Um... is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?

[takoman46]

I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera. 

So who still wants 30+mp? You can take the pictures and wait 30 minutes for your consumer level desktop or laptop to catch up to to your workflow. Unless everyone who bought a D800 has a rig that can keep up with the processing resource requirements, I think it might be safe to say that many photographers out there are losing money on time waiting for their computers to render changes of these massive files.

Oh, I'm sorry, but what you just said is a complete lie.

I shoot 5dII and I ALWAYS turn the resolution 3x (up to 60 mpix, 40ish when cropped), and even with my files that have over 50 layers everything works great. Only thing I might wait for is liquify. And I am using a 2009 Mac Pro. And I even played with Phase one files of 80mpix and even then everything worked fine.

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

I just wish for Canon to release a successor to the 5dII aimed at the fashion/landscape/portrait crowd.

Something must be seriously wrong with my macbook pro... Although I see a ridiculous difference in boot up speed with the ssd and cache with the ram upgrades, I still chug in aperture, lightroom, and photoshop. Thanks for pointing out that you know more about systems than I do. Are you an IT?

[D_Rochat]

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

That statement couldn't be more wrong. I see plenty of tourists walking around my city with pro cameras on an auto mode. Having money to buy the gear and having the skill to use it properly are two different things. BTW, I have a set of "pro" golf clubs and I can assure you that I'm not on the PGA 

[skoobey]

@Augs

YOU'RE RIGHT, but I am just thinking that it's the serious amateur/professional community that creates all the hype for a camera to sell, I mean sure, there are average Joe Two-shoes that go into a store and say "gimme the best there is" but many people who shoot 1ds and 5d are ones who think they are great just because they own a "professional" camera.

@Takoman46

DNB locally instead trying to apply a million filters that always look bad anyway. Don't do global things and you'll see it's fine. I mean, PhaseONE crowd is also using that same MacBookPro and everyone seems to think it's OK, and I don't want to question your technique, but if the world's most prominent retouchers can work their magic on a similar, or slower machine, then there is no need for you to complain.

Which brings me to this, I think that the 5dIII is fine, but it's not a reason for me to upgrade. I am willing to pay more for a sufficient upgrade that will last for next 4 year just like my 5dII.

[barton springs]

My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.

Still not solved.

No what you want is to have a pretty much useless discussion about a future product you probably don't need... which will come out probably as a 5DM4 in less than 3 years BTW to answer your original question. Once you get the perfect 30+ megapixels you'll think you need 40 or 50. (OMG!! 30 just won't do!) These people should jump to medium format and see how they like dealing with all that data.

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=16734&N=4259332394&srtclk=sort

[Marsu42]

No what you want is to have a pretty much useless discussion about a future product you probably don't need... which will come out probably as a 5DM4 in less than 3 years BTW to answer your original question.

Or probably sooner seeing the competition from Nikon who released a useless product that for some reason people still buy... I guess if saving for a 5d3 it's a valid though if there will be a 5dx body much sooner than the 3 years cycle or even a entry level full frame body that replaces the 5d2.

[lol]

How long are you used to waiting for your machine to process? I frankly get really irritated when I have to wait for the processor to catch up to my edits. Also, as a system builder, I assure you that a file twice the size of another file will not necessarily take twice as long to process.

Looking at my previous processing time test results I ran with DxO 7, I was averaging under 10 seconds per raw CPU only (i7-2600k not overclocked) and if I turn on GPU acceleration too (with HD5850), that was under 5 seconds per raw average. Note this is for batch processing so it makes good use of parallel processes. If I just want to do a single raw, it still takes about 10 seconds. This is with much processing turned on e.g. lens corrections and other adjustments. I guess it could be even faster if you want to do less.

I know that computing processes are not necessarily linear, but I think for the purposes of this discussion it is close enough. The fractional percentage differences caused by other effects are insignificant outside of benchmarks. raw processing isn't really that demanding that I think compute (CPU or GPU) is the most significant limiting factor.

Of course, other software may behave differently.

[TokyoDekopon]

Yesterday I had a chat with a friend who is working for CMJ (Canon Marketing Japan). So far there is no plan of releasing any 30mp+ full frame camera within this year but if D800 sells very well, there could be a surprise. He cannot tell me any more than that because of NDA of course.

[skoobey]

There are other areas, you know.

Setting a camera to aperture priority, or shutter priority and firing away is not really art, now is it? And also ,lighting is mostly set to begin with at the arena's and stadiums etc. So, it's about speed and capturing the moment.

I am into completely different area, and I mostly shoot beauty images, and I do need the resolution, so speak for your self.

Aslo, those people sayin "it takes 10 seconds to process a file", well if you are serious about retouching it, it'll take hours for you to do your part anyway, so those 5 seconds won't mean a darn thing.

So, it won't be within a year, so thanks for the info.

[PhilDrinkwater]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

[JR]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

Good insight phil.  Very interesting points about the pro market...I think the pros are probably less fussed about the MP then the avid amateur photographers...

[JR]

Yesterday I had a chat with a friend who is working for CMJ (Canon Marketing Japan). So far there is no plan of releasing any 30mp+ full frame camera within this year but if D800 sells very well, there could be a surprise. He cannot tell me any more than that because of NDA of course.

I am not surprised by your comments.  I always thought if canon goes high mp it will be only in 2013...

[ZEROrhythm]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.

[Axilrod]

Maybe the up coming 24 & 28mm f2.8 are a hint too.
Why would they add an IS to those?
 

Sharper handheld images, ability to shoot with longer shutter speeds, more stable video.  On an APS-C sensor the 28mm is approaching 50mm so it definitely wouldn't hurt.

[barton springs]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.

So you're saying you are in the business of graphic design and that is your area of expertise?  .... and you also are saying you need photographers to submit files (enormous RAW files of course) from a 30+ megapixel DSLR as a preference? Or would you rather have files submitted from a medium format camera more typical in high-end graphics. If I was in that position and my workflow allowed for those type of file sizes I'd seek out the medium format highest end 5-star photogs.

The bodies such as what I use (Mark IV's) at 16.1 megapixels should work for anything. I had to check how many megapixels I have just now since it is so much more than what I need. It's the other features that I care about not megapixels. I quite caring once it got over 10. No matter how many megapixels a camera has people somewhere will always have an argument for why they (or somebody else) could need more.

Re-read Phil's post. It is right on the mark. Do pros really need to investment in a newer 30+ megapixel body? Do they know how to effectively use the technology they already own?

In that vain right now I'm wrestling with having to maybe replace my Mark IV bodies with the newer Mark X at over $6600 a piece. Canon has priced me out of doing this at least on the short term. How about a 200-400 for $11,000? Nope.

IMO these new high megapixel bodies such as the Nikon D800 will be mostly purchased by avid amateur's but they won't use it at "full power" once they see how much time it takes to deal with those file sizes... unless they have a personal assistant that doubles as a photo assistant/photo editor ;-)

[PhilDrinkwater]

I suppose another way of looking at this, as a pro, is "I have $5000 to spend out of my turnover that is just sitting there doing nothing".

As a business (that's what a pro - or semi-pro - is) you need to look at ROI. I could spend that $5000 on:
* Photography training
* A new lens or two or three
* Marketing
* Sales training
* New admin systems
* Sample albums for venues
* A new body from Canon
* A switch from Canon to Nikon
* A new website

As a pro, you can't have everything. That's the point of a business - once the money is gone, it's gone. Which of these things will get the pro the best ROI? I'm not here saying it's this or that, but the pro should be looking at their own weaknesses *as a business*, and not specifically as a photographer.

A pro photographer is a *business* that sells photographs. It's not that different to a business that sells other products in that they need various functions to stay upright: product, admin, accounting, marketing, sales. If any "leg of the stool" that makes their business up is "shorter" than the others, the stool will topple.

I know we all like kit - we wouldn't be here otherwise - but when people say "think of the possibilities you could get with 4 stops more DR" I'm sitting there thinking "think of the extra turnover I could get if I was more effective in sales" or "think of how much happier my customers would be if I was totally on top of my admin". Boring but true.

I also think "Think how much happier *I* will be when I know my camera is focussing at the level I want it to without taking 20 shots to be sure" and "Wow - won't my customers look great with that 135f2" and when I bought LR4 "Great! I have control of my highlights now so I won't have to underexpose and push the shadows!". I've decided to get a 1dx since it'll work for me for years and I need a focus system that works just anywhere in any conditions, but it was a struggle to decide to spend that much.

But what I'm most MOST certainly not thinking is "Wow! I'll be able to print 25% larger with this new body if I throw $5k at changing systems".

What I do know for certain is that the UK's highest paid wedding photographer shoots with a 1d3 (or 1d3s - I forget) and in JPEG.

YMMV