Will Canon Make High Megapixel SLR?

[sarah_fox]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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).</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@Sarah Fox: I often link to "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html?pagewanted=all">Breaking the Megapixel Myth</a>" 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".</p>

<p>Unless you're shooting wall-sized shots, I'm not sure what more than 16 MP is really going to do for you.<br /> 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."</p>

<p>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. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>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.</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

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.

[mike dixon]

<i>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.</i><P>

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.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"Dan, while you're out taking splendidly detailed landscapes in relatively bright light, with the luxury of stabilization on a tripod..."</p>

<p>... I'm in darkened rooms photographing musicians with primes and a handheld camera.</p>

<p>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 <em>right then</em> 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. </p>

<p>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. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nycosiDennisBlackwell0320100817.jpg" alt="" width="642" height="522" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nycosiTrombaII20100818.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

[bob_king2]

<p>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? </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>It's not the megapixels that are important, it's about how a new camera smells!</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Show me the same studies WRT megapixels and I'll buy it. </p>

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

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.

[abbas_haider]

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.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now the 5D III come along and does even better. So what's to complain about?</p>

<p>Well, it isn't a complaint, more of an expression of desire, not necessarily to say "need."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <em>different cameras, </em>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?)</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>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?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Sell your Hasselblad and then we'll talk.</p>

<p>If you just have to ask, don't bother.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[mattb1]

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.

[david_wu6]

<p>To keep the thread going (MP war, not just N vs. C war), let's add S2 or even Phase One P45 DBack.</p>

[qtao]

<p>with $8000, could invest a digital back (think of 16-bit color depth).<br>

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)<br>

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 ...)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>More water on the grease fire:</p>

<p>http://www.imageandlight.net/blog</p>

<p>Looks pretty good to me, guys (and dig the water on the nose of that bull, not to mention the soccer ball blow-up).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

<p>Two pictures taken minutes part to show that resolution matters even if the end result is just a jpg.</p>

<p>Both are film scans, scanned at 4000dpi, levels/curves in Photoshop, downsized for Web viewing.</p>

<p>#1 Hasselblad XPAN, 90mm f/4 lens shot wide open, Fuji Provia 100F<br>

<a href="http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1213-22">http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1213-22</a></p>

<p>#2 Mamiya 7II, 80mm f/4 lens shot wide open, Fuji Provia 100F<br>

<a href="http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1216-2">http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1216-2</a></p>

<p>Even at this size, the Mamiya shot looks more compelling to me.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>It goes on and on and on... boggling to think what EOS will be like in he year 2020.<br>

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!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Arnand</p>

<p>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...</p>

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

<p>Robin, the XPAN shot looks flatter to me. Hard to say whether I am prejudiced!</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think it's clear that, were Canon to <em>choose</em> to produce a 35-40MP unit, it wouldn't be difficult, or even remotely challenging. It's not that they <em>cannot</em>, it's that they've <em>chosen</em> 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 <em>sooner</em> rather than later. By the end of the year IMO without a doubt.</p>