# High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2014)

```
<p>We have confirmed that a high megapixel camera is coming from Canon in 2015 and it will be around 50mp. The camera will not be an EOS-1 style body, so don’t expect the price to be above $4000.</p>
<p>We have yet to confirm when in 2015 the camera is coming, as the exact date may be unknown to Canon at the time of writing this.</p>
<p>More to come once more is confirmed.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/" target="_blank">Some of what was in this previous post has been confirmed</a> as far as resolution and body style.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 17, 2014)

So let's see, if the sensor is from Sony or not and how it will perform.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2014)

I bet on it being a Canon sensor. My guess is it will have the 5DIII AF System, and probably less than 4 fps.


----------



## weixing (Dec 17, 2014)

Hi,
I bet it won't call "3D"... hmm... unless it can also shoot 3D photo... ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2014)

OK! Where is my 5DMkIV with 22Mp 8fps, 65AFpoint system, 13EV DR at ISO 100 (you see I am reasonable) and 1 stop improvement in high ISO over 5D3 (you see I continue being reasonable ;D ) ??


----------



## xps (Dec 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet on it being a Canon sensor. My guess is it will have the 5DIII AF System, and probably less than 4 fps.



Let´s hope the IQ is on an high level. Then I see many of us buying it.
Sir, an 5DIII AF system would be great. I could live with 4fps (maybe 5-6 I hope)...
Great new news.


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2014)

But who needs this? Nikon made a 'dud' D800 according to many on CR.  

Just kidding. Bring it on! Beat Nikon at its own game. Bit late, but its ok.


----------



## xps (Dec 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> More megapixels is only part of the problem.
> 
> Better megapixels is the more significant problem that Canon faces.
> 
> ...



Sir, I do not think, that Conon will release an "bad-sensored" camerabody. Maybe the IQ is not the the IQ you get from the Nikon D800E or Sony A7 36MP. I hope - it will be on an equal level like the IQ of todays Canon products.
Just think of, what will happen to Canon if this Camera is rubbish? They will never release an under-average product. 
Maybe it took so long to developa an good high MP sensor.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 17, 2014)

NOT a camera for my use. But I rejoice for those who need more megapixel. I'm glad more for shut up those who made mockery of Canon sensors in recent years, but will not buy anyway.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> NOT a camera for my use. But I rejoice for those who need more megapixel. I'm glad more for shut up those who made mockery of Canon sensors in recent years, but will not buy anyway.


Same to me. 
But I am interested what Canon dev. dep. can and will do and what they will need from third party (e.g. sensor?).


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2014)

Landscape AND Studio body?


----------



## Click (Dec 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> NOT a camera for my use. But I rejoice for those who need more megapixel. I'm glad more for shut up those who made mockery of Canon sensors in recent years, but will not buy anyway.



Same here.


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Landscape AND Studio body?
> ...



Your first post has conjecture, your second and reply to my query is a statement. All in all neither of your comments have merit.

My post refers to areas of photography which require great detail. Also a studio body is something Canon has not produced since 2007.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> NOT a camera for my use. But I rejoice for those who need more megapixel. I'm glad more for shut up those who made mockery of Canon sensors in recent years, but will not buy anyway.


Not a camera I'll be buying either, but I'll be following developments with interest!


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I'm glad more for shut up those who made mockery of Canon sensors in recent years, but will not buy anyway.



They'll find something else to bitch about, say DR at base ISO and noise pattern.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 17, 2014)

When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If it is a Canon sensor then my bet is that the IQ will be about the same as 7D2/70D and that the graphs and measurements from DxO will be about the same for all three.


The same DXO score the 7D Mark ii? 

Impossible. :-X The reason the sensors EXMOR 36 megapixel get very high scores on DXO is the down convert to 8 megapixel, which dramatically increases the theoretical DR. :

A Canon sensor with the same technology 7D Mark II, but "stretched" up to 50 megapixel, would get much better score when DXO down convert to 8 megapixel, and the theoretical DR would overcome any camera that Canon has released to date.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 17, 2014)

Perhaps it will just be a repeat of 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtvX5pDxXiE

;D

Language may be NSFW


----------



## zim (Dec 17, 2014)

Excellent news, same as many others not a camera for me but this is going to be very interesting!
I'm assuming that this is not going to be the 5DIV though! that I think would be really bad news.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 17, 2014)

zim said:


> Excellent news, same as many others not a camera for me but this is going to be very interesting!
> I'm assuming that this is not going to be the 5DIV though! that I think would be really bad news.


Canon Rumor's link to the post from November says the new camera will be placed above the 5D line.


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 17, 2014)

Admin - have you excluded the possibility that this is a 23-25 mp DPAF sensor? I believe we were previously led to believe that Canon was launching a high MP APSC sensor (which later turned out to be a 40 million photosite 70D which takes 20 megapixel pictures). Just checking to see if that's the same thing here. If it's a 5D model, the line Canon is known for video, I could absolutely see this being the case.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

It would interest me if it has the following:

A 5DIV like body and price.
At least two, preferably three high-speed modes (pixel binning full-frame [quarter pixels], 1.4-crop [half pixels], 2.0-crop [quarter pixels]). I'm happy with 4fps at full-res, but I'd like 6+ in the other modes.
Dual pixel technology.

And, as a bonus, I'd really, really like a built-in flash.

If you just took a 7D Mark II, same pixels, same body, same everything, and scaled up the sensor, it would be just over 50MP. That would be pretty good for me.

Lee Jay


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 17, 2014)

Please be medium format, please be medium format pleas...


----------



## jasny (Dec 17, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> Admin - have you excluded the possibility that this is a 23-25 mp DPAF sensor? I believe we were previously led to believe that Canon was launching a high MP APSC sensor (which later turned out to be a 40 million photosite 70D which takes 20 megapixel pictures). Just checking to see if that's the same thing here. If it's a 5D model, the line Canon is known for video, I could absolutely see this being the case.



No, it will be "pure" (no DPAF) high res sensor body. Possibly build around Sony sensor (not sure).
From technical point of view it would be better to put that sensor into mirrorless body, but I don't think they are going to do it.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Landscape AND Studio body?
> ...



It is not the number of pixels that will make it a Landscape and Studio body, it will because it is Full Frame.

I thought holding the camera still with a tripod and having a quality lens go hand in hand with Landscape photography. This doesn't sound like an issue to me.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 17, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?


I believe the formula is as follows:

DLA = (Pixel Pitch) * (constant) 
= ((Sensor Area/MegaPixels)^0.5)/(CropFactor) * (constant)
= ((864/50)^0.5)/1) * (1.59)
= f/6.6


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?



Diffraction is always present. So I don't know what "kicks in" means.

These would be about 4 micron pixels. Here's a chart for how diffraction affects MTF.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 17, 2014)

The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law. That same law should indicate just over a doubling of its computing power and given the speed of new memory cards, we should a least expect a camera that could chew 50MP at a slightly higher speed than the 5DIII and thus see at least 6, probably 8 fps. 

As for AF system, there is no reason not to expect something beyond what the 7DII have. And I don´t see why we should´t expect more intelligence and speed in the processing part of it. More AF points, better tracking, better coverage of the image area etc.

The big questions for me though are what we will see in terms of DR, noise and ISO performance. A 5DIII just ramped up to 50MP and the rest same same ... Not tempting enough.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 17, 2014)

xps said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > More megapixels is only part of the problem.
> ...



Wasn't that what the EOS-M was considered to be by many... even Canon themselves(recently)?


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 17, 2014)

The most limiting factor at this stage is processing power. Let's say this new rig DOES do 4fps at 50MP. Fine. That's all you need for portraits and critical work.

Now flip the switch to a 20MP Crop mode and maybe get 8-10 FPS?!?! Now that would be cool. You're cutting back on the data stream so assuming the shutter could keep up (and why not?) that makes a lot of sense. Then if they DO make a new 1DX2 body on top of it, we could see a real beast that can do FF at 10+ fps and 40-50MP with a brand new 120 point AF system or something of the sort.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 17, 2014)

jasny said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Admin - have you excluded the possibility that this is a 23-25 mp DPAF sensor? I believe we were previously led to believe that Canon was launching a high MP APSC sensor (which later turned out to be a 40 million photosite 70D which takes 20 megapixel pictures). Just checking to see if that's the same thing here. If it's a 5D model, the line Canon is known for video, I could absolutely see this being the case.
> ...


Could you explain why the sensor would be better in a MILC, rather than a dSLR (from a technical point of view)?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

lintoni said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



He's probably thinking mirror slap, which is a non-issue except in very extreme situations (it matters when I have my camera mounted to my 2,800mm telescope).


----------



## jasny (Dec 17, 2014)

lintoni said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



1. No mirror = no vibrations = better use of high res.
2. CDAF for more precise autofocus 

High res body surely won't be an action camera, so mirrorless would be just right


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

jasny said:


> 1. No mirror = no vibrations = better use of high res.



This is total baloney. DSLRs have mirror lock up for when that's required, plus shutter actuation does cause vibration in any camera with a shutter.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

jasny said:


> No, it will be "pure" (no DPAF) high res sensor body. Possibly build around Sony sensor (not sure).



And you know this how????

how do you know it won't be a FF sized 7D2? Canon is very good at keeping secrets, yet those of us on rumours group always seem to know the answers.....


----------



## jasny (Dec 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > 1. No mirror = no vibrations = better use of high res.
> ...



There are measures to limit shutter vibration or even eliminate it. Apart from technical details, I like even silent shutter mode in 6d or 70d. More sharp images with longer exposures.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > 1. No mirror = no vibrations = better use of high res.
> ...


This

The Sony A7R is well known for vibrations with its shutter.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Dec 17, 2014)

wockawocka said:


> Please be medium format, please be medium format pleas...



That would be awesome, but would also mean a whole new lens mount and line of glass. I would give Canon a giant pass for their stagnation these days (seriously, no stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 yet to compete with Tamron?!) if its because they're going all in on the MF market.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet on it being a Canon sensor. My guess is it will have the 5DIII AF System, and probably less than 4 fps.



Huh? Not 14 fps? All the pundits will say what a crap camera is.... then again, must don't take time to realize that 4 fps on a 50 MP camera is probably around 250 MP/second depending on actual exposure data captured or around 8 - 10 fps for a camera like the 5d MK III.

A 50 that does 4 FPS is fine by me


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 17, 2014)

It always nice to see CR3. At this moment in my life, I just don't see myself owing 50MP camera. I'm sure there plenty shooters out there are in need for high MP body. Good days are ahead of us....


----------



## jasny (Dec 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > No, it will be "pure" (no DPAF) high res sensor body. Possibly build around Sony sensor (not sure).
> ...


Guess only. Canon is probably struggling a little bit with Dual Pixel at the moment ( example: no DPAF 1080/60 in 7d2). One will need processing power comparable to 6 x DIGiC 6 inside high res FF body. And manufacturing high res DPAF sensor also won't be cheap.
Well, I do not underestimate Canon capabilities. They are surely able to create such monster. But who is gonna pay for that?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet on it being a Canon sensor. My guess is it will have the 5DIII AF System, and probably less than 4 fps.



I think I speak for everyone when I say that I hope it has no less then 14 stops of noise free DR...so the DR fights can stop


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I bet on it being a Canon sensor. My guess is it will have the 5DIII AF System, and probably less than 4 fps.
> ...



Yes, I agree. The best application for extremely good base ISO DR is to make those that think that is an important parameter shut up.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

jasny said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jasny said:
> ...


My guesses have been "somewhat less than accurate"  It is very hard to know where a secretive company is going....

They appear to be moving away from the old 500nm production fab, so any new sensor would presumably be on the 180nm run, possibly the same pixel size as the 7D2... they seem to have the bugs out... I just can't see them designing a new "normal" sensor, but that's my guess, and as I said above, my guesses have been somewhat less than accurate.

I wonder how long before GPU style hardware is going to emerge in the Canon (and Sony, Nikon, etc) bodies... more computing power per watt and with a CPU/GPU computing architecture one could use the appropriate combination of algorithms and hardware to drastically speed things up... your 6Xdigic6 computing power could be easily obtained and possibly at lower power..... oh well, time will tell....


----------



## justsomedude (Dec 17, 2014)

50MP... 

gimmeh! 8)


----------



## chauncey (Dec 17, 2014)

Yeah right...I'll believe it when it's in my hot little hand...as I want it to be!


----------



## jasny (Dec 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> They appear to be moving away from the old 500nm production fab, so any new sensor would presumably be on the 180nm run, possibly the same pixel size as the 7D2... they seem to have the bugs out... I just can't see them designing a new "normal" sensor, but that's my guess, and as I said above, my guesses have been somewhat less than accurate.



Still there is no definite proof for Canon using new fab process for APS-C/FF. And using new process will (probably) make 46Mpix FF sensor even more expensive…



Don Haines said:


> I wonder how long before GPU style hardware is going to emerge in the Canon (and Sony, Nikon, etc) bodies... more computing power per watt and with a CPU/GPU computing architecture one could use the appropriate combination of algorithms and hardware to drastically speed things up... your 6Xdigic6 computing power could be easily obtained and possibly at lower power..... oh well, time will tell....



Yes, theoreticaly it's not a problem. But will also require substantial investment (completely new architecture for sensors) and I'm not sure it is right time for that...


----------



## lucuias (Dec 17, 2014)

All I wish canon came with a camera with higher dynamic range sensor.I don't need high resolution.


----------



## RGF (Dec 17, 2014)

lucuias said:


> All I wish canon came with a camera with higher dynamic range sensor.I don't need high resolution.



Agree on increase in DR, modest increase in resolution would be nice but not as important as increase in DR.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

jasny said:


> Still there is no definite proof for Canon using new fab process for APS-C/FF. And using new process will (probably) make 46Mpix FF sensor even more expensive…



There is some evidence that something has changed. The sensor in the 7DII has about 10% higher QE and about an order of magnitude lower dark current than any previous Canon sensor.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 17, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law. That same law should indicate just over a doubling of its computing power and given the speed of new memory cards, we should a least expect a camera that could chew 50MP at a slightly higher speed than the 5DIII and thus see at least 6, probably 8 fps.



If it was following Moore's law and we have a period of 36 months between releases, then we'd expect to see a ~88MP camera, not a ~44MP camera if we also assume that pixel count scales like transistor count.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Sir, I do not think, that Conon will release an "bad-sensored" camerabody. Maybe the IQ is not the the IQ you get from the Nikon D800E or Sony A7 36MP. I hope - it will be on an equal level like the IQ of todays Canon products.
> ...



EOS-M was only under-average on AF _*...and corporate support of the basic idea*_. The IQ is actually quite good and I think APS-C is not a terrible call to split the difference between the mirrorless world that wants everything made smaller and the mirrorless world that wants best possible IQ. They clearly need products for both camps, but APS-C is not a terrible starting point and the EOS-M could have been successful as a result.

But I still don't think Canon has _launched_ a mirrorless system until they give us a @#$%ing EVF and more than _*two*_ native lenses to choose from at B&H. The embarrassment of the EOS-M is not the product so much as Canon pushing a ship in flames out of port with a vague intention to 'put that fire out soon'.

- A


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Dec 17, 2014)

This is definitely a camera I would be interested in for my studio.
I've been looking at a lot of Medium Format systems for the past few months and have been disappointed with the trade-offs of upgrading to a MF system. If I can get close to MF resolution but still have the benefits of 35mm system like familiar ergonomics, light weight, weather sealing, fast AF with multiple points, etc... I'm sold.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> It always nice to see CR3. At this moment in my life, I just don't see myself owing 50MP camera. I'm sure there plenty shooters out there are in need for high MP body. Good days are ahead of us....



I love seeing CR3's as well, Dylan. 

But a CR3 for 'FF + not gripped + 50 MP + 2015' is not far off from saying "Canon is working on new products for the future [CR3]". I really need just one more level of detail to get excited about this, something like any one of these things: 


The event it will likely be announced at
Who is making the sensor
Is this a camera for landscapers or studio folks
it will be new sensor tech to dramatically increase low ISO DR

I love this site and think they have a good track record in a world rumor mongers who often swing and miss, but this isn't a rumor so much as a broad read on what's coming. I'll get excited at that _next_ level of detail. 

- A


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 17, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law.


Camera resolution has historically increased _way_ slower than Moore's law. Canon 10D had 6.3 MP in 2003. Following Moore's law, we should have GP-cameras by now. This is the reason I find complaints about too many MPs due to limited computer resources exaggerated. Relatively speaking, we have more than 50x more computer performance (memory, storage, GFLOPS...) per MP than we had in 2003.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > xps said:
> ...



That 22mm pancake is one hell of a lens.


----------



## The Flasher (Dec 17, 2014)

No AA filter, dual, identical card slots please, and if it's aimed at the studio, articulating touch screen as well. 

I'd also love a button that turns on the on-screen client-hypnosis swirl wheel - it would be a battery drain so I'd only use it on problem clients.

Cheers.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Dec 17, 2014)

DarkKnightNine said:


> The last time I remember them doing anything that significant was adding radio to the 600EX-RT Flashes, but even that was half-assed because they took away optical IR for no particular reason.



I think the 600EX has both radio and IR.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But I still don't think Canon has _launched_ a mirrorless system until they give us a @#$%ing EVF and more than _*two*_ native lenses to choose from at B&H. The embarrassment of the EOS-M is not the product so much as Canon pushing a ship in flames out of port with a vague intention to 'put that fire out soon'.
> ...



I'll edit your sentence above. : I stand behind the original argument.

I agree with you completely (it's a great lens), but that's like enjoying your new car... that doesn't have brakes or any gears above second. EOS-M is super-high IQ point and shoot _that happens to have a removable lens mount for some reason_. But until the EVF and native EF-M glass comes forward, it's DOA competitively as a standalone system.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jasny said:
> 
> 
> > Still there is no definite proof for Canon using new fab process for APS-C/FF. And using new process will (probably) make 46Mpix FF sensor even more expensive…
> ...


EXACTLY!!!!
Finer lithography is the most likely reason for the increased quantum efficiency... 
your 4 micron pixels with a 500nm process has 76 percent usable area...
your 4 micron pixels with a 180nm process and DPAF has 87 percent usable area...

There's your 10 percent gain.... 

Finer lithography means less heat and there's your improvement in dark current ( or at least some of it)


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

The Flasher said:


> No AA filter, dual, identical card slots please, and if it's aimed at the studio, articulating touch screen as well.



No AA filter = no sale.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > No AA filter, dual, identical card slots please, and if it's aimed at the studio, articulating touch screen as well.
> ...



Just curious how polarizing the AA filter is for the various camps. I really don't understand it as a feature / value proposition.

AA filter = a positive for folks shooting video, right? Something to do with moire?

No-AA filter = a positive for detail / sharpness / resolution junkies, right? Landscapers and... macro folks, perhaps?

(The above is my terrible understanding of this presented as a skeleton for more knowledgable folks to beat up / rearrange for my betterment).

- A


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Dec 17, 2014)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> DarkKnightNine said:
> 
> 
> > The last time I remember them doing anything that significant was adding radio to the 600EX-RT Flashes, but even that was half-assed because they took away optical IR for no particular reason.
> ...




I'm pretty sure they DO NOT and I know for a fact that the ST-E3-RT Transmitter DOES NOT. They can be fired optically with another 600EX-RT but not optically with anything else. Normally this isn't a problem, but I sometimes mix my Profoto strobes with Speedlites on location and it presents it's challenges. Fortunately Profotos do fire optically when they see my Speedlites fire, but it would be nice to fire everything from my Profoto remote rather than relying on my Speedlites to fire my studio strobes. However at this point we are getting off subject, so let's get back to that new 50MP goodie shall we?


----------



## cnardo (Dec 17, 2014)

Well for me... I have an SL1 on my belt, a 7D2 for sports/wildlife/BIF and a 5D3 for landscapes/portraits/low light and everything else.... not clear to me why I would buy a 50MP camera (just landscapes???)

Some of my buddies that shoot the Nikon have complained about their 36MP camera in that their Computer bogs down with so much info (think Raw file size) ... almost all have had to then go out and buy bigger/faster computers for PP and storage! Something else to consider!


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Errr... of the four EF-M lenses we get to choose from... (11-22, 18-55, 22, 55-200)


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Dec 17, 2014)

I hope it's a full frame.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

cnardo said:


> Well for me... I have an SL1 on my belt, a 7D2 for sports/wildlife/BIF and a 5D3 for landscapes/portraits/low light and everything else.... not clear to me why I would buy a 50MP camera (just landscapes???)
> 
> Some of my buddies that shoot the Nikon have complained about their 36MP camera in that their Computer bogs down with so much info (think Raw file size) ... almost all have had to then go out and buy bigger/faster computers for PP and storage! Something else to consider!



Everyone said that would happen when the D800 was announced and sure enough, it happened. But people used it and said "this is worth getting a faster computer and a bigger hard drive." Nikon of course now has the FrankeNikon 24 MP D750 which is being viewed as a pretty well put together FF rig without the burden of the huge files. As inventory and obsolescence-insane having many non-gripped FF bodies is, it lets Nikon scratch some different userbases itches really hard -- one high resolution monster, one higher burst with a tilty/flippy screen, one more vanilla for cost, perhaps a nearly-dedicated video rig like the a7S someday, etc.

But back to your point -- I think _if the sensor is worth it_ (interpret that as you will), people will cope and get the hardware they need to manage it. I imagine this same discussion happened when Canon offered 21.1 MP bodies years ago, right?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



Not available where I live (in the US), at least not at B&H. Only the 22 prime and 18-55 are available there. I seem to recall Canon formally shooting itself in the foot by not offering some EF-M lenses stateside because we (figuratively) gave them the finger when EOS-M was released and we didn't buy that many of them.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> cnardo said:
> 
> 
> > Well for me... I have an SL1 on my belt, a 7D2 for sports/wildlife/BIF and a 5D3 for landscapes/portraits/low light and everything else.... not clear to me why I would buy a 50MP camera (just landscapes???)
> ...


I agree....

Spending $3000 to $4000 on a camera and not spending $200 on a hard drive seems like an unlikely pairing....


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Dec 17, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> I hope it's a full frame.




FF is a must if I were considering this camera. I couldn't image getting decent performance from 50MP squeezed onto an APS-C sized sensor. Larger than FF would be a very welcomed surprise that would have me crying with tears of joy.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > cnardo said:
> ...



I agree - in my case, I keep four copies, two on laptop drives (on laptops) and two on external drives (one on-site, one off-site). So, 2TB of storage would cost me about $500, and 50MP raw files would burn that every 20,000 shots or so (so, about a year for me).


----------



## The Flasher (Dec 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The Flasher said:
> ...




High MP have less moiree issues as there's less interpolation which causes it. In advertising photography the more MP the better, as art directors/clients end up cropping into images in order to satisfy layout - we always shoot loose to accommodate this. Having shot with a demo a7r I can tell you that with 36MP, no AA and the right lens the sharpness, resolution and DR are outstanding. All of my Canon bodies go mushy when cropped in. There are other issues with the a7r but as an example of sensor performance it's spot on.

No AA filter = Definite sale


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

DarkKnightNine said:


> Sportsgal501 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope it's a full frame.
> ...



I hate to throw the gauntlet down, but I think it _has_ to be FF. APS-C just got their once-every-five-years flagship, and now FF (typically a 3-4 year cycle according to Northlight's timelines) gets it's turn.

MF would be stellar but Canon is choking at supporting so many mounts today as it is, and MF means a new mount and new glass, right?

And if a new mount _is_ going to happen, I'd bet the farm it would be for FF mirrorless and not for MF. The FF market is so much larger that I cannot see Canon letting the A7 brand run riot unopposed for much longer.

- A


----------



## Bruce Photography (Dec 17, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law. That same law should indicate just over a doubling of its computing power and given the speed of new memory cards, we should a least expect a camera that could chew 50MP at a slightly higher speed than the 5DIII and thus see at least 6, probably 8 fps.
> 
> As for AF system, there is no reason not to expect something beyond what the 7DII have. And I don´t see why we should´t expect more intelligence and speed in the processing part of it. More AF points, better tracking, better coverage of the image area etc.
> 
> The big questions for me though are what we will see in terms of DR, noise and ISO performance. A 5DIII just ramped up to 50MP and the rest same same ... Not tempting enough.


You have made a good point about the 5DIII birthday. I was surprised when Canon came up with the 7D2 without a significant sensor jump. However with Lexar making their 2000X SD cards UH3, perhaps in the next year (or 2), Canon may feel that it is time to have a high MP sensor with dual processors to give a 6FPS rate. If so and if they had even image quality that I see from the Sony sensors in the form of the D810, I will buy Canon once again. I have missed using my great Canon tilt shift lenses as well as my 500mm supertele. 

I know it is too early to ask such a question, but... When will this announcement be and does this 2015 mean delivery this year or sometime in 2016? It seems to me that at least six months can lapse between the announcement and actual in stock status at B&H. I'm also wondering if Nikon will just be sleeping all the time that Canon will be "developing."


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> You have made a good point about the 5DIII birthday. I was surprised when Canon came up with the 7D2 without a significant sensor jump. However with Lexar making their 2000X SD cards UH3, perhaps in the next year (or 2), Canon may feel that it is time to have a high MP sensor with dual processors to give a 6FPS rate.



Highly doubt you'll see much more than 4 FPS from any cameras wielding the next gen of high MP sensors in the near future. The Sony rumor is a 46 MP sensor is coming, and their folks aren't expecting a high frame rate at first either.

I think the cadence would be:

2015 -- High MP FF rig with modest frame rate, say 4 FPS
2016 -- Same sensor with a souped up processor / buffer / card throughput and (what) 6-8 fps?

The missing bit for me is what Canon will do with another FF rig due for an upgrade -- the 1DX. It was supposed to be the merging of the studio 1Ds line and the sports/wildlife 1D4 line, and it was decent at that task. I say decent in that it's a stellar camera, but each camp had one hand behind it's back -- studio/landscape wanted more resolution and sports wanted APS-H reach.

But _now_, a new 50 MP FF rig cannot possibly push out anything near the 12-14 fps the 1DX can now (not at full res at least). So Canon is stuck with a difficult choice here:


Split the 1DX back into its two camps and offer two new 1D bodies: one that is high res / low FPS for studio or landscape work and another with a different lower-res sensor that maintains a high burst for sports/wildlife
Only offer a studio/landscape high MP body and tell sports/wildlife guys to keep using their 1DX's (or possibly their 7D2's) until throughput improves down the road
Pull a 'sort-of-Nikon' and offer one body that is full res for studio/landscape but at the flick of a switch is a some-sort-of-crop high FPS beast. APS-H fanboys can stop spooning with their 1D4's at night and move on with their lives.

All of those decisions have tradeoffs. Not sure which is best.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Dec 17, 2014)

What ahsanford said. I would LOVE to see a high-resolution, high-dynamic-range FF body for landscape shooting. I don't care about video, high stills frame rate, fancy autofocus. Right now I am very happy with my 6D, but would like the additional DR and resolution offered by the Nikon D810 sensor. Some of the MF MA film era legacy (literally) lenses I use would have to be upgraded, no doubt, but I am in the process of doing so anyway. AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 55 f/3.5 1:2 macro and 105 f/2.5 would become Sigma Art 50 and maybe the Canon 100 2.8L IS macro (I have and really like the 180 f/3.5L macro, but it is heavy on a long hike with a bag of other lenses).


----------



## bljoe (Dec 17, 2014)

So if not a 1D series, I guess we may be able to expect either the 5D MK4 , or a 5Ds "studio".

It will definitely be a Canon sensor, and I cant wait to see what they have in store for us. I will love the additional play room and detail with the 50mp. I seen a few mention its benefits to be in scenic shooting, however I see big benefits in fashion work myself. Hopefully we do get a good improvement in noise levels and dynamic range. Personally I don't care if the camera goes over 6400-12,800 ISO max, if it's amazing IQ !!!!

What's with the couple posts of people complaining about how hard it is for their computers to handle large RAW files, like it's a problem with high MP cameras, that's not a camera problem, buy or build a better computer


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

The Flasher said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You don't know what you're talking about. Interpolation has nothing to do with it.

Read up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Pay special attention to the terms "bandlimited" and "perfect reconstruction" and ask yourself how that can be achieved.

No AA filter = false detail, artifacts and other nasties.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The Flasher said:
> ...



No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices). Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Highly doubt you'll see much more than 4 FPS from any cameras wielding the next gen of high MP sensors in the near future.


The 7DII is chewing 20,2MP at 10fps and its buffer handles an infinite number of jpegs and about 30 RAW. Which translates to 4 fps and 12-13 RAWs in 50MP terms. But that is if a new camera is a copy of the 7DII for every thing else but resolution. Is that very likely? The 50MP camera comes a year later, will cost more and can justify more computing power, can use faster memory cards etc. etc.

If this camera includes a sensor that is a D810 basher, with even better DR, noise and ISO performance, then 4fps may be enough. But if it is merely a 50MP "7DII" sensor, it needs to include some other jaw dropping functionality, of which buffer size and fps are two.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

NancyP said:


> What ahsanford said. I would LOVE to see a high-resolution, high-dynamic-range FF body for landscape shooting. I don't care about video, high stills frame rate, fancy autofocus. Right now I am very happy with my 6D, but would like the additional DR and resolution offered by the Nikon D810 sensor. Some of the MF MA film era legacy (literally) lenses I use would have to be upgraded, no doubt, but I am in the process of doing so anyway. AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 55 f/3.5 1:2 macro and 105 f/2.5 would become Sigma Art 50 and maybe the Canon 100 2.8L IS macro (I have and really like the 180 f/3.5L macro, but it is heavy on a long hike with a bag of other lenses).



Canon landscapers almost exclusively have an 'out' to get a D8_0 sensor without waiting or converting. Since you don't need AF and can use Liveview, you can get an a7R, adapt your Canon glass to it with a fairly inexpensive adaptor ring and go to town.

No need to convert. No need to wait. Just $2200 will get you the IQ you want as a temporizing 'fix' until Canon delivers the sensor you need. I've not done this myself, and I'm not calling it a perfect solution by any stretch, but others have tried this successfully.

- A


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?
> ...



I meant "kick-in" like when does diffraction softening become so much that we hit the point of diminishing returns? There has to be a point where just cramming more pixels on a sensor is not going to help right?

I would love a higher res 35mm digital camera from Canon as I shoot small products (like makeup), and need to blow them up to poster sizes, so I'm all for it.

I'm not a tech guy, so I'm truly asking.


----------



## Cosmicbug (Dec 17, 2014)

I see no point in the 'Do we need so many megapixels?' debate.
It is the future , along with more FPS, faster AF, improved video and new features yet to be invented.
It all has to start somewhere, however meaningless it may seem today ( i bet most of us can remember the early high end DSLRs and their lack of performance compared to the best film cameras.) 
I say, 'Bring it on Canon' . I am a Canon system user and whatever they produce will be good ( even if their DR is somewhat lacking with respect to competitors) and I will find use for it.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 17, 2014)

There are many articles about the AA filter out there, so it's use is no mystery. It is there to reduce moire, but it's drawbacks are less detail, sharpness and lower resolution. That is why the newer high MP cameras have no filter. Put the AA filter back on, and you lose the advantages of the higher MP count. Pretty simple really.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 17, 2014)

dak723 said:


> There are many articles about the AA filter out there, so it's use is no mystery. It is there to reduce moire, but it's drawbacks are less detail, sharpness and lower resolution. That is why the newer high MP cameras have no filter. Put the AA filter back on, and you lose the advantages of the higher MP count. Pretty simple really.



I'm sorry, but NO.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

dak723 said:


> There are many articles about the AA filter out there, so it's use is no mystery. It is there to reduce moire, but it's drawbacks are less detail, sharpness and lower resolution. That is why the newer high MP cameras have no filter. Put the AA filter back on, and you lose the advantages of the higher MP count. Pretty simple really.



Yeah...that's pretty much all BS. There's just a hint of truth in there, barely.

An quality AA filter, with modern processing, reduces resolving power by just under 10%. However, removing the AA filter pollutes the entire spectrum with false information from beyond the spacial resolution of the sampled system.

So, which do you want? Do you want slightly lower resolution (10% is basically undetectable by eye) or a total inability to trust any of the image information you do get?

Most of the supposed increased detail from a camera that lacks an AA filter is just false detail being mistaken as actual detail by the viewer.

Ask yourself this question. If an AA filter did nothing but decrease image quality, why would camera makes put it into a camera thereby costing themselves money and buying nothing but lower image quality rankings?

The answer is simple - they don't. An expensive camera like the 7DII (which has the same size pixels as a hypothetical 50MP full-frame camera) has an AA filter because it is necessary to get the best possible image quality.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > There are many articles about the AA filter out there, so it's use is no mystery. It is there to reduce moire, but it's drawbacks are less detail, sharpness and lower resolution. That is why the newer high MP cameras have no filter. Put the AA filter back on, and you lose the advantages of the higher MP count. Pretty simple really.
> ...



[Disclaimer to everyone: I am not of an opinion on AA, so save the daggers for someone who is... If you're a jerk, that is. (Didn't mean to presume)]

Doesn't the Nikon D800 / D800E / D810 give us a canary in the mine to suss out how real / not real the upside of pulling the AA filter is?

I thought -- again, not well read on this -- that:

The D800 had an AA filter
The D800E 'bypassed' the AA filter but it was still there? (Did I get that right?)
The D810 does not have an AA filter

Three sensors, all 36 MP, that take the same lenses on the same mount. Has anyone stacked these up head to head to sort out what the real value is? Did sharpness improve? Did moire get worse? 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

Cosmicbug said:


> I see no point in the 'Do we need so many megapixels?' debate.



On a related note, I remember when 3 megapixels was high megapixel and people slammed it because no display could show that many pixels.....


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



Yes. That point, for the original 7D, is at about f/18-f/20. In other words, if you are shooting at f/18 to f/20, the 7D's sensor is extracting all the detail available and smaller pixels would do nothing.

I'm ignoring "diminishing returns" because the returns are diminishing all the way up (see the chart - it's a curve). So, you can draw any point you want to and call it "the point of diminishing returns".


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Ask yourself this question. If an AA filter did nothing but decrease image quality, why would camera makes put it into a camera thereby costing themselves money and buying nothing but lower image quality rankings?
> 
> The answer is simple - they don't. An expensive camera like the 7DII (which has the same size pixels as a hypothetical 50MP full-frame camera) has an AA filter because it is necessary to get the best possible image quality.



OK Lee..... this is your last warning about using common sense and logic in an emotional argument 

and seriously, I agree!


----------



## Berowne (Dec 17, 2014)

50 Mp FF without AA, nice. But what about Glass? Will the current Lenses deliver enough Resolution for such a Sensor? 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

Berowne said:


> 50 Mp FF without AA, nice. But what about Glass? Will the current Lenses deliver enough Resolution for such a Sensor?



I don't know, do any lenses work on the 70D or 7D2? They have the same pixel density.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 17, 2014)

DarkKnightNine said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > DarkKnightNine said:
> ...



I'm no flash expert, but I've fired a remote 600EX-RT with a camera-mounted 90EX. I assume that's optically?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

The Flasher said:


> In practical terms the a7r wipes the floor with any Canon sensor on the market today. This is from resolution and perceived point of view.



Well, it has more pixels so, duh?



> My point was that if the a7R looks as good as it does next to my 6D resolution and sharpness-wise then it gets my money. I don't give a S___ about Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem lol.



You should - it's the basis of the entire digital world.



> Both the d810 and A7r and now the d750 have the AA blur removed, look clearer and sharper without moiree. That's where my money will go, Canon failing to match that benchmark.



And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.

A 50MP with an AA filter will wipe the floor with a 36MP with no AA filter, and that's the right way to do it - more pixels with proper sampling rather than fewer pixels with lousy sampling.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 17, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I'm no flash expert, but I've fired a remote 600EX-RT with a camera-mounted 90EX. I assume that's optically?



Yup, Canon was kind enough to have the 90ex work as optical master, just as the pop-up flashes ... while the much more expensive 430ex2 and similar, well, kind of miss it.



Lee Jay said:


> No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices). Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.



Not exactly, but you should really know what you're going to shoot and if you can make use of the (tiny) difference. See the Internet photog review authority on that on the d810, "missing" both the aa filter *and* the optical low pass filter: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm


----------



## gdanmitchell (Dec 17, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?



There is exactly the same amount of diffraction in a print of a given size from a 12 MP camera and a 50 MP camera with the same size sensor. Higher photo site density does not create any diffraction problem whatsoever. Diffraction is an optical phenomenon, not a sensor phenomenon. The news is entirely good news.

At the same smaller apertures you might shoot on your current camera, you will get equal resolution from the higher MP body to the extent that it affected by things related to diffraction. At some larger apertures, depending on what lens you use, you might get a bit better resolution on the higher MP body.

In addition, there is that potential for smoother gradients, smaller "grain" and pixelation, etc.


----------



## The Flasher (Dec 17, 2014)

> And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.



I see it better shadow detail, sharper images, better colour rendition.



> A 50MP with an AA filter will wipe the floor with a 36MP with no AA filter, and that's the right way to do it - more pixels with proper sampling rather than fewer pixels with lousy sampling.



Fantastic. Until then the sensor with jaggies and false detail wins.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 17, 2014)

The Flasher said:


> > And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the ONLY reason, the ONLY single factor to your "better shadow detail, sharper images, better colour rendition", is because of the AA filter or lack of one?

By the way, "colour rendition" in digital photography doesn't mean anything at all in RAW.

Nothing personal at all, I just don't understand your statement. That's all.


----------



## Giovanni (Dec 17, 2014)

gdanmitchell said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?
> ...





There are many who do not understand what diffraction is and that more sensor resolution is never a bad thing.
If Canon would increased the resolution it will also lead to better dynamic range.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 17, 2014)

Giovanni said:


> gdanmitchell said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



Increased resolution causes increased DR? ???


----------



## Giovanni (Dec 17, 2014)

yes , and it is regarding Canon sensor layout and read out, more Mp means also higher dynamic range due lower read out noise from the individual pixel, more Mp is a easy way to increase Canons dynamic range, but the analog signal path way can never be as short as, for example in the Exmor and it depends on the early AD conversion in Sony lay out


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Increased resolution causes increased DR? ???



It does if you believe in DXO and that you can "normalize" photos....

Take a 32 megapixel image shot with 12 stops of DR

Normalize it to 16Mpixels and 13 stops...
or 8Mpixels and 14 stops...

Then you say how much better it is than another camera which only has a native DR of 12 1/2 stops....

Once you can do that, you are ready to buy snake oil from DXO...


----------



## Giovanni (Dec 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Increased resolution causes increased DR? ???
> ...



no, take a look at the answer above, I'm not so fast and English is not my native language


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 17, 2014)

Giovanni said:


> yes , and it is regarding Canon sensor layout and read out, more Mp means also higher dynamic range due lower read out noise from the individual pixel, more Mp is a easy way to increase Canons dynamic range, but the analog signal path way can never be as short as, for example in the Exmor and it depends on the early AD conversion in Sony lay out



In other words, no. There are many other factors you mention above. Just increasing sensor resolution alone isn't going to absolutely increase DR.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 17, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Just increasing sensor resolution alone isn't going to absolutely increase DR.



Looking at the Nikon specs, it rather seems including res *decreases* dr. Lucky us Canon shooters as we know you don't need more than the current dynamic range to shoot 99% of the scenes if you expose properly.

http://sensorgen.info/NikonD610.html
http://sensorgen.info/NikonD810.html


----------



## The Flasher (Dec 17, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > > And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.
> ...



No offence taken.

Can we agree the AA filter on current Canon sensors blurs the image on pixel level? Well that blur is perceptible when zoomed in at 100% when comparing the same shot, same lens different cameras (in my experiment a 6D vs A7R). This is not debatable. Shadow detail and DR (I called it colour rendition mistakenly) of the Sony sensor are clearly not the results of AA filter removal. Hope that clears it up.

My point was that I need resolution and sharpness on par with what the Sony A7r offers. If canon can deliver this in 2015, AA or no AA, then that's what I'll be getting.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 17, 2014)

Oh sure, one week after I buy a new body this happens. Life is such a box of chocolates.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

The Flasher said:


> Can we agree the AA filter on current Canon sensors blurs the image on pixel level? Well that blur is perceptible when zoomed in at 100% when comparing the same shot, same lens different cameras (in my experiment a 6D vs A7R). This is not debatable. Shadow detail and DR (I called it colour rendition mistakenly) of the Sony sensor are clearly not the results of AA filter removal. Hope that clears it up.
> 
> My point was that I need resolution and sharpness on par with what the Sony A7r offers. If canon can deliver this in 2015, AA or no AA, then that's what I'll be getting.



(This is the non-affiliated guy again)

Can we at least agree that we are using _words_ to offer an opinion on an _image-quality_ related metric? How about some pictures to suss this out as a group?

D800 vs. D800E vs. D810 --> someone has to have this comparison. 

Other than Ken Rockwell.

Who did this.

Ken Rockwell did exactly this.

DON'T MAKE ME LINK KEN ROCKWELL! _There must be another way._ Find me other data, people. 

- A


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 17, 2014)

The Flasher said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The Flasher said:
> ...



Thank you.

Brett


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm just going to put this down here and walk away slowly. I offer no opinion here.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2014-07-29-dslrs/sharpness.htm
(D810 vs. D800E)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800/vs-d800e.htm
(D800E vs. D800)

My hard drive is buckling and hissing right now at having to go his site. Thanks a lot, people. 

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 17, 2014)

Morgoth said:


> the AA filter is pretty much obsolet unless you shoot fashion (lots of fine fabrics).



An f/2.8 lens is capable of proving diffraction-limited images to Bayer pixels that are less than 1 micron across. The actual math works out that a diffraction-limited f/2.8 lens doesn't need an AA filter when your full-frame sensor is 1.5 gigapixels.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 17, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?


 
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 17, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?
> ...



Good read, thank you Mt. Spokane. That's a level of nerdy I can cope with.

That site also has a nice intro to ND Grads section that I've used. 

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



Just to warn you, some of the information on that page is misleading and/or wrong.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


 
Enlighten us! I'm always willing to learn something new, as long as it isn't arguing over word meanings.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Enlighten us! I'm always willing to learn something new, as long as it isn't arguing over word meanings.



His calculations assume there's no AA filter, no Bayer mask, and that the pixels are all infinitely small. His limit calculator assumes (I think) MTF50 is a reasonable cutoff. Most people would choose MTF9 or smaller.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Dec 18, 2014)

All I need now is this new high MP camera, a fisheye, and the ability to crop, right? ;D

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 18, 2014)

I hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor in full frame. 20MP*1.6*1.6
Personally that would do nothing for me. No improved low ISO DR. The reach is the same as the 7D2 and the 7D2 would surely cost less and deliver far more fps. At 50MP it might not hit the critical 6fps of the 5D3. So it wouldn't improve DR, would have reach but no speed, all it would do it proved tons of MP, which is nice. But I'd rather have more fps and DR than just a ton of MP.

If it does 50MP at 6fps, has Exmor DR, then wow though.
And if it has good video too,10bits and real true not mushed up waxy 4k then wow .

One would hope it will have crop modes instead of the IMO largely useless sRAW,mRAW which aren't even really true RAW so then you could have 20MP APS-C and hopefully at least that could be drive at 6fp and for all those distant bird shots do you really want to have to deal with and store 30MP of useless borders when a crop mode could save you all of that mess?


----------



## LovePhotography (Dec 18, 2014)

A 6D with >40MP, faster focus and faster fps would be fine with me. I'd buy it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> More megapixels is only part of the problem.
> 
> Better megapixels is the more significant problem that Canon faces.
> 
> If it simple scales up any of its current APS-C sensors to full frame then it won't address the megapixel quality problem.



Yeah if it is just the 7D2 sensor x1.6x1.6 and 4fps and same old same old video, forget it for me.

It would have great reach, but so does the 7D2 for a lot less and with tons better fps and way less wasted space around the edges for wildlife. It wouldn't compete, in my mind, with D810/A7R for landscape since I'd rather 36MP and lots of DR than 50MP and same old same old. So it would be a high reach, high detail but sluggish sloth with old school low ISO DR. That might do it for a few, but for sure not me.

I'd sooner get a 7D2 even. (but would get a bunch of Sony stuff to add to my 5D3 (unless swapped that for a 7D2) or maybe just go Nikon out and out with a7sII added on or something)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2014)

Remember that 120 megapixel APS-H sensor....
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/120_megapixel_apsh_format_cmos_sensor.do


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 18, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> A Canon sensor with the same technology 7D Mark II, but "stretched" up to 50 megapixel, would get much better score when DXO down convert to 8 megapixel, and the theoretical DR would overcome any camera that Canon has released to date.



nope, that's not how DR from Canon sensors scales, it's about the same at any scale


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 18, 2014)

jasny said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > jasny said:
> ...



just go to liveview mode

(and the mirroless a7r has more vibration than 5D3 does in liveview silent mode 2)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 18, 2014)

dak723 said:


> There are many articles about the AA filter out there, so it's use is no mystery. It is there to reduce moire, but it's drawbacks are less detail, sharpness and lower resolution. That is why the newer high MP cameras have no filter. Put the AA filter back on, and you lose the advantages of the higher MP count. Pretty simple really.



no, almost everything you wrote there is incorrect


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> A 6D with >40MP, faster focus and faster fps would be fine with me. I'd buy it.



+1 that'd make a very nice landscape camera


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 18, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Giovanni said:
> 
> 
> > yes , and it is regarding Canon sensor layout and read out, more Mp means also higher dynamic range due lower read out noise from the individual pixel, more Mp is a easy way to increase Canons dynamic range, but the analog signal path way can never be as short as, for example in the Exmor and it depends on the early AD conversion in Sony lay out
> ...



Taking current type Canon tech going to more MP tends to very, very slowly lower SNR and very, very slowly increase DR. The gains in DR going from 23MP to 50MP won't be a whole lot and SNR loss won't be a whole lot. In more extremes like 8MP vs 250MP it can matter more.


----------



## The Flasher (Dec 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > Can we at least agree that we are using _words_ to offer an opinion on an _image-quality_ related metric? How about some pictures to suss this out as a group?
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > A Canon sensor with the same technology 7D Mark II, but "stretched" up to 50 megapixel, would get much better score when DXO down convert to 8 megapixel, and the theoretical DR would overcome any camera that Canon has released to date.
> ...


I don't think he is talking about real scaling..... he specifically said DXO down convert, which increases DR on non-Canon sensors and decreases it with Canon sensors


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 18, 2014)

Some people are excited, some are denouncing this. One thing is for certain: this is a huge buzz that will not just affect Canon shooters but shake up the market for other brands as well. Studio/landscape shooters will be flocking to this 50MP body _if all goes well_, and suddenly Nikon and Sony will have to have something like this.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Some people are excited, some are denouncing this. One thing is for certain: this is a huge buzz that will not just affect Canon shooters but shake up the market for other brands as well. Studio/landscape shooters will be flocking to this 50MP body _if all goes well_, and suddenly Nikon and Sony will have to have something like this.


+1

I think we all knew it was coming.... it was just a matter of time. With Canon being so conservative, it means waiting until they can do it right....

Ten years ago we were at 6 or 8 megapixels and high ISO meant 3200.... Now look at the 7D2 or the 1DX... they are a LOT closer to any new 50 megapixel camera that the cameras of 10 years ago.... probably 95 percent of the way there.... although it sounds like a big deal, going from a 7D2 to a 50 megapixel FF camera is really just a small increment... just a matter of scaling a sensor yet using the same tried and true geometry.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 18, 2014)

Good news, just in time for a decision.

I will hold on to my 7D and 1Ds2 which don't worth much, and sell the 1Ds3 soon.

When the new Canon comes out there will be a decision to make:

1. It has the best sensor in the world, better than Exmor: Get the Canon and be happy, stay in Canon camp.
2. It has the same old 11-bit sensor only more pixels (i.e. FF 7D2): Get a Sony body and dump many of the L lenses, gradually move away from Canon camp.

Canon, many of your long time customers are giving you the last chance to redeem yourself.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2014)

Having bought a D800 and some pro level Nikon Glass, my big issues were post processing high ISO images. It was taking a minute for Lightroom to run the NR on a image, and that was a modern i7 pc at the time.

I've upgraded computers twice since, and those old D800 images process reasonably fast now. However, I still am uncertain about having to process 2500 images.

The big Use I get out of high MP images is the ability to crop, but that's only if they are pixel sharp, and the Nikon images were very noisy when severely cropped, while I can crop my 5D MK III without that concern.

Still, if there is a high ISO improvement, and dual pixel technology, I'll be very interested, and will likely pre-order, if only just to get a place in line.

If the 1D X drops a bunch in price, I'll jump and buy a used one.


----------



## JonB8305 (Dec 18, 2014)

Can we get a higher shutter speed than 1/200, leaf shutter perhaps? Also, can we get a lower ISO than 100. 

These things combined with no AA filter would make me happy.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Some people are excited, some are denouncing this. One thing is for certain: this is a huge buzz that will not just affect Canon shooters but shake up the market for other brands as well. Studio/landscape shooters will be flocking to this 50MP body _if all goes well_, and suddenly Nikon and Sony will have to have something like this.



Sony (and by extension, Nikon) will likely beat Canon to market with a widely-rumored 46 MP sensor. So I don't think people will flock to this _solely_ because of resolution -- they'll flock to it if it breaks new ground in IQ.

- A


----------



## Berowne (Dec 18, 2014)

Only two weeks ago or so Eldar asked for ideas relating a optimal processing platform. The discussion was realistically based on the existing Canon-Sensors. But what will happen with a 50 Mp-Sensor, how large will a RAW-File be? What will this mean for the work with complex Data (Stacking) in PS. Does anybody have experiences with medium-format RAW-Data from 50/60 Mp Sensors? 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23951.0%20optimal%20processing%20platform. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Woody (Dec 18, 2014)

If Chipworks is right, then the jump to a high megapixel camera probably means a new sensor design approach:

"Given the geometric constraints of 0.5 µm design rules, Canon seems content to hang around the 21 Mp resolution for recent FF sensors through the use of shared pixels. Jumping to a higher resolution generally requires more advanced design rules and pixel sharing architecture...

It is worth noting that September 2012 marked the 10 year anniversary of Canon’s announcement of the world’s first CMOS FF sensor, the EOS 1Ds. While Chipworks didn’t analyze that camera, every Canon FF sensor analyzed since has used the same 0.5 µm design rules."
- http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/?lang=en&Itemid=815

Let's hope it all works out.


----------



## plam_1980 (Dec 18, 2014)

Since 3D is really confusing, what do you think about 2D? 2D is the way we see things actually, especially on photos and prints. And 2D is below 1D line but way above 5D, it will work from marketing point of view?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Dec 18, 2014)

Some one earlier wrote:
[/quote]
No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices). Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.
[/quote]

Do you use cameras with and without the AA filters? I shoot the D800, 5DIII, D800E, D810 and the D7100. In ALL cases, for my most detailed landscape work at low ISO, the cameras without the AA filter produce superior IQ Images to ones that have the AA filter and I have the large prints (3 feet by 2 feet average size) to prove it.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 18, 2014)

*The 3D*

Call it a 3D - anyone confused should take it as a hint that it is not for them... ;-)


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 18, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> Some one earlier wrote:


No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices). Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.
[/quote]

Do you use cameras with and without the AA filters? I shoot the D800, 5DIII, D800E, D810 and the D7100. In ALL cases, for my most detailed landscape work at low ISO, the cameras without the AA filter produce superior IQ Images to ones that have the AA filter and I have the large prints (3 feet by 2 feet average size) to prove it. 
[/quote]

I've seen tons of shots from AA-less cameras from owners who were showing them to me to prove their superior IQ. The shots are always crunchy and covered top to bottom with artifacts. Some people just don't see those artifacts while to others they are obvious and nasty. Generally the first group is obsessed with sharpness.

I'm very sensitive to that crunchy artifact filled look, and absolute sharpness means very little to me.


----------



## tron (Dec 18, 2014)

A question: Is it possible that the loss of sharpness by AA filter to be counteracted by the use of slightly increased sharpening? If that is so we can have the best of 2 worlds. Unless some very fine detail is lost completely at capture time...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 18, 2014)

tron said:


> A question: Is it possible that the loss of sharpness by AA filter to be counteracted by the use of slightly increased sharpening? If that is so we can have the best of 2 worlds. Unless some very fine detail is lost completely at capture time...



Good question, I hope someone from the CR heavyweights comments on this. My current understanding is "yes", as you know what has been done to the image you know how to counteract most of it.

These is are interesting links on capture sharpening:
http://www.frontallobbings.com/2011/05/to-anti-alias-or-not-anti-alias.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm

Btw this article argues that the moiré problem deminishes with higher sensor res: http://photocritic.org/what-was-an-optical-low-pass-filter-and-why-did-we-need-one/


----------



## tron (Dec 18, 2014)

Thank you very much for the links (especially the first two).

I have found the following interesting link:

http://www.canonwatch.com/eos-5d-mark-iii-hacked-anti-aliasing-filter-removed-more-sharpness/


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 18, 2014)

tron said:


> A question: Is it possible that the loss of sharpness by AA filter to be counteracted by the use of slightly increased sharpening? If that is so we can have the best of 2 worlds. Unless some very fine detail is lost completely at capture time...



You need a different type of sharpening to compensate for the roll off of the AA filter prior to the Nyquist limit. But, yes, very little is actually lost that can't be recovered. On the other hand, the aliasing from the lack of an AA filter cannot be removed in post processing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 18, 2014)

tron said:


> Thank you very much for the links (especially the first two).
> 
> I have found the following interesting link:
> 
> http://www.canonwatch.com/eos-5d-mark-iii-hacked-anti-aliasing-filter-removed-more-sharpness/



Wow - what a horrid test. They lighting is entirely different between the two shots.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you very much for the links (especially the first two).
> ...



+1

The exposure is different, the two shots are not framed the same and there is a huge difference in how clear the air is...

nothing to see here.... move along.... move along....


----------



## crashpc (Dec 18, 2014)

Guys, you must have some problems with your PCs. I have my 18MPx files processed (LR) in matter of seconds on i5 without OC, even undervolted. It takes lets say up to 10s. 36Mpx would be 15-20s then. What´s wrong with your i7s!?
Do you use SSD drives?

Anyway we need 64Mpx APS-C and 128Mpx FF sensors, and there will be about no problem with AA.


----------



## psolberg (Dec 18, 2014)

as expected. I also expect a lot that said "36MP is too much" to eat crow and buy the thing anyway because we all know it is only bad if you can't get it 8)

Then it will be all about how much it sucks to be under 50 etc. fanboys will be fanboys.

More down to earth, sony/nikon sensors will push to 50MP or so based on scaling their existing 24MP designs. The question was not if, but when. I'm surprised it didn't happen this year to be honest. I think 2015 is a good year for this to happen. Given canon totally missed the trend during the last iteration it is a mistake they won't do again and maybe deliver a true 5DMkII replacement which used to be the best value for the dollar and deliver the best detail you could buy. Today that is the D810 and surely the high resolution market isn't going away.

One thing is for sure: the day of the low light religion being the only measure are over. And I'm glad. Not everybody shoots in a dark closet with the lights off. 

Which brings the question, with the MP race doing one last push, will sony now head to extend their DR lead? I think as ISO and MP stop selling bodies, HDR single frame will.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 18, 2014)

3D? It looks so... real :

I get the prehistoric reference but, really, does anyone reeeally believe this is more likely to be called a 3D than a 4D or the flying spaghetti camera? Not that I don't believe it's coming, just that... '3D'?


----------



## psolberg (Dec 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Having bought a D800 and some pro level Nikon Glass, my big issues were post processing high ISO images. It was taking a minute for Lightroom to run the NR on a image, and that was a modern i7 pc at the time.
> 
> I've upgraded computers twice since, and those old D800 images process reasonably fast now. However, I still am uncertain about having to process 2500 images.
> 
> ...



sorry to break it to you but if you think the 800 is noisy, this will disappoint you. It will also crawl your PC. But that's easy, just get a new one  The noise levels in shadows on the 5DIII are nothing to behold so your bar isn't that high, yet I think it is too high for a 50MP sensor which will act more like an APSC sensor today. Quite simple if you really need high ISO, at the expense of your dynamic range, stay low MP.


----------



## psolberg (Dec 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are excited, some are denouncing this. One thing is for certain: this is a huge buzz that will not just affect Canon shooters but shake up the market for other brands as well. Studio/landscape shooters will be flocking to this 50MP body _if all goes well_, and suddenly Nikon and Sony will have to have something like this.
> ...



This is spot on. nobody will really flock to this from other brands. But I suspect many landscape people stuck with canon and 22MP will. So it will be a movement within canon. Why? 36-50MP will be the same as comparing 22-36. Yes it is better, no question, but not enough to justify a quick jump without seeing what Sony has up their sleeves and their rumored 40-50MP sensor, which as you say offer more than just high MP. If sony were to take as long as canon took to do this, they may be an issue, but given how sony moves these days, I think the chances are high 2015 will see their new flagship FF sensor move higher. I just don't see sony being so slow as canon is to move in particular because sony revived this trend and caught canon with the pants down. Sony likely has been working on the 36MP successor from the time they were working on the 36MP final stages.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 18, 2014)

psolberg said:


> One thing is for sure: the day of the low light religion being the only measure are over. And I'm glad. Not everybody shoots in a dark closet with the lights off.


Back to "painting with light", less accidentellement objet trouvé...


> Which brings the question, with the MP race doing one last push, will sony now head to extend their DR lead? I think as ISO and MP stop selling bodies, HDR single frame will.


One of the recent patents describes electrochromic shutters over each sensor cell - global shutter and switching between normal, phase detect with the option of telling each cell to be horizontally or vertically sensitive w/o reduction in full well capacity.


----------



## msm (Dec 18, 2014)

On the topic of AA filter. Canon's current FF cameras already have weak AA filters which produce moire with sharp lenses. In fact it is a much bigger problem on my 5D3 and 1DX than on my A7R because fewer lenses are actually sharp enough to produce moire on the A7R.

With a 50mpix sensor it will be even less of a problem, I for one definitely do not want more blur on top of lens imperfections. Wide open it is a rarely a problem and if it is a shot with large DOF you can always just step down to diffraction land and avoid the problem entirely.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 7DII is chewing 20,2MP at 10fps and its buffer handles an infinite number of jpegs and about 30 RAW. Which translates to 4 fps and 12-13 RAWs in 50MP terms. But that is if a new camera is a copy of the 7DII for every thing else but resolution. Is that very likely? The 50MP camera comes a year later, will cost more and can justify more computing power, can use faster memory cards etc. etc.



The thing is, what's limiting Canon most at this point seems to be their USB bus speed: Their SD card readers cap out right at the USB 2.0 maximum typical speed. Canon needs to upgrade their SoC to a modern core and shift image processing functionality into dedicated GPUs. If they did that, they'd be able to have two uncrippled UHS-II SD card slots writing at up to 512 MB/second—four times the maximum speed of CF, and fast enough to do 20 frames per second if you alternate between cards. Of course, cards with such speeds don't exist yet—right now, you'd only be able to do about 10 fps continuous when alternating—but IMO it is critical that Canon stop shipping these dog-slow SD and CF card slots and move to proper UHS-II slots so that their reader will stop being the main bottleneck.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 18, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The 7DII is chewing 20,2MP at 10fps and its buffer handles an infinite number of jpegs and about 30 RAW. Which translates to 4 fps and 12-13 RAWs in 50MP terms. But that is if a new camera is a copy of the 7DII for every thing else but resolution. Is that very likely? The 50MP camera comes a year later, will cost more and can justify more computing power, can use faster memory cards etc. etc.
> ...


Exactly! 

50MP, improved AF, improved DR, improved noise, (near) equal high ISO performance and 10 fps (will require modes to support reduced image sizes in some cases though). That would be a dream camera and I will promise to be a good boy for a loooooong time


----------



## vlim (Dec 18, 2014)

have you seen this ? false, fake, true, possible, idon't know, i just share...

http://filmmaker.com.br/2014/11/24/canon-5d-mark-iv-com-36mp-sera-apresentada-a-17-de-marco-de-2015-confira-as-caracteristicas-e-preco/

8)


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 18, 2014)

All this skepticism on Canon only having only big MP and fast AF while Sony has better DR and low light. I agree that Canon deserves to be doubted after several hohum releases. But I'm ever the optimist and will hope that this 50MP sensor will not just be more pixels, but better DR and low light as well. As many have pointed out, Canon took a long time on this. If it were just a MP bump, this would have been available a year ago, so either Canon's R&D has gone down a bad path or this is really something worth looking forward to.

I stand by my assertion that other brands will have no choice but to follow if Canon markets a 50MP body first. Bragging rights aside, landscape/studio photogs with the best lenses will of course want a body that can deliver resolution. Just as Canon is now forced to catch up to Nikon in terms of DR, other brands will have to offer big MP bodies. Look at what the 5D2 did for video and everybody else followed suit despite all the "this is a gdamn photo camera I don't need it to take video" criticism. It's a constant leapfrogging in our industry that benefits us all.


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2014)

Any word on whether this will be Bayer or Layered?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Any word on whether this will be Bayer or Layered?



Can't be a layered, if 3 layers 50MP, it is only a 16MP sensor in terms of real geometrical pixels, which is too low in today's standard.

Of course unless it a 50MP x 3 layers, which will be a big jaw dropper : 

Or a 25MP x 2 layers? With 1 G layer in full resolution and 1 R/B layer in half resolution, but it would be very hard to selectively let both longer and shorter wave light pass through and stop a mid wave light or vice a versa.


----------



## skoobey (Dec 19, 2014)

Considering their current pricing: I estimate 4500-6000$.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 19, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Considering their current pricing: I estimate 4500-6000$.



The rumor puts it as under $4000, so we'll see.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 19, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Considering their current pricing: I estimate 4500-6000$.



$6000 = D810 + 2 Nikkors, and that will be what most user choose.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Considering their current pricing: I estimate 4500-6000$.



Ah, price. So much fun to speculate about. The price will of-course heavily depend on where/how they brand it and what tech they put in it. Assuming it's non-gripped as the story says...

*The high res 6D2 sort of path*
If the 50 MP camera is a stripped down FF body, i.e. functional (but not best in class) AF system with limited number of AF points, 3-4 fps burst, lots of design features and tech wholesale ported over from other bodies, etc. Call it a '6D with a huge sensor' (or a 6D2), and it would be around $2,500-3,000 or so. 
*My guess is: no chance they will do this -- not with their first high MP rig. *Too many pros have screamed for high MP for too long, so to put it in a relatively simple FF body would be a let down I think.

*The 5D4-ish path*
If this 50 MP rig is branded the 5D4 and has that 'level' of feature set, options, robustness, etc. plus 1-2 recently newish things they always sneak in -- perhaps anti-flicker mode, intervalometer, automated focus-stacking, etc., then I think it will be in the $3,500-4000 neighborhood as originally posted on this site. 
*My guess: Whether it's branded 5D4 or not, a camera on this level this seems the logical first entry into the high MP game.*

*The all-battlefield workhorse path -- a 5D4 crossed with a 1D5, minus the grip*
There's been some talk of a 50 MP rig with X fps with a built in crop mode that gets you 2-3X fps. Think of it like an 'APS-H' switch that you can turn on/off. As the crop + higher burst screams action and sports, such a rig would need to have a really high-end AF system, weathersealing and build quality. They certainly would get north of $4k for such a rig -- how much would seemingly depend on the burst rate. 
*My guess: There's 'too much new' going on at once here, so I don't see this happening. Also, if Canon ever did this, surely it would be a 1D body, right?*

*The No-shadows-can-hide-from-this-sensor path*
If this 50 MP rig has fundamentally better sensor tech and is that great game changing sensor that many have asked for, you brand it as something better/higher than 5D (4D or 2D, take your pick) and you charge fundamentally more for it. This is the rig that would flip competitive business, so this could be a $4-5k non-gripped camera. 
*My guess: I have limited confidence that Canon has this in them given their sensors of late, so I'll call this one doubtful.*

I give ranges on all the prices as it very well will depend on if Sony's 46 MP sensor is out there by the time Canon launches.

- A


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 19, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > Considering their current pricing: I estimate 4500-6000$.
> ...



If it is that expensive I am likely to by the rumored Sony A9 or future A7r II. I doubt the A9 will cost much more than a A7r. Assuming they put IBS and include a Electronic First Curtain on the shutter. 

I fully expect Canon to price it around 3000-3500. The current 5D III will likely have a permanent price drop to $2799.00. The new camera can take its price point. Unless Canon hits it out of the park I am likely to by an A9 anyway. It can replace my Nex6 as a travel cam.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2014)

remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.

You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.

That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.
> 
> You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.
> 
> That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.



You're off the rails. Just making the sensor bigger - with the same sized pixels - will improve high ISO performance by 1 1/3 stops.

Oh, and in-general, smaller pixels perform better at all ISOs than larger ones. The only exception is very extreme high-ISOs.


----------



## canonvoir (Dec 19, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...



I am right there with you. The a9/a7rii whatever next high MP camera from Sony will be my path because I think Canon will have to lower the 5diii price point to compete and the new camera won't be any cheaper. At this point it almost doesn't matter what Canon does but I have some (albeit little) hope they will get this right. I have a 1DX and a 5Diii that serve me well now but I want to add a high MP camera and I am going to add one in 2015.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.
> ...



I wonder how the sarcasm impaired will act?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Huh?


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.
> 
> You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.
> 
> That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.



I bough the 6D to be a low light camera. I do not care if it has the ISO performance of the 7D II. I want a very weak to non-existent AA filter High MP camera for landscape. I would like an articulating screen because I to most Landscape on a tripod in live view. It is very helpful be able to adjust the. screen to a better viewing angle.

Yes tiny pixels = miserable ISO performance. 

I really do not see them replacing the 5D III for 2 more years. As an event camera what is wrong with the 5D III? I really do not see anything.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.
> ...



The 5D3 has to be about the best general purpose FF camera out there.... I can't see Canon messing around with it.... I really doubt that a new high megapixel camera would be a 5D4


----------



## jrista (Dec 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.
> 
> You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.
> 
> That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.




I disagree. The D800/D810 both demonstrate that similar-to-better IQ can be had with smaller pixels. Hell, the constant increase in megapixels in APS-C sensors for the last decade have been proving that for some time...every successive generation of APS-C sensors, each with smaller pixels, has produced better IQ than the preceeding generations, that includes Canon sensors, Nikon sensors, Sony sensors. Same goes for FF. We have observed a progressive reduction in pixel size while concurrently observing significant increases in overall image quality. So, yeah, I disagree. We CAN have both. We HAVE had both before...just not from Canon. 


A 50mp FF from Canon will have much better IQ than the 7D II. Pixel size is immaterial, sensor size and sensitivity (Q.E.) is what matters. On a normalized basis, such a camera should crush the 7D II in terms of IQ, because your averaging together all those tiny pixels to produce the same output resolution. That's the same as having bigger pixels. Larger image downsampled means a reduction in noise, therefor an increase in SNR. No different really than stacking a bunch of frames together to reduce noise and increase SNR. Or simply running one of dozens of varieties of noise reduction algorithms on a single unscaled frame. It all increases SNR.


Total light gathering capacity. I don't know how many times I've said that on these forums, or how many more times I'll have to say it...but that's all that ultimately matters for IQ (terrestrial photography...astro is a little different).  I'd also go so far as to say that this sensor, if it has the higher Q.E., would also be superior in low light to the others at best, and no worse at worst. A loss in fill factor should be overcome by the increase in Q.E., or at worst, would simply balance things out (so high ISO performance shouldn't necessarily be worse.) A BSI design would eliminate the fill factor issue (and Canon does have some patents for BSI), and I'd say a 50mp BSI FF sensor should have BETTER high ISO IQ (since you lose significantly less light with BSI than any FSI design, regardless of pixel size.)

Assuming this 50mp behemoth has the same Q.E. (59%) as the 7D II, then it will have the same PER-PIXEL IQ (unnormalized IQ), but higher overall IMAGE IQ on a normalized basis. Same subject, same framing, _same output magnification_ == FF 50mp kicks 7D II ass.  At least for sensor IQ. For action, we'd still need a high frame rate and fantabulous AF system to achieve the same kind of subject freezing power as the 7D II. That's probably unlikely.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 19, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Yes tiny pixels = miserable ISO performance.



Small sensors do, small pixels are helpful, not hurtful.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 19, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> Some one earlier wrote:


No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices). Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.
[/quote]

Do you use cameras with and without the AA filters? I shoot the D800, 5DIII, D800E, D810 and the D7100. In ALL cases, for my most detailed landscape work at low ISO, the cameras without the AA filter produce superior IQ Images to ones that have the AA filter and I have the large prints (3 feet by 2 feet average size) to prove it. 
[/quote]

I've seen aliasing and moire pop up in some natural world scenes taken with the D800E to a greater degree than I've seen with AA'd cameras (even then sometimes you can see a bit).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 19, 2014)

vlim said:


> have you seen this ? false, fake, true, possible, idon't know, i just share...
> 
> http://filmmaker.com.br/2014/11/24/canon-5d-mark-iv-com-36mp-sera-apresentada-a-17-de-marco-de-2015-confira-as-caracteristicas-e-preco/
> 
> 8)



That's just a copy of Ken Rockwell's 5D4 rumor guess.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 19, 2014)

Some say that 36MP is enough and that they don't need 50MP, if so that makes it a bit trickier for Canon.

It almost needs to be both semi-high fps (at the very least in cropped modes (sRAW or mRAW speed won't do it since those kill all the reach for sports and wildlife)) and high DR otherwise if it is very slow then it's not longer quite as great for sports and wildlife too in which case for those who could live with 36MP instead of 50MP the Sony stuff might look better since the price much be much lower and they take Canon lenses and yeah the Sony stink for that stuff but if the Canon has very slow fps then the 5D3 type advantages over the Sony stuff are much less anyway (of course the better AF still would help some, but maybe not as critically for as many as if the fps were also able to hit 6fps, at the least in an aps-c cropped mode).

Then again a cropped mode should be trivial to implement and driving a 20MP cropped mode at 6fps would be trivial since even the much older 5D3 already drives more data than that and already has a mirror box that fast. It just seems tricky because Canon tends to not agree that something they didn't do in the past (cropped modes vs sRAW/mRAW) could ever make sense in the future.

If it has Exmor DR, 50MP and hits at least 6-7fps in at least cropped modes and has 10bit 4k it could be an utter beast though. 4fps 50MP, 5fps aps-h, 7 fps aps-c would be quite reasonable at this point in the time to pull off even with single DIGIC (they could really make a mark if they went dual digic).


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> A 50mp FF from Canon will have much better IQ than the 7D II. Pixel size is immaterial, sensor size and sensitivity (Q.E.) is what matters. On a normalized basis, such a camera should crush the 7D II in terms of IQ, because your averaging together all those tiny pixels to produce the same output resolution. That's the same as having bigger pixels.



That would be for a b/w image; in color the downsampling gives you higher chroma information density and a reduction of sampling artefacts for free. I.E. the higher resolution camera gets an additional headstart.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 19, 2014)

Just throwing out some of my thoughts here, but wouldn't it be absolutely incredible if Canon made this high-mp studio-focused sort of camera have a built in radio transmitter for the 600EX-RT? 

Maybe they'd feel like it'd make them lose ST-E3RT sales, but I personally think it would really push a lot more people to pick up the camera, even if the camera had a bit of a premium over other similar bodies. A 50mp studio camera that can control tens of flashes from the body itself sounds like an incredible camera just from face-value.

Though maybe this is just silly, since the ST-E3RT doesn't cost much and isn't too big. It's not really a big deal to me, but it would be really, really nice to never have to worry about triggers. 

That said, if a camera had a built in radio transmitter, I see no reason why it couldn't also mount a pocket wizard or an optical trigger/ST-E2 for autofocus assist/triggering in other methods. That would be awesome for linking together separate flash systems at the same time. 

Sorry for a bit of a tangent on something a bit off-topic, but I'd love to see this camera have an RT system in it.


----------



## jrista (Dec 19, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A 50mp FF from Canon will have much better IQ than the 7D II. Pixel size is immaterial, sensor size and sensitivity (Q.E.) is what matters. On a normalized basis, such a camera should crush the 7D II in terms of IQ, because your averaging together all those tiny pixels to produce the same output resolution. That's the same as having bigger pixels.
> ...




I'm not talking about binning, which is a hardware thing and would be limited to mono sensors.


I'm talking about averaging. I agree, it gives you all the improvements you listed, but it ALSO reduces noise. If you downsample by a factor of 2, you sample together 4 pixels into each output pixel. The noise is reduced by the SQRT(SampleCount), or a factor of 2. Downsampling a 50mp FF to the 20mp of the 7D II is roughly going to sample 2.58 pixels to produce each output pixel:


((26*34)/(22.4*15)) = 864/336 = 2.57 -> ~2.6x (sensor area difference)


That should reduce noise by a factor of about 1.6x. It WILL *also *sharpen the image and reduce artifacts. Win on every count. When IQ matters, I'll take a 50mp FF over the 7D II all day long (although until Canon fixes their low ISO read noise, I'll still take a D810.  ). When AF performance and getting the right moment matters, I'll take the 7D II.


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law. That same law should indicate just over a doubling of its computing power and given the speed of new memory cards, we should a least expect a camera that could chew 50MP at a slightly higher speed than the 5DIII and thus see at least 6, probably 8 fps.
> 
> As for AF system, there is no reason not to expect something beyond what the 7DII have. And I don´t see why we should´t expect more intelligence and speed in the processing part of it. More AF points, better tracking, better coverage of the image area etc.
> 
> The big questions for me though are what we will see in terms of DR, noise and ISO performance. A 5DIII just ramped up to 50MP and the rest same same ... Not tempting enough.


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It almost needs to be both semi-high fps (at the very least in cropped modes (sRAW or mRAW speed won't do it since those kill all the reach for sports and wildlife)) and high DR otherwise if it is very slow then it's not longer quite as great for sports and wildlife too...



Although I'm sure many of us consumers would want that, I doubt Canon will see it as a need. I say 4 fps max, no crop mode.


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > You have made a good point about the 5DIII birthday. I was surprised when Canon came up with the 7D2 without a significant sensor jump. However with Lexar making their 2000X SD cards UH3, perhaps in the next year (or 2), Canon may feel that it is time to have a high MP sensor with dual processors to give a 6FPS rate.
> ...


+1 Great points ahsanford!!! I think spitting the 1 DX into two camps is the way to go.... A 6-8 fps in a 50 mp body would be outstanding but I'll settle for 4 fps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> But _now_, a new 50 MP FF rig cannot possibly push out anything near the 12-14 fps the 1DX can now (not at full res at least). So Canon is stuck with a difficult choice here:
> 
> 
> Split the 1DX back into its two camps and offer two new 1D bodies: one that is high res / low FPS for studio or landscape work and another with a different lower-res sensor that maintains a high burst for sports/wildlife
> ...



You missed an option...don't release a high MP 1-series body. The rumor here (CR3, so CRguy believes it's pretty accurate) indicates a non-1-series body for this release. It seems likely to me that Canon will give a slight resolution bump to the 1D X successor (24 MP, perhaps) and keep the 12 fps. 

They unified the 1D and 1Ds lines for a reason. While no doubt there are some who bought both, having a 1-series speed demon and a 5Ds/4D/whatever high MP body for studio/landscape may be a more viable option from a sales/marketing perspective. It's one I'd personally consider (but then, I'd also consider a 1D X + 1D Xs combo  ).


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> You missed an option...don't release a high MP 1-series body. The rumor here (CR3, so CRguy believes it's pretty accurate) indicates a non-1-series body for this release. It seems likely to me that Canon will give a slight resolution bump to the 1D X successor (24 MP, perhaps) and keep the 12 fps.
> 
> They unified the 1D and 1Ds lines for a reason. While no doubt there are some who bought both, having a 1-series speed demon and a 5Ds/4D/whatever high MP body for studio/landscape may be a more viable option from a sales/marketing perspective. It's one I'd personally consider (but then, I'd also consider a 1D X + 1D Xs combo  ).



Ah, but Neuro, doesn't having a super detail rig for studio (even if it's called 5D4 or 2D or whatever) and a 1DX Mark II beast for high fps outdoor work _sort of split the goal of the unified 1DX anyway?_ 

Studio 1D shooters will presumably leave that trimline for the new high MP rig and outdoor/sports/wildlife guys with 1DX Mk II will wonder why the lines were fused in the first place! Their precious APS-H will be dead and gone and they'll stuck with relatively reach-limited FF rig that mandates slightly longer supertele purchases.

These are just rough thoughts off the top of my head, but it would appear that with finite throughput possible, you kind of _have_ to have two lines of top end cameras: one for detail and one for speed. Why the hell did they fuse those lines in the first place when that speed/detail relationship will always be true?

As for considering what the new high MP rig is, yes, if the rumor is true, it won't be gripped. See my *other* sprawling post (page 12) and let me know which bucket you expect this new camera to be. I'm curious!

- A


----------



## crashpc (Dec 19, 2014)

They desperately need to go up with megapixels, as even the cheapest model is 18Mpx. I hope they´ll go 24-32Mpx for APS-C and 40+Mpx for 5D class FF body.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

crashpc said:


> They desperately need to go up with megapixels, as even the cheapest model is 18Mpx. I hope they´ll go 24-32Mpx for APS-C and 40+Mpx for 5D class FF body.



That ship has sailed on APS-C. The 7D2 is the last flagship APS-C rig you'll see for quite some time, so 20 MP is all we get. 

Besides the obvious "Only +2 MP over the 7D?" first blush response some folks had when the 7D2 spec list dropped, there is the longer term 'king of the Canon APS-C spec sheet' problem. Though Canon's crop world will likely proliferate one of the two 20 MP APS-C sensors to the lower trimlines over the next 1-2 years, it might get weird when a T8i or 90D comes out with a 24 or 30 MP sensor and the 7D2 is still sitting at 20 MP.

- A


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Dec 19, 2014)

My 1 cent...

I would like a higher MP FF body that is not too large. So, I would like to see this in a 6D body. But, I doubt that they would introduce a new sensor in the 6D. 5D's are pretty bulky and 1D's are huge.

I may be forced to go with a Sony until the high MP 6D comes around. My current body is 4 years old and in need of an upgrade.


----------



## PerfectSavage (Dec 19, 2014)

If anyone thinks Canon wasn't going to one-up Nikon, Sony et al...they haven't been paying attention. Market leaders like Canon don't jump at the first trendy innovation brought to the market (i.e. 4K on your wristwatch cam), market leaders got there by having proven, reliable, differentiated technology, and support for it and that takes time. Sony's A7s is an EXTRAORDINARY camera - no doubt. But those Canon pros that sold all their Canon gear to move to Sony on a whim this year will be regretting it - at least financially - when Canon introduces this or similar camera in early 2015. Sony's camera division makes money, the rest of Sony does not. The bankruptcy dangers for Sony are very real and have been for a few years....you don't read anything about Canon having financial issues though. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony sell off it's photo unit entirely to raise cash if they can't make the rest of their businesses profitable soon.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > They desperately need to go up with megapixels, as even the cheapest model is 18Mpx. I hope they´ll go 24-32Mpx for APS-C and 40+Mpx for 5D class FF body.
> ...


No weirder than the 1D X having 18 MP vs the 5D3's 22.3...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Ah, but Neuro, doesn't having a super detail rig for studio (even if it's called 5D4 or 2D or whatever) and a 1DX Mark II beast for high fps outdoor work _sort of split the goal of the unified 1DX anyway?_



Who's goal are you talking about? If you mean the consumer goal of having 'one camera to rule them all' or something to that effect, then yes. But Canon's goal is to make more profit...and the consumers' goals only matter insofar as they affect buying decisions. 

Say they looked at their sales data and found few 1DIV owners with a second body also owned a 1DsIII, but many also owned a 5DII. That would suggest a high MP non-1 body would be a more profitable path.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 19, 2014)

Canon never do giant leaps. They do things in a proper order. The sensible thing to do is to release a high resolution camera for studio and landscape work, where the number of changed components can be controlled. A 5DIV, with no AF gamble, no memory card gamble, no new computing platform, no new internal bus architecture etc. makes perfect sense. Personally I would prefer a 1DsIV or 1DX-II (you choose), but I suspect I will have to wait. But with my newborn addiction to manual focus Zeiss lenses, that may be what I should be waiting for ...


----------



## lintoni (Dec 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Canon never do giant leaps. They do things in a proper order. The sensible thing to do is to release a high resolution camera for studio and landscape work, where the number of changed components can be controlled. A 5DIV, with no AF gamble, no memory card gamble, no new computing platform, no new internal bus architecture etc. makes perfect sense. Personally I would prefer a 1DsIV or 1DX-II (you choose), but I suspect I will have to wait. *But with my newborn addiction to manual focus Zeiss lenses*, that may be what I should be waiting for ...


That's an expensive habit you've got there. Is there a twelve step plan available?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, but Neuro, doesn't having a super detail rig for studio (even if it's called 5D4 or 2D or whatever) and a 1DX Mark II beast for high fps outdoor work _sort of split the goal of the unified 1DX anyway?_
> ...



Neuro, I'm just pointing out _Canon's_ quest for unifying the two 1D camps -- their big marketing message when they double tapped APS-H in the back of the head and released the 1DX -- rings a little hollow in light of what will probably happen after this high MP rig is announced. 

- A


----------



## Eldar (Dec 19, 2014)

lintoni said:


> That's an expensive habit you've got there. Is there a twelve step plan available?


Well, you may spend all your money on lottery tickets, or try to become the CEO of a fast growing and profitable IT company or you can go all in for a career as a rock star 

PS! I don´t buy lottery tickets and I hardly sing in the shower


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

lintoni said:


> That's an expensive habit you've got there. Is there a twelve step plan available?



Yes.

Although...it's up to 14 steps, now.


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Canon never do giant leaps. They do things in a proper order. The sensible thing to do is to release a high resolution camera for studio and landscape work, where the number of changed components can be controlled. A 5DIV, with no AF gamble, no memory card gamble, no new computing platform, no new internal bus architecture etc. makes perfect sense. Personally I would prefer a 1DsIV or 1DX-II (you choose), but I suspect I will have to wait. But with my newborn addiction to manual focus Zeiss lenses, that may be what I should be waiting for ...



So my earlier comment about studio and landscape, which was ridiculed, is now commonly accepted? 

Oh wait, it was only ridiculed by Dilbert who actually has less Forum cache than I do.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > That's an expensive habit you've got there. Is there a twelve step plan available?
> ...


Eek! That's way too rich for my blood... think I'd better stick with my Samyang 14mm!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

lintoni said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



I have four MF lenses – three from Canon (17+24 TS-E and the MP-E 65), and the Samyang 14/2.8 (which I use for astro, and it's great).

So far, I've avoided being bitten by the Zeiss lens bug. Well...for my personal photography, at any rate. I've bought ~$2MM in Zeiss research equipment (not my money, of course), of which close to ~$200K was for 'lenses' (microscope objectives).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It almost needs to be both semi-high fps (at the very least in cropped modes (sRAW or mRAW speed won't do it since those kill all the reach for sports and wildlife)) and high DR otherwise if it is very slow then it's not longer quite as great for sports and wildlife too...
> ...



I think that would be a dangerous game as I said though.

Once it has no crop mode (to provide reach with speed) and is a 4fps only camera it becomes much less general purpose and much more landscape oriented, at which point a less expensive Sony+adapter might seem more enticing for many. If the Sony couldn't take Canon lenses, they might manage to get away with it, but the Sony stuff can be adapted so....

Anyway, if it has a crop mode, which would cost zero in parts to implement and only the most utterly minimal in human programming resources (so only the worst of marketing droidism and Canon we didn't do it first so it can't be goodism, would deny it such a mode), and they let it hit 7fps in cropped mode than it suddenly becomes very exciting compared to the Sony stuff. You get even more MP, the same DR (I'm going the perhaps insane assumption that Canon won't release high MP FF unless they can match on DR, sadly I feel I will be disappointed though, but I will assume I won't here) and you get a built-in crop camera with tons of reach and speed. That looks way more enticing than the Sony stuff.

If it has slow fps at FF and no crop mode for speed and doesn't match DR and costs more.... then yikes.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2014)

PerfectSavage said:


> If anyone thinks Canon wasn't going to one-up Nikon, Sony et al...they haven't been paying attention. Market leaders like Canon don't jump at the first trendy innovation brought to the market (i.e. 4K on your wristwatch cam), market leaders got there by having proven, reliable, differentiated technology, and support for it and that takes time. Sony's A7s is an EXTRAORDINARY camera - no doubt. But those Canon pros that sold all their Canon gear to move to Sony on a whim this year will be regretting it - at least financially - when Canon introduces this or similar camera in early 2015. Sony's camera division makes money, the rest of Sony does not. The bankruptcy dangers for Sony are very real and have been for a few years....you don't read anything about Canon having financial issues though. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony sell off it's photo unit entirely to raise cash if they can't make the rest of their businesses profitable soon.



Market leaders do do that, they sit, milk, stagnate and over time get replaced by the next hungry, charging forward tech company.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have four MF lenses – three from Canon (17+24 TS-E and the MP-E 65), and the *Samyang 14/2.8 (which I use for astro, and it's great).*
> 
> So far, I've avoided being bitten by the Zeiss lens bug. Well...for my personal photography, at any rate. I've bought ~$2MM in Zeiss research equipment (not my money, of course), of which close to ~$200K was for 'lenses' (microscope objectives).


Agree about the Samyang. Originally, I did get it principally for astro, but I've found I've used it more often during daylight hours - whenever there's an interesting sky. It's certainly one of the genuine bargains in the photography world.


----------



## slclick (Dec 20, 2014)

I loved my Zeiss lenses, until Presbyopia took over, now MF totally sucks (I mostly mourn the Lensbaby use) good thing I now have all bitchin' Canon AF glass and a 5D3.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> So far, I've avoided being bitten by the Zeiss lens bug. Well...for my personal photography, at any rate. I've bought ~$2MM in Zeiss research equipment (not my money, of course), of which close to ~$200K was for 'lenses' (microscope objectives).



I'd be glad to catch that bug, but those lenses are dead to me without AF. 

I'd consider an MF lens for 100% dedicated landscape work, but all they have are primes for EF, right? I strongly prefer UWA zooms for landscapes as you can't always move your feet.

- A


----------



## sfunglee (Dec 23, 2014)

Would it be something to replach APS-H in high mega pixel?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 24, 2014)

Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?

For instance, there will be roughly 4 pixels on this camera's sensor for everyone one pixel on the 1Dx. So, you could average 3 or 4 pixels together when downsampling vs. a single pixel on the 1Dx's sensor.

Thanks.


----------



## tron (Dec 24, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?
> 
> For instance, there will be roughly 4 pixels on this camera's sensor for everyone one pixel on the 1Dx. So, you could average 3 or 4 pixels together when downsampling vs. a single pixel on the 1Dx's sensor.
> 
> Thanks.


Quite a reasonable request 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 24, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?



Statistically, they are the same since the same number of photons are captured.

But the smaller pixels have two advantages.

First, they allow the photographer the option to "average" them and thus recover the lower resolution but lower noise image of the larger pixel sensor. Or the photographer can choose to preserve the higher detail from the smaller pixels at the expense of higher noise. With the larger pixels, that choice isn't available.

Second, modern noise reduction routines are far superior to simple "block averaging" at removing noise and preserving detail. So, a higher-detail higher-noise (at the pixel level) image can result in an image that, after noise reduction, has both more detail and less noise than an image from a larger pixel sensor.

That's the whole point of images I posted and which I'll repeat here. After final processing, the smaller pixels (on the left in the image below) produce and image with both better detail and lower noise even when exposed to the same light for the same period of time.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 24, 2014)

Thanks Lee Jay. Is per pixel noise in this case dependent also on available light?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 24, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Thanks Lee Jay. Is per pixel noise in this case dependent also on available light?



Of course. SnR = sqrt(photons captured) [to first order] so more light = higher SnR.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 24, 2014)

Ok, I got it now. Thanks.


----------



## RGF (Dec 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there anyone willing to provide some mathematics as to why averaging let's say smaller pixels together with a S/N of 50 is better than less pixels (but bigger) with a S/N of 100?
> ...



All true if you going to the same size image. But if you consider both images at 100%, the S/N of the image with large photo sites with be better than the image (again at 100%) with smaller photo sites.

That was the point I was making.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 24, 2014)

RGF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



It'll have better signal to noise and a lot less detail. If you then apply NR and downsample the image from the smaller pixels, you'll end up with less noise and better sharpness than the image from the larger pixels.


----------



## tron (Dec 25, 2014)

If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 25, 2014)

tron said:


> They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!



Only if the processors can handle reading all sensor cells at all desired frame rates and apply stable noise reduction algorithms in real time. Esp. the latter part is important - most NR isn't stable, that's fine for still images, but in a video that leads to artifacts that sometimes look ugly and approximately always mess with the video compression.


----------



## jrista (Dec 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Lee Jay. Is per pixel noise in this case dependent also on available light?
> ...




I think it is better to say SNR is relative to SQRT(Electrons Released), as that would factor in quantum efficiency, which is an important factor. So you basically have: SQRT(PhotonFlux * QuantumEfficiency), with full SNR equal to (PhotonFlux * QuantumEfficiency) / SQRT(PhotonFlux * QuantumEfficiency). Not every higher resolution sensor, when downsampled, will produce a less noisy result...it depends on each sensor's Q.E. 

If you have a 15mp sensor with Q.E. of 60, and a 60mp sensor with Q.E. of 30, downsampling the 60mp sensor image probably won't produce better results than the 15mp sensor...you'll probably get a sharper result, but not necessarily less noise (you might possibly still have more noise.) Why? Well, for sensors of the same size and an identical exposure, the one with Q.E. 30% converted the same number of incident photons to fewer electrons, and it's the total amount of electrons gathered in the whole sensor that ultimately matters. The higher resolution sensor in this case gathered about half the light, for the same exposure of the same scene. It doesn't matter what you do, less light is less light, and less light means more noise (even on a normalized basis.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 26, 2014)

tron said:


> If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!




The A7s has more advanced in-camera noise reduction. Exmor is a good sensor, but it wasn't good enough to produce ISO 400k with the low noise levels that the A7s has. The Bionz X DSP is responsible for reducing the noise in each pixel as they are read out. Not much different than what Canon is doing now with DIGIC 6 in the 7D II. If it were not for the more advanced in-camera NR, I would agree...the A7r when downsampled to 12mp would have probably looked very similar to the A7s, primary difference being the downsampled A7r image would be sharper.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > If that is the case why SONY made a7S? They could stick to a7 and even more to a7R and that's it!
> ...


So in A7s they... "cook" the raw files?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 27, 2014)

Perhaps a 5D-s to prevent confused naming? Or will they just name it the mark IV and leave it as the successor of the 5d3?


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Perhaps a 5D-s to prevent confused naming? Or will they just name it the mark IV and leave it as the successor of the 5d3?


Hmm I hope that the high mp camera and 5DMkIV will be different ones...

P.S Otherwise allow me to suggest 5Ds as Canon's answer to Sony's A7s (at... 12Mpixel ofcourse ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D)


----------



## jrista (Dec 27, 2014)

tron said:


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




They do, just as much as Canon "cooks" the RAW files in the 7D II with DIGIC 6. ;P Everyone's cooking pixels today, it's all the rage.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2014)

jrista said:


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


In that case they should be able to "cook" ;D the A7II files even better since the later camera is newer...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:
> 
> "Canon has more MP, better AF!"
> "Sony has more DR, better IQ!"
> ...



So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm a big fan of the Samyang 14mm, but I found for astro work it had weird asymmetrical colour variations across the frame. I've had no luck filtering it out with flat frames (ditto the 85L). Is that just my copy, or am I missing a trick?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2014)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



I haven't noticed that with mine. Their QC means buying one is like playing the lottery. My first copy had issues, I lucked out on the second try.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That is funny, it is when the mighty Exmor is found wanting and we are told to normalize........

You are saying here is zero benefit from stitching, also a patently rediculous opinion.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



You seem to have missed the point of what I said. _Better_ isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...




+1 I totally agree with this. Not everyone has the same needs. Some people simply need more pixels, others need better pixels. There are certainly options out there if you need better pixels. 


It would be nice if you could get both...more AND better pixels...and from Canon (as they do so many other things so well).  But, that doesn't seem to be in the books...


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



In what conditions? Are all other things equal or are other things (such as pixel size/count) different? What about color separation, quality and/or existence of the AA filter?


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2015)

tron said:


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




They probably are. The big problem with Sony files is the darn compression. I honestly don't understand that move by Sony, as it wastes so much of the potential of their sensors and their cameras. It doesn't matter to every photo, but enough photos end up with compression artifacts that it's a real bummer. So, regardless of how much Sony cooks their images, I'd say the RAW compression is a vastly more important, and detrimental, issue.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Look back - is that what I said? Not sure why I'm bothering, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt...

I am saying that if sensor A and sensor B have the SAME noise and DR but B has more megapixels, then a person wanting more pixels will call B "better".

If sensor C has fewer pixels, but better DR, noise etc than D, then someone wanting better DR and noise will choose C.

You see, you've qualified *your* definition of "better" by talking about DR and noise. That's good. But those are not the only measure of a sensor. The discussion here is about a putative new Canon sensor - if it has the same noise and DR as the current Canon sensors, but more pixels, this will be like the first example I've given above. People wanting more DR and lower noise won't see the appeal, but people satisfied with current DR and noise but wanting more pixels will. Is that clear enough? You may not believe those people exist, but they do.

PS we of course all want every aspect to improve - and they may, it remains to be seen. But even if they don't, some people will like the new camera. I imagine you won't be satisfied whatever they come out with.


----------



## Alangeli (Jan 20, 2015)

It will be less than 50MP and will be announced within the next 5-6 weeks ...


----------



## scyrene (Jan 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.



That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2015)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.
> ...



Of course, anyone who _really_ cares about IQ knows that every shot must be taken at base ISO with the camera on a tripod. There's always time for CDAF or even manual focus, and you can use as long a shutter speed as you want. 

I guess some of us just don't _really_ care about IQ. 

: : :


----------



## J.R. (Jan 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess some most of us just don't _really_ care about Dilbert's IQ.
> 
> : : :



There - Corrected it for you


----------



## scyrene (Jan 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Or they could always use a camera with such a small sensor that the whole scene is acceptably in focus - let's all switch to phone cams!


----------



## NancyP (Jan 21, 2015)

Yer all wrong - see that new-fangled Lytro! You can too rescue out-of-focus shots with post-processing. :


----------



## tron (Jan 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


It should be obvious though that lack of focus has a negative impact to IQ :


----------



## scyrene (Jan 21, 2015)

tron said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Yes - I'm sorry, Dilbert, but that is a bizarre attitude. You believe certain things intrinsic to an image constitute *image quality* but others don't. There seems no rationale for which, except maybe the ones Canon doesn't do as well as other manufcaturers (e.g. the much discussed low ISO DR) - which is at best contingent, and at worst constitutes deliberate bias. If I gave a number of images to a random selection of people, or entered them into a competition, and they were out of focus (except in the rare event it is an obviously deliberate/artistic choice), they would be rejected as poor. Because images are expected to be in focus - and I'd argue most people would understand the concept of focus without being taught. A noise free image that is out of focus is pretty easy to create, but unlikely to please many people.

On the other hand, many non-photographers don't really notice noise up to a certain point, and even those with exacting standards will tolerate it to varying degrees.

Do you disagree?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Focus has no bearing on the image quality -



Quote of the month !


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 21, 2015)

This thread turned ridiculous.



Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Focus has no bearing on the image quality -
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Focus has no bearing on the image quality -



Here's a low ISO shot with a highly-rated 70-200/2.8 lens on a camera with close to 14 stops of DR. By your criteria, it has excellent IQ. 







Your criteria are just plain asinine.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Focus has no bearing on the image quality -
> ...



I'm guessing here, but I think when he claims that focus has no bearing on image quality he is referring to the parameters that are not under user control. User can not remove noise or add DR to a sensor, but a user can change the focus. Just a guess.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 22, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> I'm guessing here, but I think when he claims that focus has no bearing on image quality he is referring to the parameters that are not under user control. User can not remove noise or add DR to a sensor, but a user can change the focus. Just a guess.



The user CAN remove noise (lower ISO, ETTR, processing, stacking) and add DR (lower ISO, ETTR, stacking, HDR).


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing here, but I think when he claims that focus has no bearing on image quality he is referring to the parameters that are not under user control. User can not remove noise or add DR to a sensor, but a user can change the focus. Just a guess.
> ...



I guess all of that applies when the user is taking a picture of a galloping unicorn on a rainbow. Pitty that most of the real world situation are not as easily corrected.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 22, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



I really, really hope you're not being serious.


----------



## GaryJ (Jan 22, 2015)

As much as I enjoy exploring the latest from Neuro[resepct] and others on this site, I feel you guys need to take some chill pills ;D,it is after all only photography and not life saving surgery,just out of intensive care which gives a different perspective on things,keep on with entertaining us with your posts but possibly a little less rancour 8)


----------



## K-amps (Jan 22, 2015)

GaryJ said:


> As much as I enjoy exploring the latest from Neuro[resepct] and others on this site, I feel you guys need to take some chill pills ;D,it is after all only photography and not life saving surgery,just out of intensive care which gives a different perspective on things,keep on with entertaining us with your posts but possibly a little less rancour 8)



+1: It's not a lot of fun watching a pee contest that does not want to stop, people need to know when to take a back seat sometimes. People may disagree with Dilbert's position, his base observations that Canon need to improve one area is not without merit, it's when he gets too far and forgets the strengths of the Canon system that it starts to get a bit of a drab, granted, the fact that respected members of our forum try their best to shame him relentlessly, does not garner a positive response from him either, what surprises me is his resolve to stay civil despite all the hate directed. Guys, please lets take it a notch down so that the rest of us 500 odd people can enjoy discussing rumors! 

And I humbly leave you all with this thought: In a pee contest, neither the loser, nor the winner come out clean...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Look at all of the tests that websites such as dpreview do. Do they judge a camera's IQ by how well it focuses? Or do they judge it by how well a camera correctly captures and reproduces test patterns, colour charts, etc?
> 
> IQ is a property of the camera...



Yes, IQ is a property of the camera and lens. 

Those tests to which you refer are judging the *sensor*, which is one of multiple components that contribute to the image quality of a *camera*.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Jan 22, 2015)

Since we're talking about the elemnts that constitute a high IQ in a camera system, I wrote an article containing all the factors here: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7864-what-makes-a-high-quality-image-the-technical-aspect-of-image-quality-in-camera-systems/

A good IQ is npt just high Resolution, or just high DR, or just clean ISO performance, it's a combination of 7-8 elements to be considered.


----------



## rs (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yes, you're 100% correct. Lenses have zero influence on IQ, AF has zero influence on IQ and all the other features of a camera such as metering, shutter lag and FPS don't cobtribute anything towards creating a better image. And, the only differentiator between the IQ of any film cameras was which film they were loaded with. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> IQ is a property of the sensor.



Do keep that in mind the next time you go out to take pictures with nothing but a small, rectangular piece of silicon with a CMOS surface architecture. Be sure to show us the image quality of all the pictures you take, assuming you can find the shutter button on it.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 22, 2015)

Perhaps IQ potential is a property of the sensor and lens. It's then the photographer's choices and skill to realize that potential to the best of his ability.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> IQ is a property of the sensor.



Maximum IQ is (in a colloquial sense) a property of the sensor. Specifics of the maximum IQ of the sensor can be further quantified (I'll leave that explanation to those who know more about the tech than I). But the other components of the system also have their (colloquially speaking) maximum IQ as well.

IQ, i.e. "image quality" is...er...a quality of each individual image. An image that's unintentionally out of focus has low image quality to most people.

You must also remember that each sensor has different (colloquial) maximum IQ at each ISO setting. In effect, it can be considered a different sensor at each ISO. So even if you want to talk about the IQ of the sensor (as though it were an inherent quality) you must be specific about which ISO setting.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> IQ is a property of the sensor.



Therefore all images produced by the same sensor are equal in quality. Or, granting wiggle room for sensitivity: therefore all images produced using the same gain on the same sensor are equal in quality. Naturally, this also means that images produced without a sensor, e.g. by film, have no quality.



In reality, image quality is a subjective term. It is a property of the image viewed, and varies by viewer to viewer. There are certain objective measures of sensor performance, but none of them should be summarized as "image quality".


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



You sure? I've shot at ISOs less than 1 using these techniques. What sensor can I buy that can manage lower noise than my approach to get to ISO 1? Oh...my approach also allows you to dramatically exceed the resolution possible from atmospheric disturbance, and allows you to get to tiny fractions of a pixel worth of motion blur despite dozens of pixels of motion during the exposure.

Face it - IQ is about avoiding aberrations, and aberrations include noise, motion blur, out of focus blur, CA, flare, spherical aberration, and others, not just noise.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 22, 2015)

GaryJ said:


> As much as I enjoy exploring the latest from Neuro[resepct] and others on this site, I feel you guys need to take some chill pills ;D,it is after all only photography and not life saving surgery,just out of intensive care which gives a different perspective on things,keep on with entertaining us with your posts but possibly a little less rancour 8)



Some things are a matter of life and death.... others are even more important, like the never ending sensor debates. I need to know the answer! I need to know what sensor I should be using to take pictures of the cat to post on facebook... <SARCASM>

Seriously though, this is not a debate, it is people yelling and taunting and nobody listening. The truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I need to know what sensor I should be using to take pictures of the cat to post on facebook...



Phase One IQ280. Duh!

;D


----------



## Eldar (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I need to know what sensor I should be using to take pictures of the cat to post on facebook...
> ...


But make sure it lies still, so you can shoot multiple images and stitch ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




I foresee no issues as cats lay still for most of the day...at least mine does, YCMV.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Why constrain yourself with what Canon offers?



Why constrain yourself with the weaker (in some cases much weaker) lens selection that other brands offer, or hamstring their AF performance with an adapter?


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 27, 2015)

Did someone say chill pill?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Why constrain yourself with what Canon offers?



Because they make the best cameras, the best lenses, and the best overall system, and the only constraint is at an ISO I use for perhaps 15% of my shots.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Ah yes, the Internet, with its vast array of infallible experts. Where else could nonsense spread with such efficiently that there is currently an epidemic of a disease in a nation where it was eradicated?




You clipped my quote. If Image Quality is a property of the sensor, then all Images produced using the same sensor (at same gain) must be of equal Quality, agreed?

Since that is clearly inconsistent with reality, the premise must be wrong, regardless of what reviewers all over the Internet say.

Those same reviewers would claim that every Image I make with my D7100 is of higher Quality than every Image I make with with my 5D3, and that both are always bested by my A7R. Neither claim is true. The Quality of my final Images depends on a hell of lot more than the sensor I happen to capture the initial data with.


----------



## stolpe (Jan 28, 2015)

Lets hope for a brand new sensor with good DR, I won't buy it I think since I'm satisfied with my 5D3 still. Maybe I buy a new wide angle lens instead. But for the people that need more megapixels and have Canon lenses I hold my thumbs.

;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 28, 2015)

stolpe said:


> Lets hope for a brand new sensor with good DR, I won't buy it I think since I'm satisfied with my 5D3 still.



My guess is that the next ff camera will sell anyway, even if the advancements are mediocre or the "high mp" sensor is "just" an upscaled 7d2 crop sensor.

All this talk of "18mp is plenty 'nuff" and "no more dr for me, thank you very much" will be gone instantly the upgrades are actually available. If you just go by "my current camera works just fine", Canon would have sold no dslrs at all for years.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Okay, I'll bite with this one. Again you're using 'best' selectively, as many would consider an MF-only lens inferior for their purposes, however sharp, lacking in CA, etc. But aside from that, have you used the super telephoto lenses? They are optically excellent AND have AF. You're ignoring focal lengths you don't use no doubt, but guess what? If I want to photograph a bird, an Otus 55mm ain't gonna be of use.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Which "best" lenses are you referring to?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Then continuing to use Canon seems incredibly foolish.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2015)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1

Some people can't seem to see beyond their own needs, and their world view is 99% constrained.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Would you rather have an in-focus shot from a Canon 50/1.4 or an out-of-focus shot from an Otus?

Something like 5% of my shots are of subjects that would tolerate a manual focus lens on a body that doesn't have a split-prism focusing screen in the viewfinder.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> *If they all have the same level of input*, then yes.



Which belies the notion that IQ is a sensor property. It is about much more than the sensor. It is about input, signal chain, and post.



dilbert said:


> So you personally know more about digital cameras and reviewing digital cameras than any other person out there that does it?
> 
> Since you're such an expert, why don't you start your own review based website?



It doesn't take a digital camera expert to look at two Images made using the exact same sensor and conclude that there is more to Image Quality than sensor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



Not true.

I buy stuff that enables me to do stuff that I want to do that I can't do with the stuff I'm using at the time.

A camera with 10 stops more base ISO DR wouldn't enable me to do anything I don't do already because I essentially never bump into the base ISO DR I have already.

A camera with 1/2 stop more high ISO DR would help me because I'm always bumping into the high ISO DR I have available right now. Unfortunately, high ISO DR is much more restricted than base ISO DR and Canon's sensors are already as good as the best of the rest.

So, if Canon comes out with a 16 stop DR (at base ISO) camera, that will be fine, but not of any particular interest to me. Cleaner is always better so I wouldn't oppose that, but it wouldn't be a big selling point for me either. There are lots of other things about a camera that interest me more than base ISO DR. I'm still waiting to see my first shot where Canon's base ISO DR was a real problem in a real shot and where the shot would have been okay if it had been shot with just 1-2 stops more base ISO DR. I've still only seen contrived samples.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Would you rather have an in-focus shot from a Canon 50/1.4 or an out-of-focus shot from an Otus?



See here:



dilbert said:


> Focus has no bearing on the image quality


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jan 28, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > *If they all have the same level of input*, then yes.
> ...



Fixed that for you 

To say that sensor has nothing to do with IQ is folly. It's like in the old days saying that it didn't matter what film you use. The differences are, I grant you, lesser between sensors than say between Velvia 50 and Portra 400. The capability of the sensor isn't everything, but it is an important cog in a complex wheel. You do need good glass the get the best from a great sensor, but if good glass simply magnifies the weakness of the sensor, then where are we?

It's been a while since I posted, and eve longer since I've shot with a Canon. I now shoot predominantly with the Pentax 645Z with the D800E as my back up. My problem with the 5D3 was twofold: Dynamic Range and the noise banding at low ISOs. I just couldn't live with the banding at all. Lower DR wasn't so much an issue. Now with the 645Z I can push at least 2/3 stops from the shadows with little or no IQ penalty for it. I don't need to ETTR as I have so much latitude in the first place. 

Am keeping an eye on developments as I still have the best of my Canon lens setup. 

Also on a side note, in forums I see so much dismissiveness about manual focus lenses. For action shots I get the reason for the objection. For portrait and landscapes I don't understand the objection. The Zeiss lenses are superb. I have the 35 f/2 and I'm sure the Otus 55 is mindblowingly good. I wouldn't exclude them because they are AF as a landscape shooter. My 35 f/2 Zeiss wipes the floor with 24 - 70 of any variety at that focal length.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2015)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I don't think anyone here is saying the sensor is irrelevant to image quality, nor that manual focus lenses can't be amongst the best - for the quality of the image they produce.

Rather, what we've got is someone claiming the opposite - that only the sensor counts, and that the presence or absence of autofocus is irrelevant to whether a lens can produce a good image. Which of the two is less realistic?

I try to see things from different viewpoints, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'd like any neutral observer - expert or layman - to ponder whether the statements 'all images taken by the same sensor at the same ISO have equal image quality' and 'an out of focus image with more DR/lower noise is better than an in focus image with lower DR/more noise' and see if that chimes with their experience and opinion.

If a definition of 'image quality' leads to such absurd conclusions (i.e. in order to defend your position, you have to agree such ridiculous statements are true) then at the very least you have to accept that your view differs from most people's, and is so selective as to be meaningless in most practical situations. Dilbert's entitled to his view, but he has to realise that he's twisted the meaning of some terms to such a degree that few people could reasonably agree with him.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 28, 2015)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Also on a side note, in forums I see so much dismissiveness about manual focus lenses. For action shots I get the reason for the objection. For portrait and landscapes I don't understand the objection.



Most of my portrait shots are shot in AI-servo. For me, portraits are action shots most of the time.

I've never shot landscape so I don't care much about that.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 28, 2015)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Fixed that for you
> 
> To say that sensor has nothing to do with IQ is folly.



To be clear, I wasn't saying that.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jan 29, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > Fixed that for you
> ...



My apologies, I should have been clearer. I suspected that wasn't what you were saying.


----------



## K (Jan 29, 2015)

I'd go for a high megapixel Canon only if:

1. It had a M-Raw or S-Raw setting, that when used produces a lower mega-pixel image that has equivalent image quality to a sensor that is native to that megapixel size. Example, if it is a 52mp sensor, on M-Raw it produces say a 26mp image, that 26mp should be the equivalent IQ as say a 5D3 or slightly better. 

2. Using the smaller Raw settings does not slow down the camera in FPS.


If it can't do that, I'm not interested in higher megapixels. Already with 20+ megapixel cameras, I can produce razor sharp albums over 14". In fact, can make high detailed, razor sharp posters. 

If it can do the above, I'd purchase one and use it on M-Raw for most of my shooting, and use the full megapixels for the occasional landscape or architecture shot. I don't even want more than 24mp for portraits. Most of the time skin is being softened anyway. What is the sense in having resolution that can see INSIDE of a pore, only to then soften it down in post?

There is also the work flow issue. Last weekend I shot an event and my partner and I shot just under 2,000 photos. It was over 45 GB of files. I wouldn't want to double that or more with a high megapixel camera.

Most of this megapixel stuff doesn't translate to print or internet. It is great though for the personal satisfaction of pixel peeping. That is about it.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 29, 2015)

K said:


> I'd go for a high megapixel Canon only if:
> 
> 1. It had a M-Raw or S-Raw setting, that when used produces a lower mega-pixel image that has equivalent image quality to a sensor that is native to that megapixel size. Example, if it is a 52mp sensor, on M-Raw it produces say a 26mp image, that 26mp should be the equivalent IQ as say a 5D3 or slightly better.
> 
> ...



I agree 99% with you but I would like to use another procedure:

Taking all pictures at max resolution &
using DPP (or whatever) to downsample the RAW files into e.g. 1/2 native or 1/4 native resolution
and store them as mRAW or sRAW (or DNG or ....)

I really don't like to change image quality/format settings after one bad experience: sRAW with the 10 MPix EOS 40D resulted in 3 MPix files and that translates into print! - I had some luck because the landscape and weather were the same 2 days later and I had to drive just 10 km for the shot!


----------



## PVS (Jan 30, 2015)

There you go:
http://www.canonwatch.com/cw5-image-specs-canon-5ds-5ds-r-leaked-50mp-sensor/


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2015)

PVS said:


> There you go



Intersting - let's hope many people dump their outdated 5d3 and crop cameras so they become available for the rest of us :-> ... with the advanced metering and crop mode, I'm sure Canon will have problems producing enough of these for the upcoming demand.

This are the specs that are actually interesting (apart from the missing dual pixel af in the list)


> * Continuous shooting 5 frames / sec.
> * High precision 61-point AF
> * 150,000 pixel RGB + IR photometry sensor
> * 1.3x and 1.6x crop shooting mode


----------

