Fewer megapixels please!

[e17paul]

I have just printed and framed a 2 megapixel image at A4 for a friend. It looks great, providing that I dont reach for the magnifying glass. I'm sure that A3 would stretch the resolution a little far, but then 3 megapixels would do.

I remember the rubbish output from the 1 and 2 megapixel cameras of 20 years ago. The poor results were due to extreme JPEG compression within the camera, not the resolution. No RAW files back then, there would have not even been room for one on the meagre memory available.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Why is 2160p at 16x9 being pushed by manufacturers?

I'm gradually seeing 21x9 displays become more popular as well as 21x9 for cinema content. Is 21x9 becoming the new standard in aspect ratio?

Why not 2160p at 21x9 (i.e. 5120x2160 aka UWTV-4K) using the full sensor width.

Sres = (Hres^2)/AR
= (5120^2)*2/3
= 17.48 MP (roughly 18MP)

 

[ishdakuteb]

"Fall Color Reflecting Off Bishop Creek"

ishdakuteb: this is the second time I've caught you cheating; that image is clearly correctly exposed which is not acceptable !
Pleasing image !

Thanks Sporgon!... I am trying to learn and play at my best whenever I am having chances... (Preparing for my retirement, though it is still a long time to go LOL...)

 

[H. Jones]

I'm a bit torn when it comes to the whole megapixel thing.. Between the primary newspaper I work for and the affiliates of it, they all downsize their images to 2 megapixels max for quick transfer. I do like the 22.3 mp of my 5D3 since I can crop in a heck of a lot and still get 2 megapixels, which absolutely rocks when I'm photographing sports and need more reach. Plus. the extra megapixels are nice for weddings and portraits, since I've had people order pretty large prints before.

On the other side of things, outside of sports I don't do much cropping, so I could really survive with even an 8 megapixel, huge ISO camera for most of my news work.

That said, if Canon can find a good way to increase ISO and MP at the same time, my perfect solution would probably be about 24 or 28 megapixels. I've recently upgraded my storage and computer hardware, so I'm sure I could easily handle a 1dX mark II with 14 fps and 24 megapixels. That would rock if it had less noise.

 

[9VIII]

There's plenty of benefit to downsampling, especially if you still have an AA filter, and as time passes I'm betting we're going to see our 20MP images start to show their age.
On a 4K display, 12MP is just enough to fit the screen horizontally.
If you match the native horizontal resolution of a 5K display (Dell and Apple sell these now), you need a 17MP camera, so the 1Dx is just enough, and higher resolution cameras should look sharper.
Once 8K happens (most broadcasters anticipate some form of implementation around 2030, the Japanese are pushing for 2020) you're going to need a 39MP camera to match the horizontal resolution. I'm betting the 5Ds will actually look better than most of the current competition on a display like that.
Images from any Canon camera before the 5Ds are going to be entirely "cropped" on an 8K display. 12MP images in portrait orientation won't even fill the vertical resolution.

But I don't anticipate displays going much higher than that in resolution, so the 5Ds should be a solid choice of camera for the next... well, the foreseeable future. It's going to take an entirely new human interface technology to surpass that level of clarity (unless you sit too close to a big screen).

 

[RGF]

Like to see the 5D M4 in the 28-32 MPS range.

 

[entoman]

So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.

I'll say it again, but LOUDER:

As a working pro who has used Canon cameras for several years, my message to Canon is NO, NO, NO!

You are going in completely the wrong direction. Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

24-28 MP is more than enough for us, even 36 MP is overkill for many people.

What we want is noise-free images at ISO 3200 and above. What we want is significantly increased dynamic range, to retain shadow and highlight detail in contrasty lighting. What we want is better subject tracking. What we want is image stabilisation incorporated into ALL Canon lenses, or IBIS bodies. What we want is bigger, brighter viewfinders in the APS models.

What we DON'T want or need is ridiculously high megapixel counts!

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

Thank you for assuming the duty of being the spokesperson for what people desire. ;D

Can you tell me what I want for lunch tomorrow, so I can plan accordingly? ;D ;D

 

[scyrene]

So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.

I'll say it again, but LOUDER:

As a working pro who has used Canon cameras for several years, my message to Canon is NO, NO, NO!

You are going in completely the wrong direction. Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

24-28 MP is more than enough for us, even 36 MP is overkill for many people.

What we want is noise-free images at ISO 3200 and above. What we want is significantly increased dynamic range, to retain shadow and highlight detail in contrasty lighting. What we want is better subject tracking. What we want is image stabilisation incorporated into ALL Canon lenses, or IBIS bodies. What we want is bigger, brighter viewfinders in the APS models.

What we DON'T want or need is ridiculously high megapixel counts!

You posted this on the other thread. Can you maybe rephrase it: YOU don't want this. Fine, we hear you loud and clear (maybe too loud).

I want different things. I'm not arrogant enough to speak for anybody else.

 

[StudentOfLight]

So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.

I'll say it again, but LOUDER:

As a working pro who has used Canon cameras for several years, my message to Canon is NO, NO, NO!

You are going in completely the wrong direction. Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

24-28 MP is more than enough for us, even 36 MP is overkill for many people.

What we want is noise-free images at ISO 3200 and above. What we want is significantly increased dynamic range, to retain shadow and highlight detail in contrasty lighting. What we want is better subject tracking. What we want is image stabilisation incorporated into ALL Canon lenses, or IBIS bodies. What we want is bigger, brighter viewfinders in the APS models.

What we DON'T want or need is ridiculously high megapixel counts!

I don't think they said it was a bayer-type sensor.

Perhaps multi-layer 120MP = 30MP (R-G-B-UV)

 

[rrcphoto]

So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.

I'll say it again, but LOUDER:

As a working pro who has used Canon cameras for several years, my message to Canon is NO, NO, NO!

You are going in completely the wrong direction. Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

24-28 MP is more than enough for us, even 36 MP is overkill for many people.

What we want is noise-free images at ISO 3200 and above. What we want is significantly increased dynamic range, to retain shadow and highlight detail in contrasty lighting. What we want is better subject tracking. What we want is image stabilisation incorporated into ALL Canon lenses, or IBIS bodies. What we want is bigger, brighter viewfinders in the APS models.

What we DON'T want or need is ridiculously high megapixel counts!

"YOU" don't want, by stating high ISO requirements, you really have a limited view of reality.

 

[unfocused]

Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

Thank you for assuming the duty of being the spokesperson for what people desire. ;D

Can you tell me what I want for lunch tomorrow, so I can plan accordingly? ;D ;D

You posted this on the other thread. Can you maybe rephrase it: YOU don't want this. Fine, we hear you loud and clear (maybe too loud).

I want different things. I'm not arrogant enough to speak for anybody else.

"YOU" don't want, by stating high ISO requirements, you really have a limited view of reality.

I hope you are getting the message. It's annoyingly arrogant for anyone to assume they know what others want or need.

But also, do you really think that Canon is capable of only making one camera?

It seems rather foolish to me to think that the technology required to develop a 120mp DSLR would not result in a superior 24 or 28 mp sensor. Canon is not stupid. They consistently deliver market leading cameras that sell very well, earn them a profit and meet the needs and wants of their customer base. It is beyond me why someone would assume that an advancement in technology is going to make that less, rather than more, likely.

 

[massive]

so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)

5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3?

Then throw in very controlled lighting conditions (studio portraiture)

still the same body?

Personally I want low noise (low iso), sharp details and the best IQ I can get. not interested one jot in video, fps or extreme iso.

 

[9VIII]

First, Entoman is actually very happy with Canon, Canon has equal or better high ISO performance than anyone else. Always has.

Second, did I call it or what? 8K Cinema? 8K Reference distpay? SWEEET!!!

Canon just threw the gauntlet down in the Cinema market.
If people think that 8K is a waste of time, then you will think the same of IMAX, because they're effectively the same resolution. People have been recording and watching this quality of video for decades.
I love it for the high density detail, so my screen size is more lenient, but you can get the same viewing angle as a modern IMAX screen without re-mortgaging your house.
8K will be expensive for a long time, but it wont be something exclusive to the "super rich" (I'm not talking about technology prices, I'm talking about the feasibility of getting the same viewing angles in your own home).

 

[rrcphoto]

First, Entoman is actually very happy with Canon, Canon has equal or better high ISO performance than anyone else. Always has.

Second, did I call it or what? 8K Cinema? 8K Reference distpay? SWEEET!!!

Canon just threw the gauntlet down in the Cinema market.
If people think that 8K is a waste of time, then you will think the same of IMAX, because they're effectively the same resolution. People have been recording and watching this quality of video for decades.
I love it for the high density detail, so my screen size is more lenient, but you can get the same viewing angle as a modern IMAX screen without re-mortgaging your house.
8K will be expensive for a long time, but it wont be something exclusive to the "super rich" (I'm not talking about technology prices, I'm talking about the feasibility of getting the same viewing angles in your own home).

8K at 60fps no less.

this is like shooting a D800 at 60fps

 

[Sporgon]

so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)

5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3?

Then throw in very controlled lighting conditions (studio portraiture)

still the same body?

Personally I want low noise (low iso), sharp details and the best IQ I can get. not interested one jot in video, fps or extreme iso.

I think now, more than ever before in photography, the question is 'what do you want for pure landscape photography.'?

If we are talking about resolution and definition it would be interesting to see how close people would have to get to a display of four A3 size prints, each one taken on a 5Ds, a 5DIII, a 70D and a G16.

However technically speaking in landscape we are often wanting to photograph detail that is both small and a long way from the camera, so in theory the larger the format the better because we're using a longer lens, pro rata, and achieving greater magnification.

If I had to pick, again, theoretically larger format before pixel density. So I have found in the past that for myself, a 13 MP 5D produced a more pleasing landscape image than an 18 MP 650D.

But with the latest tech, and bearing in mind that there is a limit to how large people want pictures, I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't changing.

 

[scyrene]

so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)

5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3?

Then throw in very controlled lighting conditions (studio portraiture)

still the same body?

Personally I want low noise (low iso), sharp details and the best IQ I can get. not interested one jot in video, fps or extreme iso.

The elephant in the room is budget. If you can stretch to it, I'd imagine a medium format camera would suit best.

 

[massive]

so what IS the choice for landscape only shooting?
Mainly for printing A3 (occasionally above.)

5dsr, 5ds, 5d3, 1ds3?

Then throw in very controlled lighting conditions (studio portraiture)

still the same body?

Personally I want low noise (low iso), sharp details and the best IQ I can get. not interested one jot in video, fps or extreme iso.

The elephant in the room is budget. If you can stretch to it, I'd imagine a medium format camera would suit best.

I guess you are right. Would be interesting the know the difference in quality between a $4-6000 higend canon body and a $10-30,000 entry level MF body

 

[Maiaibing]

But how about the rest of us - 99% of advanced DSLR users don't need or want such high resolution.

Where did you get the 99% figure from? Canon has expressly said that their customers wanted a high megapix camera and that they missed the boat not having it in their line-up earlier.

If 99% Canon advanced customers did not want more megapixels Canon would not have sent the 5DS/R to the market.

 

[Maiaibing]

So now Canon have announced they are working on a 120 MP sensor that will be in an EOS body.

I'll say it again, but LOUDER:

As a working pro who has used Canon cameras for several years, my message to Canon is NO, NO, NO!

You are going in completely the wrong direction. Pros and advanced amateurs have no need or desire for such a camera.

Your fixation with projecting your own needs on all other photographers is amazing.

Canon published marketing surveys showed their customers wanted more mpix - and Canon's Cheif Camera Exec confirmed this in interviews - Canon has now delivered. Do you think Canon made these things up?

5DS/R and 120 mpix may not be for you. But so far I am enjoying my 5DS/R which is a better all-around camera than both my antique 5DII's were and the 5DIII is.