Is a brand new 32.5mp APS-C sensor from Canon on the way? [CR1]

[degos]

Kind of funny to think of a 35mm camera as a cheap format.

Oh no, 35mm was always the butt of jokes by the medium-format brigade. And then even within the 35mm community we negative-shooters were considered cheap happy-snappers by the slide-shooters who felt that they were doing Proper Archival Work.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

It's a curious thought that when Mr Lecia invented the 35mm format, he built it as a range finder design. The SLR mirror box / penta prism came later. It seems that the mirror less design is going back to what Mr Lecia originally designed or intended. His format was based on the 35mm film stock, so he could use the cheap film stock in a stills camera. Kind of funny to think of a 35mm camera as a cheap format. With a advent of movie modes in most modern DSLR's....things really have returned to their origins. The Eos R has pretty much become the Digital version of Lecia's original dream.

Small correction.
The original Leica 35mm camera was invented in 1913 by Oskar Barnack. The original idea was to have small sturdy camera for landscape photography when hiking. No cumbersome bellows. The price to pay was the need for enlargement for very small negative.

Serial production commenced only in 1925 at Ernst Leitz Optische Werke in Wetzlar, Germany. All settings were manual of course, including focus set up by just guessing the distance to your object.

The first Leica with a rangefinder (Leica II) appeared only in 1932. Things were moving slowly then.

The real first 35mm format SLR was the Ihagee Kine Exakta, produced in 1936 in Germany. This camera used a waist-level finder with upside down image.

The SLRs with pentaprism appeared on the market in 1948 (Rectaflex) and 1949 (Contax S). Purely mechanical of course.

For those interested:

Leica Camera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

History of the single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mb66energy]

squareroot(32.5/24) = 1.16 - so a 16% improvement in linear resolution. Is that worth a new image size, smaller photosites, the need to open you aperture a little bit more to exploit the resolution gain, record more lens aberrations in you images instead of more detail. I don't know. I see no real "profit" in terms of IQ simply by increasing the number of the pixels by such a small margin, 48 MPix would make more sense to gain twice the area for final prints in terms of "same lateral resolution increase by sqareroot(2)".

Because video is not as good compared to other companies offers it may have to do with a ~ 4655 x 6982 pixel sensor layout - perhaps Canon found some better ratios between photsites and movie image pixels in HD / FullHD / UltraHD ? I don't see any pattern which makes click in my brain (as a 7680 pixel width would do)

Another idea is a hybrid IBIS which compensates for lateral movements via sensor readout but does rotation via actors to reduce the heat development by the IBIS system - but moving the readout frame by 10% means that you leave the image circle for EF-M and EF-S lenses ... but not with EF lenses ...

 

[Joules]

squareroot(32.5/24) = 1.16 - so a 16% improvement in linear resolution. Is that worth a new image size, smaller photosites, the need to open you aperture a little bit more to exploit the resolution gain, record more lens aberrations in you images instead of more detail. I don't know. [...]

Because video is not as good compared to other companies offers it may have to do with a ~ 4655 x 6982 pixel sensor layout

Might allow for some internal 6k video readout with a good margin for digital IS and downscaling to 4k. I doubt we'll see that though, ubless these crop bodies are priced closer to the R than the RP.

If you want to argue that just from a rwlative point of view the increase doesn't natter, you could do so for any recent Canon release. The resolution increase was always very similar, if you just look at the relative numbers:

24 to 32 = 1.33 (80D to 90D?)
18 to 24 = 1.33 (60D to 80D)
22 to 30 = 1,36 (5D III to 5D IV)
20 to 26 = 1,30 (6D to 6D II)

The sensor of the 70D/7D II doesn't match that patteen, neither does the 1DX II. I guess beeing the first dual pixel sensor and prioritzing high fps over resolution will have something to do with it.

Looks to me like Canon thinks a just over 1.3 increase in resolution is enough to benefit the market, seeing as it is the increase they went for with all but their niche cameras. I certainly appreciate the difference between my 600D (T3i) and 80D.

You can also look at higher MP as bringing the point closer, where diffraction handles the job of the low pass filter, making it truly unneccessary.

 

[AlanF]

squareroot(32.5/24) = 1.16 - so a 16% improvement in linear resolution. Is that worth a new image size, smaller photosites, the need to open you aperture a little bit more to exploit the resolution gain, record more lens aberrations in you images instead of more detail. I don't know. I see no real "profit" in terms of IQ simply by increasing the number of the pixels by such a small margin, 48 MPix would make more sense to gain twice the area for final prints in terms of "same lateral resolution increase by sqareroot(2)".

Because video is not as good compared to other companies offers it may have to do with a ~ 4655 x 6982 pixel sensor layout - perhaps Canon found some better ratios between photsites and movie image pixels in HD / FullHD / UltraHD ? I don't see any pattern which makes click in my brain (as a 7680 pixel width would do)

Another idea is a hybrid IBIS which compensates for lateral movements via sensor readout but does rotation via actors to reduce the heat development by the IBIS system - but moving the readout frame by 10% means that you leave the image circle for EF-M and EF-S lenses ... but not with EF lenses ...

If you are reach limited with telephotos, every small increase helps. A 600mm lens with a 1.16x linear resolution is equivalent to a 700mm lens. For me, that is worthwhile and I would welcome it.

To put it in perspective, a 1.4xTC gives only a 20% increase over a 1.16x increase in pixel resolution, and that comes with a degradation of IQ from the glass in the TC, an amplification of aberrations from the lens, an ~30 loss of field of view, a stop loss of aperture so pushing up the iso or slowing down the shutter speed, and slowing down of the AF. My own experience for telephoto work is that increasing the pixel density is a better alternative to using a TC (though I do use both for much of the time!).

 

[Antono Refa]

Please also note that other technical trade offs have changed. With the elimination of OVF, continued improvement of EVFs, falling prices of sensors and higher density of electronics the price difference in manufacturing an APS-C or full frame body becomes rather small. Hence, I think that the APS-C cameras will slowly fade away.

Making a chip with 40% the surface area will always be cheaper, allow faster readout and smaller cheaper lenses (up to a certain focal length). I expect crop cameras to stay around for the same two markets - low end & sports.

 

[analoggrotto]

Assuming there is a single camera user left on planet mfk'in earth after the next wave of Sony derangement syndrome hits this fall with the A7S-3.

 

[caffetin]

i would say "JUST WAIT AND SEE".canon is not from yesterday.and sony is just problematic player at any technic. always.canon,nikon,fuji,leica are real photography producers since ever.and to be honest,how many of us are taking photos with iso above 1600 in real world. Martin Osner.Any problem with 5d iv.

 

[epic.one]

I'm anticipating an EF-M shake-up in 2019. I think Canon is possibly making an M7 with this sensor, which will launch alongside the M5 MkII that comes with a new 24-26MP sensor. Both these cameras will use the E-17 battery used by the current EOS RP, M5, M6, 250D.

Canon M7:
This M7 will be the EF-M flagship, effectively replace the 7D MkII, and add some weather-sealing as well as a top display. Such a camera will also make room for some new M-mount lenses down the line that wildlife shooters will appreciate since they will be a better fit for this larger M body. This will also be the first M camera with a battery grip option. Regardless, I expect the now patented EF-M 15-130mm f/3.5-6.3 to launch with this M7 as a kit option too. Metal mount of course, unlike the current 18-150mm. The M7 will be pricey, costing more than the EOS RP.

Canon M5 MkII
As for the next M5, it will come with a vari-angle screen, new 24-26MP sensor, and all the dials found on the existing M5. It won't be enough for existing M5 users to upgrade but it will seriously target the XT-3 and A6400 at $1300 with new 16mm-50mm kit lens. The elephants in the room will still be the lack of IBIS and cropped 4K but it will a nice upgrade for those looking to step up from an M50.

Photokina 2020:

• 90D with the new 32mp sensor, still a DSLR with headphone jack
• M6 MkII
• M200
• Wide angle EF-M prime
• 50mm EF-M prime without IS but hopefully with f/1.4

 

[dpc]

I notice a number of comments about the sharpness, or lack thereof, of the 7DMll. I’ve been using one for several years along with a 5DMll and Fuji X-T10. Quite frankly, I find the sharpness of the 7D more than sufficient. I don’t find softness an issue at all. This is a matter of personal perception, I guess. I would prefer a camera with an AA filter. On the other hand, I’m ambivalent about the files coming from the Fuji. They sometimes have an unnatural “graphic” quality to them that I find unpleasant. Each to his/her own.

 

[Danglin52]

i would say "JUST WAIT AND SEE".canon is not from yesterday.and sony is just problematic player at any technic. always.canon,nikon,fuji,leica are real photography producers since ever.and to be honest,how many of us are taking photos with iso above 1600 in real world. Martin Osner.Any problem with 5d iv.

I think the numbers shooting ISO 1600 or more might surprise you. Pretty much anyone shooting sports or wildlife will be pushing in the ISO 1600 range or greater.

 

[Maximilian]

32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.

When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?

 

[AlanF]

32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.

When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?

It's one of the benefits of coughing up a large wad of cash for an f/4 telephoto. Even with an f/5.6 lens, like the 100-400mm II, there will be a benefit as the loss of resolution on going through the MTA is not a sharp cut off.

In one of my more geekish moments, I plotted the MTFs measured by ePhotozine and Opticallimits of the best lenses on the 5DSR vs f-number. On going from the DLA of 6.6 to f/8, there is only a loss of 3.5% in MTF50.

 

[BillB]

32.5 MP on APS-C? I am not sure, if this is too much.

When you realize that 24 MP already delivers a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) of f/6.0, according to TDP., as mentioned in the EOS 80D test.
What's the use in more resolution when you lose it again at an apeerture somewhere between f/5.0 or f/6.0?

I am sure there are a lot of people out there happily shooting their 24 mp aps-c cameras stopped down to f8.0 and beyond, not noticing the effect of diffraction limitations.

 

[Pape]

Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 STM IS seems actually doing its best on f8 ,depends from lens quality too

 

[crashpc]

Diffraction? Don´t give me that BS. Look at what sensors are mounted in mobile phones. Obviously, these are diffraction limited, but that means that 32Mpx APS-C sensor is nowhere near being diffraction limited. I compared my EOS M and EOS M6, and the difference was significant (small resolution difference considered). Right now, I sold my M, M6, and use my mums M100 I gave her. Any other camera needs to have more resolution in order to motivate me to buy it...

 

[TAF]

Making a chip with 40% the surface area will always be cheaper, allow faster readout and smaller cheaper lenses (up to a certain focal length). I expect crop cameras to stay around for the same two markets - low end & sports.

Don't forget the "industrial" type uses, such as photo traffic enforcement (speed and red light cameras). They are typically APS-C units these days.

 

[Whopper]

Small correction.
The original Leica 35mm camera was invented in 1913 by Oskar Barnack. The original idea was to have small sturdy camera for landscape photography when hiking.
...

-- Greetings from Germany.

 

[slclick]

Oh no, 35mm was always the butt of jokes by the medium-format brigade. And then even within the 35mm community we negative-shooters were considered cheap happy-snappers by the slide-shooters who felt that they were doing Proper Archival Work.

Oh man, now you have me reminiscing for that color and contrast. Slide is such a treat yet a tough craft. Small amount of latitude but when you get it right it's rich and gorgeous. The queen of film.

 

[BroncosFan]

Hopefully the MP count won’t be this high. It’s difficult enough to get a sharp image hand holding a large wildlife lens as it is. The higher resolution will only make this task more difficult. Not to mention noise will be equal to if not worse than current sensors. 26 and other image improvements is more than enough.