would a 16mp 5D MklV be a good idea?

[SteveM]

We seem to be specialising more and more with camera bodies now, arguably the 1DX for sport/wildlife; the 5DS for landscape/architecture/studio; is the 5D Mklll the general purpose low light entry? - my general ff overview only.
I shoot weddings and invariably end up in some dark places where flash is not allowed. The specs list (?) of the 5D MklV doesn't interest me sufficiently to stump up a further £3500, but were a MklV at 16-18mp in the offing with a considerable boost to low noise-high ISO being offered (without getting figure obsessed, but say an increase of 1.5 to 2 stops), that probably would have me checking my bank balance.
I accept the frame rate wouldn't go up - compete with the 1DX series then, but a little extra dynamic range as well maybe.
So, who would like to see a serious dedicated low light camera, 16-18mp? No increase to frame rate, that just wouldn't be given. Costing £3500 probably. Would you buy it?
Just a bit of fun.....but who knows, maybe Canon reads these threads...

 

[privatebydesign]

No, because same generation sensors have been shown to, effectively, offer noise on a per area basis. That is, when you down sample a 5DSr image to a 5D MkIII image pixel number the noise is very similar.

Or put another way, down sample a 5DSr RAW image off a test site to 16MP and that is what your proposed camera would perform like.

 

[SteveM]

I'd be looking for a low light camera where, assuming the current 5D Mklll produces relatively clean images at 3200 ISO (it does for my needs) the low light 16-18mp version would produce relatively clean images at 1.5-2 stops higher, 10,000 ISO, and have the ability to at least capture an image at a much higher ISO if the need arose, as the current Mklll does. The 5DS has a maximum ISO of 6400.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'd be looking for a low light camera where, assuming the current 5D Mklll produces relatively clean images at 3200 ISO (it does for my needs) the low light 16-18mp version would produce relatively clean images at 1.5-2 stops higher, 10,000 ISO, and have the ability to at least capture an image at a much higher ISO if the need arose, as the current Mklll does. The 5DS has a maximum ISO of 6400.

Only on the dial. A 10,000iso exposure is exactly the same as a 6400iso exposure under exposed 2/3 stop and then having exposure raised 2/3 stop in post.

You can get essentially the same results by under exposing 4 stops, which extends the 5DS to ISO 100,000, the images will look every bit as bad as 5D MkIII shots at the same ISO.

Again the key attribute for noise is not pixel size, it is sensor area. Phones and P&S cameras have much lower noise per sensor area than our DSLR's, but the sensors are so small it doesn't take much to see their noise.

 

[dak723]

Yes, would definitely be interested in a lower MP camera. I've already bought used cameras to get less MPs than the current offereings, so would definitely want a low MP model with the latest sensor technology.

 

[IglooEater]

Private, doesn't that assume a completely ISO-invariant sensor? We know that canon's are not, or at least not those two cameras. I would expect the 5Diii 100k ISO to look (slightly) better as it has two stops higher native ISO.

I'm often wrong so just let me know.

 

[privatebydesign]

Private, doesn't that assume a completely ISO-invariant sensor? We know that canon's are not, or at least not those two cameras. I would expect the 5Diii 100k ISO to look (slightly) better as it has two stops higher native ISO.

I'm often wrong so just let me know.

Yes it would, and we (Canon users) are very close to being there.

The differences between current Canon offerings and true ISO variance is generally relatively small, this makes the hitherto pertinent concept of 'big pixels better' (to which I have been an adherent until this stage) to 'sensor area is king' (to which I have also preached in crop vs FF threads) much more relevant.

However, in viewing comparisons we must make sure we know and understand what we are actually looking at. Are your comparisons normalised for output size? That is, as I look at it, the only relevant concept. 100% views, or per pixel comparisons, are irrelevant, I want to know what an 8"x10" print or a 24"x36" print will look like from both cameras, or fullscreen on a UHD 4k screen, or in a magazine etc......

 

[AlanF]

As an idea, it's dead in the water.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have a 16 mp G1X II (It actually does not put out 16 MP images due to internal cropping). I really do see the difference and loss in resolution because of fewer pixels (and the lens). I recently sold my 12 MP 5D MK I. The smaller number of pixels would not let me crop as much as I'd sometimes like, but it still is a great camera. I've been using a 20 mp+ sensor since the 5D MK II came out, and find that I prefer the higher resolutions (18 MP is ok).

Of course, the quality of the pixels is also important, I've owned several 1 series bodies, and always felt that the pixel quality was better, but it was just a perception, no proof of that.

One good thing about a 16 MP 5D MK IV is that the value of my MK III would jump considerably

Fewer pixels for a video specific camera make sense, but not for a wedding / portrait type camera. Even more important is the perception that more is better. As technology improves, more is better. Everything needs to upgrade, lenses, cameras, memory cards, computers, software, its more of a evolution, and in the 8 years since the 5D MK II arrived, things have evolved to the point where we are ready for more pixels in a camera.

 

[pwp]

Just like my once fabulous 1D MkIV (16.1 MP)...

The only benefit for me with a 16 MP 5DIV would be stunning high iso performance. But that's far from being the whole story. In the unlikely event such a camera was even being considered by Canon, this would be a low volume niche model, much like the 5DsR at the other end of the MP scale.

The 22MP 5DIII has really hit the sweet spot for a majority of photographers across the planet, especially the busy ones. There are the "bigger = better" MP moaners who see the 5DIV as being not worthy of consideration unless it's in the 36MP range, but a far greater number are quietly hoping that Canon have heard the news and won't exceed 24MP. I'd be perfectly happy with a 22MP 5DIV, but 16MP won't be enough for the majority.

-pw