POLL: How many mp do you want anyway?

[Marsu42]

Is Canon being driven into releasing a high-mp camera by Sonikon trolls, or is there an actual demand for more resolution even beyond what the competition delivers?

Vote here how much metapixies you require for your *general* shooting style - either for wall-sized prints, selling stock, zoooooooming in macro, cropping for reach, changing aspect ratio or just for showing off!

Note that the poll is not meant as "get it for free", but as in "pay more for money for it" and "trade-off resolution vs. noise" - so please consider for a moment or we we'd just get a "more is better" result.

 

[Eldar]

I voted 50MP. I cannot see any need for more than that.

I believe that may be the point where resolution will move over to the no-longer-an-issue basket. We will continue to bash the suppliers over the other IQ elements. Noise, colour, high ISO, DR ... and not to forget all the functional gadgetry we cannot live without :.

 

[K-amps]

I am ok with either 36 or 50mp as long as it meets my needs for:

Marcro
Portrait
Landscape
Architecture.

I have zero need for:

Video
DPAF
AA filter
Machine Gun Shutter

I would love to have:

14-16bit depth rate
3-5 fps is more than enough
ISO invariant files
crop factors
-4ev AF capabilty
Ability to capture reds without blowing them out of orbit

 

[Click]

I voted 36 MP, it's more than enough for my needs

 

[dak723]

Absolutely no desire for more than 18 or 22 MP. I can print landscapes up to 30" now with my 6D. More MP - as seen in many reviews on the internet - is not necessarily better. And given the choice, I'd prefer larger pixels compared to more. Not to mention file sizes that will be too cumbersome for my current computer. But if a few people clamor loud enough, I guess they get what they want.

 

[Angmar]

26-28. 8)

 

[JohanCruyff]

given the choice, I'd prefer larger pixels compared to more.

+1

 

[Actionpix]

I believe around 50MP will be fine. More MP will make the image smoother but not sharper because of diffraction limitations. 50MP on FF is the equivalent of 20MP on crop. As long nobody complains about 20MP being to much on crop nobody should complain about 50MP on FF. Camera's will get faster and memory will get cheaper. Not skilled photographers should not zoom in to much though. Skilled photographers on the other hand will finally be able to use skills and lenses to the maximum. I also most of the time would like to be able to use lower ISO instead of higher. I even use ND filters just because of that. The new camera would do fine for me. Only would liked to have seen it 5 years ago.

 

[DominoDude]

Hard to vote on this one (and I haven't yet): I don't mind 50 MP on a FF sensor, but I wouldn't like to see all those pixels crammed into a APS-C. Good, clean, and well-behaved pixels are more important than a huge number of pixels. For way too many years there's been a focus on the capacity to capture photos at high ISOs (mostly marketing gibberish), but most of that is about post-sensor amplification of signal (and noise), I would love to see focus shifting over to making the sensor deliver a cleaner image with sufficient dynamic range and a tonality that seeks to get closer to what we can get from a medium format sensor. After reaching (or, at least, getting closer to that goal) we can go back to increasing the ISO and the number of MP we cram out of the sensor.

 

[wsmith96]

I'm happy with the 12.8 of my 5D for my photography needs. I'd stick with somewhere in the 12-18 range for either crop or FF.

 

[Tinky]

I voted 36.

If there had been an option for 8 I would have voted for that.

I want really good UHD video and would prefer 8MP very large photosites with high base ISO, if the market wouldn't sustain such a beast then something that may allow a 16:9 aspect crop and still maintain 32MP or thereabouts for nice down conversion to UHD.

Oh yeah, and can it be APS-C please.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I wonder: ???
If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X

 

[Marsu42]

If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X

I imagine the d800/d810 *are* a big success, so much that people wishing for more resolution and dynamic range have dumped Canon for good and thus don't show up over here anymore. Those who could wait for 3+ years for more resolution are either die-hard Canon fanbois or don't really "need" it.

 

[lol]

I wonder: ???
If many here want 36 megapixel, why D800, D810, A7r are not big sales successes? : :-X

I'd argue the D800 series is a success, but no use if you have a ton of Canon lenses. How many are willing to either convert or go multi-system with Nikon? You need deep pockets to do that. The Sony suffers from the "not enough lenses" problem with any new mount. MP count isn't the only problem people have.


Personally, before I give an answer to "how many MP", I have to say my answer will rather require a different mindset than is current. I'd say, for an APS-C sensor, I'd like a minimum of 150MP. For the "why" I'd argue not every pixel matters. To me, the bayer pattern sensors have always been a cheat by the manufacturers, but as almost everyone does it, it cancels out. In essence we're not sampling RGB at every single point, and the software has to make it up, sometimes better, sometimes worse. By having a ton of pixels, particularly more than you ever need for output, you get more colour resolution. What about noise you say? Well, noise isn't noise. It will have characteristics. By downsampling to your actual output size, you keep the increased colour resolution and reduce the higher spatial frequency noise. 150MP is roughly what is easily attainable by scaling up compact camera sensors from a few years ago. By today's technology it could be much higher.

Obviously the way we handle this data may need a different strategy also.

The Foveon type sensor doesn't have that problem, but comes with a load of different problems.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

When I say "sales success", I mean sell many units, compared to its competitors. But what are the competitors of EXMOR 36 megapixel? None so far.

When Canon finally offers its 50 megapixel camera, let's find out if EXMOR remains the king in this niche market. I understand that some people really need 50 megapixel, but I think it is not most photographers.

 

[Dylan777]

I voted for 20ish MP. It's more than enough for my needs. However, the world is not perfect. Canon goal is to make $, having higher MP bodies can generate more $. I'll look forward to see their high-ISO bodies.

 

[zim]

Is Canon being driven into releasing a high-mp camera by Sonikon trolls, or is there an actual demand for more resolution even beyond what the competition delivers?

personally I really have no need for any more that 24 but I'd like to think that the drivers for Canon are a little more than intertwat trolls!
I'm sure that they are talking (and listening) to pros and the new 5Ds/r will be superb. For me the most exciting thing about the announcement is where this positions the 5DIV

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I voted 18. Why? Because I have an 18mp FF sensor and any more MP would be detrimental to my images. If and when Canon (or anybody else) can make a camera that will give me clean images at 8000 ISO and a decent buffer (my camera currently takes 50+ RAW files before slowing) as well as good build quality and FPS at 30/40/50 Mp then they will be interesting. However if this (future) technology was applied to an 18/20 Mp sensor then that would probably still have advantages for me.

 

[Joe M]

This is an interesting question that I've changed my mind over as the years went on. What I used to want eventually became merely adequate over time and cameras with more pixels became welcome. I have to wonder if in the future, I'll be glad I got 30 or 40 million of them and will look back on my 23 as ok-ish. However, at this moment in time, I am content with what I have in the 5D3. For me and what I do, it's enough but not too much. The high density sensors do not intimidate me at all. I see nothing wrong with Canon providing them to the customers that want and can make use of them. As long as Canon keeps making a camera that reasonably fulfills my needs (mid twenties for now), I'm all good with that and it appears they will.

 

[Marsu42]

I'll be glad I got 30 or 40 million of them and will look back on my 23 as ok-ish.

I guess the real test is the real world usage, and not the spec sheet. Once you get actual benefits, advanced tech grows on you ... for example I'd love to have a 50mp ff for macro as it means loose framing, more cropping power and the ability to change the aspect ratio w/o loosing too much resolution.