Canon's Full Frame Future [CR2]

[Luds34]

What's up with all the 18 MP hate? What is the 5D3 now, 22? Am I the only one remembering that your big MP scalar number needs to be spread out in two dimensions? That a linear increase in total MP does not achieve a linear increase in resolving detail? 22 and 18 are, for practical purposes, the same.

22.3MP: 5760 x 3840 (5D3)
17.9MP: 5184 x 3456 (T5i)

So nearly 25% increase in pixels leads to only about an 11% gain in resolution (and magnification).

 

[PureClassA]

As per the new sensor technology of the C300 Mk II that does, which will be turned over to the 1DX2 and perhaps the 5D4 as well.

Will an HDR mode even be necessary with the 15 stops in the new sensor? (HDR will still be in firmware either way).

Who rumored there would be 15 stops of DR?

 

[Loswr]

Based on speculation and rumors, Canon should really

...have quit making dSLRs a couple of years ago, because based on speculation and rumors mirrorless was to have killed the dSLR by then. :

 

[M_S]

18MP. Really? For an allround camera? This would be a huge let down. I expected something in the range of 28 to 36 MP. If this is true, I will skip the Mark 4 and stick with the Mark 3 or look elsewhere.

 

[NancyP]

Actually, I am pretty happy with the 20 MP 6D. A bit more dynamic range, a swivel screen, and I would go for a 6DII. 20-24 MP sounds fine.

 

[gunship01]

1DX Mark II:

30 MP
10-12 FPS
Shots useable to 1600 ISO (Pragmatic approach)
HDR
Time Lapse
Dual Digic 6
Dual CF cards

Don't need GPS, nor Video.

It can be done.

Price: $5,000

$5000, isn't that cheaper than the current 1D-X? I seriously doubt that 1D-X Mk-II would release at below the price of the 1D-X. Retailers would struggle to clear old stock. I don't remember Canon doing hard-launches of bodies, they always seem to do a soft-launch and gradually phase out the old model.

I think the camera will use CFast 2.0 just as is used in the C300 mk-II and the XC10.

I don't think acceptable IQ up to ISO-1600 is good enough for sports. Sportographers needed ISO-3200 - ISO-6400 using f/2.8 and f/4 zooms for events like the winter Olympics where broadcast-quality-lighting was in place. The core users need the high ISO capability of the 1D-X.

Also, a smaller pixel count will help with high-ISO IQ as well as with buffer and data transfers to news agencies.

I'm thinking the price of the current DX will get below the $4K mark at the time this version sees the light of day.

The Dual Digic 7 might be in place by then as well and should be able to push high MP shots fast.

Sounds like the ISO will not be an issue then. Cool.

 

[Loswr]

1DX Mark II
Price: $5,000

This may help awaken you from your dream.

 

[drjlo]

Full frame mirrorless. Better late than never, Canon :-[

 

[switters]

I just wish the 5D IV would have spot metering from non center AF points, but my guess is Canon will never put that feature in anything other than a 1D series camera—despite the fact that it's available on cameras 1/3 of the price of 5Ds.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Blahhh. I really had hoped to stay with Canon, but it looks like Sony A7R II it is and perhaps even Nikon, depending.

 

[Loswr]

Blahhh. I really had hoped to stay with Canon, but it looks like Sony A7R II it is and perhaps even Nikon, depending.

You're still here?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

the 5Ds is kind of like the A7RII

Only without the 4k, basic video usability features or the dynamic range....

 

[Loswr]

They made the 5D4 low MP

I missed the press release, do you have a link?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I hope they make a 6Da with less resolution but much better high ISO performance... as I don't like the 5D's size and weight.

It's not possible to make much better high ISO performance. Unless they did away with the color array filter and managed to capture all light and directly read the wavelength per sensor layer and maintain the old efficiency they are already too close to perfect with the 6D to improve the SNR at high ISO much more without hitting upon the limits of physics. I supposed high ISO DR could still be improved a lot, but that might take cooling and the camera would weigh a ton and cost more.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's going to be very tough for Canon to get my money this cycle for a camera body. The a7rii is a mighty tempting addition to my mk3.

+1 this looks like my move too

Which is what I've been trying to say for years. Canon has be on a path that even many of the fanboys might eventually find they are less than thrilled with after enough years go by. Look, even you are now thinking about simply keeping your 5D3 and adding an a7R II. I wasn't do it to destroy Canon (not that I could if I tried) but to make them better.

 

[docsmith]

"...a few stops of ISO performance boost."

I thought we were in the range where we should only expect increments of a single stop of ISO performance? "A few" to me means ~3 stops. I'll take 18 MP if I get noise equivalent to ISO 3200 on my 5diii at ISO 25,600 on the 5DIV.

But, seriously, I am not expecting that.

Out of what I am expecting, I'd be interested in ~26-28MP and 0.5-1 stop High ISO improvement.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It wants to offer what is best for REAL photography, not necessarily moronic tests on DXO, DP, or to please the tech junkies who want specs.

Only problem is those tests point to things that CAN make a true real world difference for some. Canon is doing what costs them the least and gives the most margin per body.

This is why Canon likes the AA filter. It improves IQ. To the layman or amateur, current day use of an AA filter in a DSLR seems like an archaic practice.

I do agree here and they do get credit for this. I have a bad feeling this is where they may fall prey and follow Nikon/Sony marketing nonsense though and I wonder if the next round will have AA. It would be a shame if the one thing they follow from the new Nikon/Sony stuff is the one thing that isn't a great idea.

The same is true of megapixels. The 1DX absolutely and undeniably proves that its IQ is superior to the higher MP 5D3 as the ISO goes up. Megapixels certainly isn't everything. Less noise more than makes up for less resolution. High resolution is of no help to anyone and cannot be realized or used when it is utterly destroyed by noise. This is a fact. There is no debate. The thousands of images made in comparison is the evidence to all who are not blind.

Compared at the same scale though the high MP cams do pretty well though. Take a 5Ds shot and then use smart NR and deliver same final detail as a 5D3 shot and I'd bet the 50MP 5Ds actually does better than the 5D3 at high ISO.... although it's true that tons of MP do slightly hurt the max potential. But again, since NR is more advanced than simepl MP scaling and since tiny grain tends to look better to the eye than a bit less but larger grain...

Also, real pros doing real work know that 18MP is perfectly fine. While the 5D3 is the wedding photography king, a lot of event shooters use the 1DX also for its low light capability. They aren't bothered in the slightest about the MP count because they know the images these cameras produce is more than enough for any wedding album or print.

It depends upon the 'real' pro. Not all shooting is weddings. Sometimes reach helps a lot, especially for sports and wildlife. And sometimes it's nice to have more freedom to cop in later in general But yeah it's not like 18MP are so bad for many.

Really, if you need more MP for a larger print - they now offer the 5DS for that. And once you are in the realm of creating large prints with such high detail - you're either doing studio or landscape work, and high ISO isn't in the game any more. This was a good segregation of specialties by Canon.

Only problem is then they fail to deliver modern levels of dynamic range at low ISO.
It's about the quality of the pixels too not just the MP count as you just said above. So why do you say that only for high ISO MP and not low ISO MP?

All that said, for the NEEDS of real pros (not the wants of internet reviewers), 18MP would not be viewed at all as a negative selling point, not if the ISO was improved at least 1 stop.

Using 18MP instead of 40MP won't give you more than 1 stop better, the bonus is smaller than that for sure.

If it is anything short of 1 stop, this will be a flop. It will need to be easily noticeable in IQ side by side comparisons with the 5D3. None of this drawn out side by side comparing to try and find the differences. On a basic zoom in of the image, it will need to be immediately apparent. A short glance to say "wow, big difference" ...not tedious pixel peeping of very similarly noisy images.

1.5 stops isn't unreasonable. the 1DX is basically a stop better than the 5D3, so right there that sensor has it. Add in newer sensor technology and it shouldn't be out of reach I would think.

Maybe if you were more of a nerd you'd realize that expecting 1.5 stops better SNR over the 5D3, min, IS unreasonable. The current stuff is already too good the types of sensors used today.

And since when does the 1DX have 1 stop better SNR than the 5D3?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm pretty happy with my current 5D3's...if this rumour's true...I'll be missing a generation and looking to a 5D5 instead.

I think that is THE issue Canon have. The 5D MkIII is so good for so many people that trying to entice those owners, who must make up the bulk of the potential 5D MkIV market, is going to be very difficult. There is nothing groundbreaking, the 5D MkIII is a crazy capable camera and no single feature is going to have thousands of owners dropping them for an expensive upgrade.

A stop or so here, a fps there, so what? The 5D MkIII is a supremely capable all round camera. If they just threw 4K into it as it is it would stand the test of time, make it external recording for a couple of years then a firmware upgrade to make it internal and the product is still good in 2019. Add in some general froo froo stuff, like the 1DX AF, the much better shadow noise from the 5DS and who needs to reinvent the wheel?

Exactly, these things are not free. It's a lot of dough. So if the 5D4 doesn't offer high quality 4k with basic usability features, improved sensor with Exmor DR and some more MP and so on, why bother spending money? Why not just keep shooting your 5D3? Or why not just add on an A7R II if the 5D3 misses things you want (say DR, more MP, 4k video)? You get DR and MP and 4k with peaking, zebras, etc. and can't still use the same lens set as you use on the 5D3. It would be far nicer to be able to sell the 5D3 and get a 5D4 that did the 5D3 and A7R II stuff but it seems Canon has no desire, or maybe even ability now, to make such a camera (although there had been some rumors about 30MP and dual gain per photosite and 4k, but they seem to have gone away though).

 

[Perio]

Blahhh. I really had hoped to stay with Canon, but it looks like Sony A7R II it is and perhaps even Nikon, depending.

Sony A7Rii is a very interesting camera, and I understand why many Canon users are so exited about it. But there is a reason I personally would never consider camera like that, and it's the size. I was holding one of my co-resident's Canon T3i today, and it feels so inconvenient in my relatively average hands (I use 7.5-size gloves). As soon as I got the camera in my hands, I felt "how do Sony's guys hold their A7 series cameras?". Seriously, guys, I understand it's a personal choice, but I can't imagine a person with larger hands to hold these small cameras comfortably.

So, how many of you who pre-ordered A7Rii cameras actually ever held A7-series cameras in your hands?

 

[unfocused]

First of all, I think we are so far away from Canon finalizing the specs on a new 5DIV that it's crazy to get worked up over rumors of the number of megapixels.

That said, I don't know of too many 1DX owners complaining about low resolution. I'm not sure the difference between 18 mp and 22 mp would be that noticeable and if it improved low-light performance, I'd probably opt for the fewer megapixels.

But, as others have pointed out, it really comes down to trade-offs. A quarter of a stop improvement in noise, would not be worth the loss of resolution. On the other hand, there is no reason to assume that an 18 mp sensor in 2016 would have the same limitations as an 18 mp sensor from 2012. If dynamic range and noise can be improved from one generation to the next, I'm not sure we should assume that an 18 mp sensor from 2016 could not withstand more cropping than an 18 mp sensor from 2012.

Everyone sees things from their own perspective. For my personal use, I'd like to see the resolution remain at 22 mp and have some slight improvement in noise. For my work, I often need to squeeze every bit of ISO sensitivity out of the sensor, so an 18 mp sensor could be quite tempting if the already amazing low-light performance of the current 5DIII gets even better. There are lots of times when the 5DIII's low light performance has saved my bacon, so I certainly can't dismiss a camera that might give even better low light performance.

It almost sounds as though Canon is playing with the idea of turning the 5DIV into a 1DX with a detachable battery grip. I'm really not planning on a 5DIV until at least two years into the cycle (when prices have dropped). But, if they produce a mini 1Dx it could be hard to resist.