Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]

[sandymandy]

Cool! Actually being able to downsize to 22MP and more sounds amazing (also it should deliver quite noise free images if downsized to "less huge" ). I just wonder if todays lenses got enough resolution for a 75MP sensor.
Anyway i think io need to save some decades to buy it cuz the price is probably going to be ferkin huge since there are not many cameras with such high MP count. Yeah hasselblad n stuff but they will still be more expensive than the 75MP Canon i guess.

[Inst]

What about the possibility that this IS medium format?

Canon supposedly cannot produce high resolution / low pixel-size features on its 360nm/500nm process, while Sony / Nikon can. Because Canon refused to spend and devote the effort towards mastering the 180nm process which is used by Sony for their high-DR processes, Canon cannot immediately compete with Sony and Nikon when it comes to the cutting edge of sensor technology.

One way to get around this problem is to simply use the 500nm sensors for other purposes. Let's say, it's 75mp on a 6x7 format sensor. Canon has mostlsy mastered its 500nm fab technology, so it might be able to produce 6x7 sensors at below Hasselblad and other Medium Format producers' cost and create a new type of market, taking back the performance crown from Nikon and Sony.

[Aglet]

Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

sales ≠ superiority
Longevity maybe (beta vs vhs?)

If Nikon could actually build a decent body, with decent ergonomics and UI to put that sensor in, they could become a threat to Canon's market position.

Nothing wrong with Nikon bodies, ergonomics are different, not necessarily inferior. Canon isn't necessarily the superior one here either.  I really prefer my Pentax K52s and D800 ergo to MOST Canon's.  OTOH, I can't stand Nikon's D600 or D7x00 series ergo.

Have to agree about the UI tho, looks like someone who can't speak english or think clearly put together the darn menus in most of their cameras...  They're nowhere near as intuitive as other mfr's UI like Canon, Panasonic or Pentax.

  Although they'd need to work on their lenses too, the only shining point in that lineup is the 14-24/2.8, admittedly great, but beyond that they don't have anything notable.

Really?  the 14-24 is pretty good but has its flaws.
note the performance of the recent 70-200/4 VR, it's PDG!
Again, their lenses don't always perform the same as Canon's, neither do Pentax.  That makes them more different than anything.  I've found that all 3 major mfrs have very good lenses and some that are not so good.
It's not all about ultimate sharpness and lack of CA, those are very important, but so are appealing bokeh and little details like (micro-)contrast and handling.

I do not think your anti-Nikon arguments are solidly conclusive, they're more like your personal opinion.
Which you're entitled to express.
Until about 2 years ago, I would have been inclined to strongly agree with your opinion.
What a difference a gear (change) or 2 makes.

And nikon lenses mount funny. 

I'll give you that! 
2 CW systems and one CCW that I use, the Nikon way to mount lenses just feels backwards.
but it still holds the lens on.

[bvukich]

I do not think your anti-Nikon arguments are solidly conclusive, they're more like your personal opinion.
Which you're entitled to express.
Until about 2 years ago, I would have been inclined to strongly agree with your opinion.
What a difference a gear (change) or 2 makes.

Actually, thank you for calling me out on that.  I'm usually good about adding the requisite "for me", "for my needs", etc. And you are 100% correct.

Ergonomics are highly subjective, barring just outright design disasters.  And I'll be the first to admit my firsthand knowledge is limited and somewhat dated (~5 years or so), and these days is mostly relegated to secondhand reports.  There surely are people that just love Nikon ergonomics, and those that hate Canon ergonomics.  I believe though, based purely on anecdotal evidence mind you, that the opposite is true quite a bit more often.  But like I said, subjective.

UI I believe though, is more inclined to being objective.  Still I'm sure there are people that prefer it, or are just plain used to the random cluster it has evolved to become.  But overall it's much easier to point to something in the UI design and say it's bad, and actually support that argument with facts and logic.

Maybe the 12-24 is not without it's flaws; however, seeing as how there is really no direct comparison to be had, I tend to give it the benefit of the doubt.  Plus being without peer, it is by default the best.  It's worth the effort for a non-trivial number of Canon shooters to convert them, so it can't be that flawed.

The 70-200/4VR I really haven't heard much about.  It is good that they finally filled that glaring hole in their lens lineup though.

[insanitybeard]

It was great using the magical 120 MP APS-H sensor! What not to like, whether the awesomeness of 120 MP or the un-dead nature of the APS-H. Talk about relevancy!

Oh, and the big boys are all those higher mpx, high DR, superior sensors found in all modern DSLRs except for Canon.

And out of the woodwork you come with your anti-Canon diatribe, without fail. Don't like Canon? That's fine, but change the record.

[M.ST]

There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.

[neuroanatomist]

Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

sales ≠ superiority

...and another moth DRawn in.

Sensor ≠ camera.

Buyers aren't purchasing bare silicon.  Maybe Canon consistently sells more because they make superior cameras.  But the DR addicts just DRone on and on and on about the sensor, with no apparent comprehension of the fact that it takes more than a bare silicon sensor to make a picture.

[mb66energy]

There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.

Shure? While smart phones get 40+ megapixel tiny sensors?

I tried the Digital lens optimizer of DPP (just available for a few lenses) and I see very good quality with the 10-22 on a 18 mpix sensor.

Not that I am lusting for 75 megapixels or more - 20 GOOD megapixels are sufficient for me (and a lot other too) but I think it is a possible future of FF DSLR - and a likely one.

[Marsu42]

There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.

Shure?

He's a Canon beta tester and Canon probably would have parts of him cut off if they'd be an US company and just would have to ask the NSA for his identity :-p

Personally, I also guess that 75mp is too large a step for the current tech (lens sharpness, data rate, storage) and ~40mp is much more reasonable for the next gen. Remember we're not talking about specialized products here, but dslrs meant for general adoption.

[dilbert]

Buyers aren't purchasing bare silicon.  Maybe Canon consistently sells more because they make superior cameras.  But the DR addicts just DRone on and on and on about the sensor, with no apparent comprehension of the fact that it takes more than a bare silicon sensor to make a picture.

Right. Buyers are buying Canon because it has features like Wifi in the camera.

[neuroanatomist]

Buyers aren't purchasing bare silicon.  Maybe Canon consistently sells more because they make superior cameras.  But the DR addicts just DRone on and on and on about the sensor, with no apparent comprehension of the fact that it takes more than a bare silicon sensor to make a picture.

Right. Buyers are buying Canon because it has features like Wifi in the camera.

I'm sure some are. So what? 

People buy products that offer the features they want at the price that meets their budget.  Since Nikon has had "better sensors" (at least from a DR standpoint) for years, it seems that most buyers do not care that much about DR as a "feature".

[RLPhoto]

Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

sales ≠ superiority

...and another moth DRawn in.

Sensor ≠ camera.

So...

Higher Sales = Better cameras?

[jrista]

Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

sales ≠ superiority

...and another moth DRawn in.

Sensor ≠ camera.

So...

Higher Sales = Better cameras?

Higher Sales = Cameras people like more.

People usually like what's good. If there is any serious issue with a product, or any serious PR problem with a company, people usually don't buy.

On the flip side, if a product is well made, full of useful features (like built in WiFi and GPS), readily available and within their financial grasp, then they will usually buy it in considerable volume. Not everyone would agree that Android phones are the best available, however the majority of consumers seem to think so. For that matter, not everyone even thinks the iPhone is the best phone available, and yet Apple rakes in tens of billions a quarter on the product.

Statistically, the sales numbers speak for themselves, which means most people find Samsung Android and Apple iPhone phones to be superior to all other options out there, and in the vast majority of cases, they are!

[neuroanatomist]

Higher Sales = Better cameras?

Higher sales = higher sales.  Could be a better product, could be a better price, could be better perceived value, could be that more people are 'locked in' to the system based on historical purchases.  Probably it's all of them.

The point is that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc., are selling cameras, and a camera is more than its sensor, despite what DxOMark and the CR-DR crowd seem to believe.

[RLPhoto]

Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

sales ≠ superiority

...and another moth DRawn in.

Sensor ≠ camera.

So...

Higher Sales = Better cameras?

Higher Sales = Cameras people like more.

Cameras people like more = Canon