Canon 5D Mark III Rumors

jwcdds wrote in post #13908617
Let me use another term then. Instead of using "normal"... replace it with "majority".

Majority of people who look at photos don't look for the fine details. (Is it wrong to want to do so? No. Do most people do it? No.) So in that sense, people "normally" look at the entire image/photo and not fuss with the fine details.

Are you counting casual photo viewers? Then you're right. Among more "serious" photo enthusiasts I don't know the distribution between those who look at fine details and those who don't. And shouldn't those be one's target audience typically? Just wondering out loud.

That goes back to what I said earlier that it doesn't have to be either or. That's a false separation. Good photo = good. Same good photo + fine details = better. Oversimplified and all else is never equal, but you get the point.

I rather like pickles. So much so that I'm trying to make my own right now. I think I got the recipe wrong though.

A little cross posting from one of the other 10k MP threads...

I don't make huge prints, but would like the ability to do so if I so desire. I typically view photos on my computer or other devices. I am unlikely to ever make a dime taking photos. I take a lot of pictures of my family.

The most appealing aspect of this hobby, to me, is the ability to capture a moment in time and to save that for myself or others. The archival nature of this appeals to me.

I can't say with certainty what will happen with displays and print mediums in the future, but the recent trend is to continually pack more resolution into all of our displays. My cell phone screen is 3.5in diagonal and has a resolution of 960x 640. I have no idea what displays will look like in 20/50/100 years, or what device my son might use to show photos to his grandchildren.

Right now, I would say that in the scale of priorities I would like better low-light performance out of my camera. I don't want to sacrifice other features we currently enjoy for the sake of higher resolution. However, all else being equal, if you give me more megapixels, I will take them. Who knows on what medium people will be experiencing our work in the future.

There is a reason why a vast number of landscape photographers still use large format film...those are the ones who would say that the picture lacked sufficient detail.

When I watch audiences at photo exhibits, I commonly see viewers mozy as close as physically possible to photographs to observe their detail, then move back out to observe the image in its entiretly. I once saw a man whip out a loupe to inspect the detail of a landscape.

This phenomenon of moving close doesn't happen with paintings, only with photographs. Photographic audiences do expect a photograph to reveal more detail as the get closer to it, and I suspect those people feel a bit of disappointment when it does not reveal the detail close-up that they were hoping for.

Totally agree. I buy music in loseless formats and save images as high quality as possible for the exact same reasons.

I never thought I'd need more than the 6 megapixels that was in my canon 10d. But here I am realizing that I'd never want to go back to using that again. Fast forward 10 years when the megapixel count is in the hundreds or whatever it is. Could any of us truly argue that we'd still be happy with our 12/24/36 megapixels cameras?

Or to look at it from another perspective. Would any of us be able to differentiate enough between a 22 vs a 36 megapixel camera? They are both really in the same league if your talking about using cameras in the future with hundreds of megapixels.

Way too much thinking. LOL.

Hardcore wrote in post #13909201
I never thought I'd need more than the 6 megapixels that was in my canon 10d. But here I am realizing that I'd never want to go back to using that again. Fast forward 10 years when the megapixel count is in the hundreds or whatever it is. Could any of us truly argue that we'd still be happy with our 12/24/36 megapixels cameras?

Or to look at it from another perspective. Would any of us be able to differentiate enough between a 22 vs a 36 megapixel camera? They are both really in the same league if your talking about using cameras in the future with hundreds of megapixels.

Way too much thinking. LOL.

I'm very happy with my 5Dc, I don't see myself changing from that platform soon. To use a common expression "They'll have to pry it from my dead, cold hands"

RDKirk wrote in post #13909024
There is a reason why a vast number of landscape photographers still use large format film...those are the ones who would say that the picture lacked sufficient detail.

When I watch audiences at photo exhibits, I commonly see viewers mozy as close as physically possible to photographs to observe their detail, then move back out to observe the image in its entiretly. I once saw a man whip out a loupe to inspect the detail of a landscape.

This phenomenon of moving close doesn't happen with paintings, only with photographs. Photographic audiences do expect a photograph to reveal more detail as the get closer to it, and I suspect those people feel a bit of disappointment when it does not reveal the detail close-up that they were hoping for.

How does that really translate into sales for Canon though? One could also argue that if you're shooting landscape, you could foreseeable just use current cameras and take 6, 9, 50 photos and stitch them into one super-duper MP image and then have it printed for maximum detail. And then how many of these prints can one make to sell for a profit?

While more MP may help the "relative few" (when you look at the overall numbers of consumers buying said cameras), for the vast majority, more MP is not necessary at all. Is it a bad thing to have excess MP wasted by resized/downsized or stored on harddrives and never to be viewed for years? No. But for most, the MP are over-kill, and to some, even annoying because it slows down their post-processing workflow.

Bottom line, more MP to capture more details is not a bad thing, in an ideal world. But practicality trumps all. Canon's trying to design and market a camera that will generate the most sales. If for years now people have been barking at them to make a D700 equivalent camera... and they come up with a D700-like 5D3/5DX, then blame it on the folks who have been crying about wanting a Canon version of the D700.

Browsing through some of the Nikon threads elsewhere, it seems many Nikon users aren't terribly pleased with 36mp either. So many people so unhappy with the latest product announcement, where Canon hasn't even made anything remotely official yet regarding the 5D replacement.

As I've said before, Canon Inc has already said that they created the 5D series for the enthusiast who had not yet migrated from film.

If one is a camera manufacture, one is likely to work on a line of cameras with resolution as high as possible to capture that market segment.

The "vast majority" is who Rebels are for. The 7D is for the "relatively few" who need an less expensive action camera. The 1Dx is for the "relatively few" who need a maximum performance camera. Why would Canon not create a camera for the "relatively few" who want the highest resolution they can build into the 35mm form format?

jwcdds wrote in post #13909347
Bottom line, more MP to capture more details is not a bad thing, in an ideal world. But practicality trumps all. Canon's trying to design and market a camera that will generate the most sales.

More MP = more detail.

Bottom line, Canon (at least in NZ) markets the 5FII as a professional series camera. Image size on disk is no issue whatsoever for a professional photographer.

Practically for a professional photographer it means a few more GB of storage space of the course of a year. That's practically nothing. There are USB3 card readers available, so download time is not an issue. SSDs are now the norm for professionals so loading times are not an issue. Manipulating a 36MP file is not going to add practically any burden to a machine happily working with 21MP images.

Canon are selling the 5 range to professionals. That is their market. Joe Enthusiast complaining about having to deal with larger files can go suck it for all Canon cares. They make up a fraction of the intended market.

The last time I saw a Large format shooter out on location, shooting landscapes, he was in a crap spot for composition. He spent ages faffing about with his light meter and 130mm Lee grads....then he arsed about with his bellows for about a further 10 mins. I was watching him with great amusement, while I tucked into a cornish pastie and an ice cream. We was in Penzance on a landscape workshop, we'd all got up at the crack of dawn and nailed a set of stunning sunrises over St Michael's mount...but this clown turned up mid day with all the wrong light and the tide was all wrong.

Using Large Format really is a PITA (in my opinion) and unless you have a customer with very specific resolution requirements, a 5DII can yield some pretty decent images or prints.

Would any of us be able to differentiate enough between a 22 vs a 36 megapixel camera?

Way too much thinking. LOL.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!! It would take 4X the pixel count to double resolution.

Joei wrote in post #13910784
Exactly!! It would take 4X the pixel count to double resolution.

But your not taking into account the approx. 30% resolution boost from not having an AA filter.

And yet, people do it. People also shoot with medium format digital, as hideously expensive as it is. A large portion of those groups--as well as the former 1Ds shooters--would immediately snap up a 36mp 5D3.

The 5D series was never intended for "everyman." That's why Canon called it a "premium" camera line.

Joei wrote in post #13910784
Would any of us be able to differentiate enough between a 22 vs a 36 megapixel camera?

Way too much thinking. LOL.

Exactly!! It would take 4X the pixel count to double resolution.

I've seen samples, and 100% views from the D800...

Dont know if its the 36mp or something else at work, but the detail coming out of the sensor is stunning..

And im referring to the D800, Not the D800E....

KenjiS wrote in post #13910915
Exactly!! It would take 4X the pixel count to double resolution.

I've seen samples, and 100% views from the D800...

Dont know if its the 36mp or something else at work, but the detail coming out of the sensor is stunning..

And im referring to the D800, Not the D800E....

I agree, what I've seen is stunning. But I'm waiting until we see images shot by people who aren't on the Nikon payroll. I'd be willing to bet what we're seeing has gone thru more than one review committee before they were allowed to be published.