Canon has no doubt in my mind been losing sales to Nikon for that market segment who shops based off of printed specs. This is your high end techno-enthusiast spenders. I think these folks are underestimated in the market place. There's a lot of them out there and they are willing to spend on toys.
This 50mp camera is Canon's way to one-up Nikon.
Do these megapixels translate to better image quality? Yes and no. It depends on what you want to do.
I would bet that the majority of enthusiasts out there simply get personal pleasure from pixel peeping and admiring the technical quality of the equipment on their computer.
I say this because one can ONLY appreciate such high megapixel resolution on a PC at 1:1. You cannot appreciate it on the web, nor in print unless you're creating a giant poster, mural or billboard. You can't even full screen the image of a 5D3 at 1:1 on the latest 4K monitors!!! Think about that. To see all the pixels and detail, there's no monitor out there that can show you the whole image AND the full detail at the same time. You have to choose, full detail and just look at part of the image, or the whole image with less detail. Or you can just wait for 8K monitors....
The only advantage at all is cropping. Having more resolution to still yield a decent image after a severe crop. But that opens a whole other discussion. Cropping is generally inferior to using a proper focal length. It is at times a lot more convenient than swapping lenses. Or a necessity if you just don't own the needed focal length for a proper shot.
Real landscape guys and commercial studio guys will take advantage, since the real ones do print and they print huge or sell to clients who plan to print huge.
Figure this, at 50mp, will it be the equal of a Hasselblad? No way. Pixel size does matter. Larger ones are typically better, but when you are constrained by 35mm format, fitting more means making them smaller. Increases in resolution comes at the cost of smaller pixels. Thus, smaller pixels will have to become more efficient and accurate. The rumored 6400 ISO is an indication that efficiency wasn't increased much at all - they're just putting out high mega pixel count.
At some point Canon was going to have to deal with the realities of marketing and the market itself. They have been being beat up by the number 36 over and over. Hanging over their heads as the monument that they are not top dog.
To those who take the time to learn, they know the truth is more complicated. It is hard to overcome THE specification that has been the spotlight of digital photography since the beginning with a reputation for great image quality. It is always the number that sticks out. It is always the number which is the measure.
Now Canon has 50. Big 50. Nope, not the rumored 46...a wimpier looking number. But big bold 50mp to be king of the hill again.
This 50mp camera is Canon's way to one-up Nikon.
Do these megapixels translate to better image quality? Yes and no. It depends on what you want to do.
I would bet that the majority of enthusiasts out there simply get personal pleasure from pixel peeping and admiring the technical quality of the equipment on their computer.
I say this because one can ONLY appreciate such high megapixel resolution on a PC at 1:1. You cannot appreciate it on the web, nor in print unless you're creating a giant poster, mural or billboard. You can't even full screen the image of a 5D3 at 1:1 on the latest 4K monitors!!! Think about that. To see all the pixels and detail, there's no monitor out there that can show you the whole image AND the full detail at the same time. You have to choose, full detail and just look at part of the image, or the whole image with less detail. Or you can just wait for 8K monitors....
The only advantage at all is cropping. Having more resolution to still yield a decent image after a severe crop. But that opens a whole other discussion. Cropping is generally inferior to using a proper focal length. It is at times a lot more convenient than swapping lenses. Or a necessity if you just don't own the needed focal length for a proper shot.
Real landscape guys and commercial studio guys will take advantage, since the real ones do print and they print huge or sell to clients who plan to print huge.
Figure this, at 50mp, will it be the equal of a Hasselblad? No way. Pixel size does matter. Larger ones are typically better, but when you are constrained by 35mm format, fitting more means making them smaller. Increases in resolution comes at the cost of smaller pixels. Thus, smaller pixels will have to become more efficient and accurate. The rumored 6400 ISO is an indication that efficiency wasn't increased much at all - they're just putting out high mega pixel count.
At some point Canon was going to have to deal with the realities of marketing and the market itself. They have been being beat up by the number 36 over and over. Hanging over their heads as the monument that they are not top dog.
To those who take the time to learn, they know the truth is more complicated. It is hard to overcome THE specification that has been the spotlight of digital photography since the beginning with a reputation for great image quality. It is always the number that sticks out. It is always the number which is the measure.
Now Canon has 50. Big 50. Nope, not the rumored 46...a wimpier looking number. But big bold 50mp to be king of the hill again.
Upvote
0
