# Is there a hole in MP range of FF cameras?



## RGF (Apr 28, 2016)

Is there a hole in the MP range of canon bodies between the 5DS (R) and the 5D M3 (or the 5D M4) at 24-28 MP?

Does Canon need a camera in the low to mid 30 MP range?

Here is the way I would like to see the lineup FF bodies.

5DS 50 MP
5DM4 32-36 MP
6DM2 24-28MP
1DXM2 20MP

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 28, 2016)

I like it!
I might have put it like this though:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 26
5D C. - 22
1DX II - 20

Either that or I'd move the 6D II way upmarket in terms of functionality, and drop the hypothetical 5DC to 12 mp something like this:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 24
1DX II - 20
5DC - 12

Reason being that I could see people wanting advanced features, but not wanting the larger 36mp files, and unable to afford a 1D.
Just my own silly theories


----------



## RGF (Apr 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I like it!
> I might have put it like this though:
> 5Ds II - 50
> 5D IV - 38
> ...



I like the idea of a low rez, high iso 5DC camera


----------



## davidj (Apr 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I like it!
> I might have put it like this though:
> 5Ds II - 50
> 5D IV - 38
> ...



A camera with a 45 MP sensor could do full frame 8K or 4K with 2x2 pixel binning (for DCI 4K, or 39 MP for UHD). That would work as a "best for cinema" camera and would double as a quite high resolution camera. You'd probably want to bump the 5Ds II to 70–100 MP to give it a meaningfully higher resolution.

I'm still on team 24 for the 5D IV (or, at least, no more than 28).


----------



## slclick (Apr 28, 2016)

RGF said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I like it!
> ...



As do I but isn't that already the 6D? It does beat the 5D3 in low light and give it a few more cross points to work with and it would cancel the need for a so called 5DC.


----------



## retroreflection (Apr 28, 2016)

No.
Light is best thought of in terms of stops.
Resolution is the same. If you need more than 24, you need 50. Or 100.
Actual products are not spread out like this because the technology hasn't existed to enable it for very long. And, there are other constraints in the design of cameras. The 1DXii probably went with 20 megapixels because they couldn't push 21 at those frame rates. Plus a couple other constraints.
No real utility is lost if there is a gap between 24 and 50.


----------



## nvsravank (Apr 28, 2016)

I don't see it as a hole per se. 
What is needed for landscapes and studio is high mp count and that is already covered by the 50mp. 
Sports photography which is mainly jpg quick delivery and journalistic which is again jpg and quick delivery is covered in the 20 mp range. 

What is needed is something in middle to cater to the class of photographers who are in the middle. I think 24-28 is the sweet spot. Processing times for the 36mp files has not come down significantly in the last couple of years. I think 36 mp in 5d mark IV will hurt sales more than it will be hailed as good by the gear heads in this forum.


----------



## pwp (Apr 28, 2016)

RGF said:


> Here is the way I would like to see the lineup FF bodies.
> 
> 5DS 50 MP
> 5DM4 32-36 MP
> ...



I'd be more inclined to invert the 6DII and the 5DIV. The 5DIII is a primary workhorse of commercial, editorial and wedding shooters across the planet. 22mp delivers fabulous files. A bump to 32-36mp would just be a darn nuisance. Cards fill faster, smaller buffer, lower iso performance, unwanted pressure on storage and post production processing power just to name a few. 

Seasoned 5DIII shooters know there's little need for a mp bump and would likely prefer the 5DIV to remain at 22mp; 24mp at the most. Canon engineers would likely vote to stay with 22mp but the marketing department may win out with a small mp increase. A high percentage of 1DX shooters breathed a sigh of relief when the 1DXII shipped with a perfect 20mp.

I don't regard the current line-up as having a "hole". The 20mp 1DXII and the 22mp 5DIII suit high volume shooters plus many others just perfectly. There are specialist shooters who genuinely need more, so give them a LOT more; the 50mp 5Ds. Then there are shooters who think they need more mp's but really don't. 

The current offerings are a mature evolved set, arrived at with experience and user feedback. 

-pw


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 28, 2016)

Let's ask Canon to produce a "new basic FF", so that 6D2 competes with Nikon D750, FF 8D competes with Nikon D6x0. If this happens, we can put a new model (alternative to the 5D"C") in this game.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 28, 2016)

And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?

Because that's the resolution of the Nikon D810? Because its midway between 24MP and 50MP? Because you've derived the figure from your real life needs?


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 28, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?
> 
> Because that's the resolution of the Nikon D810? Because its midway between 24MP and 50MP? Because you've derived the figure from your real life needs?



For me it's looking at file size. I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size. 70mb 5ds is to big for me- I'd need to buy a new 4000$ laptop to process them. (I'm an impatient, ADD type) 25 mb files are easy enough, 45mb would be the limit I'd want to handle. If I can handle the files on my current laptop, that pushes off buying a new one for another few years. So 36 megapixels seems like a sweet spot for me.


----------



## slclick (Apr 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?
> ...



Your file size appetite might not jive with sensor architecture and signal processing. Iso and noise are bigger concerns to me and taking care of those keeps the MP count much lower. 18-24


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.



There is no such thing.


----------



## rs (Apr 28, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.
> ...


Isn't that what JPEG, or its near cousin, Sony's lossy raw format is all about?


----------



## j-nord (Apr 28, 2016)

If they do put a 24ish mpix sensor in the 5DIV then I could see the 6DII getting a slight m-pix bump over it. With the 5DIII/6D, the 6D got a marginally improved sensor with nerfed AF and FPS. We will probably see more of the same this time around but the sensor could also increase in m-pix. 

I strongly disagree that m-pix should be thought of in stops, you don't need to double the m-pix to see a significant improvement in detail and 'cropability'. If you don't have the time or ability to perfectly compose or frame a shot, a few more m-pix can go a long way. It doesn't take much for leveling adjustments, cropping out edges, vignetting, soft corners, etc


----------



## davidj (Apr 28, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I strongly disagree that m-pix should be thought of in stops, you don't need to double the m-pix to see a significant improvement in detail and 'cropability'. If you don't have the time or ability to perfectly compose or frame a shot, a few more m-pix can go a long way. It doesn't take much for leveling adjustments, cropping out edges, vignetting, soft corners, etc


It's not stops exactly, but there is something to be said about the non-linearity of MP increases. You need four times as many pixels to be able to do a 50% crop at the same resolution, or 20% more pixels to do a 90% crop. A full frame camera that can crop pixel to pixel to the frame of a 24 MP 80D will be 61 MP.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 28, 2016)

rs said:


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



JPEG and other lossy formats trading file size for fidelity, not resolution.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 28, 2016)

I'm 99% uncertain that the 5D-Next will have more than 24MP, i.e. 25.56MP (aka 26MP)


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 29, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.
> ...



I assumed that to be self evident, which is why I went for a "happy" medium.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Of course, we all have different concernes - which was kind of the OP's point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Sony's decision to use uncompressed RAW rather than lossless-compressed RAW is about as smart as...dilbert.


----------



## retroreflection (Apr 29, 2016)

If you have a 20 megapixel camera, and are happy with your bird shots - except you want to resolve the barbs in the feathers, then you need 50. Canon doesn't sell the one that would show the barbules. There is a range of scales within subjects, to see that next range down, you need a big bump in megapixels.
Once you are happy with the print or screen output of your photos after a few degrees of leveling, or a tad bit of cropping for composition, another one megapixel does you no good. If you want cameras to improve so your technique can degrade, then I will disagree with your expectations.

That is how you should think about megapixels in isolation from all other aspects of camera performance. Except cameras are a pile of compromises. So, the megapixel column in a comparison chart is the last thing you should check for "holes".


----------



## j-nord (Apr 29, 2016)

davidj said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I strongly disagree that m-pix should be thought of in stops, you don't need to double the m-pix to see a significant improvement in detail and 'cropability'. If you don't have the time or ability to perfectly compose or frame a shot, a few more m-pix can go a long way. It doesn't take much for leveling adjustments, cropping out edges, vignetting, soft corners, etc
> ...



Understood, but I don't believe that is how people actually crop. I find it hard to believe anyone consciously crops everything to exactly 50%. The image is taken and then either the image is cropped slightly to make corrections /slightly better composition or it's heavily cropped for a new composition that either wasn't seen at the time or wasn't possible. Its completely subjective and varies heavily from image to image, photographer to photographer. So, any increase in m-pix is welcome for corrective cropping or completely recomposing. Of course it really should be discussed as a % increase in pixels. The difference between 24 vs 30 (25% increase) is well worth it and has real world value IMO. 

The other thing to consider is the real world 'minimum' crop size. I think for a lot of people, screen resolution is a consideration of how low they will go. When 1600 px was a standard monitor, that was a common lower limit for cropping. Now people are starting to upgrade to 4K displays. 4K will be the lower limit for cropping for a lot of people (probably more for amateurs rather than pros).


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 29, 2016)

RGF said:


> Is there a hole in the MP range of canon bodies between the 5DS (R) and the 5D M3 (or the 5D M4) at 24-28 MP?
> 
> Does Canon need a camera in the low to mid 30 MP range?
> 
> ...



1) This implies megapixels define the FF market segmentation. Canon does not do this in crop. Canon does not do this in FF. _Sony_ does, b/c using MP as the principal differentiator is sort of how an enthusiast might make purchasing decisions. Canon (and Nikon) mix this up a bit with some semi-specialized rigs (D810A, 5DS, 80D, etc.) and of course the jackhammers (1DX2, 7D2) leading each line.

2) There's been a lot of talk that Canon needs a mid-level resolution rig, i.e. the 32-36 MP you are arguing for. That takes your 6x4k shot to (roughly) 7x5k, which is not that huge a bump. For all those who tout how much extra detail you get, it's basically an additional 500 pixels in each direction from the center of the frame. Further, for all those who tout how important cropping can be -- and I agree -- you can only really crop a picture perhaps 1.15x and retain the detail of a comparable 6x4k shot. So I think resolution bumps need to be massive (like 50 MP) or you shouldn't bother.

3) If the 5DS is the detail rig and the 1DX II is the speed/tracking/high ISO rig, the 5D4 is something of a balance of the two. With only one DIGIC chip expected in the 5D4 (based on the last two 5D# models), a 32-36 MP sensor would clock in around 4 fps or so. That's not going to cut it for that user base. (I have been arguing a second chip in the 5D4 is more than justified for a host of reasons -- landing at perhaps 24 MP X 10 fps or 28 MP x 8 fps -- but I seem to be in the minority).

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 29, 2016)

My thoughts: I don't think there is.

When the D800 first came out I tried it for resolution compared with the 5DII - wasn't overly impressed. The 5Ds, in rough figures, produces an output size in terms of long side mm, of about 54% larger than the 5DII / 6D / 5DIII, and this equated to a potential resolution increase of about 27%. A 31 mp camera would have an output size only about 20% larger than the 6D, and around a 10% increase in resolution potential. 

If you have a good sharp image interpolation up is so efficient now I just don't see the point. I recently produced a wall size wall-paper mural of one of the building panoramics shots, in this case a stitch of only three vertical 6D frames, so a 42 mp size file, and I tried printing it at 300 dpi for a laugh. The final output size is around 8' x 16', and the resolution and overall quality is remarkable ! So I did the whole run at 300 dpi ! I'll post some pictures of it sometime.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 29, 2016)

davidj said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I like it!
> ...



I like it!


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



An acerbic ouch.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 29, 2016)

j-nord said:


> The other thing to consider is the real world 'minimum' crop size. I think for a lot of people, screen resolution is a consideration of how low they will go. When 1600 px was a standard monitor, that was a common lower limit for cropping. Now people are starting to upgrade to 4K displays. 4K will be the lower limit for cropping for a lot of people (probably more for amateurs rather than pros).



I think you're optimistic here. A lot of sharing platforms resize images automatically, and use destructive compression. On Flickr, images don't occupy the whole screen as standard, until and unless you press L - does everyone do that for all shots? Doubtful. And Twitter is even worse, anything above ~2000px wide is downsized from what I can tell, somewhat arbitrarily, and the compression they add removes a lot of the fine detail you'd get by using high res images.

I've personally found no need to upload images over 2000-3000px wide on any platform. People will vary of course, but setting 4K as the lower limit is wildly unrealistic imho.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 29, 2016)

scyrene said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > The other thing to consider is the real world 'minimum' crop size. I think for a lot of people, screen resolution is a consideration of how low they will go. When 1600 px was a standard monitor, that was a common lower limit for cropping. Now people are starting to upgrade to 4K displays. 4K will be the lower limit for cropping for a lot of people (probably more for amateurs rather than pros).
> ...



I made no mention of the awful size and compression of various social media sites. Some people want to be able to set their photos as a desktop background or share their images in a slide show via 4K display or 4K tv or 4K projector or make large prints. 4K is just the current standard that people are adopting, screens/tvs are going to continue to get larger and pixels are going to continue to get denser. I was merely suggesting that screen/viewing resolution standards affect how low some people will go in a crop. 

Some people will continue moving forward with technology while others will happily output 2000px images for the rest of time.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2016)

j-nord said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...


for many years I saved pictures for slideshows within the bounds of a 1920X1080 display. This year, I have been saving them to fit into a 4K display. I still don't have one myself, but ask me again at the end of the year and you will get a different answer.

4K will be the default screen size for lots of people.... Without a high megapixel camera, there isn't a whole lot of room left to crop......


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 30, 2016)

RGF said:


> Is there a hole in the MP range of canon bodies between the 5DS (R) and the 5D M3 (or the 5D M4) at 24-28 MP?
> 
> Does Canon need a camera in the low to mid 30 MP range?
> 
> ...



I agree that there's a hole, but it's at the top.
5Ds MkII 100MP
6D MKII (6Ds?) 50MP
5D4 30MP
1DX MkII 20MP

Whether the "middle of the road" resolution should be a 6D or 5D is a good question, but I am sure that we still need more pixels. 50MP is big but in a few years that won't be a problem for upcoming memory cards, and focal length limited shooting has no limit to its appetite for resolution.
Ok REALLY I want a 7Ds with a 100MP crop sensor, but I can only assume Canon will never think that sort of idea is worthwhile until we've had a few more smaller resolution boosts in the Rebel line.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 30, 2016)

9VIII said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a hole in the MP range of canon bodies between the 5DS (R) and the 5D M3 (or the 5D M4) at 24-28 MP?
> ...



I like your lineup better than mine . Just hadn't considered throwing the 5ds II all the way to 100mp. Makes perfect sense as those folks aren't fretting over file size anyways. Heck, why not 150?

I'd just add a 5Dc at 12mp or 18mp at the bottom. (18mp would allow for 6K)
As to a 100mp crop... Hmm that should lense technology to move ahead


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm a bit annoyed by the lack of lossless compressed raw, but i have been unable to replicate the compression artifacts without trying to, so when I use my Sony I shoot lossy compressed rather than uncompressed.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 30, 2016)

There is little difference between say 21mp and 33 mp as far as resolution is determined. You need to double the MP count to increase the resolution by a noticeable amount.

Resolution depends on the linear pixel account, the resolution for a 22.3mp 5D MK III on the long side of the image is 5760 pixels. For a 50.6 MP 5Ds, its 8688, which is a 51% increase. To double the resolution, you would need a 88.47 MP sensor.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > There is little difference between say 21mp and 33 mp as far as resolution is determined. You need to double the MP count to increase the resolution by a noticeable amount.
> ...



Speaking of panoramas, I have to assume that people making Gigapan images would love to use a 100MP sensor.
I remember reading about one 360 degree image that took multiple days to shoot because they were using a 600mm lens with a 7D to get a the highest image quality possible at that time. A 5Ds would have given slightly superior results while finishing 2.6 times faster. Increase resolution even more and they could use a 300f2.8 and significantly reduce shooting time.


----------



## scyrene (May 1, 2016)

j-nord said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Well fine  I guess the way we share photos is just very different, I didn't even consider that. I still think you're being optimistic as to how high most people's standards are regarding what is acceptable cropping. Remember, you said "for a lot of people" - this I disagree on. I think most people's standards are lower than those of many of us here in these forums - clearly we are the kind of people who pay more attention to technical minutiae. Most people just take pics and view or share them and that's it.

(PS - doesn't viewing from a greater distance diminish the effect of more detail? A computer display is viewed fairly close, but tvs and projected images tend to be much further away. Just a thought).


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2016)

RGF said:


> Is there a hole in the MP range of canon bodies between the 5DS (R) and the 5D M3 (or the 5D M4) at 24-28 MP?
> 
> Does Canon need a camera in the low to mid 30 MP range?
> 
> ...



No to the whole hole idea. There ain't no hole in the whole lineup.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 2, 2016)

pwp said:


> Seasoned 5DIII shooters know there's little need for a mp bump and would likely prefer the 5DIV to remain at 22mp; 24mp at the most.



Those who call for more pixels must not shoot many images. File storage is already an issue for those of us who are active shooters, and since I first picked up a 5D Classic, I have yet to find a scene that required more megapixels than what my current body would deliver. I think the limiting factor is noise.

Personally, if I wanted to buy a 5D4 to replace my beloved 5D3, I'd prefer a small decrease in pixels, hopefully in exchange for more dynamic range and less noise.


----------



## j-nord (May 2, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Well fine  I guess the way we share photos is just very different, I didn't even consider that. I still think you're being optimistic as to how high most people's standards are regarding what is acceptable cropping. Remember, you said "for a lot of people" - this I disagree on. I think most people's standards are lower than those of many of us here in these forums - clearly we are the kind of people who pay more attention to technical minutiae. Most people just take pics and view or share them and that's it.
> 
> (PS - doesn't viewing from a greater distance diminish the effect of more detail? A computer display is viewed fairly close, but tvs and projected images tend to be much further away. Just a thought).


Sure, you will have people at every extreme from super high res pixel peepers to people who are happy to view pixelated, stretched out images. My question to you is, how long before tablets are 4K? 5 years? Less? 2k images are fine when a standard viewing device is 2k. When standards change, so will a lot of photographers. I'd also like to think that people who have several thousand $ invested in camera gear and a lot of time invested in photography, care how their images are viewed/consumed/shared.


----------



## Mikehit (May 2, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I'd also like to think that people who have several thousand $ invested in camera gear and a lot of time invested in photography, care how their images are viewed/consumed/shared.



And those people have zero influence on how their images are viewed. Wedding photos viewed on 7" tablets or 50" TV screens, neither of which are colour calibrated - the former show little detail the latter are viewed from far enough away it may as well be a 13" laptop screen. Add to that the tiny images on social networking sites. 
All viewed by people who don't give a crap about how much detail they can see in a landscape or a bride's wedding dress. The photo either grabs them emotionally or it doesn't - the former they linger, the latter they move on with a simple click. 

I hate to be cynical about this but it is an unfortunate truth that I see in both photography and hifi. A good picture, like good music overrides the medium and those who obsess about the 'best possible tool' do so for personal ego more than for the viewer's benefit. And anyone who argues otherwise only needs answer the question 'if perfect image quality is the most important thing why aren't you shooting medium format'.
What higher resolution images give the photographer is greater flexibility in how they process it.


----------



## scyrene (May 2, 2016)

j-nord said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Well fine  I guess the way we share photos is just very different, I didn't even consider that. I still think you're being optimistic as to how high most people's standards are regarding what is acceptable cropping. Remember, you said "for a lot of people" - this I disagree on. I think most people's standards are lower than those of many of us here in these forums - clearly we are the kind of people who pay more attention to technical minutiae. Most people just take pics and view or share them and that's it.
> ...



Things are changing, absolutely. It's gradual, and everybody's thresholds are different. But with higher resolution displays, higher resolution images will be more important, I agree. Although I guess we'll start hitting the wall of what people can perceive. I've never seen a 4K tablet, but at 10" size, say, is it noticeably different from HD? At what point do the pixels become too small to see the difference at average viewing distances?


----------



## scyrene (May 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I'd also like to think that people who have several thousand $ invested in camera gear and a lot of time invested in photography, care how their images are viewed/consumed/shared.
> ...



You talk a lot of sense.


----------



## Maiaibing (May 4, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> No.
> Light is best thought of in terms of stops.
> Resolution is the same. If you need more than 24, you need 50. Or 100.



Mostly agree, however sometimes half a stop also counts. 24 to 36 MPIX does make a visible difference.

I think the path to 100 MPIX - yes Canon thank you for leading the way - will go over 70 pr 75 MPIX.


----------

