OK- I have to ask the question

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

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

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

Like the space race of days gone by.

btw - not everyone has the 36MP camera.

I remember this old post discussing MP...

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

umphotography wrote in post #17403150
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,

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

umphotography wrote in post #17403150
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.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17403200
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!

Shadowblade wrote in post #17403272
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.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17403218
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.

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).

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.

guntoter wrote in post #17403320
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.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17403343
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?

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