A leaked document suggests that Canon has a 63mp full frame image sensor in the works.

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
Wow...this thread spun into name calling fast...
For me, the megapixel race was over once I hit 20-ish full frame mp and that was a long time ago. A good photo is a good photo regardless of the quantity of pixels over that particular boundary. I have no desire for a 5DSR even though I take a lot of landscapes. In my humble and probably biased opinion...anything over 24mp is koolaid and pushed by camera marketers and people who photograph walls and lens charts. Give me a well rounded and super versatile camera like a 5Dmk4 any day over a 5Dsr or what ever the latest super high mega pixel bragging monster will be. It's a bit like the frame rate argument....I've never seen the need for 14 fps either and I've shot on many wildlife workshops. Anything over 5 fps is more than adequate if one times their shot. Only the "pray and spray" shooters seem to need more. I can't see many clients choosing images because of a greater system resolution vs a great photo.
I largely agree with your argumentation. What I like about the 5DsR is that extra 3D-pop it tends to render, especially when paired with good lenses like Zeiss primes. I also very much like that the anti-aliasing filter is cancelled out as I really don't miss it and it mostly just blurs out pictures.

On the other hand, the resolution of displays increases (Full HD --> 4K --> soon 8K... however pointless 8K is with regards to the limits of human vision and common viewing distances, but that's another story) and cropping also occurs dependent on the type of photography we do and the motives we capture. This is where resolution becomes dear to people, especially birders and wildlife photographers I imagine. However, the utility is largely about probability of needing it versus the costs of having it. I can nothing else than fully acknowledge that even my years old 5DsR is a very niche camera, and the 5DIV is simply better for all-round photography -- unless you often face the needs to crop in or print really huge.

EDIT: Similarly I see use of high fps for a few photographers who need that to capture the moment, the occurrence of which happens in times that fall beyond our human reflex times. I'm again thinking about bird and wildlife photographers, but also sports and such stuff where things happen very fast and spray-and-pray is the only way to reliably capture the best moments. One should keep in mind that those are all corner cases with regards to some sort of "virtual" average of photography needs.

That said, I believe there is a need for those niche features and performance levels. However, I see that all-round cameras and typical photographers will more likely be limited by baking these in just to make them look competitive on spec sheets because of all the ungrounded hype out there.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,555
1,990
I don't see how what I wrote implies what you claim. I'm a Canon shooter and don't claim that my current camera is useless although it doesn't match its competition as far as the overall performance goes.
The background, from the source who analyzed the 'leaked' (or fabricated) information:
it's NOT a newer design. If you look at the pinouts from a 6D Mark II sensor, it uses an on board ADC and is probably the same tech level as this sensor.
it has the exact same DR response as the 6D Mark II sensor.
Your claim:
The bad thing is its usefulness for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.
The obvious inference is that Canon cameras are useless outside the studio (except perhaps the 5DIV). The 1D X, the 5DIII, 5Ds/R, etc., all have similar DR to the 6DII and thus to this rumored 63 MP sensor. So you implied they are useless outside the studio. Clearly ridiculous.


Let me clearify further: As long as they improve on the DR, I don't mind increased resolution. The former is just more important to me at this time; and I believe to most photographers out there (perhaps except birders). I'm seldom hindered by resolution limitations; but very often by DR limitations.
You may believe that, but your belief doesn't make it any more true than the beliefs of Flat Earthers. Lots of members here have explicitly stated they don't need more DR, others the opposite. Even for those who need/want more DR, do you really believe that 'even half a stop of extra DR' would be sufficient for most people? Personally, it would really make little difference. The frequency at which 13 stops of DR is not enough to capture full scene DR but 13.5 stops will do so is vanishingly low. Granted, more is always better. But usually a little more isn't enough, and once you're exposure blending (HDR, luminosity masks, whatever), that extra 0.5 or 1 stop of DR is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
The obvious inference is that Canon cameras are useless outside the studio (except perhaps the 5DIV). The 1D X, the 5DIII, 5Ds/R, etc., all have similar DR to the 6DII and thus to this rumored 63 MP sensor. So you implied they are useless outside the studio. Clearly ridiculous.
There it nothing obvious about it to me. The 6DII is not a bad camera, but it is an entry-level full-frame camera, not really a pro-grade model (yes, you and a ton of other people can argue about that).
I wouldn't accept any lesser DR than the 5DsR has, and even that I only tolerate in light of what the competition has had for almost a decade and what I actually so often would benefit from in my shooting.
The fact that Canon released the 6DII sensor and optimized it for high-ISO performance at the cost of low-ISO performance is something that makes that camera utterly uninteresting to me (with regards to my shooting, mostly landscape, architecture, and portrait).
Lastly, your claim is correct about that the 5DIV, 1DXII and 5Ds* and eventually also EOS R cameras are the only ones from Canon that appeal to me (EDIT: they all have better base-ISO DR than the 6DII: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II___1009_1106_1170 ). The other ones I don't even consider due to their performance limitations. I owned a 7D before and while the camera served me well and helped me grow in photography, it really doesn't match the image output of the 5DsR for my shooting, not to talk about some of Canon's competition nowadays.
I own quite some Canon glass and I like several aspects of Canon cameras. That makes me stick with them and wait until they close the gap between them and their competition when it comes to image quality. And it's about time. I think that says it from my side.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,555
1,990
There it nothing obvious about it to me. The 6DII is not a bad camera, but it is an entry-level full-frame camera, not really a pro-grade model (yes, you and a ton of other people can argue about that).
I wouldn't accept any lesser DR than the 5DsR has, and even that I only tolerate in light of what the competition has had for almost a decade and what I actually so often would benefit from in my shooting.
The fact that Canon released the 6DII sensor and optimized it for high-ISO performance at the cost of low-ISO performance is something that makes that camera utterly uninteresting to me (with regards to my shooting, mostly landscape, architecture, and portrait).
Lastly, your claim is correct about that the 5DIV, 1DXII and 5Ds* and eventually also EOS R cameras are the only ones from Canon that appeal to me (EDIT: they all have better base-ISO DR than the 6DII: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II___1009_1106_1170 ). The other ones I don't even consider due to their performance limitations. I owned a 7D before and while the camera served me well and helped me grow in photography, it really doesn't match the image output of the 5DsR for my shooting, not to talk about some of Canon's competition nowadays.
I own quite some Canon glass and I like several aspects of Canon cameras. That makes me stick with them and wait until they close the gap between them and their competition when it comes to image quality. And it's about time. I think that says it from my side.
“I wouldn’t accept...,“ and, “...appeal to me,” fine and no argument. “Useless for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.,” not so much.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,461
319
UK
www.flickr.com
I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.
Each to their own, but I used the 5Ds exactly as I had done the 5D3 and aside from slightly faster shutter speeds I didn't change my technique at all (I think tere's a lot of mystique around these high MP cameras that doesn't chime with my experience).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape and AlanF

Diko

7 fps...
Apr 27, 2011
433
5
37
Sofia, Bulgaria
You may believe that, but your belief doesn't make it any more true than the beliefs of Flat Earthers. Lots of members here have explicitly stated they don't need more DR, others the opposite. Even for those who need/want more DR, do you really believe that 'even half a stop of extra DR' would be sufficient for most people? Personally, it would really make little difference. The frequency at which 13 stops of DR is not enough to capture full scene DR but 13.5 stops will do so is vanishingly low. Granted, more is always better. But usually a little more isn't enough, and once you're exposure blending (HDR, luminosity masks, whatever), that extra 0.5 or 1 stop of DR is irrelevant.
I guess I switched sides.... the other day I pulled from a photo from a sunny day with deep shadows on a photo (the usual nightmare without additional light). The LR Auto Tone did a decent job on the RAW photo, but tried to brighten the shadow to the end and pushed the Highlights..... I had the DR and yet it looked HDR unnatural to me already.

Where HDR is needed one can pull it off with an HDR bracket from hand so I really don't see a lot more to ask for DR unless in specific photography field.​
Go check my posts. Coming from 40D background I was begging for DR, but now with LR 8 and 5D4 I could hardly want more. Of course I would be NOT expecting anything less for the new DSLR 5DSr (gee! what retarded moron made the same naming nomenclature for the MILCs and the High MP DSLR bodies?!*@!).​
Here is an example of how far things can be pushed from a single cr2 file and for me that is so unnatural and yet covering it all as information.​
184015
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
“I wouldn’t accept...,“ and, “...appeal to me,” fine and no argument. “Useless for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.,” not so much.
Right, I take the latter part (about uselessness) back - it was an exaggerated statement put in context of what camera competition is out there nowadays and what challenges I often face in my own photography (that is not birding).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,555
1,990
I guess I switched sides.... the other day I pulled from a photo from a sunny day with deep shadows on a photo (the usual nightmare without additional light). The LR Auto Tone did a decent job on the RAW photo, but tried to brighten the shadow to the end and pushed the Highlights..... I had the DR and yet it looked HDR unnatural to me already.

Where HDR is needed one can pull it off with an HDR bracket from hand so I really don't see a lot more to ask for DR unless in specific photography field.​
Go check my posts. Coming from 40D background I was begging for DR, but now with LR 8 and 5D4 I could hardly want more. Of course I would be NOT expecting anything less for the new DSLR 5DSr (gee! what retarded moron made the same naming nomenclature for the MILCs and the High MP DSLR bodies?!*@!).​
Here is an example of how far things can be pushed from a single cr2 file and for me that is so unnatural and yet covering it all as information.​
My point (inaccurately summed up as more is better) is really that more doesn't hurt. Given a choice between having 12 stop s of DR and having 12.5 or 13, as long as I'm not giving anything up, why not?

Regarding 'had the DR and yet it looked HDR unnatural to me already', I agree. Sometimes shadows should be dark!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,555
1,990
Right, I take the latter part (about uselessness) back - it was an exaggerated statement put in context of what camera competition is out there nowadays and what challenges I often face in my own photography (that is not birding).
Fair enough, thanks.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
304
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
The resolution is useful mostly for cropping or if you wish to print really huge. The first problem you can solve by getting a longer lens. The second problem seems more legit to me although largely unfaced, because you [almost] only can make panoramas of static scenes.
One doesn't solve the need for cropping by getting a longer lens. You get a longer lens and you still need to crop from time to time.

Also with large prints, you'll struggle to print a 6000x4000 image even on A2 at 300ppi, and if you crop, you'll struggle even more.
 

caffetin

EOS M50
Apr 20, 2019
40
15
well,i am I'm a little confused cos I am new in photography.can somebody explain me why is canon EOS-1D X Mark II best camera pro with only 20mpx compared with lets say 5ds/r or the upcoming 70+ mpx r.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diko
The bit that recapitulates much of the trolling on this forum is, “...more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.” Personally, I’m still wondering when the competition will come up with a FF sensor with >50 MP or a sensor with millions of AF points, both of which Canon has offered for years while their competitors have trailed behind. But people will go on thinking their opinions represent those of the majority despite evidence to the contrary.
There is imo no evidence to the evidence of the contrary - there's just a majority, which does not care. Off course there is many ppl always lusting for a better gear, more emotionally, than rationally, being quite vocal - myself included. We don't make your life easier, do we? :)
 

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,148
188
Dogs wearing balloons. It's just weird. :p
Not a single cat in the photo with so many dogs and you call this natural? But seriously, that image look and feel reminds me a marmalade candy. Uh, you know what. A lollipop is a better word to use that describes my initial response.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Diko

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,148
188
There is imo no evidence to the evidence of the contrary - there's just a majority, which does not care. Off course there is many ppl always lusting for a better gear, more emotionally, than rationally, being quite vocal - myself included. We don't make your life easier, do we? :)
Yes, you do, indeed!
Please sell or trade in you cameras and lenses for the latest and greatest shiny new toys the moment Sony/Oly/ who-ever-not announces the new photographic miracle that is oh so amaZing.
I will gladly buy your instantly outdated pro quality lenses and old-fart pro grade Canon DSLR for pennies in the dollar. :) pretty please, my friend!
 

caffetin

EOS M50
Apr 20, 2019
40
15
Best for what?
well I am interested generally for macro,extreem macro and street photo.but onе thing I can steel not understand are mega pixels.if y have more than y are able to get more details.Does it mean that the less mxp I have I am loosing more details?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diko