Canon EOS-1D X Mark II To Be 22mp [CR3]

[K]

Now maybe if Canon develops a 100MP BSI sensor exclusive to a 1DXS4 or whatever....

There's a point of diminishing returns with increasing megapixels. Already at 50mp, the 5DS does not resolve as well as an equal megapixel medium-format camera.

It will take large leaps and bounds in sensor technology to achieve the same kind of image quality in 35mm. Several generations worth of sensors.

The 5DS is the best 35mm sensor ever made for detail - but 50mp has been proved to produce far more detail and better images than the 5DS can put out. By the time 50mp on 35mm has the fullest quality 50mp can give, MF will use the same tech advances to jump ahead even further.

Upping the mp to these densities does help....but less and less.

100mp is probably no benefit in 35mm until tech leaps are made.

Going from a 22 or 24mp to a D810 then a 5DS you see jumps in detail for sure. The return in IQ on megapixels spent isn't where it ought to be.

Already the 5DS uses a shock absorbing shutter mechanism and a reinforced body to increase stability to try and get the most out of the resolution. MF shooters don't even use tripods, they mount their cameras in studio. Otherwise, camera vibration negates all that money spent to be able to resolve the finest details possible.

Yes, it is always said even in the past that a limit was reached in practicality. People said who needs more than 12mp? But it wasn't. Today though, it is getting closer. The same way 8K TV will be a sort of limit for a long time. When you get to the point that more pixels does not translate to visually noticeable detail, you've reached a limit. Human vision has a limit.

For any kind of non-mounted shooting, 36mp is about the max practical. What tech in the future can mitigate that? Sensor image stabilization can help. But there's nothing better than being stationary.

So yes, there is a visually confirmable practical limit to MP in photography that has likely been reached in 35mm.

Advancements going forward are better concentrated on more DR, better ISO performance, better color etcetera...rather than upping the MP. Again, to make any use of MP count that high - the camera has to be mounted. Otherwise, motion is blurring those super-fine details those extra megapixels are trying to resolve.

Output is another factor. 8K is around 33MP? People have put their face up against 8K screens at shows and could not make out pixels. Output like that will be able to show 1:1 full screen images coming from every DSLR out there except for 3 of them.


I digress a bit. The point is, in 35mm such extreme megapixel counts as well as the fact that 35mm is a DSLR, not a mounted studio camera all the time, means that it is pointless to go beyond 50mp for a long, long time.

But hey, marketing means specs have to continually be high.

More megapixels. More ISO. Look at the absurd Nikon marketing with their new cameras... 1M and 3M ISO? Give us a break.

 

[PureClassA]

I have to ask: what is it that people see a DSLR good for in doing video. I mean, with the 5D4 zooming is only manual, and the ergonomics (which are great for stills photography) are crap for video, and there is a limitation to how long each video can be before either it stops recording or it breaks the file into segments.

Because it can be a very capable cinema camera with the right tools and in the proper hands in a very compact lightweight body. The majority of the entire film "Act of Valor" (that was a major Hollywood release) was shot on a small fleet Canon 5D MkII DSLRs, Zeiss primes, and the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II. More recently, a dozen or so 5D MkIIs were used in making Mad Max Fury Road as crash cams. Extreme examples. But there are also LOADS of small independent film guys that love using DSLRs and MILCs. There's a healthy market out there for it, but Canon will attend to it more in the 5 series than the 1 series however. You can get around all those limitations with things like external recording and/or Magic Lantern.

 

[privatebydesign]

Now maybe if Canon develops a 100MP BSI sensor exclusive to a 1DXS4 or whatever....

There's a point of diminishing returns with increasing megapixels. Already at 50mp, the 5DS does not resolve as well as an equal megapixel medium-format camera.

It will take large leaps and bounds in sensor technology to achieve the same kind of image quality in 35mm. Several generations worth of sensors.

The 5DS is the best 35mm sensor ever made for detail - but 50mp has been proved to produce far more detail and better images than the 5DS can put out. By the time 50mp on 35mm has the fullest quality 50mp can give, MF will use the same tech advances to jump ahead even further.

Upping the mp to these densities does help....but less and less.

100mp is probably no benefit in 35mm until tech leaps are made.

Going from a 22 or 24mp to a D810 then a 5DS you see jumps in detail for sure. The return in IQ on megapixels spent isn't where it ought to be.

Already the 5DS uses a shock absorbing shutter mechanism and a reinforced body to increase stability to try and get the most out of the resolution. MF shooters don't even use tripods, they mount their cameras in studio. Otherwise, camera vibration negates all that money spent to be able to resolve the finest details possible.

Yes, it is always said even in the past that a limit was reached in practicality. People said who needs more than 12mp? But it wasn't. Today though, it is getting closer. The same way 8K TV will be a sort of limit for a long time. When you get to the point that more pixels does not translate to visually noticeable detail, you've reached a limit. Human vision has a limit.

For any kind of non-mounted shooting, 36mp is about the max practical. What tech in the future can mitigate that? Sensor image stabilization can help. But there's nothing better than being stationary.

So yes, there is a visually confirmable practical limit to MP in photography that has likely been reached in 35mm.

Advancements going forward are better concentrated on more DR, better ISO performance, better color etcetera...rather than upping the MP. Again, to make any use of MP count that high - the camera has to be mounted. Otherwise, motion is blurring those super-fine details those extra megapixels are trying to resolve.

Output is another factor. 8K is around 33MP? People have put their face up against 8K screens at shows and could not make out pixels. Output like that will be able to show 1:1 full screen images coming from every DSLR out there except for 3 of them.


I digress a bit. The point is, in 35mm such extreme megapixel counts as well as the fact that 35mm is a DSLR, not a mounted studio camera all the time, means that it is pointless to go beyond 50mp for a long, long time.

But hey, marketing means specs have to continually be high.

More megapixels. More ISO. Look at the absurd Nikon marketing with their new cameras... 1M and 3M ISO? Give us a break.

The sensor tech has been used for years to enable 200+ MP 135 sensors, just look at phone cameras and small sensored P&S's that easily out resolve all 135 and medium format sensors on a per area basis.

That fact also undermines your point about needing to mount that kind of pixel dense camera for sharp results, nobody uses phones and P&S cameras on a tripod (well maybe one or two, but a statistical irrelevance) but the images they produce are not always blurry.

Whilst other aspects of image quality might need more help than MP numbers, there is no doubt we are nowhere near "a visually confirmable practical limit to MP in photography that has likely been reached in 35mm."

 

[Mantadude]

[/quote]


I have to ask: what is it that people see a DSLR good for in doing video. I mean, with the 5D4 zooming is only manual, and the ergonomics (which are great for stills photography) are crap for video, and there is a limitation to how long each video can be before either it stops recording or it breaks the file into segments.
[/quote]

There are many many applications that a dslr for video is useful. It's frustrating to see people question it, because ultimately it makes your stills cameras cheaper. More of a market, the more aggressive on pricing they can get. Also, when it comes time to sell your camera, again, more people that may want to buy it...higher resale. It has also created a revolution of creative artists that would have otherwise not spent the money for a dedicated video camera. It's good for everyone. Even if you don't use it. Heck, when I bought my laptop for some photo and video editing, it does a ton of other things I will never even touch. 80% of its features probably. But some people will, and they have to add that to make it appeal to a broad user base. Makes total sense. The camera industry is very similar. But yet people get upset with video even being in there...it is crazy.

My main use for my 5dII is underwater videography. The cost to buy an underwater housing for a RED or a C series camera is ridiculous. $2000 vs. $20k. That's on top of the camera and lenses. A dslr is small for travel, and for space on small boats. Canon also has no competition to underwater white balancing....nobody is even close. Canon color for underwater is incredible. I would have switched to Sony as their cameras have a lot to offer, but they can't white balance under 10 feet...terrible. There are so many features that make them appealing, but if the color looks bad, what's the point.

I really don't need the capability of the 1dxII, but I want to move to 4K and hopefully 60fps...with better low light. Dpaf will also be helpful. I really wish that the 5d4 would have all of that, as I don't need stills that shoot 15fps...nor do I want the big body of the 1dx. But I am considering it.

Btw....I take less than 2000 stills a year with my camera. It is mainly a video rig. My wife on the other hand, has the same camera. And she takes over 30000 still a year, with no video. Pretty cool to have that flexibility.

 

[Perio]

Attention to "professional" CR forum members, who value every 0.1 DR.
Please check the largest panoramic image (Guinness World Record) http://www.in2white.com/making/
Taken by ... Canon 70d, with old low DR Canon sensor, which is a reason why Canon gets bankrupt in a few years.

 

[bescki]

I am waiting for it, I will compare to nikon d5. So I will decide which one to buy.

 

[privatebydesign]

Attention to "professional" CR forum members, who value every 0.1 DR.
Please check the largest panoramic image (Guinness World Record) http://www.in2white.com/making/
Taken by ... Canon 70d, with old low DR Canon sensor, which is a reason why Canon gets bankrupt in a few years.

If you down sample that into DXO world then it has approximately 742 stops of DR :

That means the 70D has 727 stops more DR than a Sony/Nikon Exmor sensor and about 100 more stops than the DXO One.

 

[WillT]

Attention to "professional" CR forum members, who value every 0.1 DR.
Please check the largest panoramic image (Guinness World Record) http://www.in2white.com/making/
Taken by ... Canon 70d, with old low DR Canon sensor, which is a reason why Canon gets bankrupt in a few years.

There are some large stitching errors in that photo, I am really surprised they did not fix those before they published.

 

[Don Haines]

Attention to "professional" CR forum members, who value every 0.1 DR.
Please check the largest panoramic image (Guinness World Record) http://www.in2white.com/making/
Taken by ... Canon 70d, with old low DR Canon sensor, which is a reason why Canon gets bankrupt in a few years.

If you down sample that into DXO world then it has approximately 742 stops of DR :

That means the 70D has 727 stops more DR than a Sony/Nikon Exmor sensor and about 100 more stops than the DXO One.

I don't think that it works like that..... DXO would still score the One higher......

 

[Diltiazem]

Except that Canon's profits are heading down faster than anyone else's.

Do you have anything to support your claim? A link would be nice.

Look at Canon's quarterly for 2015Q3.

Then look at Nikon's 1H2016, where both y/y sales and operating profit fell more than Canon, proving for the umpteenth time that dilbert wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the ass. :

Yes, my point about dilbert's assertion was faster than anyone else's.
We know Canon's profit margin has shrunk in recent years, but at least they are making profit (along with Nikon). Other's are not so lucky and there is no evidence that Canon's profit margin is going down faster than anyone else's.

 

[9VIII]

Already the 5DS uses a shock absorbing shutter mechanism and a reinforced body to increase stability to try and get the most out of the resolution. MF shooters don't even use tripods, they mount their cameras in studio. Otherwise, camera vibration negates all that money spent to be able to resolve the finest details possible.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5Ds.aspx

This is the 5Ds change with the biggest learning curve. The old 1/(focal length) rule to determine one's shortest shutter speed for handholding (without the aid of image stabilization) no longer works. Many use the 1/(focal length * 1.6) rule to determine APS-C handholdable speeds. This formula uses the 1.6 factor matching the APS-C sensor angle of view difference, but the higher pixel density of the APS-C imaging sensors is the real reason the faster speed has been needed. The same rule or, better yet, 1/(focal length * 2) is a better base estimate for handholding the 5Ds bodies.

There is no magic barrier where all of a sudden higher resolution becomes useless handheld, unless you're talking about pixels so small that the camera shutter can't go fast enough. But even then Canon could implement a purely digital readout that can go into tens of thousandths of a second.
Anyone using an APS-C sensor over 38MP is going to have exactly the same problem.
Speaking of which, practically speaking I would much rather have a 50MP crop body than 100MP full frame. If we're talking about our dreams for the future then I want a Gigapixel Medium Format body, but for now a BSI 50MP sensor could be put on APS-C without unreasonably increasing the cost. It could be the "7DS", a high end crop body for people who want more resolution.
Yes, faster shutter speeds make conditions more challenging, but Macro has always been a challenge, half the point is that people who do that kind of thing love to push technology to its limits (at least that's part of the reason I love shooting Macro).
Just give me the tech and I'll figure out what to do with it.

 

[K]

For years, many 1DX shooters, had a wish that their camera would just have a little more ooumph when it came to megapixels. They've never wanted a lot, due to file size and other work flow issues - but just a little more for better cropping. They dreamed of a 1DX with 5D3 megapixels.

Well, Canon listened and that is what they're getting.

22 is a very good sweet spot. The 5D3 has been a beast in the pro realm putting out great IQ for a wide range of uses. On a 1DX2, it will be even better.

 

[pharding]

What Canon desperately needs to do is to develop sensors that rival Nikon and Sony. My recently released 5DS R has very mediocre dynamic range compared to my Sony a7R II. The difference is very noticeable using identical lenses in identical conditions.

 

[davidmurray]

What Canon desperately needs to do is to develop sensors that rival Nikon and Sony. My recently released 5DS R has very mediocre dynamic range compared to my Sony a7R II. The difference is very noticeable using identical lenses in identical conditions.

Are you able to put Canon lenses on your Sony camera?

Why would Canon want to slum it by using a Nikon sensor? The 5D3 is one of the very best cameras ever made.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What Canon desperately needs to do is to develop sensors that rival Nikon and Sony.

Or else. Or else, what? Exactly.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The camera is in late stage testing and some production has started.

Interesting. Perhaps they have started production of the bodies, surprised there is still testing going on though.

Likely firmware testing. If they're producing some units, the hardware was design-locked some time ago.

This close to a announcement, there are pre-production units around that Canon "Makers of Light" are testing, and writing their reviews boasting how good it is. Those reviews will almost always be positive. The few that were not resulted in the reviewer being black listed by Canon.

I would not link IQ and performance to specifications or hype - not for any camera. You never hear about any negatives until they get into the hands of unbiased reviewers and get considerable real-life usage.

The other issue is that some are wanting a high end model for the wrong reasons. Cameras are targeted at different types of users, buying the most expensive one can be a mistake if it does not fit your usage.

If 22MP is not enough, you may be looking at a camera that is just plain not intended for your photography. As for 4K... I'm not going to comment.

 

[wockawocka]

I loved my 1DX but it was too heavy so compromised and used the 5D3 instead until the 5DSr came out.

Looking beyond dynamic range I think the next shoe to drop will be buffer and speed. I mean the 7Dii and the D500 aside from having a crop sensor have phenomenal potential for fast capture. 10fps vs 6? Makes a lot of difference even at weddings for the first kiss, aisle walk and confetti through not to mention ambient first dance shots.

I hope Canon don't cripple the 5D4 buffer. With the 5DSr able to shoot 18 frames continuous at 50mp, I would hope they'd give us 8fps at least with a mid 20's sensor. While they're there, give us a 60 frame buffer.

I sometime think they don't 'really' poll real users as to what they should add or change. I've a decent list of things they could of done better but chose not to with the 5DSr which might well of just been a case of firmware or spending a few dollars on more ram.

The frustrating thing is that Canon are not stupid yet they don't cater properly for one of the biggest pro segments of DSLR users - Wedding togs. We can't run around all day with 2 x 1DX's.

We shoot moments, we need fast get out of jail free options like being able to assign a different preset shooting mode to a button like with the 1DX. We got something like that with the 5DSr but it's only based around the shooting mode you'll currently be in. What a waste of a feature.

We really also need L series mid aperture primes. Like an 85mm, 35mm, 50mm 1.8L series of glass. I love my L glass but after a brief stint with the excellent Nikon D750 (Which broke after 2000 frames I might add lol) I did get to experience the 35 50 and 85 1.8G designated glass which was better than the Canon versions. Most noticeably the 85 1.8.

Weight and speed are an issue for many, the business I work in, wedding photography, is no longer a rock up at the ceremony and stay until the first dance thing. It's a 10am - close affair. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 glass is notable noth in weight and how much space it takes up in my lens bag. I do miss using the D750 with an 85G on. But the build quality was questionable.

I don't need 1.4 but I do need the best quality 1.8 glass. Only Nikon seem to of catered for this so far.

 

[pedro]

What Canon desperately needs to do is to develop sensors that rival Nikon and Sony. My recently released 5DS R has very mediocre dynamic range compared to my Sony a7R II. The difference is very noticeable using identical lenses in identical conditions.

Are you able to put Canon lenses on your Sony camera?

Why would Canon want to slum it by using a Nikon sensor? The 5D3 is one of the very best cameras ever made.

I second that.

 

[Reality Merely Illusion]

I loved my 1DX but it was too heavy so compromised and used the 5D3 instead until the 5DSr came out.

Looking beyond dynamic range I think the next shoe to drop will be buffer and speed. I mean the 7Dii and the D500 aside from having a crop sensor have phenomenal potential for fast capture. 10fps vs 6? Makes a lot of difference even at weddings for the first kiss, aisle walk and confetti through not to mention ambient first dance shots.

I hope Canon don't cripple the 5D4 buffer. With the 5DSr able to shoot 18 frames continuous at 50mp, I would hope they'd give us 8fps at least with a mid 20's sensor. While they're there, give us a 60 frame buffer.

I sometime think they don't 'really' poll real users as to what they should add or change. I've a decent list of things they could of done better but chose not to with the 5DSr which might well of just been a case of firmware or spending a few dollars on more ram.

The frustrating thing is that Canon are not stupid yet they don't cater properly for one of the biggest pro segments of DSLR users - Wedding togs. We can't run around all day with 2 x 1DX's.

We shoot moments, we need fast get out of jail free options like being able to assign a different preset shooting mode to a button like with the 1DX. We got something like that with the 5DSr but it's only based around the shooting mode you'll currently be in. What a waste of a feature.

We really also need L series mid aperture primes. Like an 85mm, 35mm, 50mm 1.8L series of glass. I love my L glass but after a brief stint with the excellent Nikon D750 (Which broke after 2000 frames I might add lol) I did get to experience the 35 50 and 85 1.8G designated glass which was better than the Canon versions. Most noticeably the 85 1.8.

Weight and speed are an issue for many, the business I work in, wedding photography, is no longer a rock up at the ceremony and stay until the first dance thing. It's a 10am - close affair. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 glass is notable noth in weight and how much space it takes up in my lens bag. I do miss using the D750 with an 85G on. But the build quality was questionable.

I don't need 1.4 but I do need the best quality 1.8 glass. Only Nikon seem to of catered for this so far.

Yes buffer is one of the most overlooked things by Most camera companies.
I hope this forces Canon to improve their buffers (which are all as sad as the nikons buffers were until the d4)
That would make them even better tools!

 

[rbr]

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a 28mp 1 series camera. That would give it the same pixel density as the 1D MarkIV. Until that happens, I can't see parting with last remaining Mark IV. There are times when the 1.3x crop is just too useful. Otherwise the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at. If the new 5D goes up to 28mp and the shutter speed also goes up to at least 8 frames per second then I would seriously give that a look. If not, I still like my combination of the 1DX and 1D4. Everyone has their own needs.