5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[ghosh9691]

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

And those that want the exact megapixels as you are all Ansel Adams!

 

[AprilForever]

Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"

It's a tough crowd out there...

 

[KacperP]

Well, I'm in the camp of those pleased that Canon withdrawn from MP race and went after better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. That's where progress was slow.
IQ from higher pixel count is partially dampened by lenses, but DR and ISO performance is not.
High megapixel landscapes? I still would prefer better DR + ISO and keep stitching mulitiple photos.

 

[mccrum]

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

Best summary ever. Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.

 

[Justin]

Thanks! Agreed this is the straight dope summary. I almost sh@t a brick at this CR1 rumor, then watched the video of the C300 below and got super excited about super high ISO. Then I remembered that I suck at video production and prefer taking stills. Back to being pissed off about how Canon are somehow now afraid of megapixels. Grrr. I smell Canon marketing sh!t and we're all about to step in it.

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

Best summary ever. Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.

 

[AJ]

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

I didn't wade through all of it.

I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3. Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away? Doesn't make sense to me. I'm still thinking 36 Mpix. Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.

FWIW, the diffraction thing. 36 mpix is the same pixel density as 14 mpix on crop. So from my experience with 18 mpix and 10 mpix crop sensors: you're good at f/6.3, okay at f/8. At f/11 you start to see degradation and f/16 is for smaller prints only.

People have fretted about the diffraction thing every time a new crop sensor has come out. IMHO 36 FF (and 14 mpix crop) is just about optimal, and beyond that, you start to get into diminishing returns.

 

[Gothmoth]

All that talk about lenses not being able to handle more than 18MP right now is tech talk with no really solid evidence to back it up. I'm using a 5DMII at 21MP and shooting Macros and Landscapes and all my L-Lenses seem to be holding up just fine. Perfectly fine.

sure 18 MP for a FF sensor is not too much.
21-24 MP would be fine for me too.

but 36MP and above on a FF sensor.... as i wrote makes no sense for me when using small apertures.

i guess canon engineers know it better then forum members and thats why they choose 18MP.

Bottom line is, I've always been annoyed by people screaming for lower megapixel and higher ISO. I'd demand BOTH instead of picking one.
Either way, extremely disappointed by an 18MP 5DMIII.

and i want to travel faster then light.

and i want a sensor that is not affected by lousy physics.
i mean who make this rules for nature anyway?
why do we have a diffraction limit?

i want a FF sensor with 60MP that has a better resolution then what is physical possible at f16.
dissapointed by the law of physics.....

 

[Gothmoth]

Diffraction - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor.

well but you don´t get any better either. when you reached it.
you only waste storage space then.

 

[Gothmoth]

Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.

vietnam?
or the war against saudi arabian airplane pilots?

and who is "we"?

and what has it to do with canon?

 

[Window Frame]

What does "cleaning up" mean? As far as video is concerned, I am a bit lost as to what they're going to do with the 5D MKIII. Maybe it will be like the 1DX?

 

[Canon-F1]

Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.

tu non hai capito un sola parola.....idiot.. giusto?

 

[lol]

Diffraction - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor.

well but you don´t get any better either. when you reached it.
you only waste storage space then.

If you always shoot diffraction limited, that might be the case. But who does that? You have more potential most of the time.

 

[arussarts]

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

AWESOME summary! Thanks for the truth and levity.

 

[dtaylor]

yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.

The 7D's pixel pitch is smaller than the pixel pitch would be for a 36 MP FF sensor, and it yields resolution gains over 12 MP APS-C sensors at landscape apertures. I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

Learn and use your hyperfocal distances.

 

[Picsfor]

Well, i've got a couple of genuine 21mp 5D2's -
any one want to make me an offer so i can trade in for a single 1DX?

One of them is just 3 months old with less than 300 shot on the clock!
The other comes with battery grip - and both are fitted with the gridded focusing screen

As said, 21mp is more than enough for me, and i can afford to drop a couple!

 

[dtaylor]

the probelm is you don´t understand what im saying.
the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just MORE nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor. :

Not every landscape is shot at f/16 or f/22. Using hyperfocal focusing, T/S lenses, or focus stacking one can shoot at apertures which yield more detail.

Diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for the same desired FoV and DoF. I've spent 2 years getting a true 18 MP out of a 7D while shooting landscapes with near foreground objects, typically just by using nothing more complicated than hyperfocal focusing. That means I could get a true 45 MP just as often out of FF if such a sensor was available. Canon's T/S lenses open even more opportunities for shooting at optimum apertures yet having everything in focus from very near to infinity.

I should also point out, since this discussion includes what is/is not the sweet spot of a lens, that the final resolution of any system is not bound in the way most people think. Most people think there's a fixed number for, say, a lens at a given aperture, and if that number is lower than the sensor number then that's the final resolution. Nope. I would have to look up the exact formula, but resolution is:

* Always less than the weakest part of the system.

* Comes closer to approaching the weakest part as other parts increase.

If your lens MTF50 resolution is 60 lpmm and your sensor is 80 lpmm, final resolution will always be <60 lpmm, but increasing sensor resolution even further will actually help you get closer to 60 lpmm.

Resolution is also an MTF curve, not a single number, and modern software is exceptionally good at increasing MTF in post (sharpening). So if you're theorizing about maximum MP's from a sensor based on MTF50 numbers for a lens, you are way off what's possible.

 

[ejenner]

Thanks! Agreed this is the straight dope summary. I almost sh@t a brick at this CR1 rumor, then watched the video of the C300 below and got super excited about super high ISO. Then I remembered that I suck at video production and prefer taking stills. Back to being pissed off about how Canon are somehow now afraid of megapixels. Grrr. I smell Canon marketing sh!t and we're all about to step in it.

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

Best summary ever. Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.

Yup, but even looking at the 1Dx and the rhetoric of consolidating the 1D line, there it this uneasy feeling of a shift away from what a landscape photographer might want. That's why any post like the OP hits some raw nerves. One reason I decided to buy a 5DII recently, rather than wait any longer for the mythical Mk III. Even if the sensor makes most people happy or is much 'better' - whatever that means, I'll bet the functionality is no better for landscapes (or more precisely working on a tripod). Perhaps a somewhat better AF system - but for what? Sports? Action? - OK more/better AF points would be nice for shooting portraits at f1.4 but that's about it as far as I am concerned.

And sod the MP. There are good reasons to have 36MP and good reasons to have 12MP and everything in-between. But for a MkIII I don't see Canon sacrificing high ISO IQ in a 5D series camera. Wonder which one would get the best DxO score for the same technology?

 

[Canon-F1]

I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.

and how is that possible when you use small apertures?
when you have a diffraction limit already for 21 megapixel FF sensors at f13.

lets say i want everything from 1m to infinity in focus (not uncommon for landscape images as i want foreground interest), even with hyperfocal distance i need f16 for a 24mm lens on a FF body.

I should also point out, since this discussion includes what is/is not the sweet spot of a lens, that the final resolution of any system is not bound in the way most people think. Most people think there's a fixed number for, say, a lens at a given aperture, and if that number is lower than the sensor number then that's the final resolution. Nope. I would have to look up the exact formula, but resolution is:

you can´t resolve smaller details then the size of the airy circle.
that´s simple, no need to discuss this.
and that maximum has nothing to do with lens quality or other things... it´s pure physics.
lens quality will only reduce this maximum of possible resolution.

so if you make your pixels smaller then this airy circle and you use a aperture where the airy circle is bigger ... you gain nothing then useless data.

you agree or not?

 

[dtaylor]

I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.

and how is that possible when you use small apertures?
when you have a diffraction limit already for 21 megapixel FF sensors at f13.

Did you even read the entire post?

i want everything from 1m to infinity in focus (not uncommon for landscape images as i want forground interest).
even with hyperfocal distance i need f16 for a 24mm lens on a FF body.

f/11 should work actually. But does every landscape you shoot really need DoF from 1m to infinity? Even when I get on top of foreground elements I'm usually further than 1m, sensor to nearest element.

 

[Canon-F1]

Did you even read the entire post?

yeah yeah your workarounds are nice.
tilt shift lenses, focus stacking. but you also know that has downsides as well.

to be honest i would prefer to spend money on a MF camera.

f/11 should work actually.

that would be a near limit of 1.62m if my tables are correct.

But does every landscape you shoot really need DoF from 1m to infinity?

of course not.
that´s one example where i use a small aperture.
one other example is macro shots.

what i think is that the "leaves counter" are to enthusiastic when it comes to more MP.
it´s not as if you get the 36MP for free.