Ever such Rumours as APS-C, Low Density, Low MP sensors?...

[Khufu]

Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?

I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!

Thoughts?

Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I could use one of those in a Rebel body. It would have to come with accurate autofocus and micro adjust to use the prime lenses wide open. Unfortunately that does not fit Canon's marketing pattern at all.

 

[Loswr]

The T3/1100D was a 12 MP APS-C body with much newer sensor technology than other Canon bodies at similar resolution. As you'd expect, the sensor had better noise performance that the 18 MP sensor variants. But you're giving up a lot of features with a T3, relative to xxD or even xxxD bodies.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If the sensor from Canon 6D is cropped to APS-C size, results in 7,8 megapixel which is enough to print with optimal quality on A4 size paper. If there APS-C sensor cameras using current technology, with only 8 megapixel image with no noticeable noise at ISO 3200, I would buy several units. But most buyers believe that "the more megapixels the better." In the current market, this hypothetical camera had poor sales. However, if this camera had retro look and similar to the Fuji X price, could be lucrative for Canon, even selling a few units. The problem is that Canon is afraid to cannibalize sales of expensive cameras.

 

[Don Haines]

Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?

I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!

Thoughts?

Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook

Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?
I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!
Thoughts?
Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook

Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?

Maybe because 6D is relatively large, heavy and expensive, compared to APS-C. It may also be because all zoom lenses for it are large, heavy and expensive, compared with EF-S lenses.

 

[Don Haines]

Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?
I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!
Thoughts?
Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook

Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?

Maybe because 6D is relatively large, heavy and expensive, compared to APS-C. It may also be because all zoom lenses for it are large, heavy and expensive, compared with EF-S lenses.

The point is, in the general consumer marketplace, where megapixels sell, you will not see a low megapixel camera because it will not sell. If there ever was to be a specialized low megapixel camera, it would be a FF camera where the pixels will have 2 1/2 times the area of an APSC camera with the same number of megapixels, and thereby, out perform it in low light or high ISO..... and it would not be inexpensive....

 

[wsmith96]

The problem is that Canon is afraid to cannibalize sales of expensive cameras.

Do you think it would cannibalize the sale of canon's top-of-line models? I bet it wouldn't if the camera feature set remained consistent between the entry level, pro-sumer, and pro product lines.

 

[AmbientLight]

Actually you can look at the specs for the new Powershot G1 X Mark II sensor as an example.

According to specs it is relatively low MP (12-13 MPs depending on shooting format) and it is supposed to be good in low light. I have actually pre-ordered one of these as it also offers a very nice focal-length range. According to Canon this Powershot will offer good reaction speed and what is praised in Canon ads like it will be fully optimized no-nonsense controls. Of course this camera doesn't really qualify as a rumor. We only need to wait some time until it arrives in shops and of course in reviews, too, for those not wanting to pay for something they don't know how it will really perform.

 

[Skulker]

I can't help thinking the idea behind the original question is very valid and mature. To me it makes more sense than all the fuss about multi mega pixels.

But ....... I'm an engineer and I don't think like a marketing person.

I think your idea would be a good camera but don't hold your breath.

As others have said a 6D is probably as close as you will get.

 

[Sporgon]

I half wonder if Canon would have the courage to use a lower mp in the up coming 7DII in order to increase high ISO performance and shooting speed. If the new camera does turn out to be a 'budget' pro action camera the high ISO performance would be useful for indoor sports.

I've owned both the 650D and 1100D alongside my FF bodies, and IMO the lower mp camera gave better overall 'IQ'. in fact the 1100D can produce alarmingly good IQ. I say 'alarming' because the 1100D cost about £250 and the FF £2500.

I see that the new 1200D uses the ubiquitous 18mp sensor. A pity IMO, but then I guess the vast majority of customers for that camera would disagree; the more mp the better.

So are we seeing Canon steering the customer towards 'high mp = consumer, low mp = pro' ?( Bearing in mind 'low' is still actually high resolution).If so the new 'pro' grade 7DII might be lower mp.

 

[rs]

FF cameras such as the 6D give better a better S/N ratio than crop cameras not because of the tech used in the sensors, but because of the size of their sensors.

If you compare a full image from a 6D taken with a 135mm lens at a fixed aperture and ISO, and then compare it to a crop image from a 6D (39%, as APS-C sees) at 85mm with the same aperture and ISO, it won't retain the same S/N ratio. The simple act of enlarging the output more from the crop to get the same final output means not only is the (61% weaker) signal magnified/enlarged, but the noise is magnified/enlarged too.

As long as the microlenses are gapless, and assuming the extra circuitry on the sensor introduces no more noise, more MP shouldn't lower the S/N ratio when looking at the image as a whole.

 

[Don Haines]

I half wonder if Canon would have the courage to use a lower mp in the up coming 7DII in order to increase high ISO performance and shooting speed. If the new camera does turn out to be a 'budget' pro action camera the high ISO performance would be useful for indoor sports.

I've owned both the 650D and 1100D alongside my FF bodies, and IMO the lower mp camera gave better overall 'IQ'. in fact the 1100D can produce alarmingly good IQ. I say 'alarming' because the 1100D cost about £250 and the FF £2500.

I see that the new 1200D uses the ubiquitous 18mp sensor. A pity IMO, but then I guess the vast majority of customers for that camera would disagree; the more mp the better.

So are we seeing Canon steering the customer towards 'high mp = consumer, low mp = pro' ?( Bearing in mind 'low' is still actually high resolution).If so the new 'pro' grade 7DII might be lower mp.

I kind of doubt it. One of the big reasons for the 7d is to get more pixels on target.... If the pixel size becomes that of a FF sensor (or larger), that advantage disappears and with it a significant portion of the buying public.

I shoot birds, usually in good light, and need all the pixels on target I can get. If the 7D2 had the same size pixels (8 megapixels) as the 5D3, there would be no debate as to getting A or B or possibly both... It would be 5D3 all the way.

 

[jhpeterson]

I can't help thinking the idea behind the original question is very valid and mature. To me it makes more sense than all the fuss about multi mega pixels.

But ....... I'm an engineer and I don't think like a marketing person.

I think your idea would be a good camera but don't hold your breath.

As others have said a 6D is probably as close as you will get.

I was trained as an engineer and probably think a great deal like you.
I guess that's why I'm holding onto a couple 1D Mark IIIs!

 

[dtaylor]

The T3/1100D was a 12 MP APS-C body with much newer sensor technology than other Canon bodies at similar resolution. As you'd expect, the sensor had better noise performance that the 18 MP sensor variants. But you're giving up a lot of features with a T3, relative to xxD or even xxxD bodies.

This is false. Measured in RAW with NR off, the gray and black noise levels from the T3 are the same as the 7D. The T3's chroma noise level is a bit better. You can see this at 100%, but when scaled to the same view size the 7D is as good or better.

With gapless microlenses there's little reason to expect larger pixels to yield less noise over the entire image. They should yield greater total DR, but few people are willing to give up the resolution for a bit more DR.

 

[dtaylor]

I've owned both the 650D and 1100D alongside my FF bodies, and IMO the lower mp camera gave better overall 'IQ'.

My friend has an 1100D and a 7D, and there's simply no situation in which the 1100D is better. Of course you have to judge the images at the same view or print size. If you simply zoom into both to 100% the 7D image is magnified more, and any flaws are amplified vs the lower resolution sensor.

I mention this because it is a constant mistake among the "lower pixel density is better" crowd. I can pull out some really old 10D photos and put them side by side with 7D photos, both at 100%, and the 10D sometimes looks better. Right up until I adjust the magnification on the 10D to the same view/print size as the 7D at 100% and the 10D image literally falls apart. If I go the other way and shrink the 7D image to the view/print size of a 10D image at 100%, the 7D image looks far better.

Equalize your viewing conditions. (And it goes without saying that if you're testing the two you also need to equalize everything else related to the test shot.)

 

[IMG_0001]

FF cameras such as the 6D give better a better S/N ratio than crop cameras not because of the tech used in the sensors, but because of the size of their sensors.

If you compare a full image from a 6D taken with a 135mm lens at a fixed aperture and ISO, and then compare it to a crop image from a 6D (39%, as APS-C sees) at 85mm with the same aperture and ISO, it won't retain the same S/N ratio. The simple act of enlarging the output more from the crop to get the same final output means not only is the (61% weaker) signal magnified/enlarged, but the noise is magnified/enlarged too.

As long as the microlenses are gapless, and assuming the extra circuitry on the sensor introduces no more noise, more MP shouldn't lower the S/N ratio when looking at the image as a whole.

I think everybody understands that FF are better and that cropping a FF image is possibly better IQ-wise than using a crop body. Yet I also think everybody sees that FF cameras are expensive.

I think that the idea is high MP crop body will likely have more noise at high iso than low MP crop body, everything else being the same. Yet, it could cost less than FF.

Edit; I understand that due to magnification, higher MP may make noise less apparent and this is what, in my opinion, makes the question hard to answer adequately.

 

[jrista]

Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?
I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!
Thoughts?
Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook

Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?

Maybe because 6D is relatively large, heavy and expensive, compared to APS-C. It may also be because all zoom lenses for it are large, heavy and expensive, compared with EF-S lenses.

The point is, in the general consumer marketplace, where megapixels sell, you will not see a low megapixel camera because it will not sell. If there ever was to be a specialized low megapixel camera, it would be a FF camera where the pixels will have 2 1/2 times the area of an APSC camera with the same number of megapixels, and thereby, out perform it in low light or high ISO..... and it would not be inexpensive....

Indeed! And, it a'int! It's called the 1D X...and it's about, oh, $6800 bucks.

Humor aside, I'd go for a lower mp APS-C camera with greater SNR, if someone made one. Personally, though, I'd really prefer someone do something more interesting with APS-C. Instead of larger pixels, I really think that layered photodiodes would be very interesting. It's been hypothesized and theorized and even patented in a few ways. Foveon is based on the concept...it has a blue, green, and red set of photodiodes layered vertically in each pixel. The colors are somewhat "natural" in that is how light penetrates silicon...blue is filtered out first, then green, then red. I don't see why the concept couldn't be applied to a bayer-type sensor, however. Blue in a bayer sensor tends to include some green as well, so having say two layers of charge-holding photodiodes could theoretically double the FWC. Green could possibly have two or three layers of photodiodes, and red could certainly have three, if not four. I've read about such patents a couple times on ImageSensorsWorld, although it seems all for the video segment so far. Would really be intriguing to see how such a design might improve the sensitivity and dynamic range of sensors overall, but particularly smaller ones like APS-C.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You can pickup a used Nikon D3 or D3S for a song. 12 MP and very low noise. They are a plague on the market, no one wants 12mp, well maybe 15 or 20 people.

 

[Sella174]

OK, I'll play ...

I'd go for an 8MP sensor (of the same stuff as the EOS 6D), inside the body of the EOS 100D, but with a pentaprism and the AF system of the EOS 70D ... weather-sealed would be nice.

Now, I don't think such a camera would compete with any of those currently on offer from Canon. The megapixels are too few to slice into the "entry-level" market (where Canon's excellent marketing dept. has made megapixel THE thing); the megapixels are also too few for wildlife and sports photographers (not enough "reach"), even though the AF system is sufficient; and it is APS-C, so it won't cut into the "full-frame" market segment.