Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]

[Omni Images]

So yeah .... I'd be interested in a 50mp sensor from Canon.
I made my Canon bed in the early 80's and loved laying it, and still do ... They have done everything I have wanted them to do, even though I can't always afford to have the latest and greatest.
My prints looks great on the wall blown up rather large.

Just steer this thread back a little to topic ....

I have been looking at the Pentax 645Z .. it has a 51mp sensor ...

Can anyone tell me what differences there are with a 50mp medium format size sensor compared to a 50mp 35mm size sensor.

I would assume the larger sensor would be much better ... but can you guys tell me in what areas of image quality etc it would be much better specifically.

 

[Woody]

Can anyone tell me what differences there are with a 50mp medium format size sensor compared to a 50mp 35mm size sensor.

This is not exactly what you asked for but it's close enough (50 mp MF vs 36 mp FF):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_645z&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=phaseone_iq180&attr13_3=sony_a7r&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=35&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

 

[Omni Images]

Thanks Woody, It's clear I had better start saving for a Phase One

 

[Sporgon]

Can anyone tell me what differences there are with a 50mp medium format size sensor compared to a 50mp 35mm size sensor.

This is not exactly what you asked for but it's close enough (50 mp MF vs 36 mp FF):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_645z&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=phaseone_iq180&attr13_3=sony_a7r&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=35&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

When you start looking at image quality and resolution the inescapable facts are that the smaller the format the smaller the focal length lenses uses, so the lower the subject magnification and the lower the amount of light passing through the lens. For example take a 100 mm lens at f2.8. It allows five times the volume of light to pass through it at the same aperture as a 24 mm lens. Exposure remains the same because exposure is a function of light intensity ( I think the correct term is really density) and not total volume.

Shoot your landscape picture on an DMF camera at say f8 on a 50 mm lens and you have double the volume of light passing through the lens than you have with an APS-c camera using a 17 mm lens. So not only has your picture been captured on a larger sensor, with more magnification, it has also been recorded with twice the amount of light. The optical resolution of the lens isn't as critical either as you have more magnification.

This is the problem with more pixels on a given sensor size. Pixels are only one part of what you need to realize full potential resolution. I guess this is why Canon haven't been in a great hurry to bring out a 'very high mp' FF sensor. Incidentally I believe this is the reason we don't see the full 'reach benefit' of crop sensors. When you are reach limited and use a crop sensor as opposed to cropping in on a FF sensor ( resulting in less 'pixels on target'), the only thing you are benefiting from is more pixels. The magnification, volume of light, lens optics etc. all remain the same. So you don't realize anything like the amount you think you should.

Now's probably not the right time to say I'm thinking of getting another 5D mark 1.

 

[Loswr]

What kind of people wonder around taking pictures in the dark with teleconverters?

Nikon's is more rewarding if you're using teleconverters with your lens or you're focusing in very low light situations (-3EV on the D750.)

If you put a 2x teleconverter onto a f/4 zoom lens then you're at f/8.0. Low light levels, at events, near dawn or dusk, etc.

-3 EV with an f/8 lens could mean, for example, a 0.5 s exposure at ISO 102400. How rewarding do you think that would be at events or shooting at dawn or dusk? Apparently you have no comprehension of the amount of light -3 EV represents.

 

[Loswr]

What kind of people wonder around taking pictures in the dark with teleconverters?

Nikon's is more rewarding if you're using teleconverters with your lens or you're focusing in very low light situations (-3EV on the D750.)

If you put a 2x teleconverter onto a f/4 zoom lens then you're at f/8.0. Low light levels, at events, near dawn or dusk, etc.

-3 EV with an f/8 lens could mean, for example, a 0.5 s exposure at ISO 102400. How rewarding do you think that would be at events or shooting at dawn or dusk? Apparently you have no comprehension of the amount of light -3 EV represents.

That would be fine if AF was in some way linked to ISO, but other than its rating, it isn't - your camera's PDAF array isn't built into the sensor, so changing the ISO that you shoot at won't help your AF (and if you're using live view, the camera will increase ISO as required for contrast based AF.)

To put this in better context, using an f/4.0 lens at ISO 100, EV-3 correlates to an exposure time of 2 minutes and EV-1 (which the 5D Mark II does) would get you 30 seconds. At dawn/dusk, I have so often found TTL autofocus to not work that I default to live view AF now (if not manual.)

For the curious, a full EV table can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

So yes, I know exactly how much light -3 EV represents (and have experience shooting in very low light conditions.)

Yes, I know how the PDAF system works.

You mentioned events. Do you shoot 30 s to 2 min exposures often when shooting events? It's a red herring - people touting the supposed advantage conferred by -3 EV (over the 5DIII/1D X at -2 EV) with no idea how dark that really is relative to most shooting situations.

BTW, the 5DII's PDAF is spec'd to -0.5 EV, not -1 EV.

 

[StudentOfLight]

What kind of people wonder around taking pictures in the dark with teleconverters?

Nikon's is more rewarding if you're using teleconverters with your lens or you're focusing in very low light situations (-3EV on the D750.)

If you put a 2x teleconverter onto a f/4 zoom lens then you're at f/8.0. Low light levels, at events, near dawn or dusk, etc.

-3 EV with an f/8 lens could mean, for example, a 0.5 s exposure at ISO 102400. How rewarding do you think that would be at events or shooting at dawn or dusk? Apparently you have no comprehension of the amount of light -3 EV represents.

That would be fine if AF was in some way linked to ISO, but other than its rating, it isn't - your camera's PDAF array isn't built into the sensor, so changing the ISO that you shoot at won't help your AF (and if you're using live view, the camera will increase ISO as required for contrast based AF.)

To put this in better context, using an f/4.0 lens at ISO 100, EV-3 correlates to an exposure time of 2 minutes and EV-1 (which the 5D Mark II does) would get you 30 seconds. At dawn/dusk, I have so often found TTL autofocus to not work that I default to live view AF now (if not manual.)

For the curious, a full EV table can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

So yes, I know exactly how much light -3 EV represents (and have experience shooting in very low light conditions.)

Yes, I know how the PDAF system works.

You mentioned events. Do you shoot 30 s to 2 min exposures often when shooting events? It's a red herring - people touting the supposed advantage conferred by -3 EV (over the 5DIII/1D X at -2 EV) with no idea how dark that really is relative to most shooting situations.

BTW, the 5DII's PDAF is spec'd to -0.5 EV, not -1 EV.

If my calculations are right then -3Ev is 0.3 lux. With this amount of ambient light, a "proper" ambient exposure at f/8 requires using a combination of high ISO and long shutter duration (see attached table.) For long shutter durations you might require a tripod and a relatively stationary subject.

However:
(1) if you are using flash as your only light source in a dark environment then you could use the -3Ev to achieve autofocus while the camera shoots at a clean ISO and reasonable shutter speed.
(2) if you are using a flash which has an AF-assist beam then you won't need -3Ev for achieving focus.

Anyway, my point is that not everyone shoots with ambient light alone, some people use a combination of ambient and flash and some use purely flash. Good specs are useful but not always necessary.

 

[Alefoto]

You're blatantly ignoring the considered opinion of a lot of Canon experts: If you cannot make do with what Canon currently offers, there's something wrong with you and/or your photography.

[/quote]

This is not the point, no one questions that is the author and not the gear that produces the art... Dante did not have computer and Michelangelo used a pencil... but...
when one is investing a lot of money into a brand and its gear it's not because of a love affair and before submitting to this decision the same guy will look around to other possibilities, give them a try, and given the same amount of money invested, Nikon is clearly superior with the d810 and d750 offerings. Actually a brand new d750 can be found cheaper than a brand new 5d III... and gives back a lot more!

Canon sensors clearly have the banding problems and lower dinamic range. I do outdoor photography and I starting to look at those d810 or d750. Why? Because putting my money into them I will receive back more (more dynamic range, way better video, flat and zebra options, and so on).

Considering the 7d II just out, I do not see such great improvements giving a wait of 5 years. Just the video part and a little on the high iso range, but for the rest? 2fps and 2MP more? Oh, I am impressed!

Ok, Canon gear will give some unique options, like the TS 17mm, the MP-E 65 or the wonderful 400mm 5.6 but considering the past innovation history on cameras and their pricing I expect the new 5D IV or 6D II to be available possibly a year from now, likely more, and to be priced quite high. A better D750 is available now...

 

[Maui5150]

Considering the 7d II just out, I do not see such great improvements giving a wait of 5 years. Just the video part and a little on the high iso range, but for the rest? 2fps and 2MP more? Oh, I am impressed!

2 FPS
Video Continuous Focus
65 Cross Type AF Points (over 300% more)
Better IQ
GPS
More color depth
Lower noise at high ISO
ISO 16000 vs 6400
Larger Resolution
Dual card slots

You don't see great improvement IN THE AREAS you want... but there are SUBSTANTIAL improvements.

The AF system on the 7D MK II is night and day to the 7D, only the 1DX really has a better AF system. Everything else had moderate boost, so it shoots faster, larger resolution, GPS, extra card slot, better high iso a little more color, etc.

7D has generally always been an Action camera.

You do not see 65 Cross Type AF Points up from 19 as a huge improvement?

 

[gdanmitchell]

"That high of a pixel density will make low noise a challenge. You have to give in one area to get in another."

Ironically, people have been writing that about every prospective increase in photo site density for over a decade now... and it has never been the case. Each new generation of higher MP sensor cameras has equalled or exceeded the noise performance of the previous lower-density generation.

 

[K-amps]

PEOPLE!
It's far too early for a 5DMk4, Canon is not Nikon.

Should I remove my ebay listing for my 5d3 then? :

 

[K-amps]

PEOPLE!
It's far too early for a 5DMk4, Canon is not Nikon.

you know, a quick google would have told you how silly your post is. 5D was replaced in 3 years, 5dII in 3.5 years...

sept 2015 (next year) would be .. what? 3.5 years.

So am I cancelling my ebay listing or not?

 

[Loswr]

Considering the 7d II just out, I do not see such great improvements giving a wait of 5 years. Just the video part and a little on the high iso range, but for the rest? 2fps and 2MP more? Oh, I am impressed!

You don't see great improvement IN THE AREAS you want... but there are SUBSTANTIAL improvements.
...
You do not see 65 Cross Type AF Points up from 19 as a huge improvement?

Irrelevant to those who believe that sensor = camera.

 

[Maui5150]

Considering the 7d II just out, I do not see such great improvements giving a wait of 5 years. Just the video part and a little on the high iso range, but for the rest? 2fps and 2MP more? Oh, I am impressed!

You don't see great improvement IN THE AREAS you want... but there are SUBSTANTIAL improvements.
...
You do not see 65 Cross Type AF Points up from 19 as a huge improvement?

Irrelevant to those who believe that sensor = camera.

Hey... Look at this 13.2 DR.

Image is blurry and totally missed the focus on the shot, but look at the DR

LOL

 

[jaayres20]

I didn't look into the d750 specs and I'm not in the market for one, but you do notice that the full-fledged 5d3/1dx af array is only available with some select new and expensive lenses?

Yeah, new and expensive lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and the EF 35mm f/2, both from 1990 and one of them costing just over $100. I guess you didn't look into the 5DIII/1D X specs much, either. :

LOL, you've made your point - I can use the full 1dx af array with a 50/1.8 ;-)

My point is: popular lenses like 24-70L1/2.8, 100mm macros/2.8 aren't group A - other popular budget choices like the 400/5.6 have a lot less cross-points which is about on par with the d750. Thus general statements are difficult with the Canon system while Nikon really just depends on the max. aperture up to 11 cross points at f8 (5d3: 1 (one)).

There are over 40 lenses in group A and can utilize all 61 AF points and 41 cross type sensors as well as the 5 dual cross type sensors. These lenses are Canon's performance AF lenses that need the speed and accuracy this system provides. I am not going to use a "budget" lens and complain about the AF performance. Does Nikon even have dual cross-type sensors?

 

[Marsu42]

There are over 40 lenses in group A and can utilize all 61 AF points and 41 cross type sensors as well as the 5 dual cross type sensors. These lenses are Canon's performance AF lenses that need the speed and accuracy this system provides.

I'm all with you that the 1dx af system is great and Canon did a good job putting it in the 5d3 - and I would wish that I could afford one instead of my 6d. It's a pity they didn't manage to enable the red af points when tracking, but that probably really not deliberate, but a botch job in development.

My simple point was that a general statement "Canon has x af points, Nikon has y" isn't valid in all case because Canon puts the lenses in groups. Which probably is a good idea so they actually work. So would you get off my back, pretty please with sugar on it ? I am absolutely willing to sacrifice my Yongnuo rt transmitter to appease the great Canon god :->

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the 7D Mark II's sensor is the best demonstration of where Canon's sensor technology is at then I'm not going to wait for a full frame version of that sensor because Canon haven't fixed the read noise problem at low ISO.

Wow, that sucks for all those people using Canon sensors and shooting at low ISO. How do they ever manage to take a good picture, get images accepted by clients or published in magazines, win prestigious awards, or anything like that?

Hey why don't you jsut sell all your current gear and go get a 1960s camera. People won prestigious awards and got images accepted back then too.

Back then, in the past? We're talking about today. Your implication is that current Canon sensors are not capable of delivering publication or award-winning images today. That implication is totally asinine and only serves to make you look silly. But thanks for sharing your opinion.

When the heck did I say that? I've actually repeatedly said that you could take a billion images with a current Canon and not have the sensor matter too much at all.

(Of course it is also true that you can easily find scenarios where the Exmor would help considerably. Of course that you always try to minimize and scoff at and you attack and trash anyone who dares suggest that. Some will care about this and some won't. But if it matters to you at all, don't dare mention it near a Canon fanboys (and I sadly have to admit that Canon fanboys are way worse than Sony or Nikon fanboys; case in point on one Nikon thread a lot of D300 users were saying they wished Nikon would come out with this and that that the 72 has and guess what? it was a nice discussion and people were able to mention what they wanted, complain about what Nikon was way behind on and nobody got jumped all over by raving Nikon fanboys who had to insist that Nikon is the ultimate perfection in all.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thank you for pointing outside of in certain select situations, such as sports and wildlife photography, there's no reason to buy Canon.

Other situations may also include (a) spontaneous photos of active kids (b) macro photos of relatively active insects (e.g. in the summer or tropical countries). Personally, MILC offerings do not offer the solutions I want either because of the response time of EVF or limited macro lens solutions (let me know when you find a MILC macro lens with equivalent f > 150 mm).

So, apart from relatively inactive subjects and landscape photos, I cannot find enough reasons to buy non-Canikon stuff.

haha, and so it goes.

Everyone keeps saying "but what about the Canon camera system." Less than 10% of the marketplace buys into that. Less than 10%.

What about those macro or TS/E lenses?

They're niche products. Regular people taking regular photographs are not likely to be interested. So too are the big, fast, primes/zooms. When it comes to units moved, they're niche products compared to the mass market for DSLR gear.

So for the vast majority of DSLR owners, there is no benefit from the "camera system", be it Canon, Nikon, Samsung or Sony.

What's important is that first camera body and lens and the most likely resultant impact of that is that some number of years later, good/bad experience with that camera and lens may influence further buying decisions.

Well Canon does have the nicest 24-70 2.8, 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-300 too. (perhaps this also goes for the 100-400, although I guess Nikon did come out with some sort of 80-400 relatively recently, don't know much about it though)

 

[DominoDude]

Not pointing in any special direction, and I could have posted this in quite a few threads here today: But somehow I can imagine early on in the weeks that there are individuals who have had sex offerings turned down during the weekend - by both of their hands...

Don't take it out on the forums! Be civil.

And now back to the normal yada yada "You're wrong, I'm right!"

 

[Marsu42]

And now back to the normal yada yada "You're wrong, I'm right!"

Now, I don't think any female photogs would read a thread like this up to this point, probably it's easier for them to get a life - so I feel to make a visual comment of the proceedings :->