High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]

[mskrystalmeth]

IT would have to be supplied by Sony. Canon cannot produce a quality Sensor. But Nikon will produce that high end D4x with 50mp, with the Sony Sensor, first! Canon....your "impossible"

 

[Loswr]

IT would have to be supplied by Sony. Canon cannot produce a quality Sensor. But Nikon will produce that high end D4x with 50mp, with the Sony Sensor, first! Canon....your "impossible"

You sound quite confident about that...much like your six posts shouting that the 'see impossible' ad campaign was a 3D printer, which was a total FAIL for your credibility.

 

[Diko]

I say they separate again the 1D series or they might actually separate the 5D series perhaps.

* - 1 for sport (regular updated CMOS BSI tech)
* - 1 for studio (new FOVEON slower but better than Sigma sensor)

Additionally the speculation of mirrorless and DSLR also seems quite reasonable along with the astro version.

I love colour, don't I? ;D

 

[Mr.Magic]

As Canon wouldn't do the D800-D800E split, I'm not reading this as a high megapixel camera in 2 variants, but as a high mexapixel SENSOR coming in 2 variants:
- in DSLR
- in Mirrorless

Let's hope....

 

[Jon_D]

If Canon and Sony are both releasing ~50MP sensors in 2015 it will be interesting to see if Canon can catch up in DR and shadow noise too.

 

[rfdesigner]

I say they separate again the 1D series or they might actually separate the 5D series perhaps.

* - 1 for sport (regular updated CMOS BSI tech)
* - 1 for studio (new FOVEON slower but better than Sigma sensor)

Additionally the speculation of mirrorless and DSLR also seems quite reasonable along with the astro version.

I love colour, don't I? ;D

If they do another astro one then I do hope they allow for it to be cooled properly, plus route a sensor temperature feedback out of it so it can be setpoint cooled.. makes all the difference in the world. Plus they should have a 60fps full-res/part-frame video mode (even just 640x480 would be enough, but more is always better).. ability to track a bright spot wandering over the sensor would be fantastic. (planetary mode).

 

[Stu_bert]

...
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

...
And this:
...
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
...
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20990.msg448151#msg448151

yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....

 

[privatebydesign]

...
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

...
And this:
...
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
...
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20990.msg448151#msg448151

yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....

Then he needs to come to terms with the unavoidable fact that life is a series of compromises, and always will be. He can use a Canon with native Canon lenses, he can use a Canon with third party lenses, he can use Canon lenses on third party bodies, he can use third party lenses on third party bodies, it isn't like he is stuck for choice, he just wants what isn't currently available and rather than acknowledge that and take the best option for him, he wants to make all our lives a misery.

But make no mistake, when he gets his D810 and 14-24 and Canon come out with a 50mp something and an 11-24 he will be on the Nikon forums making just as much noise, or Canon come out with the body he says he wants but not the lens, or the lens but not the body, he/we will never be offered the "best" of everything in a single package from a single manufacturer, that is just life, and constantly screaming that it isn't fair isn't achieving anything constructive.

Choose what is best for you and your image making from the options available, and we have more options now than ever before, don't see limitations in gear, there effectively aren't any, the only limitation is the one you set up yourself as a way of making excuses for your own short comings.

 

[Stu_bert]

...
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

...
And this:
...
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
...
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20990.msg448151#msg448151

yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....

Then he needs to come to terms with the unavoidable fact that life is a series of compromises, and always will be. He can use a Canon with native Canon lenses, he can use a Canon with third party lenses, he can use Canon lenses on third party bodies, he can use third party lenses on third party bodies, it isn't like he is stuck for choice, he just wants what isn't currently available and rather than acknowledge that and take the best option for him, he wants to make all our lives a misery.

<snip>

LOL, does he *make* you read this forum? Does he force you to respond to every comment he makes? And if he is making so many people's live a misery then I worry for those people. This site exists based on us coming here, griping, guessing, waxing lyrical, discussing, sharing, informing. I think you need to read your first sentence - this forum is indeed a compromise and if the balance is not to your liking, seek alternative forums or scroll past the postings you don't like..... But please let's avoid the personal stuff...

 

[privatebydesign]

You guys completely misinterpret and misrepresent everything I've said about this subject. You lump me in with your run of the mill complainer who jumps from site to site bitching about anything and everything Canon. I've been very consistent in my complaint...and it's just one complaint: Canon's sensor IQ, particularly the quality of their read noise, but their overall IQ that, IMO, suffers because of poor DR which stems from extremely old (ancient, in the tech world) technology. Stop misrepresenting me and my words to the rest of the community.

After the tens of thousands of words you have written on your position I doubt a blind person could misinterpret you. And whilst you might think you have been 100% consistent along the way you have made some absolutely ridiculous claims and failed to identify an Exmor from a Canon image.

As for misrepresentation, how about you calling me "antiDR" when I have never, ever, been against more DR?

You are a run of the mill complainer, you want something that isn't available in Canon's range, and you want them to make it for you. That is no different than people complaining about the 14-24, the lack of high MP, the price of many higher end comparative lenses, lack of a serious mirrorless (even when they haven't even tried an EOS-m) etc etc. You have hijacked innumerable threads (including this one), lambasted people for asking for relatively simple clarification or actual images to back up your over inflated opinions and ridiculed anybody that dares to offer any kind of counterpoint.

As Neuro said to you the other day, that is life. Buy the best equipment you can afford to do the job you want, if that involves such precise capabilities as to include more than one manufacturer then so be it, most serious photographers with diverse interests have shot multiple systems since, for ever!

 

[privatebydesign]

LOL, does he *make* you read this forum? Does he force you to respond to every comment he makes? And if he is making so many people's live a misery then I worry for those people. This site exists based on us coming here, griping, guessing, waxing lyrical, discussing, sharing, informing. I think you need to read your first sentence - this forum is indeed a compromise and if the balance is not to your liking, seek alternative forums or scroll past the postings you don't like..... But please let's avoid the personal stuff...

No.

No, and I don't.

Sure, take the forum for what it is, or make it what it is. Personally I believe the tone has been lowered immeasurably by the constant hijacking, lengthy repetitive posts with bad manners, bad diction, and lots of shouting from the DRoners.

I am not anti jrista nor, at it's core, his point, despite his loathsome cries of persecution I have tried to engage with him seriously in several threads specifically about DR. I am anti the over the top way he broadcasts his opinion, I am anti the shouting and inflammatory way he goes about sharing that opinion, I am against his inconsistency, his rewriting history, his constant hijacking, and his overwhelmingly self righteous belief that anybody that doesn't agree with him is either uneducated, delusional or deluded. I have huge differences of opinion with him on what he considers acceptable IQ, which is funny because it appears my standards are actually higher than his. He strikes me as a really smart guy who over thinks a lot of stuff and gets very committed to a solution he thinks is right whilst being resistant to adjustments to that solution when it is shown to not be quite right or that clearly make it better, easier, faster or more useful.

I have many faults too, I respect jristas opinion at its core, I will happily take more DR when it gets here, and I get as over enthusiastic about rebuttals as he does about his opinion on occasions.

I wish the mods, who do a hell of a good job, would ease back on my culling and warnings a little and increase those on jrista to contain the DR "issue" within a small series of threads truthfully devoted to it, not any and every thread that offers the slightest tangential attachment to it.

 

[Stu_bert]

LOL, does he *make* you read this forum? Does he force you to respond to every comment he makes? And if he is making so many people's live a misery then I worry for those people. This site exists based on us coming here, griping, guessing, waxing lyrical, discussing, sharing, informing. I think you need to read your first sentence - this forum is indeed a compromise and if the balance is not to your liking, seek alternative forums or scroll past the postings you don't like..... But please let's avoid the personal stuff...

No.

No, and I don't.

Sure, take the forum for what it is, or make it what it is. Personally I believe the tone has been lowered immeasurably by the constant hijacking, lengthy repetitive posts with bad manners, bad diction, and lots of shouting from the DRoners.

I am not anti jrista nor, at it's core, his point, despite his loathsome cries of persecution I have tried to engage with him seriously in several threads specifically about DR. I am anti the over the top way he broadcasts his opinion, I am anti the shouting and inflammatory way he goes about sharing that opinion, I am against his inconsistency, his rewriting history, his constant hijacking, and his overwhelmingly self righteous belief that anybody that doesn't agree with him is either uneducated, delusional or deluded. I have huge differences of opinion with him on what he considers acceptable IQ, which is funny because it appears my standards are actually higher than his. He strikes me as a really smart guy who over thinks a lot of stuff and gets very committed to a solution he thinks is right whilst being resistant to adjustments to that solution when it is shown to not be quite right or that clearly make it better, easier, faster or more useful.

I have many faults too, I respect jristas opinion at its core, I will happily take more DR when it gets here, and I get as over enthusiastic about rebuttals as he does about his opinion on occasions.

I wish the mods, who do a hell of a good job, would ease back on my culling and warnings a little and increase those on jrista to contain the DR "issue" within a small series of threads truthfully devoted to it, not any and every thread that offers the slightest tangential attachment to it.

I have to admit I drop in and out of this site, especially the forums. There is a whole bunch of good info I have gained from the people here, so I still come back.

But my personal advice, re individuals who just get to you is just "walk away" - whether that is permanent, or just from that thread. Maybe that reflects more on me than you both, I don't know. I enjoy people passionately discussing topics, even if they disagree in the right way. When it stops being nice, then I just get bored....

The Mods are there to hopefully stop the personal comments. If people want to bang on about the same topic, then the rest of the forum members will chose what they want to do regarding those individuals. I dont think the mods should do that.

 

[Diko]

You guys completely misinterpret and misrepresent everything I've said about this subject. You lump me in with your run of the mill complainer who jumps from site to site bitching about anything and everything Canon. I've been very consistent in my complaint...and it's just one complaint: Canon's sensor IQ, particularly the quality of their read noise, but their overall IQ that, IMO, suffers because of poor DR which stems from extremely old (ancient, in the tech world) technology. Stop misrepresenting me and my words to the rest of the community.

Jrista, it's the avatar. ;-)

You are a run of the mill complainer, you want something that isn't available in Canon's range, and you want them to make it for you.

IMO he is making an informed complaining. That means he's quite well aware what the others are doing or intend to do in the near future. He is informed about trends, brands and and all sort of tech stuff. So is Neuro. Both create opinions and seem to be among the most acknowledged in this community.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't argue with them. But at least make a point out of it. ;-)

 

[StudentOfLight]

My guesses:
An expensive "EOS 1D-C Mark-II"
Stills: 46MP, 8fps
6.4K Video (in 1.3x crop mode)

A premium priced "EOS 4"
Stills: 44.7MP, 6fps
4K Video: (full frame capture)

 

[skoobey]

At this point, I don't even care, I have to think about things like color coordination between the set and the styling, make-up, tonal coordination. What clothes is the model going to wear, how does it look her, what pose is good for the given lighting, but also the outfit...

Camera is there just to capture all of the hard work. I love my camera, if upgrade is good, I might go that route, but considering the retouching file size, I'm not sure.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My guesses:
An expensive "EOS 1D-C Mark-II"
Stills: 46MP, 8fps
6.4K Video (in 1.3x crop mode)

A premium priced "EOS 4"
Stills: 44.7MP, 6fps
4K Video: (full frame capture)

That would ultra sweet, especially if they fix the DR. That plus the DR, those would be a heck of a pair of cams there. I'd be all over that latter one myself.

I have a feeling they won't be so exciting as what you list.

 

[StudentOfLight]

My guesses:
An expensive "EOS 1D-C Mark-II"
Stills: 46MP, 8fps
6.4K Video (in 1.3x crop mode)

A premium priced "EOS 4"
Stills: 44.7MP, 6fps
4K Video: (full frame capture)

That would ultra sweet, especially if they fix the DR. That plus the DR, those would be a heck of a pair of cams there. I'd be all over that latter one myself.

I have a feeling they won't be so exciting as what you list.

Maybe not as exciting. A while back, maybe a year ago now, there was a rumor of a 75mp Canon "big mp" camera. I'm beginning to think now, with all the layered sensor rumors of late, that Canon is working on a 25mp RGB sensor (or maybe the 5-layer, however the UV and IR layers probably won't be included in the RAW). I think that would be interesting, assuming it resolves Canon's read noise issues, as I'd love a layered sensor with high DR.

I'm afraid that Canon isn't going to change their readout system. I suspect were still looking at 16, maybe 32 readout channels, off-die ADC units, and the external DIGIC processors. In that case, I figure the low ISO read noise issue will be unchanged. They should realize an improvement in color fidelity and overall image sharpness...but the dynamic range issue would persist. I really, REALLY hope I'm wrong...but I'm so skeptical of Canon now on the sensor technology front, I just have to see it first before I can believe it.

On another tangent, can the (W-R, W+R) approach somehow be mated with DPAF?