Canon won't offer a high megapixel body

[sanj]

Mega pixels counts will increase over time. Even if it is small amounts.

 

[MovingViolations]

Who is going to have a "Front Four" to tote medium format lenses with the reach of 400mm FF sensor lenses and up to 800mm? I don't and never will. Newer better glass is a given for such high density pixel senors. Still quality in a compact package is far more appealing to me than a medium format rig without the long lenses and their capabilities. In the meantime I'm tired of waiting for Canon to answer the D800 and soon will make the move to be a dual brand shooter. I still have a pro body for fast action in daylight but it sucks for landscapes. It boils down to the right tool for the right job. A 64MP Canon FF body would be a dream come true. If they can build it and sell it for the 13-14k price range then the gauntlet has been laid down for the medium format folks to spend some R&D money for landscape models. I believe the medium format market will fall in favor of the 35mm format not just do to price but also for the versatility it would have. I see no need for more resolution for normal people type studio work now. A Rebel T2i can bring out more flaws in a model's face than she wants to see now. With photo quality printers now available at 126" wide there is an opportunity for large commercial images. High density FF vs the cost of Medium format is a no brainer cost wise and it is certainly not as flexible. I hope that Canon will see the light and get back to making a 1D series with the H sensor for more frames FPS while increasing the resolution upwards of 30MP if it is doable. While the 1DX is possibly still the best action body made it sucks compared to a D800 for landscape work. My 2¢ worth. Don't let the flames go out.

 

[9VIII]

If I knew today that Canon would not ever produce a full frame high MP camera I would start dumping all my Canon equipment.

I'm in pretty much the same boat. Everything but the 400f5.6 and 7D2 (when it comes).

For studio work? I just presume that pixel density will require a decrease in high iso performance... consequently... you are shooting in daylight or in studio.

I really would doubt anyone would want to pay $4000ish for a body as an all round body and try and shoot in low light at high iso with the grain comparable to a crop sensor. It doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

"Crop sensor grain" needs to be clarified.
Comparing my 5D2 with the T3 /1100D at ISO 6400 with images at the same exposure (everything is exactly the same), cropped to the same size on the subject I get virtually identical results.
Note, subject fills the same space in square millimeters on the image sensor.
Extra resolution makes up for extra noise. Colour rendering and an apparent 1/3 stop boost in exposure are different subjects, but the noise is the same.
In other threads we've discussed how the 7D is better at extreme cropping and the 1Dx was better at less extreme cropping, but significant degradation of the image only comes when you blow up a cropped image to the same size as the entire full frame image.
I'm betting that when the Big MP body comes it'll look just as good as the 6D at high ISO.

 

[NancyP]

I disagree. MF customers are different from 135(FF) customers. MF users are almost 100% pro, due to the cost. Product shots, high-end fashion and weddings, and possibly architectural work are the pro subjects for MF, and a few pros may do a bit of landscape photography with MF. It costs 20K to 50K to get a Phase One back. There are rare wealthy amateurs who shoot digital MF - I haven't met one, but I have been told that they exist. Most of the fine art photography aspirant Canon system users want a Canon equivalent of the D800E. Most amateurs and many or most pros would want to use the FF high MP camera for difficult landscape and adventure photography, if only for the weight advantage of FF vs MF.

 

[jrista]

Well, that should stir things up a bit.

Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.

Some may see this as a sign that Canon "must" now offer a high megapixel sensor. I think just the opposite.

We have discussed to the point of nausea the idea that the larger sensor size of "full frame" cameras will always outperform APS-C. So the same principle applies here. There is simply no way that a DSLR sensor can match the performance of these large format sensors. Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras.

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad would be convinced to switch based on pricing. That, in turn, leaves the sales potential only for new users. The point is we are talking about a niche, within a niche, within a niche.

Now, if Canon were to take one of their APS-C sensors and simply scale it up to full frame they might be able to keep their development costs down, but would it be low enough to turn a profit on the body? I don't know. And, you'd have to account for the extra waste that would occur with the larger sensors.

All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers.

Let the flame wars begin!!!

I don't agree 100 percent, but I do mostly agree...

FF beats APS-C for IQ due to the larger pizel size..... Always has, always will....
Large format beats FF for the exact same reasons...

but I do think that in the continual quest for more pixels that we will end up with a high megapixel FF camera that has similar pixel size and IQ to that of APS-C....

I would extend what you've said a little bit. FF beats APS-C for IQ due to larger pixel size AND more pixels (in most cases, the same number of pixels on the worst case). Assuming equivalence, same framing and all that, a 5D III will not only put larger pixels on subject, but also more of them. The same goes for MFD...more pixels.

Technically speaking, MFD format sensors have actually shrunk their pixels enough that for the highest megapixel counts, their pixels are actually SMALLER on average than the 5D III. Many of the largest mp count MFD sensors have pixels in the 5µm to 6µm range. The 5D III has 6.25µm pixels.

A 50mp MFD sensor would indeed still have larger pixels, but technologically, MFD sensors are not necessarily as advanced as even a Canon sensor. They certainly aren't as advanced as the D800 sensor. For the "highest end" MFD equipment, there hasn't been a pixel size advantage for a while now. So the only REAL advantage is pixel count.

Assuming Canon can make more BETTER pixels than a 50mp MFD sensor, I think there is still a good reason for them to do it. Furthermore, Canon wouldn't really be competing with the medium format market...they would be competing with the SoNikon alliance. Nikon has the D800. Sony has the A7r. Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!) The reasons for Canon to produce a high megapixel camera have much less to do with competing with medium format, as they do with competing with their direct competitors.

 

[jrista]

They will definitely, the main reason - Phase one and Hasselblad have announced 50MP Cmos sensors which are presumably made by Sony, it could be someone else like Dalsa but bets are on Sony with their 36MP tech it seems very plausible.

So the gauntlet is really down in Cmos 50MP land for canon to respond, I imagine Canon have something nearly ready by now and this may spur them to push it out quicker which would be nice.. or canon may have to buy off Sony to keep in the game.

Now MF is a different kettle of fish, and this could really help MF regain some ground back to DSLRs with quicker capture and higher iso, a much more versatile camera, though AF still is years behind basic canons & nikons.
And this could bring costs down but I wound't imagine too much.

Large format is another thing altogether so please don't try to redefine them. Having a plate camera with lens movements is the key. I've always foreseen that sensor tech will catch up and one day we will get 5x4 or at least 7x9 backs for 5x4 systems.

Hmm. That would definitely start bringing the medium format market to a new level, if they are going to use Sony sensors. I know Sony is working on a 54mp sensor with non-standard pixel shapes (either triangular or hexagonal), supposedly with similar high DR as the D800. The medium format market has long had much older sensor technology, and their sole advantage was pixel count. If they bring Sony sensors into the mix, they would again be a leap and a bound away from anything in the DSLR market.

 

[CarlTN]

Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

 

[jrista]

Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

Here's the links:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-sensor-revolution-first-non-bayer-sensors-coming-in-2015/
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2013/12/rumor-sony-to-release-non-bayer-54mp.html

 

[CarlTN]

Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

Here's the links:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-sensor-revolution-first-non-bayer-sensors-coming-in-2015/
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2013/12/rumor-sony-to-release-non-bayer-54mp.html

Thanks. By "large format", I assume they mean something larger than 36mm in width? As for the non-bayer array, it's still an array...don't see how it would be any more revolutionary than whatever Fuji has done.

Both links said "it depends on what the competition does"...as in, they obviously have a good idea what Canon are up to, and want to wait to see when Canon are done with their next generation sensor. Or else it could mean they're waiting to see if Canon releases a medium format sensor...or body.

 

[jrista]

Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

Here's the links:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-sensor-revolution-first-non-bayer-sensors-coming-in-2015/
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2013/12/rumor-sony-to-release-non-bayer-54mp.html

Thanks. By "large format", I assume they mean something larger than 36mm in width?

Hmm, sorry...I don't recall seeing "large format" in those rumors... Are you talking about Sony's 54mp sensor design, or something else?

As for the non-bayer array, it's still an array...don't see how it would be any more revolutionary than whatever Fuji has done.

It'll depend on the theory behind why they do whatever they do. Fuji has been toying with alternative sensor layouts for a while...but they have yet to produce anything particularly compelling. They used to have SuperCCD, which used a hexagonal array with additional white sensels to improve DR. Intriguing, and the improvement was slight...but certainly nothing on the order of what Sony produced with Exmor. Fuji brought us the X-Trans...however all that really was was an alternative means of blurring higher frequency image detail to avoid moire...and it is LESS discerning than a classic OLPF, resulting in softer high frequency detail than a normal bayer sensor.

Fuji is certainly an out of the box company, but they don't really seem to produce anything that significantly improves image quality. I think the greatest improvement they achieved with X-Trans was improved noise performance at high ISO...however the fundamental reasons why X-Trans allows better high ISO is nothing particularly novel. In fact, it is extremely well understood: averaging reduces noise, and softens detail. X-Trans inherently averages.

Both links said "it depends on what the competition does"...as in, they obviously have a good idea what Canon are up to, and want to wait to see when Canon are done with their next generation sensor. Or else it could mean they're waiting to see if Canon releases a medium format sensor...or body.

That's the rumor bit. I don't think that part of any rumor, when a rumor has it, really has anything to do with a companies plans. Sony will do what Sony does: Produce image sensors. If there is any demand for 50mp+ sensors, Sony will probably fill it. They are without a doubt one of the top ranking CIS fabricators and providers in the world now, for an extremely extensive market that spans WELL beyond ILCs into cinematography, video, security, etc. It may well be that they produce some kind of new bayer type sensor for the MFD market first, then bring the 54mp sensor to DSLR or mirrorless. Only time will tell, but I think it will service market demand, and really have little to do with "what the competition does". Sony makes sensors...cameras (which is what were talking about here in terms of competition) are an afterthought for Sony, and I really don't think their DSLR/mirrorless segment drive what their sensor segment does. Ironically, their sensor segment could very well become Sony's most successful business...their electronics division is a black hole for money, it hasn't been profitable on over a decade, and in fact loses billions. I bet if Sony focused on sensors and insurance policies, they would be a wildly profitable company a decade from now.

 

[FatBoy64]

Umm . . . what Hasselblad Camera are we actually talking about here. Hasselblad have had 40, 50 and indeed 60 MP offerings for some time?

 

[Viper28]

I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that

 

[flowers]

Well, that should stir things up a bit.

Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.

They are medium format! The 50 MP sensors are appropriate size for medium format, 22 MP scans of medium format images is like taking 10 MP scans of full fromat images. You might as well have ended the sentence after "I don't think".

Some may see this as a sign that Canon "must" now offer a high megapixel sensor. I think just the opposite.

We have discussed to the point of nausea the idea that the larger sensor size of "full frame" cameras will always outperform APS-C. So the same principle applies here. There is simply no way that a DSLR sensor can match the performance of these large format sensors. Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras.

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad would be convinced to switch based on pricing. That, in turn, leaves the sales potential only for new users. The point is we are talking about a niche, within a niche, within a niche.

Now, if Canon were to take one of their APS-C sensors and simply scale it up to full frame they might be able to keep their development costs down, but would it be low enough to turn a profit on the body? I don't know. And, you'd have to account for the extra waste that would occur with the larger sensors.

All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers.

Let the flame wars begin!!!

The megapixels war stirs up all kinds of feelings, but the reality is, more resolution is always better than less as long as it doesn't come at the cost of S/N ratio, DR, or any other aspect of sensor performance. The Nikon d800 is the best the FF market has to offer right now in terms of resolution, and it's a great camera! I'm fully invested in Canon myself but I'll happily use a d800 at times though I don't own one (one system is enough!). I wouldn't mind seeing a 30-35 MP FF from Canon. I grant you one thing: it doesn't seem to fit their style. We'll see if market pressure will force them to change their perspective.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'm not opposed to a 30 or 40 megapixel camera, but I think it is not suitable for my use. I consider enough for my use, full frame 18 megapixel or APSC 12 megapixel, because I prioritize performance above ISO 1600. By today's standards I am very conservative, and marketing currently despises lower megapixel counts. Obviously, Canon does not produce cameras just for me, and it must meet the demands of the market. Really hope a true replacement for 1Ds Mark III, as well as Nikon users expect real substitute for D700. In these two cases the preferred manufacturers offer what buyers did not ask for it. The backwardness of high mega pixel Canon does not mean it will never come. But it means it's not a direct competitor with the price of D800. I believe that Canon will launch a body "1 series" with similar price to 1Dx, ISO limited to 1600, a little better dinamic range, larger LCD, but with AA filter.

 

[hgraf]

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.

 

[flowers]

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.

Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliably cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"

 

[Don Haines]

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.

Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliable cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"

Exactly!

Plus lens size.... they get huge in a hurry...imagine shooting FF with a 200mm F2.8 lens.... then go medium format and your equivalant field of view comes from something like a 400F2.8 ( a lot less easy to carry around) and if you go large format, imagine carrying around (and paying for) an 800F2.8 lens....

It's not the sensors, it's the glass that will kill you...

 

[flowers]

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.

Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliable cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"

Exactly!

Plus lens size.... they get huge in a hurry...imagine shooting FF with a 200mm F2.8 lens.... then go medium format and your equivalant field of view comes from something like a 400F2.8 ( a lot less easy to carry around) and if you go large format, imagine carrying around (and paying for) an 800F2.8 lens....

It's not the sensors, it's the glass that will kill you...

haha, well said! though you forgot DOF equivalents, so really you'd need 308/4 and 669/10.5 lenses for MF and 4x5 respectively.
oh and a FF 200/2.8 doesn't cover MF image circle, so you need an even BIGGER lens!
truthfully though, once you get to MF and especially LF, it's not about getting the right lens anymore, it's more about getting the right crop... Although some photographers don't like to crop their photos, and they have a valid point within reason, but with long lenses and MF/LF the perspective distortion doesn't play such a huge role anymore.

 

[Halfrack]

I shoot MFD almost exclusively now, and it teaches you a lot of things. The crop factor isn't .5 - it's like .7, but that depends on what back you're using. The thing that's special about the H5D-50c / IQ250 is that it's a 1.3x crop factor, so kinda like a APS-H. The main feature of the whole CMOS MF chip is ISO, and while you wouldn't shot at ISO3200 for a fashion shoot, you could. It's a first gen product, so we will see how well it goes.

Canon is doing fine selling 22mp bodies, and while I wish they'd up the MP, their focus on lenses and AF has really improved the field. Who makes the best 24-70? Canon... Who makes the best 70-200? Canon... Who makes the best 300/400/500/600/200-400? Canon... If the weakest link in the Canon system is their lack of MPs on a 5D3 or 1Dx, we are sitting mighty pretty.

I would think their Dual-pixel AF stuff in the 70D would be VERY welcome in the MF world - you know that whole 1 or 3 AF point limitations we have. If I were to design a camera today, I'd want one that is the dual personality of a A7r/D800 because some times you want the mirror box and grip for shooting long, but want that shallow mirrorless setup for shooting wide - ala technical camera.

 

[flowers]

I shoot MFD almost exclusively now, and it teaches you a lot of things. The crop factor isn't .5 - it's like .7, but that depends on what back you're using. The thing that's special about the H5D-50c / IQ250 is that it's a 1.3x crop factor, so kinda like a APS-H. The main feature of the whole CMOS MF chip is ISO, and while you wouldn't shot at ISO3200 for a fashion shoot, you could. It's a first gen product, so we will see how well it goes.

Canon is doing fine selling 22mp bodies, and while I wish they'd up the MP, their focus on lenses and AF has really improved the field. Who makes the best 24-70? Canon... Who makes the best 70-200? Canon... Who makes the best 300/400/500/600/200-400? Canon... If the weakest link in the Canon system is their lack of MPs on a 5D3 or 1Dx, we are sitting mighty pretty.

I would think their Dual-pixel AF stuff in the 70D would be VERY welcome in the MF world - you know that whole 1 or 3 AF point limitations we have. If I were to design a camera today, I'd want one that is the dual personality of a A7r/D800 because some times you want the mirror box and grip for shooting long, but want that shallow mirrorless setup for shooting wide - ala technical camera.

I actually did the math and edited the numbers into my post above (Hopefully I didn't get the numbers wrong! They're at least close enough!) Yes, the dual pixel feature would be good for MF, but it's Canon proprietary tech AFAIK, and Canon doesn't make MF cameras/backs.