A leaked document suggests that Canon has a 63mp full frame image sensor in the works.

[AlanF]

This one, for example.

Actually, quite a lot of lenses would benefit from such a sensor. Even EF 100-400 II would.

Spot on. Opticallimits.com have tested several lenses on the 5DSR and some do resolve 5500 lines/picture height. 50 mpx is enough for me though as a compromise between file size and resolution, but I could live with 60mpx.

 

[Kit.]

I see the MTF. It is not THAT much better than the Batis 2.8/135 in the center and it is worse in the edges anyway. The Milvus 2/135 is better and the Milvus 1.4/35 is even better than that. Neither of them outresolve the 50mp sensor, although they are not far from it.

It highly likely outresolves a monochrome 50MP sensor, and it definitely outresolves a Bayer pattern sensor for objects of high color saturation (or for just dark enough objects of any non-neutral color).

It is true that having a few more megapixels can extract a bit more resolution from the same lens (whatever the lens is), but the gain is rather marginal and then again, for static scenes where you really wish a lot of resolution, like landscapes or architecture,

Look at the "Show your Bird Portraits" thread on this forum.

 

[Loswr]

The bad thing is its usefulness for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.
There is no other 63mp sensor out there and that's probably the point - it seems pretty useless.
Tell me one lens that can outresolve even a 50mp full-frame sensor.

...not even thet best of Zeiss lenses do and what are those extra megapixels for if you won't get that information through the lens that's sitting in front of the sensor?

Thanks for demonstrating in one short post that your understanding of photography is limited and your comprehension of optics is moreso.

Your implication is that current Canon sensors are useless outside of the studio. Sorry, the world has clearly proven that to be a fallacious and asinine argument. As for optics, system resolution is what matters, and increasing sense a resolution will increase that even if the relative increase decrements at higher pixel densities.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, your sarcasm detector is broken

I’ll get that tested soon.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

So many leaks about products that'll we'll never see, what about what we will see. I suspect Canon doesn't want leaks of more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

So many leaks about products that'll we'll never see, what about what we will see. I suspect Canon doesn't want leaks of more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.

Canon doesn't want us to see what we want to see, and we do not want to see what Canon wants us to see. That basically recapitulates the contents of this and many other discussions on this forum.

 

[GoldWing]

Well if the new 1DXMKIII is 50MP's what the heck is this even getting press?

 

[Adelino]

Whats bad about it? Tell us. Give us a example of a 63 mp FF sensor that is better.

The 63 MP sounds good but the low DR, noise, slow readout and other specs that were mentioned sound bad. Other than the 63 MP what do you think sounds good about it?

 

[Loswr]

Canon doesn't want us to see what we want to see, and we do not want to see what Canon wants us to see. That basically recapitulates the contents of this and many other discussions on this forum.

The bit that recapitulates much of the trolling on this forum is, “...more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.” Personally, I’m still wondering when the competition will come up with a FF sensor with >50 MP or a sensor with millions of AF points, both of which Canon has offered for years while their competitors have trailed behind. But people will go on thinking their opinions represent those of the majority despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The bit that recapitulates much of the trolling on this forum is, “...more trailing edge specs to further disillusion the faithful.” Personally, I’m still wondering when the competition will come up with a FF sensor with >50 MP or a sensor with millions of AF points, both of which Canon has offered for years while their competitors have trailed behind. But people will go on thinking their opinions represent those of the majority despite evidence to the contrary.

But again I don't care about the majority. I don't care if I represent the majority in this instance. I'm choosing a camera for me. Ok this thread is all speculations, but still I speculate about a camera for me and I don't care about the majority who maybe wants millions AF points instead of high DR.

 

[Loswr]

But again I don't care about the majority. I don't care if I represent the majority in this instance. I'm choosing a camera for me. Ok this thread is all speculations, but still I speculate about a camera for me and I don't care about the majority who maybe wants millions AF points instead of high DR.

True. But the troll to whom you were replying stated ‘disillusion the faithful,’ meaning he believes he knows how others feel.

 

[Pape]

it sounds like plan B sensor if that next generation camera fails get reliable enough for release.
At least they managed avoid reusing 5ds sensor

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Wow...this thread spun into name calling fast...
For me, the megapixel race was over once I hit 20-ish full frame mp and that was a long time ago. A good photo is a good photo regardless of the quantity of pixels over that particular boundary. I have no desire for a 5DSR even though I take a lot of landscapes. In my humble and probably biased opinion...anything over 24mp is koolaid and pushed by camera marketers and people who photograph walls and lens charts. Give me a well rounded and super versatile camera like a 5Dmk4 any day over a 5Dsr or what ever the latest super high mega pixel bragging monster will be. It's a bit like the frame rate argument....I've never seen the need for 14 fps either and I've shot on many wildlife workshops. Anything over 5 fps is more than adequate if one times their shot. Only the "pray and spray" shooters seem to need more. I can't see many clients choosing images because of a greater system resolution vs a great photo.

 

[uri.raz]

Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?

 

[Loswr]

Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?

I suppose you could argue that full frame is overkill for security cameras in general, but for those applications the more resolution the better. Generally the goal is to cover a large area, and the wider the FOV the higher resolution you need.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

In my humble and probably biased opinion...anything over 24mp is koolaid and pushed by camera marketers and people who photograph walls and lens charts. Give me a well rounded and super versatile camera like a 5Dmk4 any day over a 5Dsr or what ever the latest super high mega pixel bragging monster will be.

But 5DIV is 30mp which is more than your 24mp limit.
In terms of landscapes, high mp count is needed for large prints and also for postprocessing. You have more room for cropping to start with.
Not that 24mp is too little, but I wouldn't mind to have up to 60-75mp, providing the dynamic range doesn't degrade.

 

[Pape]

we need all possible megapixel so can save back from carrying too long teles

 

[Diko]

1/On spam....
Damn! Like first page... weird off-topic flaming. At least someone posted that link to "dat" gorgeous and swe-e-e-t little baby (the pre-production Sony FE 135mm f1.8 GM) with its verdict: "if you are shooting a 90-megapixel camera, this lens will be the one that wrings the most detail out of that sensor" it's not such a waste of time.

2/ On motion blur
The following quote also made me think about on sensor stabilization:

...I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.

I wonder if in the speculated next iteration of 50MPish DSLR body (they are still going to make it a DSLR, right?) is going to come with in(DSRL)camera sensor stabilization. Currently with 50MPs in order to ensure good quality results along with state of the art lense one also needs to consider controlled light or speed. There are fewer lenses that could accommodate perfect results with own in-lense stabilization.

3/ On lense sharpness

...I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.

As for the lense VS sensor resolution - let us not forget ISO, please. Sure - the current about 43 is about 43 (perceptual resolution) and that is on few primes only. And yet due to the higher count of pixels as mentioned above to avoid motion blur I have to shoot higher speeds, which requires either more light or higher ISO. Noise reduction from 50MP easier than from 10 or 20MP. I am talking from my own experience. Especially and usually when the output final image is with lower resolution. Bare in mind that the talk is of
"8-9 out of 10 photos that are sharp" kind of experience. So to have the freedom to choose from wider variety. I don't go extreme on ISO for lack of DR, but on speed will always push as higher as possible to better my chances on big PXL bodies.

 

[mk0x55]

Thanks for demonstrating in one short post that your understanding of photography is limited and your comprehension of optics is moreso.

Your implication is that current Canon sensors are useless outside of the studio. Sorry, the world has clearly proven that to be a fallacious and asinine argument. As for optics, system resolution is what matters, and increasing sense a resolution will increase that even if the relative increase decrements at higher pixel densities.

I don't see how what I wrote implies what you claim. I'm a Canon shooter and don't claim that my current camera is useless although it doesn't match its competition as far as the overall performance goes. What I claim in that post and those few previous to it is that if I got to choose between 13 extra megapixels or even half a stop of extra DR, I'd go for the latter. And I would accept no decrease in DR.
The resolution is useful mostly for cropping or if you wish to print really huge. The first problem you can solve by getting a longer lens. The second problem seems more legit to me although largely unfaced, because you [almost] only can make panoramas of static scenes.

I can understand however how dear that resolution becomes to bird photographers who rely heavily on cropping. For most other photography, it mostly means asking for more data demands, slower workflow, earlier diffraction and lower DR.

Let me clearify further: As long as they improve on the DR, I don't mind increased resolution. The former is just more important to me at this time; and I believe to most photographers out there (perhaps except birders). I'm seldom hindered by resolution limitations; but very often by DR limitations.

Good that the sensor indeed doesn't seem to be intended for the photography market.

 

[Kit.]

Isn't a 60MP 35mm sensor overkill for security cameras?

It's handy if you want to actually discern poorly lit faces in wide-angle scenes.