Will Canon Make High Megapixel SLR?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by 25asa, Mar 24, 2012.

  1. Since the Nikon D800 camera has finally had some testing samples done and shown, its turning out to be a winner of a camera. Im seriously thinking of switching to Nikon because of that camera. I shoot medium format film because I like high rez pics. Since Canon announced the new 5D, Im thinking it may be a very long time before they produce a full frame high megapixel camera to compete with the D800. Will Canon cede to Nikon in this example? Or do you think Canon will produce say a 3D that is full frame and 45 megapixels for example?
    Only reason Im hesitating to switch to Nikon is investment in my current gear and the cost to replace it all. I'd be looking at over 8 grand to get the flash, lenses, and body from Nikon to switch. Not chump change for me. Only thing is waiting another 2 or 3 years before Canon decides to compete in this area (megapixels). By then who knows what Nikon would come up with to replace their D800.
     
  2. I can give you a definite maybe on that one
    If you absolutely need the resolution of the D800, I'd suggest you go out and buy one tomorrow (if not today...)
    If you can afford to wait 2 or 3 years, then you obviously don't need it.
     
  3. If you think/believe a 36mp camera will make you a better photographer you should immediately go for it. Help out the economy in Japan and elsewhere. Free up some good Canon gear for others to utilize. I doubt that Canon will bring out a higher mp camera unless there is a huge migration out of Canon and into Nikon. Seems to me that Canon and Nikon are making more sense with their new pro cameras the D4 and 1DX with their modest mp and higher performance in almost everything else. Good luck!
     
  4. Scott, does your desire for more pixels relate to you being unsatisfied with large prints you make from your current cameras?
     
  5. Three alternatives.
    (i) If you make your living from photography, you already know what you need, and you would know whether this is a good business investment. So you wouldn't be asking here.
    (ii) If you're rich and have no financial worries, like net worth well into seven figures, you can do whatever the hell you want, so go for it.
    (iii) If you're an ordinary working stiff like most of us, put the 8K into your retirement savings and forget about it. Wait for the dust to clear from this generation of camera bodies, and decide in 2015. When you need a 20 x 24 print, dust off the RZ and buy a box of Ektar.
     
  6. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    does your desire for more pixels relate to you being unsatisfied with large prints you make from your current cameras?​


    That's the fundamental question. What's the need here? I already print and exhibit 20x30 prints from an 11.3mp camera. I went to an exhibit of two photographers, one from photo.net, a few weeks ago - all 20x20 images from iphones, covered in a big way by the San Francisco daily, and very positively. So what's driving this?
     
  7. Mr. Harrington- I currently try to use my Pentax 67 when I know I will be making blows to a big size. I like to pixel peep my big pictures, so wanting full rez is desirable. I want the camera to be able to do 300 dpi at 24x36", and see all the little detail in the pic that I can when I use my 67 camera.
    Another reason is having larger then needed files for smaller pics helps too. I use Bicubic sharper when downsizing pics, and this helps to add extra detail in the smaller file. Same reason video cameras pixel bin with larger sensors when going to 1080P video.
    I could use my 67 camera, but its increasingly becoming a huge hassle when taking on long trips (like flights out, and on busses). Its heavy, takes up room I don't have, and other reasons. I've resorted to using SLR cameras on my last few trips because of the size of cameras. Using a D800 would give me medium format resolution in a small size camera.
    I've seen Canon trend on reducing mexapixels in cameras (which for some people is desirable). To me it tells me they don't plan on producing a D800 equivalent. Im wanting to buy a better 50mm lens for my kit, but am having second thoughts on sticking with Canon. My concern is they will not make a D800 type camera in the future (Im saying within 3 years), in which case getting a D800 would be prefered.
     
  8. I do make large prints. I can currently do a pretty fine job with the 5D2, but I would also be happy to have greater photo site density on a full frame sensor at some point.
    I'm confident that Canon will eventually produce a higher MP full frame body. Basically, if for no other reason, market pressure will encourage Canon to do this. But there are reasons for some of use to welcome even greater pixel dimensions.
    Regarding 20" x 30" prints from a 11.3 MP sensor and 20" x 20" prints from iPhones... having shot with everything from a 8MP cropped sensor DSLR to a 21 MP full frame DSLR and working with an in-house Epson 7900 printer, I'm certain that those sources will not produce photographs in those sizes that I would be pleased with. In my view the 5D2 can do a very nice 20" x 30" print and even 24" x 36" if the photograph was shot carefully and handled well in post.
    That said, the current 5D2 full frame sensor is way more than enough for the majority of folks shooting this camera.
    Dan
     
  9. You can increase the MP of any digital camera by (a) stitching if you do landscapes - take several exposures and use an external program such as PTGUI to make one image from 6 vertical images (even Photoshop can be used to do this); or making several exposures of the same scene and blending the exposure with Photomatix or a similar program.
    Yes I think Canon will make a high MP camera - my guess is that the 1Ds4 will be that camera...and it will be available in autumn 2012.
    Here is an example of stitching: http://www.photo.net/photo/8468680
     
  10. If you bought all of your gears 3-4 years ago, you should not lose too much $$ (may for lenses), due to weaker US$.
    I bought a 50mm F1.8 new for $68 4 years ago; now I think I can sell it for at least $80.
     
  11. my guess is that the 1Ds4 will be that camera...and it will be available in autumn 2012
    Other than wishful thinking and WAGs, just what makes you think that?
     
  12. Scott - if you wait long enough maybe Canon will actually use their 120MP sensor...
    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_150MP_apsh_sensor.html
    Back in 2010 they also reported a CMOS image sensor, with a chip size measuring 202 x 205 mm and said that "Because its expanded size enables greater light-gathering capability, the sensor is capable of capturing images in approximately one one-hundredth the amount of light required by a Canon professional-model digital SLR camera".

    So it's pretty clear that Canon are capable of doing pretty much anything they want to. The only question is "do they want to"?
     
  13. The D800, market forces and time...other than that, my lips are sealed: no amount of prodding, tickling or filthy lucre can coax me to reveal more.
     
  14. So you think that Canon, surprised by the D800, could develop, test, build and bring to market a high resolution 1Ds MkIV (something they've more or less said they were not planning to do since the 1D X replaces both the previous 1D and 1Ds models)) in 6 months, even if they wanted to?
    And if they knew about the d800 in enough time to develop and bring out that high MP 1Ds MkIV by the fall of this year, why did they still go ahead and launch the 5D MkIII with a lower pixel count? Even Nikon aren't putting their 36MP in their top of the line D4.
    Also, if Canon wanted to compete with the D800 in terms of pixel count doing it with a much more expensive 1D whatever model would not be the way to go.
     
  15. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    I'm certain that those sources will not produce photographs in those sizes that I would be pleased with.​


    I certainly am not interested in pleasing you, it's the curators of shows, and they seem to think they are worth showing.
     
  16. [sarcasm] I wouldn't settle for the inferior resolution of the D800. I'd dump all my Canon and Nikon gear and go straight to the Nokio 41MP camera phone! [/sarcasm]
     
  17. My question is how many prints you make that are greater than 20*30 a year? If you only make one or two, then
    changing systems seems a mega waste of money. Are you someone who makes a living making and selling these
    huge, high resolution prints? If the answer to this is"no" then it is not objectively worth it. If you do, then you should
    already know whether you need it.
     
  18. Suppressed angst anyone?
    Personally I found the mk3 a woolly disappointment behind the Nikon announcement. Anyone remember the 30D?
    I shall stay with Canon only because of the lens/ancilliary investment I have. For me, the 5D3 at UK prices represents corporate 'complacency extraordinaire' at abusive pricing levels. I respect the fact that they've released decent AF into the model and question why it wasn't there in the first place.
    I also respect the fact that others here value the model for its strengths and have no wish to question their individual view.
     
  19. While Canon and Nikon were both on the same page with the D4/1Dx they completely misjudged what each other was doing with their consumer full frames. Their positions have now been reversed, Canon has the high ISO body, and Nikon has the high res body. Judging by reactions here from both sides both may be making some product corrections but that is going to take a year or two.
    There is no way the 1Dx replaces both the 1DIV and 1DsIII. Canon had to release the 1Dx for the Olympics. However long it takes them to release the 1DsIV, and even if it is 32-45 MP it will be 2 to 2.5 times as much as the D800. I think the poor economy is having a huge effect on how often these companies are willing to release new bodies. They are trying to maximize the profits in each product lifecycle. Even Nikon has taken the extra step of not making the D800 in Japan to get costs down.
    I have been using a combination of Nikon and Canon bodies for the last few years and I am currently using only a 5DII. Boy am I happy I bought it in the fall for under $2000 new. Most of my lenses are Nikon so it is very easy for me to go back and forth except for my most used lens which is a Canon 17 TS-E. I will be sticking with the 5DII for several years to come. Despite the 36 MP sensor of the D800, the 5DII is still an incredibly capable camera and at least with stitching shifted images I do get as high as 42 MP.
    I don't recommend switching to Nikon unless there is a specific Nikon lens not available for Canon that you need. For example, I basically switched to Canon for the 17 TS-E. I actually bought the lens before I even had a body to use it on! Canon will eventually deliver an affordable high res body to compete with the D800, or now the D900.
     
  20. Scott - From your comments, you don't seem like a very serious photographer. You're probably ok with what you have, however, you're free to buy whatever you like. If you really a pro, you wouldn't really be asking anyone about what to get and not get, especially on a forum.
     
  21. If you are already using medium format film you have found the best :)
     
  22. Call it a WAG (doesn't bother me, since that's more or less what it is), but I'm betting that Canon already has higher MP count prototypes up and running and that they have a plan to produce and market cameras based on higher MP sensors already. I have no clue what the timing might be.
    Sridip, no need to get nasty and insulting, and especially no need to use the "you don't seem like a very serious photographer" line. We don't need that sort of thing around here. And, Scott, high MP FF DSLRs match MF film in terms of resolution already, though there are reasons other than resolution to consider MF. Many former LF film photographers are already shooting digital MF.
    Dan
     
  23. http://www.pentaxwebstore.com//product/9926?cid=86338
     
  24. Having a prototype is one thing (Canon certainly does), but getting a new camera from prototype to production is another story. Canon has everything but a good track record lately of getting announced products (which are several steps beyond the prototype stage) to the consumer.
     
  25. Canon has everything but a good track record lately of getting announced products ​
    There have been a few small delays on high end stuff, but the 5D MkIII is already in the hands of user as promised. I think the 1D X has slipped by a month from May to April, but I'm assuming that's due to the effort to get the 5D MkIII out on time. They'll sell a lot more 5D mkIII cameras than 1D X cameras! The shipping date on the 600/4L IS II USM has actually been moved up a month from June to May and the 500/4L IS II USM is also due to ship in May.


    So I'm not really seeing any huge problems in shipping new stuff. Like all Japanese camera companies, the Tsumani last year and the damage to factories and infrastructure caused delays as did the floods in Thailand. I think Canon, Nikon and all the others are over that hump now.
     
  26. Hypothetically speaking, Lets say the 7D2 comes out by September with a 24mp crop sensor. If canon scaled that up to FF using the
    same pixel density what MP would that be?


    My crystal ball says there's a 40MP+ FF camera out by Canon before years end, maybe early 2013 at the latest. I wouldn't expect it
    too have huge buffers but maybe high speed data link for in studio work. However it would cost more than a D800 and maybe lead a
    person to get some the newer primes and zoom.


    So in the end, maybe the OP should switch to Nikon anyways as it might be cheaper if the next FF carries a markup similar to the
    5d3.


    End speculation mode.
     
  27. How did we ever get by in the days of 8MP cameras?
     
  28. Two points for you to consider:

    1. Canon and Nikon have a history of leapfrogging each other in product capabilities - the EOS 1D, the EOS 1Ds, the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm being just a few quick examples prior to the D800.
    2. If you look at the 1Dx's resolution and max frame rate, Canon's DIGIC processors are moving 18MP x 14fps = 252 MPps worth of data. Drop the fps down to a 1Ds Mark III level of 5fps, we have a possible max resolution 252/5 = 50.4MP. So the tech for a 50MP camera is already there. And given the D800's almost certain success, it will be a market reality sooner rather than later.
    Taking both of the above points together is why you don't want to switch to Nikon unless your livelihood depends on 36MP pictures.
     
  29. <sorry if this is a repeat post, having problems posting>
    Two points for you to consider:

    1. Canon and Nikon have a history of leapfrogging each other in product capabilities - the EOS 1D, the EOS 1Ds, the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm being just a few quick examples prior to the D800.

    2. If you look at the 1Dx's resolution and max frame rate, Canon's DIGIC processors are moving 18MP x 14fps = 252 MPps worth of data. Drop the fps down to a 1Ds Mark III level of 5fps, we have a possible max resolution 252/5 = 50.4MP. So the tech for a 50MP camera is already there.

    Taking both of the above points together is why you don't want to switch to Nikon unless your livelihood depends on 36MP pictures. Given the D800's almost certain success, a mega-megapixel Canon camera will be a market reality sooner rather than later.
     
  30. Hi,
    Canon is developing high resolution DSLR but their sensor technology is not enough than Sony or Renesas since sensor technology is quite similar to Memory and Digital TV.
    Presently, Canon use own sensor but it is cleared that the avility of sonsor is not enough than D800's. If canon succeeded 40M pixels sensor, then the Sony may have 100M sensor. Canon has no chance to beat Sony obviously. Probably Canon will go to use other's sensor something like Sony, Renesas, Samsung. Anyway it is a future story.
    Currently in Japan. Many Canon user switched to Nikon because the resolution, ISO, Dynamic range, price, something 5Dmk3 failure, etc.
    Here is the page of user sample photos. (Japanese page. Arrow mark at the bottom of page lead you to next page.) If you have interest, please try.
    Nikon D800 http://kakaku.com/item/K0000339852/photo/
    Canon 5Dmk3 http://kakaku.com/item/K0000347675/photo/
     
  31. mike dixon

    mike dixon Moderator

    Canon has no chance to beat Sony obviously. Probably Canon will go to use other's sensor something like Sony, Renesas, Samsung
    Canon can produce an 18-megapixel APS sensor (that's what the 7D uses). If Canon chose to use the same pixel density in a full-frame sensor, it would be about 45 megapixels. Canon is fully capable of producing a "high megapixel sensor," but that's not the route they chose to follow with the 5D3. It's not a choice that pleases people who are obsessed with the "greatest" specifications, but it's choice that produces a better camera for the overwhelming majority of users who don't make enormous prints.
     
  32. So what's the highest Canon MP now 18? 24? How can that not be enough? What size prints do you intend to make?
     
  33. So what's the highest Canon MP now 18? 24? How can that not be enough? What size prints do you intend to make?
     
  34. Oh my, the megapixel race is back
     
  35. For many it's got something between little and nothing to do with the size of the print, Barry - megapixels mean detail, and they mean the ability to crop for "reach".
    Wildlife photographers in particular - who are invariably focal length limited - can benefit hugely from a high pixel count.
    I notice it's often street photographers - like you and Mike Dixon - who are particularly vocal in their dismissal of high pixel counts; well, try shooting something you can't wander up to within a few feet of...
     
  36. Oh my, the megapixel race is back​
    It never went away, Anuar - and why should it?
     
  37. Megapixels are just one characteristic of sensors. There is increasing concern in the Canon user community that other sensor qualities have hardly improved. High ISO signal to noise ratio appears to have reached a limit among sensors of different manufacturers (for now), but we are now seeing that more than 14 stops of dynamic range at ISO 100 can be had along with more megapixels, instead of the 12 of Canon, without pattern noise. Meanwhile separation of red shades as in 5D III test raws is not what it used to be (e.g. 5D, 1Ds III).
     
  38. "How did we ever get by in the days of 8MP cameras?"
    Well, they were better than the 6MP cameras. And the 8MP cameras were better than the 6MP cameras.
    Every time there is an advance in camera technology, we see a very similar pattern. (Apologies to all who know this already.) We hear precisely the same set of comments and complaints. They include:
    • No one really needs more MP - my older camera that has [MP of new camera minus X] MP is great and makes wonderful 40" x 60" prints.
    • Everyone needs the new camera with more MP because it will be "sharper" than the current camera.
    • Time to upgrade!
    • No need to upgrade!
    • The increased noise from smaller photo sites will degrade image quality!
    • If you get the new camera it will "stress your current lenses" and you'll have to upgrade all of them.
    • Diffraction will be worse with more MP because the diffraction-limited aperture is larger.
    • What are these companies trying to do to us!? I can't afford the new computer and bigger hard drives and the files will take too long to process!
    • Camera A from other manufacturer X has feature N so it is better than new camera B from manufacturer Y that doesn't have feature N.
    • Yes, but Camera B from manufacturer Y has a known fatal flaw that camera A from manufacturer X doesn't have.
    • Manufacturer B is "losing the MP war" (or some other "war") to manufacturer A - or maybe it is the other way around.
    • "I've had it with manufacturer A. I'll selling everything and moving to manufacturer B. Bye"
    • The older version was better than the updated version because it has a) better colors, b) 3D effect, c) better construction, d) a lower cost now that it is three years later.
    • The new camera has (or doesn't have) some feature that I believe is important for me, so the camera is (or is not) a great camera for everyone else.
    • I like (or don't like) the new camera so everyone else should like (or dislike) it too.
    Everyone breath slowly. Relax. It is going to be OK. ;-)
    Dan
    (For the uninitiated, not one of these statements is exactly true, and several are outright howlers.)
     
  39. >> Scott P: Im seriously thinking of switching to Nikon because of that camera. <<

    Thanks for letting us know. Now I don't have to lose sleep worrying about your decision. ;-)

    Whatever gear helps you realize your vision is the gear that you should use. I'm sure that at one time you wrestled with
    the decision to move to MF, and yet that worked out for you. If Nikon has the lenses that you need and you can afford the
    $$ to make this happen, why give it a second thought?

    Have you tried the 5D Mk III yet? I shot with mine for the first time yesterday. It's way too early to draw conclusions or
    comment on the resolution, but I was very pleased with what I could accomplish at ISO 12,800. I use Canon lenses for
    which Nikon does not have an equivalent. At the moment I believe that the 5D3 will be my go to camera for most
    situations, but that could change eventually. I've printed 5D2 files up to 48 inches - I can only imagine that the new model
    will perform as well or better.

    I have a D800e on order. I own some Nikon lenses after ten years as a Nikon guy, so I don't need to buy a ton of new
    glass at the same time. I foresee using the Nikon for special projects and landscape photography, but until I get one in
    my hands, I won't be able to know for sure. The 5D3 seems like the better general purpose camera at the moment -
    knowing what I know TODAY. If I were shooting an event or touring a foreign city, the Canon would be in my bag.

    Will Canon come out with a camera with more MP? Who knows? I'll worry about that when it shows up. Would I find uses for such a camera? Of course! But I've just spent
    my first day shooting their current model under extremely challenging conditions - probably the first 5D3 at this particular
    location - and so far I'm thrilled. I have big plans for this camera. (It might need to apply for a passport.) Until future models are announced, I'll have a very capable Canon in my hands.
     
  40. >> Keith R: Wildlife photographers in particular - who are invariably focal length limited - can benefit hugely from a high
    pixel count. (snip) well, try shooting something you can't wander up to within a few feet of... <<

    Then those photographers should be using the 7D, which has higher pixel density than a D800.
     
  41. >> Anand V: Canon and Nikon have a history of leapfrogging each other in product capabilities. <<

    True, but who has leapfrogged whom in this case? The Nikon has more pixels, but the Canon is potentially more
    versatile given its high ISO specs, available f/4 lenses, and better tilt shift lens implementation.
     
  42. Oh my, the megapixel race is back​
    Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I thought we had put some nails in that coffin when Nikon chose to cease fire a while back. It seems 12 MP was just fine for Nikon back then, and they worked on pixel quality. Many Canon photogs were envious, and some jumped ship to get the better/fewer Nikon pixels. Then Canon seemed to tip their hat to this concept, in reducing the MP count of the G11, in comparison to the G10. The G11 was designed to have "better" pixels. I thought we had started on a better path.
    The small adjustment in MP between the 5DII and 5DIII was confirmation to me that the Canon was willing to cease fire with regard to the megapixel insanity, but alas, Nikon has fired another shot. I never saw that one coming. I now find myself on what I consider the preferable side of the fence -- fewer/better pixels.
    Anyway, I wish both manufacturers the best of luck in their silly war, but I would plead with them not to abandon their quest to improve pixel quality (which I want/need), so that they can devote all their resources to fighting this stupid megapixel war. I would rather see them both work on increased dynamic range, decreased hardware noise, and increased efficiency of capture, the latter two of which result in higher ISO capabilities.
    Here's a though I'll suggest to like-minded photographers: Maybe we can devise our own number -- one single number as simple as the megapixel count number -- that would characterize the quality of the pixel. If we could bring that number into popular use, then maybe wars would be fought partially over that number. It's not important whether people understand what the number means, as long as they understand that a higher number is better. I would suggest it be called the "Q Factor," 'Q' standing for quality. Imagine people arguing over Q Factor in the future: "Yeah, but my camera has a Q Factor of 13.3!" Or, "To shoot in a dim environment like that, you're going to need a Q Factor of at least 11. That's beyond the abilities of any of the Nikons, but the Canon 5D Mark IV can do it."
     
  43. Nikon chose to cease fire a while back. It seems 12 MP was just fine for Nikon back then, and they worked on pixel quality.
    Nikon announced the first 12MP FX camera in 2007 and one year later, the 24MP D3X. How's that cease fire?
    Anyway, from my point of view there never was a race for high MP, but perhaps a race for improved image quality. They're not the same thing.
     
  44. Anyone imagining that some number of MP will definitively be "enough," should keep a few things in mind:
    • Various numbers of MP have been declared to be sufficient throughout the development of DSLRs. Folks said it about 4MP. They said it about 6MP. They said it at 8MP...
    • Folks also have declared at every stage of increasing MP that image quality would decline in various ways as MP increased. If they had been right at each of these points, by now the sum of all of those declines would have made DSLR image quality quite awful.
    • The hope that some single value could somehow express the complex interaction of features and qualities that are considered by photographers whose needs and expectations are quite different (and often not entirely rational) is perhaps vain.
    • Resolution of fine detail is not the only thing affected by increased sensor resolution.
    Get a camera that produces excellent images for the sort of photography you do and the sort of output you create. Every so often when the technology advances in ways that make a difference to you, consider updating. Recognize that a huge range of current photographic equipment is way better than what photographers used in the past - photographers who made some wonderfully compelling images. Focus on photography more than on comparing gear.
    Dan
     
  45. >> G Dan Mitchell: Recognize that a huge range of current photographic equipment is way better than what
    photographers used in the past - photographers who made some wonderfully compelling images. Focus on photography
    more than on comparing gear. <<

    I agree with this statements wholeheartedly.

    Think about all of those iconic images from Life and National Geographic. Think about the vast majority of Pulitzer Prize
    winning photographs. Think about the work of Ernst Haas and Galen Rowell and HCB and a thousand other
    photographers who created an astounding body of work with 35 mm film cameras. Those images were created by folks
    who knew how to get the most out of their gear, whatever gear was available.

    If you think you need to switch to Nikon or Phase One in order to make photographs, you might need to put a little more
    effort into your photos. More pixels capture more detail, but they don't make better photos.
     
  46. The situation has resolved itself. I have just been given word I will have to move residence come next year, meaning higher rent coming my way. So therefore I will have to keep what I have and be done with it. So no buying any new cameras. Thankyou for your responses everyone. I will have to make due with the cameras I have now.
     
  47. "640k ought to be enough for anybody." (attributed, falsely or otherwise, to Bill Gates)
    I'm bored with people are telling me what I don't need. I know I don't need more megapixels. I want more megapixels. I'll find something to do with it. Trust me. I'll crop more. I'll go into hair follicle photography if necessary, but I will put it to good use.
    --Lannie
     
  48. I will have to make [do] with the cameras I have now.​
    Scott, what on earth is wrong with you? Don't give up, guy. You haven't even tried knocking off convenience stores yet. Where there's a will, there's a way.
    I know that medium format resolution won't make me a better photographer. I just happen to be a resolution freak. So there.
    --Lannie
     
  49. Hi,
    Canon can make sensor but problem is not a production. The sensor must have correct usability and right functionability. I mean high ISO, wid dynamic range, Optical quality, and of course the resolution. The production and usability is different. Now D800 just open open the door to higher resolution with nice usability. Canon released 5Dmk3 but many user disappointed the ISO because red noise appearance at certain area and it found just 2 days ago. Why larger pixel can not have higher ISO than D800. Now 5dmk3 user are quite noisy by this problem. Every 5Dmk3 user say Canon sensor is not enough. It is not said by Nikon user, It is said Canon user themself. Probably Canon will say the problem is not a problem, it is in spec.
     
  50. Dan, while you're out taking splendidly detailed landscapes in relatively bright light, with the luxury of stabilization on a tripod, I'm trying to take handheld shots of blacksmiths in dark, blackened interior environments without the benefit of artificial light. Our needs are going to be different. There is no question that megapixels sell, so your needs will be met as technology advances. My needs will also be met, but I feel the progress has been and will continue to be slower, as it is harder to sell dynamic range and shadow detail than it is a megapixel number.
    I am pleased that Canon has taken a step forward in meeting my needs with the 5DIII, and I would like them to know that I am grateful for this effort. It saddens me that there is so much anger over the 5DIII not being higher resolution, and I fear that Canon will learn from this angry response not to do anything like this ever again (which would not be in my best interest). Perhaps Canon will ultimately split the 5D lineage into two sublineages, supporting higher resolution and lower noise, respectively.

    FAIW, 12 MP remains more than enough resolution for me, even today. I've not yet gotten a comment that any of my work lacks sufficient resolution -- even my earliest 6.3 MP images -- even printed large. I've been criticized for being a digital photographer. I've been criticized for inkjet printing. I've been criticized loudly for my use of PhotoShop. But I've never been criticized for not having a high enough number in the specs sheet of my camera. In fact I don't think anyone has ever even asked me the resolution of any of my images. This is not a sour grapes argument on my part, as I do intend to upgrade to the 5DIII, which in my view has so many MP as to be silly. What I will gain from the upgrade is substantially better low-light characteristics and somewhat improved dynamic range (relative to the original 5D, which I currently use).
     
  51. @Sarah Fox: I often link to "Breaking the Megapixel Myth" because it's the only source I've found that actually attempts to test whether people can tell the difference among shots taken at various megapixels. Though it's five years old, one test goes up to 16 megapixels, and people can't distinguish between shots at 16" x 24".
    Unless you're shooting wall-sized shots, I'm not sure what more than 16 MP is really going to do for you.
    To me, the real response to people who say that more MP are better, except under extreme or unusual circumstances, is to say, "Show me the data."
    EDIT: BTW—if anyone at Photo.net is reading this and would like to conduct tests similar to the ones Pogue & company did, I'd love to see the results.
     
  52. Yes Keith, the ability to crop is the one reason I myself have cited for possibly wanting a 36 MP 35mm camera. But really, you could probably get all the room you need at 16 or 18MP. For me I'd rather see less than 36 and have better ISO at around 16 or 18. If you want to crop from 36MP to an image that's going to have let's say 14, that's a bit much and you might want to look to working on framing images a little better. I shoot street and some weddings/events and I do crop, especially for weddings when needed, but I wouldn't need that much room. Again, I'd trade have of it for outstanding hi ISO quality. There is an enormous amount of resolution at 18mp. I can envision that level of resolution for product and perhaps fashion, but then I would rather go to MF even if digital.
     
  53. One of the criticisms of the Canon 5Diii vs the Nikon D800 is that the latter (the Nikon) has better dynamic range (captures more stops) than the Canon...So it is not so much that the Nikon D800 has more MPs, it is that up to about 1600 asa, it might have more dynamic range, and reproduce certain colors (reds) better than the 5Diii - at $500 less in cost. And the extra MPs help - for cropping as Keith indicates (birds in flight eg) where you cannot get closer...and don't want to use a TC.
    Looking forward to someone like Rob Galbraith getting copies of both cameras so he can run side by side tests of what the sensor in the new Canon and the new Nikon can do...
    I am sure Canon will always keep a pro level body that does high ISO well (5Diii seems to be tuned for 1600 asa and above) - that also shoots many frames (6) per second...and they will soon introduce something in the pro line with more MPs that is geared more toward landscape photographers and studio folks that shoot at/near base ISO. Not many folks have mentioned that the 5Diii seems also to be geared toward the independent filmmaker - quite a large market segment there too.
    I am going to pass on the 5Diii - I have the 5Dii and don't see much of an image quality improvement to justify the added cost of this new body. I will spend the money on glass instead (the new 600mm F4 telephoto looks like a significant improvement over the current model for my purposes because it is much lighter in weight). I also have the 7D and look forward to sensor improvements there - as Sony/Nikon implemented in their D7000 crop factor camera.
     
  54. It is a complete myth to say that megapixels *don't* matter.

    Were that not true, people would never have cared to shoot medium format film.

    A higher resolution image - all other things like subject/sensor/film choice/processing techniques being equal - means
    an image with more 'presence'. Ask anybody who shoots medium format or 4x5.
     
  55. mike dixon

    mike dixon Moderator

    A higher resolution image - all other things like subject/sensor/film choice/processing techniques being equal - means an image with more 'presence'. Ask anybody who shoots medium format or 4x5.
    That's not a logical analogy. Medium format and 4x5 have much larger negatives. If we're discussing the number of megapixels on sensors of the same size, a more valid analogy would be comparing ISO 50 35mm film to ISO 100 35mm film. Squeezing a few more lpmm of resolution on the negative has little to no effect on the "presence" of the print.
     
  56. "Dan, while you're out taking splendidly detailed landscapes in relatively bright light, with the luxury of stabilization on a tripod..."
    ... I'm in darkened rooms photographing musicians with primes and a handheld camera.
    A 12 MP camera can produce some really wonderful photographs and even quite large prints. When I moved from a 5D to a 5D2, I didn't think there would be a difference. (Why did I get a 5D2, you might ask? I had a technical problem with the 5D at a time when I could not be without a camera, I had to buy a new body right then while the 5D went in for repair, and the 5D2 was available, so I bought one.) I was really happy with the 5D, and I still believe it is a fine camera. When I made my first test prints of photographs from the new camera at 13" x 19" I was certain that I wouldn't be able to see a difference - so I was surprised to find that, in fact, I could see a difference. In fairness, the difference at this size would only be apparent to someone looking for it, but at somewhat larger sizes - and I do print at larger sizes - the difference is a bit more significant.
    But your point about different needs is one that I agree with wholeheartedly. And I've also consistently written that I think the 5D3 is really a very fine camera, that 22MP is plenty for almost everyone, and that the improvements are real and probably of varying importance to different photographers. :)
    Dan
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  57. When I made my first test prints of photographs from the new camera at 13" x 19" I was certain that I wouldn't be able to see a difference - so I was surprised to find that, in fact, I could see a difference.​
    Well, here's hoping I will see a difference too! :) I won't see that difference for quite a while, though. Prices gotta' drop a bit first.
     
  58. I would be surprised if Canon didn't make a higher mp camera. They could easily make a full-frame 40+ mp sensor by scaling up the current 7D one, as far as pixel density is concerned - a new camera line such as a 3D with 45 mp full frame sensor designed for users who want resolution. Lower frame rate than a 5DIII, some weather sealing?
    It would appear that the 1D line is designed, among other things, for people who want outright performance and ruggedness. Perhaps Canon realizes that not all professionals want or need the cost and heft of a 1D camera. The fact is many professionals and enthusiasts use the 5D series, hence the 5DIII with its enhanced AF, frame rate, high ISO performance etc. So who knows, maybe a high mp 3D is in the pipeline, along with a new 7D, a new Rebel, etc.
    One thing is sure, I won't be dumping Canon and rushing off to buy a D800. A stated earlier, Canon and Nikon leapfrog each other, so to answer the OP's question, I would say yes, a high mp Canon is in the pipeline. How far along? Who knows, maybe by September?
    Cheers, Bob
     
  59. It's not the megapixels that are important, it's about how a new camera smells!
     
  60. @G Dan Mitchell: "When I made my first test prints of photographs from the new camera at 13" x 19" I was certain that I wouldn't be able to see a difference - so I was surprised to find that, in fact, I could see a difference."
    Maybe so—lots of oenophiles think they can tell the difference between $20 wine and $100 wine, but when Wine Spectator and academic researchers run double-blind studies, it turns out very few people can.
    Show me the same studies WRT megapixels and I'll buy it.
     
  61. Mike, your suggested analogy of comparing different emulsions within 35mm is more apt than mine. Still, it doesn't
    negate my statement that resolution matters. For example, 35mm images made by Velvia 50 command more
    presence/depth than Superia 100 ones - so lpmm does seem to matter.

    Another myth in my opinion is that print size matters. My experience is that even compressed as web jpgs, greater
    resolution shines through. Product shots and food images look more than real coming off off a medium format sensor
    - regardless of whether they are 1000px wide or 1000cm wide.
     
  62. Nikon & canon didn't leapfrog each other, the consumers did by switching back and forth. One of our friend mention If
    you need high MP then it s better to switch to nokia. If you switch because of MP then you might switch back if canon
    build one. All the available cams will do great for you unless you shoot high speed sport then I will difinetly go to
    canon because of their amazing fast auto focus ability.

    I remember when nikon came with D3 all furoms have stated that who needs more than 12 MP then they release D3x
    because Sony has done it in their A900 so they are under mercy of Sony.

    I use canon 7D and I got well deal on sigma SD14 which is very slow & old and i am doing very well with it. Get
    yourself any cam and start shooting if you gone follow the market and the brands they drain your pocket soon and
    nowhere you gone reach.
     
  63. I shoot Canon, but let's be honest here: Canon has not leap-frogged Nikon since the introduction of the 5D, and that was a long time ago. The next zingers came from Nikon: the D3 and the D3X, along with the D700 as the affordable variant of the D3. Now comes the D800. It is a big leap--a big leap, make no mistake.
    I am still in awe of the 5D II, and I love it. It gives very good low light performance and very high resolution, and it does it all in one package. Even so, the D700 beats it at low light, and the D3X beats it in terms of resolution--and now so does the D800. Overall, though, if one wanted the best of both worlds--low light performance and high ISO performance--in one package, the 5D II was close to being the perfect compromise. Even so, it was and is a compromise. It doesn't beat the D700 at low light. It doesn't beat the D3X or D800 in terms of resolution. Still, it had and has something Nikon still does not have: very good resolution and very good low light/high ISO performance in one package.
    Now the 5D III come along and does even better. So what's to complain about?
    Well, it isn't a complaint, more of an expression of desire, not necessarily to say "need."
    Nikon is, let's face it, treading into medium format terrain in terms of resolution, but with a 24x36mm sensor. I do not see it as being in competition with the 5D III, even though persons tend to compare the two because they came out about the same time. The fact is that Nikon is now offering something that Canon does not: medium format resolution and image quality (or close to it) with 35mm format portability. Let me repeat that last word: PORTABILITY.
    http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg
    I would like to be able to use that kind of resolution out in the field, shooting landscapes, old houses--things that I really like to shoot and always have.
    Frankly, I wish that Canon would yet come out with something that could do that--and still use Canon lenses. I like what the 5D III offers, and I like what the D800 offers, but they are different cameras, even different photographic worlds. It would really be nice to have access to both worlds without having to buy two sets of lenses. Some persons might be able to afford the best lenses from both companies. I most definitely cannot--but both bodies might be within reach, if Canon would offer its counterpart to the D800. (Who is to say that it will not?)
    Then along comes someone and says that "No one needs 36 megapixels." That is not an argument, just an empty assertion. Either one sees the appeal of high resolution or one does not. There is no possible response to such an empty "argument."
    --Lannie
     
  64. To which one just has to ask, what size prints do you produce and how many do you print a year over the size where your current 5D mkII lets you down? I suspect if you are an amateur the answer is zero. Is that an empty assertion?
     
  65. Sell your Hasselblad and then we'll talk.
    If you just have to ask, don't bother.
    --Lannie
     
  66. Scott, why limit the question to Nikon? What about the Pentax 645D? I would love one of those, not much more than
    your estimate for switching to Nikon.
     
  67. To keep the thread going (MP war, not just N vs. C war), let's add S2 or even Phase One P45 DBack.
     
  68. with $8000, could invest a digital back (think of 16-bit color depth).
    recently, ebay sold two sinar emotion 75LV (33MP), one priced 5900, another priced 6800, both for hassy. sinar sells different adaptors for hassy, rollei, contax 645, ... (check their website and distributor site)
    go to google, type in "rolleiflex 6008AF + sinar emothion 75LV", see pic examples from a HongKong photographer (I found he also use large format digital scanning back, 5DII ...)
     
  69. More water on the grease fire:
    http://www.imageandlight.net/blog
    Looks pretty good to me, guys (and dig the water on the nose of that bull, not to mention the soccer ball blow-up).
    --Lannie
     
  70. Two pictures taken minutes part to show that resolution matters even if the end result is just a jpg.
    Both are film scans, scanned at 4000dpi, levels/curves in Photoshop, downsized for Web viewing.
    #1 Hasselblad XPAN, 90mm f/4 lens shot wide open, Fuji Provia 100F
    http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1213-22
    #2 Mamiya 7II, 80mm f/4 lens shot wide open, Fuji Provia 100F
    http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1216-2
    Even at this size, the Mamiya shot looks more compelling to me.
     
  71. Maybe so—lots of oenophiles think they can tell the difference between $20 wine and $100 wine, but when Wine Spectator and academic researchers run double-blind studies, it turns out very few people can.​
    That is apples and oranges too -- wines priced above $45 are more on their scarcity than anything else. For sure these is an improvement in quality too at that level, but it's not a geometric increase.
    I've made stunning 19x13 inch prints from my old 6MP 10D and of course from my 18MP 7D. I don't compare those prints either: different eras!
    It goes on and on and on... boggling to think what EOS will be like in he year 2020.
    Faster. Better (DR, noise-handling). Bigger (more MPs). And cheaper (relatively speaking) -- e.g., the 10D sold for $1500; the 7D for a mere $1799!
     
  72. Arnand
    You have tremendously keen eyes, fuelled by your prior knowledge. I could not tell them apart on blind testing. If you're asking, I prefer the Xpan shot...
     
  73. Robin, the XPAN shot looks flatter to me. Hard to say whether I am prejudiced!
     
  74. There is a simple reason to expect Canon to 'return fire' - they don't have anything in the current (or announced) lineup to even closely compare to the D800(/E). @ ~150% the resolution of the max resolution Canon has to offer (period), this argument will be voiced again, and again, and again.
    I think it's clear that, were Canon to choose to produce a 35-40MP unit, it wouldn't be difficult, or even remotely challenging. It's not that they cannot, it's that they've chosen not to. w/ the D800 constantly harping at their heels though and pros/mags/reviewers constantly harping about the differences, it's a line that I expect they'll have trouble sticking to. So yes, I expect we'll see an announcement about something closer to the D800 sooner rather than later. By the end of the year IMO without a doubt.
     
  75. >> Landrum Kelly: I shoot Canon, but let's be honest here: Canon has not leap-frogged Nikon since the introduction of the
    5D, and that was a long time ago. The next zingers came from Nikon: the D3 and the D3X, along with the D700 as the
    affordable variant of the D3. Now comes the D800. It is a big leap--a big leap, make no mistake.

    I am still in awe of the 5D II, and I love it. It gives very good low light performance and very high resolution, and it does it
    all in one package. Even so, the D700 beats it at low light, and the D3X beats it in terms of resolution <<

    I used a D700 for two years before buying a 5DII. The D700 has more DR and cleaner shadow detail, but it's not better at
    high ISO. Both cameras are very effective up to ISO 3200, but the 5DII's detail shines through at all ISO settings.

    I've never used a D3X. I'm sure that it's a very capable camera. It was also arguably overpriced - Nikon shooters
    complained loudly when it was announced. Does the D3X yield more detail than a 5DII? It should given that it has 15
    percent more MP. But would you be able to see the difference in a double blind side by side print comparison of, say, ten
    images? I doubt that I could. To me, the difference wasn't worth the price of buying both a D3X and a D700. The 5DII
    was a more economical and effective investment in my opinion, and I didn't notice any lack of resolution in my projects.
     
  76. Were that not true, people would never have cared to shoot medium format film.​
    You're looking at it the wrong way round. Medium format wasn't invented to increase the resolution available from 35mm.
    Historically, film sizes started off large and gradually reduced in size as film technology advanced. At every stage, convenience won over quality at the point where the results became just good enough.
    e.g. at one time all press photography was done with 5x4 film on a Speed Graphic. When film improved it became possible to enlarge an image from a Rolleiflex for the same task, then later, a tiny 35mm frame was considered acceptable.
    Digital is progressing much like film i.e. better resolution/finer grain and faster speeds as time progresses.
     
  77. The original question was, "Will Canon Make a High Megapixel SLR?"
    The question quickly morphed and the thread that has been more and more a response to an unstated question: "SHOULD Canon make a high megapixel SLR?"
    I have been happy with the way that the thread has unfolded, since the second question is admittedly more interesting. Even so, if one goes back to the original question for a moment, I think that it is pretty clear that Canon can and--sooner or later--will make a high-megapixel full-frame DSLR that can use lenses designed for 36x24 sensors. Whether it is already in the pipeline is the question. I think that Canon will because I think that there will be enough market pressure to justify doing so--regardless of how many persons say that they don't need it and won't buy it. That said, I don't think that, when it comes, it will be a piece of fluff thrown out to the megapixel-hungry masses who are easily duped into thinking that more megapixels will necessarily mean more quality.
    If and when the high-megapixel DSLR comes, it might indeed be for a niche market, but I am not so sure that it will be a tiny niche. I believe (though I certainly cannot prove) that a lot of persons would shoot medium format if (1) it were not so expensive, (2) it were not so heavy, and (3) it did not take another whole set of lenses and technical skills. Now, it is true that the D800 has significant differences with traditional medium format photography that I won't go into here, in part because there are more accomplished MF shooters who can talk about some of the limitations of trying to do MF work with a 36x24-based system. (DOF considerations come to mind--but is a longer average DOF a limitation or an advantage?)
    In any case, I think that the near certainty of such a camera is so obvious that we might start thinking about what the advantages and disadvantages will be. No, it will not make one a better photographer. No, it will not necessarily make one a more successful pro (or amateur, for that matter). I suspect, however, that removing some of the limitations of present equipment will bring new opportunities--and new creative possibilities. I cannot prove that, but new technologies often do that, and I would expect that the realm that Nikon has entered (and that I believe that Canon will quickly follow, market wise) will afford some new and previously unseen opportunities. Canon has, after all, traditionally been the one that has pushed the envelope where new technologies are concerned.
    That progressive tradition is one reason that I will stay with Canon, if I can afford to do so. The second is that it is horribly expensive to switch. My own semi-retirement from college teaching is going to make it hard to keep up with new developments (or even hang onto the equipment that I have), but there is an entire generation coming along whose earning potential will allow it to overcome the limiting options that I increasingly face. They will likely define the direction of further developments. Which way they will go is not obvious. I do not expect them to go anywhere in lock-step. I expect some respect for diversity from the members of that generation. I expect some experimentation. I expect. . . things that I cannot put into words, because I have not seen them yet, and I do not have the imagination to see the possibilities. I believe that others will--and perhaps already are seeing the potential . It is not in the Canon tradition to be afraid to break with tradition, but Canon has a good business model which will make it concerned with solidifying its existing customer base. It is doing that with the 5D III, I believe. I cannot believe that it will stop there, however. The field of photography has been changing since its inception, and it will continue to change. Developments such as the D800 may be just one fork in the road, but I cannot see Canon ignoring that fork in the road.
    We live in an era of increasing miniaturization. I really do not know what the full implications of this trend will be, but I suspect that they will be enormous for further DSLR development. The 5D III might well be the best, most reasonably-affordable DSLR out there at this time. I really do not know. I can see many advantages over the D800, but the D800 has its strengths, too.
    Heraclitus said that the only constant is change. That paradoxical truth (especially in technology) implies for me that it is a bit early to be circling the wagons around what is now already available in the Canon lineup. Change will come. Which way it will go is not something that I will speculate upon, except to say that faster, higher resolution machines will surely be the order of the day--along with options not to have to use all that resolution.
    Time will not stand still for Canon anymore than for anyone else. Olympus is a modern success story of sorts, but I doubt that it is the kind of success story that Canon wants to be. Miniaturization does not mean that everything will get smaller. It also means that existing technologies that presently require larger "boxes" will increasingly be available in smaller packages.
    Kodak is a case study of a company that wanted to freeze time and freeze its product line. Canon will not likely follow suit. It will innovate. One of its innovations--but only one of them--will be, I believe, in the direction of smaller and smaller "boxes" that do larger and larger things. I have no idea where it will end. It will not be with the 5D series, a remarkable series that has arguably now run its course.
    I am happy to see Nikon's advances. I expect to see Nikon, Canon, Sony, and many others continue to advance. I will be glad to see those advances, even as I become increasingly incapable of keeping up with them, even as I will not even be around to see them.
    I expect. . . surprises. I expect Canon not only to meet the D800 challenge. I expect Canon to exceed it, and to go off on new lines of development that cannot at present even be foreseen. What I expect is ultimately of no consequence, however. I simply am quite sure that the world of digital photography is (1) not going to stand still and (2) not going to go down only one path. We should be embracing the new technologies, even if they are not those that we will choose to go with. God bless the film shooters. They have stayed with what was already familiar to them, but they have not (in most cases) been afraid to try other things as well. (They include myself, although I have not touched my freezer stash of 35mm and MF film in quite a while.)
    Look for Canon to try all sorts of new things. Large megapixel DSLRs are only one fork in the road that Canon can be expected to try--and when Canon does come forth with its own competitor to the D800, look for something even better. Precisely what it will be like I have no idea--but I do believe that it's coming.
    That's a definite maybe, to quote our own esteemed Bob Atkins. Nothing that I can speculate on is going to make any difference whatsoever, but change is here, and more change is coming. One face of it will have more megapixels, and that will not be a bad thing. I am personally looking forward to it.
    --Lannie
     
  78. More the point for me, is the price/ feature comparison between similar spec models. If you assume that the 5D MK iii is the direct competitor to the D800 then you must ask the question: do they compare on price and the answer is a resounding no.
    Arguably the D800 offers a better feature set at a more competitive price. If that trend continues then Canon is in trouble.
    (BTW I am a Canon user)
     
  79. As Landrum Kelly reminds us, the original question was a speculative one: Wil Canon make an higher MP camera?
    Whatever you think about the need for or desirability of such a camera, it is easy to imagine the reasons that Canon will eventually produce such a thing, and it is very difficult to imagine circumstances in which they would not eventually do so.
    To hold that at this particular moment in the evolution and development of DSLR cameras is the ultimate moment in terms of the development of any feature including photo site density requires quite a leap of faith. There are plenty of reasons to believe that there isn't much to support that belief: the fact that more than one other manufacturer already offers higher MP cameras, that many (though arguably not all) who shoot DSLRs think this would be a fine development, the recognition that continued "improvement" in photo site density has not been accompanied by a deterioration in camera performance, and simply marketing reality.
    This is really more of a "when" question than a "whether" question.
    Dan
     
  80. Lannie,
    Impressive indeed. And the MKIII examples I've seen look pretty impressive as well though generally no match for the D800.
    I think anyone who has come from a long usage of LF and MF film cameras have yearned for the D800 type of quality for a long time. And that's just not for landscapes. Portraits, still life, sports, etc. will all benefit.
    Seems to me we have entered into the next plateau of digital photography. Unfortunately it seems Canon has become the GM/Toyota of camera manufacturers.
     
  81. I already answered the original question (to the degree that it can be answered):

    >> me:
    Will Canon come out with a camera with more MP? Who knows? I'll worry about that when it shows up. Would I find uses
    for such a camera? Of course! But I've just spent my first day shooting their current model under extremely challenging
    conditions - probably the first 5D3 at this particular location - and so far I'm thrilled. I have big plans for this camera. (It
    might need to apply for a passport.) Until future models are announced, I'll have a very capable Canon in my hands.
    <<


    I also responded to a handful of posts.

    >> someone else:
    Arguably the D800 offers a better feature set at a more competitive price. If that trend continues then Canon is in trouble.
    <<

    The operative word here is 'arguably'. If I were shooting a wedding, a concert, or just about any type of event, the Canon would be my preference, hands down. Strreet photography: Canon. Landscape, advertising, architecture: the D800. Travel, probably a draw, but if I needed high ISO capabilities on the trip, I'd take the Canon.
     
  82. Dan, how about showing us a few samples of what you're getting?
    --Lannie
     
  83. Lannie, I shall do so when no longer on the road. :)
     
  84. I love how the same responses keep flying out every time someone asks a question like this. I can understand photographers who work for local newspapers or magazines and smaller businesses needing low-light capable cameras and never needing a camera higher than 12mp. It's a shame camera companies have to come up with new models all of the time to make sales, though I think than Nikon have seen that the D700 is a near-perfect camera for this type of professional, which is shown by them continuing the model after the D800. I still use the Canon EOS650 for recreational photography, it's 25 years old and the prints it produces are great (although film doesn't have such a glass ceiling enlarging limit like digital does).
    I find it hilarious that some people here have the idea of a professional who wouldn't find it worthwhile to ask other people's opinions here, or who would have an unlimited amount of money to just flippantly switch systems if there is the possibility that the maker of their current system will release what they need in the forseeable future. There are very, very few of that 'rock star' kind of photographer around these days.
    I am a professional fashion and editorial photographer and yes, I am well aware of what I need - something like a Phase One 645DF or Leica S2, with a range of lenses and a high-spec computer and storage to match. Unfortunately I wasn't born rich, and the advertising industry is tightening its belt just as I am trying to make a career out of photography. I know many other professional photographers who own the Canon 5DmkII and are forced to also use medium format film for many jobs, to achieve the client's required resolution. I myself have spent a lot of money starting up my own studio, I have to work an extra job to pay bills while I establish a client base and even the D800 is going to be a stretch for me to afford, but I am so pleased that Nikon are finally upping their game and providing for photographers like me. I have no problem switching to Nikon, but if Canon release a similar camera I would hold on a little while to use the lenses I currently own.
    It's fine if you're a street photographer doing pictures for small prints. But I'd like to see you retouching a 12mp image and presenting it to a client, especially if the model is anything less than taking up the entirety of the frame. Even a close portrait on a 12mp camera with an excellent lens at 100iso just doesn't have the detail for me to work with. I have wasted many opportunities because of only being able to use cameras with low megapixels, and a £10,000 camera (body only) isn't an option for me until I am making a lot more money from photography, which I need a higher-spec camera to achieve.
    Different photographers have different needs - it isn't enough to say 'stick to 12mp' or to say that fantastic photos can be made with any equipment.
     
  85. I don't know the portrait business or the fashion business. I don't know what those clients require. What I do know is that a 5D2 captures
    every horrifying detail of the human face with astounding clarity. The 5D3 is even more brutal. Massive retouching is required to create a
    flattering portrait (smoothing skin, hiding pores, hairs, freckles, small scars, etc.).

    Given that retouching works by eliminating detail, I struggle to understand how more resolution would be required, and for that matter,
    why 12MP would not be enough resolution for most portrait applications. Take a self portrait head shot with one of these cameras and
    look at it at 50 or 100 percent. If you're bold, maybe you can post the untouched version for us.
     
  86. Tristan is obviously someone who feels he needs a very high pixel count camera (and it sounds as though he does need it), and G Dan is undoubtedly right that it will happen and will continue to happen, but we also know that people will quite soon stop buying these cameras as they offer nothing extra for their photography. This partly accounts for the flight of many to mirrorless m4/3 cameras and their ilk. Most people contributing to this thread probably have absolutely no need for a camera with 36 MP, but it doesn't stop them wanting them. Some of us are just pointing this out. But of course it is indeed inevitable that Canon will make a "high" MP camera.
     
  87. By your logic, Robin, medium format is doomed, since it offers even more. Large format surely has already died.
    I am both amused and perplexed when I see someone telling others what they do or do not need.
    You do not know one thing about the people on this thread, but it is good to be the recipient of your beneficence. Thank you.
    As for mirrorless cameras, they are quite wonderful. I have a Sony NEX-3 and two lenses and get very nice results. It will not, however, take the place of my DSLRs.
    --Lannie
     
  88. Anytime Landrum, just ask! You yourself said
    I know I don't need more megapixels. I want more megapixels​
    My essential point, and very nicely put.
     
  89. Robin, I will persist in this off-topic issue because I think that it is worthy in itself. The moderators might disagree, since the thread was clearly supposed to be about cameras and markets for cameras, not analyzing the needs or motives of other EOS Forum participants.
    Nonetheless, you keep directing the conversation back to persons' motives and needs, and so let me indulge your intense but curious (though somewhat perverse) interest in my own personal needs. Out of context, Robin, my remark (which you quoted) might sound like confirmation of your point of view. What I meant (and this might not be evident even in context) is that I do not derive any of my income from photography. I have not (so far) needed photography to stay alive, although I have the greatest respect for photography as a true vocation or profession, and not merely as an avocation.
    One of my former colleagues at a larger graduate institution once owned a sports car which he loved to drive: "Art for art's sake" was how he described driving it. At that time my diversion/passion away from teaching and books was ocean kayaking. Before that (and after that again) it was mountain hiking. Then came languages,which worked its way into my career in ways that I will not describe here.
    The point is that we have needs that are not always met by our primary vocations--and such needs cannot easily be quantified in economic terms--or in terms of megapixels. If activities that address these needs do not bankrupt me (and photography has come the closest), I indulge them. They restore me, they refresh me, and they allow me to broaden myself beyond the limits of my profession.
    I think that the real contradiction (and this is really not meant as a rebuttal or a put-down) is to be found in your own work. Your work is really very good--beyond excellent, in fact. I wish that I were that good. I will not ever likely be that good in photography anymore than I will be as good as Derek Hutchinson in ocean kayaking or Edmund Hillary in mountaineering. Yet, yet, I do not belittle what I do in photography simply because my career path and source of livelihood lie in another direction.
    In other words, I still want to produce the best photographs that I can--by my own standards. I happen to like high resolution and have since I was an amateur astronomer during all of my teen years up until I went off to college, where from the end of my freshman year on I majored in my wife-to-be, which frustrated my more control-oriented chemistry and math professors to no end--they knew that I needed a job when I graduated. I knew that I needed to survive in the present as well. They were fine and meaningful years, let me tell you. (I hope that you are enjoying this.)
    For astronomy the key to good resolution was good glass. Perhaps it still is in photography as well--up to a point. I came to digital photography in 2002--almost exactly ten years ago--when I bought an Olympus E-20 with five whopping megapixels. I could do the math when I compared my printed output from the E-20 to work done with medium format film. I understood early on that I would not double the resolution of the camera sensor at ten megapixels, but at twenty. I would not mind doubling it again, based upon what I see people doing with either digital backs or scanned film. Even so, I do not insist upon eighty megapixels. I am yet rather greedy for resolution, though, and bumping up from twenty-one (5D II) to twenty-two (5D III) for only $3495 has not inspired me, though the 5D III be built like an underwater Bradley Fighting Vehicle and have an AF speed measured in nanoseconds. To quote the queen, we are not impressed.
    Yes, medium format quality but in a digital camera is what I seek. Portability in a high resolution digital system is what I want or "need" in the instrumental sense of achieving certain photographic goals--including more mountain photography before my knees give out. Whether I am trying to do certain types of astro-photography or more prosaic terrestrial landscapes, there come many moments when the resolution bugbear gets in the way. I also like to crop, and the bugbear of resolution gets even greedier when I start cropping.
    Now, it might be that resolution and its discontents--and my preoccupation with both--offend your puritanical sensibilities, but I doubt it. Your own indulgence is obvious enough. I do not and will not begrudge your indulgences. You do fine work with the cameras you buy. Buying them and using them apparently give your life meaning and enrich it and those of us who are privileged to see it.
    My own life is enriched by driving a twenty-year-old Honda Accord so that I can indulge my passion for resolution. It is a matter of priorities.
    I appeal to your sense of toleration in such things.
    Thank you again for your interest in what I do with my time and money, weird though it may be.
    --Lannie
     
  90. "By your logic, Robin, medium format is doomed, since it offers even more. Large format surely has already died."
    Well, actually... LF is dying in a sense, though it will certainly stick around since there are a dwindling but still important number of folks who want to shoot that way. In any case, it has been a sort of niche kind of photography for quite a while.
    MF is an interesting story. Quite a few LF photographers have moved from LF film (scanned or not) to MF digital backs... at least if they are doing the sort of work where they can afford it or they have not choice. There are a number of reasons for this, including a recognition that they can make very large and very high quality prints from digital MF and that the seemingly horrendous (though less horrendous than even a few years ago) costs of the back are eventually offset by the much lower overall costs of work in post and the greater flexibility that digital provides.
    But we digress... ;-)
    Dan
     
  91. Yes, Dan, we do digress. We do that a lot, don't we?
    Here is a fascinating parallel thread (of sorts) over on the Nikon forum:
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aCFz
    --Lannie
     
  92. >> Quite a few LF photographers have moved from LF film (scanned or not) to MF digital backs... <<

    Only the ones with deep pockets. A Phase One IQ180 system with body and high quality lenses would run 60-80 grand.
    That makes the price of a D800 or a 5D3 seem like lunch money.
     
  93. "Yes, Dan, we do digress. We do that a lot, don't we?"
    OK, guess I should speak for myself... I digress. ;-)
    Dan
     
  94. Thanks for the response Robin. I think you're oversimplifying things somewhat by saying that retouching works by simply eliminating detail. Often one creates a smoother layer, then blends it with the original detail. This ends up looking cartoonish if the detail simply isn't there in the first place because the camera can't provide a high enough resolution (and Canon's firmware seems to smooth out tones in areas of lower detail anyway, but that's a different topic). If my studio was a portrait studio for the public I would happily bang things out on a 12mp camera and blow them up, and I'm sure families who came to have their photo taken would be overjoyed with the results. As it is, I send my photos to editors who decide on the crop themselves and look a lot more closely at the photos. It is no use me providing them with a small file and telling them that megapixels don't matter. If they didn't, the industry would have abandoned medium format film when 6mp cameras were the norm, but film is still in common use today.
    As you'll see, I said that a 12mp camera with anything LESS than the model taking up the whole frame is very difficult to work with. I don't always want to do head shots, and I often work on location where the model is a small part of the image. Nonetheless, I need some detail in the models face rather than just a few pixels. I'm sure the Canon 5D mkII is a very capable camera, but closer to the original point, it seems a waste for me to spend £1,300 on one when perhaps if I wait a little longer I can spend a bit more on a camera I won't need to upgrade in a few month's time anyway. If Canon is sticking to 22mp as their upper limit, I will change over to Nikon, though I'm sure they will notice this and feel pressure to bring out a competing model.
     
  95. >> Quite a few LF photographers have moved from LF film (scanned or not) to MF digital backs... <<
    Only the ones with deep pockets. A Phase One IQ180 system with body and high quality lenses would run 60-80 grand. That makes the price of a D800 or a 5D3 seem like lunch money.​
    There is no question that the best large MF (as opposed to what I call mini-MF) systems are still very pricey - though the costs are coming down. Those who shoot them seem to largely be very successful photographers whose work commands a price that can support this, folks doing certain types of commercial work, and some very wealthy hobbyists.
    There are some less-expensive options that will still potentially produce results that cannot be produced by DSLRs. They are still more expensive then the DSLR options for sure, but sometimes by a smaller amount. The Pentax 645d (with its mini MF 33mm x 44mm sensor) is one example, but not the only one.
    A friend who made the switch from LF film (to the very expensive high-end MF system you describe) also pointed out to me that his costs per shutter click with LF film were in the $4-$5 range. This meant two things: some very serious costs beyond the gear when it came to actually making photographs, and a need to be conservative about the number of exposures. With those two things in mind, he joked after a trip on which he made something like 300 exposures with the MF digital system that he had "saved" several thousand dollars!
    Still digressing,
    Dan
     
  96. Dan, you're absolutely right about the cost per shot of LF - one of the factors that makes LF folks very frugal with shot
    selection - and when you factor in scanning, the price really takes off. A hundred shots developed and scanned would
    cost more than a D800 or a 5D3.

    The economics of MF digital won't fit into most budgets, but neither will LF film shot and processed in high volumes.

    However, the other glaring problem with MF digital is the lack of long lens support (and of course modern conveniences
    such as IS). My decision to buy a 5D Mark II (as a then dedicated Nikon shooter) was influenced by some very high-
    quality bird and wildlife prints that I had seen at several exhibitions (shot with Canon gear). MF digital can't replicate that
    kind of reach, although it's great at wide angle and moderate telephoto focal lengths.
     
  97. Dan, you are certainly right that MF, for all of its potential IQ advantages, has some real disadvantages for many photographers, certainly including those you mention. If you tend to use long lenses, often carry equipment on your back, and need to work quickly, something like a good full-frame DSLR is likely to be a better choice.
    Dan
     
  98. Just to clarify, megapixels are not all that necessary, it's about the lens

    I do like to have a fair amount of megapixels(no more then 18 on a APS-C body, full frames need to have a high ISO test to pick my max)
    I cropped a image off a 10MP P&S camera from my Facebook timeline and 2 off my DSLR which is 12MP, i had to crop a fair bit, i was fine because i don't need to make it really small, i just needed to make 3 images of mine fit on the timeline fine
    Based on my example and what is known, no need for a lot of megapixels to crop unless you crop really small
     
  99. Post 100! I don't actually have anything to add here. I simply wanted to claim post #100 for myself!
    Carry on....
    :-D
     
  100. Welcome to High Resolution Canons 101
     
  101. If you are looking for good answer to your question about high megapixel camera the answer to it is very simple. If you are shooting for www sits or small prints up to 22 Mpx you are absolutely fine.
    If you like to know quality of high Mpx camera try Hassy H4D-40 or 50 for that matter and answer will be be right on fron of you. Then even D800 will not satisfy you ... and that is reality.
     
  102. A few years ago we were being told that 6M was more than enough!
     
  103. With those two things in mind, he joked after a trip on which he made something like 300 exposures with the MF digital system that he had "saved" several thousand dollars!​

    You can only save money by not spending what you had planned to spend. Otherwise this is the logic women employ. e.g. I bought these shoes in the sale and I saved $30... therefore I can afford to buy this bag!
     
  104. Scott, I have not had the chance to read all of this, but I suggest you try a Sigma SD1 Merrill. You do not seem to shoot a lot of wide-angle shots, so the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and 50mm f1.4 lenses should do you for a start. You might try the 105mm f2.8 OS macro too. I had the opportunity to view some 30x45 prints from a Sigma SD1. The best (sharpest) shots were shot with a Sigma 70mm macro. That is a stellar lens. You won't believe the detail. It's difficult to comprehend. That said, the Nikon D800E is supposed to be slightly sharper, and with the range of Nikon lenses available, I don't think you can go wrong with that camera. I saw on Peter Lik's web site that he shoots with a Nikon D800E. That camera with a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G would be one hell of a combination for wide-angle shots. The Sigma is the winner, if you will be shooting longer shots. The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS is the ultimate long lens, as far as I am concerned, and on a Sigma SD1 Merrill, you just can't beat it . . . with anything.
     
  105. BTW, I saw a 40x60 print of a tree in B&W, which was made with a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lens at 14mm and I think f5.6. It was incredibly detailed. In fact, it looked to have the same level of detail that Clyde Butcher's huge prints from 4x5 negatives seem to have. If you have ever been to one of Clyde Butcher's galleries, you know what I am talking about. He is a large format shooter for a reason, and he produces very large prints with incredibly fine detail. He also shoots with a Wisner 12x20 beast sometimes. You should also know that since 36 megapixels does not capture that much more detail in horizontal resolution, it is not a huge step up from the 22 megapixels of the Canon 5D Mk III. It is definitely a step up though, and along with Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f2.8 G lens, the D800E is a very worthy buy.
    I can't stress enough how important lens quality and technique are, when pushing the limits of capture, when seeking the finest detail. You can't shoot at ISO 1600, if you want the finest detal. Shoot at ISO 100 or 200 if possible. I'm sure you realize this, since it is very basic stuff, but make sure you don't use the lens at maximum apertures either. You will obviously get a sharer image at f8 than you will at f2.8! Mirror lock-up mode and a good, solid tripod is a good idea too. Last, but not least, make sure you are using a masterful print maker. Bad processing during the manipulation or printing process can ruin/negate all your hard work up to that point (when it comes to creating images with very fine detail). As just one example, using the wrong paper for the printer you are using can produce muddy/fuzzy detail. You may know all of these things, but be sure you reminde yourself of them, as you shoot, process, and print your images!
     
  106. I'm new to this site, but have been (more or less) making a living at photography for 35 years and was in the darkroom from 1971-2001. Wow - pretty heady discussions! One thing that surprises me is the number of you still chained to film. I shot pretty much every type and format of film from Minox to 8x10. Ektar 25, Kodachrome 64, Tri X, Portra, Ektachrome 8x10, to name but a few. I even worked the Zone System, which of course is simply adjusting the negative to fit the paper.
    I've been doing digital since 1994, using a 3 pass Leaf DCB System. Since 2003 I've been using Canon DSLRs since 2003. It surprises me that some people still use medium format film "for the resolution" I used medium format for over 20 years and I found that images from my 6.3mp Canon 10D at ISO 200 looked at least as good as what I had been getting from my Bronicas, and certainly better than what I got using an RB - and this was from Jpeg! This was not fine art - it was commercial subjects, for prints and catalogues, which require a great deal of sharpness and resolution Currently using a12mp Rebel and am amazed at the level of quality I can achieve, even when cropping. I usually don't make large prints, but I frequently crop to 1/4 - 1/8 of the frame at ISO 400. Little to no grain, and sharpness and detail are amazing, and I don't even have L lenses. I realize that many of you had your favorite film cameras and favorite films and developers - as did I. Even if you get primo scans from film negs or get primo custom prints (or do your own), you still have to deal with grain. My ISO 400 negs scanned to CD at time of processing are quite grainy when compared to ISO 400 6.3mp images of the same subject with the same lens and same lighting. I dealt with film for over 30 years (processing and enlarging) and consider it an inferior medium. Not to say that I don't have thousands of negs and slides on file that I'm very proud of, and I did spend many, many (usually) happy hours in the darkroom. I even worked in custom labs in the 70s and 80s and processed hundreds of miles if film and paper, duplicated thousands of slides, and machine printed tens of thousands of negs. But.... I would not go back to film, even if I was paid quadruple, given a company car, a Hassleblad, and a Sinar (remember them?) with all the lenses I wanted. Thanks for reading allt he way through this rant
     
  107. Gerald, I've basically decided to not go to large format film too, primarily because of the expense and weight, but also because of the slow processing. It takes a LONG time to scan those sheets of film, and I would not be willing to pay $20 per scan for high-quality scans of 4x5 film. I was even thinking of going to 8x10 film, and I would still like to experiment with it, just to see what I can do with it, but for the majority of my shooting I will shoot with digital SLR cameras. If I had the money, I would probably get myself a Red 617 Mysterium Monstro and build a camera system up around it too. That would be ridiculous though, and I don't expect I would end up using that heavy beast much. As things are now, I am expecting to shoot with my Sony (and a new Sony A65) for a while, and then get a Sigma SD1 Merrill, on which I will mount some Nikon and various Sigma lenses. I will probably get a Nikon mount Lensbaby too. If I like it, I might end up with a Nikon 24mm PC lens. I will probably get a Schneider PC TS Super-Angulon 50mm f2.8 in Sony mount and a Canon to Sigma adapter and one of these some day too:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606803-GREY/Canon_3553B002_Wide_Tilt_Shift_TS_E_17mm.html
    Ultimately, I plan to get a Nikon D800 with a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G and a special Tokina lens for shooting wide-angle landscapes too. If I save really hard this coming year, I believe I could end up with the Sony A65, the Sigma SD1, and a Nikon D5200, with most of the lenses and adapters I have mentioned here, so I am on my way!
     
  108. I can remember when everyone had to have 6MP!
     

Share This Page