If Canon releases a high MP DSLR, would our lenses fall victim to obsolescence?

[Skulker]

I have two monitors on my desktop. One where I am reading posts from CR, the other, an Eizo, where I edit my images. Right now I have a portrait of a 76 year old great man, shot with the 1DX and Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 and I am looking at the image at 200%. This is one that I did not have to crop a single percent. And I was wondering what it would look like with a 50MP/14 stop DR sensor. I know that I argue for a new Canon body, with more resolution and more DR. But looking at this portrait, I wonder if I´m just caught up in a constant chase for more and more and more ...

What I do know is that I am nowhere near pushing the limits of these lenses.

I'm not looking for more MP or more DR, only because I don't think I have a use for the extra pixels, and I don't find problems with exposure that DR will help with.


So I'm generally on the other side of the fence from you. BUT I have no objection to the idea of more MP's or more DR. Its just I don't have use for them so I'm not fussed.


I do worry that some, even many, people get carried away with the "need" for more MP or the "lack" of DR.


Its great to see your post and a considered opinion.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I remember hearing earlier this year that the EF 16-35 f/4L IS was intended to be sharp enough for a possible (rumored) upcoming high MP camera.

If true, I expect to see some impressive performance from next month's this month's (rumored)100-400 ii.

What I'm wondering though is whether the development and eventual release of a higher megapixel DSLR/MILC (who knows which it will be for sure) - means that many Canon folks would need to purchase updated versions of almost all of their lenses to take full advantage of such a technology?

I wonder how Nikon dealt with an MP jump.

Fortunately all I have is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS ii. Sharpness is what it does best. I just hope that it's sharp enough. I'm getting rid of my EF 24-105 f/4L for numerous reasons. None of which are that it's a bad lens - it's a great lens - it's just become apparent to me that for my needs, f/2.8 or better is necessary, with exceptions made for lenses that aren't made with that large of an aperture and don't have any similar lenses that do.

For the edges the newer ones would help, but that is already true today and going as far back as the 1Ds3 at least. For the center, it's no different than what APS_C users deal with, they are shooting like 50MP equivalent.
A lot of people have upgraded to the likes of 24 T&S II, 24 1.4 II, 24 2.8 IS, 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, 70-300L, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 2.8 IS II already since stuff like the 24 T&S I, 24-105, 24 1.4 I, 17-40, 24-70 2.8, 70-300 non-L, 70-200 2.8 older models, 24 2.8 non-IS, etc already suffer since 1Ds3 days.

Anyway, you won't do worse, of course even with the old lenses, you'll still do better even with them, you just might not do as much better as you could.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But I'm constantly amazed at just how good the images are than I get via my a7r, not just via the two excellent Sony/Zeiss primes but also current L primes, such "lesser" lenses as the EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 85mm 1.8, and even a whole raft of cheap old manual lenses (with one exception which, for all I know, may simply be because it's a bad copy).

The 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are not lesser lenses. Stopped down just a little they are actually very sharp, edge to edge even on FF. The 50 1.4 is better at the edges than even the 24-70 2.8 II. The 85 1.8 is up there for sharpness with any L zoom at that range. Those are actually quite sharp lenses other than near wide open.

 

[NancyP]

We might be using tripods more. I have already adapted to the utility of tripods for landscapes, have equipped all my camera bodies with custom L brackets which are mounted 100% of the time. So, I will adapt. Aberrations are likely to be more obvious. I may decide to go for the new Sigma Art 50 rather than make do with film era manual 50mm lens.