Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[lintoni]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

 

[Lee Jay]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

 

[PureClassA]

Always great to come here and learn so much from so many technically proficient folks! Thanks to everyone!

As a more marketing minded person myself, (and this is all purely academic BS at this point obviously ;0)), I don't think Canon changes the successful formula for the 5D series. That seems to be their sacred cow. If the new High MP camera is indeed to be branded the 5D4, I'd be very cautious about price setting. You want to lure your existing base of 5D users and be competitive with the D810. That means $4000 or under.

So far as the 6D goes, I think they will do whatever they can to improve the 2nd generation without breaking the $1999 ceiling. I think the 6D has been one of the most important cameras created with a street price for an amazing FF rig is $1500. I think the biggest thing they could and will do is go from 11 to 19pt AF system (hopefully more) with more of them dual cross type. Whether they also include DPAF is another thing. And we get it with current 5D3 sensor perhaps, but I like the one they have now! Still does 4 fps. Still not meant for sports per se. Faster sync speed would be nice too- 1/250th. but I realize they have to hold something back for upper end models. However if they turn the 5D4 into a 50MP camera then you're not stepping up for a half stop faster sync hahaha

Remember, 7D2 was speculated to be $2500. I said no, it'll be $1999 max. 100-400 Mk2, same thing. People here freaking out with 3-4K figures. I said $2000-2400. I'm hoping to keep my streak going for everyones sake ;D If Canon is going to make a $5000 machine I would suspect they brand it other than a 5D, but I wouldn't dare price this more than 10% over the Nikon D810.

 

[PureClassA]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

+1000 Spot on

 

[PureClassA]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

And I agree with that as well LeeJay. But ONLY if Canon can create this machine without breaking North of $4000. It's got be in the same range as the 5D3 and D810. Otherwise I'd not call it a 5D4

 

[Sporgon]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format,and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

I agree with lintoni on this: the 5 series is the top end 'general purpose' camera, with the emphasis on 'event' style photography. 23 mp is high mp, that's the whole point. As private has stated, when shooting hundreds of images, even thousands maybe, massive files are a pain. SRaw etc can reduce file sizes but also slows down processing, so it's far from being an ideal solution. The true resolution that can be obtained from 23 mp on FF when each pixel is true is amazing.

Also 50 mp on FF will not give you the full potential of a larger format, because the larger format always has more magnification, larger capture and greater volume of light for the same framing.

Canon will recognise this. They probably also recognise that there are (just) enough punters out there who desire greater mp on FF than mid twenties to make it worthwhile in producing one, but it will be a separate, more specialist body. Certainly not the 5D IV.

 

[Lee Jay]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

And I agree with that as well LeeJay. But ONLY if Canon can create this machine without breaking North of $4000. It's got be in the same range as the 5D3 and D810. Otherwise I'd not call it a 5D4

$2,999 should be the target MSRP, in my opinion.

 

[Loswr]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

Well, you may want them to do that, as may I and many others...and you're right that it's likely technically achievable. But then, it seems to me that Canon may not want to make this, as you put it, 'even more of an all-rounder'.

 

[lintoni]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

Well, you may want them to do that, as may I and many others...and you're right that it's likely technically achievable. But then, it seems to me that Canon may not want to make this, as you put it, 'even more of an all-rounder'.

Not least among reasons for Canon not wanting to do so is that the processing required for Lee Jay's options is non-trivial and would place significant demands on battery power, which already has to cope with all the other camera and lens systems... we're not talking about a 1D size battery capacity with the smaller 5D type body.

 

[Lee Jay]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

Well, you may want them to do that, as may I and many others...and you're right that it's likely technically achievable. But then, it seems to me that Canon may not want to make this, as you put it, 'even more of an all-rounder'.

Well, there's no accounting for marketing.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-10-20/

 

[PureClassA]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format, and the low-light performance of a 5DIII (or better due to lower fixed pattern noise). They'd just have to find a way to get the frame rates up to the 5DIII's level or better, which should be doable, and provide some options for reducing file size in-camera (cropping, downsampling, lossy compression, etc.).

And I agree with that as well LeeJay. But ONLY if Canon can create this machine without breaking North of $4000. It's got be in the same range as the 5D3 and D810. Otherwise I'd not call it a 5D4

$2,999 should be the target MSRP, in my opinion.

That would be something! I'd love it but I dont think it will get that low. MSRP of the 5D3 at release was $3500, was it not? It will probably be there or maybe 10-15% more. They are going to have to leave measurable space between it and the 6D... this is unless of course they keep the 5D3 around even after the new boy comes to school and they do a modest price drop on it, which wouldn't be a bad idea. Unless of course there is a 6D2 coming out right behind it within a few months that would negate the need to keep the 5d3... Isn't this fun and silly?

 

[Lee Jay]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-50mp-ff-dslr-mention-cr2/

Such a camera would be even more of an "all-rounder" giving the reach of a 7DII, the landscape potential of medium format

You're wrong about that. The DR and noise characteristics of a scaled up 7DII sensor would not put it on a par with other landscape cameras.

I'm still waiting to see my first real-world landscape image where the amount of DR you can get from a Canon sensor at base ISO is insufficient. All I ever see is contrived scenes or scenes where compressing all that DR into the final image makes it look like crap.

 

[FTb-n]

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).

My file size guess -- and it is a guess -- was based on a friend's experience with 75 MB RAW files from his Nikon D800. Which is corroborated by the Imaging-Resource review of the D800 below (see the conclusion):

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A.HTM

Of course, this assumes that Canon will follow Nikon's path in algorithms for saving data. Hopefully, Canon will be able to improve upon Nikon's performance.

In contrast to the Nikon, the Hasselblad H5D-60 is a 60 MP camera with RAW files that average 80 MB in Blad's RAW compressed format -- 180 MB using TIFF.

http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h5d-60.aspx

Taking a closer look at my experience, I get 26 MB RAW files from my 18 MP 7D for a 1.44 MB/MP ratio. I get 31 MB RAW files from my 22 MP 5D3 for 1.4 MB/MP ratio. Projecting this out to a 52 MP sensor suggests 73 MB RAW files. If dynamic range is increase, it stands to reason that there will be more data to record and another bump in file size.

Note that my frame of reference is with high ISO images, a norm for event and sports photography. High ISO images produce more noise which means more data to record. If the 52 MP sensor is based on the 7D2 sensor, then noise and correlating data will likely increase over the current 5D3 sensor with its larger pixels.

This is pure speculation, but I think it's a safe bet that a 52 MP Canon sensor will produce RAW files above 70 MB. Perhaps 90-100 MB is a high guess, but I still think it's in the ballpark.

 

[scyrene]

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.

Did they? The A7S is a bit better than, say, the 5D 3, but not it's not a quantum leap in my opinion. Dpreview did a comparison a while back. Looking at it, I'd say the A7S has maybe a 2-stop advantage at the top end. From what I've seen, the 1Dx is about a stop better at the top end than the 5D3 (impressionistically). So a stop better maybe than what the best Canon sensor can do. That's great, but a lot of people round here would say it was evolutionary, I think. You're losing potential resolution too (I dunno if that makes any difference, and compare them normalised, but the 5D3 and even 1Dx have extra res when you need it, which you sacrifice with the Sony).

 

[Lee Jay]

Let me propose, again, another approach Canon could potentially use.

Let's say this camera has 7DII pixels, and 52 million of them.

That means it has 104 million separate pixels because of the dual pixel design of the pixels.

The pixels can obviously be read separately or they wouldn't work for phase detection focusing in live view and video.

So, let's say the camera has a mode where the two halves of each pixel are read at different ISOs. For sake of argument, let's say ISO 100 and ISO 1600 are used.

The result would be that the top four stops would have twice the shot noise they would have if you didn't do that because half of your data is clipped there. But who cares? The top four stops have so much signal that it really doesn't matter. The overlapping range would be the same. The bottom of the range would have something like 3-4 more stops of shadow performance due to the far lower read noise at ISO 1600.

Combine these two in a way similar to the way Magic Lantern dual-ISO works and you have a 15 stop or so DR image at 52MP.

Now, that 15 stop image won't fit into a 14 bit raw so you generate a 16 bit raw from your 14 bit * 2 raw data sets.

Now you have 80+MB raw files, give or take, with 52MP and 15 stops of base-ISO DR.

 

[privatebydesign]

As private has stated, when shooting hundreds of images, even thousands maybe, massive files are a pain.

Then people need to get better and judging what will/won't be a good photograph before they press the shutter release button and also get better at deleting the deritus from their photograph catalogue.

That is a stupid thing to say.

I often work composite files with 50-100 RAW files in them, each and every one of them adds something none of the others do. It is not uncommon for me to shoot 200 images on a tripod for a key image. I have to shoot many angles and keep all of them because i never know what my clients will want altered. And this is from a conservative shooter that averages 430 shots at an all day and evening wedding.

Now I know that may not be a common scenario, but just ask the photographer who shot, and kept, the completely uninteresting image of Clinton hugging Lewinski before the scandal how seemingly worthless images can have huge significance later on.

 

[switters]

Of course we'll all have to wait and see, but I can't help feeling disappointed by this rumor and what it might imply for the direction Canon is taking. I realize that more MP is exactly what a lot of people want. Unfortunately for me, I'm not one of them.

For me, the 5DIII has all the resolution I'll ever need. What I'm looking for are incremental improvements in the IQ, high ISO performance, and shooting experience—at a fair price.

Nikon seems to be excelling in this area, with the D750 as an example. It's an extremely well-regarded camera with incredible DR, features like the ability to spot meter from selected AF point (something available only on the 1D series in Canon); better auto-ISO implementation (ability to select minimum shutter speed of up to 1/2000, or designate 5 different multiples of the focal length of the lens); an AF system that is apparently equivalent in practice to the 5DIII, including 3D focus tracking (though it does have fewer cross-type sensors); dual SD card slots; and face detection (not gimmicky if you shoot a lot of portraits), to name a few. All of this costs $2,300, compared to >$3,000 when the 5DIII first came out.

Nikon has also made a bunch of relatively fast, compact, lightweight primes in their "G" series that have great IQ and are almost universally well-reviewed.

Seems to me that Nikon is more focused on making a "prosumer" full-frame system for folks like me that want high quality, but aren't working pros and can't justify spending $4k on a camera body and >$1k on primes.

As for the 6D, right now the D750 is far superior IMO. If Canon updates the 6D and it's still not on par or better than the D750, what's the point? I'm already tempted by the D750, and I have a 5DIII. I don't need more megapixels, I want better IQ and an improved shooting experience.

 

[unfocused]

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 think it is unwise to assume to know what Canon understands, since recent history suggests that they do NOT understand many things

Such a silly comment is hardly worth responding to. Canon understands their market extremely well. There is ample evidence of that for anyone paying the least bit of attention. Understanding and meeting the market demand is the only thing that counts. Just because they may not find it profitable to produce exactly what you may want does not mean they don't understand a lot more than you can imagine.

As private has stated, when shooting hundreds of images, even thousands maybe, massive files are a pain.

Then people need to get better and judging what will/won't be a good photograph before they press the shutter release button and also get better at deleting the deritus from their photograph catalogue.

That is a stupid thing to say.

Consider the source.

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

Exactly my point...

...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.

 

[Lee Jay]

There's a lot of talk about this camera being a 5DIV. In Canon Rumors post from November, it's stated that the new high megapixel camera will come in a new line, above the 5D line, which makes sense to me. The 5D3 is pretty much the ideal all-rounder camera and I can't see Canon messing with what has been a winning formula.

Exactly my point...

I remember the same thing being said when the 5D went from 12.8MP to 21MP in the 5D -> 5DII transition. By the way, those were the same size pixels as in the 20D and 30D. Now we're talking about a 5D with the same size pixels as the 70D.

 

[PureClassA]

Let me propose, again, another approach Canon could potentially use.

Let's say this camera has 7DII pixels, and 52 million of them.

That means it has 104 million separate pixels because of the dual pixel design of the pixels.

The pixels can obviously be read separately or they wouldn't work for phase detection focusing in live view and video.

So, let's say the camera has a mode where the two halves of each pixel are read at different ISOs. For sake of argument, let's say ISO 100 and ISO 1600 are used.

The result would be that the top four stops would have twice the shot noise they would have if you didn't do that because half of your data is clipped there. But who cares? The top four stops have so much signal that it really doesn't matter. The overlapping range would be the same. The bottom of the range would have something like 3-4 more stops of shadow performance due to the far lower read noise at ISO 1600.

Combine these two in a way similar to the way Magic Lantern dual-ISO works and you have a 15 stop or so DR image at 52MP.

Now, that 15 stop image won't fit into a 14 bit raw so you generate a 16 bit raw from your 14 bit * 2 raw data sets.

Now you have 80+MB raw files, give or take, with 52MP and 15 stops of base-ISO DR.

I have read this theory before as well. I would love to see them come up with this sort of thing. Flip a switch and turn this setting when the need arises. I just wonder how complicated it is to have the DPAF system actually employ 2 totally different sensitivities simultaneously. Would this require enormous extra processing power? Could it work with Dual Digic 6? Or would that much even be needed? I figure this will be at most a 5 or 6fps camera