Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]

[rumorzmonger]

Now the D800 exists so that is now the yard stick by which every other DSLR of that form factor will be measured when it comes to IQ.

Only if you're shooting Nikon factory-approved test targets in a controlled studio setting.

Out in the real world, the D800's second-rate lenses and third-rate AF pretty much offset any IQ gains the sensor is theoretically capable of producing...

 

[jthomson]

Now the D800 exists so that is now the yard stick by which every other DSLR of that form factor will be measured when it comes to IQ.

I find it strange that one of Nikons biggest fanboys says "The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the world's best digital SLR. It easily lets us create smooth, clean, beautiful and colorful images in any sort of light."-Ken Rockwell

 

[photosites]

There is all the saying about how much ahead Sony sensor is vs Canon and that the 5D3's sensor has not improved from the 5D2.

Firstly, the 5D3 sensor uses a gapless microlens design which was not used before. Numerous test have shown that it has improved over the 5D2 by at least 1-2 stops. So it is quite unreasonable to say that the sensor has not improved.

Secondly, I noticed that most of the test showing the D800 having a better noise performance than the 5D3 often involved downscaling or upscaling the image to the same size... When showed at exactly the same size, it is often obvious that the D800 is noisier than the 5D3. When downscaling is involved, even the Nokia Pureview 808 showed remarkable improved noise performance. Now, is this purely due to sensor technology?

Given Canon's 18mpx APS-C sensor technology, they can produce a 46mpx FF sensor without having to do too much. At the noise level of the 60D and if one were to downscale the 46mpx image to 36mpx (or 22mpx), I am very sure the noise level will be very comparable to the D800 or better. Shadow noise is a real concern for Canon however. Hopefully they can start putting in an on-chip ADC soon.

Thirdly, DR. Perhaps someone can show me proper photos showing what those 3-4 EV advantage that Sony sensor supposedly boasts as compared to a photo taken with a Canon camera. I would be convinced then. Right now, all I hear is 'scientific' tests with a bunch of numbers. A proper set of photos would convince me what advantage a Sony's sensor has in terms of DR. So far, all I have seen is a bunch of numbers.

Lastly, the whole point of all this megapixel. In DPReview's tests, they admitted that getting that observable resolution advantage from the D800/D800E required a lot of care and effort. Only in lab condition and at very specific lens type and setting can they achieve that resolution advantage. All this while, one has to carry around that extra bits of file size and run out of drive space consistently.

If we look at the AF speed comparison on imaging-resource.com, it is very obvious that the 5D3 focuses almost 2x as fast as the D800 and do not suffer as badly from delays in buffer clearing, etc. That in itself makes the 5D3 a much more usable all-rounded camera.

So Canon should make a high mpx camera, by all means. Landscape and studio photographers would love that. It would definitely not affect the target market of 5D3 - People who need an all-rounded camera.

 

[jrista]

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?

Sure I know that. It would actually be a 47.6mp FF sensor, to be exact.

The D800 proved that you DO NOT have to drop pixel quality along with pixel size. The D800 proved that when you have very little electronic noise, even a tiny 4.6 micron pixel can produce great images. Once electronic noise reaches a practical floor, the only thing left to really worry about is quantum efficiency. (I would say the best we could do is reduce electronic noise down to 1-2 electrons/pixel during read...Sony is down to 2-3 in the D800, so they'll probably wrap up the noise problem for good within another generation.) I think the D800 has Q.E. of over 55%, which is one of the best on the market.

With increased quantum efficiency comes increased SNR, and that remaining 1-3 electrons worth of read noise becomes a less and less significant factor of the signal as Q.E. continues to improve. I'm not sure how high we can get Q.E. in consumer-grade sensors, however with BSI thermoelectric cooling (peltier effect) scientific grade CCD's reduced to -35°C nearly eliminate thermal inefficiencies and reduce dark current by as much as 200x, achieving Q.E.s higher than 80%. Combine that technology with Sony Exmor, and we could be looking at nearly 100% Q.E., which would be a thing of wonder.

 

[briansquibb]

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell

 

[bdunbar79]

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell

I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.

 

[mathino]

Given Canon's 18mpx APS-C sensor technology, they can produce a 46mpx FF sensor without having to do too much. At the noise level of the 60D and if one were to downscale the 46mpx image to 36mpx (or 22mpx), I am very sure the noise level will be very comparable to the D800 or better. Shadow noise is a real concern for Canon however. Hopefully they can start putting in an on-chip ADC soon.

Sure, they can, but I think they have a proper reason for not announcing it. Maybe they are dealing with DR or something else ? Maybe they want to bring out fully operational product (with no AF flaws like D800) ?

Thirdly, DR. Perhaps someone can show me proper photos showing what those 3-4 EV advantage that Sony sensor supposedly boasts as compared to a photo taken with a Canon camera. I would be convinced then. Right now, all I hear is 'scientific' tests with a bunch of numbers. A proper set of photos would convince me what advantage a Sony's sensor has in terms of DR. So far, all I have seen is a bunch of numbers.

I want to see it too. Same location, same setup (lens, aperture, ISO, RAW). Then I can tell if there is so big difference.

If we look at the AF speed comparison on imaging-resource.com, it is very obvious that the 5D3 focuses almost 2x as fast as the D800 and do not suffer as badly from delays in buffer clearing, etc. That in itself makes the 5D3 a much more usable all-rounded camera.

Yes, 5D Mk III is more all around camera. Aimed mostly on pros, wedding shooters, photojournalist that require fast and precise AF and decent FPS.

So Canon should make a high mpx camera, by all means. Landscape and studio photographers would love that. It would definitely not affect the target market of 5D3 - People who need an all-rounded camera.

And I agree, there is market for high MPx body. It wont hurt 5D Mk III sales. Like you stated.

 

[GuyF]

I smell Nikon fanboys

That's got to be the kinkiest fetish I've ever heard. Your mother would be ashamed.

On a separate note, yesterday as I glanced up at the sky I was sure I could see a dead pixel. Should've taken a picture to prove it... :-\

 

[briansquibb]

I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.

I guess the low light capability of the 5D2 was what made it more usable for weddings

 

[Bosman]

I'm going to have to take issue that anyone was screwed by Canon or this rumored high mp camera. I use my 5dm3 with complete satisfaction cept some niggles like focus point viewablity.
The other i take issue with is that people think the 5dm2 stole the ground from the 1dsm3, like that could happen. Canon made it for those who need the build and durability and those who did got what they wanted, they didn't buy a 5dm2 instead. Seriously, Canon isn't hurt by you not buying a 1d series. They made it for the hc pro's and anyone who wants to plop down the money.
I don't feel sympathetic to anyone in the 1dx camp, those who bought it bought it with full knowledge of what it was made of and put their money down. Theres nothing to feel remorse over, you got what you paid for. Its no slouch at that either. If you didn't buy the 1dx because it didn't help you much then you don't upgrade, if you did then you prob just had money to burn for the latest tech. No one can blame Canon if their gear is obsolete to the purchaser when you knew what you were agreeing to when you bought it. I'd say if the 5dm3 or 1dx doesn't fit your upgrade path then wait, or swtich to Nikon for the d800. I never believed Canon would only have the 1dx, i figured they had to come out with something with major resolution and it doesn't have to be called a 1d. It can have the build and size of the 1d but it doesn't have to be. When they claim to have merged the line it didn't mean they didn't have something more exotic planned.
Some will never be happy and i feel sorry for you.

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

Like i said though it was made for people who require that level of build, just because you didn't buy it or many pro's didn't doesn't mean it didn't fulfill its purpose, that being for those who require that level of build who shoot in extreme environments. If anyone chose the 5dm2 it was because they never required it.

 

[Bosman]

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell

I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.

Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.

 

[briansquibb]

Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.

The 1DS3 is better than the 5D2 as an all-round camera until you wanted to shoot over iso800. Even the 1Ds2 is better to iso800.

 

[Bosman]

Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.

The 1DS3 is better than the 5D2 as an all-round camera until you wanted to shoot over iso800. Even the 1Ds2 is better to iso800.

Well theres that. Typically i used flash which didn't require over 800 iso at the time though. With the 5dm3 that i have now i feel more liberty to shoot high iso no flash photography. I have shot 3200 iso with the 1dm3 and if exposed properly it will render pretty well but if underexposed by 1/2 even 1/3rd stop it can start getting ugly. I just shoot dark receptions with flash anyway so no need for iso above 400.
The 1ds2 was better than the 1ds3 at iso 800? I never knew that! Being that it was geared toward studio was the low iso cleaner on the 1dsm3?

 

[briansquibb]

The 1ds2 was better than the 1ds3 at iso 800? I never knew that! Being that it was geared toward studio was the low iso cleaner on the 1dsm3?

Sorry - I meant the 1Ds2 is better that the 5D2 to iso800

It gives very different colour rendition than the 1Ds3 - probably I would guess as it is only 12 bit. Of course the 1Ds2 is only 16mp, but then so is the 1D4

 

[Caps18]

I would rather see a high dynamic range, without the HDR time delay of taking multiple exposures.

However, I think Canon should come out with a medium format camera.

 

[Dylan777]

A. CRs 35+ MP slower fps
B. 1D X Super fps
C. 5D III little of both
D. All of the above and put them into 1 body with price tag $10K plus

QA: Which body is right for you???

For me, I still take 5D III Why? AF + high ISO + decent fps

 

[mathino]

I would rather see a high dynamic range, without the HDR time delay of taking multiple exposures.

However, I think Canon should come out with a medium format camera.

...would you buy new expensive lenses for medium format ? I think that image circle of current lenses is too small to support medium format.

 

[steliosk]

its simple

If you shoot
- landscapes, get 5D X (when it comes out, if it comes out)
- weddings get 5D mark 3
- birds get 7D
- low budget 600D (not 650, way too expensive for nothing...)
- video get a f**ckin video-camera!

i'd like to see a cheap FF DSLR

and some better dynamic range in RAW mode, so much invest on jpeg.. never understood why
some new features like an articulated screen in a FF camera.

I get the feeling canon waits for nikon to make a huge step and then just follow.. and that just gives me the creeps cause i support Canon for years!!!

 

[bdunbar79]

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell

I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.

Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.

You'd shoot a wedding with a 1Ds3? Haha, ok, good luck. Better bring a ton of portable lighting.

 

[Sh1n1ng Forc3]

I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.

A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell

I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.

Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.

You'd shoot a wedding with a 1Ds3? Haha, ok, good luck. Better bring a ton of portable lighting.

+1