# Canon 650D - sensor size?



## FarQinell (Apr 11, 2012)

Any rumours on the sensor Mp size for this next body in the popular APS-C range - and when it is due out?

The 450D had 12.2 Mp sensor

500D had 15.1 Mp

550D/600D have 18.0 Mp

650D - 22 or 24 Mp?

If you are shooting smallish targets requiring cropping then increasing pixel density on the same sensor must be beneficial to image quality - same size image but more pixels covering it?


----------



## moreorless (Apr 11, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Any rumours on the sensor Mp size for this next body in the popular APS-C range - and when it is due out?
> 
> The 450D had 12.2 Mp sensor
> 
> ...



There have been some vague rumours about the 650D coming out in the near future but nothing definate in terms of dates or specs.

If it comes out before the 7D mk2 or the 70D I'd guess it will most likely use the old 7D 18 MP sensor again.


----------



## nentraC (Apr 11, 2012)

Senzor size is not = to pixel density.


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 11, 2012)

Including the 350D (8 MP) and 450D (10 MP) the MP numerical series might be converging:
8,10,12,15,18,18,18,...
;D


----------



## FarQinell (Apr 20, 2012)

Just seen the D3200 (24Mp) 100% crop sample image on Nikon Rumours.
Ultra smooth - very impressive!
If the 650D comes out with say 20Mp on board it will be bad for Canon and they will have an uphill job convincing anyone new to DSLR photography to choose their brand!!
When you need 100% size images the more Mp the better.


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> If the 650D comes out with say 20Mp on board it will be bad for Canon and they will have an uphill job convincing anyone new to DSLR photography to choose their brand!!
> When you need 100% size images the more Mp the better.



yeah and every entry level customer who buys a cheap D3200 prints billboard sized images... LOL.
do a reality check! 

as for cropping. it´s a marginal benefit.
do the math how much more resolution 24MP is compard to 18MP.
read: RESOLUTION... not megapixels.

for enty level DSLR customers the MP number SHOULD have no meaning today, all DSLR cameras offer plenty. 
but i guess MP is what still sells for soccer mums.




> If the 650D comes out with say 20Mp on board it will be bad for Canon and they will have an uphill job convincing anyone new to DSLR photography to choose their brand!!



i wonder how nikon has survived all the years.... :


----------



## akiskev (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> i wonder how nikon has survived all the years.... :


Nikon has survived with lower than Canon sales :


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

akiskev said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > i wonder how nikon has survived all the years.... :
> ...



so you say canon users are mostly megapixel noobs? 

and i thought it´s because of the fancy white lenses.....


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 20, 2012)

My bet is that it will be a 22.1 mpix that is a video enhanced sensor and that is 5760x3840. Like for the 5D3, this means a size divisible by the width of HD video - 1920 - for ease of downsampling. This sensor will then be used in 70D and then 7D2. There will later be a 7Dc coming. That's also why the April fool rumors of a 5Dc might not be so wrong after all. I think Canon has been marveling and bathing in contentment at the EOS-Movie thing that actually came, I guess, unexpected. Maybe predicting the decline of DSLR's vs mirror-less, they decided to change course of the ship full-steam to video. Let's see how this 650D comes out. If it comes with same old 18 mp, well, that's not too good. Nokia is nearing bankruptcy by producing models that customers did not want to buy anymore ...


----------



## bycostello (Apr 20, 2012)

you've prob more than enough already....


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Any rumours on the sensor Mp size for this next body in the popular APS-C range - and when it is due out?



Nobody knows, and those few who know have signed a nda. But one thing is sure after Nikon's budget high mp release: They cannot do another small upgrade like 550d->600d or they will get stomped because it's one thing having older inferior tech, but it's another to release something new that is outdated to start with like their 18mp sensor.



Astro said:


> yeah and every entry level customer who buys a cheap D3200 prints billboard sized images... LOL.
> do a reality check!



*check* ... reality is that mom's and dad's computer don't have any issue wrestling with a 24mp jpegs these days and they don't do extensive pp. And if the dr and noise (esp. downsized) is ok soccer mum very much would like to crop to get her son on the other end of the field because her purchase didn't include a tele lens.

I think you're contradicting yourself: If speaking of mp, you're saying people don't need them - and a the same time the resolution is not that much larger, so why not if the technology allows for it? It sure is a small benefit, but not a much larger one than jumping from 18mp crop to 21mp mk2 for the last years. I didn't hear many 5d2 users say "Don't get it! 21mp is insane! You don't need it!" during the last years. And now there are few 5d3 users advising their fellow photos "22mp? Oh no! I'd have liked 12!".


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Nobody knows, and those few who know have signed a nda. But one thing is sure after Nikon's budget high mp release: They cannot do another small upgrade like 550d->600d or they will get stomped because it's one thing having older inferior tech, but it's another to release something new that is outdated to start with like their 18mp sensor.




well yes i forgot, there are still some out there who think a sensor design is only measured by megapixels.... :

that is why nikon will not sell the D4 i guess. 

if canon will bring an improved 18MP sensor, then i guess many of the educated customers will be very happy with it.

if its the SAME 18 MP sensor.. well yes then it gets a a bit long in the tooth.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 20, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> My bet is that it will be a 22.1 mpix



I think that's pretty unlikely. The Nikon D800 is pushing up against diffraction limits, and this would go well beyond that because of the APS-C sensor size. It is simply not practical to go much higher than the 7D in terms of APS-C sensors.

Also, the data handling requirements of this would require faster processors and path handling, which I admit is a possibility, but Canon will not wish to cannibalise the higher end market.

If this MP is achievable in APS-C I would expect to see it in a 7D2, if anywhere, but I suspect the image quality would be pants due to noise and diffraction, particularly in the non-L lenses likely to be in use at the lower end of the market.


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> birtembuk said:
> 
> 
> > My bet is that it will be a 22.1 mpix
> ...



the D3200 is 24MP on aps-c... so i don´t see a problem why canon could not do 21MP if they want.

if the user needs it.. that´s another question open for discussion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> well yes i forgot, there are still some out there who think a sensor design is only measured by megapixels.... that is why nikon will not sell the D4 i guess.



The d4 won't sell only because it's got cleaner shots with more nr, but because of hundreds of other reasons that matter to pro photogs - like previous Nikon pro bodies with much less mps did. Even *if* the d3200 had the same iq as the d4 this wouldn't change.

But if you're implying that the people who see Nikon's 24mp body as a threat to Canon's entry dlsr line cannot tell mp from noise or dynamic range, I'm pressed to say that imho that's very near trolling.


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But if you're implying that the people who see Nikon's 24mp body as a threat to Canon's entry dlsr line cannot tell mp from noise or dynamic range, I'm pressed to say that imho that's very near trolling.



well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.

forums like this one are no mirror of the majority of customers.

even with worse IQ more MP sell. you just have to look a P&S cameras.
that does not mean the D3200 has bad IQ.. it´s a general observation.

i don´t say the D3200 is no competition, it sure is, but the conclusion the TO draws are somwhat unrealistic....


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.



That would be indeed interesting - because my personal observation is different, but maybe that's a coincidence or a statistical bias because of the kind of people around me.

I think your average customer does know that more mp mean potential drawbacks, because the question is so obvious why a mobile phone has the same mp count as a dslr! But they seem to think that noise is the only problem, not dynamic range too. And they are partially correct, because most shots have a low dr. 

Many customers may even be mistaken in the other direction, thinking that an older camera with "bigger pixels" is better than the fanciest new d3200. 

Those who get a camera because they have no clue at all will get a (mirrorless) system camera these days because they won't want to change lenses and want a super zoom, candy colors and maybe high mp. They'll only get a dlsr unless a salesman talks them into it.


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.
> ...



of course.

during my studying times i worked at a two big european resellers (media markt and saturn) in the photo department.
i think most of the customers i had did not even know what aperture actually means, not to mention the influence it has on DOF. 

something like noise or dynamic range? well that´s something i had to tell them about. 

and nearly all of them asked me soon or later if the camera with the "more megapixel" is not the better camera.


----------



## foobar (Apr 20, 2012)

What Canon needs is a new APS-C sensor with lower noise (especially at low to medium ISO) and higher dynamic range. I don't care how they achieve it and how many megapixels it will have, as long as they get the image quality right.


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> if its the SAME 18 MP sensor.. well yes then it gets a a bit long in the tooth.



+1
Canon needs to show they have done their R&D and can come with sensor improvements IMHO...


----------



## AG (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Astro said:
> ...



I have to agree with Astro on this one.

I see day in and day out people that will purchase a higher MP camera because the marketing departments of the world have brainwashed them to believe that higher MP = Better shots.
In reality we all know that More Practice = Better shots.

In reality the rebel segment of the market is a difficult one to pick. These people are just out of the xxD price bracket (usually) but at the same time refuse to spend money on an xxxxD camera because they know its the base model, even though they have bugger all experience. 

Tech specs wise Canon could keep the camera at 18MP, with an all new sensor design that is carried over into the new xxD when it comes out. At the same time they can pitch some other factor of the camera as being the whiz bang feature, be that an all new articulated screen like on the 600D or improved video capabilities.

End of the day most of us that read these types forums are at the xD or xxD level (or think we are), the xxxD cameras are more of a hobby camera or us to throw into a backpack and not worry about getting damaged. 

Side note: birtembuk - 7DC....really?? You will be lucky to see a 7D2. Im guessing that it will be bumped down to a 70D sooner rather than later. Leaving the xD series as all Full Frame cameras only.


----------



## ctmike (Apr 20, 2012)

If the 650D/T4i comes out with a variant of the existing 18MP sensor.... then Nikon is going to sell a boatload of D3200's. Have to tip your cap to them, they have put out an extremely capable shooter at the $699 price point. The next 650D has to at least match this value proposition.


----------



## foobar (Apr 20, 2012)

AG said:


> You will be lucky to see a 7D2. Im guessing that it will be bumped down to a 70D sooner rather than later. Leaving the xD series as all Full Frame cameras only.


And what sense would that make? The 7D is a very successful camera (and while Canon doesn't provide numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon sold more 7Ds than 1-series and 5-series cameras combined). It is widely used by professionals who simply need the added tele range.

I know it hurts some tech-nerd's feelings that Canon positioned a camera with a "lesser" sensor in their professional lineup but apart from that, I see no argument against it. Quite the opposite: Given the huge price gap between the 60D and the 5D Mark III (as well as the growing competition), I guess that the 7D2 will move even more into "pro" territory than the original. All in all it will probably still be an evolutionary upgrade, though (I'm not expecting any revolutions from Canon at this point).

My guess is that the 7D Mark II will be based on the 5D Mark III body, but with an APS-C sensor and an integrated flash commander (aka popup flash). Going that route would save them a lot of R&D costs and pro users would appreciate having similar controls and button layouts on both cameras. The elephant in the room is the sensor, though: Noise at low/medium ISOs and low dynamic range (especially in the shadow areas) are the main problems of the original 7D and I really hope they adress them.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 20, 2012)

I really don't see any reason that the 650D wouldn't bump the sensor size up now, to say 22-24mpx, share that sensor with the 70D, then leapfrog the 7DII to something higher, say 25-28mpx, migrating the 700D & 80D up 12-18 months later along with the 1200D using the current 18mpx crop.

Although on current form, we might see the next crop sensor back to 15mpx ;-)


----------



## Terry Rogers (Apr 20, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Just seen the D3200 (24Mp) 100% crop sample image on Nikon Rumours.
> Ultra smooth - very impressive!
> If the 650D comes out with say 20Mp on board it will be bad for Canon and they will have an uphill job convincing anyone new to DSLR photography to choose their brand!!
> When you need 100% size images the more Mp the better.



I have to ask what lens was used for that sample image. I imagine it was one of Nikon's better lenses. Put a consumer grade lens on that camera and see what you get.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> during my studying times i worked at a two big european resellers (media markt and saturn) in the photo department.



Ok, if you really have first hand experience I take it from you and stand corrected. Still hard to believe why people wouldn't ask "if my mobile phone has 16mp, what's so great about a 18mp dslr?". But then again, maybe they do but come up with the wrong conclusion: "Let's get a 24mp dlsr!"



AG said:


> Side note: birtembuk - 7DC....really?? You will be lucky to see a 7D2. Im guessing that it will be bumped down to a 70D sooner rather than later. Leaving the xD series as all Full Frame cameras only.



This is the discussion from the "7d2 rumors" thread, and I agree that leaving aps-c for the xxd while bumping the xd to full frame would be the best way to go due to the pressure from below (mirrorless and fixed-mirror evf sony). But who knows what Canon marketing guys think - except for maximizing profit, that is.



AG said:


> Tech specs wise Canon could keep the camera at 18MP, with an all new sensor design that is carried over into the new xxD when it comes out.



I'm actually quite happy with 18mp, too, but if they don't bump up the mp count (macro, aspect ratio change, cropping due to more loose framing when shooting action) I want to have *noticeable* less noise while keeping dr, meaning iso 3200 should look like iso 800 now and iso 400 like iso 100. That would make me upgrade.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Any rumours on the sensor Mp size for this next body in the popular APS-C range - and when it is due out?
> 
> The 450D had 12.2 Mp sensor
> 
> ...



Well, there are issues of spatial resolution to take into account. A 24mp sensor is going to be pushing 130lp/mm. Modern camera lenses can only achieve such resolutions at middle apertures. At f/5.6, you only have 123lp/mm due to the effects of diffraction. Anything smaller than f/5.6 will produce increasingly less spatial resolution due to greater and greater effects of diffraction. At around f/4...perhaps as low as f/3.5 or so, in most cases for professional quality glass, optical aberrations and diffraction normalize, and you reach your maximum spatial resolution. I find f/4 to be a safe bet for maximum spatial resolution, which would be 173lp/mm. At larger apertures than that, optical aberrations will quickly dominate, and affect spatial resolution more than diffraction does at f/5.6 and on, often reducing spatial resolution to as low as 30-40lp/mm wide open (depending on the lens.)

There are a very few lenses that achieve near-perfect resolution at very wide apertures, but they are less common than the average DSLR lens. Zeiss has a lens or two capable of around 400lp/mm at around what I suspect is probably f/1.5. Some of Canon and Nikon's top-end supertelephoto lenses are probably capable of nearly 173lp/mm at their maximum apertures of f/4, and for top-end telephoto lenses like 300 and 400 f/2.8's, your probably capable of a couple hundred lp/mm. Those are all extremely expensive lenses (i.e. ten thousand dollars give or take a couple thousand) that few people who are going to be using either a D3200 or 650D entry level DSLR would be using.

There are also the issues of total system spatial resolution, which is effectively a mean of the spatial resolution of each component in the system. In this case, if the sensor is capable of 120-130lp/mm, and the lens is capable of 173lp/mm at f/4, your actual total system resolution is going to be a lot lower. You can certainly keep gaining improvement by continued increase in pixel density, but your going to encounter diminishing returns. The more you push sensor spatial resolution towards 170lp/mm, the narrower and narrower the aperture range is going to be where you can actually maximize your sensors potential. You might also run into other consequences...such as images that look fairly soft @ 1:1 crop at apertures outside of that narrow band of maximum system spatial resolution (this is part of the problem the 7D with its 18mp sensor has...its 116lp/mm spatial resolution is only viable at a relatively narrow band of apertures around maybe f/3.5 to f/6.

I think Canon may be at its limits with spatial resolution until it can make some of the same sensor improvements Sony has made to their Exmor sensors. Noise is a bit of a problem at ISO 100 and 200, and SNR is a bit of a problem at higher ISO's. At the very least they will need to migrate the 1D X and 5D III sensor improvements into their APS-C manufacturing. They might also gain from the use of backlit sensor technology as well. Nikon is probably in a better position to make a 24mp APS-C sensor produce better images that don't look as soft because of the very low read noise in Sony sensors...but there is still the question of whether it will actually improve things all that much for someone who is looking for an entry-level DSLR and is less likely to be using professional glass. Entry-level glass is unlikely to achieve maximum optical spatial resolution at any aperture, diminishing the value of having a sensor capable of 125-130lp/mm.

There is limited room to grow sensor resolution in APS-C formats, and far more room to grow spatial resolution in FF formats. Outside of also producing new entry-level lenses that approach perfection at wider apertures, with significantly reduced optical aberrations as wide as f/2.8, higher pixel density won't offer nearly as much benefit as better glass.


----------



## FarQinell (May 3, 2012)

News from Nikon is that the D3200 (24.2Mp) is now shipping to dealers!

Not much point in Canon introducing the 650D with a 18Mp sensor.

Nikon taken a clear lead here in entry level DSLRs and Canon is going to get a hammering unless they respond pdq.

(Rebel - silly name for a camera body!)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 3, 2012)

jrista said:


> You might also run into other consequences...such as images that look fairly soft @ 1:1 crop at apertures outside of that narrow band of maximum system spatial resolution (this is part of the problem the 7D with its 18mp sensor has...its 116lp/mm spatial resolution is only viable at a relatively narrow band of apertures around maybe f/3.5 to f/6.



Great points about Canon's aps-potential, thanks! However, I don't find f3.5-f6 very narrow, but I guess most shots are taken in this range until you're using a pro prime or shooting low-light. With a digital body and unless using Tv mode, it shouldn't be a problem to be in this range all the time to max the sensor's potential if the iso noise allows for it. Even on ff you cannot expect to shoot macro or landscape @f20 and get best iq, this is a case for focus stacking if the scene allows for it.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

jrista said:


> You might also run into other consequences...such as images that look fairly soft @ 1:1 crop at apertures outside of that narrow band of maximum system spatial resolution (this is part of the problem the 7D with its 18mp sensor has...its 116lp/mm spatial resolution is only viable at a relatively narrow band of apertures around maybe f/3.5 to f/6.



So true. I shoot landscape with a 7D and spend most of my time at f/7.1 for that very reason.


----------



## rafaelsynths (May 3, 2012)

I think canon might compete with nikon on megapixels.

Think about it? Most consumers think more pixels is the most important thing anyways.


----------



## K-amps (May 3, 2012)

Canon cannot milk the 18 sensor anymore. I am curious what they will do. 

I hope it is a higher MP sensor, so that people can dump their "low" 18 mp bodies on CL & ebay


----------



## untitled10 (May 3, 2012)

Two words.

Pixel Density.

Want DR?

Want high ISO performance?

You're already on a tiny sensor, do you even use all 18 mega-pixels? How much do you crop when you're already on a crop body?
If you're pictures only go on the internet, you might as well have a 12/14 MP sensor, and still be scaling them down massively anyway, I wouldn't personally see a point on going over 15MP for a crop, if that, I mean you need 25+ for a billboard, and who would shoot a billboard on a crop?

TL;DR: More MP on crop = unnecessary and possibly counter intrusive for real use.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

I agree 100%. 18 Megapixels is already pushing the limits of DLA and lens sharpness on a crop camera. Much better to stick with 16-18mp and boost the DR and ISO capability. 16 MP APS-C with Digic V and gapless microlenses would be a very tasty proposition for me (If I hadn't decided that my next camera will be FF). Canon's choice to make the 1Dx an 18 MP camera was very exciting to me and I hope they back down from the megapixel wars on other camera lines as well.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

Having said that, a 30 megapixel FF camera would be reasonable for studio and landscape shooting because there's a lot more breathing room on the FF sensors as far as DLA and pixel size goes.


----------



## AJ (May 3, 2012)

Who cares how many megapixels the 650D will have. It's barely relevant. We're well past the point of diminishing returns. There will be plenty of megapixels. More than you can shake a stick at.

Even if the megapixel count were of interest (which it isn't), keep in mind that going from 18 to 20 mpix involves a 5% reduction of sensel size in each dimension. Or, a 20 mpix sensor gives you 5% more pixels in each direction. Barely worth mentioning.

Now, onto the relevant bit. The real question is whether the 650D will have continuous video AF. Continuous video AF will be a very useful feature to many users. If Canon manages to pull it off so it'll be a very interesting camera and it'll sell well. If not, Canon won't be keeping up to Nikon and Sony.

The other relevant bit is the DIGIC-V chip. That should yield some performance improvement.

For those wishing for a 19-point AF module - dream on. Not gonna happen.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 3, 2012)

I have a feeling Canon will push their entry level DSLR's as hybrid-all-in-one-memory-capturing-and-sharing-devices.

They'll headline the latest HD Video features. Until popular TV shows (like HOUSE), and award winning films start promoting that they are using a Nikon, consumers who want video features are going to buy Canon.


----------



## untitled10 (May 3, 2012)

AJ said:


> Who cares how many megapixels the 650D will have. It's barely relevant. We're well past the point of diminishing returns. There will be plenty of megapixels. More than you can shake a stick at.
> 
> Even if the megapixel count were of interest (which it isn't), keep in mind that going from 18 to 20 mpix involves a 5% reduction of sensel size in each dimension. Or, a 20 mpix sensor gives you 5% more pixels in each direction. Barely worth mentioning.
> 
> ...




Personally, I think that for a very large majority of the small-scale video market would reject auto-focus during video, a computer should never choose the attraction of the eye of your viewer, with stills it is diffrent, its more user controlled, but on video it pretty much has to be manual.
(unless you're really armature, then you will get terrible results anyway, a wrong focus shift is very common in video auto focus, and very noticeable and good at destroying quality)


----------



## well_dunno (May 3, 2012)

I think app 2 weeks we will see what 650D is. Though with a digic 5, it is going to have more cpu power than the 7D, isn't it? Wonder in what purpose it will be used...


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

AJ said:


> For those wishing for a 19-point AF module - dream on. Not gonna happen.



You may be right, but I wouldn't be so sure. I think retaining the 9-point system in it's current form would be a bad move on Canon's behalf. It probably doesn't even cost that much extra to produce the 19-point AF module. As for stealing 7D sales, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see the 7D mk II pick up either the 61-point system of the 5D mk III (and a few dollars on the price tag) or a totally new 40-50ish point system since it is squarely aimed at sports shooters.

On the other hand, where does all this leave the 60D?


----------



## stabmasterasron (May 3, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> I agree 100%. 18 Megapixels is already pushing the limits of DLA and lens sharpness on a crop camera. Much better to stick with 16-18mp and boost the DR and ISO capability. 16 MP APS-C with Digic V and gapless microlenses would be a very tasty proposition for me (If I hadn't decided that my next camera will be FF). Canon's choice to make the 1Dx an 18 MP camera was very exciting to me and I hope they back down from the megapixel wars on other camera lines as well.



+1 on that. I think 16MP with very good DR and low noise would be a very sweet sensor. Maybe hard to sell at best buy, but to those in the know - it would be very good news. 7Dmkii with this 16MP sensor, digic 5, 12 fps - nice! But no way that happens - gotta keep up with the Joneses on MP count.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 3, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> +1 on that. I think 16MP with very good DR and low noise would be a very sweet sensor. Maybe hard to sell at best buy, but to those in the know - it would be very good news.



The Nikon d7000 uses 16mp and seems to sell just fine. Nikon surely could pressed Sony to go at least for 18mp to compete with Canon, but they decided for less mp and thus more dr and less noise. But after years of arguing why 18-21 mp is so important for cropping, I don't think Canon can go lower than 18mp again.

edit: typo - the d7000 of course uses 16mp, not 18.


----------



## stabmasterasron (May 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> stabmasterasron said:
> 
> 
> > +1 on that. I think 16MP with very good DR and low noise would be a very sweet sensor. Maybe hard to sell at best buy, but to those in the know - it would be very good news.
> ...



I think the d7000 is 16.2MP. Anyway, I think that is what you meant, and you point is still valid. I recently needed a body for the weekend and could not get a Canon body, so I shoot with the d7000 and the Nikkor 35mm 1.4G. The results were absolutely breathtaking. I am not an extreme cropper and I prefer to fill the frame with my subject as much as possible while still maintaining a pleasing composition. The resolution of the d7000 was far more than enough for the modest cropping I do. I hope the 7dmkii does not follow the MP war trend. But if we do ever see this camera, I suspect it will be above 20MP.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Full time auto focus in video would go a long way ....


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> I think the d7000 is 16.2MP.



Yes, typo, fixed.



stabmasterasron said:


> I recently needed a body for the weekend and could not get a Canon body, so I shoot with the d7000 and the Nikkor 35mm 1.4G. The results were absolutely breathtaking.



:-o ... back when I got into digital photography 1 1/2 years ago, I had to decide between Nikon (d7000) and Canon (7d or 60d). Despite the better specs of the Nikon I chose Canon because the 60d is cheaper than the d7000, runs magic lantern and most of all I liked the usability better - the latter might be because I've shot analog Canon before. 

The Nikkor 35/1.4 is known to be much better than the outdated Canon 50/1.4, so that's no surprise. But all things considered - would you now choose Nikon aps-c over Canon?


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> stabmasterasron said:
> 
> 
> > I think the d7000 is 16.2MP.
> ...



Nikon of course is a 1.5 crop


----------



## stabmasterasron (May 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> stabmasterasron said:
> 
> 
> > I think the d7000 is 16.2MP.
> ...



I really liked the Nikon. If the choice were only between the bodies of the 60D and D7000, I think I would take the D7000. Now 7D vs. D7000 - different story. But the 7D is more expensive. And of course, lenses are a whole different complication. So I don't want to go into Canon system vs. Nikon system. Just live it simply at that.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Nikon of course is a 1.5 crop



I know, fuzzy description on my side - but 1.5 or 1.6 doesn't really make a difference, does it?


----------



## !Xabbu (May 5, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > For those wishing for a 19-point AF module - dream on. Not gonna happen.
> ...



I rather see the 650 D with the 60D's AF, the 70D with the 7D 19-point AF and the 7D II with a new AF or a new sensor with 16 MP or so (and significantly improved high ISO noise and DR).


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...



Yeah, may well happen that way. The 650D could probably get away with it but reusing 9-point in the 70D would just be a questionable move. I don't actually know how much an AF module costs to produce but 61-point on the 7D II would make a lot of sense assuming it didn't steal to many 5D sales.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

AJ said:


> Now, onto the relevant bit. The real question is whether the 650D will have continuous video AF.



+1 ... and I'd like to know why the video af is so crappy on Canons at the moment - is it due to lacking processing power (digic4->5)? Didn't Canon care until Nikon d7000 and Sony went ahead with this while Canon wanted to sell their "real" expensive video stuff and not cannibalize it with an updated 550d+magic lantern+working af?


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon of course is a 1.5 crop
> ...



It does factor into spatial resolution, DLA, etc. Those are actually pretty rough numbers, I think Canon's is actually closer to 1.623x, which increases the difference a bit more over Nikon's crop. Someone mentioned we are "well past" the point of diminishing returns. I wouldn't say that at all...you can always gain from increases resolution, and so long as we are not completely outresolving all lenses on the market, we have plenty of returns to gain. We would only begin moving into "diminishing returns" realm once sensors are offering more spatial resolution than the highest resolution lenses that are readily available at "affordable" (read that as professional grade lenses that professionals would buy, since that is where a significant amount of Canon and Nikon revenue comes from) prices.

Even if an image "appears" soft at 100% crop doesn't actually mean it is. Computer screens are 1/3rd to 1/4th as dense as the average print (@300ppi), and if you have fine details that you want to fully reproduce, you need a high resolution print (@600ppi). At 600ppi, computer screens are 1/6th to 1/8th as dense. Printing a 7D photo that might look soft on a computer screen usually results in a beautifully detailed, crisply sharp 13x19" 300ppi print. A 24mp sensor should be able to get you up to around 16x20, etc.

There are other "hidden" benefits that are very hard for consumers to see, understand, and realize, so they are never marketed. One of the most significant, and one of the reasons that I believe more resolution is a good thing despite the negative 100% crop connotations, is that once the bulk of your noise is at a sub-detail level...and by that I mean you need many RGB pixels to comprise the smallest facets of detail in your photo, noise removal becomes significantly more effective. When you remove noise in an image where even a single pixel might comprise a full element of fine detail, you run the high risk of blurring detail. Using Lightroom as an example, you might crank sharpening up to 60, and set the sharpening radius to 1.0, maybe 1.3. With more pixels per finest detail, you could crank the sharpening radius up to 2, or even the max of 3 (and when the smallest element of meaningful detail in a photo requires 5-10 image pixels to render, you could even benefit from larger sharpening radii). A larger sharpening radius helps to eliminate noise in and of itself, reducing the need to use luminance noise correction, or reducing the level to which you might need to push it.

There are plenty of benefits to be gained from pushing sensor resolution "beyond the limit" (i.e. the 173lp/mm spatial resolution of a perfect f/4 lens, say). Its just that those benefits are often complex, hard to understand, and difficult to sell. The inevitable perceptual outcome of continued progress on the sensor resolution front will always eventually be _"all my photographs are *soft!*"_ not because they really are in any meaningful context (i.e. downscaled for exhibition online or printed at up to 2x enlargements)...only because they look soft at 100% crop on a relatively low density screen. 

(I would actually DIE for a 300ppi screen with a "100%" crop actually set to 33%...that would eliminate the "That camera's pictures are soft!" issue once and for all, with the added benefit that if you zoom in beyond 100%, things don't go pixelated until 400%. )


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> There are other "hidden" benefits that are very hard for consumers to see, understand, and realize, so they are never marketed. One of the most significant, and one of the reasons that I believe more resolution is a good thing despite the negative 100% crop connotations, is that once the bulk of your noise is at a sub-detail level...and by that I mean you need many RGB pixels to comprise the smallest facets of detail in your photo, noise removal becomes significantly more effective.
> maybe 1.3.



Sure, but that statement isn't only valid for 100% crop - we had this in one 40d vs 18mp thread, and it boiled down to the fact that at 100% crop, the 12mp 40d has less noise, but when you denoise the "sub-12mp" noise from the 18mp and reduce to 12mp, the 40d doesn't gain anything while the 18mp sensor has more potential in some situations. But you're right - as in the 40d thread, high mp potential is often dismissed too quickly because people's bodies don't have it (see d800 vs 5d3, too).

Unfortunately, many pictures I'm shooting includes hair, thus there is little sub-detail noise @18mp because hair is so damn thin and starting @iso800 on my 60d, it's visibly loosing detail or I'm retaining noise at 100% crop.



jrista said:


> Using Lightroom as an example, you might crank sharpening up to 60, and set the sharpening radius to 1.0, maybe 1.3.



Good pp is indeed something very often dismissed - but I recently went through a sharpening & nr tutorial for lightroom, and it's amazing how much detail is recoverable when done correctly. Unfortunately, if you go beyond the standard settings, every picture needs its own customization, so I'd still exchange my 60d for a 5d3 for free


----------



## Terry Rogers (May 11, 2012)

Good pp is indeed something very often dismissed - but I recently went through a sharpening & nr tutorial for lightroom, and it's amazing how much detail is recoverable when done correctly. Unfortunately, if you go beyond the standard settings, every picture needs its own customization, so I'd still exchange my 60d for a 5d3 for free 
[/quote]

Where did you take the tutorial? Something online?


----------



## Marsu42 (May 12, 2012)

Terry Rogers said:


> Where did you take the tutorial? Something online?


http://kelbytraining.com/course/matt_tack_sharp/


----------



## Terry Rogers (May 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Terry Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you take the tutorial? Something online?
> ...



Thanks


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2012)

Terry Rogers said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Terry Rogers said:
> ...



You're welcome - I think the most important thing in the mentioned tutorial is that he's very careful about sharpening, and I think this is the way to go, too. You cannot hush up the iq a crappy tele lens with sharpening, nor can you widen the depth of field after the shot. Looking at some forum pictures, they are so oversharpened that they even have ringing in the bokeh.

Personally, I don't apply any sharpening at all when importing to Lightroom, just a little noise reduction, than postprocess and then only sharpen a bit if it's necessary at all for the export size or the picture really doesn't show it's been sharpened at all. No sharpening while editing also saves a lot of cpu power in Lightroom.


----------



## akiskev (May 14, 2012)

jrista said:


> I would actually *DIE* for a 300ppi screen...


You are not going to die young. That's for sure.
Consumer 5750x3237 22" / 6276x3533 24" monitors will take a while till they hit the shelves. When this happens, you will finally be able to rest in peace.


----------



## briansquibb (May 14, 2012)

akiskev said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would actually *DIE* for a 300ppi screen...
> ...



You can strap 4 screens together pretty much seamlessly which would do that for you


----------



## pwp (May 15, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Any rumours on the sensor Mp size for this next body in the popular APS-C range - and when it is due out?
> 
> The 450D had 12.2 Mp sensor
> 500D had 15.1 Mp
> ...



The marketing dept at Canon would never allow it, but personally I'd prefer to see a super performance 12 Mp sensor. It would probably far more suitable for the vast majority of xxxD shooters. 

Really, rather than putting the blowtorch onto Canon for more Mp with every release, we should be making smarter requests that will ultimately deliver far more useful cameras. 

Paul Wright


----------



## akiskev (May 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Dear brian you 're missing the whole point of ppi. Read more carefully next time!


----------



## briansquibb (May 15, 2012)

akiskev said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > akiskev said:
> ...



Just giving the computer geek answer to getting large screens at high res. Agreed at the moment they havent managed more than 200dpi but it wont be long.

Virtual desktops will be with us for some time yet 8) 8) 8)


----------



## jrista (May 16, 2012)

akiskev said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > akiskev said:
> ...



@askiev: Hah! Well, at least I have a nice long life ahead of me, seeing as I want one of those 300ppi puppies in 27" 16:9 format!  I guess that would be...what, 7660x4309? Yeah, doubtful I'll see that in the next decade, unless something really spurs along high density screen development. Oh, and did I mention...I want it as an OLED?


----------



## briansquibb (May 16, 2012)

jrista said:


> @askiev: Hah! Well, at least I have a nice long life ahead of me, seeing as I want one of those 300ppi puppies in 27" 16:9 format!  I guess that would be...what, 7660x4309? Yeah, doubtful I'll see that in the next decade, unless something really spurs along high density screen development. Oh, and did I mention...I want it as an OLED?



My desktop is currently 1980 x 2160 with 2x 24inch screens. Oled would be nice - roll it up and put it in a draw when not using it


----------



## jrista (May 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > @askiev: Hah! Well, at least I have a nice long life ahead of me, seeing as I want one of those 300ppi puppies in 27" 16:9 format!  I guess that would be...what, 7660x4309? Yeah, doubtful I'll see that in the next decade, unless something really spurs along high density screen development. Oh, and did I mention...I want it as an OLED?
> ...



Its not about the number of pixels, its about how densely those pixels are packed. I want 300ppi, not just a certain number of pixels. 7660x4309 only comes into the equation because thats the dimensions of a 300ppi 27" screen. Multiple screens increases pixel count but does nothing for pixel density. I am not so much concerned about rolling up my screen and storing it in a drawer, or having it be thin enough to be translucent. I just want it to be AMOLED because those screens are amazingly bright, clear, accurate, dense, and technologically superior to RGB-LED, not to mention they are one of the key reasons 300ppi+ devices exist at all (iPhones with Retina are around 300ppi OLED devices.)


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

jrista said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Density is a minor issue, just an improvement in technology.

Already you can buy 15inch screens in 1920x1080. The hold up at the moment is getting more pixels on a screen rather than the size of the pixel. Virtual is the current trend ( mostly because of the commercial benefits for large banks etc). A room full of traders with 4 or more screens strapped together is quite impressive.


----------



## c-law (May 18, 2012)

Seeing as the new iPad is 264ppi you could always rig 3 of them together and get the equivalent of one 19.1" 20:9 display.

All for the low low cost of ~$1250.



Chris


----------



## DB (May 18, 2012)

I think the question of MP size has already been answered
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-eos-rebel-t4i650d-specs-cr2-5/


----------

