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 27 Jan 2015 (Tuesday) 18:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

OK- I have to ask the question

 
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,657 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 3375
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Post edited over 5 years ago by umphotography.
     
Jan 27, 2015 18:05 |  #1

With the rumored 5D4's coming out in march

keep in mind that this is still a rumored camera even though there are site claiming that they are on the streets now for testing

But a serious question

Why in the heck do we need a 53 MP camera. Isnt that in medium format territory and kind of like major over kill for 95% of us

trying to find out the logic because lord knows i heard a lot of complaints from the Nikon guys about the 38Mp file and what a PITA they were to work with

Edjamikate me please. I dont get it at all


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
apersson850
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,208 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 383
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Traryd, Sweden
Post edited over 5 years ago by apersson850.
     
Jan 27, 2015 18:16 |  #2

We (Canon users) need it because they (Nikon users) have 36 Megapixel cameras.
53 > 36.
Simple marketing math.


Anders

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,674 posts
Gallery: 535 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 8704
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Jan 27, 2015 18:18 |  #3

apersson850 wrote in post #17403171 (external link)
We (Canon users) need it because they (Nikon users) have 36 Megapixel cameras.
53 > 36.
Simple marketing math.


:lol: Like the space race of days gone by.

btw - not everyone has the 36MP camera. :lol:


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tagnal
Goldmember
1,255 posts
Likes: 62
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 27, 2015 18:23 |  #4

I remember this old post discussing MP...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=747749


5D3 / M3 / S100 / Σ 35 Art / 50 1.8 / 135 L / 17-40 L / 24-70 L / 70-200 f/4 IS L / m 22 2.0 / 580ex II
Toy List | flickr (external link) | FAA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,672 posts
Gallery: 1945 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11847
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 5 years ago by MalVeauX.
     
Jan 27, 2015 18:28 |  #5

umphotography wrote in post #17403150 (external link)
Why in the heck do we need a 53 MP camera. Isnt that in medium format territory and kind of like major over kill for 95% of us

trying to find out the logic because lord knows i heard a lot of complaints from the Nikon guys about the 38Mp file and what a PITA they were to work with

Heya,

While the resolution is more like what you'd expect to find in medium format, it's not nearly the same, not at all. The sensor size is the difference.

Doubling the MP count for the same size pixel is just going to increase pixel density, by a lot. It means more pixels on target. This will allow larger crops while retaining detail (but with a limit, the glass used to capture it has to be high resolving enough to actually do this in the first place). So that said, with glass that is highly resolving, these sensors will be very nice for people who want to print LARGE prints without buying into a $20k entry medium format kit. Doing it for say... $5~6k is a better cost for someone needing to print that large. That allows for the camera and one really highly resoling lens basically.

I'd have concerns for ISO quality at that high of a density, because that's how much light on how many little pixels? There's a reason that the low light titans of right now (both Nikon & Canon & Sony) have lower pixel density to gather more light per pixel.

Personally I don't want high pixel density yet. Higher resolution has limits of usefulness depending on the media you're viewing it from (print or digital).

I went from 18MP to 8MP because frankly, can't tell much of a difference in web-sharing and stuff, and for print, well, up to an 8x10 is hardly different, only noticed when I did a 20x30.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,038 posts
Gallery: 547 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1637
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 27, 2015 18:39 |  #6

You have to remember that a 56 Mpix FF camera is only of the same pixel density as a 70D/7DII. So if I were buying this for general duty photography I would probably NOT consider the version without the AA filter. There are plenty of lenses on the market that can exceed the Nyquist spatial cutoff frequency on those crop bodies. As it is impossible to filter out the aliasing artifacts digitally I would not want to record them in the first place. I think I would quite like one with a 600mm lens hung on it for airshows. If I could afford the body/lens combination I could afford the storage and processing power needed to deal with the files.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 27, 2015 19:11 |  #7

umphotography wrote in post #17403150 (external link)
With the rumored 5D4's coming out in march

keep in mind that this is still a rumored camera even though there are site claiming that they are on the streets now for testing

But a serious question

Why in the heck do we need a 53 MP camera. Isnt that in medium format territory and kind of like major over kill for 95% of us

trying to find out the logic because lord knows i heard a lot of complaints from the Nikon guys about the 38Mp file and what a PITA they were to work with

Edjamikate me please. I dont get it at all

Some of us print large.

Really large.

It's also good if you need to crop heavily (e.g. when shooting wildlife with a long lens).

If you don't need 53MP, you can shoot in mRAW/sRAW and end up with images better than shots taken at a native 27/13.5MP. But if you do want to print something large, you can't upsample a smaller file and magically get more detail.

Even with 36MP (which seems to give output equal to 6x9-format colour film) I end up using stitching techniques on most of my shots, for a final resolution of 60MP (when shifting a tilt-shift lens and cropping to 1:3 format) to 200MP (when using a rotational technique). When you print as large as 40x120", you need all the resolution you can get.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 27, 2015 19:20 |  #8

MalVeauX wrote in post #17403200 (external link)
Heya,

While the resolution is more like what you'd expect to find in medium format, it's not nearly the same, not at all. The sensor size is the difference.

Doubling the MP count for the same size pixel is just going to increase pixel density, by a lot. It means more pixels on target. This will allow larger crops while retaining detail (but with a limit, the glass used to capture it has to be high resolving enough to actually do this in the first place). So that said, with glass that is highly resolving, these sensors will be very nice for people who want to print LARGE prints without buying into a $20k entry medium format kit. Doing it for say... $5~6k is a better cost for someone needing to print that large. That allows for the camera and one really highly resoling lens basically.

I'd have concerns for ISO quality at that high of a density, because that's how much light on how many little pixels? There's a reason that the low light titans of right now (both Nikon & Canon & Sony) have lower pixel density to gather more light per pixel.

Personally I don't want high pixel density yet. Higher resolution has limits of usefulness depending on the media you're viewing it from (print or digital).

I went from 18MP to 8MP because frankly, can't tell much of a difference in web-sharing and stuff, and for print, well, up to an 8x10 is hardly different, only noticed when I did a 20x30.

Very best,

Actually, it's more similar than you think.

35mm format requires sharper glass than MF due to the higher pixel density, but sharp 35mm glass is also easier to make than sharp MF glass due to the smaller image circle involved. That's why 35mm glass adapted to medium format looks great (e.g. TS-E lenses used in front of a Phase One back), but most medium-format lenses look subpar when adapted to a 35mm body - they're sharp enough for the less-demanding medium format, but not sharp enough for higher pixel densities.

If you halve the pixel size (e.g. go from 5.6-micron photosites to 4-micron photosites, which is a halving of the area) then you need to also halve the ISO in order to collect the same number of photons and end up with the same amount of noise. Fortunately, CMOS sensors are generally much cleaner than the CCD sensors used by most MF backs - you can shoot a 35mm CMOS sensor at a much higher ISO than a MF CCD sensor without getting significant noise.

Again, if you don't want the resolution, there are other cameras, as well as mRAW and sRAW. Right now, Canon has many different bodies for action/general photography and nothing whatsoever for landscape/studio photographers. It's about time we had a decent Canon body - we haven't had one since the 5D2, which was released seven years ago!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,657 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 3375
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 27, 2015 19:23 |  #9

Shadowblade wrote in post #17403272 (external link)
Actually, it's more similar than you think.

35mm format requires sharper glass than MF due to the higher pixel density, but sharp 35mm glass is also easier to make than sharp MF glass due to the smaller image circle involved. That's why 35mm glass adapted to medium format looks great (e.g. TS-E lenses used in front of a Phase One back), but most medium-format lenses look subpar when adapted to a 35mm body - they're sharp enough for the less-demanding medium format, but not sharp enough for higher pixel densities.

If you halve the pixel size (e.g. go from 5.6-micron photosites to 4-micron photosites, which is a halving of the area) then you need to also halve the ISO in order to collect the same number of photons and end up with the same amount of noise. Fortunately, CMOS sensors are generally much cleaner than the CCD sensors used by most MF backs - you can shoot a 35mm CMOS sensor at a much higher ISO than a MF CCD sensor without getting significant noise.

Again, if you don't want the resolution, there are other cameras, as well as mRAW and sRAW. Right now, Canon has many different bodies for action/general photography and nothing whatsoever for landscape/studio photographers. It's about time we had a decent Canon body - we haven't had one since the 5D2, which was released seven years ago!

Thank You sir. This made a lot of sense. I can see how that landscape guys would love something like this.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 27, 2015 19:23 |  #10

BigAl007 wrote in post #17403218 (external link)
You have to remember that a 56 Mpix FF camera is only of the same pixel density as a 70D/7DII. So if I were buying this for general duty photography I would probably NOT consider the version without the AA filter. There are plenty of lenses on the market that can exceed the Nyquist spatial cutoff frequency on those crop bodies. As it is impossible to filter out the aliasing artifacts digitally I would not want to record them in the first place. I think I would quite like one with a 600mm lens hung on it for airshows. If I could afford the body/lens combination I could afford the storage and processing power needed to deal with the files.

Alan

Depends what you shoot. I rarely run into aliasing problems when shooting landscapes, even at 36MP. And medium-format digital backs, which run from 40-80MP, also don't have an AA filter.

If you shoot people (who are usually wearing woven fabrics) obviously things would be different. I've hardly ever shot someone with a camera.

Ideally, you'd get one of each version, just like how some people bought both the D800 and the D800e.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guntoter
Goldmember
Avatar
2,409 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 76
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Knoxville, Tn
Post edited over 5 years ago by guntoter.
     
Jan 27, 2015 19:45 |  #11

Question:
If I have a 53 mp FF with a pixel density approximately the same at, say, my 7D II, and I choose SRaw to get down to the approximate same MP as the 7D II, will the QUALITY of the "approximately" 20 mp image be the same as the quality of a 20 MP FF with the less dense pixels?

Did that question make sense? I know I got a little "wordy" with it.

In other words, choosing the sRaw might make the MP count smaller, but you are still dealing with the high pixel density even if you are not using all the pixels (I am assuming that sRaw just uses 1/3 of the pixels, could be wrong about how they do that).


Joel
GEAR
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
346 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Jan 27, 2015 19:58 |  #12

I have an ancient Epson 7600 24" printer downstairs that prints 24" by however long a print I care to make, and I love to make big prints. A 24x36" print from my 5Dii gives roughly 160 pixels per inch on the print. A 6000x9000 54MP sensor would give me 250 dpi on the print, and I have many lenses that can make use of that resolution because they show great detail on my wife's NEX crop body, and on that size print, the difference will be CLEARLY visible. Even the 16x24" prints I make most often will look better, viewed in the hand as they often are.

Now, there are people who will soon chime in and say that if my 24x36" print from a 5Dii doesn't look good, it is my poor post processing skills, or I'm viewing too close. To the first point, if the detail isn't in the capture, it won't be in the print, and to the second, well I'll look at my prints any way I want to, and you may too as far as I'm concerned. I want them to look like I want them to look. I want pine needles to look like pine needles, dammit, even in a shot that is not OF pine needles. That's what they look like, not blobs at the end of detailless branches.

Having said that, I think that if you take pictures of people, which move, or shoot hand held without a flash in less than direct full sunlight, there is likely not a lot of point in a 50MP camera. Pictures of relatively large objects filling the frame relatively full have plenty of resolution now. Pictures of hot air balloons can be printed any size from any camera. Portraits at 22MP have more detail than most people would want to see. But even having trees look like actual trees do in a wide angle shot is a whole lot tougher.

I know...just shoot panos...

Frankly, 50MP is just a step in the right direction for some of us. I'm pretty sure even my $280 Sigma 70mm macro would hold up fine on 100MP. Not sure about my tripod technique, though.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 27, 2015 20:00 |  #13

guntoter wrote in post #17403320 (external link)
Question:
If I have a 53 mp FF with a pixel density approximately the same at, say, my 7D II, and I choose SRaw to get down to the approximate same MP as the 7D II, will the QUALITY of the "approximately" 20 mp image be the same as the quality of a 20 MP FF with the less dense pixels?

Did that question make sense? I know I got a little "wordy" with it.

In other words, choosing the sRaw might make the MP count smaller, but you are still dealing with the high pixel density even if you are not using all the pixels (I am assuming that sRaw just uses 1/3 of the pixels, could be wrong about how they do that).

It will be better than the native 20MP sensor. By downsizing, you get rid of most of the artifacts, colour fringing and other aberrations associated with a full-resolution (whether 'full' is 20MP or 53MP) Bayer-sensor image.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guntoter
Goldmember
Avatar
2,409 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 76
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Knoxville, Tn
     
Jan 27, 2015 20:06 |  #14

Shadowblade wrote in post #17403343 (external link)
It will be better than the native 20MP sensor. By downsizing, you get rid of most of the artifacts, colour fringing and other aberrations associated with a full-resolution (whether 'full' is 20MP or 53MP) Bayer-sensor image.

Shadowblade, I will have to bow to your expertise on that one. It will be interesting to confirm that in case they do produce a 53 MP camera.

Can you imagine the size of the files. My 20 mp files are 25 mb in raw. What will the 53's be?


Joel
GEAR
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 27, 2015 20:45 as a reply to  @ guntoter's post |  #15

Certainly smaller than the 60-200MP panoramas I usually work with.




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

7,970 views & 4 likes for this thread
OK- I have to ask the question
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 johnny5o4
944 guests, 197 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.