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 News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 17 Dec 2014 (Wednesday) 07:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

50 Megapixel Canon in 2015...

 
vipergts831
Has the TF retired? Or just being utterly lazy?
Avatar
43,920 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 224
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Taking better shots with an iPhone than MDJAK with a 1DX
     
Dec 19, 2014 06:01 |  #91

Seems like no one has spoken about Sony using lossy compressed RAW files vs fully uncompressed RAW files from Nikon/Canon. The lossy compression degrades the quality of the usable information provided by the Sony RAW. Sony claims 14 bit RAW however if you do your research it will be found as not being the case. David here provided a link ( http://www.rawdigger.c​om …2-posterization-detection (external link) ) in which it is articulated better than I could. This is why Nikon/Canon can extract more out of the same sensor in my opinion.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. We are all learners in life :)


-Omar- Flickr (external link) , 5px (external link)
Phaseone 645DF+...because only the best will make up for my lack of skills.
Beginners worry about gear, professionals worry about skill and masters worry about light

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 19, 2014 06:34 |  #92

vipergts831 wrote in post #17341066 (external link)
Seems like no one has spoken about Sony using lossy compressed RAW files vs fully uncompressed RAW files from Nikon/Canon. The lossy compression degrades the quality of the usable information provided by the Sony RAW. Sony claims 14 bit RAW however if you do your research it will be found as not being the case. David here provided a link ( http://www.rawdigger.c​om …2-posterization-detection (external link) ) in which it is articulated better than I could. This is why Nikon/Canon can extract more out of the same sensor in my opinion.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. We are all learners in life :)

Already mentioned it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Dec 26, 2014 04:30 |  #93

I keep thinking that this is nothing more than a 7D II sensor upsized to a Full Frame sensor...voila 50 MP.
Tell me I'm wrong...I'll still buy it though. ;-)a


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 84
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Jan 03, 2015 01:02 |  #94

I'm going to be really bummed if Canon makes the 5D4 or the 6D2 more than 30MP.

In fact, I hope they're both 24MP without AA filters.


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,450 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5494
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 03, 2015 01:11 |  #95

mclaren777 wrote in post #17363420 (external link)
I'm going to be really bummed if Canon makes the 5D4 or the 6D2 more than 30MP.

In fact, I hope they're both 24MP without AA filters.

what does it matter if it's 30+ mp? Canon has had the ability to shoot sRaw and mRaw for the longest time. Dont like the large size, shoot the smaller sizes. High end glass out resolves a 24mp sensor. Think of it as buying a sports car and putting a very low rev limiter on it..... you're robbing it of it's full potential.


Sony A7rii/A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - 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
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,450 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5494
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 03, 2015 01:12 |  #96

chauncey wrote in post #17351092 (external link)
I keep thinking that this is nothing more than a 7D II sensor upsized to a Full Frame sensor...voila 50 MP.
Tell me I'm wrong...I'll still buy it though. ;-)a

that alone would be a substantial upgrade.


Sony A7rii/A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - 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
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 84
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
Post edited over 4 years ago by mclaren777. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 03, 2015 01:55 |  #97

Charlie wrote in post #17363437 (external link)
what does it matter if it's 30+ mp? Canon has had the ability to shoot sRaw and mRaw for the longest time. Dont like the large size, shoot the smaller sizes...

I want Canon to strike a good balance between resolution and pixel size.

While 30+ MP might be nice for people who use tripods, it's fairly lame for people who shoot weddings/events at 6400+ ISO.

The recent rumor that Canon's new sensor might have a 4.2-micron design is extremely disappointing. I would much rather have something in the 6-micron range. And if that same rumor is true about it sharing architecture with the 7D2, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 03, 2015 03:04 |  #98

mclaren777 wrote in post #17363472 (external link)
I want Canon to strike a good balance between resolution and pixel size.

While 30+ MP might be nice for people who use tripods, it's fairly lame for people who shoot weddings/events at 6400+ ISO.

The recent rumor that Canon's new sensor might have a 4.2-micron design is extremely disappointing. I would much rather have something in the 6-micron range. And if that same rumor is true about it sharing architecture with the 7D2, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Well, Canon has plenty of cameras for wedding/high ISO/general photographers at the moment. It has nothing whatsoever for studio/landscape shooters. What's wrong with releasing a model that doesn't suit your style of photography?

After all, I don't begrudge Nikon and Sony for the D4s and A7s, even though I'd never buy one (D810 and A7r being much better suited to my needs). But Canon doesn't have a high-resolution/high DR option at all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 84
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Jan 03, 2015 03:48 |  #99

If we've learned one thing from Canon over the past five years, it's that it doesn't innovate well.

I'm worried that it will try to shoehorn this high-MP sensor into all of its FF cameras. Plus, if this does share architecture with the 7D2, it's not going to be very good.

Canon could potentially end up with the worst of both worlds: high noise at high ISO and bad DR like the 7D2.


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Jan 03, 2015 05:03 |  #100

mclaren777 wrote in post #17363524 (external link)
If we've learned one thing from Canon over the past five years, it's that it doesn't innovate well.

I'm worried that it will try to shoehorn this high-MP sensor into all of its FF cameras. Plus, if this does share architecture with the 7D2, it's not going to be very good.

Canon could potentially end up with the worst of both worlds: high noise at high ISO and bad DR like the 7D2.

Your first paragraph is pretty damning, but I probably wouldn't disagree. Though the dual pixel AF is interesting to some shooters.

For the high iso noise concerns; remember that noise per unit area is what matters, not noise per pixel. Thus it would still be a step forward to have a high MP sensor that gave more detail for low iso/good light and the same noise per unit area as a lower MP predecessor at high iso.

I've not looked into sensor stats for the 7D2, but does it scale in abilities as expected vs a full frame sensor? I.e. if a FF sensor were made from it, would it match the 5D3 for high iso noise? If so, it would be better than Canon's current offerings for some shooting styles.

I do agree though that they need to maintain the 5D "all rounder" line, as wedding and sports guys probably don't need crazy MP... unless the the fps speed could be maintained, and you know Canon would charge 1D money for that.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 03, 2015 05:53 |  #101

sploo wrote in post #17363546 (external link)
I do agree though that they need to maintain the 5D "all rounder" line, as wedding and sports guys probably don't need crazy MP... unless the the fps speed could be maintained, and you know Canon would charge 1D money for that.

Nikon managed decent fps with the D810 - faster than the 1Ds3 and probably more than you'd need for weddings (and sports has its own line anyway, which neither the D810 or 5D3 really fill) - while shooting at 36MP. With improvements in technology over the last few years, there's no reason Canon can't do the same with a 50MP sensor. After all, 4k video at 30fps requires the same bandwidth as 48MP at 5fps.

With resolution, you never need it until you realise you actually do. For instance, take 'tank man' and the famous photo of Che Guevarra. Both were heavy crops of the original photo. If there had been insufficient detail in the original - that is, the original only had enough resolution for it to be used as a whole image, rather than cropped - then the now-famous crops would not have been possible. But the original images had more than enough resolution for their purpose, rendering the final images usable despite the heavy crop.

If you don't want the file size, but the camera can shoot at fast-enough fps for your purposes, just shoot mRAW or sRAW. It will give you a better result than a native lower-resolution sensor, especially when it comes to moire and other aliasing artifacts.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Jan 03, 2015 08:17 |  #102

Shadowblade wrote in post #17363573 (external link)
Nikon managed decent fps with the D810 - faster than the 1Ds3 and probably more than you'd need for weddings (and sports has its own line anyway, which neither the D810 or 5D3 really fill) - while shooting at 36MP. With improvements in technology over the last few years, there's no reason Canon can't do the same with a 50MP sensor. After all, 4k video at 30fps requires the same bandwidth as 48MP at 5fps.

With resolution, you never need it until you realise you actually do. For instance, take 'tank man' and the famous photo of Che Guevarra. Both were heavy crops of the original photo. If there had been insufficient detail in the original - that is, the original only had enough resolution for it to be used as a whole image, rather than cropped - then the now-famous crops would not have been possible. But the original images had more than enough resolution for their purpose, rendering the final images usable despite the heavy crop.

If you don't want the file size, but the camera can shoot at fast-enough fps for your purposes, just shoot mRAW or sRAW. It will give you a better result than a native lower-resolution sensor, especially when it comes to moire and other aliasing artifacts.

I'm just always a bit cynical about Canon being protective of their 1D line; I suspect they wouldn't have added AF at f/8 to the 5D3 if it weren't for Nikon wrong footing them with the D800. As such, I'm not confident they'd offer high MP and decent fps for a competitive price. That said, they've put a lot into the 7D2, so maybe I'm being overly negative.

Like many other shooters (I suspect) I don't print large enough to warrant high MP, but as above, you've made the point about cropping before (previously in relation to wildlife) and I think that is a very persuasive argument. Given that some modern lenses are up to the task, a high MP FF sensor that will take an APS-C sized crop (with good resolution remaining) is a very attractive prospect; essentially the low light/shallow DOF ability of FF, and the "reach" of a crop in one body.

I've never used the lower res raw formats, but it does occur to me: what does the camera do re the Bayer data? It must be down sampling it (taking every nth pixel would result in moire). I suspect there would be compromises there, but then if you're shooting sRAW you're not looking for the ultimate resolution I guess.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,569 posts
Likes: 319
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 03, 2015 09:56 |  #103

sploo wrote in post #17363546 (external link)
Your first paragraph is pretty damning, but I probably wouldn't disagree. Though the dual pixel AF is interesting to some shooters.

For the high iso noise concerns; remember that noise per unit area is what matters, not noise per pixel. Thus it would still be a step forward to have a high MP sensor that gave more detail for low iso/good light and the same noise per unit area as a lower MP predecessor at high iso.

I've not looked into sensor stats for the 7D2, but does it scale in abilities as expected vs a full frame sensor? I.e. if a FF sensor were made from it, would it match the 5D3 for high iso noise? If so, it would be better than Canon's current offerings for some shooting styles.

If you go the DxOMark graph route, all you need to do is slide the 7D2 results for SNR18 up by 4dB to see how it would perform filling a FF with its pixels, and up 2dB to see how it would do as a 1.3x crop. For DR, you'd slide the 7D2 up 2/3 stop as FF, and 1/3 stop as a 1.3x crop. These three sensor sizes are pretty close to having equal spacing in noise characteristics, spread over 2/3 stop, with AOTBE. IOW, filled with the same pixels, a FF camera has 1/3 stop less image-level noise than an APS-H, and 2/3 stop less than APS-C. And of course, if filled with the same pixels and quality of readout electronics, the noise per unit of sensor area, or focal-length-limited noise is exactly the same.

What you get if you slide the trends like that to create something like a "Surface" (noise quality per unit of sensor area) option derived from DxO's "Print" option, is that the 7D2 has superior SNR18 over all FF and APS-H cameras by at least a small amount (the 1D3 and especially the 1D2 and original 5D fall way behind), surpasses all larger sensors at base ISO DR, and is about in the middle of the 5D3/6D/1Dx spread at high ISO DR. Of course, DxOMark is not without its faults. It measures noise as a monolithic statistic, with no regard for noise character, but this actually handicaps the 7D2 compared to many other Canons in the graphs, because the 7D2 has great noise character, and the poorer character of some other cameras makes their performance a little worse than the graphs suggest (the 5D2 is an excellent example - it's noise quantities at high ISO were very good in its day, but its noise character at both high and low ISOs was horrible - the 5D3 is a lot better, but not as good as the 7D2 or 6D in character).

Of course, just as the 7D2 has less high-ISO read noise than the 70D with the same size pixels, the same size pixels on a future camera could have even less pixel-level high-ISO noise, and equal or better the 1Dx in a FF. There is still a long way to go in reducing read noise; the target is not 1 electron, it is 0.15 electrons, because if the read noise is less than that, it can be removed from a capture without removing any photons captured, because each photon quantity has its own distinct bell curve in a histogram, not overlapping with the others. It is no easier to get read noise down to 0.15 electrons with large pixels; in fact, cell phone camera photosites have the least read noise as measured in electrons, and are closer to eliminating read noise completely.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,569 posts
Likes: 319
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 03, 2015 10:09 |  #104

sploo wrote in post #17363731 (external link)
I'm just always a bit cynical about Canon being protective of their 1D line; I suspect they wouldn't have added AF at f/8 to the 5D3 if it weren't for Nikon wrong footing them with the D800. As such, I'm not confident they'd offer high MP and decent fps for a competitive price. That said, they've put a lot into the 7D2, so maybe I'm being overly negative.

Like many other shooters (I suspect) I don't print large enough to warrant high MP, but as above, you've made the point about cropping before (previously in relation to wildlife) and I think that is a very persuasive argument. Given that some modern lenses are up to the task, a high MP FF sensor that will take an APS-C sized crop (with good resolution remaining) is a very attractive prospect; essentially the low light/shallow DOF ability of FF, and the "reach" of a crop in one body.

I've never used the lower res raw formats, but it does occur to me: what does the camera do re the Bayer data? It must be down sampling it (taking every nth pixel would result in moire). I suspect there would be compromises there, but then if you're shooting sRAW you're not looking for the ultimate resolution I guess.

AFAIK, the mRAW and sRAW formats are basically something like the full RAW capture demosaiced, but kept in RAW color space, and then downsampled and then converted to the same color space as JPEGs use, but without the heavy compression. No compression of luminance (after downsampling, of course), and 2x subsampling of color, IIRC. I like every last bit of detail, so I have never been very interested in these formats.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,450 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5494
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 03, 2015 10:20 |  #105

mclaren777 wrote in post #17363524 (external link)
If we've learned one thing from Canon over the past five years, it's that it doesn't innovate well.

I'm worried that it will try to shoehorn this high-MP sensor into all of its FF cameras. Plus, if this does share architecture with the 7D2, it's not going to be very good.

Canon could potentially end up with the worst of both worlds: high noise at high ISO and bad DR like the 7D2.

Even with shared artitechure of the 7D2, there will be a good bit more DR, more than any Canon FF out right now, including the 6D, which is fairly good, better noise characteristics and general performance, and more detail than any FF offering available today.

That would be a substantial upgrade for canon users, even if the 7D2's sensor isnt as good as the competition.


Sony A7rii/A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - 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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

25,758 views & 8 likes for this thread
50 Megapixel Canon in 2015...
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
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 icandide47
741 guests, 392 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.