Canon 650D - sensor size?

[rafaelsynths]

I think canon might compete with nikon on megapixels.

Think about it?  Most consumers think more pixels is the most important thing anyways.

[K-amps]

Canon cannot milk the 18 sensor anymore. I am curious what they will do.

I hope it is a higher MP sensor, so that people can dump their "low" 18 mp bodies on CL & ebay :-)

[untitled10]

Two words.

Pixel Density.

Want DR?

Want high ISO performance?

You're already on a tiny sensor, do you even use all 18 mega-pixels? How much do you crop when you're already on a crop body?
If you're pictures only go on the internet, you might as well have a 12/14 MP sensor, and still be scaling them down massively anyway, I wouldn't personally see a point on going over 15MP for a crop, if that, I mean you need 25+ for a billboard, and who would shoot a billboard on a crop?
 
TL;DR: More MP on crop = unnecessary and possibly counter intrusive for real use.

[plutonium10]

I agree 100%. 18 Megapixels is already pushing the limits of DLA and lens sharpness on a crop camera. Much better to stick with 16-18mp and boost the DR and ISO capability. 16 MP APS-C with Digic V and gapless microlenses would be a very tasty proposition for me (If I hadn't decided that my next camera will be FF). Canon's choice to make the 1Dx an 18 MP camera was very exciting to me and I hope they back down from the megapixel wars on other camera lines as well.

[plutonium10]

Having said that, a 30 megapixel FF camera would be reasonable for studio and landscape shooting because there's a lot more breathing room on the FF sensors as far as DLA and pixel size goes.

[AJ]

Who cares how many megapixels the 650D will have.  It's barely relevant.  We're well past the point of diminishing returns.  There will be plenty of megapixels.  More than you can shake a stick at.

Even if the megapixel count were of interest (which it isn't), keep in mind that going from 18 to 20 mpix involves a 5% reduction of sensel size in each dimension.  Or, a 20 mpix sensor gives you 5% more pixels in each direction.  Barely worth mentioning.

Now, onto the relevant bit.  The real question is whether the 650D will have continuous video AF.  Continuous video AF will be a very useful feature to many users.  If Canon manages to pull it off so it'll be a very interesting camera and it'll sell well.  If not, Canon won't be keeping up to Nikon and Sony.

The other relevant bit is the DIGIC-V chip.  That should yield some performance improvement.

For those wishing for a 19-point AF module - dream on.  Not gonna happen.

[pdirestajr]

I have a feeling Canon will push their entry level DSLR's as hybrid-all-in-one-memory-capturing-and-sharing-devices.

They'll headline the latest HD Video features. Until popular TV shows (like HOUSE), and award winning films start promoting that they are using a Nikon, consumers who want video features are going to buy Canon.

[untitled10]

Who cares how many megapixels the 650D will have.  It's barely relevant.  We're well past the point of diminishing returns.  There will be plenty of megapixels.  More than you can shake a stick at.

Even if the megapixel count were of interest (which it isn't), keep in mind that going from 18 to 20 mpix involves a 5% reduction of sensel size in each dimension.  Or, a 20 mpix sensor gives you 5% more pixels in each direction.  Barely worth mentioning.

Now, onto the relevant bit.  The real question is whether the 650D will have continuous video AF.  Continuous video AF will be a very useful feature to many users.  If Canon manages to pull it off so it'll be a very interesting camera and it'll sell well.  If not, Canon won't be keeping up to Nikon and Sony.

The other relevant bit is the DIGIC-V chip.  That should yield some performance improvement.

For those wishing for a 19-point AF module - dream on.  Not gonna happen.

Personally, I think that for a very large majority of the small-scale video market would reject auto-focus during video, a computer should never choose the attraction of the eye of your viewer, with stills it is diffrent, its more user controlled, but on video it pretty much has to be manual.
(unless you're really armature, then you will get terrible results anyway, a wrong focus shift is very common in video auto focus, and very noticeable and good at destroying quality)

[well_dunno]

I think app 2 weeks we will see what 650D is. Though with a digic 5, it is going to have more cpu power than the 7D, isn't it? Wonder in what purpose it will be used... 

[plutonium10]

For those wishing for a 19-point AF module - dream on.  Not gonna happen.

You may be right, but I wouldn't be so sure. I think retaining the 9-point system in it's current form would be a bad move on Canon's behalf. It probably doesn't even cost that much extra to produce the 19-point AF module. As for stealing 7D sales, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see the 7D mk II pick up either the 61-point system of the 5D mk III (and a few dollars on the price tag) or a totally new 40-50ish point system since it is squarely aimed at sports shooters.

On the other hand, where does all this leave the 60D?

[stabmasterasron]

I agree 100%. 18 Megapixels is already pushing the limits of DLA and lens sharpness on a crop camera. Much better to stick with 16-18mp and boost the DR and ISO capability. 16 MP APS-C with Digic V and gapless microlenses would be a very tasty proposition for me (If I hadn't decided that my next camera will be FF). Canon's choice to make the 1Dx an 18 MP camera was very exciting to me and I hope they back down from the megapixel wars on other camera lines as well.

+1 on that.  I think 16MP with very good DR and low noise would be a very sweet sensor.  Maybe hard to sell at best buy, but to those in the know - it would be very good news.  7Dmkii with this 16MP sensor, digic 5, 12 fps - nice!  But no way that happens - gotta keep up with the Joneses on MP count. 

[Marsu42]

+1 on that.  I think 16MP with very good DR and low noise would be a very sweet sensor.  Maybe hard to sell at best buy, but to those in the know - it would be very good news.

The Nikon d7000 uses 16mp and seems to sell just fine. Nikon surely could pressed Sony to go at least for 18mp to compete with Canon, but they decided for less mp and thus more dr and less noise. But after years of arguing why 18-21 mp is so important for cropping, I don't think Canon can go lower than 18mp again.

edit: typo - the d7000 of course uses 16mp, not 18.

[stabmasterasron]

+1 on that.  I think 16MP with very good DR and low noise would be a very sweet sensor.  Maybe hard to sell at best buy, but to those in the know - it would be very good news.

The Nikon d7000 uses 18mp and seems to sell just fine. Nikon surely could pressed Sony to go at least for 18mp to compete with Canon, but they decided for less mp and thus more dr and less noise. But after years of arguing why 18-21 mp is so important for cropping, I don't think Canon can go lower than 18mp again.

I think the d7000 is 16.2MP.  Anyway, I think that is what you meant, and you point is still valid.  I recently needed a body for the weekend and could not get a Canon body, so I shoot with the d7000 and the Nikkor 35mm 1.4G.  The results were absolutely breathtaking.  I am not an extreme cropper and I prefer to fill the frame with my subject as much as possible while still maintaining a pleasing  composition.  The resolution of the d7000 was far more than enough for the modest cropping I do.  I hope the 7dmkii does not follow the MP war trend.  But if we do ever see this camera, I suspect it will be above 20MP.

[briansquibb]

Full time auto focus in video would go a long way ....

[Marsu42]

I think the d7000 is 16.2MP.

Yes, typo, fixed.

I recently needed a body for the weekend and could not get a Canon body, so I shoot with the d7000 and the Nikkor 35mm 1.4G.  The results were absolutely breathtaking.

:-o ... back when I got into digital photography 1 1/2 years ago, I had to decide between Nikon (d7000) and Canon (7d or 60d). Despite the better specs of the Nikon I chose Canon because the 60d is cheaper than the d7000, runs magic lantern and most of all I liked the usability better - the latter might be because I've  shot analog Canon before.

The Nikkor 35/1.4 is known to be much better than the outdated Canon 50/1.4, so that's no surprise. But all things considered - would you now choose Nikon aps-c over Canon?