Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera

[crashpc]

It would be not that huge problem to do normal mapping of pixel of very high resolution sensor. It would not be that deffective as big pixel would be. With 256Mpx I couldn´t care less if there was 20px dead as long as these wasn´t grouped, because mapping these would make about no damage to the image. Another win of technology over physics so to speak...

 

[Admin US West]

I would like more resolution in the sensor at higher ISO's.

Usually I have a lot more heartburn about loss of resolution at moderately high ISO (like ISO 800 or 1600) than I do about grain/noise, which I don't really notice much until ISO 3200 or more. I find it irritating, for example, when the camera does not record eyelashes or eye or lip detail, and I see it doing that at those ISO's before I really see much noise.

Would the higher res sensors deliver more lines of resolution at the higher ISO's?

Scotty, the individual pixels get much more noisy as they get smaller. However, if you reduce the resolution, then the noise is not as apparent. DXO reduces the resolution of the sensors they test to 8MP, for example. Then they declare the low noise winner.

There seems little advantage to buying a high MP sensor camera and then reducing the resolution to make the high amount of noise look better, but it does work. It keeps you from making severe crops, which I sometimes want to do. My reason for buying a high MP body was to allow me to make those extreme crops. It was a big mistake, and I resold my D800.

At low ISO's where there is little noise, then you actually are able to use the resolution you paid for. Right now, going to medium format is the only sure way to get high MP and low noise, but its expensive. There are other limitations as well, so its a bit specialized.

 

[Admin US West]

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

Its more difficult to design a lens for short flange distances, due to the requirement to bend light more in order to cover a FF. Expect either poorer lenses, smaller aperture lenses, or more expensive and complex good lenses.

Existing EF lenses have no problem with 52 MP, after all, a 7D MK II is a cropped 51.7 MP FF sensor. Same for Nikon.

I'd expect a newer existing EF lens to work well with a 100mp sensor.

 

[KingTut]

I have been a Canon guy for well-over ten years. On a recent trip to Africa I took a GH4, partly for size (a 600mm equiv lens was 1lb!) and partly for 96p slomo & 4K video features. On a previous trip I found the 5D nearly useless for wildlife video. However, this experience convinced me that trying to do video and stills in one camera is mistake for a *multitude* of reasons. The GH4 is a very impressive camera, but ends up comprising both. So, I will return to Canon for stills when this thing comes out. And I will do video with a video camera.
Note: that a 2x2 pixel average for improved sensitivity will still be a 12mp image, the same as Sony A7s. That is, you have a higher res A7r and A7s in one package. One hopes Canon exploits this, and outputs a raw image format that is pre-averaged, preferably in hardware.
The GH4 is mirrorless, which obviously has some advantages, especially for video. But as I said if you're serious about doing both, get two cameras. The other advantages are using the menus in bright sun through the view finder, and lots of nice graphic helpers superimposed over the image. Unfortunately, you end up watching the world on TV instead of being there. On African safari (anywhere, really) you want to be there, not watching on a video screen. DSLR lets you see the real subject, but not the final result. Someday we'll have a camera that combines the best of both.
Lens: For wildlife, where size and weight are critical, a 600mm DO that fits in an overhead compartment would be lovely.

 

[Lee Jay]

Note: that a 2x2 pixel average for improved sensitivity will still be a 12mp image, the same as Sony A7s.

You know, if they did to this sensor what they do to the C100 sensor (8MP sensor binned 2x2 into a native full-HD image), you'd have a native 3-color 4k video system using almost the full sensor width. You'd be left with a horizontal crop factor of something like 1.14 or so.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Know your audience, and give them only what they need to know.

A viewpoint I've heard espoused by those who fear their methods or data won't withstand critical review.

Yes, some quote the P-MP DXO numbers which are dumbed down for dummies. If they looked at the actual measurements and tried to understand them, they might not come away with the same opinion.


For example, the P-MP number DXO gives on the 70-200mm L MK II with the 7D MK II is apparently quoted with the lens stopped down so that resolution is limited by diffraction. Check their measurement data, and at f/2.8 aperture, their data shows a jump of P-MP from 7 to >20!

The Actual DXO measurements are not perfect, but their P-MP numbers are very misleading to those who do not understand them, or don't want to.

 

[crashpc]

CR Backup admin: it seems that there is no apparent problem with shorter flange distance, as M lenses are excptional ones, and for good price.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's hard to do full read out of a sensor with tons of MP though. The A7S has only 10MP for instance.

I'm not sure why you say that. The effort scales linearly in the number of pixels. If you have twice as many pixels, you just throw twice as much hardware at the problem. With a two-sided or stacked chip, I'd think that it would be possible to pack all the needed processing on the back side of the sensor die, with room to spare.

What makes high-MP sensors hard is yield. The more pixels you have, the higher your tolerance for stuck pixels has to be—particularly as the feature size approaches the limits of their lithography technology.

I thought Canon was having heating issues doing more than 8MP or so full reads from their sensors.
And most of the cams are line skipping or on chip binning and not doing full reads at huge MP counts.
Maybe this new NX1 actually does, I don't know, but I hadn't heard of any other really high MP count sensors doing full reads yet.

Whatever the case others are doing, Canon and it's sensors and DIGICs has been far away from doing 50MP full sensor reads. Maybe they should be able to do it by next year, but that doesn't mean they will with the way they;ve been going.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Just go to a forest where the sun is dappling in and you hit a scenario that needs more DR than Canon delivers but where Exmor DR is just enough.

Ahhh yes. Forgot about dappling in sun forest photography.

You appear to make it sound like that is some freakish thing. It's a super common type of photography.
Of course it depends where you live I suppose. If you live in the desert in Arizona maybe you don't hit the scenario up much. If you live in a Redwood forest or basically most forest areas then maybe you do.

 

[Loswr]

CR Backup admin: it seems that there is no apparent problem with shorter flange distance, as M lenses are excptional ones, and for good price.

Yes, but those lenses are designed for an APS-C image circle, which greatly simplifies the design. Lenses of similar focal length, aperture, and flange distance with an image circle sized for a full frame sensor would either be much more expensive, or if similarly priced would deliver substantially worse IQ, particularly away from the center.

 

[Eldar]

Just go to a forest where the sun is dappling in and you hit a scenario that needs more DR than Canon delivers but where Exmor DR is just enough.

Ahhh yes. Forgot about dappling in sun forest photography.

You appear to make it sound like that is some freakish thing. It's a super common type of photography.
Of course it depends where you live I suppose. If you live in the desert in Arizona maybe you don't hit the scenario up much. If you live in a Redwood forest or basically most forest areas then maybe you do.

I shoot several thousand images in such conditions every year, both here in Norway and abroad.

In many (most) of those cases the DR delivered by Canon sensors is good enough. But you better get your exposure right. Example; chasing a bird, getting your framing and your focus right, very often ends up with exposure being a bit off. A little headroom for adjustments in post processing would help a lot. In other cases the contrasts are such that, even with correct exposure, I would be very happy to have a few stops more.

So I am crossing my fingers that this next camera isn´t just a 7DIIx2, but a genuine 810E trasher. If not, since there are alternatives out there, I´ll have to make up my mind if I believe my life is long enough for more waiting :

 

[dgatwood]

Its more difficult to design a lens for short flange distances, due to the requirement to bend light more in order to cover a FF. Expect either poorer lenses, smaller aperture lenses, or more expensive and complex good lenses.

Or lenses with a permanently recessed rear element. There's no law that says the rear element has to stick out from the rear of the lens. From a lens robustness perspective, moving the rear element inwards could be a serious win.

Mind you, doing that wouldn't make the lenses any shorter, but it would be a reasonable design approach for long lenses that wouldn't really get much shorter with a shorter flange focal distance anyway. And it could potentially allow mechanical adapters to short-flange-focal-distance EF-M lenses so you could use the cameras with existing lighter, shorter wide lenses (using a zoom mode that blows up the center 40% of the image).

 

[PureClassA]

Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?

 

[jasny]

Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?

Not sure high megapixel sensor will have DPAF. Manufacturing could be expensive. And even decent Full HD alone could be expensive (in terms of scaling all that ~ 52MPix down to only ~2 for video).

 

[dgatwood]

Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?

Not sure high megapixel sensor will have DPAF. Manufacturing could be expensive. And even decent Full HD alone could be expensive (in terms of scaling all that ~ 52MPix down to only ~2 for video).

If they're talking about scaling up the 7D Mark II sensor, it will. I just hope they have the good sense to include a touchscreen so that live view focusing won't be such an epic pain in the a**.

 

[Sporgon]

Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?

Not sure high megapixel sensor will have DPAF. Manufacturing could be expensive. And even decent Full HD alone could be expensive (in terms of scaling all that ~ 52MPix down to only ~2 for video).

If they're talking about scaling up the 7D Mark II sensor, it will. I just hope they have the good sense to include a touchscreen so that live view focusing won't be such an epic pain in the a**.

I have a hunch that the AF part of DPAF is only scratching the surface of what this tech may realise, so I think it will have the dual pixel, with, hopefully, more to it than just live view AF.

 

[jasny]

Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now? Slim or none?

Not sure high megapixel sensor will have DPAF. Manufacturing could be expensive. And even decent Full HD alone could be expensive (in terms of scaling all that ~ 52MPix down to only ~2 for video).

If they're talking about scaling up the 7D Mark II sensor, it will.

Then they should scale DIGiC 6 either

 

[scyrene]

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.

Amen!

 

[LorneKwe]

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.

I agree that better gear isn't going to help you out that much if your composition skills are weak, your post-treatments are tasteless, or you've got a variety of other skill related issues working against you.

However, in the hands of someone who is truly fantastic at what they do, better gear could mean higher quality or larger prints. It could also mean getting out strong images in tougher situations without having to make compromises.

Forest photography or sunsets are a great example I think, where if you were given a magic sensor that can capture 20 stops of DR without noise, you could have the ability to create much more beautiful pictures in those two shooting environments.

Better lenses and more MP = more beautiful prints...so those are always welcome upgrades too. Right now, even a D810 with a flawless lens only gets you a perfect print of ~26" @ 300dpi.

 

[jrista]

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.

I agree that better gear isn't going to help you out that much if your composition skills are weak, your post-treatments are tasteless, or you've got a variety of other skill related issues working against you.

However, in the hands of someone who is truly fantastic at what they do, better gear could mean higher quality or larger prints. It could also mean getting out strong images in tougher situations without having to make compromises.

Forest photography or sunsets are a great example I think, where if you were given a magic sensor that can capture 20 stops of DR without noise, you could have the ability to create much more beautiful pictures in those two shooting environments.

Better lenses and more MP = more beautiful prints...so those are always welcome upgrades too. Right now, even a D810 with a flawless lens only gets you a perfect print of ~26" @ 300dpi.

+1000


This is why so many pros (and avid enthusiasts like myself) have $30,000 - 50,000 kits. They are exceptionally skilled, and can maximize the potential of that gear.