Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan

EduPortas

EOS T7i
Jul 1, 2015
81
35
Here comes the new 7D. Just in time, as per usual with Canon.

Let's hope they take a stab at the D500, anticipating the inevitable D500s.
 

ronaldbyram

Photographing the Adventure
Nov 5, 2012
72
6
61
Charlote NC
if this in fact does replace my Beloved 7D 2. I hope it has the speed and the Buffer to handle the thrruput! Else I guess we have to wait for a EOS R to step up?
 

Cochese

EOS T7i
Oct 22, 2014
87
32
The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big and compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.

I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.

I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.
Cool for you, but we regularly do prints up to and sometimes over 8ft x 4ft. We're not really all that niche of a thing either. Having extra resolution is almost always a joy to work with. I was never satisfied with the output from any of my 18mp cameras, but my 5DMIV, that's pretty close to perfect. Great dynamic range and resolution. Though, most of the largest prints usually utilize the D850. Previously, the D800. The D850 is an impressive camera in terms of both dynamic range and resolution. That said, it's great to know that you can tell "left" from "right." Usually comes in handy. But unless you're referring to those who typically buy the cheapest DSLR possible, you never truly know what kind of camera somebody would get the most use out of.
I don't have a macro lens for full frame, so I rely on my old 60 2.8 on crop. Great lens, but every time, every photo, I just wish I had a little bit more resolution. Or the 65mp-e.
 
Reactions: NetMage

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
770
80
From a few feet away, I bet it looks good. But you also have to know that resolution would be unacceptable to others. Many others, many pros, and many in the publishing world where 300 ppi has been the typical minimum standard.
Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?
 

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
770
80
Your use of percentages is to say the least unusual.
Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.

But, more to the point, I and most nature photographers crop excessively as we are focal length limited and need every pixel we can get on the image. And there are a lot of us.
Could you quantify "a lot"?
 
Dec 6, 2016
256
154
Still worried that this will wi d up being a downgrade from the 7d2(overall) and an upgrade from the 80d. Hopefully it remains the same body as a 7d2.
 
Reactions: gwooding

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,007
1,782
Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.



Could you quantify "a lot"?
You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.

“A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.
 

Cryve

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2018
95
34
Germany
You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.

“A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.
Yup. But i can also understand the sentiment of Antono Refa. Most people probably wont need it. For most it will be a quality of life change for cropping capabilities.

People that that appreciate more megapixels are people that either print big or are range limited (like nature photographers).
Im a person that photographs wildlife and prints big, and this sensor could fit my needs very well.
 

Cochese

EOS T7i
Oct 22, 2014
87
32
Megapixels are the new extenders.

The new RF 70-200 doesn't support extenders. Why bother when with a 70mpx+ body you can just crop in significantly and get a super image.
There is only so much you can do with cropping until you need a longer telephoto. Even at 70mp, you're going to want to get as close as possible.
 

ozturert

EOS M50
Jan 16, 2019
36
35
I think this will be 90D. Probably similar specs as 80D (fps, AF points, AF coverage etc..) with 4K.
Mark my words :)
 

BurningPlatform

EOS T7i
Mar 4, 2014
69
13
I do think that the choice of resolution is a bit odd, considered from video view point. Sensor width is not 8k compatible, nor is it 6k. And it is not a multiple of 4k either. Which makes it difficult to to produce video without additional crop with the easy (though not the best) method of pixel binning. This camera will be probably photo oriented, but as Canon will probably use the same sensor across the APS-C line of cameras, this is perhaps not good news for hybrid shooters. But well, it they manage to produce video through over-sampling, no problem.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
388
334
As mentioned, that's not a "stopped race"; it's a matter of tire safety. It becomes exponentially harder to make tires that can safely sustain high speeds for the required amount of time, so if your car can eventually get up to 165mph but you don't want the tires to cost $300/per, you put in an electronic limiter at 155mph/250kph.

On-topic, count me in the crew entirely happy wtih ~30mpx.
I know it's off-topic...and I apologize.:oops:
But the decision to stop raising top-speed above 250 k/mh was taken in Europe by Daimler, BMW and Audi mostly because of extremely high development costs, AND because Germany is the only country where you can legally attain these speeds, on less than 1% of the roads!

Back to topic: for me , 30 MP are sufficient, apart from macro photography, where, to get enough depth of field, i shoot at some distance, and then crop!
So, I'm impatiently waiting for the high-MP EOS R, also to fit it with the RF 1,2/85, provided I "find" the money. (gaasp)
 

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
838
188
Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?
300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc. You do not need to take my word for it, it is something very easy to confirm with a few searches:

So, you ask how many photographers are there that should be concerned about 300 ppi? At a minimum, anyone that wants to publish. But, really, I would argue, anyone interested in high quality prints. I understand your 115-130 ppi print likely looks good. I have a couple up myself in the 200-250 ppi range. But my prints that are greater than 300 ppi do look better, IMO.

Another way to look at this is if you went someplace to print, they have guides or warnings if your ppi/dpi is too low. The lowest setting is usually around 100 ppi, the "excellent" settings are usually > 300 ppi.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
770
80
You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.
That's because your view of the world is biased. When on a nature photographic trip, you're likely to see more nature photographers then there in the general population. Same with this forum. My two cousins who bought a rebel w/ 2-3 lenses and shoot occasionally don't even know this site exists. I doubt any of their photos were ever printed larger than 4x6, if at all. They still bought the photo shop seller's spiel about how they need more MP.

“A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.
So you think cameras sold to "fellows lugging around telephotos" on nature photographic trips are on the order of 1 out of every 1000 sold? Good for you, but I don't buy it.