Thoughts on new high megapixel Canon DSLR ?

[Nitroman]

I'm a bit of a megapixel junkie and was disappointed in the megapixel spec of the Canon 1DX at just 18MP.

I was hoping to replace my Canon 1Ds Mark III but don't feel it would be a worthwhile upgrade.

1 ) Any thoughts on if and when a full frame high megapixel camera is likely to be released by Canon ?

Ideally i'd like it to be around 36MP - like the snazzy new Nikon D800.

2 ) When are the big trade shows this year ... and why do Canon seem to be so shy to release high MP cameras when they always used to be one step in front of Nikon ?

 Thoughts and info will be of great interest ... Thanks 

[moreorless]

I'm a bit of a megapixel junkie and was disappointed in the megapixel spec of the Canon 1DX at just 18MP.

I was hoping to replace my Canon 1Ds Mark III but don't feel it would be a worthwhile upgrade.

1 ) Any thoughts on if and when a full frame high megapixel camera is likely to be released by Canon ?

Ideally i'd like it to be around 36MP - like the snazzy new Nikon D800.

My guess is it is likely to happen sometime in the next year to 18 months.

I wouldnt actually be supprized if it offers more megapixels than the D800 seeing as the 5D mk3 has already been positioned as the "general purpose" camera, a high MP body would probabley have to worry less about extreme ISO performance and FPS.

2 ) When are the big trade shows this year ... and why do Canon seem to be so shy to release high MP cameras when they always used to be one step in front of Nikon ?

 Thoughts and info will be of great interest ... Thanks 

My guess(based partly on comments we've heard from canon insiders who werent just shilling) is that Canon was unsure of how the high MP market would evolve.

The 5D mk3 and the 1DX both seem quite predictable markets, we know event photogrpahers wanted specs like the 1Ds mk3 in a smaller cheaper body and we know sports/action photographers wanted the extra ISO performance than tthe D3s being FF offered.

Pushing MP past 30 on the other hand seems like much more untested ground, tradisionally uses who needed this resolution paid for MF and were relatively small in number.

A big company being comfortable at the top avoiding the risk of deliverign a product without a market even though it potentially gives a temproary advanatge to a rival doesnt seem that unlikely to me.

[Axilrod]

Really?  The 1DX is a badass camera.  Are you trying to compensate for something?

[Nitroman]

Thanks for the replies guys ...

Moreorless ... what you say seems to make sense but i can't understand why Canon reduced the MP in the 1DX as it was supposed to replace the 1Ds3 too. Still ... what Canon are up to these days seems a bit of a mystery to me.

I like a lot of MP as i blow my images up big and i'm experimenting with Gigapixel images too. The higher the native mp in the camera, the less i need to zoom and the higher the quality.

Shame these camera makers play their cards so close to their chests these days. I remember Nikon once saying "We have no plans to release a full frame body" when i had a D2X so i switched to Canon. More fool Nikon as they've lost a lot of trade. 

[Neeneko]

Moreorless ... what you say seems to make sense but i can't understand why Canon reduced the MP in the 1DX as it was supposed to replace the 1Ds3 too. Still ... what Canon are up to these days seems a bit of a mystery to me.

Not a huge mystery.. they looked at the various market segments and decided to optimize for certain high profile groups and not others.  So sports/events and video people got the spotlight this time and design decisions flowed from what those groups tend to look for in a camera.

So rather then have a range of cameras with different bodies intended for different markets, they are moving towards a single market focus with bodies differentiated by capability within those segments.  At least for the medium term.

[briansquibb]

Moreorless ... what you say seems to make sense but i can't understand why Canon reduced the MP in the 1DX as it was supposed to replace the 1Ds3 too. Still ... what Canon are up to these days seems a bit of a mystery to me.

I know what you mean. With the loss the 1.3 crop the 1DX is only equal to the 1D4 in terms of pixels over object. I wont be updating the  1DS3 with a 1DX.

I might update the 1D4 with the 1DX and end up with two ff plus the 7D

The difficulty is that the 1DS3 still gives a terrific image

Taken outdoors ...

[Nitroman]

Yup Briansquibb ... I love my 1DS3 (apart from the crappy lcd screen).

I just spent three years expecting a higher mp replacement and the replacement had less mp !!! The 1Dx seems more of a replacement for 1D4 but without the crop which everyone who shoots sports wanted !

It's always better to have the mp and not need it than need the mp and not have it ! For those who complain 36 mp is too many they could always select smaller file output in the firmware.

So nobody expects a high mp body at Photokina this Autumn

[moreorless]

Thanks for the replies guys ...

Moreorless ... what you say seems to make sense but i can't understand why Canon reduced the MP in the 1DX as it was supposed to replace the 1Ds3 too. Still ... what Canon are up to these days seems a bit of a mystery to me.

I like a lot of MP as i blow my images up big and i'm experimenting with Gigapixel images too. The higher the native mp in the camera, the less i need to zoom and the higher the quality.

Shame these camera makers play their cards so close to their chests these days. I remember Nikon once saying "We have no plans to release a full frame body" when i had a D2X so i switched to Canon. More fool Nikon as they've lost a lot of trade.

As has been said I think the 1DX is really an update of the 1D line not the 1Ds line.

To me it seemed that besides the lack of video the problem the 1Ds mk3 had was that it seemed to be targetting two markets, half landscape/studio users who wanted better AF than the 5D mk2 and half sports/action users who wanted better image quality than the 1D4. By going for both they couldnt really please either entirely and ended up with a very expensive camera that included some features users didnt need(landscape users for example probabley didnt need the extra grip).

I'd guess the lesson Canon took from that(and the D3x) is to target each new pro level camera to a specific market believing that users will pay a prenium if they got the specs they were after and were not "wasting" money on ones that werent. So the 1DX offers a big improvement in ISO performance over the 1D and smaller improvements in FPS and resolution targetting sports/jurno's and the 5D mk3 got a big improvement in AF and smaller ones in FPS, ISO, Video and a more pro level body(100% VF, twin cards etc) targetting event photographers who may also be moving into videography.

How to target the high resolution market seems a bit more uncertainly to me, do they go for 30ish as Nikon have or push things all the way of 50ish(where I'd say Moire in an AA filterless camera maybe less of an issue)? do they need to offer pro level AF? decent FPS? etc?

Canon's weakness in DR is also I'd say much more of an issue with a high resolution camera, with the target markets of the 1DX and 5D3 is something that I'd guess doesnt concern most users greatly where as it does alot of landscape users and possible many studio users aswell that such a camera would target.

[briansquibb]

Thanks for the replies guys ...

Moreorless ... what you say seems to make sense but i can't understand why Canon reduced the MP in the 1DX as it was supposed to replace the 1Ds3 too. Still ... what Canon are up to these days seems a bit of a mystery to me.

I like a lot of MP as i blow my images up big and i'm experimenting with Gigapixel images too. The higher the native mp in the camera, the less i need to zoom and the higher the quality.

Shame these camera makers play their cards so close to their chests these days. I remember Nikon once saying "We have no plans to release a full frame body" when i had a D2X so i switched to Canon. More fool Nikon as they've lost a lot of trade.

As has been said I think the 1DX is really an update of the 1D line not the 1Ds line.

To me it seemed that besides the lack of video the problem the 1Ds mk3 had was that it seemed to be targetting two markets, half landscape/studio users who wanted better AF than the 5D mk2 and half sports/action users who wanted better image quality than the 1D4. By going for both they couldnt really please either entirely and ended up with a very expensive camera that included some features users didnt need(landscape users for example problem didnt need the extra grip).

Just remember that the 5DII came after the 1DS3 and was the prosumer ff. Even now the 5DIII has only just caught up with the 1DS3 for general use.

The weakpoint of the 1DS3 is that it only goes to iso1600. Even now the 1DS3 has better low iso performance than any Canon camera - although that may change when the 1DX arrives.

The AF was taken straight from the 1D3 and for portraits is superb - including the metered AF point. I dont believe for an instant that is was intended for sports usage - that was the domain of the 1D3.

Video was not around when the 1DS3 was introduced so I dont see how that was a problem. The job of the 1DS3 was to produce the best posible IQ still images. Overpriced? Well compare the price to the D3 and now D4

The IQ of the 1D4 is pretty good, not quite 1DS3 but better than anything else - especially at high iso. The 1D4 and 1DS3 never fought for the same users as the 1DS3 was pretty much dead when the 1D4 was released. The 5DII killed off the 1DS3, based on price rather than function. For those that dont know - the 1DS3 and the 5DII have different sensors even though they are both 21mp

[moreorless]

The 1Ds3 having AF at that level, 5 fps and a build in protrait grip does suggest to me that it was partly aimed at a similar market to the 1D3, users looking to capature fast action who wanted FF resolution/ISO/view.

I'd say that part of the reason the 5D2 stole so much of its market was that many users(most obviously landscapers I'd guess) after higher resolution didnt feel they needed(or could work around the lack of) some of those features given the price difference.

[pdirestajr]

I thought 18-22mp was a high megapixel count for a 35mm sensor. I like how all of a sudden, just because one company makes a "higher" mega pixy camera, all others are now considered not high enough. Isn't Nikon's flagship like 16 mega peepers? What a joke that thing will be, probably just good enough to shoot Facebook profile pics!

[dilbert]

How to target the high resolution market seems a bit more uncertainly to me, do they go for 30ish as Nikon have or push things all the way of 50ish(where I'd say Moire in an AA filterless camera maybe less of an issue)? do they need to offer pro level AF? decent FPS? etc?

Moire will always be a threat for the unaware photographer, regardless of megapixel count.

[briansquibb]

The 1Ds3 having AF at that level, 5 fps and a build in protrait grip does suggest to me that it was partly aimed at a similar market to the 1D3, users looking to capature fast action who wanted FF resolution/ISO/view.

I'd say that part of the reason the 5D2 stole so much of its market was that many users(most obviously landscapers I'd guess) after higher resolution didnt feel they needed(or could work around the lack of) some of those features given the price difference.

Built in grip is because most portraits are taken, well, in portrait mode.

AF is to allow focus where you want, rather than on the centre point, and also get the metering at the focus point - which is a 1 series feature

5fps is to capture that moment when the model is moving.

5D2 was almost universally taken up by wedding photographers who wanted the high iso as well as the high mp

[paul13walnut5]

I was happy with my 6MP DSLR until canon launched 10Mp cameras, and wowee what a difference when I pixel peep.  In theory I can get prints almost twice as large (not that I print much these days) and crop right in.

I was happy with my 10MP DSLR until canon launched 18Mp cameras, and wowee what a difference when I pixel peep.  In theory I can get prints almost twice as large (not that I print much these days) and crop right in.

I was happy with my 18MP DSLR until Nikon launched 36Mp cameras, and wowee what a difference when I pixel peep.  In theory I can get prints almost twice as large (not that I print much these days) and crop right in.

Ad infinitum.

I didn't have a need beyond 6MP if I'm entirely honest.  Glad I've got 18MP.  I'd like to see an 18MP with maybe a base ISO of 25 or 50?  That would really really help my video, less ND's to carry (faders are riven with compromises) I would sooner see a lower base ISO than any more pixels.   But then I'd also rather see three sensors with a dichroic prism than a single bayer grid.

Unlike every still shooter I think the 5D3 is a logical upgrade.  What did the 5D2 miss?  It had AF straight from midrange 1999 EOS cameras, wasn't all that fast, no in-body wireless flash unlike the main competitors, and the video wobbled a lot if you panned a little, and the codec was a bit lossy.

They fixed all these things.  Maybe it makes the 5D3 the camera the 5D2 should have been.  Maybe it makes the 5D3 a great camera in it's own right.  But a nikon won't take your EF lenses, and when canon launch something more to your taste (if you really really really need 36MP) you'll feel a bit silly.

I really don't see the point of getting upset.  There are lots of pros with their old technology D3's and 1D3's & IV's still getting work published. 

The first thing is to be there.  The second thing is to have a camera with you.  The last thing is to know how to work it.   Do that and you'll get shots that will sell, whether they are 10, 12, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 or 36MP.

[bestimage]

Folks, I am not optics engineer, however, I would like to share a thought and invite comments, how about canon slightly increase the size of sensor beyond ff to the extent that they can adjust the focal length between lens and sensor and be able to use existing lenses. This would pack lots of mp and keep photo diode size bigger as well.