Is there a hole in MP range of FF cameras?

[RGF]

Is there a hole in the MP range of canon bodies between the 5DS (R) and the 5D M3 (or the 5D M4) at 24-28 MP?

Does Canon need a camera in the low to mid 30 MP range?

Here is the way I would like to see the lineup FF bodies.

5DS 50 MP
5DM4 32-36 MP
6DM2 24-28MP
1DXM2 20MP

Thoughts anyone?

 

[IglooEater]

I like it!
I might have put it like this though:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 26
5D C. - 22
1DX II - 20

Either that or I'd move the 6D II way upmarket in terms of functionality, and drop the hypothetical 5DC to 12 mp something like this:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 24
1DX II - 20
5DC - 12

Reason being that I could see people wanting advanced features, but not wanting the larger 36mp files, and unable to afford a 1D.
Just my own silly theories

 

[RGF]

I like it!
I might have put it like this though:
5Ds II - 50
5D IV - 38
6D II - 26
5D C. - 22
1DX II - 20

Either that or I'd move the 6D II way upmarket in terms of functionality, and drop the hypothetical 5DC to 12 mp something like this:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 24
1DX II - 20
5DC - 12

Reason being that I could see people wanting advanced features, but not wanting the larger 36mp files, an unable to afford a 1D.
Just my own silly theories

I like the idea of a low rez, high iso 5DC camera

 

[davidj]

I like it!
I might have put it like this though:
5Ds II - 50
5D IV - 38
6D II - 26
5D C. - 22
1DX II - 20

Either that or I'd move the 6D II way upmarket in terms of functionality, and drop the hypothetical 5DC to 12 mp something like this:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 24
1DX II - 20
5DC - 12

Reason being that I could see people wanting advanced features, but not wanting the larger 36mp files, an unable to afford a 1D.
Just my own silly theories

A camera with a 45 MP sensor could do full frame 8K or 4K with 2x2 pixel binning (for DCI 4K, or 39 MP for UHD). That would work as a "best for cinema" camera and would double as a quite high resolution camera. You'd probably want to bump the 5Ds II to 70–100 MP to give it a meaningfully higher resolution.

I'm still on team 24 for the 5D IV (or, at least, no more than 28).

 

[slclick]

I like it!
I might have put it like this though:
5Ds II - 50
5D IV - 38
6D II - 26
5D C. - 22
1DX II - 20

Either that or I'd move the 6D II way upmarket in terms of functionality, and drop the hypothetical 5DC to 12 mp something like this:
5Ds II - 70
5D IV - 38
6D II - 24
1DX II - 20
5DC - 12

Reason being that I could see people wanting advanced features, but not wanting the larger 36mp files, an unable to afford a 1D.
Just my own silly theories

I like the idea of a low rez, high iso 5DC camera

As do I but isn't that already the 6D? It does beat the 5D3 in low light and give it a few more cross points to work with and it would cancel the need for a so called 5DC.

 

[retroreflection]

No.
Light is best thought of in terms of stops.
Resolution is the same. If you need more than 24, you need 50. Or 100.
Actual products are not spread out like this because the technology hasn't existed to enable it for very long. And, there are other constraints in the design of cameras. The 1DXii probably went with 20 megapixels because they couldn't push 21 at those frame rates. Plus a couple other constraints.
No real utility is lost if there is a gap between 24 and 50.

 

[nvsravank]

I don't see it as a hole per se.
What is needed for landscapes and studio is high mp count and that is already covered by the 50mp.
Sports photography which is mainly jpg quick delivery and journalistic which is again jpg and quick delivery is covered in the 20 mp range.

What is needed is something in middle to cater to the class of photographers who are in the middle. I think 24-28 is the sweet spot. Processing times for the 36mp files has not come down significantly in the last couple of years. I think 36 mp in 5d mark IV will hurt sales more than it will be hailed as good by the gear heads in this forum.

 

[pwp]

Here is the way I would like to see the lineup FF bodies.

5DS 50 MP
5DM4 32-36 MP
6DM2 24-28MP
1DXM2 20MP

I'd be more inclined to invert the 6DII and the 5DIV. The 5DIII is a primary workhorse of commercial, editorial and wedding shooters across the planet. 22mp delivers fabulous files. A bump to 32-36mp would just be a darn nuisance. Cards fill faster, smaller buffer, lower iso performance, unwanted pressure on storage and post production processing power just to name a few.

Seasoned 5DIII shooters know there's little need for a mp bump and would likely prefer the 5DIV to remain at 22mp; 24mp at the most. Canon engineers would likely vote to stay with 22mp but the marketing department may win out with a small mp increase. A high percentage of 1DX shooters breathed a sigh of relief when the 1DXII shipped with a perfect 20mp.

I don't regard the current line-up as having a "hole". The 20mp 1DXII and the 22mp 5DIII suit high volume shooters plus many others just perfectly. There are specialist shooters who genuinely need more, so give them a LOT more; the 50mp 5Ds. Then there are shooters who think they need more mp's but really don't.

The current offerings are a mature evolved set, arrived at with experience and user feedback.

-pw

 

[JohanCruyff]

Let's ask Canon to produce a "new basic FF", so that 6D2 competes with Nikon D750, FF 8D competes with Nikon D6x0. If this happens, we can put a new model (alternative to the 5D"C") in this game.

 

[Antono Refa]

And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?

Because that's the resolution of the Nikon D810? Because its midway between 24MP and 50MP? Because you've derived the figure from your real life needs?

 

[IglooEater]

And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?

Because that's the resolution of the Nikon D810? Because its midway between 24MP and 50MP? Because you've derived the figure from your real life needs?

For me it's looking at file size. I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size. 70mb 5ds is to big for me- I'd need to buy a new 4000$ laptop to process them. (I'm an impatient, ADD type) 25 mb files are easy enough, 45mb would be the limit I'd want to handle. If I can handle the files on my current laptop, that pushes off buying a new one for another few years. So 36 megapixels seems like a sweet spot for me.

 

[slclick]

And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?

Because that's the resolution of the Nikon D810? Because its midway between 24MP and 50MP? Because you've derived the figure from your real life needs?

For me it's looking at file size. I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size. 70mb 5ds is to big for me- I'd need to buy a new 4000$ laptop to process them. (I'm an impatient, ADD type) 25 mb files are easy enough, 45mb would be the limit I'd want to handle. If I can handle the files on my current laptop, that pushes off buying a new one for another few years. So 36 megapixels seems like a sweet spot for me.

Your file size appetite might not jive with sensor architecture and signal processing. Iso and noise are bigger concerns to me and taking care of those keeps the MP count much lower. 18-24

 

[3kramd5]

I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.

There is no such thing.

 

[rs]

I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.

There is no such thing.

Isn't that what JPEG, or its near cousin, Sony's lossy raw format is all about?

 

[j-nord]

If they do put a 24ish mpix sensor in the 5DIV then I could see the 6DII getting a slight m-pix bump over it. With the 5DIII/6D, the 6D got a marginally improved sensor with nerfed AF and FPS. We will probably see more of the same this time around but the sensor could also increase in m-pix.

I strongly disagree that m-pix should be thought of in stops, you don't need to double the m-pix to see a significant improvement in detail and 'cropability'. If you don't have the time or ability to perfectly compose or frame a shot, a few more m-pix can go a long way. It doesn't take much for leveling adjustments, cropping out edges, vignetting, soft corners, etc

 

[davidj]

I strongly disagree that m-pix should be thought of in stops, you don't need to double the m-pix to see a significant improvement in detail and 'cropability'. If you don't have the time or ability to perfectly compose or frame a shot, a few more m-pix can go a long way. It doesn't take much for leveling adjustments, cropping out edges, vignetting, soft corners, etc

It's not stops exactly, but there is something to be said about the non-linearity of MP increases. You need four times as many pixels to be able to do a 50% crop at the same resolution, or 20% more pixels to do a 90% crop. A full frame camera that can crop pixel to pixel to the frame of a 24 MP 80D will be 61 MP.

 

[3kramd5]

I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.

There is no such thing.

Isn't that what JPEG, or its near cousin, Sony's lossy raw format is all about?

JPEG and other lossy formats trading file size for fidelity, not resolution.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm 99% uncertain that the 5D-Next will have more than 24MP, i.e. 25.56MP (aka 26MP)

 

[IglooEater]

I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size.

There is no such thing.

I assumed that to be self evident, which is why I went for a "happy" medium.

 

[IglooEater]

And how do you get to, say, 32MP-36MP?

Because that's the resolution of the Nikon D810? Because its midway between 24MP and 50MP? Because you've derived the figure from your real life needs?

For me it's looking at file size. I want the most resolution possible, and the smallest file size. 70mb 5ds is to big for me- I'd need to buy a new 4000$ laptop to process them. (I'm an impatient, ADD type) 25 mb files are easy enough, 45mb would be the limit I'd want to handle. If I can handle the files on my current laptop, that pushes off buying a new one for another few years. So 36 megapixels seems like a sweet spot for me.

Your file size appetite might not jive with sensor architecture and signal processing. Iso and noise are bigger concerns to me and taking care of those keeps the MP count much lower. 18-24

Of course, we all have different concernes - which was kind of the OP's point.