*UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]

[daveswan]

Just to throw a bucket of cold water over this overheated thread....

What if this annopuncement was for a .......


World-shaking, game-changing. . . . .



Wait for it . . . . .












PHOTOCOPIER 





It's happened before












He he let's see how many smites I get for this :evil grin:

[pakosouthpark]

In fact, I'm calling it - there's no 5D announcement this week. The March 2nd event is an Ixus event.

I really hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Invites are out, no mention of the 5, just a whole heap of hopeful punters.

I hope you're wrong too  But i'm afraid you're right.

oh nooo, so no camera either on the 2nd??? 

[D_Rochat]

[Jackson_Bill]

LOL and point taken.

[wickidwombat]

ROFL that pic made my morning, its a bit like our governement at the moment too
+1 Karma for a good laugh

[entertainer]

nah. its for a DSLR.

[Lee Jay]

I am not sure if you are just being sarcastic, but you realize that at 62mp, not more than 2-3 lenses in Canon's entire lineup could resolve enough detail at any aperture to actually use all those pixels, right?

I'm really sick of people saying this sort of thing, since it's totally false.

Here's what the full-frame version of 184MP looks like on the old 100-400L (18MP 1.6-crop + 2x TC = 72MP on 1.6 crop = 184MP on full-frame)

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg

Yeah, in the corners of many lenses you're going to start having trouble at higher pixel densities, but you're still going to get more detail than you would with less pixel density.  You can't add pixels and get a less detailed shot, and on the better lenses, you're going to get more and more detailed.

Here's 288MP on crop (18MP + 4x = 18*4*4 = 288) or 737MP (288*1.6*1.6) on full-frame through the 400/2.8L (the old one):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37493247

[atompate]

Cant wait to find out! Im wondering if there will be any mentions about the future CinemaEos DSLR...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I am not sure if you are just being sarcastic, but you realize that at 62mp, not more than 2-3 lenses in Canon's entire lineup could resolve enough detail at any aperture to actually use all those pixels, right? You max out at 46mp, which is about 116lp/mm, which is right about where Canon's newest L-series lenses top out at their best aperture as well...which seems to be somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6 most of the time. The only few lenses from Canon that I think could resolve enough detail for 62mp are the new 500mm and 600mm L II lenses (which as of yet are still unreleased) and possibly the forthcoming 200-400 L...and even then, their maximum aperture is f/4, so 173lp/mm.

I don't believe that is the case. I thought some lenses were measured well above that. Plus the total resolution is a combination of sensor and lens that is not direct. Even the worst kit ever made delivers a more detailed image on a 7D than a 40D. A 70-200 + 1.4x TC still delivers more detail on a 7D. A 300 2.8 + TWO TCs still does on a 7D too.

[Gcon]

Rather often when lighting conditions are not superb and I shoot at 400 ISO I'm not overwhelmed with the image quality delivered by my 7D. Pictures often have quite high levels of noise and a murky look to them. Since I only shoot RAW I can fix most of these problems in DPP and PS but I would definitely love to get cleaner pictures with more vibrant colours.

That's my experience exactly with the 7D. Essentially that's how it is when you pack too many pixels in too small an area. Very disappointed by the IQ of that camera - the rest of the functionality is great though. Good for its price point but can't compete with a full frame on IQ.  I'm pinning my hopes on a 5Dx that combines the best of 7D (or even some 1Dx features like AF) with that of the 5D Mark II.  I'll sell my 7D and 5DMarkII and get a couple of 5Dx bodies

[Fleetie]

Rather often when lighting conditions are not superb and I shoot at 400 ISO I'm not overwhelmed with the image quality delivered by my 7D. Pictures often have quite high levels of noise and a murky look to them. Since I only shoot RAW I can fix most of these problems in DPP and PS but I would definitely love to get cleaner pictures with more vibrant colours.

That's my experience exactly with the 7D. Essentially that's how it is when you pack too many pixels in too small an area. Very disappointed by the IQ of that camera - the rest of the functionality is great though. Good for its price point but can't compete with a full frame on IQ.  I'm pinning my hopes on a 5Dx that combines the best of 7D (or even some 1Dx features like AF) with that of the 5D Mark II.  I'll sell my 7D and 5DMarkII and get a couple of 5Dx bodies

I would be VERY interested to read the responses of those who say that pixel size does NOT affect noise in images, and that it is only sensor area that matters.

Does that claim survive reductio ad absurdum?  I think not.

I like my 7D, and it is a way better camera than I am a photographer. Yes, it gets noisy by ISO 1600 and especially beyond that, but it is still an excellent camera.

I will get the 5D3 if it ever becomes available before I die. But that doesn't make the 7D a bad camera, especially given that it's 2.5 years old. In that context, it's excellent.

[Lee Jay]

I would be VERY interested to read the responses of those who say that pixel size does NOT affect noise in images, and that it is only sensor area that matters.

It is.  Well, smaller pixels help a bit too.

And, yes, I have an 18MP 1.6-crop sensor in the form of a T2i.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Rather often when lighting conditions are not superb and I shoot at 400 ISO I'm not overwhelmed with the image quality delivered by my 7D. Pictures often have quite high levels of noise and a murky look to them. Since I only shoot RAW I can fix most of these problems in DPP and PS but I would definitely love to get cleaner pictures with more vibrant colours.

That's my experience exactly with the 7D. Essentially that's how it is when you pack too many pixels in too small an area. Very disappointed by the IQ of that camera - the rest of the functionality is great though. Good for its price point but can't compete with a full frame on IQ.  I'm pinning my hopes on a 5Dx that combines the best of 7D (or even some 1Dx features like AF) with that of the 5D Mark II.  I'll sell my 7D and 5DMarkII and get a couple of 5Dx bodies

I would be VERY interested to read the responses of those who say that pixel size does NOT affect noise in images, and that it is only sensor area that matters.

Does that claim survive reductio ad absurdum?  I think not.

No, it does not, but then again we are not dealing with that in the real world and 22MP vs 18MP vs 36MP is anything but reductio ad absurdum.  And again, don't forget that specialized NR is much better than simplistic 'bins' due to lower MP count.

[scokar]

...

I like my 7D, and it is a way better camera than I am a photographer. Yes, it gets noisy by ISO 1600 and especially beyond that, but it is still an excellent camera.

I will get the 5D3 if it ever becomes available before I die. But that doesn't make the 7D a bad camera, especially given that it's 2.5 years old. In that context, it's excellent.

The 7D is not a bad camera.  I  don't like the nature of the images it takes.

My 40D was "ok" but first started a trend that carried into my 50D and then the 7D. 

The main difference across these generations was more pixels, same space.

To me, pixel size impacts the quality of the image generated. 

[Radiating]

With regard to people discussing the issue of pixel size versus noise, in modern sensors there are two issues and associated technologies which collaborate to eliminate the problem almost entirely.

Specifically micro lenses and back lit sensor technology. To actually have separate pixels you have to physically separate them with "walls" this was a big issue which impacted noise until the advent of micro lenses. These essentially magnify the incoming light so that none of it is wasted hitting anything but photo sensitive material and bend it around non-photo sensitive material. The second issue is that sensors for whatever reason have all their wiring on top instead of on the bottom at certain points that wiring can block enough light to affect noise, back lit sensors are wired under the photo cells not above, which solves this issue.

In any case though DSLR sensor technology is far from using the most advanced sensor tech possible. In fact DSLRs use some of the least advanced sensors made because they have a lot of light gathering area. Compact cameras use the most advanced sensors because economies of scale and extremely small sensors make it cost effective to do so.

Canon's most light sensitive sensor is found on a compact camera not a DSLR. If Canon used it's most advanced sensor tech in a full frame sensor it would output 210 megapixels, and have identical noise to the D3s, which is still almost a stop better than the 5DII.

So no technically speaking increases in resolution do not correlate with noise.

The problem is though that ECONOMICALLY speaking resolution does correlate with noise. Having advanced sensor technology is expensive and so is having high resolution. Two cameras one with high resolution and one with low noise would probably could be made for less than one camera which has both. That is why there is often a trade off, otherwise the sensor costs way too much to manufacture.

Canon actually used some of the least advanced sensor technology possible in the 5DII so it will be easy to make it leaps and bounds better in noise with increased resolution. At the least you can expect a quarter of a stop improvement in noise. At best you can expect a full stop. Likely it will be a half stop improvement.