WAYCOOL wrote:
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.

Yeah, let's mark this page for those claiming they don't need anymore pixels and see what they say in 5 years from now. I didn't need more than 16meg back in the eighties...now I can't get by with less than 8gig.

Theres a substantial chunk of us on here who want lots more pixels and dont care about how well a camera works at ISO 12800.

chez wrote:
WAYCOOL wrote:
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.

Yeah, let's mark this page for those claiming they don't need anymore pixels and see what they say in 5 years from now. I didn't need more than 16meg back in the eighties...now I can't get by with less than 8gig.

Chez...Bill Gates said we'd never need more than 640K RAM for our personal computers
I believe you are correct Sir

RobDickinson wrote:
Theres a substantial chunk of us on here who want lots more pixels and dont care about how well a camera works at ISO 12800.

+ red focus points and real auto iso.

I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

The mkII lenses are good enough for higher resolutions than 22 mp. Canon has been experimenting for quite some time with a 50mp full frame sensor. When the current glass is not good enough for ultra high resolutions, you might see a future ultra HD series of EF lenses. A future mkIII-like label will carry higher price tags and maybe spoil the EOSfun of the enthusiast, but not the pro. Professionals are used to spend high amounts of money to their glass instruments. See what the Cine glass from Canon and all the Zeiss CP for instance does. But until now, the mkII glass is the best indication that Canon doesn't believe their own sweet spot 20mp bullshit themselves. At least not the lens division.

Mescalamba wrote:
I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

The same way they deal with the 7D sensor only a bigger area of it This 46 number is the same pixel pitch as the 7D. Given the griping about softness of that, it seems the combination of some users and some lenses is often not "coping" with those pixels, while the combination of other users and other lenses can get stellar results. This seems to show that 46MP would be usable at FF with good lenses and good technique. It seems reasonable to think that the lens division has been working diligently in this area knowing sensor technology would soon show up the lens limitations Chicken and egg situation.

Mescalamba wrote:
I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

The same way as they cope with 18mp on a cropper.

Mescalamba wrote:
I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

A few things to think about here.

1. Few people are finding themselves in situations in which the resolving ability of the lens is limiting their print size. Now, if you regularly print at or beyond about 20" x 30" you might start to find some situations in which this is the case, but often other factors limit print size before lens resolution does.

2. At a given print size, your lens will continue to resolve at least as well as it does on the current 21-22MP sensors. Worst case - assuming the unlikely, or actually impossible situation that your current lens is has resolution exactly equal to that of your current sensor - you'll get a print with the same lens-limited resolution on the higher MP sensor. In more likely cases you'll get at least some improvement, to the extent that it matters. And in the best cases, you may be able to produce a somewhat larger print with the same resolution.

3. Lens and sensor resolution will never be equal. Either the sensor will out-resolve the lens or the lens will out-resolve the sensor. (It is even more complex than that: aperture makes a difference, as does where you measure within the frame, etc.) Ideally, it makes sense to have a sensor that out-resolves your best available lens resolution - e.g. the center resolution at the best aperture on your best lens.

4. Higher resolution can have additional beneficial effects beyond simply greater pixel resolution. For example, gradients might be more smoothly rendered. Whatever noise there is in the image will have smaller grain. And so forth.

5. If current lenses have sufficient resolving power for the current highest MP cropped sensor cameras, the higher pixel-density full frame cameras won't challenge lenses at all.

Technology marches forward, despite what some might claim to think. I recall that when we had 6 MP sensor people complained that when camera companies went to 8MP that there would be too much noise and that we had enough resolution already. Same when we went from 8MP to 10MP or 12MP. Same when full frame sensor cameras came out with more than 20MP. And now... same old, same old. Funny thing, the vast majority of us a certain that image quality has not declined in a way that would have been predicted by those nay-sayers all along the way and, if anything, it has continually improved.

Dan

stanj wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

The same way as they cope with 18mp on a cropper.

Aye, you can get decent per pixel sharpness at 18mp crop/46mp ff.

BTW Bill didnt say anything about 640k being enough. It was a restriction of the early 8bit IBM computers is all.

RobDickinson wrote:
stanj wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

The same way as they cope with 18mp on a cropper.

Aye, you can get decent per pixel sharpness at 18mp crop/46mp ff.

BTW Bill didnt say anything about 640k being enough. It was a restriction of the early 8bit IBM computers is all.

Sort of like talking about today's glass being restrictive to higher resolution sensors.

RobDickinson wrote:
stanj wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
I just wonder about one thing.

How Canon think their lens can cope with 46.1 mpix? Cause except some macro and maybe newer TS-E I doubt that..

The same way as they cope with 18mp on a cropper.

Aye, you can get decent per pixel sharpness at 18mp crop/46mp ff.

BTW Bill didnt say anything about 640k being enough. It was a restriction of the early 8bit IBM computers is all.

Twas a joke Rob, Lotus, Intel and Microsoft went on to expand the original PCs memory into the megabyte range with their LIM spec/software, it was absolutely wonderful for 123 and Multiplan.
Heck I was happy when the 16K cards came out for my Apple II+, 64K imagine that...but now I'm dating myself
Now I've an i7 with 32gb...holly bighorn batman!

Hah well I started with ZX81's and commodore pets... I think my phones txt buffer has more memory now!

RobDickinson wrote:
Hah well I started with ZX81's and commodore pets... I think my phones txt buffer has more memory now!
Those were the...dayz...of sprites n such

More info here: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/23/canon-reportedly-field-testing-a-46mp-dslr-possibly-the-3d/

Tom K. wrote:
More info here: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/23/canon-reportedly-field-testing-a-46mp-dslr-possibly-the-3d/
Very interesting if this is true.

But I really hope it won't be a 1D-size body. That would be a disaster.

As if our camerabags aren't heavy enough already?

chez wrote:
WAYCOOL wrote:
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.

Yeah, let's mark this page for those claiming they don't need anymore pixels and see what they say in 5 years from now. I didn't need more than 16meg back in the eighties...now I can't get by with less than 8gig.

How many pixels you need is a function of how you display or print. It's nothing like the other situation you put forward. I don't need more pixels because I only need to print up to a3 at about 300dpi or display at 900 wide on the net. Higher quality pixels would always be welcome but I don't even *need* those really.

Canon would make good money marketing a lower-cost, low fps, non-grip, low AF point count, high megapixel full-frame for landscape, architectural, industrial, commercial, product, and portraiture. Buildings and trees don't fly away at 10 frames per second. Products don't whiz by you in the studio at death-defying speeds requiring fast responding AF. Portrait sitters don't do back-flips.

Canon could make a 46 MPx DSLR with 5D2 (or even 6D) AF, 5D fps (or less) and no built in grip for a price below the 5D3. I'd love to have it available to buy. I wouldn't be alone. I'd save up and sell the 5D2 main camera to get it.

Monito wrote:
Canon would make good money marketing a lower-cost, low fps, non-grip, low AF point count, high megapixel full-frame for landscape, architectural, industrial, commercial, product, and portraiture. Buildings and trees don't fly away at 10 frames per second. Products don't whiz by you in the studio at death-defying speeds requiring fast responding AF. Portrait sitters don't do back-flips.

Canon could make a 46 MPx DSLR with 5D2 (or even 6D) AF, 5D fps (or less) and no built in grip for a price below the 5D3. I'd love to have it available to buy. I wouldn't be alone. I'd save up and sell the 5D2 main camera to get it.


+1

And the notion, expressed by some (including the supposed quote from a Canon marketing person) that 20-22 MP is a "sweet spot" is sort of silly in that the current cropped sensor cameras already exceed the photosite density of the 20-22MP cameras. ;-)

Speaking of marketing and of marketing-speak... a) Canon statements that 20-22MP represents a "sweet spot" are just exactly what you would expect a company producing 20-22MP sensor cameras to say, b) remind me a bit of what Nikon used to say about cropped sensor cameras when they had no full frame bodies, c) ignore that fact that, for better or for worse, Canon will have little or no choice about producing a camera that "keeps up" with the Nikon D800 and has higher MP count. (I'm not arguing the goodness or badness of such a thing, just pointing out the marketing reality.)

Dan

gdanmitchell wrote:

And the notion, expressed by some (including the supposed quote from a Canon marketing person) that 20-22 MP is a "sweet spot" is sort of silly in that the current cropped sensor cameras already exceed the photosite density of the 20-22MP cameras. ;-)

Speaking of marketing and of marketing-speak... a) Canon statements that 20-22MP represents a "sweet spot" are just exactly what you would expect a company producing 20-22MP sensor cameras to say, b) remind me a bit of what Nikon used to say about cropped sensor cameras when they had no full frame bodies, c) ignore that fact that, for better or for worse, Canon will have little or no choice about producing a camera that "keeps up" with the Nikon D800 and has higher MP count. (I'm not arguing the goodness or badness of such a thing, just pointing out the marketing reality.)

Dan


+1: Exactly right.