Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
dgatwood said:
Thank you from sparing me the effort of explaining that not everyone has the same needs. I wounder if dak723 still is shooting 4 megapix? Of course not... But his argument would be the same and just as irrelevent. And btw I'll take 100 megapix if I can get it. Thank you very much.
Upvote
0
Woody said:
+1,000
After Canon admitted being presured by their customers wanting a high megapix offer, this seems to be second time around they are trying to make sure customers do not give up on them too early. Well timed too. My heart was sinking for lack of a 5DIV announcement this year. I for one would be thrilled to be convinced to continue with Canon - but they have to act now - so Canon: Just do it!
Upvote
0
I won't buy it.
I have a 32" Print in a gallery right now...(actually I don't''' it sold)...it looked fantastic and it was shot at 2500 ISO. I did a lot of post on it...but it was the shot that came thru. The camera, My 5DIII is VERY good...as are many other cameras, right now.
If Canon:
Gave me a low noise sensor at no more than 24MP (just don't want to move the files or buy a whole new PC).
I want black blacks like some other WAY-less-expensive cameras have on the market right now.
Gave me focus point across 90% of the VF (that I could set the camera up to move with one touch (not two).
Gave me a faster frame rate.
..and kept the price below $2500...then I would consider buying a new body. The competition is serious.
The market has changed...its a new era.....
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Until then ....I will just keep shooting and buying software!
I have a 32" Print in a gallery right now...(actually I don't''' it sold)...it looked fantastic and it was shot at 2500 ISO. I did a lot of post on it...but it was the shot that came thru. The camera, My 5DIII is VERY good...as are many other cameras, right now.
If Canon:
Gave me a low noise sensor at no more than 24MP (just don't want to move the files or buy a whole new PC).
I want black blacks like some other WAY-less-expensive cameras have on the market right now.
Gave me focus point across 90% of the VF (that I could set the camera up to move with one touch (not two).
Gave me a faster frame rate.
..and kept the price below $2500...then I would consider buying a new body. The competition is serious.
The market has changed...its a new era.....
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Until then ....I will just keep shooting and buying software!
Upvote
0
I would like more resolution in the sensor at higher ISO's.
Usually I have a lot more heartburn about loss of resolution at moderately high ISO (like ISO 800 or 1600) than I do about grain/noise, which I don't really notice much until ISO 3200 or more. I find it irritating, for example, when the camera does not record eyelashes or eye or lip detail, and I see it doing that at those ISO's before I really see much noise.
Would the higher res sensors deliver more lines of resolution at the higher ISO's?
Usually I have a lot more heartburn about loss of resolution at moderately high ISO (like ISO 800 or 1600) than I do about grain/noise, which I don't really notice much until ISO 3200 or more. I find it irritating, for example, when the camera does not record eyelashes or eye or lip detail, and I see it doing that at those ISO's before I really see much noise.
Would the higher res sensors deliver more lines of resolution at the higher ISO's?
Upvote
0
I don't personally feel 50mp belongs on a 35mm sensor.
Then again I'm sure someone said the same thing about 21mp in the years gone by.
Anyone tried the Pentax 645z yet? I've one here on loan and it's lovely.
Then again I'm sure someone said the same thing about 21mp in the years gone by.
Anyone tried the Pentax 645z yet? I've one here on loan and it's lovely.
Upvote
0
wockawocka said:
I remember people saying the same thing about 8MP on an APS-H sensor (1D->1D2).
They were wrong then and you are wrong now.
50MP on full frame is the same size pixels as those on the 70D and 7D2, and that's no big deal. We could easily go half that size (200MP on full frame).
Upvote
0
wockawocka said:
I agree with you here: the problem is that we are restricted by the format - unless optics and sensors become perfect and defy the laws of physics. Resolution isn't just pixels, it's requires optics and light as well, among other things. Exactly the same thing with 'reach' on crop sensors; the only thing you are increasing is the number of pixels on target, all the other major factors remain the same. This is why you don't see as much improvement from the extra numbers of pixels as you would expect, even after up sampling the cropped FF sensor. 50 mp on a FF sensor is OK as long as it doesn't come at a per-pixel cost in IQ. Of course it will come at the cost of much bigger files, and even sRAW or mRAW takes longer to process than the full file.
The other thing is that you can create a format larger than a 645z with FF by stitching. OK there are many instances when this is not practical, but given what a 645 would be used for it's as likely as not that you could use this method.
The problem is that if we are going to split hairs - and we are most of the time - then a larger format uses more light to make the image. The larger area records more light, the longer focal length lenses pass more light and magnify the subject more; the differences go on and on. More pixels are just one small part of the formula.
Upvote
0
There was a mention earlier that Leaf Shutters had jumped the shark. I have the Fuji X100s and the best thing about it is it's Leaf Shutter. It's a big advantage for strobist work.
I'll be interested how this camera works out. Resolving power is what would interest me. The 5D Mark III is a great all rounder but I still crave more resolved detail.
I'll be interested how this camera works out. Resolving power is what would interest me. The 5D Mark III is a great all rounder but I still crave more resolved detail.
Upvote
0
Ditboy said:
Amen to that. Add in a 24mm and we're fixed. What I want is a Canonized version of the a6000/X-E2/GX-7, optimised for street/travel photographers. I'm optimistic, because I sense that Canon does build its products around the needs of specific groups of users - press (1D-X), sports/wildlife (7DII), portrait/video (5DIII), landscape (upcoming 50mp), etc, etc. It's a sensible approach from a marketing point of view. Given that Canon does most things very well (build quality, colour rendition, exterior design, ergonomics, lenses, touch screens, etc., I'm still confident that I made the right decision all those years ago to go 100% with them.
Upvote
0
The high pixel sensor will cause serious problems on the optical side. For example, if you go to DXOMark, there is nearly no lens able to match the 36 MP Sensor of a Nikon D810. The few who can resolve at least about 30 MP, are expensive primes... and even the Otus can't fully get the 36 MP on the RAW.
The most used Zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 are between 20-27 MPixel, so if you really "need" 50 MPixel you should also change your daily workflow. For landscape shooters primes are mostly the way to go, but for the rest there is no way to take advantage of the sensor in any way. But you probably get the backdraws like 80MB RAWs and a slow fps-rate.
Thats also the reason why the Sigma Merril cameras are resolving details like a Nikon D810 (sometimes more, sometimes less). They just need lenses for 15 MPixel to get details around 30-33 MPixel (45 MPixel as claimed are far too much in my opinion). I recently read some optical document about the limitations of optical systems and there is a sweet spot around 30-32 MPixel for fullframe... of course you can get workarounds on this as the PhaseOne/HasselBlad Back are already doing it. They shift the sensor for half Pixels and interpolate the results. Maybe Canon introduces something like that, the shifting of the Bayer-Layer (without the groundlayer) was also a recent patent.
For me, the pixelcount is nothing to be concerned about, I like the way the Sony A7S "thinks". If I need more resolution I stitch together with longer focallenghts, but I know this is just for wider angles and without movements. I'm really interested in the next Canonproducts. For the rumours about a new EF-Line... I think there is a mirrorless fullframe Line coming, adaptable to standard-EF with an adapter.
The most used Zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 are between 20-27 MPixel, so if you really "need" 50 MPixel you should also change your daily workflow. For landscape shooters primes are mostly the way to go, but for the rest there is no way to take advantage of the sensor in any way. But you probably get the backdraws like 80MB RAWs and a slow fps-rate.
Thats also the reason why the Sigma Merril cameras are resolving details like a Nikon D810 (sometimes more, sometimes less). They just need lenses for 15 MPixel to get details around 30-33 MPixel (45 MPixel as claimed are far too much in my opinion). I recently read some optical document about the limitations of optical systems and there is a sweet spot around 30-32 MPixel for fullframe... of course you can get workarounds on this as the PhaseOne/HasselBlad Back are already doing it. They shift the sensor for half Pixels and interpolate the results. Maybe Canon introduces something like that, the shifting of the Bayer-Layer (without the groundlayer) was also a recent patent.
For me, the pixelcount is nothing to be concerned about, I like the way the Sony A7S "thinks". If I need more resolution I stitch together with longer focallenghts, but I know this is just for wider angles and without movements. I'm really interested in the next Canonproducts. For the rumours about a new EF-Line... I think there is a mirrorless fullframe Line coming, adaptable to standard-EF with an adapter.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
