# Canon won't offer a high megapixel body



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2014)

Well, that should stir things up a bit.

Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.

Some may see this as a sign that Canon "must" now offer a high megapixel sensor. I think just the opposite. 

We have discussed to the point of nausea the idea that the larger sensor size of "full frame" cameras will always outperform APS-C. So the same principle applies here. There is simply no way that a DSLR sensor can match the performance of these large format sensors. Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras.

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad would be convinced to switch based on pricing. That, in turn, leaves the sales potential only for new users. The point is we are talking about a niche, within a niche, within a niche.

Now, if Canon were to take one of their APS-C sensors and simply scale it up to full frame they might be able to keep their development costs down, but would it be low enough to turn a profit on the body? I don't know. And, you'd have to account for the extra waste that would occur with the larger sensors. 

All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers. 

Let the flame wars begin!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> 
> Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.
> 
> ...



I don't agree 100 percent, but I do mostly agree...

FF beats APS-C for IQ due to the larger pizel size..... Always has, always will....
Large format beats FF for the exact same reasons...

but I do think that in the continual quest for more pixels that we will end up with a high megapixel FF camera that has similar pixel size and IQ to that of APS-C....


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> 
> Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.
> 
> ...



I disagree about renaming medium format "large format". Also disagree if your premise is that Canon will not go up on the pixel count of full frame cameras. Whether or not that goes as high as 50MP (actually your premise), I can more agree with you on. It's entirely possible that the next FF body will have less than 50MP.

I thought Canon was developing their own medium format cameras and sensors to compete with the others anyway...or else they were considering partnering with one of them. Has that rumor been debunked or something?

Out of curiousity, do you own any MF digital cameras now?


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> ...




It's not the "pixel size", it's the "sensor size" that matters. That 50MP full frame body on the lens shown below would give absolutely incredible IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=819&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Would I rather have a medium format Canon though? For the right price, yes. I would rather have a medium format 1D than a 1Dx (or 1Dxs), for example.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 24, 2014)

I am so tired about arguing about cameras... I need a new hobby. Is cheating on your side considered a hobby? Regardless, it will be cheaper than my photography hobby.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I am so tired about arguing about cameras... I need a new hobby. Is cheating on your side considered a hobby? Regardless, it will be cheaper than my photography hobby.



You can be like Edward (Weston) and have both.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ... Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras....
> 
> Let the flame wars begin!!!



Or even let some more accurate maths begin... ;-)

The new MF sensor is the same size (44x33mm) as the Pentax 645D and 1.68x the area of FF 35mm, which is itself 2.6 times (Canon) APS-C.

The new MF chip is roughly equivalent pixel density to an ~12MP APS-C sensor or ~30MP full frame.

So, the new 50MP sensor has about the same pixel density as the 2008 450D (XSi) or to put it another way, scaling the ubiquitous Canon 18MP APS-C sensor to 44x33mm gives ~78MP

I've more comprehensive sensor size info on the Canon MF page at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html


----------



## klickflip (Jan 24, 2014)

They will definitely, the main reason - Phase one and Hasselblad have announced 50MP Cmos sensors which are presumably made by Sony, it could be someone else like Dalsa but bets are on Sony with their 36MP tech it seems very plausible. 

So the gauntlet is really down in Cmos 50MP land for canon to respond, I imagine Canon have something nearly ready by now and this may spur them to push it out quicker which would be nice.. or canon may have to buy off Sony to keep in the game. 

Now MF is a different kettle of fish, and this could really help MF regain some ground back to DSLRs with quicker capture and higher iso, a much more versatile camera, though AF still is years behind basic canons & nikons. 
And this could bring costs down but I wound't imagine too much. 

Large format is another thing altogether so please don't try to redefine them. Having a plate camera with lens movements is the key. I've always foreseen that sensor tech will catch up and one day we will get 5x4 or at least 7x9 backs for 5x4 systems.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Jan 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> 
> Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.



Where did you get the information that Hasselblad had announced 50 MP medium format sensor? As far as I know, it's a CMOS censor that will appear in their new body.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 24, 2014)

problems is that all points in the direction that canon will release a high megapixel body.
so why such a thread?

the speculation is pretty useless when all kind of sources say otherwise.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 24, 2014)

The image quality produced by current full frame sensor is higher (in some respects) film used in the medium format cameras. I think who needs the best tonal gradation and contrast should still use film, but in all other aspects of quality, full frame sensors take advantage.

Why then use larger sensors like the Hasselblad? Because of the spectacular sharpness Giant prints. Those photographers do not printing on high quality paper, giant size, not need sensor larger than full frame. Another thing to consider is that medium format 50 megapixel sensors have spectacular picture in low ISO, but they take a nasty beating from 1Dx in ISO1600.

I do not see a big enough market for medium format cameras, and another line of lenses for Canon to be profitable. But is there a market for 50 megapixel full frame cameras? I believe there is not today. Maybe in the future when the line of L lenses is renewed, will be incentive to produce ultra high resolution cameras.

We have to face the reality of D800/D800E that sell relatively little. Users of current full frame cameras have become accustomed to shooting at ISO3200 and have good quality pictures. It would be a retrograde step if a full frame 50 megapixel camera produces noise nuisance in ISO3200.

It seems that this is the dilemma of Canon this time. Not sounds like a good idea to repeat the mistakes of D800/D800E. One option would be to make a camera 40+ megapixel for Studio specific, optimized for low ISO, and limited to ISO 800, ISO expanded to 1600. Thus would be quite clear that this camera aims to compete with medium format, not 1Dx.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 24, 2014)

ksagomonyants said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> ...


flip over to lu-la (luminous landscape). Both the Phase One and Hassy use the Sony 50mp CMOS sensor...


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2014)

keithcooper said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ... Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras....
> ...



Maybe I misunderstand, but I think we are saying essentially the same thing. 

My point was simply that to get to 50mp on a full frame DSLR, you end up with a density similar to Canon's current APS-C sensors. If I understand your point, it's that the new 50mp sensor will have a density similar to the 450D.

In the end, isn't the point really that the new offerings will have significant advantages over full frame due to the reduced density/larger pixels.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> problems is that all points in the direction that canon will release a high megapixel body.
> so why such a thread?
> 
> the speculation is pretty useless when all kind of sources say otherwise.



Because rumors aren't announcements and sources aren't always reliable. In the end, every product must find a market. No market. No product.

I think this reduces the market. Others may disagree. That's "why such a thread."


----------



## ksagomonyants (Jan 24, 2014)

Isn't it 33x44 sensor? If so, you can hardly name this a medium format sensor. This is the same size as the one in Pentax 645d for ~$7k. If you crop a little, it'll be the same size as Nikon d800 or Sony a7r. Considering how close Pentax 645d to Nikon d800 in terms of the IQ, I'm surprised that Hasselblad and Phase One are releasing the cropped medium format camera, which will probably cost 10 times as much as Nikon d800.



Stu_bert said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


----------



## RGF (Jan 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers.



You are thinking rationally. Forget logic, forget rational thinking.

If the manufacturers believe that such a camera will it sell or help the credentials of their current line up, then they will make it. 

Whether it is the best camera, whether it offers any new over current models has little importance. 

The key question for Canon (I think, I am not an insider) will be will it be profitable and will it be accretive to margins.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jan 25, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems that this is the dilemma of Canon this time. Not sounds like a good idea to repeat the mistakes of D800/D800E.



I tried my best not to contribute to this thread until I read this quote. What mistakes of the D800/D800E are you talking about? Do you own either camera? I do and I would be jumping for joy if Canon can come even somewhere close to the performance of the D800E because I could then use my Canon lenses again. If I knew today that Canon would not ever produce a full frame high MP camera I would start dumping all my Canon equipment. But I live with the belief that Canon is just a little slow in getting up to speed on high MP full frame sensors because the ROI is not as high as their high priced cinema gamble. The future is hard to predict but it will come. It is just a matter of when. Meanwhile I am not buying any new Canon equipment until they have a camera for my landscape business that is at least as good as my almost flawless D800 and D800E cameras. I wait.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 25, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that this is the dilemma of Canon this time. Not sounds like a good idea to repeat the mistakes of D800/D800E.
> ...


I referred to the niche market where D800, and even more D800E, are advantageous for buyers. This is the problem. There are few buyers who consider D800/D800E more desirable than the Canon options. Actually, 5D mark iii encountered a very wide audience to which its feature set looks more advantageous. I'm sure Nikon DF is the ideal camera for some people, but how many people are these?


----------



## scottburgess (Jan 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ...
> All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers.



Which ignores the cost of high-resolution, large aperture medium format lenses. 

The 35mm format has remained popular because it sits at a sweet spot in the quality versus cost tradeoff curve. The dropping sales of medium format over the years and the recent weakness of the mirrorless format both suggest that sweet spot hasn't moved much for most pros and advanced amateurs.

Weakness in camera sales and problems with the technology (like the battery-eating problem previously rumored, or high ISO performance) may be delaying the 40+ Mp cameras. After all, image quality is not just about how many pixels there are. Plus the 80+ Mp necessary to double resolution of something like a 5Diii might not be well supported without further advances in lens designs and manufacturing processes, necessitating a slowdown in the push for more megapixels. I'm betting the industry players are more intent on supporting 4k video in the next generation of advanced cameras, since the home entertainment sector appears headed for a changeover from HD. That requires investing some research money in hardware outside of sensor pixel counts.

But hey, if you want to believe that the majority of folks would rather pay $50k for the privilege of lugging 75 lbs. of lenses, you go right ahead.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 25, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> If I knew today that Canon would not ever produce a full frame high MP camera I would start dumping all my Canon equipment.



I'm in pretty much the same boat. Everything but the 400f5.6 and 7D2 (when it comes).


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 25, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If I knew today that Canon would not ever produce a full frame high MP camera I would start dumping all my Canon equipment.
> ...


For studio work? I just presume that pixel density will require a decrease in high iso performance... consequently... you are shooting in daylight or in studio.

I really would doubt anyone would want to pay $4000ish for a body as an all round body and try and shoot in low light at high iso with the grain comparable to a crop sensor. It doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense.


----------



## sanj (Jan 25, 2014)

Mega pixels counts will increase over time. Even if it is small amounts.


----------



## MovingViolations (Jan 25, 2014)

Who is going to have a "Front Four" to tote medium format lenses with the reach of 400mm FF sensor lenses and up to 800mm? I don't and never will. Newer better glass is a given for such high density pixel senors. Still quality in a compact package is far more appealing to me than a medium format rig without the long lenses and their capabilities. In the meantime I'm tired of waiting for Canon to answer the D800 and soon will make the move to be a dual brand shooter. I still have a pro body for fast action in daylight but it sucks for landscapes. It boils down to the right tool for the right job. A 64MP Canon FF body would be a dream come true. If they can build it and sell it for the 13-14k price range then the gauntlet has been laid down for the medium format folks to spend some R&D money for landscape models. I believe the medium format market will fall in favor of the 35mm format not just do to price but also for the versatility it would have. I see no need for more resolution for normal people type studio work now. A Rebel T2i can bring out more flaws in a model's face than she wants to see now. With photo quality printers now available at 126" wide there is an opportunity for large commercial images. High density FF vs the cost of Medium format is a no brainer cost wise and it is certainly not as flexible. I hope that Canon will see the light and get back to making a 1D series with the H sensor for more frames FPS while increasing the resolution upwards of 30MP if it is doable. While the 1DX is possibly still the best action body made it sucks compared to a D800 for landscape work. My 2¢ worth. Don't let the flames go out.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce Photography said:
> ...



"Crop sensor grain" needs to be clarified.
Comparing my 5D2 with the T3 /1100D at ISO 6400 with images at the same exposure (everything is exactly the same), cropped to the same size on the subject I get virtually identical results.
Note, subject fills the same space in square millimeters on the image sensor.
Extra resolution makes up for extra noise. Colour rendering and an apparent 1/3 stop boost in exposure are different subjects, but the noise is the same.
In other threads we've discussed how the 7D is better at extreme cropping and the 1Dx was better at less extreme cropping, but significant degradation of the image only comes when you blow up a cropped image to the same size as the entire full frame image.
I'm betting that when the Big MP body comes it'll look just as good as the 6D at high ISO.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 27, 2014)

I disagree. MF customers are different from 135(FF) customers. MF users are almost 100% pro, due to the cost. Product shots, high-end fashion and weddings, and possibly architectural work are the pro subjects for MF, and a few pros may do a bit of landscape photography with MF. It costs 20K to 50K to get a Phase One back. There are rare wealthy amateurs who shoot digital MF - I haven't met one, but I have been told that they exist. Most of the fine art photography aspirant Canon system users want a Canon equivalent of the D800E. Most amateurs and many or most pros would want to use the FF high MP camera for difficult landscape and adventure photography, if only for the weight advantage of FF vs MF.


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> ...



I would extend what you've said a little bit. FF beats APS-C for IQ due to larger pixel size AND more pixels (in most cases, the same number of pixels on the worst case). Assuming equivalence, same framing and all that, a 5D III will not only put larger pixels on subject, but also more of them. The same goes for MFD...more pixels. 

Technically speaking, MFD format sensors have actually shrunk their pixels enough that for the highest megapixel counts, their pixels are actually SMALLER on average than the 5D III. Many of the largest mp count MFD sensors have pixels in the 5µm to 6µm range. The 5D III has 6.25µm pixels. 

A 50mp MFD sensor would indeed still have larger pixels, but technologically, MFD sensors are not necessarily as advanced as even a Canon sensor. They certainly aren't as advanced as the D800 sensor. For the "highest end" MFD equipment, there hasn't been a pixel size advantage for a while now. So the only REAL advantage is pixel count.

Assuming Canon can make more BETTER pixels than a 50mp MFD sensor, I think there is still a good reason for them to do it. Furthermore, Canon wouldn't really be competing with the medium format market...they would be competing with the SoNikon alliance. Nikon has the D800. Sony has the A7r. Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!) The reasons for Canon to produce a high megapixel camera have much less to do with competing with medium format, as they do with competing with their direct competitors.


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2014)

klickflip said:


> They will definitely, the main reason - Phase one and Hasselblad have announced 50MP Cmos sensors which are presumably made by Sony, it could be someone else like Dalsa but bets are on Sony with their 36MP tech it seems very plausible.
> 
> So the gauntlet is really down in Cmos 50MP land for canon to respond, I imagine Canon have something nearly ready by now and this may spur them to push it out quicker which would be nice.. or canon may have to buy off Sony to keep in the game.
> 
> ...



Hmm. That would definitely start bringing the medium format market to a new level, if they are going to use Sony sensors. I know Sony is working on a 54mp sensor with non-standard pixel shapes (either triangular or hexagonal), supposedly with similar high DR as the D800. The medium format market has long had much older sensor technology, and their sole advantage was pixel count. If they bring Sony sensors into the mix, they would again be a leap and a bound away from anything in the DSLR market.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)



I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)
> ...



Here's the links:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-sensor-revolution-first-non-bayer-sensors-coming-in-2015/
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2013/12/rumor-sony-to-release-non-bayer-54mp.html


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 28, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Thanks. By "large format", I assume they mean something larger than 36mm in width? As for the non-bayer array, it's still an array...don't see how it would be any more revolutionary than whatever Fuji has done.

Both links said "it depends on what the competition does"...as in, they obviously have a good idea what Canon are up to, and want to wait to see when Canon are done with their next generation sensor. Or else it could mean they're waiting to see if Canon releases a medium format sensor...or body.


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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



Hmm, sorry...I don't recall seeing "large format" in those rumors... Are you talking about Sony's 54mp sensor design, or something else?



CarlTN said:


> As for the non-bayer array, it's still an array...don't see how it would be any more revolutionary than whatever Fuji has done.



It'll depend on the theory behind why they do whatever they do. Fuji has been toying with alternative sensor layouts for a while...but they have yet to produce anything particularly compelling. They used to have SuperCCD, which used a hexagonal array with additional white sensels to improve DR. Intriguing, and the improvement was slight...but certainly nothing on the order of what Sony produced with Exmor. Fuji brought us the X-Trans...however all that really was was an alternative means of blurring higher frequency image detail to avoid moire...and it is LESS discerning than a classic OLPF, resulting in softer high frequency detail than a normal bayer sensor. 

Fuji is certainly an out of the box company, but they don't really seem to produce anything that significantly improves image quality. I think the greatest improvement they achieved with X-Trans was improved noise performance at high ISO...however the fundamental reasons why X-Trans allows better high ISO is nothing particularly novel. In fact, it is extremely well understood: averaging reduces noise, and softens detail. X-Trans inherently averages. 



CarlTN said:


> Both links said "it depends on what the competition does"...as in, they obviously have a good idea what Canon are up to, and want to wait to see when Canon are done with their next generation sensor. Or else it could mean they're waiting to see if Canon releases a medium format sensor...or body.



That's the rumor bit. I don't think that part of any rumor, when a rumor has it, really has anything to do with a companies plans. Sony will do what Sony does: Produce image sensors. If there is any demand for 50mp+ sensors, Sony will probably fill it. They are without a doubt one of the top ranking CIS fabricators and providers in the world now, for an extremely extensive market that spans WELL beyond ILCs into cinematography, video, security, etc. It may well be that they produce some kind of new bayer type sensor for the MFD market first, then bring the 54mp sensor to DSLR or mirrorless. Only time will tell, but I think it will service market demand, and really have little to do with "what the competition does". Sony makes sensors...cameras (which is what were talking about here in terms of competition) are an afterthought for Sony, and I really don't think their DSLR/mirrorless segment drive what their sensor segment does. Ironically, their sensor segment could very well become Sony's most successful business...their electronics division is a black hole for money, it hasn't been profitable on over a decade, and in fact loses billions. I bet if Sony focused on sensors and insurance policies, they would be a wildly profitable company a decade from now.


----------



## FatBoy64 (Jan 28, 2014)

Umm . . . what Hasselblad Camera are we actually talking about here. Hasselblad have had 40, 50 and indeed 60 MP offerings for some time?


----------



## Viper28 (Jan 28, 2014)

I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Well, that should stir things up a bit.
> 
> Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.


They are medium format! The 50 MP sensors are appropriate size for medium format, 22 MP scans of medium format images is like taking 10 MP scans of full fromat images. You might as well have ended the sentence after "I don't think".



unfocused said:


> Some may see this as a sign that Canon "must" now offer a high megapixel sensor. I think just the opposite.
> 
> We have discussed to the point of nausea the idea that the larger sensor size of "full frame" cameras will always outperform APS-C. So the same principle applies here. There is simply no way that a DSLR sensor can match the performance of these large format sensors. Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras.
> 
> ...



The megapixels war stirs up all kinds of feelings, but the reality is, more resolution is always better than less as long as it doesn't come at the cost of S/N ratio, DR, or any other aspect of sensor performance. The Nikon d800 is the best the FF market has to offer right now in terms of resolution, and it's a great camera! I'm fully invested in Canon myself but I'll happily use a d800 at times though I don't own one (one system is enough!). I wouldn't mind seeing a 30-35 MP FF from Canon. I grant you one thing: it doesn't seem to fit their style. We'll see if market pressure will force them to change their perspective.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm not opposed to a 30 or 40 megapixel camera, but I think it is not suitable for my use. I consider enough for my use, full frame 18 megapixel or APSC 12 megapixel, because I prioritize performance above ISO 1600. By today's standards I am very conservative, and marketing currently despises lower megapixel counts. Obviously, Canon does not produce cameras just for me, and it must meet the demands of the market. Really hope a true replacement for 1Ds Mark III, as well as Nikon users expect real substitute for D700. In these two cases the preferred manufacturers offer what buyers did not ask for it. The backwardness of high mega pixel Canon does not mean it will never come. But it means it's not a direct competitor with the price of D800. I believe that Canon will launch a body "1 series" with similar price to 1Dx, ISO limited to 1600, a little better dinamic range, larger LCD, but with AA filter.


----------



## hgraf (Jan 28, 2014)

unfocused said:


> If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad



I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

hgraf said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad
> ...


Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliably cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2014)

flowers said:


> hgraf said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


Exactly!

Plus lens size.... they get huge in a hurry...imagine shooting FF with a 200mm F2.8 lens.... then go medium format and your equivalant field of view comes from something like a 400F2.8 ( a lot less easy to carry around) and if you go large format, imagine carrying around (and paying for) an 800F2.8 lens....

It's not the sensors, it's the glass that will kill you...


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > hgraf said:
> ...



haha, well said! though you forgot DOF equivalents, so really you'd need 308/4 and 669/10.5 lenses for MF and 4x5 respectively. 
oh and a FF 200/2.8 doesn't cover MF image circle, so you need an even BIGGER lens!
truthfully though, once you get to MF and especially LF, it's not about getting the right lens anymore, it's more about getting the right crop... Although some photographers don't like to crop their photos, and they have a valid point within reason, but with long lenses and MF/LF the perspective distortion doesn't play such a huge role anymore.


----------



## Halfrack (Jan 28, 2014)

I shoot MFD almost exclusively now, and it teaches you a lot of things. The crop factor isn't .5 - it's like .7, but that depends on what back you're using. The thing that's special about the H5D-50c / IQ250 is that it's a 1.3x crop factor, so kinda like a APS-H. The main feature of the whole CMOS MF chip is ISO, and while you wouldn't shot at ISO3200 for a fashion shoot, you could. It's a first gen product, so we will see how well it goes.

Canon is doing fine selling 22mp bodies, and while I wish they'd up the MP, their focus on lenses and AF has really improved the field. Who makes the best 24-70? Canon... Who makes the best 70-200? Canon... Who makes the best 300/400/500/600/200-400? Canon... If the weakest link in the Canon system is their lack of MPs on a 5D3 or 1Dx, we are sitting mighty pretty.

I would think their Dual-pixel AF stuff in the 70D would be VERY welcome in the MF world - you know that whole 1 or 3 AF point limitations we have. If I were to design a camera today, I'd want one that is the dual personality of a A7r/D800 because some times you want the mirror box and grip for shooting long, but want that shallow mirrorless setup for shooting wide - ala technical camera.


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> I shoot MFD almost exclusively now, and it teaches you a lot of things. The crop factor isn't .5 - it's like .7, but that depends on what back you're using. The thing that's special about the H5D-50c / IQ250 is that it's a 1.3x crop factor, so kinda like a APS-H. The main feature of the whole CMOS MF chip is ISO, and while you wouldn't shot at ISO3200 for a fashion shoot, you could. It's a first gen product, so we will see how well it goes.
> 
> Canon is doing fine selling 22mp bodies, and while I wish they'd up the MP, their focus on lenses and AF has really improved the field. Who makes the best 24-70? Canon... Who makes the best 70-200? Canon... Who makes the best 300/400/500/600/200-400? Canon... If the weakest link in the Canon system is their lack of MPs on a 5D3 or 1Dx, we are sitting mighty pretty.
> 
> I would think their Dual-pixel AF stuff in the 70D would be VERY welcome in the MF world - you know that whole 1 or 3 AF point limitations we have. If I were to design a camera today, I'd want one that is the dual personality of a A7r/D800 because some times you want the mirror box and grip for shooting long, but want that shallow mirrorless setup for shooting wide - ala technical camera.



I actually did the math and edited the numbers into my post above  (Hopefully I didn't get the numbers wrong! They're at least close enough!) Yes, the dual pixel feature would be good for MF, but it's Canon proprietary tech AFAIK, and Canon doesn't make MF cameras/backs.


----------



## canonvoir (Jan 28, 2014)

Viper28 said:


> I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.
> 
> And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that



I am not sure this makes any sense. Whether you stick a 300mm ii 2.8 L lens on a 5 MP body or 22 MP body it is a great lens. Stick it on a 40 MP body and I think the same result happens. 

I can see IQ being a factor for some bodies (mirrorless more than anything) but for SLR's I don't think current lenses with higher MP count sensors (40+ as you alluded to) would alter IQ. 

Am I wrong here?


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

canonvoir said:


> Viper28 said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.
> ...



Increased pixel density means the sensor is putting more stress on the resolving power and aberration correction of the lens, in other words: more pixels reserved for showing each and every bit of aberration. Furthermore, the lenses have a resolution limit expressed in lpm (lines per millimeter) or lppm (line pair per millimeter). Take a 36mm wide sensor and put 8000 pixels on the wide side, and your lens will need to resolve 1.425x as many linepairs as it would for a 21 MP sensor or the image will look softer. Someone else can probably explain it better, but the basic idea is: pixels / sensor size = pixel density. The bigger the pixel density, the smaller the pixels. What comes with smaller pixels you can look up elsewhere, I don't know how to explain it without writing a thousand pages on it.


----------



## jrista (Jan 29, 2014)

flowers said:


> canonvoir said:
> 
> 
> > Viper28 said:
> ...



LOL

I don't know how many times I'll have to debunk this myth. But here it goes again. First off, let's define a few things.

Lens resolution: The spatial resolving power of the lens (in lp/mm)
Sensor resolution: The spatial resolving power of the sensor (in lp/mm)
System (or output or image) resolution: The measurable spatial resolution of the images produced by lens+sensor (in lp/mm)

System resolution is the result of a convolution of what the lens resolves with the spatial grid of the sensor. Both components have an intrinsic blur. This blur is generally approximated by a gaussian function, a spot of light that follows some kind of bell curve (peaked in the middle, falloff as you move away from the middle of the spot). To actually compute the REAL system resolution of a lens and sensor, you would need to know the actual PSF or Point Spread Functions of both. That kind of information is difficult to come by, and greatly complicates the math to get a small amount of additional precision. We can approximate system resolution by using this function:


```
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
```

Where:

ir = image resolution (output resolution, system resolution) lp/mm
lr = lens resolution lp/mm
sr = sensor resolution lp/mm

This function is a modification of a simpler function:


```
ib = sqrt(lb^2 + sb^2)
```

Where:

ib = image blur
lb = lens blur
sb = sensor blur

To convert a blur size into lp/mm, you take the reciprocal and divide by two. If we have a sensor with 5µm pixels, its spatial resolution in line pairs is:


```
res = (1l / 0.005mm) / 2l/lp
res = 200l/mm / 2 l/lp
res = 100lp/mm
```

If we invert this:


```
blur = 1l / (100lp/mm * 2l/lp)
blur = 1l / (200l/mm)
blur = 0.005mm
```

So, to directly derive the measurable spatial resolution of an output image from the spatial resolutions of a lens and a sensor, we simply combine these two formulas. First, let's assume a diffraction limited lens at f/8. Since it is diffraction limited, the lens will be exhibiting perfect behavior, so we'll be getting 86lp/mm. We have a 5µm pixel pitch in our sensor...let's just assume the sensor is monochrome for now, which means our sensor is 100lp/mm. If we run the formula:


```
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(86*2))^2 + (1/(100*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/172)^2 + (1/200)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0058^2 + 0.005^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000034 + 0.000025)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000059)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0077) / 2
ir = 129.9 / 2
ir = 64.95
```

The image resolution with a diffraction limited f/8 lens and a 5 micron pixel pitch is 65lp/mm. That is a low resolution lens. One which most people would claim is "outresolved by the sensor". Such terminology is a misnomer...sensors don't outresolve lenses, lenses don't outresolve sensors...the two work together to produce an image...the convolution of the two produces the output resolution, the resolution of our actual images, and it is that output that we really care about. 

So, let's assume we now have a diffraction limited f/4 lens. Our lens spatial resolution is now 173lp/mm. Quite a considerable improvement over our f/8 lens. It is actually double the resolving power of an f/8 lens. Same formula:


```
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(173*2))^2 + (1/(100*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/346)^2 + (1/200)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0029^2 + 0.005^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000008 + 0.000025)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000033)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0057) / 2
ir = 175.4 / 2
ir = 87.7
```

Our image resolution with a diffraction limited f/4 lens is 87.7lp/mm. That is a 35% improvement. In this case, most people would say the "lens outresolves the sensor". But again, that is a misnomer. The two are still working together in concert to produce an image. The results of the image have improved. Now, lets say we still have our f/8 lens, and we now have a sensor with half the pixel pitch. Were using 2.5 micron pixels. Same formula:


```
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(86*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/172)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0058^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000034 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.00004)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0063) / 2
ir = 158.7 / 2
ir = 79.4
```

Our image resolution jumps to 79.4. Well, supposedly, the sensor is "far outresolving the lens" at this point...and yet, the spatial resolution of our images has still improved considerably. By over 22%, to be exact. The fact that our sensor is capable of resolving considerably more detail than our lens does make the lens the most limiting factor...however it does NOT mean that using "the same old crappy lens" is useless on a newer, higher resolution sensor. Our results have still improved, by a meaningful amount. It is not necessary to build a new lens to take advantage of our improved sensor. 

Lets take this one step farther. We are using our same f/8 lens. It isn't a great lens, it's decent, for it's generation. At f/4 it is not diffraction limited, but it performs pretty well. Let's assume it is capable of resolving 150lp/mm instead of 173lp/mm. If we run out formula again:


```
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(150*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/300)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0033^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000011 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000017)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0041) / 2
ir = 244 / 2
ir = 122
```

Wow. Our crappy old lens which isn't even diffraction limited at f/4, combined with our greatly improved ultra high resolution sensor, is still giving us a lot of bang for our buck! Our image resolution is up to a whopping 122lp/mm! That is an improvement of over 53% over our f/8 performance. Well, let's say we finally break down and buy a better lens, one that is diffraction limited at f/4:


```
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(173*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/346)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0029^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000008 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000014)) / 2
ir = (1/0.00374) / 2
ir = 267.4 / 2
ir = 133.7
```

Hmm...well, things haven't changed much. Relative to our older lens, we now have 133lp/mm. Unlike the previous jump of 53%, we have now gained a 9.5% improvement in resolving power. Ten percent improvement isn't something to shake a stick at, but our previous older lens that isn't diffraction limited at f/4 still performs remarkably well on our ultra high resolution sensor. To eek out any more performance, we would have to get a lens that was diffraction limited at a wider aperture. At apertures wider than f/4, optical aberrations begin to dominate, and achieving significantly improved results is more difficult. Additionally...you only get the improved resolving power at apertures wider than f/4...if you regularly shoot scenes at diffraction limited apertures of f/4 and smaller, then the only real way to improve the resolution of your photographs themselves is with a higher resolution sensor. 

Pushing sensor resolution to obscene levels is a lot easier than pushing lens resolving power to obscene levels. Upping sensor resolution is the far more cost effective means, and therefor the one that tends to appeal to the masses (regardless of whether they know why.)


----------



## flowers (Jan 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't know how many times I'll have to debunk this myth. But here it goes again. First off, let's define a few things.


By all means. I did say "maybe someone else can explain it better."



jrista said:


> ...
> Pushing sensor resolution to obscene levels is a lot easier than pushing lens resolving power to obscene levels. Upping sensor resolution is the far more cost effective means, and therefor the one that tends to appeal to the masses (regardless of whether they know why.)



I'm not going to even check your math, I trust it's correct! Well, that's good then.  I'm all for higher resolution, I just had the feeling many lenses wouldn't be able to keep up. I don't mind being wrong on that one!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > canonvoir said:
> ...


WOW!
Good explanation....

Now I just have to wait for Canon to make a FF camera with the same pixel size as an iPhone... 445Megapixels!


----------



## jrista (Jan 29, 2014)

flowers said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how many times I'll have to debunk this myth. But here it goes again. First off, let's define a few things.
> ...



Don't take it personally. Your not the first to assume the "lens outresolves sensor" myth. This won't be the last time I have to debunk it either...although I may just bookmark this page so I can copy and paste in the future. 




flowers said:


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



One additional little tidbit, I forgot to mention before. Image/output/system resolution is ultimately limited by the lowest common denominator. If your lens can only resolve 86lp/mm, it will ultimately not matter how far you push sensor resolution...you'll never resolve more detail than 85.99999999999999999999...lp/mm. _System resolution has an asymptotic relationship with the resolving power of the least capable component of the system._ Now, in the original example, and f/8 lens and a 5 micron pixel pitch, output resolution was 65lp/mm. Doubling sensor resolution pushed us up to 79.4lp/mm. Doubling sensor resolution again would get us much closer to 86lp/mm. Were at 1.25µm pixels now...that's pretty small. If we wanted to "double" resolution again, we would have 0.625µm, or 625nm pixels. Those are too small. Were reaching the point now where we are beginning to filter out red light. 

You eventually reach the point of diminishing returns with sensor resolution if the lens is the limiting factor. Now, it doesn't matter how good the lens is...if you need to use f/8, you need to use f/8, and you'll never get more than 86lp/mm even with the best lens and the best sensor humanity is ever capable of producing. The only option at that point to achieve more resolution is to start taking more radical measures. Use f/4 and stack for focus. Maybe build a camera capable of always using a lens at it's fastest diffraction limited aperture, and use clever post-lens optics and software algorithms to produce whatever depth of field you need at the resolution of that maximum diffraction limited aperture. This is kind of where Lytro is pioneering something new. Their concept was consumerized, but it is possible they have the foundation of the future of ultra high resolution photography in their pockets (I don't know for sure, depends on exactly how their technology works and how applicable it is to different kinds of cameras.)


----------



## flowers (Jan 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> You eventually reach the point of diminishing returns with sensor resolution if the lens is the limiting factor. Now, it doesn't matter how good the lens is...if you need to use f/8, you need to use f/8, and you'll never get more than 86lp/mm even with the best lens and the best sensor humanity is ever capable of producing. The only option at that point to achieve more resolution is to start taking more radical measures. Use f/4 and stack for focus. Maybe build a camera capable of always using a lens at it's fastest diffraction limited aperture, and use clever post-lens optics and software algorithms to produce whatever depth of field you need at the resolution of that maximum diffraction limited aperture. This is kind of where Lytro is pioneering something new. Their concept was consumerized, but it is possible they have the foundation of the future of ultra high resolution photography in their pockets (I don't know for sure, depends on exactly how their technology works and how applicable it is to different kinds of cameras.)


Okay, I got it. That makes sense. I think there would be no shortage of optical problems if the camera had pixels the size of the longer end of the light they're collecting! And I don't even want to imagine the S/N ratio... I read about Lytro recently, it was fascinating! Maybe I'm being sentimental, but to me that would feel like "faking DOF"! The significance is huge, but it would feel so different if I had to use it in practice. Personally I prefer everything to happen optically that can happen optically!


----------



## jrista (Jan 29, 2014)

flowers said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You eventually reach the point of diminishing returns with sensor resolution if the lens is the limiting factor. Now, it doesn't matter how good the lens is...if you need to use f/8, you need to use f/8, and you'll never get more than 86lp/mm even with the best lens and the best sensor humanity is ever capable of producing. The only option at that point to achieve more resolution is to start taking more radical measures. Use f/4 and stack for focus. Maybe build a camera capable of always using a lens at it's fastest diffraction limited aperture, and use clever post-lens optics and software algorithms to produce whatever depth of field you need at the resolution of that maximum diffraction limited aperture. This is kind of where Lytro is pioneering something new. Their concept was consumerized, but it is possible they have the foundation of the future of ultra high resolution photography in their pockets (I don't know for sure, depends on exactly how their technology works and how applicable it is to different kinds of cameras.)
> ...



With Lytro it does happen optically. There is actually a special optical array in front of the sensor. They do longer exposures, and over the duration of the exposure time, they are actually gathering information in "three" dimensions. A lytro image is not just a bunch of pixels in two dimensions, it actually contains more information that allow their software to do it's thing. It isn't just software trickery, it is a combination of optical ingenuity and software algorithms that achieve the ability to change DOF in post.

Lytro is a limited application of the concept, though. If you play with some of their examples, you'll find that there are a number of discrete options for DOF, it isn't really a continuum. Improvements on the technology could make it more effective, bring in enough information that you could indeed have more of a continuous three dimensional field that you can tweak in post. The raw data file sizes would become considerably larger, however as time continues to trudge on, processing speed and storage capacity is improving considerably (i.e. CFast 2). I don't think that the Lytro concept would ever become a mainstream, frequently used thing...it would be one of those more niche options for people who really need it.

And there are actually already some options to solve some of these problems. Not quite the way an infinite field lytro-style device does, but tilt/shift lenses can be used to great effect to control your focus. You can either constrain DOF, or expand it such that you could photograph a landscape scene at f/4 or even f/2.8 and have the entire depth of field in focus and at high resolving power. Again, though, this is a purely optical solution, and as such, you tend to pay more for it, especially if you need the capability at multiple focal lengths...so a lytro-type solution could still offer something in a cheaper package.


----------



## flowers (Jan 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> With Lytro it does happen optically. There is actually a special optical array in front of the sensor. They do longer exposures, and over the duration of the exposure time, they are actually gathering information in "three" dimensions. A lytro image is not just a bunch of pixels in two dimensions, it actually contains more information that allow their software to do it's thing. It isn't just software trickery, it is a combination of optical ingenuity and software algorithms that achieve the ability to change DOF in post.
> 
> Lytro is a limited application of the concept, though. If you play with some of their examples, you'll find that there are a number of discrete options for DOF, it isn't really a continuum. Improvements on the technology could make it more effective, bring in enough information that you could indeed have more of a continuous three dimensional field that you can tweak in post. The raw data file sizes would become considerably larger, however as time continues to trudge on, processing speed and storage capacity is improving considerably (i.e. CFast 2). I don't think that the Lytro concept would ever become a mainstream, frequently used thing...it would be one of those more niche options for people who really need it.
> 
> And there are actually already some options to solve some of these problems. Not quite the way an infinite field lytro-style device does, but tilt/shift lenses can be used to great effect to control your focus. You can either constrain DOF, or expand it such that you could photograph a landscape scene at f/4 or even f/2.8 and have the entire depth of field in focus and at high resolving power. Again, though, this is a purely optical solution, and as such, you tend to pay more for it, especially if you need the capability at multiple focal lengths...so a lytro-type solution could still offer something in a cheaper package.





jrista said:


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


I think it's just a novelty thing, at least until it's developed considerably more, and even then it might be more useful to scientists than photographers. I can't remember ever looking at a photo I've taken thinking "I wish I could go back and use a different aperture instead". If you didn't get it right the first time, you shouldn't even have the image so there's nothing to hope to change! Of course if it allowed t/s type manipulation as well, then it would be more interesting for photographers as well, no doubt. But you can buy a good t/s lens for $1500 or even $1000 (!), I don't know how much the Lytro costs but I don't think any dedicated camera would be competitive in comparison. A TS is more fun to use than some sliders anyway!


----------

