46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]

[canon816]

definately not somethign to pre-order without seeing test results I'm just wondering how much ISO performance has to give in order to get the DR. its gonna be a good show to watch, but from preliminary indications this won't be seen at very many weddings :. In order to make an industry contribution is appears Canon has to make a fairly sharp distinction between the studio/'scape body and the wedding/event body.

If these specs are correct... this camera will be ideal for landscape and studio photogs.... not weddings or sports/wildlife.

Oh I think it would be quite excellent for wildlife because when you crop the picture, you'll have the same ability to crop as with the 7D. It would be the full frame version of the 7D, except perhaps in fps. Birders would love it.

I also see it as being used by quite a number of wedding photographers (that aren't amateurs pretending.)

As a wildlife photographer I shoot primarily from ISO 800 through ISO 6400. It would be a great camera if it could hold up with high ISO, but I doubt it will. This camera will likely be a beast at ISO 100-400 and have an expanded DR which is perfect for landscapes and studio.

Until the 1DX came a long the best wildlife camera out there has been the D3S with 10mp.

While I agree it would be nice to be able to crop and still have a ton of pixels (like a crop sensor 7D), the part that will likely disappoint here is that it will have the same IQ as a 7D... which quite frankly is not that good.

I doubt it will be a great wedding camera for the same reasons I doubt it would be a good wildlife camera.... High ISO performance, or lack there-of.

Just my .02

 

[unfocused]

Oh I think it would be quite excellent for wildlife because when you crop the picture, you'll have the same ability to crop as with the 7D. It would be the full frame version of the 7D, except perhaps in fps. Birders would love it.

I also see it as being used by quite a number of wedding photographers (that aren't amateurs pretending.)

This sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work in real life. The more you have to crop, the harder it is to nail the focus. So, while it sounds good to say you could simply take a full-frame camera of equal pixel density to a 7D and crop the image after the shoot, the most likely result will be images with missed focus points. If you need a 1.6 magnification, it is best to use a camera that provides a 1.6 magnification.

As for wedding photographers, I can't understand why they would pick this over the 5DIII, which was designed with their needs specifically in mind.

 

[dtaylor]

Oh I think it would be quite excellent for wildlife because when you crop the picture, you'll have the same ability to crop as with the 7D. It would be the full frame version of the 7D, except perhaps in fps. Birders would love it.

I also see it as being used by quite a number of wedding photographers (that aren't amateurs pretending.)

This sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work in real life. The more you have to crop, the harder it is to nail the focus. So, while it sounds good to say you could simply take a full-frame camera of equal pixel density to a 7D and crop the image after the shoot, the most likely result will be images with missed focus points.

A FF body with AF that sloppy would never work well with fast primes. When cropping FF shots if I've encountered a problem it has always been pixel density, not AF.

As for wedding photographers, I can't understand why they would pick this over the 5DIII, which was designed with their needs specifically in mind.

Because 46 MP will bury 22 MP on large prints of group shots.

 

[dtaylor]

As a wildlife photographer I shoot primarily from ISO 800 through ISO 6400. It would be a great camera if it could hold up with high ISO, but I doubt it will.

I don't. Noise performance is a function of technology, total sensor surface area, and then, to a much smaller degree than the first two, pixel size. It may be slightly worse than the 5D3 or 1Dx, but will be next to them, not next to the APS-C bodies.

This camera will likely be a beast at ISO 100-400 and have an expanded DR which is perfect for landscapes and studio.

DR on the other hand is directly related to pixel size, so a 46 MP sensor will do worse all other things being equal. 16-bit is a marketing gimmick if they can't actually get that much data out of each pixel. If they've worked around Sony's patent, then expect great DR despite the pixel density. If not, then expect slightly worse DR then their current FF sensors.

While I agree it would be nice to be able to crop and still have a ton of pixels (like a crop sensor 7D), the part that will likely disappoint here is that it will have the same IQ as a 7D... which quite frankly is not that good.

:

The 7D has excellent image quality, pretty much equivalent to the 5D2 through ISO 800. If you've ever stitched 3 frames from a 7D, you want a 46 MP FF sensor even with Canon's current technology (as opposed to Sony's).

 

[jrista]

If one of the OP's is correct and this 46MP sensor is a Foveon sensor, this is similar from what I understand is in Sigma DP MERRILL point and shoot that has a few good reviews. However if it was this simple and that great, wouldn't this already be a trend by now?

Last year I met a photographer who actually had done extensive research on this Foveon sensor and his advise to me then was to 'give them some time to perfect it'. He was shooting a Canon 5D2 and had numerous Sigma and Canon lenses but advised me to stay clear of that technology for now.

Your thoughts?

Correct! If I m not mistaken, the foveon research at Sigma was quite inflamed and there were many issues and delays. Not sure if Foveon had equal amount of R&D thrown at it as bayer filter sensors. Though I do think foveon is based on a more efficient idea... My hope (or perhaps rather wish) is that Canon has taken the time to, even if not perfect, improve the technology... To be seen though...

Cheers!

Based on the patents from Canon for their layered design and Sigma for the Foveon, the two designs are quite different. They would really have to be. Canon cannot create a layered sensor design that was the same as but somewhat improved over the Foveon...that would be infringing on Sigma's technology. Canon is less likely to improve Foveon as it is to design an entirely new approach to layered sensors. From what I can tell based on Canon's current patent, they may not actually be producing a "layered" sensor as much as they are taking a new approach towards utilizing the photodiode area in each pixel...some of it is allocated to red, some to green, some to blue, utilizing silicon itself to filter the light (same as Foveon), allowing a "single pixel" to detect all three colors. I am not sure what the real pros/cons of that might be, or if thats actually what they will end up doing in the long run. It seems more like a modified CFA approach than a true layered design like Foveon, and it might resolve one of the key issues with Foveon's design...differentiating how many electrons in a given photodiode are to be allocated to blue, green, and red readouts.

 

[stewy]

My only concerns are:
1. How much ISO at the top end will be sacrificed for this. I'd hope that this can still do 3200-6400 natively.
2. How much will something like this cost? A kidney?
3. I'd have to upgrade my computer. I'm using a 40D right now (10MP RAW) and my computer is managing fine. But post processing times will drop considerably when editing a 46MP file.
4. Storage space. This would require huge CF cards plus great disk space. My workflow usually involves converting to TIFF format then additional editing in Photoshop.

With a 46MP resolution, and if its priced higher than the 1DX, its going to be compared to medium format digital cameras. Unless Canon pulls off a miracle with the sensor, or use a MF sensor, it won't stand a chance when stacked up against the big boys.

 

[M.ST]

Postproduction with files from big megapixel cameras will slow down you workflow dramatically.

I have a very fast computer and graphic card, but if I load the 60 megapixel Raw or Tiff files from the Hasselbald into it, the computer seems to be lame duck.

If you want to store big files you have to invest in additional harddrives or san´s.

Remember that you can make prints up to DIN A2 with a camera between 20-24 megapixels.

Hint: There are a few different prototypes in the field for testing.

 

[well_dunno]

From what I can tell based on Canon's current patent, they may not actually be producing a "layered" sensor as much as they are taking a new approach towards utilizing the photodiode area in each pixel...some of it is allocated to red, some to green, some to blue, utilizing silicon itself to filter the light (same as Foveon), allowing a "single pixel" to detect all three colors. I am not sure what the real pros/cons of that might be, or if thats actually what they will end up doing in the long run. It seems more like a modified CFA approach than a true layered design like Foveon, and it might resolve one of the key issues with Foveon's design...differentiating how many electrons in a given photodiode are to be allocated to blue, green, and red readouts.

Thanks! That's useful! Do you have any info on to what extent photosite size would affect the DR and ISO performance? with the gapless microlens tech, and some 15.3 MP on the sensor the photosites would be fairly large, I imagine, but I wonder how that would translate into DR and ISO performance on a layered sensor...

Cheers!

 

[jrista]

From what I can tell based on Canon's current patent, they may not actually be producing a "layered" sensor as much as they are taking a new approach towards utilizing the photodiode area in each pixel...some of it is allocated to red, some to green, some to blue, utilizing silicon itself to filter the light (same as Foveon), allowing a "single pixel" to detect all three colors. I am not sure what the real pros/cons of that might be, or if thats actually what they will end up doing in the long run. It seems more like a modified CFA approach than a true layered design like Foveon, and it might resolve one of the key issues with Foveon's design...differentiating how many electrons in a given photodiode are to be allocated to blue, green, and red readouts.

Thanks! That's useful! Do you have any info on to what extent photosite size would affect the DR and ISO performance? with the gapless microlens tech, and some 15.3 MP on the sensor the photosites would be fairly large, I imagine, but I wonder how that would translate into DR and ISO performance on a layered sensor...

Cheers!

Well, we are assuming Canon would produce a sensor with that low of a resolution. They might...it might be their favorite size...18mp. It may be more dense. Either way....DR and noise will be key issues for any layered sensor, done Foveon-style or some other way. Foveon sensors don't fare well at high ISO, namely because green (the most prevalent band of light) and red are only registered deeper into the photodiode. Foveon senses blue at the top, green in the middle, and red at the bottom. This generally should balance things out, as silicon is more sensitive to red light than green, and more to green than blue. But there is also a lot more row/column activate and readout wiring (as well as some other control logic) per-pixel in a layered sensor than in a bayer sensor. That means there are more obstructions, so more light gets reflected or absorbed as heat at the green and red levels, reducing light further. Since this is INSIDE the photodiode, there isn't really any way you could use microlenses to mitigate the problem. A really advanced design might actually stack separate photodiodes, sandwiching microlens layers. I imagine that would be FAR more difficult to manufacture and very cost prohibitive.

However Canon does it (assuming they even ever do), you'll have to make some tradeoffs. DR for color fidelity and resolution (on a pixel-normal basis anyway.)

 

[well_dunno]

my hat is off to you sir!

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

Looking at the marketing side and possibilities of this new approach by Canon, it obviously is in direct competition to Nikon's D800 and with the masses focused on qty of MP, Canon is making sure they are at least more than 10% larger than Nikon's sensor.

My guess is the IQ will be much much better than the D800 and 5D3 with some of the trade offs inherited by this newer technology such as FPS and high ISO noise.

Should this new model 'fail' to get the market share, then Canon has dug a big hole for themselves. This HAS to work OR they have to have another trick in the bag.

As far as pricing, my 'guess' is around $4,200.

 

[marekjoz]

(...)

As far as pricing, my 'guess' is around $4,200.

It's really unpredictable and it can be $4900 or $9900 as well. The price will represent it's uniqueness in a specific area of photography and the better it really will be the higher price we should expect.
No dinner for free.
Although I like price polls

 

[Marsu42]

Although I like price polls

Here ye go ... www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9763

 

[nightbreath]

I think the price could be around $10-12k to compete with medium format. No one knows for sure :-\

 

[Ricku]

I think the price could be around $10-12k to compete with medium format. No one knows for sure :-\

Ehm no, it should be around $4.5K to compete with the D800.

Canon doesn't exist in isolation.

 

[Canon-F1]

Canon doesn't exist in isolation.

yep, but they don´t seem to notice...

 

[dadgummit]

Canon doesn't exist in isolation.

yep, but they don´t seem to notice...

^^ It is funny because it is true.

 

[tron]

Canon doesn't exist in isolation.

yep, but they don´t seem to notice...

^^ It is funny because it is true.

;D

 

[nightbreath]

I'm glad to see that you figured that out by yourself

The more you pay the more you believe that you get premium. I saw a post on this forum (don't remember where exactly) about cars in India, when a very cheap car has been developed it didn't become popular, it made popular the car that was next in the price range.

 

[ablearcher]

Pricing will depend on how this cam will be positioned by Canon. If its a more or less mass product and positioned against D800 then too high pricing (say over $4500) becomes unreasonable. $4500 is the price you can pay for D800 plus a decent lens, so a higher price for Canon will be an invitation to add a second system to the setup and not to buy Canon's new cam. If the new high MP cam is positioned as a niche market for high pros and will be able to compete IQ wise with medium format then I expect the price to be sky high. This however will not resolve the current situation for most users who are playing on 5DMKIII & D800 field and i believe this is where Canon could make a lot more $$. Canon's pricing strategy with 5DMKIII proved to be fundametally wrong, so I really hope they learned their lesson...