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

[kaihp]

But sensor read out has its analog electronics subsystems and these are more dominated by physics than tech development. The capacity of a 5um sensor photosite has it's capacity and if you need to transfer charge you have currents which are limited by resistance etc.

I think it drives a lot of people in the development departments nuts to optimize between these 10, 20 or 100 boundary conditions!

I understand what you're trying to say: that analog electronics don't follow Moore's law (like digital electronics).

However, your arguments (parasitic capacitances, finite resistance etc) apply equally to analog and digital circuits. You could consider digital electronics to be highly-non-linear, fully saturated analog electronics.

The analog guys don't go nut over optimizing their designs, usually because they work with a relatively small block (e.g. IO cell, comparator, voltage regulator). Their challenges is "the devil in the details". For digital guys, the challenge is to design a large complex system. That's where their devil lies.

 

[applecider]

For those of us trying to calculate possible frame rates from MP size based on throughput, remember that higher iso files increase size. For instance a 1600 iso raw on the 5d iii goes from 22 to 31 MP. A 6400 iso file is 36 MP so for the proposed 5d Iv at 30 MP a 6400 iso file would weigh in at about 52-4 MP.

 

[rrcphoto]

I am just amazed that the 5D4 is supposed to get the official announcement in August and the only information leaked is that it may have a 30mp sensor. How can they keep a secret that well? It seems like somebody would have hacked their computers for info by now.

Someone needs to allege there are national security secrets on Canon corporate computers and the information will promptly surface.

I am amazed how tightly Canon keeps things in-house until the last week. A huge piece of this is that they build their own cameras/lenses in their own factories. But one also wonders how nasty their NDA violation terms are (for outside evaluators) and how many false-flag / deliberate dissemination of false information is going on (internal to Canon and its sales force).

It's not Apple-like, I'm sure, but it can't be terribly far off from that given how tightly things have been kept secret the last few years.

- A

it's been a while since a major leak has really happened well in advance.

looking back, some rumors in hindsight with the 70D were pretty accurate.

but everything is pretty much clamped right down until a week or so prior to release.

Sad really

 

[dak723]

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!

 

[unfocused]

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."

 

[Sporgon]

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."

Once again unfocused is the voice of focused reason. For those of us that have to shoot masses of images the 5Ds file size is daunting, and the mraw / sraw very slow to open.

 

[TW]

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?

 

[ahsanford]

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?

I hear you and largely agree. A photographer shouldn't blow *all* of his/her budget on the hardware they take into the field.

But in fairness, it's more than just a hard drive. You also need to process those files, which requires a peppy computer.

- A

 

[tpatana]

I hate when people say "if you can afford X, then you can afford Y".

It's like saying I like 10% increase on the price.

 

[IglooEater]

I hate when people say "if you can afford X, then you can afford Y".

It's like saying I like 10% increase on the price.

Well yes and no.. You can't afford to own a car, if all you can afford is the monthly payment- there are other expenses like gas, oil, insurance, tires, licences, etc that come along with the car, but end up costing more than the car itself.

It's not that, "if you can afford X, then you can afford Y", but "think twice if you can really afford X, because it's gonna cost you Y as well".

I do agree with you that a lot of us express the problem incorrectly.

 

[3kramd5]

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.

I'm not sure I totally follow. Getting a higher-resolution camera isn't going to affect the file size of the 20TB worth of data you have now. It only means that new files will come 50% heaver if shot with a higher-res platform.

How long did it take to run up 20TB? At the rate harddrive space expands, I bet you could keep up easily. I added 12TB last week, and it only cost me 400USD.

I'm not suggesting you do so, mind you, I'm just questioning the premise.

 

[unfocused]

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.

I'm not sure I totally follow. Getting a higher-resolution camera isn't going to affect the file size of the 20TB worth of data you have now. It only means that new files will come 50% heaver if shot with a higher-res platform.

How long did it take to run up 20TB? At the rate harddrive space expands, I bet you could keep up easily. I added 12TB last week, and it only cost me 400USD.

I'm not suggesting you do so, mind you, I'm just questioning the premise.

Of course it won't affect existing files. But, it means that future files will take up even more space. And, as I said, the cost is not really the consideration. It's the file management, editing time, etc. that goes with larger files.

I know there are people who think bigger is always better. That's their opinion. I'm just stating mine, which is that there are a lot of considerations that go into managing and editing large megapixel files that go well beyond the initial cost of storage. And for me, for both my paid and unpaid work, there is no benefit to the larger file sizes. So, in essence I incur added expenses and lose time for no gain in revenue or personal pleasure.

 

[tpatana]

And for me, for both my paid and unpaid work, there is no benefit to the larger file sizes.

Unfortunately Canon cannot manufacture perfect camera for each person.

There's lot of items that don't benefit _me_ in Canon cameras, and there's lot of missing features that would benefit.

The best we can do is buying the closest compromise for each of our needs.

 

[3kramd5]

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.

I'm not sure I totally follow. Getting a higher-resolution camera isn't going to affect the file size of the 20TB worth of data you have now. It only means that new files will come 50% heaver if shot with a higher-res platform.

How long did it take to run up 20TB? At the rate harddrive space expands, I bet you could keep up easily. I added 12TB last week, and it only cost me 400USD.

I'm not suggesting you do so, mind you, I'm just questioning the premise.

Of course it won't affect existing files. But, it means that future files will take up even more space. And, as I said, the cost is not really the consideration. It's the file management, editing time, etc. that goes with larger files.

I know there are people who think bigger is always better. That's their opinion. I'm just stating mine, which is that there are a lot of considerations that go into managing and editing large megapixel files that go well beyond the initial cost of storage. And for me, for both my paid and unpaid work, there is no benefit to the larger file sizes. So, in essence I incur added expenses and lose time for no gain in revenue or personal pleasure.

That there is no advantage is a totally fair position. In my experience, managing 5D3 files and managing a7r2 files is indistinguishable. The latter take more space, but that's it. Working them (editing), I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Either way, carry on.

 

[Orangutan]

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.

I'm not sure I totally follow. Getting a higher-resolution camera isn't going to affect the file size of the 20TB worth of data you have now. It only means that new files will come 50% heaver if shot with a higher-res platform.

How long did it take to run up 20TB? At the rate harddrive space expands, I bet you could keep up easily. I added 12TB last week, and it only cost me 400USD.

I'm not suggesting you do so, mind you, I'm just questioning the premise.

Of course it won't affect existing files. But, it means that future files will take up even more space. And, as I said, the cost is not really the consideration. It's the file management, editing time, etc. that goes with larger files.

I know there are people who think bigger is always better. That's their opinion. I'm just stating mine, which is that there are a lot of considerations that go into managing and editing large megapixel files that go well beyond the initial cost of storage. And for me, for both my paid and unpaid work, there is no benefit to the larger file sizes. So, in essence I incur added expenses and lose time for no gain in revenue or personal pleasure.

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?

 

[TAF]

I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.

But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.

Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

- A

Could I have +3 stops ISO and the same fps/MP count as my 5D3, please?

I'd even forgo an fps or two for yet another stop of ISO (I rarely use the fast firing rate).

That would be equally interesting.

 

[Wesley]

That there is no advantage is a totally fair position. In my experience, managing 5D3 files and managing a7r2 files is indistinguishable. The latter take more space, but that's it. Working them (editing), I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Either way, carry on.

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

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 but that wouldn't be economical for archival with most people.
CPU speed growth have been stagnant. Just improvements in size and power efficiency...good for laptops.
GPU recently made a huge leap (Nvidia 1080) but slow pace for years prior.

In 3 years, megapixel availability from 22 (5D3) to 50 (5Ds). 44 and 100MP, after another 3?
Where is there a price/performance rate for storage & parts that is on par with the MP raising?
I wouldn't be so agreeing with the megapixel jumps.

Could I have +3 stops ISO and the same fps/MP count as my 5D3, please?

I'd even forgo an fps or two for yet another stop of ISO (I rarely use the fast firing rate).

That would be equally interesting.

Heck, I would have 1fps for max improvements in ISO and a 1DX series for fps

 

[Antono Refa]

We still sell 5200rpm HDD. Only real storage advancement would be SSD but that wouldn't be economical for archival with most people.

At present, it is. The historical trend shows prices of all memory types drops exponentially, and SSD drives with TBs of storage are already here.

I suspect SSD storage required for high-res sensors would become affordable long before the lenses would.

CPU speed growth have been stagnant. Just improvements in size and power efficiency...good for laptops.
GPU recently made a huge leap (Nvidia 1080) but slow pace for years prior.

Good point.

In 3 years, megapixel availability from 22 (5D3) to 50 (5Ds). 44 and 100MP, after another 3?
Where is there a price/performance rate for storage & parts that is on par with the MP raising?
I wouldn't be so agreeing with the megapixel jumps.

A better question would be, IMHO, how many people actually need 100MP? A niche of pros.

Even John Q. Public is realizing his camera's sensor is oversampling the lenses he can afford, and the MP wars are over.

 

[tron]

I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.

But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.

Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

- A

Could I have +3 stops ISO and the same fps/MP count as my 5D3, please?

I'd even forgo an fps or two for yet another stop of ISO (I rarely use the fast firing rate).

That would be equally interesting.

+1000000000000000000 Yeeees! (Although Canon doesn't care about me) I also would like a low light high iso monster but sensor technology does not involve like that. Anyway 1.5 stop (I know I will have to make do with half a stop) would be more than welcome. But 5D4 could be Canon's mini 1DxII if they wished to....

 

[rrcphoto]

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.