Um... is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?

[TexPhoto]

If they do not they will receive huge amounts of criticism.
If they do they will receive huge amounts of criticism.

I will work on shooting and selling photos.

 

[takoman46]

more MP are better

See what I did there

Seriously, more MP *are* better. But in a different way that less MP are better. It depends on what you want to do with them. Nikon fanboys previously trained to believe 12MP is all they ever need have been dragged kicking and screaming into understanding where higher MP counts might be more useful. Could use some of that around here too.

As for the processing cost, it's hardly end of the world territory. Taking the D800 as representing the affordable MP limit for now, consider that 36MP is twice 18MP that's used in most Canon crop bodies. Processing time is pretty much linear, so you take twice the processing time. To me, the computer's processing time is still much less than the time you spend deciding what adjustments to make, so in practice it isn't going to affect the workflow speed significantly.

How long are you used to waiting for your machine to process? I frankly get really irritated when I have to wait for the processor to catch up to my edits. Also, as a system builder, I assure you that a file twice the size of another file will not necessarily take twice as long to process. Interesting theory but it's not relative to allocation of system resources. You have to take into account the processor cache, graphics power, temp memory (RAM), bus speed of mother board, and actual negotiated link speed to your hard drive. So a 10mb file will not take twice as long to process as a 5mb file. It could be less or it could be more, depending on how much data your system can handle and task at a given moment. My point is that the power of most consumer level systems lack the necessary power, memory cache, and actual link speed to compute, render, and write fast enough to keep up with even the most basic of workflows.

 

[D_Rochat]

They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights.

You're basically telling me I'm an idiot because I feel I have a use for 36MP. I don't appreciate that. Choose your words more carefully.

What you really mean is YOU don't think one needs so many MP. Now that's another matter entirely. That's just YOUR little opinion.

Whoa there! Gear down big rig! I think someone needs a nap. I think he's saying that in general, consumers have been led to believe that more MP are better no matter what and that's what they should look for. The issue between more vs. less isn't so black and white. It wasn't a personal attack, mmk.

 

[barton springs]

I was shooting the XS, then I switched to the 5d2, and I like it, but I can tell right away that it ain't coming even close to medium format resolution, especially after cropping.

So, do you think canon might release something FF in the 30 mpix range in the next year or two? ???

problem solved:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=16734&N=4259332394&srtclk=sort

 

[D_Rochat]

My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.

Still not solved.

 

[skoobey]

I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.

So who still wants 30+mp? You can take the pictures and wait 30 minutes for your consumer level desktop or laptop to catch up to to your workflow. Unless everyone who bought a D800 has a rig that can keep up with the processing resource requirements, I think it might be safe to say that many photographers out there are losing money on time waiting for their computers to render changes of these massive files.

Oh, I'm sorry, but what you just said is a complete lie.

I shoot 5dII and I ALWAYS turn the resolution 3x (up to 60 mpix, 40ish when cropped), and even with my files that have over 50 layers everything works great. Only thing I might wait for is liquify. And I am using a 2009 Mac Pro. And I even played with Phase one files of 80mpix and even then everything worked fine.

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

I just wish for Canon to release a successor to the 5dII aimed at the fashion/landscape/portrait crowd.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I don't really care about noise, I like the noise as long as it's not going all crazy and pattern like( H1 and H2 modes on 5d2).

Dynamic range is okaaay, but as far as I can tell 5dIII is worse, and that's why I didn't get it, and is completely lacking in grain, making files look artificial.

My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.

There is more to the difference between MF and FF than just resolution, otherwise Phase One would be panicking years ago, yet they still sell a digital back with a 31mp resolution. xxMP enables you to print bigger or to crop in closer. It can't change the perspective and a photographer that regularly uses higher resolution instead of a different lens or getting closer to the subject needs to look at his technique.

I own the Pentax 645D as well as the 5DC, 5D2 and 5D3. the difference in the files is more than just the size. My MF shots have more definition to them, although the mkIII shoots some beauties, a mk IV with 50% more pixels won't outperform MF because of other factors like size of sensor (Pentax 645D is 44 x 33mm). The Pentax is a nice camera to hold, a good weight, and lighter with a 33-55mm (35mm equiv: 27 - 43mm) than my 5D3 with 24 - 70L. It might look bulky but it's easy to carry and weathersealed. Mine is in Japan being fixed after a knock or two thanks to Sunsiper straps.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.

So who still wants 30+mp? You can take the pictures and wait 30 minutes for your consumer level desktop or laptop to catch up to to your workflow. Unless everyone who bought a D800 has a rig that can keep up with the processing resource requirements, I think it might be safe to say that many photographers out there are losing money on time waiting for their computers to render changes of these massive files.

Oh, I'm sorry, but what you just said is a complete lie.

I shoot 5dII and I ALWAYS turn the resolution 3x (up to 60 mpix, 40ish when cropped), and even with my files that have over 50 layers everything works great. Only thing I might wait for is liquify. And I am using a 2009 Mac Pro. And I even played with Phase one files of 80mpix and even then everything worked fine.

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

I just wish for Canon to release a successor to the 5dII aimed at the fashion/landscape/portrait crowd.

Not everyone that buys a pro camera is a professional photographer. I have quite a bit of pro kit (3 film MF 1 digital MF, 3 FF 1 crop (7D) and many many lenses) but I haven't earned a penny from my photography. There are believe it or not people with Mk III's using the green box. A professional camera owner doth not a professional photographer make

 

[AUGS]

They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights.

You're basically telling me I'm an idiot because I feel I have a use for 36MP. I don't appreciate that. Choose your words more carefully.

What you really mean is YOU don't think one needs so many MP. Now that's another matter entirely. That's just YOUR little opinion.

Actually, I didn't read it that way at all.

Maybe it is my Product Development Manager way of thinking, but Need and Want are two very different market segments. The need is the foundation and creates the opportunity, and in some ways may be guaranteed sales. The want can be fickle and are opportunistic sales, but can make a product a viable proposition. I see dozens of fantastic ideas cross my desk on a regular basis, most of which there is a real market need, but sadly unless they can be sold in sufficient quantities they are not commercially viable on a return on investment and/or opportunity cost basis. So where do the extra sales volumes to make it viable come from - those that want it, either through Marketing (for cameras the big sales message is often megapixels because to Joe Public this is a measureable quantity, after that it can just be techno-babble) or other means (peer pressure?). Not everyone that buys a pro camera is a professional photographer.

As we saw in the leadup to and just after the release of the 5D3 spec lists, many indicated they needed a high megapixel camera (some studio and landscape photographers). What the D800 sales is showing is a substantial market that also want it, and together both could be sufficient to guarantee the investment by Canon.

So as Mt Spokane Photography also said, but was omitted from your quote so it loses some context,

Canon will do it because it sells.

You and others (sometimes myself) may be in the Need category, but it is likely the Wants that will deliver the product for you. I wouldn't take it personally.

 

[Abraxx]

@Augs
+1
Well written, couldn't agree more.

 

[takoman46]

I wonder how many people out there want a ton of megapixels (30+) and don't even realize that most computers would lag like a mother ****** when processing these files... Especially if you are zoomed in to 100% crop and trying to make edits... Post processing 21-22mp images from my 5D's are somewhat slow going on my 15in Corei7 Macbook Pro... And I have 8GB ram and a Crucial M4 SSD! My 27in iMac actually runs slower than my Macbook Pro. The only thing that handles the processing is my PC Rig that I built from scratch. You'll need some serious power if you expect to be post processing in any sort of timely manner. Here's a general idea of my PC setup for snappy processing times on 5D II & III jpegs/RAWs: Intel Core i7 Extreme 6 Core 3.33GHz Processor ($600), NVidia 580GTX Graphics Board ($440), Crucial 16GB RAM, Crucial M4 SSD (6Gb negotiated link speed). This is just the critical hardware. You can go ahead and add on an ATX motherboard of your choice, Cooling system, additional Hard drives, Blu-ray/DVD drives, and any PCI slot peripherals you want. You'll probably end up spending at least $1500 on the tower hardware alone (not including the case or monitor(s) lol) for a decent machine that will be able to keep up with the processing of huge images from your 30+mp camera.

So who still wants 30+mp? You can take the pictures and wait 30 minutes for your consumer level desktop or laptop to catch up to to your workflow. Unless everyone who bought a D800 has a rig that can keep up with the processing resource requirements, I think it might be safe to say that many photographers out there are losing money on time waiting for their computers to render changes of these massive files.

Oh, I'm sorry, but what you just said is a complete lie.

I shoot 5dII and I ALWAYS turn the resolution 3x (up to 60 mpix, 40ish when cropped), and even with my files that have over 50 layers everything works great. Only thing I might wait for is liquify. And I am using a 2009 Mac Pro. And I even played with Phase one files of 80mpix and even then everything worked fine.

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

I just wish for Canon to release a successor to the 5dII aimed at the fashion/landscape/portrait crowd.

Something must be seriously wrong with my macbook pro... Although I see a ridiculous difference in boot up speed with the ssd and cache with the ram upgrades, I still chug in aperture, lightroom, and photoshop. Thanks for pointing out that you know more about systems than I do. Are you an IT?

 

[D_Rochat]

Also, consumers consumers consumers. A person who'll buy a d800 is sure not a consumer but a professional, this is not a coolpix.

That statement couldn't be more wrong. I see plenty of tourists walking around my city with pro cameras on an auto mode. Having money to buy the gear and having the skill to use it properly are two different things. BTW, I have a set of "pro" golf clubs and I can assure you that I'm not on the PGA

 

[skoobey]

@Augs

YOU'RE RIGHT, but I am just thinking that it's the serious amateur/professional community that creates all the hype for a camera to sell, I mean sure, there are average Joe Two-shoes that go into a store and say "gimme the best there is" but many people who shoot 1ds and 5d are ones who think they are great just because they own a "professional" camera.

@Takoman46

DNB locally instead trying to apply a million filters that always look bad anyway. Don't do global things and you'll see it's fine. I mean, PhaseONE crowd is also using that same MacBookPro and everyone seems to think it's OK, and I don't want to question your technique, but if the world's most prominent retouchers can work their magic on a similar, or slower machine, then there is no need for you to complain.

Which brings me to this, I think that the 5dIII is fine, but it's not a reason for me to upgrade. I am willing to pay more for a sufficient upgrade that will last for next 4 year just like my 5dII.

 

[barton springs]

My point being, I want to stay with canon, I think that the MF is way to bulky and expensive, and would love to see something like a D800 from canon.

Still not solved.

No what you want is to have a pretty much useless discussion about a future product you probably don't need... which will come out probably as a 5DM4 in less than 3 years BTW to answer your original question. Once you get the perfect 30+ megapixels you'll think you need 40 or 50. (OMG!! 30 just won't do!) These people should jump to medium format and see how they like dealing with all that data.

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=16734&N=4259332394&srtclk=sort

 

[Marsu42]

No what you want is to have a pretty much useless discussion about a future product you probably don't need... which will come out probably as a 5DM4 in less than 3 years BTW to answer your original question.

Or probably sooner seeing the competition from Nikon who released a useless product that for some reason people still buy... I guess if saving for a 5d3 it's a valid though if there will be a 5dx body much sooner than the 3 years cycle or even a entry level full frame body that replaces the 5d2.

 

[lol]

How long are you used to waiting for your machine to process? I frankly get really irritated when I have to wait for the processor to catch up to my edits. Also, as a system builder, I assure you that a file twice the size of another file will not necessarily take twice as long to process.

Looking at my previous processing time test results I ran with DxO 7, I was averaging under 10 seconds per raw CPU only (i7-2600k not overclocked) and if I turn on GPU acceleration too (with HD5850), that was under 5 seconds per raw average. Note this is for batch processing so it makes good use of parallel processes. If I just want to do a single raw, it still takes about 10 seconds. This is with much processing turned on e.g. lens corrections and other adjustments. I guess it could be even faster if you want to do less.

I know that computing processes are not necessarily linear, but I think for the purposes of this discussion it is close enough. The fractional percentage differences caused by other effects are insignificant outside of benchmarks. raw processing isn't really that demanding that I think compute (CPU or GPU) is the most significant limiting factor.

Of course, other software may behave differently.

 

[TokyoDekopon]

Yesterday I had a chat with a friend who is working for CMJ (Canon Marketing Japan). So far there is no plan of releasing any 30mp+ full frame camera within this year but if D800 sells very well, there could be a surprise. He cannot tell me any more than that because of NDA of course.

 

[skoobey]

There are other areas, you know.

Setting a camera to aperture priority, or shutter priority and firing away is not really art, now is it? And also ,lighting is mostly set to begin with at the arena's and stadiums etc. So, it's about speed and capturing the moment.

I am into completely different area, and I mostly shoot beauty images, and I do need the resolution, so speak for your self.

Aslo, those people sayin "it takes 10 seconds to process a file", well if you are serious about retouching it, it'll take hours for you to do your part anyway, so those 5 seconds won't mean a darn thing.

So, it won't be within a year, so thanks for the info.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

 

[JR]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

Good insight phil. Very interesting points about the pro market...I think the pros are probably less fussed about the MP then the avid amateur photographers...