MovingViolations said:
Chosenbydestiny said:
MovingViolations said:
And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.
This is very optimistic, but could be very much true following Kelby's move. If Canon does have plans producing a new sensor with more DR and megapixels, they'll benefit more from testers that stayed with Nikon due to those features.
I was told by a Canon dealer that there was a 75MP body under field test. It was eating batteries like a kid M&M's. Is that true. I have no clue. I'd like to believe it. What's a few extra batteries for the best IQ in the land? If indeed it turns out true there will be some restless nights in the land of medium format 80MP bodies and backs that sold for 40k+ with very limited lens coverage.
I don't see why a 75mp sensor would "eat batteries". The power required to read out the sensor is minimal, a fraction of what is required to drive the lens, and still quite a bit less than what is required to move the mirror and actuate the shutter. There is more data to transfer, but assuming Canon has updated DIGIC accordingly, it should be able to process faster at lower power than DIGIC 5+, so I still don't think the increase in megapixel count is going to result in such a massive increase in power usage as to "eat batteries".
If Canon has made some significant strides in IQ, a 75mp FF could be rather compelling for studio shooters and other MFD users who don't want to spend tens of thousands on a true medium format system. An 80mp 60mmx40mm sensor, however, is going to have much larger pixels than a 75mp FF. Even though there is no indication that MFD sensors are getting technologically better, the larger pixel area is still going to be it's most significant advantage, resulting in higher SNR and lower noise. That will always be true, regardless of megapixel count, assuming parity between the two formats. A 100mp FF will always have worse SNR/noise than a 100mp MFD, a 250mp FF will always have worse SNR/noise than a 250mp MFD, etc.
The DSLR's strength, at least in competition with MFD, will never be the sensor. MFD will always have the better sensor. Even when pixel sizes are the same, MFD will have so many more of them that it is still going to do better overall, despite the fact that DSLR may have a potential lead in photographic DR (that will close the gap, but it will probably never be enough to overcome the sheer megapixel lead that MFD will always be able to offer.) The DSLR's strength is in all the OTHER features. The same OTHER features that make Canon's 1D X and 5D III better cameras than Nikon counterparts: AF unit, frame rate, ergonomics.
MFD cameras are studio parts. They excel at lower ISO and slower speeds. DSLR's trounce MFD when it comes to high ISO, high speed action photography, AF tracking and realtime metering/subject identification, and frame rate. These are the things that a majority of photographers need and use, which is why DSLR manufacturers have capitalized on their continual improvement. It's also these things that anyone would switch. Nikon users don't jump the D800 ship because Canon has better sensors...they jump ship because they want the 5D III AF system and Canon lenses. They ditch the D4 and move to the 1D X because the AF system, frame rate, and high ISO IQ are faster, more consistent, and better, despite the fact that the D4 has the edge at low ISO.
