Here comes the new 7D. Just in time, as per usual with Canon.
Let's hope they take a stab at the D500, anticipating the inevitable D500s.
Let's hope they take a stab at the D500, anticipating the inevitable D500s.
Upvote
0
Harry's had a go, hasn't he? Although he didn't seem as convinced as usual.Wow. Three pages into the thread and nobody's elaborated yet if Canon is doomed this time. So is Canon doomed or not??
Cool for you, but we regularly do prints up to and sometimes over 8ft x 4ft. We're not really all that niche of a thing either. Having extra resolution is almost always a joy to work with. I was never satisfied with the output from any of my 18mp cameras, but my 5DMIV, that's pretty close to perfect. Great dynamic range and resolution. Though, most of the largest prints usually utilize the D850. Previously, the D800. The D850 is an impressive camera in terms of both dynamic range and resolution. That said, it's great to know that you can tell "left" from "right." Usually comes in handy. But unless you're referring to those who typically buy the cheapest DSLR possible, you never truly know what kind of camera somebody would get the most use out of.The largest I ever printed was poster (40" by 30"), and a handful of those at that. I'm an effing amateur, lets say I needed 18MP for that. I'm impatient, so after half an hour framing on a tripod, I still cropped a couple of MP. So even on the rare occasion I go big and compensate for my lack of skill with what is, for my needs, an overkill camera, I barely scratch my 5DmkIII's resolution.
I've looked left and right, and say that covers what 999‰ of camera owners need, if not 9999‱ of them.
I don't see why the niche within the 1‰, or 1‱, who actually need >30MP (crop wildlife & print large, ads on billboards & walls five stories high, etc) would be posting so much about it on forums. My guess is they have the manufacturer's ear anyway.
From a few feet away, I bet it looks good. But you also have to know that resolution would be unacceptable to others. Many others, many pros, and many in the publishing world where 300 ppi has been the typical minimum standard.
Your irrational hate of megapixel
And m4/3 has a new 34MP sensor coming, with 136MP FF equivalent resolution
Your use of percentages is to say the least unusual.
But, more to the point, I and most nature photographers crop excessively as we are focal length limited and need every pixel we can get on the image. And there are a lot of us.
You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.Promille and permyriad symbols are unusual? Now people need those to be spelled out as "1:1000" and "1:10000"? Damn.
Could you quantify "a lot"?
You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.
“A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.
Megapixels are the new extenders.
The new RF 70-200 doesn't support extenders. Why bother when with a 70mpx+ body you can just crop in significantly and get a super image.
You do realize that you can down sample an image to the MP count you want and get the same result you are describing though?When will Canon learn that it's not more pixels that everyone craves, but better dynamic range and lower noise. I would love an 18-20MP crop sensor with those characteristics. Much like the universally acclaimed Nikon D500.
I know it's off-topic...and I apologize.As mentioned, that's not a "stopped race"; it's a matter of tire safety. It becomes exponentially harder to make tires that can safely sustain high speeds for the required amount of time, so if your car can eventually get up to 165mph but you don't want the tires to cost $300/per, you put in an electronic limiter at 155mph/250kph.
On-topic, count me in the crew entirely happy wtih ~30mpx.
300 ppi is considered the minimum standard in most publications, fine art, etc. You do not need to take my word for it, it is something very easy to confirm with a few searches:Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI, and more importantly - how many of such photographers are there?
You have quantified the numbers of those who need 30+ megapixels as 1:1000 or 1:10000, just by looking around you. For a start, 4 nature photographers who regularly post in CR have immediately posted a “Like” to my post, which is just the tip of the iceberg and immediately disproves your unfounded statistics for CR at least. When I ‘look around” me on one of my nature photographic trips, I see most of my numerous fellows lugging around telephotos to squeeze every possible pixel on wild life.
“A lot” might not have the precise quantification of a number like 1:10000 but it is closer to the truth.