# An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 25, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14078"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14078">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>It exists, but will it come to market?

</strong>We have confirmed that a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/canon-testing-a-75-megapixel-eos-1-body-cr1/" target="_blank">test camera with around 80mp</a> is definitely in the wild. A few things to note about the camera. It’s apparently in an EOS-1 body and has a larger than 3.2″ LCD on the back. The camera also apparently shoots at a very high frame rate.</p>
<p>What we can’t confirm is if this test mule is actually going to be a consumer product. We imagine there are various sensors currently out there. We’re told via a third party that Canon could announce this new EOS-1 before the end of 2013, however it would not be shipping until 2014.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 25, 2013)

Exciting! With a high FPS you say? I wonder how big that buffer is or what they're using for a memory card. 1.8" SATA SSD? mSATA SSD style?


----------



## x-vision (Jul 25, 2013)

It has to be confirmed whether the reported 80MP figure is real - or whether this is a 40MP sensor with DualPixel technology.

The resolution needed for 8K video is ~39MP. 
So, it makes a lot of sense, actually, if Canon is testing an 8K sensor ... which would be 40MP.

This could get lost in translation and be reported as 80MP, though - if DualPixel technology is used. 

Honestly, 80MP doesn't make much sense, except for bragging rights.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 25, 2013)

I don't believe Canon would dream of really putting an 80 mp camera into the market just yet. These companies all drip feed technology to the consumer: I'm sure we'll see something in the resign of 35 - 40 first. 

Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector. 

Didn't work.


----------



## rs (Jul 25, 2013)

I'd have thought a full frame camera with a 'very high frame rate' would be a 1D X replacement. It's a bit early for that, and 75+MP at 12fps or so is a bigger jump in throughput than you'd expect from one generation to the next. 

Unless very high frame rate means more than 3 FPS? 4 possibly?

Even it's foveon, the raw file will still contain every single one of those pixels, so were talking about the same amount of data as a 75+MP bayer sensor.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 25, 2013)

rs said:


> I'd have thought a full frame camera with a 'very high frame rate' would be a 1D X replacement.



To really shine in the video world, such a camera could maybe do 8K video @ 60fps. 
This is an extremely high frame rate, given the high resolution.

Doesn't mean that the frame rate for stills will be high.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2013)

Canon has shown signs of wanting to jump their technology. The new sensor and load of features in the 70D was one hint. While I'd also be surprised to see the camera, it just might happen. They want to be able to charge 10K or more for a body that no one else has.


----------



## Arkarch (Jul 25, 2013)

"SuperCamera - Able to fill entire hard drives with a single burst."

Ok, my i7 w/LSI RAID can handle that 

Seriously, I really want the high MP for Landscape; and I suppose th Commercial Photographers also want it. Maybe some wedding guys. But I am not sure we need the high frame rate. The Sports guys shooting for SI probably want turn-around time.

I'd be very happy with 70 MP+ at maybe 5 fps. With the savings I might be able to muster a 1Dx for the sports shoots


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 25, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I don't believe Canon would dream of really putting an 80 mp camera into the market just yet. These companies all drip feed technology to the consumer: I'm sure we'll see something in the resign of 35 - 40 first.
> 
> Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector.
> 
> Didn't work.



It did work !
I am using Canon since 1974, even though back then Minolta was the better choise, I liked the canon lenses more. (and still do)
But now, I had to buy a Nikon, not only for the pixels, but for (there it is again...) the dynamic range.
I am NOT a high iso shooter, I need the dynamic range.

I know what is coming next......
But, with 19 Canon camera's and over 40 Canon lenses, you can not say I am not a Canonfan is it ?
The thing is, it is about progress, and Canon is OK on the lenses, but NOT on the camera's !
I still have my 1DCS-3C, it cost the same as a middleclass car, but, while it delivers the same images as almost 20 years ago, I am not using it anymore.
Why not ? It is outdated, ancient, it is antique, it is a fossil !!
For the same reason I dont use my 1DS3 not very much anymore, and I won't certainly not buy a 1DX.


So...Are they selling a 70mp camera soon...
Well... I hope they do...and I hope they will have another sensor-technology as well.

And I will be a very happy Canon-user again...


----------



## Diko (Jul 25, 2013)

x-vision said:


> It has to be confirmed whether the reported 80MP figure is real - or whether this is a 40MP sensor with DualPixel technology.
> 
> The resolution needed for 8K video is ~39MP.
> So, it makes a lot of sense, actually, if Canon is testing an 8K sensor ... which would be 40MP.
> ...



That's EXACTLY what I also mentioned before. 

However aside from *DualPixel *and *VIDEO *improvments I still am waiting for a better than average ISO & DR. *Alternatives *with better results are out there and they are *CHEAPER*! 

Additionally after the built in *Wi-Fi* &*GPS* an internal *SSD* & *USB 3.0* are the next features that would would bring a difference and leadership for the years to come.



neuroanatomist said:


> Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.



   Oh you naughty Rocket Scientist!


----------



## gwflauto (Jul 25, 2013)

I don't know, if I ever missed the high number of pixels, I am quite content with the 18 to 23 Megapixels. but I shurely would try to get the money ready, if this animal should ever make it to the market. Interesting news!


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 25, 2013)

Arkarch said:


> "SuperCamera - Able to fill entire hard drives with a single burst."
> 
> Ok, my i7 w/LSI RAID can handle that
> 
> ...



Haha, when I began using photoshop, I bought a really BIG hard-drive...about 1600 megabytes....I did not think I would ever fill this....


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.


Up here in Canada, the penny has been phased out.... I can't save up 1,200,000 of them so I guess I can't get this new camera. Pity, a 75 Megapixel camera would have been great for taking facebook photos.....


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 25, 2013)

Atonegro said:


> Arkarch said:
> 
> 
> > "SuperCamera - Able to fill entire hard drives with a single burst."
> ...



Double HaHa, The first hard drive I bought was $10,000 for a 10Mbyte drive (14 inch platters, rackmount) and I have a couple dozen 4Mbyte compact flash cards...


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Atonegro said:
> 
> 
> > Arkarch said:
> ...



Wow !! That beats me 
My First hard drive was a 20Mb-one, and my first CF-card was a 8 Mb....I don't have those anymore, but I still have a 32 Mb card....


----------



## Diko (Jul 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Double HaHa, The first hard drive I bought was $10,000 for a 10Mbyte drive (14 inch platters, rackmount) and I have a couple dozen 4Mbyte compact flash cards...



WAs it this one?

http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/storage/240142353/the-history-of-the-hard-drive-and-its-future.htm?pgno=7


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 25, 2013)

x-vision said:


> It has to be confirmed whether the reported 80MP figure is real - or whether this is a 40MP sensor with DualPixel technology.
> 
> The resolution needed for 8K video is ~39MP.
> So, it makes a lot of sense, actually, if Canon is testing an 8K sensor ... which would be 40MP.
> ...



Are we talking about pixels or photosites? 

While Canon calls it Dual-Pixel, it's really Dual-Photosites, single pixel. And if they say 80MP, and mean pixel, then that's either 80 MP out of the sensor, or 80MP as recorded in an image to card. Maybe they're doing like Nokia with the PureView concept. Go super high pixel count, and while you maybe allow someone to capture that, typical might be downsampled quite a bit to, say, 20 MP or 36MP.


----------



## sjprg (Jul 25, 2013)

Well I'm a Canon user and I've been saving for four years with a break for the D800E, so bring on the 75MP. I should be ready by the time it is available.


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 25, 2013)

Karlos said:


> Atonegro said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



You are missing the point.


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 25, 2013)

sjprg said:


> Well I'm a Canon user and I've been saving for four years with a break for the D800E, so bring on the 75MP. I should be ready by the time it is available.



+1 !


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 25, 2013)

Will Canon releases more NEW lenses to support 75+ MP?


----------



## Click (Jul 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.
> ...



You can save nickels... It's five times less than pennies, and you can get this camera.


----------



## grahamsz (Jul 25, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Will Canon releases more NEW lenses to support 75+ MP?



I was trying to figure out how much of an effect that would make. If they have 3 "pixels" per photosite (one for each of rgb) then I don't know that they'll need any big lens jump.

That would bring the color resolution inline with the luminescent resolution


----------



## KyleSTL (Jul 25, 2013)

Why does everyone think that the 75MP quoted implies that it's dual-pixel, and that number is twice what the actual filesize will be? Canon annouced the 70D as 20MP, and it has 20MP file outputs. I'm not sure why everyone keeps jumping to conclusions on it. Just because it sounds like a really big number? Because it would have a pixel density almost identical to the 10MP Nikon 1 series cameras (J1, V1, J2, S1) or be equivalent to a 28MP Canon APS-C camera?


----------



## xps (Jul 25, 2013)

Would be interresting which lenses meet this resolution at an high image quality.
In Spring I visited an collegue, who works for an big optical glass producing company in Germany and I was able to look at some - non confidental - production processes. 
He is specialized in the production of special glass for astronomical lenses. Maybe for some military products too...
He told me that it would only make sense, if they use more highend glass for highly priced lenses to minimize CA and other optical problems. But then one lens would cost 2-5 times the price of an existing lens.

This could be an crux too. If this is neccessary, the expensive lenses will get astronomically high priced and the normal enthusiast will be only able to buy mid-ranged lenses (where Canon will not put all its efforts in developing an extraordinary IQ in an mid ranged lens)


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 25, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Why does everyone think that the 75MP quoted implies that it's dual-pixel, and that number is twice what the actual filesize will be? Canon annouced the 70D as 20MP, and it has 20MP file outputs. I'm not sure why everyone keeps jumping to conclusions on it. Just because it sounds like a really big number? Because it would have a pixel density almost identical to the 10MP Nikon 1 series cameras (J1, V1, J2, S1) or be equivalent to a 28MP Canon APS-C camera?



I think people are focusing on Canon calling it Dual Pixel. When it's really not 2 sub-pixels, but 2 separate photosites per pixel. At least, that's what I read of what it is. 2 photosites sitting in the same space under the same Bayer color filter which together output 1 actual pixel of output in the Bayer CFA data.

Unless what they are doing is each 'pixel' has some kind of micro-prism that the light that hits one 'pixel' onto 3 separate photo sites with their own and combined they take up the same space as 1 'normal' photosite and are used to get 1 pixel, then it'd be interesting to see if we really can call it 75MP or would it then be 25MP? A lot of ifs, so we'll just have really wait until we get better leaks or Canon telling us what is going on. Which they won't do until the announcement, and we might still have to wait around for the launch to really know what's going on.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jul 26, 2013)

Canon isn't going to announce their big MP camera until the end of 2013. November at the latest. I would love a true upgrade from the 1DS Mark III for us fashion types. For me, there really isn't anything worthwhile in between my 5D MKII and MF. Really. If my cam had 16-bit A/D and a couple more FPS, I'd be totally fine.

If they can release this camera for around $12k and be a real competitor to MF, those competitors should be very concerned. Canon certainly has the muscle for it.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 26, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Canon isn't going to announce their big MP camera until the end of 2013. November at the latest. I would love a true upgrade from the 1DS Mark III for us fashion types. For me, there really isn't anything worthwhile in between my 5D MKII and MF. Really. If my cam had 16-bit A/D and a couple more FPS, I'd be totally fine.
> 
> If they can release this camera for around $12k and be a real competitor to MF, those competitors should be very concerned. Canon certainly has the muscle for it.



The one bit that MF will always have over a 35mm frame is physical sensor size. It can give a different look & feel than 35mm, even in digital. Not saying a super high MP/DR/IQ sensor at in the 35mm format wouldn't be great, it would be. Just won't still always work for everybody that has chosen MF, although some may very well be able to switch.


----------



## jrista (Jul 26, 2013)

xps said:


> Would be interresting which lenses meet this resolution at an high image quality.
> In Spring I visited an collegue, who works for an big optical glass producing company in Germany and I was able to look at some - non confidental - production processes.
> He is specialized in the production of special glass for astronomical lenses. Maybe for some military products too...
> He told me that it would only make sense, if they use more highend glass for highly priced lenses to minimize CA and other optical problems. But then one lens would cost 2-5 times the price of an existing lens.
> ...



I think Canon's latest generation of lenses, the ones that have been getting released over the last few years (most of the Mark II generation, with the exception of the ultra-wide angle stuff like the 16-35 II), is probably more than capable enough for 75mp worth of pixels in a bayer type sensor. I would say they are probably good enough until 35mm pushes into the hundred megapixel range or farther. 

If we assume that at some point, FF and APS-C sensors will use the kind of small pixels we find in the most recent phone and P&S cams, which is around 1.2µm on a 65nm BI process, then we would be looking at 600mp FF (30,000x20,000 pixels exactly) and 230.75mp APS-C (18583x12417 pixels). It is easier to optimize a lens that is small, which is why we don't see severe optical aberrations in smartphone camera photos. There would certainly be some challenge in optimizing lenses to support 600 megapixels of full-frame goodness! 

I agree that consumer-grade lenses will suffer, and won't necessarily be up to snuff to extract the most from a high resolution sensor. Keep in mind, though, final image output resolution is a convolution of the resolution of the lens and the resolution of the sensor. Increasing either will increase the resolution of the final output, so it is not like a poorer grade consumer lens will really drag IQ down...you just won't get as much out of the whole setup as if you had a high end L-series lens. The same also goes for say slapping one of today's top-end L-series lenses on a hypothetical 600mp FF camera...you would definitely see an improvement over slapping one of today's top-end L-series lenses on a 40, 50, or 75mp FF camera, even if it isn't ideally optimized for the higher resolution.


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.



African or European?


----------



## jrista (Jul 26, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Why does everyone think that the 75MP quoted implies that it's dual-pixel, and that number is twice what the actual filesize will be? Canon annouced the 70D as 20MP, and it has 20MP file outputs. I'm not sure why everyone keeps jumping to conclusions on it. Just because it sounds like a really big number? Because it would have a pixel density almost identical to the 10MP Nikon 1 series cameras (J1, V1, J2, S1) or be equivalent to a 28MP Canon APS-C camera?



The term megapixel has become rather conflated with what should probably be termed megasensel, something that we can thank Sigma for in their marketing of their Foveon sensors. If prior rumors posted on CR are indeed true, it is more than likely that the 75mp FF camera is actually a 25 megapixel (in terms of output pixels) camera with 75 million photosites (million sensing elements, or megasensels), 25 million each of red, green, and blue photodiodes, one of each stacked vertically at each pixel location.

Theoretically, such a camera would have lower luminance resolution than a bayer, but similar or higher color resolution as a bayer. If Canon solves the problem of poor red performance deep in the silicon, such a sensor should have rather phenomenal color fidelity, minimal color moire and low luminance moire. 

If the sensor is indeed a 75 megapixel bayer design, I totally agree...it will be a camera with 75 literal pixels. If it makes use of Canon's new dual pixel AF approach, then that would mean the total number of photodiodes would be 150 million. I guess I find the use of dual pixels unlikely unless Canon has indeed moved to a smaller fabrication process.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 26, 2013)

A few wild guesses:

First, it's mirrorless with an EVF good enough for professionals;

Second, it has 80MP, but they're paired as in the 70D;

Third, when they say "high frame rate", they mean 24 to 30FPS;

Fourth, it's in the 1Dx body 'cause it's a power hog.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.
> ...


With that 75 megapixel camera, burst mode, and a good lens you probably could get a picture of that swallow carrying a coconut... and with enough detail to determine the type of swallow and if you compare movement to a background, determine the airspeed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.
> ...



Who said anything about swallows? Blue...no, yellow...aaaahhhyeeeee!!!


----------



## Lawliet (Jul 26, 2013)

Diko said:


> However aside from *DualPixel *and *VIDEO *improvments I still am waiting for a better than average ISO & DR.



Pull a magic lantern and read those dual pixels at two sensitivities.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 26, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Go away...or I shall taunt you a second time


----------



## Peerke (Jul 26, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Will Canon releases more NEW lenses to support 75+ MP?



Nope, they leave that to Sigma .

Bring out you're dead.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 26, 2013)

75MP + high frame rate might lead to the conclusion that this camera uses a "three subsensors per final pixel" design - as others mentioned here:

Using 3 x 25 sensels for R, G and B avoids the calculation of the final image from the Bayer patterned raw data. I don't know how much processing power is needed for Bayer sensors but if you want to to it right it might be a lot.
Using clean RGB-data for photos or video means just storing numbers.
Reading out three layers of a sensor independently eases the readout process and AD conversion by simple parallelization ...

Just my 2ct


----------



## whothafunk (Jul 26, 2013)

im gonna blow my brains out if this gets announced before 7DII. 7DII should be next, nothing else!!1


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AprilForever said:
> ...


Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.


----------



## dstppy (Jul 26, 2013)

This is all exciting, but for all the complaining that you see about DR, not enough pixels or some other little thing, it's miniscule from the real-world oohs and ahhs that you get from well composed 1D & 5D (current AND previous gen) bodies . . .

Just because they can get BETTER doesn't mean they're not great already.

What are the odds that this mule is actually a Frankenstein creation, designed to test multiple new components? E.G. throw this new sensor in which may not make it to market right away because it's not perfect or financially feasible to push the limits of a new or experimental processor?



Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet. Time to start saving those pennies, just in case. About 1.2 million of them ought to do the trick.
> ...



They phased out the penny?

I haven't lived up that ways for about 12 years. When I was a kid, we had 3 stations, and they were all Canadian. Amazing how much of the news was all US news, unless there was an election, or, you know, Quebec (we can still use that as a verb, right?) ;D


----------



## gecko (Jul 26, 2013)

Great news - this is exactly what I need for photographing my pet cat.


----------



## motorhead (Jul 26, 2013)

I love the image accompanying the headline of this rumour, the IDs is not dead!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 26, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> 75MP + high frame rate might lead to the conclusion that this camera uses a "three subsensors per final pixel" design - as others mentioned here:
> 
> Using 3 x 25 sensels for R, G and B avoids the calculation of the final image from the Bayer patterned raw data. I don't know how much processing power is needed for Bayer sensors but if you want to to it right it might be a lot.
> Using clean RGB-data for photos or video means just storing numbers.
> ...



Not sure that de-bayering takes all that much CPU with a good algorithm. Canon might even to part of it in hardware, since they tend to use specialized hardware circuits for various things which ease the CPU part. But for writing out raw files, they don't really even need to do that. Leaving aside the embedded thumbnail jpg that's usually included.


----------



## sjprg (Jul 26, 2013)

12K would really push me, BUT, I would probably buy. 10K would be more what I would like.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 27, 2013)

Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3  of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection  etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3  of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection  etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)



DRip DRop DRip DRop waiting for the DRivel to stop. :

Canon's _real_ competition in the dSLR market, i.e., other dSLRs, have had better DR for years. Canon sold more dSLRs than any of their competitors for those same years. An easy conclusion for Canon to draw is that improving DR isn't a wise investment of R&D resources. Seems they prioritized on-CMOS AF...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3  of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection  etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)
> ...



It'll stop when either everyone who cares finally gives up and gives in and switches brands or Canon finally decides to care about DR again. I'm glad for all the DRip DRip. And I bet that if they ever do, all the ones tossing around DRip DRIp terms will be the first ones to flood the forums bashing Nikon for being a joke for not quite matching current Canon DR, just watch. The old if Canon has it it's IMPORTANT and if they don't it's insignificant drivel.




> Canon's _real_ competition in the dSLR market, i.e., other dSLRs, have had better DR for years. Canon sold more dSLRs than any of their competitors for those same years. An easy conclusion for Canon to draw is that improving DR isn't a wise investment of R&D resources. Seems they prioritized on-CMOS AF...



I hope not, but some signs do point that way. I really don't know that I want to have to hope for a 5D5, we'd be talking years and years of not getting to use state of the art DR and who knows if they'd even feel the need by the 5D5? Otherwise I like Canon more, but....

The dual-pixel AF is cool no doubt and something they deserve plenty of credit for, but all the same they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality. They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.



Maybe not when using the DXo scores, in practice I've found the 5Dmkii to be significantly better than mki, the 6D better than the mkii and so on; the DXo scores are similar. Maybe some of this is to do with the more gradual clipping to high and low lights, I'm not sure, but they have definitely been getting better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ... they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality.



Sorry, but why do they '_need_' to do that? Besides the fact that you and some others want them to, I mean... : There's a small minority of people who DRone on about this issue, but a small minority carries little weight in terms of impacting R&D priorities.

It's interesting how people say Canon is 'sleeping' and 'not innovative', but when they come out with a technology that represents a profound improvement for AF, those same people dismiss it...because it's not the innovation they wanted. News flash: Canon sells cameras designed for the mass market, not designed for a small minority. The fact that they have been and remain the market leader says they've been making the right design decisions for that mass market.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ... they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality.
> ...



I did say the dual-pixel AF was innovative. That is pretty cool.

But that still doesn't answer the fact that their low ISO quality has not improved one bit, actually a trace worse, for well over half a decade going more towards a decade now. Isn't it about time low ISO IQ got a look at again? Canon kept going on in their PDF about how they always are looking to find way to let people be able to shoot in more conditions. So that also means they should be looking into improving DR at low ISO.

I don't think the DR people are such a tiny minority as you think either. One could also say it's easy for those who don't care about DR to just toss it off a silly thing only a few extreme users care about. I see a lot more talking about that than the poor video AF actually if you want to go by forum polling.

The 5D3 getting top AF in it was awesome, but that wasn't innovative that was just a marketing change matching what Nikon was doing for quite a while already. One should also note that it was something people droned on endless in the forums. It seems that is what it takes for them to take notice. Had we not drone on about that maybe the 5D3 would be 7D AF AND the old sensor. I bet you would've loved that even more right? And don't forget it takes a LOT of time to get new tech going for sensors so if people wait until they have truly had it with the DR then it's wayyyy too late and you'd be waiting years beyond that still.

The RAW video in the 5D3 is a revolution and quite rather astonishing, although we'd have never ever seen it had Canon been the only ones at work. They credit for making the HW in the camera being to do it though and not blocking Magic Lantern.

If you want me to ping Nikon. Well they pretty much muddled up liveview and didn't do anything all that impressive for video on their recent cameras. 5D3 pulls those off with help of ML infinitely better than any recent (or older) Nikon and even without ML 5D3 pulls those off better. 

Since I also have a video shooter side in me too though, now that we have ML RAW and video extras, the 5D3 finally is a pretty revolutionary DSLR IMO though, every bit as much as the D800, just in very different ways. For stills, it's a really fantastic body, top notch with lots of abilities and superb UI, saddled with a sensor that is somewhat regularly frustrating for low ISO shooting in this day and age (although pretty pleasing for high iso if not quite state of the art as D4,1DX,6D; it is a bit surprising they held back the high ISO tech and re-used older stuff for the 5D3 when they put it all in the 6D so relatively soon after).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 27, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.
> ...



Well actually they do not all measure the same on DxO. The 5D measures a full stop worse at ISO100. And the 6D measures a little bit better at ISO100 than the 5D2 plus it has less pattern noise in deep shadows so it feels more manipulable real world and it does have a bit better DR than the 5D3 no doubt, but none of them are any better or even as good, other than the 6D, which is merely as good, as the old 1Ds3 from years back and that one isn't even close to any of the best cameras for ISO100 DR on the market for the last number of years, even some P&S, and not talking big ones likes Sony R1 but little pocket things, have better DR scores at their lowest ISO these days. All these cameras have linear capture. Canon DR slowly got slightly worse after the 1Ds3 and now has gotten back to that old level again. Other cameras have gotten 2-3+ stops better while all Canon did is manage to crawl BACK UP to where they had been back then to begin with (although they do manage it now in a camera vastly less expensive than the 1Ds3 at least).

(Not that it was the topic, but at high ISO they did improve DR some. 5D3 is somewhat better than the 5D2 and the 1DX and 6D are definitely better still, quite solidly better than all the older Canon models, and at the very top with cams like D4.)

Anyway I've said enough on DR in this thread. Back to the high MP talk? Bayer 75MP for great detail and reach and superb oversampling? 3-layer 25MP for full color per pixel? If the latter can it pull it off without compromising DR (since those types of designs in the past have tended to struggle a bit with SNR and real lot with DR from what I hear)?


----------



## photonius (Jul 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



In case you haven't noticed, the dual pixel technology, smartly combined with the dual exposure trick that Magic Lantern uncovered, will allow dramatic improvement of DR. I presume Canon is working on it, but probably - like the on-sensor AF- it takes some time to get the technology right.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 27, 2013)

photonius said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the dual pixel technology, smartly combined with the dual exposure trick that Magic Lantern uncovered, will allow dramatic improvement of DR. I presume Canon is working on it, but probably - like the on-sensor AF- it takes some time to get the technology right.



We will see. Not sure and you do cut down the sensor light collecting area by half and so on. Maybe they CAN get something out if for more DR, not sure. They haven't seemed to peep about DR at all though and you'd think they;d be bragging if it was workable.


----------



## jrista (Jul 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



I think Canon probably will improve DR. It is a tough thing to really scale peoples immediate wants to actual camera releases. Before the rash of new high end camera releases a year or two ago, the thing I remember people complaining about MOST in the Canon camp was "fewer megapixels, better high ISO". It was the thing I droned on about, it was the thing most of the people I knew droned on about, and it was the thing people droned on about in their blogs, review sites, etc. Everyone complained that more megapixels was dead, and we needed better high ISO. That was between the 1Ds III/5D II generation and the 1D X/5D III/D800 generation. 

It really wasn't until Sony and Nikon dropped an Exmor into the D800 that a different segment of the Canon camp started DRoning on about DR.  When you boil it all down, the complaints of each era make sense. Canon claimed the megapixel crown on their high end cameras (the ones that generally take four years to replace anyway), and over the next four years, people saw interim Nikon cameras improve their high ISO performance. I think we saw a realistic shift from ISO 1600 being artistically usable to ISO 3200 and even 6400 being artistically usable, with ISO 12800 being the top native setting on Nikon cameras. That was occurring on LOWER megapixel Nikon cameras, at that. So, what did the Canon camp ask for? Pretty much the same thing...and, Canon delivered! We got the 1D X, with usable ISO 6400 and 12800, with a maximum native 51200 which blew everything else out of the water. We got the 5D III with native ISO up to 25600, and only a smidge more MP. That was what people asked for. 

Today, the gap between camps is that Nikon now has both megapixels and DR at low ISO. Makes total sense thats the thing that people want now. I suspect it is an entirely different group complaining about low ISO DR than those who complained about too many megapixels and the need for better high ISO during the last generation. I do think Canon listens to their customers, and if the DRoning about DR DRivel is loud enough to be heard by Canon, I think they will probably deliver. I honestly can't say when...its only been about two years since the last high end camera releases...seems a bit soon for more. I can't say what we might see with the 7D II, but I kind of suspect it won't offer amazing low DR performance...it just doesn't seem to fit the model. If Canon does hear the low ISO DR message, then I suspect the camera it would make the most sense for is the rumored big megapixel monster. We did hear about Canon experimenting with active cooling technologies...and if it is applied to the image processing chips, it might indeed help with downstream noise contributors (although I kind of doubt it will improve low ISO DR by another 2 stops like everyone is hoping.) With recent rumors about a 75mp layered sensor, I guess there is really a split potential for improved DR in the next high end camera. It could be 50/50 between a layered (foveonesque) sensor or something that improves DR by a stop or so. 

The only thing I really know for sure is...whatever Canon releases....someone will find something else to complain about. I think its human nature to complain about whatever it is you don't have and the other guy does.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Jul 28, 2013)

More pixels would be nice, but more dynamic range would be much more appreciated. I just hope if they do have something good in the works, they at least announce it before my CPS membership expires...


----------



## Dave Sucsy (Jul 28, 2013)

If the image quality is noticeably better than what my D800 gives me, I’ll get one. In my business I need higher image quality than is now available in 35mm format, but medium format equipment is not cost-effective for me. So if Canon takes my needs seriously, I'll buy their system.

Also, by the way, any 1 series system MUST have integrated GPS. If a $100 point and shoot can have it, surely a 1 series camera should have it. It is ridiculous to have to monkey around with add-on devices just to get accurate geotagging for an efficient productive workflow. Same goes for automatically setting the camera clock. In this day and age it is utter foolishness to have to always be worrying about setting your camera clock every time you get off a plane or drive across a time zone. Please Canon, treat your customers seriously and with respect. 

Same goes for integrated WiFi and a built-in popup flash. It is absurd to have to add a flash just to get a little fill flash or photo-trigger from time to time. At least Nikon is gracious enough to supply that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

Dave Sucsy said:


> It is absurd to have to add a flash just to get a little fill flash or photo-trigger from time to time. At least Nikon is gracious enough to supply that.



I use a TS-E 24L II. The graciously-provided popup flash on the D800 interferes with full rotation of the PC-E 24mm. Granted, that's not going to be an issue for too many people, but personally, it would annoy me.



ankorwatt said:


> yes but Nikon have also high iso and DR + megapixel



But is that helping them sell more dSLRs than Canon? :

Funny story about the more MPs - I was out shooting yesterday with a couple of Nikon shooters. One was looking to upgrade her main wedding camera, and she said she called NPS and the recommended getting the D600 and not the D800 for shooting weddings. When even Nikon recommends not getting the D800.... The other Nikon shooter recommended picking up a used D700 instead of the D800.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Sucsy said:
> ...



Ahh, so when I say that Canon dSLRs outsell Nikon dSLRs, or that Toyota outsells whatever car you drive, which is that - a lie or a myth? As usual, you have difficulty distinguishing lies and myths from facts. 

So answer my question - has Nikon's better DR in their sensors helped them outsell Canon in the dSLR market? 

Cars again? Ok. If I put an engine with more horsepower, more torque, and better fuel efficiency than the engine in your car into a Toyota Camry, would that make the Toyota a better *car* than yours? If you answer no, your car is still better, then try for once to apply that logic to *cameras*. If you say yes, that would make the Toyota better than your car, at least you'll demonstrate some logical consistency, even if the logic itself is flawed. 

But I bet your answer will be, "The D800 has better DR." Now, where have I read that before? :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Sucsy said:
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2013)

Gentlemen.....not everyone has the same needs and/or desire..... Just because you care deeply about DR does not mean everyone does.

Personally, I care a lot more about focus. I see this split pixel innovation on the 70D as ground breaking. Not only does it have the potential of more accurate focus and faster focus, plus supporting slower lenses, think about the possibilities with focus tracking. Instead of jumping between a few autofocus points on a dedicated sensor ( and compared to 20 million, 63 is VERY few), the camera has the potential for much smoother tracking. If your picture is out of focus, who cares what the noise, DR, or ISO was......

And with your precious DR, consider what happens with split pixels when Canon decides to do HDR by having one half at one ISO and the other half 8 or 10 stops away????? If we have thought of it, Canon has thought of it.

The times, they are a changing........


----------



## pulseimages (Jul 28, 2013)

I would love a high megapixel Canon DSLR but unfortunately Canon will over price it just like they did with the 5D Mark III.


----------



## jrista (Jul 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Gentlemen.....not everyone has the same needs and/or desire..... Just because you care deeply about DR does not mean everyone does.
> 
> Personally, I care a lot more about focus. I see this split pixel innovation on the 70D as ground breaking. Not only does it have the potential of more accurate focus and faster focus, plus supporting slower lenses, think about the possibilities with focus tracking. Instead of jumping between a few autofocus points on a dedicated sensor ( and compared to 20 million, 63 is VERY few), the camera has the potential for much smoother tracking. If your picture is out of focus, who cares what the noise, DR, or ISO was......
> 
> ...



Haha! That Gollum image is great!


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 28, 2013)

Uh, that DR-obsessed guy reminds me of that notorious poster on the DPR Canon forums who is a self-confessed Nikon fanb0i and yet most of his posts are in the Canon forums (hint: his avatar is a balding cartoon guy drooling). That's like listening to good 'ole (also) self-confessed Nikon fan Thom Bombadil prognosticating about Canon roadmaps & future tech when it is in his financial interest to promote Nikon products because he is selling Nikon camera guidebooks that he himself wrote!


----------



## aznable (Jul 28, 2013)

fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2013)

aznable said:


> fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors



A lot of quite possible false assumptions being made here. Maybe Fuji would be even worse off if they had poor DR. Maybe Canon would realllllly have been spanking Nikon if they had moved top AF down the liner sooner and improved DR sooner. Who knows. But you just can't point to sales and say that what they did necessarily was for the best for sales (and it certainly isn't best for the user.... well unless maybe you own a LOT of stock hah).


----------



## jrista (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> rumorzmonger said:
> 
> 
> > More pixels would be nice, but more dynamic range would be much more appreciated. I just hope if they do have something good in the works, they at least announce it before my CPS membership expires...
> ...



It actually doesn't matter. The read noise is relative to the total charge. Bigger pixels have a higher maximum charge, and have a proportionally greater read noise, relative to their pixel area. Conversely, smaller pixels have a lower maximum charge, and also have proportionally less read noise, again relative to their pixel area. It doesn't matter if you have 30e- with 65,000e- FWC, or 8e- with 20,000e- FWC...same difference in the end. 

If it DID matter, then Canon cameras with APS-C sensors and small pixels would have better DR at low ISO than FF sensors with large pixels. As it stands, the difference between the two is negligible. The problem isn't the pixels themselves...its downstream from the pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors
> ...



If Ford had made better decisions, the Edsel might still be around. There are a lot of ways for a company to screw up and end up on the bottom of the heap, but far fewer ways to climb to and stay at the top. Could they have done better? We can't know. But they've certainly done well...and better than their competition.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Gentlemen.....not everyone has the same needs and/or desire..... Just because you care deeply about DR does not mean everyone does.
> 
> Personally, I care a lot more about focus. I see this split pixel innovation on the 70D as ground breaking. Not only does it have the potential of more accurate focus and faster focus, plus supporting slower lenses, think about the possibilities with focus tracking. Instead of jumping between a few autofocus points on a dedicated sensor ( and compared to 20 million, 63 is VERY few), the camera has the potential for much smoother tracking. If your picture is out of focus, who cares what the noise, DR, or ISO was......
> 
> ...



Great post, Don!

And... truly funny (& applicable) Gollum caption! love it. ;D

Like you, I'm also v much looking forward to what Canon is doing with dual pixels, both as a ground-breaking AF (LiveView) - and other applications - as you said DR / possibly even reducing noise in certain situations by comparing neighbouring pixels.

Cheers. 

Paul


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Funny story about the more MPs - I was out shooting yesterday with a couple of Nikon shooters. One was looking to upgrade her main wedding camera, and she said she called NPS and the recommended getting the D600 and not the D800 for shooting weddings. When even Nikon recommends not getting the D800.... The other Nikon shooter recommended picking up a used D700 instead of the D800.



Adding to this --- though some are now coming to like the d800 for weddings, most often I hear nikon users recommend and praise the d3s. the d700 is recommended as the if you don't have the budget for the d3s. I think the whole nik vs canon debate can really be summed up as - the grass is always greener. 

I had a second shooter with me recently, he had a d3s and a d4...it was interesting working with those files, but in the real world, not very much different than what came out of my mk3 and my 6d


----------



## Skulker (Jul 28, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> I would love a high megapixel Canon DSLR but unfortunately Canon will over price it just like they did with the 5D Mark III.



I'm not worried about loads of megapixels, 20 odd is fine for my needs. Yes the 5d3 was a lot of money, but I never think of that as I look at the results I get from it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51885688

Interesting test that shows that the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is not remotely capable of handling 36MP density on FF anywhere even slightly remotely close to the edges. It shows radically worse 'per pixel' sharpness than the 5D3+24-70 II over much of the frame (that said it DOES pull in noticeably more detail over the entire central portion of the image and almost pulls in the same detail at the edges, comparing both as is the Nikon image looks hideous compared to the 5D3 image overall since such huge areas near the edges look wayyyy soft, however that is an unfair non-normalized comparison and if you downscale you see that the detail delivered is not really more than maybe a trace worse even at the far edges, so the overall D800 image actually is better, since it's noticeably better center frame and very nearly as good at the edges when fairly compared, but the point also is is that their 24-70 can't remotely make use of 36MP FF density other than in the central region of the image). Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is clearly not even quite able to even handle 22MP FF density at the far mid and edges.

So maybe their was some truth to the talk that Canon was refreshing all of their lenses first before unleashing >22MP FF cameras. (granted for wildlife reach and the aps-c region of a FF image they already had lenses that would've made use of more already but maybe they were afraid of all the standard to wide lenses showing awful edges on FF and the crying that would've ensued over that).

Going by this I bet even the 24-70 II won't really be able to pull close to 75MP FF density near the edges at all although it seems like it still might be able to benefit from a bit more than 22MP, maybe 27MP range or so at the far edges? Looks like it might be able to pull in more than the Nikkor at far mids, maybe to 36-40MP level??

I think it also shows that the old 24-105L wouldn't have a prayer of being able to take good advantage of a 36MP FF camera beyond the middle half of the frame, never mind a 75MP FF camera other than maybe (to a reduced degree for 75MP) just in the very center of the frame. (it can't honestly even handle 22MP anywhere near the edges, maybe more like 13MP??).


----------



## JR (Aug 1, 2013)

I hope they announce such a camera. I would pre-order it in a heart beat!


----------



## jrista (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> This is the lenses together with D3x and 5dmk2
> 24Mp and 21Mp
> 
> the D3x has higher resolution together with nikon 24-70 than Canon together with the new 24-70 from Canon
> My question is, has Rick got a well centered copy of the Nikon lens.



The actual resolution numbers here don't matter. LTRLI's point was that you can obviously see, just with a basic visual inspection, that the D800 with the Nikkor 24-70 performs worse than the 5D III with the Canon 24-70, in the corners. It wouldn't matter what aperture the lens was used at...if the corners are worse t f/8, they are bound to be much worse at a wider (more aberration limited) aperture.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

As I have said before, it does seem that, especially for a 24-70 zoom, it will be difficult to make full use of the outer 30% of the image, when mounted to a very high resolution full frame sensor. But the middle 70% should still resolve plenty of detail. I suspect landscape shooters who print really large, using lenses wider than 24mm, would have an even more difficult time making use of the outer image in those cases. (Even the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 probably will not look "sharp" in its periphery, when coupled to an ~75mp full frame sensor). But of course, there is always stitched panorama...in which case you don't really need or desire, extreme wide angle lenses.


----------



## TexasBadger (Aug 1, 2013)

Bring us a shrubbery

-- The Knights that say Nee


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> the D3x has higher resolution together with nikon 24-70 than Canon together with the new 24-70 from Canon
> My question is, has Rick got a well centered copy of the Nikon lens.



It makes sense that that would be your question, given the pro-Nikon, anti-Canon bias that your CR posts display. 

What if he tested a good copy of the Nikon lens, but got a Canon lens that had internal damage from being dropped to the factory floor a few times before it was shipped, and the Nikon lens still had only very slightly higher numbers? No, that wouldn't fit with your viewpoint at all, would it? :

Ahh, looking at the RAW files are proof. I guess DxO and TDP got not-well copies of the Nikon lens, too.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> with proper USM i don't se any problem with that d800 has a lot more resolution than the canon combo



The parts of the image you enlarged, are in the middle 50% of the image. Not really where the problem comes into play.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> with proper USM i don't se any problem with that d800 has a lot more resolution than the canon combo



I guess that DxOMark disagrees... (It seems they're only right when it comes to DR and sensors...even their Lens Score is suspect, because clearly, despite the optical superiority of the Canon lens on most of their measurements, the Nikon combo merely tied the Canon combo, when it obviously should have scored _higher_ : .)


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > with proper USM i don't se any problem with that d800 has a lot more resolution than the canon combo
> ...



Why does the bottom CA graphic, look like 16 micrometers is 10x more than 30 micrometers, when in reality it's ~1/2 as much CA as 30?


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I download the raw files, that lens from Nikon is not well. The lens suffers from centering defects
> DONT BELIVE EVERYTHING YOU READ JRISTA, and please be little more critical to what you se, AND PHOTOZONES MEASUREMENTS ARE FROM A HEALTHY LENS



When you ask us to be a little more critical of what we see, and not believe everything we read, does that go for what you say as well? From a completely neutral standpoint, it's hard to believe you are being objective about many of the things you say given what appears to be a continual anti Canon stance from yourself.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > I download the raw files, that lens from Nikon is not well. The lens suffers from centering defects
> ...



Of course he is not objective, but then no human can be perfectly objective about anything. 

The question is, from a sensor performance and resolution standpoint, for the money...the D800 is probably still going to be the camera that delivers the most resolution, _around its price point._ The future high MP Canon body is very likely going to be a 1 series. So people with a 5D3 budget, will still be using a 5D3. A future 5D4, probably will still be lower in pixel count than the D800. The overall performance gap, however, will likely be closed.

But high pixel count and performance at "gain settings" under ISO 1000, is mainly only useful for landscape shooters on tripods, or who are shooting in mid day. For those of us who shoot wildlife, or people in available light, Canon is still the clear choice. As for fashion shooters using strobes, a high MP sensor is really more for bragging rights than for practical usage, in my opinion. Who needs a 24x36 inch print of someone's eyelashes? Magazines are roughly 8.5 x 11 inches...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> you do not understand



I understand that your posts on this forum make your viewpoint and biases very obvious.


----------



## jrista (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I download the raw files, that lens from Nikon is not well. The lens suffers from centering defects
> DONT BELIVE EVERYTHING YOU READ JRISTA, and please be little more critical to what you se, AND PHOTOZONES MEASUREMENTS ARE FROM A HEALTHY LENS



LOL. I'll be however I please, thank you. And as it stands, I am quite critical...if you haven't learned it by now, you should know I like things to be backed up by concrete fact whenever possible...especially from you.

You are telling me not to believe everything I read, and yet, you expect me to simply believe that YOU, of all people, "looked at the raw files and can tell, just from that, that the lens is suffering from centering defects"??? Seriously? How about standing by your own demands, and provide some concrete evidence, procedures, test software, etc. that actually explains HOW you know the lens had centering defects? 

I plain and simply don't believe you CAN determine that from an image. So sorry, but if you want me to believe what I read from _you_, your going to have to do better than simply make a random claim.


----------



## jrista (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> with proper USM i don't se any problem with that d800 has a lot more resolution than the canon combo



You are looking at the wrong area of the photo. You must not have read the posts related (here and on DPR) to those photos. The point being made is that the CORNERS of the D800, despite its higher spatial resolution than the 5D III, suffer from more distortion. The point being made was that even a higher resolution sensor is not quite enough to compensate for the kind of warping and stretching you get from poorly handled corner performance in a lens.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Klaus at Photozone and I have shown several times that if one copy does not appear as it should we took another copy to test, I tested 4 Canon 24-70 before I got one good example and showed the test results and so did also Klaus .
> All brands have problems with the uniformity and quality, also Nikon



If I were reviewing a lens and I got a crap copy, I'd review the crap copy and give it a harsh negative review. The fact of the matter is that a glowing of a review where three out of four copies are junk does not accurately reflect what a person is going to get when they buy one, statistically speaking. If these manufacturers want to get good reviews, they should have better quality control. This isn't rocket science. They could trivially attach every lens to a test rig, measure it, and verify that it is within spec like pretty much every other professional hardware manufacturer does. The fact that they obviously do not do this speaks volumes about their product quality, and I firmly believe that the reviews should reflect that lack of concern.


----------



## jrista (Aug 1, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Klaus at Photozone and I have shown several times that if one copy does not appear as it should we took another copy to test, I tested 4 Canon 24-70 before I got one good example and showed the test results and so did also Klaus .
> ...



+1000!


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 2, 2013)

Apparently some people are so busy pixel-peeping at 800% they forgot to read this notice highlighted in blue at the top of PZ's reviews:



> *Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems. This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters.*


----------



## caruser (Aug 2, 2013)

jrista said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


This could be taken a step further by purchasing multiple copies, like now, but posting the review for the WORST out of the bunch! Or start reviewing one copy, and then see what the worst one that a reader of your's got is!


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 2, 2013)

caruser said:


> Or start reviewing one copy, and then see what the worst one that a reader of your's got is!



I'd say the lensrental reviews are a good starting point - enough raw data to get a good impression, and as byproduct of a quality management process with little emotional bias.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2013)

I wish you guys would stop arguing. It is obvious that the Nikon sensor that we don't use is far superior to a rumored Canon sensor that nobody has tested or even seen....lens tests on a different body confirm this.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 2, 2013)

Dear fellow Canonistas!

I´ve been shooting with Canon since the 1970´s. I have invested enough in expensive glass, to keep me in the Canon loop. My only hope for every new post on Canonrumours is to read about the next jaw dropping Canon product, that can take my photography to the next level. But reading some of the posts on this forum makes me wonder what the motivation amongst some you may be. We can assume that Canon is reading what we are writing. So all the unconditional praise for what they deliver, regardless of what the competition is doing, is a confirmation that what they provide is sufficient. Well, is it??

I am in no way a potential ship jumper. I have obscene amounts of money invested in glass and bodies, that will keep me with Canon for a loooong time. But reading about the Dynamic Range figures, ISO performance and higher MP ++ from the likes of Nikon makes me sometimes wonder what Canon is doing. The 1DX and 5DIII gave me AF beyond what Nikon can deliver and I am very happy with it. But for the next pro body, Canon better provide something we can swipe the Nikon floor with. The comparisons with best selling cars compared to to the actually best cars etc. are at best entertaining.

In this forum I get the feeling that any non-pro Canon statement is similar to treason and worthy of a painful execution. In my view, a critical (when it makes sense) argument against Canon is something they should listen to. So to me, every intelligent and critical statement is welcome!

I have paid serious bucks for all my L-lenses, including 24 TS-E 3.5L II, 16-35 f2.8L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 85 f1.2L II, 400 f2.8L IS II, 600 f4L IS II and a few others. I believe they are the best lenses money can buy. I am also happy with my 5DIII and 1DX, given what they represent in upgrades from my previous 5DII and 1DsIII, but I sincerely hope that with the next pro body, Canon will kick Nikon ass beyond the horizon!

Have a great weekend!
(written after a great Sancerre and an even greater Brunello!)


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 2, 2013)

Eldar said:


> (written after a great Sancerre and an even greater Brunello!)



Ok, while I'm a bit jealous of some of your lenses... I'm even more jealous about this. Lucky you!


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Dear fellow Canonistas!
> 
> I´ve been shooting with Canon since the 1970´s. I have invested enough in expensive glass, to keep me in the Canon loop. My only hope for every new post on Canonrumours is to read about the next jaw dropping Canon product, that can take my photography to the next level. But reading some of the posts on this forum makes me wonder what the motivation amongst some you may be. We can assume that Canon is reading what we are writing. So all the unconditional praise for what they deliver, regardless of what the competition is doing, is a confirmation that what they provide is sufficient. Well, is it??
> 
> ...



I think you may be missing the root of where these debates come from. For the most part, they are usually originated by one particular individual: ankorwatt. I debate him not because his arguments say Nikon DR in a couple of their cameras is better. I debate him because he makes assertions that Canon does not compete because hey cannot compete, that they will never be able to compete, and Canon does not make good cameras solely because their sensors are not as good as the D800's, etc.

Those are all fundamentally flawed and false statements. On several occasions in the past, people have clearly LITERALLY jumped ship as a result of some of the things ankorwatt (and a few others, on occasion) have stated, only to find out that they did not really like the Nikon side of things. Some jumped back. All to the tune of many thousands of dollars. Someone has to debunk the often ridiculous and obviously biased statements ankorwatt makes, which are *hard line anti-canon*. Just as hard line as you probably see the pro-canon stuff in response to his posts. 

I do want Canon to produce better products and compete on every front...not just AF, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. There are many discussions on this forum that follow exactly the direction you indicated...that we should be asking Canon what we want...until that one particular person posts something...then it's all down hill from there. For the most part, no one denies that Canon has worse low-ISO DR than some Nikon cameras with Sony sensors (there are a few who refuse to believe the facts, though.) But it does need to be made clear that the situations where the D800 and D600 meaningfully outpace any Canon camera is in a very specific few circumstances: ISO 100, ISO 200, and by a very slim margin ISO 400. Honestly, how many Canon shooters do you think use ISO settings ABOVE 400 vs. those who use ISO settings BELOW 400 the majority of the time? 

I think far more often than not, a greater percentage of Canon shooters use ISO settings above 400....so many types of photography demand critically good high ISO performance, where as there are a select few that demand critically good ISO 100 performance. Landscapes, studio, maybe street. Beyond ISO 400 physical limitations kick in, and outside of some significant innovations like color splitting microlenses that reduce light loss reaching the sensor or multi-layered photodiodes that increase the charge holding capacity of each photodiode...there isn't much that can be done about those physical limitations. Bigger pixels are all that matter at high ISO, and currently, Canon offers some unparalleled performance in that arena.

You also have to take into account who the squeaky wheels were in a given time frame. Before the D800, the LOUDEST (by far) vocal Canon group were the "fewer megapixels, better high ISO" group. I was one of them, most of the people I knew who shot Canon were asking for fewer megapixels and higher ISO. Second to that, as the rumors about the 5D III started to fly in good quantity, the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about the 5D II AF system. As far as I can tell, Canon has delivered pretty well exactly what their customers were asking for before the new generation actually hit the streets: Fewer megapixels, better high ISO.

Its now another lull between major DSLR releases. By far, the most vocal Canon group is now the "more megapixels, better DR" group. The people who want as many megapixels as they can get their hands on, while concurrently offering more dynamic range. I did not hear much from that group before the D800 hit the streets and DXO posted their review...but now that its out, and people who do things like landscape and studio photography where detail and DR reign supreme, well, of course its the thing everyone wants. Canon delivered exactly what their customers were asking for before. I honestly don't see any reason they won't deliver, or at least try to deliver (I happily admit Exmor is some damn good technology), what their customers are asking for now.

I do think we should be vocal about it. I primarily shoot action, birds and wildlife, so high ISO is usually where I live. I also do landscapes, and I really want a high megapixel, high DR FF sensor for that. I've held off buying a new camera to see what Canon does and where they are headed, because I believe they will deliver something in line with what their customers are asking for. It's just a matter of when...and since we are in the middle of a major cycle, I don't suspect it will be for another year or so. Sadly, any time we get to pondering our wants and desires...ankorwatt usually shows up and marks his territory. :'( Everyone here knows the D800 has better DR. They are sick and tired of being reminded of it. Further, everyone is sick and tired of being told everything that was, is, or will be Nikon always has, is and will forever be better than Canon. Its annoying, its tiresom, its a LOAD OF CRAP, and yet...people believe that crap. So...just about every thread degrades into the same old debate..."Yes, the D800 is wonderful. No, Canon is not incapable of competing. Yes, Canon does many things better than the competition. No, Canon doesn't do _everything _better than Nikon, Sony, Aptina, or whichever manufacturer is part of the topic of the day. Yes, please shut up ankorwatt, were tired of your DRoning about DRivel..." Problem is...no one can just let ankorwatts comments be...they are usually just too antagonistic, and people are people.

If one single individual was removed from the picture...things would change...radically......I don't think that is going to happen, however.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Dear fellow Canonistas!
> ...



The bottom line is this....both companies make great products, with each having their own strengths and weaknesses....the difference between the 1dx and d4(the best that each can make) is so fractionally small that anyone arguing about one being better than the the other is just bored and/or argumentative by nature....same goes for the d800 vs 5d3.

My best photog buddy has a d800...it's better than my 5d3 in some ways, and worse in others. 

*It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset*


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Dear fellow Canonistas!
> 
> I´ve been shooting with Canon since the 1970´s. I have invested enough in expensive glass, to keep me in the Canon loop. My only hope for every new post on Canonrumours is to read about the next jaw dropping Canon product, that can take my photography to the next level. But reading some of the posts on this forum makes me wonder what the motivation amongst some you may be. We can assume that Canon is reading what we are writing. So all the unconditional praise for what they deliver, regardless of what the competition is doing, is a confirmation that what they provide is sufficient. Well, is it??
> 
> ...



We really don't know what the labs at Canon are working on....or what state various developments are in..., but we can guess.

My guess is to look at the 70D and this split-pixel focus development. The fact that it is going into production says that it is a viable technology.... A FF size sensor with the dual-pixels the same size as the 70D gives about 52 megapixels... so a 50+ megapixel FF body is quite reasonable, 75 is certainly possible.

If you can split the pixels in one direction, you can split them in another.... it is possible to have alternating vertical and horizontal splits and then get phase detection in two axis.... and even better autofocus ability.

After you have achieved focus, you could either combine the halves into a single pixel, use them as separate pixels, or change the ISO on one side of each pixel pair and combine them as a 16 stop DR pixel, possibly up to 20 stops...

We really don't know what Canon is doing or what they will announce, but I am hopeful for the future. I think we are on the verge of a major step forward.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

Northstar said:


> *It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset*



I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...


----------



## Northstar (Aug 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > *It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset*
> ...



amen to that


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2013)

Northstar said:


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



Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 3, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> After you have achieved focus, you could either combine the halves into a single pixel, use them as separate pixels, or change the ISO on one side of each pixel pair and combine them as a 16 stop DR pixel, possibly up to 20 stops...



16-20 stop DR would make my year


----------



## Skulker (Aug 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > *It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset*
> ...



Also do you live on the east coast? That might effect your point of view on sunsets.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 3, 2013)

Skulker said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



funny skulker...but...

Our california coast sunset is much prettier than your east coast sunrise....way more dynamic range and the colors are better. didn't you read the latest dxo report on it? : ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

Try Cape Cod – you get both sunrise and sunset over the water…


----------



## Northstar (Aug 3, 2013)

> Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.


[/quote]

jrista, i get your point and I agree with you. participating in this forum should be enjoyable and civil, sometimes it's not and that is unfortunate. 

the problem is that the world is full of people that just love a good debate, like to disagree, like to point it out when others are wrong, enjoy criticizing, and just can't accept another point of view....and humans are emotional. 

and when you can do all of the above without ever looking the other person in the eye, well, the bottom line is..... 

these "debates" will never end....a fact.


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2013)

Northstar said:


> > Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.



jrista, i get your point and I agree with you. participating in this forum should be enjoyable and civil, sometimes it's not and that is unfortunate. 

the problem is that the world is full of people that just love a good debate, like to disagree, like to point it out when others are wrong, enjoy criticizing, and just can't accept another point of view....and humans are emotional. 

and when you can do all of the above without ever looking the other person in the eye, well, the bottom line is..... 

these "debates" will never end....a fact.
[/quote]

Yeah. Sad fact.


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



LOL! +100! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

Northstar said:


> these "debates" will never end....a fact.



I dispute your 'fact'.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 3, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I don't believe Canon would dream of really putting an 80 mp camera into the market just yet. These companies all drip feed technology to the consumer: I'm sure we'll see something in the resign of 35 - 40 first.
> 
> Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector.
> 
> Didn't work.



Didn't Work? I've got the D800 and D800E and they work every day when I'm out in the field. For mostly price reasons I picked up the D7100 and I'm really impressed with the detailed sharpness with the lack of the AA filter and no moire. Since the D800 came out I've been buying all Nikon equipment and not Canon (sounds like the Nikon strategy worked on me). I've really learned a bunch about improved dynamic range and an easier to use menu system as well as not being limited to six my menu items and many, many more custom controls. I will never part with my 14-24mm - it is a dream. 

I'm not giving up on Canon because I know someday they WILL actually deliver a 40+ MP camera so I'm keeping all of my Canon lenses and Canon cameras for now. Canon still has the BEST tilt shift lenses and BEST tilt shift designs. Nikon could really learn something there.

Although I have recently bought some new Canon stuff. The price reduced Canon EOS-M is sure cute and I decided to buy 2 so I could have them in different colors with extra battery and charger -- the cameras are a little more that $125 when you take into account the $200 amount for the lens and the price of the battery and charger. I really like the red one for using around non-photographers. Non-photographers all seem to really like the screen with its bright colors. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe a third rear lens cap camera.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector.
> ...



Unfortunately for Nikon, you don't represent the majority fraction of the dSLR market...


----------



## Northstar (Aug 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > these "debates" will never end....a fact.
> ...



:'(


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Neuro - you are quite correct.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...



Well on this we agree at least ;D.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...
> ...



I feel the same...anyone notice sunrises usually have more pink and blue hues, while sunsets are more "orange"? I'm sure someone will be happy to tell me I'm wrong, but I do notice it...usually I see more sunsets than sunrises, though.


----------



## PVS (Aug 6, 2013)

Life is unfair - kill yourself or get over it.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > > Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.
> ...



Yeah. Sad fact. 
[/quote]

Sad fact? Isn't this your Raison d'être?


----------



## jrista (Aug 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *Canon's best pixel is the tiny 1.84 micron one in the G15.*
> I would love to have such 24x36mm camera / sensor with this tiny pixels regardless Im out in the nature or in the studio



That would be pretty awesome. A FF with that pitch would clock in at 256mp.

These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P 

Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image. To maintain a 10fps rate, we would need an image processor with a data throughput rate of 150Gbit. To support a 30 frame buffer, the camera wold need 64GB of memory.  Ironically, these numbers are not unheard of. A basic desktop gaming computer GPU can process at a much higher rate, and tends to have more memory. By the time FF sensors have pixels this small, one should figure a 150Gbit data path and throughput rate, and 64GB of the necessary memory, would be a no brainer. 

Processing a 2Gb RAW image in Lightroom 10, however...that might be a whole different matter...


----------



## Pi (Aug 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P
> 
> Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.



The numbers of bits should actually drop. Something like 8 bits would suffice then, maybe even less. The RAWs would still be much larger though; after all, you get more information. 

The future higher mp cameras will downsize the RAW files into smaller pseudo-RAW ones, like the ones we have today, in camera. This would require faster chips, indeed. I am not sure that they will reach 1 Gp, but 100mp+ is in the near future. They will make beautiful 20mp files, and everybody will be happy. This forum will be closed because there would be nothing to argue about.


----------



## jrista (Aug 14, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P
> ...



True, you could get away with less bit depth.

Having used mRAW and sRAW quite a bit when I first got my 7D, I am not sure I would want such a thing...even with a Gigapixel sensor. Those pseudo-RAW formats limit your editing latitude. They are like a TIFF, far more than they are like a RAW. I spent a couple months playing with mRAW, and you don't have the same kind of highlight or shadow recovery you do with RAW. When you do any kind of even moderately extreme pushing and pulling in post, the difference becomes clear in an instant. White balance corrections, most color corrections, or any significant tweaking of the tone curve only go so far before you either see the limitations, or start encountering artifacts.

If they do produce gigapixel sensors at some point in the future, I'll happily take my true RAW. ;P


----------



## Pi (Aug 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Having used mRAW and sRAW quite a bit when I first got my 7D, I am not sure I would want such a thing...even with a Gigapixel sensor. Those pseudo-RAW formats limit your editing latitude. They are like a TIFF, far more than they are like a RAW. I spent a couple months playing with mRAW, and you don't have the same kind of highlight or shadow recovery you do with RAW. When you do any kind of even moderately extreme pushing and pulling in post, the difference becomes clear in an instant. White balance corrections, most color corrections, or any significant tweaking of the tone curve only go so far before you either see the limitations, or start encountering artifacts.
> 
> If they do produce gigapixel sensors at some point in the future, I'll happily take my true RAW. ;P



They will just have to do it differently. I believe a good solution exists.

I used mRAW for an event shooting with the 5D2. All shots were indoors, high ISO, meant to be posted on the web. It worked well for me. In good light, the 100% sharpness is the same as at full resolution instead of being slightly better; clearly the demosaicing algorithm is on the softer side to keep noise under control. Some aliasing can occur but that was dependent on the converter, which was strange.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

Pi said:


> This forum will be closed because there would be nothing to argue about.



:O never happen


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.



Only if they don't bother adding any compression. You should be able to losslessly compress that data by at least a factor of 2 without even trying, and probably more than that if your compression scheme properly takes into account the insanely high probability of adjacent pixels having similar values.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Eeehhh, not sure I understand the question ...
That would depend on what I will be shooting, but basically everyone I have (L-series primes and zooms from 16-600mm). I would love better DR for any high contrast lighting conditions, whether it's landscape, wildlife or events. Wouldn't you?


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 14, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce Photography said:
> ...



So what is Mr. "I love Nikon" doing on a Canon board?


----------



## jrista (Aug 14, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.
> ...



Ah, very true. Forgot about compression. That would change filesize, which would still be a whopping 1GB. In-memory load when editing would be several gigs, however...still can't imagine a tool like lightroom handling that.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 17, 2014)

A v.good wildlife photographer has tested a 45MP prototype camera would not say what model but I think that is more realistic than a 75MP camera. Knowing the cameras he already owns I would suggest its the new 1D although he does also have a 7D.


----------

