5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[Zuuyi]

I don't need ultra high iso in my studio camera.  They removed the top end studio camera, now they are attempting to remove the second tier pro studio camera.  I know people will just buy used 5d2 for the extra pixels and deep discounts.

I can see them keeping the 7D2 at 18mp but not the 5d3.  I just want some new camera announcements.  And if Nikon pushes pixels with the rumored 36MP camera; Canon will have to compete.

[dtaylor]

3.  How many mp does someone really need truthfully?

If I had the money I would be shooting a 40 MP 645D. If I had my wish the 5D3 would be 36 MP. It may not be quite as good as the 645D, but it would allow me to produce substantially larger landscape prints at a much lower price point than MF.

Go look at the Imaging Resource 645D samples and tell me again that more MP are bad. There is a completely new dimension of detail in those studio samples. They reveal textures and fine details that don't show up on any current DSLR.

36 MP FF is still a lower pixel pitch then the 7D. I'm fine with large (i.e. 24") 7D prints to at least ISO 800. I don't need to shoot black cats in dark coal mines. I would like to get even more detail from the landscapes I wish to shoot.

[torger]

If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup.

I've thought about the same thing. My major cost is in lenses, not in camera body. Unfortunately due to flange focal distance there is no Nikon to Canon adapter (the other way around exists though), that is you cannot for example use a 36mp Nikon D800 (if it appears :-) ) with a Canon TS-E 24mm. But you can use a Canon 5D with Nikon lenses. For landscape having total manual control of the lenses is no problem... but as said Nikon body with Canon lenses won't fly .

[dilbert]

most amateurs who have no clue still think more MP will make a better image.
even after years this is still stuck in their heads.

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

Problem is, folks that shoot low-iso are in a minority these days.

Everyone wants to take hand-held, flash-less photographs of their children, pets, etc, around the house/sporting events/parties/etc.

[torger]

Problem is, folks that shoot low-iso are in a minority these days.

Everyone wants to take hand-held, flash-less photographs of their children, pets, etc, around the house/sporting events/parties/etc.

Yes, I've thought about that too, that maybe us high res folks are just too few. On the other hand, a genre like landscape photography does seem to be very large among "serious amateurs" (judging from competition entries), perhaps even the largest when it comes to amateur photography, and there are surely more amateurs than professionals.

Also, those recent and great TS-E lenses indicate that they have some interest in this genre. Canon may also think that they cannot let down the 1DsIII professional customer segment, that is that they must provide a competitive product in all genres, not only in the most profitable ones.

[lol]

Since the 1D X was announced I thought it likely they would recycle the sensor into another body. So I wouldn't expect less than 18MP, just 18MP.

I'm still hoping for a future high MP body though. The shake up in the 1D space seems to leave a gap to me.

[Canon-F1]

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

so you prefer shooting landscapes with a 16MP point and shoot compared to a 12MP canon 5D for example?

if only image quality was as easy as MP counting...

[Gothmoth]

Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.

A typical setting for use on an overcast day would be f/8.[8] For blue visible light, the wavelength λ is about 420 nanometers.[9] This gives a value for x of about 4 µm. In a digital camera, making the pixels of the image sensor smaller than this would not actually increase image resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

for FF 36MP are ok until around f10 i think.

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) it´s released.

[dilbert]

Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.

A typical setting for use on an overcast day would be f/8.[8] For blue visible light, the wavelength λ is about 420 nanometers.[9] This gives a value for x of about 4 µm. In a digital camera, making the pixels of the image sensor smaller than this would not actually increase image resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

for FF 36MP are ok until around f10 i think.

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) it´s released.

The resolving power of many lenses wanes after about f/8 (some faster lenses even have their peak resolving power wider open), so you are trading DoF for lens image sharpness. photozine.de does nice graphs of aperture vs resolving power of lenses on various cameras. If you've already chosen a less sharp image from the lens, why would you then be worried about airy discs?

As long as the diffraction limit kicks in after the peak of the lens' resolving power, I'm happy.

[Stu_bert]

given the rumors are true and nikon is releasing a 36MP D800 im curious what new DSLR customers will buy. for years canon was raising MP and nikon was saying less MP are better.

now it seems the positions have suddenly changed.

If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup. Sometime in the next year or so I would like to improve my ability to make large landscape prints from a single frame. An 18 MP 5D3 will offer me nothing in this regard over my 18 MP 7D. Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

The bummer is that Canon has the best T/S lenses and they scream for more MP. I couldn't care less about movie mode Canon! You need a high pixel count FF body for landscape and studio use.

most amateurs who have no clue still think more MP will make a better image.
even after years this is still stuck in their heads.

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

Have you used the TS/E to produce a 3 shot landscape which you can easily merge into a pano which is close to a 36MP equivalent? For landscapes I have used this quite a bit. Not in every situation of course, but it works well, is quick to do the 3 shots and the stitching tends to be very clean just because of the way it is taken. No need for a pano-head...

I came across a photographer at the weekend, IIRC using a 5D. He shot a single photo using both 3 shot exposures and multiple focus distances and ended up doing focus stacking and HDR in Photoshop. I think the single shot was made up of 33 individual pictures. Again, does not cater for every scenario, but does illustrate that there could be some solutions that could work without the need for a higher res sensor. Horses for courses...

Ultimately, Canon has to chose what it thinks will be best for the majority of it's customers (current and future), and there will always be fallout. Given the D3X and the D3S, I am suprised that Canon has concluded that 18MP is the ceiling, but I guess people will decide when the dust has settled, the reviews are in, and we've hand hands-on experience with the new bodies.

[J. McCabe]

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?

[Gothmoth]

The resolving power of many lenses wanes after about f/8 (some faster lenses even have their peak resolving power wider open), so you are trading DoF for lens image sharpness. photozine.de does nice graphs of aperture vs resolving power of lenses on various cameras. If you've already chosen a less sharp image from the lens, why would you then be worried about airy discs?

As long as the diffraction limit kicks in after the peak of the lens' resolving power, I'm happy.

well it seems you misunderstand things here.... I dont want 36MP sensors for FF cameras.

what i say is that the 21MP sensor of the 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited for f16 (and i don´t even start speaking about lenses). 

so what are 36MP FF sensors worth for landscape photographers?
they say we need more detail and more MP.... but as it seems they won´t get it from 36 MP sensors.
at least not with the usual landscape apertures......

[Gothmoth]

Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?

obviously you do.

[dilbert]

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

so you prefer shooting landscapes with a 16MP point and shoot compared to a 12MP canon 5D for example?

if only image quality was as easy as MP counting...

On the other hand, I'm sure  anyone doing landscape work would prefer a Phase One 80MP setup to a 21MP 5DMK2 setup or even 36MP Nikon

But you're right, IQ is more complicated than MP counting *or* high-iso noise presence.

What I want to know is how we can judge the IQ of a camera that has not even be announced yet. We're all still in the dark about the real IQ for the 1DX and that has been announced.

Further, we're all making assumptions that in going from 12MP to 36MP, there is a drop in IQ. What if there isn't? Hmm?

[torger]

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) it´s released.

Perhaps you should look into using tilt-shift lenses. With tilt you can optimize depth of field and in many cases use say f/8 instead of f/16 or more to get the DoF you want (or close to it). You may want to look into the techniques that large format photographers use, they have had the "problem" with too high resolution from the start. The modern version of this is medium format tech cameras, such as Arca Swiss or ALPA with Phase One IQ180 digital back, but these systems are insanely expensive and thus not accessible to amateurs.

It is true though that often you cannot make a "mathematically perfect" all-is-sharp picture when you have really high res, you need to make a compromise and learn to master this, make the picture sharp where it counts. For example if the foreground has large structures and the background small (common), you may have the close foreground slightly out of focus. Sometimes focus stacking is used too.