Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]

[Michael Clark]

Yes that's an obvious exception. I was an industrial/commercial photographer for many years, and of course, everything had to be archived for the clients. My post was aimed at a different audience - hobbyists.

And, of course, there will always be shots (once in a lifetime travel photos, family photos etc) that need to be kept for sentimental reasons, even if they are of poor quality.

But I reiterate the fact that I've found that the quality of my wildlife photography has improved by leaps and bounds due to my practice of regularly reviewing my images, comparing them to older work, and dumping the sub-par stuff. It simply improves the overall standard of my work.

One can do critical analysis comparing more recent work to past work without deleting the past work, too.

 

[Antono Refa]

Good note. For the first time in my life, I'm considering leaving Canon. What if in 5 years there will be (portraits, glamour,…) FF format only for amateurs like the APS-C today?

There are real world limitations.

A silicon wafer and the masks used to make the chip have a high price, which has to be divided over units sold. The larger the sensor, the fewer sensors can be made out of it. Then, the larger the sensor, the fewer the cameras sold. This means higher price per unit.

Wafers aren't clean. There might be dozens of defects (in the silicon itself, dust particles, etc) on it. The larger the chip, the higher the chances there would be a defect in its area, so the number of chips that can be made out of a wafer drops exponentially with its size.

Which is why the Hasselblad H6D-400C's sensor costs $26,000.

450mm wafers are on the horizon, which might lower sensor prices. Then again, the market is shrinking. I would be surprised if digital 645 would become viable option in the next 25 years.

 

[entoman]

One can do critical analysis comparing more recent work to past work without deleting the past work, too.

The secondary purpose for deleting past work is of course to free up storage space (the original subject to which I responded).

For hobbyist photographers I see little point in retaining sub-par work, unless its sentimental value is greater than its artistic value (as per examples previously given).

It's not *necessary* to delete the sub-par images if one has endless storage capacity and the patience to review a much greater number of images, but in my experience regular reviewing and culling certainly helps - I don't need 10,000 images of an African elephant, so much better to just keep a couple of dozen of the best shots, and dump the rest. YMMV.

 

[Michael Clark]

On the other hand, you can always use the camera as B/W. It is not something you can't do right now.

When you use a Bayer masked camera to make B&W images, you're still giving away resolution due to the Bayer mask.

A crop of a "pure" non-demosaiced B&W image from a sensor with a color filter array looks like this at the pixel level. (Example is from a Fuji X-Trans sensor that has a color filter array with a different pattern than most color filter arrays.)



A 1000% crop (10X magnification of each pixel) of an area in the same image:



The influence of the color filter array pattern is obvious:



The color filter array is functioning the same as when we use color filters in front of the lens with B&W film. Differently colored filters alter the tonal value of colored objects in the scene by differing amounts. In the case of the color filter array, the same objects have different tonal values depending on which microscopic color filter is placed over each photosite (a/k/a sensel, a/k/a "pixel" well) on the sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?

For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?

DLA is the point at which diffraction begins to influence sharpness when you view the image on your monitor at one image pixel per one screen pixel AND your eyes can resolve a single pixel on your screen.

The reason DLA is lower for sensors with higher pixel density is because when you view images at 100% on your screen, higher pixel densities result in in higher enlargement ratios. You're enlarging a 45MP image by a factor of 1.6X greater linear magnification than a 20MP image when you view them both at "100%" on the same screen. If you view both images at the same display size, then the "effective" DLA is the same for both, assuming your eyes can't resolve a single pixel from either image (or your screen is binning multiple pixels anyway to display the entire image on the lower resolution screen).

 

[Michael Clark]

The secondary purpose for deleting past work is of course to free up storage space (the original subject to which I responded).

For hobbyist photographers I see little point in retaining sub-par work, unless its sentimental value is greater than its artistic value (as per examples previously given).

It's not *necessary* to delete the sub-par images if one has endless storage capacity and the patience to review a much greater number of images, but in my experience regular reviewing and culling certainly helps - I don't need 10,000 images of an African elephant, so much better to just keep a couple of dozen of the best shots, and dump the rest. YMMV.

Who needs to take 10,000 images of an African elephant to get plenty of keepers?

 

[Michael Clark]

Why has it taken CANON
8 YEARS to update their High Resolution Model ?

So many have Jumped Ship to Fuji GFX system ALREADY

Rumours have it that Fuji and Sony working on 150 MP and 200 MP Models NOW

Because Canon is more focused on giving photographers what they can practically use instead of what they think they want?

 

[Michael Clark]

Uncle's Rog comments in the first link:

"So What Did We Learn Today?​

Well, mostly nothing, but there are a couple of things.
First, let me emphasize again that if we had a 150-megapixel camera and shot today’s lenses on it, the images would have more detail than that same lens on your current 36-megapixel camera."

Putting Michelin Pilot Sport tyres on a Lada is a real investment - it will double the value of the Lada.

No, it will just double the cost.

Value is based on what someone else would be willing to pay to buy it from you.

 

[entoman]

Who needs to take 10,000 images of an African elephant to get plenty of keepers?

Take my word for it, there are plenty of photographers, including professionals, who will shoot at maximum burst rate and return home with hundreds or thousands of images of a given subject. Some will even keep the whole lot indefinitely, unless they run out of storage space. I know a guy who has about 1000 images of every species of British butterfly. He never culls his images, just hoards them. Makes no sense to me. Over the years, I've probably taken about 200 images of African elephants, all of which most people would probably consider good enough to be "keepers", but I've only kept about 20, as I only want to keep my best work.

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe CR will stop peddling such garbage for another decade.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that to happen.

 

[entoman]

Value is based on what someone else would be willing to pay to buy it from you.

It depends on how you define "value".
You appear to think only in terms of monetary value.
There are other values, e.g. artistic, sentimental, etc.

 

[Michael Clark]

Take my word for it, there are plenty of photographers, including professionals, who will shoot at maximum burst rate and return home with hundreds or thousands of images of a given subject. Some will even keep the whole lot indefinitely, unless they run out of storage space. I know a guy who has about 1000 images of every species of British butterfly. He never culls his images, just hoards them. Makes no sense to me. Over the years, I've probably taken about 200 images of African elephants, all of which most people would probably consider good enough to be "keepers", but I've only kept about 20, as I only want to keep my best work.

Maybe you need to keep doing you and don't worry so much about what others do? Insisting that one's way of doing things is the ONLY way of doing something is a sign of insecurity.

 

[Michael Clark]

It depends on how you define "value".
You appear to think only in terms of monetary value.
There are other values, e.g. artistic, sentimental, etc.

1) It was a tongue in cheek comment.

2) In the context of the comment to which I was responding, it seems to me the intent of the original comment was exactly about monetary value, not artistic nor sentimental. Since when does a new set of high performance tires add artistic or sentimental value to a low performance vehicle?

 

[entoman]

Maybe you need to keep doing you and don't worry so much about what others do? Insisting that one's way of doing things is the ONLY way of doing something is a sign of insecurity.

Maybe you are so insecure that you have to challenge everyone here tonight?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe you are so insecure that you have to challenge everyone here tonight?

Although the night isn’t over, I will point out that @Michael Clark did not challenge this reply to his post:

Yes, it started here when you showed us that you don’t know how image resolution is defined. And it continued here when you showed us that you don’t know how areal resolution is measured (reminder: not in MP). If you’d like to continue this conversation, it should be with you admitting that you were wrong.

Since he brought up the subject of insecurity, it’s worth noting that an inability to admit when one is wrong is a major sign of it.

 

[Michael Clark]

There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

Have you tried to reserve time on it?

 

[Michael Clark]

Is 8 MPIX not enough - or why did you upgrade?

When he wanted other improvements and they weren't offered in an 8 MP camera?

 

[Michael Clark]

smh at Petapixels coverage of this rumor from CR (incorrectly for clicks)

It must be exhausting for them to jump to conclusions so quickly

PetaPixel gonna' PetaPixel.

 

[RickWagoner]

I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.

With Bird photography you always want the reach (or perceived reach with a crop). Even throwing on a 800mm lens on a full frame is never enough. Bird shooters always want crop in camera because when you spray and pray then try to crop each one down later it would take days to do, esp if you are going out and blasting 900+ photos in a day. Full Frame camera usually offer better features and bodies than crop bodies so lots of bird shooters will go with full frame if they can get a decent FPS and buffer. The old Nikon D750 was a huge hit with bird shooters because of it's crop mode and the advantages that came with it.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.

If Canon follows the 5D s example I would expect they will leave the feature set nearly identical to the R5 and reserve most new features for the R5 II.

The 5Ds and 5Ds R had a few features the 5D Mark III did not, though it is arguable if some of them made much of a difference for the intended use cases of the 50 MP bodies.

Flicker reduction and an RGB+IR light meter are the first two that come to mind.

Then barely a year later the 5D Mark IV came along with all of the improvements of the 5Ds over the 5D Mark III, plus a few more.

By the time this 100MP+ camera is available, the R5 Mark II might be barely a year away with somewhere around 50-60MP.

There may have been more than a few folks who bought the 5Ds that didn't really want/need 50MP but did want/need more than the 22MP 5D Mark III who wished they had waited another year for the 30MP 5D Mark IV.