50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]

[Gary Irwin]

The questions become what quality suffering do cheaper non L lens photos are produce?

Which, if any, L lenses aresuitedfor 50MP?

I think you'll find most lenses including consumer lenses will not reveal significant problems with a 50MP camera PROVIDED the images are downsized to "normal" resolutions web posting or printing. But with weaker lenses problems will start to appear when cropping heavily (which is a temptation with all of those pixels...non-pro's will try to compensate for lack of long glass which gets really tricky working with such tiny pixels) or are printing/posting very high resolution images.

 

[Hazmatt]

This Sensor/Camera needs to so much more than just about Megapixels,having been a loyal Canon user for more years than i care to mention i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon. I so want this to be right and mirror less would be good as well. Canon's lens line up has become stellar and the super wide will probably arrive this year to make it complete.50mp must surely be the limit for FF sensor as other factors start creeping in that are detrimental to image quality as i understand it. Fingers crossed as this needs to be a Nikon 810 beater to put Canon back at the top.

 

[Marsu42]

The questions become what quality suffering do cheaper non L lens photos are produce?

Don't let Canon marketing confuse you, painting a red ring on a lens doesn't do any magic on its own. It's just a correlation if targeted iq, and price - that latter depends on production volume. There are very good non-L lenses around like the recent IS primes, not even starting to mention 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma which have excellent bang for the buck.

i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon.

The dynamic range at low iso of Nikon/Sony is tied to patents and sensor tech Canon doesn't have, so we'll have to see if they can come up with an alternative. Of course you can use Magic Lantern as a workaround to get single-shot dynamic range well above 14 stops in 16bit raw files for free right now.

But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.

 

[Lee Jay]

This Sensor/Camera needs to so much more than just about Megapixels,having been a loyal Canon user for more years than i care to mention i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon. I so want this to be right and mirror less would be good as well. Canon's lens line up has become stellar and the super wide will probably arrive this year to make it complete.50mp must surely be the limit for FF sensor as other factors start creeping in that are detrimental to image quality as i understand it. Fingers crossed as this needs to be a Nikon 810 beater to put Canon back at the top.

Mirrorless would make it DOA for probably 90% of its potential users, cleaner shadows at base ISO would be nice for a very limited amount of photography, and 50MP is no where close to the upper limit for a full-frame sensor. Think gigapixel.

 

[rfdesigner]

This Sensor/Camera needs to so much more than just about Megapixels,having been a loyal Canon user for more years than i care to mention i feel this is the last chance for Canon(for me) if we do not get clean shadows and better DR the 5d2 will be the last camera i will have purchased from Canon. I so want this to be right and mirror less would be good as well. Canon's lens line up has become stellar and the super wide will probably arrive this year to make it complete.50mp must surely be the limit for FF sensor as other factors start creeping in that are detrimental to image quality as i understand it. Fingers crossed as this needs to be a Nikon 810 beater to put Canon back at the top.

Mirrorless would make it DOA for probably 90% of its potential users, cleaner shadows at base ISO would be nice for a very limited amount of photography, and 50MP is no where close to the upper limit for a full-frame sensor. Think gigapixel.

agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)

 

[privatebydesign]

agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)

LOL. Now go and shoot a resolution chart with that nifty fifty wide open and tell me what you are getting off center.............................

 

[mrsfotografie]

...
But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.

The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing. The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will Canon do that again? Wait and see.

The MkIII is not too bad, really. I find it gives me about one more stop than the MkII and much,much less banding. Mind I shoot in MRAW/SRAW1 with both bodies so this includes the downsampling effect (~10.5 megapixels effectively). Yes, ~10 megapixels really is enough for my purposes.

 

[Marsu42]

The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing.

Development cycles count, not release dates. 5d3/1dx were developed in conjunction, so they are both "later releases" vs. 5d2 - same goes for the 6d's improved readout system.

The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will Canon do that again? Wait and see.

You're confusing the sensor with the whole imaging chain. Esp. in the current Canon design, the sensor die is only part of what matters, the analog readout and further analog/digital processing is different between 5d3/1dx/6d.

You can see the result in the different noise patterns 5d2->5d3 and the big differences in dynamic range curve on the 1dx. And while the 5d2 sensor is the same generation as 5d3/1dx/6d, the whole system is a big improvement.

 

[nvsravank]

If you compared images taken at ISO 1600 with a FF'd version of the 7D2 sensor and a 5D3 with both downsampled to the same resolution, the FF'd 7D2 sensor would almost certainly be cleaner due to the significantly higher QE.

It doesn't sound like you need 50mp for your purposes either... :

I don't need 50 mp. Absolutely true. More to the point i think it would cause more trouble for my use.
I was looking at it as an upgrade to my current 5D Mark III / along with it. I think i am trying to convince myself to buy the 7D Mark II

1. When i moved from 5D to 5D Mark III, i noticed that I had to increase the shutter speed. Why you ask?, because i take dances where the dancers hands are moving very fast, what i noticed was even though the slow moving body was in perfect sharpness the hands were a bit blurry and it could only be attributed to the speed of movement. I could arrest movement only using higher shutter speed. Why was this not as much an issue in 5D with the same settings i wondered. My current hypothesis is that the size of the photo sites was much smaller in the Mark III and so i needed faster shutter speeds. with 50 MP, i am afraid it will be true again. I am going to test this hypothesis with a rental of the 7D Mark II this year.

2. Yes i can try reducing the resolution but already it is very slow in lightroom to review photos just for sharpness. Don't want to spend time and money on processing photos that are not good. 50 MP resolution wont be of use. I print at 12x12 inches for the most part. So even the old 5D's 12 MP was enough if fully utilized. The 5D Mark III just allows me to crop and so i don't have to worry so much about tight cropping which means i get more usable shots. Less number of photos with hands and feet cutoff due to sudden dancer movements. So more resolution not really useful for me.

3. The lure of the 7D Mark II is the additional reach of my 70-200 lens. I shoot my photos at F3.5 to F4 to keep enough of the dancer in focus. So I think i will have additional reach due to the 1.6 crop factor. With a full frame 50 MP monster, i surely will get reach but then i just have to crop out more. So why buy this instead of the 7D Mark II.

 

[3kramd5]

...
But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.

The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing. The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will Canon do that again? Wait and see.

One thing is clear: a ~50MP sensor is new. It's not a derivative of any full frame sensor Canon has ever produced.

As for the 3 vs 2, I have both, and my 2 collects dust even if I'm shooting manual focus on a tripod. Why? It's better.

 

[bluemoon]

Tell me is this and example of moiré?

Jack

there seems to be a little bit of it on the left wing. It's hard to tell as the feathers are crossing and it is slightly blurry in that part, but I would say it's there in two spots.

Why do you ask?

pierre

 

[rfdesigner]

agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)

LOL. Now go and shoot a resolution chart with that nifty fifty wide open and tell me what you are getting off center.............................

we're talking about where the limits are, not how poor some lenses are currently. Yes current nifty fifities are dire off centre, that's why I stated it needed to be diffraction limited.

 

[privatebydesign]

agree.. just bunged the numbers through cambridge in colours diffraction limit calculator and it suggests around 1Gpix required to fully resolve a nifty fifty wide open.. (if it's diffraction limited that is)

LOL. Now go and shoot a resolution chart with that nifty fifty wide open and tell me what you are getting off center.............................

we're talking about where the limits are, not how poor some lenses are currently. Yes current nifty fifities are dire off centre, that's why I stated it needed to be diffraction limited.

You are talking about one set of currently totally meaningless theoretical 'limits' that have been shown to not be hard limits.

Canon showed tech years ago that showed they were working on sub diffraction level imaging for consumer cameras and there are advantages to resolve below diffraction levels especially when using Bayer array covered sensors. Besides, lenses would have to far exceed diffraction limited resolution for the system, lens and sensor, to resolve them.

Do not attach any importance to 'diffraction limits' when thinking sensor resolution for consumer cameras.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks bluemoon,

I've seen the effect in the items previously mentioned but then I saw the comment that it doesn't occur in nature and so I went back to look at my waxwing shots and found this sample. I believe I've had similar and worse on some other waxwing shots and didn't like it and wondered where it came from. Never noticed it on other birds. Curious bird me is I guess.

Jack

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like.

I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….

Not at all, they've done such a thing even going way back. Look at the 20D/20Da for one (the latter with the sensor filter altered to allow for much better IR performance).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So I guess my question would be why would there be two versions what are the advantages of each I confuse easily Thank you

If the objects in focus in the image NOT have straight lines, and has NO repetitive geometric shapes, the AA filter is not required.

That's not true (unless you go to the extreme case where the image is nothing but 100% solid colors and very smooth gradients with no real details), although it does make it tougher for the eye to instantly notice the bad effects if the image doesn't have what you mention.

 

[Marsu42]

I just hope it's not just the 7D2 sensor scaled to FF as it sounds like. I'd rather have the same MP as the 5D3 and a lot more DR and even more fps and topq uality 4k video than some 7D2 scaled up 50MP sensor and low fps and poor video and poor DR.

Why's that? Canon has made clear that a high res sensor isn't designed for high sensitivity or high fps, can't have your cake and eat it!

If it's the 7d2 design upscaled that's fine *if* the price is ok, much better than a "dream camera" for €6000+. If it's essentially the crop sensor on a larger die, all "reach advantage" reasons of crop become obsolete. If you've won the lottery and want the best possible iq, you'd better look at mf digital sensors outside Canon.

As for poor dynamic range: For the a lot of people in the targeted audience (landscape and studio) ~11.5ev is fine, you only need higher dr if you cannot bracket and/or shoot movement. Otherwise higher dr is nice to have, but not essential - or there wouldn't be any Canon shooters left even now.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thanks all for filter explanation. I understand the concept of an anti-aliasing filter now. Still a bit puzzled about the low pass filter. Several have said the low pass filter is an anti-aliasing filter - but if it passes low frequencies and not high ones, how does that help -

Because it has filtered out all the frequencies that are greater than the frequency at which the sensor can properly capture without error. Here it has sort of smeared them around to produce a lower frequency averaged mush. (but putting it that way makes it sound bad, but it's good)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...
But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.

The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing. The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will Canon do that again? Wait and see.

The MkIII is not too bad, really. I find it gives me about one more stop than the MkII and much,much less banding. Mind I shoot in MRAW/SRAW1 with both bodies so this includes the downsampling effect (~10.5 megapixels effectively). Yes, ~10 megapixels really is enough for my purposes.

MRAW/SRAW are not true raw and you lose more than just resolution, if you can, it's better to shoot RAW and downconvert to 10MP later if you must