# Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14045"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14045">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>The big megapixel camera gets bigger!

</strong>Photography Bay is reporting that a good source of theirs has told them that Canon is actively testing a 75+MP EOS-1 DSLR camera body.</p>
<p>I don’t find anything surprising in the megapixel count, as Canon has announced enormous megapixel sensors in the past. However, this is the first I’ve heard of an actual product using image sensors with this much resolution.</p>
<p>Previous rumors have placed the “big megapixel” camera from Canon in the 40-50mp range.</p>
<p>We do expect such a camera to make its way to us sometime in 2014.</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2013/07/21/canon-testing-a-75mp-pro-dslr/" target="_blank">PB</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## rs (Jul 21, 2013)

That would take one hell of a combination of lens, photographer and conditions to make full use of all those megapixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2013)

With dual Digic 6+, it might even hit 3 fps...


----------



## eha (Jul 21, 2013)

rs said:


> That would take one hell of a combination of lens, photographer and conditions to make full use of all those megapixels.


Maybe it has 1/32000s shutter speed and built-in gyropod.


----------



## PaulTopol (Jul 21, 2013)

I'll be ready to sell my *OLD* 1dx!

Hate working with out of date technology.


----------



## Click (Jul 21, 2013)

PaulTopol said:


> I'll be ready to sell my *OLD* 1dx!
> 
> Hate working with out of date technology.



No, no, you should wait for the 75+MP EOS-1 *MKII* 

;D


----------



## brad-man (Jul 21, 2013)

Ugh, with a RAW file size of what? _120MB_?


----------



## preppyak (Jul 21, 2013)

Ha, if the new canon lenses can hold up to a 75mp sensor, then you could shoot wide portraits at 75MP and crop closeups at 20-25mp. Could sort of become for photographers what 4k is for video people delivering at 1080.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 21, 2013)

9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 21, 2013)

... or 75/2 = 36 million image pixels with Dual Pixel AF ... 

But 75 million image pixels / 4 means roughly 18 Mpix full color (R-G-G-B) pixels - not too bad for certain situations.

Just some ideas about a product that still doesn't exist on the market, will perhaps never exist and if, it is to expensive for me.

my 2ct - Michael

EDIT: Forgotten the millions!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Ugh, with a RAW file size of what? _120MB_?



So? Storage is cheap, and my computers are fast.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> 9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.



That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...


----------



## Etienne (Jul 21, 2013)

that's a lot of pickles


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh, with a RAW file size of what? _120MB_?
> ...



I upgraded yesterday from Pentium 4 3GHz-PC to a Core i7 CPU-Machine: What a progress ... its computing power is great but data transfer might become a bottleneck during backup etc. ...


----------



## photonius (Jul 21, 2013)

Don't forget the 70D. This may be a 37.5 Mp camera with dual pixels. Use different exposures on each half-site, and you get expanded DR 14bit or 16 (like the ML trick).

Canon could also bin the pixels normally, but for tele, if cropping is desired, the unbined version could be selected (sort of like the Nokia purview).

Another alternative is lens correction. Due to the high sampling, distortion, CA, etc. can be corrected first with little loss before downsampling for storage.

Lots of things that can be done.


----------



## rs (Jul 21, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.
> ...


Just wait a bit. Apple have a retina 27" monitor in the pipeline - 5120x2880 resolution, or 14.7MP. If you want to avoid upscaling, and crop the top and bottom off your 3:2 photo to fill the 16:9 display, you'll need a minimum of a 17.5MP image to start with. To be fair, 75MP isn't needed for that.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 21, 2013)

rs said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Great - that sounds interesting! I will start to save money for that display


----------



## rs (Jul 21, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...


http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/10/apple-posts-27-retina-imac-sized-os-x-mavericks-background/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> ...data transfer might become a bottleneck during backup etc. ...



Thunderbolt is blazingly fast (6x the speed of USB3, or so).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2013)

The new 70D is, in some sense, a pseudo 40MP sensor so 75+MP for FF seems possible.

I do slightly fear that the fact they go sooo high with the MP count maybe means they can't match the good DR of all the other modern sensors and are going for crazy MP count instead? Or maybe it's just the only way to bring back the 1DXs "s" line again and the big price tag. I imagine it will have a modest fps and such and be fairly specialized. Maybe it frees up more room for a 5D4 or such to be an amazing 38MP cam too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh, with a RAW file size of what? _120MB_?
> ...



Yeah, but it will take 10 hours to backup 10 photos to another HD. 
And maybe 10 months to back up a a trip.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2013)

rs said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I can't wait for such retina displays. I hope NEC PA series makes one too since it needs to also be wide gamut and have a nice 14bit 3D LUT too.


----------



## Pete (Jul 21, 2013)

It seems to me that we're overlooking one possibility. Most of us probably use the highest possible resolution that our camera is capable of taking. With my 5D3 I rarely shoot sRAW but instead go for the full 21.1 megapixels. This makes the most sense to me since I often crop my shots and print fairly large. At this resolution I've rarely been disappointed in the ultimate print.

However, if the 5D3 were capable of 75 megapixels I would soon start choosing my resolution based on my anticipated use for the photo. I'd probably shoot mostly in the 30-40 megapixel range and only rarely go up to 75 megapixels. 

Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.

Thoughts?

- Pete


----------



## FunPhotons (Jul 21, 2013)

Pete said:


> Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.



Possibly. Computational capacity increases exponentially however, including camera pixels, so 70MP seems only natural. Are we suddenly now at a point where we want to change number of pixels on a per-shot basis? Why, other than to optimize disk usage that will be twice as cheap in a year? 

Anyhow going 20MP to 70MP seems an unlikely marketing move, 40-50 is surely more likely.


----------



## Pete (Jul 21, 2013)

Although disk storage is certainly becoming quite inexpensive, there are also bandwidth issues to be considered. Having a camera with 75+ megapixels would permit me to use 40 megapixels now but switch up to 75 when PC technology makes that quick and cheap.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> that sounds like an attack on medium format.



Just like an f-350 taking on a tractor trailer. Not really the same.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 22, 2013)

Pete said:


> Although disk storage is certainly becoming quite inexpensive, there are also bandwidth issues to be considered. Having a camera with 75+ megapixels would permit me to use 40 megapixels now but switch up to 75 when PC technology makes that quick and cheap.



Bandwidth is going up a lot faster than pixel count.

Where I work, we are wired end-to end with 1Gbit or faster links. 10GigEthernet is starting to come to the desktop.... quite a change from when I first started connecting computers with Thickwire and vampire taps...
USB has jumped from 1.5Mbps to 4.0Gbps, firewire at 400Mbps has become Thunderbolt at 10Gbps... IO speed has gone up by three orders of magnitude while sensor sizes (if it really is 75Mpixels) has gone up by one order of magnitude....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah, but it will take 10 hours to backup 10 photos to another HD.
> And maybe 10 months to back up a a trip.



Maybe if you're using USB2. At 10 Gbps with Thunderbolt, it'll be plenty fast.


----------



## Niki (Jul 22, 2013)

this camera I will pre order...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2013)

Disk storage is cheap, but software like NR or layered actions requires a lot of horsepower in a computer. I upgraded to the latest I7 and a Samsung 512GB 840 Pro, and it finally handles the rendering of my old D800 images with all the NR I had to apply. I'd pass on a 75GB camera, but I can see some uses for one like landscape. 

Canon lenses can handle the resolution, but it requires a lot of care by the photographer to prevent motion blur. You will need a much higher shutter speed for non-IS lenses, or a very stable tripod.


----------



## bleephotography (Jul 22, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Agreed. Although that extra CPU/RAM boost will definitely aid in processing those potentially hefty image files, if you throw in a couple SSDs in RAID configuration, your startup times and data transfers would be greatly enhanced. Plus, they are relatively cheap these days 

My preference is to set up two SSDs in RAID 0 and use that for my applications and data that I need fast access to, then I'll use a couple terabyte 7200 rpm drives in RAID 1 for the rest of my storage needs. Never had a problem in over 10 years.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jul 22, 2013)

Very interesting. I just hope that one of the big MP cameras we keep hearing about comes with 16-bit DR. I can care less about any camera with more than 40MP and doesn't have 16-bit DR...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but it will take 10 hours to backup 10 photos to another HD.
> ...



Even with USB 3.0 (or TB) backing up a few 3-4TB drives is still a MAJOR drag.
This is the biggest downside IMO.

That said bring on the MP, one way or another people will deal.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Jul 22, 2013)

Picture this, in the 70D, Canon now has a reliable two-pixel bin for which the alternate channels can be used for AF, but combined for imagery. Now, let's take that same general tech up to full frame, giving us approximately 80 semi-pixels. Now refine the tech ever so slightly and:
1. Allow the bins to be broken so each semi-pixel is individually addressable for maximum spatial detail of 80m px.
2. Allow octal bins (dual-semipixel, binned Bayer quads) for maximum color fidelity and DR at around 10 mpx.


----------



## RGF (Jul 22, 2013)

Truth is this is version 2 of the high MP camera in early testing. How do I know - because it must be true; a little bird told me so


----------



## shtarker (Jul 22, 2013)

That is insane. I'm switching to Nikon.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 22, 2013)

What confuses me most about this news is why it is in CR's Canon General section and not in the EOS Body Rumo(u)r section. 

Apart from that, it's great news.


----------



## KT (Jul 22, 2013)

Finally Canon has listened to its millions of day-to-day users and gave them what they have been asking for. At last, a camera that adequately meets the desperate needs of cat-lovers for a high-resolution RAW file. Bring it on. Now smile kitty kitty.


----------



## art_d (Jul 22, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Very interesting. I just hope that one of the big MP cameras we keep hearing about comes with 16-bit DR. I can care less about any camera with more than 40MP and doesn't have 16-bit DR...


If you can care less, then why don't you ? 

As far as 16-bits....now that is something I could not care less about. Because 16 bits will not give you more DR. Just bigger files with the extra bits quantizing noise. 

14 bits will do just fine.


----------



## johnhenry (Jul 22, 2013)

Not particularly believable. 

For this product to work, it needs several other pieces of the puzzle:

1. Higher resolution on the same size CCD/CMOS means a process shrink of around 40% to add that many pixels. It isn't directly comparable to say a CPU, which can do other things like make large chips, rearrange the internal parts. Given that a cameras chip is made of few components AND have to keep to a similar size/aspect ratio, there is less flexibility to use these methods. 

2 . Better Digic processors to move the data off the chip onto memory cards. You wouldn't go for a camera that has higher resolution and lower frame rates would you? I wouldn't. 

3. Given the influx of new 4k video cameras and monitors capable of displaying the images, people would probably want this also, and if you have the sensors and DSP capable of the above, you would want this.

4. Storage space for the resulting photographs/video and CPU capable of editing/storing it would be fairly large but not out of this world expensive. Most people would need to upgrade.

1 and2 are possible, 3 would make this camera compete with their "C" series video cameras and 4 would be a new expense for the camera buyer to pay for..

2015-16 maybe. Not 2014 unless its some "leak" to keep people from upgrading to a Nikon


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 22, 2013)

art_d said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting. I just hope that one of the big MP cameras we keep hearing about comes with 16-bit DR. I can care less about any camera with more than 40MP and doesn't have 16-bit DR...
> ...


actually......
A pixel produces an analog signal that is relative to the amount of light it has been exposed to. That analog signal is sampled by a D/A converter and becomes a digital number. The number of bits of resolution of the D/A converter is the upper limit of the DR of the camera. If you have a 12 bit D/A, the best dynamic range possible under ideal conditions is 12 stops. If you want 16 stops, you need 16 bit D/A and that means 16 bit RAW files.

and for those wondering how fast and accurate you can go.... I have an 80Ghz spectrum analyzer at work that samples at 24 bits.... that's like sampling every pixel on a 75Mpixel sensor 1000 times per second at 24 stops of DR! Cameras are snails in comparison...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 22, 2013)

johnhenry said:


> upgrading to a Nikon



Upgrade how?


----------



## Snook (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm not entirely sure of the technical aspects, but wouldn't this many pixels result in severely reduced high ISO capabilities? Would Canon have to innovate somehow to keep the ISO capabilities on par with other, lower megapixel DSLRs?


----------



## infared (Jul 22, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> johnhenry said:
> 
> 
> > upgrading to a Nikon
> ...



....now...now.....(smirk)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

art_d said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting. I just hope that one of the big MP cameras we keep hearing about comes with 16-bit DR. I can care less about any camera with more than 40MP and doesn't have 16-bit DR...
> ...



He said 16bit DR not 16bits  so I'm with him, bring on the DR.


----------



## infared (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> With dual Digic 6+, it might even hit 3 fps...



Or...it could just catch on fire....


----------



## Zv (Jul 22, 2013)

Hmmm seems kinda strange Canon would jump from 22MP to 75MP, but if they could pull it off it would be interesting to see how. Exciting times right now with the 7D2 on the horizon and this big megapixel body next year. Not that I'll be buying any of it just something to drool over!


----------



## birtembuk (Jul 22, 2013)

Very, very interesting. Let's see what all these mega pickles will provide - with binning or whatever sorcery - in terms of DR, noise etc. High fps is not the talk here. There are other cameras to take care of that.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 22, 2013)

I knew I should have purchased a 1TB CF card...


----------



## xps (Jul 22, 2013)

Guess: 12000€ body only

And some new lenses made out of high-resolution glass to meet the Cams resolution.
24-70 2.8 III, 70-200 2.8 IV (doule the price...)


----------



## serendipidy (Jul 22, 2013)

infared said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > With dual Digic 6+, it might even hit 3 fps...
> ...



You mean like Kai's demo on DigitalRev TV ;D


----------



## xps (Jul 22, 2013)

johnhenry said:


> 2015-16 maybe. Not 2014 unless its some "leak" *to keep people from upgrading to a Nikon*



Possible, indeed! Maybe there is an special GPS and WIFI sensor inside who sends all the pics compressed to the US NSA.... 8)


----------



## tnargs (Jul 22, 2013)

Every time a camera co. raises the game on pixel count, we get the same boring whining about PC speed and storage. So old, so lame....


----------



## tnargs (Jul 22, 2013)

Pete said:


> if the 5D3 were capable of 75 megapixels I would soon start choosing my resolution based on my anticipated use for the photo.
> 
> Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.
> 
> Thoughts?



Agree. A dedicated on-body control for MP would be neat.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

xps said:


> johnhenry said:
> 
> 
> > 2015-16 maybe. Not 2014 unless its some "leak" *to keep people from upgrading to a Nikon*
> ...



Oh heck they've already had that since the 20D ;D.


----------



## kirillica (Jul 22, 2013)

sometimes even on my latest very good i7 + 16gb ddr3 + ssd I feel process not so fast with 20mp of 5dm2. the only way to upgrade is ram (up to 64gb), but will it be enough to handle 75mp on a good level of speed? let's see...

at the same time, I think this is a double-pixel technology (like in 70d), so it makes 75mp 38 real mp on output and that's fine to me. around 40mp is something you can handle pretty fast on a good pc.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 22, 2013)

ummm... the way i see it... i should buy some of western digital, seagate, etc stocks as if this rumor comes true LOL


----------



## Pi (Jul 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Shoot mRAW or sRAW, problem solved.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> With dual Digic 6+, it might even hit 3 fps...



That could depend a lot on the memory (card) it's writing to. High-end CF are around 100MB/s, and with a 75Mpix sensor, I would guess a 85-100MB RAW file*. Since Compact Flash is based off PATA, it's limited to 167MB/sec. The CFast card standard (using SATA) could theoretically support up to 600MB/s on the interface, but a quick google only turned up cards in the 100MB/s range.


*) 75Mpx is ~3.4x the 5D3 sensors 22.1Mpix, and with 25-30MB RAW files for the 5D3 I get to 85-100MB (or more for high ISO).


----------



## kaihp (Jul 22, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > art_d said:
> ...



I think there is a mixing of (minimum) resolution and Dynamic Range. The resolution tells you how accurately you can tell each level apart, whereas the dynamic range is to full range (I believe this is what is also called Full Well Capacity) available.

For Don's spectrum analyzer, it has a certain maximum input voltage (Vpp) that it can accept (this is it's DR). Any voltage outside that may either damage the equipment (very expensive!) or just get plain clipped.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I knew I should have purchased a 1TB CF card...


 ;D


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2013)

It would make sense to be a 39Mpixel body for a 4x4 pixel binning. Even a 5x5 binning corresponds to a ~61Mpixel body!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Shoot mRAW or sRAW, problem solved.



DxO will not process mRAW & sRAW files. According to their support, it's because those formats miss some information the software requires.


----------



## Menace (Jul 22, 2013)

Will def be interested in this body - interesting to see how this rumour develops


----------



## jchung (Jul 22, 2013)

Perhaps this is Canon's Foveon style sensor? 25MP x 3 == 75MP.


----------



## Click (Jul 22, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I knew I should have purchased a 1TB CF card...



Ha ha ha ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> With dual Digic 6+, it might even hit 3 fps...



Don't you think Canon is able to add crop or s-raw modes that reduce the data rate before the bottlenecks? 

With the (imho) inevitable trend towards higher resolution there has to be some basic/new research done in this direction ... Canon would probably like it but they cannot expect all people to buy two camera bodies, one high-res, one high-fps. You could counter this trend by introducing faster cpu cores and interfaces, but the question is if the current embedded tech is developing fast enough.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Canon would probably like it but they cannot expect all people to buy two camera bodies, one high-res, one high-fps.



Why not? For years, we had the 1D and the 1Ds lines. The 1D X price at launch was between the 1DIV an the 1DsIII launch prices. If they do have one body with both high-res and high fps, what will they charge for it? Likely well over $10K, and I doubt Canon will leave that large a gap between the 5-series and the 1-series.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon would probably like it but they cannot expect all people to buy two camera bodies, one high-res, one high-fps.
> ...



Because Nikon might try integrate their high-fps and high-mp lines, bless them


----------



## The Eye (Jul 22, 2013)

75+ megapixels. What's the point? There are plenty of 35mm cameras available that can deliver the file sizes and resolution needed for every application imaginable. Then add some interpolating software... And zillions of pixels in a 35mm frame will never be better than less pixels in a medium format sensor. There are several reasons why photographers choose to shoot medium format over 35mm and it's not just pixel count. ! Having said that, Canon probably realises that there are enough people out there who will keep on buying cameras with the most pixels just because they can rather than whether they need them or not.
That's why they do such great business.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

The Eye said:


> 75+ megapixels. What's the point?



Cropping. Changing orientation in post while still having sufficient MP in the resulting file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Well it is highly unlikely that there will be two 1D named products again.
> Why?
> Product disamibiguation.



Dilbert, you really do make me laugh! ;D Even if I get over the lens is a camera thing, it'll be hard to ever take you seriously...

Maybe it escaped your notice - there are two 1D named products *right now*: the 1D X and the 1D C.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 22, 2013)

xps said:


> Guess: 12000€ body only




That would be one sure way of making multitudes desire one, crave one, the holy Grail of EOS. 

And they'll be left with the reality of having to frame properly and only enlarge pics to the size of a truck with their paltry 22 mp.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe it escaped your notice - there are two 1D named products *right now*: the 1D X and the 1D C.



Some people would argue that these two camera models are essentially the same product with an added heatsink and modified fw


----------



## jrista (Jul 22, 2013)

photonius said:


> Don't forget the 70D. This may be a 37.5 Mp camera with dual pixels. Use different exposures on each half-site, and you get expanded DR 14bit or 16 (like the ML trick).
> 
> Canon could also bin the pixels normally, but for tele, if cropping is desired, the unbined version could be selected (sort of like the Nokia purview).
> 
> ...



You would never really be able to "unbin", as the pixel halves are each under a single microlens and color filter. There wouldn't really be any point, since you would have two halves of gree, two halves of red, two halves of blue. That would create a real oddity for digital interpolation, assuming you could get any benefit at all.

The term MegaPixel usually refers to output image pixels, not photodiode count. Keep in mind, there are usually more real "pixels" in a sensor than can be counted from the output image anyways, and have been for some time. For example, an 18mp sensor usually has nearly 20mp actual pixels. It just doesn't seem logical for Canon to start counting their half pixels used for AF...



By my calculations, a 75mp FF sensor would be 10600x7050 pixels in size, with 3.4 micron pixels. That is actually not all that bad. That is similar to a 24mp APS-C sensor in size (which is very interesting...would make sense if Canon has already produced a prototype 24mp 7D II sensor.)

I really don't see how Canon could keep using a 500nm FSI sensor design with 3.4 micron pixels. Given they have a patent for a BSI design for APS-C and FF, I wonder if these two sensors are using the same architecture.


----------



## Pi (Jul 22, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot mRAW or sRAW, problem solved.
> ...



Do not use DXO then. 

BTW, if they want to survive, they would have to support mRAW and sRAW.


----------



## Pi (Jul 22, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > art_d said:
> ...



Dynamic range of a pixel is not the same as DR of an image. When the pixel count increases, the number of bits can drop without a loss. If 16 bits "were needed" now (many would argue that with the high read noise, they were NOT), 14 bit would be enough with the new sensor. With a "zillion" mp sensor, 1 bit would be sufficient.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



A. You're missing my point.

B. If someone gifted me a 75MP camera tomorrow morning, I would paint it blue and throw it into the sea.


----------



## tiger82 (Jul 22, 2013)

Woo-hoo, 1DX price drops for sure as first adopters rush to buy the latest and dump their 1DX's


----------



## poias (Jul 22, 2013)

Shouldn't Canon be creating something greater than 23 megapixels before jumping with the big boys?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

poias said:


> Shouldn't Canon be creating something greater than 23 megapixels before jumping with the big boys?



Yeah, because they didn't already create (your word) a 120 MP APS-H sensor... :

BTW, who are the 'big boys'? There's only one for FF...and it's not Nikon.


----------



## RGF (Jul 22, 2013)

Could be a foveon type sensor - could each photo sensor thrice, once for each color.

Just another crazy idea based upon no info but typical of how the industry plays games with marketing claims.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> ummm... the way i see it... i should buy some of western digital, seagate, etc stocks as if this rumor comes true LOL


 
You'd be better off to invest in Lexar or Sandisk. There is no profit in the old rotating disk technology, and while Samsung makes great SSD's (so does Micron), its just a miniscule part of Samsung's total business, tripling their profit on CF and SD cards would not even show on their bottom line.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Shoot mRAW or sRAW, problem solved.



mraw and sraw are very poor implementations. The DNG spec with its lossy-compressed raw mode is much better. It's still demosaiced like mraw and sraw but it's in object space (like full raw and unlike mraw and sraw), it's linear (like full-raw) and it can be any resolution up to and including full resolution, yet reduced in size by a factor of 3 or more even at the same resolution. Reduce the resolution by a factor of 2 in each direction and compress this way and the file sizes are reduced by more than a factor of 10.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh, with a RAW file size of what? _120MB_?
> ...



Storage isn't cheap. It's cheaper than it's ever been, but it's not cheap.

Sure, you can get a 3TB hard drive for $120. Let's call it 4 cents a gig.

But that's not the whole story.

Many of us have recycled our last desktop computers ever. All my desktops, at work and at home, are now laptops.

To get some storage capacity, I went for larger, more expensive machines with two internal hard drive slots. Each hard drive costs about twice as much - 8 cents a gig.

For backup, I have two machines. So we're up to 16 cents a gig.

I also keep two external backups on large external drives, one at home, one at work. So we're up to 24 cents a gig.

I shot 700 shots on Sunday (yesterday). At around 7 images a gig, this would mean I'd have used 100GB yesterday, or 0.24*100GB = $24. That's more than I would typically spend on film in one day when I was shooting that way (typically two rolls a day at $10 each including processing).

So, while we may get a lot more than in the film days, I wouldn't call storage cheap in the context of digital shooting styles and when you include modern computers, storage, and backups.

Now, shooting JPEG L/M on my 20D is cheap, at about 1000 shots per gigabyte (yesterday cost me 17 cents). Raw on a 75MP camera? Nope, not cheap at all.


----------



## photonius (Jul 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the 70D. This may be a 37.5 Mp camera with dual pixels. Use different exposures on each half-site, and you get expanded DR 14bit or 16 (like the ML trick).
> ...


No, the latter two examples would refer to a full 75Mp sensor, not a 70D type sensor, of course you can't unbin that.
The idea is for normal use you "bin" your 75mp sensor to 35, or 18mp, for file storage. If you want ultimate reach for tele, you keep 75mp (and can crop), or canon even provides a crop mode (like nikon does for aps-c lenses).



jrista said:


> By my calculations, a 75mp FF sensor would be 10600x7050 pixels in size, with 3.4 micron pixels. That is actually not all that bad. That is similar to a 24mp APS-C sensor in size (which is very interesting...would make sense if Canon has already produced a prototype 24mp 7D II sensor.)
> 
> I really don't see how Canon could keep using a 500nm FSI sensor design with 3.4 micron pixels. Given they have a patent for a BSI design for APS-C and FF, I wonder if these two sensors are using the same architecture.



yes, I agree, it seems unlikely a 500nm FSI design.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 22, 2013)

*NO INTEREST!!* Canon seems to be doing their very best to make me switch camera companies  But that's OK, cameras are just tools, and I always use the best tool for my paying jobs. When I need 75+ megapixels for a job, I'd prefer to shoot MFD


----------



## fisico (Jul 22, 2013)

Canon needs to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of their sensors dramatically before packing 75 MP onto one. With everything except AF and shooting speed, the 5D Mk III is merely a minimal improvement over the 5D Mk II. Across the ISO spectrum, there is still lots of shadow noise to get rid of. So my hope is that they overhaul everything else before adding pixels.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

Pi said:


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



Nah, the solution is to simply suffer and do those day long back-ups of each drive.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

tron said:


> It would make sense to be a 39Mpixel body for a 4x4 pixel binning. Even a 5x5 binning corresponds to a ~61Mpixel body!



Perhaps the 5D4 can now be 39MP with 6fps and 4x4 binned 1080p and 2x2 binned 4k while this 75-80MP monster is the 1DXs specialty $$$ camera.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the 70D. This may be a 37.5 Mp camera with dual pixels. Use different exposures on each half-site, and you get expanded DR 14bit or 16 (like the ML trick).
> ...



The sensor in Sony RX100 II is claimed to have become 40% more efficient going from FSI to BSI (although DxO seems to measure the boost a bit less so) and that is 20MP on a sensor as smaller again as APS-C vs FF which makes me think that even 24MP APS-C or FF equivalent would still only get a relatively modest boost from BSI, maybe just enough to barely notice real world at a noticeable cost increase, although a 75MP APS-C sure could get a big boost. Maybe it's just enough to start making it worthwhile. Nobody has made one bigger than the 1" sensor in the RX100 II yet though and I bet a FF BSI would be very pricey indeed (of course this entire camera sounds like a 1DXs sort of beast which tend to be insanely $$ so they might have the margin to do it).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

fisico said:


> Canon needs to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of their sensors dramatically before packing 75 MP onto one. With everything except AF and shooting speed, the 5D Mk III is merely a minimal improvement over the 5D Mk II. Across the ISO spectrum, there is still lots of shadow noise to get rid of. So my hope is that they overhaul everything else before adding pixels.



Yeah at this point I really hope they conquer shadow noise at lower ISOs more than anything.


----------



## poias (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't Canon be creating something greater than 23 megapixels before jumping with the big boys?
> ...



It was great using the magical 120 MP APS-H sensor! What not to like, whether the awesomeness of 120 MP or the un-dead nature of the APS-H. Talk about relevancy!

Oh, and the big boys are all those higher mpx, high DR, superior sensors found in all modern DSLRs except for Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

poias said:


> Oh, and the big boys are all those higher mpx, high DR, superior sensors found in all modern DSLRs except for Canon.



Meaning....Sony.

You and temple guy should get together and throw yourselves a party. But please...somewhere else, not here.


----------



## bvukich (Jul 22, 2013)

poias said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

If Nikon could actually build a decent body, with decent ergonomics and UI to put that sensor in, they could become a threat to Canon's market position. Although they'd need to work on their lenses too, the only shining point in that lineup is the 14-24/2.8, admittedly great, but beyond that they don't have anything notable.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

bvukich said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



And nikon lenses mount funny. ;D


----------



## Pi (Jul 22, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot mRAW or sRAW, problem solved.
> ...



We are talking about mRAW and sRAW for sensors with very high pixel count. Whatever you do not like about the current implementation, will became a non-problem with higher pixel counts. For people, that definitely do not want to see 75mp or so anywhere in their workflow, this would be the solution.


----------



## Pi (Jul 22, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



And you are missing mine. If nobody told you that the actual sensor is 75mp, and the "RAW" files are 22mp, with the small "m" skipped, how would you ever know what the actual sensor resolution was?


----------



## gunship01 (Jul 22, 2013)

Would love to have a camera like this as I am sure it would recoil with every pull of the button.

That's taking pictures alright!

Just need to watch the lens (barrel) does not overheat. I'd say 4 FPS should do it. 

Now make that price point around 5K and I'm in!!


----------



## poias (Jul 22, 2013)

bvukich said:


> Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...



If sales figure is a mark of technical prowess then a Civics and Corollas are the best cars in the world.


----------



## pedroesteban (Jul 22, 2013)

poias said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...
> ...



If a Ferrari cost you the same as a Civic, which would you rather buy?


----------



## poias (Jul 22, 2013)

pedroesteban said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



An 11 DR sensor can be a Ferrari. In what world are you residing?


----------



## pedroesteban (Jul 22, 2013)

poias said:


> pedroesteban said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



You're missing my point. If cameras equipped with Sony sensors were Ferraris, people would not pay even higher prices for Canon 11 DR Civics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

I see the DRooling DRones have brought their DRivel to DRag down yet another thread. What a surprise.


----------



## pedroesteban (Jul 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see the DRooling DRones have brought their DRivel to DRag down yet another thread. What a surprise.



Sorry for feeding the troll... 

Back to the 75 Mp topic, I also believe in the 38 "Mega-dual-pixels" theory.


----------



## poias (Jul 22, 2013)

pedroesteban said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > pedroesteban said:
> ...



You have no point. Masses care about instagram and iphone pictures. None of these dslrs are status items either. A lot of those who care about IQ and print big are not too happy about 11 DR (barring cognitive dissonance).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2013)

And thus they are DRawn in, as the moth to the flame. 

--Apocryphal proverb


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Mraw and draw are the inefficient and of poor quality especially for color correction. Higher pixel counts don't solve these issues. Lossy DNG does and Canon should adopt that approach in their cameras.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



+1 They need to give up on sRAW and mRAW and focus on a combination of:

1. offering cropped sizes like Nikon does (who needs to retain the outer pixels of a distant bird deep in the center of the frame?? it's a total waste of storage space and you don't fps increases when shooting)
2. and compressed RAW as you say for those not super critical times

I'm not sure we will see it though as Canon tends to be very set in their if we though to do it this way first by golly that is the Canon way and the only way and so it shall ever be no matter what. Unfortunately it may take a few more generations, but we can hope.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

Like others have said, biggest concern for me is 1. $$$ spent on storage, and 2. time spent transferring. 

1. Admittedly, I have a hard time deleting my photos. I"m a photo pack rat. If you're the kind of person who does an annual dump of those dusty raw files, then storage probably isn't a concern regarding a 75mp camera (assuming you already have a decent storage/raid setup). If you're like me, let's hope Canon bundles this guy with a couple hard drives.

2. In real-world situations, USB 3.0 does not transfer at 4Gbits/s (512MB/s), just like thunderbolt does not transfer at 10Gbits/s (1280 MB/s). *The average user* is going to see ~75MB/s-300MB/s. I think a lot of people see the speed ratings of these interfaces and (assuming they understand the difference between bits & bytes) over-estimate their real-world performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> surt sa räven om rönnbären, usch sa Casper när han fick syn på en naken häst.
> 
> Visst vore det väl bra om Canon fick ordning på läsbruset och bandning i sina sensorer


Google Translate renders this as:
*acidic said the fox about rowan berries, yikes said Casper when he caught sight of a naked horse.
Would not it be gratifying if Canon had to order at läsbruset and strapping in their sensors*

Being as other threads have degenerated into things like squirrels with anti-gravity, this doesn't surprise me


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > surt sa räven om rönnbären, usch sa Casper när han fick syn på en naken häst.
> ...



I'll pass on whatever a _naked horse_ is. On the flip side, I'll definitely take an *anti-grav squirrel*!


----------



## bvukich (Jul 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Oh dear, well that sure escalated quickly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

bvukich said:


> Oh dear, well that sure escalated quickly.



Yes, it did...and you know who's to blame. 



I'm referring to the anti-gravity squirrels, and their astounding ability to escalate, of course.


----------



## bvukich (Jul 23, 2013)

poias said:


> pedroesteban said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



If DR is the only thing you care about, then why are you here? Go get something with a Sony sensor and take some pictures.

I bought into Canon initially, and continue to do so, because they have the strongest system FOR ME. I'd like more DR, who wouldn't? But that's far from the most important thing to me. YMMV.

Buy whatever suits YOUR needs, but dumping on other peoples choices and opinions, is just a waste of everyone's time. If you have something *constructive* to say, even if it's negative, by all means do so. All we've seen so far from you in this thread however, is drivel.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

bvukich said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > pedroesteban said:
> ...



Well said. And who cares how much DR there is in street photography anyway?

I do wonder if Canon will announce the high MP camera before Nikon announces their new FF camera. I doubt the production Canon will have 75 MP. That could simply be a test mule meant to stress the new processing (or some hardware aspect that excites heat or something), could it not?


----------



## ragmanjin (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



That's a good point, but in my opinion it would seem more likely they're just trying to test two steps ahead of the competition. I figure the next full-frame we see will be another modest increase of 2 or 3MP tops over whichever it's replacing. When they make the move to take down the D800, they're going to make sure they do it right. Start off with a small increase like the 70D, then do the dual-pixel tech in the 1D C II (1D IIC? 2D C?) and maybe something just a slight bit higher-res than the next Nikon alternative for people who need MP bragging rights more than image quality. Either way, whether it's 75MP or a 37MP dual-pixel beast, it probably won't be on the shelves for a while yet. 
Just a thought.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jul 23, 2013)

bvukich said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Totally.

When I bought my first DSLR, I didn't base it on MP, FPS or DR. I based it on ergonomics. I could "live" with the UI. but I wouldn't budge on ergonomics. But someone may feel the same for Nikon. Whatever. You can take a great pic with either.

And this whole thing about enormous files.. It's not for you if you're complaining about that. Yes, you'll need the systems to support that adequately. That's part of the price of admission. This looks to be a high-end pro camera and those pros charge the amounts to get that gear. Though, I know plenty of big pros that are happy with their 10-15MP cameras. 

And if that's good enough for them....


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 23, 2013)

Cool! Actually being able to downsize to 22MP and more sounds amazing (also it should deliver quite noise free images if downsized to "less huge" ). I just wonder if todays lenses got enough resolution for a 75MP sensor.
Anyway i think io need to save some decades to buy it cuz the price is probably going to be ferkin huge since there are not many cameras with such high MP count. Yeah hasselblad n stuff but they will still be more expensive than the 75MP Canon i guess.


----------



## Inst (Jul 23, 2013)

What about the possibility that this IS medium format?

Canon supposedly cannot produce high resolution / low pixel-size features on its 360nm/500nm process, while Sony / Nikon can. Because Canon refused to spend and devote the effort towards mastering the 180nm process which is used by Sony for their high-DR processes, Canon cannot immediately compete with Sony and Nikon when it comes to the cutting edge of sensor technology.

One way to get around this problem is to simply use the 500nm sensors for other purposes. Let's say, it's 75mp on a 6x7 format sensor. Canon has mostlsy mastered its 500nm fab technology, so it might be able to produce 6x7 sensors at below Hasselblad and other Medium Format producers' cost and create a new type of market, taking back the performance crown from Nikon and Sony.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 23, 2013)

bvukich said:


> Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...


sales ≠ superiority
Longevity maybe (beta vs vhs?)



bvukich said:


> If Nikon could actually build a decent body, with decent ergonomics and UI to put that sensor in, they could become a threat to Canon's market position.



Nothing wrong with Nikon bodies, ergonomics are different, not necessarily inferior. Canon isn't necessarily the superior one here either. I really prefer my Pentax K52s and D800 ergo to MOST Canon's. OTOH, I can't stand Nikon's D600 or D7x00 series ergo.

Have to agree about the UI tho, looks like someone who can't speak english or think clearly put together the darn menus in most of their cameras... They're nowhere near as intuitive as other mfr's UI like Canon, Panasonic or Pentax.



bvukich said:


> Although they'd need to work on their lenses too, the only shining point in that lineup is the 14-24/2.8, admittedly great, but beyond that they don't have anything notable.


Really? the 14-24 is pretty good but has its flaws.
note the performance of the recent 70-200/4 VR, it's PDG!
Again, their lenses don't always perform the same as Canon's, neither do Pentax. That makes them more different than anything. I've found that all 3 major mfrs have very good lenses and some that are not so good.
It's not all about ultimate sharpness and lack of CA, those are very important, but so are appealing bokeh and little details like (micro-)contrast and handling.

I do not think your anti-Nikon arguments are solidly conclusive, they're more like your personal opinion.
Which you're entitled to express. 
Until about 2 years ago, I would have been inclined to strongly agree with your opinion.
What a difference a gear (change) or 2 makes.



RLPhoto said:


> And nikon lenses mount funny. ;D



I'll give you that! ???
2 CW systems and one CCW that I use, the Nikon way to mount lenses just feels backwards.
but it still holds the lens on.


----------



## bvukich (Jul 23, 2013)

Aglet said:


> I do not think your anti-Nikon arguments are solidly conclusive, they're more like your personal opinion.
> Which you're entitled to express.
> Until about 2 years ago, I would have been inclined to strongly agree with your opinion.
> What a difference a gear (change) or 2 makes.



Actually, thank you for calling me out on that. I'm usually good about adding the requisite "for me", "for my needs", etc. And you are 100% correct.

Ergonomics are highly subjective, barring just outright design disasters. And I'll be the first to admit my firsthand knowledge is limited and somewhat dated (~5 years or so), and these days is mostly relegated to secondhand reports. There surely are people that just love Nikon ergonomics, and those that hate Canon ergonomics. I believe though, based purely on anecdotal evidence mind you, that the opposite is true quite a bit more often. But like I said, subjective.

UI I believe though, is more inclined to being objective. Still I'm sure there are people that prefer it, or are just plain used to the random cluster it has evolved to become. But overall it's much easier to point to something in the UI design and say it's bad, and actually support that argument with facts and logic.

Maybe the 12-24 is not without it's flaws; however, seeing as how there is really no direct comparison to be had, I tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. Plus being without peer, it is by default the best. It's worth the effort for a non-trivial number of Canon shooters to convert them, so it can't be _that _flawed.

The 70-200/4VR I really haven't heard much about. It is good that they finally filled that glaring hole in their lens lineup though.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 23, 2013)

poias said:


> It was great using the magical 120 MP APS-H sensor! What not to like, whether the awesomeness of 120 MP or the un-dead nature of the APS-H. Talk about relevancy!
> 
> Oh, and the big boys are all those higher mpx, high DR, superior sensors found in all modern DSLRs except for Canon.



And out of the woodwork you come with your anti-Canon diatribe, without fail. Don't like Canon? That's fine, but change the record.


----------



## M.ST (Jul 23, 2013)

There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

Aglet said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...
> ...



...and another moth DRawn in. 

Sensor ≠ camera. 

Buyers aren't purchasing bare silicon. Maybe Canon consistently sells more because they make superior *cameras*. But the DR addicts just DRone on and on and on about the sensor, with no apparent comprehension of the fact that it takes more than a bare silicon sensor to make a picture.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 23, 2013)

M.ST said:


> There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.



Shure? While smart phones get 40+ megapixel tiny sensors?

I tried the Digital lens optimizer of DPP (just available for a few lenses) and I see very good quality with the 10-22 on a 18 mpix sensor.

Not that I am lusting for 75 megapixels or more - 20 GOOD megapixels are sufficient for me (and a lot other too) but I think it is a possible future of FF DSLR - and a likely one.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.
> ...



He's a Canon beta tester and Canon probably would have parts of him cut off if they'd be an US company and just would have to ask the NSA for his identity 

Personally, I also guess that 75mp is too large a step for the current tech (lens sharpness, data rate, storage) and ~40mp is much more reasonable for the next gen. Remember we're not talking about specialized products here, but dslrs meant for general adoption.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Buyers aren't purchasing bare silicon. Maybe Canon consistently sells more because they make superior *cameras*. But the DR addicts just DRone on and on and on about the sensor, with no apparent comprehension of the fact that it takes more than a bare silicon sensor to make a picture.
> ...



I'm sure some are. So what? 

People buy products that offer the features they want at the price that meets their budget. Since Nikon has had "better sensors" (at least from a DR standpoint) for years, it seems that most buyers do not care that much about DR as a "feature".


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



So...

Higher Sales = Better cameras?


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Higher Sales = Cameras people like more.

People usually like what's good. If there is any serious issue with a product, or any serious PR problem with a company, people usually don't buy. 

On the flip side, if a product is well made, full of useful features (like built in WiFi and GPS), readily available and within their financial grasp, then they will usually buy it in considerable volume. Not everyone would agree that Android phones are the best available, however the majority of consumers seem to think so. For that matter, not everyone even thinks the iPhone is the best phone available, and yet Apple rakes in tens of billions a quarter on the product. 

Statistically, the sales numbers speak for themselves, which means most people find Samsung Android and Apple iPhone phones to be superior to all other options out there, and in the vast majority of cases, they are!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Higher Sales = Better cameras?



Higher sales = higher sales. Could be a better product, could be a better price, could be better perceived value, could be that more people are 'locked in' to the system based on historical purchases. Probably it's all of them.

The point is that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc., are selling cameras, and a camera is more than its sensor, despite what DxOMark and the CR-DR crowd seem to believe.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Cameras people like more = Canon ;D


----------



## flanderscamera (Jul 23, 2013)

There are no fab facilities that could produce this sensor (assuming a FF, not a super-FF).

It takes at least 2 years, in the case of Japanese mfgs 3 years to get one into operation.

A 2014 production is just - well - a dream.

BTW: that was my job until I retired, i.e. I kinda know how what's involved.

BTW2: Canon had a FF lab proto of a 45-50 MP about 2 years ago. That would be more reasonable, but it still wouldn't go into production next year.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

flanderscamera said:


> There are no fab facilities that could produce this sensor (assuming a FF, not a super-FF). It takes at least 2 years, in the case of Japanese mfgs 3 years to get one into operation.



That sounds like educated information - could you please elaborate further why it takes so long from scratch to product? And why do Japanese take longer, extended holidays  ?


----------



## flanderscamera (Jul 23, 2013)

The engineering of production equipment, and product testing equipment most often is a larger task that the original product development. Leading edge semi products are the worst, especially considering "leading Edge" is a fleeting concept. Add site development, personnel training, and local "government influence" two years to create a high tech fab facility is the best you could expect. (Mind you, these facilities are now constructed in what were/are 3rd world countries).

Japanese companies are blame/credit centric. Before the start of any project, a chain of blame (in the case of project failure) and credit (in case all works out well) has to be established. This is very time consuming.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

flanderscamera said:


> Japanese companies are blame/credit centric. Before the start of any project, a chain of blame (in the case of project failure) and credit (in case all works out well) has to be established. This is very time consuming.



Thanks a lot, I'll store this information in my permanent memory, it's always great to have people with professional experience disclose these things!


----------



## bvukich (Jul 23, 2013)

flanderscamera said:


> The engineering of production equipment, and product testing equipment most often is a larger task that the original product development. Leading edge semi products are the worst, especially considering "leading Edge" is a fleeting concept. Add site development, personnel training, and local "government influence" two years to create a high tech fab facility is the best you could expect. (Mind you, these facilities are now constructed in what were/are 3rd world countries).
> 
> Japanese companies are blame/credit centric. Before the start of any project, a chain of blame (in the case of project failure) and credit (in case all works out well) has to be established. This is very time consuming.



You're assuming they'd be standing up a new fab to create this chip, or at least a new process, both would almost certainly be incorrect.

They almost certainly will be using their existing fab, and existing 500nm process.

Granted, this still isn't something you can stand up in an afternoon, but there's NO WAY it would take years.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 24, 2013)

bvukich said:


> flanderscamera said:
> 
> 
> > The engineering of production equipment, and product testing equipment most often is a larger task that the original product development. Leading edge semi products are the worst, especially considering "leading Edge" is a fleeting concept. Add site development, personnel training, and local "government influence" two years to create a high tech fab facility is the best you could expect. (Mind you, these facilities are now constructed in what were/are 3rd world countries).
> ...



flanderscamera has said his opinion is based on professional experience in manufacturing.
What are your counter-opinions based on?

Sure, they could retro-fit an old fab with a newer process, but this is rarely done (the value of keeping the old fab running and the cost building a new one is higher than stopping the fab and retrofitting costs).

*flanderscamera:* I would have thought that Canon would put a new fab inside Japan, but I'm not exactly familiar with their fabs. Sounds to me you are suggesting to put a fab in countries like Indonesia, Philippines, or Vietnam.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

flanderscamera said:


> Japanese companies are blame/credit centric. Before the start of any project, a chain of blame (in the case of project failure) and credit (in case all works out well) has to be established. This is very time consuming.



Ah, yes...Japanese business politics. I am curious how long that would actually take, though...the Japanese can also be exceptionally efficient when they want to be.


----------



## bvukich (Jul 24, 2013)

kaihp said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > flanderscamera said:
> ...



They've been using the same process in the same fabs for a decade for their DSLR sensors. Even at 75MP, 500nm is plenty fine enough for any feature, unless they move amps & ADCs on die (which would be awesome btw), or did fancy stuff like on die binning, in either of those cases I'm not even remotely qualified to make a statement of whether 500nm would be sufficient. So my position is based on historical precedence, and simple logic. If flanderscamera has evidence to the contrary I'm sure everyone would love to hear it, myself included.

Migrating to a new process, or even just to a larger wafer size in the same process, is incredibly expensive. And a whole new fab with modern tooling is in the neighborhood of $1-2bn. I would love to hear they are making that investment, and would love to be proven wrong. And if that is the case, then flanderscamera's timeline would be just about right. I just haven't seen anything to support that, so I'm skeptical.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

bvukich said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



Canon does have on-die amplifiers. As far as I know, they have per-pixel amps as well as an additional downstream amp. They also have on-die CDS. The old APS-C 18mp sensor seems to already be indicating that full well capacity is getting low enough that its problematic to IQ (and that is at 4.3 microns...a 75mp FF would have 3.4 micron pixels, and an even lower FWC...meaning even more noise.) With a 500nm process on an FSI design, the actual photodiode area at 3.4 microns would be around 2.3 microns. When small form factor pixels in phones and P&S cameras started reaching pixels that size a few years ago, they were already using smaller processes between 250nm and 180nm, and they were already starting to look to BSI to improve IQ.

I am not sure the 500nm process still really has much, if any, life left in it. Canon is really riding up against the walls of physics at this point, and smaller pixels will get progressively noisier without either a shift to a smaller process, or a move to BSI (or something else as radical...supercooling to improve Q.E. of their photodiodes in combination with lightpipes, etc.)

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong...I too am waiting to hear Canon has done something about their fabs. You are, actually, probably quite right. I guess that is rather depressing, however...having used the 7D for about 19 months now, I can't imagine what 3.4 micron pixels on a 500nm FIS design would be like...but I can't imagine them being better, or even as good.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 24, 2013)

Time to put in an order for more external hard drives.

Here's how my PC root looked couple days ago when I had the card reader connected too:


----------



## bvukich (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> what do you mean JRISTA that smaller pixels will be noisier?



The snr on an individual pixel will get worse as it's scaled down, the snr of the sensor as a whole will (should) improve though.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 24, 2013)

There's no perfect system for everything, which is why I use 3 of the majors (I'm a PentNikCan shooter). It's taken some time to learn them all and get used to their individual pros and cons but it's been enlightening, worthwhile, and enjoyable for me.

*Where I have to give Canon top kudos is their user manuals. 
*At least all the english ones I've read.

They're much better written, IMO, than the Nikon and Pentax manuals I've read within the last few years. (I haven't had a recent Panasonic or Sony to compare.)
*If a new user takes the time to completely read a Canon manual, cover-to-cover, they'd learn a LOT, even if they aren't using a Canon camera. *

For this reason, I can still recommend Canon to a new user, they'd likely find it a less frustrating and more intuitive introduction to DSLR shooting. Someone with more experience would do well, possibly better, with one of the alternatives, depending on what their intent was for such gear.

This kind of thing can result in more sales. and, once in, likely repeat customers.
Mfrs should really give more thought to how well their manuals are written - that's if the buying demographic still READS paper manuals... All too often I see questions on various forums that are well documented in the basic user manuals.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Read noise _may_ be lower (depends on a number of factors)...total noise is not, simply because the SNR is lower (i.e. ~20k e- for the 7D, vs. ~90k e- for the 1D X...both are 18mp, but the amount of noise in a similarly framed photo from the 1D X will be significantly lower than that of a 7D. In a focal length limited scenario, the 7D will offer higher resolution despite the increase in noise.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> right answer will always be, smaller pixels, *lower noise*
> *NOISE*
> simple as that



Is it that simple? What about the signal?


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> right answer will always be, smaller pixels, *lower noise*
> *NOISE*
> simple as that



That is read noise.

What about photon shot noise, which is relative to the signal? Are we just going to ignore that, now?


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Ok, lets get to the root of this here. 



1. Assume we have a hypothetical sensor that introduces ZERO read noise whatsoever...no dark current noise, no high frequency noise...no read noise of any kind from any electronic source in the camera, on the sensor die or anywhere else...just for discussions sake. 

2. That sensor captures an image projected by a lens in dim light, at an ISO setting of 1600. 

3. Is that image noise free, or is there an intrinsic component of noise that is a very part of the image itself?



This is a test. Your answer does matter. You will be judged upon it. Go!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> please learn to discuss the subject



Sage advice....try following it, instead of DRagging every thread down into the dolDRums.


----------



## jrista (Jul 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


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



And there you go, peoples! No answer, more obfuscation, and some beating around the bush about "guests".

I think we can safely come to the conclusion that Mikael does not understand the concept of intrinsic noise in an image signal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> And there you go, peoples! No answer, more obfuscation, and some beating around the bush about "guests".
> 
> I think we can safely come to the conclusion that Mikael does not understand the concept of intrinsic noise in an image signal.



I think you're reading too much into the response. The only takeaway I got was that we'll have to wait two more days for new pictures of QPcards on barbecues.


----------



## ragmanjin (Jul 26, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


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






ankorwatt said:


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



What, nobody willing to hit up FreeTranslation?
The only thing that really happens is, of course, the fact that it is completely [effective QE] which determines noise ...
Brusvärdet is always the root of ljusmängden ( addition normally, but not in this case). Noise at 18% gray or lighter will hardly be affected at all of the fact that there is no läsbrus, it is such a small proportion of overall noise here - even at ISO1600.

For example 6D is white spot in råfilen on ISO1600 approximately 4400 e- (attractive FWC/16, since ISO1600 is 16x more than base-ISO).
Mellangrått will be 18% of 4400 = 792e-, and fotonbruset of this is sqrt(792) = 28.1e- for 18% gray

as läsbruset in a normal camera is approximately 3e- at ISO1600 had barely had an impact on the signal. It would have added to the 3e- to 28.1e- fotonbrus had it been:
sqrt(28.1 ^2 3 ^ 2) = 28.3e- ( 0.2e- not a noticeable difference, barely measurable)

under 18% gray noise will grow more slowly when it goes down to the darker if you do not have a läsbrus. This is the difference comparison with läsbrus.
At 1% exposure (-6.6Ev) is the captured ljusmängden only 44e-, so noise becomes:
sqrt(44) = 6.6e-
this is läsbruset noticeably, then
sqrt(6.6) ^2 3 ^ 2) = 7.3e-.

The difference is then 6.6e- without läsbrus vs 7.3e- with normal läsbrus - no enormous difference here either, but probably noticeable
6.6e- of 44e- signal = 20 * log(44/ 6.6) = 16.4dB brusavstånd
7.3e of 44e- signal = 20 * log(44/ 7.3) = 15.6dB with läsbrus.

The important difference, of course, will when läsbruset had begun to dominate fotonbruset, down in the shadows. Same as DR-point then.
-10Ev has the "läsbrusfria" the camera is still approximately 6dB SNR. The camera with 3e- läsbrus will have almost zero in SNR, i.e. , as much noise as a signal. This can be seen very difference.

The läsbrusfria pixel can completely without losses are divided up in how small pixels at any time without the noise of image area (per detail) increases, it has läsbrus this will at a certain pixelmängd start to become "too many brustillskott" for it to appear any profit with it.


Not all of those words translated right, but the just of it looks like the maths. Nothing hurts my brain more than maths. All I know is that I have cameras with sensor sizes ranging from the size of my pinky nail to the size of your average card reader, and every time I print a print outside of that camera's native resolution, the outcome is exponentially better with bigger sensors and bigger pixels. As an example: http://motionblurdaily.com/2013/06/18/why-we-use-what-we-use-medium-format-vs-full-frame-vs-aps-c/

Or, as another example, check out the photos below. One is from a Canon SX40, with a sensor the size of my pinky nail and a pixel size of 1.5 µm, at base ISO. One is from my Canon T2i with an APS-C sensor and a 4.2µm pixel size, and the third is from a medium-format Phase One camera with a huge sensor (37mm x 49mm) and a 6.8µm pixel pitch. Can you guess which is which?


----------



## eha (Jul 27, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Det enda som egentligen händer är ju att det då är helt och hållet [effektiv QE] som bestämmer bruset...
> Brusvärdet är då alltid roten av ljusmängden (+tillskott normalt sett, men inte i detta fallet då). Bruset vid 18% grå eller ljusare kommer knappt påverkas alls av att det inte finns något läsbrus, det är en så liten del av bruset totalt sett här - även på ISO1600.
> 
> För t.ex 6D är vitpunkten i råfilen på ISO1600 ca 4400e- (FWC/16, eftersom ISO1600 är 16ggr mer än bas-ISO).
> ...



My translation:

_"
What really happens then, is that it's the effective QE that determines the noise. The amount of noise is always the square root of the amount of light (+ some additions normally, but not in this case). The noise at 18% gray or brighter won't be affected at all by the fact that there's no read noise, because it's such a small portion of the total noise in this case - even at ISO 1600.

For 6D, for example, the white point of the raw file at ISO 1600 is approx. 4400e- (FWX/16 since ISO 1600 is 16x more than base ISO). Middle gray is then 18% of 4400e- = 792e-, and the photon noise of this is the square root of 792e- = 28.1e- for 18% gray.

Since the read noise of a normal camera is approx. 3e- at ISO 1600, this would barely affect the signal. If you were to add the 3e- onto the 28.1e- of photon noise it would be:
Sqrt(28.1^2 + 3^2) = 28.3e- (+0.2e-, i.e. no noticable difference, barely measurable)

Below 18% gray the noise will grow more slowly as one approaches the darker if there is NO read noise. This is the difference compared to read noise.
At 1% exposure (-6.6Ev) the captured amount of light is only 44e-, so the noise will be:
Sqrt(44) = 6.6e-
In this case the read noise is noticable, because
Sqrt(6.6^2 + 3^2) = 7.3e-.

The difference is then 6.6e- without read noise, vs. 7.3e- with normal read noise -- no great difference here either, but probably noticable
6.6e- of 44e- signal = 20*log(44/6.6) = 16.4dB noise difference
7.3e- of 44e- signal = 20*log(44/7.3) = 15.6dB with read noise.

The important difference thus appears when the read noise starts to dominate the photon noise, down in the shadow area. The same business as with the DR point, in other words.
At -10Ev the "read noise free" camera still has approx. 6dB SNR. The camera with 3e- read noise will then have almost no SNR, i.e. the same amount of noise as signal. Here, there difference will be apparent.

The noise free pixel can losslessly be divided into as small pixels as possible withouth increasing the noise relative to the IQ (per detail), if there's read noise however, at a certain pixel number there'll bee "too many noise additions" for there to be any benefit of it.
"_

Sorry for the poor translation. I'm Norwegian, not Swedish


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2013)

While you were arguing about sensor technologies, quantum efficiency, and dark current noise, I was outside taking pictures.

Note that this picture was taken with a (gasp) crop camera, at ISO3200, and with a 20 second exposure. The northern lights way off in the distance came as a surprise when I looked at the picture on the computer, the naked eye could not see them. 

The point I am trying to make is that even four year old sensor technology is amazing..... Go out and use it. Save the rancorous debate on new products until after it goes on sale and you get to use it. You are arguing the fine points of vaporware.


----------



## sharka23 (Jul 27, 2013)

thanx Don.
now everything is fine .... again


----------



## jrista (Jul 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> While you were arguing about sensor technologies, quantum efficiency, and dark current noise, I was outside taking pictures.
> 
> Note that this picture was taken with a (gasp) crop camera, at ISO3200, and with a 20 second exposure. The northern lights way off in the distance came as a surprise when I looked at the picture on the computer, the naked eye could not see them.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that even four year old sensor technology is amazing..... Go out and use it. Save the rancorous debate on new products until after it goes on sale and you get to use it. You are arguing the fine points of vaporware.



Congrats on catching the northern lights! In Colorado, I'm too far south to even get a glimpse of them like that, even during big solar storms. 

People do indeed complain too much about their cameras. Relative to each other there may be some differences, but relative to the past, every camera on the market these days is amazingly good. People should just get out and take pictures...


----------



## Pi (Jul 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> While you were arguing about sensor technologies, quantum efficiency, and dark current noise, I was outside taking pictures.
> 
> Note that this picture was taken with a (gasp) crop camera, at ISO3200, and with a 20 second exposure. The northern lights way off in the distance came as a surprise when I looked at the picture on the computer, the naked eye could not see them.



How do you know that this is not dark current noise? 

BTW, is there a town below the lights?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > While you were arguing about sensor technologies, quantum efficiency, and dark current noise, I was outside taking pictures.
> ...


The auroral oval was fairly large and extended south of James Bay.. ( I am a bit north-west of Ottawa, Canada) and we sometimes see the lights here. There are no towns in that direction for a couple of hundred kilometers.... and they are very small towns. The glow on the horizon was distant northern lights.


----------



## stewy (Jul 27, 2013)

Just got my 5D3 and tried it today; had a 40D since 2008. Its a nice improvement, but it doesn't blow me away. With that, I feel that the 5D3 is a great, all rounded camera. I would love to add a medium format Canon camera to the list. Since I don't do sports, the 1Dx isn't worth it for me. If Canon released a medium format camera then that would be awesome, but they would have to release at the same time some nice prime lens for landscape and portrait photographers.

Anyway, I'm off to go use my 5D3 some more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I like your way to challenge statements
> 
> no comparison with any other camera
> 
> ...



WOOOSSHHHHHHHHHH...

That was the sound of the point of those posts flying over your head. You missed it, completely. 

BTW, you should really try to pull out the detail in those shadows of your iPhone pic. I'm disappointed... :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I ducked


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I ducked
> 
> and here is some lower levels !!
> 
> no banding- nice


I like the first picture better.... pulling the details out of the shadow makes the sky less dramatic....


----------



## Zv (Jul 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I ducked
> 
> and here is some lower levels !!
> 
> no banding- nice



Why did you desaturate the sky? And are you comparing the northern lights and star field to what is basically a bog standard underexposed silhouette type shot?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

Zv said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > I ducked
> ...



I think he's trying very hard _not_ to say (while still implying) that the iPhone is a better camera than a Canon dSLR. After all, a bog standard underexposed shot on the 5DIII will show horrible banding when you lift the shadows, which you have to do frequently due to the poor DR. 

Apple sells more iPhones than Canon sells dSLRs. Does that mean the iPhone is a better camera? :


----------



## Zv (Jul 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



And what exactly does "ducked" mean? Maybe we should've ducked as in ducked his reponse!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

Zv said:


> And what exactly does "ducked" mean? Maybe we should've ducked as in ducked his reponse!



Hey, give him some credit. I said the point went over his head, he said he ducked. Maybe he has a sense of humor after all. Got a chuckle from me, at any rate. 

*but the poor DR of Canon sensors is no laughing matter*


----------



## Zv (Jul 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > And what exactly does "ducked" mean? Maybe we should've ducked as in ducked his reponse!
> ...



Ah I see what he did there!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> People should just get out and take pictures...



We do though, maybe even especially us DRippers. I took 360GB of photos over the last six weeks!
And 500GB of HD video!


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > People should just get out and take pictures...
> ...



Good job you weren't using a 75mp camera then .......


----------

