A Big Megapixel Discussion

[Cannon Man]

Or will the 5DIV be 45 MP

That's one possibility, that the 5D Mk IV is going to be the big MP camera, and eventually a future 6D Mk II will gain a better AF and more FPS...

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. This could very well be the 1D Xs.

Speculation. It's fun. Sure, it could be called 1D Xs. But again, I don't think so, especially if it's going to be a non-integrated grip body, which is my preferred option. In the other case, why not? But unlikely. Remember Canon introduced the "X" to represent the merging (crossing) of the 1D and 1Ds lines, and now what? Splitting in two the 1 series again and keeping the X, though both FF?

I have always understood that what they meant with "merging of the 1D and 1Ds" meant the actual merging of 1D IV and 1Ds III cameras not the actual 1D and 1Ds "lines" meaning that they forever excluded the possibility of a high speed 1D and a big megapixel 1D. Watch the official announcements again after you read this post, they didn't say exactly what you thought.

Another take that i think could be possible is that they meant that the 1D and 1Ds lines merge in to a 1DX which does not exclude a 1DXs line.

Big companies sometimes say things that is useful for marketing but customers take them too seriously.

Just watch and see. It will be in a 1D body. It has been clear ever since they launched the 1DX.. most 1D users are happy with 18MP on a full frame BUT there is definitely a need for a 1D body that rivals medium format cameras.

It just makes sense. If Canon wants a shot at medium format cameras they WILL release it on a 1D because it would be stupid to give better image quality for half the price of the 1DX and the camera would be stripped down on functions as well..

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Or will the 5DIV be 45 MP

That's one possibility, that the 5D Mk IV is going to be the big MP camera, and eventually a future 6D Mk II will gain a better AF and more FPS...

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. This could very well be the 1D Xs.

Speculation. It's fun. Sure, it could be called 1D Xs. But again, I don't think so, especially if it's going to be a non-integrated grip body, which is my preferred option. In the other case, why not? But unlikely. Remember Canon introduced the "X" to represent the merging (crossing) of the 1D and 1Ds lines, and now what? Splitting in two the 1 series again and keeping the X, though both FF?

I have always understood that what they meant with "merging of the 1D and 1Ds" meant the actual merging of 1D IV and 1Ds III cameras not the actual 1D and 1Ds "lines" meaning that they forever excluded the possibility of a high speed 1D and a big megapixel 1D. Watch the official announcements again after you read this post, they didn't say exactly what you thought.

Another take that i think could be possible is that they meant that the 1D and 1Ds lines merge in to a 1DX which does not exclude a 1DXs line.

Big companies sometimes say things that is useful for marketing but customers take them too seriously.

Just watch and see. It will be in a 1D body. It has been clear ever since they launched the 1DX.. most 1D users are happy with 18MP on a full frame BUT there is definitely a need for a 1D body that rivals medium format cameras.

It just makes sense. If Canon wants a shot at medium format cameras they WILL release it on a 1D because it would be stupid to give better image quality for half the price of the 1DX and the camera would be stripped down on functions as well..

+100

That's pretty much exactly what i think that's going on which is why i keep saying that whatever these big mp bodies end up being, they aren't replacing the current line up, they are adding to it. Think about it ---with all the sports shooters out there enjoying their 12 fps and reasonable file sizes (many of which shoot in jpeg for quick uploading), will they really rush to trade in their 1dx for a 45 MP body that can maybe do 5-6 frames per second if your lucky (oh, more if you shoot in mRAW or SRAW)? No! No! No! no!!!!

And it would be a mistake to do that. the 1dx and the 5d3 have their place. The big MP bodies will have their place too. Many 1dx users will buy a big MP body, not to replace the 1dx, but to supplement it - to get that big planned tripod mounted shot of the stadium, or other fun stuff like that. You aren't shooting a basketball game with a 45 MP body though. Many 5d3 users will also buy a big MP body as well too. As a wedding shooter that does portraits and some fine art, hell yeah will I buy a big MP body. That body would rock the hell out of the formal portraits and the solos with the B&G. But ---it would sit in the bag during the reception (maybe it would come out for the first dance, but even then it would just be to supplement what your getting from your 5d3).

Back to the point, I totally agree. The 1dx and the 5d3 are the jack of all trades bodies, the big MP bodies will fill the nich of users that mostly shoot at low ISO's and not in huge volume!!!!

 

[Stu_bert]

Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have

Meanwhile develop the next sensor tech to support them for perhaps the next 7 to 10 years (given previous cycles), and also watch and see how the market responds to the d800 - this in itself takes a reasonable time before you can reasonably assess the impact. And while you wait that new sensor tech is still useful for the whole of your product line.

It will be a pro body as I said earlier, and a body in between this and the 5d. Finally it will be in the 7d ii but perhaps a higher pixel density. Interesting times...

 

[pierlux]

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. This could very well be the 1D Xs.

Speculation. It's fun. Sure, it could be called 1D Xs. But again, I don't think so, especially if it's going to be a non-integrated grip body, which is my preferred option. In the other case, why not? But unlikely. Remember Canon introduced the "X" to represent the merging (crossing) of the 1D and 1Ds lines, and now what? Splitting in two the 1 series again and keeping the X, though both FF?

I have always understood that what they meant with "merging of the 1D and 1Ds" meant the actual merging of 1D IV and 1Ds III cameras not the actual 1D and 1Ds "lines" meaning that they forever excluded the possibility of a high speed 1D and a big megapixel 1D. Watch the official announcements again after you read this post, they didn't say exactly what you thought.

Another take that i think could be possible is that they meant that the 1D and 1Ds lines merge in to a 1DX which does not exclude a 1DXs line.

Big companies sometimes say things that is useful for marketing but customers take them too seriously.

From Canon: “The EOS-1D X represents the re-invention of the EOS-1Ds and EOS-1D series" ... (Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies and Communications Group, Canon U.S.A.).

Series, lines... the meaning is clear. Of course, 1D IV and 1Ds III cameras were representative of both series at that time, can you imagine Canon stating that they were merging the 1D, 1DII, 1DIIn, 1DIII, 1DIV and 1Ds, 1DsII and 1DsIII cameras? Don't look too much inside words, the meaning is clear. And marketing paths for the next 5-6 years, maybe longer, were already set by Canon at that time, so it's not a matter of Canon saying "things useful for marketing but customers take them too seriously".

Anyway, I used the words "possibility", "maybe", "could", "unlikely". You'll never hear from me statements of certainty about things not already established. I'm speculating, but I'm trying to use common sense when doing so.

Apart from this, there are other reasons for not going for an integrated grip body for hi-MP cam. Some of them have already been reported by others in this thread. Another one, never really being considered, is that both Canon and Nikon have their (relatively) low-res, high-speed cams embodied by big integrated grip bodies. Those cams are primarily (but of course not exclusively) intended for high speed- high ISO- low light-oriented photography. As Neuro once said, even his P&S takes beautiful photos when plenty of light is available. When we look at stunning high resolution images, or at images taken to test a body and/or a lens, these are taken on sturdy tripods, with mirror lockup and low ISOs. What would be the point of shooting handheld, low light, a 12 fps burst with a 36-45 MP camera (assuming such a camera could exist) if doing so you'll not gain better resolution over a 10-12 MP one due to noise, camera shake and vibration introduced by mirror and shutter? Sure, a photographer sporting a BIG cam looks cool, more macho, sweating manliness from every pore, but if he's using handheld a 45 MP camera @ 12 fps and 12800 ISO (again assuming such a camera existed!) he's also a fool (or the Manufacturer that makes such a camera).

So, let me say again that I think the next Canon bigMP cam is more likely to be a non-integrated grip body. And I really hope so. How can you be so sure to say that it will be in a 1D body?

Cheers!

 

[Don Haines]

Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have

Meanwhile develop the next sensor tech to support them for perhaps the next 7 to 10 years (given previous cycles), and also watch and see how the market responds to the d800 - this in itself takes a reasonable time before you can reasonably assess the impact. And while you wait that new sensor tech is still useful for the whole of your product line.

It will be a pro body as I said earlier, and a body in between this and the 5d. Finally it will be in the 7d ii but perhaps a higher pixel density. Interesting times...

And the right translation would mybe be: Canon can not with its sensor technology increase the number of pixels without using the sensor line from the compact sensor line , they can not use the old sensor lines as these are to course / rough. This means new sensors line which there are no indications that Canon have invest in, a investments of several billion dollars as for example Sony has done, or they can use the compact sensor line and stitch together an APS or 24x36mm sensor with a high cost
WE WILL soon SE WHAT CANON HAVE IN THEIRS SLEAVES, the market outside Canon = Omnivision, Toshiba, Sony, Renesas, Aptina etc are not standing still in theirs own developments of new sensors tech from mobile sensors up to 24x36mm sensors
When the annual meetings are regarding the new sensor technology Canon are not involved in this meetings, tell me what are the odds that at Canon would come with a new sensor technology before others as Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony etc?
Then they can say that they are improving the lenses or what ever in the mean time.

OMG! Canon does not attend meetings at Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sony to discuss sensors! I am shocked!

And they can not increase the number of pixels without using the compact sensors? (1.6*1.6*18M = 46M, they could build a 46Mpixel FF sensor with the same technology and pixel size as APS-C).

There is no indication that Canon has invested in new sensors? I would assume that in the 6 years since the current tech was introduced in APS-C that if the design division had not done anything more than playing cards and surfing the web, that they would have all been fired.... Just because you or I don't know the details does not mean that they are all asleep. Oh wait.... there are new sensors... on the p/s cameras... I guess they have been working....

Canon has the ability to do finer lithography on it's circuits than what we see on APS-C and FF sensors. The P/S lineup is proof. (They get the new technology first because that's where the money is).

This is a rumours site. The only thing we can state about future offerings is that we don't know. In looking at the big picture, it helps to realize that that it is not cameras like the 1DX and $10,000 primes that drives Canon...The big money is in the small items.. P/S cameras are more important than Rebels. Rebels are more important than 60D's and 6D's.... which are more important than 7D's and 5DII's, which are more important than 1DX's... Canon will make a lot more profit on a $350 50-250 zoom than the just released 200-400... If you want to guess what will happen at the top, look to the bottom.

 

[Stu_bert]

Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have

Meanwhile develop the next sensor tech to support them for perhaps the next 7 to 10 years (given previous cycles), and also watch and see how the market responds to the d800 - this in itself takes a reasonable time before you can reasonably assess the impact. And while you wait that new sensor tech is still useful for the whole of your product line.

It will be a pro body as I said earlier, and a body in between this and the 5d. Finally it will be in the 7d ii but perhaps a higher pixel density. Interesting times...

And the right translation would mybe be: Canon can not with its sensor technology increase the number of pixels without using the sensor line from the compact sensor line , they can not use the old sensor lines as these are to course / rough. This means new sensors line which there are no indications that Canon have invest in, a investments of several billion dollars as for example Sony has done, or they can use the compact sensor line and stitch together an APS or 24x36mm sensor with a high cost
WE WILL soon SE WHAT CANON HAVE IN THEIRS SLEAVES, the market outside Canon = Omnivision, Toshiba, Sony, Renesas, Aptina etc are not standing still in theirs own developments of new sensors tech from mobile sensors up to 24x36mm sensors
When the annual meetings are regarding the new sensor technology Canon are not involved in this meetings, tell me what are the odds that at Canon would come with a new sensor technology before others as Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony etc?
Then they can say that they are improving the lenses or what ever in the mean time.

Well I agree with the "maybe", as this is just guessing on all of our parts...

But I was suggesting that there's more to development of a big MP camera than just the sensor, and given the amount of money involved, then it makes sense to develop the whole ecosystem and choosing where you get best return on your money, especially as new sensor tech as you state costs billions of dollars.

Everyone wants Canon need to do is improve their sensor tech - they know that, and they know that other companies aggressively develop their own further. But of those you mention, except for Sony, I don't believe the others make full cameras (so less revenue streams, more dependency on 1 line). Of course it means other (camera) companies can use their sensors, but again I'm reminded of Tom Hogan who when asked about the 1DX, 5D III, D4 and D800 essentially stated that you can take very good pictures with any of them.

Ultimately, as you say, we'll have to see what they release. But for me personally, it's still about the whole ecosystem (AF, Sensor, Ergonomics, Lens Range, Lens Quality, Build, SW Support). Your and other peoples' mileage may differ....

 

[art_d]

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

You mean like the 1Ds Mark III? High frame rate and low MP's?

No. I don't mean like that.

In the context of the present day, Canon doesn't really have a high MP body. (Though Canon's present flagship high volume work camera, the 1DX, does have slightly fewer megapixels than its current 5 series body.)

But looking at Nikon: there is the high megapixel D800 which is roughly speaking at the level of a 5-series body, and the D4 which is their flagship high volume workhorse. The D800 is 36mp, the D4 is 16mp. This makes sense, because in general the high volume shooters using a D4 are not going to value a high megapixel sensor.

I would think a similar logic would apply to Canon. Why dump a big megapixel sensor into a 1 series body when the 1 series is built for high volume work?

 

[bdunbar79]

I see. So like a 1Dx/(High MP body) to Canon as is the D4/D800 to Nikon.

 

[docholliday]

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.

 

[klickflip]

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.

+1

I think what we're seeing is who thinks they know about photography and who actually is a photographer. Sure everyone who has a camera is a 'photographer' but really only those working in it day in day out actually know what they need for the use, and even within that there are differing views anyway.

Seems like people are getting mixed up about high volume and fast. many 1Dx press/ sports/ wildlife owners will shoot really fast in short bursts, but maybe not all day. But studio & advertising photographers will also shoot in short or longer bursts, not quite as quick though but will prob tend to shoot much more all day. We can easily get through 30gb a day on Canon and 60gb a day on Hasselblad.
Dont let people mislead you, Hasselblads get battered and keep on shooting all day every day by photographers requiring top quality under lots of pressure.
I'd say there are much much less that do low volume fine art or landscape work on their Hassy, that may be what most amatures think of a typical Hassy/Phase one owner (Phase one may be the worst for creating this myth on their videos tho!)

If the big MP comes in a 1D type body that will be good, also if its in a 5Dish body fine for me too as I shoot a lot tripod'd but what I dont want or any other pro would want is a smaller body, and generally smaller = more plasticky & more fiddly & less robust.
We need a pro camera that shoots all day everyday.

I'm going to divert slightly but to compare to the D800 typical user, what I have seen is most Nik users have bought one just because they are so damn cheap and its a bragging factor. But everyone I know that has one really doesnt need one, and they complain of the file size and how long it takes to transfer images, plus processing & photoshopping them is slow on mediocre systems. And these are predominantly wedding/ social portrait and event photographers, I've also see amatures & students with them and they just got them because they were the 'latests and best '
Which does prove two things, give them more at a cheap price point they will buy it regardless of whether they really need it or not and it will actually be detrimental to their workflow in many cases.

The people here who are wishing for a 5D ish / D800 equivalent are symptomatic of this, and prob not really thought about the whole picture, especially workflow vs clients needs. And if you dont have clients then I suppose a bragging high MP camera at sub 3K is nice expansive toy for those that like to buy such things.

Where it will shine for me is when a art director wants a landscape format image then his client changes the breif afterwards and decides he would like a vertical crop out of that format to say run on a bus shelter or building or in store ad board. thats when

I'm not being elitist but having this as a full pro camera will help Canon and its users all round. If the dev of it is on a pro level then it should be a better camera for it (with a price to match, but we can soak up the cost easily) .
I really hope the sensor tech is being pushed for the next generation. Why Canon have not released one yet to directly compete with the D800 is they want to aim higher and set a real new standard. Or are they really struggling with their sensor tech? I hope not.

 

[Don Haines]

yes they have the ability to produce finer circuits when it comes to smaller sensor sizes and it was also mention earlier by me.
And regarding 46Mp, the question is if they can expose a 24x36mm surface in one seance and if they the have the lenses and peripherals that meet this requirements, and will Canon is continuing with their old readout technique?
it requires considerably higher demands from equipment to expose a large 24x36mm sensor surface than a small compact camera surface in one seance

Agreed!

They have demonstrated thier ability to go into production with the finer lithography. At some point the yields will be high enough to go into larger size components.... I suspect that they are there, or at least close too it... only time will tell.... but is quite possible that they are not quite there and that this is what is holding up announcements on new bodies... but this is just speculation, I have no inside knowledge.

There are lots of "interesting" indications of something going to happen. There is a push to update/create high end lenses that have the resolving power to handle a high megapixel body, hybrid focusing, digic6 into p/s cameras, finer lithography, and rumours of some very different sensors under field testing. If it all comes together, the next year could be a large step forward for APS-C and FF cameras.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.

+1

I think what we're seeing is who thinks they know about photography and who actually is a photographer. Sure everyone who has a camera is a 'photographer' but really only those working in it day in day out actually know what they need for the use, and even within that there are differing views anyway.

Seems like people are getting mixed up about high volume and fast. many 1Dx press/ sports/ wildlife owners will shoot really fast in short bursts, but maybe not all day. But studio & advertising photographers will also shoot in short or longer bursts, not quite as quick though but will prob tend to shoot much more all day. We can easily get through 30gb a day on Canon and 60gb a day on Hasselblad.
Dont let people mislead you, Hasselblads get battered and keep on shooting all day every day by photographers requiring top quality under lots of pressure.
I'd say there are much much less that do low volume fine art or landscape work on their Hassy, that may be what most amatures think of a typical Hassy/Phase one owner (Phase one may be the worst for creating this myth on their videos tho!)

If the big MP comes in a 1D type body that will be good, also if its in a 5Dish body fine for me too as I shoot a lot tripod'd but what I dont want or any other pro would want is a smaller body, and generally smaller = more plasticky & more fiddly & less robust.
We need a pro camera that shoots all day everyday.

I'm going to divert slightly but to compare to the D800 typical user, what I have seen is most Nik users have bought one just because they are so damn cheap and its a bragging factor. But everyone I know that has one really doesnt need one, and they complain of the file size and how long it takes to transfer images, plus processing & photoshopping them is slow on mediocre systems. And these are predominantly wedding/ social portrait and event photographers, I've also see amatures & students with them and they just got them because they were the 'latests and best '
Which does prove two things, give them more at a cheap price point they will buy it regardless of whether they really need it or not and it will actually be detrimental to their workflow in many cases.

The people here who are wishing for a 5D ish / D800 equivalent are symptomatic of this, and prob not really thought about the whole picture, especially workflow vs clients needs. And if you dont have clients then I suppose a bragging high MP camera at sub 3K is nice expansive toy for those that like to buy such things.

Where it will shine for me is when a art director wants a landscape format image then his client changes the breif afterwards and decides he would like a vertical crop out of that format to say run on a bus shelter or building or in store ad board. thats when

I'm not being elitist but having this as a full pro camera will help Canon and its users all round. If the dev of it is on a pro level then it should be a better camera for it (with a price to match, but we can soak up the cost easily) .
I really hope the sensor tech is being pushed for the next generation. Why Canon have not released one yet to directly compete with the D800 is they want to aim higher and set a real new standard. Or are they really struggling with their sensor tech? I hope not.

+100 to each of these replies, especially the bit about durability and ruggedness of the 1 series. That's why my take on this is a little different than many here who are having d800 envy - the d800 is a fine body, but in thinking of the whole picture - the d800 is really the poor mans MF. Big MP is approaching MF resolution and quality. So in thinking of big MP bodies, I have been considering them on the scale of an MF body. A one series body with 45 MP's with a retail price of about $8k - yeah, rebel users will say thanks but no thanks - but, those working day in day out in their studios will see it and say...$8k for this or keep saving for the $40K MF. I brought up the extreme view, that a 1 series big mp would give you 4-5 fps and a 5d series one would be in the 2-3 fps range. I got scoffed at -----but, why? Look at Medium format:

The $21,000 Leica S has a frame rate of 1.5 fps

The $7000 Pentax 645D has 1.1 fps

The $25,000 H4D-50 has 1.1 fps

And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.

 

[jrista]

File size...file size...get a life, hard drives are cheap.
I would have already a MF if I woulda been able to figure out how to use 10-15 grand in canon glass on an MF camera body.
I trust Canon to have a decent sensor with adequate ISO performance.

It is not just the storage space that can be a concern...editing performance also drops as megapixel count increases. Personally, this fact does not bother me, as I build my own computers, and upgrading a few parts to accommodate the processing power required to pound more pixels is not nearly as expensive as the camera itself. Editing performance IS a concern to a lot of people, though. I think we will have a broad enough range of pixel counts that each individual can get what they can handle. If someone is not capable of pushing around 40+ million pixels, they can always fall back onto a 5D III for 23 million pixels.

 

[jrista]

If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.

Why??? How does having it hurt you? At the very least you'd be a fool since you'd pay the same for something that would have less retail value and yet behave EXACTLY the same in hand for you.

Well, it can hurt in one way. If Canon is prototyping 39mp, 45mp, and 50mp+ sensors, and they opt for the 39mp one because it is better for video....well, that hurts me. I want all the pixels I can get my hands on (preferably with 14 stops ISO 100 DR) for my landscape photography.

I would be pretty dismayed if Canon opted to limit the megapixel count because of a video factor...and I know I am not alone in that camp. I think Canon could also produce an ultra high MP FF camera that had more flexible video options...including say a 39mp APS-H framing option that would allow for proper 4k oversampling.

Why do so many still photographers have such hatred for video? I thought photographers were supposed to be creative, open-minded types always wanting to explore new things? Even if you don't want to, all the talk about paying as much or even more just to get a body with video disabled sounds utterly nuts to me.

I don't think it is as much a hatred for video as it is an annoyance that video options influence the final design of still photography cameras. It IS nice having the extra features, and I know many photographers who use both...but from a majority standpoint, people buy still photography cameras to do still photography. Quite frankly, it IS very annoying to see camera features limited because of video aspects. As I mentioned above...I'll take a 50mp-60mp camera in a heartbeat, and we know Canon is prototyping something in that range. I really would be a bit miffed if Canon drops a $5000 39mp videostills monster on us instead. I'd ultimately still buy it...but it wouldn't be what I really wanted.

 

[Lawliet]

And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.

You can see that sacrifice in the ubiquious 5D3 vs. D800 discussion. The faster an ADC of a given complexity works the less resolution it has. Canon refined the ADC design as much as possible, but each of them has to deal with magnitudes more of pixels. Cue shadow noise and banding.

 

[jrista]

The $21,000 Leica S has a frame rate of 1.5 fps

The $7000 Pentax 645D has 1.1 fps

The $25,000 H4D-50 has 1.1 fps

And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.

None of those cameras use sensors with any of the modern parallel read and ADC advancements you can find in the DSLR world. People seem to forget...Canon has already prototyped a 120mp APS-H sensor capable of 9.5fps using parallel readout and ADC technology. If Canon can achieve 9.5fps @ 120mp, why can't they achieve 10fps at 40-60mp?

And somehow people here think your really gonna get blazingly fast 10fps on a 40+ MP body without making a sacrifice somewhere? I just don't get the logic behind that.

You can see that sacrifice in the ubiquious 5D3 vs. D800 discussion. The faster an ADC of a given complexity works the less resolution it has. Canon refined the ADC design as much as possible, but each of them has to deal with magnitudes more of pixels. Cue shadow noise and banding.

The banding noise issues are the result of high frequency components, particularly when they are off-die. Sony Exmors design was implemented in the way it was implemented to achieve more than just high dynamic range at low ISO. Fundamentally, Exmor's Column-Parallel ADC is designed to support high speed digital readout. Certainly, increasing frame rate from 4fps to 10fps will increase noise contribution a little (that's the consequence of high frequency logic), but Exmor has such a low read noise level that you could effectively double it, and still have one of the cleanest readouts in the world.

It is not improbable that we could see high res, high readout rate sensors at 8-10fps within the next couple of generations of DSLR sensors. I don't suspect it will happen by next year, but I do expect it to happen.

 

[jrista]

Big megapixel is a "medium format killer", just as D800 currently is. It's targeting a specific genre, high resolution photography. It's not a journalist camera like the flagships. Sure, for typical 35mm photography high resolution is just a waste of disk space. But a high resolution 35mm is there to stretch into medium format territory, just as medium format digital stretched into large format film (think 4x5 and 8x10 view camera) territory. In other words expand what you can do with a 35mm system. A pro Canon shooter could have a 1DX for fast handheld action work, and a big megapixel camera for studio/still life/architecture/landscape.

Probably the high resolution genre is smaller, but every landscape hobbyist will want it (those are many!), and some of the pro shooters that use medium format today will drop the costly MF system and use only 35mm for convenience. I think Canon need this type of camera in their lineup in the long-term to provide a cameras for all genres users nowadays expect 35mm to be good at.

In the medium format forums the only camera that is considered as real competition with MF is the D800, and indeed several has ditched MF in favour of the more user-friendly, all-around and cheaper D800. In the same forums Canon is still used as an example to show off how "bad" 35mm is compared to MF, as it still has poor dynamic range and color rendition at base ISO compared to MF, while the D800 actually is competitive and even better in some aspects.

I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers". I would probably term it "medium format intruders". When the most important thing for your work is pixel count, there is no denying that medium format has the edge. Medium format sensors have both higher megapixel counts (80mp, or even more with advanced hardware like Hassy's 200mp multishot), as well as larger pixels than any relatively comparable FF DSLR (i.e. the pixel on a 40mp MFD are going to be meaningfully larger than a 40mp FF DSLR). Granted, I think that the per-pixel technology and per-pixel quality is probably a bit higher on DSLR sensors...CMOS sensor technology has been pushed very hard, very far, very fast over the last few years, while the primary innovation in the MFD sector has been...yup, more pixels. I definitely think FF DSLRs are closing the gap, and are indeed intruding on MFD territory...but they aren't far along enough yet to call them medium format killers (and they will probably never really reach that point...in the areas where MFD rule, the only thing that really matters is raw pixel count...and with more surface area per sensor, you can always pack in more pixels than you'll ever get on FF DSLR, even if the DSLR pixels have higher per-pixel IQ.)

Not a single recent sensor out from Canon is even remotely close Sony Exmor sensors in terms of base ISO performance. I'm still waiting to see that Canon actually can produce a sensor which has the properties high resolution photographers desire - ie great dynamic range and great color fidelity at base ISO. High ISO performance (which Canon indeed is good at!) is not irrelevant, but much less important than in traditional 35mm photography.

Canon's problem here is high frequency off-die components (i.e. ADC). With a die shrink (not confirmed by any means, but I think likely, if not even necessary to achieve higher pixel densities), Canon could drop a lot of their off-die components right onto the CMOS sensor die, go column-parallel, and get considerable improvements at low ISO. It should be noted that Canon's per-pixel CDS performs better than Sony Exmor D-CDS at higher ISO...read noise on an Exmor doesn't go below ~2.6e-, where as on a Canon it drops to as low as 1.5e-, which is part of the reason Canon high ISO output is so clean.

I would also dispute the notion that high ISO is less important in digital than in film. There are far more photographers who use higher ISO settings these days than those who use only ISO 100. Sports, wedding, journalists/paparazzi, studio (not ultra high, but frequently enough higher than ISO 200), wildlife, birds, airshows, and pretty much anything with action. Even in good light, when you need to freeze action, it is not very hard to fin yourself at at least ISO 800. Most of the wildlife and bird photographers I follow are increasingly becoming comfortable with ISO settings as high as 10k, and in some cases I've seen a couple professional quality, printable photos taken at ISO 16k taken with a 1D X!! Don't forget night photography, street photography, night sky/deep sky astrophotography (which is usually between ISO 800 and 3200), etc.

The types of photography where ISO 100 is king is far lower. Landscape photographers are probably one of the most obvious groups, studio photographers are also a group that can make good use of low ISO. Still life photography, product photography...probably anything static where you are manually, directly lighting your subject is likely to use ISO 100 and 200. Still, add up all the photographers in the world who do this kind of photography, and you'll still fall far short of sports photographers alone, let alone the entire community of photographers who rarely use an ISO setting below 400. The MFD market is small because it can be small...not as many people need both superior ISO 100 performance AND unparalleled pixel counts. For every studio photogapher with a couple Hassy H4D-50's, there are 50 sports photographers.

 

[Don Haines]

I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers".

Agreed! And we must not forget that as technology advances and the pixel count and quality of FF advances, so will the MF cameras....

Everything has it's plusses and minuses.... as sensor format sizes get larger, so does the lens mm size needed for the same field of view... and the area of the lens is squared.... and the weight is cubed..... and the cost!!!!
For studio work, it's hard to compete with MF.... but if you are lugging a camera up a mountain to attempt some bird photos, then FF or even APS-C can't be beat. Can you imagine the size/weight/cost of the MF equivalent of a 600mmF4?

 

[art_d]

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.

I agree the 1 series is about high volume work and reliability, easier and more comfortable to work with for daylong handheld shooting. I agree totally and completely. I don't understand where you think I've said something to the contrary?

Yes, I know that some MF shooters will shoot a thousand shots a day. I also know such shooters make up a relatively small portion of the market. When I say "high volume" I am typically refering to photojournalists, sports photogs, high end wedding shooters...people who generally will take speed and reliability over megapixel count.

But at the risk of getting hung up on semantics: 21mp is not really "high megapixel" anymore.

I've got a friend who is a high end wedding photographer. He's shot Nikon forever...he picked up a D800 and tried it out for a wedding. Loved the images but hated the big files and slower workflow. The benefits of a high res sensor might be noticeable in a fine art print...but not to his wedding clients. He gained no upside from the bigger sensor.

The point is that in general photographers who as a practical matter want more than 18-21 megapixels are more likely to be shooting low volume work. This being an internet forum I of course must explicitly spell out the disclaimer: not ALL cases...in GENERAL. We're talking in broad brush strokes here. Landscape photography, architecture photography, fine art, etc. These are the types of shooters who most frequently want more than 21mp. These are also the types of shooters who benefit less from the more robustly performing 1 series bodies.

(Nikon already has recognized this logic which is why their top performing, highest priced flagship camera is not their highest megapixel camera.)

 

[jrista]

I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers".

Agreed! And we must not forget that as technology advances and the pixel count and quality of FF advances, so will the MF cameras....

Everything has it's plusses and minuses.... as sensor format sizes get larger, so does the lens mm size needed for the same field of view... and the area of the lens is squared.... and the weight is cubed..... and the cost!!!!
For studio work, it's hard to compete with MF.... but if you are lugging a camera up a mountain to attempt some bird photos, then FF or even APS-C can't be beat. Can you imagine the size/weight/cost of the MF equivalent of a 600mmF4?

Good point about the weight. Not that I think MF really fits the bill for action shooters who need 600mm lenses, but even with wider angle lenses, there is a greater heft to medium format gear for sure. The difference in weight between APS-C and FF is negligible in most cases, which makes FF an ideal balance of sensor area and pixel count with overall weight.