« on: September 17, 2014, 09:12:12 PM »
There's one other thing we can almost be certain of: this sensor is HIGHLY unlikely to end up in the 5D4. Canon lost a bunch of 1DsIII sales to the 5D2 and I can't see them doing that again.
But what then? They lose all sales to D810 and Sony?
They can't just have some 8k camera that offers high MP and high DR and expect that to compete with the $2000-2500 stuff. The 8k cam might also have high fps and this and that and be the best, but 8k is simply too much for most people to afford no matter how much they'd love to get it (and some don't like mega large bodies).
Isn't it better to have 85,000 sales of 5D4 than 4000 sales of 1DsX?
Depends on your margins.
But why can't I have 85,000 sales of 5D4 *AND* 4000 sales of 1DsX?
And how do I achieve that if I'm Canon?
8MP APS-C (20D, 30D, 350D) = 21MP FF (5D2, 1Ds3, 5D3)
10MP APS-C (40D, 400D, 1000D) = 26MP FF
12MP APS-C (450D) = 31MP FF
15MP APS-C (50D, 500D) = 38MP FF
18MP APS-C (7D, 700D, 650D, 600D, 550D, 60D, 60Da, 100D) = 46MP FF (1DsX or 3D?)
20MP APS-C (70D, 7D2) = 51MP FF
Your numbers showing that by using the same pixel density that is already in Canon's APS-C format cameras but producing a full frame sensor with the same pixel density should produce a sensor in the range of that rumor. I think that Nikon probably had that choice but decided to back off to 36MP to retain a higher DR and also not to "frighten" those out their that said there were "Too Many Megapixels - my little slow computer couldn't handle those 40+mp files." And don't waste my time in quoting the "uncompressed" size which I never use and can never understand why anyone would use it. 14 bit non-loss compression works great on all the D800 line.
If Canon did this, I would probably buy it. Canon at this point may feel that it is now time for Canon to truly establish dominance even if they don't sell a boatload. With a price like that they will have a great profit margin and have something to take to every trade show and not just a fast APS-C camera.