53Mp canon is it a step too far

[JR1]

Supposedly a 53MP Canon will be revealed in a week/ish

I do wonder, I appreciate that years ago we said 10 was enough then 16 then 36 but in reality just how many MP do you need.

It does make the use of cropping very handy, but file sizes are massive for all but studio shots

Have you all booked your tickets for the

http://www.photographyshow.com/

[chauncey]

file sizes are massive for all but studio shots

I'm not understanding that part of your post...what does studio shoots have to do with the equation?
I want, note that I didn't say need, one...will depend on the MSRP.

[HaseebM]

Unless my images are being sold on a large canvas, I really have no need for more than 20 mp, give or take.

[selig1656]

" The more the merrier " seems to apply , now the cost factor and the reviews will be interesting .Can there be a thing that too much is applicable here ? can too many pixels have some negative effect on the subject ?Time will tell as we see the concrete evidence in the pics and the ability to edit them to further increase the end product artistically.

[Manfred M]

This camera has been rumoured to come out ever since Nikon announced the D800 / D800E.

Let's hope that the "too many pixels" argument has been put to rest. It should be a fine match for the L-glass, but would primarily be a studio / portraiture / landscape camera, as the burst rate will likely be a bit slow for the sports photographers and the high ISO performance is unlikely to match some of the other lower pixel density cameras out there.

[JR1]

I'm not understanding that part of your post...what does studio shoots have to do with the equation?
I want, note that I didn't say need, one...will depend on the MSRP.

? When I shoot in a studio I am tethered so use a PC not in camera memory so don't have to worry about card sizes

[JR1]

This camera has been rumoured to come out ever since Nikon announced the D800 / D800E.

Let's hope that the "too many pixels" argument has been put to rest. It should be a fine match for the L-glass, but would primarily be a studio / portraiture / landscape camera, as the burst rate will likely be a bit slow for the sports photographers and the high ISO performance is unlikely to match some of the other lower pixel density cameras out there.

Good point, will there do you think be a problem with specific lenses and resolving issues

[JR1]

" The more the merrier " seems to apply , now the cost factor and the reviews will be interesting .Can there be a thing that too much is applicable here ? can too many pixels have some negative effect on the subject ?Time will tell as we see the concrete evidence in the pics and the ability to edit them to further increase the end product artistically.

Would you want 1 gigapixels ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtm69vnAgps

[Manfred M]

Good point, will there do you think be a problem with specific lenses and resolving issues

Problem, no. But you will need to use the top end glass with a camera like this, in conjunction with a really solid, heavy-duty and probably sandbagged tripod to get the most out of a body like this. My guess is the diffraction limit would lie between f/8 and f/11, so these would likely be the ideal apertures to shoot with.

[chauncey]

Manfred, if memory serves me, you've got one of the big Nikons...how does PS handle the large files?

[DanK]

I have to admit that I am a little mystified by this. When I shot only crop sensor cameras, I encountered arguments on the web (present company excluded) all the time extolling (and often exaggerating) the benefits of larger photosites and hence lower pixel densities and hence FF. When the D800 came out, there was a huge amount of excitement on the web and almost nothing that I saw about smaller photosites.

I took two things from this: (1) while photosite size matters, in many practical uses, it matters less than many people think, and (2) it's wise to take fads on the net with a grain of salt.

For my own uses, I can see only one real benefit to this over my 5D3: the ability to crop more in doing macro work. Other than that, for my particular uses, I don't see a benefit. I suppose that I would think differently if I printed at very large sizes, but I rarely do. So, I am glad that some of my fellow Canon users will be happy with this new camera, but it's not on my wish list.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, if memory serves me, you've got one of the big Nikons...how does PS handle the large files?

Load and save time are marginally slower (measured in fractions of a second). No impact when editing.

Large multi-layered PSD files do take some time to save; if your file size is a couple of hundred MB (many of mine are), that can take a minute or so. I installed a larger hard drive for storage.

[JR1]

Problem, no. But you will need to use the top end glass with a camera like this, in conjunction with a really solid, heavy-duty and probably sandbagged tripod to get the most out of a body like this. My guess is the diffraction limit would lie between f/8 and f/11, so these would likely be the ideal apertures to shoot with.

People here have argued FOR and against the need for a tripod with the D810, will a mount be needed for such a camera

[JR1]

Manfred, if memory serves me, you've got one of the big Nikons...how does PS handle the large files?

My 20 year old Paintshop Pro version 7 handles them ok !

[Manfred M]

People here have argued FOR and against the need for a tripod with the D810, will a mount be needed for such a camera

Clearly no; but if one wants to take full advantage of the capabilities of these sensors, then no motion blur is desireable.

[NorthernFocus]

People here have argued FOR and against the need for a tripod with the D810, will a mount be needed for such a camera

53MP on a full frame sensor is essentially the same pixel pitch/density as a 24MP APS-C sensor. Logic would suggest it will take the same sort of technique as shooting D7100, D5300, Sony A6000, etc. Though when it hits the streets I'm sure that's not what we'll hear from the talking heads of the camera world.

[loosecanon]

We deep down all want more pixels, but then we also want more dynamic range, oh and better colour fidelity, not forgetting noiseless high ISO. Then there is shooting speed. Every camera is a compromise.
The big issue is of course which lenses will resolve those pixels - maybe this is Canon's hint of a new series of lenses for us all to buy, high resolution lenses.
Personally, a few more pixels would be good, 32 - 36, plenty when when I want to crop, but lower noise and better dynamic range are just as high a priority. The 5D III may not resolve as much as some, but when it comes to pratical photography it does a good job, especially at high ISO where its noise and dynamic range are very good, just needs a little more DR at lower ISO.
I for one will not invest in a new expensive system of camera and new lenses just for a few more pixels.

[NorthernFocus]

We deep down all want more pixels, but then we also want more dynamic range, oh and better colour fidelity, not forgetting noiseless high ISO. Then there is shooting speed....

And your point is what????

[loosecanon]

Cameras are a compromise - there is more than just resolution.
Remember the days of film - many moved on to Fuji Velvia - saturated colours and very fine grain. But slow and needed specialist processing (not to be mixed with Kodak E6 films and less tolerant in processing). I prefered the lower contrast but better dynamic range of etkachromes - where I knew if needed I could recover detail from dark shadow. I could also buy them at half the price of Fuji.
We know the current top of the line cameras from Canon and Fuji are just 18Mp or less, but quite sufficient for newspaper and magazines, but rapid shooting, and low noise at high ISO. The 7D II has adopted the same route.

[Nicks Pics]

I encountered arguments on the web (present company excluded) all the time extolling (and often exaggerating) the benefits of larger photosites and hence lower pixel densities and hence FF.

If this theory is true, then folks should know that as many pixels as were discarded from the original photo, if any, before the image was finally displayed, on screen or printed, that number of pixels is how many pixels down-graded your image quality for that particular shot (because they made that percent of the pixels you did use smaller). If you didn't discard any, or even upsampled, then you used them all. So hypothetically you should be able to calculate how many pixels you plan on using, (you want to be able to print 9x16 at 300ppi, for example) and get a camera with no more than that would take. Factor in to that how much you want to be able to crop. Overall, I wouldn't think many people will benefit from a 53 mp camera.