Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to be 30mp? [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

...
"It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix."

Where is the argument in that statement?

What's expensive today is cheaper tomorrow.

2007 17" MBP >$3,000, 2011 17" MBP >$3,000, 2016 15" MBP >$3,000. I don't see these savings anywhere. Now a computer with the capabilities of the 2007 one is cheaper, but the programs and processes we are trying to run now dwarf the 2007 processes. The 2007 computer handled my 4MP 1D files every bit as fast as the 2016 one handles 5DS files.

There's your problem: Macbooks are ridiculously overpriced for the performance. I'm no fan of Microsoft, especially with Windows 10's problems, but your best performance-per-dollar is with a Windows desktop. Money is better spent on CPU, GPU, SSD and memory, not on beautiful design.

Actually...very few apps are fully 64bit compliant. Even fewer are able to utilize more than two CPU cores. For photographic purposes, a fast dual core cpu is more beneficial than a slower quad core cpu. In Photography processing, processing power, memory speed and hard disk speed are the three most important factors to creating a fast workflow. If you a domestic photographer, it's not really a problem. But a professional wedding photographer needs a very fast and efficient workflow, especially during peak season where 3-4 weddings per week is quite possible. Big hard disk space is needed too for archiving, but fast SSD's are needed for processing last quantities of images as fast as possible. Ram is king too. Fast and powerful GPU's are irrelevant, we're not animating or rastering. These days, a top drawer laptop is very close in performance to a top drawer desktop.
I like Mac products a lot, but there are cheaper and often better specked options in the Dell and HP portfolio.

 

[unfocused]

...exactly the point I was making.... You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........

Actually what I've learned from this discussion is that I saved a ton of money by getting the 1D X II. I got a fantastic camera and I don't need a new $4,000 computer to process 20 mp files.

 

[rrcphoto]

It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix.

sure it is..

I process 50MP 5DSr raws on my laptop without even blinking an eye. the new skylake processors offer more than enough ram and processing power.

4k has nothing to do with Mp's which was the subject of this.

It depends what processes you are doing how many layers you are working and how many images you are merging together. But any way you look at it 5 year old computers are almost without exception going to run pretty slowly with thousands of 50MP files. How is that controversial?

If you got a new laptop before you got your 5D MkIII then if the MP go to >30 or you get a 5DS/R then expect a slowdown or the need to invest in a faster processor, not just additional storage. That is common sense and indisputable.

only if you join the two. in theory you should be upgrading your computer equipment continually.

I've heard of people in here whining because their dual core i5 won't run fast with raw files and LR..

the computer is part of your optical and systematic workflow, and like getting lenses and cameras it needs the same continual investment.

for any medium to high end computer in the last three years a 30mb raw isn't a problem.

Yes that is exactly the point I was making, and it isn't cheap. You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........

Derp.

I spent 4k to run 5 servers on a 7lb laptop faster than any single CPU computer can do.

I didn't need it to process 30mb raw files .. my four year old laptop does that just nicely..

Skylake is good and cheap and highly expandable.

 

[rrcphoto]

...exactly the point I was making.... You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........

Actually what I've learned from this discussion is that I saved a ton of money by getting the 1D X II. I got a fantastic camera and I don't need a new $4,000 computer to process 20 mp files.

Sure. If you have the need to run five 2012r2 servers on your laptop .. and can still work with 200-300mp stitched images in PS.. it's worth every penny.

I'm wondering what kind of antiquated computers or hard drives some are running if they are struggling with 20 and fearing 30.

 

[LSeries]

There's your problem: Macbooks are ridiculously overpriced for the performance. I'm no fan of Microsoft, especially with Windows 10's problems, but your best performance-per-dollar is with a Windows desktop.

Not entirely true. I'm using a Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) desktop to process my RAW images

 

[unfocused]

...
Yes that is exactly the point I was making, and it isn't cheap. You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........

Some people want the world to freeze and never change from a certain point that they become comfortable with and find it very hard to accept that change is necessary or that it will come.

Others look at change as being exciting, always bringing something new and the constant promise of tomorrow being better than today.

Some people are constantly chasing new technology. They live under the false hope that technology can substitute for talent. They will never learn that a camera does not make someone a photographer any more than a hammer makes someone a carpenter.

 

[Michael Clark]

...
"It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix."

Where is the argument in that statement?

What's expensive today is cheaper tomorrow.

2007 17" MBP >$3,000, 2011 17" MBP >$3,000, 2016 15" MBP >$3,000. I don't see these savings anywhere. Now a computer with the capabilities of the 2007 one is cheaper, but the programs and processes we are trying to run now dwarf the 2007 processes. The 2007 computer handled my 4MP 1D files every bit as fast as the 2016 one handles 5DS files.

There's your problem: Macbooks are ridiculously overpriced for the performance. I'm no fan of Microsoft, especially with Windows 10's problems, but your best performance-per-dollar is with a Windows desktop. Money is better spent on CPU, GPU, SSD and memory, not on beautiful design.

Actually...very few apps are fully 64bit compliant. Even fewer are able to utilize more than two CPU cores. For photographic purposes, a fast dual core cpu is more beneficial than a slower quad core cpu. In Photography processing, processing power, memory speed and hard disk speed are the three most important factors to creating a fast workflow. If you a domestic photographer, it's not really a problem. But a professional wedding photographer needs a very fast and efficient workflow, especially during peak season where 3-4 weddings per week is quite possible. Big hard disk space is needed too for archiving, but fast SSD's are needed for processing last quantities of images as fast as possible. Ram is king too. Fast and powerful GPU's are irrelevant, we're not animating or rastering. These days, a top drawer laptop is very close in performance to a top drawer desktop.
I like Mac products a lot, but there are cheaper and often better specked options in the Dell and HP portfolio.

Then you're using the wrong apps. All eight cores of my processor max out when I'm batch converting raw files to jpeg using DPP 4. The Nvidia GPU maxes out every time I open a raw file until the preview is rendered from the raw data using the current raw converter settings. It does the same when I open a new folder in thumbnail preview mode.

 

[rrcphoto]

...
Yes that is exactly the point I was making, and it isn't cheap. You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........

Some people want the world to freeze and never change from a certain point that they become comfortable with and find it very hard to accept that change is necessary or that it will come.

Others look at change as being exciting, always bringing something new and the constant promise of tomorrow being better than today.

Some people are constantly chasing new technology. They live under the false hope that technology can substitute for talent. They will never learn that a camera does not make someone a photographer any more than a hammer makes someone a carpenter.

what a tired overused comment.

or some realize that computers, like cameras and other equipment simply get replaced or parts upgraded over time regardless.

 

[romanr74]

...
Yes that is exactly the point I was making, and it isn't cheap. You spent $4k last year to be able to point out you can process $3k camera files fast!

I give up on this place sometimes..........

Some people want the world to freeze and never change from a certain point that they become comfortable with and find it very hard to accept that change is necessary or that it will come.

Others look at change as being exciting, always bringing something new and the constant promise of tomorrow being better than today.

Some people are constantly chasing new technology. They live under the false hope that technology can substitute for talent. They will never learn that a camera does not make someone a photographer any more than a hammer makes someone a carpenter.

what a tired overused comment.

or some realize that computers, like cameras and other equipment simply get replaced or parts upgraded over time regardless.

but very true...

 

[romanr74]

...
Some people are constantly chasing new technology. They live under the false hope that technology can substitute for talent.

I could throw everyone clamoring for more fps into that bucket.

so?

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

I would love for 2 versions,
Video with AA filter with no major resolution jump, and a photo version with optional AA filter and 30+ resolution...

5D MarkIV Hybrid /24mp
5D Mark IV-R /32mp

 

[Eersel]

I don't think having a D810 equivalent 36 MP is necessary... however 28 or 32 would be perfect for my application.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

...
Some people are constantly chasing new technology. They live under the false hope that technology can substitute for talent.

I could throw everyone clamoring for more fps into that bucket.

I agree Dilbert, but this is a camera forum and not a photography forum...unfortunately. Cameras get discussed to the point of nauseum...but photos...less so.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I don't think having a D810 equivalent 36 MP is necessary... however 28 or 32 would be perfect for my application.

Canon and Nikon know that to battle on a 1:1 basis is not good business, it devalues the market and margins for both companies. So the trick is to split the range so that neither camera quite competes on the same level. Canon did this with the 6D and 5D3. Then they split the range again with the 5DS/R. So the Nikon D810 doesn't quite compete with any of these cameras and it's current choice of 35mp was quite cleaver. Although it's still trying to regain the lost market of the D800 from the D700. The D800 was a camera that no one wanted and it isolated a lot of Nikon users. The jump from 12mp to 36mp was too steep for many. Also it's interesting that the release cycles of these two brands is 2 years out of phase. So each brand gets to trump each other every two years...when the truth is that it's just a new camera competing against a more out of date camera.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon and Nikon know that to battle on a 1:1 basis is not good business, it devalues the market and margins for both companies. So the trick is to split the range so that neither camera quite competes on the same level. Canon did this with the 6D and 5D3. Then they split the range again with the 5DS/R. So the Nikon D810 doesn't quite compete with any of these cameras and it's current choice of 35mp was quite cleaver. Although it's still trying to regain the lost market of the D800 from the D700. The D800 was a camera that no one wanted and it isolated a lot of Nikon users. The jump from 12mp to 36mp was too steep for many. Also it's interesting that the release cycles of these two brands is 2 years out of phase. So each brand gets to trump each other every two years...when the truth is that it's just a new camera competing against a more out of date camera.

I am very curious to see what the D810 follow up is. I would have thought Nikon would have simply licensed that A7R II sensor, but they have opted out, either for timing reasons (it was mid-cycle on the D810) or they want to go it alone with their own sensors.

(Also: D5 = Nikon sensor, D810/D750/D610 = Sony sensors, D500 = ? I can't seem to find a clear tell elsewhere online.)

- A