More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

[caruser]

I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR

I dream of the day I can get the same output out of my camera as to what I see in the viewfinder.

Technology today should enable multiple sensors for highlights and shadows and midtones combined in real time.

Even if the camera did 3fps and have 7MP (approx. 4K resolution) I would
Buy one.

It's about time cameras start "seeing" what we see...

multiple sensors? around $20K up.     It will only be available for those who really gets a lot of money through photography or those very rich pampered guys.  Well, we can dream...

Have a single sensor, but with a mask that drops a few stops on every other pixel, i.e. they've got sunglasses on. Combine the pixels and off you go. It would just drop the resolution of your sensor by 1/2, so if you combine it with a higher pixel sensor overall (46mp), then you'd stay par with today with increased DR. I should patent that idea (probably already been done)

Fuji has built sensors with alternating larger and smaller pixels for higher dynamic range.

[garrie]

Ok some thoughts.

Studio cameras do not need high dynamic range, landscape/industrial and other professional applications do. Wedding photographers do... but hey they are 6D clients...

Question, how big a sensor can they fit in the EOS mount and get coverage from at least 5 lenses? Canon has been releasing quite a few new lenses and i'm guessing they are for a HR camera... but are they also for a bigger sensor say 40x30mm? certainly the shift/tilts will.... what about the 24 and 28 just released...? That would justify a 'medium format' type quality and price.... and name change... or it could just be a new mount... and new lenses... not 35mm at all? Pentax does... Leica admitted it can't get MF quality from 35mm sensors....

(No one so far has asked if the 6D has a significantly better dynamic range in any of the videos i can access in China.)

[gecko]

Big MP would be nice...for some.

But I'd rather see Canon take the Magic Lantern hint and go to town on their firmware.  It's clear that there is massive unrealised potential in that area.

[psolberg]

it all sounds like the same old fan based rumor both camps are famous for. whenever one side does something the other spews rumors of the next big thing that is better than the other's.

sure a big MP body is coming. not just from canon, but from Nikon as well as the D4X will be due next year. It is where the industry is going so those 20 or so megapixels are now "low resolution".

if you don't agree, you don't have to. but consider that even if every glass on the market is out-resolved by an 80MP body, the benefits are still there as it makes the effects of the bayer pattern less evident thanks to the oversampling. we have all seen this in the spectacular image quality the D800 delivers when compared to the 5DmkIII at equivalent sizes as well as in the Nokia 41MP cell phone camera. Now scale up the 24MP APSC sensors from Nikon/Sony and you end up with a 50+MP body which surely is next.

the days of ISO performance being the key marketing driving term are over now that every DSLR is good enough for nearly all light conditions except the niche extreme market of dark closet photography. oversampling and dynamic range is the new frontier so get used to it.

[Don Haines]

Question, how big a sensor can they fit in the EOS mount and get coverage from at least 5 lenses? Canon has been releasing quite a few new lenses and i'm guessing they are for a HR camera... but are they also for a bigger sensor say 40x30mm? certainly the shift/tilts will.... what about the 24 and 28 just released...? That would justify a 'medium format' type quality and price.... and name change... or it could just be a new mount... and new lenses... not 35mm at all? Pentax does... Leica admitted it can't get MF quality from 35mm sensors....

You have a 43mm hole. You need a sensor that is visible through that hole. If the corners of the sensor are outside that 43mm circle they are not illuminated and therefore not much good....

a 36x24 rectangle just barely fits in that circle. To go for a square sensor, it would not be 36x36 as some people seem to think, it would be a 30x30 square. A 36x24 sensor is 864 square millimeters, a 30x30 sensor is 900 square millimeters, not a whole lot of improvement in area but at the cost of abandoning conventional aspect ratios. Besides, is there really a use for square images? Monitors, magazines, billboards, printers, etc all seem to using rectangular images most of the time.... going square will probably result is LESS usefull pixels.

In short... it is really really really really doubtful that you will see a square sensor... even if they were to create a new mount and new lenses for that mount, the above logic holds.

[c.d.embrey]

Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except ... and 135 f/2.

The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 D DC is the best 135mm available from anyone!! If you like 135mm lenses, this is all the reason you need to switch to Nikon. Check-out these photos made with the Nikon 135mm f/2.0D DC  http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=129  Lots of creamy bokeh on display.

[neuroanatomist]

The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 D DC is the best 135mm available from anyone!!

It's the best 135mm lens for those who's favorite color in the world is magenta, at any rate.  Personally, I love CA when it stands for California, but I'm not a big fan of the optical variety, and the Nikon 135/2 has it in spades (purple-fringed spades, that is...).

Here's a comparison of the Canon 135L vs. Nikon 135/2.  If I wanted that much CA, I'd shoot chrome with the Canon 85/1.8 wide open.   

[c.d.embrey]

It's the best 135mm lens for those who's favorite color in the world is magenta, at any rate.  Personally, I love CA when it stands for California, but I'm not a big fan of the optical variety, and the Nikon 135/2 has it in spades (purple-fringed spades, that is...).

Here's a comparison of the Canon 135L vs. Nikon 135/2.

Oh WOW, another real world test ... complete with photos of his kids.

Sorry, but I'm noy buying what he's selling.

[dilbert]

Ok some thoughts.

Studio cameras do not need high dynamic range, landscape/industrial and other professional applications do. Wedding photographers do... but hey they are 6D clients...

Question, how big a sensor can they fit in the EOS mount and get coverage from at least 5 lenses? Canon has been releasing quite a few new lenses and i'm guessing they are for a HR camera... but are they also for a bigger sensor say 40x30mm? certainly the shift/tilts will.... what about the 24 and 28 just released...? That would justify a 'medium format' type quality and price.... and name change... or it could just be a new mount... and new lenses... not 35mm at all? Pentax does... Leica admitted it can't get MF quality from 35mm sensors....

(No one so far has asked if the 6D has a significantly better dynamic range in any of the videos i can access in China.)

Here's a suggestion: only comment about the applicability of a specific camera or cameras to photographic work that you have been paid to do.

[bdunbar79]

Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except ... and 135 f/2.

The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 D DC is the best 135mm available from anyone!! If you like 135mm lenses, this is all the reason you need to switch to Nikon. Check-out these photos made with the Nikon 135mm f/2.0D DC  http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=129  Lots of creamy bokeh on display.

Oh yeah!!! No, no, instead, we're all buying THIS!!  Yeeeehaw!

[Zlatko]

So finally a rumor to stop the bleeding of people owning Canon gear selling up for Nikon.

i.e. this rumor was to be expected after the combination of the D800 and D600 showed up Canon's current full frame sensor being found wanting.

Expect the 5D Mark III to have a shorter life than either then 5D or 5D Mark II.

So, are you one of the people "owning Canon gear selling up for Nikon"?

Whether or not I am is not the point.

This rumor is strategic in nature, as will be the announcement of the camera next month, because it is talking to specific feature/performance areas where Canon is currently vulnerable.

Canon need to do something to keep people from wondering whether or not their R&D has fallen behind and cannot keep up with the pace that Sony have set.

With all of the vulnerability you claim Canon is having, one would think you would be the first to be selling your Canon gear.  You say the D800 and D600 have superior sensors, and yet you haven't sold your Canon gear in order to buy Nikon?

[stewy]

Canon made their most popular lens sharper in preparation for this camera. I'm curious to see how good this camera will be. I'm also curious about the price. If it rings in around $10K, then I'll be taking a closer look at the Pentax 645D.

[Lee Jay]

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read.

I support DNG because of this - the lossy DNG format is at least scene referenced and full-resolution.  So, it's both better and smaller than mraw/sraw.

[bdunbar79]

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!

Not only that, the camera will NOT likely shoot mRAW or sRAW.  Unless you want to wait 30-60 seconds between shots and wait on the camera to convert the RAW down to m or s.  Nikon chose not to do this in their D800/E models because of that reason.

[Zlatko]

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!

Not only that, the camera will NOT likely shoot mRAW or sRAW.  Unless you want to wait 30-60 seconds between shots and wait on the camera to convert the RAW down to m or s.  Nikon chose not to do this in their D800/E models because of that reason.

mRAW and sRAW are great.  I use the medium RAW quite a lot.  It is not "the same as JPEG".

Of course the rumored 46mp Canon would offer mRAW and sRAW.  These are highly desirable options that Nikon doesn't offer.