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

[privatebydesign]

I don't understand people who complain about file sizes

Seriously? Do you think everyone has money floating around to upgrade their computers all the time. Most folks in the real world are lucky if they can budget a new computer every 6 years or so. Same with a camera. That's why dependability matters!

It's not even the cost. I'm closing in on 20 TB of files on multiple drives. File management/backups/physical space/and the need to regularly move files off the computer hard drive to free up internal hard drive space in order to keep Photoshop responsive is a real pain in the rear.

If every one of my files increases by 50% (going from 20 to 30 mp) that alone is going to mean I'd need to find an additional 10 TB of space for zero increase in images. Yet, for my clients 2000 x 3000 pixel images are more than adequate for their needs. And, if they need something larger, a 20mp image is more than adequate for billboards or a bus/transport van wrap.

So yeah, I'm firmly in the "don't need more mega pixels camp."

Who buys a $3500 camera and presumably many thousands of dollars worth of lenses and ancillary equipment, and then gripes about a couple of hundred dollars for storage?

Go back and re-read unfocused's point. If you're talking about "a couple of hundred dollars" then are only counting the first harddrive, not for the redundancy and the backup etc that goes with a professional IT setup. And all for zero value value to the customers, which means that unfocused needs to eat that cost himself.

I can't figure out if you've got your head up your rear, you're trolling, an idiot or clueless. I hope for the latter.

except 10tb in storage really doesn't add that much cost. not to mention if are so concerned about size, you can shoot sRAW.

the additional pixels will allow for a more sharper 20mb "look" and also less noise than a 20mp camera.

and it's not as if buying a 5D Mark IV will immediately and retroactively add 10TB to storage needs.

It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix. All the people who have been clamouring for 4K are gonna find real hurt once they get it and try to start editing and processing it.

 

[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.

 

[3kramd5]

What is your computer setup?
I have a Samsung SSD (850 Evo) and notice some relative slowdown working with 36+ MP compared to 24.

Mid-range 2015 i7 w/32GB of RAM. Windows and software are on a SATA3 SSD, and workflow files are on a Samsung 950 Pro M.2. Building previews takes longer, but when I actually sit down to to work, I often have a mix of 5D3 files with A7R2 files in the same session, and can't tell which is which from a "feel" standpoint.

And I'll repeat: I'm not trying to say anyone needs higher resolution files. If they add no value, then don't bother. But from a computer infrastructure standpoint, the cost isn't that significant. Bigger drives are sufficient, and buying 6TB drives versus 4TB drives is not earth-shattering. 8TB drives come with a large price premium per byte, but that will vanish in a few years when 12-16TB drives materialize.

 

[noms78]

I don't understand people who complain about file sizes

PC components can be upgraded anytime and are constantly getting cheaper but DSLR bodies are only released once every few years so when they are released they need to be future proof for the release period.

So...what is your camera, computer, software, and storage setup? ???

I just don't think the advancement of components and lowering price rate is on par with the megapixels going up.

5D3, i5 3570k, 16gb ddr3, samsung evo 840 250gb ssd, 1xSeagate 2TB, 1xHGST 4TB, hd7950 3gb, u2410 monitor. If talking about 5D3 files only - I only have 43GB of raw plus converted jpgs (2923 files). For backup I periodically make two copies of my 5D3 files (so I have three copies of my important files). I use Canon DPP 3.15 for RAW conversion and Photoshop CS3 for straightening, resizing and saving to jpg.

I am planning to upgrade my computer and monitor eventually. I wish Dell would release a 28" 2560x1600 monitor. Before the 5D3 I had a 350D so it was a nice upgrade

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

...
It isn't the storage that is the bottleneck it is the processing, and processor costs are not a cheap fix. All the people who have been clamouring for 4K are gonna find real hurt once they get it and try to start editing and processing it.

The same was true for 1080p prior to ~2005.

And products to do 4K work are already appearing:
http://www2.advantech.com/products/news.aspx?doc_id=82B1F5C7-CCAA-4CC5-9B06-CEC7B9796B82

Technology does not stand still.

Who said it did?

"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?

 

[kaihp]

I am planning to upgrade my computer and monitor eventually. I wish Dell would release a 28" 2560x1600 monitor. Before the 5D3 I had a 350D so it was a nice upgrade

Ah, you also want the 16:10 form factor. The closest Dell is getting to your wants is the 27" UHD P2715Q - next step is the 30" 2560x1600, but at a crushing pricepoint.

 

[Orangutan]

I get what you're saying, but it's a temporary problem: storage keeps getting faster, cheaper and smaller; CPUs and GPUs keep getting faster and cheaper. Right now it's an inconvenience, in a few years it'll be routine. When did you first start shooting digital? How many old 4MP or 6MP files do you have that you wish were 20MP? Maybe not a high percentage but there are some, I'll bet.

For temporary work, i.e. paid work that won't go in your portfolio, is MRAW an option?

We still sell 5200rpm HDD. Only real storage advancement would be SSD

This is not exactly as it seems: while RPM is still 5200, the bit-density is much higher than years ago, so you still have higher sustained transfer rate.

CPU speed growth have been stagnant. Just improvements in size and power efficiency...good for laptops.

Speed growth has hit a plateau due to lack of demand, not due to capability. Video gamers drive high-end PC specs these days, and there's no point in buying more CPU than needed for your favorite games. GPUs have continued to progress due to gaming demand.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

About these analog limitations: If you want to transfer an amount of charge (= a bunch of electrons) you create currents. If you like to do that very fast, you have a large current for a short time. Within the sensor design you have only limited max currents. And the signal is "smeared" so it is not a peak but a sth. like a wave.
Think about transferring water through a pipe: If you want to transfer the water faster (=higher flow rate) you need larger pipes or a higher speed of the water (=higher pressure). The speed of charge transfer is limited by ~65% of the speed of light, you can build thicker connections between photo sites and ADCs but this again is limited by the sensor size/available space on the sensor. If you turn on and off the valve you will see a smeared "pulse" at the end of the hose. This limits how fast the signal is transferred through cables (electricity) or water hoses ...

Methods for decreasing resistence and inductance are known by Canon and the industry. We haven't seen them very much yet because less expensive methods still work.

Canon has a patent for backside illumination which allows them to put thick copper traces for the ground plane to speedup readout. Sony has already implemented a similar process in the A7R II, and moved to faster readouts in the A7S II.

 

[unfocused]

...
"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.

That's simply bull.

While a 386 Computer might be cheaper today than it was when introduced, just try running any software on it. With each successive generation you need more computing power to do the same tasks. More memory, more storage, faster processors, better graphics. So, it is definitely not going to be cheaper tomorrow.

 

[unfocused]

All the people who have been clamouring for 4K are gonna find real hurt once they get it and try to start editing and processing it.

Well, I suspect that many of those who are clamoring for 4K are only interested in bragging rights. But, yes, those who do try to do some editing will be in for a surprise. I found that my i7 processor, with a dedicated graphics card and 12 mb internal memory is still too slow to run Adobe Speed Grade.

 

[3kramd5]

Canon has a patent for backside illumination which allows them to put thick copper traces for the ground plane to speedup readout.

I'm confused by this statement. Are they traces or is it a plane? And how do thicker copper digital ground layers increase readout speeds?

 

[rrcphoto]

...
"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.

That's simply bull.

While a 386 Computer might be cheaper today than it was when introduced, just try running any software on it. With each successive generation you need more computing power to do the same tasks. More memory, more storage, faster processors, better graphics. So, it is definitely not going to be cheaper tomorrow.

what a weird comparison .. change the goalposts much.

Everything is relative, and progressively the costs have decreased dramatically.

I paid 4K for my laptop last year. I don't expect it to last forever.

however it's level of performance simply wasn't even possible a year prior in a laptop.

I run 50MP CR2' on my cheaper laptop without a problem. it's from 4 years back.

on my new one, working with 200-300MP images in photoshop .. not a problem, and that's with 5 servers running on it in hyper-v.

 

[Orangutan]

...
"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.

That's simply bull.

While a 386 Computer might be cheaper today than it was when introduced, just try running any software on it. With each successive generation you need more computing power to do the same tasks. More memory, more storage, faster processors, better graphics. So, it is definitely not going to be cheaper tomorrow.

At the same price point, adjusted for inflation, you now have a lot more processing power and storage. In 1995 my work machine had a 120MHz Pentium, with 32MB (yes, that's megabytes) of RAM, and 512 MB (yes, that's megabytes) of disk. It was the hottest thing I could find, and maxed-out my $5,000 budget. According to the CPI calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) the equivalent today would be $7,908. With that money you could now buy your own mini render farm.

Performance-per-dollar has stagnated a little over the last few years due to the use of GPUs instead of CPUs as the major compute engine of game graphics, and due to the need to improve performance-per-watt to accommodate cloud computing. If you want top performance, you may need to build a multi-GPU and multi-CPU system (using a "server" motherboard) with Xeon processors (not i7s). I'm sure you could also build a comparable multi-CPU AMD system.

A system bought at Costco is not likely to be a top video performer.

 

[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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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..........

 

[privatebydesign]

...
"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.

 

[Orangutan]

...
"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.

 

[slclick]

...
"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.

When you are invested in a system; Mac/iTunes for syncing, iphone, ipod, ipad whatnot...buying a WIN pc for post processing needs is not an easy call for most people. This is not unlike having a gaggle of Canon glass and considering a Nikon body for a feature Canon doesn't have. A lot of people are in this situation. Me, I find my Mac with i7 and 16GB RAM is sufficient for anything with stills. Doing video work and needing to buy new machines to keep up with your camera body must be the real $$ pain.

 

[Orangutan]

...
"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.

When you are invested in a system; Mac/iTunes for syncing, iphone, ipod, ipad whatnot...buying a WIN pc for post processing needs is not an easy call for most people. This is not unlike having a gaggle of Canon glass and considering a Nikon body for a feature Canon doesn't have. A lot of people are in this situation. Me, I find my Mac with i7 and 16GB RAM is sufficient for anything with stills. Doing video work and needing to buy new machines to keep up with your camera body must be the real $$ pain.

I completely understand that argument, and mostly agree; however, a personal i-Everything machine need not be the same as your work machine. A pro who needs to crunch through images and video quickly should buy a dedicated work machine. A 5-year old MB is fine for light personal needs, but work is work.

 

[Michael Clark]

I don't understand people who complain about file sizes

PC components can be upgraded anytime and are constantly getting cheaper but DSLR bodies are only released once every few years so when they are released they need to be future proof for the release period.

So...what is your camera, computer, software, and storage setup? ???

I just don't think the advancement of components and lowering price rate is on par with the megapixels going up.

5D3, i5 3570k, 16gb ddr3, samsung evo 840 250gb ssd, 1xSeagate 2TB, 1xHGST 4TB, hd7950 3gb, u2410 monitor. If talking about 5D3 files only - I only have 43GB of raw plus converted jpgs (2923 files). For backup I periodically make two copies of my 5D3 files (so I have three copies of my important files). I use Canon DPP 3.15 for RAW conversion and Photoshop CS3 for straightening, resizing and saving to jpg.

I am planning to upgrade my computer and monitor eventually. I wish Dell would release a 28" 2560x1600 monitor. Before the 5D3 I had a 350D so it was a nice upgrade

DPP 4 is so much better than DPP 3. The fine tuning control over WB is much easier and faster to use. They've added an HSL tab. If you have an Nvidea graphic card then it is also much faster rendering previews. Have you tried it?