Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[dgatwood]

Anybody that believes "the best possible combination of digital available today" is a 135 format Nikon needs to get out more, there is a very reasonable digital medium format market that makes D810 files look like P&S's, but it costs ...

and it weighs. There's a decided tradeoff. Let me restate that. You'd have the best combination of hardware in both of the traditional DSLR form factors—that is, APS and APS-C.

there are very few people, some but very few, who would happily pay that kind of money for an incremental step in IQ that nobody could see at most reproduction sizes.

There are also very few people, percentage-wise, who pay the extra cost of L lenses, either, but the ability to step up to better lenses helps sales considerably.

Haha. You forgot one important fact in your equation. Nikon is based on photography, only. Canon is a huge company where photography is just a minor part of the income. That's also a reason why they don't focus on everybodys body-wishes all the time. And to be honest, Nikon already gave up at the sensor-war. They couldn't compete.

Fair enough. Canon would still make some really nice color copiers and laser printers, and some inkjets that clog too easily.

I thought the Zeiss MF zealots claimed that AF was left off because it compromised image quality? I don't think you can just slot in AF motors/algorithms (or IS/VR for that matter) into an existing - supposedly near-perfect - MF design. Tech guys, right?

Compromise IQ? Almost certainly not. It would however, require a very different focusing system, so it would probably compromise manual focusing.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Flaming post removed by Admin

 

[Lee Jay]

Just a though:
What about a 18 MP x 3(or x5) layer sensor? That would solve the problem of the pixel size, right?

There is no problem of pixel size.

 

[vscd]

There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

 

[Loswr]

1. Smile: Eye roll: : See the difference?

Yes, but I bet you were smiling while rolling your eyes and even if not, many posting such things were smiling before.

Smiling because some people aren't getting what they want from Canon? The rolleyes was for all the people on these forums who seem unable to grasp that they're in the minority, and who are upset that Canon is failing to cater to their personal needs, and predict doom for Canon as a result. If anything, it's sad. I don't smile at things that I find to be sad.

 

[Lee Jay]

There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

Yeah...let's talk about that.

I decided to calculate diffraction-limited resolution. Here are the assumptions: Green light (550nm), Bayer full-frame sensor, AA filter, MTF10 cutoff. Here are the results:

f-stop Maximum MP count
1.4 8,333
2.0 4,167
2.8 2,083
4.0 1,042
5.7 521
8.0 260
11.3 130
16.0 65
22.6 33
32.0 16

So, does that seem like a problem to you for the foreseeable future?

 

[privatebydesign]

There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

Yeah...let's talk about that.

I decided to calculate diffraction-limited resolution. Here are the assumptions: Green light (550nm), Bayer full-frame sensor, AA filter, MTF10 cutoff. Here are the results:

f-stop Maximum MP count
1.4 8,333
2.0 4,167
2.8 2,083
4.0 1,042
5.7 521
8.0 260
11.3 130
16.0 65
22.6 33
32.0 16

So, does that seem like a problem to you for the foreseeable future?

Well seeing as how current lenses, support, lighting, AF, IS, AA filters etc etc seem hard pushed to give us much more usable resolution than current crop camera pixel density even in the center of the image circle, I don't see a problem with your maths, just your idea.

'Resolution' means usable realisable resolution to me, if I can't see it then I can't use it, that is why I never bought a crop camera to 'give me more reach'. 99.9% of the time in real world shooting, outside one or two very narrow fields, the same generation crop camera doesn't actually realise any more 'resolution' despite putting over twice the MP on a subject.

Don't bother showing us your different generation crops again, or the 100-400 shot of the moon. Show me some real world same generation crops from crop and FF cameras taken in real world shooting and I'll show you why there is very little point for most people most of the time in even 36MP sensors. As for >100MP on a 135 format sensor, at this point in consumer optical technology it is either a pipe dream, or a marketing departments wet dream, it has no practical use other than filling HDD's.

 

[Loswr]

There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

Yeah...let's talk about that.

I decided to calculate diffraction-limited resolution. Here are the assumptions: Green light (550nm), Bayer full-frame sensor, AA filter, MTF10 cutoff. Here are the results:

f-stop Maximum MP count
1.4 8,333
2.0 4,167
2.8 2,083
4.0 1,042
5.7 521
8.0 260
11.3 130
16.0 65
22.6 33
32.0 16

So, does that seem like a problem to you for the foreseeable future?

Well seeing as how current lenses, support, lighting, AF, IS, AA filters etc etc seem hard pushed to give us much more usable resolution than current crop camera pixel density even in the center of the image circle, I don't see a problem with your maths, just your idea.

'Resolution' means usable realisable resolution to me, if I can't see it then I can't use it, that is why I never bought a crop camera to 'give me more reach'. 99.9% of the time in real world shooting, outside one or two very narrow fields, the same generation crop camera doesn't actually realise any more 'resolution' despite putting over twice the MP on a subject.

Don't bother showing us your different generation crops again, or the 100-400 shot of the moon. Show me some real world same generation crops from crop and FF cameras taken in real world shooting and I'll show you why there is very little point for most people most of the time in even 36MP sensors. As for >100MP on a 135 format sensor, at this point in consumer optical technology it is either a pipe dream, or a marketing departments wet dream, it has no practical use other than filling HDD's.

I agree, right up until your last statement. Technically, another practical use could be filling SSDs, and I bet SanDisk and Lexar would just love to see 100 MP dSLRs!

 

[Lee Jay]

There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

Yeah...let's talk about that.

I decided to calculate diffraction-limited resolution. Here are the assumptions: Green light (550nm), Bayer full-frame sensor, AA filter, MTF10 cutoff. Here are the results:

f-stop Maximum MP count
1.4 8,333
2.0 4,167
2.8 2,083
4.0 1,042
5.7 521
8.0 260
11.3 130
16.0 65
22.6 33
32.0 16

So, does that seem like a problem to you for the foreseeable future?

Well seeing as how current lenses, support, lighting, AF, IS, AA filters etc etc seem hard pushed to give us much more usable resolution than current crop camera pixel density even in the center of the image circle, I don't see a problem with your maths, just your idea.

'Resolution' means usable realisable resolution to me, if I can't see it then I can't use it, that is why I never bought a crop camera to 'give me more reach'. 99.9% of the time in real world shooting, outside one or two very narrow fields, the same generation crop camera doesn't actually realise any more 'resolution' despite putting over twice the MP on a subject.

Don't bother showing us your different generation crops again, or the 100-400 shot of the moon. Show me some real world same generation crops from crop and FF cameras taken in real world shooting and I'll show you why there is very little point for most people most of the time in even 36MP sensors. As for >100MP on a 135 format sensor, at this point in consumer optical technology it is either a pipe dream, or a marketing departments wet dream, it has no practical use other than filling HDD's.

I agree, right up until your last statement. Technically, another practical use could be filling SSDs, and I bet SanDisk and Lexar would just love to see 100 MP dSLRs!

Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.

 

[privatebydesign]

Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that, could you point me back to the post where you compared two same generation cameras, a crop camera and a ff one, against each other either as a repeatable bench test (as I have done many times) or in real world shooting that demonstrated a usable and marked increase in resolution for the crop camera when optimal processing was done to both files?

It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.

 

[sdsr]

You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras and better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).

Canon dominates the dslr market because (for whatever reasons) it sells more cheap dslr kits than anyone else, so if by "kill" you mean something like "make their camera market share become trivially small", these new Zeiss/Nikon lenses would have to be mass-marketed, dirt cheap and demonstrably superior to those who buy such cameras. The AF primes Zeiss makes for/with Sony are all expensive ($900-$1000 seems rather a lot for 35mm 2.8 and 55mm 1.8, impressive though they are), and it's not clear why the same wouldn't be true of lenses they made for Nikon. The high-end expensive stuff that everyone's obsessing over and speculating about here is more interesting, of course, but it's pretty marginal in terms of company survival, isn't it?

As for higher resolution sensors requiring Zeiss Otus, etc., maybe 50MP is different, but I'm more than happy with the performance of many "lesser" lenses on my Sony a7r, such as run-of-the-mill EFs like 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8, not to mention many a cheap, elderly MF lens. It will be interesting to see how this speculation pans out in practice.

 

[AprilForever]

High megapixel camera? To quote Monty Python:

"I already got one!"

My 7D has 18!!! How many more would I need? My 5d MK II has 21 or something... Yes, I know they are old...

"Bring out your dead!!! Bring out your dead!!!"

 

[jrista]

There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

The only physical limitation on pixel size is when they become as small or smaller than the wavelengths of light you need to image. Outside of that, there are no physical limitations on how small pixels can be. We can always benefit from smaller pixels...although beyond a certain point, at common apertures (f/2.8 and smaller) you enter the realm of severely diminishing returns.


At diffraction limited fast apertures, lenses will always resolve more than the smallest physics-limited pixels, which is around 800nm (0.8um)...manufacturers are already wary of implementing 900nm pixel sizes...the smallest so far are 1000nm, which are already smaller than the 1100mm infrared limit for silicon based sensors.

 

[Lee Jay]

Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that, could you point me back to the post where you compared two same gensizeon cameras, a crop camera and a ff one, against each other either as a repeatable bench test (as I have done many times) or in real world shooting that demonstrated a usable and marked increase in resolution for the crop camera when optimal processing was done to both files?

It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.

You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply. What you are essentially saying is that changing focal length without changing aperture doesn't change resolving power. In essence, you're saying a 400/5.6 doesn't have a resolving power advantage over an 85/1.2.

I've demonstrated this repeatedly with bench and field tests and every time I do you make up a new excuse as to why my test is invalid. You're latest one is that I wasn't using current generation sensors as if that had anything to do with anything as far as resolving power at low ISO. Guess what? Teleconverters still work and they still do exactly the same thing as reducing pixel seize does.

 

[jrista]

It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.

You are taking so many things I've said way out of context there, it's unbelievable. First, I've never said the 7D had a mere 15% advantage over the 5D III. I did say it might be about 25% on average for the average use case (i.e. no tripod, less than ideal focus, etc.) The 60% statement was qualified with the fact that ignores the bayer array or AA filter...i.e. it's the raw, monochrome mathematical advantage of the 7D's pixel size.


I believe under more ideal conditions, the 7D can realize about a 45% advantage over the 5D III. That is just a resolving power advantage, which when were talking about micrometer sized pixels, isn't something that jumps out of the screen at you...that would be something more like a 200% or 300% advantage, which at the moment only small form factor sensors have with 1.0-1.2 micron pixels.


You and I see different things, which is why subjective comparisons are useless. Maybe I sit closer to my screen than you do, who knows. I see the advantage of the 7D, you do not. Neither of us is right until someone actually does a proper test with proper testing tools and gets some actual resolution numbers. However we all know how well real numbers go down here on these forums as well...so again, it's all entirely pointless.


Simple fact: smaller pixels resolve more detail. I think that has been demonstrated thoroughly well over the last decade, throughout the continual march towards ever smaller pixels paired with frequently improving optics.

 

[Eldar]

In order of priority, my cameras are the 1DX, then the 5DIII and then 7DII. Prior to getting the 7DII, I had the 7D, but never used it. My reasons for using the 7DII today is to some extend resolution on long reach, where I have to crop too much with the FF cameras. But the main reason for using the 7DII is the ability I get to position my focus points correctly, especially when photographing small birds at max aperture.

The old 7D did not have an AF system good enough to compete with the 1DX anyway and I would rather crop an 1DX image severely, than substitute it with a 7D alternative. With the 7DII though, that situation has changed, provided I have enough light. i don´t have a clue what the actual scientific resolution differences are, but I see that I do get images I can print in larger formats with the 7DII, than I would have with the 1DX, if I had to crop the 1DX image too much.

Looking back at the resolution difference between the 5D and the 5DII, I expect to see similar improvements going from the 5DIII to the 5DIV or 3D or 1DX-II or whatever they will call it.

 

[StudentOfLight]

It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.

You are taking so many things I've said way out of context there, it's unbelievable. First, I've never said the 7D had a mere 15% advantage over the 5D III. I did say it might be about 25% on average for the average use case (i.e. no tripod, less than ideal focus, etc.) The 60% statement was qualified with the fact that ignores the bayer array or AA filter...i.e. it's the raw, monochrome mathematical advantage of the 7D's pixel size.


I believe under more ideal conditions, the 7D can realize about a 45% advantage over the 5D III. That is just a resolving power advantage, which when were talking about micrometer sized pixels, isn't something that jumps out of the screen at you...that would be something more like a 200% or 300% advantage, which at the moment only small form factor sensors have with 1.0-1.2 micron pixels.


You and I see different things, which is why subjective comparisons are useless. Maybe I sit closer to my screen than you do, who knows. I see the advantage of the 7D, you do not. Neither of us is right until someone actually does a proper test with proper testing tools and gets some actual resolution numbers. However we all know how well real numbers go down here on these forums as well...so again, it's all entirely pointless.


Simple fact: smaller pixels resolve more detail. I think that has been demonstrated thoroughly well over the last decade, throughout the continual march towards ever smaller pixels paired with frequently improving optics.

I agree that smaller pixels can resolve more detail if the lens has sufficient resolving power.

In practice, does pixel size affect low light performance for the same sensor area?

 

[Loswr]

You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply.

As is yours, but thanks for trying. I have ample experience determining theoretical system resolution, then trying to achieve that theoretical performance with an actual system in the real world (and even going beyond those theoretical limits with optical and digital 'tricks', e.g. superresolution microscopy).

The fact remains that many people with only an APS-C camera tout the advantages of smaller pixels, while most people with both APS-C and FF bodies prefer to use the FF bodies because, while the advantages of smaller pixels are real, they are only evident in very specific use cases, and far smaller in practice than theory would predict.

 

[Lee Jay]

In practice, does pixel size affect low light performance for the same sensor area?

In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better.

 

[Lee Jay]

You're argument is so silly it barely warrants a reply.

As is yours, but thanks for trying. I have ample experience determining theoretical system resolution, then trying to achieve that theoretical performance with an actual system in the real world (and even going beyond those theoretical limits with optical and digital 'tricks', e.g. superresolution microscopy).

The fact remains that many people with only an APS-C camera tout the advantages of smaller pixels, while most people with both APS-C and FF bodies prefer to use the FF bodies because, while the advantages of smaller pixels are real, they are only evident in very specific use cases, and far smaller in practice than theory would predict.

In have both full frame and crop cameras, and use my crop camera when focal length or magnification limited and my full frame when light limited. This will remain unchanged when I replace them both in the coming year. The difference is obvious and easy to practically realize. It's quite obvious that the difference is not the ratio of pixel sizes as that would require optics of infinite resolving power. But in practice modem lenses are so good that it's closer to the ideal than it is to zero in most cases where you aren't stopping down severely for DOF.