New high resolution camera

[ajfotofilmagem]

The logic of the market says that one day there will be a full frame Canon camera over 36 megapixels. However, so far there is no information on when this will happen, and what features this camera will have. It can be noticed that the Canon lens releases lately are prepared to extract the clarity of many megapixel cameras. Perhaps the scarcity of high quality lenses caused Nikon D800E was not a sales success, as some people imagined.

 

[AmbientLight]

If we get lucky, there may be a product announcement coming somewhere in 2014 and an actual camera becoming available perhaps no earlier than 2015, but I advise to be quite cautious instead of getting your hopes up on this.

If the rumor regarding lots of new L lenses becoming available turns out to be actually true, Canon is likely to delay release of a new high MP professional camera until those new lenses have become available. Photographers will then be able to stock up on new high quality lenses before purchasing their new high MP cameras. This likely dependency may possibly delay availability of that high MP camera to 2016 .

 

[RGF]

Hope that the high res body is not a 1D style and price. That could place the camera close to $10K, rather see a 5D style and price closer to $4,000

 

[scottkinfw]

Another way to look at this is the old chicken and egg debate. On the one hand, we have the Nikonians bragging about their high rez camera fro sometime, and some canonistas complaining that we can't get one to beat the resolution, along with higher DR and great high and low ISO. If Canon were sensitive to that line of reason, they may release sooner than later the high res camera, with lenses to follow, or concurrently.

Personally, I would be interested in a modest increase in MP (say 36 so so, maybe less), in a 5 D body, 1DX focus and light handling, 7 fps, dual CF cards, ~4K. And a winning lottery ticket.

Hope that the high res body is not a 1D style and price. That could place the camera close to $10K, rather see a 5D style and price closer to $4,000

 

[privatebydesign]

That would all be well and good if you achieved close to those 36MP in actual use. But Nikon, and forget Sony, don't come close.

DxO ratings have been widely discredited, but their measurements are considered by all to be accurately made and honest, look how poorly the D800/E actually does, http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores so how does a 36mp system resolve a mere 2-4mp more than a 21-24mp system?

In most situations, even with the best glass made for 135 format cameras, you are not going to achieve anything like the resolution your sensor numbers suggest once you go over the mid 20's, factor in AF, less than optical bench test level support (forget hand holding), perfect illumination and contrast and a billion other variables encountered in actual image taking and the "benefits" of these oft touted and demanded sensors become useless.

I believe Canon know this, this is the reason they have so far "settled" on 18mp for APS cameras and mid 20's for ff cameras, they are smart and know the next level advances are not in the mp numbers, the advantages as demonstrated by the D800/E are just not there yet.

 

[pharp]

Canon already has plenty of cameras with higher resolution than a 36mp FF camera. The pixel density of a 7D (~55K pixels/mm2) is significantly higher than a 36mp FF camera (~42K pixels/mm2). Existing lenses seem to handle that fine.

You'd need a 47+ mp FF camera to do as well.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon already has plenty of cameras with higher resolution than a 36mp FF camera. The pixel density of a 7D (~55K pixels/mm2) is significantly higher than a 36mp FF camera (~42K pixels/mm2). Existing lenses seem to handle that fine.

You'd need a 47+ mp FF camera to do as well.

And have you compared the realised resolution difference from a 7D and a cropped 21mp ff image? I have and realised there was no achievable resolution advantage in actual shooting with the 7D. Besides, crop cameras use the center circle of the lens and that virtually always gives higher resolution figures.

Get over the numbers, look at pictures, it is astonishing the differences in what you are supposed to see and what you actually do see.

 

[jrista]

That would all be well and good if you achieved close to those 36MP in actual use. But Nikon, and forget Sony, don't come close.

DxO ratings have been widely discredited, but their measurements are considered by all to be accurately made and honest, look how poorly the D800/E actually does, http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores so how does a 36mp system resolve a mere 2-4mp more than a 21-24mp system?

In most situations, even with the best glass made for 135 format cameras, you are not going to achieve anything like the resolution your sensor numbers suggest once you go over the mid 20's, factor in AF, less than optical bench test level support (forget hand holding), perfect illumination and contrast and a billion other variables encountered in actual image taking and the "benefits" of these oft touted and demanded sensors become useless.

I believe Canon know this, this is the reason they have so far "settled" on 18mp for APS cameras and mid 20's for ff cameras, they are smart and know the next level advances are not in the mp numbers, the advantages as demonstrated by the D800/E are just not there yet.

I don't agree with this. Resolution is a product of all system components, not just the lens or just the sensor. The D800 clearly produces images with better resolved finer detail. No, you certainly don't get a linear increase in resolution as sensor pixel count scales up, but the difference between a 24mp FF sensor and a 36mp FF sensor is certainly quite clear to the naked eye.

This is because it is a misnomer to assume either that a lens "outresolves" a sensor or a sensor "outresolves" a lens when discussing the final result. The simplest approximation of final output resolution is to take the root mean square of the components involved. Assuming a "perfect" (i.e. diffraction limited) f/4 lens that resolves 170lp/mm (~2.9µm blur circle), and a sensor that resolves 120lp/mm (~4.1µm blur circle), then the final output resolution is going to be ~100lp/mm.

outputRes = (1 / sqrt(lensBlurCircle^2 + sensorBlurCircle^2)) / 2

A sensor with lesser resolution, say 100lp/mm (~36mp FF) and a sensor with higher resolution, say 150lp/mm (hypothetical 78mp FF), using the same exact lens the final output resolutions are going to be ~86lp/mm and 113lp/mm, respectively. Both are meaningful differences...a 100lp/mm sensor resolves about 16% less than a 120lp/mm sensor, and a 150lp/mm sensor resolves about 13% more.

We could extrapolate further. Assume someone develops a FF DSLR sensor with 1µm pixels (similar to the pixel sizes in compact cameras and phone cameras). Such a sensor would have 864mp. Completely useless, right? Well, using the same formula above for the same lens again, the output image would have about 162lp/mm...and increase of over 43% over our previous hypothetical 78mp sensor.

You can always gain more with a higher resolution sensor. There is eventually a point of diminishing returns...our hypothetical 864mp FF sensor is definitely getting there as well...as no matter how high you push the megapixel count, you can never resolve more than the lenses 170lp/mm. When diminishing returns kick in, you need a more perfect lens, and eventually a more perfect lens at a wider aperture (to resolve more than 170lp/mm). Given the difficulties of achieving both perfection and a wider aperture, I suspect once FF sensors hit the 1.5-2µm pixel pitch mark, there won't be any reason to go any farther unless some kind of hardware pixel binning is employed. That said, I do most certainly think we can do much better than 36mp for FF sensors, and better than 24mp for APS-C sensors.

Now, all the theory aside...if you have a high res FF sensor paired with a lens that just can't keep up (i.e. it has excellent center performance but horrid edge performance, like say the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II), then you have to ask yourself: Why are you still using the 16-35 L II? A 78mp or even 864mp sensor will still resolve more in the center than a 23mp or even 36mp sensor, but the corners are always going to be crap regardless. Buy a Nikon 14-24 and the necessary Canon adapter, and slap that on your ultra high res FF camera to extract the most you can from the sensor, and push that final output resolution as high as possible.

 

[Bruce Photography]

That would all be well and good if you achieved close to those 36MP in actual use. But Nikon, and forget Sony, don't come close.
..
..
I believe Canon know this, this is the reason they have so far "settled" on 18mp for APS cameras and mid 20's for ff cameras, they are smart and know the next level advances are not in the mp numbers, the advantages as demonstrated by the D800/E are just not there yet.

I certainly respect your views on photography in general but you seem to not own a D800E or perhaps you don't have the 14-24. I do and I have shot comparision shots using the Canon 5DIII and the Canon 16-35mm lens where the Canon was mounted on a bar right along side of the Nikon D800E (I've also duplicated this test using the D800). This was a landscape shot across a small bay where I was able to resolve individual small tree and branches with the D800E that was clean and sharp. The Canon showed them but soft for my taste. These were printed 3' by 2' on a Canon 6400 IPF printer for side by side comparisons.

Right now I am not shooting Canon because the D800 has more DR by far and better resolution than I can get shooting Canon. I will again begin buying more Canon equipment when Canon releases AND delivers a high MP camera. I miss many of my Canon lenses but I'm finding Nikor lenses have some advantages in certain cases. I look forward to using my Canon Tilt Shift Lenses but not until Canon passes my test against the D800E in this real world shooting lab. I realize my landscape shooting is not what everyone does nor do they make their own large prints.

Maybe Canon will release and deliver a high MP camera. I will buy it as long as Nikon does not make any further advances in technology. I assume that Nikon will not go back and make smaller MP cameras but if they do, I should always have the D800 and D800e and I really don't seem to need more (at the current time). Time will tell.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't agree with this.

I know you don't, and you argue my examples when I show them, that is fine, you make your cjhoices for yourself and I'll make mine for me.

But I never questioned system resolution as a concept, I know full well the interplay of the elements within that system. We just come to different conclusions when looking at the images they produce, I don't care a fig for technical theories, just understanding why I see what I see.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sorry for my poor english but are there any rumors about a high megapixel camera from Canon?
Here in Austria the photo retailers has no news to tell
Otto

Nothing Serious. Of course, anyone can make up a rumor, but there are no rumors that are confirmed or of high probability.

Photo retailers are the last place to ask about rumors, if they actually knew something, they could not tell you about it because Canon requires anyone who is given information to sign a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement), and the penalties for breaking it are severe..

 

[pulseimages]

Hope that the high res body is not a 1D style and price. That could place the camera close to $10K, rather see a 5D style and price closer to $4,000

Why must a high megapixel DSLR from Canon cost more than a Nikon equivalent?

 

[privatebydesign]

That would all be well and good if you achieved close to those 36MP in actual use. But Nikon, and forget Sony, don't come close.
..
..
I believe Canon know this, this is the reason they have so far "settled" on 18mp for APS cameras and mid 20's for ff cameras, they are smart and know the next level advances are not in the mp numbers, the advantages as demonstrated by the D800/E are just not there yet.

I certainly respect your views on photography in general but you seem to not own a D800E or perhaps you don't have the 14-24.

Thank you Bruce that is very generous of you,

You are of course right, I don't own a D800 or D800E and haven't shot anything meaningful with one or with top quality glass. But your comparison is, with respect, flawed, the Nikon 14-24 is a killer lens and the Canon 16-35 is a dog, a nice dog, but a dog, I would be very interested in a comparison between the 5D MkIII with the TS-E 24 and the D800E with the PC-E 24.

But where there are bench measured comparisons between directly comparative top end lenses the 36mp sensors achieve much less than their numbers would have you think. Few would argue the Nikon 200 f2 is one of the sharpest best resolving lenses made, why does it only achieve the equivalent of 28mp? A drop of 8mp, around 22%, the 300 f2.8 tests at 24mp, a 33% drop. More normal lenses achieve even less, yet the Canon lens and sensor conbos lose far less mp numbers, the 300 f2.8 IS MkII losing a mere 3mp, or 12%.

Of course the reason, if you believe the figures, is the balance of system resolution, that balance of each component doing its bit, and those figures are on a bench, factor in AF and less than perfect camera support and you get even less, sure for some committed big tripod top glass methodical shooters they can realise some of the numbers, but that isn't how most people shoot.

 

[scottkinfw]

I would be interested if you could post them. I know they won't be high resolution, but it would be interesting to see just the same.

sek

That would all be well and good if you achieved close to those 36MP in actual use. But Nikon, and forget Sony, don't come close.
..
..
I believe Canon know this, this is the reason they have so far "settled" on 18mp for APS cameras and mid 20's for ff cameras, they are smart and know the next level advances are not in the mp numbers, the advantages as demonstrated by the D800/E are just not there yet.

I certainly respect your views on photography in general but you seem to not own a D800E or perhaps you don't have the 14-24. I do and I have shot comparision shots using the Canon 5DIII and the Canon 16-35mm lens where the Canon was mounted on a bar right along side of the Nikon D800E (I've also duplicated this test using the D800). This was a landscape shot across a small bay where I was able to resolve individual small tree and branches with the D800E that was clean and sharp. The Canon showed them but soft for my taste. These were printed 3' by 2' on a Canon 6400 IPF printer for side by side comparisons.

Right now I am not shooting Canon because the D800 has more DR by far and better resolution than I can get shooting Canon. I will again begin buying more Canon equipment when Canon releases AND delivers a high MP camera. I miss many of my Canon lenses but I'm finding Nikor lenses have some advantages in certain cases. I look forward to using my Canon Tilt Shift Lenses but not until Canon passes my test against the D800E in this real world shooting lab. I realize my landscape shooting is not what everyone does nor do they make their own large prints.

Maybe Canon will release and deliver a high MP camera. I will buy it as long as Nikon does not make any further advances in technology. I assume that Nikon will not go back and make smaller MP cameras but if they do, I should always have the D800 and D800e and I really don't seem to need more (at the current time). Time will tell.

 

[jrista]

I don't agree with this.

I know you don't, and you argue my examples when I show them, that is fine, you make your cjhoices for yourself and I'll make mine for me.

But I never questioned system resolution as a concept, I know full well the interplay of the elements within that system. We just come to different conclusions when looking at the images they produce, I don't care a fig for technical theories, just understanding why I see what I see.

Well, the example I've usually seen from you is the 7D vs. the 1D III, and I think your argument usually boils down to the fact that the AA filter on the 7D is fairly strong, thus diminishing the value of the 7D. I won't deny that a strong AA filter throws another factor into the mix, and it is a factor to take into account when actually measuring different devices. Even so, the use, or not, of an AA filter isn't a reason to stop pushing megapixel count/spatial resolution. My theory always assumes "all else being equal"...in which case the AA filter would be tuned to provide similar results around nyquist for any given sensor resolution.

I don't deny that it is important to use empirical data as well, however empirical data can and is often interpreted differently. It's a subjective measure, and how the data is interpreted, according to what criteria, and by whom, are all important factors in normalizing empirical results. Personally, I see a meaningful, if not "ideal", improvement in resolution with the 7D over the 1D III in your past visual examples, you do not... That is an important discrepancy, and just because the data is yours does not inherently invalidate the observations of others. I have very good 20/10 vision with my corrective lenses, and perhaps that plays a role. If the 7D had a weaker AA filter, the difference would likely be even more pronounced. One could also perform a test with the AA filter removed from both cameras (thus eliminating the additional factor), and I think the difference in spatial resolution would be quite clear in that case.

Your argument is usually perceptual (subjective), where as I try to make mine objective. Perceptual/subjective arguments, while not invalid, are hard to use as a viable basis for comparison because of the very fact that they can be interpreted differently in the absence of normalization. You see the 7D as having no visual benefit over the 1D III...I see the 7D as indeed having a visible benefit over the 1D III, if not quite as much as theory would have predicted...all using the exact same source images that you yourself produce. That is a war neither of us will win, and one which doesn't help anyone else understand the fundamental value of having a higher resolution sensor.

A 24mp APS-C sensor would arguably demonstrate an even greater lead over the 1D III...I'd be very curious to see you perform a visual comparison of say a D7100 vs. the 1D III, or even the 5D III that was identical to your test of the 7D and 1D III. I'd wager the D7100 clearly outperforms either Canon camera in the realm of final resolving power (spatial resolution).

I'm sorry if my replies frustrate you, but you often seem to be making the (subjectively based) argument that there is no value whatsoever to increasing megapixel count beyond the point where Canon currently is (~20mp APS-C, ~24mp FF). From an objective standpoint, there most definitely is, and I think it is important that people understand that. All else being equal, you don't lose anything by moving to a higher resolution sensor, and in fact you almost always gain something.

Subjectively, images from the D800 (at least at lower ISO/in good light) are superior, often vastly superior, to anything that you can get out of any Canon camera on the market right now. As a Canon fan, I don't really like to give a bone to the competition, but in this case, both subjectively and objectively, a higher resolution sensor most definitely has something to offer...and in a clearly visible, empirical way.

 

[Ivan Muller]

If one looks at the best sellers from Amazon, which are all amateur cameras with Canon's 'old' technology sensors, then it would seem that there is just no need for Canon to spend money on the R&D of bigger and better sensors. The demand is just not there from the mass consumers. They like and love 'old' trusted brands and , so it seems, technology. In the present economic climate with dwindling sales it looks like Canon is letting the competition spend money on new products, whilst reaping in the profits from 'cheaper' old technology sensors and design . . . and not putting the company at risk finacially now (not sure about the long term effect though..)

Before the launch of the new sony A7's I was a bit worried about Canon's slow progress on a megapixel, higher dynamic range, less noisy sensor, but mirror less technology can leapfrog Canon's product developement. I can today buy a A7R and via an adapter use my 24ts. Sure I have not tried it but it is seems feasable and it can be done right now. Any technical issues like slower Af, which is not a factor with MF lenses anyway, is just technology and could//would be improved, and colour casts can be fixed easily in post (LR flatfield correction works like a charm)

So why wait for Canon to bring out a full frame sensor that is ultra competitive image quality wise....?

 

[Aglet]

..but the corners are always going to be crap regardless. Buy a Nikon 14-24 and the necessary Canon adapter, and slap that on your ultra high res FF camera to extract the most you can from the sensor, and push that final output resolution as high as possible.

FWIW - I use the 14-24mm Nikon on a D800 on occasion, it's kind of impressive. but the corners aren't so great for sure, lots of CA and a bit soft.
Really want wide angle high resolution, try the 14mm Samyang prime instead. It's better in the corners at 1/4 the cost.

I'd also like to see DxOmark publish more lens tests using the D800e, the regular d800 is well covered, the e is only published with a few lenses. AA filter on the d800 is weak but still there vs the e model.

Subjectively comparing center resolution from my long gone 5d2 and 70-200L f/2.8 IS 2 with my d800e with 70-200 f/4 VR Nikon does seem to give a small edge to the Nikon combo but the Canon pair was also providing extremely good detail, especially when using DPP to process it. They'd be hard to tell apart on the same shot, printed at 36"

 

[Bruce Photography]

You are of course right, I don't own a D800 or D800E and haven't shot anything meaningful with one or with top quality glass. But your comparison is, with respect, flawed, the Nikon 14-24 is a killer lens and the Canon 16-35 is a dog, a nice dog, but a dog, I would be very interested in a comparison between the 5D MkIII with the TS-E 24 and the D800E with the PC-E 24.

My "Nice Dog" is the Nikon PC-E compared to the stellar Canon 24 tilt shift. I'm waiting for Nikon to up its tilt shift game and improve the optics as well as dual axis control like the Canon. For my test I want to test the best zoom wide angle with the best landscape camera. The D800E was the best but only slightly better than the D800. And you are right that the percentage of improvement of a 36mp camera over a 22mp camera in terms of detail are no where near the numerical values. I don't think I can quantify better. But then I am picky. Perhaps I should compare the prime 24 against one another but I think I like the 14-24 at 24 better than the Nikon 24mm. In any case it seems to be splitting hairs which is what I like to do. In the are of dynamic range it seems less like splitting hairs because all the Nikon I'm using seem to be able to fit all the tones of my images into the histogram most of the time whereas my 5D3 seems to always be blowing out once color or another. Maybe it is me but Nikon files seem to be easier to work with from Raw. However I will also say that Canon Raw files look better, at first glance, with no processing. And yes there is a tone difference in the Raw files. Canon tones seem to be much warmer and Nikon has a cooler tone before I get in and do my thing. I find it interesting.

 

[jrista]

..but the corners are always going to be crap regardless. Buy a Nikon 14-24 and the necessary Canon adapter, and slap that on your ultra high res FF camera to extract the most you can from the sensor, and push that final output resolution as high as possible.

FWIW - I use the 14-24mm Nikon on a D800 on occasion, it's kind of impressive. but the corners aren't so great for sure, lots of CA and a bit soft.

You should directly compare the 14-24 corners to canon's 16-35 corners. Sadly (and I own this lens), Canon's corner and edge performance is really atrocious. Corner performance on Nikon's 14-24 is worlds better, and even though it isn't as good as the center of the lens, it is still one of the best zoom lens performers in that range.

Really want wide angle high resolution, try the 14mm Samyang prime instead. It's better in the corners at 1/4 the cost.

Totally agree here. The Samyang (Rokinon) 14mm is my next lens purchase for astrophotography, as it has stellar corner performance with very little coma or CA. And it is a hell of a good price, too ($350 on average).

I'd also like to see DxOmark publish more lens tests using the D800e, the regular d800 is well covered, the e is only published with a few lenses. AA filter on the d800 is weak but still there vs the e model.

Subjectively comparing center resolution from my long gone 5d2 and 70-200L f/2.8 IS 2 with my d800e with 70-200 f/4 VR Nikon does seem to give a small edge to the Nikon combo but the Canon pair was also providing extremely good detail, especially when using DPP to process it. They'd be hard to tell apart on the same shot, printed at 36"

I don't really trust DXO's lens ratings...they overweight the wrong factors and rely too heavily on the camera's sensor to evaluate the results. It's really too bad here isn't some kind of generic means of testing lens resolution without ultimately linking, inextricably, the lens AND sensor tested.

Anyway, one thing that DXO lens results do seem to indicate is that Canon class is currently quite superior to Nikon glass. It takes a sensor with considerably higher spatial resolution to overcome the raw lens resolving power of most modern Canon lens designs. DXO's raw measurements do clearly demonstrate the value of increasing sensor resolution, though...it is basically an empirical validation of the theory I laid out before. Even with a poorer performing lens, a higher sensor resolution is going to outperform. Same thing goes in the inverse...a higher resolving lens can help support a lower sensor resolution. Same difference either way...increasing the resolution of any single component in an optical system will increase the final output resolution.

Interesting, that while Nikon and Canon have chosen different paths, the final results are quite similar. I guess that means the one key area where Canon needs to improve is sensor dynamic range/read noise. They are still using a decade (plus) old fundamental sensor and ADC design...and it is clearly inferior to the competition. Would be nice if they spent some time bringing their sensor fabrication tech up to par with their competitors with the next generation of DSLR releases.

 

[Loswr]

Anyway, one thing that DXO lens results do seem to indicate is that Canon class is currently quite superior to Nikon glass. It takes a sensor with considerably higher spatial resolution to overcome the raw lens resolving power of most modern Canon lens designs….

Interesting, that while Nikon and Canon have chosen different paths, the final results are quite similar.

True, for now. But consider - for a Canon shooter to get a substantial increase in resolution would require purchasing a new body (if/when Canon release one with a high MP sensor); for a Nikon shooter to get a substantial increase in resolution would require purchasing many/all new lenses (if/when Nikon release versions with higher resolving power). Given the choice between buying a new body (which I'd likely be doing anyway in a few years) vs. replacing a collection of lenses, I know which I'd prefer…..