Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
816
113
300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc.
I don't doubt most publications have a 300ppi minimum standard, it's the magazines having 30"x40" posters in them that I doubt.

So, you ask how many photographers are there that should be concerned about 300 ppi?
No. I'm asking how many photographers are there that are printing their photos poster size at about 300 ppi.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,468
2,637
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.



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.
Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic etc all do high resolution and low resolution models because there is a demand for both. I am not telling you that you need a high resolution resolution but simply pointing out that there are enough of us who do. It is your biased view that your two cousins bought cameras with too many pixels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage

ohm

Apr 8, 2019
5
0
I'm new to canon, having just purchased an 80D. I love it: decent build, ease of use, okay image quality, and great colours. I wish the next iteration did away with or thinned out the low pass filter, because images from it are soft- at least next to modern mirrorless cameras as well as cameras without LPFs. If truly they merge the 7D and x0D lines, I hope for some of the body sturdiness of the 7D plus all the cool flip-out stuff from the x0D series.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,366
776
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:
300 ppi is relevant for bitmap graphic art being sent to a printer or imagesetter with an underlying grid that's a multiple of 300. That's because line art doesn't scale well with fractional jumps. Though the scaling algorithms available today do a far better job than they did when these numbers became standards.

It has no relevance for color or B&W photographic images with modern scaling algorithms. Say you have a 200 ppi image that looks sharp and detailed enough for the subject and the target view size, and someone in the production chain insists on a 300 ppi file. You can literally just rez it up in PS and send it to them.

From testing I've found a native resolution of roughly 180 ppi to be acceptable. My preference is to be above 200 ppi with 240 ppi being excellent. There's very little to gain at 300 ppi or 360 ppi (360 being the highest true resolution for any non-primary color on a 2880x1440 dpi Epson printer when the halftone is taken into account). Again, this is speaking of photographs. Monochromatic line art and type can benefit all the way to 1200 dpi and higher.

If you're printing directly to a pro photo ink jet there is no reason to resize the image at all unless the native resolution at the target print size falls below around 150 ppi. The printer driver can scale the image to its underlying dot matrix better than PS can. But if the resolution is too low the printer will faithfully reproduce the pixels and they will start to become apparent. If you rez up you can smooth the pixel edges out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quarkcharmed

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,173
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I don't doubt most publications have a 300ppi minimum standard, it's the magazines having 30"x40" posters in them that I doubt.



No. I'm asking how many photographers are there that are printing their photos poster size at about 300 ppi.
What is it about the internet that causes people to double down when they ought to just concede they were wrong and move on?

This whole argument is ignorant. If you don't need or want higher megapixels, just save to one of the formats that has less. But, don't dismiss what others need.
 

djack41

EOS 80D
Jul 12, 2014
149
103
You do realize that you can down sample an image to the MP count you want and get the same result you are describing though?
Are you saying that down sampling enhances DR and noise performance? Hmmm.....guess pixel size doesn't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YnR

AaronT

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
154
221
Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?
OMG, I am really tired of the "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI" crap that people espouse. You do NOT speak for me. I have a Canon iPF6400 printer and 300PPI, or 300DPI, is my Holy Grail to get the Best, not second best, from my printer. Below is a photo I stitched together from 12 shots from a lowly 5D MKII. The final file size is a 367 MP TIFF. I also included 2 100% crops. I print my photos to make ME happy, not you. If you are happy with 18 MP photos I am happy for you. If you like a low rez 24x36 print I am happy for you. But don't include me with your "anyone" statement. My personal standards when it comes to photography are obviously higher than yours. And so are a lot of others on this forum. BTW, this photo was shot from 3,000 feet away across the Detroit River so atmospheric conditions may have hurt the sharpness a bit.
184437


184438


184439
 
Last edited:

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
816
113
Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic etc all do high resolution and low resolution models because there is a demand for both.
Of course there is, I never said otherwise.

I am not telling you that you need a high resolution resolution but simply pointing out that there are enough of us who do.
Of course there is, I never said otherwise.

It is your biased view that your two cousins bought cameras with too many pixels.
They are but an example of your bias - you are surrounded mainly by pros, and miss the unwashed masses who have no choice except buying cameras with too many pixels. Which isn't my point either. My point is there's a lot of traffic about higher resolution sensor, which is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need / benefit from it.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
816
113
What is it about the internet that causes people to double down when they ought to just concede they were wrong and move on?
I don't know. Ask someone who was wrong.

This whole argument is ignorant. If you don't need or want higher megapixels, just save to one of the formats that has less. But, don't dismiss what others need.
You seem to have missed my point, which is the number of posts about sensor resolution is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need more nowadays.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
816
113
OMG, I am really tired of the "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI" crap that people espouse.
Oh, I'm sure some people do. My point is they are few and afar, far beyond the number of posts we see about 'ooh, ah, we could get 10 more MP!'
 

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
128
91
UK
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.
Us birders often crop to the extreme. Obviously it is never a stellar image but cropping to 10% of the original image size to better frame a small or distant bird isn’t unusual. Got some shots of a blue dacnis the other day which I’ll be doing just that!
 

QuisUtDeus

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2019
115
80
Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.
"The term occurs so rarely in English that major dictionaries do not agree on the spelling or pronunciation even within a single dialect of English " (Wikipedia, with references to multiple dictionaries and several without mention of it). FWIW, I'm generally the nerdiest nerd in the room and had never come across those. "Unusual" is a fair description, yes.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
200
122
Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?
300dpi gives a viewing distance of 1ft. That's entirely reasonable for a poster-print hanging in a living room, when someone wants to take a close look to identify a feature or person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape and NetMage

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,468
2,637
Of course there is, I never said otherwise.



Of course there is, I never said otherwise.



They are but an example of your bias - you are surrounded mainly by pros, and miss the unwashed masses who have no choice except buying cameras with too many pixels. Which isn't my point either. My point is there's a lot of traffic about higher resolution sensor, which is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need / benefit from it.
I have made it absolutely clear that I am a member of group that wants high megapixel sensors because they aid our type of photography. If you consider that as a "bias", then you are biased also.
 

yeahright

EOS M50
Aug 28, 2014
41
13
Isn't the discussion a bit pointless if you essentially agree that some people want a higher number of pixels while most don't? Essentially the argument is about whether a thousand people out of a million can be considered 'many', 'some', or 'few'. (Please consider these numbers as mere examples.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,112
356
I don't know. Ask someone who was wrong.



You seem to have missed my point, which is the number of posts about sensor resolution is not proportional to the percentage of photographers who actually need more nowadays.
And why should it be proportional in a thread about a rumored 32.5 mp aps-c sensor?
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,426
84
65
To all the 7D MKII owners out there. If it is a 7D MKIII you better upgrade your PC / MacBook and external hard drives, I had to when I bought the 5DS. Those larger files soon eat up space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie shooter

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,173
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I don't know. Ask someone who was wrong.
Okay, I will be more direct. Why are you doubling down?

I guess I will make one more fruitless attempt to explain (even though I know you have no interest in an intelligent exchange but just want to argue).

Maybe 99% of people don't need 32 mp sensors. So what? 99% are using cell phones anyway. Digital cameras have become a niche market and Canon's path to success/survival is serving that niche market. A significant and profitable niche market is wildlife, bird and sports photographers. Many of us have both Full Frame and Crop Sensor bodies. We use them for different purposes. The Crop Sensors come out when we are distance limited or under other circumstances when the crop sensor better fits our needs. We have a thirst for more megapixels because the nature of what we shoot using a crop sensor camera requires cropping, sometimes significant cropping.

You say your point is that the number of posts by people who want more megapixels is disproportionate to the number of people in the general population that need or want more megapixels. So what? This is a thread about a sensor with more megapixels, on a geek forum devoted to new camera technology and read by the less than 1% of the population who are the actual targets of these products. Why shouldn't it generate interest among those who want more megapixels?

BTW, given your insistence on holding on to an idea that others have decisively shown to be invalid, I have to ask, did you used to post under the name Dilbert?
 
Last edited: