Why Canon doesn't Care about high MP photographers: a theory

[PhilDrinkwater]

I'm not sure it's what people think it is:
* Resolving power of lenses - will most really be able to make the most of the sensor?
* Diffraction on the D800 will start at f8, which reduces the sharpness. Landscape photographers (I believe) tend to shoot at f11 a lot?
* The resolution of the 5diii is exactly 4 times that of HD resolution. That can't be a coincidence...

.. and finally, in terms of resolution, the D800 is only something like 30% more than the 5diii.

 

[awinphoto]

While I dont know and probably will never know, I would presume that canon polled a lot of it's top pro's who they figure were their target audience was and figured out what their needs and wish list were... I've received a few impromptu surveys via email from Canon on satisfaction of their products and I would guess they figured they vast majority of their target audience needed higher IQ, higher ISO, and MP was fine where it was. I could be wrong but I dont think theres a conspiracy.

 

[AJ]

It may be premature to say Canon doesn't care about high MP shooters. Just because the 5D mkIII wasn't the high MP body some were hoping for doesn't mean that Canon doesn't have something up its sleeve.

Good theory.

Maybe their 36 mpix sensor got delayed because of the tsunami and floods. Maybe it's still coming. 5Dx?

I would think that if you mount a lens like 17 TS, you'll resolve more lines than the same lens mounted on a 22 mpix cam.

 

[moreorless]

This is just a theory. And let me first off say that I am a landscape photographer. I shoot some news and weddings, but primarily landscape. And I'll say that I was disappointed that the 5Diii wasn't higher MP.

I wonder if the reason that almost all the new and updated features in the new 5D are geared for wedding, sports, nature, news shooters because these are the types of shooters that DSLRs are geared toward naturally. Would it be true that most studio and landscape shooters that make the serious dough use medium format digital and full frame film. Where those who are on more limited budgets settle for DSLRs as a budget option. Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality. Aren't optics more difficult when needing to put a mirror in the way of the lens and sensor vs. a rangefinder system.

I'm not saying that professional landscapers and studio shooters don't use DSLRs and some make a good chunk of change. But in general DSLRs are designed for the exact audience that the new 5D seems to be geared for.

So I think that canon looks at the bottom line and realizes that no matter how many people want more megapixels there is simply a bigger market that wants low ISO, FPS, etc.

My hope is that Canon comes out with a camera that does fit that niche market. I'd pre-order it in a second.

Like I said, I'm just proposing a theory. Anyone have thoughts?

Most MF camera are DSLR's aswell of course but I do think its a good point, the 1DX is arguebley the best high end FPS/AF/ISO tool money can buy with the 5D mk3 not far behind so they tap into a higher end market. High megapixel FF DSLR's on the other hand are operating in the middle ground between normal FF/Crop ones and MF.

Ther 1Ds mk3 wasnt a great seller not just due to competision from the 5D mk2 but also from MF like the 645D coming down in price. Nikon's D3X wasnt a great seller either and that lacked any competision from a cheaper Nikon SLR with the same sensor afterall.

The recent interviews with Canon on this subject did seem to give the impression that it was going to be a "wait and see" with reguards the D800's performance.

I'm actually supprized that there hasnt been some form of mirrorless MF camera(well besides scanning backs) since to me that seems like a great fit just as it was for MF rangefinders and film. The savings in size/weight/cost obviously get greater the larger the sensor and if your dealing with landscape and studio users alot of the lenses are going to be in the wide/normal range where mirrorless could save space there too. The weakness in AF is less of a problem for such users and with an EVF not being able to see the effects of filters isnt a problem anymore either

 

[jrista]

* The resolution of the 5diii is exactly 4 times that of HD resolution. That can't be a coincidence...

Actually, the 5D III is only 3 times that of 1920x1080 HD resolution (horizontally, its about 3.5 times vertically.) You would need a 39.3mp camera to be exactly 4 times HD resolution horizontally (which would be about 4.7 times vertically.) That would be why there are rumors about a Canon ~40mp HDSLR, since that would support true 4:2:2.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

* The resolution of the 5diii is exactly 4 times that of HD resolution. That can't be a coincidence...

Actually, the 5D III is only 3 times that of 1920x1080 HD resolution (horizontally, its about 3.5 times vertically.) You would need a 39.3mp camera to be exactly 4 times HD resolution horizontally (which would be about 4.7 times vertically.) That would be why there are rumors about a Canon ~40mp HDSLR, since that would support true 4:2:2.

Oops. I meant 3. Just typed it wrong..

 

[Radiating]

You do have a point to a degree with lens resolution. However, I don't know where you get 18mp from.

It's where the resolution of most lenses tends to settle around over the majority of the frame (off center) based on resolutions tests. It's a very rough figure that will vary +/-30%

Maybe you can share. And I'm sure this particular topic has been covered to high heaven in the past. If what you say is true, then if I cropped a 5Dii to a 1.6 image, and compared it to a 7D image at full size there wouldn't be any resolution difference.

This topic has been covered in a bit of a misguided way, using crop sensors as a bassis for analysis is NOT a good way of doing it. The frame of a APS-C crop sensor only covers 30% of the frame of a full frame.

The very corner resolution on a crop frame is going to be the CENTER resolution at the very center on a full frame. If we use a 50D and 5DII as examples, and the 24-105mm F4.0 IS then at 24mm f/8.0 it resolves 3400 lp/ph on full frame and 3600 lp/ph on crop at around the same position.

In other words. At 24 Megapixels it resolves 92% of the available resolution but at 39 megapixels it only resolves 72% at the center. At the corners at 39 megapixels it's using only 60% of the resolution.

The center resolution of the 24-105mm at 24mm f/8.0 is therefore around 22-24 MP (in terms of pixel density), the mid frame 17-19MP and the corners 15-18 MP.

The 24-105mm is clearly outresolved by the sensor and the gains from a 39 megapixel sensor would all be incidental. You're doubling the sensor resolution but only gaining 10% more final resolution, sure it's a difference but some would say this is wasteful.

But I find from my non-scientific tests that the 7D resolves sharper at it's full field of view as compared to a 5Dii that's been cropped to the 1.6 field of view. Also I'll point out that there are the exceptional lenses, TS-E 17mm and 24mm, which many landscape photographers use all the time, but are exceptional...meaning they are the exception to most photographers. These two lenses I have no doubt could resolve quite satisfactorily on the edges on a 36mp+ sensor. Ok, I have some doubt because I've never seen it. But I wouldn't be surprised. hows that for scientific?!

There is no doubt that there are a few gems in the Canon line-up that could handle a 39+ megapixel sensor. The issue that I'm presenting is that the majority of Canon's lenses would be wasted on such a sensor with only minor incidental gains. A sensor over 22 MP would have benefited a few niches while burdening everyone else with a doubling of processing overhead. Some would argue that this would be worth it, others would not welcome it.

Also, you have to look at the bayer pattern and see how the different color channels resolve. Green channel is always perceptibly sharper than the other two channels because it has twice the photosites. So hypothetically if you doubled the number of all the photosites, then you may have far more green than you need, but then you have red and blue photosites that are as sharp as the green was.

Right I'm not denying there are many incidental benefits to higher resolution. I'm just trying to outline the argument.

Hope that helps.

 

[sandymandy]

Well just buy urself some canned food and ask urself if it really needs a high MP photo on it
I think really high MP is a quite special area. High MP is good unless "normal" people cant make use of it anymore. Then it becomes special and doesnt sell so well anymore imho. And i guess all camera manufacturers make most of their money with their cheapcompact cam/entry dslr cameras. I might be wrong. Plus i think ppl are more educated about high mp doesnt make a good photo.

 

[bycostello]

if high MP and landscape is your bag, you prob wanna go to large format cameras....