Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,792
4,770
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
@LogicExtremist and @neuroanatomist, I think you are missing the point. Clients want the image editable for any medium and format. Anything from a low res web header to the side of a building. The photographer isn’t going to be making those changes, the graphic designer is. So you have to deliver an image that has maximum flexibility. Besides, if the client expects high res images that’s what you have to deliver whether or not you agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
@LogicExtremist and @neuroanatomist, I think you are missing the point. Clients want the image editable for any medium and format. Anything from a low res web header to the side of a building. The photographer isn’t going to be making those changes, the graphic designer is. So you have to deliver an image that has maximum flexibility. Besides, if the client expects high res images that’s what you have to deliver whether or not you agree.
What would be higher than a 45MB x 5 pano image, that's a whopping 225MB that can be cropped anywhere for convenience, with the correct aspect ratio too.
I get your point, yeah, huge MP is super convenient for cropping in a single shot, but conversely its painful for handling bulk images though. Which is probably why studio photographers take ages to set up and stage a few shots with tethered cameras using high MP cameras, whereas sports photographers who shoot large numbers of images use more manageable file sizes. Horses for courses, of course!

Hmmm, got me thinking, with enough mega (giga?) pixels, I could shoot landscapes from the next state, saving on travel. Just crop out a tiny square, toss 95% of the pixels, and get a perfectly printable image! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,072
2,063
Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!
Isn’t that called the Brenizer method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Isn’t that called the Brenizer method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method
Thanks for sharing that, I looked it up and learned something new! :) - "The Brenizer method increases the effective sensor size of the camera, simulating the characteristics of large format photography". Honestly, I didn't know it was a thing, I just came up with the idea after reading through the problem of getting a long, wide photo with a person in it. I didn't think about it long nough to consider the possibility of being able to get a shallow depth of field, which when done at a wide angle imitates the qualities of a large format article. Cool!
 

Kuja

EOS M50
Oct 8, 2012
45
19
www.kujucev.com
Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!
Unfortunately, the answer is no. :)

On this photo shoot i took thousands (yes, thousands!) of photos, not knowing what their final use will be.
I work with the camera that is handheld, I'm moving around the model and taking each shot from a different angle, so the stitching would not work because of the ever changing perspective.




With that example, it seems that it would be relatively easy to extend the background in any direction or magnitude desired using Photoshop.

I was thinking that too, I've done that before when I wanted more width in photos I shot in portrait.

I was talking about the principle, hoping that you would use your imagination. :)

Ok, maybe the last example was't the best, since the body position is vertical, so here is another one with the more horizontal body pose.
If its not wide enough, please imagine that the client wanted model's arms wide spread :) :

Sport-Best-Odds-Set.jpg




Imagine that during a big photoshoot, that can take 10-12 hours straight, for each model's pose I have to take additional photos of model's arms and hands that might be needed for horizontal formats! :D ...And to tell the client that their designers must Photoshop everything together. :)


Yes, many years ago, I was doing the same type of work with my 16.7 MP 1Ds MkII.

Bu then I had to take three or four times more photos, with all the possible crops in camera.
The vertical full body shot, the horizontal half body shot with model's arms spread, the upper body or face close up, etc, etc.

It was taking much more time, the models worked much harder, since they had to repeat the poses, again and again, for each possible crop.
At some point they would get exausted, which could show on the photos, which is not good.

But these days are long gone, and the clients are now EXPECTING the files that could be cropped to death.

Trust me, it is MUCH easier to use the highest MP camera available for this type of work. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Unfortunately, the answer is no. :)

On this photo shoot i took thousands (yes, thousands!) of photos, not knowing what their final use will be.
I work with the camera that is handheld, I'm moving around the model and taking each shot from a different angle, so the stitching would not work because of the ever changing perspective.








I was talking about the principle, hoping that you would use your imagination. :)

Ok, maybe the last example was't the best, since the body position is vertical, so here is another one with the more horizontal body pose.
If its not wide enough, please imagine that the client wanted model's arms wide spread :) :

View attachment 204336




Imagine that during a big photoshoot, that can take 10-12 hours straight, for each model's pose I have to take additional photos of model's arms and hands that might be needed for horizontal formats! :D ...And to tell the client that their designers must Photoshop everything together. :)


Yes, many years ago, I was doing the same type of work with my 16.7 MP 1Ds MkII.

Bu then I had to take three or four times more photos, with all the possible crops in camera.
The vertical full body shot, the horizontal half body shot with model's arms spread, the upper body or face close up, etc, etc.

It was taking much more time, the models worked much harder, since they had to repeat the poses, again and again, for each possible crop.
At some point they would get exausted, which could show on the photos, which is not good.

But these days are long gone, and the clients are now EXPECTING the files that could be cropped to death.

Trust me, it is MUCH easier to use the highest MP camera available for this type of work. :)
Thanks, this example is much better to explain the problem. Your closest crop here is about 25-30% of the width of the final image, which you're slicing it thin at around 25% of the full field of view. A quarter of 45MP is a tad over 11MP left to work with, and you know if that works for your needs. I guess the catch is not knowing the final use of the image, which makes things more challenging.

Just a question, isn't this what the sort of application for a high MP medium format cameras such as the 100MP Fujifilm GFX 100S?
In the article https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-100-review-is-live-and-this-is-what-we-think they state that "the GFX 100 has a higher resolving power even than our test chart, which maxes out at 4,000 line widths/picture height! This is normally plenty for even the best digital cameras, but not this time. So we adapted our test process using precise distance and scale measurements to allow for this increased resolution. The results were clear and conclusive. With this new test method, the GFX 100 yielded a maximum resolution of 62 lw/ph, way beyond any smaller format model."

They also confirm what you've stated:

"So who needs 100 megapixels?

Not the average photographer, that’s for sure. But if your work is for high-end commercial clients who want to be able to use your images at the largest possible sizes, it could make a difference. In this market, clients often take a keen interest in the hardware uses, often stipulating minimum specifications. Even if you know a shot doesn’t need 100 million pixels, if the client knows it’s possible and decides they want it, that’s what you’ve got to do!"

In that article, they also explain there's no such thing as a free lunch, as high MP bodies are less forgiving.

"The GFX 100 is an unforgiving camera. It will magnify your resolution, but it will also magnify your errors. We first saw this with the Nikon D800, which brought ground-breaking 36-megapixel resolution in its day, and we still see it today with its even higher-resolution successors."

Now, if a high MP medium format is unforgiving, with a tiny movement shifting the light across many more pixels due to the higher pixel density, wouldn't the issue be worse on a smaller full-frame sensor? Especially handheld? With a Canon 100MP FF, might we be trying to use a FF camera to do the job of a MF camera? The right tool for the job?

To keep things in perspective, we need to consider that If Canon develops a 100MP camera, it will be FF and not MF simply because Canon makes FF cameras, not because FF is the optimum solution at that resolution! :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kuja

EOS M50
Oct 8, 2012
45
19
www.kujucev.com
Since I'm very careful with my technique and I work in controlled enviroment of my studio, I will have no problem with a 100+ MP FF camera.
I choose to stay with Canon because of the lenses, AF, and camera formfactor.

Even if you know a shot doesn’t need 100 million pixels, if the client knows it’s possible and decides they want it, that’s what you’ve got to do!"
Exactly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kuja

EOS M50
Oct 8, 2012
45
19
www.kujucev.com
Now, if a high MP medium format is unforgiving, with a tiny movement shifting the light across many more pixels due to the higher pixel density, wouldn't the issue be worse on a smaller full-frame sensor? Especially handheld? With a Canon 100MP FF, might we be trying to use a FF camera to do the job of a MF camera? The right tool for the job?

Because I started doing more of the sport themed photoshoots in my studio, now I'm using studio flashes with a very short flash duration, mostly around 1/4000 sec, so no problems with the movements! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Because I started doing more of the sport themed photoshoots in my studio, now I'm using studio flashes with a very short flash duration, mostly around 1/4000 sec, so no problems with the movements! :)
Thanks for explaining, studio with flash lighting is a very controlled environment that allows for very fast shutter speeds. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user