Canon's New 50 MP Sensor

[BernardLanguillier]

like the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 at 10.2 pounds and a Canon 400 f/2.8 at 8.5 pounds, but you can't easily hand hold them. Hand holding a 2.75 pound lens with camera attached is no problem.

For what it's worth, the Nikon 400mm f2.8 E weights 8.37 pounds.

I did shoot it handheld a couple of times and it can be done... but isn't very enjoyable for sure.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DeanChriss]

For what it's worth, the Nikon 400mm f2.8 E weights 8.37 pounds.

I did shoot it handheld a couple of times and it can be done... but isn't very enjoyable for sure.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry if I got the weight wrong. I got it from http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/

I've seen people hand hold these things too, and even 600mm f/4 lenses, but I did say "...you can't easily hand hold them", which I think is true. I used a 400 f/2.8 for many years and mostly use a 600 f/4 now because I've tended more toward photographing birds versus mammals over the years. I've never used either handheld because it's unreasonable to do for any length of time. For tracking birds a full gimbal tripod head helps immensely.

But Canon's 400mm f/5.6 is a huge favorite among bird photographers because of its focal length, the fact it's easy to lift up and lock onto a bird, and unlike the faster lenses it acquires focus fast even with lower voltage battery packs, not to mention that it's relatively inexpensive and has good optical quality. It's fairly ubiquitous in the bird photographer community.

[Hulyss]

Such pussy's ...

[joneil]

 Let's say Canon or somebody else comes out with a new 48, 50 or 54 mp camera, there are a few practical issues at hand aside from size and weight:

1) Battery power.  The more MPs your sensor has, the more power it needs.  Also you will some pretty good processors in that camera to handle files that big if you want somethng that shoots more than 3-4 frames per second.   That kind of processor also sucks up power like crazy.  So either have a hokin' huge battery pack or lots of spare batteries.

2) Computer processing power.
                I just see it now - 5 shot HDR combined exposure.  Then try spooling and printing it.  We're gonna need a room sized super computer that would make the NSA green with envy. 

3) Hard drive space.
            Dunno about the rest of you guys, but I just bought an external 4 terrabyte HD, to handle files from my D800.      Maybe we can get 10 TB external hard drives soon. 

4) Memory cards.
          I thought those 32 and 64 GB compact flash cards for my D800 were expensive, for a 50MP camera you are gonna want or need what - 128GB and on up?

5) lenses
         How long after they come out with the first 50 mp camera before somebody complains on some photo forum somewhere that thier $5,000 Zeiss Otus lens isn't good enough for the new snesor?  I am serious.  Sometimes I get "attitude" from other places because I am "only using a ZF2 lens" on my D800 and not an Otus version.

    It isn't the camera that will cost you a fortune, it will be all the associated upgrades.  Short of winning a major lottery, for myself, I just do not see the need.  Your mileage may vary, but as the other thread on this forum points out, in the day and age of cell phone photography, and most commercial photography of consumer goods now all going CGI, how will you find need for such a beast?
later

             

[dwswager]

Such pussy's ...

Yeah!

[dwswager]

I find 36MP to be a good cut-off for me at least for now.  It makes for a great general camera.  A great in-camera down sampling algorithm would be real helpful to make a high pixel camera more useable as a general camera.

And yes, processing capability and onboard power will be the 2 areas where camera advancement will be made to enable significantly more capability.  But it's not insurmountable.  Do you remember when you got 36 exposures on a card (roll of film).  Learn to make those exposures count.

Let's say Canon or somebody else comes out with a new 48, 50 or 54 mp camera, there are a few practical issues at hand aside from size and weight:

1) Battery power.  The more MPs your sensor has, the more power it needs.  Also you will some pretty good processors in that camera to handle files that big if you want somethng that shoots more than 3-4 frames per second.   That kind of processor also sucks up power like crazy.  So either have a hokin' huge battery pack or lots of spare batteries.

2) Computer processing power.
                I just see it now - 5 shot HDR combined exposure.  Then try spooling and printing it.  We're gonna need a room sized super computer that would make the NSA green with envy. 

3) Hard drive space.
            Dunno about the rest of you guys, but I just bought an external 4 terrabyte HD, to handle files from my D800.      Maybe we can get 10 TB external hard drives soon. 

4) Memory cards.
          I thought those 32 and 64 GB compact flash cards for my D800 were expensive, for a 50MP camera you are gonna want or need what - 128GB and on up?

5) lenses
         How long after they come out with the first 50 mp camera before somebody complains on some photo forum somewhere that thier $5,000 Zeiss Otus lens isn't good enough for the new snesor?  I am serious.  Sometimes I get "attitude" from other places because I am "only using a ZF2 lens" on my D800 and not an Otus version.

    It isn't the camera that will cost you a fortune, it will be all the associated upgrades.  Short of winning a major lottery, for myself, I just do not see the need.  Your mileage may vary, but as the other thread on this forum points out, in the day and age of cell phone photography, and most commercial photography of consumer goods now all going CGI, how will you find need for such a beast?
later