Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[Bengt Nyman]

While we are waiting for Canon and Nikon to introduce pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, Canons announcement about a 50 MP Bayer? DSLR? might seem a bit odd. Especially considering that Canon presently offers no lenses that would give justice to a 50MP sensor. At the same time Canon admits the need for a new line of lenses. The real reason why both Canon and Nikon are having difficulties breaking into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras has to do with lenses, and more specifically with lens mounts. A properly designed mirrorless camera takes advantage of a shorter flange distance. Hopefully not as short as Sony's 18mm, but not as long as Nikon's present 46.5mm or Canon's 44mm.
If Canon managed to bring out an innovative DSLR? using a shorter flange distance, say 25-30mm, and a new line of high resolution lenses, Canon would be in a superb position to smoothly transition into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras.
With a little foresight this new lens mount would have a large enough throat diameter to allow for an adapter to present EOS lenses.
Whichever ways Canon and Nikon choose to get to pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, I predict some interesting camera days ahead.

 

[Lee Jay]

While we are waiting for Canon and Nikon to introduce pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, Canons announcement about a 50 MP Bayer? DSLR? might seem a bit odd. Especially considering that Canon presently offers no lenses that would give justice to a 50MP sensor. At the same time Canon admits the need for a new line of lenses. The real reason why both Canon and Nikon are having difficulties breaking into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras has to do with lenses, and more specifically with lens mounts. A properly designed mirrorless camera takes advantage of a shorter flange distance. Hopefully not as short as Sony's 18mm, but not as long as Nikon's present 46.5mm or Canon's 44mm.
If Canon managed to bring out an innovative DSLR? using a shorter flange distance, say 25-30mm, and a new line of high resolution lenses, Canon would be in a superb position to smoothly transition into pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras.
With a little foresight this new lens mount would have a large enough throat diameter to allow for an adapter to present EOS lenses.
Whichever ways Canon and Nikon choose to get to pro level, FF, mirrorless cameras, I predict some interesting camera days ahead.

Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.

 

[vscd]

I advise you to take DXO's equivalent megapixels rating for lenses the way you take campaign promises from politicians. It's just about as accurate.

It's just a starting point, you can get similar results with imatest or dpreview. It's basically all about pixelsize/microns. The Diffraction Limited System [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system] gets you anyway

Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.

Muahahaaa... no way.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

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.

I agree with most of what you said, except for accepting a limited sensor resolution for that reason.
I shoot D800E and D810 with the best AF primes available up to 300mm f/4, not to be a snob but to keep my equipment light.
I use liberal cropping rather than soft zoom lenses to produce my final images.
I agree that for high sensor resolution to make sense the lens PMP should reach reasonably close to the sensor MP.

 

[clarksbrother]

Here's my two cents...

There's too little info on the lenses to really even speculate so I'm going to leave that one alone.

I'm going to assume this is the 5D Mark IV or a "3D" of some sort.

1) Megapixels are alright but much past 25-30 and you're appealing to a much smaller segment of the market (BTW... for the record... I do a lot of Gigapanning - so I theoretically could be counted among that smaller segment... but even so - super high megapixel doesn't thrill me tremendously as it can come at the cost of other things)

2) Sensitivity, color depth and lack of noise will win the day. At this point I fully expect 14-bit color depth. 16 would be a pleasant surprise... but I doubt it. To see a sensor with sensitivity even close to that of the Sony A7S would be very exciting... but once again... I doubt it. Noise processing and cleanliness of signal is left to be seen but I suspect we'll see significant improvements in noise processing.

3) Improved AF - pretty much a given

4) 4K Video - assuming the 5D Mark IV does come in at $3799 (Body), for it to NOT have 4K/60 (or at least 30fps) video would be an absolute dealbreaker. In a world in which a $500 action camera can capture VERY passable 4K footage, to not include that would be a huge mistake. With the lifespan on these cameras of around 4 years or so - imagine how much more ubiquitous the format will be in that time. NOT including it would relegate the camera to obsolescence almost immediately.

For reference, I currently shoot with a 5D Mark II with several pieces of L glass. If Canon fails to include 4K capability in the next generation, there's a very real chance I will jump ship over to Sony. I've been a big fan of Canon over the years - one of the things that attracted me to the brand was A) The quality glass and B) Their ability to innovate. I'm concerned their losing their edge in both categories - the glass not so much that they've declined (or even failed to get better), but that their competitors have just gotten that much better (especially with the new Sigma glass). As for innovation - the 5D Mark II was a huge step forward... but they almost don't seem to know what to do past that point - shoehorn video in everything and then...what? (Not great improvements in usability there either).

Only time will tell if they decide to step up and decide to shake up the market with great innovation again - here's hoping they do!

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.

If you are used to images from a 24MP sensor and accept that level of quality, I agree.
However, if you expect to take advantage of the 50MP sensor and see closer to 40PMP images you are dead wrong.

 

[tron]

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.

+1
If I was a pro and actually needed high mp for my business, that's exactly what I'd be doing not waiting for a 3d or whatever it will be called. I trust Canon to keep the 5div to around 24mp.

I would like that but trust is a strong word! I just hope so!

 

[vscd]

...and even if he got lenses with the best IQ and Resolution he would run into diffraction at F4 or more.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

So the lense should be tack sharp while shooting wide open @f2.8 or faster. This would be the next physical challenge In some studio environment this could be done theoretically, but the cost will explode.

There was and still is a good reason why photographers with needs >40MP always switch to medium format. It's about pixelsize and diffraction limits. If you push the small full frame sensor into it's limits you loose on every other aspect like ISO, Color Accuracy, Depth of Field (Diffraction). Is it worth it? Sometimes I don't want to be in the skin of the manufacturers. They have to please the customers, regardless of the sense of it :-\

 

[Maiaibing]

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.

I wonder about that. When you look at the comparision shots between the Canon 5DIII and Nikon D810 the difference in resolution and detail is so plain to see that its scary. And these are with comparable lenses - often general purpose zooms such as 28-70's.

The same is true for the SONY A7R. More resolution and detail than the 5DIII can ever match. And not with super lenses but just plain "good" lenses.

To me its obvious that for now more megapix = better resolution and detail. I'd love for someone to explain how and when optical resolution does in fact become a limit. But its not at 36 megapix for sure. And I doubt a lot it will be true at 50 megapix either - since then one should think we hit the limit with the crop format sensor already (and we did not).

That you also can get better low iso etc. on top pretty much seals the deal.

This is why I am hoping and calling for Canon to respond in kind.

 

[Lawliet]

...and even if he got lenses with the best IQ and Resolution he would run into diffraction at F4 or more.

Only if you had removed the color filters and limit yourself to BW. While conveniently forgetting about what MTF actually measures and how arbitrary thresholds are therefore.
It gets into involuntarily comedic territory when People consider Pixel densities lower then what's currently available impossibly high though.

 

[mustafaakarsu]

The other thing is that you can create a format larger than a 645z with FF by stitching.

Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?

 

[Lawliet]

Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?

In theory: yes.
But you run into a myriad of problems as you have to account for factors that would simply vanish in landscape photography.
And then you also want to use focus stacking to actually gain from the larger sensor estate - let's hope your subjects are patient.

 

[Sporgon]

Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?

In theory: yes.
But you run into a myriad of problems as you have to account for factors that would simply vanish in landscape photography.
And then you also want to use focus stacking to actually gain from the larger sensor estate - let's hope your subjects are patient.

Agreed. Any larger format has less dof as you are using a longer lens for a given framing, but focus stacking is much easier on one frame, assuming the lens doesn't have much focus breathing. I have used FF stitching for macro shots ( not something I do much off), but my aim was to produce a shallow dof image, even then at f11 !

There are many people who like the idea of a greater mp on a FF sensor, maybe even enough to make it viable for Canon to produce one, but, as many people on this thread have pointed out, the physics of it all means we are ultimately format limited.

 

[vscd]

Any larger format has less dof as you are using a longer lens for a given framing

But you can compensate the lower DOF easily with a smaller aperture. The resulting loss of light can be compensated with a higher ISO on the larger sensor. I don't want to get with a mediumformat camera into the field hunting insects, but technically the smaller sensor gives you no advantage except of the size and weight from the body, build around

I wonder about that. When you look at the comparision shots between the Canon 5DIII and Nikon D810 the difference in resolution and detail is so plain to see that its scary.

I don't speak about the difference between the 24MP and the 36MP, there is enough room for the Nikon to get the results you mentioned. But even the Nikon users know which lense is capable of the best results (ask D800/D810 owners). I speak about the problems of a real 50 MP Sensor, not 36 MP. 33-36 MP on Fullframe is (in my opinion) the upper spot, together with the best glass. 50 MP is quite another world.

 

[Spiros Zaharakis]

Although I don't think there is such a chance, I really wish that Canon would use a crop of the 50mp Sony sensor found in Pentax 645z.
It would turn out at 30MP which is a substantial increase in megapixel count and still not too intimidating.

 

[photonius]

"We are extending interchangeable lens groups (unsure what this actually means). We want to add one line to our EF lenses...I can't say any more than this. Please don't ask anymore (laughs)."

My interpretation is rather basic:
We are adding new lenses to our existing lens groups (ef, ef-s, ef-m). (not create a new range). Some announcements, patents, hints for such lenses have already been made.

The one lens that needs to be added to the EF lens group is a high-resolution UWA lens that can deal with the high res senors. Tele's and standard range have been updated already. The missing lens is probably the rumored/patented EF 11-24 (? I forgot the upper end focal length) zoom that hopefully would provide better sharpness in the corners.

 

[crashpc]

EF-M 11-22 is already here, so few of us only need tha 32-36Mpx APS-C body...

 

[Lee Jay]

Almost all Canon's current lenses would do just fine on a 50MP full frame sensor, and the better ones would excel.

If you are used to images from a 24MP sensor and accept that level of quality, I agree.
However, if you expect to take advantage of the 50MP sensor and see closer to 40PMP images you are dead wrong.

No, I'm not.

I routinely run Canon lenses at the equivalent of 80MP on full frame, and I have run them at the equivalent of 370MP on full frame.

Do you think 50MP on medium format is okay with decent lenses at f/8?

 

[Lee Jay]

...and even if he got lenses with the best IQ and Resolution he would run into diffraction at F4 or more.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

That calculator is wrong witch is trivial to check when you realize that it means you can't get a sharp shot from any lens in a 70D or 7D2 at f/5.6 (which is obviously false).

 

[Lee Jay]

Can you apply this technique in macrophotography?

In theory: yes.
But you run into a myriad of problems as you have to account for factors that would simply vanish in landscape photography.
And then you also want to use focus stacking to actually gain from the larger sensor estate - let's hope your subjects are patient.

Agreed. Any larger format has less dof as you are using a longer lens for a given framing, but focus stacking is much easier on one frame, assuming the lens doesn't have much focus breathing. I have used FF stitching for macro shots ( not something I do much off), but my aim was to produce a shallow dof image, even then at f11 !

There are many people who like the idea of a greater mp on a FF sensor, maybe even enough to make it viable for Canon to produce one, but, as many people on this thread have pointed out, the physics of it all means we are ultimately format limited.

Diffraction a limited resolution is the same for all formats.