Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10881"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10881"></a></div>
<strong>More mentions


</strong>I’ve had two separate comments in regards to Canon entering the big megapixel space. We’re talking 35+ megapixels like the Nikon D800. Both comments mention an announcement sooner than later. No word on whether we’re talking about an EOS-1 or 5D3 style body.</p>
<p>Lots to come in August and September!</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.

There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.

But we're well past the 80/20 rule and firmly into the realm of diminishing returns.

Even theoretically, if you never print bigger than 24" x 36", even if you crop heavily, today's top-end full-frame cameras are more than enough. And, in the real world, those same cameras are just fine up to as wide as you can print on an iPF8100. Yes, a side-by-side comparison with such a print between a 5DIII and a D800 might maybe possibly reveal a bit more sharpness perhaps in the print from the D800...but only if you stand so close to the print that you can't even see the whole thing even if you turn your head.

...which is where the larger formats come into play. If a 5DIII or even a 1DX ain't gonna cut the mustard, then, really, neither is the D800 nor anything else in the 135 format. You'll need at least 645 format, if not all the way to large format, for the kinds of prints where the 5DIII is inadequate.

And let's not forget the cost, in terms of both performance and storage capacity. The new camera sure as Hell won't be 12 FPS, and it ain't gonna be 6 FPS, either. And you better plan on getting bigger and faster cards as well as a new RAID array to support it.

All for...what? 40" x 60" prints that look as sharp as today's 36" x 54" prints? Is that really worth it?

I'm sure, assuming the trend continues, that I'll eventually wind up owning a camera with more megapickles than my 5DIII. But, in all honesty, I don't see that happening until said camera has the non-sensor camera specs of the 1DX. Because, when it comes right down to it, it's not the sensor that's the weak link in today's cameras -- not by a long shot, and it hasn't been for quite some time.

Indeed, it's been that way ever since digital surpassed film, for that matter...which was somewhere around the dawn of the modern DSLR era, as I recall....

Cheers,

b&

 

[brad-man]

I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.

There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.

But we're well past the 80/20 rule and firmly into the realm of diminishing returns.

Even theoretically, if you never print bigger than 24" x 36", even if you crop heavily, today's top-end full-frame cameras are more than enough. And, in the real world, those same cameras are just fine up to as wide as you can print on an iPF8100. Yes, a side-by-side comparison with such a print between a 5DIII and a D800 might maybe possibly reveal a bit more sharpness perhaps in the print from the D800...but only if you stand so close to the print that you can't even see the whole thing even if you turn your head.

...which is where the larger formats come into play. If a 5DIII or even a 1DX ain't gonna cut the mustard, then, really, neither is the D800 nor anything else in the 135 format. You'll need at least 645 format, if not all the way to large format, for the kinds of prints where the 5DIII is inadequate.

And let's not forget the cost, in terms of both performance and storage capacity. The new camera sure as Hell won't be 12 FPS, and it ain't gonna be 6 FPS, either. And you better plan on getting bigger and faster cards as well as a new RAID array to support it.

All for...what? 40" x 60" prints that look as sharp as today's 36" x 54" prints? Is that really worth it?

I'm sure, assuming the trend continues, that I'll eventually wind up owning a camera with more megapickles than my 5DIII. But, in all honesty, I don't see that happening until said camera has the non-sensor camera specs of the 1DX. Because, when it comes right down to it, it's not the sensor that's the weak link in today's cameras -- not by a long shot, and it hasn't been for quite some time.

Indeed, it's been that way ever since digital surpassed film, for that matter...which was somewhere around the dawn of the modern DSLR era, as I recall....

Cheers,




I imagine there might be a few differences of opinion of the term "crop heavily"...

 

[Bombsight]

I know the product isn't out there yet but, it's a shame how Canon holds back on what their loyal buyers want when they (Canon) knows what is wanted.

They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards. You cant tell me they didn't plan on a higher MP body announcement after 1DX & MK3 sales peak.

I also know that Canon didn't force anyone to buy either one of those bodies ... but lets face it ... Canon plays games with those who keep them competitive in a world of serious competition.

If I were to stop at a Kool-aid stand & buy a hot, watered down glass of Kool-aid from a little kid, only to have them pull out a fresh/cold picture from under the stand afterwards .... that would piss me off!

 

[Jason Beiko]

Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.

But will the sensor be any better?
Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
Will the read noise be the same?
Will the dynamic response be about the same?

What was so good about the D800 wasn't just the increase in number of pixels but the quality of those pixels.

Exactly! I'm not excited about more pixels but I am hoping the sensor is better WRT dynamic range, etc...

IMHO the sensor in the d800 is revolutionary and I want Canon to have an equivalent, so that I can use my existing glass and accessories. If the new Canon high megapixel camera isn't up to snuff I'm going to make the switch to Nikon.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards.

Eh, I don't think Canon has ever targeted any of their bodies to the big megapickle crowd.

Instead, what I see historically and today -- and their bodies absolutely reflect this -- is them targeting the amateur and prosumer crowd with the Rebels and XXD series, and then the photojournalism (especially including weddings) and sports professionals with the XD cameras.

Where the confusion comes into play is that the lower ends of the landscape and studio spectrums dip into the photojournalism realm, and that a photojournalist is going to reach into the lower strata of the landscape and studio worlds. And each of the 5D models has served amply well in those roles...with the obvious understanding that the elite of both worlds never moved away from the larger formats.

Yes, there have been a number of those in the studio and landscape worlds who used to shoot medium format (not large format) and who switched to 135-format digital once it caught up with medium format film. But those're the same ones who're largely leaving 135-format digital for medium-format digital now that that's become an option. And all those complaining about megapickles either should be in that camp or wish they were.

But they've never really been on Canon's radar, at least not in any significant manner. They've been getting by on the coattails of the digital revolution, but that's about it.

With all that in mind, the 5DIII gave Canon's market (photojournalists, especially wedding photographers) exactly what they wanted: save for raw FPS performance, the best camera had made up to the point in time of the release (shortly thereafter superseded by the 1DX, of course).

Note that I wrote, "camera," not "sensor." Yes, the 5DIII's sensor isn't better than the 5DII's by leaps and bounds, but the camera as a whole is hugely improved. So much that, save for the maximum burst framerate and the lack of a built-in grip, it would have been the flagship 1-series model of any time in the past.

Which is exactly what the targeted market segment had been screaming for -- and got!

Cheers,

b&

 

[JR]

Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.

But will the sensor be any better?
Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
Will the read noise be the same?
Will the dynamic response be about the same?

What was so good about the D800 wasn't just the increase in number of pixels but the quality of those pixels.

+1 !

I really hope a new high MP body will also come with much improved dynamic range. If not then I have no interest. Shooting with both the 1DX and the D800, I am just amazed at the dynamic range of the D800. It really DOES make a difference in several shooting conditions, like outside in the sun, inside when a window is in the composition, etc.

I never thought I cared about DR until I tried the D800. Now when lighting is perfect, it is still no match for the 1DX to my personal taste , but then again those are two very different cameras...

 

[akclimber]

Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.

But will the sensor be any better?
Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
Will the read noise be the same?
Will the dynamic response be about the same?

What was so good about the D800 wasn't just the increase in number of pixels but the quality of those pixels.

+1

I own a 5D2, 5D3 + D800e (and just sold a 7D). The sensor on the D800e lives up to the hype. It produces amazing files. I won't be buying another Canon DSLR until they greatly improve their sensor tech. In the meantime, I'll continue to use my 5D3 for fast action and with the amazing 24 TSE MK II but the D800e will be used for everything else (and I'll also be selling my 5D2).

Cheers!

 

[RLPhoto]

If canon releases this in a 1D body. It will flop big time.

If canon releases this in a 5D body, it will need to stack up to the D800.

If it surpasses or just evenly matches the D800 in RAW IQ. Alot of 5d3 users will be quite angry at canon. (Me Included)

This can't turn out well. :-\

 

[Pompo]

Re: if true I should have waited

...and bought a high mpix 35+ camera pluse 1dx to get best of both worlds high res and fast fps...I guess I will sell the 5d Mark 3 if that happens....

 

[EchoLocation]

This camera sounds like the D800, but without the DR. I imagine the hardcore Canon crowd will be happy to have a high MP offering available, however I don't see this turning out well for Canon unless it is priced around 3k.
I know some of the fanboys will buy this for 3500 or even $6k, but for those who are not heavily invested in glass, this will just be another slap in the face unless it is priced competitively with the D800. I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.
the 5DIII was the first that hit home, then the 24-70 II, and now, if this is any more than the 800, it will simply be similar MP(lesser sensor quality, unless there's a miracle) but at a much higher price.
Sounds like Canon fanboy material only to me.
If it is going to be more than $3k, it should be insanely good, total pro style, no holds barred.

 

[bdunbar79]

Yep. The 1Ds3 sort of flopped too, but that was after the release of the 5D2. Everybody, even pros, began buying the 5D2 instead. I can see this turning out like the 1Ds3/1D4 pair. Studio/sports. 1DX is really the sports camera and right now the 5D3 and 1Ds3 are still the studio cams. The 1DX does not render like the 1Ds3 therefore I do not consider the 1DX to be the true merged 1Ds/1D lines. It's just not quite there. The 1DX did not do worse than the 1Ds3 with regard to detail, but it also did not improve it either.

I like the 1DX, but I'm still keeping a 5D3 because I like the 22mp. If a higher MP cam is released, it will be well less fps and render nicely, much like the 1Ds3 I'm guessing. Anybody guessing yet as to the model name?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.

...you mean, like featherweight Big Whites, the TS-E 17 and 24 II, the MP-E 65, the built-in radio flash ETTL triggers, the entire Cinema line, the 12 FPS 1DX...?

Get a grip, man. Nikon's got a marginal advantage on one aspect of one feature of their cameras -- one that even comes with far more substantial image quality problems than it "solves" (color balance problems especially).

Sure, Nikon ekes out an extra stop or two of shadow recovery in scenes with truly miserable light. And if you make your living shooting in truly miserable light and you really need ISO 400-equivalent noise in your four-stops-pushed shadows as opposed to ISO 1000-equivalent noise, then maybe the D800 really is best for you.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that Nikon's making better cameras, let alone a better camera system. The stop or two of "extra" noise in the Canon shadows notwithstanding, the 5DIII blows the D800 out of the water. Color rendition, autofocus speed, autofocus reliability, framerate -- all those things that separate a modern camera from a Brownie, the Canon has the D800 beat hands down.

Cheers,

b&

 

[jrista]

I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.

There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.

But we're well past the 80/20 rule and firmly into the realm of diminishing returns.

Even theoretically, if you never print bigger than 24" x 36", even if you crop heavily, today's top-end full-frame cameras are more than enough. And, in the real world, those same cameras are just fine up to as wide as you can print on an iPF8100. Yes, a side-by-side comparison with such a print between a 5DIII and a D800 might maybe possibly reveal a bit more sharpness perhaps in the print from the D800...but only if you stand so close to the print that you can't even see the whole thing even if you turn your head.

...which is where the larger formats come into play. If a 5DIII or even a 1DX ain't gonna cut the mustard, then, really, neither is the D800 nor anything else in the 135 format. You'll need at least 645 format, if not all the way to large format, for the kinds of prints where the 5DIII is inadequate.

And let's not forget the cost, in terms of both performance and storage capacity. The new camera sure as Hell won't be 12 FPS, and it ain't gonna be 6 FPS, either. And you better plan on getting bigger and faster cards as well as a new RAID array to support it.

All for...what? 40" x 60" prints that look as sharp as today's 36" x 54" prints? Is that really worth it?

I'm sure, assuming the trend continues, that I'll eventually wind up owning a camera with more megapickles than my 5DIII. But, in all honesty, I don't see that happening until said camera has the non-sensor camera specs of the 1DX. Because, when it comes right down to it, it's not the sensor that's the weak link in today's cameras -- not by a long shot, and it hasn't been for quite some time.

Indeed, it's been that way ever since digital surpassed film, for that matter...which was somewhere around the dawn of the modern DSLR era, as I recall....

Cheers,

b&

I certainly wouldn't say we are "firmly" in the realm of diminishing returns. I think Nikon and Sony proved that with the D800's sensor. It not only added considerably to pixel density, it improved the quality of those pixels as well. A 36mp sensor has 4.6 micron pixels, which are LARGER than the 4.3 micron pixels of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors as well as the new 24mp sensors used in the D3200. Again, Sony and Nikon have demonstrated that a 24mp APS-C sensor, which is pushing 130lp/mm in terms of spatial resolution, is also capable of not only having more pixels, but pixels of higher quality.

The question is not whether Canon can produce a high MP sensor. The question is whether Canon can compete and produce a high MP sensor with BETTER QUALITY PIXELS than any of their current sensors, including the 1D X and 5D III. By eliminating almost all noise in Exmor (there is only about 2-3 electrons worth...not much more to remove), SoNikon have basically set the stage...the only thing LEFT TO DO once you perfect the pixel is pack more of them in.

 

[bdunbar79]

I actually know a guy who went from the D700 to the D800. He's regretting it. The IQ isn't any better to him on a computer screen or print, and the file sizes are insane. The camera doesn't have time to shoot mRAW or sRAW. So you're stuck.

 

[jrista]

I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.

...you mean, like featherweight Big Whites, the TS-E 17 and 24 II, the MP-E 65, the built-in radio flash ETTL triggers, the entire Cinema line, the 12 FPS 1DX...?

Get a grip, man. Nikon's got a marginal advantage on one aspect of one feature of their cameras -- one that even comes with far more substantial image quality problems than it "solves" (color balance problems especially).

Sure, Nikon ekes out an extra stop or two of shadow recovery in scenes with truly miserable light. And if you make your living shooting in truly miserable light and you really need ISO 400-equivalent noise in your four-stops-pushed shadows as opposed to ISO 1000-equivalent noise, then maybe the D800 really is best for you.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that Nikon's making better cameras, let alone a better camera system. The stop or two of "extra" noise in the Canon shadows notwithstanding, the 5DIII blows the D800 out of the water. Color rendition, autofocus speed, autofocus reliability, framerate -- all those things that separate a modern camera from a Brownie, the Canon has the D800 beat hands down.

Cheers,

b&

I wouldn't say Nikon is beating Canon in only one area. They seem to be making consistent improvements in the area of AF (Nikon's new 51pt AF system still performs extremely well against Canon's 61pt AF, and not only do they keep f/8 AF, they have NINE f/8 AF points! Canon seriously dropped the ball there, and its hurt their reputation with birders and wildlifers, as well as anyone who used TC's with the supertele whites.) Nikon also seems to have a very superior sensor in their mirrorless cameras, both in terms of DR and AF capabilities. Metering is another area where Nikon is ahead of Canon, and have been for years. The 1D X's RGB meter would be the only real competition, and its yet to be seen if it is as accurate and capable. Its also relegated to that one camera...iFCL is used everywhere else, and its good, but quite lacking compared to Nikon's 3D full-color metering.

When it comes to lenses, I think Canon definitely wins hands down these days...their lens technology has always been on the cutting edge, and with nanocoating on all their lenses, featherweight whites, 4-stop IS, DO lenses, and spatial resolution up the wazoo they are kicking the crap out of all the competition. I think they are solid competition with Zeiss lenses, and with the advent of SWC nanocoating on their lenses, are far superior to Zeiss' T* multicoating. I don't think anyone surpasses Canon in terms of lens options and variety either, especially with the variety of specialty lens options like the MP-E. Their new flash system is pretty amazing, too. I'm not much of a flash user, however I moderate a photography forum, and people seem fairly excited about the new line of flash equipment.

Canon's only real weak area is their sensor fabrication. They had to cut corners with their latest AF sensor, and they effectively "cheated" to get the SNR of the 1D X and 5D III sensors "up to snuff" by weakening the CFA color filters for red and blue pixels. I would also be willing to bet that Nikon is leveraging their relationship with Sony to build AF sensors that have very low read noise, which is probably how they managed to break through the f/8 AF barrier and have multiple f/8 AF points. Canon excels everywhere else...it really is time they put some more R&D into their CMOS sensor tech, not just image sensors but ALL of their CMOS sensor tech. Its time to eliminate noise, and move into the modern era. Canon seems to have patents for a layered (Foveon-esque) sensor design as well. If they could develop a layered sensor with the same pixel pitch as the 1D X, that might propel them back to the forefront, and really turn some heads.

A 35mp+ layered megapixel monster (105mb, by Sigma's counting standards) would be the kind of game-changer Canon really needs. ;P I highly doubt the rumored high MP camera from Canon will actually be a layered RGB design, but it would certainly peak my interest.

 

[cbphoto]

I would love:

• A 36+ Mp camera body from Canon
• In a 1Dx-style body
• The best dynamic range delivered at the lowest ISO values
• Deliver more pixels rather than higher frame rates
• Provide the best Live View focus/framing possible, in lieu of 60-point autofocus tech
• Target the still-life/landscape/studio photographer, not the PJ or sports guy
• Eventually eliminate the flapping mirror and provide an eye level HD video finder

 

[lola]

Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.

But will the sensor be any better?
Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
Will the read noise be the same?
Will the dynamic response be about the same?

What was so good about the D800 wasn't just the increase in number of pixels but the quality of those pixels.

It's obvious isn't it? Respectively; no, yes, yes, yes.

And don't forget about how ridiculously Canon will price it...

 

[marinien]

I certainly wouldn't say we are "firmly" in the realm of diminishing returns. I think Nikon and Sony proved that with the D800's sensor. It not only added considerably to pixel density, it improved the quality of those pixels as well. A 36mp sensor has 4.6 micron pixels, which are LARGER than the 4.3 micron pixels of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors as well as the new 24mp sensors used in the D3200. Again, Sony and Nikon have demonstrated that a 24mp APS-C sensor, which is pushing 130lp/mm in terms of spatial resolution, is also capable of not only having more pixels, but pixels of higher quality.

The question is not whether Canon can produce a high MP sensor. The question is whether Canon can compete and produce a high MP sensor with BETTER QUALITY PIXELS than any of their current sensors, including the 1D X and 5D III. By eliminating almost all noise in Exmor (there is only about 2-3 electrons worth...not much more to remove), SoNikon have basically set the stage...the only thing LEFT TO DO once you perfect the pixel is pack more of them in.

Waw, after you, pixel quality = pixel size ? Do you know that the sensor of your 7D have a pixel density equivalent to a 46MP FF sensor?

 

[pakosouthpark]

well i think they should first take care of the entry level FF camera and then pay attention to this one towards the end of the year!