# Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 24, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13198"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13198">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>40+ MP camera on the horizon</strong>
We’re told, <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html" target="_blank">as well as others</a> that a development announcement for a high megapixel camera will be made in the September/October timeframe. There won’t be availability until Q1, 2014 at the earliest.</p>
<p>We’ve heard of two test bodies out there, one being 50+mp. There are other reports of a 39mp and 47mp camera as well.</p>
<p>Some of the technology from the 7D Mark II, which we expect in the fall, will be present in the big megapixel EOS-1. This also plays into the previous rumors about the 7D Mark II moving up in pro features.</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
At least Canon has options for sraw that you can select when you don't want full blown resolution. With the D800, you get those huge files every time if you want to use raw.
That way a user would have a choice.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> At least Canon has options for sraw that you can select when you don't want full blown resolution. With the D800, you get those huge files every time if you want to use raw.
> That way a user would have a choice.



Yeah but sRAW isn't really all that RAW and with Nikon you can use crop mode FULL RAW which is great for wildlife since you maintain reach while not wasting storage on all the outer border areas so I'd actually WAY rather they went to the Nikon way of handling it.

I'd rather it be 39MP for perfect video and keeping 6fps than 47 or 50+ and being less than 5fps and having worse video.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 24, 2013)

7DII having more pro features. ?

Such as ?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

Another 3000.00 out of pocket. 



Haydn1971 said:


> 7DII having more pro features. ?
> 
> Such as ?


----------



## cccp80 (Mar 24, 2013)

Finally!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2013)

This just ups the anticipation on the 7D2...

a "gamechanger" will not come cheap......


----------



## Photomoose (Mar 24, 2013)

This is welcome news! I just posted a lengthy description of my experience shooting both the 5d3 and D800 on another thread, and since they were released I have considered switching entirely to the D800, but I'm willing to wait for Canons version of a Big Megapixel camera. These two cameras are similar in some ways, but so different in others, but when IQ is the top of the list more Megapixels wins. It gives you more options and more to work with, with better detail and of course cropping options are greatly improved. I'm not a fan of TC converters or zoom lenses so cropping is important to me. I have enjoyed the D800 for its big Megapixels, but miss the functionality of Canon, its AF system just to mention a few of the obvious attributes Canon brings to the table. Lets hope they learn something from the D800 and better it, unlike what happened with the EOS-M which was a disaster in my humble opinion. So I cheer at this rumor and will be in the cheering section.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> At least Canon has options for sraw that you can select when you don't want full blown resolution. With the D800, you get those huge files every time if you want to use raw.
> That way a user would have a choice.



I wonder when we will see versions of Lightroom or DPP that support GPU processing... I use AutoPano Giga for rendering panoramas and enabling GPU processing really speeds things up. Having 1000 1Ghz CUDA cores is a lot of processing power.... in fact, there are supercomputers that use CUDA cores from GPU's as the main element.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> ...


 
Crop mode on my D800 crops the image away. That's not useful to lose part of your FF image. Its a feature added for those using the old DX lenses and turns the D800 into a 16mp crop camera. I could use a 7D and get a cropped image with more pixels than a cropped D800.
If I had 1500 images to edit from a large MP sensor, I'd certainly try sraw or mraw. I went looking for the feature after I got my D800 and had a day to edit 500 images, it was not fun to spend that many unplanned hours.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2013)

so canon user will get a 8000 euro high MP camera while nikon user get a high MP camera for 2200 euro.

mhm nothing that lets me jump up and down.

i hope there will be a cheaper, none 1D body version, too.


----------



## cbphoto (Mar 24, 2013)

Here's hoping for an increase in dynamic range, and in signal-to-noise ratios.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 24, 2013)

WOW, Canon still at least 2 years shy of the Nikon D800 sensor ... 
Confirms what I thought all along. 

Geriatric ward really missed the boat big time.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 24, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Another 3000.00 out of pocket.



Yeah 3000 ... I fell off the turnip truck laughing my ass off.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> WOW, Canon still at least 2 years shy of the Nikon D800 sensor ...
> Confirms what I thought all along.
> 
> Geriatric ward really missed the boat big time.



Well D800 still didn't save Nikon from the stock market bust....so I guess the geriatric ward at Canon is doing something right...I feel the canon high MP will be less "green hued" for sure... ask Nikon to fix that first.


----------



## Hydrogen (Mar 24, 2013)

Photomoose said:


> This is welcome news! I just posted a lengthy description of my experience shooting both the 5d3 and D800 on another thread, and since they were released I have considered switching entirely to the D800, but I'm willing to wait for Canons version of a Big Megapixel camera. These two cameras are similar in some ways, but so different in others, but when IQ is the top of the list more Megapixels wins.



I am an all-Canon geared part-time pro and hobbyist, but to me, it's not just about the pixels, FF, crop, etc. something the D800 has that I am jealous of, is a sensor (Exmor) capable of far more dynamic range than any Canon.

If Canon can at least get their sensors to have equivalent DR, I will be a very, very happy camper.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 24, 2013)

If this is true, then Canon almost certainly will have to update a number of L lenses if this body is in the horizon...I won't name names...but a number of names come to mind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> WOW, Canon still at least 2 years shy of the Nikon D800 sensor ...
> Confirms what I thought all along.
> 
> Geriatric ward really missed the boat big time.



How many years did Canon have a 'prosumer' 21 MP FF camera while Nikon's offering in that space had 12 MP?


----------



## that1guyy (Mar 24, 2013)

Wait wait. What happened to the 70d?? Let's worry about that before we get into any other products. It seems 70D rumors just stopped.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 24, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> so canon user will get a 8000 euro high MP camera while nikon user get a high MP camera for 2200 euro.
> 
> mhm nothing that lets me jump up and down.
> 
> i hope there will be a cheaper, none 1D body version, too.



That's pretty much what I'm counting on as well.
In the back of my head occasionally I think about how nice it would be to have a camera built to last like the 1D series, but it's really only good for professionals. By the time I get to 200,000 snaps on a single camera everyone else will probably have pocket sized 200MP medium format cameras.



Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> ...



I'm really surprised that photo software companies aren't jumping all over GPU acceleration. When you can make things go faster using the hardware everyone already has it seems silly not to.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Well.. It is not going to be cheap, that's for sure. But as long as it brings a serious bump in dynamic range, I'll pay the 'early adoption fee'. ;D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I care. What comes on the 70D will give clues to what comes on the 7D2, and the 7D2 will probably be the debut of the technology that comes out on a high megapixel camera. And I already have a 60D


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Mar 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> At least Canon has options for sraw that you can select when you don't want full blown resolution. With the D800, you get those huge files every time if you want to use raw.
> That way a user would have a choice.




Yes but I doubt Canon will try to incorporate anything more than what is bare minimum. Lately they just don't seem to be interested in leapfrogging the competition, they seem to be content with merely keeping in step. So I doubt they would use any new technology that hasn't been tried and true like SATA Express. Perhaps this time we'll at least hopefully get USB 3.0 (although I would prefer Thunderbolt) as an I/O upgrade. But who knows, perhaps they'll prove me wrong. I certainly hope so for everyone's sake.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really surprised that photo software companies aren't jumping all over GPU acceleration. When you can make things go faster using the hardware everyone already has it seems silly not to.
> ...



Photos are a wonderful candidate for GPU processing.... That's why products like Autopano Giga speed up by a factor of ten when you enable the GPU option. (If you have a kick-ass Nvidea card). Also, adobe photoshop's latest version can use GPU's, just not Lightroom.... Yet....


----------



## deleteme (Mar 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> WOW, Canon still at least 2 years shy of the Nikon D800 sensor ...
> Confirms what I thought all along.
> 
> Geriatric ward really missed the boat big time.



The pendulum swings back and forth in technology. I doubt that Canon will be in the backseat forever.
More importantly, are we losing money from the lack of MP or is this just a hobbyist's lament?


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Mar 24, 2013)

I can forgive Canon for these past many years on holding out on a 14-24 lens, if they were waiting to see how such a lens would resolve with a high megapixel monster. In any case release both at the same time!


----------



## Area256 (Mar 24, 2013)

cbphoto said:


> Here's hoping for an increase in dynamic range, and in signal-to-noise ratios.



+ 1 I've stopped caring about MP a lot time ago. However improved low ISO DR and SNR would be welcome! Looks like the 7D2 may really get the new sensor tech - and Canon users can stop complaining about having old sensor tech. (but we'll see, we've all said that before...)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> If this is true, then Canon almost certainly will have to update a number of L lenses if this body is in the horizon...I won't name names...but a number of names come to mind.


 
There is little doubt that the high MP is very exacting of glass, but it depends even more on very careful setup by the photographer.


I suspect that the need for lens upgrades is part of any 2014 plan. Certainly, a wide zoom is a candidate for upgrade. 


I recall when the 1Ds Mark III came out with 21 mp, there were complainers everywhere saying that their was no glass to match the sensor, and that their images were blurry.


The same happened with the 7D. Photographers can learn to maximize the use of what they have. Usually, it means faster shutter speeds, or more stable tripods. Even slight subject motion will cause a blur with slow shutter speeds. 


This means that the high ISO that you thought you had can be reduced effectively a stop because of the need for doubling shutter speed.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 24, 2013)

Canon will have to update their 16-35II and perhaps even the earlier version-one L primes...

It is clear they are having difficulty delivering on the UWA front... it is certainly not for the lack of trying. They have tried with version II which is, as I said elsewhere, "meh".


----------



## AG (Mar 24, 2013)

I read this rumour and i take from it...

The 7D2, 1DX, 1DC, 1DLMP(Large Mega Pixel?) will all be in the same body/shell.

So that would mean 4 Pro bodies

Then the 5D3 is semi pro, with the 70D and 6D being an adv amateur line?(don't really know that the difference between the 2 classifications are)

After that it all gets a LOT confusing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> Canon will have to update their 16-35II and perhaps even the earlier version-one L primes...
> 
> It is clear they are having difficulty delivering on the UWA front... it is certainly not for the lack of trying. They have tried with version II which is, as I said elsewhere, "meh".


 
The 16-35 was (I read a canon comment a few years back) introduced for PJ's using the APS-H cameras. The MK II was a attempt to upgrade it for FF.


Canon knows how to produce a top quality wide lens, but they have not figured out how to make one that ordinary millionaires can afford.


You see that with other products as well, some car companies are good at making large cars, but are utter flops at making small cars. Some small truck makers have flopped in the full sized truck area.


Its not easy to overcome that type of thing, some highly experienced employees don't always want to change their rules of thumb for design, and they pass down those rules and keep new employees under their thumb.


Nikon suffered from that until some younger blood finally got to the top. The trouble is, they also need to make a profit. Innovative ideas do not keep a company in business if they don't turn a profit.


Nikon is building a giant plant in Laos to open this fall, apparently hoping to ultimately get their costs down. They also (I think) understand that the warmer weather means more floods and they need to have plan(t) B. I hope it works out for them, lower prices are certainly welcome, and Canon is in the drivers seat right now as far as cost of production is concerned. They drop prices and still make a nice profit.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 24, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



How many megapixels does the D4 have?


----------



## SpaceGhost (Mar 25, 2013)

I didn't have time to read all the posts but its all rumors anyway,

The big question is what body will this be in.

I'm sporting the 1D-X and the 5D3 was tempting (but some features only a little better and negatives were big for me) but I prefer the series 1 bodies and features. However, I would have loved a big step up in megapixels in my 1D-X.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 25, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Yeh, you can get it with the kit lens, the 200-400 f4 + inbuilt 1.4 TC!
> 
> The kit comes with a free unicorn. Pre announcing a development announcement 7 months early sounds desperate.



This. 

Announcements of future announcements is getting kind of stale. Canon needs to release the 70D so everyone can bitch about its rehashed, milked for every drop sensor. Then Canon can announce the upcoming announcement of the 7Dll (or whatever). Interesting that many here think the new tech will cost under $2000...


----------



## Ricku (Mar 25, 2013)

SpaceGhost said:


> The big question is what body will this be in.
> 
> I'm sporting the 1D-X and the 5D3 was tempting (but some features only a little better and negatives were big for me) but I prefer the series 1 bodies and features. However, I would have loved a big step up in megapixels in my 1D-X.


I'd prefer rebel size. Yes, seriously.

There is no need to feel like a overpacked mountain donkey while hiking / traveling for landscapes.  My shoulders says no! .. After all, a high MP body will surely be aimed at landscapers and travelers.

But yeah, it will probably be a 1D-type body, just so that Canon can charge extra for the "pro size". :


----------



## RGF (Mar 25, 2013)

DarkKnightNine said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> ...



My observation is that Canon has got conservative after the problems with AF on the 1D M2/3. Years ago they were very innovative with the first eye control, DO, 1N RS but these technologies never went any where. Yes there is still talk of DO but when was the last DO lens introduced.

I would not call the 5D M3 behind Nikon - Nikon had the high MP D800 while Canon created a great (though a bit higher priced than I would like) proconsumer workhorse that has good low light function, excellent ergonomics, .... May not be perfect but a very good camera.


----------



## RGF (Mar 25, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> Canon will have to update their 16-35II and perhaps even the earlier version-one L primes...
> 
> It is clear they are having difficulty delivering on the UWA front... it is certainly not for the lack of trying. They have tried with version II which is, as I said elsewhere, "meh".



Too bad they can not license Nikon's 14-24 in exchange for their TS.

On the UWA front, the 14 is great, so is the 17 TS. If they had a 17 non-TS on par with the 14/17 TS I would be very interested. The 17 TS is too big and too pricey


----------



## gary samples (Mar 25, 2013)

can't wait it will a lot harder for all the Nikon fan boys that seem to live here to run there heads LOL


----------



## hmmm (Mar 25, 2013)

The game plan is becoming clear, I think...

The 70D will be the 18MP sensor plus Digic 6.

The 7D mkII will at last have the new sensor and Digic 6 (as the 7D was the original rollout of the now ancient 18 mp sensor in 2009.)

The development announcement of the Big MP sensor will have the new technology as well.

That puts me back to square one of keeping an eye peeled for a real good deal on a 6D... For my own needs I can't see spending 2200 on an aps-c 7D mkII, though I expect a lot of folks will.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

AG said:


> I read this rumour and i take from it...
> 
> The 7D2, 1DX, 1DC, 1DLMP(Large Mega Pixel?) will all be in the same body/shell.
> 
> ...


 
Those who are shelling out hard earned money for these will know what they are. You don't just drop into best buy and see them all.

Those who have a ton of money and want the best will buy the most expensive Leica and use it as a point and shoot. Its all about status symbol at that level.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



It's VERY useful to crop away part of the FF image if you are reach limited since you get a small file PLUS full on true RAW (sRAW and mRAW are not the same as real RAW files) and without loss of reach as you get with sRAW and mRAW. So you get everything you want without any loss whatsoever and save space.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 25, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really surprised that photo software companies aren't jumping all over GPU acceleration. When you can make things go faster using the hardware everyone already has it seems silly not to.
> ...



lots of image processing is highly parallel though


----------



## gputah (Mar 25, 2013)

Some of these comments make me smile... 

Canon focused on AF systems this time around. They have lead the industry with their sensors for a while, and only have slowed down in the last few years. But the AF systems have needed some improvement and they certainly have done that with the 1Dx. The 1Dx's AF is up to 3 times more responsive than the D4's AF system and has pretty much more of everything in it than the D4's AF. Plus it has 2mp more, and shoots faster FPS. (Great review to compare them: http://youtu.be/VyNFOPrIKmQ)

I swear, people are never happy. I see it everywhere. I also do real estate. You want EVERYTHING in one house/camera and then complain if you have to pay for it.


----------



## fonts (Mar 25, 2013)

gputah said:


> Some of these comments make me smile...
> 
> Canon focused on AF systems this time around. They have lead the industry with their sensors for a while, and only have slowed down in the last few years. But the AF systems have needed some improvement and they certainly have done that with the 1Dx. The 1Dx's AF is up to 3 times more responsive than the D4's AF system and has pretty much more of everything in it than the D4's AF. Plus it has 2mp more, and shoots faster FPS. (Great review to compare them: http://youtu.be/VyNFOPrIKmQ)
> 
> I swear, people are never happy. I see it everywhere. I also do real estate. You want EVERYTHING in one house/camera and then complain if you have to pay for it.



+9001...

No Seriously, this is EXACTLY my point on another thread.


----------



## fonts (Mar 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Oh I get it...we can only look at a select few to make the point valid right? ???


----------



## Woody (Mar 25, 2013)

So, all eyes on the sensor technology in 7DMk2 and big megapixel camera.... Cooooool....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ok, so which of the 5D2 or 6D has 18 mp then? Which Canon camera were you referring to that has 18 mp if it was not the 1DX? You specifically said that the prosumer camera that Canon led with went from 21 mp to 18 mp. What camera are you talking about then, that has 18 mp? The 1DX goes head to head with the D4, and so everyone suddenly wants to use mp's, so I use mp's, and the 1DX has 2 more than the D4. I'm satisfied with my argument.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Mar 25, 2013)

Yup. Kinda what I figured. If they have something that competes with MF on the performance and quality side of things, I'd be very interested. As a fashion/beauty photographer, my 5D Mark II is totally fine until I upgrade to MF. There really isn't anything significantly better in-between those two...


----------



## mjbehnke (Mar 25, 2013)

I wonder if Canon has been putting this monster off until they got all these upgraded lenses out? Now that Canon has upgraded (Updated) some of their most popular lenses, makes me think they wanted to be sure they had the resolving power to support big mega pixels? Just my 2 cents worth. But I think it makes sense?


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 25, 2013)

gputah said:


> Some of these comments make me smile...
> 
> Canon focused on AF systems this time around. They have lead the industry with their sensors for a while, and only have slowed down in the last few years. But the AF systems have needed some improvement and they certainly have done that with the 1Dx. The 1Dx's AF is up to 3 times more responsive than the D4's AF system and has pretty much more of everything in it than the D4's AF. Plus it has 2mp more, and shoots faster FPS. (Great review to compare them: http://youtu.be/VyNFOPrIKmQ)
> 
> I swear, people are never happy. I see it everywhere. I also do real estate. You want EVERYTHING in one house/camera and then complain if you have to pay for it.



That's so true!


----------



## birtembuk (Mar 25, 2013)

gputah said:


> Some of these comments make me smile...
> 
> I swear, people are never happy. I see it everywhere. I also do real estate. You want EVERYTHING in one house/camera and then complain if you have to pay for it.



Smiling here too ... Take the 16-35/II. Today it can be gotten for 1300 bucks. Now, I bet this new hypothetical 14-24 - assuming top of the range - will not come for less than 2500. Some nice moaning and groaning in perspective then ...


----------



## David Hull (Mar 25, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> 7DII having more pro features. ?
> 
> Such as ?



No pop up flash.


----------



## jarrieta (Mar 25, 2013)

hmmm said:


> That puts me back to square one of keeping an eye peeled for a real good deal on a 6D... For my own needs I can't see spending 2200 on an aps-c 7D mkII, though I expect a lot of folks will.



Share the same opinion. I shoot with a Rebel and I don't shoot fast action much. Taking my time and see whats in the horizon. If the 60D successor will have a significant IQ improvement then I may move up to that, otherwise I'd go with the 6D.


----------



## Woody (Mar 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon suffered from that until some younger blood finally got to the top. The trouble is, they also need to make a profit. Innovative ideas do not keep a company in business if they don't turn a profit.
> 
> Nikon is building a giant plant in Laos to open this fall, apparently hoping to ultimately get their costs down. They also (I think) understand that the warmer weather means more floods and they need to have plan(t) B. I hope it works out for them, lower prices are certainly welcome, and Canon is in the drivers seat right now as far as cost of production is concerned. They drop prices and still make a nice profit.



Great analysis. One reason Nikon has problems with profits is they tried too hard to displace Canon as market leader. But Nikon must also improve their quality control. Obviously, their standard has taken quite a hit recently with the D800 left side misfocus and D600 sensor debris problems...


----------



## M.ST (Mar 25, 2013)

Hint: Two different prototypes from Canon and a prototype from Nikon (maybe named D4X) is out for testing in the field.

The 7D Mark II is a big step away from a possible introduced 70D. 

My advice: Wait until the 7D Mark II is releasend and then decide if you want go FF from APS-C. If you compare the 7D Mark II prototype with the 6D. Well ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 25, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Hint: Two different prototypes from Canon and a prototype from Nikon (maybe named D4X) is out for testing in the field.
> 
> The 7D Mark II is a big step away from a possible introduced 70D.
> 
> My advice: Wait until the 7D Mark II is releasend and then decide if you want go FF from APS-C. If you compare the 7D Mark II prototype with the 6D. Well ...



part of me almost wonders if I might not to go APS-C from FF ;D


----------



## Aglet (Mar 25, 2013)

I'd love to see a new body from Canon, crop or FF, that actually makes a measurable (by DxOmark) improvement in low ISO read noise. Canon's done great guns at improving higher ISO across the board from compacts to pro SLR
but they still lag grossly at low ISO shadow SNR - sure, it only affects a few of us to any significant extent, but I won't spend any of my money on another Canon body until they actually show some serious improvement in that area. 

Nothing they've brought out in the last few (to 10) years has made any significant improvement in this area. So much so that not only will I not buy another Canon body until they improve, I've sold the more expensive newer ones that failed to deliver anything over the older bodies I already have. AF improvements, video and other features are nice but I'd just like a much improved stills shooter, please.

BTW, my favorite new under-puppy *Pentax* might release a FF body this year, likely a conservative 24MP unit.
If it performs anything like their K5 series, their market share is likely to double! from darn near nuthing to twice that! ;D
However, as an enthusiast camera maker, Pentax has a small but very loyal user/fan base, many of whom still own some FF compatible old film-era lenses so if they do release a reasonably priced (and they're as bad for this as Canon) new FF body, I can see some uptake from existing users who'd prefer not to go CaNikon to get FF goodness. count me in as one of those who'll be willing to give that new FF a whirl.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 25, 2013)

The lag between announcement and delivery is based on manufacturing ramp up time for FF using a modified process and the fact that Nikon will produce theirs first. Let's remember we still want Canon to be in business, so yes they will pre-announce...

SATA III drives max out at around 400-500MBps (real-world) not Mbps, so I don't think the i/o subsystem is a bottleneck 

Exmor is equivalent to Digic, not the sensor....

I agree with the other post and have said before - Canon released updated glass first as they can get revenue ahead of the sensor improvements on both the 7D II and 1DxL 

USB 3 / thunderbolt - I've only ever used USB to control the camera - do others prefer to use these i/f to offload pictures etc? The Ethernet on the 1Dx is faster than the CF card, as would be the USB 3 and Thunderbolt, so not sure the benefit of adding a faster i/o ports without faster CF, unless you are tethered....

Photographers asked for better high iso, and the way Canon chose to do it, presumably based on sensor limitations was to reduce the MP slightly. They're a business and thus want to respond as best as they can with the tech they have to retain you. Pretty normal IMHO....

Overall, when I read these threads I am reminded on Tom Hogan who normally calls it correctly when he said with the current cameras from Nikon & Canon you really can't blame the camera on making bad pictures, only the photographer....


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 25, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> so canon user will get a 8000 euro high MP camera while nikon user get a high MP camera for 2200 euro.



Correction:

*so canon user will get a 8000 euro high MP camera in 2014Q1 at the earliest while nikon user get a high MP camera for 3000 eur in 2012Q1*

There you go, much better now.


----------



## Skulker (Mar 25, 2013)

Is it me? What do people do with all these mega pixels? I find around 20 is just fine, more than I need really. I sell prints and enlarge to about 40 inches wide with no quality problems.

I guess that you can crop more, but then you have the option of getting a longer lens or getting closer if you can.

I'm never aware of the difference as far as pixels density between my cameras when processing my images. One is 18 and the other is 20 something. There you go I don't even know the exact numbers.

So what do people plan to do with all those pixels? How can you use them all in one go?


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 25, 2013)

How about macro?

If per-pixel-quality is similar to the 1D-X or 5D Mark III then you can crop to your heart's delight or create stunning large-scale images of static objects like flowers and such.

How about shooting landscapes without bringing a Hasselblad or similar medium format device?

How about people shooting magazine covers or similar work?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2013)

Woody said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon suffered from that until some younger blood finally got to the top. The trouble is, they also need to make a profit. Innovative ideas do not keep a company in business if they don't turn a profit.
> ...



I think Nikon has far worse issues than a few tech bugs. Their last generation of DSLR's all robbed each other's sales and divided their own markets...a sure sign of a panic with their pro cameras. The D700 totally divided the D3 sales. Who would buy a D3 after a D700 was launched? Practically the same specs for half the size and cost...lol. Nikon was so desperate to grab market share they lost their long term perspective. When the next batch of cameras came out, the D4 wasn't properly shaken down and has had loads of tech issues. The D800 isn't the same genre/spec division of the D700 which has really peaved off a lot of Nikon shooters. Many Pro photographers (whom Nikon were courting) ditch Canon, sold a lot of kit and re-invested in Nikon glass...only to find that the next round Nikon wanted them to buy D4's at a huge price increase over the D800. Most of those pros looked at the D800 and considered it to have inappropriate specs. The very reason for them to consider Nikon (low mp, hish iso and the best AF in the business) were no longer valid and many have quietly gone back to Canon. While the D800 is a very innovative camera, it's not right for the buying market it's in. Nikon needed a true D700 replacement and hasn't delivered. The 5DIII is easily the most versatile DSLR ever made and the new ex 600 rt flash is simply the best flash gun ever made. Nikon have seriously upset their user base and handed the game back to Canon. If I was a Canon to Nikon switcher...I certainly wouldn't trust Nikon again.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2013)

Going back to this threads origins...
I still don't see the need for a 40+ mp DSLR. With the current 22mp sensors, I can blow up to A1 size easily and still have a very low noise threshold. Why would I trade these features for more mush MP? There's not many lenses which can resolve that level of detail. I just worry that this camera is being developed by forum pressure and the desire for brand bragging rights. I seriously doubt that it'll sell well, lets face it, the current 1Dx aint cheap and it's not going to be cheaper than that camera!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Is it me? What do people do with all these mega pixels? I find around 20 is just fine, more than I need really. I sell prints and enlarge to about 40 inches wide with no quality problems.
> 
> So what do people plan to do with all those pixels? How can you use them all in one go?



I think they plan to boast and brag about their extra MP and then fondle their cameras every night with their big toll like hands


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 25, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2013)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.



You must have a bad 5DIII, for my landscapes it's been quite amazing and the appalling Nikon Live view effort puts me off any Nikon DSLR for landscape work. The D800 might have less banding and slightly more DR, but bracketing and digital blending is still required for high contrast imagery. If you are using NR on your 5DIII, then I would suggest your camera is out of spec, are using poor metering technique or you are rushing your landscape work. If you are pulling so much out of the shadows, then there is obviously a meeting issue or you are cutting courners with your bracketing and blending. 
This image below, I combined the foreground and sky exposures into one image, I had to wait for the sun to kiss the foreground but the sun position was then wrong. So taking the two images created a better photo and one which looks balanced for exposure and has a stong visual feel. The difference between 30+ and 20+ mp is mute here and I get to utilise the camera's low 100 iso virtues because the 2 source images were taken using the camera's optimal performance.


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 25, 2013)

Development Announcement??  
Where's the 200-400 F4L 1.4X TC~~~


----------



## infared (Mar 25, 2013)

Wait...wait...soooooo what you are saying is that the big megapixel Canon MAY be released a year from now...AND...some of its technology may be based on a camera that has not been announced or released yet?
WOW.. This is really exciting news for Canon users! (Sorry...but some sarcasm is mandatory here, I could not hold it in). 
My 5D III is lookin pretty good here...and was probably a fraction of the cost of these future tech marvels. 
The files sizes and quality coming out of my 5DIII are great... I will buy some more glass...I guess unless Canon produced a camera with file sizes the same as the 5D III with incredible dynamic range...I will not need another camera for a while.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2013)

Ricku said:


> SpaceGhost said:
> 
> 
> > The big question is what body will this be in.
> ...



I prefer 1D type body as more features/speed/responsiveness etc can be packed in.
Besides, high MP will be used by many more than just 'landscapers and travelers'. Studio, fashion etc. will benefit too.
And all serious landscape photographers use a tripod and if they carrying a tripod, the little extra weight of 1d body is not an issue.
Regards..


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 25, 2013)

Great job with that shot, GMC.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Great job with that shot, GMC.



Thanks bud, suprisingly....not much snow! Looking out my window today and I'm trying hard to imagine that it's late March....lol!


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 25, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.
> ...



I rarely have to use multiple shots with the D800 whereas I often had to with the mk III. In my experience I can also get more detail from the shadows without getting the noise banding. I agree that the Live View is far better on the Canon than on the D800, but then I very rarely use Live View in any case as I still prefer to use the viewfinder. I'll often shoot handheld which is something I do with my medium format 645D also.

My experience:

Canon 5D mkIII  Nikon D800 

Live view better worse

Silent shooting much better hardly much quieter than normal shooting

Dynamic Range worse Much better

Low ISO noise much worse Much better

Shadow recovery much worse Much better


I'm no fanboi. I judge from my images. The Mk III can take some great images, but the pattern noise killed it for me. That being said, I haven't yet sold all my L glass, so I am keeping my head in. I operate a two camera set up: D800 and the 40 mp Pentax 645D. The resolution isn't the be all and end all. BUt is good to have the ability to print to about the same size with both. The D800 is the best of all three for dynamic range in my experience, but the 645D gives a different feeling. It also doesn't give me the pattern noise that the Canon does. And I'm not the only one reporting that.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 25, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Thanks bud, suprisingly....not much snow! Looking out my window today and I'm trying hard to imagine that it's late March....lol!



It's funny that you say that. We are WAY under average snowfall in the DC area this winter too. The overnight forecast called for a possible dusting of snow. I woke up to a very unexpected 4 inches of snow on the ground. I took some quick shots of the woods behind my apartment before heading to work..a pleasant surprise. In keeping with the recent conversation about DR in this thread, I will push a single shot exposure and post to show that even with shadows and snow the Mk III does just fine.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 25, 2013)

This might benefit many others shooters: studio or landscape shooter, but not for me. 23MP on 5D III is more than enough.


----------



## klickflip (Mar 25, 2013)

At least we are getting a presumably fairly solid rumour here? .... I have been waiting since before the 5D mkIII for the next generation of sensors, that Nikon / Sony must of had in development 4 years ago. So what have Canon been doing? And I'm quite dismayed about this. 

For me its not all about MP, I think 50mp on 35mm might be too much.. for most people and pushing sensor density and lens to limits. I think 40MP with 2 stops more DR and the most important NO banding / noise in shadows at 100-400 would be the optimum combination. 

I shoot studio work at lot and this would make a huge difference when dealing with low key subjects plus simply having a more maluable file to push and retouch with. I did a head to head test with my friends D800 the other day as was seriously considering getting one to run alongside my 5D mkIII. 

So I hope this is of interest and not too off topic, but for those debating the D800 vs 5D mkIII or MFDB or wanting more MP read on. And when I get time this week I will post a proper review of my tests with samples.

The first thing I found was the D800 has not much more DR in a studio setting with a subject full of smooth tones and some fairly contrasty areas. The D800 is a more natural looking file and much less micro contrast & sharpness compared to canon raws straight out of the box. The actual MP size difference was not that big, nothing that couldnt successfully be upscaled. But the shadow detail had quite a bit less noise, but also had less information in it, it seemed the noise in the canons shadow areas was actually emphasising any subtle details especially on skin texture. 

As some other posters correctly said its about what you do with the file and how you shoot to capture the exposure. 
In canons case overexpose TTR and get a cleaner file plus you can pull back the highlights slightly more than the D800.
But if you do underexpose or have to pull shadow up a lot then the D800 wins hands down.

Surprisingly in my tests I compared my experience of Hasselblad H3DII-39 and Phase one P30+ image quality and the D800 is better than the Hasselblad sensor -cleaner and can be pushed more, although it is not as bitingly sharp but that can easily be added later. And the P30 is a harder more processed looking file similar to the canon but can be pushed a lot but is also very smooth at the same time. 

But what I did find was the most important factor - LENS, I only had access to the nikon 24-70 and tested it against the canon 24-105 L and 50mm 1.4 and both the canon lens appeared to be sharper. I believe 50 % was due to sharper lens and 50% due to the way the canon raw files are sharper to begin with before any sharpening can be applied in processing. Also because of the slightly smaller file size the canon images looked sharper overall which is good news for most uses up to 24" prints I would imagine. 

Then the next day I tested out the 35L , 50L and 85L and I was very surprised by the look from these lens, not quite enough is written about this in reviews that concentrate on sharpness , CA, vignetting and bokeh. Bokeh is one thing but the way these lenses smoothly draw the image and combined with the punchy raw characteristics the camera it was amazingly similar to the Hasselblad primes with a Phase One back which is very impressive indeed. 

So after a lot of studying files and forums about the D800 then testing it myself I ended up with the surprise conclusion to invest more into Canon-specifically the main 3 primes I don't have yet, 35L (though may try the sigma as well) 50L and 85L as this will have the nicest and biggest impact on the look and feel of my images. 
And beyond that i really do hope canon do produce a sensor with as clean shadows as the D800 in the next year or I will be really sad to have to look to alternatives again. 

However I am slightly scared that they will produce a monster MP 50+ with less than 1 stop better DR and more noise reduction to keep shadow noise at bay rather than concentrating on a purely better sensor in terms of DR, tonal gradation and shadow noise/ banding. 

One last word is please people and Canon stop this hi-iso driven quest, very rarely do most people need to shoot over 6400 and how many truly beautiful images have been made at stupidly high ISOs. It's ruining photography for a lot I believe compared to few good snaps you might be able to get and marvel about how dark it was! 
When I saw a post recently about them demoing a video sensor that can shoot in near darkness I wailled and cursed why are their R&D so obsessed with that and video .. remember proper photographers that like to use light, studio flash and shoot mostly at 100iso for beautiful clean stunning professional results!


----------



## Eimajm (Mar 25, 2013)

Just a small question, and excuse me if i seem a little illeducated about a high MP sensors as i'm only a novice, but who is it aimed at? Are we looking at fashion pros producing life size posters / billboards and that type of things? My 18MP camera can print A3 at 300dpi so I'm assuming you all produce huge prints for one thing or another?


----------



## pedro (Mar 25, 2013)

DarkKnightNine said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> ...



*...they seem to be content with merely keeping in step* If I am not absolutely wrong about all I've read during my intercultural studies about asian people, this IS asian way of competition. Because if you step outside of the mass, you expose yourself too much and take the whole stagelight for yourself, which is considered as impolite...and Canon are a japanese enterprise...so much more lowprofile acting is requiered. Anybody out there to confirm my humble assumptions, please?


----------



## Woody (Mar 25, 2013)

pedro said:


> Because if you step outside of the mass, you expose yourself too much and take the whole stagelight for yourself, which is considered as impolite...and Canon are a japanese enterprise...so much more lowprofile acting is requiered. Anybody out there to confirm my humble assumptions, please?



Nikon, Sony, Olympus etc are also Japanese companies.

Besides, Canon was one of the FIRST companies to introduce FF sensors.


----------



## pedro (Mar 25, 2013)

Woody said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > Because if you step outside of the mass, you expose yourself too much and take the whole stagelight for yourself, which is considered as impolite...and Canon are a japanese enterprise...so much more lowprofile acting is requiered. Anybody out there to confirm my humble assumptions, please?
> ...



Thanks, Woody. Then I was a bit too blue eyeish about that...;-) 

On a sidenote: I just hope that all this might lead up to new, higher improved and different sensor tech which will also result in even better ultra high ISOs in the next or the overnext 5D-generation (I know there are 1Dxs, but they're out of my saving up scheme). My 5D3 delievers decent results as up to 51k if I wanna push it, 102k looks a bit different ;-) So if 51k ISO will nearly look like let's say ISO 16-18.000 I will be more than excited. Let's hope for the best then. But anyway, the 5D3 rock really hard.




Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr




Z96A3565bBWKLEINALT by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*this past weekend, ISO 51k*




Z96A3556bBWKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*this past weekend, ISO 102k*


----------



## psolberg (Mar 25, 2013)

about time, and good for canon as the benefits of high resolution sensors and oversampling are becoming obvious to anybody shooting with D800/e all the time, specially for portraits, fashion, weddings and landscapes.

if anything this camera sounds conservative. it should be at least 50+MP if it is to keep up with 2014 trends.

finally canon seems to be leaving the low resolution game they've been playing!!!


----------



## bestimage (Mar 25, 2013)

hoping for 16 bit color depth and batter sensor


----------



## insanitybeard (Mar 25, 2013)

privatebydesign- love the signature! (not exactly on topic but probably relevent, given the amount of negativity seen on this forum sometimes)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Mar 25, 2013)

klickflip said:


> At least we are getting a presumably fairly solid rumour here? .... I have been waiting since before the 5D mkIII for the next generation of sensors, that Nikon / Sony must of had in development 4 years ago. So what have Canon been doing? And I'm quite dismayed about this.
> 
> For me its not all about MP, I think 50mp on 35mm might be too much.. for most people and pushing sensor density and lens to limits. I think 40MP with 2 stops more DR and the most important NO banding / noise in shadows at 100-400 would be the optimum combination.
> 
> ...



While I want cleaner low iso, I also welcome all the low light improvements as it allows us wedding shooters to capture a greater variety of images that include the ambient light of the venue as opposed to blasting it away itch off cam lighting. 

Watching canons tactics, if you notice the past few years have had a ton of lens developments. Me thinks that is a good plan, release lenses that can resolve way more than 50 MP's while the body is still in dev. That way glass wise canon is ready for the next decade.

Either way though, while I WANT a big mp body, I as of yet do not NEED a big a big mp body.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Sorry for the delay, I hit the wrong button. I just received my D7100. If feels like a cropped D800 but with 24mp. I must say that I'm glad to see that Canon will be announcing some high MP camera this year. I can now wait for 2014 to use my Canon gear again and I welcome the advance notice. I was thinking of buying a Nikon supertele but I think I'll now wait until I can use my Canon glass again. I may order the Nikon 200-400 because from what the rumors are saying the Canon 200-400 may be better but may be over $10,000 usd. I have to draw the line somewhere.

By the way, my Dell computer from Costco (in other words, nothing special) is fine for processing large D800 images. I use lostless compressed format and they average about 41mb. The 5D3 as I remember produces files about 29mb per shot. Yes their is a difference but getting a USB 3.0 driver made up for the slower download. Getting bridge to produce the 100% preview images do take some time but CS6 seems to spawn a different process to do the downloading so I'm working on something else as the download and subsequent preview building is taking place. 

Bottom line is that technology is still going to be moving forward now and in the future.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 25, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody that can't print big from a Canon file just doesn't know what they are doing. I posted these in another thread about sharpness.
> 
> First image is the complete 21MP 1Ds MkIII capture, the second image is a 7" crop from a 47" print file. Now I played with the figures a little (downsampled my print file) to get the crop to display in the forum at around 7" wide. On my 27" monitor (which is where I got the measurements) the crop is 7" wide, but your screen size and resolution will affect the absolute size, if you have a tablet zoom until the crop is 7" wide.
> 
> ...



That's a great image Private. I think it's in the eyes, and of course the light. The sensor sure doesn't seem to be holding you back.


----------



## art_d (Mar 25, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody that can't print big from a Canon file just doesn't know what they are doing.


That seems like a quite a presumptive statement to make. 



> First image is the complete 21MP 1Ds MkIII capture, the second image is a 7" crop from a 47" print file. Now I played with the figures a little (downsampled my print file) to get the crop to display in the forum at around 7" wide. On my 27" monitor (which is where I got the measurements) the crop is 7" wide, but your screen size and resolution will affect the absolute size, if you have a tablet zoom until the crop is 7" wide.


I am not sure how you are getting to your 7" wide crop. But your cropping image file is 700 pixels wide. At 300 ppi, that is 2.33 inches.


----------



## motorhead (Mar 25, 2013)

Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.

For whatever reason Canon have been asleep at the wheel for a while now and its time they woke up. I have no wish for ISO extremes, nor do I shoot video at all, but I do shoot landscapes, so want a camera that has a minimum of noise and world beating DR. Maybe removal of the anti-aliassing filter?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 25, 2013)

motorhead said:


> Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.
> 
> For whatever reason Canon have been asleep at the wheel for a while now and its time they woke up. I have no wish for ISO extremes, nor do I shoot video at all, but I do shoot landscapes, so want a camera that has a minimum of noise and world beating DR. Maybe removal of the anti-aliassing filter?



It's a valid fixation. There are many more sports and wedding photographers than landscape photographers. Hence why Canon has dominated the market.


----------



## fonts (Mar 25, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> motorhead said:
> 
> 
> > Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.
> ...



+1. Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me? I'm not a sports photographer but UNDERSTAND the market Canon dominates. Sports photography is all about high ISO, high shutter! Just because you don't use it doesn't mean others don't. 

Edit: Also whose to say by working in high ISO Canon won't create a new standard of where ISO 800 will produce as clean as an image as ISO 100 and so on as the years progress. You want to stop this improvement because of why?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2013)

fonts said:


> Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?



To be fair, what he said was above ISO 6400. I suspect he's true, only because until the most recent Canon bodies, shooting above ISO 6400 gave unusable results. That's not true anymore. On my 1D X, ISO 6400 is the new ISO 800.


----------



## fonts (Mar 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> fonts said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?
> ...



>.< true I guess, but it would be nice if Canon did continue the improvement of its high ISO. Hah true, even 12800 saved me a couple of times.


----------



## art_d (Mar 25, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> To the first, not really, if you know how to use your equipment and have a basic grasp of post processing as I demonstrate, very large high detail and quality prints are more than possible with the current sensors. More MP might be nice, but it isn't, generally, *needed*, and the disadvantages of always having more can vastly outweigh the advantages of having it, just ask any D800 owner about their computer processing times and storage requirements!


I have a pretty solid grasp of how to use my equipment, how to post process, I own a 44" printer, I shoot professionally and I also exhibit in galleries. I can tell you from years of experience that printing large depends on what you mean by "large" and how acceptable the results are depends on the subject matter. I've made 6-foot tall exhibition portraits from a single 5dII file. But I would not print a landscape photo (or a cityscape photo as is my case often) with lots of fine detail in it larger than 20x30 at most from a Canon camera (and often I find 16x24 unacceptable) because the fine detail falls apart. So it's not quite so simple.



> To the second, it depends how you look at it. But no, I have the print and if the crop is 7" wide on your screen then it is the same size as the same detail on the print.
> 
> As for my methodology, I upscaled the original 21mp image to print at 240, anybody saying you need to print big prints at higher resolutions just isn't actually doing it. I then wanted to show an actual life sized (as close as different resolutions of monitors will allow) crop from that 31"x47" print. To do that I measured my screen and a 700px image in the forum, it is 7" wide on my 27" monitor, I then cropped a 7" section out of my print file and downsampled it to 700px. This means it is an accurate reproduction of my print life sized if you are displaying it at close to 7", if you have a calibrated screen all the better.


An image displayed on a monitor is not quite the same as an image printed on paper. In any case, if you upscaled your print to 240ppi, then a 7-inch crop should be 1680 pixels across. 

But again, just because you can print a portait large and it looks good doesn't mean a landscape photographer shooting with the same camera can print a photo large and have it look good. So I'd advise against making blanket statements about others not knowing what they're doing just because they say they could use more resolution.


----------



## infared (Mar 25, 2013)

Private by design. I could not agree with your more, pretty much about EVERYTHING that you have said. I am newer to large printing and digital...I have a 5DIII...just did a 24x36 print of a heavily processed file and the results were great and my customer was happy enough to order two more upon receipt of the first print.
Can you tell me "exactly" what you mean by up-sampling? (is it simply preparing the file's Height and Width for printing with the existing file info and the PPI falls where it may, or are you doing some tricky computer stuff?). 
Thanks.

I see a 40MP camera just being used for larger commercial purposes and the price will obviously reflect that. I think my 5D will serve my needs for quite some time now.


----------



## gary samples (Mar 25, 2013)

when I here 40mp as a wildlife shoooter I here croping into my shot by 60% and still have'n something to work with ! bring it on


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

The only purpose a larger MP camera will serve is to provide either smaller pixels or to allow for deeper cropping when necessary. Size and print enlargement are irrelevant unless you plan on printing full frame shots as wall murals.

That being said, there could also be other benefits such as better AF system, less noise at high ISO and better highlights. Could we see a 16 bit DR with this one? We'll see.

Based on pixel density alone, most will never have a need and all will never want to have to store such large images forever.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 25, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Is it me? What do people do with all these mega pixels? I find around 20 is just fine, more than I need really. I sell prints and enlarge to about 40 inches wide with no quality problems.
> 
> I guess that you can crop more, but then you have the option of getting a longer lens or getting closer if you can.
> 
> ...



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

Computers of today are not computers of the future. 8 megapixel displays will be standard soon enough (they've been showing off prototypes for more than half a decade now. Stupid recession), and within 15 years 32 megapixel displays should be hitting the market (I would rather we jump straight to 32MP, but no current video output standard is capable of the required bandwidth).
32MP on a 30" computer screen is decently sharp, so I don't expect too much increase beyond that (there is still potential for higher density and larger screens, but bandwidth becomes an even bigger issue the further you go).
Anyway, 32MP sounds like a good number to shoot for in the long term, meaning that if I want grand kids in the distant future not to giggle at how small my pictures are it should be at least 32MP. Yes, saying "for posterity's sake" is a lame excuse, get the better camera when technology catches up, but I do like the idea of things having long term value. Given that we do have the technology to capture ultra high resolution pictures right now I would like to use it, and at worst I will end up with some insanely detailed big prints to hang on the wall.


On the point of high ISO, it's actually extremely valuable on a budget. The situation I'm in right now is that I have a 400f5.6 and find it easy to under expose (high shutter speed to freeze motion). To improve the situation my options are: 1. Buy a 300f2.8 and TC or 500f4. 2. find a camera that has the same image quality at a higher ISO. One of these options is a lot less expensive than the other.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 25, 2013)

It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.

I don't feel there is a full frame in the canon line up for me at the moment: 1dx out of budget. 5D mkiii, autofocus would be wasted on me. 6D, whilst a fine camera, doesn't quite cut it in areas I want. Just little things that add up like, lack of white balance button and thumb stick, not 5 series build quality and lack of cross points in the autofocus.

An ideal high mp camera for me would be:

New process 36 MP sensor
4/5 fps
7D autofocus
5D mkiii body and controls 
7D metering

It'd sit well in the line up too:

6D: entry FF, feature packed [gps/wifi]
High MP: for studio and Landscape, decent AF for versatility. 
5D mkiii: Weddings and Events with some sport and wildlife, Best all rounder.
1DX: The Best


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 25, 2013)

We would need some better lenses for that. 500 and 600 mk II would need some upgrading. You will find your shots also get softer. Not because of the camera but because you are pushing the limits of the lens too far.



gary samples said:


> when I here 40mp as a wildlife shoooter I here croping into my shot by 60% and still have'n something to work with ! bring it on


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 25, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> motorhead said:
> 
> 
> > Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.
> ...



High ISO if clean is great for landscape shots when movement is not desirable - for instance freezing stars without wishing to get star trails. If you're taking shots from a moving plane, then faster speeds are essential (>1/1000th is ideal). Add in the desire to shoot in the golden hour, and suddenly higher iso is useful. Finally, as has been mentioned, not having to take a tripod everywhere opens up flexibility - although I appreciate that may be negated by the higher resolution.

1Dx bodies are also perhaps better in harsher conditions - be that cold, wet or sand, all often encountered by landscape photographers.

I thought as mentioned in other threads, Canon's latest L glass is not sensor limited. And certainly not by a 40MP sensor.

Finally, as also mentioned elsewhere, higher MP resolves the subject detail better.

Cropping is useful, even for landscapes, where you can't change your position or zoom - for a variety of reasons.

The simple conclusion is of course, everyone has different needs. And sure, eventually, Canon will try and satisfy them all, but they're never gonna keep everyone happy...

But then if they did, these forums would be a lot quieter ;D


----------



## klickflip (Mar 25, 2013)

Sith Zombie said:


> It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.
> 
> I don't feel there is a full frame in the canon line up for me at the moment: 1dx out of budget. 5D mkiii, autofocus would be wasted on me. 6D, whilst a fine camera, doesn't quite cut it in areas I want. Just little things that add up like, lack of white balance button and thumb stick, not 5 series build quality and lack of cross points in the autofocus.
> 
> ...



Sith I'm with you on a lot of that but whats becoming apparent to me, is as the Canon higher end DSLRs progresses it makes it more strategic to control the updates of models in calculated 'developments' and implentations as a lot of people noted with the 6D. Plus there's less of a wow factor or original technological breakthroughs with new models at the moment. 

The 5D and 5DII were breathtaking in DSLR development terms that helped canon gain a lot of market ( and new market) so they dont want to loose the majority of buyers now. Unfortunately a lot are disgruntled at the moment with the sensor but they definitely have the rest of the camera and lens line developed better than most others i believe. 

And I believe that they realised they made a mistake (but not for us thankfully) releasing the 5DII when the 1DsIII and 1D 4 were available together. ALthough each had different uses the 5D II ate into their markets but so many more Video guys bought the 5DII and a new generation of design, corporate, wedding and event photographers took to it. Good price near highest quality in its league. it was a winner. 
So now they are protecting their sales by trying to keep the current owners on the same upgrade path for sales consistency instead of releasing breakthrough products. - 5D III brilliant camera for a pro now or serious amature much better than the 5DII, so most are happy apart from a few of us that are looking for better DR, noise and MP . While in reality it doesn't matter for most. 

Sith the 5DIII really is the best all rounder I can think of. 1Dx not neccesarrily the best but the best for press and sports, event and maybe catalogue fashion. I would say vs cost the 5D III is the best. 
7 D for sports and wildlife enthusiasts and tighter budget wedding and event guys. But the quality is a lot worse than the 5DIII and 1Dx if looked closely, depends on what you're doing though. Then the 6D as a gadget updated but actually regressed 5DII replacement for those on a a bit more of a budget that want to move to FF photo or video or for some second bodies. 

I'm a bit worried that a 1DxS would not be so much an advantage for the press, events and sports guys. I think fashion would welcome it and others like myself doing advertising, design and corporate work would welcome it but the 1D body could be a a bit overkill, I prefer mine without a battery grip when on a tripod. And lets not beat around the bush it will attract a another 3K on the price tag which would seem ridiculous compared to what Nikon did with D800. 

So could this be a marketing strategy.. release it on a 1D series body first , the keenest will buy and those who have cash to splurge to get hold of it at a premium, seeing it as an actual advantage to their work. Then 2 years later release a cut down 5D ish version and capitalise on that next. then we are back to 1Ds III and 5DII territory?? which is a bit confusing as I'm sure a 1D body development may be more costly than releasing a 5D cheaper model that probably sells more. 

Personally I think the 1D series should be mid high MP with the best autofocus like we have now for press, sports, and fashion. then the 5 series being more general for wedding, corporate and events and people that dont need or want a 40MP monster. 
Then there should be a 5D s with 40mp and poss 16 bit at slight premium of 1K more thats aimed more at advertising, design and even wedding guys that want to do more higher quality work and dont mind the extra filesize and post involved because they will be charging for it and presumably their work will show it. 

One thing that I do believe they are doing right is updating their lens line up to be better and ready for a high MP sensor.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 25, 2013)

Stu_bert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > motorhead said:
> ...



That's great! However, it doesn't have anything to do with why Canon has neglected a high MP body. The reason is plain and simple. High ISO/high shutter/super AF goes to sports and wedding photogs. Not landscape photogs. Take all the shooters, especially pros. What would you guess? 98% wedding/sports, 2% other? That's all great that everyone has different needs, but is beside the point.


----------



## Woody (Mar 26, 2013)

fonts said:


> +1. Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?



Some guys are saying that because Canon is not doing too badly in the high ISO department. If Canon falls behind the competition by 1 to 2 stops in high ISO, you'll hear MANY folks screaming they need better high ISO performance.  That's what happened to low ISO DR, no?


----------



## Woody (Mar 26, 2013)

Sith Zombie said:


> New process 36 MP sensor
> 4/5 fps
> 7D autofocus
> 5D mkiii body and controls
> 7D metering



I am not too impressed with 7D autofocus. The 5D3/1DX AF is MUCH MUCH better.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 26, 2013)

klickflip said:


> I'm a bit worried that a 1DxS would not be so much an advantage for the press, events and sports guys. I think fashion would welcome it and others like myself doing advertising, design and corporate work would welcome it but the 1D body could be a a bit overkill, I prefer mine without a battery grip when on a tripod. And lets not beat around the bush it will attract a another 3K on the price tag which would seem ridiculous compared to what Nikon did with D800.



I think the only problem is that Nikon already had D800. If Canon release it on a higher price tag, then D800 will only be more attractive to high MP shooters. Even if they release one that can directly compete with D800 after 2 years, that's still 2 + 1 years for D800. By that time, there could be a new high MP camera for Nikon. If they really want to retain/regain the high MP market, Canon should release something that can directly compete with D800 sooner than 2 years.


----------



## ddashti (Mar 26, 2013)

Canon would be taking on Nikon directly with this news.
And with the 7D Mark II having this technology, it'll only be pleasing to those who've been waiting for it for a while.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 26, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I don't think that's the whole story. You can say that high MP/DR sensor is also for status symbol, bragging rights. If you really want to be the market leader, you need to prove that you have the best or at least will compete with the best, no matter the arena. Sometimes, it's all about reputation. Yes, for most of us, that's not how we see it since some things are really trivial and there are other things that are more important but on the business side for Canon, there's a reputation they must maintain.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 26, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



Reputation? You mean the one they have supported by numbers, money, and sales? Oh that one!

"If you really want to be the market leader..." you say. Well, guess what. They are!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 26, 2013)

gary samples said:


> when I here 40mp as a wildlife shoooter I here croping into my shot by 60% and still have'n something to work with ! bring it on



Yes, but when you see the results from the 40mp with the longer focal length you can't/won't afford you'll be left wanting. That's if you're printing at sizes where 40mp matters.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2013)

art_d said:


> But again, just because you can print a portait large and it looks good doesn't mean a landscape photographer shooting with the same camera can print a photo large and have it look good. So I'd advise against making blanket statements about others not knowing what they're doing just because they say they could use more resolution.



+1
MP are not really the issue, even for some landscapers
it's the Canon-patented pattern noise.

I never shot with a 1Ds3 but I think it's actually got slightly better low ISO shadow performance than the 5d series.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 26, 2013)

I saw early signs on page 1 of the thread and skipped right down to page 9, and of course, there are lengthy discussions on Nikon vs Canon, High DR vs "Non-existent" DR, crop DX mode vs sRAW.
Another predictable, uninformative, pointless thread. Keep it up!


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 26, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



You can never rest on your laurels... That's what I'm saying. Clear?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2013)

Sith Zombie said:


> It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.
> 
> I don't feel there is a full frame in the canon line up for me at the moment: 1dx out of budget. 5D mkiii, autofocus would be wasted on me. 6D, whilst a fine camera, doesn't quite cut it in areas I want. Just little things that add up like, lack of white balance button and thumb stick, not 5 series build quality and lack of cross points in the autofocus.
> 
> ...



6fps (MUST HAVE)
new process high DR 39MP
5D3 AF (MUST HAVE, 7D AF isn't that amazing)
5D3 body/UI
7D metering
top video (may need dual-digic to drive it fully off of 39MP and same for the 6fps)


----------



## M.ST (Mar 26, 2013)

Hint: 

One of the 7D Mark II / 7D X (or whatever called) prototypes has a new sensor design in it. One prototype has two old processors in it, an other prototype has the new one in it. 

But you will definetely see a new image enhancement technology (even in the new high megapixel FF). But Nikon is not sleeping. The new top of the line Nikon performs very well and is very well tested. 

The image quality is a big step up like the D7100 compared to the D600.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Hint:
> 
> One of the 7D Mark II / 7D X (or whatever called) prototypes has a new sensor design in it. One prototype has two old processors in it, an other prototype has the new one in it.
> 
> ...



_Nikon's been very impressive so far and they still have 2 flagship bodies that haven't yet been updated.
_So we're expecting a lot from the D400 and D4x! 
Canon may have market-share, but Nikon's winning mindshare with impressive sensor performance. (& some are waking up to Pentax as well, FWIW, and Fuji, and Olympus, and Sony)


----------



## RVB (Mar 26, 2013)

Aglet said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > But again, just because you can print a portait large and it looks good doesn't mean a landscape photographer shooting with the same camera can print a photo large and have it look good. So I'd advise against making blanket statements about others not knowing what they're doing just because they say they could use more resolution.
> ...



I dumped my 1DX because of pattern noise,it's unacceptable from a camera of this price.. the next canon sensor will have to be at least as good as the exmor or I wont consider it..


----------



## RVB (Mar 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.
> ...



Add D4 style backklit buttons to that list,they're excellent...


----------



## ewg963 (Mar 26, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.
> ...


Beautiful!!!!


----------



## TomazK (Mar 26, 2013)

Hey,

Since you have a Nikon D4X in your signature  tell us a little bit more 





M.ST said:


> Hint:
> 
> One of the 7D Mark II / 7D X (or whatever called) prototypes has a new sensor design in it. One prototype has two old processors in it, an other prototype has the new one in it.
> 
> ...


----------



## dolina (Mar 26, 2013)

Announcement by October should have a shipping unit trickling in by late December.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 26, 2013)

Woody said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > New process 36 MP sensor
> ...



No doubt about it, but with the 5dmkiii autofocus then it pretty much replaces the 5dmkiii [which may end up happening]. Canon always differentiate their product line, so I feel if it was a new line in a 5d style body they would separate it from the 5d line by lowering fps and autofocus.
I don't feel a high mp camera will be in the entry level camp so that leaves 5d and 1d style bodies. 5d style could potentially sell more units: back up for 5d mkiii or 1dx, prosumers, studio and landscape hobbyists


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.
> ...



Yeah thats a great camera! but that would be a 5dmkiii replacement that would cost a lot more than the 5dmkiii. This may indeed how things turn out but I was talking about a new line that I would like to see introduced, that would fill a gap in the current line up and would be affordable: hence the low fps and 7d af


----------



## learncanon (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> art_d
> 
> I believe part of Canon's marketing leadership is based on them knowing what they are doing, to do that they know a trick I was taught many years ago by my mentor, don't give people what they say they want, understand what they want and give them that. Most of the time, as the marketshare demonstrates, Canon do deliver what people actually want.



You are very right. We do not know what we want. Canon can read our mind, just like Apple; users ask for big specs big screen big etc on their phones, but apple says specs and screen size are not everything. a well design software can run really smoothly and 3.5 inch lcd gives good single-hand operation. there's a survey which says iphone has the highest user-satisfactions.


----------



## gecko (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn't stating that nobody needed more MP, I was pointing out that the numbers we have can be used to very great effect and I don't believe many people* need *more the vast majority of the time,



Well I do.

It's just what I need for better photo's of my cat. 
I regularly print 4x6 prints of her, and I think the extra MP's will come in handy for downsampling to fix those out of focus shots. 
I'm sure my old Canon MP600 printer will get a new lease of life when these higher quality files come through - I doubt you'll be able to tell that I print on plain paper.

Hurry up Canon, I need this camera!


----------



## sanj (Mar 26, 2013)

All this negativity about advancement in technology!!! Why??
There WILL be a high mpix camera anyone likes it or not.
There WILL be people who will buy it as it will promise better IQ...

We should not fight this and just wait to see if it suits our needs. If it does we will buy it.

I am looking forward to it in a 1d style body... But that is ME.


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 26, 2013)

Sith Zombie said:


> Canon always differentiate their product line, so I feel if it was a new line in a 5d style body they would separate it from the 5d line by lowering fps and autofocus.



They could differentiate upwards. 1DX AF and metering, all the other bells and whistles(how much would freedom from the shackles of x-sync be worth?), and charge an adequate premium. Keep in mind that the 5D3 will be at the half of its product cycle by then...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 26, 2013)

It will only produce better IQ if the lenses improve. Once it does arrive you will hear on these forums about how soft it is. This will be due to lenses and not the camera. Even with the MK II lenses, the images will be softer and the complaints will start.

I think instead of focusing on 135, they should expand into larger formats where the extra MP will be of more use. Makes no sense for the sensors to out resolve any of the lenses currently in production.



sanj said:


> All this negativity about advancement in technology!!! Why??
> There WILL be a high mpix camera anyone likes it or not.
> There WILL be people who will buy it as it will promise better IQ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Dantana (Mar 26, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> It will only produce better IQ if the lenses improve. Once it does arrive you will hear on these forums about how soft it is. This will be due to lenses and not the camera. Even with the MK II lenses, the images will be softer and the complaints will start.
> 
> I think instead of focusing on 135, they should expand into larger formats where the extra MP will be of more use. Makes no sense for the sensors to out resolve any of the lenses currently in production.



I'm not so sure about that. Are people with an 18 MP 7D complaining about the softness of the MK II lenses? If you made a full frame sensor with the same pixel density of the 7D, you'd be around 47 MP (unless my source on that is off).

A crop from the center of a big MP sensor would look much like what 7D shooters ( and I suppose anyone with a decent 18 MP APS-C body) are shooting right now. I know there are a lot of complaints about that sensor, but none that I have heard have to do with it making high end glass look soft.

Maybe my logic is off there, but I don't think you'd be pushing it with the newer lenses.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 26, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



No not really, but ok. If you think producing a super high MP camera that only about 1-2% of the DSLR users will purchase is "stepping it up" then that's cool. However, the majority of camera users are NOT asking for a high MP camera. I think it will be produced in small quantities, be produced for a short time, and won't be updated for an even longer time after that. Also, like the 1Ds Mark III, there won't be many units sold. Look at the sales of 5D Mark II vs. 1Ds Mark III. Even most of the pros I knew bought the 5D2 over the 1Ds 3. Too pricy for not noticeable enough features over the other.


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I would also venture to say if you are a true landscape big print professional (I am not) then basing your captures on a single 135 format capture would be cavalier in the extreme. Even with a D800E.


That's debatable...but again, it revolves around the semantics of "big." Regardless, there is no doubt it will let you get "bigger."



> There will always be a few people who push any metric of any camera design, I wasn't stating that nobody needed more MP, I was pointing out that the numbers we have can be used to very great effect and I don't believe many people* need *more the vast majority of the time, me included. I was also pointing out that if you don't need it regularly, the downside of dealing with it all the time becomes a big negative.


This is true. But I was responding to your comment of "if you can't print big from a Canon you don't know what you're doing." And as far as the "downside" the answer is simple: don't buy a big megapixel camera if you don't need big megapixels.



> I believe part of Canon's marketing leadership is based on them knowing what they are doing, to do that they know a trick I was taught many years ago by my mentor, don't give people what they say they want, understand what they want and give them that. Most of the time, as the marketshare demonstrates, Canon do deliver what people actually want.


But up until the D800 came out, Canon was _the_ choice for high resolution photography. If you were a landscape or architecture shooter like myself, it was a no brainer. It was not just because of the 5DII. It was lenses like the 17mm TS-E and 24mm TS-E that are geared toward that type of shooting. The 5DIII did not follow in that tradition of providing a resolution increase. I'm not saying it didn't make a lot of people happy. But as evidenced by the people who bought those tilt shift lenses, there is a market for high resolution photography.



> Mixed in with those spurious distractions, sure a bit more DR will be nice, though none of the bleaters ever shows an optimally exposed real world image where the one stop lower Canon DR has ruined their image.


I have dozens of examples where the fixed pattern noise on Canon's sensors becomes a problem. I run into it probably at least once on every photoshoot I do. I can glady provide an illustration.



> I just think we should be careful what we ask for, if we shout too much then they might just give it to us. I just don't want to be bothered with 40+mb RAW files, every, single, shot.


Then don't buy such a camera. I am pretty confident there will still be other options geared towards people who require faster frame rates (and consequently smaller files).



> As to my crop, it was 1680px wide, but if I had posted it at that it would have displayed nearly 17" wide, that is not what I wanted to do, I wanted the detail to be life sized in relation to a 47" print, to do that I downsampled my 1680 wide print file crop to 700px wide to display at the correct size in the forum. I don't understand why that is such a difficult or complicated idea for you, a big printer, to get their head around, it is obviously a failing on my part to be clear.


I think showing a 700px image and saying this is a 7 inch crop can mislead people on what an actual print of that size would look like. A 700px wide image printed 7 inches wide is not going to look very good. I understand now your rationale, and I'm not saying you were trying to be sneaky or duplicitious...but I don't think it is reflective of the difference between screen and print.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 26, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > Canon always differentiate their product line, so I feel if it was a new line in a 5d style body they would separate it from the 5d line by lowering fps and autofocus.
> ...



Yes I guess they could, It's difficult to judge whats going to happen. Canon would see a new process high mp sensor as a premium product so they might want to pair it up with a end end body and components first and let it trickle down to other bodies later. Or by time this thing hits the streets it could well be a 5dmkiii replacement?


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> It will only produce better IQ if the lenses improve. Once it does arrive you will hear on these forums about how soft it is. This will be due to lenses and not the camera. Even with the MK II lenses, the images will be softer and the complaints will start.
> 
> I think instead of focusing on 135, they should expand into larger formats where the extra MP will be of more use. Makes no sense for the sensors to out resolve any of the lenses currently in production.


#1. No the images will not be softer. They may not always be sharper. But they defintitely will not be softer than what you would get with fewer mp.

#2. Canon has plenty of high quality lenses that will resolve more megapixels. I believe I recall a test on a 24TS-EII which showed that it is still able to resolve upwards of 100mp. Canon also has amazing lenses like the 24-70 II, 70-200 II, etc... There are plenty of quality lenses available, and we are not going to see them being outresolved by a sensor for a long time yet.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 26, 2013)

The higher pixel density is what will out resolve the glass, even MK II glass. Once you reach the resolution limit of the lens, the sensor will represent the image the best it can. If the data is not there it will be soft. 22MP and MKII glass is a great match. Pushing the pixel density higher wont improve the image. You will likely need to add sharpening to your photos to get the same kinds of edges you would get with the 5D3 or even the 7D.

It's all theoretical until we actually see what the new sensor is! 



Dantana said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > It will only produce better IQ if the lenses improve. Once it does arrive you will hear on these forums about how soft it is. This will be due to lenses and not the camera. Even with the MK II lenses, the images will be softer and the complaints will start.
> ...


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 26, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Once you reach the resolution limit of the lens, the sensor will represent the image the best it can. If the data is not there it will be soft.



Thats not how lens resolution works - instead higher frequency detail gets dampened, like in a low pass filter. More resolution just means slightly lower contrast for microdetail. Thats unless lens aberrations convolute detail in a nonrecoverable way, but the new canon lenses show little tendency to do so.
(But even with perfect lenses we're sooner or later have to choose between lack of DOF and diffraction...)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Mar 26, 2013)

gecko said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't stating that nobody needed more MP, I was pointing out that the numbers we have can be used to very great effect and I don't believe many people* need *more the vast majority of the time,
> ...



This is funny!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> art_d
> 
> 
> art_d said:
> ...



The difference in DR a lot more than one stop. You definitely do not get that holy cow crispness from 20MP at 47".


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> How could anybody possibly consider my post sneaky or duplicitous? I laid out the numbers from the word go. If you don't think it produces results reflective of the difference between screen and print then I would start to seriously consider your experience. How else can you show a print sized view? That is all PS does in Print View, and whilst it is not perfect, with the last several generations of graphics processors it is very close.


As I said, I did NOT consider your post sneaky or duplicitous and I UNDERSTAND your rationale.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 26, 2013)

MKII lenses while quite good are not perfect and is what we see in the real world. The sensor can only reveal what the lens can resolve.



Lawliet said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Once you reach the resolution limit of the lens, the sensor will represent the image the best it can. If the data is not there it will be soft.
> ...


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Please do, I have been dying to see some optimally exposed shots where the DR of a Canon has substantially ruined a shot yet a Nikon capture would have been perfect.


Here is one from a recent shoot of a prison complex:
http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/cell-block-2nd-level.jpg

The common area on the first floor is illuminated by a skylight. The dark gray cell doors on the second level have no lighting on them at all. Exposing correctly for the highlights in this scene severly underexposes the doors. There is no way to set up any additional lighting. Lifting the shadows on the doors in post leads to very obvious pattern noise on the doors. The eventual solution is blending multiple exposures. If this had been shot with an Exmor sensor simply lifting the shadows in a single exposure would not have been a problem.

Another example:
http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_6414-web.jpg

This image was exposed to capture the colors along the horizon. But because of dynamic range limitations, the water that should have been dark blue in the lower left corner was instead black. This requires lifting the shadows again. On the first 20x30 inch print I made, the shadow banding was clearly evident:
http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_6414-20x30crop-no-nr.jpg

I had to go back, reprocess the image multiple times, blend exposures, apply noise reduction with debanding, apply a manual blur brush, and apply grain to even things out. Again, with a better sensor, this processing scenario would have been greatly simplified.

(A longer explanation can be found at this link: http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2012/04/dynamic-range-canon-dslrs-and-shadow-noise-dealing-with-it/ )

I will just add one more note: "ruined" is your term, not mine. And it's a loaded term. I don't think Canon images are "ruined" by not having more dynamic range. But there are circumstances where it becomes problematic.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> I have always found FPN to be comparatively easily removed, lets face it, it is_ fixed pattern noise_, subtracting a dark frame can usually deal with it if NR can't. Banding when lifting shadows can be problematic, particularly with non optimally exposed images, hence my request for optimally exposed examples.



The point, made before, is that when we buy a body costing $2-3k or more, we should NOT have to F-round in photoshop to remove pattern noise. Just because _you_ can, doesn't mean _we_ should. Nor should we be settling for sub-par performance when options abound that perform better.

Some of us just have high higher standards and we're trying to hold Canon to a higher standard than they've been providing. I don't care about photoshop work-arounds that waste my time. Getting it right to start with sometimes means getting it with a non-Canon camera.

I told Canon directly, then voted with my wallet. Takes less time for me to hit my local shop, buy a competitor's camera and shoot and post-process however I want, without any concern for pattern noise. That a competitor's camera costing as little as $400 has no FPN is telling. That some of Canon's own products aren't particularly affected by it is also somewhat telling.
The ONLY mfr that has a problem with FPN with current products is ... can you guess?
The reason it's griped about is?... some of us are tired of paying serious money for serious gear when it has a serious weakness.


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> What you said was
> 
> 
> > " I understand now your rationale, and I'm not saying you were trying to be sneaky or duplicitious...but I don't think it is reflective of the difference between screen and print."
> ...


I don't agree that an image projected on a screen accurately represents what you see in a print just because it is the same size; and some people could be misled into believing that the 700 px image you posted can be printed 7 inches wide and look that crisp. But I was trying to make clear that I didn't want to insinuate you were being duplicituous in any way. Either then or now.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 26, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Sorry, I appreciate for you, High ISO / High shutter may not be a requirement for your style of landscape photography, but for me, as I tried to outline, it does have benefits from time to time. So that is *exactly* why I said everyone has different needs. Perhaps you might respect that others are not like you....


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 26, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Guess I bucked that trend instead, bought my 1Ds MK III second hand and never looked back in comparison to the 5D II 

As for high MP - sure the market for MF style resolution is far lower than for "traditional resolution" dSLR, but again, I'd be interested to know how good / bad the D800 has sold for Nikon as this is perhaps the best barometer...

Given the sensor density for high MP is not significantly different from that of the current APS-C sensors, then frankly, why not? You get better resolving power and in a FF format

Again, everyone's mileage is different....


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> With regards the Bay image, seeing as how you yourself say
> 
> 
> > "Granted, I don’t run into such issues very often"
> ...


I thought you wanted to see circumstances where limited dynamic range in Canon sensors has a real world impact. That is what I have presented The fact that those issues are infrequent does not mean they are insignificant. If I am on a photoshoot and I need a specific shot, then it doesn't matter how often or not it happens. It is happening now, and I need to deal with it. 

Another case. I was shooting an interior design job where the designer decided towards the end of the shoot he wanted to use someone as a model in the scene. The problem was there was a bright window on one side, and a furniture arrangement creating a lot of dark blocky shadows which will make for an ugly scene. Lifting the shadows in post is not an option. Exposure blending is not an option anymore because there's no way you can get a model perfectly still across multiple exposures. So I have to go down to the car, haul up my lighting gear, and fill in the shadows with strobes. There wasn't supposed to be a model at the shoot, it just occured by happenstance, and the only thing that saved me was that I always pack extra lighting gear "just in case." But if I had not, there was no way the Canon could have made that photo. 

So it may be not be needed often, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be hugely beneficial to have more dynamic range.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 26, 2013)

@privatebydesign, I can't quote you 'cos I'm on my iPhone, but you mention a serious landscape photographer not using one FF frame even if it is 36mp. 

This is quite right, high mp on a smaller format will never equal a larger format in landscape photography because your subject or detail in the picture will only cover a very small areas of the sensor, ie the light image projected onto the sensor will be tiny, because the detail is not close to the camera, whereas on a larger format the actual capture is larger. So MF or LF is always going to beat a smaller format in these circumstances. ( This is why when people test FF against APS and fill the frame with a subject close to the camera they see no difference - because in this scenario there is essentially no difference). 

Digital has allowed us to easily stitch frames together to mimic a larger sensor, the advantages you gain are the same because each section has a larger image on the sensor. So a 13 mp 5D for instance, stitched from four vertical sequences, will produce a higher 'IQ' than a single frame 36mp FF, because the 5D has been turned into a larger format, - about 36x 90 in this instance, about the same size as the old 645 film medium format.

For applications where the subject detail is larger in the frame, 18 or 22 mp is going to be enough to make enormous prints, so the 36 or 50 mp FF is a little in no man's land. Just like the D800, a gimmick. And you want the E? just add unsharp mask to the regular one. 

I think Canon know this. Canon are quite good at avoiding the fluff on their higher end cameras. 

"Does Sir require a little pop up flash to fill in his 36 mp ? May I direct Sir to Nikon"

40 mp belongs on a larger format.


----------



## art_d (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


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


Yes, thank you for the clarification. I haven't found anything you say hard to believe. I don't use Print View for judging fine detail in a print, no. But some people feel it is suitable for them, and that is fine.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe by then, Intel will have a superfast processor and SATA express will be out. Current SSD's are limited by SATA III to about 500mb/sec, and huge image files take a lot of time to process.
> ...



Sata 3 has a limit of 600MB/s not 500mb/s.
There is a huge difference!

Megabyte per second
(not to be confused with Mb/s – Mega bits per second) A megabyte per second (MB/s) is a unit of data transfer rate equal to:
8,000,000 bits per second, or
1,000,000 bytes per second, or
1,000 kilobytes per second, or
8 megabits per second.

ET


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 26, 2013)

Hey guys

Seems that the most desirable quality of the D800 would be the impressive dynamic range it offers. 

I'd just like to ask, you folks think cameras will ever reach the DR our eyes and brains could resolve and if so, the impact it could have on photography?

Thanks peeps


----------



## KyleSTL (Mar 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> fonts said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?
> ...


I am in the minority as I never shoot at ISO 6400 (because that ISO setting does not exist in the 5DC).  
I know I can buy a camera today that produces wonderful results (for my purposes) at ISO 6400, and I would be thrilled to own one of them (6D, 5D3, D600, D800). I have no desires to have a camera more advanced or feature-rich than the 5D Mark III. I would also be happy with the 6D. My hobby and my disposable income do not allow me to invest in a 5D3 or 6D, even though I know I would be completely content with either one. In my case my upgrade is not limited by what is offered by camera makers, it is limited by budget.

Also, regarding the form factor debate - I would not want a camera with a built-in vertical grip. Personally, I would not care what size the body is for any future cameras (i.e. 5D-class, 7D-class, 60D-class, Rebel-class, SL1-class, mirrorless) so long as the viewfinder is as big and bright as the 5D and the sensor is full frame. I enjoy the handling of my 5D, but I also think the 60D is the perfect mix of handling size and weight.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensin,
> 
> 
> > "The difference in DR a lot more than one stop. You definitely do not get that holy cow crispness from 20MP at 47"."
> ...



I'm not saying it's unusable or a blurry mess but it doesn't have that crazy crispness you get if you print 19" or less from 20MP.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2013)

art_d said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Please do, I have been dying to see some optimally exposed shots where the DR of a Canon has substantially ruined a shot yet a Nikon capture would have been perfect.
> ...



Good examples. Thx.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > All this negativity about advancement in technology!!! Why??
> ...



Good question. Simple answer: Higher MP holds the promise of better IQ. And perhaps if you feel (I guarantee you know more about this than me) that 40+ will not work for 135mm format then perhaps Canon will not make it more than 40mp... 

I remember when cameras where 12mp everyone said that was enoughhhh. But who would buy that now?


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2013)

REQUEST:
Can anyone guide me to a study which indicates that high MP results in poorer IQ? PLS.

I so curious about this negativity towards high MP cameras. I want to read up and understand.

A buddy of mine shifted to Nikon for D800 and sings (literally) its praises.


----------



## heptagon (Mar 27, 2013)

Would you as a landscaper be disappointed if it only had ISO100, no VF and no Phase-AF?

Could you use ISO25 if it gave you more DR?

Is the Live-View-AF of the EOS-M sufficient for your studio shots?


If you are OK with all these, the new Camera would be the ultimate mirrorless resolution and DR monster which doesn't compromise with general usability wich already is provided by the 1Dx.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 27, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> [...]
> 
> Seems that the most desirable quality of the D800 would be the impressive dynamic range it offers.
> 
> ...



In my opinion:

AD 1 (DR of D800): I think DR will allways help to capture reality as close as possible.

AD 2: Very good question because you included the brain: I think a real 20bit DR sensor with a 20bit DR display will convince our eye and brain to see the real thing.
Physically a 20bit DR sensor is easy to built, but technically it is not. Think about an ISO 6 sensitivity and the capacity to collect large amounts of charge per pixel without saturation ... you will be fine: Pedestal noise is the same but saturation is far away and increases the DR. Physically.
Technically: I think you have to go into the 3rd dimension for sensor pixels charge storage and a good 20bit ADC is available but slow (at the time). 3D-Sensor design is IMO the real challenge because you have to create millions of 3D structures with small tolerances between them in the size of some microns. A 12 Mpix full frame sensor with a DR of 20bit would be sufficient (for the beginning) and blow away a lot of other sensors for some photographic fields.

I am shure that a lot of companies do research to built such (sensor) chips. A lot of chip technology has 3Dish structures just now. Hopefully we will see good sensors soon in Canon cameras - I don't have money/time to reinvest in new glass ... and hopefully we will see large OLED displays which provide DRs of 14 or 16 bit easily.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 27, 2013)

sanj said:


> REQUEST:
> Can anyone guide me to a study which indicates that high MP results in poorer IQ? PLS.
> [...]



I cannot guide you to such a study and I am shure you will never find such a study because:

If the per pixel quality stays the same, more pixels give always better IQ until other factors like lens IQ are limiting.

Lower pixel counts help to reduce processing time and filesize which may be valuable for some purposes but nothing less/more. 

I am physicist and it was never bad to measure values as precise as possible - it was bad to measure with less than required precision! If you don't need the precision you can report rounded measurement values - if a light bulb has a power consumption of 60.22412 Watts or 60 Watts essentially is not important for a bulb user, but perhaps for a lamp design researcher who optimizes the production process.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > REQUEST:
> ...



Hmmmm. Then why the resentment to better IQ? That is what I am trying to understand.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 27, 2013)

sanj said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...




I think may people are saying they would like the improvement in 'IQ' with files that are not as large, because they already have more than enough resolution for a highly portable 35mm type camera. 

+ I feel that the reality of much higher MP on FF chip ( or APS for that matter) only manifests itself in 'higher IQ' when the photographer is viewing his images at 50 - 100% on his computer screen. Although this may give the photographer immense satisfaction it is not actually producing a better picture for display to anyone else.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 27, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



I forgotten to refer to TECHNICAL IQ in my lines.

Sporgon, your argument (underlined) is IMO correct. I myself are satisfied with my 40D in terms of technical IQ .... FOR WHAT I DO: Photographing things and landscapes because I like to do it and viewing the best pictures for pleasure as 30x40cm (12x16 inch) prints or via a XGA-Beamer (1024 x 768 Pixels, 0,8 MPix (!!!)). A photograph with valuable content and expression works always on 12x16 inch or e.g. a 2 MPix beamer.

Furthermore I see no dramatical technical IQ gain with the 18MPix sensor of the 600D.

But I would take a 48 MP full frame sensor for one reason: Coulors of e.g. monochromatic light sources would be much cleaner if you downscale it to 12 MPix to have 1 red, 2 green and 1 blue subpixel for one final image pixel. Bayer demosaicing gives strong artefacts for e.g. LED tail lights and red sunsets. Therefore I miss a sRAW mode in my 600D which gives me 10 MPix or so.

sanj: "Then why the resentment to better IQ?"
Alternatively I could say "24 MPix for APS-C is bullshit, 10 MPix is enough". BECAUSE I have only 10 MPix at hand and no money to buy a better resolving camera. I think is more or less a psychologial resentment.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2013)

So a higher MP camera, case in point D800, will not show any better IQ due to resolution on my 27" Imac?


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 27, 2013)

sanj said:


> So a higher MP camera, case in point D800, will not show any better IQ due to resolution on my 27" Imac?



What ist the resolution of your 27" Imac?


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2013)

I checked, it says 1920x1080 resolution.


----------



## fonts (Mar 27, 2013)

sanj said:


> I checked, it says 1920x1080 resolution.



It says 2560 x 1440 on Apple website.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 27, 2013)

sanj said:


> I checked, it says 1920x1080 resolution.



Just seen your correction - 2560 x 1440.

There SHOULD BE no difference between e.g. 10 or a 36 MPix camera if both give per pixel sharpness and are downscaled by a good algorithm including some sharpening after downscaling.

What about the idea to prepare 2 photosets with different cameras of a similar (same) object/scene, scale them down to 1920 2560 Pixel width and do the comparison?


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



You you are referring to the likes of the 5D line, then Canon did NOT drop the MP from 21 to 18. They bumped it up from 21 to 22.3 in the 5D III, which is Canon's current high MP FF offering. The 1D X is the replacement for the 1D IV, and the amalgamation of a split 1D line into a single 1D line. The big MP camera will be something new, and will be the ultimate replacement for the 21mp 1Ds III. 

Canon has not fallen behind Nikon by "reducing" to 18mp on anything. The direct competitor to the 1D X, the D4, still has fewer megapixels.

I'm beginning to think everything you say, Dilbert, is just trollish fabrications. Get your facts strait, and stop twisting the facts.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



WRONG!! AGAIN!!

The *6D *has a 20.2mp sensor, however that is a *NEW entrant* (NOT a fallback design from anything else), and is in direct competition from the D600, another NEW entrant from Nikon. In this case, Canon's 6D is lacking, but it is not like Canon reduced the specs of any previously existing line. _Stop falsifying shit!_

The *5D III* has a _*22.3mp sensor*_. It is officially the successor to the 5D II, which had a 21.1mp sensor. The 5D III IS an improvement over its predecessor. Hell, it is a MONSTER improvement, in every single way, INCLUDING sensor IQ! _It is *not *a direct competitor to the D800_, which has deep roots in studio and landscape photography. The 5D III is the top all-around FF camera, with explicit design changes and significant improvements to cater to FF wedding photograpers, street photographers, and any other general-purpose or specialty photography that needs a moderately high frame rate & excellent high ISO performance, which covers most wildlife and bird photographers. There is no apples to apples comparison between a D800 and 5D III, they are apples and oranges. _Again, stop falsifying shit!_

You are the biggest fact twister in this joint. I don't know what your goal is, but stop cherry picking and cross-comparing non-aligned products to make it sound like your point has merit. You dislike Canon, that is clear. You don't need to lie and obfuscate to make that point...EVERYONE KNOWS.  :


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > itsnotmeyouknow said:
> ...



You realize your last three points, DR, Low ISO Noise, and Shadow Recovery....are really all the same thing, right? Dynamic Range IS effectively a measure of noise, and at low ISO, the D800 has spades of DR. Shadow recovery is simply a benefit of low ISO read noise. So, in your little table, there are really three points total: Live View, Silent Shooting, and Dynamic Range. The 5D III wins hands down on two points. The D800 wins hands down on one. If you throw in High ISO dynamic range (or High ISO SNR), then the 5D III wins on another point. 

The sole area where Canon needs to improve is their read noise. If Canon can nip their read noise problems in the bud, Nikon won't stand a chance. Canon has better glass, better high ISO performance, better silent shooting (a huge factor, IMO, in countless situations), and a better AF system. A two-shot HDR blend will also take care of any DR problems you have quite nicely (if you push it to the extremes, a two-shot HDR blend could be separated by 10 stops (+5 and -5), allowing ~16-18 stops of DR in the final 32-bit HDR image...more than enough.) HDR blending is a simple ordeal these days as well. Is it less convenient? Sure, by a very small amount. Enough to warrant spending thousands, maybe tens of thousands, switching brands just to have the D800? Probably not. Canon will figure out their sensor stuff soon enough, and they'll be back in the game.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> ..Canon will figure out their sensor stuff soon enough, and they'll be back in the game.



i still really hope they do, I might buy one of their cameras again. Even the 6D is improved enough to be tempting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



5D3 sensor is an improvement not a MONSTER improvement over the 5D2 sensor, it has less very high iso banding which can be quite nice at times and a touch over 1/2 stop better SNR


----------



## gunship01 (Mar 28, 2013)

Why can't Canon make a lower end EOS-1 body, 36-MP, 12 FPS, sports camera for $4-5,000, and then make another 40-50MP EOS-1 Body with 4-5 FPS for the higher end crowd for $8-9,000?

Nikon clearly has shown they can do it and made two very well priced FF cameras. (D800 and -E models) The technology is there and both would sell well. 

If they wanted to save on costs, leave the video out.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I did not say "5D III sensor", I said "5D III". Sensor is not the end-all-be-all of IQ, I think that has been thoroughly demonstrated more than enough times. The 5D III as a camera IS a MONSTER improvement over it's predecessor, and thanks to all of the improvements as a whole, it is capable of better IQ than the 5D II. The sensor itself is also a significant improvement over it's predecessor when high ISO is taken into account. It is not as good as the 1D X, but it is a couple stops better than the 5D II sensor when it comes to the quality of noise at high ISO settings, and that shouldn't be ignored. Canon has not made any backwards steps here. They simply have not made a _quantum leap_ forward in one single area: read noise.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

gunship01 said:


> Why can't Canon make a lower end EOS-1 body, 36-MP, 12 FPS, sports camera for $4-5,000, and then make another 40-50MP EOS-1 Body with 4-5 FPS for the higher end crowd for $8-9,000?
> 
> Nikon clearly has shown they can do it and made two very well priced FF cameras. (D800 and -E models) The technology is there and both would sell well.
> 
> If they wanted to save on costs, leave the video out.



First off, Nikon most definitely has NOT produced a 36mp camera capable of 12fps readout!! The D800 is 4FPS, period, when reading the full FF sensor! It is only capable of 5fps in 1.2x crop mode, and only capable of 6fps in 1.2x crop mode when an additional battery grip is attached. FOUR FRAMES PER SECOND is all Nikon could do with a 36mp sensor. Not 12fps. You are off by a factor of three. 

You want a 36mp sensor that can be read out at 12fps? You are effectively asking for DOUBLE the processing power of the 1D X. At 18mp (which is really over 19mp in actual pixel count, as Canon masks off the border of their sensors for calibration purposes, but those pixels ARE read for each frame), the 1D X dual DIGIC 5+ processors pump about 250mb/s each, or 500mb/s total. To process 36mp, you would need either four DIGIC 5+ chips, or something along the lines of a DIGIC 6+ capable of handling about 500mb/s per chip, for a total processing power around *one gigabyte per second*. That is a hell of a lot of data processing. There is also not a CF card on the planet that could keep up, either. You would either have to pack in an absolutely monstrous frame buffer capable of capturing 100 frames before pausing, or simply tell your customers to suck it up and deal with a frame buffer only 15 deep and excessive lag time when it gets full as your huge frames are slowly written out.

High MP and high frame rate don't really go well together. For one, big pixels actually benefit IQ for high speed action photography, either on a tripod or hand held. You don't experience as much softening due to camera shake as you do with small pixels. Pixels 1/4 the area of the 1D X would produce less viable pixel-level IQ, so the benefit of having all those extra pixels ends up not really being worth the $20,000 or more you would have to pay for a 36mp camera that was basically capable of all the things the 1D X does now, with twice the resolving power.


----------



## gunship01 (Mar 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> gunship01 said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't Canon make a lower end EOS-1 body, 36-MP, 12 FPS, sports camera for $4-5,000, and then make another 40-50MP EOS-1 Body with 4-5 FPS for the higher end crowd for $8-9,000?
> ...



True, Nikon does only have the 4FPS with the D800, but they do have the MP. Point made.
Conversely, is that truely "ALL Nikon could do"? I'm also inclined to think there are some designs that are incremental improvements - a "75% fix" so they can release another model in less time. 

To simplify:

If they release a fantastic, "100% bells and whistles" capable camera, the market might not want the next version for 4-5 years. If they offered the 75% version, then the market might well desire the next version in 2-3 years. 

I also posit that Canon CAN get close to a large MP and faster FPS camera by the time they get it to market in 2014.

1) The EOS-1 body style is established.
2) DIGIC 6 processors are going into cameras this year. By Mid-2014, they should be common place.
3) They should be able to have the power for 6-7 FPS and I am fine with a 15-shot buffer. Anything faster is almost video. (I shoot in bursts of three regardless. I try not to "spray and pray".)
4) Dual CF cards would be appreciated.
5) 5-6K on the price.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 28, 2013)

I think a lot of people miss the important point. But first let me say, do I want a big MP camera from Canon? Heck yes I do. Will I buy it? Um, likely. 

However, look at the 5D Mark III and the D800/E. The majority of the market didn't give a crap about the 36 vs 22 MP and a lot more 5D Mark III's were sold. A lot more. Point is that a select few of us want a big MP camera, but just because Canon doesn't have one, doesn't mean they are behind or "not in the game." Quite the opposite when you look at DSLR sales. In fact, Nikon needs to "get in the game." The D800/E did absolutely nothing for them on a large scale while the 5D Mark III did a ton for Canon on a large scale. You can use a 5D Mark III in a lot more situations than a D800/E and that is why it sold more units. 36 MP does absolutely nothing for me at a wedding or at a sports event, not to mention the fact that it can't go as high of ISO values cleanly. Family pictures? Family events? Keep the list going and the D800/E becomes increasingly useless vs. the 5D Mark III. 

So really, Canon is in the game and is doing it right. But that aside, I would enjoy a large MP camera, preferrably a 3 or 1 series quality with lenses that will take full advantage of the resolution, which again, Nikon lacks for their D800/E. The general public is not asking for a giant MP camera. I just can't get over it when people say that Canon needs to get in the game or that they are behind the times because they don't have a large MP camera, which will in fact do very little for their overall bottom line.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

gunship01 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > gunship01 said:
> ...



Actually, I believe Nikon's problem is their frame buffer and how they handle writeout. Canon systems don't "lock up" when the frame buffer is full. You can continue writing new images to it as space is freed up when older images complete writing to the CF card. Your frame rate drops to a few per second, rather than 10-12 per second, but you can pretty much keep shooting indefinitely (or until your CF card fills up). The D800/E locks up when the buffer is full, and it seems you have to wait for the buffer to clear before you can take more shots. That, more than anything, is a real FPS killer, regardless of how fast the base rate is. 

I would actually offer that, even at 4fps, Canon could to a hell of a lot better with their approach to handling the frame buffer. 



gunship01 said:


> I also posit that Canon CAN get close to a large MP and faster FPS camera by the time they get it to market in 2014.
> 
> 1) The EOS-1 body style is established.
> 2) DIGIC 6 processors are going into cameras this year. By Mid-2014, they should be common place.
> ...



The 1D X currently has a 38 frame buffer and supports 12fps. (Actually, it supports 14fps, which is why I believe the DIGIC5+ supports an input rate of 250mb/s, and why the 1D X has two of them.) 

If we run the numbers, today, with a pair of DIGIC 5+, Canon could make a 36mp camera with an 18 frame buffer and 6fps. Since the DICIG 5 is an established DSP, they wouldn't really need to invest additional research creating a faster one. Dual CF cards is a no brainer.

I figure Canon will probably go for ~40mp body at least. Even with a 40mp sensor, I think Canon could still get 6fps out of it with dual DIGIC 5+ (just barely.) If Canon releases a 50mp+ body, then I think the frame rate would have to drop to 4fps with a pair of DIGIC 5+. I don't foresee Canon making the same kinds of gains with DIGIC 6 over DIGIC 5 as they did with DIGIC 5 over DIGIC 4...they had over five years before to improve things. It's only been a year at this point. I think the gains would be marginal, although they might be able to eek out 5fps @ 50mp.

That said, if Canon really does go for the higher end of the range with a 50mp+ body, I think a slower frame rate would benefit I more. High frame rate dictates high frequency components, which introduces more read noise. I think it would be more likely to see 3-4fps in a 40-50mp body, as it would benefit IQ...potential lower read noise, probably better dynamic range, etc. I find high mp to be at odds with frame rate. While I can see and understand the desire of action shooters like bird and wildlife photographers wanting it, as smaller pixels means greater reach...at the same time this camera will be a powerhouse studio and landscape body. Both of those endeavors, particularly landscape photography, demand top notch IQ, of which lower ISO dynamic range is a critical factor.


----------



## art_d (Mar 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> However, look at the 5D Mark III and the D800/E. The majority of the market didn't give a crap about the 36 vs 22 MP and a lot more 5D Mark III's were sold. A lot more.


We do have to remember that Canon already had more market share, and thus more users invested into their system. And Canon is a much bigger company than Nikon, with more manufacturing and distribution capacity. 

But, I am curious, where are you getting sales figures from to say "a lot more" 5D3's were sold? I hear different things from different people but it's all pretty much anectdotal...no actual figures. 



> Point is that a select few of us want a big MP camera, but just because Canon doesn't have one, doesn't mean they are behind or "not in the game." Quite the opposite when you look at DSLR sales. In fact, Nikon needs to "get in the game." The D800/E did absolutely nothing for them on a large scale while the 5D Mark III did a ton for Canon on a large scale.


The way I heard it, for awhile Nikon couldn't manufacture enough D800s to keep up with demand, so I would hardly call that a failure. But again, where are you getting the numbers from to know what impacts these cameras had in terms of sales?



> You can use a 5D Mark III in a lot more situations than a D800/E and that is why it sold more units.


How many more, and how did that relate to each manufacturer's existing market share?

Also, any situation in which you can use a 5DIII, you can use a D800. Neither camera is a limiting factor to the photographer.



> 36 MP does absolutely nothing for me at a wedding or at a sports event, not to mention the fact that it can't go as high of ISO values cleanly. Family pictures? Family events? Keep the list going and the D800/E becomes increasingly useless vs. the 5D Mark III.


Increasingly useless? Again, either camera can be used for any circumstance. It could be argued a D800 is overkill for family snapshots (and for that matter, so is a 5DIII!) but that is after all why Nikon came out with the D600 (and Canon the 6D).

As far as high ISO...if you downsample a D800 file to the same size as a 5DIII file I think you would be hard pressed to find a difference in noise.



> So really, Canon is in the game and is doing it right. But that aside, I would enjoy a large MP camera, preferrably a 3 or 1 series quality with lenses that will take full advantage of the resolution, which again, Nikon lacks for their D800/E. The general public is not asking for a giant MP camera. I just can't get over it when people say that Canon needs to get in the game or that they are behind the times because they don't have a large MP camera, which will in fact do very little for their overall bottom line.


Most of this is quite true. Canon's big advantage is their lenses are generally better than what Nikon offers (with a few exceptions). No, the general public is not asking for a high MP camera. And neither did the general public ask for a 1DX. High end cameras are not meant to be mass market items. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for them. And it doesn't mean that Canon is missing from that place in the high megapixel arena right now. 

What will it do for Canon's bottom line? I don't know. There is an argument to be made for being seen as a class leader, a technological leader, and what type of value that carries. But frankly, I don't run Canon, and I don't get paid to analyze their sales figures and marketing data. (I'm actually a bit baffled by why so many discussions on camera forums end up debating what business decsions are best for the manufactuer...not what's best for the customer!) What I really care about, as a purchaser, is what is going to make me want to buy another Canon camera. And I can tell you that another 20-ish megapixel sensor with pattern noise will not do it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 28, 2013)

art_d

I won't disagree with any of your points. They're all valid. For 5D3 sales figures, I used amazon.com. Now granted, it is not by any means EVERY vendor but I thought a good representative sampling. But, that logic could be flawed.

And you're also right in poor word choice of "useless" but rather, I should have used "more overkill" maybe, but again, that would be my opinion on the matter.

I didn't downsample either. I looked at RAW's shot at ISO 6400 from each, and the D800 files were noisier. If you must downsample to equal sizes, then my personal use needs didn't need the 36 MP anymore, since I was downsampling so much.


----------



## motorhead (Mar 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> In fact, Nikon needs to "get in the game." The D800/E did absolutely nothing for them on a large scale while the 5D Mark III did a ton for Canon on a large scale.



I'm constantly reading that Canon are beating Nikon but I don't see any evidence. I know I read that Nikon took 40% of the whole dSLR market in the UK last year, which is pretty good! 

Also don't forget that those of us with money invested in Canon lenses are less likely to switch to Nikon and that no doubt includes those of us with higher end bodies.

No, its Canon that need to stir themselves, Sony and Nikon have made Canon look stupid. If not stupid then maybe just fast asleep?


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

art_d said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > However, look at the 5D Mark III and the D800/E. The majority of the market didn't give a crap about the 36 vs 22 MP and a lot more 5D Mark III's were sold. A lot more.
> ...



Due to the volume of camera equipment they sell, and the diversity of markets they exist in across the world, Amazon's category rankings are usually used as an indication of the strength of any given product like the 5D III or D800. It is not a perfect example of every reseller or market, but it is a statistically significant measure. Historically, Canon cameras take and maintain the top spots, almost the entire first page in fact, of Amazon's DSLR rankings.

That is not necessarily a direct measure of the quality of a camera, for sure, but it is correlated, and is certainly a measure of popularity. One would think, by reading so many of the comments about Nikon here, that the simple existence of the D800 or D600 and the DR those two cameras are capable of achieving would make them orders of magnitude more popular than any of the competing cameras from Canon. In point of fact, that does not appear to be the case...at least based on Amazon's rankings.



art_d said:


> > Point is that a select few of us want a big MP camera, but just because Canon doesn't have one, doesn't mean they are behind or "not in the game." Quite the opposite when you look at DSLR sales. In fact, Nikon needs to "get in the game." The D800/E did absolutely nothing for them on a large scale while the 5D Mark III did a ton for Canon on a large scale.
> 
> 
> The way I heard it, for awhile Nikon couldn't manufacture enough D800s to keep up with demand, so I would hardly call that a failure. But again, where are you getting the numbers from to know what impacts these cameras had in terms of sales?



An inability to keep up with demand is a problem Nikon has had for a very long time. I've owned a DSLR for about four years, and was researching them for a couple years before that (drooling and wondering if I should buy one...when I should have just gone out and purchased something). I remember way back in 2006 that Nikon had supply problems. 

I don't think that is a measure of popularity...I think that is a measure of Nikon's ability to produce supply in general. They just seem to have supply chain problems. I use Canon gear myself, but I am not against other brands. I love the competitive force Nikon is in the market place. However they seem to be a less than organized company, and that shows in many ways. Just look at their chaotic naming scheme for their DSLRs...I can't imagine a better example of a company that can't get it's shit strait than Nikon DSLR names. There seems to be no order to when models are released, a severe lack of sequential numeric increase, little or no correlation between models (D700, D800, D600...released in that order, none of which seem to be directly related to each other), etc.

I think if Nikon could produce as many D800s as Canon produced 5D IIIs, I would still bet on the Canon 5D III to be the top seller.



art_d said:


> > You can use a 5D Mark III in a lot more situations than a D800/E and that is why it sold more units.
> 
> 
> How many more, and how did that relate to each manufacturer's existing market share?
> ...



I would dispute that. Assuming one uses the D800 as a full-frame camera, and does not use the 1.2x or other crop modes...then you are limited to 4fps. Frame rate is a CRITICAL factor in a lot of photography. AF system is another key factor. The D800 has a good one from a specification standpoint, but it has also had more than its fair share of problems. In the spirit of Nikon (as indicated by their lack of ability to maintain a consistent product supply and their braindead naming scheme), photographers who have contacted support to resolve the issue have been given the runaround, and it took months to even get Nikon to recognize the issue, let alone fix it in any way.

I wouldn't use a camera with a 4fps max frame rate or AF problems for the kind of things I shoot...which is primarily wildlife and birds. I currently use a 7D. It doesn't have the best sensor in the world by ANY means...relative to current sensors of today, the 7D sensor would probably rank at the BOTTOM of the list. But that doesn't matter to me. For one, the IQ is still great, even if it does rank at the bottom of todays list of sensors. More importantly, though, is the fact that it does 8fps. I don't think I could live with less, and if I had to, I wouldn't go lower than 6fps...trying to get the right moment with cameras that max out at 5fps is difficult at best, even with skill. In this respect, the 5D III barely makes the mark, with 6fps. The D800? Nope...4fps just won't cut it. I missed too many shots of just the right moment when using a 4fps DSLR in the past, I'll never do it again.

You could probably swap your statement. "In any situation you could use the D800, you could use the 5D III as well." The D800 does offer one thing the 5D III cannot directly match mark for mark...dynamic range. I wouldn't say that precludes the use of the 5D III for landscape photography, though. People were getting some of the best landscape photos in the world wit the 5D II! You just can't push shadows around as much...assuming you even need to. 



art_d said:


> What I really care about, as a purchaser, is what is going to make me want to buy another Canon camera. And I can tell you that another 20-ish megapixel sensor with pattern noise will not do it.



I can't argue with this one at all. I completely agree. Canon shouldn't be releasing any more cameras with 5 year old sensor technology. If the rumors about the 70D are true, I find that to be rather sad...repurposing the old 18mp APS-C sensor AGAIN...well, it is almost becoming insulting. I can sort of understand it...Canon doesn't want to release ground-breaking new technology in a mid-range consumer model. They want to reserve that shining moment for the 7D II. Still...I guess I would choose to release the 70D AFTER the 7D II, with ANOTHER new sensor...something different than the 7D II, maybe lower resolution or something (to help differentiate). However you slice it...Canon definitely needs to stop beating the dead horse...all that's left are a few splinters of bone and a drop of blood here and there...there isn't any more horse left to beat!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 28, 2013)

motorhead said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, Nikon needs to "get in the game." The D800/E did absolutely nothing for them on a large scale while the 5D Mark III did a ton for Canon on a large scale.
> ...



Again, sales do not support your statements. Also, it is not my responsibility to produce proof of sales figures, since they are publicly viewed on amazon.com as an example, at least from their site. Canon does not look stupid, at least tell execs that at Canon who make a direct profit off sales. Quite the opposite. Again, everyone is missing the whole entire point of all of this. It doesn't matter what YOU want. Canon does not care what YOU want. They care what the MASSES want, and that's exactly why they are so successful. They are a business. A very small percentage of photogs are going to buy a high end high MP camera. A very small percentage give a rat's behind about 14 stops of DR vs 11. Who cares?

If I have a D800 and a 5D3, and I'm shooting weddings, sports, and family events, I'm using the 5D3 for all of that. And THAT's what MOST professionals with cameras shoot. It's the same thing with the 1Ds Mark III vs either the 5Dc or 5D2. The 1Ds3 sold fewer units, by higher-end users, and was not versatile at all. It went away while the 5D2 continued to smash the market.


----------



## art_d (Mar 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> art_d
> 
> I won't disagree with any of your points. They're all valid. For 5D3 sales figures, I used amazon.com. Now granted, it is not by any means EVERY vendor but I thought a good representative sampling. But, that logic could be flawed.


Ironically I recall several heated internet forum discussions a few months ago about how "the D800 is outselling the 5DIII" and those people were using Amazon as their source too. I think the only thing we can infer is that when compared during certain time periods on Amazon, for awhile the D800 sold more units, and for awhile the 5DIII sold more units. But we have no way to tally how many total units were sold of each. I do think it is safe to say that each camera has been successful for each manufacturer  



> I didn't downsample either. I looked at RAW's shot at ISO 6400 from each, and the D800 files were noisier. If you must downsample to equal sizes, then my personal use needs didn't need the 36 MP anymore, since I was downsampling so much.


Right, but that's sort of missing the point. It is obvious the D800 has the advantage in resolution, but people tend to think because of that it has a disadvantage in noise. Which it does not. Because if you equalize the resolution by downsampling to the 5DIII's resolution, there is no practical difference. So, you can use the D800 either to produce high resolution 36mp images, or low noise 22mp images that are as good as you could get from a 5DIII. Conversely, the same is not true of the 5DIII. A 22mp 5DIII image will match a 22mp D800 image, but you cannot upscale a 5DIII image to 36mp and get the D800 resolution. 

To put it another way, using the D800 at high ISO will not prevent you from getting images as good as a 5DIII at high ISO while still giving you the high megapixel option if you want it. 

Now, that is of course not taking into account the combination of cameras with lenses. As we've already discussed Canon lenses will often be better than Nikon counterparts. And there are other intangible factors too, like Nikon's terrible live view implementation. Those are the reasons I'm still shooting Canon (though still with a 5DII  )


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Mar 30, 2013)

Why does this turn into a discussion on sales? I just want some new news on the camera! LOL! ;D


----------



## Skulker (Apr 11, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Why does this turn into a discussion on sales? I just want some new news on the camera! LOL! ;D



I think its because some people seem to want to come on here and convince everyone that they would be better of buying Nikon's. Quite frankly if I got pictures as bad as they do :, if the samples they put on here are to be believed, I would change. But I don't so I won't 

I still cant see the point of all those Megapixels, I was hoping that some one might tell what they do with them all. So far apart from some pixel peeping I haven't got much idea what they are going to do with them all.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 11, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well, the megapixels gives you freedom , the DR also.
> IF Canon has the same camera as Nikon, what should your answer be then?
> I do not like resolution, or a great DR



I like 24L II, 50L, 85L, 135L. :|


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 12, 2013)

Skulker said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Why does this turn into a discussion on sales? I just want some new news on the camera! LOL! ;D
> ...



Ever heard of Gigapan?
Everyone using those will be grateful when higher resolution cameras are more common.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> nice, I have them also, but DXO means that the sigma 85mm is better than my Canon 85/1.2mk2, and cheaper.
> what to do?what to do?



The sigma 85mm does not render better than the 85L II. It just doesn't.


----------



## jrista (Apr 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



Your thinking photon shot noise. I mean read noise. Dynamic range is the ratio from the brightest highlight (the clipping point) and the read noise floor (that may be the RMS, the maximum, the square root, depends on the exact method of determining DR). However you calculate it, dynamic range is specifically limited by read noise.



dilbert said:


> > Shadow recovery is simply a benefit of low ISO read noise. So, in your little table, there are really three points total: Live View, Silent Shooting, and Dynamic Range. The 5D III wins hands down on two points. The D800 wins hands down on one. If you throw in High ISO dynamic range (or High ISO SNR), then the 5D III wins on another point.
> 
> 
> 
> Or to rephrase this, Canon wins on using the camera but the Nikon wins on producing quality images. Personally, I don't even know why "Silent Shooting" makes it to the list.



Silent Shooting makes the list because a huge number of customers asked for a quieter shutter. Canon gave their customers what they asked for. Same deal with the AF system...Canon gave a very vocal and very large user base exactly what they wanted: a better AF system. Again, same deal with fewer megapixels and better high ISO. That was probably the biggest thing Canon customers asked for, including myself and pretty much everyone I know.

When it comes to listening to their customers, Canon wins every time in every way. Can't really get better than that, and given their track record, it shouldn't be long before Canon gives their customers something with better DR as well. The only reason they haven't is because the DR game only really changed with the D800, and that was released about the same time as the 5D III. Now people are asking for it, and I have no doubt Canon will deliver. 



dilbert said:


> > A two-shot HDR blend will also take care of any DR problems you have quite nicely (if you push it to the extremes, a two-shot HDR blend could be separated by 10 stops (+5 and -5), allowing ~16-18 stops of DR in the final 32-bit HDR image...more than enough.) HDR blending is a simple ordeal these days as well. Is it less convenient? Sure, by a very small amount.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but you can do the exact same HDR tricks with the D800 and to even greater effect than with Canon.



You would only have about two extra stops of DR with the D800, regardless of whether your talking about a single-shot context or HDR context. We already knew the D800 had two extra stops of DR, though. 



dilbert said:


> > Enough to warrant spending thousands, maybe tens of thousands, switching brands just to have the D800?
> >
> > Probably not. Canon will figure out their sensor stuff soon enough, and they'll be back in the game.
> 
> ...



Hypothetically speaking...nothing changes. People are still buying Canon cameras in huge volumes. Canon's worldwide market share wavers up and down a few percent every few years. I don't foresee that changing. DR is not the only thing that matters, certainly doesn't seem to be impacting Canon's sales to any meaningful degree. So, those who want more DR will move off to Nikon, or add Nikon to their kits, and keep using both brands. 

Either way, assuming Canon is literally incapable of competing on the DR front, I don't really foresee any major change, not unless someone comes out with a 16-bit ADC with 15 stops or more of DR. If that happens, then I think the game would change. Hypothetically speaking, of course.



dilbert said:


> How long has it been since the 5D Mark II came out now?



Irrelevant.



dilbert said:


> And in all that time, we haven't seen any evidence of a sensor that is any better - or rather Nikon have made great advances with their sensors, Canon haven't moved...



Why is it that you Nikon radical fanboys refuse to see the areas where Canon sensors HAVE improved? Canon sensors HAVE improved! Canon sensors currently have the best noise performance I've ever seen at high ISO. They also support the fastest readout rates of any DSLR sensor on the market at the current time (14fps @ ~19mp, or approximately a 500MB/second throughput rate). I've seen clean, entirely usable ISO 51200 sports shots with the 1D X. I've seen usable ISO 12800 shots from several generations of Nikon cameras, but nothing at ISO 51200 from a Nikon that looked truly usable or anywhere nearly as clean as a 1D X shot...too much color noise, too much loss of detail (probably because every setting above ISO 12800 is a "fake" expanded setting, which is really just the same as ISO 12800 with a post-process digital exposure lift....we've been able to do that with software for years.) 

It is not 100% about low ISO DR. The greater majority of photographers who use DSLR cameras, which includes sports, aviation, wildlife, bird, event, wedding and street photographers as well as photojournalists, tend to shoot at higher ISO settings. Much beyond ISO 400, DR is limited by physics. Even significant improvements in Q.E. result in marginal improvements in DR, if any. The only thing that really matters at high ISO is SNR.

In this respect, Canon owns the market. It's WHY they own the market. Canon cameras offer the best tools that support the greatest majority of photographers for the widest variety of photographic goals and styles. Canon sensors have most definitely improved in the last four years. The 5D II sensor wouldn't stand a chance against any one of the sensors from the 1D X, 5D III, 6D, hell even the SD1 seems to have a damn good sensor. DR isn't the only thing that matters, and while it may be the most important factor to some photographers, it is really the least important factor to most photographers.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 12, 2013)

Yeah, because the 5D2 sensor and the 1DX sensor are the same. No improvement whatsoever.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > well, the megapixels gives you freedom , the DR also.
> ...



I have those as well...very nice lenses indeed. The 24L II is a real gem, I tried the Nikkor version on a D7000 when it was first launched and I was quite dissapointed in what I saw. It just seemed to miss focus a lot (randomly) and I didn't like the pictures from it either. 
The 50L...well it's an odd ball but unique lens...I hope Canon replaces this with something worthy of the L moniker. My 85IIL is my most used Tele, it's just sublime. The results wide open are so sharp and beautiful...a truely unique and amazing piece of glass. The 135L is again quite unique. I don't use mine as much as I used to, great results and lovely images. But these days I tend to go for my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II (I use it for larger wedding receptions). I'm kind of hoping Canon will replace it with an IS version which is F1.8...but still just as sweet optically! If Canon did this and made the MFD a lot closer, I could sell my 100mm IS L Macro and use this at weddings a lot more. My real sweet heart lens is still my 35mm f1.4 L, I've not tried the Nikkor or Sigma versions but I've been using my Canon copy for about 5 years now and I'm still thrilled with it. 
When I look at the Nikkor lens catalogue, there's nothing there which particularly inspires me. I've got better options in the Canon range.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



There is more to a lens that just a score.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Their 85IIL must have been seriously out of spec and shows just how laughable DXO testing really is. My copy (which I use wide open all the time) is sharper than my 135IIL and 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. It's a stunning optic. I've tried the Sigma, it's was nice but not in the Canon league. It's Focussing was erratic and the images just don't look as nice....plus it's not quite as bright and certainly not as well built. The Canon 85IIL is an engineering masterpiece. My copy is now 5 years old and still looks new and it's had a hard life....good luck with your Sigma in that regard. I've had a lot of Sigma glass over the years and I've completely lost faith in the brand.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2013)

Agreed, but to say the 85L II is sharper than the 135L is stretch. Even though we're comparing razors to razors.


----------



## jrista (Apr 12, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I have a hard time with lens testing in general. The only lens tests I've ever found reliable are those from LensRentals.com, and the reason I find them reliable is the way they are tested: In batches, sometimes a dozen or more strong. You can't really evaluate the performance of a lens until you've tested multiple copies with the same procedure. Only then an to arrive at a reasonable average, standard deviation, etc. Sites that test a single copy of a lens are just asking for trouble...


----------



## Skulker (Apr 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well, the megapixels gives you freedom , the DR also.
> IF Canon has the same camera as Nikon, what should your answer be then?
> I do not like resolution, or a great DR



Interesting that you think the Megapixels gives you freedom. I take it to mean to crop more. That's not something I need. I get all the "reach" I need from my current lens selection. 

I see your comments about resolution or DR try to take this away from the Megapixel topic. That is EXACTLY what the post before mine was talking about. So I won't comment, but you can rest assure I don't agree with your attempt to imply that I am influenced by the make of the camera.

But thanks for the reply about Megapixels. I certainly was surprised that the increased IQ of the 1Dx and the 5D3 allowed me to crop so much that I do not miss the crop factor from the 7D




9VIII said:


> Ever heard of Gigapan?
> Everyone using those will be grateful when higher resolution cameras are more common.



No never heard of it. ;D I did look it up, look like it makes all those big megapixels cameras a waste of time, you can get as many pixels as you like by using as many photo's as you like. Enjoy your pixel peeking ;D But its not something I will ever use. Just not my type of thing. I was at a lecture the other day from someone who actually produces large composite images, many costing about $40,000 just for the post processing. He uses a camera over 8 years old, and he had no wish to change to a newer model.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 13, 2013)

Skulker said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Ever heard of Gigapan?
> ...



With composite shots specifically it becomes a ratio of time vs. productivity. If you have a target image size the higher resolution camera will get you there faster (which can help in avoiding changing environments), or you can just keep doing the same thing and get better pictures.
Edit: Speaking of which, I loved using PhotoStitch with my first high end compact six years ago, now that I have an SLR (first camera broke) I should get back into it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Agreed, but to say the 85L II is sharper than the 135L is stretch. Even though we're comparing razors to razors.



I can only state what my particular lenses show. My 85IIL is a bit sharper than my 135L. Both are sharp, no argument! My 135L is about as sharp as my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. 
But my sharpest lens is easily my 400 f2.8 L IS and then my 100 LIS Macro. Both of these lenses are bonkers sharp. My old 100mm USM macro was sharp but not as sharp as my L version, other people used to rave about theirs, mine was a little so-so.


----------

