This is stupid, replacing the 1 with 3 and 5 with 4 in PS.

EOS20 wrote:
Didn't Canon say in a interview that it wasn't possible for them to currently offer a sensor with more resolution because it would cause negative affects?



The interview is on Imaging Resource http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/09/20/qa-with-canons-mike-owen-behind-the-scenes-in-developing-the-6D-and-whats

Where the truth lies is anyone's guess!

That's the one!

From the Imaging Resource interview:

Q&A with Canon’s Mike Owen: A behind-the-scenes look at developing the 6D and what’s next.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/09/20/qa-with-canons-mike-owen-behind-the-scenes-in-developing-the-6D-and-whats

Dave Etchells, Imaging Resource Founder.

That leads to one of the other questions we have which is the pixel count. There's been a lot of discussion back and forth online about the sensor resolution. You know, some people are saying, "Well, I wish it had 36 megapixels." Other people are saying, "No, I'm glad it doesn't because I prefer the low light and more manageable file sizes." And so I guess the question is, what was the thinking that lead specifically to a 20.2-megapixel sensor?


Mike Owen, Professional Image Marketing Manager for Canon Europe Ltd.

We very much feel that that resolution, 20 to 22 megapixels on a full frame sensor is the real sweet spot. It's the maximum that we can get to without starting to see a conflict between noise performance and resolution. And obviously, what we want to try to do is give you the best possible balance. And over the last few years, what you've seen is that other manufacturers have been sort of creeping up with their resolution. But we've reached a sort of sweet spot since 5 years ago when we launched the 1DS Mark III. And we think that, at the moment, that is the better place to be in terms of performance, allowing people to have the high ISO capabilities--high as you're able to get with the current Canon range as well as the high resolution and image quality.

Canon is copying Nikon's thinking from the last ten years. I can't remember how many times I heard the marketing justification for 10 and 12MP as supposedly being ideal. That same marketing kept feeding the benefits of crop frame over full frame, and the resistance to introduce FF bodies.

Amazing how these attitudes have flipped!

EOS20 wrote:
Mike Owen, Professional Image Marketing Manager for Canon Europe Ltd.

We very much feel that that resolution, 20 to 22 megapixels on a full frame sensor is the real sweet spot. It's the maximum that we can get to without starting to see a conflict between noise performance and resolution. And obviously, what we want to try to do is give you the best possible balance. And over the last few years, what you've seen is that other manufacturers have been sort of creeping up with their resolution. But we've reached a sort of sweet spot since 5 years ago when we launched the 1DS Mark III. And we think that, at the moment, that is the better place to be in terms of performance, allowing people to have the high ISO capabilities--high as you're able to get with the current Canon range as well as the high resolution and image quality.

I hope this Mike Owen has no idea what he is talking about, because that's a "you've-got-to-be kidding me statement" that simply doesn't square with current industry reality. The 36 MP D800 displays less noise than the 22 MP 5D III, yet he thinks that they've discovered the sweet spot ratio of low noise-to-high megapixels. Really what he's admitting is that Canon sensor development has totally stagnated, and the sensor development team doesn't have the least clue as to how Sony can make a low-noise 36 MP sensor.

I.M.O he is just trying to cover up their failure by saying that 20 - 22 MP is some kind of "magical sweet spot".

This test clearly shows that he is speaking out of his rear: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

Disturbing.

EOS20 wrote:
Mike Owen, Professional Image Marketing Manager for Canon Europe Ltd.

We very much feel that that resolution, 20 to 22 megapixels on a full frame sensor is the real sweet spot. It's the maximum that we can get to without starting to see a conflict between noise performance and resolution. And obviously, what we want to try to do is give you the best possible balance. And over the last few years, what you've seen is that other manufacturers have been sort of creeping up with their resolution. But we've reached a sort of sweet spot since 5 years ago when we launched the 1DS Mark III. And we think that, at the moment, that is the better place to be in terms of performance, allowing people to have the high ISO capabilities--high as you're able to get with the current Canon range as well as the high resolution and image quality.

Rickuz wrote:
I hope this Mike Owen has no idea what he is talking about, because that's a "you've-got-to-be kidding me statement" that simply doesn't square with current industry reality. The 36 MP D800 displays less noise than a 22 MP 5D III, yet he thinks that they've discovered the sweet spot ratio of low noise-to-high megapixels. Really what he's admitting is that Canon sensor development has totally stagnated, and the sensor development team doesn't have the least clue as to how Sony can make a low-noise 36 MP sensor.

I.M.O he is just trying to cover up their failure by saying that 20 - 22 MP is some kind of "magical sweet spot".

Disturbing.


No worries. That's pretty much the same message that Nikon delivered about full frame sensors, before they introduced their own FF sensor.

RobDickinson wrote:
5 * 46mp is 230mp/sec, or more than the 1dx. If it does it it will be for 7 frames or something.

Also 16bit is an utter joke. Honestly that would bulk the files out hugely (increasing the buffer/write issues above) and has absolutely no return as we and canon especially are far from making full use of 14bit.



Actually 1DMK3 and 1DsMK3 can use that 14 bit quite nicely. Rest not that much..

Leica DMR had 16 bits and with right processing it was pretty amazing. Tho as we know Canon today I sorta doubt about same performance, but let them suprise us in positive way if they can.

I think "sweet spot" was actually 16 mpix in 1DsMK2 or 13 mpix in 5Dc. But thats just me (tho lets imagine, how good SNR those sensors could have, if technology improved and pixel count stayed.. how it could have amazing colors, if it had true 16 bit..).

I think technology is actually going into wrong direction..

Mescalamba wrote:
I think "sweet spot" was actually 16 mpix in 1DsMK2 or 13 mpix in 5Dc. But thats just me (tho lets imagine, how good SNR those sensors could have, if technology improved and pixel count stayed.. how it could have amazing colors, if it had true 16 bit..).

I think technology is actually going into wrong direction..
Depends on the final destination of those pixels. Printing large landscapes, I could use more than today's Canon limits.

Of course. In another 5 years 50 MP will be the sweet spot and everyone will buy into that too.

EBH

The sweet spot talk is bullshit. We want more megapixels, there is no substitute for megapixels. D800 users already know. It's time Canon brings a high MP camera, just for the EOSfun of it. Until then, I will do with the 1Ds mkIII. This 3DX rumor is nonsense BTW

I want 46.2 mp...46.1 is just a crap, useless, pathetic camera

eosfun wrote:
The sweet spot talk is bullshit. We want more megapixels, there is no substitute for megapixels. D800 users already know. It's time Canon brings a high MP camera, just for the EOSfun of it. Until then, I will do with the 1Ds mkIII. This 3DX rumor is nonsense BTW

Well, maybe a small segment of pros shooting gallery prints need those extra MP. And they can get them if they want to pay for medium format. Most serious hobbyists--the main sales market--mainly upload to web galleries and maybe make a few 13x19 prints every year or so. For them, 20-22MP is the sweet spot. But I could see Canon offering a big MP for the limited pro market but it would cost bookoo bucks. I don't care about more MP but I might buy it really had ECF!

Canon Rumours has the same specs but for a 5DX instead: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/46-1mp-canon-dslr-previewed-at-photoplus-2012-cr1/

Now this ain't EOSFunny at all.

Gochugogi wrote:
Well, maybe a small segment of pros shooting gallery prints need those extra MP. And they can get them if they want to pay for medium format.

Or the D800!

Gochugogi wrote:But I could see Canon offering a big MP for the limited pro market but it would cost bookoo bucks.

Or just around 3000 bucks, like the D800!

If Canon really wants 20 - 22 MP to be the so called "sweet spot", they better start producing sensors that doesn't get poutperformed by Sonikon's 36 MP sensor. Right now they need another 2 stops at ISO 100, as well as getting rid of the banding, just to catch up.

I'm trying to help FF users that hate 7D and want a gigantic MP cam prepare .

RobDickinson wrote:
I was quite happy with the per pixel noise & quality of the 7d.

Well, maybe a small segment of pros shooting gallery prints need those extra MP. And they can get them if they want to pay for medium format.

This is a common misunderstanding. There are even 41Mp smartphones (Nokia Pureview for instance). The point is more megapixels bring more, but it demands creativity to get more out of it. Not just creativity from the photographer, but also from manufacturers. More megapixels will be useful for better on chip Phase detection AF systems, more megapixels will be helpful to reduce noise at high ISO, more megapixels are a way to create in body image stabilization, more megapixels can be used for (pseudo) 3D rendering which will be the way to create wide aperture emulation without ultra fast lenses, more megapixels can be used for high quality digital zooming, etc. etc. Canon can't put it's head in the sand and ignore the fact that competition will go on in the megapixel race. Of course, it's good Canon made their point that we not just want more megapixels but we want better megapixels too. But some competitors have already shown that they offer more megapixels that are better too. If Canon stays in their sweet spot bullshit those competitors will spoil the EOSfun and take a much greater share of the camera market.

The sweet spot is 20-22 megapixels because that what they can get out of their current sensor technology. They patented a ff back-lit sensor at the beginning of the year I suspect that implement this or some other technology that the sweet spot will suddenly move upward. Much like when Nikon said crop sensors were best then suddenly when they had a ff sensor that was the way to go.

I guess I found my next camera body already ...

Ralph

Gochugogi wrote:
eosfun wrote:
The sweet spot talk is bullshit. We want more megapixels, there is no substitute for megapixels. D800 users already know. It's time Canon brings a high MP camera, just for the EOSfun of it. Until then, I will do with the 1Ds mkIII. This 3DX rumor is nonsense BTW

Well, maybe a small segment of pros shooting gallery prints need those extra MP. And they can get them if they want to pay for medium format. Most serious hobbyists--the main sales market--mainly upload to web galleries and maybe make a few 13x19 prints every year or so. For them, 20-22MP is the sweet spot. But I could see Canon offering a big MP for the limited pro market but it would cost bookoo bucks. I don't care about more MP but I might buy it really had ECF!

Well you boys that just want to post onto your Facebook sites can continue to use your phones. For the rest of us that are into serious prints...please more pixels.