DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
According to PR...Canon is finally catching up to what Nikon did 3 years ago. High MP.  They also have a new entry 750d with Sony's? 24.3mp.  And will the new 5D mark something have 3 different version? And will Canon use the new 50 plus MP?? From Sony also???


http://photorumors.com/2015/01/19/the-l … -rumors-5/

I can only imagine what the files would be like with a 53 MP camera.

R.EYE.R wrote:
No more Canon here no matter the pixels.
Done and dusted!

Soon it will be that for me too.  Getting my Fuji X-T1 next week.  More pixels has never been the answer.  Yes, it has it's place but it's a rare occasion for the common photographer or even pro that ever needs more than 24.  Hell, I was fine at 12.

Anything that is printed huge is going to be observed from a distance anyways.  And we all have large prints that look fantastic that were shot with 16mp and less.  I've seen 30x40inch prints from 12 mp cameras that I swear were shot medium format film. 

But I'm sure the pixel peepers will rejoice.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Dynamic range is over rated so are pixels. It's all gimmicks to make you spend.  When you get a client he doesn't care about your pixels or your dynamic range...lol The 5d3 is fine the way it is, I couldn't be happier.

It's not overrated. It's the primary reason why I'd chose my Sony A99 when it first came out.

Legacys 7 wrote:

It's not overrated. It's the primary reason why I'd chose my Sony A99 when it first came out.

It is over rated but it's a matter of opinion.  You like more DR, some people might feel they need it some don't.  I don't care for it. 

GRMACK wrote:
It's about time for Canon to do something in sensor land and quit building cameras like it was 2005.  Might stop some from moving to Nikon, although Nikon will probably counter with a 60-72 MP in the near future if Canon does to thwart off people  going the opposite direction too.  Wouldn't at all be surprised if Nikon has something on their design boards right now either.

I do find there are times even with 36 MP that a tightly cropped image is much better than the full frame version.  Might be only 6 MP in crop and I wish it were more.  Pixels do help there as an afterthought with cropping.  These cell phones that have 50 MP use all that pixel space to make up for not having a telephoto lens within it (i.e. Digital zoom.).

Plus, terabyte hard drives can handle storage and are pretty cheap.  Don't want all the MP, then just dial it down.

The New Canon High End MP Cameras will have Sony Sensors. And Soon to Follow will be Nikon's new D8something and Along with Sony's New 7rll or 9r. Even Canon's new entry level camera 750D will have Sony's 24mp. Canon finally got the picture with Sony's Sensors.

Zack Zoll wrote:
My Canon rep hinted that the sensor in the new 5D would be the 46mp Sony sensor that has been shown recently. 53mp is only a 15% or so increase, but it does mean that t may be a Canon sensor.

Which isn't necessarily better or worse ... Just interesting to see which models do and don't switch.

Sony will be making Canon it's new Sensors for the new 750D 24.2mp and the 53mp....but i have not heard anyone say Sony will be making a 46mp. They announced a FF 50mp plus.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:

It is over rated but it's a matter of opinion.  You like more DR, some people might feel they need it some don't.  I don't care for it. 

Overrated for you.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Dynamic range is over rated so are pixels. It's all gimmicks to make you spend.  When you get a client he doesn't care about your pixels

Wrong. I have many commercial clients I shoot for. I can assure you, when I tell them I'm shooting at 36 megapixels, they care.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Dynamic range is over rated so are pixels. It's all gimmicks to make you spend.  When you get a client he doesn't care about your pixels

Shot By Adam wrote:
Wrong. I have many commercial clients I shoot for. I can assure you, when I tell them I'm shooting at 36 megapixels, they care.

+1  To a point where the specs are dictated by the client during the bid process.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

Sony will be making Canon it's new Sensors for the new 750D 24.2mp and the 53mp....but i have not heard anyone say Sony will be making a 46mp. They announced a FF 50mp plus.

There was something on the Nikon rumour site about a 46mp Sony chip. Rumoured, of course. The Canon rep said something about the new Canons being 'around 50mp', and when I asked him about it he said he couldn't tell me. Usually that means, 'Yes, but I can't say so.' In this case, perhaps not.

For those of you that say tonal range or MP doesn't matter, let's take an extreme approach. If you had infinite range and MP, that means you could edit any photo the client wanted, regardless of exposure, and print it any size. If you had a portrait and they wanted a close-up of the earrings the model is wearing, you could say,'no problem!' And bang off a 16x20 for them.

Anybody that deals with clients will tell you that would be incredible.

On the flip side, if you had an extremely narrow range, and very few pixels, everything would look like you ran it through a Xerox. You know,like old salt prints.

So anybody that says tonal range and megapixels don't matter is lying. What they mean is "I have enough to do what I need to do." And the unspoken implication is, "And so do you." And that's a little presumptuous.

I tell my students pixels don't matter, but that's because we only print 8x10s in class, and they're not allowed to crop. Any DSLR made in the last 12 years will do that. But I'm not daft enough to tell them they can compete in the real world with a Canon 10D or the like.

Zack Zoll wrote:

There was something on the Nikon rumour site about a 46mp Sony chip. Rumoured, of course. The Canon rep said something about the new Canons being 'around 50mp', and when I asked him about it he said he couldn't tell me. Usually that means, 'Yes, but I can't say so.' In this case, perhaps not.

For those of you that say tonal range or MP doesn't matter, let's take an extreme approach. If you had infinite range and MP, that means you could edit any photo the client wanted, regardless of exposure, and print it any size. If you had a portrait and they wanted a close-up of the earrings the model is wearing, you could say,'no problem!' And bang off a 16x20 for them.

Anybody that deals with clients will tell you that would be incredible.

On the flip side, if you had an extremely narrow range, and very few pixels, everything would look like you ran it through a Xerox. You know,like old salt prints.

So anybody that says tonal range and megapixels don't matter is lying. What they mean is "I have enough to do what I need to do." And the unspoken implication is, "And so do you." And that's a little presumptuous.

I tell my students pixels don't matter, but that's because we only print 8x10s in class, and they're not allowed to crop. Any DSLR made in the last 12 years will do that. But I'm not daft enough to tell them they can compete in the real world with a Canon 10D or the like.

" but that's because we only print 8x10s in class, and they're not allowed to crop. "

You have  camera with a 4 x 5 sensor?

Zack Zoll wrote:

There was something on the Nikon rumour site about a 46mp Sony chip. Rumoured, of course. The Canon rep said something about the new Canons being 'around 50mp', and when I asked him about it he said he couldn't tell me. Usually that means, 'Yes, but I can't say so.' In this case, perhaps not.

For those of you that say tonal range or MP doesn't matter, let's take an extreme approach. If you had infinite range and MP, that means you could edit any photo the client wanted, regardless of exposure, and print it any size. If you had a portrait and they wanted a close-up of the earrings the model is wearing, you could say,'no problem!' And bang off a 16x20 for them.

Anybody that deals with clients will tell you that would be incredible.

On the flip side, if you had an extremely narrow range, and very few pixels, everything would look like you ran it through a Xerox. You know,like old salt prints.

So anybody that says tonal range and megapixels don't matter is lying. What they mean is "I have enough to do what I need to do." And the unspoken implication is, "And so do you." And that's a little presumptuous.

I tell my students pixels don't matter, but that's because we only print 8x10s in class, and they're not allowed to crop. Any DSLR made in the last 12 years will do that. But I'm not daft enough to tell them they can compete in the real world with a Canon 10D or the like.

That's why I'd replied to the person who stated that it doesn't matter, because what you've posted in bold, is what I got out of it. When Minolta was still in the digital camera game, I'd received an email from them back around 2007 asking, what was important to me in a dslr. Back then, I'd stated that dynamic range was priority to me, due to the limitations that the cameras had back then. Example. If I was taken a picture where the sky is too bright compared to the rest of the image, in the past, if I'd wanted to keep the details in the sky, I'd have to sacrifice the rest of the image. Dynamic range allows me to get all of those details that were impossible a few years ago. So yes, dynamic range is damn important to me and several people that I know.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Dynamic range is over rated so are pixels. It's all gimmicks to make you spend.  When you get a client he doesn't care about your pixels or your dynamic range...lol The 5d3 is fine the way it is, I couldn't be happier.  You can make a billboard from a 6megapixel image so more isn't really necessary. More isn't  always better either. There are other ways to improve your dynamic range, use multiple exposures, hdr, etc.

DR is far from overrated if you ever had to produce a piece that is tone on tone (particularly dark tones).  This doesn't happen as much these days with fashion (or glamour) but is a big deal in product work.

So just because you don't need it doesn't mean its over rated; over hyped perhaps but not over rated.  Gear only matters up to the point that its enough to get that job done (another good reason to rent)

Virtual Studio wrote:

" but that's because we only print 8x10s in class, and they're not allowed to crop. "

You have  camera with a 4 x 5 sensor?

Any DSLR made since 2003 or so will have as much resolution as an 8x10 on generic Epson or Canon will support. It only takes about six and a half megapixels. It'd be different if we printed bigger or used baryta paper, but that's optional. We use Epson 3880s; you can set the print resolution higher than that, but the oem paper itself only holds about 6mp of detail.

That said, my personal work is mostly 4x5, and we have them for student use as well. That works out to around 50-150 mp, depending on what you scan it with. I scan with an Imacon, so I'd need roughly 80mp to reach the same resolution on a 30x40. Of course the tonal range on an Imacon scanned 4x5 is much longer than a digital camera too(even digital MF), so it'll be a few years until I can retire that camera.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Dynamic range is over rated so are pixels. It's all gimmicks to make you spend.  When you get a client he doesn't care about your pixels or your dynamic range...lol The 5d3 is fine the way it is, I couldn't be happier.  You can make a billboard from a 6megapixel image so more isn't really necessary. More isn't  always better either. There are other ways to improve your dynamic range, use multiple exposures, hdr, etc.

These are some poor arguments.
The first one, one reads on the forums way too much - that the client doesn't care what technology you use. While that might technically be true in many cases, it completely misses the point. The client cares about the visual result (as well as the mechanical requirements), it's the photographer's job to map that result to the technology that is capable of producing it. So although the client may not be able to articulate/care about a specific technology, he does in fact care about it.

The second statement is another one of those forum-speak sayings that is just terribly flawed in its attempt to make its point.
That is talking about billboards as some kind of metric for required pixels. Billboards usually are fairly low resolution as they are meant to be viewed from far away. So they're not an applicable usage example to drive resolution quality requirements. A better metric might be for instance a very large (say 4x6 foot) in-store display, which is typically viewed as close as 3-4 feet away.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

The New Canon High End MP Cameras will have Sony Sensors. And Soon to Follow will be Nikon's new D8something and Along with Sony's New 7rll or 9r. Even Canon's new entry level camera 750D will have Sony's 24mp. Canon finally got the picture with Sony's Sensors.

I'm curious - who said they are using Sony sensors?

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

I'm curious - who said they are using Sony sensors?

Wait..Wait..Very Soon Canon will announce this fact...Around Feb.6th.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

I'm curious - who said they are using Sony sensors?

I've read about canon doing this, going back to last year. If this is true, I wonder why they're absndoning thier own sensor technology. They were steps ahead of the competition before Sony jumped on the scene.  To me it just mskes sense to improve on their existing sensor technology. Idk. Maybe it's cheaper to go the Sony route.

Legacys 7 wrote:

I've read about canon doing this, going back to last year. If this is true, I wonder why they're absndoning thier own sensor technology. They were steps ahead of the competition before Sony jumped on the scene.  To me it just mskes sense to improve on their existing sensor technology. Idk. Maybe it's cheaper to go the Sony route.

I heard the same thing. This is where the loyal Canon Fan Base will get their panties all bunched up...But Canon Sensors have came up short in the tech department. Canon first camera to use Sony's Sensors is G7 X...if I am not mistaken.

When Nikon started using Sony Sensors, there was this massive spin by Nikon and Nikon's Fan Boys...including here...that it was Not a Sony Sensor, Then...It was maybe a Sony Sensor with Nikon's own tech team spinning into a Nikon Sensor...lol.

Sony Sensors are the best. They have the Proven 24mp and 36mp. Now they created two version of the 50'smp That Canon and Nikon will be using...and including Sony with their new 7rll or A9...

Legacys 7 wrote:
I've read about canon doing this, going back to last year. If this is true, I wonder why they're absndoning thier own sensor technology. They were steps ahead of the competition before Sony jumped on the scene.  To me it just mskes sense to improve on their existing sensor technology. Idk. Maybe it's cheaper to go the Sony route.

I would imagine it would have to be much, much cheaper - certaintly in the short term, which is what the market is all about. If Canon buys already developed sensors(like in the G7X), they don't have to pay for R&D. For a camera segment with a relatively small market share, not paying for R&D is huge,even if it means the sensors cost much more.

I believe the older Nikon/Sony sensors were a joint effort. My understanding is that they were jointly developed, using specs specified by Nikon, and then built by Sony. In which case, it would be fair to say it was a Nikon sensor, and they contracted the manufacturing to Sony - just as most Zeiss lenses are currently built by Cosina, and many early Zeiss lenses were built by Bausch and Lomb.

That would also explain why the D800 was out for a couple years before the sensor found it's way to the A7r:  if it was Nikon's design, there would be a noncompete clause for the production. If Sony had been 100% responsible for that sensor(or the 24mp version), I suspect it would have showed up in a Sony camera right away or even first, like the 24mp APS-C sensor did.

Zack Zoll wrote:

I would imagine it would have to be much, much cheaper - certaintly in the short term, which is what the market is all about. If Canon buys already developed sensors(like in the G7X), they don't have to pay for R&D. For a camera segment with a relatively small market share, not paying for R&D is huge,even if it means the sensors cost much more.

I believe the older Nikon/Sony sensors were a joint effort. My understanding is that they were jointly developed, using specs specified by Nikon, and then built by Sony. In which case, it would be fair to say it was a Nikon sensor, and they contracted the manufacturing to Sony - just as most Zeiss lenses are currently built by Cosina, and many early Zeiss lenses were built by Bausch and Lomb.

That would also explain why the D800 was out for a couple years before the sensor found it's way to the A7r:  if it was Nikon's design, there would be a noncompete clause for the production. If Sony had been 100% responsible for that sensor(or the 24mp version), I suspect it would have showed up in a Sony camera right away or even first, like the 24mp APS-C sensor did.

Or like Sony's first full frame sensor, which was a Sony design and made. What you're pointing out makes sense.

John Fisher wrote:

Canon has been teasing for a long time but hasn't delivered. I'm hoping - for everyone - that this means that they've really taken their time and perfected something revolutionary.

Still, I don't see myself buying something like this, even if Nikon releases something in the 46-55MP range. I like 24MP. It makes me happy. I just don't think that throwing down more cash for more megapixels is going to make me happier, and since I'm mostly doing this for fun and not getting paid much, my happiness is about all that matters in the equation.

John Fisher wrote:
From what I know about Japanese corporate culture, I would be very surprised if Canon would have any interest in Sony sensors, particularly in their signature model cameras. Canon is a world leader in sensor development and manufacturing because of their huge business in office machines (copiers, scanners, etc.), as well as very high end medical imaging equipment.

There is absolutely no indication (other than a few unsubstantiated rumors) that Canon will be using Sony sensors in their signature DSLR line of cameras. I could be wrong, but certainly we will know in a few days. Everything else you read here is based on.... well, nothing of substance. ("My friend's cousin has a friend who owns stock in a company that does business with Canon who said that.......")

Just wait a few days, and we will all know. My money is on a big (finally!) high end full frame camera, with an important new (Canon) sensor. God knows Canon has been testing high mega pixel sensors for years now, and it's well past the time that they released one to the market. If I'm wrong I will be the first to admit it, but nothing else makes any sense.

John
--
John Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Your point can be used to make the same point about Nikon and Sony. But we know what direction Nikon and several other Japanese camera companies took. Most use a Sony sensor.

Viator Defessus Photos wrote:

Canon has been teasing for a long time but hasn't delivered. I'm hoping - for everyone - that this means that they've really taken their time and perfected something revolutionary.

Still, I don't see myself buying something like this, even if Nikon releases something in the 46-55MP range. I like 24MP. It makes me happy. I just don't think that throwing down more cash for more megapixels is going to make me happier, and since I'm mostly doing this for fun and not getting paid much, my happiness is about all that matters in the equation.

That's one of the smartest things I've ever read in these forums. It reminds me of a Dylan quote:  a man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do.

If you can make images that make you happy with your gear,even a smartphone, than it's good gear.