Canon haven't released a studio/resolution orientated camera since the 1ds3.

[Halocastle]

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I simply do NOT get these types of questions at all. Is this an attempt to generate some sort of rambling controversy?

Studio resolution. What, on a computer screen, zoomed in ten times, is that what you mean? Or do you mean digital files converted to prints that a customer might hang on a wall?

If it's the later, then it all depends on PRINT size--4x6, 8x10, and so on. You can only cram so much discernible data onto a given area and, as far as I know--could be wrong here--35mm slide film is about (I'll give a range) 20 to 25 megapixels, so, unless you're addicted to your computer screen, what more do you need?

I would say from the "tone" of your question that you're:
A) obsessed over megapixels, or
B) spend way too much time sitting in front of a computer, or
C) don't do prints under, say, 20x30, or
D) all of the above.

 

[briansquibb]

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I simply do NOT get these types of questions at all. Is this an attempt to generate some sort of rambling controversy?

Studio resolution. What, on a computer screen, zoomed in ten times, is that what you mean? Or do you mean digital files converted to prints that a customer might hang on a wall?

If it's the later, then it all depends on PRINT size--4x6, 8x10, and so on. You can only cram so much discernible data onto a given area and, as far as I know--could be wrong here--35mm slide film is about (I'll give a range) 20 to 25 megapixels, so, unless you're addicted to your computer screen, what more do you need?

I would say from the "tone" of your question that you're:
A) obsessed over megapixels, or
B) spend way too much time sitting in front of a computer, or
C) don't do prints under, say, 20x30, or
D) all of the above.

I have a 1DS3 image printed at 5' x 3' still looking good and sharp

 

[rhysgray]

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I simply do NOT get these types of questions at all. Is this an attempt to generate some sort of rambling controversy?

Studio resolution. What, on a computer screen, zoomed in ten times, is that what you mean? Or do you mean digital files converted to prints that a customer might hang on a wall?

If it's the later, then it all depends on PRINT size--4x6, 8x10, and so on. You can only cram so much discernible data onto a given area and, as far as I know--could be wrong here--35mm slide film is about (I'll give a range) 20 to 25 megapixels, so, unless you're addicted to your computer screen, what more do you need?

I would say from the "tone" of your question that you're:
A) obsessed over megapixels, or
B) spend way too much time sitting in front of a computer, or
C) don't do prints under, say, 20x30, or
D) all of the above.





No mate. It's simple. I have a 40d. I need an upgrade. I wanted a d800 but I'm heavily invested in canon glass. What have you got to say now?

 

[Neeneko]

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I simply do NOT get these types of questions at all. Is this an attempt to generate some sort of rambling controversy?

Studio resolution. What, on a computer screen, zoomed in ten times, is that what you mean? Or do you mean digital files converted to prints that a customer might hang on a wall?

It is a poor word choice and people need to stop doing it. Last studio camera I was looking into getting was 6MP (multi-shot MF) and produced fantastic low ISO pictures.

Usually what people really mean is 'relative to other offerings' because they want to improve over what they are already doing, in other words they want an upgrade path. Higher MP effects post-processing, so even if final prints do not need it the intermediate steps can utilize it, which if you are trying to push things as far as you can in order to impress customers can make a difference.

 

[paul13walnut5]

No mate. It's simple. I have a 40d. I need an upgrade. I wanted a d800 but I'm heavily invested in canon glass. What have you got to say now?

There are lots of upgrades in the Canon range. A few of them even fit your skewed definition of a 'studio camera'.

If you specifically want a D800 and the only reason why is megapixels, then go and buy a d800. Guess we won't be seeing you on here no more. :'(

 

[Ivar]

It takes 6mp to 8mp to make a quality print.

Absolutely nice try.

 

[Jettatore]

Do they care? Do they even have a plan to produce some sort of completion to the d800?

I certainly hope not, I bought a D800, and it outperforms the lenses, and takes forever to process images.

How do you define studio resolution? When there was only a 3mp body?, 6mp, 8mp, 12mp, 16mp, 22mp, ??? 100mp?

It takes 6mp to 8mp to make a quality print.

A lot of people simply mix up conceptually in their thinking, the idea of a medium format sensor (Phase One, Mamiya, Hasselblad, etc.) and the perceived impact of a high mega-pixel count. It seems an obvious, unspoken assumption that if you can match or approach a medium format sensor in terms of Mega-Pixels, than you will have matched or approached what that format of photography, is capable of. Sadly mistaken.

 

[awinphoto]

If you guys consider the 21MP 1ds3/5d2 to be studio/resolution oriented, then the 22MP 5d3 could be considered that as well. Sure I want a corvette at a ford focus price, but it's not going to happen. Utilize what the current offering is, or switch to nikon or even better, medium format... Very few photographers will be able to out-demand the 5d3 or 1ds3 or 1dx, and if you happen to be one... if your budget and your clients demand a 40MP+ billboard producing monster, then I would think your budget and your paygrade could easily stomach such cameras... I think we are pushing the limits of the 135 sensor/medium format... Anything beyond will produce 7D quality files and low light issues... See the D800's low light results to quantify my stance.