Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]

[Canon-F1]

How about this post regarding a big megapixel camera.....


http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-canons-medium-format-camera-tidbits-and-maybe-no-pro-i/


Medium format camera using EF lens....

Sure, if you use the EF-17 TS/E.

Otherwise none of the lenses create a big enough circle of light to cover such a sensor.

FF crop mode.
nikon can do it with DX on FX bodys... so sure canon could do it with a MF body.

they only write you can use EF lenses on that MF body.
not that EF lenses are the prefered lenses.

so i guess it will be a new EF-MF mount that CAN take current EF lenses.

[CanonFanBoy]

I really hope Canon is not coming up a camera this time just packing more pixels into the 35mm die with its existing technology ... what Nikon has really stolen the show this time is setting a new trend by providing Studio/FineArt/Fashion/Landscape photographers a very cheap alternative to entry level digital Medium Format camera ... which caught the world by storm!

So ... whatever Canon is coming up ... Canon needs to make a camera that excels in all Quality Aspects ... that is in terms of Dynamic Range (> 15 stops), Colour Fidelity (16bits), and very Low Noise ... and ... of 'cos plus all those 5D mkIII features .... in order to compete!!!

[lopicma]

I thought we were over the Pixel Wars?  There must be a market for this sensor, or else why bother.  I would settle for a full frame 15-20Mpix that can shoot in the dark at say... 500,000 ISO.  I think most consumers (90% guesstimate) and many professionals (70% guesstimate) would be satisfied with this sensor spec.

There is more than just the sensor to consider.  There is the glass, storage, file handling just to name a few big ones.  Not being a physics pro, I do hear there is a light wave issue with small apertures resolving onto large sensors - in that you waste space on the sensor.  (I will let a more knowledgeable person explain it.)

I would bet the driving force for these high pixel counts can be traced to asteroid mining  (LOL - don't get me started).  I guess you would need these pixels for cropping and isolating a subject/target without loosing detail.  If NASA or any other space program can put good glass in front of this sensor, they could pull down some great space shots.   I think it's use is questionable for us terrestrial shooters.

[briansquibb]

I thought we were over the Pixel Wars?  There must be a market for this sensor, or else why bother.  I would settle for a full frame 15-20Mpix that can shoot in the dark at say... 500,000 ISO.  I think most consumers (90% guesstimate) and many professionals (70% guesstimate) would be satisfied with this sensor spec.

There is more than just the sensor to consider.  There is the glass, storage, file handling just to name a few big ones.  Not being a physics pro, I do hear there is a light wave issue with small apertures resolving onto large sensors - in that you waste space on the sensor.  (I will let a more knowledgeable person explain it.)

I would bet the driving force for these high pixel counts can be traced to asteroid mining  (LOL - don't get me started).  I guess you would need these pixels for cropping and isolating a subject/target without loosing detail.  If NASA or any other space program can put good glass in front of this sensor, they could pull down some great space shots.   I think it's use is questionable for us terrestrial shooters.

I rarely shoot at over iso400 so a camera that shoots at iso 500,000 is of no interest at all. The MF shooters have been using 40+mp for some time - OK for large prints.

It is the quality of the image that counts

[lopicma]

I am at the opposite end.  My last vacation, about half the photos were at ISO-800, outside, under a forest canopy or in a wetlands area.  If I could have gone to 1600, there would be too much grain on the old Rebel XS.  All the photos needed exposure boost in Lightroom, but were salvageable.  If I had a T4i or a 5D MkIII, I would have no problems.  (I'm working on that solution...)

[DzPhotography]

I am at the opposite end.  My last vacation, about half the photos were at ISO-800, outside, under a forest canopy or in a wetlands area.  If I could have gone to 1600, there would be too much grain on the old Rebel XS.  All the photos needed exposure boost in Lightroom, but were salvageable.  If I had a T4i or a 5D MkIII, I would have no problems.  (I'm working on that solution...)

Err, are you thinking that a T4i will give the same result as an 5D MkIII on the same high ISO setting? Think again, my dear chap...

[birdman]

Guys, I own the D800 and am a FORMER OWNER of the 5d2. What the extra MPs has meant for me:

1) Better IQ
2) Better technique required b/c of hand-holding issues
3) Better ability to crop
4) Better DR and really, better high ISO performance (vs. the 5d2)
5) Ridiculously large files
6) Average FPS but with Nikon's awesome AF it's a wash
7) Slower write times when shooting burst of images

--I love the D800, just as I loved the 5d2. IF the 5d3 had been cheaper AND fixed the banding-- it would've been choice #1 by a slim margin. I wasn't married to Canon, but getting rid of my 35/1.4L felt like a painful divorce. BTW, I will not be replacing it with the 35/1.4 af-s. I may opt for the 28/1.8 ($1,000 cheaper and painfully sharp)

I only wanted D800 for landscape shooting--which is my forte, and honestly Nikon has the UWA lens advantages for now. Canon really disappointed me with the 5d3 specs, as I felt certain that they could have done better with price and banding issues. MP count of 22 would've been alright, also.

Canon needs to improve its sensor design to accommodate increased read noise from more resolution. I know I will eventually buy into the Canon system again because, as a whole, it is more robust (and arguably better) than nikon. I'll always be a Canon fan, but Nikon made the DSLR I wanted this generation. Happy shooting to all

[lopicma]

Err, are you thinking that a T4i will give the same result as an 5D MkIII on the same high ISO setting? Think again, my dear chap...
[/quote]

I am not comparing those two against each other, but against the Rebel XS.  I only want middle ISO, not High, and anything has to be better than the XS' high ISO of 1600.

This thread is starting degenerate with Nikon speak as well...  OH!

[Chuck Alaimo]

I know the product isn't out there yet but, it's a shame how Canon holds back on what their loyal buyers want when they (Canon) knows what is wanted. 

They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards. You cant tell me they didn't plan on a higher MP body announcement after 1DX & MK3 sales peak.

I also know that Canon didn't force anyone to buy either one of those bodies ... but lets face it ... Canon plays games with those who keep them competitive in a world of serious competition.

If I were to stop at a Kool-aid stand & buy a hot, watered down glass of Kool-aid from a little kid, only to have them pull out a fresh/cold picture from under the stand afterwards .... that would piss me off! 

What Kool-aid are you drinking?  The fan base, for years now has been asking for what they got in the mk3 - better AF, better performance at high ISO, and better ISO range - its pretty much exactly what the mk3 is.  The whining about only started when people heard about the d800.  And now there is this vocal segment who twist history to be what it isn't.  Nikon rolled the dice and put their big MP camera out before canon did.  Now, could you imagine the change in the field we'd have now, midway through wedding season if the situation was reversed?  IE, all us canon wedding shooters slumming i up on our 5d2's because we don't need nor want a 40 mp camera (at least canon would be smart enough to give it sRAW and mRAW so we aren't stuck with 100 MB images.

You must be landscape/studio, because that is the group that dislikes the mk3, well, or the hobbyists (and most of them like the camera but not the price). 

[Lawliet]

we don't need nor want a 40 mp camera (at least canon would be smart enough to give it sRAW and mRAW so we aren't stuck with 100 MB images.

Not that the resolution makes that much difference; otoh the x-sync up to 1/320 and  high rez/off center spot metering meter are endearing.
That battery pack that powers the strobes gets instant double capacity! Also the flash duration gets down, no more need for twin heads. At least the 1Dx + PWs gives me the same benefits.

[Bob Howland]

I know the product isn't out there yet but, it's a shame how Canon holds back on what their loyal buyers want when they (Canon) knows what is wanted. 

They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards. You cant tell me they didn't plan on a higher MP body announcement after 1DX & MK3 sales peak.

I also know that Canon didn't force anyone to buy either one of those bodies ... but lets face it ... Canon plays games with those who keep them competitive in a world of serious competition.

If I were to stop at a Kool-aid stand & buy a hot, watered down glass of Kool-aid from a little kid, only to have them pull out a fresh/cold picture from under the stand afterwards .... that would piss me off! 

What Kool-aid are you drinking?  The fan base, for years now has been asking for what they got in the mk3 - better AF, better performance at high ISO, and better ISO range - its pretty much exactly what the mk3 is.  The whining about only started when people heard about the d800.  And now there is this vocal segment who twist history to be what it isn't.  Nikon rolled the dice and put their big MP camera out before canon did. 

Yep, that's pretty much what happened. And, as the owner of both an EOS-3 film camera and 5D MkIII DSLR, I consider the latter to be the true and worthy successor to the former. But, then again, I never got the Eye Control Focus to work on the EOS-3 so I'm not counting that.

[bdunbar79]

we don't need nor want a 40 mp camera (at least canon would be smart enough to give it sRAW and mRAW so we aren't stuck with 100 MB images.

Not that the resolution makes that much difference; otoh the x-sync up to 1/320 and  high rez/off center spot metering meter are endearing.
That battery pack that powers the strobes gets instant double capacity! Also the flash duration gets down, no more need for twin heads. At least the 1Dx + PWs gives me the same benefits.

You'll be waiting 30 seconds between shots on a 40mp RAW image to downconvert to mRAW or sRAW.  You could say that wouldn't be a sports camera

[Lawliet]

You'll be waiting 30 seconds between shots on a 40mp RAW image to downconvert to mRAW or sRAW.  You could say that wouldn't be a sports camera

Rather use the crop mode to gain some extra reach combined with higher framerate and buffer depth.
The downsampled RAWs never where my cup of tea - and I wouldn't buy a high res cam for sports, esp. as there are two(pointfive, does the 7D(II) count?) better suited ones.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If it tons of MP but poor DR and low fps with no fast fps cropped modes then I fail to see how it does anything next to a D800, worse yet if it is in brick size, I'd rather a 5D3 or D800 by far.

If they make it all 5D3 specs other than now 35MP then it's something at least since it would outperform D800 in all ways other than low ISO DR.

If they somehow suddenly got better DR already too then it'd be utterly killer, but if they had better DR then why not in the 5D3/1DX?

[wickidwombat]

If this is true would they include video? Personally being a still snapper I would hope its still only however I can see an oportunity where they could be the first real MF unit to use video and hence they can reproduce the video revolution they had with the 5d2 just something to ponder I'm not saying its right or anything. I would agree though they would need to do the MF properly with 16 bit raw and iq to match the big boys