Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[jrista]

Yup. I am even more convinced now than ever before that I've bought my last Canon DSLR. Pity.

I'm not saying I'm done with Canon, nor that I've bought my last Canon DSLR or lens. It's more that I'm no longer interested in locking myself into a single brand. It's more likely that I'll by a different brand's camera next time I do, unless Canon has stepped up their game and provided me with the things I want (primarily, more DR...I don't really care if they do it at ~20mp or ~50mp, resolution isn't as important to me as more DR, preferably LOTS more DR, like 16 stops DR; I'll take more resolution, but I want lower noise, across the board, less noise in every respect) by the time I'm ready to buy another DSLR.


Personally, Canon now has some time with me. I'll be investing in more astrophotography equipment this year, including at least one new OTA, a mono CCD and a bunch of filters (some of which might cost as much as a grand each), and possibly a higher end mount. That will likely set me back for a couple years, so here's to hoping Canon puts the time to good use and releases something extremely compelling by year end (yes, it is now 2015, pplz!! Happy new year!)

 

[Bengt Nyman]

I used to shoot different Canon 5DXXX with zoom lenses and I got good results. However, there came a time when I wanted better resolution. So I switched brand and decided to use strictly prime lenses. The result has been excellent and so far I have stayed on that path. The higher resolution image sensors plus the prime lenses gives me a new freedom to crop radically if and when needed.

It will be very interesting to see images from the new 52 MP Canon image sensor.

My real concern has to do with lenses. Having had extensive experience with Canon lenses I am convinced that Canon will have to invest in higher grade lenses for the 52 MP camera.

Every lens has its own maximum resolution and the weakest link, whether it is the lens or the image sensor sets the maximum resolution for the pair.

A lens that produces an image PMP close to the MP of the camera is a superior lens with the ability to do better on a better image sensor.

For example, The Zeiss Otus 55mm produces 21 PMP images on a 5DIII 23.4 MP sensor.
The same lens produces 33 PMP images on a 36 MP sensor.
This lens will probably produce close to 45 PMP images on a 52 MP sensor.

The Canon 24-70mm zoom lens produces 18 PMP images on the 5DIII 23.4 MP sensor.
This lens would probably produce around 25 PMP on a 52 MP sensor.

Every lens will produce a little bit higher image resolution on a higher resolution sensor, however, for most lenses the difference will not be worth spending the money on a better camera. A better camera in most cases also needs better lenses.

The new 52 MP Canon sensor and a new line of high resolution lenses sounds like a very expensive proposition for Canon. It will be interesting to see the final retail prices for the 52 MP camera and corresponding 40 PMP lenses, or if Canon settles for producing lenses for 30 PMP images to match present Nikon D810 camera and lens performances.

 

[100]

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.

The needs of media are different to those of artists.

Last week I visited an exhibition in the Rijksmuseum called Modern Times about photography in the 20th century https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/modern-times
Art is not about equipment, it’s not about more resolution, it’s not about a couple of stops more dynamic range, it’s not about ISO, it’s not about how much you can push a file, it’s not about brand A, B or C, etc.
In a couple of years almost no one will know or care which camera and lens were used to take the few iconic photos made in this decade.

Better gear is nice but it will have little impact on how other people (the 99% non-gearheads we share the earth with) perceive our work.

 

[lintoni]

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.

The needs of media are different to those of artists.

Last week I visited an exhibition in the Rijksmuseum called Modern Times about photography in the 20th century https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/modern-times
Art is not about equipment, it’s not about more resolution, it’s not about a couple of stops more dynamic range, it’s not about ISO, it’s not about how much you can push a file, it’s not about brand A, B or C, etc.
In a couple of years almost no one will know or care which camera and lens were used to take the few iconic photos made in this decade.

Better gear is nice but it will have little impact on how other people (the 99% non-gearheads we share the earth with) perceive our work.

+1
100% correct, well said.

 

[Maiaibing]

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.

Since a Canon Executive has just given an interview saying that they missed their customers need for a high megapix camera its fair to say Canon think's they actually got the market sentiment wrong on this count.

DSLR sales are down across the industry -- it's not unique to Canon, nor is it a sign of losing competitive advantage.

(...)

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.

1) I agree that the falling DSLR sales are not Canon specific and indeed maybe there was nothing they could do about it (??).

However, my comment was directed at the claim from "unfocused" that "Canon understands their market extremely well" and it was "silly" beyond reason for anyone to say otherwise.

This is an unwarrated statement. The fact that Canon acknowledges they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales at all in 2014 underlines that Canon currently has a difficult time understanding the current market conditions.

2) I love that a discussion on the merits of Canon market research is suddenly diverted into a discussion on Canon sensor tech - but hey it maybe helps save the numbers of posts in this thread ;D

Happy shooting!

 

[unfocused]

The fact that Canon acknowledges they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales at all in 2014 underlines that Canon currently has a difficult time understanding the current market conditions.

Please provide a citation for Maeda Masaya (or another Canon executive) who said they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales "at all" in 2014.

That was not in the interview referenced by this thread, but perhaps you have some additional information you care to share with the rest of the community.

 

[Lee Jay]

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.

The needs of media are different to those of artists.

Last week I visited an exhibition in the Rijksmuseum called Modern Times about photography in the 20th century https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/modern-times
Art is not about equipment, it’s not about more resolution, it’s not about a couple of stops more dynamic range, it’s not about ISO, it’s not about how much you can push a file, it’s not about brand A, B or C, etc.
In a couple of years almost no one will know or care which camera and lens were used to take the few iconic photos made in this decade.

Better gear is nice but it will have little impact on how other people (the 99% non-gearheads we share the earth with) perceive our work.

For me, photography isn't about art, and most of the time I don't care a bit how other people perceive my work.

 

[Lee Jay]

Every lens has its own maximum resolution and the weakest link, whether it is the lens or the image sensor sets the maximum resolution for the pair.

That isn't how it works at all, and lenses are far higher in resolution than you think they are.

 

[dak723]

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.

The needs of media are different to those of artists.

Yes, and as an artist with over 35 years experience I can say with a great deal of knowledge that the majority of artists prefer Contrast over a wide Dynamic Range. Artists also understand the principle that you want detail in either the lights or the shadows - not both. So, too much shadow lifting creates washed out, low contrast images that can be (and usually are) less artistic than high contrast images.

The greater DR of the Exmor sensors is such a minor issue to many - and bears noting that the advantage is at a very limited low ISO range. In mid to higher ISOs, the Canons perform as well or even better. I understand the noise and banding issues have been a problem to a few photographers - especially those into astrophotography. Their concerns are real - but seem to apply to a very small number of photographers. They should seriously consider switching brands, but their impact on Canon sales should be minor. As long as they stop bashing Canon at every opportunity and continually promote that all photographers (artistic or otherwise) need more MP and higher DR. They don't. If I need a new Camera in the next few years and all the choices are in the 36 to 50 MP range - then I will look for a used 6D or 5Dmk3 to keep my MP count reasonable and workable. And my primary subject is landscape - so the idea that all landscape photographers need higher MP is just another piece of baloney dished out by the techno junkies.

And I think that is why - excepting those technio junkies that are into pixel peeping and spec analyzing - that the person looking for high quality photos will continue to buy Canon at least on an equal level with Nikon and Sony. All these companies make excellent cameras and in most cases it will come down to personal preferences.
I have recently shot with a entry level Nikon D3300 and compared it to the Canon SL1. I preferred the Canon by a considerable margin mainly due to far more pleasing color. Again, just a personal preference, but color and contrast and sharpness and ergonomics do matter.

And the bashing of the new rumored high MP Canon before it has even appeared just shows the agenda of some of the folks here. It can't possibly be any good because its not Exmor. How about we wait until the camera actually appears and then judge in on actual experience.

 

[tcmatthews]

If Canon sensors suck so bad, why do I see so many white lenses on the sidelines of every football game I watch? Pretty sure they're not Sony lenses.

The needs of media are different to those of artists.

Last week I visited an exhibition in the Rijksmuseum called Modern Times about photography in the 20th century https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/modern-times
Art is not about equipment, it’s not about more resolution, it’s not about a couple of stops more dynamic range, it’s not about ISO, it’s not about how much you can push a file, it’s not about brand A, B or C, etc.
In a couple of years almost no one will know or care which camera and lens were used to take the few iconic photos made in this decade.

Better gear is nice but it will have little impact on how other people (the 99% non-gearheads we share the earth with) perceive our work.

+1

Art is about vision. Artists will use whatever medium and tools needed to support there vision. That said not all photography is about art. And some art photography is all about resolution.

 

[Loswr]

And I think that is why - excepting those technio junkies that are into pixel peeping and spec analyzing - that the person looking for high quality photos will continue to buy Canon

Exactly. As I've often said, those clamoring for a bit more DR are in the minority.

And the bashing of the new rumored high MP Canon before it has even appeared just shows the agenda of some of the folks here. It can't possibly be any good because its not Exmor. How about we wait until the camera actually appears and then judge in on actual experience.

Awww, where's the fun in that? :

 

[Maiaibing]

The fact that Canon acknowledges they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales at all in 2014 underlines that Canon currently has a difficult time understanding the current market conditions.

Please provide a citation for Maeda Masaya (or another Canon executive) who said they missed a market segment and were not able to predict their DSLR sales "at all" in 2014.

Apart from the fact that Maeda does say they are missing a high megapix camera in his last interview, already back in SEP he admitted Canon customers missed and wanted a high megapix camera:
"Currently no Canon camera offers more than 22MP. Do your DSLR customers ask for higher resolution?
Yes. We know that many of our customers need more resolution"

According to Canon financial statements/releases/disclosures they originally predicted DSLR sales at 8 mio. units in 2014 later downgraded it to 7,65 mio. units and once more to 7.0 mio. units. (There was also a report floating of a downgrade to 7,6 mio units, but I believe this was just a rehash of the report based on the 7.65 mio. unit estimate).

Maeda never speaks for Canon on their finances - it would in fact be illegal for him to do so (apart from quoting official financial releases).

 

[privatebydesign]

And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?

The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.

 

[Loswr]

And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?

The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.

That's only because of the poor, sub par, unacceptable sensor IQ. If Canon would improve it by 2-stops of low ISO DR or just buy Exmor sensors, they'd certainly sell millions thousands hundreds a few dozen more cameras to the people for whom such things are absolutely critically important.

:

 

[PureClassA]

Thanks to everyone up the chain who helped answer the question about the ADCs on the Sensor die and Canon's ability to adjust the design. I suspected something similar. That said, I think their hand will get forced by market pressures sooner than later.

I went and did some light painting with the kids and my buddy last night for new years. Perfect time. Tripod, 6D, and 50mm Sig Art or Canon 16-35 f4L.

Either of these lenses would resolve beautifully on a 50MP sensor. Glass isn't digital. There isn't some hard ceiling of how high it will resolve. Granted, the manufacturing process used can alter some of the ultra fine detail via CA (or lack there of) barrel distortions, etc.... but I'd bet even an old FD L lens (which I have 3) would resolve some very pretty images on that sensor. They may not be as "critically sharp" as my ARTs or even my "dinosaur" 135L but so what? If that lens resolves 90% sensor capability now at 19-20MP on a 5D3 but it only gets me 80% capacity on a new 52MP camera... Ok that's still 40MP .... I'm still doubling my resolving power. Who's going to really complain? (LOADED QUESTION FOR SOME FOLKS ON HERE ))

And yes ALL DSLR sales have been hammered by iPhones and 42Fake-A-Pixel cameras from Nokia and Samsung and so on. Why anyone would buy a point and shoot these days (apart from the small percentage of people who know better like us) is beyond me. I'm not sure you'll see as much at the cheap end of that spectrum much longer. Eventually you'll have smart phones, then upscale P&S like RX100s and G7Xs and XT1s etc... and maybe a handful sub $300. I just do not see people with so slim a budget or taste for cameras even bothering to buy one when a $200 iPhone is getting them what they want for facebook. (In the USA, at least)

DSLRs and even more pro grade mirrorless will dwindle as well. They will probably become the niche venue of mainly professionals and Mom-Tographers. Everyone is getting slapped. It's sad, because most folks (the masses) are not too concerned with quality anymore in much anything. Hot fast and cheap. Lord I hope I'm dead wrong

 

[crashpc]

PureClassA: The main thing is that we are not for one even on "resolution term". For example it has been shown, that with 24Mpx FF sensor, with lens set at f/32. there is still plenty of moire. Until f/64, which is two more stops, there is strong moire visible, that way the lens resolves more than sensor does.
It seems that for some detail under MTF 50 is not important, but when this unimportant fallse detail shows, it is hugely important to the viewer. That way I´d not bother for the current lenses. Everything up to 256Mpx on FF and 128Mpx on APS-C is very cool, and will give significantly more detailed results, especially after processing.

 

[PureClassA]

PureClassA: The main thing is that we are not for one even on "resolution term". For example it has been shown, that with 24Mpx FF sensor, with lens set at f/32. there is still plenty of moire. Until f/64, which is two more stops, there is strong moire visible, that way the lens resolves more than sensor does.
It seems that for some detail under MTF 50 is not important, but when this unimportant fallse detail shows, it is hugely important to the viewer. That way I´d not bother for the current lenses. Everything up to 256Mpx on FF and 128Mpx on APS-C is very cool, and will give significantly more detailed results, especially after processing.

Ok f32. (I'm not personally aware of any glass that stops down to 64). But don't most resolution tests show peak resolve around f 5.6 to f8? Personally I prefer the charts dpreview uses when testing. It shows a color graph of sharpness varying from center frame to corners. Much more informative than DxO. DxO seems to test glass only at wide open. Which I understand is a legit measurement as people buy fast glass to shoot wide open, but that doesn't ever show the full capability of what the glass can do. I'm totally thrilled with wide open on my ART glass, but not so much on my 135 even though it's still very pretty at f2. I usually stop down to f4 or 5.6 for portraiture

Any of the lenses I own would show substantially increased resolving power on a more refined sensor. They may not give a 1 to 1 perfection of 52MP but my point is that if they give me a near 100% step up to 35-40MP I'd be a very happy camper as would the vast majority of folks on here. Seems like too many folks are trying to split hairs (literally in terms of resolution) on here, and while a I appreciate their opinions, I don't see them as being the case for most folks in real world shooting as opposed to under exposing by 3 stops with the lens cap on in a Transylvanian graveyard at midnight on Halloween ;D

 

[Maiaibing]

And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?

The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.

1) I have no clue what Canon can expect to sell of a 52 mp camera that does not exist (and may never do so). Is your number based on Nikon 800/810 sales numbers or just wild speculation/guessing?

2) Thank you for agreeing with what I already wrote: "falling DSLR sales are not Canon specific and indeed maybe there was nothing they could do about it"

 

[privatebydesign]

And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?

The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.

1) I have no clue what Canon can expect to sell of a 52 mp camera that does not exist (and may never do so). Is your number based on Nikon 800/810 sales numbers or just wild speculation/guessing?

2) Thank you for agreeing with what I already wrote: "falling DSLR sales are not Canon specific and indeed maybe there was nothing they could do about it"

1/ It is a logical estimation guessed at from some numbers we do know. For instance EF lens sales 100,000,000, number of people that buy a DSLR and don't buy a lens outside the kit lens/es, 97%. That means the total number of all DSLR sales of all EOS cameras ever that goes to pros, semi pros and keen amateurs (the groups that almost certainly would get another lens) is around 3,000,000. If you thought every single one of those pros, semi pros and amateurs was to buy a 52MP camera (and we know they won't) and only they had no choice but that one 52MP camera, since 1987 they would only have sold 3,000,000, or around 100,000 a year. Give a camera a marketing shelf life of 5 years puts sales at an absolute maximum of 500,000 units if every single person who bought a seperate EF lens was to buy one.

2/ You are welcome. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was pointing out that no 52MP camera is a panacea for any camera company, if Canon come out with one it will not turn their business around, it might stop them losing a very small number of the ever dwindling DSLR sales numbers, but it is such a small niche within a niche it is all but inconsequential. All the hyperbole about Sony are slaughtering Canon, or Canon have to do X to compete or they will die is ridiculous. People need to see the company from a far greater perspective, sure that might not help you shoot the entire DR of your next sunset (but truthfully who gives a damn about another sunset?) but it will stop people being so self centric as to not see the wood for the trees.

Canon owe us nothing, we owe Canon nothing, get the camera and system that best suits your needs. A 52MP 135 format camera will not suit my needs.

 

[Don Haines]

And of that 1,000,000 unit downgrade how many 52MP cameras do you think Canon expect to sell to fill the void?

The downgrade is because the DSLR market is shrinking. I expect they are hoping sales might be in the few hundred thousand over the life span of the rumoured camera, not in the million units per year league. A 52MP camera is a niche within a niche, it is tiny and from a sales point of view, inconsequential, which I suspect is why Canon haven't bothered with it thus far.

1) I have no clue what Canon can expect to sell of a 52 mp camera that does not exist (and may never do so). Is your number based on Nikon 800/810 sales numbers or just wild speculation/guessing?

2) Thank you for agreeing with what I already wrote: "falling DSLR sales are not Canon specific and indeed maybe there was nothing they could do about it"

1/ It is a logical estimation guessed at from some numbers we do know. For instance EF lens sales 100,000,000, number of people that buy a DSLR and don't buy a lens outside the kit lens/es, 97%. That means the total number of all DSLR sales of all EOS cameras ever that goes to pros, semi pros and keen amateurs (the groups that almost certainly would get another lens) is around 3,000,000. If you thought every single one of those pros, semi pros and amateurs was to buy a 52MP camera (and we know they won't) and only they had no choice but that one 52MP camera, since 1987 they would only have sold 3,000,000, or around 100,000 a year. Give a camera a marketing shelf life of 5 years puts sales at an absolute maximum of 500,000 units if every single person who bought a seperate EF lens was to buy one.

2/ You are welcome. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was pointing out that no 52MP camera is a panacea for any camera company, if Canon come out with one it will not turn their business around, it might stop them losing a very small number of the ever dwindling DSLR sales numbers, but it is such a small niche within a niche it is all but inconsequential. All the hyperbole about Sony are slaughtering Canon, or Canon have to do X to compete or they will die is ridiculous. People need to see the company from a far greater perspective, sure that might not help you shoot the entire DR of your next sunset (but truthfully who gives a damn about another sunset?) but it will stop people being so self centric as to not see the wood for the trees.

Canon owe us nothing, we owe Canon nothing, get the camera and system that best suits your needs. A 52MP 135 format camera will not suit my needs.

well said!
Few of us seem to realize that it is the low end cameras that make up the vast bulk of sales.....