High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon

[Loswr]

The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line? The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original? :

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

 

[Lawliet]

That leaves 33,500,000 lenses which were not bought with the camera.

Minus the lenses that go into two lens kits.
Those would fit the "does not buy additional lenses"-criterion, and make the whole idea more plausible.
Thats if you want to take the whole statement overly literal, considering that no timeframe is stated and consumer behavior might well have undergone fluctuations during the time EF is around.

 

[Don Haines]

The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line? The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original? :

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

5% of 70,000,000 cameras is 3,500,000
That means 66,500,000 kits where there is a one to one ration of lens to camera.
That leaves 33,500,000 lenses which were not bought with the camera.
On average, that would mean the 5% of camera owners (3,500,000) have ~9.6 lenses each.

once again....

I remember reading somewhere that about 30 percent of kits sold had two lenses. If that's true then 70M cameras sold means 91M lenses. If 5 percent of those people buy just 1 extra lens, that's another 3.5 million lenses... or 94.5 million lenses. if those 5 percent of Canon users average 2.6 lenses each, then that gives us the 100M lenses sold number.

 

[MLfan3]

honestly, I am very worried about the quality of read noise and final IQ of this sensor since the low mp sensor of Canon's best such as the one used in the 1DX or the 5D3 is already that bad.

if increasing the pixel density means more noise at pixel level , I do not want it.
I think the current best FF sensor is the Sony 24.3 used in the NORMAL A7.

it is the best balance of great low ISO DR and high ISO quality we can get for now.
I like the D810 sensor too but it is not much better than the D800E or the A7R, in fact , I found them all the same in practice. In lab, the D810 might be a touch better in DR and color depth, but not as good as the D800E in lowlight.

But this small minor difference in DXO test suggests that the real life IQ of the all current 36mp sensors are the same or very very identical.
I hope Canon would focus on serious new gen sensor not a just high resolution Bayer out to be already dated kind of junk.
The 36mp sensor in the D8xx is very overrated imho(as a long time Nikon user).

 

[MLfan3]

oh one more thing to add, I or I think many people here want a FF mirrorless that pros can take seriously.

hope Canon will listen to us and design some really nice hybrid FF camera something like FF version of near almost perfect Panasonic GH4.

 

[unfocused]

Let's stop obsessing over trees (especially since they are machine-translated, massively garbled trees) and look at the forest for a minute.

The point is that very few DSLR buyers ever go on to buy another lens other than what came with their camera. Canon's new 10-18 STM lens is an effort by the company to entice those one-lens one-body owners to actually take the lens off the camera and play with an ultra-wide to wide lens.

It's a smart and innovative strategy to deal with a market that has become saturated.

The really interesting thing here should be that Canon is innovating on several fronts while their competitors seem to be stuck in the same old ruts.

They are kicking the competitions' collective rears in the full frame market with both the 5DIII and the 6D; the SL1 is the only DSLR of its kind available; their cinema line is unique and highly successful; they continue to produce and release some of the best lenses in the market and they are making a big move in the high growth security market to name just a few areas.

For five years they've had to industry leading APS-C body in the 7D and in a little over a month we'll see what the next generation of that camera is like – which will help us see where they believe the market is heading.

People on this forum constantly gripe about Canon, but an interview like this (even as garbled and confusing as it may be) is just one more reminder that they know a heck of a lot more about their customers than anyone here ever will.

 

[Loswr]

Let's stop obsessing over trees (especially since they are machine-translated, massively garbled trees) and look at the forest for a minute.

The point is that very few DSLR buyers ever go on to buy another lens other than what came with their camera. Canon's new 10-18 STM lens is an effort by the company to entice those one-lens one-body owners to actually take the lens off the camera and play with an ultra-wide to wide lens.

It's a smart and innovative strategy to deal with a market that has become saturated.

The really interesting thing here should be that Canon is innovating on several fronts while their competitors seem to be stuck in the same old ruts.

They are kicking the competitions' collective rears in the full frame market with both the 5DIII and the 6D; the SL1 is the only DSLR of its kind available; their cinema line is unique and highly successful; they continue to produce and release some of the best lenses in the market and they are making a big move in the high growth security market to name just a few areas.

For five years they've had to industry leading APS-C body in the 7D and in a little over a month we'll see what the next generation of that camera is like – which will help us see where they believe the market is heading.

People on this forum constantly gripe about Canon, but an interview like this (even as garbled and confusing as it may be) is just one more reminder that they know a heck of a lot more about their customers than anyone here ever will.

But...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!

 

[Lee Jay]

But...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!

I struggle with DR all the time at high ISO. I've never had a situation where Canon's base ISO DR was insufficient AND a couple more stops would have made it sufficient. I've had one situation where 20 more stops would have made it sufficient, but I don't think even the lenses can support that much DR.

 

[wsmith96]

Does this mean that only 4-5% of buyers purchase a second lens?

Yay, I'm in the 4-5% Not sure if this counts as a "lens," but I have a 1.4 teleconverter coming in today from Canon.

 

[dgatwood]

The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line? The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original? :

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

Actually, it is consistent. The bad machine translation didn't say that 95% of cameras get a second lens, but rather that 95% of users do (or don't). If a user buys a camera with a kit lens, then buys a second lens, then buys a second camera and a third lens, that person is at 1.5 lenses per body, which is pretty close to 1.43. The user has bought non-kit lenses, but still averages less than two lenses per body.

Most users don't replace their glass as often as they replace their camera bodies. More to the point, most people upgrade their lenses when they move to full-frame, but otherwise keep using whatever lens they got to begin with unless they have a specific reason to do otherwise (e.g. wanting more zoom range in a walk-around lens). But they often do add another lens for more reach or for a wider wide-angle.

That said, it would not surprise me if 95% of users don't have any lenses other than the kit lens. In fact, it seems pretty likely. My point is that comparing the camera and lens sales don't get you any closer to knowing whether this is true or not unless you assume that one user ≊ one camera body.

 

[KyleSTL]

Since the 100M and 70M numbers everyone is quoting goes back to the original EOS 650 in 1987, don't you think the market research and customer habits have changed, and the 95/5% being quoted is accurate for today's market?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!

I struggle with DR all the time at high ISO. I've never had a situation where Canon's base ISO DR was insufficient AND a couple more stops would have made it sufficient. I've had one situation where 20 more stops would have made it sufficient, but I don't think even the lenses can support that much DR.

On a sunny day just aim your camera out the back door at the woods and you will instantly find a case where the current DR is not enough but Exmor would be enough. And from there you realize that tons of shots dealing with forests will be the same scenario.

 

[racebit]

I'd like a 35mm sensor with bigger pixels rather than more of them.

+1
At very least not go past 20Mp.
Although some time in the future, not sure how many years away, that will be a non-issue, as sensors will be able to bin without any disadvantages, so pixel size can be chosen for each image. But till then, we need big pixels.

 

[JPCanonUser]

The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line? The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original? :

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

Sorry I should have been more specific. The original Japanese says that. I didnt read the entire article so I dont know the context, but the one line people are referring to says that.

 

[JPCanonUser]

The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line? The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original? :

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

Actually, it is consistent. The bad machine translation didn't say that 95% of cameras get a second lens, but rather that 95% of users do (or don't). If a user buys a camera with a kit lens, then buys a second lens, then buys a second camera and a third lens, that person is at 1.5 lenses per body, which is pretty close to 1.43. The user has bought non-kit lenses, but still averages less than two lenses per body.

Most users don't replace their glass as often as they replace their camera bodies. More to the point, most people upgrade their lenses when they move to full-frame, but otherwise keep using whatever lens they got to begin with unless they have a specific reason to do otherwise (e.g. wanting more zoom range in a walk-around lens). But they often do add another lens for more reach or for a wider wide-angle.

That said, it would not surprise me if 95% of users don't have any lenses other than the kit lens. In fact, it seems pretty likely. My point is that comparing the camera and lens sales don't get you any closer to knowing whether this is true or not unless you assume that one user ≊ one camera body.

Thats right! It says 4-5% of users dont buy another lens other than the kit lens.

 

[Lee Jay]

But...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!

I struggle with DR all the time at high ISO. I've never had a situation where Canon's base ISO DR was insufficient AND a couple more stops would have made it sufficient. I've had one situation where 20 more stops would have made it sufficient, but I don't think even the lenses can support that much DR.

On a sunny day just aim your camera out the back door at the woods and you will instantly find a case where the current DR is not enough but Exmor would be enough. And from there you realize that tons of shots dealing with forests will be the same scenario.

While I never visit the woods, I doubt that since I have taken pictures of trees inside a hotel with a glass ceiling, and was able to correctlyexpose the directly sunlit ceiling windows and the underside of trees that were far from the windows and under bridges.

 

[Don Haines]

But...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!

I struggle with DR all the time at high ISO. I've never had a situation where Canon's base ISO DR was insufficient AND a couple more stops would have made it sufficient. I've had one situation where 20 more stops would have made it sufficient, but I don't think even the lenses can support that much DR.

agreed in principal

I can't say that I have never seen a case where a stop or two more DR would have solved all problems, but it certainly would not have hurt. Very often it would be quite nice to have.

I also can't say that I have hit conditions where 20 stops would have been sufficient....

But I can say that I regularly hit cases where 5 stops more DR would be needed....

The worst case I have hit so far (this year) was when exposing for the dark areas it was F2.8, 1/25 sec, ISO6400 and for the bright areas F6.3, 1/640 sec, ISO160. That's 12 1/3 stops, a far cry from 20 stops, but no way would an extra stop or two of DR made any significant difference.

 

[Lightmaster]

A few days ago I featured a news originally reported by Canon Rumors. It was about an interview that DC.Watch (translated) had with some Canon representatives. Well, there was an error in the interpretation of the machine translated text.

The Canon reps never mentioned the possibility of a high-resolution camera. The error originated from the fact that the colors assigned to question and answer were not correct. In other words, the Google translator marked the question with the color of the answer. In reporting the interview, the question and the answer were confused, and the question was erroneously reported as the answer.

Thanks to DicaHub, I can clarify this. Dicahub was so kind to make his own translation of the interview and to send it to me:


Q: And this is only my personal impression, but after releasing of EF 100mm F2.8L IS USM Macro, I feel the resolution performance of EF lenses has been level-up remarkably, are there any differences compared before, about such the design level to the target (but not consider to view the pixel size based on print result), the design concept and so on?

Iwamoto: I can’t answer detailed, but as the pixel-count of the digital cameras are becoming more and more, the target level of the lens performace are definitely coming up gradually.

Q: How many pixel-count (or how small pixel pitch) to be resolved sufficiently are recent L lenses designed to be performed?

Shimada: The lenses are products with very long life after launching, so we are considering and developing with the target level that they can be performed with the future cameras.

Q: We can get really high definition detail if we take pictures with Sony A7R mounted recent L lenses via mount adapter. At this time the model with highest pixel count is 22MP EOS 5D Mark III, but regrettable, EOS 5D Mark III can’t get the greatness from L lenses.

(Following paragraph is green color, but black in Google translation. The mistake originated from here.)
↓
I opposite to increase pixel count to higher, but if there are high performance lenses matched to such pixel count (or pixel pitch), I also have some hope to see the true power of the resolution. There are launching of lenses with good image quality at the edges, so I expect the launching of higher pixel model of EOS.

But in that cases are there something to be missed by increasing resolution power of the lenses? I’ve heard it is difficult to get proper tones when resolution is increased…

Iwamoto: High quality lenses what we target are aimed to get high resolution and high contrast both. But if too focus to high resolution, the lenses will be larger and expensive, so considering such balance, we design to target such resolution performance matched to the era.

So, there is no official mention of a high-resolution camera by Canon.

Thanks again to DicaHub for helping clarify this.

http://www.canonwatch.com/

 

[Loswr]

So, there is no official mention of a high-resolution camera by Canon.

But Canon must respond to the D800/E and a7R. Canon must respond because (1) the 5DIII outsold the D800, and the a7R isn't really competitive in the relative sales numbers, and (2) Nikon responded by trying to boost sales with an incremental update and Sony responded by releasing a model with 1/3 the resolution. So everyone can see why Canon must deliver a high resolution sensor, right?!?

 

[Don Haines]

So, there is no official mention of a high-resolution camera by Canon.

But Canon must respond to the D800/E and a7R. Canon must respond because (1) the 5DIII outsold the D800, and the a7R isn't really competitive in the relative sales numbers, and (2) Nikon responded by trying to boost sales with an incremental update and Sony responded by releasing a model with 1/3 the resolution. So everyone can see why Canon must deliver a high resolution sensor, right?!?

I wonder if it would be possible to make the 1DX2 as a 60 megapixel camera and run it in "crop mode" where it uses the central part of the sensor for reach, "full mode" for those monstrously large files, and "bin mode" where a 2X2 bin would give you a 15Mpixel camera with good low light performance, or even a 3X3 bin mode for a 7Mpixel camera with really good low light performance. ?