53Mp canon is it a step too far

[Manfred M]

Nick - people that buy a 53MP (or 36MP) camera are definitely thinking about prints, not displaying on the web or computer screen, and are looking at large prints, i.e starting at 16 x 20 or larger. They are also thinking about a wider gamut than sRGB.

Target audience would be wedding, fashion, fine art, portrait and landscape photographers. This type of camera would be competing with the medium format lines.

Don't forget, upsampling means loss of detail.

[mrinmoyvk]

I hope sensor size is also increased along with pixel count. Just reducing the pixel size to fit more would be of least profit.

[Manfred M]

I hope sensor size is also increased along with pixel count. Just reducing the pixel size to fit more would be of least profit.

A larger sensor would include designing a whole new set of lenses for the camera. Current lenses are designed to cover a specific format, and their image circles cover that format; the largest of which is FF.

If Canon were to launch, say a medium format camera, then it would have to introduce new lenses to do so. This is certainly not impossible, as both Pentax and Leica did so when they launched their medium format cameras. However, it would be a somewhat risky move, as this is a fairly small market niche and is already dominated by some fairly significant players.

[mrinmoyvk]

A larger sensor would include designing a whole new set of lenses for the camera. Current lenses are designed to cover a specific format, and their image circles cover that format; the largest of which is FF.

If Canon were to launch, say a medium format camera, then it would have to introduce new lenses to do so. This is certainly not impossible, as both Pentax and Leica did so when they launched their medium format cameras. However, it would be a somewhat risky move, as this is a fairly small market niche and is already dominated by some fairly significant players.

But then what would be use of whooping 53 MPs even in FF as I cannot think of anything other than wild life photography which needs heavy cropping, but for which 24 or 36 should not be less I guess. Might be I am missing something.

[chauncey]

Might be I am missing something.

A definite probability...it will come to you with more experience.

[Venser]

Don't forget, upsampling means loss of detail.

In theory, practise and theory are the same, in practise they are not.

The point being is most of the time, if you know what you're doing, the loss of detail is meaningless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZb_NoWoEK8

These discussions always tickle my fancy since people rip on me for selling my D700 and D810 and moving entirely to the m43 world. I still print things at 24"x36" and no one can tell it's not full frame.

Moving up to 53MP seems rather pointless from my perspective. I've made 5'x7' prints with my D700 and unless you were making love to it, you couldn't notice a lack of sharpness or any image degradation whatsoever. Would another 41MP have made a difference? Only to the file size.

[JR1]

But then what would be use of whooping 53 MPs even in FF as I cannot think of anything other than wild life photography which needs heavy cropping, but for which 24 or 36 should not be less I guess. Might be I am missing something.

I think that is wrong, why does wildlife photography need any more cropping than anything else, you use the appropriate lens say 400 to 600

[AB26]

Some were something tells me this Canon is going to be a medium format.

[JR1]

A larger sensor would include designing a whole new set of lenses for the camera. Current lenses are designed to cover a specific format, and their image circles cover that format; the largest of which is FF.

If Canon were to launch, say a medium format camera, then it would have to introduce new lenses to do so. This is certainly not impossible, as both Pentax and Leica did so when they launched their medium format cameras. However, it would be a somewhat risky move, as this is a fairly small market niche and is already dominated by some fairly significant players.

I agree with this. Once I use MF, Pentax 645 as 35mm was just not there for my weddings/landscape years ago, but with 36Mp Nikon I don't need a MF camera now

[chauncey]

Buy no means a definitive test but...when I shoot the same shot using a tripod mounted, dated,
13MP Canon Rebel and a 22MP Canon 1Ds3, then downsample the 22MP to 13MP, I get a much
better image on my monitor. Especially when viewing at 100%.

I've read this occurring on other sites, just can't seem to find them now.

[Nicks Pics]

Nick - people that buy a 53MP (or 36MP) camera are definitely thinking about prints, not displaying on the web or computer screen, and are looking at large prints, i.e starting at 16 x 20 or larger. They are also thinking about a wider gamut than sRGB.

Target audience would be wedding, fashion, fine art, portrait and landscape photographers. This type of camera would be competing with the medium format lines.

Don't forget, upsampling means loss of detail.

It would be helpful if you would state directly whether you think the larger pixel theory is erroneous, and why. What you plan to do with the camera is a secondary issue, as what kind of sensor you want should vary depending on your understanding of them.

[Nicks Pics]

Buy no means a definitive test but...when I shoot the same shot using a tripod mounted, dated,
13MP Canon Rebel and a 22MP Canon 1Ds3, then downsample the 22MP to 13MP, I get a much
better image on my monitor. Especially when viewing at 100%.

I've read this occurring on other sites, just can't seem to find them now.

This is an irrelevant test, I think, because you said "older" 13 mp camera. Comparing the quality of the technology from years ago to now doesn't affect the principle used in the technology that you are comparing.

[NorthernFocus]

The necessary pixel density for packing 53MP onto a full frame sensor already exists in APS-C format. And even higher densities on smaller formats. I suspect that the technical difficulties lie in transferring and processing the sensor data in a practical timeframe for photography. Someone who actually has a clue(which I don't) can speak to it if they wish. But with the current business challenges faced by camera companies and the CaNikon wars to continually one-up each other in leapfrog fashion, a medium format camera doesn't seem likely. More likely would be to rectify the inbalance in the force caused by Nikon's 36MP bodies which has gone unanswered for three years now.

The discussions always amuse me. For one it points out how difficult it is for any one of us to understand perspectives other than our own. If we don't want/need a higher pixel count then clearly anyone who does is wrong. So we each make our arguments for or against to rationalize/justify our own position. So how about we all just agree to disagree, give it a couple of weeks until something actually happens so we can argue over something tangible, then start with the "I told you so" posts

[Stagecoach]

But then what would be use of whooping 53 MPs even in FF as I cannot think of anything other than wild life photography which needs heavy cropping, but for which 24 or 36 should not be less I guess. Might be I am missing something.

Versatility !

Each day of the week I walk out of the lift doors at the floor where I have parked my car and face a '"huge" picture of a very attractive female head and shoulders (one day I may note what it's advertising) and at a very close viewing distance (no option) it's impressive. Someone had the right equipment to produce that image.

I drive a large, powerful 4WD that spends the vast majority of it's time on smooth (Fiji smooth) roads with a national speed limit of 50mph. Why, because I have the option when needed to fully use it's potential.

It's all about versatility, some like to have options in one piece of kit.

[ajohnw]

When I read these posts I am reminder just how amazing my EM-1 is shooting at 64mp FF equivalent hand held even with a 500mm mirror lens on. The shots are also so amazingly sharp too, I mean most m 4/3 lenses resolve more lp/mm than any full frame or crop lens.

Then there is my Nikon V2, 75mp FF equivalent. Nikon actually publish 60 lp/mm rather than 40 on these. Amazingly sharp. They must be with that many pixels. I have had hand shake problems with this. Must be a step too far and the firmware upgrade isn't needed.

I went to a seance the other day and they called up Nyquist. The poor man was scratching his head. Totally bemused and can't understand how they have got rid of the anti aliasing filter. Ziess popped up, laughed and said they had being doing this on compacts and bridge cameras for years.

Since the Canon rumour gained a bit of credence from posts on here and elsewhere Hasselblad and others shares have plummeted and they are wondering if they should simply get completely out of camera manufacture all together and switch to washing machines and cookers as the buyers are generally more astute. They were already in the doldrums thanks to the D800 that rocked their market rather severely.

53mp does make more sense than 36 in a rather odd way. More scope for improvement in lenses. The ultimate would be 4 pixels that fit is a 1.3um circle allowing use down to F1.2

John

[Manfred M]

It would be helpful if you would state directly whether you think the larger pixel theory is erroneous, and why. What you plan to do with the camera is a secondary issue, as what kind of sensor you want should vary depending on your understanding of them.

I wish I could give a simple yes / no answer to that question, but unfortunately, the correct answer is "it depends".

And NO what you plan to do with the camera is the PRIMARY issue. The camera designers have made specific trade-offs that would suggest that a specific camera is likely more suitable for certain types of photography / output media than others. Taking a hypothetical 56MP Canon, for example. I would be surprised if the target market would be sports or photographers that do hand-held, low light work. High pixel count tends to mean smaller sensels, which means that they don't do ultra-low light conditions as well as cameras with larger ones. Likewise, with larger amounts of data to process and write to memory cards, mean slower burst speeds. On the flip side, high resolution and the ability to get maximum performance out of Canon's L glass, will drive this camera into the hands of landscape, wedding and fashion photographers. It will give the medium format cameras a good hard run for image quality.

[chauncey]

I would question why our time is being spent trying to educate someone that lacks the desire/knowledge
to do high end shoots. It's a different ball game altogether.

[ajohnw]

I would question why our time is being spent trying to educate someone that lacks the desire/knowledge
to do high end shoots. It's a different ball game altogether.

Maybe that comment is from some one who thinks they can and do

Some one did attempt to answer this question some time ago. The site it is on is of course beyond reproach so how dare anyone argue.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml

It's not too bad really from a technical point of view. In a 2D image world mention should be made of 4 pixel blocks and more should be said about debayering complications. It mentions light circles = format sizes and that small has it's advantages optically. It doesn't mention trade offs, ie gain from true medium format despite inferior optics. It also mentions resolution at low contrast levels which isn't a good idea really as it's usefulness depends on the contrast in the subject. This page illustrates what that really means near the diffraction limit Raylieght style which is irrelevant really but wont be much different to what the link suggests - diffraction spots a bit further apart. If subject contrast is 10% and spatially placed to give 9% then about 1% will be recorded. This area is why mtf 50 is usually used as a metric on camera lenses but at way way lower spatial frequencies than their F ratio suggests. Some one on here once mentioned something like 66lp/mm isn't much at F11, 66lp/mm at 9% of subject contrast isn't of much use to anyone, it's roughly sort of 4 "stops" lower than it should be.

http://www.cityastronomy.com/contrast.htm

John
-

[Nicks Pics]

I would question why our time is being spent trying to educate someone that lacks the desire/knowledge
to do high end shoots. It's a different ball game altogether.

To whom are you referring? I personally would not try to judge someone's level of interest/effort?

[Nicks Pics]

I wish I could give a simple yes / no answer to that question, but unfortunately, the correct answer is "it depends".

And NO what you plan to do with the camera is the PRIMARY issue. The camera designers have made specific trade-offs that would suggest that a specific camera is likely more suitable for certain types of photography / output media than others.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say, but the way I phrased it caused confusion I guess.