Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 15 Apr 2012 (Sunday) 23:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why not 40 megapixels ???

 
sanfairyanne
Senior Member
298 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Europe
     
Apr 15, 2012 23:40 |  #1

If you type similar words to my title in Google you can find a bunch of threads from years back where people were talking about the possibility of a 40+ megapixel FF Canon DSLR. Back then many were laughing at the chance and a lot remark that higher pixel levels are not the ''be all and end all''. But why not, why is it not necessarily important, after all the likes of Hassleblad are making digital backs up to 60 megapixels.

I don't have wall big enough to hang huge prints but it would be nice to know I could if I wanted or if I got that perfect gallery shot, or just that I could crop more without noticing the loss in detail.

So essentially my question is:

Other than using hard drive space is there any obvious problem with 40+ megapixel cameras. Can L lenses cope?

Many thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
themadman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
18,871 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern California
     
Apr 15, 2012 23:42 |  #2

It isn't really a problem. With the pixel density of a 18MP APS-C canon sensor you could make a 40+ MP FF sensor. Just a matter of Canon actually doing it.


Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.​com (external link) | Gear List and Feedback | CPS Member | Have you Pre-Ordered Your 3Dx Yet? | HorusBennu Discussion | In honor of Uncle Steve, thanks for everything! 10-5-2011

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dpedraza
Member
37 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Rocky River
     
Apr 15, 2012 23:48 |  #3

well actually there are 80mp digi backs out.
http://www.mamiyaleaf.​com/products_aptus212.​asp (external link)


Maybe canon just wanted to improve on other things other than jumping up the pixels.


Canon 1ds mII : Zeiss 28mm - Canon EF 24mm - Canon 35mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sanfairyanne
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
298 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Europe
     
Apr 15, 2012 23:56 |  #4

Yes I forgot about the this, would it be right to say that the lenses for medium and large format cameras haven't really advanced perhaps as say our Canon version II lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,628 posts
Gallery: 248 photos
Likes: 602
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2012 23:58 |  #5

I think the problem with "more pixels" is that they have to be processed. And the more pixels the harder that is and the longer it takes with the need for larger buffer memories and faster processors. And does not only go for the camera but also in post-processing.

It is because of the new and faster processor in the 5D3 that we now have a continuous shooting rate of 6 fps compared with the 3.5 fps in the 5D2.
And I am happy with my 64 bit Windows version of Photoshop on a quad core fast processor with solid state HD and 8Gb DRAM. Otherwise processing would take ages.....

So let's wait with "more pixels" until we can process them efficiently.


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
5D MkIV 5DMkIII, 50D, 24-105/1:4L IS USM + 100-400/4-5.6L IS USM + 50mm 1.4 USM + Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + 580EXII + 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sanfairyanne
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
298 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Europe
     
Apr 16, 2012 00:08 |  #6

Yes I see that point, a while back I was doing an HDR pano' on my laptop it was around 90 RAW files at about 22mb per file and I couldn't understand why my computer was so slow! Still having just spent 5 months in the States I only came away with about 15 or 20 good photographs so I could live with slow processing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,574 posts
Gallery: 85 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 392
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Apr 16, 2012 01:31 |  #7

sanfairyanne wrote in post #14272813 (external link)
Yes I see that point, a while back I was doing an HDR pano' on my laptop it was around 90 RAW files at about 22mb per file and I couldn't understand why my computer was so slow! Still having just spent 5 months in the States I only came away with about 15 or 20 good photographs so I could live with slow processing.

But a pro who may well shoot hundreds of images per week would have a fit if it took an eternity to process the whole batch. Any such camera would as a matter of course be aimed at the professional photographer. The 7D with 18mp requires two processors to get the 8 fps rate. Imagine what it would take to get just 6 fps from a 40mp sensor.

Another down side would probably be cost. To put in a 40mp sensor with all the expected bells and whistles would price it out of most people's range.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,686 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5729
Joined Sep 2007
     
Apr 16, 2012 02:05 |  #8

Nikon has 36mpx and if it's that important, switch brands.

Why not? Huge files, need a blazing fast PC, globs of HD space and memory. I believe you would need to print over 24x36 inches to start realizing the gains of the resolution. 22mpx is kind of a sweet spot. High enough to print large and flexible enough for HD savings.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Lincoln, Uk
     
Apr 16, 2012 07:17 |  #9

It's not so much the amount of pixels but the size of the pixels that affect the quality of the photo produced. You can easily put 40 million pixels on a FF sensor but the size would be roughly half of the size of the 22 million on the 5D3's sensor. Which means they will be restricted in how much light they can gather, which means the processor will have to work more to produce the photos, which means it'll slow everything down.
The IQ of the 5D2 is excellent and has been the accepted norm for pro quality since it came out. With the advent of better technology it's possible to improve the cameras performance to get that accepted quality at a faster rate.
To my eyes visually the quality is at a totally acceptable level for the performance level of the camera. and the performance level is totally acceptable for the price of the camera.


EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
8,790 posts
Likes: 699
Joined May 2003
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
     
Apr 16, 2012 08:58 |  #10

sanfairyanne, the Hasselblad you mention is likely to have a sensor that measures 40.2 x 53.7 mm and as "modchild" mentioned the size of the pixel is more important. A 40.2 x 53.7 mm is 2158 mm in area while the 35mm or full format is 24 x 36 mm or 864 mm in area. So the pixel density on the Hasselblad at 40 megapixels is actually less than the full format camera in the range of 22 megapixels.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
evil3
Member
61 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Canada
     
Apr 16, 2012 09:16 |  #11

Get the Nokia phone if you need 41 megapixel (joke joke) ;)


My Flickr (external link)
5D MKII & III | EF20-35 f3.5-4.5 | EF70-200 f2.8II | Sigma 50 A | EF85 f1.8 | Voigtlander 40mm | EF28 f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Apr 16, 2012 09:57 as a reply to  @ evil3's post |  #12

Personally the more mp the better. OK, so 30 might be the next big milestone, with 40 after that. But why stop there?

Computers will continue to get ever faster handling large files, I don't see that as an issue.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 16, 2012 10:16 |  #13

Lowner wrote in post #14274321 (external link)
Personally the more mp the better. OK, so 30 might be the next big milestone, with 40 after that. But why stop there?

Computers will continue to get ever faster handling large files, I don't see that as an issue.

The main reason.... Because image quality starts to drop off at some point.

The Canon 18MP crop cameras have some of the greatest pixel density to date (I believe Sony has a 24MP cropper... but am not sure... Take note that Nikon, who gets their sensors from Sony, hasn't yet offered anything larger than 16MP in a cropper).

Canon has to use such a strong anti-alias filter on their current crop cameras, that the images require much heavier sharpening than previous models with slightly less resolution (15MP).

Beyond IQ questions, other factors such as in-camera processor speeds, buffer size, memory card speed and sizes, computer speed, hard disk storage space and so on are all limitations that have to be considered, too. I'm sure they are working on it, would be surprised if Canon doesn't soon offer a FF camera with around 36MP at least, just from a competitive standpoint, but they have to compromise on a practical image size.

Canon actually develped a 50MP sensor some years ago... so more is possible. But it certainly wasn't practical at the time, and it may or may not be practical in the near future.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 16, 2012 10:47 |  #14

That 80MP back has a lot less pixels per square mm than the 5D III.

Realize how large that 80MP camera is and must be to have that many.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Higgs ­ Boson
Goldmember
1,957 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Texas Hill Country
     
Apr 16, 2012 10:48 |  #15

More pixels generally mean:

Bigger files to transfer and process on the computer
Slower/shorter burst rates/FPS
Higher noise due to smaller pixels more densley packed together
No real perceivable difference in resolution at common print sizes at normal viewing distances (18-22 good for billboards)

36-40 MP may provide benefit only if printing fine art at 8 ft wide (for example) AND is viewed abnormally close, like on an easily accessible wall. If you are willing to deal with the files.
It's just not practical for most photogs and worth risking a noise hit, IMO.


A9 | A7R3 | 25 | 55 | 85 | 90 | 135

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,748 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why not 40 megapixels ???
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is total recall
818 guests, 376 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.