Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What I don't get are those odd resolution numbers. Why not going to 54MP right away? Then you get a resolution like 9000 x 6000 which has much more friendly dividers and not such weird number like 8760 x 5840 ( = (2*2*2*5*73)^2 * 2 * 3) or 8850 x 5900 ( = (2*5*5*59)^2 * 2 * 3) or whatever the actual resolution would be like. What is the actual reason for such weird resolutions?

Well it's not like people go around calculating with the numbers so what does a round 9000 or such bring? More sense would be to fit into binary numbers since computers store things in sets of 8,16,32,64,128 bits mostly or things that work out well for video (like 1920 multiples or things that allow for 2x2 or 3x3 style binning down for video).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

(As an aside: apparently the low ISO, high dynamic range market is such a small niche market that Canon doesn't see it as sufficiently large enough to warrant a major release at this time. However, I can certainly see a scenario where the 5D IV/High Sensitivity would see at least a modest boost in dynamic range)

Or more likely they can't pull it off without having to outsource and lose face or without spending a lot of money so they, like any good little market, play it down. I mean in the last interview the guy pretended that nobody at Canon has even ever heard of DxO and he claimed that nobody at Canon had any idea that Canon sensors for DSLRs were not the best in all ways, I mean come on.

Maybe they, in addition to not being able to pull it off (at least not a cost they like), they also think it doesn't matter too much. But marketing is not always infallible. Heck, just look to what they said about the Sony RX100. They said they had no plans for such a thing since it was clear that there was no demand for such a thing. A now after two years of gangbuster sales for the RX100 Canon is all like ooops we did it again.

 

[dufflover]

Northlight has been told that the high resolution camera coming from Canon will be based on the 4.2 micron pixel design of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II, not the long-in-the-tooth 4.3 micron design of the 18mp APS-C sensors

Guess the people waiting for that "evolution" will still be waiting ...

I like DPAF and all but for the application of a hi-res FF camera I'd still rather have seen that first step in a new sensor design even if it's not perfect. At least show it's not constantly flogging the old thing.
(FYI I love my 70D)

 

[lo lite]

What I don't get are those odd resolution numbers. Why not going to 54MP right away? Then you get a resolution like 9000 x 6000 which has much more friendly dividers and not such weird number like 8760 x 5840 ( = (2*2*2*5*73)^2 * 2 * 3) or 8850 x 5900 ( = (2*5*5*59)^2 * 2 * 3) or whatever the actual resolution would be like. What is the actual reason for such weird resolutions?

Well it's not like people go around calculating with the numbers so what does a round 9000 or such bring? More sense would be to fit into binary numbers since computers store things in sets of 8,16,32,64,128 bits mostly or things that work out well for video (like 1920 multiples or things that allow for 2x2 or 3x3 style binning down for video).

The closest resolutions based on 1920 multiples would be 9600 x 6400 which amounts to 61.4MP or 7680 x 5120 which are just 39.3MP. Another half way decent resolution would be 8640 x 5760 which amounts to 49.8MP. But why has it to be such a silly number like 52MP? I don't get this.

 

[pedro]

It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.

I would take the speculation that this will be a 5DIV with a massive dose of salt.

Going back to the original interview, Canon understands that there are two primary markets: Those who need high ISO sensitivity with excellent noise control (which Canon nailed with the current generation of full frame cameras) and those who want higher resolution (which Canon apparently did not feel was a sufficiently large market to place an immediate emphasis on, but they apparently now feel they need to compete in that market)

I am certain that the high resolution Canon full frame (5D HD?) will not be a direct replacement for the 5D III. This "5D HD" (high definition) may surface in 2015, with the 5D IV (or 5D High Sensitivity) version showing up sometime near the end of the year or more likely in 2016.

(As an aside: apparently the low ISO, high dynamic range market is such a small niche market that Canon doesn't see it as sufficiently large enough to warrant a major release at this time. However, I can certainly see a scenario where the 5D IV/High Sensitivity would see at least a modest boost in dynamic range)

I hope things will happen this way. But as mentioned here, maybe the 6DII will move up in the segment and kind of "replace" the 5Ds as the allround body, who knows. I hope it won't, or it would receive some enhanced features first. As my 5D3 is good for a few more years, it's the perfect gear for a thouroughly non commercial oriented amateur like me. I hardly sell some of my photographs. Enhanced low light capacity and IQ would be great by 2016, so there's time for savin' up or even skip the next body...happy new year to everyone!

 

[mb66energy]

If they implement a mRAW mode with ~24MPix and a sRAW mode with 13MPix - why not? At 13 MPix we have 4 subpixels per image pixel - good for excellent color reproduction.

But some of you are right: If it's a sensor with DPAF managing 104 Million pixels would need a quad DIGIC array to be fast and that might reduce the battery life dramatically. So this camera will be a slow cam. And no 5D mark iv ...

For me a very precise and accurate AF with wide coverage + the above mentioned modes with better noise characteristics/smaller files + very low shutter lag + 2 fps would make a good "high quality slow cam".
A faster crop mode with 5fps in 7D ii quality might keep file sizes compact and delivers reasonable speed.

 

[Lawliet]

The closest resolutions based on 1920 multiples would be 9600 x 6400 which amounts to 61.4MP or 7680 x 5120 which are just 39.3MP. Another half way decent resolution would be 8640 x 5760 which amounts to 49.8MP. But why has it to be such a silly number like 52MP? I don't get this.

If you fill a 135 sized sensor with the pixels of the 70D/7D2 you get about 52MP.
Multiples of 1920 are only beneficial if you can't read out the whole sensor - i.e. if you have to bin sensor cells. Considering that binning only increases the amount of collected light but leads to a lower color sampling density then a full readout the other option would be preferable.

 

[zim]

It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.

The 5D3 is a great wedding/event/portrait camera and sometime sports body. While I don't shoot professionally, this is me. I'm not looking for more resolution, especially if it means a step backwards in high ISO performance. If anything, I'd like the 5D4 to incorporate the 7D2 sensor technology with larger, full-frame pixels for even better low light performance. AF during video would be a nice plus (even thought video is a more distant interest for me).

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I'll look at a 20 MP 5D4 with a nice bump in low light performance long before considering a 52 MP body. I still think the 52 MP body has a different audience than those who currently buy the 5D line. It actually makes more sense to put the 52 MP in the 6D2. But, it makes the most sense to spawn a new line of bodies for the high MP sensor.

+100000 Finally someone sensible!

x2 ;D

That's been my thoughts for some time although I've never thought about the 6D2 in that way but you are correct.

I'm looking forward to seeing both cameras although the 5DIV would be the one for me.

The only thing that's niggling at me is the thought that Canon will split features such that there will be some thing only in the other camera that really should be in both ie something like an advancement in the RT flash system. Hope I'm wrong on that!

Happy new year to everyone!
Regards

 

[dgatwood]

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size. On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB). The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG. The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP. So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

 

[Maiaibing]

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size. On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB). The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG. The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP. So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

He does - a lot.

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

 

[tron]

I agree ... partially: Personally, I'd be happy with a 22 MP (not MB) 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

That and 2 fps more (with the new AF system of course ;D )

 

[scyrene]

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size. On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB). The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG. The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP. So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

He does - a lot.

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency). I think people have to accept that if you want to go a lot further with low light, you have to start looking at dedicated solutions - like the amazing video sensor Canon showed off a while back, or a bigger sensor, like the 645z. Standard DSLRs can't make leaps in every area forever (until and unless someone invents a new type of sensor).

 

[mb66energy]

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size. On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB). The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG. The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP. So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

He does - a lot.

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

Hopefully you are right. I see a lot of 30+ MByte files from my 600D (good lens, tripod etc) from very detailed objects. I would expect roughly 80 MByte files from a 52 MPix camera - "worst case" (if detailed images are such a case ...).

A sampling depth of 14 bit must result in a max file size of about 100 MByte and a higher dynamic range will more often converge to the max file size ...

On the other hand: What are 100 MByte today? 10 000 images on a 50 EUR/$ HD means 0.5 ct per stored image or 1 ct per stored mirrored (=backup) image. Compared to the TCO of just one Kodachrome image of roughly 50 ct (inflation corrected) and under the assumption that not each image is perfect you would see some EUR/$ per stored image ...

Or another calculation: A 5D mark ii costs 300000 ct and the shutter will last 200000 exposures - just releasing the shutter means 1.5 ct of costs (without any operating costs eg. new batteries, lenses, travel fees, etc.). Or 7.5 ct. per second (!) for continups shutter mode ...

 

[mb66energy]

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size. On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB). The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG. The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP. So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

He does - a lot.

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency). I think people have to accept that if you want to go a lot further with low light, you have to start looking at dedicated solutions - like the amazing video sensor Canon showed off a while back, or a bigger sensor, like the 645z. Standard DSLRs can't make leaps in every area forever (until and unless someone invents a new type of sensor).

+1

I have an idea how to increase sensitivity by a factor of three: put an optical grating in front of each pixel and use 10 or 20 photodiodes per pixel to make a rough spectral scan. No loss in a color filter array. Different angles of incidence (of different optics) can be corrected by software ("which photodiode corresponds to which wavelength). No longer 3 color channels but the chance to track colors more detailed.

The only problem: I have no machine at home to produce that sensor and I am shure no one has. But perhaps just a matter of time because a 52 MPixel DPAF sensor has 100 Mio photodiodes to read and this seems possible!

 

[Pitbullo]

It makes no sense to replace the 5D3 with 52 MP body based on the 7D2 sensor.

The 5D3 is a great wedding/event/portrait camera and sometime sports body. While I don't shoot professionally, this is me. I'm not looking for more resolution, especially if it means a step backwards in high ISO performance. If anything, I'd like the 5D4 to incorporate the 7D2 sensor technology with larger, full-frame pixels for even better low light performance. AF during video would be a nice plus (even thought video is a more distant interest for me).

The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance. I don't see this happening with 52 MP. All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each. That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I'll look at a 20 MP 5D4 with a nice bump in low light performance long before considering a 52 MP body. I still think the 52 MP body has a different audience than those who currently buy the 5D line. It actually makes more sense to put the 52 MP in the 6D2. But, it makes the most sense to spawn a new line of bodies for the high MP sensor.

It was some rumors about Canon wanting to move 6D upmarket, if that is the case, then it does make sense to give the 5D4 52mpx, if the 6D then becomes the "real" 5D4, under the cover of the name 6D2. Hopefully it stays below 36 mpx as well.

 

[Maiaibing]

Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency).

Seems to me SONY made a quantum leap in high iso. If we can get amazing high iso w/12mb I would find it difficult to understand if we cannot get somewhat better at 36-40 mb. Time will tell.

 

[privatebydesign]

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

250 MB edited files are nothing, I have many files that go over the 2GB PSD and the 4GB TIFF format max sizes. I have many >4GB PSB files (the default for photoshop files over 2GB). But that isn't the point, the point is how much more data is a bigger capture file going to give me, how much additional storage are those capture files and their backups going to take, and, how much will it slow down my computer.

Bearing in mind every, single, file, will take at least twice the processing power to display, zoom, compare etc etc. I know at this point in time the capture technology just isn't worth the time, effort, and expense for 135 format 50MP sensors.

Here is a huge difference between working on one large file in PS with many layers and edits, it is quite another for every single capture file to take additional time to render in LR just to view. Mt Spokane has often said he found the same thing when he bought a D800, just hadling the files was a major hassle for him and he sold it,, not just because of the hassle, but because the additional hassle wasn't worth any benefits.

 

[heptagon]

Looks like I'm the only one who's looking forward to a high MP 5DM4. Add in GPS and the 7DM2's focus and I'm sold. Canon needs to respond to the competition. So many Canon users have defected to Sony and Fujitsu because Canon is no longer meeting their needs.

People complain loudkly in forums and yet Canon sales remain good.

They are not. According to Canon financial statements their DSLR sales have been into a double digit fall in both 12/13 and 13/14... So I'd say - and I'm pretty sure the board room talk is - "Canon DSLR sales are dismal and we need to act now before its too late".

Sales are falling across the board. The most reasonable way to improve figures is to cut research and up on marketing. Those who buy cameras don't even know what we are reasoning about here in the forums.

 

[heptagon]

It was some rumors about Canon wanting to move 6D upmarket, if that is the case, then it does make sense to give the 5D4 52mpx, if the 6D then becomes the "real" 5D4, under the cover of the name 6D2. Hopefully it stays below 36 mpx as well.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Providing the 5D4 with the 6D sensor and keeping the rest of the 5D3 wouldn't sound as good an upgrade than providing the 6D2 with the 5D3 focusing system. - The result is the same but now the 5D4 leaves an open space where a new high-resolution sensor could find place.

Or they may as well call it the 2D, 3D, 4D, 8D, 1DXs, 5Ds... whatever.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have an idea how to increase sensitivity by a factor of three: put an optical grating in front of each pixel and use 10 or 20 photodiodes per pixel to make a rough spectral scan.

Get right on that.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9334927048/panasonic-promises-high-sensitivity-sensors-using-micro-color-splitters
http://news.panasonic.com/press/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/02/en130204-6/en130204-6.html