Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on July 21, 2013, 06:12:04 pm
-
So you thought the next big thing from Canon would be a camera with a 40mp sensor? Well apparently not, its going to be a 75mp sensor or bigger...? (http://www.photographybay.com/2013/07/21/canon-testing-a-75mp-pro-dslr)
It's only a rumour of course, but I did hear it from the bloke in the pub that it was absolutely true and being developed in secret under the code name of - "The Flying Pig".
;D
Dave
-
... Nikon jumped from the 12MP D700 to the 36MP D800. Tripling Canon’s top cameras at 20+MP resolutions puts us in the ball park of 75MP.
Oh noes, that means the Nikon D900 will be 108 mega-pixels, then Canon will bring out a 225 mega-pixel camera, and then ...
-
Oh noes, that means the Nikon D900 will be 108 mega-pixels, then Canon will bring out a 225 mega-pixel camera, and then ...
I think anything around the same as the Nikon D800E would be nice and really get me interested and even nicer if it came with the no antialiasing filter option like the D800E, but anything more than that would be overkill IMO.
...and pigs might fly..? ;)
Dave
-
And just what brand of beverage was the bloke in the pub drinking?
-
I think anything around the same as the Nikon D800E would be nice and really get me interested and even nicer if it came with the no antialiasing filter option like the D800E, but anything more than that would be overkill IMO.
There's no such thing as overkill when it comes to pixel count. The more pixels the better. The more pixels, the more flexible the camera becomes, as a tool.
Having more pixels than required for any particular output is not a problem, assuming one has a modern computer and a modern memory card. Having less pixels than required to produce a sharp and detailed image at a particular size is always a problem.
The main issue for Canon would be the SNR and DR of a 75 mp sensor at the pixel level. All else being equal, the smaller the pixel the higher the noise. A full-frame 75 mp sensor used in crop mode, that is, the same FoV as a 7D, would be around 30 mp, which could compare very favourably with the 24 mp Nikon 7100 regarding its resolution potential.
However, unless Canon overhauls its design with regard to noise and DR at base ISO, a 75mp sensor might be even noisier than the 22 mp 5D3, at base ISO.
-
I suppose they will use in their new cameras the same technology used in the 70D, where nearly each one of the 20 megapixels of the camara is composed of two subpixeles, for their phase autofocus on chip detection... So, depending on how you define pixel, qe could say the 70d has a sensor of nearly 40 megapixels that produce files of 20 megapixels...
Maybe this full frame camera of 75 megapixels will produce files of the order of 40 megapixels...
Of course, this is just pure especulation on my side
-
Let's hope that this rumor is true.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just to give it another twist, the rumor has become also a multi-layer sensor without bayern pattern (no antialiasing filter)...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html
Now, that probably it is just wishing thinking...
-
Just to give it another twist, the rumor has become also a multi-layer sensor without bayern pattern (no antialiasing filter)...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html
Now, that probably it is just wishing thinking...
It may not be.
If they have managed to develop a multi-layer full frame sensor, 25mp photosites is exactly what I would expect for a first generation product. It would in fact be on the conservative side.
This would correspond to a 45-50mp bayer sensor based on what we have seen with the sigma DPm series vs the 5DIII/D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you are a wildlife/bird photographer, there may be "too many pixels". All that data has to be pumped through the ADC, into the buffer, into the card. Goodbye fast burst rates and big buffer. 75 MP images might cause a Canon to act like a Sigma Foveon Merrill camera...still waiting.. The post-processing would require significant upgrading of your computer, add more RAM, add another processor core, maybe merely add a large SSD as scratch disk.
-
Just to give it another twist, the rumor has become also a multi-layer sensor without bayern pattern (no antialiasing filter)...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html
Now, that probably it is just wishing thinking...
And it is only weeks away apparently and is going to be released this August - go here for more (http://www.photographybay.com/2013/07/24/canon-44-7mp-dslr-due-at-end-of-august/) - I still think pigs might fly ;D
Dave
-
And it is only weeks away apparently and is going to be released this August - go here for more (http://www.photographybay.com/2013/07/24/canon-44-7mp-dslr-due-at-end-of-august/) - I still think pigs might fly ;D
They will probably strive to announce before the D4x.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you are a wildlife/bird photographer, there may be "too many pixels". All that data has to be pumped through the ADC, into the buffer, into the card. Goodbye fast burst rates and big buffer. 75 MP images might cause a Canon to act like a Sigma Foveon Merrill camera...still waiting.. The post-processing would require significant upgrading of your computer, add more RAM, add another processor core, maybe merely add a large SSD as scratch disk.
Not necessarily, Nancy. One would expect a 75 mp full-frame camera to have one or more crop modes that reduce pixel count, increase burst rate, and extend effective telephoto reach, all of which are ideal for wildlife photography.
Potentially, the more megapixels the more useful the tool.
-
An now it looks like Canon Rumor confirms that the prototype really exists:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/an-update-on-the-75mp-camera-in-the-wild/
-
Not necessarily, Nancy. One would expect a 75 mp full-frame camera to have one or more crop modes that reduce pixel count, increase burst rate, and extend effective telephoto reach, all of which are ideal for wildlife photography.
Potentially, the more megapixels the more useful the tool.
I *never* understood the idea of crop modes. Spend money on a x mp camera, and ask it to only use x/2 pixels. If it's about using the crop as a digital zoom, that could be far better done at the computer rather than in-camera.
-
I *never* understood the idea of crop modes. Spend money on a x mp camera, and ask it to only use x/2 pixels. If it's about using the crop as a digital zoom, that could be far better done at the computer rather than in-camera.
It's quite simple really. All images are crops. A lens produces a circular image which is always cropped inside the camera to a rectangular shape of a particular format that matches the sensor.
Perhaps the confusion lies in the use of the terminology, 'cropped format'. All formats are in reality cropped formats. The full-frame 35mm format, or 135 format, which is 24mm x 36mm, is a cropped format. Perhaps the Canon APS-C format, or the Nikon DX format, should be called the 'cropped-more format'.
A 75mp full-frame sensor, so called, when in APS-C mode, would be approximately 30mp, which is higher resolution than the latest Canon 70D APS-C. Effectively, you get two cameras in one.
Now, you might well ask why bother to put the camera in APS-C crop mode. Why not do the cropping during post-processing on the computer? Well, as Nancy mentioned, when photographing wildlife, birds, or any fast-action sport, you probably want the fastest frame rate and the largest buffer you can get.
For example, my D800E has a rather slow 4fps. However, in DX mode that rate jumps up to 6fps, and the buffer will also hold a greater number of images. Also, if one is shooting in continuous mode a lot, the fact that the memory cards will hold a greater number of DX-size images could be an advantage.
-
It's quite simple really. [.....]
Sorry I wasn't very clear. I understand the concept and know what it means. It just doesn't seem sensible to *me* to pay a premium for a high-resolution camera and then immediately turn it into a lower-resolution one. My personal view is that the idea of paying resolution to gain frame rate is a poor trade. That's what I was trying to say.
I perfectly understand as well that some people feels that the frame rate is worth the trade off.
I should and probably should have been clearer.
-
I perfectly understand as well that some people feels that the frame rate is worth the trade off.
Well, it used to be that Canon was well represented in sportsjournalism where framerate is obviously important. At the same time they have to run the megapixel race just like the next brand. I can imagine they are in a bit of a quandary currently since photojournalism in general seems to go the route of the DoDo.
-
It just doesn't seem sensible to *me* to pay a premium for a high-resolution camera and then immediately turn it into a lower-resolution one. My personal view is that the idea of paying resolution to gain frame rate is a poor trade. That's what I was trying to say.
That's also quite simple. One pays a premium partly for the option of turning the high resolution camera into a lower resolution camera with a higher frame rate and a buffer which can hold a greater number of images.
I agree it would not be sensible to pay a premium for a higher resolution camera if one didn't have any use for those higher megapixels and/or the larger format of the higher-megapixel sensor.
However, I find it difficult to believe that any experienced photographer would not appreciate the advantages of the larger format, in conjunction with the greater number of pixels, especially considering that many of the best lenses currently available have been designed for the larger, full-frame format.
If one uses lenses designed for the larger format, as I do, the additional weight of a full-frame camera body, compared with an APS-C body, can be trivial. But the advantages of the greater Field of View obtainable with such lenses attached to a full-frame camera, are not trivial. One is in effect getting the best of both worlds, or, as I mentioned, two cameras in one.