Canon Announcement

[bgelfand]

<p>50 Megapixels puts this camera in competition with Medium Format cameras like the digital Hasselblad and the Pentax 645Z assuming Canon can keep the noise down and have good dynamic range. The sales of those cameras suggest that at least some photographers feel they need more than 24 megapixels. Since many of the photographers using medium format digital are professionals, who are still in business, there must be a good business reason for these high megapixel cameras.</p>

<p>From a price standpoint, the new Canons will be competitive.</p>

<p>According to the announcement I saw on DPReview, these cameras are being marketed as studio and landscape cameras.</p>

[nick_baker]

<blockquote>

<p>Any advantage is more in marketing and <a id="itxthook6" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00d73D" rel="nofollow">internet<img id="itxthook6icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>bragging rather than any real difference...However, very few people need 36MP, let alone more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt I will rush out to buy a 50MP Nikon, but I am puzzled why people would criticize a 50MP FX camera while accepting 24MP DX? According to Shun's arguments, D7100 should have no real advantages over D7000 (sensor wise). I think everybody would agree (including Shun) that when cropping for reach, D7100 <em>does</em> have real advantages over D7000. 50MP FX is just extending this pixel density to FX, and no doubt it will have its uses.</p>

 

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Sounds as if you believe that more mega pixels produce better photographic images...</p>

[nick_baker]

<blockquote>

<p>Sounds as if you believe that more mega pixels produce better photographic images...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no need to respond to posts you don't understand</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think everybody would agree (including Shun) that when cropping for reach, D7100 <em>does</em> have real advantages over D7000. 50MP FX is just extending this pixel density to FX,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nick, perhaps you will be surprised that I disagree with it.</p>

<p>More pixels is "better" only if you can take full advantage of them, and there are many reasons that you can't:</p>

<ol>

<li>Technique: a tiny bit of camera shake or subject motion will more than wipe out any difference between 16MP vs. 24MP on DX, or 24, 36, or 50MP on FX.</li>

<li>Optics: such a dense sensor out-resolves a lot of lenses except for maybe in one or two apertures. As I mentioned above, f5.6 seems to be optimal for the 36MP D800. If you open up further, the optical quality decreases, or you might not have enough depth of field so that a large part of your image is out of focus anyway. If you stop down further to f8, diffraction becomes an issue and your image is soft again.</li>

<li>Subjects: subject movement is one, and there is not necessarily enough details on a lot of subjects so that 16 vs. 24MP makes a difference to begin with. For example, if you have a lot of sky area in a landscape image, without or without cloud, there is not much details so that even 10MP will capture as much info as 50MP.</li>

</ol>

<p>I have both the D7000 and D7100, and I have used them extensively with long lenses to capture wildlife, frequently in motion such as birds in flight. The main advantage from the D7100 is better AF. Rarely there is sufficient sharpness that the D7100 can let you make bigger crops due to the reasons I mentioned above.</p>

<p>And you simply can't extend the pixel density from DX to FX because the corners of the image circles are not as good as the center. It is a lot easier for the outer part of an FX mage to get out-resolved by the sensor.</p>

<p>I once did a quick calculation. The D7100 has roughly the same amount of memory buffer, in terms of bytes, as the original D3 (without the optional memory upgrade). The problem is that the D3 is a 12MP camera while the D7100 is 24MP. Therefore, while the D3 is an excellent sports camera, the D7100 receives a lot of complaints that its buffer is shallow because it can only hold 7 frames of RAW, while the same amount of memory can hold 14 frames from a 12MP camera. (The D3 was introduced in 2007. A year later, before the 2008 Olympics, Nikon offered an optional, $500 memory upgrade that essentially doubles the amount of buffer on the D3.)</p>

<p>I, for one, can rarely take full advantage of 36MP on the D800/D810. Having 50MP or more will mainly take up more memory card and disk space. If you do post processing, PhotoShop will require more computer memory .... Fortunately, memory and disk space are all cheap in these days.</p>

<p>I sense that plenty of Canon users are a bit disappointed by the Canon 5DS announcement. For whatever reason, it took Canon three full years to essentially match Nikon's D800 and then D810. Prior to this week, the last time Canon introduced a full-35mm-frame DSLR was the 6D in September 2012, which was 2.5 years ago. It also took Canon over 5 years to upgrade the 7D to 7D Mark II. Once a clear market leader, somehow Canon is moving quite slowly in these days.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

I can see the advantages of monsterpickle cameras

for life sized portraits or other highly detailed

very large prints. But that's a highly

specialized niche.

 

 

And it wouldn't appeal to me in the miniature

format sensor. I'd want the larger sensor for

more control over selective focus and shallow

depth of field.

 

 

Some of the most interesting large prints I've

seen were Joachim Knill's large Polaroid prints

taken with the camera he built. He's a versatile

artist whose work includes installations, and he constructed elaborate theatrical sets

to photograph with that ultra large format rig.

Part of the magic is in the very shallow and

selective DOF, which couldn't be reproduced with

a 24x36 sensor regardless of pickle density.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>If you downsample a 50MPix file to a 24MPix file and then to a 16MPix file, and make, say, a 20 x 30 inch print from each...does the apparent noise go down when all are viewed at the same distance compared to a print made from a native 24MPix sensor and a 16MPix sensor? </p>

<p>All sensors are Full Frame and all shots are taken at identical exposure settings but importantly at <strong>ISO 1600</strong></p>

[nick_baker]

<p>Hi Shun<br /> <br />Yes, I am a bit surprised that you disagree. My strong impression, when taking close-up pictures of insects where one cannot always get close enough (I'm using 300mm F4AFS or 200mm micronikkor lenses so more reach is not really an option), is that one can clearly get more from cropping a D7100 than a D7000. I say 'impression' because I did not own these two cameras simultaneously, and there was no direct comparison. As you would expect, pixel-sharp images are more difficult to obtain, and it is wise to keep the shutter speed high. I suppose it has to be said that the images that requiring cropping to 100% from the D7100 are never the best ones, and would not be saleable if that was my purpose. Still, I am sure they are better than I could obtain from the D7000. The lack of an AA filter on the D7100 may contribute in addition to the increased pixel density.</p>

<p>I suspect that your wildlife shots typically employ wider apertures than I would use for close ups; perhaps that has an impact.<br /> <br /> I agree with you about the superior AF of the D7100, of course.<br /> You will appreciate, I hope, that I am in no way disagreeing with any of the points about the many limitations of increasing MP sensors. The original point was that it is surprsing the same MP-sceptics that complain about 36MP FX (or now 50MP) rarely seem to question 24MP DX.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The reality is that there will be little difference from Nikon's 36mp sensor to Canon's 50mp when it comes to IQ.</p>

<p>The image size from Canon is 8700×5800. The D810 is 7360×4912 image size. Not a huge difference. It will likely be difficult to see any differences in image quality between the two, just as it it difficult to see any difference from the D750 to the D810.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot: Yes, the difference between the D810 and the 5DsR should be similar to the difference between the D750 and the D810 in terms of resolution - present, but not huge. It will be more demanding on lenses and technique than the D810 is by a similar amount. As with technique, lens resolution falls off slowly - lenses won't be outresolved by the 5Ds, but I'm sure there'll be less contrast at the pixel level - by how much depends on the lens. The argument that there's <em>no</em> difference isn't true - you could apply it incrementally between the D3, D4, D600 and D800 (to avoid cheating and removing AA filters).</p>

<p>Mike: See the DxO noise measurements for "print" output, which are uniformly resized. On a per-pixel level, higher resolution sensors do worse; over the whole sensor, there's usually a difference in favour of lower resolution sensors (I suspect because the amount of electronics for the pixels affects noise), but it's pretty minor, at least since gapless microlenses were introduced and the sensor gathers roughly the same amount of total light.</p>

<p>Lex: The DoF argument is actually usually won by 135-format sensors - medium format lenses are typically slower by roughly enough to compensate for the depth of field advantage of the bigger sensor/film. It varies, exotic lenses come into the mix, and it's true that slower lenses tend to have fewer optical aberrations - and the demands of resolution are lower at medium and large format - so you often still get a better image out of bigger formats. I'll admit that matching the look of a 150 f/2.8 used on a 5x4 is hard in 135, but 35mm does pretty well on fast telephotos.</p>

<p>I don't claim that I usually get everything a 36MP sensor can give me - even good lenses aren't always <em>that </em>good, and I certainly don't shoot every shot from a tripod - but I get plenty of pixel level sharpness over at least some of the frame. I claim I can, often enough, get detail over part of the frame that uses the full pixel density of the sensor - I think I get more resolution than I'd achieve with a D750, though I wouldn't want to claim 50% more without a share of sharpening. In Canon's place, I certainly don't dismiss the 50MP bodies - there are some who want more than the 22MP their current bodies offered, and as a way to stem sales to the D800 and the A7R, I'm sure the 5Ds helps. But I think it'll be more effective at getting Canon users to avoid switching than at getting Nikon users to switch to Canon, especially if they haven't fixed the dynamic range issue.</p>

<p>As for Nikon responding - Nikon have been fairly good about shipping cameras soon after they announce them. The 5Ds is not due to ship until <em>June</em>. Plenty of time to respond if they feel the need. And plenty of time for Canon to think about a 5D4 - though I'm not sure how many 5D3 owners are actually dissatisfied. (In their place, I'd only be worried about dynamic range and the fact that the D750 is quite cheap - I'm not sure what a hypothetical 5D4 might offer, at least short of 4K video.)</p>

 

[stevenseelig]

<p>I am surprised that no one mentioned the anticipated Sony Professional mirrorless camera to be announced this month. While a dedicated Nikon user, Sony is calling loudly with their mirrorless cameras. The alpha 7 series is impressive.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I have two large panorama prints on metal hanging in my home. One is 7' long and was made by stitching three handheld shots together with a small amount of cropping. The other is 6' long and was made from nine bracketed shots. I then cropped about 20% off the top and 20% off the bottom for the final print. Both were made with the 12mp D3S and 24-70mm lens. I have had more comments about those two prints than any of the others in my home, including several made with the D800E. My point being that while more megapixels is always useful, they are not always necessary to make good quality shots/prints.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Over the years some have said we didn't need FX, we don't need all those pixels. Take a look around and the D800/810 sales is not too shabby. And so would larger formats continue to excel ltoo ... I';ll just get my Commodore 64 out and play Donkey Kong. </p>

[shootme]

<p>I wonder whats the use of the 50 MP without lenses to at least match the sensor resolution.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>JDM, basically I've always agreed: 12MP is really a good spot for having normal-sized files that can be printed quite large already (you do not need 300dpi for monster-sized prints, after all). Only those who crop all the time may be a bit hampered by it, but all in all, 12-16 MP is just perfectly fine.<br>

___<br>

The one camera that doesn't seem mentioned so far is, in my view, the real pink elephant in the room: the 5D Mk.3. Canon already has a very excellent full frame camera that is equal to the D8x0 for a professional-level body with the ergonomics the professionals are used to, and the performance, resolution balance that makes the D750 appealing. The sweet-spot camera. I think Canon makes the choice a lot easier: these two new cameras are really speciality niche cameras, low-volume items. And that's OK, they'll also sell you the mainstream (high volume) one. Which ticks an awful lot of boxes right in balancing specs, handling, cost.<br>

Nikon doesn't make it as easy. Most people seem to assume that if you buy a D8x0, you do so for the pixels. But is that really the main point about that camera? The D8x0 is the only body with the ergonomics that many have grown used to (D300/D700 style), the pro-level build quality and heft those users are used to. The D750 is otherwise a spot-on camera - but its button lay-out isn't quite as I'd have hoped (it's nitpicking, yes, but the metering mode button sits in a better place on the D700, as does the ISO button. And I like the viewfinder shutter). The D6x0 and Df pose again other, bigger, compromises. If my D700 fails, I'd probably get the D810 despite its pixels, but surely not because of. There is more to the D8x0 than just its sensor. The D750 is in some ways more appealing, but.... etc. etc. The choice isn't that simple. And I doubt I'm the only one. In the case of canon: either get the 5Ds/r for the sensor, or get the more sensible 5D mk.3.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Barry: Sure, I have a 40" wide-angle print of the Grand Canyon that I took with a D700. It's fine, but if I'd had my D800E or (now) D810, it wouldn't look as soft from a viewing distance that vaguely matches the field of view. More pixels are sometimes more or less irrelevant (which is why we have smaller JPEGs and why it would have been nice if Nikon had done small raw a bit better), but sometimes help. Of course, it almost never matters as much as what the photographer was doing. I've been to an Ansel Adams exhibition. Clearing Winter Storm remains one of my favourite images. Having seen a proper print... not that sharp.</p>

<p>Steven: Whatever Sony do (when and if they do it) will be interesting in case Nikon use the same sensor. Otherwise, it's rumour until it gets announced. I'm ignoring the A7r until they stop mangling the raw files, although that really should be an easy fix.</p>

<p>Walter: What a good thing, then, that Canon have a newer 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400, 200-400 f/4, set of long telephotos and a few other primes than Nikon has. Almost as though they were upgrading their lenses before shipping a high res body. Nikon have some nice recent primes, but they do seem to be testing behind Canon, especially on the 24-70. But more practically, a lot of lenses can resolve something at 50MP - it's not that much beyond 36MP. It's just a matter of microcontrast and how much optical aberrations show up. I'm sure Zeiss would love to sell you a couple of Otuses (Oti?) if you want the best from the sensor.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Wouter: Agreed. I upgraded to the D800E from the D700 as much for the dynamic range as the resolution, although I found the D700 erred low. The D600's AF system would have put me off if I'd not already got the D800E by then. I (just) upgraded to a D810 because I sometimes use the resolution, but also for the ISO 80 dynamic range. The D750 loses me at some of the handling and the 1/4000 shutter more than because it's 24MP, but I wouldn't like the step down. If I were still coming from a D700, it would be closer - and the (small) advantage in high-ISO and low-light autofocus (traded off against coverage) of the D750 did give me pause.</p>

<p>The 5D3 has much more resolution than the D700, paired with a D700-or-better AF system (which is better compared with the D750 depends what you're measuring). I've always felt it was the better general-use camera than the D800, even though I was happy with my own choice. The issue for Canon is that the 5D3 is so much more expensive than the D750. I'm sure Nikon were shooting at the 5D3 with the D750 launch, though less obviously than the D610/6D pairing - but I agree, the D750 still isn't quite the "D700 successor" some want, in the way that a 5D3 is a 5D2 upgraded in <em>every</em> way. I'm sure a lot of people would still be happy with a 5D3, and I don't think the 5Ds is going to stop Canon from feeling the need for a 5D4 at some point. I'll be interested to see what it can do.</p>

 

[rick_m.]

<p>Here is why I think this is generally just a marketing ploy. Both current Nikon and Canon professional users, who will buy these cameras, are already up to their hips in lenses and flashes to the point that switching brands would be excessively expensive and if not that at least very time consuming. Of course there are talented (and some not so talented) amateurs who want the latest and greatest. They will buy the next-biggest thing no matter what it is. If someone came out with a 1/100,000 shutter speed we would have a five page thread about how this makes Minolta better than Argus. All of us would tell a story about the time we missed the bullet at the wedding reception. </p>

<p>Mindful of the issues with high resolution sensors that Shun mentioned (with which I completely agree) what percentage of photographers will create the set of circumstances that would require and then take advantage of this additional capability? Practically none. </p>

<p>I watched a well-equipped D800E user shooting a raptor free flight demonstration with the 80-200 mm F/2.8, hand-held describing to someone in the crowd how his high pixel count will allow him to crop so much more deeply and give him shots that "those big lens guys" would not get. (I was shooting a D4 with 300 mm F/2.8 at the time.) I think everyone can see why I simply ignored him and went about my work. But he was a true believer. Wrong in ways he did not even begin to understand but he had the strength of his convictions. It never occurred to him that there was a good reason why we chose the equipment we did. One Canon 1Dx guy stood next to the loudmouth and ripped of a few passes at 11 FPS which got him an admiring glance and a moment of stunned silence. </p>

<p>So as someone mentioned earlier, if on this iteration of their sensor Canon fixed their less than stellar dynamic range issues, there may be something to be said for the combination. If they did not fix that they will still be behind the power curve on a very important metric. </p>

<p>I am all for purpose-built cameras for those who need them. I am not one of those folks. I guess I don't even know any of those folks. But Canon will sell this like crazy to folks who do not need it but just want it. And I guess that is fine too. </p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I think it will sell well!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>If my D700 fails, I'd probably get the D810 despite its pixels, but surely not because of. There is more to the D8x0 than just its sensor. The D750 is in some ways more appealing, but.... etc. etc. The choice isn't that simple. And I doubt I'm the only one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 Though whoever put the recording button in the current position on the D8x0 and moved the mode button to make space for it should be punished - over and over again. I wouldn't mind a little less heft in the D700/D8x0 cameras though. On DX, I transitioned from a D300 to the D7100 - and the button layout is something I haven't gotten used to yet. And I am probably not the only D300 user that looks over the fence to the Canon 7D MkII. The totally different control layout always gave me pause - but now I realize that with the D7100 I also need to re-adjust - even though it's not as major as the Canon would require me to.<br>

<br /> That is when my D700 needs replacing, I won't transition fully over to Sony - where the biggest issue is and probably will be for some time to come the sparsity of their lens selection.</p>

[andylynn]

The verdict is in: Rockwell has reviewed it and says the 5DS is The world's best DSLR". It's so good, he didn't even need

to shoot one to review it. The brilliance of the camera reached out to him across the Pacific.

 

(I think that might actually mean that it will sell well. There must be a lot of people following his buying advice and clicking

his sponsor links, to support his GAS, right?.)

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it will sell well!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Will it sell so well that it will help drop the price of the 5D III? Or will the demand for the latter stay more or less constant in the face of the 5Ds' challenge?</p>

<p>As for other issues, I like hi-res cameras in general, and I would like them even if the only reason were my tendency to crop a lot. There's more, though. I do enjoy the dynamic range and overall build of the D800E. It is not, however, my "go to" camera in every situation. I don't have a single camera for every situation. I don't even know what it would look like. The 5Ds certainly could never be it, anymore than the D800E could be. For action shots, I still fall back on the D3s (picked up cheap on eBay) and I often use the D7000 for casual photography. That's pretty much it for me these days: those three, two of them bought used, with most of my lenses bought used to boot.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Look at the D3x, now most if not every new Nikon dSLR sports at least 24MP. In time 50MP would be the minimal if you want to buy new. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I own Canon lenses and have used 5D bodies extensively, but I'm not in a rush to run out and buy their new 50MP body. The poor dynamic range of their sensors results in noise in the shadows all too often. At higher resolution, that's going to be even more annoying. Plus, I don't like the 5DS's limitation of 1/200th flash sync. I prefer to work at 1/250 for the added sharpness, and my Nikon bodies give me that capability.</p>

<p>My 5D Mark III collects dust in the closet, because I prefer the clean output of the D810 and 800E for MOST applications. I still think the Canon's autofocus is better than anything that Nikon has ever designed; it works very well for events in dark spaces. But for any other application, I grab my Nikons.</p>

<p>I love resolution (I've shot a lot of 4x5 film). If Nikon and Sony come up with a sensor with more pixels than 36.3M, I would be interested in evaluating it. But the D800E and D810 are such amazing bodies. It's likely that they'll be my workhorses for years to come. And I won't have to spend all of my post processing time trying to remove ugly noise from the shadows.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>As often, I agree with Lannie. If I could afford it, I'd have a D4s alongside my D810, and I'd probably think hard about a D750 as well. If the D3s was cheaper, believe me, I'd have gone there, and still may. Compared with the D700, the D800 was good enough that I never used the old body, but there's no doubt that the D810 isn't all things to all people (though it gets a bit closer than the D800e did), and neither is the 5Ds.</p>

<p>Dieter: Mode and recording I don't mind, so long as I can reach them both. And I fiddle with ISO more than I change mode. But I really wish Nikon would stop moving things to the left side of the camera (AF mode since the D700, metering since the D800...)</p>

<p>Rick: I've used an 80-200 f/2.8 AF with the D800, just after I got it. No, it didn't remotely match what I could have done with a 300 f/2.8 (or even f/4), even on a D4s. It did help me out at the London Olympics tennis, where there was a limit on how (physically) long the lens was allowed to be - though other than some wide angle shots, a D7000 would have done almost as well. But I'll take the pixels when I've got the option, especially if I have good glass to go with them. I'd be mad to do so if I wanted to ship off images of sporting events on a schedule, however.</p>

<p>Up until now, Canon have done pretty well with the image quality offered by the 5D3, combined with its usability and performance - which are similar to the D750. They've not had an option for the bits of the market who, in Nikon terms, wanted a D800 for the resolution (or didn't care about performance and wouldn't mind the resolution just in case, which is nearer to my position). Now they do, and I'm sure they'll sell, especially to amateurs and the landscape market that Canon addressed so well with the 5D2.</p>

<p>Like resolution, dynamic range matters only to some people. Get the lighting right and the 5D3's dynamic range is fine. Do a lot of fixing in post, and it isn't - but a lot of people never do that and see the issue, and - just as the average D700 shooter may never feel the lack of resolution - many Canon users may not know or care what they're missing. Meanwhile, I've just processed some images of the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) and Comet Lovejoy (C/2014 Q2) nearish each other, using a 50mm lens and a tripod. An equatorial mount would have helped a bit, but the sky where I live is bright orange - I exposed to nearly saturate the sensor with orange, then used the dynamic range at lowish ISO to get the content back by subtracting a blurred version of the original image. It's noisy, but the content is there, and it's the best I was going to do without travelling a few hundred miles to a dark sky site. But I don't have to do this every day.</p>