46.1 MP Canon EOS-3D X To Be Announced Before PhotoPlus ?
/forum/topic/1151237/4

1       2       3       4      
5
       6              16       17       end

chez
Registered: Nov 26, 2003
Total Posts: 7231
Country: Canada

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
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.


Like I said...lets mark this page and take a look 5 years from now.



Psychic1
Registered: Jul 25, 2006
Total Posts: 4198
Country: United States

chez wrote:
Like I said...lets mark this page and take a look 5 years from now.


Six years ago
http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-3d/



StillFingerz
Registered: Jul 29, 2010
Total Posts: 2886
Country: United States

Psychic1 wrote:
chez wrote:
Like I said...lets mark this page and take a look 5 years from now.


Six years ago
http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-3d/



My 3s have Velvia and Delta 100 loaded, wake me up when the 3D is real



Monito
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Total Posts: 9745
Country: Canada

chez wrote: Like I said...lets mark this page and take a look 5 years from now.
Psychic1 wrote: Six years ago http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-3d/

A true "psychic one" would state their predictions in detail on the record now.



Psychic1
Registered: Jul 25, 2006
Total Posts: 4198
Country: United States

Monito wrote:
A true "psychic one" would state their predictions in detail on the record now.


1DsX - $9,000.00



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15161
Country: United States

retrofocus wrote:
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.


yup nikon said FF was needless and dumb right up until the night before they introduced FF

and twill be the same with Canon and 22MP

and if canon's lenses are optimized for 20MP FF at most, then I guess they must all suck on all of their APS-C cams no?



Marcus Watts
Registered: Oct 05, 2007
Total Posts: 3085
Country: United States

Same pic on a website from

2006 http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/reviews/canon/canon_eos_3d.php

2006 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234424

2009 http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=news&id=5370

2006 http://photo.blogger.ph/2006/08/01/the-new-canon-eos-3d/

I have more if you want them.



PhilDrinkwater
Registered: Feb 24, 2010
Total Posts: 1871
Country: United Kingdom

chez wrote:
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
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.


Like I said...lets mark this page and take a look 5 years from now.


I have no idea what you think is going to happen in 5 years that will increase my resolution needs, unless I switch from weddings to landscape / studio which would completely change my needs.

When we had 8mp, I was resolution restricted. Prints were "OK" as they could be a 100dpi or 200dpi depending on size. Same with 12mp, although there were fewer issues.

However, at 22mp, resolution is no longer an issue for the work I do, so why do you think my resolution needs will increase? What is going to happen? are we going to suddenly start printing at 400dpi or 500 dpi because our eyes are going to evolve to see more detail? Are screens going to quadruple in resolution? I hardly ever crop and my crop habits haven't changed in 10 years. More resolution for me is going to do three things:
* Increase my storage costs
* Slow down my editing
* Not benefit me in any way whatsoever

What is it then that's going to happen that will bring about this change in resolution requirement? Seriously?

* Resolution, for my work, is a problem that is completely solved. I don't need any more.
* High ISO is nearly solved - another 2 stops and I'll have all I ever need.
* AF is nearly solved - another 2 stops of AF sensitivity and I won't need anything more.
* Low ISO shadow quality is a benefit occasionally and on Canon sensors has a way to go, but it's not something I personally need much at all.

Just because you want / need something, doesn't mean that others do. We all do different work...



gsmani
Registered: Mar 02, 2010
Total Posts: 864
Country: N/A

"What is it then that's going to happen that will bring about this change in resolution requirement? Seriously?"


Nikon



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4194
Country: Norway

PhilDrinkwater wrote:

What is it then that's going to happen that will bring about this change in resolution requirement? Seriously?



The way photos are displayed.

1) Larger high resolution monitors. Maybe not in 5 years, but is it really that difficult to imagine technology for displays that can cover a full wall with fine resolution.

2) Active zooming by the viewer. Bandwidth in mobile devices will enable high res images to be shared and actively zoomed by the viewer.



PhilDrinkwater
Registered: Feb 24, 2010
Total Posts: 1871
Country: United Kingdom

alundeb wrote:
PhilDrinkwater wrote:

What is it then that's going to happen that will bring about this change in resolution requirement? Seriously?



The way photos are displayed.

1) Larger high resolution monitors. Maybe not in 5 years, but is it really that difficult to imagine technology for displays that can cover a full wall with fine resolution.

2) Active zooming by the viewer. Bandwidth in mobile devices will enable high res images to be shared and actively zoomed by the viewer.


So, the reason I need "46MP" is so users can have wall sized photos at high res and they will need to zoom into more than 22MP of detail over the internet so they can pixel peep (and all photographers will let them do that)? Or that our eyes will require super high res monitors suddenly?

Was that it? Seriously? lol

I'll stick with 22MP thanks It's the sweet spot for my work. I'm not saying it is for others, but for me it's more than enough



chez
Registered: Nov 26, 2003
Total Posts: 7231
Country: Canada

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
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.


Technology advances. Clients expectations change. Who knows where we will be in 5 years time. I know today I could use more pixels for my printing needs. Maybe tomorrow you will also, depending what the viewing device of tomorrow brings us. Technology does not stand still and digital image technology is still in it's infancy stage.



PhilDrinkwater
Registered: Feb 24, 2010
Total Posts: 1871
Country: United Kingdom

chez wrote:
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
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.


Technology advances. Clients expectations change. Who knows where we will be in 5 years time. I know today I could use more pixels for my printing needs. Maybe tomorrow you will also, depending what the viewing device of tomorrow brings us. Technology does not stand still and digital image technology is still in it's infancy stage.


Of course it does. However, what is going to happen that means 22MP will be unaccepable and "46MP" will be needed?

I look forward a lot, but I don't see anything that is going to make that happen within the wedding market.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4194
Country: Norway

PhilDrinkwater wrote:

Was that it? Seriously? lol

I'll stick with 22MP thanks It's the sweet spot for my work. I'm not saying it is for others, but for me it's more than enough


I am not trying to convince you that you need more, just saying that your clients expectations may be different in the future.

I hope you won't laugh in the face of your clients and say that 22 MP is plenty if they want high resolution images to play with.



retrofocus
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Total Posts: 3180
Country: United States

Canonrumors just posted that the new 3D with 46 MP sensor will be presented at PhotoPlus Expo in NY City in October. As I predicted, it is coming, we will see .



pookipichu
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Total Posts: 1853
Country: United States

Please be more than a megapixel increase. Low ISO DR, shadow noise, color improvement, something other than just megapixels.



Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 6066
Country: United States

pookipichu wrote:
Please be more than a megapixel increase. Low ISO DR, shadow noise, color improvement, something other than just megapixels.


Yes, it really needs to be more than just a mash of pixels. And it will need to be a decent price.

If Canon can pull off a high MP/DR sensor, I won't be surprised to see the 5D3 revised in two years or less from its introduction. So even if this rumored 3D is at $6000 or more, there may be a trickle-down to lower models in short order.



thw2
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Total Posts: 2797
Country: N/A

eosfun wrote:
This 3DX rumor is nonsense BTW


So, we won't be seeing any high pixel count camera from Canon? How sad...



Roland W
Registered: Apr 23, 2004
Total Posts: 1890
Country: United States

It is interesting to note that the Caonorumors post has "Canon 3D" in the post title, but the picture they show has "Canon 5DX" showing on the photo. So who knows what the name might be if the camera is real.

Also note that the 1DX got announced at the up coming PhotoPlus Expo show a year ago, but took about 8 months after that to actually be delivered. Could be that a new Canon high resolution body may follow a similar delayed delivery cycle, which would not be a very good way to try to "answer" Nikon.



jctriguy
Registered: Oct 04, 2004
Total Posts: 965
Country: Canada

retrofocus wrote:
Canonrumors just posted that the new 3D with 46 MP sensor will be presented at PhotoPlus Expo in NY City in October. As I predicted, it is coming, we will see .


Please let it come so you can have a thread showing how you were the single person who predicted this camera coming. Then we can all go back to our regular lives

And that post on CR is listed CR1, meaning it could just be a random guy on the internet sending in some info for fun...was it you maybe??



1       2       3       4      
5
       6              16       17       end