# Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 8, 2019)

> Last month we posted that a 32.5mp APS-C sensor was on the way and it looks likes that information has been confirmed through a Taiwanese certification agency.
> *Code Names K437 & DS126801 APS-C DSLR:*
> 
> Digital SLR
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (May 8, 2019)

Maybe it will have similar pixel density to the high-resolution R model.


----------



## Camerajah (May 8, 2019)

Here we go


----------



## Hector1970 (May 8, 2019)

It will probably indicate the MPs of the full frame pro 5R.
FPS will be interesting and focusing system. ISO performance too.
My 7DII is quite worn. I’d be in the market to replace it with something better.


----------



## caffetin (May 8, 2019)

hmm,apsc 32 mp.can he endure and most important dynamic range.will see.for me it is something new.32 mp on apsc,sofar there is no other dslr with such sensor. maybe "the empire brings the blow".for me is very important how will be just for photography.no video interested.for video buy you an camcorder or eos cinema.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

What was nice with the 70 and 80 D were its usefulness for video. I wonder with their supposed replacement here, will we see 4k only with the 1.8x crop or perhaps canon surprises us with this apsc ?


----------



## AlanF (May 8, 2019)

DLA = f/5.2. About as much as I would want. It would have with a 400m lens the equivalent of 660mm on a 5DIV in terms of resolution. I am game for this, especially if without an AA-filter.


----------



## zonoskar (May 8, 2019)

Could the 6 segment battery display indicate that this could be the 7D-III rather than a 90D? Or maybe th emerge of 7D and 90D lines, but then more towards the 7D spectrum?


----------



## Antono Refa (May 8, 2019)

padam said:


> Maybe it will have similar pixel density to the high-resolution R model.



32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.

And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...


----------



## amorse (May 8, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> Could the 6 segment battery display indicate that this could be the 7D-III rather than a 90D? Or maybe th emerge of 7D and 90D lines, but then more towards the 7D spectrum?


I think the 7DII and the 80D had the same battery, so I'm not sure it will inform us either way. On the bright side, it's the largest battery Canon makes for ILCs (other than the 1DXII battery), so it should have plenty of power!


----------



## Adrianf (May 8, 2019)

When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.


----------



## Sharlin (May 8, 2019)

Shame that this most likely means there won’t be any improvement in fps (and/or buffer), at least unless Canon is going to seriously beef up the internals.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.
> 
> And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...


Camera makers give buyers what they want. The fact is that more MP sells cameras, just like more HP in a car that will be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic most of its life.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> Could the 6 segment battery display indicate that this could be the 7D-III rather than a 90D? Or maybe th emerge of 7D and 90D lines, but then more towards the 7D spectrum?





amorse said:


> I think the 7DII and the 80D had the same battery, so I'm not sure it will inform us either way. On the bright side, it's the largest battery Canon makes for ILCs (other than the 1DXII battery), so it should have plenty of power!



I think he is referring to the battery display, not the battery. There has been some discussion on this forum about the higher end cameras having a more segmented display to more accurately assess remaining charge in the battery.


----------



## amorse (May 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think he is referring to the battery display, not the battery. There has been some discussion on this forum about the higher end cameras having a more segmented display to more accurately assess remaining charge in the battery.


Ah ok, I missed that!

On the topic, I believe you can get a specific percentage remaining on a higher end body by digging through the settings can't you? When I grab my camera bag to head out I often run through all my batteries even if they show full charge to check their status - i.e. the display showing full charge, but sometimes the actual percentage may be ~85% where others are like 97%.


----------



## Sharlin (May 8, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> Could the 6 segment battery display indicate that this could be the 7D-III rather than a 90D? Or maybe th emerge of 7D and 90D lines, but then more towards the 7D spectrum?



No. The x0D series has ”always” had a six-segment battery indicator. Presumably more indicator levels and more battery capacity (compared to Rebels) go hand in hand—I believe all bodies with LP-E6 batteries also have the more precise display, and those with smaller batteries have a four level indicator.

(Btw, I wonder why they include this tiny detail in these certification documents :O)


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

I do wish Canon would be transparent about their intentions regarding the XXD and 7D lines. I prefer the 7D form factor and am willing to be patient for a 7DIII, but I would like to know what their plans are. If the new camera is a 90D (or whatever it may be called), it will be two generations ahead of the 7D in sensor development. There is a lot of pent up demand for a 7DIII and leaving customers wondering about the future could suppress sales of the new body if it is indeed going to be the top end APS-C body.


----------



## BrightTiger (May 8, 2019)

Camerajah said:


> Here we go


Attention! Attention! This is not a drill. DEFCON 2 status. Battle gear on. Open wallets. Load Fan Boy and Canon Hater comments. Repeat: This is not a drill.


----------



## BrightTiger (May 8, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> No. The x0D series has ”always” had a six-segment battery indicator. ...
> (Btw, I wonder why they include this tiny detail in these certification documents :O)


Probably for transit guidelines (i.e. they can explode). Just a guess but it's a good question.


----------



## docsmith (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.
> 
> And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...


I hear what you are saying, but let's deal with the rumor in hand versus the extrapolated speculation.

32.5 MP APS-C sensor. Give it high frame rate, I can see a lot of sport and wildlife photographers appreciating the jump from 20.2 MP to 32.5 MP for cropping and potential additional detail for larger prints.


----------



## Proscribo (May 8, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.


As technology progresses more pixels means more DR and lower noise...


----------



## AlanF (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.
> 
> And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...


My Canon 300D has 6.3 megapixels. Should we have stopped there?


----------



## PRINZMETAL (May 8, 2019)

Well, if true. this could be the next standard "C" sensor for say M50II/M5II;D90. And, once the manufacturing line proves out the full frame equivalent in the R. Canon tests sensors in non critical cameras first before putting them in critical cameras (sometimes.) This also reduces their investment dollars to basically have one common sensor line.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> My Canon 300D has 6.3 megapixels. Should we have stopped there?



I doubt the 999‰ need more than twice that.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 8, 2019)

docsmith said:


> I hear what you are saying, but let's deal with the rumor in hand versus the extrapolated speculation.
> 
> 32.5 MP APS-C sensor. Give it high frame rate, I can see a lot of sport and wildlife photographers appreciating the jump from 20.2 MP to 32.5 MP for cropping and potential additional detail for larger prints.



The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.

I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.

I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (May 8, 2019)

docsmith said:


> I hear what you are saying, but let's deal with the rumor in hand versus the extrapolated speculation.
> 
> 32.5 MP APS-C sensor. Give it high frame rate, I can see a lot of sport and wildlife photographers appreciating the jump from 20.2 MP to 32.5 MP for cropping and potential additional detail for larger prints.


Yep, pixels-per-bird is key. If Canon can merely equal the dynamic range of the 80D (which is 24 MP, remember, so it's not such a big leap) along with the handling and speed of the 7D2 and the AF of the 5D4, I'll be very happy.

I've never felt the need for any more resolution from the 80D which I use for macro, but for long lens work you can never have enough.


----------



## Joules (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.


Why not go higher though? With more Pixels, you can resolve more detail, as long as the lens used is of decent quality. Better than having to spend more money for a longer lens, isn't it?

The negatives that get mentioned so often with resolution are just not what they are made out for, are they?

Viewed at the same magnification (meaning the higher res model is downscaled more heavily) the noise should look basically the same between a high res and a low res sensor.

And dynamic range? Each Pixel of the 1DX II sensor has about 3 times the surface are of a pixel from the 80D sensor, right? (24/20)*(1.6^2)

According to photonstophotos the 1DX II tops out at 10.46 stops of pdr and the 80D at 10.06 stops. Sure, that is a difference. But is it huge? And does it benefit more people than those 1% who may need more resolution according to your estimate?


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 8, 2019)

I'm pretty excited to see what this sensor can do and what kind of camera they will put behind it. I also hope we see it come into the M5 Mark II...the M5 was a greatly overlooked camera but it's magnificent for photography.


----------



## canonnews (May 8, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.



I've been using the Canon APS-C 24MP sensor now for years, and haven't really "craved" more DR / lower noise.



Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
> 
> I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
> 
> I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.



it's a matter of oversampling which decreases your "image noise" and also increases your overall image dynamic range - not to mention improves your color tonality and separation.

A lot of good things can happen when you have more pixels to play around with.

While I don't know what to think about this rumor, I had misgivings about it when CR first leaked it a month ago, and I still do now. I can't see this coming out in 2019 unless it's powered by dual DIGIC 8's which would make it seem like a 7D Mark III.


But we'll see.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (May 8, 2019)

I've been using an original 7d since it came out, so I'm very excited for this announcement. Depending on the boxes it ticks, I could see not having to transition to the rf mount for another couple of years. Almost bought an rp just because the tether port on my 7d is on the fritz, but I think I can wait for this.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 8, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Camera makers give buyers what they want. The fact is that more MP sells cameras, just like more HP in a car that will be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic most of its life.


tell that to sony with their a7III. A lot of people use that over the a7r3 and have bought it over the a7riii.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

canonnews said:


> ... I can't see this coming out in 2019 unless it's powered by dual DIGIC 8's which would make it seem like a 7D Mark III...



Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if Canon surprised everyone and released a 7DIII in a couple of months...and then said..."Oh by the way, here is a 150-500 f5.6 L to go with it. Just in case the mirrorless thing isn't tempting enough, we have other ways of emptying your bank account. Bwahahha!!!"


----------



## criscokkat (May 8, 2019)

I know the purists hate the idea of cropping any sort of picture, but more pixels means I can zoom a bit less and figure out my final pic later as long as it focused on what I wanted. This to me is vital to me when shooting action shots. I hope it does have an enhanced focus system. I have contemplated moving sideways to a 7d2 from my 80d more than once because while it tracks well once I get my 9 point expanded focus on the target, it doesn't follow that to the other focusing points. I also would love to move my 9 point focusing square in increments of one to the sides. But in most other aspects I've been perfectly happy with my 80d. 

Of course if you get 20 purists in the room, most all of them would hate any cropping, half of those would hate any setting other than manual, half of those would hate autofocus, and the last guy would be torn between complaining about using digital at all or the fact that no modern flash ever looked the same as flash cubes.


----------



## jvillain (May 8, 2019)

Take that sensor stick it in the R body, give me a call when your done.


----------



## robert.dary (May 8, 2019)

If it's a APS-C 32.5 MP and not full-frame, then it's a BSI sensor. Very 
interesting!


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> I know the purists hate the idea of cropping any sort of picture, but more pixels means I can zoom a bit less and figure out my final pic later as long as it focused on what I wanted. This to me is vital to me when shooting action shots...



The reality is that if you shoot anything that will be used on the web and in print, it's hard to avoid cropping. Virtually everything shot for websites has to be horizontal, even if the subject would be better framed as a vertical. In addition, if the website is responsive (which it had better be) you have to take into consideration that the positioning of the main subject can shift significantly depending on the device or monitor it is viewed on. 

If the same image is going to be used in print, you may need to crop that horizontal into a vertical. Unless your name is Cartier-Bresson you better make sure your pictures can be cropped.


----------



## docsmith (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
> 
> I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
> 
> I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.



The example you give (18 MP in a 40x30) would be about 115 to 130 ppi (assuming 2x3 landscape aspect ratio). Without diving into the great ppi/dpi/resolution debate, I can see why you are happy hanging that on your wall. From a few feet away, I bet it looks good. But you also have to know that resolution would be unacceptable to others. Many others, many pros, and many in the publishing world where 300 ppi has been the typical minimum standard.

Then, when I shot on my 18 MP camera (7D), I often cropped for wildlife. I have long lenses, but sometimes wildlife are small or are often far away. I wasn't cropping a few MP. I would start with 18 MP and finish with 3-4 MP.

Ultimately, we are talking about the high end APS-C camera. You can debate the size of the niche for this camera, but for those in that niche, I can see them being very happy with a few more MP as long as no real sacrifices are made compared to the 80D/7DII.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 8, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.


I agree, 18MP is enough. I'd also like to see an 18MP Full Frame mirrorless—called it an RX ;-)


----------



## biggiep (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
> 
> I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
> 
> I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.



Advancement in resolution is not mutually exclusive with other technological developments. In fact, many times they accompany improvements in high ISO noise. Your irrational hate of megapixel increases makes it sound like they're keeping other advancements from happening and that simply hasn't been the case.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Take that sensor stick it in the R body, give me a call when your done.



Why?


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.
> 
> And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...


Just like the auto industry did a few years ago with limiting the top-speed to 250 km/h, the major players could decide to stop this MP race someday...
For the even more MP- hungry, MF offers an alternative.


----------



## dtaylor (May 8, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.



When will people learn that pixel densities...within the range we see in today's ILCs...have virtually no impact on DR or high ISO noise.


----------



## HarryFilm (May 8, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.



===

The big mote in Canon's eye is that an APS-C sensor is in NO WAY going to give more dynamic range OR lower noise!

Until Canon goes to 50 megapixel at say 4:3 aspect ratio 8192 x 6144 pixels using a MEDIUM FORMAT 56 by 42 mm image sensor that has ONBOARD Global Shutter circuitry AND samples the 6.8 micron photosites at a FULL 32-bits per colour channel downsampled (via Nyquist sampling!) to 16 bits per colour channel (i.e. 48-bit RGB colour!) --- ONLY THEN will you get a true LOW-LIGHT, LOW-NOISE STILLS AND VIDEO IMAGING MONSTER of a camera !!!

---

The above is what it NOW TAKES to compete with upcoming systems where the upstarts have "Taken The Gloves Off" by combining a FULL end-user oriented feature set AND supreme image quality ALL AT a much-more-than-reasonable price!
.

In other words, ... CANON IS DOOOOMED, I Tell You! UTTERLY DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED !!!!!!

.


----------



## dtaylor (May 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> My Canon 300D has 6.3 megapixels. Should we have stopped there?



The Canon D30 had 3 MP. Who needs more than that?


----------



## dtaylor (May 8, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Just like the auto industry did a few years ago with limiting the top-speed to 250 km/h, the major players could decide to stop this MP race someday...
> For the even more MP- hungry, MF offers an alternative.



A) There are a ton of street legal cars faster than 250 kmh / 155 mph.

B) If a MP increase on APS-C or FF offers an improvement why should people who want it be forced to buy into MF which is many times more expensive? You're not actually starting to exhaust IQ for 35mm format size until some point passed 100 MP.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.
> 
> And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...



And m4/3 has a new 34MP sensor coming, with 136MP FF equivalent resolution, which makes this 32MP APS-C look lame. If this new 32MP is one of Sony’s new sensors, then it might be a beauty, but I’d want it in a camera with the best AF around, which would mean a 7DIII with at least 1DXII class AF, not an 90D with average AF at best.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 8, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Just like the auto industry did a few years ago with limiting the top-speed to 250 km/h, the major players could decide to stop this MP race someday...
> For the even more MP- hungry, MF offers an alternative.



As mentioned, that's not a "stopped race"; it's a matter of tire safety. It becomes exponentially harder to make tires that can safely sustain high speeds for the required amount of time, so if your car can eventually get up to 165mph but you don't want the tires to cost $300/per, you put in an electronic limiter at 155mph/250kph.

On-topic, count me in the crew entirely happy wtih ~30mpx.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Just like the auto industry did a few years ago with limiting the top-speed to 250 km/h, the major players could decide to stop this MP race someday...



Because so many people will die while shooting at 32.5 MP?


----------



## criscokkat (May 8, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Why?


#1 would be lenses. 
#2 would be lenses
#3 would be something else.


----------



## AlanF (May 8, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The Canon D30 had 3 MP. Who needs more than that?


My 300D still works! It was a great breakthrough! Our 5DS and 5DSR may have more megapixels, but the 300D was a landmark.


----------



## dtaylor (May 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Because so many people will die while shooting at 32.5 MP?



Judging from this forum, if Canon's new 32.5 MP sensor doesn't get the best DxO DR score then yes, many people will die.



AlanF said:


> My 300D still works! It was a great breakthrough! Our 5DS and 5DSR may have more megapixels, but the 300D was a landmark.



It was indeed. First DSLR under the $1k mark. I was on the 10D at the time but I remember seeing a lot of 300D's in the wild. Excellent camera for the time.


----------



## AlanF (May 8, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
> 
> I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
> 
> I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.


Your use of percentages is to say the least unusual. But, more to the point, I and most nature photographers crop excessively as we are focal length limited and need every pixel we can get on the image. And there are a lot of us.


----------



## [email protected] (May 8, 2019)

robert.dary said:


> If it's a APS-C 32.5 MP and not full-frame, then it's a BSI sensor. Very
> interesting!



I am curious as to why you think this indicates BSI?


----------



## syder (May 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Your use of percentages is to say the least unusual. But, more to the point, I and most nature photographers crop excessively as we are focal length limited and need every pixel we can get on the image. And there are a lot of us.



This. The expected difference (24-32) is similar to the resolution jump between the 5d3 and 5d4 (22-30). For a lot of the subjects that doesn't make much of a difference, but when you're focal length limited the ability to crop with the higher resolution sensor is hugely beneficial.

I'm not exclusively/mainly a nature photographer, but I have far more instances of being focal length limited (the longest lens I have is 'only' 400 mm) than I do problems with dynamic range.


----------



## jvillain (May 9, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Why?


I have the 80D and the R currently. The 80D is a really good camera but the ergonomics on the R are much better. Every thing people complain about around ergonomics on the R I happen to really like with the exception of the touch bar that I haven't even set up yet. I have APS-C glass that will easily support 32MP and I see the benefits of mirrorless over DSLR in my use cases. APS-C is lighter and cheaper than FF. When you are going up a mountain with your gear strapped to your back that matters. YMMV.


----------



## pwp (May 9, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.


Much like the widely loved x1.3 crop APS-H EOS 1D MkIV. That was one of my all time favorites.

-pw


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 9, 2019)

pwp said:


> Much like the widely loved x1.3 crop APS-H EOS 1D MkIV. That was one of my all time favorites.
> 
> -pw



A nicer size and just that little extra reach. I loved it too ... when below ISO 800 and not needing to crop too much ... but that was seldom for my bird/wildlife shots. 

Jack


----------



## flip314 (May 9, 2019)

jvillain said:


> I have the 80D and the R currently. The 80D is a really good camera but the ergonomics on the R are much better. Every thing people complain about around ergonomics on the R I happen to really like with the exception of the touch bar that I haven't even set up yet. I have APS-C glass that will easily support 32MP and I see the benefits of mirrorless over DSLR in my use cases. APS-C is lighter and cheaper than FF. When you are going up a mountain with your gear strapped to your back that matters. YMMV.



I'm curious about what specifically you prefer about the R, since you're somebody who owns and uses both. I just own the 80D, and have only used the R a couple times. So, there's a chance I just wasn't used to it, but I found myself questioning a couple of the ergo decisions on the R. Firstly, the on/off switch and mode dial are a couple of head-scratchers... I'm not really sure why the R sets them up like they did, I think the 80D sets them up much better. The second one is that I missed the wheel around the d-pad, though I guess that had to go due to less real-estate on the back of the camera.

I would step up from APS-C to FF in a heartbeat though, I'm willing to pay the extra weight for my use cases. I very nearly dove in and bought the RP when it was announced, but I think I'll at least need to wait for the 24-70 2.8 to buy into the R ecosystem.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 9, 2019)

Wow. Three pages into the thread and nobody's elaborated yet if Canon is ******* this time. So is Canon ******* or not??


----------



## flip314 (May 9, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Wow. Three pages into the thread and nobody's elaborated yet if Canon is ******* this time. So is Canon ******* or not??



Yes, always.


----------



## EduPortas (May 9, 2019)

Here comes the new 7D. Just in time, as per usual with Canon.

Let's hope they take a stab at the D500, anticipating the inevitable D500s.


----------



## ronaldbyram (May 9, 2019)

if this in fact does replace my Beloved 7D 2. I hope it has the speed and the Buffer to handle the thrruput! Else I guess we have to wait for a EOS R to step up?


----------



## Jethro (May 9, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Wow. Three pages into the thread and nobody's elaborated yet if Canon is ******* this time. So is Canon ******* or not??


Harry's had a go, hasn't he? Although he didn't seem as convinced as usual.


----------



## Cochese (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
> 
> I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
> 
> I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.


Cool for you, but we regularly do prints up to and sometimes over 8ft x 4ft. We're not really all that niche of a thing either. Having extra resolution is almost always a joy to work with. I was never satisfied with the output from any of my 18mp cameras, but my 5DMIV, that's pretty close to perfect. Great dynamic range and resolution. Though, most of the largest prints usually utilize the D850. Previously, the D800. The D850 is an impressive camera in terms of both dynamic range and resolution. That said, it's great to know that you can tell "left" from "right." Usually comes in handy. But unless you're referring to those who typically buy the cheapest DSLR possible, you never truly know what kind of camera somebody would get the most use out of. 
I don't have a macro lens for full frame, so I rely on my old 60 2.8 on crop. Great lens, but every time, every photo, I just wish I had a little bit more resolution. Or the 65mp-e.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

docsmith said:


> From a few feet away, I bet it looks good. But you also have to know that resolution would be unacceptable to others. Many others, many pros, and many in the publishing world where 300 ppi has been the typical minimum standard.



Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

biggiep said:


> Your irrational hate of megapixel



Your need to describe my attitude as irrational and hate is a testament to your attitude only.

My claim was most photographers don't need it, and no more.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> And m4/3 has a new 34MP sensor coming, with 136MP FF equivalent resolution



The question isn't what would be it's FF equivalent, but rather why do so many people want said equivalent.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Your use of percentages is to say the least unusual.



Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.



AlanF said:


> But, more to the point, I and most nature photographers crop excessively as we are focal length limited and need every pixel we can get on the image. And there are a lot of us.



Could you quantify "a lot"?


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 9, 2019)

Still worried that this will wi d up being a downgrade from the 7d2(overall) and an upgrade from the 80d. Hopefully it remains the same body as a 7d2.


----------



## AlanF (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quantify "a lot"?


You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life. 

“A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.


----------



## Cryve (May 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.
> 
> “A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.



Yup. But i can also understand the sentiment of Antono Refa. Most people probably wont need it. For most it will be a quality of life change for cropping capabilities.

People that that appreciate more megapixels are people that either print big or are range limited (like nature photographers).
Im a person that photographs wildlife and prints big, and this sensor could fit my needs very well.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 9, 2019)

Megapixels are the new extenders.

The new RF 70-200 doesn't support extenders. Why bother when with a 70mpx+ body you can just crop in significantly and get a super image.


----------



## Cochese (May 9, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Megapixels are the new extenders.
> 
> The new RF 70-200 doesn't support extenders. Why bother when with a 70mpx+ body you can just crop in significantly and get a super image.



There is only so much you can do with cropping until you need a longer telephoto. Even at 70mp, you're going to want to get as close as possible.


----------



## ozturert (May 9, 2019)

I think this will be 90D. Probably similar specs as 80D (fps, AF points, AF coverage etc..) with 4K.
Mark my words


----------



## BurningPlatform (May 9, 2019)

I do think that the choice of resolution is a bit odd, considered from video view point. Sensor width is not 8k compatible, nor is it 6k. And it is not a multiple of 4k either. Which makes it difficult to to produce video without additional crop with the easy (though not the best) method of pixel binning. This camera will be probably photo oriented, but as Canon will probably use the same sensor across the APS-C line of cameras, this is perhaps not good news for hybrid shooters. But well, it they manage to produce video through over-sampling, no problem.


----------



## lawny13 (May 9, 2019)

Adrianf said:


> When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.


You do realize that you can down sample an image to the MP count you want and get the same result you are describing though?


----------



## Del Paso (May 9, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> As mentioned, that's not a "stopped race"; it's a matter of tire safety. It becomes exponentially harder to make tires that can safely sustain high speeds for the required amount of time, so if your car can eventually get up to 165mph but you don't want the tires to cost $300/per, you put in an electronic limiter at 155mph/250kph.
> 
> On-topic, count me in the crew entirely happy wtih ~30mpx.


I know it's off-topic...and I apologize.
But the decision to stop raising top-speed above 250 k/mh was taken in Europe by Daimler, BMW and Audi mostly because of extremely high development costs, AND because Germany is the only country where you can legally attain these speeds, on less than 1% of the roads!

Back to topic: for me , 30 MP are sufficient, apart from macro photography, where, to get enough depth of field, i shoot at some distance, and then crop!
So, I'm impatiently waiting for the high-MP EOS R, also to fit it with the RF 1,2/85, provided I "find" the money. (gaasp)


----------



## docsmith (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?


300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc. You do not need to take my word for it, it is something very easy to confirm with a few searches:





Image Resolution: What does 300 DPI? and why does it matter?


Ever wonder why it is so important to use only artwork with a minimum of 300 DPI for printing? Well, here is why...




www.gogoprint.sg









Pixel density - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org












What Resolution Should be Used for Printing? -


When ordering from a online print company, it's recommended to have files resolution set at 300 PPI. But what if your resolution is set as something else?



www.mgxcopy.com





So, you ask how many photographers are there that should be concerned about 300 ppi? At a minimum, anyone that wants to publish. But, really, I would argue, anyone interested in high quality prints. I understand your 115-130 ppi print likely looks good. I have a couple up myself in the 200-250 ppi range. But my prints that are greater than 300 ppi do look better, IMO. 

Another way to look at this is if you went someplace to print, they have guides or warnings if your ppi/dpi is too low. The lowest setting is usually around 100 ppi, the "excellent" settings are usually > 300 ppi.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (May 9, 2019)

My best bet is an even bigger crop.. that would be consequent with the followed path so far


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.



That's because your view of the world is biased. When on a nature photographic trip, you're likely to see more nature photographers then there in the general population. Same with this forum. My two cousins who bought a rebel w/ 2-3 lenses and shoot occasionally don't even know this site exists. I doubt any of their photos were ever printed larger than 4x6, if at all. They still bought the photo shop seller's spiel about how they need more MP.



AlanF said:


> “A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.



So you think cameras sold to "fellows lugging around telephotos" on nature photographic trips are on the order of 1 out of every 1000 sold? Good for you, but I don't buy it.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

docsmith said:


> 300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc.



I don't doubt most publications have a 300ppi minimum standard, it's the magazines having 30"x40" posters in them that I doubt.



docsmith said:


> So, you ask how many photographers are there that should be concerned about 300 ppi?



No. I'm asking how many photographers are there that are *printing their photos poster size at about 300 ppi*.


----------



## AlanF (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> That's because your view of the world is biased. When on a nature photographic trip, you're likely to see more nature photographers then there in the general population. Same with this forum. My two cousins who bought a rebel w/ 2-3 lenses and shoot occasionally don't even know this site exists. I doubt any of their photos were ever printed larger than 4x6, if at all. They still bought the photo shop seller's spiel about how they need more MP.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think cameras sold to "fellows lugging around telephotos" on nature photographic trips are on the order of 1 out of every 1000 sold? Good for you, but I don't buy it.


Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic etc all do high resolution and low resolution models because there is a demand for both. I am not telling you that you need a high resolution resolution but simply pointing out that there are enough of us who do. It is your biased view that your two cousins bought cameras with too many pixels.


----------



## dtaylor (May 9, 2019)

docsmith said:


> 300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc. You do not need to take my word for it, it is something very easy to confirm with a few searches:



300 ppi is relevant for bitmap graphic art being sent to a printer or imagesetter with an underlying grid that's a multiple of 300. That's because line art doesn't scale well with fractional jumps. Though the scaling algorithms available today do a far better job than they did when these numbers became standards.

It has no relevance for color or B&W photographic images with modern scaling algorithms. Say you have a 200 ppi image that looks sharp and detailed enough for the subject and the target view size, and someone in the production chain insists on a 300 ppi file. You can literally just rez it up in PS and send it to them.

From testing I've found a native resolution of roughly 180 ppi to be acceptable. My preference is to be above 200 ppi with 240 ppi being excellent. There's very little to gain at 300 ppi or 360 ppi (360 being the highest true resolution for any non-primary color on a 2880x1440 dpi Epson printer when the halftone is taken into account). Again, this is speaking of photographs. Monochromatic line art and type can benefit all the way to 1200 dpi and higher.

If you're printing directly to a pro photo ink jet there is no reason to resize the image at all *unless* the native resolution at the target print size falls below around 150 ppi. The printer driver can scale the image to its underlying dot matrix better than PS can. But if the resolution is too low the printer will faithfully reproduce the pixels and they will start to become apparent. If you rez up you can smooth the pixel edges out.


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't doubt most publications have a 300ppi minimum standard, it's the magazines having 30"x40" posters in them that I doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking how many photographers are there that are *printing their photos poster size at about 300 ppi*.


What is it about the internet that causes people to double down when they ought to just concede they were wrong and move on?

This whole argument is ignorant. If you don't need or want higher megapixels, just save to one of the formats that has less. But, don't dismiss what others need.


----------



## djack41 (May 9, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> You do realize that you can down sample an image to the MP count you want and get the same result you are describing though?


Are you saying that down sampling enhances DR and noise performance? Hmmm.....guess pixel size doesn't matter.


----------



## AaronT (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?


OMG, I am really tired of the "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI" crap that people espouse. You do NOT speak for me. I have a Canon iPF6400 printer and 300PPI, or 300DPI, is my Holy Grail to get the Best, not second best, from my printer. Below is a photo I stitched together from 12 shots from a lowly 5D MKII. The final file size is a 367 MP TIFF. I also included 2 100% crops. I print my photos to make ME happy, not you. If you are happy with 18 MP photos I am happy for you. If you like a low rez 24x36 print I am happy for you. But don't include me with your "anyone" statement. My personal standards when it comes to photography are obviously higher than yours. And so are a lot of others on this forum. BTW, this photo was shot from 3,000 feet away across the Detroit River so atmospheric conditions may have hurt the sharpness a bit.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic etc all do high resolution and low resolution models because there is a demand for both.



Of course there is, I never said otherwise.



AlanF said:


> I am not telling you that you need a high resolution resolution but simply pointing out that there are enough of us who do.



Of course there is, I never said otherwise.



AlanF said:


> It is your biased view that your two cousins bought cameras with too many pixels.



They are but an example of your bias - you are surrounded mainly by pros, and miss the unwashed masses who have no choice except buying cameras with too many pixels. Which isn't my point either. My point is there's a lot of traffic about higher resolution sensor, which is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need / benefit from it.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

unfocused said:


> What is it about the internet that causes people to double down when they ought to just concede they were wrong and move on?



I don't know. Ask someone who was wrong.



unfocused said:


> This whole argument is ignorant. If you don't need or want higher megapixels, just save to one of the formats that has less. But, don't dismiss what others need.



You seem to have missed my point, which is the number of posts about sensor resolution is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need more nowadays.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 9, 2019)

AaronT said:


> OMG, I am really tired of the "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI" crap that people espouse.



Oh, I'm sure some people do. My point is they are few and afar, far beyond the number of posts we see about 'ooh, ah, we could get 10 more MP!'


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big *and* compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
> 
> I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
> 
> I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.



Us birders often crop to the extreme. Obviously it is never a stellar image but cropping to 10% of the original image size to better frame a small or distant bird isn’t unusual. Got some shots of a blue dacnis the other day which I’ll be doing just that!


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.



"The term occurs so rarely in English that major dictionaries do not agree on the spelling or pronunciation even within a single dialect of English " (Wikipedia, with references to multiple dictionaries and several without mention of it). FWIW, I'm generally the nerdiest nerd in the room and had never come across those. "Unusual" is a fair description, yes.


----------



## degos (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?



300dpi gives a viewing distance of 1ft. That's entirely reasonable for a poster-print hanging in a living room, when someone wants to take a close look to identify a feature or person.


----------



## AlanF (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Of course there is, I never said otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have made it absolutely clear that I am a member of group that wants high megapixel sensors because they aid our type of photography. If you consider that as a "bias", then you are biased also.


----------



## mb66energy (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 32.5 * 1.6 ^ 2 = 83MP.
> 
> And the megapixel race to nowhere continues...



... or the megapixel race towards ~ 20Mpix modes which have a RGGB quadruplet as a base for a non-bayer full color pixel as alternative mode to save moderate resolution high color depth images while retaining DPAF at a very high granularity. + enable smaller AF "points".


----------



## yeahright (May 9, 2019)

Isn't the discussion a bit pointless if you essentially agree that some people want a higher number of pixels while most don't? Essentially the argument is about whether a thousand people out of a million can be considered 'many', 'some', or 'few'. (Please consider these numbers as mere examples.)


----------



## BillB (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't know. Ask someone who was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed my point, which is the number of posts about sensor resolution is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need more nowadays.


And why should it be proportional in a thread about a rumored 32.5 mp aps-c sensor?


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 9, 2019)

To all the 7D MKII owners out there. If it is a 7D MKIII you better upgrade your PC / MacBook and external hard drives, I had to when I bought the 5DS. Those larger files soon eat up space.


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't know. Ask someone who was wrong.



Okay, I will be more direct. Why are you doubling down?

I guess I will make one more fruitless attempt to explain (even though I know you have no interest in an intelligent exchange but just want to argue).

Maybe 99% of people don't need 32 mp sensors. So what? 99% are using cell phones anyway. Digital cameras have become a niche market and Canon's path to success/survival is serving that niche market. A significant and profitable niche market is wildlife, bird and sports photographers. Many of us have both Full Frame and Crop Sensor bodies. We use them for different purposes. The Crop Sensors come out when we are distance limited or under other circumstances when the crop sensor better fits our needs. We have a thirst for more megapixels because the nature of what we shoot using a crop sensor camera requires cropping, sometimes significant cropping. 

You say your point is that the number of posts by people who want more megapixels is disproportionate to the number of people in the general population that need or want more megapixels. So what? This is a thread about a sensor with more megapixels, on a geek forum devoted to new camera technology and read by the less than 1% of the population who are the actual targets of these products. Why shouldn't it generate interest among those who want more megapixels?

BTW, given your insistence on holding on to an idea that others have decisively shown to be invalid, I have to ask, did you used to post under the name Dilbert?


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> To all the 7D MKII owners out there. If it is a 7D MKIII you better upgrade your PC / MacBook and external hard drives, I had to when I bought the 5DS. Those larger files soon eat up space.


Already did. That's just the age we are living in. Probably why B&H and Adorama have both offered deep discounts on 10TB external drives recently.


----------



## Del Paso (May 9, 2019)

unfocused said:


> What is it about the internet that causes people to double down when they ought to just concede they were wrong and move on?
> 
> This whole argument is ignorant. If you don't need or want higher megapixels, just save to one of the formats that has less. But, don't dismiss what others need.





AlanF said:


> Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic etc all do high resolution and low resolution models because there is a demand for both. I am not telling you that you need a high resolution resolution but simply pointing out that there are enough of us who do. It is your biased view that your two cousins bought cameras with too many pixels.


There can even be a demand for a mid- and a high- MP camera in the same bag.
I do need a 30 MP (5 D IV) for most of my pictures, but wish I had a 60+ MP camera for macro. The 2 seemingly contradictory demands exist and sometimes even coexist.


----------



## magarity (May 9, 2019)

AaronT said:


> OMG, I am really tired of the "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI" crap that people espouse. You do NOT speak for me.


Indeed; they're like the people living and working in downtown San Francisco who blog about how nobody has any reason to own a private car.


----------



## lawny13 (May 9, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I know it's off-topic...and I apologize.
> But the decision to stop raising top-speed above 250 k/mh was taken in Europe by Daimler, BMW and Audi mostly because of extremely high development costs, AND because Germany is the only country where you can legally attain these speeds, on less than 1% of the roads!
> 
> Back to topic: for me , 30 MP are sufficient, apart from macro photography, where, to get enough depth of field, i shoot at some distance, and then crop!
> So, I'm impatiently waiting for the high-MP EOS R, also to fit it with the RF 1,2/85, provided I "find" the money. (gaasp)



A low MP camera vs a high MP camera of the same format... the high MP images can be down sampled to pretty much obtain the same IQ and resolution as the low MP sensor. You can't exactly up sample.

That said... the point is that the biggest issue on high MP is cost, and processing speed/limitations.


djack41 said:


> Are you saying that down sampling enhances DR and noise performance? Hmmm.....guess pixel size doesn't matter.



Care to look up the DR of the A7III vs the A7R3? The R has significantly more pixels, and though the DR of the former is better the DR drop is marginal. As such the DR of a 32 MP camera vs 24... meh, doubt you would see any meaningful difference. 

As for noise. Yes looking at a high MP image of the same format as a lower MP sensor would exhibit more noise simply due to having a higher pixel count. So if that what what you mean than you are right. But down sampling the image is essentially an averaging affect which does decrease noise. 

One can easily show a reduction of noise numerically. General 1000 points randomly between 0 and 1 in excel and plot it. Then performing a downsampling is the data down to 200 points. Then plot the data. Report back to us what you see... bet you the later would appear less noisy though with less resolution.

Our perception of DR also involves how noisy the shadow area is of an image. So... if down sample reduces noise at the cost of resolution, it does translate into cleaner looked images which shadows pulled. Of course there is more to it than that, but the song camera only lead by 2/3 to 1 stop DR advantage, but only a small percentage of people pull 5 stops of shadows. 4 is more than adequate and the on board ADC of canon’s sensors produce DR on par with the previous mk2 Sony bodies which was already good.

Rather than DR (go to Sony if that 1 stop at ISO 50 to 125 is important to you) canon has bigger fish to fry. Read out speed and processing speed is currently their bottle neck in terms of innovation. Beyond that there is algorithm development to deal with tracking and stuff like that. It is way more significant for them to get FPS, rolling shutter mitigation, and IBIS with A7R2 type DR performance than focus on DR.


----------



## bdbender4 (May 9, 2019)

As always, my question is: where's the update for the M5? Will it use this sensor? If Canon is not going to make any more high-end EOS-M stuff I wish they would come right out and say so. All they say is "the customer will decide". The customers in Japan have decided they like the M50 and that's about it. But that's a chicken-and-egg question about what has the newest features.


----------



## Joules (May 9, 2019)

bdbender4 said:


> As always, my question is: where's the update for the M5? Will it use this sensor? If Canon is not going to make any more high-end EOS-M stuff I wish they would come right out and say so. All they say is "the customer will decide". The customers in Japan have decided they like the M50 and that's about it. But that's a chicken-and-egg question about what has the newest features.


Did you read this "rumor"?









Breaking down the latest Canon gear to appear for certification


This past week we saw an updated list of new and unreleased Canon gear that has appeared for certifications with various agencies around the globe. As always, t



www.canonrumors.com





It was the first we saw of this 32 MP APC-C Body and the EOS RP. It also shows that Canon likely has two Mirrorless Cameras with 24MP coming, which are likely the updates to the M6 and M5.

I guess since the 32 MP sensor is used only in one of the DSLR that that camera will be the 80D/7D replacement and it indicates that it won't be a mirror equivalent of the M5 but sit above it.


----------



## robert.dary (May 9, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> I am curious as to why you think this indicates BSI?


Because the maximum MP for the traditional APS-C sensor is aprox. 24MP. To achieve an 
acceptable dynamic range above the 24 MP the crop sensor must be BSI.


----------



## ChrisCwmbran (May 9, 2019)

As someone who has a 7D and a 7D mark II, and want a newer camera to replace the latter Canon's attitude annoys the hell out of me.

I'm happy to wait for a 7D Mark III to be released - and I'm open minded(ish) about what the specs should be. I can understand why Canon might not want to say much about it before any release either. What I find intolerable is the fact that they won't confirm that there even will be such a camera.

Having purchased 70-200mm f2.8L and 100-400mm Mk2 lenses I'm hesitant to change brands - I consider myself having had half a dozen Canon DSLR bodies to be a loyal customer - but I am starting to vaguely think of jumping from the Canon ship.

All I ask is confirmation that there is going to be a 7D Mark III.....


----------



## digigal (May 9, 2019)

You seem to have missed my point, which is the number of posts about sensor resolution is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need more nowadays.
[/QUOTE]
I meet up with about 150 people twice a month to share photographs we've taken either by projected or printed form. Only a few of these people are active professional photographers and but all have high megapixel cameras to allow them to capture and modify their art with as little limitation as possible. Many of them do have shows here in the Bay Area. I don't think any one of them would agree with your premise and I know NONE of the wildlife photographers I know would for the reasons that have already been stated. Most of the landscape photographers I know like the high megapixel cameras for the flexibility of the print size. 
Catherine


----------



## jvillain (May 9, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm curious about what specifically you prefer about the R, since you're somebody who owns and uses both. I just own the 80D, and have only used the R a couple times. So, there's a chance I just wasn't used to it, but I found myself questioning a couple of the ergo decisions on the R. Firstly, the on/off switch and mode dial are a couple of head-scratchers... I'm not really sure why the R sets them up like they did, I think the 80D sets them up much better. The second one is that I missed the wheel around the d-pad, though I guess that had to go due to less real-estate on the back of the camera.
> 
> I would step up from APS-C to FF in a heartbeat though, I'm willing to pay the extra weight for my use cases. I very nearly dove in and bought the RP when it was announced, but I think I'll at least need to wait for the 24-70 2.8 to buy into the R ecosystem.



There are some things about my experience that may be different from yours, but here goes. I shoot both stills and video. The main thing I like is that it is almost like two cameras in one because so many of the buttons are reused for multiple purposes. The mode dial is a prime example. At times it is the aperture control some times it is the mode dial. Some times it controls other things. But it is a control that is perfectly placed. When it is the aperture control it is so easy to reach as opposed to the wheel on the 80D which even with my large hands I have always found to be a stretch to get to. Aperture is such a critical setting and is used so often that it needs to be very simple to get to and easy to use.

Speaking of the mode dial the button you have to press and hold on the 80D is a pure killer for me. I had an accident that paralyzed half of my left hand. So in order to operate the mode dial I actually have to put the camera down reach over with my right hand and to press, hold and turn the dial. The R I can simply use with just my right hand with out having to put the camera down. The knurling on both the mode dial and the power switch I find give me better purchase to operate them than the slippery plastic equivelents on the 80D.

3 different custom modes and fully independent between video and stills. That is huge for me. 

The AF, drive, iso and exposure area button along the top front on the 80D I always found vague. ISO was OK because it had an indent so I knew where it was easily. The others I had to keep stopping and thinking as I don't use them very often. I find changing ISO on the R far easier as the mode button is by it's self next to the shutter button where my finger already is and once I press it ISO is on the mode dial where my thumb is already. I mostly shoot locked off on a tripod so ISO isn't a big thing any way.

Pretty well any thing you don' like you can remap to better suite your needs.

There a few things where the 80D kicks ass on the R still. The biggest is there are still very few editors that that can deal with the damn CR3 files. Nothing I use can so for now I can't edit RAW from the R. But when I go out to a location I am usually shooting video on the R and stills on the 80D any way. But dang it I want my RAW files. The damn intervolomiter is simple software that canon perfected like half a century ago. I will get banned if a say what I really think of the decision to leave it out. Having said that the movie mode intervalomiter in the R is really quite good, I can do time lapses in 4K and Holy Grail time lapses are ridiculously easy, so that softens the pain a bit.

If you like the feel of the 80D in your hand and I always did then your gonna like the R because it is basically the same body with a few buttons moved. 

I should mention any one looking for a large bump in PQ moving from the 80D to the R isn't going to find it with stills but will find it with video.

I'm not one of those guys that says becuase I don't have a need for some thing no one else should be allowed to have it. JL is right when he says "Find the gear that works for you" . The R works for me but that doesn't mean it will for you. Every one has different needs, different work flows. If your not in a rush then take your time and think about it. Maybe the camera listed here is what you will want or maybe one of the other Canons coming up or maybe some thing completely different. Good luck.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (May 9, 2019)

@Antono Refa

This argument against higher resolution sensor saying people don't need it is ridiculous. As long as the increase in mpx does not negatively impact noise or DR (which with recent Canon releases show that it does not) then who cares? Canon offers m or s raws don't they? Or downsample.

I shoot a bit of everything including deep sky and birds where more cropping power the better; especially with the deep sky since I only have an entry level tracker I am limited to certain focal length (and weight) before tracking becomes inconsistent/inaccurate so more resolution can only help. I've been shooting since the good old 500D and I do a lot of high DR scenes (sunrise/sets) and never found DR to be an issue because I learnt how to get around the limitations. Of course the better sensor in my 5D4 makes my life easier nowadays but so would a higher mpx sensor.

I could easily flip the argument and say most people buying cameras these days are mum and dads or newbies buying entry level bodies taking snapshots and would have no need for (or even aware of the need) for better DR or noise so do we stop progress there too? See how easy it is to generalise?


----------



## CanonOregon (May 10, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It will probably indicate the MPs of the full frame pro 5R.
> FPS will be interesting and focusing system. ISO performance too.
> My 7DII is quite worn. I’d be in the market to replace it with something better.


I'm getting there...I know it's only a 'wish' but I do wish that it wasn't true that the MkII will be the last 7d. I'm not ready for the mirrorless lineup!


----------



## dtaylor (May 10, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Are you saying that down sampling enhances DR and noise performance?



Noise is reduced by downsampling. Since digital DR is bound by noise on the shadow side, DR is also enhanced by down sampling.



> Hmmm.....guess pixel size doesn't matter.



Not in the size range we see with modern ILCs, no.


----------



## DreDaze (May 10, 2019)

i've been waiting for something to come out to replace my 70D...if this has 10fps, and a flip out screen, i'd buy it right away...if it's less than 10fps, than i assume there would be a 7DIII in the works


----------



## bdbender4 (May 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> Did you read this "rumor"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Slight variations on this type of M5 update rumor have been ongoing for something like 18 months now - that would be my (frustrated!) point.

The current M5 has the virtually the same sensor in it as the 80D. So an equally logical supposition would be that the M5 update - if it actually exists - would have the updated 32.5MP sensor.


----------



## pj1974 (May 10, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Speaking of the mode dial the button you have to press and hold on the 80D is a pure killer for me. I had an accident that paralyzed half of my left hand. So in order to operate the mode dial I actually have to put the camera down reach over with my right hand and to press, hold and turn the dial. The R I can simply use with just my right hand with out having to put the camera down. The knurling on both the mode dial and the power switch I find give me better purchase to operate them than the slippery plastic equivelents on the 80D.
> 
> ......................
> 
> If you like the feel of the 80D in your hand and I always did then your gonna like the R because it is basically the same body with a few buttons moved.



I have a 80D as my main camera, and I have the M5 as my mirrorless. Most of what you wrote in your (long!) post I agree with, jvillain.
Like you, I really dislike the button on the 80D's mode dial too. Like you, I have a physical issue with my left hand.
I have probably only ever accidentally moved the mode dial on all of my other Canon DSLRs (e.g. 350D, 700D, 7D, etc) twice in hundreds of thousands of photos.

The ergonomics (size, weight, button placement, etc) on the 80D work really well for me (just wish there would have been a joystick like my 7D has).
I use the 80D enough so almost every setting / function I operate using muscle memory.

The M5 has decent ergonomics for its size. I like the dial-func it has. After setting it up as wanted, and practising using it, I found it such a great way of changing fairly frequently accessed functions. I would dial-funcs on more camera bodies.

When I have used the R, it is nowhere near as ergonomics for me as the 80D. The swipe bar absolutely does not work for me.
That, and other reasons, means that the first Canon FF Mirrorless for me, would be a higher model than the R.
The R's back wheel has terrible feedback and feel for how I would like to use it.


----------



## Cochese (May 10, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?



We're an art gallery and print shop. If you're printing concert quality posters, all files are preferred to be at 300DPI. You can easily get by on small res files, but it's far from ideal. Especially for large prints. I've worked with a guy like you before. Dude is the company's graphic designer, but only saves files in 72DPI. They always want large prints. Storage is cheap as ******. Why save in anything else?


----------



## Jethro (May 10, 2019)

jvillain said:


> There a few things where the 80D kicks ass on the R still. The biggest is there are still very few editors that that can deal with the damn CR3 files. Nothing I use can so for now I can't edit RAW from the R.


I know CR3 processing isn't universal yet, but ACR and DxO work fine - although purchasing the EOS R forced me to upgrade my versions ...


----------



## ohm (May 10, 2019)

jvillain said:


> There are some things about my experience that may be different from yours, but here goes. I shoot both stills and video. The main thing I like is that it is almost like two cameras in one because so many of the buttons are reused for multiple purposes. The mode dial is a prime example. At times it is the aperture control some times it is the mode dial. Some times it controls other things. But it is a control that is perfectly placed. When it is the aperture control it is so easy to reach as opposed to the wheel on the 80D which even with my large hands I have always found to be a stretch to get to. Aperture is such a critical setting and is used so often that it needs to be very simple to get to and easy to use.
> 
> Speaking of the mode dial the button you have to press and hold on the 80D is a pure killer for me. I had an accident that paralyzed half of my left hand. So in order to operate the mode dial I actually have to put the camera down reach over with my right hand and to press, hold and turn the dial. The R I can simply use with just my right hand with out having to put the camera down. The knurling on both the mode dial and the power switch I find give me better purchase to operate them than the slippery plastic equivelents on the 80D.
> 
> ...



I also own the 80D, and rented the R for three days. I miss it already. I love its output and performance, but its interfaces (both hardware and software) are much more complicated. 

The Mode dial is okay, but there are FAR better ways to implement it. Leica nailed it with the SL, which a simple depress activates, after which, you rotate the dial to get to PASM. 

I agree WRT to the aperture dial/ring on the back. That thing is hard to use. I don't find it hard to reach, but the small purchase afforded it against the large central 8-way button is a bugger. 

AF/ISO/etc dials: I'm ambiguous about them on both cameras. The 80D is the first dSLR I've picked up that I didn't question anything except where to find exposure preview functionality. The R was complicated in most of its functions and I felt less apt to just pick up and shoot. Obviously this is subjective, but the simplicity of that dSLR in particular, is above reproach. 

I really wish Canon would do something more like what Panasonic or Leica did: and keep the design of a classic dSLR (Leica S) and transfer it to a mirrorless. I also rented a 5D MKIV, which I loved, and found it remarkably fast, but its interface was more complicated again. That said, the 5D MKIV was simpler than the EOS R. 

I understand the desire to reinvent the wheel, but there are basic layout structures which don't need to be changed to fit a different view technology.


----------



## HarryFilm (May 10, 2019)

docsmith said:


> 300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc. You do not need to take my word for it, it is something very easy to confirm with a few searches:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



===

In terms of our INTERNAL printing of posters, we usually PRINT at 2400 dpi (individual dots per inch) which is about 600 ppi (i.e. CMYK pixel groupings per inch). Since we usually shoot using a 1dx Mk2 for up to 8x10 inch or a 100 megapixel Hasselblad that works out to about 150 ppi if we scale it to 19x13 inches.

Since we ALSO use a FRACTAL SCALER-based rasterizer on our print jobs, the combination of fractal scaling and error diffusion makes our photos look great even when printed out at 48 inches by 36 inches and larger.

THE KEY ISSUE when printing is NOT the actual dpi of the source camera image but rather the QUALITY of your print rasterizer which SHOULD USE Fractal Scaling and/or Stochastic Error Diffusion.

MOST newer Epson or Canon pro-level printers will have 2400 dpi and ERROR DIFFUSION settings which you should turn ON for best photo quality output!

If you have the TIME, using an external software-based image scaler/rasterizer is best, but modern printers now give you 90% of that sort of quality within the printer of itself using the built-in error diffusion algorithms.

One thing I have noticed, is you MUST USE a colour-matching system (i.e. Datacolor SpyderX Elite is one of the best monitor calibrators!) so that your printout will MATCH what is displayed on your monitor within your image processing and publishing program.

Every morning I colour match my monitors and printers for BOTH video and print uses and save a preset so I can switch between the YCbCr video-centric display modes and print-centric CMYK modes. Since monitors have COLOUR DRIFT over a time period as short as even a few hours, I usually do it in the morning.

Not everyone will need that sort of colour accuracy, but by buying even the cheaper Spyder colour calibrators, your printouts will match your monitors pretty closely!

---

And while the point of high resolution is for allowing more cropping options and better print resolution, it's NOT always necessary since MANY publications are WEB-specific which means for 8.5 inches by 11 inches PDF files, you can get away with a full page portrait resolution as little as 2000 by 1500 pixel or about 180 dpi! That means your camera really needs to be at a minimum of maybe 6 megapixels to give you enough room to do a proper downsample and crop for web-based publishing!

In my opinion, two of the BEST cheaper MILC cameras for doing that sort of web-publishing are the Canon M-50 and the Sony A6500. The quality and resolution are MORE THAN ENOUGH for web and the price is right! If you are JUST doing web photos and maybe smaller 1920 by 1080 embedded videos then the $799 Canon M50 is a good start. 

If you're doing BOTH print AND vlogging then the $1600 Sony A6500 is much better for that!

.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> "The term occurs so rarely in English that major dictionaries do not agree on the spelling or pronunciation even within a single dialect of English " (Wikipedia, with references to multiple dictionaries and several without mention of it). FWIW, I'm generally the nerdiest nerd in the room and had never come across those. "Unusual" is a fair description, yes.



I speak English as a second language, so the finer points of English spelling are lost on me. Which is why I used the ‰ character, rather than spell it out.

Around here it's taught in elementary school along side percents, after fractions, probably to demonstrate those are just names for "parts per hundred", "parts per thousand", and "parts per ten thousand".


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

degos said:


> 300dpi gives a viewing distance of 1ft. That's entirely reasonable for a poster-print hanging in a living room, when someone wants to take a close look to identify a feature or person.



Which doesn't answer the question - one out of how many photographers print their photos poster size so people would view it from 1ft.

Sure there are _some_ who do, my point is those are rare. E.g. I've seen plenty of pictures larger than poster hanging in people's living rooms (I have two in my apartment), just not photos.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have made it absolutely clear that I am a member of group that wants high megapixel sensors because they aid our type of photography. If you consider that as a "bias", then you are biased also.



I'm biased, you're biased, and that doesn't say anything concrete about 'one in how many photographers benefits from cameras that have sensors with more than, say, 50MP'.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> ... or the megapixel race towards ~ 20Mpix modes which have a RGGB quadruplet as a base for a non-bayer full color pixel as alternative mode to save moderate resolution high color depth images while retaining DPAF at a very high granularity. + enable smaller AF "points".



This idea has been raised before. Good point.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

BillB said:


> And why should it be proportional in a thread about a rumored 32.5 mp aps-c sensor?



I didn't say it in the context of this thread, but in general.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Okay, I will be more direct. Why are you doubling down?



Okay, I'll repeat myself. I didn't.



unfocused said:


> Maybe 99% of people don't need 32 mp sensors. So what?



So I wonder why the subject of >30MP sensor, e.g. 83MP FF sensors, gets raised so often.

I get that years ago DSLRs had such low resolution, most people needed more, and raises in resolution were often discussed. I don't get why its still so often discussed. This thread doesn't count, people just enjoy arguing with me.



unfocused said:


> Digital cameras have become a niche market and Canon's path to success/survival is serving that niche market.



My guess said path is served by making items that sell well, but what do I know?



unfocused said:


> You say your point is that the number of posts by people who want more megapixels is disproportionate to the number of people in the general population that need or want more megapixels. So what? This is a thread about a sensor with more megapixels, on a geek forum devoted to new camera technology and read by the less than 1% of the population who are the actual targets of these products. Why shouldn't it generate interest among those who want more megapixels?



I suspect those people are 1% of the people who participate in this geek forum.



unfocused said:


> BTW, given your insistence on holding on to an idea that others have decisively shown to be invalid, I have to ask, did you used to post under the name Dilbert?



I never held that idea, it's words people put in my mouth because they enjoy arguments.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2019)

Cochese said:


> We're an art gallery and print shop. If you're printing concert quality posters, all files are preferred to be at 300DPI. You can easily get by on small res files, but it's far from ideal. Especially for large prints. I've worked with a guy like you before.



No, you didn't. That guy only saves files in 72DPI, while I would save to whatever resolution my boss would pay me to save it, regardless of my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Cochese (May 10, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> No, you didn't. That guy only saves files in 72DPI, while I would save to whatever resolution my boss would pay me to save it, regardless of my opinion on the matter.


That doesn't make any sense. Why save a low quality file unless you're sending a specific copy of said file off to print? Like, if you're just printing a window poster, 72DPI is passable, but what does money have to do with saving the original file at it's max resolution? We must work in two entirely different industries. Nothing is ever below 300DPI unless a customer brings in a cell phone image, which are inherently 72DPI.


----------



## dtaylor (May 10, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> ... or the megapixel race towards ~ 20Mpix modes which have a RGGB quadruplet as a base for a non-bayer full color pixel as alternative mode to save moderate resolution high color depth images...



Bayer gets a bad rap. There really isn't much to gain in terms of color depth or resolution by eliminating Bayer. Foveon images show an improvement but a small one that's not in line with the exaggerated advertisements. In terms of an 80mp sensor with a 20mp 'color depth' mode I doubt there would be any gain after scaling the normal 80mp version down to 20mp and comparing with the color depth 20mp one.

Honestly, Fuji solving the moire issue by alternating the CFA arrangement seems a better improvement than triple layer sensors (Foveon) or a theoretical 4:1 sensor. Of course that leads to the issue that so much optimization has been put into Bayer processing that Fuji images can suffer during RAW conversion.

Now I wouldn't refuse a triple layer sensor if Canon offered a high resolution one that didn't suffer at high ISO. There is some improvement. But not one I would trade resolution or high ISO for.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 10, 2019)

I'm still amused about how many people argue about printing posters when large resolution sensors are discussed.

It's not about printing posters. It's about increasing range through cropping, and allowing downsampling to reduce the problems with bayer filters.

Thank you!


----------



## degos (May 10, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> It's not about printing posters. It's about increasing range through cropping, and allowing downsampling to reduce the problems with bayer filters.



You're generalising your experience.

Just yesterday I was working on a 60x40 print based on a 1Ds3 shot ( so 20MP ). There was just enough resolution to achieve it, because of the composition and subject. But don't look too closely at the dog's hair or his eyes.

So I could say that it's all about printing posters. Neither of us would be correct. What is correct to say is that most photographers will always find a use for more MP.



Now, can we get back to this camera? Anyone fancy a guess at release date?


----------



## masterpix (May 10, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


if they ever do merge the 7D and the 80D they should name it 9D. However, I am not sure how those two very different body options can be merged in a way both type of uses will be happy with them.


----------



## mb66energy (May 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Bayer gets a bad rap. There really isn't much to gain in terms of color depth or resolution by eliminating Bayer. Foveon images show an improvement but a small one that's not in line with the exaggerated advertisements. In terms of an 80mp sensor with a 20mp 'color depth' mode I doubt there would be any gain after scaling the normal 80mp version down to 20mp and comparing with the color depth 20mp one.
> 
> Honestly, Fuji solving the moire issue by alternating the CFA arrangement seems a better improvement than triple layer sensors (Foveon) or a theoretical 4:1 sensor. Of course that leads to the issue that so much optimization has been put into Bayer processing that Fuji images can suffer during RAW conversion.
> 
> Now I wouldn't refuse a triple layer sensor if Canon offered a high resolution one that didn't suffer at high ISO. There is some improvement. But not one I would trade resolution or high ISO for.



Downsampling makes the same quality, for shure. But it can decrease file size maybe by a factor of two. And some color moiree of strong quasi monochromatic light sources would be avoided.

Foveon has a strong problem with ISO of the deeper layers so they are usable and very good at base ISO but fall apart at ISO 400 or ISO 800.

The only way out would be some structure which separates the different wavelength ranges like a grating or prism to use it all - but I do not see a simple solution to manage that with light which comes from different angles.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 10, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I speak English as a second language, so the finer points of English spelling are lost on me. Which is why I used the ‰ character, rather than spell it out.
> 
> Around here it's taught in elementary school along side percents, after fractions, probably to demonstrate those are just names for "parts per hundred", "parts per thousand", and "parts per ten thousand".



Yes, and after a second I realized the meaning of the symbols with the percent symbol, and I'm glad you added yet another nerdy nugget to my brain. Just do be aware that to the US at least, those terms might as well not exist.


----------



## BillB (May 10, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I didn't say it in the context of this thread, but in general.


Well, if you weren't commenting in the context of this thread, why did you post it in this thread?


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Yes, and after a second I realized the meaning of the symbols with the percent symbol, and I'm glad you added yet another nerdy nugget to my brain. Just do be aware that to the US at least, those terms might as well not exist.


They are not in general use in the UK either. And a perusal of the course requirements for mathematics taken by 16 year olds (GCSE) fails to find the symbols as part of the syllabus.


----------



## x-vision (May 10, 2019)

masterpix said:


> if they ever do merge the 7D and the 80D they should name it 9D. However, I am not sure how those two very different body options can be merged in a way both type of uses will be happy with them.


Great points!
I've always thought that the 80D successor will need to be renamed to 8D or 9D, as the xxD series is running out of names.
And yes, with a 32.5mp sensor, they can't make both the 7D and 80D camps happy.

Btw, 32.5mp is just a 16% increase in linear pixel density vs a 24mp sensor.
If Canon keeps pixel performance the same as on the 80D, overall image quality will be better.
I had the 40D before and I used to think that we don't need more megapixels.
Now I have the 80D and the images are so much better.

And a final point: the move to a higher resolution signifies the arrival of the next iteration of Canon sensors.
So, again, image quality will (very likely) be better.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (May 10, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ===
> 
> In terms of our INTERNAL printing of posters, we usually PRINT at 2400 dpi (individual dots per inch) which is about 600 ppi (i.e. CMYK pixel groupings per inch). Since we usually shoot using a 1dx Mk2 for up to 8x10 inch or a 100 megapixel Hasselblad that works out to about 150 ppi if we scale it to 19x13 inches.
> 
> ...



Got your G7 master cert, homie?


----------



## Sharlin (May 10, 2019)

So I updated my throughput spreadsheet and found that the jump to 32 Mpix, although large, is not entirely unreasonable. There's even room to slightly increase continuous shooting rate: at 7.5fps the throughput is equal to the max throughput of the M50 (24MP x 10fps), and at 8fps only slightly more. I doubt we'll be seeing much higher number than that, however. Also included a hypothetical 1DX3 at 24MP x 16fps.


----------



## Sharlin (May 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> They are not in general use in the UK either. And a perusal of the course requirements for mathematics taken by 16 year olds (GCSE) fails to find the symbols as part of the syllabus.



They're almost nonexistent in the Anglophone world, but permille/promille at least is somewhat common in many other languages. However I'm not sure I've seen permyriad in the wild before this!


----------



## canonnews (May 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> So I updated my throughput spreadsheet and found that the jump to 32 Mpix, although large, is not entirely unreasonable. There's even room to slightly increase continuous shooting rate: at 7.5fps the throughput is equal to the max throughput of the M50 (24MP x 10fps), and at 8fps only slightly more. I doubt we'll be seeing much higher number than that, however. Also included a hypothetical 1DX3 at 24MP x 16fps.



depends. on an M5 that would be a drop in FPS, and then on top of it, the added overhead of DPAF which will cause continuous to struggle even more.

ALso, the M50 only does 12 bit continuous at 10 fps.


----------



## malarcky (May 10, 2019)

I haven't read through this entire thread, so excuse me if this has been addressed before, but is the 90D going to have two processors, like the 7dII, or just one, ala the 80D?


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2019)

malarcky said:


> I haven't read through this entire thread, so excuse me if this has been addressed before, but is the 90D going to have two processors, like the 7dII, or just one, ala the 80D?


No one knows, and we don't even know whether there will be a 90D.


----------



## malarcky (May 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> No one knows, and we don't even know whether there will be a 90D.



So is it going to be an 8D MkII/7D MkIII/or 90D? If they put the dual processors and the rugged body armor into a body with the flip screen and WiFi, Bluetooth capabilities, that would be the best of the 80D and the 7D MkII, I'm going to be interested in what it actually can do. The 80D is a great APSC camera, as far as I know (I bought one of the first ones). If this camera really does embrace the best of these two Canon "Winners"", then it would be a really hard product to beat, other than the subtleties of the mirrorless technology and newer ML lens technology is concerned. I will be looking at this one for sure.


----------



## jvillain (May 10, 2019)

malarcky said:


> So is it going to be an 8D MkII/7D MkIII/or 90D? If they put the dual processors and the rugged body armor into a body with the flip screen and WiFi, Bluetooth capabilities, that would be the best of the 80D and the 7D MkII, I'm going to be interested in what it actually can do. The 80D is a great APSC camera, as far as I know (I bought one of the first ones). If this camera really does embrace the best of these two Canon "Winners"", then it would be a really hard product to beat, other than the subtleties of the mirrorless technology and newer ML lens technology is concerned. I will be looking at this one for sure.


87D?


----------



## jvillain (May 10, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm still amused about how many people argue about printing posters when large resolution sensors are discussed.
> 
> It's not about printing posters. It's about increasing range through cropping, and allowing downsampling to reduce the problems with bayer filters.
> 
> Thank you!



Why can't it be about both?


----------



## Mikehit (May 10, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Why can't it be about both?



well essentially they are the same. 
The difference is that a cropped image is meant to be viewed close up. An uncropped image is meant to be observed from further away to be viewed as it is meant to be. So the cropped image is actually more demanding as far as the final use is intended.


----------



## preppyak (May 10, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> What was nice with the 70 and 80 D were its usefulness for video. I wonder with their supposed replacement here, will we see 4k only with the 1.8x crop* or perhaps canon surprises us with this apsc *?


Wouldnt count on it. Canon released the M50, R, RP, and SL3 all with DIGIC 8, all with video crops. It's clearly not a function of sensor size or anything, they just cant (or wont) deliver 4k without crop. This camera will 100% have a crop factor in 4k on top of 1.6x from APS-C. Im not sure how the binning changes from a 24MP sensor to a 32MP sensor, but I'd count on it being similar to the 2.5x crop overall that the SL3 and M50.

Which is insane considering the GH4 managed 2.3x crop in 4k in 2014. Canon has yet to release a camera that matches tech from 5 years ago, let alone the current standards (4k60, 4k no crop full-frame, etc).


----------



## malarcky (May 10, 2019)

"Which is insane considering the GH4 managed 2.3x crop in 4k in 2014. Canon has yet to release a camera that matches tech from 5 years ago, let alone the current standards (4k60, 4k no crop full-frame, etc)." 

Just because a camera company offers some specifications that are sounding better than the other companies doesn't mean that they are going to be a reliable standard. Cell phones can take 4k video. That doesn't mean that it can be "Usable" in the standards that the videographers require for "Professional", or even "Amateur" purposes.

I am SO tired of hearing about the 4K tech of yore, that hasn't been implemented into the modern day DSLR's. Just because it's "4K" doesn;t mean a thing, as far as the way the final product will be implemented. Buy a dedicated video camera if you want to use 4K video in your final production. Just don't complain that you can't purchase a DSLR that will compete with a camcorder, or dedicated video camera that is designed for such duty.

@ *preppyak *Buy a GH4 and go to the Panasonic forums to pat them on the back for the "Awesome" job they did/are doing. We won't miss you pal.  

This is a Canon forum, and there is nothing that anyone can say that prohibits them from using a Canon product that will create a superior product, as long as you aren't trying to buy a Pinto to do the Cadillac job.


----------



## HarryFilm (May 11, 2019)

NeverPlayMonopoly said:


> Got your G7 master cert, homie?



---

I think the parent print facility does in fact have that certification. You are talking about an aerospace company that has systems like THESE:

*Xerox® Brenva® HD Production Inkjet Press:*






Digital Printing Presses & Production Systems - Xerox


View our digital printing press and production printer portfolio for unmatched speed, quality, and volume ideal for graphic communications and print providers.



www.xerox.com





and









Arizona 6100 series - Canon Production Printing


High-volume flatbed printer designed for productive, rigid media printing




www.oce.com





And these:





__





SCF7200PS | Epson SureColor F7200 Printer | Large Format | Printers | For Work | Epson Canada


How do you reinvent the dye-sublimation transfer printer? You start by specially designing, from the ground up, every component to work together as one system - from the print head and ink technology, to the printer engine and software. The result? A high-performance dye-sublimation transfer...




epson.ca





and a few of these:





__





Shop Canon Consumer Catalog, Printers | Canon U.S.A, Inc.


Shop our selection of Consumer Catalog, . Explore specs, colors, and other features from Canon U.S.A., Inc. to find the right product for your n




www.usa.canon.com





SO YES! They have ISO-9001/ISO-9002 for ALL the manufacturing facilities and it does look like they have G7 cert for the print facility itself.

I do know the operators in the facility, of them, MANY have Master of Fine Arts (MFA) degrees, and multiple product-specific and industry-specific certifications.

My own diploma is from SAIT (Southern Alberta Institute of Technology) in CTSR (Cinema, Television, Stage and Radio Arts - Video and Graphics Production) so YUP I do have BOTH actual QUALIFIED post-secondary education and LOOONG work-experience (30 years now!) since the late 1980's in both VIDEO and DESKTOP PUBLISHING, plus I have quite the background in low-level Computer Graphics/Video Imaging development with a specialty in High Frame Rate Vision Recognition systems, real-time encryption systems, realtime hardware-level CODEC development AND autonomous drone/UAV flight control systems.

---

SO YEAH! I'm Qualified to Say that 6 megapixels downsampled to 2000 by 1500 pixels is all you really need in order to get away with 11 inch by 8.5 inch web page (or European A4 size!) PDF web publishing and distribution of print material.

For VIDEO, I am also QUALIFIED to state that YES! you can get away with buying a $799 U.S. Canon M50 camera or a $1700 U.S. Sony A6500 setup for your 24 fps 4k and 25/30 fps or higher frame rate 1920 by 1080 pixel vlogging needs!

.
AND one of my friends uses ONLY his iPhone-X for ALL his vlogging and print needs and IMHO, his web and video look pretty good!

I do note that I did teach him about the Nyquist downsampling method where you increase your overall exposure or brightness and shadows by 5% to 15%, increase contrast and saturation by at least 5% or to you personal preference AND then resample ALL still photos and video files DOWN by exactly half on each axis so that 4K resolution video is now 2K resolution video and your 4000 by 3000 pixel photo is now 2000 by 1500 pixels and use an UNSHARP MASK at 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 pixel radius to enhance all object edges!

Still photos and videos look CRISP and highly detailed for typical 1080p web/youtube distribution, AND when error diffusion is turned ON, colour matching intent is set to Perceptual Colour Mode and print resolution is set at 2400 dpi on his Epson printer, his printed 8x10 photos look bright and PROFESSIONAL!

AND... P.S.

Do remember to spend as much as you can afford on the BEST 50 mm, 85 mm and 135 mm PRIME lenses out there for your camera! F/1.2 to F/1.4 is what you're aiming for in terms of a FAST and SHARP high-quality prime lens!
I personally like the SIGMA Art series as the price and SHARPNESS is right on the mark! YEAH! I probably could take the hit on spending $5000 on a single Zeiss Otus but I will let the parent company spend that sort of money on lenses!

Me personally? I will take the great Bang-for-the-Buck $1100 or less Sigma Art Series lenses!
.
.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 11, 2019)

Just back from a regional migratory bird festival which attracts tens of thousands of wildlife pro's and affluent photo enthusiasts. 5 years ago that event would have been 80% Canon. Now ( based on my observation) I would say Canon and Nikon are evenly splitting about 60% of the market with Sony, Olympus and other MILC brands splitting the rest. Canon big and little whites were no more than 10 or 15% of the lenses with the majority now being the Sigma and Tamron superzooms. I don't see how a 90D with a 32 MP sensor is going to turn that around. 

I get that Canon is cautious and concerned about the overall market but they really need to come up with some compelling products or the wildlife market is going to pass them by. I'd say MILC are only a generation or so behind for sports/action and the next 12 months are going to be a big release period for Sony. 

Yes. I'm sure the 1DX3 will be outstanding but that market is shrinking too. I might have seen half a dozen pro (1D/D4-5) bodies. Five years ago there would have been a hundred. People want what they want but Canon still thinks they can bend the market to what they choose to provide. I don't think that's going to be a winning strategy this time around.


----------



## Joules (May 11, 2019)

preppyak said:


> Wouldnt count on it. Canon released the M50, R, RP, and SL3 all with DIGIC 8, all with video crops. It's clearly not a function of sensor size or anything, they just cant (or wont) deliver 4k without crop. This camera will 100% have a crop factor in 4k on top of 1.6x from APS-C.


I woudn't count on anything from Canon either. But the Cameras you nentioned may use a new processor, but all of them use sensors from 2017 (6D II = RP) or 2016 (5D IV = R, 80D = M50).

With the time that has passed since then and the jump in resolution, there is at least hope that Canon have managed to get their throughput up high enough for full sensor read out.



malarcky said:


> I am SO tired of hearing about the 4K tech of yore, that hasn't been implemented into the modern day DSLR's. Just because it's "4K" doesn;t mean a thing, as far as the way the final product will be implemented.


True. Canon shows that quite frequently by implementing 4K without proper AF (M50) or with crops that somewhat defeat the benefits of using full frame cameras.

You make it sound though as if nobody has delivered 4K that statisfies it's users and Canon aren't realy any worse than other's here.

They simply have a problem with throughput. Doesn't hurt anybody to admit that, does it? I'm sure they are aware of it. You must be aware of a problem inorder ro fix it.



malarcky said:


> Buy a dedicated video camera if you want to use 4K video in your final production.


I lost interest in video quite a while ago. But this attitude is weird to me anyway.

Canon are struggling to handle the same amount of data throughput that Sony for example handles. That most likely plays a role in the video limitations we see with most of their 4K Implementations. But also with Stills framerate and autofocus tracking abilities.

If we had a camera that handles continuous 60 frames per second full resolution raw shooting with a global shutter, that camera would likely get a lot of love from stills and video shooters alike (given that they have huge amount of storage or a way to compress the data to the level they need).

Video features aren't exlusively beneficial to video shooters. LiveView, and an EVF image for that matter, aren't much else than real time video beeing played back from the sensor. And even if you don't want more FPS from you're camera, quicker, more reliable tracking should still be appreciated.

Also, what's all this about just buying a camcorder? Like I said, lost interest in video a while back but camcorders with APS-C or Full Frame sensors and interchangeable lenses are still insanely expensive, are they not? If so, that's just not an alternative.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Just back from a regional migratory bird festival which attracts tens of thousands of wildlife pro's and affluent photo enthusiasts. 5 years ago that event would have been 80% Canon. Now ( based on my observation) I would say Canon and Nikon are evenly splitting about 60% of the market with Sony, Olympus and other MILC brands splitting the rest. Canon big and little whites were no more than 10 or 15% of the lenses with the majority now being the Sigma and Tamron superzooms. I don't see how a 90D with a 32 MP sensor is going to turn that around.
> 
> I get that Canon is cautious and concerned about the overall market but they really need to come up with some compelling products or the wildlife market is going to pass them by. I'd say MILC are only a generation or so behind for sports/action and the next 12 months are going to be a big release period for Sony.
> 
> Yes. I'm sure the 1DX3 will be outstanding but that market is shrinking too. I might have seen half a dozen pro (1D/D4-5) bodies. Five years ago there would have been a hundred. People want what they want but Canon still thinks they can bend the market to what they choose to provide. I don't think that's going to be a winning strategy this time around.


Anecdotal observation of 10s of 1000s does mean something, and does resonate with my serial observations of smaller numbers. Canon is just so frustrating. It's not that you can't get good nature images from Canon gear, it's that they could do better and they seem complacent about it. The Nikon D500 is a much better camera than the 7DII in terms of AF and IQ and other features as is the D850 compared with the 5DIV. Nikon has a lightweight modern 300mm f/4 PF (PF =DO) and 500mm 5/5.6 PF, doing with Canon's own technology what Canon should have done. Canon is still peddling a 20 year old much heavier, bigger, lower IQ and IS 300mm f/4, and its excellent 400mm f/4 DO II is much heavier than the 500 PF and really expensive. I prefer the Canon 100-400mm II but the Nikkor 200-500mm/D500 combination is very appealing to those making a choice between Nikon and Canon.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 11, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Anecdotal observation of 10s of 1000s does mean something, and does resonate with my serial observations of smaller numbers. Canon is just so frustrating. It's not that you can't get good nature images from Canon gear, it's that they could do better and they seem complacent about it. The Nikon D500 is a much better camera than the 7DII in terms of AF and IQ and other features as is the D850 compared with the 5DIV. Nikon has a lightweight modern 300mm f/4 PF (PF =DO) and 500mm 5/5.6 PF, doing with Canon's own technology what Canon should have done. Canon is still peddling a 20 year old much heavier, bigger, lower IQ and IS 300mm f/4, and its excellent 400mm f/4 DO II is much heavier than the 500 PF and really expensive. I prefer the Canon 100-400mm II but the Nikkor 200-500mm/D500 combination is very appealing to those making a choice between Nikon and Canon.


 Yes. I conciously observed at least a thousand and casually observed several additional thousands so I'm confident that it's a reasonable sample of the US birding/wildlife market. I'd also say that the Nikon gear appeared to be more recently purchased than the Canon gear. The Sony's, and other MILC's as well. I don't recall seeing an EOS R/RP or a Nikon Z but there may have been.

Canon, who have attended in previous years to promote their gear, did not appear to be there. I guess they are too busy with the EOS R. The 100-400 II is a great lens but it's a 400 and the competitors are cheaper and 500-600mm so that's not a hard choice. I've worked with the 100-400 II/1.4x combo a fair amount and, even with the 1DX2, it's a challenge to lock focus in anything other than ideal light on a static subject. I found it near impossible to photograph warblers with a 5D4/100-400II/1.4x combo.

I have to admit that I'm skeptical that Canon resources are best spent re-enginerering their entire lens line in a new mount vs. supporting current markets that have been very Canon friendly. I don't recall anyone asking Canon for a complete line of alternate mount lenses but now everyone now seems to think it's a great idea. I don't get it. The EOS R line could be years away from delivering a competent wildlife body.


----------



## preppyak (May 11, 2019)

malarcky said:


> Just because a camera company offers some specifications that are sounding better than the other companies doesn't mean that they are going to be a reliable standard.


I guarantee you you've watched movies shot on a GH4 or a7III and didnt even realize it. This isnt cell phone video...Panasonic in particular is a widely praised implementation of 4k.

Canon has long had DSLR video problems. Their 1080 was soft compared to their competitors, and now they are years behind in 4k.



> Buy a dedicated video camera if you want to use 4K video in your final production.


I travel for my government funded grant work, I dont have the luxury of throwing in a C300 along with my DSLRs, and my whole goal is to condense my kit. The very point of owning a camera of this style is that it can do multiple things, even with some tradeoffs. But super cropped 4k with no DPAF is a trade off that makes every other brand more appealing.



> @ *preppyak *Buy a GH4 and go to the Panasonic forums to pat them on the back for the "Awesome" job they did/are doing. We won't miss you pal.


I actually did upgrade my GH4 to a GH5 because I wanted dedicated audio inputs (another thing Canon doesnt deliver that Sony/Panasonic do). My dream goal was to own my 80D and 90D, the 90D shooting useable 4k, both sharing the same battery type so I could further condense my kit. I even considered the RP, because at its price point its tempting, but the video is mediocre, the battery is weak, and I dont want to further lock myself into Canon at this point.

But if Canons 90D video is the same as the M50 or SL3, I wont upgrade. I got the useable 4k I need from my GH5, and while Id like my multi-camera set up to be entirely 4k, I deliver in 1080 so I can settle for the short-term.


----------



## preppyak (May 11, 2019)

@malarcky I mean, I've shot Canon for the last decade. First on their DV cams, then on an XF, before moving to the 50D, 60D, and now 80D. My office also had Canon camcorders in that time. For my personal work I also briefly owned an a7R (hated it, mostly) and a GH2 (amazing video with the hacks). Canon with Magic Lantern was the preferred go-to over a hacked GH2 for a while. That's changed dramatically. Ive tried to stick with Canon...but the market demands are outstripping them for video right now.

Rooting for people to leave Canon is just a dumb strategy all around. One, because people already are...and two, because Canon is already seeing a massive drop in sales of these cameras, and each drop in sales makes them less willing to put the R&D in to improve the camera to get people back.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 11, 2019)

masterpix said:


> if they ever do merge the 7D and the 80D they should name it 9D. However, I am not sure how those two very different body options can be merged in a way both type of uses will be happy with them.


7d speed, build quality and focus system with everything else from an 80d should do it! To be honest an 80d sensor in a 7d2 would do me fine.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 11, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The EOS R line could be years away from delivering a competent wildlife body.


G.A., you might be right, but on the other hand, I don't know if you've seen the postings on the Andy Rouse thread here, Andy Rouse tweeted about some “new kit” - unreleased camera or lens? which I'm guessing could be an R camera in development under testing. And, if so, seems to be giving some pretty hot results!

Cheers.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 7d speed, build quality and focus system with everything else from an 80d should do it! To be honest an 80d sensor in a 7d2 would do me fine.


The 80D sensor in a 7DIII would not do me fine as neither would the 7DII AF system. My 5DSR gives better AF than did my old 7DII as does a 1.6x crop of the 5DSR gives better IQ than the 7DII. The 80D has better DR at low iso but otherwise the IQ of the 5DSR is better. So, I want the Canon 7DIII to have improved AF and IQ up to the D500.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 11, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> G.A., you might be right, but on the other hand, I don't know if you've seen the postings on the Andy Rouse thread here, Andy Rouse tweeted about some “new kit” - unreleased camera or lens? which I'm guessing could be an R camera in development under testing. And, if so, seems to be giving some pretty hot results!
> 
> Cheers.


I hope you're right. I guess we'll see. Presently, expecting high speed continuous focusing from DPAF is a bit like a hammering a square peg into a round hole. I guess Canon will work it out eventually.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 11, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 80D sensor in a 7DIII would not do me fine as neither would the 7DII AF system. My 5DSR gives better AF than did my old 7DII as does a 1.6x crop of the 5DSR gives better IQ than the 7DII. The 80D has better DR at low iso but otherwise the IQ of the 5DSR is better. So, I want the Canon 7DIII to have improved AF and IQ up to the D500.



Don’t get me wrong I want the 7d3 to be world class and smash the D500. I should have emphasised the “me” part more as that’s all I’d require.; I’m just a hobbyist. I love the 7d2 but the IQ is seriously lacking now. Been using the 80d for a while now and the IQ seems way better to me, if little to no cropping is required I can get good files up to iso3200 and the colours are way better. Can’t say I’ve spent much time with the 7D2’s focusing system but I k ow a lot of people share your view.


----------



## HarryFilm (May 12, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Just back from a regional migratory bird festival which attracts tens of thousands of wildlife pro's and affluent photo enthusiasts. 5 years ago that event would have been 80% Canon. Now ( based on my observation) I would say Canon and Nikon are evenly splitting about 60% of the market with Sony, Olympus and other MILC brands splitting the rest. Canon big and little whites were no more than 10 or 15% of the lenses with the majority now being the Sigma and Tamron superzooms. I don't see how a 90D with a 32 MP sensor is going to turn that around.
> 
> I get that Canon is cautious and concerned about the overall market but they really need to come up with some compelling products or the wildlife market is going to pass them by. I'd say MILC are only a generation or so behind for sports/action and the next 12 months are going to be a big release period for Sony.
> 
> Yes. I'm sure the 1DX3 will be outstanding but that market is shrinking too. I might have seen half a dozen pro (1D/D4-5) bodies. Five years ago there would have been a hundred. People want what they want but Canon still thinks they can bend the market to what they choose to provide. I don't think that's going to be a winning strategy this time around.




You have pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of Canon's current position!

After going through the video wars of the 1980's when it was Sony Betacam SP/DigiBeta/SX or nothing and then seeing Sony's sudden cliff-drop in the professional broadcast video market in favour of Mini-DV from JVC and Panasonic, I think that Sony has learned from past experience.

Canon? Not so much! Back in the day when I used all Nikon FILM cameras for my stills work, Canon was HUNGRY for marketshare so they spent the money on Research and Development and blew right past Nikon for pro stills film and digital cameras in the 1990's/early-to-mid 2000's.

NOW AGAIN, where I once saw nothing but Canon Whites and 1Dx's, I sure do see a LOT of Sony A9's and G-series lenses now! AND surprisingly at the last soccer (football!) game I was at working on the sidelines as a favour to a friend, I suddenly saw FIVE Olympus OM-D E-M1X supper-rugged micro-four-thirds cameras during that game!
A week later at a different game in a different city, MORE Olympus E-M1X cameras.

Call it crazy, but I think Olympus has a PRO-LEVEL HIT on their hands with basically the most-rugged, weather-proof, HUUUUUGEST PRO-LEVEL FEATURES sports camera I have seen at a price point that is HALF of a Canon 1Dx Mk2 !!!!

Right now SONY is winning the Full Frame features and lens quality awards now with the A9 and G-lenses!
Right behind is Olympus with their super-rugged E-M1X cameras. Canon right now is bested by the Nikon D-850 which offers HUGE bang-for-the-buck. The Canon R with those FAST f/1.2 lenses is a good start BUT the R-body has a CRIPPLED feature-set compared to almost ANY Sony, Nikon, Panasonic or Olympus camera. A case of great initial set of lenses attached to a completely crippled body!

Canon has less than a year. When Sony brings out those two big-battery 8k resolution 2/3rds inch and APS-C sensor xPeria smartphones they've been testing in the wild, THAT will kill off Canon's low end (M5, M50, 6D/7D/Rebel series) still cameras! And that upcoming Sony 50.3 megapixel and DCI 8k combined Stills/Video full-frame format sensor camera will completely KILL OFF Canon's High end C200/C300 business! And the new MF-75 56x42 mm super-low-light medium format DCI 8K 120 fps at 16 bits per RGBA colour channel sensor upgrade to the cinema-oriented Sony Venice is also GOING to kill off the C700 series and basically challenge Arri Alexa-65 to a one-on-one showdown!

Sony is winning the technology war PERIOD! Canon is just making do by only focusing on keeping steady LOW-LEVEL profits! Doing ONLY THAT without extra features being introduced on every product launch means eventual death for the consumer and pro broadcast imaging divisions. Only the printing, pro-lenses and industrial optics will remain if they don't put out something on the COMBINED Mirrorless Stills/Video camera market with a LOADED UNCRIPPLED FEATURE SET at a GOOD PRICE --- STARTING THIS FALL!

---

Soooooo, CANON IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED !!!!!!! Dooomed I tell you! Utterly Doooooooomed!

---


----------



## uri.raz (May 12, 2019)

Cochese said:


> We must work in two entirely different industries. Nothing is ever below 300DPI unless a customer brings in a cell phone image, which are inherently 72DPI.



How do cell phone images have inherent DPI?


----------



## uri.raz (May 12, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> In terms of an 80mp sensor with a 20mp 'color depth' mode I doubt there would be any gain after scaling the normal 80mp version down to 20mp and comparing with the color depth 20mp one.



If one is willing to settle for 20MP, I think adding 2 green pixels to get a single RGB pixel would require less processing than demosaicing @ 80mp and downsampling to 20MP.


----------



## glness (May 12, 2019)

And if they are true to form, they will cripple it with a low fps rate.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 12, 2019)

glness said:


> And if they are true to form, they will cripple it with a low fps rate.



Maybe they’ll whack like 6 digics in it!?


----------



## Cochese (May 13, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> How do cell phone images have inherent DPI?


Take a picture with your phone. The output, whether RAW or JPG will be 72DPI by whatever resolution the sensor is. My current phone will spit out a 72dpi image at somewhere around 57in x 43in. You can change the DPI to whatever you want after the fact, but your phone's output will be 72DPI. Of the hundreds of Cell phone images I've handled from customers, they're always at 72DPI X whatever the output of the sensor is. Usually something rather large. Typically, I reduce the images to from my phone down 15 x 12 @300DPI. It doesn't really make too much of a difference in print, but not having a dimensionally massive file to deal with is easier. Most customers don't go beyond 8"x10" Though, I did do a 7ft. Gallery canvas wrap from an iPhone 4 (original iPhone 4) panorama image that came out looking pretty good. But that just comes down to how Apple handled Panorama mode photos compared to Android at the time (now they both just make one large image)


----------



## uri.raz (May 13, 2019)

Cochese said:


> Take a picture with your phone. The output, whether RAW or JPG will be 72DPI by whatever resolution the sensor is. My current phone will spit out a 72dpi image at somewhere around 57in x 43in. You can change the DPI to whatever you want after the fact, but your phone's output will be 72DPI.



OK, it's a value the smartphone writes there, which doesn't prevent you from printing the image in whatever DPI you want.



Cochese said:


> Though, I did do a 7ft. Gallery canvas wrap from an iPhone 4 (original iPhone 4) panorama image that came out looking pretty good. But that just comes down to how Apple handled Panorama mode photos compared to Android at the time (now they both just make one large image)



Smartphone cameras have progressed farther than I thought. I have a rather new Samsung Galaxy, but didn't think it could pull that, and would have gone straight to my DSLR.


----------



## caffetin (May 13, 2019)

reading posts I get the impression that the canon fails. I must admit that I did not like sony and nikon processors because they give unacceptable colors to me. Canon and maybe fuji are the most natural colors, and as for 4k and 8k, it's not clear to me why are they needed when most of the people do not even have a 1080 resolution on TVs or monitors so they are virtually unusable. I like the philosophy of canon that is based, in my opinion, for photography, that video and everything else, so buy your camcorders. It's true that the r series is a lot expensive, I can not follow it, but the 7d mark 3 with this specification I think will be good for the macro(my point of interest). In the end, people should think carefully about what they need and not to run after the news that never uses.


----------



## Daner (May 13, 2019)

I have an easier time seeing this as the 90D sensor, with a single Digic 8 processor, video features and autofocus capabilities at least equal to those of the 80D, and topping out at 7-8 fps for stills.

The 7D Mk. III (if indeed there ever is one) should be more about higher fps, enhanced autofocus capabilities, and perhaps an expanded video capacity as well. That will be most likely to be achieved with a lower resolution sensor (24-28 megapixels) with Dual Digic 8 processors. I would also expect it to have a fixed touch screen rather than a flippy, and enhanced water resistance and toughness as compared to the 90D.


----------



## Cochese (May 13, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> OK, it's a value the smartphone writes there, which doesn't prevent you from printing the image in whatever DPI you want.
> 
> DPI will affect your print output. If you change your DPI, but don't adjust your image size in accordance, you'll start to lose quality of the print. If I make a 16x20 print from a 72DPI image that was sized at 8x10, you'll have some pretty bad image degradation. That wouldn't happen if you had an 8x10 at 300DPI.
> 
> Smartphone cameras have progressed farther than I thought. I have a rather new Samsung Galaxy, but didn't think it could pull that, and would have gone straight to my DSLR.


Considering how terrible most smartphone cameras handle dynamic range, you're still better off with your DSLR. The 7ft print looked good enough for the couple who wanted it, but the highlights were blown out. The shadowy rocks and water looked okay for what they were. Insofar as a quality print, it works out just fine for your average consumer. But it wouldn't pass muster from your average photographer. On a personal level, the second rear camera on my LG G6 uses a lens comparable to about 14mm or wider. I often use it to capture a single take of a wide landscape that I'd need to take multiple photos to get the same field of view.


----------



## snoke (May 13, 2019)

To make sharp picture using more MP need more fast shutter or more stabilization.


----------



## snoke (May 13, 2019)

Daner said:


> The 7D Mk. III ... 90D.



Now 7D Mk III same as 90D. Not exist.


----------



## Daner (May 13, 2019)

snoke said:


> Now 7D Mk III same as 90D. Not exist.



The article says "We’d wager that this camera will be the replacement for the EOS 80D and potentially the EOS 7D Mark II."

My point was that it would seem to be a better fit for a 90D replacement than a 7D Mark II replacement.


----------



## Valvebounce (May 13, 2019)

Hi Snoke.
Yes you are correct, ‘not exist’ (yet) as you put it!
However it seems likely from other information available on this forum that the 90D ‘might just possibly be’ the replacement for both the 80D and 7DII so it might exist soon enough!
Let’s us all wish hard for that no to be the case unless it is really a down badged 7 and not just equal to the XXD series!

Cheers, Graham.



snoke said:


> Now 7D Mk III same as 90D. Not exist.


----------



## stevelee (May 13, 2019)

I can't get my mind around any of the substance of this discussion. I got stuck trying to imagine what sort of person stands one foot away from a poster to look at it.


----------



## scyrene (May 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> That's because your view of the world is biased.



Is it your contention that _your_ view is _un_biased?


----------



## masterpix (May 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 7d speed, build quality and focus system with everything else from an 80d should do it! To be honest an 80d sensor in a 7d2 would do me fine.


Putting the 80D sensor (or better) into the 7DMK3 is not combining the two bodies into one, it is 7Dmk3 and 90D different bodies. On my size, having a 24MP sensor in the 7D while increase frame rate, dynamic range and reduce noise is enough to convince me to get the new 7D. The race for "how many MP I have" is not as important for, for most works, you don't need that much MP anyway.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 13, 2019)

masterpix said:


> Putting the 80D sensor (or better) into the 7DMK3 is not combining the two bodies into one, it is 7Dmk3 and 90D different bodies. On my size, having a 24MP sensor in the 7D while increase frame rate, dynamic range and reduce noise is enough to convince me to get the new 7D. The race for "how many MP I have" is not as important for, for most works, you don't need that much MP anyway.



I agree! I’d take low light performance and DR over MP count anyday.


----------



## Daner (May 14, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 7d speed, build quality and focus system with everything else from an 80d should do it! To be honest an 80d sensor in a 7d2 would do me fine.



I missed the touchscreen when I upgraded from the 70D to the 7D Mk. II. I appreciated getting it back when I upgraded to the 5D Mk. IV, but I still prefer the 7D Mk. II thumb switch for toggling between AF area modes over the 5D dual button dance. As such, I would hope that a 7D Mk. III would retain the thumb switch but add a touch screen.

PS - It also wouldn't bother me if it picked up the live-view focus stacking trick from the RP. Kind of a shame that they have not yet retrofit that to the R with a firmware upgrade.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 14, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Is it your contention that _your_ view is _un_biased?



I said it is in a previous post. Should I find it for you, or can you do it yourself?

It's biased, just less than photographers who think most other photographers are pros like themselves.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 14, 2019)

Daner said:


> I missed the touchscreen when I upgraded from the 70D to the 7D Mk. II. I appreciated getting it back when I upgraded to the 5D Mk. IV, but I still prefer the 7D Mk. II thumb switch for toggling between AF area modes over the 5D dual button dance. As such, I would hope that a 7D Mk. III would retain the thumb switch but add a touch screen.
> 
> PS - It also wouldn't bother me if it picked up the live-view focus stacking trick from the RP. Kind of a shame that they have not yet retrofit that to the R with a firmware upgrade.



Yes the focus stacking on the RP looks very handy! I’ve thought about a feature like that in the past. I do a bit of product photography so it’d be good for that. Also some studio macro!


----------



## koenkooi (May 14, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Yes the focus stacking on the RP looks very handy! I’ve thought about a feature like that in the past. I do a bit of product photography so it’d be good for that. Also some studio macro!



It's using the electronic shutter, so it's quite fast and quiet.


----------



## scyrene (May 14, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I said it is in a previous post. Should I find it for you, or can you do it yourself?
> 
> It's biased, just less than photographers who think most other photographers are pros like themselves.



I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict - even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here. You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that. Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 14, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict



Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.



scyrene said:


> even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here.



No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.



scyrene said:


> You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that.



Great. When will you get my point ?



scyrene said:


> Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.



I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.


----------



## scyrene (May 14, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.
> 
> No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.
> 
> ...



My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 14, 2019)

degos said:


> You're generalising your experience.
> 
> Just yesterday I was working on a 60x40 print based on a 1Ds3 shot ( so 20MP ). There was just enough resolution to achieve it, because of the composition and subject. But don't look too closely at the dog's hair or his eyes.



Don't get me wrong. What I am replying to is the "more megapixels is useless because no-one needs to print huge posters" comments, which are wrong because sometimes they do (as you say) and because there's so much more than just printing large images that a high resolution sensor is useful for.

For me, it's important for macro photography.


----------



## AlanF (May 14, 2019)

scyrene said:


> My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.


"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!" Kenneth Williams.


----------



## BrightTiger (May 14, 2019)

caffetin said:


> I like the philosophy of canon that is based, in my opinion, for photography, that video and everything else, so buy your camcorders.


Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.


----------



## stevelee (May 14, 2019)

Usually for stills we want to stop motion with faster shutter speeds than we would want to use for video. If you deviate too much from half the frame rate, e. g. 1/60 sec with 30 FPS, the video can look unnatural.


----------



## scyrene (May 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.



Um, ergonomics?


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.


Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.


----------



## BrightTiger (May 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. ... Photography is about stopping time.


It used to until I took that pause and looked at the mechanics. Video is nothing more than a series of stills. Why this is upsetting is beyond me. Well, not really once you factor human emotion. We need - indeed, crave - attention. We're special. What we do is special. But reality says photography is a subset of videography. You can stop video and hence stop time and space, but you have more dynamic range along those dimensions. A camera - at it's heart - is a video camera with an appallingly bad frame per second spec. 


unfocused said:


> the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film


Really? You know me? My learning? My experiences? Or that my perspective has value? Hmmm.. bold words from such little background.
One can have multiple perspectives. I get the photo =/= video perspective. As I said, been there,, got the FroKnows t-shirt. But reflection, learning, talking and listening with others shows a whole different perspective. And it's ok. Really. The rational and emotional exists at the same time. But the emotional needs to be tempered with reason and reality and the latter two show (1) the convergence is occurring from a camera equipment standpoint, (2) that construct is an artificial one since the photo tech occurred decades before crude video - what would have happened if the opposite were true with robust video recording/playback in place before stills?), and (3) biological systems (vision & brain) generally _from a perception standpoint_ "records" video, but remembers in both "formats" (e.g. "I can see my child's first steps" vs "I can see that time I saw her face standing in time").


----------



## AaronT (May 15, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.


Here is a quote from you earlier "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI". That seems to be saying "(such high res is needed by nobody)". Just saying. You aren't flogging a dying horse, the horse died quite a few posts earlier. You are the soothsayer. You believe if you say it often enough we will all become believers. Give it a break, please.


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Really? You know me? My learning? My experiences?...



I know that you don't seem to comprehend the essential nature of still photograph. I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about the essence of the medium. A good place to start would be with John Szarkowski.


----------



## BrightTiger (May 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I know that you don't seem to comprehend the essential nature of still photograph. I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about the essence of the medium. A good place to start would be with John Szarkowski.


Actually I do - you just don't seem to appreciate the validity of different perspectives. But I can see your love for Szarkowski as he developed a reputation for being autocratic. To paraphrase Szarkowski , "The failure of photography fanaticism in the face of the tsunami of videography stemmed perhaps from the sin of hubris".
By nature, art is mostly BS anyway, or at the least self-indulgent pretentiousness. But I do enjoy it still and find it useful.


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 16, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.


Absolutely. Taking a single frame from good video would produce a terrible still image as a general rule, as the shutter speeds required to produce good videography rarely match the shutter speed required to produce a good still in the same situation. While there are similarities in the art forms there are also massive differences.


----------

