Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon

[V8Beast]

Were stuck looking elsewhere for someone to service our needs, and for those who don't want to or don't have the money to add a D810 and a few Nikon lenses to our kit (which can rapidly approach $8-10k if you pick up a few lenses)

Unload that 600mm f/4 and you're half way there ;D Just make up for that extra reach by cropping into the D810s massive resolution and call it day ;D

 

[Etienne]

Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III

Do you have a link to prove this?

Also, according to DXOMark, the RX100 Mk 1, 2 and 3 sensors are nearly identical in performance with Mk 1 only being very slightly behind for low light ISO.

Two things:

1. The RX100 mk III is 20.1 MP, mk I and mk II are 20.2 MP as is the Canon G7x

2. DP Review interviewed Sony rep who confirmed that Sony does not sell their most current sensors to anyone, but keeps it for their own cameras. Sony sells only the sensors that no longer have unique value.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III

Do you have a link to prove this?

Also, according to DXOMark, the RX100 Mk 1, 2 and 3 sensors are nearly identical in performance with Mk 1 only being very slightly behind for low light ISO.

Two things:

1. The RX100 mk III is 20.1 MP, mk I and mk II are 20.2 MP as is the Canon G7x

2. DP Review interviewed Sony rep who confirmed that Sony does not sell their most current sensors to anyone, but keeps it for their own cameras. Sony sells only the sensors that no longer have unique value.

I don't know about 1, but 2 is patently false. The D800/D800E/D810 has been demonstrably "better" than the Sony A7R and where is the Sony 50mp camera that is currently sold by Pentax, Hassleblad and PhaseOne all with a Sony sensor?

The Sony rep was spinning a line in the hopes that gullible people would take a bite.

 

[Steve]

For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

I keep seeing this or statements like this. "You can't tell the difference in the final product!" Yeah, no duh. You can't tell what tools were used to build the house you're living in either but that doesn't mean that all tools are the same and that they don't matter. I'm sure I could show you tons of pictures taken with 20D's or D90's and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 5DIII's and D810's. The end product isn't how you judge the tool, its how you judge the craftsman/artist. Cameras are tools and the photos are what are produced by photographers. Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier. I don't understand why people seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. AF makes your job easier. Accurate TTL metering makes your job easier. Frame bursts and fast shutter speeds make your job easier. You can't see any of that in a picture, but it sure is nice to have, right?

One last thing about this interminable argument and then I'm out because it is pretty dumb at this point - have all of you that are saying that more DR isn't necessary, lifting shadows is for bad photogs, etc, actually manipulated the Exmor side by side with the Canon? RAWs have been made available here in several threads. I didn't care at all one way or another about this debate until I actually looked at the files. Its literally night and day. Once you see what the Exmor is capable of in post, the thought that immediately came to mind was "Holy shit I wish my camera could do that!" Its nuts. I don't think its possible to really appreciate the difference unless you do it yourself.

 

[privatebydesign]

For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

I keep seeing this or statements like this. "You can't tell the difference in the final product!" Yeah, no duh. You can't tell what tools were used to build the house you're living in either but that doesn't mean that all tools are the same and that they don't matter. I'm sure I could show you tons of pictures taken with 20D's or D90's and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 5DIII's and D810's. The end product isn't how you judge the tool, its how you judge the craftsman/artist. Cameras are tools and the photos are what are produced by photographers. Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier. I don't understand why people seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. AF makes your job easier. Accurate TTL metering makes your job easier. Frame bursts and fast shutter speeds make your job easier. You can't see any of that in a picture, but it sure is nice to have, right?

One last thing about this interminable argument and then I'm out because it is pretty dumb at this point - have all of you that are saying that more DR isn't necessary, lifting shadows is for bad photogs, etc, actually manipulated the Exmor side by side with the Canon? RAWs have been made available here in several threads. I didn't care at all one way or another about this debate until I actually looked at the files. Its literally night and day. Once you see what the Exmor is capable of in post, the thought that immediately came to mind was "Holy S___ I wish my camera could do that!" Its nuts. I don't think its possible to really appreciate the difference unless you do it yourself.

Which threads and which images?

 

[zlatko]

For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

I keep seeing this or statements like this. "You can't tell the difference in the final product!" Yeah, no duh. You can't tell what tools were used to build the house you're living in either but that doesn't mean that all tools are the same and that they don't matter. I'm sure I could show you tons of pictures taken with 20D's or D90's and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 5DIII's and D810's. The end product isn't how you judge the tool, its how you judge the craftsman/artist. Cameras are tools and the photos are what are produced by photographers. Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier. I don't understand why people seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. AF makes your job easier. Accurate TTL metering makes your job easier. Frame bursts and fast shutter speeds make your job easier. You can't see any of that in a picture, but it sure is nice to have, right?

One last thing about this interminable argument and then I'm out because it is pretty dumb at this point - have all of you that are saying that more DR isn't necessary, lifting shadows is for bad photogs, etc, actually manipulated the Exmor side by side with the Canon? RAWs have been made available here in several threads. I didn't care at all one way or another about this debate until I actually looked at the files. Its literally night and day. Once you see what the Exmor is capable of in post, the thought that immediately came to mind was "Holy S___ I wish my camera could do that!" Its nuts. I don't think its possible to really appreciate the difference unless you do it yourself.

"Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier." — I agree. So why do so many highly skilled, highly successful, highly renowned photographers seek out and stick with Canon? Because they feel it is the best tool available for their particular work. That's completely consistent with your point, and shows how the 500nm process isn't the huge problem that sensor critics say it is. Obviously, some other equally skilled, successful and renowned photographers choose other brands because those are the best for their particular work.

More DR is nice to have but whether it's "necessary" depends on your work. Did you notice how many photographers built their careers on limited-DR slide film? Why didn't they choose the "best tools" available, such as color negative film with its greater DR? Because they *did* choose the best tool available — the best tools aren't necessarily defined by a DR test chart. How much DR is needed varies greatly from one photographer to the next. Some need a lot, some don't. Obviously Canon is already providing enough DR for heck of a lot of photographers.

I don't need to go looking for Exmor RAW files. I have thousands shot for me by Nikon-using 2nd photographers. If I ever need to fix extreme underexposure, I'm sure those files will outperform. Thankfully fixing extreme underexposure hasn't been a problem so far. So, until then, they are about the same as my Canon files.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

I keep seeing this or statements like this. "You can't tell the difference in the final product!" Yeah, no duh. You can't tell what tools were used to build the house you're living in either but that doesn't mean that all tools are the same and that they don't matter. I'm sure I could show you tons of pictures taken with 20D's or D90's and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 5DIII's and D810's. The end product isn't how you judge the tool, its how you judge the craftsman/artist. Cameras are tools and the photos are what are produced by photographers. Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier. I don't understand why people seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. AF makes your job easier. Accurate TTL metering makes your job easier. Frame bursts and fast shutter speeds make your job easier. You can't see any of that in a picture, but it sure is nice to have, right?

One last thing about this interminable argument and then I'm out because it is pretty dumb at this point - have all of you that are saying that more DR isn't necessary, lifting shadows is for bad photogs, etc, actually manipulated the Exmor side by side with the Canon? RAWs have been made available here in several threads. I didn't care at all one way or another about this debate until I actually looked at the files. Its literally night and day. Once you see what the Exmor is capable of in post, the thought that immediately came to mind was "Holy S___ I wish my camera could do that!" Its nuts. I don't think its possible to really appreciate the difference unless you do it yourself.

I fall into the camp of, would I say no to more DR from my canon? No, of course not. I really doubt that any of those here who are saying it's not that big of a deal are like anti-DR. Would I take more, of course I would! But, that doesn't mean that I'm swearing at my screen with every file I edit, because the work I am doing doesn't demand super intense shadow lifting.

Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social media@!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion. Sorry, not all of us need to push shadows 5 stops in post.

Like you said, you can't tell what tools were used to build the house your living in. If Canon sensors were as inferior as the pro DR folks would have us all believe then yes, you would be able to tell the difference. But, to continue the house metaphor, you give the same budget and material to 2 architects with differing styles of building - take it to the extreme, one ultra modern vs one specializing in Victorian style homes. the results would then be very different.

Sorry, but the sensor alone only matters in sensor tests. If we all only shot that still life setup we always see on image IQ tests then yeah, the sensor wins. but this is the real world and there are potentially thousands of factors that go into a final image - the sensor is only one of them....

 

[daniela]

It is good that Canon will respond on existing and coming competitors. I heared from girlfriends in Japan that there will be an small revolution in Mirrorless Cameras in 2015. All big Camera producer have realized that the market likes small and capable Cameras.
The autofocus system of coming ML Cams will be upgraded and an new generation of high MP sensors will appear. With better low light capacities. Rumored are a 24MP "low light" sensor and an better 36MP sensor (DR, noise) and maybe an big MP sensor around 50MP to compete the MF market. The lens problem has been acknowledged and there will appear better high-end lenses in 2015 & 16.

From Canon is said, that the next M... Camera will be much better, around 24MP and faster at AF. Some say, the AF system of the 70D will be built in. Price much higher than the exisitng M2.
Nikon will do the same on its 1 series.

 

[mirrorless]

"Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

When I look at photographs taken with the D800 and D810, I see a quality to shading, shadows and the way detail fades into those shadows that I very rarely if ever see in Canon images. It's something I really love. It often has nothing to do with shadow pushing...but it does have everything to do with DR.

Yeah, I look at a lot of photographs. One of the best examples is Marc Adamus' work...he has some more recent photos taken with the D800 that have this amazing quality of light and shadow to them.

Yes, but that's not because he uses D800, but instead Marc manually blends separate exposures in a lot of his work => most of the photos are actually HDR. His photos look very nice, but some of them are bit too unreal.
https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/surreal-landscape-marc-adamus-3957

 

[lo lite]

"Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

When I look at photographs taken with the D800 and D810, I see a quality to shading, shadows and the way detail fades into those shadows that I very rarely if ever see in Canon images. It's something I really love. It often has nothing to do with shadow pushing...but it does have everything to do with DR.

…

Well, look what I saw this morning:

 

[Marsu42]

Well, look what I saw this morning

Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.

 

[Maiaibing]

Out of curiosity, is it possible to put a nikon sensor on a canon camera?

Not possible. You will have two problems 1) the electronics are different between the sensor and camera 2) the software used by the camera depends on the kind of sensor it comes with.

 

[Maiaibing]

Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.

Even if its not a tangible promise I'm more hopeful of the "very near future". The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.

Since the real competition is a hot selling Nikon 36MP 810 at around 3.200$ I'd be very, very, very surprised if Canon thinks launching a 8.000$ monster MP camera will satisfy their customers.

Meanwhile you can get a D610 (we're not even talking D810 or new Nikon 7xx here) with somewhat better raw files than the 5DIII for 1.700$. Canon understands they need to answer asap.

Come on Canon; give us that killer 5DIV!

 

[Marsu42]

The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.

I wouldn't interpret it this way, imho Canon just stated the obvious - *some* (select) applications like studio or maybe landscape work might need higher resolution, just as higher dynamic range only benefits just a part of photogs. In no way they're up to questioning their past product policy, so certainly no killer 5d4 in sight.

 

[xps]

Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.

Even if its not a tangible promise I'm more hopeful of the "very near future". The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.

Since the real competition is a hot selling Nikon 36MP 810 at around 3.200$ I'd be very, very, very surprised if Canon thinks launching a 8.000$ monster MP camera will satisfy their customers.

Meanwhile you can get a D610 (we're not even talking D810 or new Nikon 7xx here) with somewhat better raw files than the 5DIII for 1.700$. Canon understands they need to answer asap.

Come on Canon; give us that killer 5DIV!

They will not build an "killer" 5DIV. Canon will improve the 5DIV a little bit. AF system of the 7DII with more double cross sensors. 24MP, a little bit more image quality, a little bit of lesser noise at high Isos....
500€ higher priced .... and ready is the 5DIV.

 

[xps]

Well, look what I saw this morning

Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.

The 6D and the 5DIII are still sold well. The pricedrop phushed both cams again. Maybe there is an near replacement, but i do not think so too. Another reason why Canon will hold such a replacement back, is the 7DII. I think, they will wait until the 7DII hype is over (let us say 1 year), then maybe they announce an successor of the 6D or 5DIII. An near announcement of an very high priced 1DXY will not depress 7DII sales.

 

[AvTvM]

From Canon is said, that the next M... Camera will be much better, around 24MP and faster at AF. Some say, the AF system of the 70D will be built in. Price much higher than the exisitng M2.

the last sentence is the one I believe at face value.

EOS M3 with EVF and slightly iterated 70D sensor and articulated touch screen is the bare minimum Canon needs to do. And if they believe I will pay anything more for it than what a 70D costs, they are plain wrong. ;D

 

[Loswr]

I suspect that a decent photographer could shoot with either Nikon or Canon and show .... wouldn't have a clue which was shot with which. ...it is an honest observation of human psychology. We all do it, but normally fail double blind tests.

Knowing the difference in advance makes it easy to see what you expect. It can even reveal unconscious biases, as has been confirmed by ample neuropsychological testing.

"Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier." — I agree. So why do so many highly skilled, highly successful, highly renowned photographers seek out and stick with Canon? Because they feel it is the best tool available for their particular work.

Exactly.

 

[sanj]

Out of curiosity, is it possible to put a nikon sensor on a canon camera?

Not possible. You will have two problems 1) the electronics are different between the sensor and camera 2) the software used by the camera depends on the kind of sensor it comes with.

You actually replied to that question?

 

[sanj]

"Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

When I look at photographs taken with the D800 and D810, I see a quality to shading, shadows and the way detail fades into those shadows that I very rarely if ever see in Canon images. It's something I really love. It often has nothing to do with shadow pushing...but it does have everything to do with DR.

Yeah, I look at a lot of photographs. One of the best examples is Marc Adamus' work...he has some more recent photos taken with the D800 that have this amazing quality of light and shadow to them.

Yes, but that's not because he uses D800, but instead Marc manually blends separate exposures in a lot of his work => most of the photos are actually HDR. His photos look very nice, but some of them are bit too unreal.
https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/surreal-landscape-marc-adamus-3957

Yes. Beautiful. Unreal. HDR. Could be easily replicated by Canon but perhaps easier with newer Nikons.