5D3, 1D5 and 1Ds4 Timeline [CR1]

[DetlevCM]

Just to comment on the mirrorless aspect:

It might be fun for a consumer model, and a rangefinder has an appeal to certain customers, but the ability to look through the lens is very valuable.
A screen (electronic viewfinder) will never (in the next few years) be able to match the resolving power of the human eye.

Besides - another issue I can think off... eye strain, especially in dark environments.
Currently the viewfinder is darker or equally bright compared to the surroundings, in a dark environment a screen will be brighter and lead to eye strain.

[mccrum]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

I'm with you.  I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1.  For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further.  I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)

[jeremymerriam]

It is much easier to scale down images than video.

Tell this to the pros taking 1000+ shots per event.

Shoot in small format RAW rather than the large format.  Besides, if you are having trouble with processing 1000+ images, you either need a new computer or starting using Lightroom.

[st sebastian]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

I'm with you.  I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1.  For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further.  I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)

Me too. I don't print photos large enough to require 21MP.

An issue I have is that DxO does not read mRaw & sRaw, so I have to choose between photo size and ability to process the photo with DxO.

[neuroanatomist]

Shoot in small format RAW rather than the large format. 

So, do you believe Canon's little whilte lie marketing position that sRAW is 'all the flavor without all the fat,' so to speak?  With sRAW, you're losing resolution (not the best possible trade-off for a file size reduction), and you're adding processing artifacts to your image.  Have a look.

[motorhead]

I agree, more pixels will show even at A4, never mind A3 or A2 print sizes. The improvements will get more subtle as pixel counts of 21mp are compared to 32 or 40, but it IS visible in print. I will never throw away pixels. It's difficult to explain the difference in appearance. I would describe it thus: the whole image seems smoother, more "depth".     

[Etienne]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

I'm with you.  I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1.  For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further.  I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)

Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

As long as low light performance is not compromised I'm ok with high MP counts, however it doesn't seem to work that way, so I'm in favor of sacrificing some pixels in order to get great low light performance.

[Chewy734]

Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

I'm not sure that everyone can say that.  Perhaps for you it's a non-issue.  But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max.  I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it?  Many times it's just not practical.

That being said, I agree with you, that if you're doing a 1-day or afternoon photo shoot, and then come home to a laptop/desktop with TBs of storage space (which isn't all that expensive any more), then having 25mb+ RAW image files is fine.  Keep in mind though, if you have to do some batch editing on thousands of those, it will take noticeably longer on larger files than smaller ones.  Anyways, just my opinions on the matter.  I'm sure I'll be first in line once Canon actually releases these beasts.

[ronderick]

In addition to bigger harddrives, the cost of bigger files also comes with possible upgrade of your computer parts to stuff like USB 3.0 (not to mention thunderbolt, eSata, etc.) or BD-R compatible drives (an empty BD-R disc is still too expensive), as well as more memory space... the list can grow quite a bit.

Of course, while upgrading the entire system might not be as costly as some camera parts, they still involve a certain degree of financial commitment...

[Flake]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect.  While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears.  It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately.  Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option.  If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

[DetlevCM]

Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

I'm not sure that everyone can say that.  Perhaps for you it's a non-issue.  But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max.  I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it?  Many times it's just not practical.

That being said, I agree with you, that if you're doing a 1-day or afternoon photo shoot, and then come home to a laptop/desktop with TBs of storage space (which isn't all that expensive any more), then having 25mb+ RAW image files is fine.  Keep in mind though, if you have to do some batch editing on thousands of those, it will take noticeably longer on larger files than smaller ones.  Anyways, just my opinions on the matter.  I'm sure I'll be first in line once Canon actually releases these beasts.

So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.

[Etienne]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect.  While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears.  It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately.  Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option.  If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Low light performance really means good high ISO performance. The 5DII is Canon's best high ISO, and I don't think Canon will let Nikon continue to walk away with the high ISO award.

High ISO is important for many things: low light use, ability to shoot at small apertures in moderate light, when very fast shutter speed is required like sports in indoor arenas. I can't think of why anyone would object to good high ISO performance. There is a trade off between pixel count and high ISO, and I hope the 5DIII achieves a good balance. Personally I don't need more pixels, so I favor improvements in ISO performance. Of course in a perfect world I'd get both in one Camera.

[DetlevCM]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect.  While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears.  It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately.  Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option.  If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Does Nikon "walk away"?
Scale down the 5D MK II to Nikon resolutions or scale up the Nikon resolutions to 5D MK II resolutions and they become pretty equal, at least for the D700.

-> Overall noise stays the same, per pixel noise increases with smaller pixels.

Now the current sensors from Sony apparently offer a greater dynamic range, and that might be a plus for the Sony-sensor-buyer Nikon right now.

[Flake]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect.  While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears.  It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately.  Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option.  If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Low light performance really means good high ISO performance. The 5DII is Canon's best high ISO, and I don't think Canon will let Nikon continue to walk away with the high ISO award.

High ISO is important for many things: low light use, ability to shoot at small apertures in moderate light, when very fast shutter speed is required like sports in indoor arenas. I can't think of why anyone would object to good high ISO performance. There is a trade off between pixel count and high ISO, and I hope the 5DIII achieves a good balance. Personally I don't need more pixels, so I favor improvements in ISO performance. Of course in a perfect world I'd get both in one Camera.

I think you've missunderstood my point here.  By high Iso performance I'm talking about being able to shoot in a dark room where you can barely see at Iso 25600 and still get useable images (Something D3 users claim to be able to do).
High Iso is relevant because it's directly linked to dynamic range, a camera has to have good performance, but in a camera like the 5D MkII/I I don't require class leading performance, I don't want to photograph the black man looking in the dark room for the black cat that isn't there!

BTW I would have said that the ID MkIII was the best camera in the line up for low noise.

As to Nikons answer, well it doens't bother me too much as I'm not a Nikon user, but to me the 12MP sensor looked underpixeled when it was launched, and the high Iso ability might be a plus for it, but other than that it's a bit of a one trick pony, and the half stop between the D700 and the 5D MkII isn't enough for me to lose much sleep over.

[Chewy734]

So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.

Well, unfortunately I don't have a netbook.  My Macbook Pro weighs at least 6 lbs, and I use Aperture, so I can't buy a cheap windows netbook (assuming I want to use the netbook for more than just a conduit to save files).  If I take my current laptop with an external HD, I'm more than doubling my backpack's weight.