Exactly! The question arises due to the idiotic marketing messages coming from CANON. "1Dx - our flagship". It's not just the sensor though. Indeed have tested both 1Dx - I & II. Faster AF, better DR, lower Noise. Images are... awesome. However IMHO best for sport, birds, kids and anything moving fast. Night photography... haven't made side-by-side tests with 5D4 for comparison after down-sampling final images. But hey - what do I know. They need to sell something awkwardly expensive. Actually pro sport photography is the most expensive in reality both as bodies and lenses (as investment, have no idea how well are they paid, AFAIK usually the press photo agencies give them the equipment).
What is it exactly that looks unnatural to you in this image?
The image is flat. It is surreal.
Just was playing around what I can pull off these days from the usual equipment.
Do you see the sky - how dark it is with saturated blue on a sunny day? The shadows are near to non existent. Go out and see with your eyes. The regions where there are highlights and shadows are NOT supposed to be so saturated at all that much! Your eyes wouldn't register it that way. Unless I PS the cat in to show it's a... lollipop child's dream it's totally fake. This here is obviously an event. Really it was
And not some piece of an art fart.
And having in mind I agree "more is always better to have and not always use" concerning DR, there are people that have shifted the aesthetic (10x 2 mobile photography possibilities) to kitsch. The age of not restraining to
always max out have led to FB being full with this "plastic and unreal" caricatures instead of photos.
Maybe I am old.
Enough off topic. I would enjoy the 63 MP ex-beast to be the next security thing though maybe even for that it's not good enough. AFAIK HDR video capabilities are already on CMOS implemented with dual exposure or iso like capabilities in mind.
On the other hand when I think of it. 63MP that's between 33 MP (8k) and 133 MP (16K), so maybe it is dual something 8K. But hardly that would be for video, since the overheating would be tremendous and the data to be processed would have "from-the-future-rates". Way too cutting edge - better refrain myself from day dreaming.
Since there's no mention of something new (е.g. IBIS) for photography in that datasheet it's USELESS when superior in-house sensors are available already.
Another possibility it to be a leak of an old "from the recycle bin" or forgotten archived data sheet. Hardly a publicity stunt since it would be a bad PR for CANON
)))
Last possibility that most of you would dismiss is "ear-hunt". The good old "leaking on purpose fake info that is changed to regions or security levels". If that is the case I bet the mole is not tech savvy since he/she would be aware the data is weird.