New lenses for 46mp camera?

[Littlefoot]

Please help if anyone knows the answer. When the big megapixel canon (presumed to be 46 mp) comes out, will canon need to produce new lenses to take advantage of the sensor? Zeiss is making a high end set of primes for 30mp+ cameras. I have read that canon is planning to update some of their lenses for this camera, but you know how these rumors go.

[wallybarthman]

In all honesty, the pixel size and density for a 46 megapixel camera will be the same as they currently use in the 7D, T2i, etc. so any lens that can resolve enough for those sensors would be fine on a megapixel monster. 

[Rocky]

In all honesty, the pixel size and density for a 46 megapixel camera will be the same as they currently use in the 7D, T2i, etc. so any lens that can resolve enough for those sensors would be fine on a megapixel monster.

Only in the middle part of picture. We do not know how well the lenses will do at the edge and corner of the FF. There is no data to support the claim yet.

[bycostello]

can't imagine i'd ever need 46mp.. so i'd stick to what i have anyway..

[nomad85]

can't imagine i'd ever need 46mp.. so i'd stick to what i have anyway..

I bet you couldn't imagine that you needed 12mp about 10 years ago. The worlds changing buddy, get on the train and hold on tight, or be left behind

[M.ST]

Not all lenses perform very well with the new camera.

But the "workhorse" lenses like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L do the job very good.

[Nishi Drew]

can't imagine i'd ever need 46mp.. so i'd stick to what i have anyway..

I bet you couldn't imagine that you needed 12mp about 10 years ago. The worlds changing buddy, get on the train and hold on tight, or be left behind

Well, even today I can agree that all one ever really needs is 10mp, I rarely ever crop or even print.
But, for speciality purposes like panoramic zoom-in pics, and referencing off of a photo for modeling data, it all makes more resolution very desirable. Of course, if speed and storage aren't greatly sacrificed, then why not, as long as ISO performance, color bit data, and (everyone's favorite) DR are greatly increased as well then awesome!
And if it doesn't cost anymore than a nice new car...

[RLPhoto]

I see no reason for L grade lenses like the 24-70II and the 70-200II to out resolve 46mp. Even most primes could do Even better.

[Sporgon]

can't imagine i'd ever need 46mp.. so i'd stick to what i have anyway..

I bet you couldn't imagine that you needed 12mp about 10 years ago. The worlds changing buddy, get on the train and hold on tight, or be left behind

Well, even today I can agree that all one ever really needs is 10mp, I rarely ever crop or even print.
But, for speciality purposes like panoramic zoom-in pics, and referencing off of a photo for modeling data, it all makes more resolution very desirable. Of course, if speed and storage aren't greatly sacrificed, then why not, as long as ISO performance, color bit data, and (everyone's favorite) DR are greatly increased as well then awesome!
And if it doesn't cost anymore than a nice new car...

Actually, presuming Panoramics are achieved through stitching multiple frames together then there is even less need for high MP, even if using Superzoom . On our Building Panoramics web site where some of our work is shown we have included Superzoom for fun on some of them to show the incredible detail. Off the top of my head I can't remember which were shot on 13MP and which on 21MP, but I know Beverley Minster was shot on the 5D MK1 (13MP). Have a look at how you can zoom into the detail on this pic - we actually had to dump resolution on the original file as it was over 1GB, and tell me if you would want more resolution !!

+1 to your first sentence 

Wouldn't it be great to have a new FF camera, 13MP with all the latest tech, and no f**** video 

Oh and to all those who celebrate it: Merry Christmas !

[Bob Howland]

can't imagine i'd ever need 46mp.. so i'd stick to what i have anyway..

I bet you couldn't imagine that you needed 12mp about 10 years ago. The worlds changing buddy, get on the train and hold on tight, or be left behind

Yes, the world certainly is changing but I doubt that anybody using a Nikon D4 (16MP) or Canon 1Dx (18MP) will feel "left behind". Professionals, increasingly, are seeing their images displayed small in size and at low resolution. Even a quad-HD television is still only 8MP.

[risc32]

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.
 
BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

[Policar]

Not all lenses perform very well with the new camera.

But the "workhorse" lenses like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L do the job very good.

Interesting... Here's the hoping the 45mm TS-E II comes out soon and delivers good performance... My new most-wanted lens. (Well, maybe the 200mm f2 IS, but who's counting.)

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.
 
BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

Their megapixel ratings don't make sense to me... are they meant to be wide open (I can't find any reference to them except briefly in a dpreview article). Anyhow, it just seems like MTF stuff. Like it will always be lower unless it's 100% all the way to extinction at the camera's highest resolution, and nothing really achieves that.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

[

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.
 
BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

Their megapixel ratings don't make sense to me... are they meant to be wide open (I can't find any reference to them except briefly in a dpreview article). Anyhow, it just seems like MTF stuff. Like it will always be lower unless it's 100% all the way to extinction at the camera's highest resolution, and nothing really achieves that.

+1.
 DXO is coming up with this stuff to attract potential customers for their software.  They test lenses on a camera, and test results are only valid for the lens and camera combination.  The MTF of the system is the product of the MTF of the Lens, Sensor, firmware, demosaicing software, and likely a couple of other things in the image path. You can't get to a actual value by testing a lens on a camera.  There are real lens testing test beds, but only a few engineers, technicians and scientists know how to use it properly and evaluate the results.  Companies like Carl Zeiss and Panavision have the capability to actually test a lens, DXO does not.  Even Canon provides calculated MTF figures for a lens.

[Bob Howland]

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.
 
BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

Sorry, 3840 X 2160