Canon executives say a lot more coming in 2019

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
734
84
Not that there was any doubt, but trolls do usually out themselves at some point.
I'm confused, Neuro. Are you calling me a troll?

I just want to confirm this, because, as you know, I've been on this forum for years. So, please, confirm it for me.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,182
229
Davidson, NC
75 mpx is definitely over kill for event work. I will most likely shoot mRAW if I buy it.

I print huge with Canon 6D and also with my 5D IV. I can't tell the differences. I also seen plenty of photographer using Sony A7III/A9 24 mpx sensor to print huge as well. I can't tell the difference either. If you search over the net, plenty of people use 24 mpx to print 24 x 36. I know photographers using 1DXII 20 mpx and it isn't a problem either.

If it's ever a concern, Panasonic S1 has an option for 96 mpx high resolution mode or buy 47 mpx S1R. It isn't a concern for me.
My first digital camera was a not-quite-4-megapixel Casio that had a Canon lens. I printed a 13" x 19" picture of a shot I took with it in 2002 of the Grand Pacific Glacier (I think it is called) in Alaska. It looks great, even at closer than normal viewing distance. The subject matter helps, I'm sure. Otherwise on my walls are prints I've made on that size paper from shots from my G7X II and before that the S120.

My front room doubles as a guest room or a sitting room. The furniture has a kind of island motif. I decided that before I had guests in last summer I'd print some of the shots I had taken in Hawaii the previous December, to put on the walls in that room. I picked out four pictures that I had posted on line. I could find the original RAW files for three of them to use in preparing the print files. The fourth, it turned out, had been made with my iPhone 6S. (Rather than always syncing the G7X II to the phone for GPS, I'll occasionally just do a shot with the phone, and I can figure out where I was at the time that way.) It's a contrasty picture at a beach, so not the most difficult thing to shoot, but still, it is not obvious that it was made with a phone camera even at that size.

I prefer to have about 300 pixels per inch for inkjet printing, but 170 can give really decent results, as in your 24 x 36 example, more or less. Also, the bigger the print, the farther away you are likely to view it, so you don't need so much resolution. After all, nobody but The Beaver views billboards up close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bokehmon22

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,568
2,004
I'm confused, Neuro. Are you calling me a troll?

I just want to confirm this, because, as you know, I've been on this forum for years. So, please, confirm it for me.
A long forum tenure and being a troll are certainly not mutually exclusive. Remember Mikael? :rolleyes:
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
355
186
My first digital camera was a not-quite-4-megapixel Casio that had a Canon lens. I printed a 13" x 19" picture of a shot I took with it in 2002 of the Grand Pacific Glacier (I think it is called) in Alaska. It looks great, even at closer than normal viewing distance. The subject matter helps, I'm sure. Otherwise on my walls are prints I've made on that size paper from shots from my G7X II and before that the S120.

My front room doubles as a guest room or a sitting room. The furniture has a kind of island motif. I decided that before I had guests in last summer I'd print some of the shots I had taken in Hawaii the previous December, to put on the walls in that room. I picked out four pictures that I had posted on line. I could find the original RAW files for three of them to use in preparing the print files. The fourth, it turned out, had been made with my iPhone 6S. (Rather than always syncing the G7X II to the phone for GPS, I'll occasionally just do a shot with the phone, and I can figure out where I was at the time that way.) It's a contrasty picture at a beach, so not the most difficult thing to shoot, but still, it is not obvious that it was made with a phone camera even at that size.

I prefer to have about 300 pixels per inch for inkjet printing, but 170 can give really decent results, as in your 24 x 36 example, more or less. Also, the bigger the print, the farther away you are likely to view it, so you don't need so much resolution. After all, nobody but The Beaver views billboards up close.
I think we reach a certain point where it is a diminish return for most photographers. 24-30 mpx should fulfill most photographers need. Most photographers aren't going to print large if at all. I only print large for my wedding clients. I'm sure there are few photographers that will benefit from such higher resolution monster, but they represent a niche. If the quality is unsatisfactory, I would use software to resize it.

I also use my living room to showcase my landscape and family pictures, but I try to limit only the best to be feature on high quality professional metal or acrylic on smaller size. At a much smaller print, 300 pixel/inch is easily achieve even with heavy cropping. I hate to clutter the wall too much.

60 mpx would be a workflow nightmare for 60 mpx from culling, editing, to storage (locals and cloud storage).
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
769
336
You must live in a parallel low contrast universe. Lee filter sales must be low there and no bracketing on cameras.
No, I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers actually had to pay attention to light instead of depending on DR and post-processing to rescue photos shot at poor angles with reference to the direction of the light.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,568
2,004
No, I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers actually had to pay attention to light instead of depending on DR and post-processing to rescue photos shot at poor angles with reference to the direction of the light.
I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.
 

jayphotoworks

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2016
187
57
I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.
I agree with this... as times and trends change, we learn to adapt and benefit from them. Those who don't, tend to get left behind.. I used to have a $200 Canon angle finder.. until I learned how useful a tilt flippy screen was and I don't even have to get my knees dirty. Heck, I don't even feel amateurish shooting this way anymore..
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,568
2,004
I used to have a $200 Canon angle finder.. until I learned how useful a tilt flippy screen was...
Thanks for the reminder. I still have one (although I bought it used for $50). Handy for macro shooting with my 1D X, although going forward I’ll be using my EOS R for that. Guess I should put the angle finder up for sale...
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
Canon seems to be saying opposite things. First camera market is going to collapse and then they are investing in it.

wonder what they game plan is? confuse the competition?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,568
2,004
Canon seems to be saying opposite things. First camera market is going to collapse and then they are investing in it.

wonder what they game plan is? confuse the competition?
All that’s confused is your interpretation. The camera market is collapsing, driven mainly by the precipitous drop in compact camera sales. A few year ago there were three times as many compact cameras sold as ILCs. Then twice as many. Last year there were more ILCs sold than compact cameras. ILC sales are also contracting, mainly due to market saturation. A strategy to focus more on higher margin items is reasonable to maintain profits in a contracting market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
913
28
Thanks for the reminder. I still have one (although I bought it used for $50). Handy for macro shooting with my 1D X, although going forward I’ll be using my EOS R for that. Guess I should put the angle finder up for sale...
My first real camera is an Exakta II b. Waist level/ ground level view finder is standard view finder
 

QuisUtDeus

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2019
115
80
I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.
It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.

If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,097
1,576
Canada
It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.

If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.
There are definitely times when you want manual focus, or to manually set shutter speed, F stop, ISO, or whatever. That’s why almost all cameras have an M mode and most lenses have an AF ON/OFF switch..... but yeah, I really like the ability to go AUTO when you want. No such thing on my old Nikon or OM-1. Certainly not on a 4X5 :)
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
My question has more to do with why Canon's video sensors appear to have reached technical parity with Sony's (though I'm sure many will debate this, my experience is the C300 Mk II has more DR than the FS7, though not by much) while their still sensors are lagging. I doubt their cinema cameras have enough horsepower to blend dual pixel exposures in the manner you mention, and you'd think they could apply the same technology to their stills cameras.
Canon does some fancy things with their video sensors, but it's not really comparable to stills. they basically do HDR in the video stream to create a wider DR video capability.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
769
336
I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.
As do I. Modern AF systems when used properly tend to perform better than even the best shooters could during the MF period. Just go back and critically examine some of the iconic sports/action photos from the second half of the 20th century.

To my eye there's still no comparison between an image shot using good light and one shot in poor light and then doctored in post, even when doctored by the best PS wizards.

Yes, one can make those shots that were taken in less than ideal light better now than one could in the past.

Yes, sometimes the only choices are between a shot using less than ideal light or no shot at all.

But there is still no substitute for an image that is captured when the lighting is right. Such an image also leaves a lot more room for what can be done with it in processing.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
734
84
Debate requires a debate worthy opponent to start with. I don't see anyone worthy there. Sorry. Go and play in your fantasy world.
Yeah, I agree with that sentiment, you're not worth it- too much childish ignorance and not enough personality.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
734
84
It's always amazing the rabbit holes that these threads go down. Start with a post about Canon executives saying they have a lot in the pipeline for the next year, and nine pages later we are debating Netflix minimum standards for original content.

Okay, I'll play. Those Netflix standards sound a lot like most minimum requirements. They are written to pare down submissions. It's what any enterprise does when the supply is so much greater than the demand. If you have 10,000 would-be filmmakers every day wanting to submit their pride and joy, you set a bunch of standards that will weed out 9,990 of them, so your staff only has to deal with 10 a day. In the meantime, you've got a handful of other people actively looking for examples of exceptional talent. If they discover some future Orson Welles, Wes Anderson or Spike Lee who shot a real work of genius on an iPhone, they are gonna buy it no matter what their specs say.

No one is arguing this point. They are just arguing its relevancy to this forum and this thread.
Actually, some people are still arguing the relevancy of 4K...which is how all that started.

Totally agree with you on the gist of your post- doesn't matter if the next Wes Anderson shoots something on dog crap, if it's amazing, the industry will overlook that point. But when you're in film business, you want to comply with the format requirements as much as possible, because they will look for ways to disqualify you...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
769
336
It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.

If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.
Sometimes what is true for apples may not be true for oranges.

With transmissions, it all depends upon the application. Heavy commercial trucks with diesel engines and 9 to 18 speed non-synchronized transmissions can be shifted by a microprocessor (which also controls the throttle input to the engine during a shift) and servos. They will do better than the average or novice driver. But some of the most experienced drivers can still get better fuel mileage than the computer can, because not only do they know the torque, horsepower, and fuel efficiency curves of the engine, but they can also see things ahead, such an approaching hill or downgrade, or traffic signals a quarter mile away, that the computer can't factor into the equation. (They can also shift faster than the microprocessors are programmed to do). As systems become increasingly sophisticated, there will probably come a day when GPS and other data is incorporated into the shifting routine that will allow for approaching grades or traffic signals to be included in shift point decisions, but they are nowhere near there yet, even with the "autonomous" vehicles.

Or take anti-lock brakes. They can outperform the average driver using non-ABS brakes in stopping in less that ideal (or for some drivers, even in ideal) conditions. But the best race car drivers in the world can still outperform anti-lock brakes because they can anticipate the changing conditions of the road surface ahead before the tires begin to slip or stop slipping. Some can even modulate the brake application faster than generic ABS systems do.