# I don't understand



## chauncey (Oct 4, 2013)

First Nikon and now Sony http://www.photographybay.com/2013/10/03/sony-nex-a7-a7r-full-frame-cameras-coming-this-month-with-24mp-and-36mp-sensors/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PhotographyBay+%28Photography+Bay%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail
Why is Canon dragging their feet?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2013)

*Rumors.* Do you understand that? :

If you _needed_ 36 MP FF, you'd be shooting with a D800 now, anyway...right?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 4, 2013)

chauncey said:


> Why is Canon dragging their feet?



They too busy making more 24-70ish lenses and "IS" primes for video shooters

I'm standing by for new Fuji X-E2 and Sony FF mirrorless bodies. I like to build a small landscape system, therefore, I don't mind higher MP in this case. Just keep the bodies and lenses small as possible. Canon 22mm is perfect


----------



## Northstar (Oct 4, 2013)

Yes...I agree.

Nikon launched their 36 MP 18 months ago...Canon dragging their feet indeed.

Maybe they'll make up for it with a 46MP?


----------



## mountain_drew (Oct 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Rumors.* Do you understand that? :
> 
> If you _needed_ 36 MP FF, you'd be shooting with a D800 now, anyway...right?


By that logic, I don't need anything that I don't already have. That's a simplistic statement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> That's a simplistic statement.



This whole thread is a simplistic topic. A rumor that Sony will have a 36 MP FF sensor. There are rumors that Canon will have a 40+ MP FF sensor. Let's talk when something is announced, until then it's just wasted electrons.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm waiting for the 75mp camera from Canon, everything else is just for amateurs. Once I get that, I can FINALLY take the special shots that are locked away in my mind that none of my current sad gear can achieve. Oh I can't wait for that day.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Oct 4, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> That's a simplistic statement.


No more so than the concept:

megapixels => camera/image/photo quality


----------



## mountain_drew (Oct 4, 2013)

GmwDarkroom said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > That's a simplistic statement.
> ...


Fighting simplistic statements with simplistic statements is a good way to dumb down a discussion and make this forum much less interesting.


----------



## surapon (Oct 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > That's a simplistic statement.
> ...



+1 for me too, Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist.
Canon invented 100 MP. Sensor 2-3 years ago and This years, My dear Japanese friend , Optical Engineer , who work at Canon, Japan tell me that the High MP. ( 200-300 MP + ) are not matter any more, Yes, The New technology is here. BUT the cost of new camera that Canon will put in the market must be under $ 10,000 US Dollars , to sell the most , and make the most money for the Canon Company. Yes, They rather want to sell 250,000 Units of new camera bodies under $ 8,000 US Dollars, than 1000 units of $ 25,000 Us Dollars, just for the real Pro or the Super rich Photographers( ??) , who just point and shoot, and show off their new toy.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## distant.star (Oct 4, 2013)

.
I don't understand. It's a chronic condition -- and not always intolerable.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 4, 2013)

The best time to buy a camera is about 3 years from now. ;D


----------



## ME (Oct 4, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> I don't understand. It's a chronic condition -- and not always intolerable.



Surapon,
Does your Canon engineer friend ever give you any more "secret information" that you can share with your other friends here at CR ;D. :-X P.S., I always enjoy reading your posts, and admire your politeness, which is something I could improve on myself.

PS, sorry distant.star and Surapon, I quoted the wrong post, :-[ :-[though I like yours also distant.star


----------



## EchoLocation (Oct 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > That's a simplistic statement.
> ...


While I wholeheartedly get your point, Neuro. The FF Sony camera rumored here is most likely going to be announced in about 10 days. I trust Andrea over at sonyalpharumors and I'm pretty sure there is at the very least going to be one FF Sony mirrorless, if not two by the end of the year. while it is all rumors at this point, Canon has certainly been dragging their feet on releasing new technology and new features people are looking for while pricing new products at a premium level. I would say this includes things like the 24-70 w/ no IS, 6D w/ only 11AF points. similar sensors again and again and a 5DIII at 500 dollars more than the D800.
While it is all rumors at this point, there is a very good chance that Sony will have a sub 2000 dollar Leica sized FF interchangeable lens camera on the shelf in a couple months. While I am super excited about this, I am a little disappointed it has taken this long as I have been waiting for something like this since the M9 was first released. I was hoping for a FF ILC in a smaller than DSLR size for years, and was first thinking it would be Fuji after the Xpro and the same when Nikon and Canon both announced their mirrorless offerings(Nikon 1 and EOS M.) While I'm sure everyone will have many logical reasons why Canon is correct(they're a billion dollar company and doing great business afterall,) I think we would all like faster advancements in technology and design. So yes, I would say Bravo to Sony for making* something small, FF and with interchangeable lenses, especially at a $2000(or less if the rumors are right) price! and yes, I wish Canon, and all the other companies, would quit dragging their heels and release some innovative products!

* please forget the fact that the Sony camera is not even announced yet. If tempted to think of a critical reply, please think of the RX1 first.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 4, 2013)

I guess I don't understand. 
Are we only supposed to speculate and talk about Canon Rumors, and only talk about Nikon and Sony products released on the market.
Or is it that it is a waste of time complaining that Canon's Rumors about a FF mirrorless are behind Sony and Nikons rumors.

I am confused now about which rumors we can spread and which we can't.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Oct 4, 2013)

Yes, I also fail to understand... _why we need 40+ MP cameras_. Sigh...

Can someone please enlighten me? All I see is a future with a 40+ MP camera where I can only fit a small number of large megabyte RAW image files on an expensive CF card that takes longer to write. Then I have to deal with my expensive lenses not resolving as well on the higher res sensor. I also have to worry that the sensor itself will or will not render a high quality image with such a high pixel density. There are other issues but in general, unless I am printing a billboard, I fail to see what super high megapixels really gains me.

FWIW, I was ecstatic when I learned that the 5D3 was _NOT_ going to have a high megapixel sensor.

What I care about is greater exposure abilities and IQ from a sensor, not higher megapixels. Better low light, dynamic range, etc. Greater MP seems to always make obtaining better quality that much harder.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 4, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Yes, I also fail to understand... _why we need 40+ MP cameras_. Sigh...



40 megapixels sounds way better than .04 gigapixels.

The larger numbers make us feel better and helps compensate for other things.
Also true when comparing 24 mp to 40 mp.
Of course it would also give the addicted pixel peepers of the world the drug they need.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Oct 4, 2013)

Yeah, things like better low light or action AF is secondary to the benefits of Sky High MP I guess.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 4, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Yeah, things like better low light or action AF is secondary to the benefits of Sky High MP I guess.



Sounds like a DR discussion, I thought this thread was to simple to head that direction.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Oct 4, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> Fighting simplistic statements with simplistic statements is a good way to dumb down a discussion and make this forum much less interesting.


The statement was not to "fight" the OP, but to draw equivalence between the OP and Neuro's point.

I should have made it sharper for you.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> I guess I don't understand.
> Are we only supposed to speculate and talk about Canon Rumors, and only talk about Nikon and Sony products released on the market.
> Or is it that it is a waste of time complaining that Canon's Rumors about a FF mirrorless are behind Sony and Nikons rumors.
> 
> I am confused now about which rumors we can spread and which we can't.


 
Its perfectly acceptable to post rumors of other brands, there is a section called third party manufacturers under rumors to do it in.

If its posted as a Canon Rumor, then its is either trying to stir up people, or someone can't read.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I don't understand.
> ...



I seldom look at sections and just watch the new posts. Did this thread start out in Canon Rumors and then was moved?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 4, 2013)

Sony and anyone else are welcome to their 36mp sensor. Canon will continue to do that they are good at: producing cameras for photographers. Any more than 24 mp on a FF sensor and I would want a larger format to go with it. 

Just out of interest, is there anything in the Sony sensor fabrication that makes it more feasible to have and use 36 mp on a FF sensor size compared with the Canon process ?


----------



## Halfrack (Oct 4, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Yes, I also fail to understand... _why we need 40+ MP cameras_. Sigh...



You don't need it, but it sure is nice when you have it. The only way to get it right now is MF. There are trade offs for MF - and they are huge:

Lens options - let's be honest, there are 10x more in the 35mm world than in the medium format world
Lens length - 200-400mm zoom, 800mm lenses - 35mm has this covered, 645 shooters just got a 2x extender
Shots per second - up to 14fps - need I say more? Phase does a dark frame equal to your exposure, and Hasselblad does 1fps
Speedlites - TTL is your friend, and doesn't exist in in the MF world, so your wireless remotes are just 'pop'

So, for people who want these high MP images in the 35mm format, the ability to use these advantages is huge.

But, 40/50/60/80mp images are AMAZING to work with, and when printed are a whole different ball of wax. There is a market for it, but there is an associated cost to it. I can do a 24x36 print, and my resolution is 300 pixels per inch - off of a native file. Yes, you can interpolate up to this, and even higher, but side by side, a MF image at size will look better.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Oct 4, 2013)

Halfrack said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I also fail to understand... _why we need 40+ MP cameras_. Sigh...
> ...



*Halfrack* - Thank you so much for such an insightful and enlightening explanation why I would want high MP technology in a 35mm FF camera. No sarcasm or insults, just a good set of reasons from someone who sounds like they have real experience with something that is indeed rare and out of the norm. I thought I knew why high MP could be important but even though I understand the _theory_ behind what benefit high MP offers, you presented a well supported answer to my basic question. You sold and explained it in a way that makes me respect high MP more and not see it as a mere marketing ploy to take my money.

If I understand your explanation and read it correctly, you are saying that a high MP FF 35mm format sensor (done well) would offer/allow someone the ability to crop in and get a medium format ratio while using the wealth of technology and lens choices that only the 35mm cameras currently offer. Even though medium format cameras currently have good sensors, the current state of MF camera technology and lens choices is frustrating to work with. I was not aware of this because digital medium format is so far out of reach for just about everyone, esp amateurs. The ability to crop from a high MP 35mm sensor would allow you to "cheat" with good results, use better technology and possibly save money at the same time?

Am I right? Did I correctly understand your explanation?

Thanks again for bringing light to an otherwise lost thread.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 4, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...



My reading from his (pretty good) post was that the lens choices & accessories are much more varied, and often more advanced than in the MF world. True enough. 

But with a high MP FF 35mm format you can either blow it up a lot bigger and avoid interpolation (which will result it better viewing close up) while retaining a fairly small physical size and wide lens & accessories that are available. Or, you can crop in as much or more which gives you a narrower effective Field of View and 'zoom' in digitally while letting you still print at acceptable sizes without interpolation. 

However, the one thing that 35mm can never do is simulate the look of MF based on sensor size. Just a fact of physics, the physical sensor size can't give quite the same look that MF can give. I haven't ever used MF digital, but over the past year I've gotten heavily into MF film (6x7 & 6x6). While it's film and then needing to scan it does result in a different look, at lot of it is also the perspective difference that using such a relatively large physical size results in.

Now, in theory, you could have a format that is between 35mm & 6x4.5. Sorta like APS-H was in between APS-C & FF. However you then lose compatibility between all those 35mm accessories, which makes it unlikely Canon would do that. They'd either just go right up to 6x4.5 or 6x6, or go 40+MP on 35mm FF. However, there will still be plenty of people that want 18MP 1DX type body. File sizes, processing time, number of images per card, and especially max frame rate are all important to many different photographers. However there definitely is a place for a high MP FF body, either 5D or 1D style body, but definitely with 1D build quality & functionality.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 5, 2013)

Rumours from other companies are fine. Canon does not exist in a vacuum, they compete in a global market. What other companies are doing and planning provide clues as to where the industry is heading and that gives us clues as to where Canon might go.

As to "high megapixel" cameras.... remember when 18 Megapixels was a high number? Remember when 10 was big? Remember when 4 was big?

My first digital camera was 320x200 pixels.... I now have a 16Megapixel p/s and an outdated 18 megapixel DSLR (and a 10Mpixel DSLR..... and an 8....) The number of pixels has been steadily growing over the years... the curve seems to be slowing down, but you can be sure that in a few years everyone will have a model over 30 megapixels... right now 20 or 21 is nothing special.

Numbers sell, if it has more then it must be better  , particularly with the introductory cameras. Would an introductory Canon camera with 30Mpixels outsell an introductory Nikon with 24Mpixels? Probably... it has more so it must be better. Remember that most users do not understand what makes a good camera.... they buy an introductory camera with a kit lens and they are happy.... and this is the bulk of the market, the people who keep the manufacturers in business.

High end cameras are about quality. Low end cameras are about numbers. If I compare my p/s to a 1DX it looks pretty good.. The 1DX is weathersealed, my p/s works underwater... the 1DX has 18Mpixels, my p/s has 16.... the 1DX has a burst rate of 10 or 12, my p/s has a burst rate from 20 to 60 (depending on image size), my p/s shoots 240hz video.... and my p/s even has a dedicated program mode for taking cat pictures, a necessary feature for facebook


----------



## brett b (Oct 5, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I'm waiting for the 75mp camera from Canon, everything else is just for amateurs. Once I get that, I can FINALLY take the special shots that are locked away in my mind that none of my current sad gear can achieve. Oh I can't wait for that day.



Not me! I'll wait for the 2nd gen version of the body you are waiting for. 
By then they'll have the bugs worked out!
Really looking forward to the day I can finally take those good pictures!!


----------



## Ewinter (Oct 5, 2013)

I'd like a high MPix 1 series body for landscape and portrait but you can prise my 1DX from my _cold dead hands_ for what I use it for, 18 MPix is enough, and I don't want to deal with anything over 20 megapixels when I'm shooting over 1000 images a night and have to pp them next day.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 5, 2013)

Ewinter said:


> I'd like a high MPix 1 series body for landscape and portrait but you can prise my 1DX from my _cold dead hands_ for what I use it for, 18 MPix is enough, and I don't want to deal with anything over 20 megapixels when I'm shooting over 1000 images a night and have to pp them next day.


I agree with you. I desire nothing more than 18 megapixel on a camera for my use. However, I understand that Canon should offer different options to meet the needs of various types of photographers. Surely there will be a Canon over 36 megapixel, which will be helpful for some people. If I was a Nikon user, I would be pissed about having no camera option now under 24 megapixel.  Thank you Canon for offering cameras and lenses more flexible.


----------



## TAF (Oct 5, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> and my p/s even has a dedicated program mode for taking cat pictures, a necessary feature for facebook



Humm...that sounds like something that I would find quite useful - what's the model number?

I've noticed that the facial recognition focus mode in my EOS-M won't 'do cats'.

Perhaps Magic Lantern will offer a version that turns the C3 position on my 5D3's main dial into just such a function...it should be popular.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 5, 2013)

Ewinter said:


> I'd like a high MPix 1 series body for landscape and portrait but you can prise my 1DX from my _cold dead hands_ for what I use it for, 18 MPix is enough, and I don't want to deal with anything over 20 megapixels when I'm shooting over 1000 images a night and have to pp them next day.



Completely agree.

There is in my mind a definite need for Canon to produce a high MP Camera, Medium Format but I hope in a 1D Body. Would they survive as a Company if they continue with the current Sensor Line ?? I don't think so, Companies like Canon need to continue to innovate to survive in the Market, there are loads of examples where companies that stagnate innovation tend to Die, Nokia & Black berry spring to mind, Apple now changing their own long held view on producing only for the Market what Apple feel the Market needs, Samsung have clearly provided the impetus for Apple to rethink that view, and they (Apple) have reacted to what the Market wants (Not needs, wants).

I believe Canon were wrong footed when Nikon brought to Market the D800 @ 36MP, I'm not into arguing one Camera company versus another here, only that Nikon jumped a step up on it's competitors with the D800, exactly the way Canon did when they brought to Market the 5DMK II and the Higher MP Sensor with Video ability. This is all a part of the Business of Innovation and a Companies ability to look forward to what the Market will buy, Steve Jobs being in my mind the supreme forward thinker in this area.

Do we need High MP Cameras, not really.

Would I buy one if Canon released one, in a New York second, because I would like a MF Camera, in a 1D Body, that takes the Lenses I currently use, shoots at 6 or 7 fps, and gives me a huge file that I can work on whenI shoot Landscape, Portraits etc. I would buy a Phase One, but I just don't want to get into another system, tried that with the D800, didn't like the experience, tried it with Leica M9, wasn't keen on that either.

Would I get rid of my 1Dx, only when Canon develops a similar frame rate Camera, I actually need the 12fps in my wildlife Imaging, I don't really mind if it's 18MP or 1800 MP, as long as it's 12fps or better and as long as Sandisc continue to develop CF Cards etc with large enough capacity & with fast enough transfer speed to handle the Larger size Files, and as long as Apple keep producing better Computers to allow me to Post Process as I do now.

Look forward to a Canon 1D with +45MP and 7FPS.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 5, 2013)

TAF said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and my p/s even has a dedicated program mode for taking cat pictures, a necessary feature for facebook
> ...


It is an Olympus TG-830. I got it for use in the kayak and for in the rain. The camera is waterproof to about 40 feet and works underwater.... Makes it kind of hard to accidentally destroy... And it really does have a cat mode... I am serious.... I am not kidding! The picture is of the camera display in the mode selection menu...


----------



## surapon (Oct 5, 2013)

ME said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Dear Sir, my friend " ME".
Sorry, He , my Japanese friend never tell me his Company secret, Ha, Ha, Ha---My dear Japanese friend might do " Harakiri" by use the long / sharp knife stab in to his gut and kill him self first before open the company secret ---ha, ha, ha -- Well , YES, Before I buy new Canon Camera bodies or Canon Lens, I call him and ask him " is this time that I should but---So & So ?"-----And He might say Yes, or Say = Just wait another 4 more months. , And I just wait another 4 more months. Yes, in 1974, We both went to study English in LSU for 1 semester. and After that I went to NCSU, in Raleigh to study M. ARCH, And He went to NY, to study Engineer.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Have a great week end.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 5, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Yes, I also fail to understand... _why we need 40+ MP cameras_. Sigh...
> 
> Can someone please enlighten me? All I see is a future with a 40+ MP camera where I can only fit a small number of large megabyte RAW image files on an expensive CF card that takes longer to write. Then I have to deal with my expensive lenses not resolving as well on the higher res sensor. I also have to worry that the sensor itself will or will not render a high quality image with such a high pixel density. There are other issues but in general, unless I am printing a billboard, I fail to see what super high megapixels really gains me.
> 
> ...



Dear Sir, Mr. RustyTheGeek.
Try to answer your great question " why we need 40+ MP cameras "---And I am not the REAL PRO/ Professional Photographer, BUT, I am American architect---Yes, We do the presentation, when we have ground breaking ceremony, and try to print the posters of the Building site + the Proposed Building how it look when we finish the project. Yes that 42 inches X 65 Inches Poster , that wide as my 8 years old ,42 Inches HP. Designjet 800 Plotter that can print. No I still do not have enough Pixel 21.5 of my old Canon 5D MK II for looking good poster, at the 5-8 feet away from the photo/ poster.
Yes, I start to think, How about the Bill board on the Street, That Huge size bill board---How can they take the photos to do that great looking bill board ?---Do they/ the Graphic designers want bigger MP. Cameras to shoot that Photos ??.
Yes, May be the PRO/ our friends in this great CR. can help us to answer your great questions.
Have a great weekend.
Surapon


----------



## Pi (Oct 5, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> GmwDarkroom said:
> 
> 
> > mountain_drew said:
> ...



Actually, it is a good way to expose the simplicity in the first place. 

In this case however, there is nothing simplistic. Higher mp sensors do offer more resolution, and they have their uses.


----------



## TAF (Oct 5, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Wow, a dog mode as well...and waterproof, shock resistant, and affordable.

I think I "need" one for model aircraft use.

I hope Canon does a firmware update to compete.

Thank you very much!


----------



## ME (Oct 5, 2013)

surapon said:


> ME said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Surapon,
I definitely would not want your friend to be placed under that kind of obligation. Besides, he might be designing the next great lens or camera! (which one Surapon?). Just kidding. I know, :-X :-X :-X. I will, however, be scrutinizing your posts more carefully, trying to read between the lines  
Hope you are enjoying your weekend also. I am enjoying this wonderful weather we are having a little south of you in South Carolina.
Everett


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 5, 2013)

surapon said:


> Yes, I start to think, How about the Bill board on the Street, That Huge size bill board---How can they take the photos to do that great looking bill board ?---Do they/ the Graphic designers want bigger MP. Cameras to shoot that Photos ??.
> Yes, May be the PRO/ our friends in this great CR. can help us to answer your great questions.
> Have a great weekend.
> Surapon



Those large high street Bill Board posters are never printed at high resolution, and there's more reasons to that than just huge file sizes. There been quite a lot of research done in viewing distance and the best resolution in dpi, and for something that is intended for best viewing from some distance, say fifty feet, you are down to very low resolution; 40 ppi would be high.

With regard to normal pictures, a image rarely becomes better by sticking your nose up against it, unless it is a technical recording of something. Resolution needs to be suited to the picture size and viewing distance; enter the highly versatile 20 mp FF. 

The only real justification I can see for much higher mp in the FF format is cropping options. Other than that the most benefit will be to those who like to look at their images at 100% on their computer.


----------



## surapon (Oct 5, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I start to think, How about the Bill board on the Street, That Huge size bill board---How can they take the photos to do that great looking bill board ?---Do they/ the Graphic designers want bigger MP. Cameras to shoot that Photos ??.
> ...




Thanks you, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. Sporgon.
Thanks for your great infor----Yes, We never get to close to see the Bill Board, And We are Fast Driver too---That why we never observe the Details of the photos on the Bill Board. and I just forget this logic , until you point out.
Thanks again, Sir. 
Surapon


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 7, 2013)

I believe that for a specific sensor size, there will be an optimum MP range that works for the type of photograph you take. There will be a point of diminishing returns for image quality (how ever that is defined) and cost (how ever that is defined). My opinion? For a full frame 35mm type sensor, it is in the 20-30mp range. 

Is it possible to make a 50mp 35mm type sensor? Sure. Canon has a 100mp sensor on the shelf. But is there a measurable benefit that is still marketable? Probably not. Would I need/desire a 50-100mp sensor? Not with the current lens technology. 

I think the DSLR MP race is coming to an end. 20-30mp is good enough for a large (almost all?) percentage of the market. There will always be special circumstances and those photographers will buy specialized cameras. But for most air-breathing photographers, 20-30 seems the higher end of optimization. Most need less MP, but lets be honest, how many of us really only buy the camera we "need"?

I hope that soon, the camera companies will recognize that the MP race is over and start investing their techno-bucks into improving the other aspects of sensor, camera, and lens development. 

MP has some level of importance, but it is not the only aspect of sensor/camera development that is important.


----------



## Halfrack (Oct 7, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ....
> 
> Am I right? Did I correctly understand your explanation?
> 
> Thanks again for bringing light to an otherwise lost thread.



Pretty much - I'm new to medium format and the image size associated, but it's still a camera. I tilted the question slightly as the discussion was more of 'why do I need 40mp in a 35mm body' more so than the generic 'why do I need 40mp'. Nikon is making a killing on those who chase megapixels, but there are only so many of them, and they'll switch systems just for the idea that they're 1% better images. 

If someone wanted to get into medium format now, I'd say go the Phase One route, and any of the P backs would be a great starting point. I am attempting to get a few side by side shots done in the next few weeks, so I should have more info to post.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 7, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I'm waiting for the 75mp camera from Canon, everything else is just for amateurs. Once I get that, I can FINALLY take the special shots that are locked away in my mind that none of my current sad gear can achieve. Oh I can't wait for that day.



This could solve all your problems now!
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5234892048/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-review


----------



## golubiewac1 (Oct 7, 2013)

I don't understand how those clamoring for super high MP will, in practical photographic operation, deal with the ultra high sensitivity to motion blur, paper thin DOF, and other issues that prevent the high MP resolution potential from being realized in a real photograph. Not to mention lens resolution issues. I understand the cropping argument (digital zoom) but the problems remain.

In my own case, I have found that the 18 MP of the 7D can produce amazingly sharp 13 x 19 inch prints (the largest my printer supports) and I have no interest in making prints larger than that. I my experience, sensor resolution is the last reason an image might be unsharp. 

If one requires more resolution, one should consider large format. I hear it is possible to order 20 x 24 inch sheet film.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Oct 11, 2013)

surapon posted
Yes that 42 inches X 65 Inches Poster , that wide as my 8 years old ,42 Inches HP. Designjet 800 Plotter that can print. No I still do not have enough Pixel 21.5 of my old Canon 5D MK II for looking good poster, at the 5-8 feet away from the photo/ poster.

You need to look hard at Photoshop with the Genuine Fractals plug-in. We routinely print 60X120 posters that 
look fine from four feet away. Starting with a 12 or 18mpix image and using the plug in is plenty! Take a look
at the postershop rip for your machine and you'll find "it ain't the camera"!


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 25, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> surapon posted
> Yes that 42 inches X 65 Inches Poster , that wide as my 8 years old ,42 Inches HP. Designjet 800 Plotter that can print. No I still do not have enough Pixel 21.5 of my old Canon 5D MK II for looking good poster, at the 5-8 feet away from the photo/ poster.
> 
> You need to look hard at Photoshop with the Genuine Fractals plug-in. We routinely print 60X120 posters that
> ...



Do you use "unsharp mask" before scaling the image up, and when you do, do you select the "genuine fractals" technique? I have Perfect Resize 7, it does seem to work really well.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Sony and anyone else are welcome to their 36mp sensor. Canon will continue to do that they are good at: producing cameras for photographers. Any more than 24 mp on a FF sensor and I would want a larger format to go with it.



I *strongly* disagree. Right now, Canon's full-frame offerings are lagging nearly a decade behind their crop bodies in terms of absolute resolving power. If you're shooting photos from far away, the reach of a crop body can't really be matched with a full-frame camera. You end up with barely an 8 MP image by the time you crop a 5DMk3 image that far, and less than 8MP for the 6D. Clearly, if 20 megapixels in a crop body produces usable pictures, then a full-frame camera with the same pixel density would also produce usable pictures.




Sporgon said:


> Just out of interest, is there anything in the Sony sensor fabrication that makes it more feasible to have and use 36 mp on a FF sensor size compared with the Canon process ?



There shouldn't be anything impractical about it sensor-wise even with Canon's process. A full-sized sensor has around 2.6 times the surface area of a Canon APS-C sensor. Given that the 70D has a 20.2 megapixel sensor, there's no fundamental reason that Canon couldn't use exactly the same process to build a 52 megapixel full-frame sensor.

They might have to do some interesting work to actually read that many pixels out in a timely manner, and it would likely require a lot more CPU horsepower and faster flash cards in order to be usable. They might even want to do something like writing photos in alternation between two flash cards just to get the speed up high enough, but as far as I can tell, at least sensor-wise, the only reason Canon isn't way past 36 MP already on their full-frame cameras is either that they've decided not to do so for some reason or that they haven't gotten around to building the larger chips yet.

Oh, and yield issues, potentially. I don't know what Canon's yield looks like on the 70D sensor. For all I know, one in two parts might fail QA, in which case something approaching 100% of full-frame parts would be DOA. Mind you, I'd be shocked if the failure rate were anywhere approaching that, given that it is being sold in a relatively high-volume consumer camera, but you never know.


----------



## sjprg (Oct 26, 2013)

Canon's mindset is such that they just can't see the competition, just like the defunct American companies that were still charging $350 for parts that were now selling for $15.
Canon has milked the consumer for so long they have lost track of reality. The new lens prices are a reflection of that mindset. The EOS-M was a reality check when they dropped the price from $799 to under $300.
My RX100's build is not near the quality of my 1DSIII but the IQ is equal and my Nikon's D800E build and IQ kicks the 1DSIII out of the ballpark. Don't misread me, I still prefer Canon, BUT they need to get real.


----------



## Pi (Oct 26, 2013)

sjprg said:


> My RX100's build is not near the quality of my 1DSIII but the IQ is equal [...]



I do not quite see it here but if you say so...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=Daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100&attr15_0=Raw&attr15_1=Raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=125&normalization=full&widget=13&x=0.6006479870402591&y=-0.21732903687790894


----------



## surapon (Oct 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > surapon posted
> ...



No, Sir, I do not know " How "---But I will learn " Unsharp mask" very Soon.
Thanks you, Sir, My dear Teacher.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 29, 2013)

sjprg said:


> Canon's mindset is such that they just can't see the competition, just like the defunct American companies that were still charging $350 for parts that were now selling for $15.
> Canon has milked the consumer for so long they have lost track of reality. The new lens prices are a reflection of that mindset. The EOS-M was a reality check when they dropped the price from $799 to under $300.
> My RX100's build is not near the quality of my 1DSIII but the IQ is equal and my Nikon's D800E build and IQ kicks the 1DSIII out of the ballpark. Don't misread me, I still prefer Canon, BUT they need to get real.



I fail to see how the D800E is a better "build" than the 1DS3. Nikon's ergonomics suck, and the D800 is not a pro body with a pro grip...so why would you compare the build of these two anyway? And then you say you still prefer Canon? Why the heck would you?


----------

