50 MP Canon Rumour

[WJT]

Hi CIC, I have heard a rumour that Canon will release a 50 MP DSLR early this year. Has anyone heard of this? If so any gossip would be great. I dropped my 5D MII and it hasn't been the same since.

[russellsnr]

Hi CIC, I have heard a rumour that Canon will release a 50 MP DSLR early this year. Has anyone heard of this? If so any gossip would be great. I dropped my 5D MII and it hasn't been the same since.

More info EOS3D jan 26th

[JR1]

You could read my post on this from last month

53Mp canon is it a step too far

Just visit

http://www.canonrumors.com/category/...y/canon-1d-xs/

[WJT]

You could read my post on this from last month

53Mp canon is it a step too far

Just visit

http://www.canonrumors.com/category/...y/canon-1d-xs/

Thanks Jeremy. Surprised at the amount of negative comments for this development. For me it would work for landscape and printing larger prints for sale. I hope to see it soon as I have been ready to jump ship to Nikon which would mean buying new lenses.

[WJT]

More info EOS3D jan 26th

Thanks Russell, Let me know if you hear anymore.

[AB26]

Hi Wayne,

I doubt this is a rumor. I think Canon has been developing a medium format camera and this will be the one. I don’t think it is to be a 50MP FF camera.

Get the 1Dx. It is more camera than most can handle.

[Adrian]

According to http://www.canonrumors.com/ the specs are out for the new 53Mp 5DS and 5DS R (no low pass filter).

[WJT]

Here it is as posed by Mark today http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/th...me-dslr-camera

[ajohnw]

All I can say is that the camera buying public have been going for ever increasing pixel counts for as long as digital cameras have existed. I'm inclined to say suckers but it isn't as simple as that but feel the term is much closer to reality if people feel that they can really make use of the extra resolution pixel wise. There are gains but not really in that area. As there are gains when the anti aliasing filter is removed but not for the reason people might be inclined to think.

It is possible for anybody to see what happens when a pixel resolution image is converted from raw. This is an example



And that is pure black and white. Colour is a lot lot more complicated. It will even depend on what the colour is and the mix.

The image can be downloaded here. Also a blurred version that I would say comes close to really good glass but a colour image is an entirely different ball game.

http://www.libraw.org/articles/bayer-moire.html

The other point is why still produce cameras with the anti aliasing filter. DSLR's get put on the end of all sorts of optical systems. That may be why but then at some pixel count that wont be necessary. Numbers that need it will be low anyway.

The lum landscape link I posted earlier may be a bit woolly because it's not possible to get enough data to be precise in this area but it's basically correct but misses the futility in having true optical diffraction limited images. Failing to mention what happens to contrast in that situation is often missing so nothing new there.

This link is also interesting as it shows the effect of aliasing on much lower pixel density high end cameras using what should be top class glass. I feel things have moved on since then but not that much glass wise as it isn't economically possible

http://lavidaleica.com/content/anti-...-filter-primer

John
-

[chauncey]

John...I don't have a clue what you are trying to get across but...was in a quandary regarding opting
for no AA filter on that new high MP camera.
Until a little research led me to several articles like this one... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml

Would seem to indicate that if one shells out the big bucks for more resolution, one should get all
they paid for...if they have the skills to manage it.

[ajohnw]

John...I don't have a clue what you are trying to get across but...was in a quandary regarding opting
for no AA filter on that new high MP camera.
Until a little research led me to several articles like this one... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml

Would seem to indicate that if one shells out the big bucks for more resolution, one should get all
they paid for...if they have the skills to manage it.

Yes WM but notice the especially over 18mp comment*. Brick walls, leaves and harris tweed and similar are famous for causing the problem. In any case I didn't mention the word not sharper only that the pixel level sharpness implied wont be reached. All the pixel densities do is allow the lens to max out to what ever it is capable of. If it was to a pixel level aliasing would be a serious problem without an AA filter.

Lack of the AA filter is similar as the lens is doing that via it's circle of confusion. If you look at the dpreviews on the D800's there was a shot in one comparing one with the other. See for yourself. I reckon it takes a certain amount of imagination. The lum....landscape link I posted goes into why extra pixel density past some point is senseless / sensorless. What has actually happened really is that more pixels is cheaper than adding an anti alias filter - shrewd guess yes but that has been the reason on other formats also probably difficulty in making them down below some particular pixel size and everyone know more pixels is highly desirable. I mean it must be as people have been buying on that basis for ever. Trouble is it clearly has problems as well not that I entirely trust noise tests in reviews but they are an indication.

I have no problem working with much higher pixel densities so I can clearly manage it. Hand held too.

*It wouldn't surprise me of that number relates to crop else why bother putting one on a 1D?? as it makes it "worse".

John
-
PS - If you really want a better camera why not buy a 1D?? now that is a better camera in a number of respects.Ask Colin. His view is probably factual actually.
-