Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

[J. McCabe]

POST REMOVED

Keep it civil

[J. McCabe]

POST REMOVED

Keep it civil

Civil is giving an explanation why Canon shouldn't make a lower resolution camera, rather than mocking other people.

[papa-razzi]

There are increased costs to more MegaPixels.
- I need to have more storage for my photos - bigger CF/SD cards, bigger hard drives
- I need to have a faster computer with more RAM/CPU speed, etc.
- It takes longer to import bigger files from your CF/SD card to your computer.
I upgraded from an XSi to a 7D.  I ended up buying a faster card reader, and ultimately a new computer as well.

Having said that, I enjoy having more MP on the 7D so I can crop into smaller sections of the photo and still have a usable end result.

As far as the whole better gear = better photos thing.  I depends upon the types of things you are shooting.  The reason I upgraded to a 7D was because I was taking pictures of my kids sporting events.  Badly lit gyms, etc.  I needed fast shutter speeds in poor light, couldn't use flash, so higher ISO capability was needed.  I was also interested in the faster FPS and the better AF system.  I definitely get a higher percentage of usable photos because I can keep the shutter speed a bit higher now.  The higher FPS allows me to capture more action shots and have more keepers.   If I wasn't doing this type of photography, the XSi was fine.  In fact I still have it and loved the results I got.

So, better gear isn't a requirement to take great photos, but some types of shots are very hard if not possible with lesser gear - for technical reasons.

[motorhead]

Warstreet talked on the previous page of current DR's of 12 stops and a possible future DR of 16 stops. If I could routinely achieve these theoretical laboratory figures in real life I'd be over the moon.

But that's the problem, these inflated figures cannot be achieved in the rough and tumble of real photography. I get at the most 6 real stops of DR, no more. I was out yesterday shooting a steam train. As this is the UK, The day was "changeable". That is to say the sky was mostly white cloud with some pale blue in a very few places. The engine, Oliver Cromwell, is black. I have to resort to producing two TIFF versions in DPP which I manipulate seperately in photoshop before finally flattening to get anything like the DR my eyes registered at the time. 

I will not repeat my argument which is based on the very weird shape of the sensor response curve because I have already aired it in a seperate thread, which can be found if anyone can really be bothered. But a Canon with a real DR of 12? YES PLEASE! And 16 stops in future? I've died and gone to heaven! 

[Lawliet]

Oh yes, right. That's why D700, with half of 5DmII pixel amount is also half the price... What, it is not!?! What the hell!?!

Well, both give you the same usable resolution.
The price paid for those extra MP that do nothing are the framerate and feature set.

[WarStreet]

Anyway, thanks for taking the discussion seriously. I enjoy reading what others think (although, since I live in the middle of the U.S., I am very jealous of someone living on an island in the Mediterranean. 

Thanks ! well, I am jealous of you for living in a large country with so many variety around you. Here is nice, but sometimes feels too small.
 

[Canihaspicture]

Warstreet talked on the previous page of current DR's of 12 stops and a possible future DR of 16 stops. If I could routinely achieve these theoretical laboratory figures in real life I'd be over the moon.

But that's the problem, these inflated figures cannot be achieved in the rough and tumble of real photography. I get at the most 6 real stops of DR, no more.

I'm not sure what settings you are using but I can easily get 11-12 stops from a properly exposed RAW image through lightroom. Of course, I always expose to the right to retain the most information without clipping...

[ReyMorlu]

 Human eye has about 100Mpx res more or less... then cameras, I think, must be call to try getting at least, our specifications. 
And it seems it should be posible in not to many years... Take a look!


http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082410canon120mpsensor.asp

I'm  specting FF bodies in the next generation grow up to near 40Mpx,this wil be funy to exile medium format cameras,to be replaced thanks to nano-tech. 

[bycostello]

I've got way enough MP now... after all we're shooting at better than medium format film resolution.. it is file size and image processing time that is my concern now...

if u do 'need' more MPs there are medium and full bodied cameras out there.

[Flake]

Warstreet talked on the previous page of current DR's of 12 stops and a possible future DR of 16 stops. If I could routinely achieve these theoretical laboratory figures in real life I'd be over the moon.

But that's the problem, these inflated figures cannot be achieved in the rough and tumble of real photography. I get at the most 6 real stops of DR, no more. I was out yesterday shooting a steam train. As this is the UK, The day was "changeable". That is to say the sky was mostly white cloud with some pale blue in a very few places. The engine, Oliver Cromwell, is black. I have to resort to producing two TIFF versions in DPP which I manipulate seperately in photoshop before finally flattening to get anything like the DR my eyes registered at the time. 

I will not repeat my argument which is based on the very weird shape of the sensor response curve because I have already aired it in a seperate thread, which can be found if anyone can really be bothered. But a Canon with a real DR of 12? YES PLEASE! And 16 stops in future? I've died and gone to heaven!

I think you're missing something here, that is your monitor cannot display the dynamic range you seek so it's doing the best that it can squashing the dynamic range in an attempt to accomodate it.  If you want to display your images properly then you should be using (Assuming a 27") something costing a minimum of £1000.  Perhaps the Dell U2711 or if you can afford it an Eizo or Lacie.  These will cost considerably more. They will also need calibration as screens are normally far too bright, a screen calibrator will pay for itelf by the reduced energy consumption, calibrated screens acheive.

Trying to view images from a decent DSLR on a cheepo 24" TN panel is never going to be a satisfying experience, the better S or H-IPS panels cost significantly more, as do decent backlights which are also important (avoid LED).

[Lawliet]

Slides aside: Output DR always was less then impressive, even the cheapest monitors beat photo paper. But you need proper input to get something nice to print or view. Sadly the matrix metering doesn't apply the zone system but simply exposes for a weightend average of neutral gray. That can pointlessly cost you quite a lot of DR. Only 2 stops of EC isn't ideal either.

[motorhead]

Flake,

While I know my monitor is not the best, I do have a fully calibrated workflow. However I'm not basing my "real" 6 stops on the monitor display or prints. I plotted out my sensor response curve which shows a centre section with a gentle S shaped curve as we might expect, roughly similar to film response curves. Where it differs is that at the top and bottom it artificially drags out running almost horizontally for ever.

It's this absolutely useless top and bottom that confuses the lab tests because the tests find there is "information" in these areas, just not information that we can make any use of.

So the 6 stops I know I can achieve are from the centre area, excluding the extreme limits. To exploit it I have reduced the contrast of the RAW capture opening display in DPP which I then adjust using levels or whatever other tool in Photoshop seems appropriate to expand the image back out to the full 0 - 255 contrast range.     

[Rocky]

Msot of  the posts here seems to be quite polarized. Either they want the mega Pixel War keeps going on to 120MP or they want It to stop. Or they try to draw the line for High Mp for hobbist and lower pixel count for Pros. The following is my own personal opinion and not the intention for another battle front. For hoobist, not that many people can affort to have a few $2000 lens. So using a 18 MP sensor will be  a waste of computer power without any real gain in reolution. Pros have the advantage  of deeper bugget (tax write off). So Canon should use their sensor technology ( low noise sensor, gapless micro lens etc) to produce a lower Pixel count sensor( 12 to14 Mp ??) to give hobbist a camera that have better dynamic range and does not strain the resolution of a reasonable price lens. How many hobbist need bigget than 14 X 12  enlargement???So Canon, are  you listening ?

[Flake]

I'm sorry Motorhead but in isolation the graph is pretty meaningless.  How did you measure it and how did you remove the sensor from the camera to measure it?  Is this an amalgam of all three channels measured seperately and merged to give an average? RAW setting jpeg? and what exactly is the camera?

[Canihaspicture]

Motorhead I'm still not getting useless extremes (nor fully understanding your logic)... can you post this in a brand new thread and give examples maybe a link to a DNG or raw file along with the outputs you're getting. I'm really interested and I'd really like to know what you are saying.