Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?

[JonJT]

It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use.

I donno man.  I think it is wasteful to only consider the most specialized tools for a particular job, particular when the less specific tool has some advantages over the more particular one. 

Photographers, both "prosumer" and professional don't have unlimited resources.  And, sometimes the 17mm TSE just isn't going to cut it, for whatever reason.  That's where those zooms step in.  Nikon understands this, in my opinion.  That's why the 14-24 exists.  Crop shooters have the super sharp Tokina 11-16.  Why can't FF shooters have better performing glass, too?

[kubelik]

and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.

[pedro]

+1 on this - my customers never ask for video, and to be honest, I'm not interested in offering it. I would, however, love love love love to be able to shoot totally noise free at 6400.
[/quote]

@rowanlamb:
ISO 6400 noise free: That means at least 3 stops better high ISO's than my trusty "rusty" 30D. I took some candids during a wedding reception this past weekend (mostly candle light and some artificial light) at ISO 1600 to 3200. Applied some Chroma noise reduction in PP (DPP Chroma NR: @+13) and I am quite happy with the outcome. I was not the main photographer...;-) So ISO 6400 would be my dream ISO for low light shooting well exposed to the right. I'd pay USD 3500 for a 5Diii being able to do that.
Question:
How likely is noisefree ISO 6400 on a next 5D body? I do not know too much about physics and camera tech anyway. So, your suggestions are very welcome. Cheers, Pedro.

[kubelik]

pedro ... everyone's definition of acceptable "clean" ISO is different, and often can be off by as much as 1 or 2 stops.  I know people that are comfortable shooting the 5D2 at ISO 3200, others that refuse to shoot above ISO 800.  personally, I find ISO 1600 is pretty much as high as I prefer to go in most circumstances, but ISO 3200 can work with some noise reduction applied and downres-ing.

If the 5D Mark III can deliver noise-free 1600 and clean 3200, a gain of 1 full stop, I'd be pretty darn happy with that.  I'm sure others will be pickier.  frankly, I think a 2-stop gain is asking for miracles in technology, which 3 years is not quite enough for.

[pedro]

Thanks for your update on tech, kubelik. Especially for your differentiation of noise free and clean, which appearantly isn't the same. So I hope for clean ISO 3200 on my future cam and some very usable ISO 6400 to follow your line. As my low-light photography often aims at robert frank type b/w, it will suit me fine. Pedro

[neuroanatomist]

pedro ... everyone's definition of acceptable "clean" ISO is different, and often can be off by as much as 1 or 2 stops.  I know people that are comfortable shooting the 5D2 at ISO 3200, others that refuse to shoot above ISO 800.  personally, I find ISO 1600 is pretty much as high as I prefer to go in most circumstances, but ISO 3200 can work with some noise reduction applied and downres-ing.

Post processing matters here, too.  I'm comfortable shooting at ISO 3200 on my 5DII as long as I am shooting RAW and processing images with DxO Optics Pro (and I alway shoot RAW and process with DxO).  But with DPP, I'd keep it to ISO 1600, and with in-camera JPGs, probably even lower.

[pedro]

@neuroanatomist: thanks. ISO 1600 on a 30D is quite fine, well exposed in RAW. ISO 3200 is my "either-you-do-it-this-way-or-forget-it" option. DxO pro: heard about it. Planning on purchasing some PP software along with the new body, what serves best for my type of photography? LR or Dx0 pro? Thanks in advance. Pedro

[EYEONE]

Whatever the ISO level I'd rather get a grainy shot than a blurry shot or no shot at all.

I used to be very picky about ISO settings but I'd rather just get the shot. If I don't have or can't use a flash I'll just have to do what I must. You can always use NR in Lightroom and convert to B&W if necessary.

I don't like to do it, but if I have to I will.

[theuserjohnny]

The Microsoft Translator does a slightly better translation of the japanese post.

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=Internal&from=&to=en&a=http://digicame-info.com/2011/09/d800d7003600.html

If I intrepret it correctly, announcement is rumored for October 26 with availability on November 24.

It makes the big Canon announcement on November 3 sound more interesting.  A pixma product and a EOS product if you believe the logo, coupled with a WPPI connection surely is hinting at a 5D MK III.

I'd have to disagree if anything it just hints at the rumor that CR has been getting about that full-frame camera (that would sit below a 5D3) with lower megapixles and high preforming ISO. The rumor said that it'd be announced sometime in late October (which this event is).

[victorengel]

those worried about the megapixels can always use S size

Of course, the S sizes use a different color model.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.

per dollar the gaming cards deliver way more than quadro
sometimes, other than memory, they simply deliver more, regardless

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Do you think this would keep (almost) everybody happy?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1719.msg25265.html#msg25265

In retrospect, I should revise the timing of the 5D3 and 7D introduction to February-March 2012. That was what I was thinking, but not what I wrote.

no, not good

[theuserjohnny]

Do you think this would keep (almost) everybody happy?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1719.msg25265.html#msg25265

In retrospect, I should revise the timing of the 5D3 and 7D introduction to February-March 2012. That was what I was thinking, but not what I wrote.

no, not good

As much as I hate it, its really the most realistic option they have. Heading into next year they'll go all out... these next few months seem to be dedicated to their new "video camera". Next year they have their 25 year anniversary and Photokina. Its the perfect storm for Canon to have the photographers world at the palm of their hands to market the crap out of these new products.

[AJ]

Ideally Canon will release:

(1) a 36 mpix cam for landscape and studio work.  No blazing fast fps and high iso here.  Maybe the 5D3?

(2) an 18 mpix FF photojournalism/sports cam with beefy build quality, dual card slots, top-of-the-line AF, 7-10 fps, and amazing high iso.   Maybe 1Ds4?

(3) no more APS-H.  1D5 = 1Ds4.

Not a prediction, just thinking about ideal uses.  This way the 5D3 doesn't really compete with the 1Ds line like it has in the past.  It would also align things better with Nikon's D800/D3 line.

Question then is price.  $3k is fine for camera #1, but $8k for #2 would be a problem.  Maybe they can give #2 a 7D like build quality, price it at $3-4k, and call it 3D.

[awinphoto]

It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use.

I donno man.  I think it is wasteful to only consider the most specialized tools for a particular job, particular when the less specific tool has some advantages over the more particular one. 

Photographers, both "prosumer" and professional don't have unlimited resources.  And, sometimes the 17mm TSE just isn't going to cut it, for whatever reason.  That's where those zooms step in.  Nikon understands this, in my opinion.  That's why the 14-24 exists.  Crop shooters have the super sharp Tokina 11-16.  Why can't FF shooters have better performing glass, too?

I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35  and $1000 more than the 17-40.  If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is.  I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial.  I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths...