Photokina - Canon abandons the pros

[BernardLanguillier]

One of the questions I think we all need to consider is whether it is enough to capture images today at 22mp when we know that they are likely to be commonly displayed in a few years on 8K screens that will be 32mp.

We can easily anticipate that the expected level will be going up steadily moving forward and that the accepted standard for detail will continue to evolve faster than we may think.

I know that I am not super comfortable posting online today landscape images I shot on film 20 years ago. Some are strong enough from a subject standpoint to overcome the limited quality, many relied on the "image quality" and they are now very far below the required threshold.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

I know that I am not super comfortable posting online today landscape images I shot on film 20 years ago.

Not wrong.
I flat copied some of my old prints recently and the high ISO live music stuff could have been rendered with more detail had I done them with crayons. 

[David Anderson]

This is hilarious. Digital sucks.

It sure does.
I assume you're reading this thread on paper ? 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

One of the questions I think we all need to consider is whether it is enough to capture images today at 22mp when we know that they are likely to be commonly displayed in a few years on 8K screens that will be 32mp.

Hi Bernard,

But at which viewing distance ...

Sure, resolution will probably go up for certain applications (e.g. large format output), but a lot of content will only be viewed on small displays. Afterall, most of us are currently looking at 100 PPI displays, from relatively short distances, and make due. I've seen huge (2x3 metres) output from a single 24x36mm 21 MP image up close, which was stunning (given it's humble origin).

Having said that, I do plan ahead and that is why I (like you do) attempt to use stitching for increased resolution (not necessarily for wider angle vistas) if the subject may end up being displayed relatively large for the intended viewing distance.

Cheers,
Bart

[torger]

I can see what is going to happen when Canon introduces a new high mp count sensor in a 1 series camera: people will then complain that it will be too expensive... sigh...

Who is willing today to pay north of USD 6000 for a 1DX like camera with high +40 mp sensor?

Yep, pricing won't be popular... but on the other hand, high res photography is expensive. Lenses that resolve are not cheap.

I would guess that when/if Canon launches a high res camera it will first come in a "1DXs" package (priced between 1DX and a Pentax 645z, say $7.2k or so), expensive but with all the robustness features of a pro body, and then it will launch a consumer model later on if they see they can make sales, and they will.

Some users today would like to see the Nikon D810 packaged in a pro level body, and are willing to pay for it.

[allegretto]

Putting a hi-res sensor into a 1D or D4 body has yet to be accomplished. Data handling and application in general mitigate against it with current technology. Managing all that data rapidly is quite a feat. Thus we see in Nikon you get speed or hi-res but not both. Ditto Sony.

So unless Canon scores a break thru, it's just not going to happen yet

maximizing speed is for sports etc. Thus a robust and fast camera. Resolution requires time. Can't do 11 fps at 50 Mpx… yet

So one might expect Canon to put that sensor in a smaller but still somewhat robust body. Perhaps a 5D w/good weather-seals and a 400K shutter. A silent shutter would be great too. Personally could do without the screen, but that's already considered too retro for most. One doesn't need a 3M screen for menu chomping and in reality would rather see very flexible presets that are user designated than chomping menus in the middle of things. So make that f-ing screen articulated so it's maximally useful instead of a godsend 20% of the time and a PITA 80% of the time

[DeanChriss]

I can see what is going to happen when Canon introduces a new high mp count sensor in a 1 series camera: people will then complain that it will be too expensive... sigh...

Who is willing today to pay north of USD 6000 for a 1DX like camera with high +40 mp sensor?

There are a huge number of 1DX bodies in the field, and I think a large percentage of those who also shoot things other than action would buy. I know I'd buy it in a heartbeat plus a few months to see if there are any serious problems. I know a many who'd pre-order. These bodies are bullet proof, not to mention that buying one is a lot less hassle, and cheaper, than replacing $40K in lenses.  

[EDIT: It would need to have a serious dynamic range increase too, not just more pixels. Without the DR increase I think there would be few buyers.]

[duane_bolland]

I'm in agreement that Canon doesn't have an answer for the Sony Exmor sensors.  But in practice, that isn't that big of a deal for most people.  I also think that Canon is very smart with regards to business.  With the A7 and D800 out there, there is much less demand for a high MP, high DR Canon camera.  The number of people that would be willing to pay $8000 for 46MP is relatively small and shrinking. 

I think it is quite likely that the contract with Nikon prevents Sony from selling the same chip to Canon and others.  But imagine what Canon could do if they were able to use Sony Exmor sensors?  Canon would save big money on R&D and eliminate their inferior chip production.  And it would instantly level the image quality playing field and focus attention back on lenses and general usability. 

[jjj]

One of the questions I think we all need to consider is whether it is enough to capture images today at 22mp when we know that they are likely to be commonly displayed in a few years on 8K screens that will be 32mp.

Something to consider - What won't change is normal viewing distance [for display]. People tend to stand further back from very large prints/displays and a print in the hand or magazine spread may well be viewed relatively larger than a massive print. A magazine spread takes up the same field of view as a 10' print on the wall in my lounge. I have numerous original film posters which look great at normal distances, but quite shocking if you get in close to them.
Only anal pixel peepers who go up close up to a large image will ever be bothered and frankly you'll never please them, because they are more concerned with the detail than the photo itself.

[jjj]

I think it is quite likely that the contract with Nikon prevents Sony from selling the same chip to Canon and others.  But imagine what Canon could do if they were able to use Sony Exmor sensors?  Canon would save big money on R&D and eliminate their inferior chip production.  And it would instantly level the image quality playing field and focus attention back on lenses and general usability. 

Which would be a bit like the days of film, with Sony being the new Kodak. The drawback being some folks like Fuji and others Agfa. So having two big companies with mostly comparable bodies but different looks isn't a bad thing.

[allegretto]

Which would be a bit like the days of film, with Sony being the new Kodak. The drawback being some folks like Fuji and others Agfa. So having two big companies with mostly comparable bodies but different looks isn't a bad thing.

this comment assumes that Canon lacks the R&D Horsepower to do it themselves

seeing as they own serious video for many, make great glass of various quality for various uses and have been innovating in usability I'm not sure the assumption is valid

let's see...

[jjj]

this comment assumes that Canon lacks the R&D Horsepower to do it themselves

No the comment was in reply to the concept of Canon using the same Sony sensors as other people. I'm not assuming anything about Canon's R+D.

[nemophoto]

I know that I am not super comfortable posting online today landscape images I shot on film 20 years ago. Some are strong enough from a subject standpoint to overcome the limited quality, many relied on the "image quality" and they are now very far below the required threshold.

I know exactly what you are saying Bernard. I have an image, shot in medium format (645) B&W, from Ireland which was scanned at hi-res. The image is beautiful and sells -- usually 32x48. I went back to the same location this summer and shot essentially a new version with my 1Dx. Even though the 1Dx is "only" 18MP, the image enlarges to the same 32x48 maintaining more detail.

To say, dismissively that "digital is junk", to me questions how an image is used, enlarged, etc. I've certainly found that digital has offered me far more flexibility in interpretation than my scanned film. For whatever reason, film is, well film. What you see is what you get. With digital, especially with ever better conversion software, I can go back years later and reinterpret an image in ways I've never been able to do with any of my scanned film images.

Petapixel re-awakened the 46MP 1Dx rumor recently, saying a camera would be intro'd at Photo Expo. Price tag -- a hefty $8-9000. Well, it remains to be seen, but I do feel Canon does need to do something. For me, though I've frequently borrowed from CPS or rented the 5D Mark III, I just don't love the camera. I've always preferred the more robust 1D series. I've owned every 1D (as well as the original EOS1) since the introduction. Depending upon the specs, the camera would last me a good 5-years or more. My 1Ds Mark III has shown that. My only reservations using my 1Ds3, at this point, are strictly use issues -- slower image write speeds, lower res LCD, and compared to my 1Dx, focus. I still consider the files to be beautiful at speeds of 50-400 ISO, even occasionally higher.  Would I use a higher res camera for everything? No. Would I use it for certain commercial shoots and landscapes? Absolutely.

From the number of posts, I think this has hit a cord with Canon users.

[nemophoto]

Something to consider - What won't change is normal viewing distance [for display]. People tend to stand further back from very large prints/displays and a print in the hand or magazine spread may well be viewed relatively larger than a massive print. A magazine spread takes up the same field of view as a 10' print on the wall in my lounge. I have numerous original film posters which look great at normal distances, but quite shocking if you get in close to them.
Only anal pixel peepers who go up close up to a large image will ever be bothered and frankly you'll never please them, because they are more concerned with the detail than the photo itself.

You're absolutely right here. My 1Dx is more than sufficient for most catalogs (who really don't want images that are too hi res anyway) and double truck magazine spreads. Hell, I have images that were shot with everything from an Olympus E10 to a Canon D30 (the original) and Canon 1D, that look great when printed on inkjet up to even 16x20 (on very select images), but certainly a full-page and even 11x17. It all depends upon the subject and detail level, etc. But some of those, even an 8x10 is pushing things a bit. Where the extra resolution REALLY comes into play (at least with fashion) is retouching, or truly fine details in a scenic. Only recently have I tried to overcome the latter by stitching. Works relatively well, but not on all things.

[allegretto]

No the comment was in reply to the concept of Canon using the same Sony sensors as other people. I'm not assuming anything about Canon's R+D.

your quite right! I meant to quote someone else

my bad... mea culpa...

[DeanChriss]

From the number of posts, I think this has hit a cord with Canon users.

It did, probably because many have been wanting to replace 1DS3 bodies and there's nothing to replace them with that offers better image quality in the low ISO range. I'd love to have all the improved features (LCD, write speed, and so on) of the 1DX on the 1DS3, but I wouldn't buy such a camera unless it also offered higher resolution and dynamic range. At the moment there is no such camera in the Canon line. All of this says a lot for how good the 1DS3 was in its day, and a lot about the stagnation at Canon.

I'm currently shooting with a 1DS3 and a 1DX, and have no complaints about the 1DX for its intended use. My plan all along was to replace the 1DS3 with Canon's next high resolution / high DR camera to compliment the 1DX. This nonexistent camera would necessarily be a lot slower, but 4 or 5 FPS is plenty for trees and rocks. Ideally the bodies would share the same batteries and charger because it's a lot more convenient, but it now looks as if they may not even share the same lenses.

[Hulyss]

I do not think Canon is abandoning the pros. This is just my impression but we see this only because Nikon is going faster at providing new cameras. Lets not forget that Nikon is helped by Sony ... a sort of successful synergy.

So Canon craft all by themselves, it is costly and long. About the Cinema, I heard that a lot of series in Hollywood are being partly filmed with canon gear, as main or crash cam. Cinema is a huge market because of huge budgets. I'm sure Canon gets a load of revenues with cinema stuff.

Now, for stills ... I never ever used any canon DSLR; not because I'm using Nikon, just because of karma. Forums are a huge source of propaganda and it is kinda difficult to make a choice today : Too much choice.

I'm SURE that canon will improve sensor tech any-time soon between now and 2016. If they come out with something as powerful and usable as the D810, I think I will jump just because of the lenses. For me and my business, Canon lenses are sexy, more than Nikon.

A simple kit would be a "D810 like" canon camera + 50f1.2 + 85f1.2 + a wide TS lens + either the 135f2 L or the Zeiss 135 f2. If the camera is robust and serious,I might not need more gear for the next 5 to 6 years. Apart the TS, all lenses I have mentioned do not really exist (AF wise) in Nikon land.

So I hope Canon is announcing something cool before December otherwise I will be forced to buy two D810 body and using it for the Next 5 years. (But I really want to try out a very high MP canon cam just for portraitures... and I absolutely love f1.2 lenses...).

[BernardLanguillier]

A simple kit would be a "D810 like" canon camera + 50f1.2 + 85f1.2 + a wide TS lens + either the 135f2 L or the Zeiss 135 f2. If the camera is robust and serious,I might not need more gear for the next 5 to 6 years. Apart the TS, all lenses I have mentioned do not really exist (AF wise) in Nikon land.

So I hope Canon is announcing something cool before December otherwise I will be forced to buy two D810 body and using it for the Next 5 years. (But I really want to try out a very high MP canon cam just for portraitures... and I absolutely love f1.2 lenses...).

It will be interesting to see how these lenses perform on a 46mp body.

Nikon has already played a remarkable card with their 58mm f1.4 (imho best bokeh with the Canon 85mm f1.2 of anything shorter than the Nikon 200mm f2.0) and they are likely to release soon their new 135mm f2.0. I would expect Sato san to have led that project too. He will probably have focused on look instead of emotionless technical perfection.

The Canon 85mm f1.2 is very special, no doubt.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

The Canon 85mm f1.2 is very special, no doubt.

Sure is.
One of Canons best IMHO and a lens Nikon has no answer for.
It's the first lens I'll buy for my new 46 mp 5DIV .. 

[dwswager]

When I got back into photography seriously, went full-on Nikon and the colors always bothered me, especially flesh tones. The RX-1 Sony is a helluva camera and I love it, but same thing on colors

Canon is far more pleasing color and balance to my eye and that is more important than having 6.023 X 10^23 pixels

However I do understand why for some the count, counts...

I find Canon oversaturates the Reds and Nikon oversaturates the greens.  Of course, depending on the camera model, you can customize this to some extent or 'correct' it globally on a per camera basis in your post processing software.  And most digital cameras want to shift blues toward purple.