said:


> Question is...is there a need for 50mp cameras or just updates to the cameras they have out now? I can't imagine selling too many 50mp camera (price tag guessing $3500+). How about updating the 6D and 5DMarkIII? I see that appealing more to the masses than a 50mp specialty camera that no one can afford.



That's what market leaders do. !
For a brand to be on top, they see the need to cater for all their potential customers, or they should.
Look at their lens line ... how many people will want, need, or afford a 600 or 800mm lens .. but they make them, and they are by no means a token effort just to have it in the line up .. they are the shit !
In my line of work I make a wide range of shapes of skateboards that don't sell as much as the standard shapes, but to be a serious brand in the industry it's something I don't bat an eyelid about stocking.


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 25, 2015)

Has Canon pulled the trigger on Generation Next maybe?

According to rumours from this site, the 6Dii, next XXXD and the 50mp seems to be substantial leaps over previous iterations 

Perhaps we need to up our ambition in terms of what to expect a new camera to deliver by expanding the possible that new technology can bring.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 25, 2015)

To all the sports, journalism and event photographers out there: No, this camera is not for you. You can safely ignore it, while all the landscape, macro, and "less trigger happy" photographers will gobble the thing up and relish every moment manipulating the huge image files.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 25, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does? My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary.
> ...



If it is a question of patents it depends what Fuji has stated in its patent.

If they patented a "non-rectangular and non-aligned sensor pattern" you have no freedom to move from the standard pattern of current Bayer sensors. If you write down a patent it is always a good idea to block as much alternatives for others as you can. Large companies are experts on that - I think.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2015)

Tell me is this and example of moiré?

Jack


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The only consideration then would be if the new camera has enough FPS.



With the speed Nikon is delivering with the new 750D I would be very surprised if a high megapix Canon camera does not match the 5DIII (or close enough) in fps. I actually expect it to be slightly faster. 5DIII is not a fast shooter already.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 25, 2015)

drob said:


> Question is...is there a need for 50mp cameras or just updates to the cameras they have out now? I can't imagine selling too many 50mp camera (price tag guessing $3500+). How about updating the 6D and 5DMarkIII? I see that appealing more to the masses than a 50mp specialty camera that no one can afford.



Well, the 5DIII was given an intro price of 3.500 so that seems to be the range Canon is going for. I expect the initial price to be a little lower to match Nikon's agressive pricing strategy.

How is introducing a 50 megapix camera less appealing and more special than when the ground breaking 5D and 5DII where taken to market by Canon? Are you still shooting 8 megapix?

If the specs are right I'll very likely even preorder Canon's newest and finest offer (never did that before...).


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 25, 2015)

erjlphoto said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I gave up waiting and bought a 645z
> ...



I'm doing a write up on it now. It's really good and the best image quality I've seen on any camera, anywhere.

Plus the skin tones are great. Sony finally sorted their stuff out in that regard.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Probably because each Canon camera is so much like the previous one in terms of IQ, there is very little for Adobe to tune!



Gotta hand it to you Dilbert old bean you can squeeze a dig about IQ into just about the tiniest and least relevant opportunities imaginable.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Maybe but the Fuji-specific pattern is on the market for years, as far as I know. If you have the basic programming for the pattern the rest might be minor adaptions.

I think it doesn't matter if you have 18 (magic number) or 24 or 36 MPix / 11 or 14 bit of DR for the basic conversion from bayer pattern -> rgb pixel. Changes in spectral sensitivity distribution for R, G and B pixels might be much more complicated to adapt!

If Adobe has lens distortion correction algorithms/data for sensor-lens combinations Canon has much more to do than others to supply the data for a new sensor - something like 120 datasets to measure and evaluate ...


----------



## weixing (Jan 25, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> erjlphoto said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...


Hi,
Err... I thought 645z is a Pentax camera?? Although they use Sony sensor, but the final colour output had nothing to do with the sensor... it's the camera firmware that determine the image colour, not the sensor.

Have a nice day.


----------



## canonvoir (Jan 25, 2015)

The questions become what quality suffering do cheaper non L lens photos are produce?

Which, if any, L lenses aresuitedfor 50MP?

Will Sony's offering be more attractive in both price and size?

Will Canon shooters continue to jump ship at the current rate?


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 25, 2015)

canonvoir said:


> The questions become what quality suffering do cheaper non L lens photos are produce?
> 
> Which, if any, L lenses aresuitedfor 50MP?



I don't understand the first question.

As for the second, if L lenses aren't suited for 50MP which Sony ones are suited for their cameras . . .



> Will Sony's offering be more attractive in both price and size?


Depends on what you want it for. It may well be for some people.



> Will Canon shooters continue to jump ship at the current rate?


What rate is that? I see lots of people saying they will, very few saying they have.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 25, 2015)

9VIII said:


> To all the sports, journalism and event photographers out there: No, this camera is not for you. You can safely ignore it, while all the landscape, macro, and "less trigger happy" photographers will gobble the thing up and relish every moment manipulating the huge image files.



? Never stop to wonder how people define other photographer's needs. 

I mostly do these three kind of shots plus I usually go back with a couple of thousand shots - and I'll certainly get one early. And another on top if its a good experience.

As for fps I'm sure it'll be at least as fast as the 5DII's that have served me so very well the last 5 years. Processor capacity has easily jumped enough since back then to handle 50 mp swiftly.


----------



## canonvoir (Jan 25, 2015)

The Sony 55mm 1.8 is defintely suited for 50MP. I'm guessing most if not all (even though they just have a handful) of the Sonys are good for 50MP. They seem to have produced their own L lens lineup without producing too many non L types. Defintely going for higher end. 

First question, what effect will non L canon lenses have on photo quality from a FF 50MP camera?

Don't know the rate but I see it happen more and more both professionally and with high profile shooters. I myself will be making a decision on picking up a new Sony or Canon once everyone puts their cards on the table. IBIS is a strong draw for me with video. 

I've even seen a high profile photographer shooting Sony at an SEC football game.


----------



## Gary Irwin (Jan 25, 2015)

canonvoir said:


> The questions become what quality suffering do cheaper non L lens photos are produce?
> 
> Which, if any, L lenses aresuitedfor 50MP?



I think you'll find most lenses including consumer lenses will not reveal significant problems with a 50MP camera PROVIDED the images are downsized to "normal" resolutions web posting or printing. But with weaker lenses problems will start to appear when cropping heavily (which is a temptation with all of those pixels...non-pro's will try to compensate for lack of long glass which gets really tricky working with such tiny pixels) or are printing/posting very high resolution images.


----------



## Hazmatt (Jan 25, 2015)

This Sensor/Camera needs to so much more than just about Megapixels,having been a loyal Canon user for more years than i care to mention i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon. I so want this to be right and mirror less would be good as well. Canon's lens line up has become stellar and the super wide will probably arrive this year to make it complete.50mp must surely be the limit for FF sensor as other factors start creeping in that are detrimental to image quality as i understand it. Fingers crossed as this needs to be a Nikon 810 beater to put Canon back at the top.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 25, 2015)

canonvoir said:


> The questions become what quality suffering do cheaper non L lens photos are produce?



Don't let Canon marketing confuse you, painting a red ring on a lens doesn't do any magic on its own. It's just a correlation if targeted iq, and price - that latter depends on production volume. There are very good non-L lenses around like the recent IS primes, not even starting to mention 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma which have excellent bang for the buck.



Hazmatt said:


> i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon.



The dynamic range at low iso of Nikon/Sony is tied to patents and sensor tech Canon doesn't have, so we'll have to see if they can come up with an alternative. Of course you can use Magic Lantern as a workaround to get single-shot dynamic range well above 14 stops in 16bit raw files for free right now.

But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

Hazmatt said:


> This Sensor/Camera needs to so much more than just about Megapixels,having been a loyal Canon user for more years than i care to mention i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon. I so want this to be right and mirror less would be good as well. Canon's lens line up has become stellar and the super wide will probably arrive this year to make it complete.50mp must surely be the limit for FF sensor as other factors start creeping in that are detrimental to image quality as i understand it. Fingers crossed as this needs to be a Nikon 810 beater to put Canon back at the top.



Mirrorless would make it DOA for probably 90% of its potential users, cleaner shadows at base ISO would be nice for a very limited amount of photography, and 50MP is no where close to the upper limit for a full-frame sensor. Think gigapixel.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Hazmatt said:
> 
> 
> > This Sensor/Camera needs to so much more than just about Megapixels,having been a loyal Canon user for more years than i care to mention i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon. I so want this to be right and mirror less would be good as well. Canon's lens line up has become stellar and the super wide will probably arrive this year to make it complete.50mp must surely be the limit for FF sensor as other factors start creeping in that are detrimental to image quality as i understand it. Fingers crossed as this needs to be a Nikon 810 beater to put Canon back at the top.
> ...



agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)



LOL. Now go and shoot a resolution chart with that nifty fifty wide open and tell me what you are getting off center.............................


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The MkIII is not too bad, really. I find it gives me about one more stop than the MkII and much,much less banding. Mind I shoot in MRAW/SRAW1 with both bodies so this includes the downsampling effect (~10.5 megapixels effectively). Yes, ~10 megapixels really is enough for my purposes.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing.



Development cycles count, not release dates. 5d3/1dx were developed in conjunction, so they are both "later releases" vs. 5d2 - same goes for the 6d's improved readout system.



dilbert said:


> The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will Canon do that again? Wait and see.



You're confusing the sensor with the whole imaging chain. Esp. in the current Canon design, the sensor die is only part of what matters, the analog readout and further analog/digital processing is different between 5d3/1dx/6d. 

You can see the result in the different noise patterns 5d2->5d3 and the big differences in dynamic range curve on the 1dx. And while the 5d2 sensor is the same generation as 5d3/1dx/6d, the whole system is a big improvement.


----------



## nvsravank (Jan 25, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> If you compared images taken at ISO 1600 with a FF'd version of the 7D2 sensor and a 5D3 with both downsampled to the same resolution, the FF'd 7D2 sensor would almost certainly be cleaner due to the significantly higher QE.





mrsfotografie said:


> It doesn't sound like you need 50mp for your purposes either... :



I don't need 50 mp. Absolutely true. More to the point i think it would cause more trouble for my use.
I was looking at it as an upgrade to my current 5D Mark III / along with it. I think i am trying to convince myself to buy the 7D Mark II 

1. When i moved from 5D to 5D Mark III, i noticed that I had to increase the shutter speed. Why you ask?, because i take dances where the dancers hands are moving very fast, what i noticed was even though the slow moving body was in perfect sharpness the hands were a bit blurry and it could only be attributed to the speed of movement. I could arrest movement only using higher shutter speed. Why was this not as much an issue in 5D with the same settings i wondered. My current hypothesis is that the size of the photo sites was much smaller in the Mark III and so i needed faster shutter speeds. with 50 MP, i am afraid it will be true again. I am going to test this hypothesis with a rental of the 7D Mark II this year.

2. Yes i can try reducing the resolution but already it is very slow in lightroom to review photos just for sharpness. Don't want to spend time and money on processing photos that are not good. 50 MP resolution wont be of use. I print at 12x12 inches for the most part. So even the old 5D's 12 MP was enough if fully utilized. The 5D Mark III just allows me to crop and so i don't have to worry so much about tight cropping which means i get more usable shots. Less number of photos with hands and feet cutoff due to sudden dancer movements. So more resolution not really useful for me.

3. The lure of the 7D Mark II is the additional reach of my 70-200 lens. I shoot my photos at F3.5 to F4 to keep enough of the dancer in focus. So I think i will have additional reach due to the 1.6 crop factor. With a full frame 50 MP monster, i surely will get reach but then i just have to crop out more. So why buy this instead of the 7D Mark II.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



One thing is clear: a ~50MP sensor is new. It's not a derivative of any full frame sensor Canon has ever produced.

As for the 3 vs 2, I have both, and my 2 collects dust even if I'm shooting manual focus on a tripod. Why? It's better.


----------



## bluemoon (Jan 25, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Tell me is this and example of moiré?
> 
> Jack



there seems to be a little bit of it on the left wing. It's hard to tell as the feathers are crossing and it is slightly blurry in that part, but I would say it's there in two spots. 

Why do you ask?

pierre


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)
> ...



we're talking about where the limits are, not how poor some lenses are currently. Yes current nifty fifities are dire off centre, that's why I stated it needed to be diffraction limited.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


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



You are talking about one set of currently totally meaningless theoretical 'limits' that have been shown to not be hard limits. 

Canon showed tech years ago that showed they were working on sub diffraction level imaging for consumer cameras and there are advantages to resolve below diffraction levels especially when using Bayer array covered sensors. Besides, lenses would have to far exceed diffraction limited resolution for the system, lens and sensor, to resolve them.

Do not attach any importance to 'diffraction limits' when thinking sensor resolution for consumer cameras.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2015)

Thanks bluemoon,

I've seen the effect in the items previously mentioned but then I saw the comment that it doesn't occur in nature and so I went back to look at my waxwing shots and found this sample. I believe I've had similar and worse on some other waxwing shots and didn't like it and wondered where it came from. Never noticed it on other birds. Curious bird me is I guess.

Jack


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like.

I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

sanj said:


> Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….



Not at all, they've done such a thing even going way back. Look at the 20D/20Da for one (the latter with the sensor filter altered to allow for much better IR performance).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Mars1954 said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess my question would be why would there be two versions what are the advantages of each I confuse easily Thank you
> ...



That's not true (unless you go to the extreme case where the image is nothing but 100% solid colors and very smooth gradients with no real details), although it does make it tougher for the eye to instantly notice the bad effects if the image doesn't have what you mention.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 25, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like. I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.



Why's that? Canon has made clear that a high res sensor isn't designed for high sensitivity or high fps, can't have your cake and eat it!

If it's the 7d2 design upscaled that's fine *if* the price is ok, much better than a "dream camera" for €6000+. If it's essentially the crop sensor on a larger die, all "reach advantage" reasons of crop become obsolete. If you've won the lottery and want the best possible iq, you'd better look at mf digital sensors outside Canon.

As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

Joey said:


> Thanks all for filter explanation. I understand the concept of an anti-aliasing filter now. Still a bit puzzled about the low pass filter. Several have said the low pass filter is an anti-aliasing filter - but if it passes low frequencies and not high ones, how does that help -



Because it has filtered out all the frequencies that are greater than the frequency at which the sensor can properly capture without error. Here it has sort of smeared them around to produce a lower frequency averaged mush. (but putting it that way makes it sound bad, but it's good)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



MRAW/SRAW are not true raw and you lose more than just resolution, if you can, it's better to shoot RAW and downconvert to 10MP later if you must


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks bluemoon,
> 
> I've seen the effect in the items previously mentioned but then I saw the comment that it doesn't occur in nature and so I went back to look at my waxwing shots and found this sample. I believe I've had similar and worse on some other waxwing shots and didn't like it and wondered where it came from. Never noticed it on other birds. Curious bird me is I guess.
> 
> Jack



here is a clear case on a robin (and a lens used with a TC no less):
(click it or whatever you need to do to see it 1:1)
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v63/p1143969646.jpg


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like. I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.
> ...



First, I wasn't talking about high sensitivity, but more DR. But it's not like the D800/D810 and such are terrible when it comes to sensitivity, far from it.

And as for DR, who says you can't have both high DR and high MP? Why not? The D810 gives great DR and it has a lot more MP than the 5D3. More MP shouldn't make more DR tougher to get, if anything, provided you can fit the circuits in place still for column ADC and all it should help the DR a trace.

As for fps, yeah you can't expect 50MP to be as easily driven as lower MP (although you can be smart like Nikon and gives APS_H and APS-C modes with full reach and more fps.... and semi-have your cake and eat it too) and I was just saying if it came down to it I'd rather they focus on DR first and if I was forced to chose between 23MP and high DR and high fps or 50MP and low DR and low fps I'd take the former. Ideally I'd go for semi-high MP, high DR and decent fps (like not less than 6, but doesn't have to be more than 6; and it could be only for copped modes if he bump from semi-high MP to very high MP). I would'nt mind 50MP at 4fps and then 6-8fps for cropped mode and with high DR. I might like that best of all actually.



> If it's the 7d2 design upscaled that's fine *if* the price is ok, much better than a "dream camera" for €6000+. If it's essentially the crop sensor on a larger die, all "reach advantage" reasons of crop become obsolete. If you've won the lottery and want the best possible iq, you'd better look at mf digital sensors outside Canon.



Maybe fine for some, but certainly not for me. I'd take the 36MP and high DR any day over 50MP and low DR from Canon. I'd even take 23MP and high DR over 50MP and low DR if I was forced.



> As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.



It is exactly the targeted audience for a high MP camera that probably MOST cares about high DR.

But now you are trying to have it both ways, oh the 7D2 doesn't really target landscape etc. so who needs high DR. And now oh the high MP doesn't really target a need for high DR either.


All I can say it that I, personally, absolutely will not buy the 50MP Canon unless it has really good DR (unless it offers truly top notch 4k video for a really low price and then I could maybe get that and then add a cheap used SOny for the DR, although by this time Sony might have an A7R II that also does 4k in which case I still wouldn't get this Canon and would just keep using 5D3 plus the Sony or move to Nikon if they make some D820 with nice 4k). I'll just add some sort of something Sony puts out or maybe start the switch to Nikon.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 25, 2015)

What do you mean by "really good DR"? At ISO 6400 the 1Dx has 1.4 stops MORE DR than the D810, as an example. Do you mean low ISO? I guess I've never found myself DR limited with low ISO's where light is sufficient but rather, find myself DR limited in low light, exactly where Canon excels.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 25, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> First, I wasn't talking about high sensitivity, but more DR. But it's not like the D800/D810 and such are terrible when it comes to sensitivity, far from it.



Disclaimer: I'm all in favor when it comes to Canon catching up to Sonikon, it's just that atm they don't seem to be willing or able to. And personally, I've been wondering for years why they don't upscale a crop sensor to ff, I'd love to have that for macro shots.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe fine for some, but certainly not for me. I'd take the 36MP and high DR any day over 50MP and low DR from Canon. I'd even take 23MP and high DR over 50MP and low DR if I was forced.



I'm a big fan or more dynamic range and use Magic Lantern's dual_iso for about 1/3rd of my shots. But my guess is that Canon marketing research has gone into this very thoroughly, and the deep pocket enthusiasts on CR don't scale to the whole market.

I just talked to a landscape photog having to switch from his broken 5d2 to something else. He's now buying a d800 because for him, only the resolution counts - he was happy enough with the dr of mf film cameras. If Canon would offer 50mp for a comparable price, he'd been sold.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It is exactly the targeted audience for a high MP camera that probably MOST cares about high DR.



We'll see - my guess is that not that many people depend on more dr _in a single frame_ and wouldn't sell their mother or switch systems for 12ev (Canon) to 14ev (Sonikon).


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> You are talking about one set of currently totally meaningless theoretical 'limits' that have been shown to not be hard limits.
> 
> Canon showed tech years ago that showed they were working on sub diffraction level imaging for consumer cameras and there are advantages to resolve below diffraction levels especially when using Bayer array covered sensors. Besides, lenses would have to far exceed diffraction limited resolution for the system, lens and sensor, to resolve them.
> 
> Do not attach any importance to 'diffraction limits' when thinking sensor resolution for consumer cameras.



What the heck kind of nonsense is this?

Diffraction limits aren't optional and you can only "beat" them in certain situations (like hard phase shift masks for lithography) under situations that have nothing to do with digital imaging.

When I calculate diffraction limits, I use knockdowns for Bayer masks and AA filters, but the results are absolutely applicable and I've confirmed them through testing.

That said, 50MP full-frame sensors aren't coming close to pushing the real-world resolving power of today's better lenses.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 25, 2015)

LTRLI,

I hear what you're saying, but having a a 52MP speed demon would be very nice with light performance on par with the 1DX or better. Effectively you have a built in crop sensor at 20MP. So these specs on a new 1DX would be great!! But I don't know they will go that route. (I know, this is all academic) However on a 5DWhateverthehell A high res, no AA, 6FPS with 65pt AF a la 7D2 would be extremely nice. 4k would be too, especially with a TRUE clean HDMI out at 8-10bit. The a7S gets away with 8 bit nicely. Will Canon do it is the real question. I'm doubtful but hopeful.

I tend to suspect the next iteration of the 1 series will see the 7D2 AF type grid with points more spread out across the frame and MORE of them, all dual cross type or something insane like that. 24ishMP, DPAF, and 12-14 FPS.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 25, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > To all the sports, journalism and event photographers out there: No, this camera is not for you. You can safely ignore it, while all the landscape, macro, and "less trigger happy" photographers will gobble the thing up and relish every moment manipulating the huge image files.
> ...



Indeed.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like.
> 
> I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.



I'm still confused about the constant stream of negativity toward new camera options that don't fit an individual's style.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 25, 2015)

Quote from: Marsu42 
As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.
[/quote]

You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 25, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Most types of digital Anti-Aliasing (Multi-Sampling or Super-Sampling) only appily the effect where it's needed, and can even bring out detail in a digitally rendered image that would not have been there otherwise. It maintains sharpness while fixing certain problems.
> ...



That's right.
The reason multi-sampling is so much more efficient than super-sampling is that it's applied selectively.
That also means it's less effective in some applications, but the cost to benefit ratio is very attractive.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 25, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Quote from: Marsu42
> As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.



You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.
[/quote]

Nope. He speaks or the MAJORITY. Hence why Canon leads the market.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.



I have more than 300,000 images under management in Lightroom. I went looking for high-DR situations shot at base ISO. I was not able to find a single image where my Canon sensors didn't have sufficient DR _AND _1-2 more stops would have made the difference. I found one situation shot at base ISO where 15-20 more stops would have done it, but not 1-2, and that was the only situation I found where I couldn't get enough DR at base ISO.

On the other hand, I have thousands of high-ISO shots where DR was severely constrained.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 25, 2015)

Obviously the guys at Red & Arri have got it wrong then, obviously no one has a single shot with clipped highlights. 

I remember we did a movie in Africa, strong midday sunlight with a continuos shot into a mud hut. It had to be shot as a cut as the camera reached the door or in other words a two shot so a wider dynamic range was preserved. Without adjusting our eyes can see 10-14 stops of DR, but are eyes do adjust and its estimated we can see up to 20-24 stops of DR.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 25, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Obviously the guys at Red & Arri have got it wrong then, obviously no one has a single shot with clipped highlights.



You do realize, I hope, that the Sony and Nikon sensor with more base ISO DR than Canon sensor do it by lowering the read noise, thus making shadows cleaner. At the same exposure, they still clip at the same rate as Canon sensors. The only way to get more DR is to shoot with less exposure and retain cleaner shadows.


----------



## Diko (Jan 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> > > Dilbert says:
> > > bad sensor bad quality bad iq
> >
> >
> ...



That made my day! ))


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 25, 2015)

Yes I do realize lower read noise improves the shadow detail, I also know that sensors under development are now aiming to improve top end latitude employing different techniques. 

Interestingly if you look back people were saying smaller pixels would never be able to produces good results because of well size / dark current noise they are not saying that now!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.



You just proved my very point - you need to bracket anyway in many situations, so another +2ev won't save the day for everyone, and even Sonikon don't have the 20ev sensor yet:



Lee Jay said:


> I have more than 300,000 images under management in Lightroom. I went looking for high-DR situations shot at base ISO. I was not able to find a single image where my Canon sensors didn't have sufficient DR _AND _1-2 more stops would have made the difference.



Personally, I encounter a lot of situations with motion which can _just _be captured with the 14.5ev of Magic Lantern - another 1-2ev more would be better to get more shadow resolution though. These include shots with the sun in the frame or harsh contrasts at noon (I'm using fill flash on top of that).

However for max iq with landscape, I'd still bracket unless there are moving leaves/grass/... more post-processing hassle, but more flexibility when joining the images. And in this case sensor dr isn't a concern anymore.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 26, 2015)

Thanks LetTheRightLensIn for another sample. Did my waxwing sample fall into the range that photographers would likely take exception to - I'm new to all this.

Jack


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I have thousands of high-ISO shots where DR was severely constrained.



Would like better low iso DR too. And the ability to shoot iso 25 as in the film days. But its in the high end the most severe and critical problems are.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you mean by "really good DR"? At ISO 6400 the 1Dx has 1.4 stops MORE DR than the D810, as an example. Do you mean low ISO? I guess I've never found myself DR limited with low ISO's where light is sufficient but rather, find myself DR limited in low light, exactly where Canon excels.



at low ISO of course since that is where Canon is behind otherwise I wouldn't even be bringing it up

and the ISO6400+ shots have too much noise to be truly fine quality and the DR of even the best is still far too low to really do it anyway so to me the DR matters more at low ISO where it often falls 2-3 stops shy of what would really help

the best of the high ISO DR Nikons are right there with Canon for high ISO DR (and better than say the 5D3 high ISO DR) too and still have better low ISO DR than any Canon (althogh not as good as the Exmor Nikons)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> I just talked to a landscape photog having to switch from his broken 5d2 to something else. He's now buying a d800 because for him, only the resolution counts - he was happy enough with the dr of mf film cameras. If Canon would offer 50mp for a comparable price, he'd been sold.



most of the landscape guys who added a Sony+adapter or moved to Nikon that I've talked to counted the DR much more important than the MP count increase (although some certainly appreciated the MP count increase too)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote from: Marsu42
> ...



Nope. He speaks or the MAJORITY. Hence why Canon leads the market. 
[/quote]

Marketing leading and best tech or providing most exactly what people want are very often not so tightly correlated as you imply, not at all. And in this case there are tons of side variables that completely toss the correlation.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > You obviously dont speak for the majority. The current 36MP Sony sensor also in the Nikon D800 is 14ev and in cinematography / video 14ev is still not enough. Plenty of situations in landscape where more DR would be useful particularly in strong sun situations with deep shade.
> ...



I looked through shots from a single trip and found a lot scenarios where 2-3 would help. All it takes is something as simple as shooting into a dappled forest!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don't know anyone personally that has recently bought Canon for IQ purposes.



Well, I don't know how many people you know personally, but I'd wager that almost all people buying a 6d (including me) buy this Canon for iq purposes.



dilbert said:


> The thing is, gimmicks will sell to the masses, more than IQ.



I'm in agreement that I'd exchange gps/wifi on my 6d even for a half-decent af system any day, but you can see the mentioned "gimmicks" as "value". There are gps/wifi addons for the 5d3/... for a reason, obviously there's a market for them. If you get them included in your camera by default, you're saving lots of €€€.

Last not least, what's a "gimmick" or not is defined by personal preference. Is a back wheel a gimmick? top lcd? In-camera hdr? You get the picture: Except for the shutter button and card slot, you can say almost everything is a gimmick if you don't like it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> Moiré never happens with natural subjects, except if you're a bug photographer.



I guess you don't have much experience shooting nature. :


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 26, 2015)

I would wager many people who bought the Canon 6d did so to get into full-frame not because of "gimmicks" I certainly did. That said those "gimmicks" have come in really handy if like me you mainly do landscape photography. 
The app on my iPhone allows contactless remote shooting with live view it really is simple to set-up and even simplier to use. Secondly the GPS allows you to know exactly where you are I was in Snowdonia in the Fall and many of the hills & moutains I didnt know the name of but once downloaded I was able to know exactly what the names were so suddenly those "gimmicks" became very useful just like a feature in your iPhone when you take a picture so why not an expensive camera costing $$$$$. 
Ironically many std. features in all high end stills cameras Ive used less yet they are not seen as "gimmicks".


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The app on my iPhone allows contactless remote shooting with live view it really is simple to set-up and even simplier to use. Secondly the GPS allows you to know exactly where you are I was in Snowdonia in the Fall and many of the hills & moutains I didnt know the name of but once downloaded I was able to know exactly what the names were so suddenly those "gimmicks" became very useful just like a feature in your iPhone when you take a picture so why not an expensive camera costing $$$$$.



My personal definition of "gimmick" would be "feature that is easily substituted by other means".

This includes gps, as a dedicated tracker in your pocket lasts longer, has no/less warm-up time and is more precise - even Lightroom includes an option to attach the tracklog to the pictures. As for wifi, well, there are eye-fi cards, and unfortunately Canon's wifi implementation is very mediocre (try to connect your Laptop to the camera). Definitely on the gimmick list is in-camera hdr as this is done better in real post with dedicated software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Definitely on the gimmick list is in-camera hdr as this is done better in real post with dedicated software.



By that logic, in-camera JPG conversion is also a 'gimmick'.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 26, 2015)

For those the "rubbished" the idea of more sensitivity / DR and going beyond the human eye I encourage you to go to Image Sensor World blog and go to November 25th and read the Sony investor update.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 26, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> For those the "rubbished" the idea of more sensitivity / DR and going beyond the human eye I encourage you to go to Image Sensor World blog and go to November 25th and read the Sony investor update.



Like the slide entitled, "Concentrate on expanding market for mobile, IP Security cameras and automotive"?


----------



## gsealy (Jan 26, 2015)

In thinking about it, if I had $5K to spend I would do so on an high end lens like the Zeiss Otus 85mm rather than upgrading my 5DIII. My reasoning is that such a lens makes every one of my cameras instantly better. There is no doubt of this. That even includes my IDs II (that I use for time lapse sequences and landscape) and my 650D. It makes my videos better too. If I were to buy a 5DIV or or whatever they call it in the future or a IDx when the price drops, then that lens would make those cameras better too. Cameras will come and go on a fairly short 3-4 year life cycle because Canon and other manufacturers have to make a profit. But a high quality lens has a much, much longer life cycle.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 26, 2015)

gsealy said:


> In thinking about it, if I had $5K to spend I would do so on an high end lens like the Zeiss Otus 85mm rather than upgrading my 5DIII. My reasoning is that such a lens makes every one of my cameras instantly better. There is no doubt of this. That even includes my IDs II (that I use for time lapse sequences and landscape) and my 650D. It makes my videos better too. If I were to buy a 5DIV or or whatever they call it in the future or a IDx when the price drops, then that lens would make those cameras better too. Cameras will come and go on a fairly short 3-4 year life cycle because Canon and other manufacturers have to make a profit. But a high quality lens has a much, much longer life cycle.



I've had my cameras for 9 and 10 years. I've only had one lens that long.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely on the gimmick list is in-camera hdr as this is done better in real post with dedicated software.
> ...



No, because you cannot "easily substitute" the reduction in card space and jpeg makes sense if you need sooc pictures asap.

But the general point is - I am in absolute agreement with you on this - that one's personal wishes are immaterial for Canon's big market and it's not really possible to separate "real features" and "gimmicks". Fortunately (unlike Sonikon) Canon doesn't concentrate on spec comparisons, i.e. their aim isn't to have the longest feature list.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> My personal definition of "gimmick" would be "feature that is easily substituted by other means".



Can't say I agree. Your definition of a gimmick is my definition of a convenience. 

A gimmick must be of marginal value. To me, GPS in a camera is gimmicky, but not because I can carry one in my pocket. It's a popular acronym to put on a box to gather the attention of shoppers. "Oh look Susan, this one has GPS." Gimmick (to me). 

But some things which I initially view and gimmicky quickly lose that stigma. I thought fingerprint readers on cellphones were gimmicks, until I started using a phone which has one. Maybe the same would be true if I had an SLR with GPS (though I have the geotagging in my phone disabled, so I doubt it).



Lee Jay said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > In thinking about it, if I had $5K to spend I would do so on an high end lens like the Zeiss Otus 85mm rather than upgrading my 5DIII. ... But a high quality lens has a much, much longer life cycle.
> ...



I'm betting none of the lenses you got rid of were on par, quality wise, with an Otus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I've had my cameras for 9 and 10 years. I've only had one lens that long.



And that helps explain some of the completely irrelevant extrapolations you come out with so often.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I've had my cameras for 9 and 10 years. I've only had one lens that long.
> ...



I have newer cameras too, and I have astro stuff. I have pixels from 8.2 microns to 1 micron and focal lengths from 15mm fisheye to 5600mm.

There's nothing wrong with my testing and I've done loads and loads of it for many different purposes.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Oh I don't know about that. Do you have some examples?



I usually don't go for the "I double-dare you to prove this and that" requests, but once a link to a spec compariosn that is the first google hit and thus should be rather important for sales. Somehow, Sonikon always manages to end up with a longer "advantages" list than Canon, nonsensical as it might be.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Nikon-D610


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Is selecting sRAW from the menu really all that difficult? In-camera HDR then makes sense if you need SOOC HDR pictures ASAP.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > For those the "rubbished" the idea of more sensitivity / DR and going beyond the human eye I encourage you to go to Image Sensor World blog and go to November 25th and read the Sony investor update.
> ...



Thats because that is where all the current growth is. The slides show DSLR sales falling however much of the technology is scaleable and the historical level of DSLRs annually was 8M globally. Given the increase in the global middle class 10M seems a reasonable "average" on a go forwards basis. 
I know from our own research that colorimagery and DR are both areas where improvements will be made over the next few years.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42, I'm with you on these comments. As a knowledgeable "beginner" and two years with the 6D, with its shortcomings, I don't regret the purchase and purchase price for a millisecond. I've gotten many shots that people rave about in spite of its AF and FPS. The 300 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II were much more important to me than the camera. However, I'm now on the fence for a new Canon body and all this talk is a lot of fun to follow so that my next purchase will be the correct one. It's Canon for me.

Leave out wifi everyone goes ballistic, put it in everyone criticizes - oops it's not really everyone, just - some who are very vocal - now I know but two years ago I was really perplexed.  CR has been very helpful to me and all opinions are useful and worth considering.

Jack


----------



## erjlphoto (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I don't know about that. Do you have some examples?
> ...



Yep, buuuuut consider the real world definition of EXPERTS..."An unknown quantity of elongated drips." 

Had an early D600 got a 6D and for me it is a far better camera. While I traded up, the Canon kit 24-105L is light years ahead of Nikon's bundled lens (think they have upgraded it since my sally with them).


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 26, 2015)

erjlphoto said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I gave up waiting and bought a 645z
> ...



Here you go Erlj 

http://chrisgilesphotography.com/blog/pentax-645z-review-pt1-the-journey/


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> erjlphoto said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...



Thanks for that series Chris, it looks very interesting on a quick scan through. I must be honest I always liked the idea of the 645Z, I just don't have justification for it yet. What are your thoughts on lighting? Scratch that, I just read section 5!


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > erjlphoto said:
> ...



Do you mean flash system? I covered that in detail on of the chapters, for all intents and purposes if you had all Pentax 540 flashes, the functionality and wireless ability is comparable to the 600EX setup.

The Cactus V6's wireless trigger are legendary in that I only need to buy one Pentax flash and I can use the Canon 600's anyway. Just in manual only for the external ones. But I rarely use ETTL on the external strobe anyway.

Scratch that I just read that you'd read the lighting section rofl!

It's a really decent camera overall.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I know people that have bought Canon for gimmick features (WiFi) and people that have bought Nikon for IQ.
> 
> Don't know anyone personally that has recently bought Canon for IQ purposes.
> 
> The thing is, gimmicks will sell to the masses, more than IQ.



Don't know you personally (thank goodness...) but I bought the 6D as opposed to Nikon's similar FF offerings because I consider Canon's IQ to be superior. Bought an SL1 a couple months ago rather than the Nikon D3300 (i was able to compare the two) because I prefer the Canon's IQ. For people who look at actual photos rather than spec sheets, IQ is admittedly subjective, but I strongly prefer the look of Canon especially their ability to produce more pleasing colors. Also like their better contrast. In my opinion, the very poor color that I have seen with the Sony A7 models sample pics makes them rank even lower in IQ. I have noticed in reviews of the new Sony A7II that the reviewers consider the color dramatically improved. That may be a good sign for Sony, but just confirms how poor the color is in the original A7 models.

I wouldn't call color and contrast gimmicks.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 26, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Don't know you personally (thank goodness...) but I bought the 6D as opposed to Nikon's similar FF offerings because I consider Canon's IQ to be superior. Bought an SL1 a couple months ago rather than the Nikon D3300 (i was able to compare the two) because I prefer the Canon's IQ. For people who look at actual photos rather than spec sheets, IQ is admittedly subjective, but I strongly prefer the look of Canon especially their ability to produce more pleasing colors. Also like their better contrast. In my opinion, the very poor color that I have seen with the Sony A7 models sample pics makes them rank even lower in IQ. I have noticed in reviews of the new Sony A7II that the reviewers consider the color dramatically improved. That may be a good sign for Sony, but just confirms how poor the color is in the original A7 models.
> 
> I wouldn't call color and contrast gimmicks.



Well, no, but are you referring to unprocessed RAW files (which are easily tweaked in software), camera-generated JPEGs (which can be adjusted in-camera by adjusting a vast array of color/tone/sharpness/contrast settings), camera-generated JPEGs at default settings, or something else?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

dak723 said:


> For people who look at actual photos rather than spec sheets...



Wait, wait...you're saying that the ability of a *camera system* to take *pictures* actually _matters_? I hope you realize how foolish that sounds in an era where we can measure sensor performance on several metrics, then apply arbitrary, undisclosed weightings to those metrics to reduce them to a single overall score that provides what is really the only relevant bit of information that anyone needs to determine which camera is the best.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2015)

gsealy said:


> In thinking about it, if I had $5K to spend I would do so on an high end lens like the Zeiss Otus 85mm rather than upgrading my 5DIII. My reasoning is that such a lens makes every one of my cameras instantly better. There is no doubt of this. That even includes my IDs II (that I use for time lapse sequences and landscape) and my 650D. It makes my videos better too. If I were to buy a 5DIV or or whatever they call it in the future or a IDx when the price drops, then that lens would make those cameras better too. Cameras will come and go on a fairly short 3-4 year life cycle because Canon and other manufacturers have to make a profit. But a high quality lens has a much, much longer life cycle.



Personally I'd suggest putting money first to a great ultra hi-res monitor, UHD at a min or better 5k for 16MP. Great color and uniformity with instant, 'free', 8-16MP 'prints' is pretty nice. Honestly, how many of the thousands of images people take ever get printed? It's too time consuming and costly and people don't have space to store 20,000 large prints.

But so often you see 15k in lenses, 8k in bodies and $150 for display. I'm not sure that really makes sense.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



although sRAW doesn't help the buffer too much, but jpg does so it's not quite a replacement, plus sRAW has a lot less detail than a full res JPG (even as waxy as the Canon jpg engine is)


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > For people who look at actual photos rather than spec sheets...
> ...



But what do you really think?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well, my rough guess is that the demand for sooc jpeg is higher than in-camera hdr  ... as for sraw, it's a bad tradeoff between resolution and file size if you just need a large jpeg.


----------



## l_d_allan (Jan 27, 2015)

*Re: It will depend on the image dynamic range and shadow detail.*



Freddie said:


> If Canon will produce a sensor with the dynamic range and relatively noiseless shadows of the Sony sensor, I will consider it. I did consider buying the Nikon D800 when it was first available. That was not because of the resolution which is excessive for most usage but for the quality of the image shadow details.
> I really don't have much use for such high-resolution image files although I could change my mind if the dynamic range is an improvement.


Agree. 
Actually, I'd be happy if Canon could work out a license deal (like Nikon) and use something very similar to the Exmor 36 mpix.


----------



## erjlphoto (Jan 27, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> erjlphoto said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...



Very thorough and down to earth review. Your portrat photography is also quite inspiring.
Don't think I can justify a MF format system as a hobbyist, but it is nice to see how good a camera can be...in the right hands.

Thanks for posting your link.


----------

