Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]

[Loswr]

When the heck did I say that?

You didn't say it. If you're unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'implication', I suggest looking it up in a dictionary or using Google.

 

[slclick]

Wow this thread has been such a sweet diversion from the Ferguson news.NOT

 

[TeT]

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.

Yes I know how to take pictures.... I was making a joke. It may or may not have been funny .... but that is inconsequential. Dont let me disturb the ongoing struggle for truth and brightness in this thread...

 

[DavidD]

<p>The world continues to wait for Canon to jump back into the resolution race, and it looks like they will be in 2015 (though we have previously said they would in 2014). A few new mentions of a 50mp camera coming in the first half of 2015 to which there will be 2 variants. One with a low pass filter, and another without. I’m not sure Canon would get into 2 SKUs for one camera body, though they have done it for astronomy camera purposes. The camera will not be an EOS-1 style camera and would be a new camera above the 5D line. You’re free to call it the “3D”, but I’ve never been a fan of that name simply because it could be confusing to consumers.</p>

While I would have loved to have 30, 40 or 50 Canon megapixels a few years ago, I'm not sure the L lenses available in 2008-ish could adequately or comfortably resolve that much detail.

I suspect Canon is pursuing a reasonable strategy of --

1. get the lenses capable of resolving 50+ mp first,

2. then release cameras with sensors that can deliver them.

 

[StudentOfLight]

<p>The world continues to wait for Canon to jump back into the resolution race, and it looks like they will be in 2015 (though we have previously said they would in 2014). A few new mentions of a 50mp camera coming in the first half of 2015 to which there will be 2 variants. One with a low pass filter, and another without. I’m not sure Canon would get into 2 SKUs for one camera body, though they have done it for astronomy camera purposes. The camera will not be an EOS-1 style camera and would be a new camera above the 5D line. You’re free to call it the “3D”, but I’ve never been a fan of that name simply because it could be confusing to consumers.</p>

While I would have loved to have 30, 40 or 50 Canon megapixels a few years ago, I'm not sure the L lenses available in 2008-ish could adequately or comfortably resolve that much detail.

I suspect Canon is pursuing a reasonable strategy of --

1. get the lenses capable of resolving 50+ mp first,

2. then release cameras with sensors that can deliver them.

Canon has already updated most of the L-zoom range in preparation for higher megapixels. With the 100-400mm already officially on the, we now only await the ultrawide f/2.8 zoom update. Zooms are more versatile and cater to a bigger market than primes so get priority for R&D.

Anyway, there is no need to worry. There are already many lenses in the Canon Lineup that can resolve more than 30MP and not all of them are expensive. As an example , the cheapest lens in the Canon range, the 50mm f/1.8 can resolve close to 40MP when shooting at f/5.6. The 40mm Pancake is another good performer on a tight budget. Top-of-the-line lenses like the 300mm f/2.8 and the 600mm f/4 could deliver around 50MP of detail given a 54MP sensor.

This is not simply me pull numbers out my ass, it is based on a work in progress. I won't go into my methodology, but you could get an idea of which lenses are good for high res by looking at APS-C crops at TheDigitalPicture website. The 60D is an 18MP body, which when extrapolated to full frame is 46MP. Lenses with good corner performance on full frame hold up to the the APS-C crops. Lenses with bad Chromatic Aberration and soft corners on full frame are not "future proof" and will likely be replaced in the next couple of years.

 

[NancyP]

I remember how many complaints there were at first about the D800 and increased need for good lenses and better technique.

 

[Alefoto]

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.

I know there have been improvements, of course there have been! Ok, more and better AF points and some other improvements which I can notice. What I was talking about is image quality only. The AF will give you a in focus or not in focus shot, not better or lower image quality. For even less money Nikon cameras give you more. This is quite simple. Just look at all the examples on line of severely underexposed pictures with the last d810 or d750 and how they can handle a 3-5 stops push. Nowdays almost every camera has a decent AF system.
The idea I have is that on the 7d vs 7dii there is no major improvement but instead are several minor ones, the best of which is AF (the same as was with the 5D II vs 5D III...).
This, its high price tag, the fact these improvements took 5 years lead me to think that also the 5D IV will not have major improvements and things like 4k video, +35 Mp sensors, lack of OLPF filter, some nice video options are still way far. And they will be priced high.

 

[e17paul]

While I would have loved to have 30, 40 or 50 Canon megapixels a few years ago, I'm not sure the L lenses available in 2008-ish could adequately or comfortably resolve that much detail.

I suspect Canon is pursuing a reasonable strategy of --

1. get the lenses capable of resolving 50+ mp first,

2. then release cameras with sensors that can deliver them.

Canon has already updated most of the L-zoom range in preparation for higher megapixels. With the 100-400mm already officially on the, we now only await the ultrawide f/2.8 zoom update. Zooms are more versatile and cater to a bigger market than primes so get priority for R&D.

Anyway, there is no need to worry. There are already many lenses in the Canon Lineup that can resolve more than 30MP and not all of them are expensive. As an example , the cheapest lens in the Canon range, the 50mm f/1.8 can resolve close to 40MP when shooting at f/5.6. The 40mm Pancake is another good performer on a tight budget. Top-of-the-line lenses like the 300mm f/2.8 and the 600mm f/4 could deliver around 50MP of detail given a 54MP sensor.

This is not simply me pull numbers out my ass, it is based on a work in progress. I won't go into my methodology, but you could get an idea of which lenses are good for high res by looking at APS-C crops at TheDigitalPicture website. The 60D is an 18MP body, which when extrapolated to full frame is 46MP. Lenses with good corner performance on full frame hold up to the the APS-C crops. Lenses with bad Chromatic Aberration and soft corners on full frame are not "future proof" and will likely be replaced in the next couple of years.
[/quote]

That sounds like a good objective assessment of the practical issues. I'm expecting the remaining older L prime lenses (the 35 & 50) to be updated soon. It also tallies with word from a professional photographer that there is a high megapixel camera in the wild being tested, but will not be released until the full range of lenses is ready for it. I'm also hoping for replacements to the non-L 20mm and 50mm lenses amongst others. But as noted, zooms are the bigger market, and what I would choose if I had to shoot professionally under pressure.

A high 50MP sensor would give scope for a crop mode, as found on Nikon cameras. A 1.4x crop would give a 25MP image, and a 2x crop would give a 12MP image. That would be a great way to give extra reach to my 70-300L

What is bound to disappoint is the frame rate on a 50MP camera. There will be just too much data for the electronic bus to allow the 10 frames per second of the 7D2. Yet again, not everyone will be happy! Though in the next few years card and processor speeds will increase to alleviate that limitation of current electronics.

 

[Loswr]

I know there have been improvements, of course there have been! Ok, more and better AF points and some other improvements which I can notice. What I was talking about is image quality only. The AF will give you a in focus or not in focus shot, not better or lower image quality.

I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right. :

For even less money Nikon cameras give you more. This is quite simple. Just look at all the examples on line of severely underexposed pictures with the last d810 or d750 and how they can handle a 3-5 stops push.

I'd like a hammer that automatically straightens bent nails as I pound them in. Until then, I'll just hit them squarely so they don't bend in the first place.

 

[Loswr]

I know there have been improvements, of course there have been! Ok, more and better AF points and some other improvements which I can notice. What I was talking about is image quality only. The AF will give you a in focus or not in focus shot, not better or lower image quality.

I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right. :

Yeah, it's about as useful as a picture with 1 stop of DR.

See, with focus, there's this ring around the middle of the lens that lets you adjust the focus. I've yet to find the ring around a Canon DSLR that lets you adjust DR.

There are other ways to adjust DR. Does the DR adjustment ring on SoNikon cameras go all the way to infinity like the focus ring? :

 

[Orangutan]

I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right. :

See, with focus, there's this ring around the middle of the lens that lets you adjust the focus. I've yet to find the ring around a Canon DSLR that lets you adjust DR.

dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours. Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line. I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved. This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.

For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.

For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.

Question to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects? Do you MF everything?

 

[Alefoto]

I know there have been improvements, of course there have been! Ok, more and better AF points and some other improvements which I can notice. What I was talking about is image quality only. The AF will give you a in focus or not in focus shot, not better or lower image quality.

I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right. :

For even less money Nikon cameras give you more. This is quite simple. Just look at all the examples on line of severely underexposed pictures with the last d810 or d750 and how they can handle a 3-5 stops push.

I'd like a hammer that automatically straightens bent nails as I pound them in. Until then, I'll just hit them squarely so they don't bend in the first place.

You can compare crisp shots with out of focus shots and more DR with less DR.
In order to judge better the image quality of a sensor, you need to use it with the best glass you can, and guess what... most of the top lenses are all manual focus: the Zeiss 135, the 2 Otus ones, Voigtlander 125, Coastal Optics 60, Leica Apo 280, 180, 100, and others.
That's why I don't see the 7D II AF as a major improvement, but just as a "better than normal 2014 AF system". It would have been imbarassing if it was not improved.

Anyway, most of this assumptions are quite personal and based on personal experience and opinions.

 

[Orangutan]

You can compare crisp shots with out of focus shots and more DR with less DR.
In order to judge better the image quality of a sensor, you need to use it with the best glass you can, and guess what... most of the top lenses are all manual focus: the Zeiss 135, the 2 Otus ones, Voigtlander 125, Coastal Optics 60, Leica Apo 280, 180, 100, and others.
That's why I don't see the 7D II AF as a major improvement, but just as a "better than normal 2014 AF system". It would have been imbarassing if it was not improved.

Anyway, most of this assumptions are quite personal and based on personal experience and opinions.

I think that's the point, here: which aspect of a camera system is most important depends on how you use the system. If you do only one type of photography, e.g. landscape, that's limited by low-ISO IQ, then you should choose your system for that. If you're a sports photographer, then AF and lens selection may be more important. Those, such as myself, who dabble in a variety of subjects need to choose a system that balances our needs and budget. The entire question of which is the best sensor, though not meaningless, can't really be addressed without discussing the way the camera will be used.

 

[Loswr]

The entire question of which is the best sensor, though not meaningless, can't really be addressed without discussing the way the camera will be used.

+1

It's really the performance of the system measured against one's individual needs. It's also important to keep in mind that while there are differences among current sensors, all of them are capable of delivering excellent IQ, which means for many use cases the differences aren't nearly as important as other aspects of system performance.

 

[Harv]

For even less money Nikon cameras give you more. This is quite simple. Just look at all the examples on line of severely underexposed pictures with the last d810 or d750 and how they can handle a 3-5 stops push.

Well, that's great news for a photographer with the skill level that constantly underexposes images 3-5 stops.

Sorry, I just had to.

 

[dgatwood]

For even less money Nikon cameras give you more. This is quite simple. Just look at all the examples on line of severely underexposed pictures with the last d810 or d750 and how they can handle a 3-5 stops push.

Well, that's great news for a photographer with the skill level that constantly underexposes images 3-5 stops.

Sorry, I just had to.

Or a camera that consistently mis-meters images by 3–5 stops.

Extra headroom and footroom is nice when you're working outside, shooting stage plays, etc., but I'm struggling to think of a situation where I'd need five stops of either one. Three, on occasion, usually involving a mistake on my part....

 

[Orangutan]

dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours. Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line. I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved. This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.

For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.

For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.

Do the above statements reflect your personal experience with photography?
Or did you canvas other people?

That depends on what you mean by "canvas:" I've read plenty by sports photographers, both pro and amateur, who rely on AF, and could not do what they do exclusively using MF. I've read a number of pieces by landscape and architectural photographers who refuse to leave Canon because of the quality of Canon's TS lenses, despite their acknowledgements of the advantages of Sony sensors. Have I actually run a scientific survey of these different sub-disciplines? No, of course not. Am I relying on my own personal experience? No, I'm relying on what others have written about their needs and experiences.

Question to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects? Do you MF everything?

Of my last 3 outings to take photos totalling 7 days of photography, MF comprised 100%

Then AF has little value for you, and you should choose a camera system based on other criteria that match your shooting style. My guess is that you're very unusual in this regard, and most people use AF quite a bit. While I don't have direct evidence for this, it's a reasonable inference based on the fact that every major review of a new camera body will spend substantial amount of space discussing AF. Also, as I noted above, the Nikon D810 has a much improved AF system over the D800, which wasn't bad. This also implies strongly that "the market" is full of buyers who want AF.

I certainly will not say that the desire for more DR is invalid -- I'd love to have more of it in my Canon bodies. However, it's not the only factor, nor even the primary factor, that makes an image a "keeper." For a minority of photographers, possibly including yourself, it may make the difference between an image you like and one you don't.

 

[sanj]

I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right. :

See, with focus, there's this ring around the middle of the lens that lets you adjust the focus. I've yet to find the ring around a Canon DSLR that lets you adjust DR.

dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours. Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line. I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved. This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.

For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.

For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.

Do the above statements reflect your personal experience with photography?
Or did you canvas other people?

Question to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects? Do you MF everything?

Of my last 3 outings to take photos totalling 7 days of photography, MF comprised 100% of the shots I took and quite often I'm sitting there calculating the DoF that I want vs the aperture and zoom so that I know what distance to focus at. Now if Canon still had the A-DEP feature on their camera then I'd be using that, but it is gone.

In my lifelong outings to take photos totaling 100s of days, MF comprised 1% of the shots I took and quite often I am busy taking SHARP pictures, catching the moment, enjoying the setting and not wasting time over tables. Having said that, yes I would prefer better low ISO DR in Canon cameras.

 

[scyrene]

I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right. :

See, with focus, there's this ring around the middle of the lens that lets you adjust the focus. I've yet to find the ring around a Canon DSLR that lets you adjust DR.

dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours. Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line. I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved. This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.

For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.

For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.

Do the above statements reflect your personal experience with photography?
Or did you canvas other people?

Question to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects? Do you MF everything?

Of my last 3 outings to take photos totalling 7 days of photography, MF comprised 100% of the shots I took and quite often I'm sitting there calculating the DoF that I want vs the aperture and zoom so that I know what distance to focus at. Now if Canon still had the A-DEP feature on their camera then I'd be using that, but it is gone.

So you admit your style of photography is pretty unusual? How many people don't use AF at all?

 

[KingTut]

The way chip development works is you spend A LOT of time developing individual circuits, and then reuse as much as you can. An indivdual pixel sensor/amp/readout takes a lot engineering and must be reused. So, if you just scale the 7DII up to FF, you get 53 megapixels (double the 1.6 factor for area). Same size pixel electronics as the 7D, just more of them. This would explain the delay in getting 7DII out: they were really developing the high MP FF, but used the 7D to work out the bugs. 5DmIV would make sense, but so too would a 1DX replacement. Both Sony & Nikon have 36MP cameras, and smaller profile cameras (like micro 4/3s) are approaching 20+MP. Canon really needs to respond.