Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011

[J-Man]

1DsIV @ 35-45MP
&
5DIII @ 25-35MP
Is fine with me as long as they release a 3D @ 18-21MP,
All I want is some options in the FF lineup,
Right now it's 21MP or 21MP or a crop sensor.

[Orangutan]

I'll jump in for no good reason, even though I'll never be able to afford a "flagship" camera.

Canon and Nikon could introduce new flagship models with much higher pixel counts right now, and still sell quite a few units.  Although it's possible they're just selling down existing stock, it's also possible they've got bigger plans.  Since it appears that Canon and Nikon have a "gentleman's agreement" not to step too far ahead of each other,  they must both be worried about the competition.  This means they'll both take big steps forward together.  Seems that MF (i.e. larger than 36x24) is the most logical next step.  They would also need new lenses to go with those new bodies.  Fortunately, computers make lens design easier now.  That might explain the slower introduction of new lenses to the FF lines.

Regarding a potential MF sensor, I'd like to propose a speculative feature and see what the "real pros" on this forum think about it (all three of you).  For working studio, landscape or still-life photographers (not action shooters) how would you feel about a "circular" sensor that covers the full image circle illuminated by the lens?  In reality, this would be a square sensor that covers that area, but all the corners would be dark all the time.  Yes, the ring around the circumference would have distortions, depending on which lens you used.  But you, not the camera, would decide which part of the image to keep.  Of course, no vertical grip would be required.  Yes, the larger sensor with wasted pixels would cost a bit extra, but for a "flagship" camera this is less important, and the lack of vertical grip would partially offset that added cost.

What say you, pros?

Orangutan.

[traveller]

hsmeets, your link provides some excellent information.  You might also like R.N. Clark's essay on the subject:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html

A bit technical, but pay special attention to figure 13.  This shows f/8 diffraction limits for various format sensors, vs. the pixel pitch.  From this you can see that the current crop of APS-C sensors are already diffraction limited at f/8; APS-H can probably be increased to 20 MP+; full-frame sensors reach the limit at just over 30 MP.  This is not to say that there is no benefit to increasing resolution beyond these limits, at larger apertures the greater detail resolved would be apparent (assuming the lens is capable of it!).  There is always the trade-off that with greater number of 'pixels/sensels' per unit area (at a given technology level), inevitably comes poorer signal to noise ratios and dynamic range. 

So we must ask who would benefit from a full frame camera with a sensor resolution in the 40 MP+ range? Landscape photographers generally stop down for greater depth of field and so would encounter diffraction limitation.  Sports and wildlife photographers need fast shutter speeds and so would appreciate a sensor with a higher signal to noise ratio.  So that leaves portrait /event photographers who can't afford a medium format camera.  With the new budget entrants into the medium format market, Canon and Nikon will find that there is even greater pressure on the prices they can charge for their flagship camera. 

[c.d.embrey]

A 28-32mpx successor to the 5D sounds as it could really happen but not for the D700 and if nikon would release such camera it probably be more of something like a D3x "light".

Using your logic Nikon didn't just release the Nikon D7000. D7000 has more megapixels at a lower cost than a D300s so it really didn't happen.

5D III vs D400. If the 5D III is still just a full frame Rebel, Nikon will eat their lunch with a higher megapixel D700 replacement.

[gkreis]

hsmeets, your link provides some excellent information.  You might also like R.N. Clark's essay on the subject:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html

A bit technical, but pay special attention to figure 13.  This shows f/8 diffraction limits for various format sensors, vs. the pixel pitch.  From this you can see that the current crop of APS-C sensors are already diffraction limited at f/8; APS-H can probably be increased to 20 MP+; full-frame sensors reach the limit at just over 30 MP.  This is not to say that there is no benefit to increasing resolution beyond these limits, at larger apertures the greater detail resolved would be apparent (assuming the lens is capable of it!).  There is always the trade-off that with greater number of 'pixels/sensels' per unit area (at a given technology level), inevitably comes poorer signal to noise ratios and dynamic range. 

So we must ask who would benefit from a full frame camera with a sensor resolution in the 40 MP+ range? Landscape photographers generally stop down for greater depth of field and so would encounter diffraction limitation.  Sports and wildlife photographers need fast shutter speeds and so would appreciate a sensor with a higher signal to noise ratio.  So that leaves portrait /event photographers who can't afford a medium format camera.  With the new budget entrants into the medium format market, Canon and Nikon will find that there is even greater pressure on the prices they can charge for their flagship camera.

Excellent points.  The articles are over my head, but trusting their analysis, we can hope that the camera makers will see this 'wall' coming and not try to smash through it for some marketing reason.

I am anxious to see the Nikon D7000 image comparisons with the 7D/60D.

[c.d.embrey]

So we must ask who would benefit from a full frame camera with a sensor resolution in the 40 MP+ range? Landscape photographers generally stop down for greater depth of field and so would encounter diffraction limitation.  Sports and wildlife photographers need fast shutter speeds and so would appreciate a sensor with a higher signal to noise ratio.  So that leaves portrait /event photographers who can't afford a medium format camera.  With the new budget entrants into the medium format market, Canon and Nikon will find that there is even greater pressure on the prices they can charge for their flagship camera.

Many Photojournalists use CaNikon Pro Bodies. Many Editorial photographers use CaNikon Pro Bodies. Many Advertising shooters use CaNikon Pro Bodies. Why aren't they part of your list???

BTW Diffraction Limitations are a bigger deal to Pixel Peeper than it is to Pro Photographers.

[traveller]

Fair points Mr Embrey, I didn't realise that my list was meant to be exhaustive.  I am sure that there are groups of photographers that would value the added resolution at large apertures and low ISO.  The point is that the list becomes smaller and smaller as the resolution goes up. 

BTW diffraction limitations are a bigger deal to those who want to make larger prints from their digital captures.  If the laws of physics prevent you capturing more detail with a given lens/sensor format combination, why continue to increase pixel count?

[spam]

According to dpreview tests the Canon 20D (and 30D) has horizontal/vertical resolution of 1850/1650 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS20D/page27.asp).

The corresponding numbers for Canon 7d are 2500/2450 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page28.asp)

This is around 35% improvement (linear) for horisontal resolution (and slightly better for vertical)

The 20D/30D has exactly the same pixel density as 1Ds Mk III and 5D Mk II (but a smaller sensor) and it would be reasonable to expect the same gain from a full frame sensor with 7D pixel denisty (18MP*2,6 which comes out to around 47MP).

So, anyone happy with 7D image quality should certainly welcome a higher resolution full frame sensor.

[peejay]

a 22MP 5d III would be fine. Just make the colour, tonality and dynamic range better please.

[hiplnsdrftr]

I am in fact a professional photographer. I use 5D2 and 1Ds3... thats the limit of file size I want to deal with. Already, the hard drive space is kinda out of control!

As much as I would love to use the new gear... i dont think I would upgrade due to the trouble of trying to store and handle the amount of drive space.

Just one of my jobs is about 7000 photos.

[nocojoe]

First of all, I am not in the market for Canon's 1D line, but i do have a 5D classic and I am looking to upgrade it.  I shoot some portraits and landscapes, so diffraction limitation is something that interests me.  And from some of the examples i have seen of the 7D when the shots get above f14 or so, it starts to worry me especially if I have a large print to make. 

Anyway, I hope that if Canon wants to push the megapixels more that it comes out with some sort of MF type camera to really get a nice IQ.   

[victorengel]

This seems compatible with my analysis here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=36434409

It would be nice to have a camera where sraw2 was 10-12 megapixels. That would mean full raw is 40-48 megapixels. Sraw1 is just a fake raw format. By that I mean it is interpolated.

[blufox]

We do not need a MP horse race result with Full frames.
If canon/nikon are so interested in jacking up MP, please go ahead by all means but then please manufacture MF sensors for that.

Full frame with 21MP is just fine, all we want is better ISO image, better dynamic range and good tonality.

Sigh... I will be dissapointed if Canikon produces a 30+ MP full frame with bad ISO performance.

[tzalmagor]

The new EF 8-15mm f/4 lens, which is supposedly the fisheye lens for APS-C sensors, will cost about twice as much the older FF fisheye, I tend to think the first option is wrong.

You've just been complaining about poor quality EF-S lenses, then go on to complain about expensive ones. Quality costs, maybe Canon has decided to produce a good one?

Reducing things to black and white (usually sign of malice or having a blond moment) tends to produce ridiculus results the original writer did not intend.

To give an example, Canon's EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM costs >$1,500, and it's replacement would probably be even more expensive. This means I would buy the Sigma 150-500mm lens for $1,000.

This is not because Canon is incapable of producing non-L zoom to compete with the Sigma in focal length & price, but because Canon's policy is to produce either cheap EF-S lenses (in this case ending in 250mm) or expensive L zooms, creating a hole in it's lenses line.

[spam]

The new EF 8-15mm f/4 lens, which is supposedly the fisheye lens for APS-C sensors, will cost about twice as much the older FF fisheye, I tend to think the first option is wrong.

You've just been complaining about poor quality EF-S lenses, then go on to complain about expensive ones. Quality costs, maybe Canon has decided to produce a good one?

Reducing things to black and white (usually sign of malice or having a blond moment) tends to produce ridiculus results the original writer did not intend.

To give an example, Canon's EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM costs >$1,500, and it's replacement would probably be even more expensive. This means I would buy the Sigma 150-500mm lens for $1,000.

This is not because Canon is incapable of producing non-L zoom to compete with the Sigma in focal length & price, but because Canon's policy is to produce either cheap EF-S lenses (in this case ending in 250mm) or expensive L zooms, creating a hole in it's lenses line.

I agree with the 100-400 example. Something reasonably good with more than 300mm, preferably in the 400-500mm range would be nice. However, Canon has the range from around 18 to 300mm covered with both cheap and mid level lenses, By cheap one I mean 18-55 (IS), 55-200, 55-250 IS and the cheapest 75-300. Mid range is 15-85 IS, 17-55 IS and 70-300 IS and 70-200 L (non-IS). Below 18mm they could add something cheaper than the 10-22, but I'm not sure how cheap it would get, even Sigmas least expenisve 10-20mm isn't that inexpensive.