You see the 4.4?m pixels being the same as the submicron pixels in13 Mp cell phones? This camera is a landscapers dream when used with the 16-35 f4.0 or the new 11-24mm. Add the 17 TS/E and I would be happy for years.
With less DR than other cameras I'm thinking not so much. The new 11-24 might do 50MP and while I think the EF 16-35mm is a great lens it's questionable if it can resolve 50MP. Some of the Zeiss lenses might but looking at DxO scores the Otus lenses tested do about 33MP on the D800E. Maybe you'll hit the 40MP range on these top end 35mm lenses. Meh, I'd rather have a 36MP D810.
Says there person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a professional DSLR vs a phone camera. You do realize there's a huge difference in the size of the sensor, right? You do realize that no matter how much people claim that a smartphone camera is "almost professional quality", it isn't.
The people who want/need this camera for professional work would never consider a phone camera adequate, and for many, the work produced will be blown up and printed quite large.
These people will do medium format since they will realize their 35mm lenses won't do 50MP anyway and will want better DR and ISO performance.
This is a boring announcement for a camera that none of the worlds greatest photographers are likely to buy given even the top end glass isn't generally capable of 50MP resolution, doesn't have 4K video or even 1080p/60, a poorer sensor than the 7DMkII in terms of DR and any other metric other than MP and an arbitrarily limited ISO range because it's not a flagship model.
So readers with "diverse interests" will read this article and go "WTF?" and wonder how much AI got paid by Canon.
You may be correct but I don't think the topic here is is restricted to this particular camera, it is more about the technology of higher pixel count sensors. In terms of relevance to Apple it is two fold IMHO; the requirement for more powerful Macs to be able to play around in post in real time with massive images (I include the now almost ubiquitous 20MP+ sensors out there now) and the potential for Apple to one day increase iDevice pixel density for reasons such as digital zoom. Also as most lenses are sharper at their centers, cropping and discarding data from a larger sensor does in theory leave you with higher quality data. So pushing the limits may be important if only to move people's minds on from the rather short sighted mantra of '8 MP is enough' which deserves to be in the same trash can as 'JPEG is good enough'.
These people will do medium format since they will realize their 35mm lenses won't do 50MP anyway and will want better DR and ISO performance.
I think you are both correct in your own ways. 'Envelope pushing' though, in most technologies has its purpose. F1 racing cars are not used by many people either but a few years down the road (no pun intended) we get better mass produced cars because of F1 racing technology that worked, of course we don't get that which didn't or had no relevance.
You raise a key point of course, larger formats require larger / better lenses and that is very expensive. I assume a lot of experimenting is going on to overcome the limitations of lenses using small format but higher pixel count sensors purely from the cost perspective - I am confident we will see continual advances. Meanwhile we have parallel research in multiple layer sensors and near field technology. I feel with are only years away from some paradigm shifts in photography as radical as a DSLR was when it arrived on the scene and Kodak went south.
Can you elaborate about the sports and wildlife issues?
I'm still thinking of switching to Canon but I keep upgrading my Nikons because I have so much invested in lenses.
Stick with Nikon. In recent years Nikon's DSLR's beat Canon's hands down! And I was a Canon shooter for a decade! Have now moved on to Fujifilm's X-series, fed up with bulky DSLR's. I shoot for pleasure not as a living so don't really need what DSLR's are best at.
Stick with Nikon. In recent years Nikon's DSLR's beat Canon's hands down! And I was a Canon shooter for a decade! Have now moved on to Fujifilm's X-series, fed up with bulky DSLR's. I shoot for pleasure not as a living so don't really need what DSLR's are best at.
Why the need to denigrate Canon? I'd suggest your 'hands down' statement is nonsense. Both Nikon and Canon are excellent. Personally I moved from Nikon to Canon because of the lenses but at the end of the day, at that level of quality, both make great gear. Anyone with a sizable investment in lenses in one would be wise to stick with that make IMHO.
No 4K video on a camera with this large a sensor is truly ridiculous.
4K is a mere 10MP (full frame). If you use up your silicon to get more MP you generally don't have that silicon to achieve the high data rates to pull 4K video off at any useful frame rate for video. Plus you need to account for the heat.
I'd personally rather have a A7S or GH4 if doing video.
It may be true that there aren't lenses which are specifically "designed for" high-megapixel sensors, but newer lenses may be more suitable for them. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is a good example. It's noticeably sharper than the mark I version of that lens so it will better be able to make use of all those tiny pixels. (I assume the lens you mentioned below was the mark II?)
"It may be true there aren't" = yes, it IS true.
This just goes back to the original post. That guy makes it sound that there are lenses specifically designed for high-megapixel cameras and that is flat-out wrong. He's posting nonsense and trying to pass it off as fact.
New lenses are always (usually) an improvement over the old. That is just regular product evolution. It has nothing to do with the pixel-count of the sensor. If they're able to improve the lenses, AF, etc... then it benefits all cameras, not just the brand-spanking new ones.
The lens I was referring to was the Mark II. Great lens. It was also introduced in 2012, before the monster-megapixels were around. So it being "designed" for higher MP sensors is moot.
I think you are both correct in your own ways. 'Envelope pushing' though, in most technologies has its purpose. F1 racing cars are not used by many people either but a few years down the road (no pun intended) we get better mass produced cars because of F1 racing technology that worked, of course we don't get that which didn't or had no relevance.
You raise a key point of course, larger formats require larger / better lenses and that is very expensive. I assume a lot of experimenting is going on to overcome the limitations of lenses using small format but higher pixel count sensors purely from the cost perspective - I am confident we will see continual advances. Meanwhile we have parallel research in multiple layer sensors and near field technology. I feel with are only years away from some paradigm shifts in photography as radical as a DSLR was when it arrived on the scene and Kodak went south.
I've come across a few posters claiming similar things, yet have not read one iota of official, professional, tested opinions from more established reviewers and/or manufacturers.
Please clarify what it means to have an SLR lens be "designed" for higher MP sensors? It's light traveling through a glass lens. It's all analog. The only thing I can "imagine" maybe is the glass lenses themselves being of some sort of higher quality... but when I read from people that there are lenses that are designed for higher MP, I just shake my head...
What you're saying is my Canon 50mm f/1.2 prime lens is "not designed for high MP sensors"?? Really?
Go to DxO. It's in the testing results. Latest generation lenses are designed to resolve higher resolution because we have higher MP sensors than even in 2007. Yes, that means higher quality, higher tolerances and designing for higher MP.
The 2007 Canon 50mm f1.2 is a 16MP lens when used on a 23MP 5D MkIII.
Why the need to denigrate Canon? I'd suggest your 'hands down' statement is nonsense. Both Nikon and Canon are excellent. Personally I moved from Nikon to Canon because of the lenses but at the end of the day, at that level of quality, both make great gear. Anyone with a sizable investment in lenses in one would be wise to stick with that make IMHO.
Nikon often has better sensors. Canon often has better glass. But its not an absolute.
Go to DxO. It's in the testing results. Latest generation lenses are designed to resolve higher resolution because we have higher MP sensors than even in 2007. Yes, that means higher quality, higher tolerances and designing for higher MP.
The 2007 Canon 50mm f1.2 is a 16MP lens when used on a 23MP 5D MkIII.
So if you can't resolve more than 16MP on a 23MP sensor using your 50mm what does a 50MP sensor buy you when using that lens?
Bigger file sizes.
I long ago learned to take DxO with a grain of salt. The 2007 50mm f1.2 L easily causes moire pattern even on my 5D Mk II and that is more than 16 MP. IMO they far over-emphasize DR in overall IQ but I control the light at time of exposure (ND grads for example) and don't have DR issues.
With less DR than other cameras I'm thinking not so much. The new 11-24 might do 50MP and while I think the EF 16-35mm is a great lens it's questionable if it can resolve 50MP. Some of the Zeiss lenses might but looking at DxO scores the Otus lenses tested do about 33MP on the D800E. Maybe you'll hit the 40MP range on these top end 35mm lenses. Meh, I'd rather have a 36MP D810.
Landscapers dream of the Pentax 645Z.
As a landscaper I don't dream of the 645Z and the 16-35 will easily out resolve 50 MP. And don't put much faith in DxO's weird MP ratings that don't deal with reality. I already have a couple of pro landscaper friends that are the waiting list for the 5Ds.
This just goes back to the original post. That guy makes it sound that there are lenses specifically designed for high-megapixel cameras and that is flat-out wrong. He's posting nonsense and trying to pass it off as fact.
New lenses are always (usually) an improvement over the old. That is just regular product evolution. It has nothing to do with the pixel-count of the sensor. If they're able to improve the lenses, AF, etc... then it benefits all cameras, not just the brand-spanking new ones.
The lens I was referring to was the Mark II. Great lens. It was also introduced in 2012, before the monster-megapixels were around. So it being "designed" for higher MP sensors is moot.
I agree with you, but was trying to not let semantics get in the way. Yes, the lenses weren't "designed for"; but I'd also suggest that lens are designed with higher pixel counts in mind. Surely Canon has a product development roadmap for their camera bodies that informs their lens designers of what future sensor resolutions are coming and that then contributes to the design goals for the lens.
"Designed for" and "designed with it in mind" is splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. Only the marketing department would really care.
I long ago learned to take DxO with a grain of salt. The 2007 50mm f1.2 L easily causes moire pattern even on my 5D Mk II and that is more than 16 MP. IMO they far over-emphasize DR in overall IQ but I control the light at time of exposure (ND grads for example) and don't have DR issues.
Yes, you should take DxO with a LARGE grain of salt. However, unless you believe they completely screw up their testing methodology (and not just their weighting factors) the MTF charts should be a reasonable representative of system performance.
I recently got the 100-400mmL IS. It may not be the fastest but boy it is flexible for wild life and the images are amazing. Next I think I want the 70-200L f.2.8 do you have that one? If so what do you think?
Are you looking at the original non-IS or the mk ii? The ii is an incredible lens, but I have the non-IS. For the price, I get wonderful results out of it, and I rarely shoot low-light non-action, so I would get little benefit from the IS. There are serious optical improvements too, but as I said, the original 1997-design non-IS is impressive for me.
I think that's true although I still like having the option of shooting video on my DSLR without having to carry yet another piece of equipment. I thought I would never use the video on my DSLR, but I find myself using it more and more. It's amazing how it's so easy to hold an iPhone and get smooth video, but stick a big lens on a DSLR and even using special straps and the like, I'm frequently shooting shaky-cam, especially for long shots like recording a song in a live performance without a tripod. There are mounts to get around that, but they're large and expensive. I also need a better view of the LCD as I find that even in a stable situation indoors, I'm frequently back focusing and not noticing it on the LCD. Ideally I'll eventually get a monitor mounted on the camera, but they're pricy and now I'm walking around with far more equipment. I had been looking at the Hoodman products, but this Kamerar looks like it might be better. These are all areas in which Nikon and Canon have failed IMO - they stick new functionality in, but they don't really understand how people need to use these products.
Canon still sells camcorders and even the most basic $199 model has an active optical image stabilizer that is similar to the gyrostabilizers found on the iPhone 6 Plus. In other words, a virtual tripod. But move up to the 5D Mark III and its shaky cam all over again. You're expected to use something like a Glidecam rig if you're going to use a DSLR for video.
Canon still sells camcorders and even the most basic $199 model has an active optical image stabilizer that is similar to the gyrostabilizers found on the iPhone 6 Plus. In other words, a virtual tripod. But move up to the 5D Mark III and its shaky cam all over again. You're expected to use something like a Glidecam rig if you're going to use a DSLR for video.
IS on Canon lenses works great for DSLR video though.
Canon still sells camcorders and even the most basic $199 model has an active optical image stabilizer that is similar to the gyrostabilizers found on the iPhone 6 Plus. In other words, a virtual tripod. But move up to the 5D Mark III and its shaky cam all over again. You're expected to use something like a Glidecam rig if you're going to use a DSLR for video.
My IS lenses smooth out shake very well actually. Throw it into FCPro X and smooth more if required. Glidecams are almost superfluous for my needs since those two technologies entered my life.
Are you looking at the original non-IS or the mk ii? The ii is an incredible lens, but I have the non-IS. For the price, I get wonderful results out of it, and I rarely shoot low-light non-action, so I would get little benefit from the IS. There are serious optical improvements too, but as I said, the original 1997-design non-IS is impressive for me.
Great picture. Did you take the bike racing shots too?
Yes, I have the one with IS but I got mine six months before the latest one came out wouldn't you know! Still no complaints and living in Florida I get pretty good light most days. The optics are truly amazing. I have even found I can do pseudo macro of plants and insects ... which is a distinct advantage in some cases lol ... by standing at minimum distance I can focus at 400mm and cropping in post (a 50 MP would be cool for this). The images still beat my non L, genuine Macro lenses for sharpness in most cases.
Comments
You see the 4.4?m pixels being the same as the submicron pixels in13 Mp cell phones? This camera is a landscapers dream when used with the 16-35 f4.0 or the new 11-24mm. Add the 17 TS/E and I would be happy for years.
With less DR than other cameras I'm thinking not so much. The new 11-24 might do 50MP and while I think the EF 16-35mm is a great lens it's questionable if it can resolve 50MP. Some of the Zeiss lenses might but looking at DxO scores the Otus lenses tested do about 33MP on the D800E. Maybe you'll hit the 40MP range on these top end 35mm lenses. Meh, I'd rather have a 36MP D810.
Landscapers dream of the Pentax 645Z.
Says there person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a professional DSLR vs a phone camera. You do realize there's a huge difference in the size of the sensor, right? You do realize that no matter how much people claim that a smartphone camera is "almost professional quality", it isn't.
The people who want/need this camera for professional work would never consider a phone camera adequate, and for many, the work produced will be blown up and printed quite large.
These people will do medium format since they will realize their 35mm lenses won't do 50MP anyway and will want better DR and ISO performance.
You may be correct but I don't think the topic here is is restricted to this particular camera, it is more about the technology of higher pixel count sensors. In terms of relevance to Apple it is two fold IMHO; the requirement for more powerful Macs to be able to play around in post in real time with massive images (I include the now almost ubiquitous 20MP+ sensors out there now) and the potential for Apple to one day increase iDevice pixel density for reasons such as digital zoom. Also as most lenses are sharper at their centers, cropping and discarding data from a larger sensor does in theory leave you with higher quality data. So pushing the limits may be important if only to move people's minds on from the rather short sighted mantra of '8 MP is enough' which deserves to be in the same trash can as 'JPEG is good enough'.
I think you are both correct in your own ways. 'Envelope pushing' though, in most technologies has its purpose. F1 racing cars are not used by many people either but a few years down the road (no pun intended) we get better mass produced cars because of F1 racing technology that worked, of course we don't get that which didn't or had no relevance.
You raise a key point of course, larger formats require larger / better lenses and that is very expensive. I assume a lot of experimenting is going on to overcome the limitations of lenses using small format but higher pixel count sensors purely from the cost perspective - I am confident we will see continual advances. Meanwhile we have parallel research in multiple layer sensors and near field technology. I feel with are only years away from some paradigm shifts in photography as radical as a DSLR was when it arrived on the scene and Kodak went south.
Why the need to denigrate Canon? I'd suggest your 'hands down' statement is nonsense. Both Nikon and Canon are excellent. Personally I moved from Nikon to Canon because of the lenses but at the end of the day, at that level of quality, both make great gear. Anyone with a sizable investment in lenses in one would be wise to stick with that make IMHO.
No 4K video on a camera with this large a sensor is truly ridiculous.
4K is a mere 10MP (full frame). If you use up your silicon to get more MP you generally don't have that silicon to achieve the high data rates to pull 4K video off at any useful frame rate for video. Plus you need to account for the heat.
I'd personally rather have a A7S or GH4 if doing video.
It may be true that there aren't lenses which are specifically "designed for" high-megapixel sensors, but newer lenses may be more suitable for them. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is a good example. It's noticeably sharper than the mark I version of that lens so it will better be able to make use of all those tiny pixels. (I assume the lens you mentioned below was the mark II?)
"It may be true there aren't" = yes, it IS true.
This just goes back to the original post. That guy makes it sound that there are lenses specifically designed for high-megapixel cameras and that is flat-out wrong. He's posting nonsense and trying to pass it off as fact.
New lenses are always (usually) an improvement over the old. That is just regular product evolution. It has nothing to do with the pixel-count of the sensor. If they're able to improve the lenses, AF, etc... then it benefits all cameras, not just the brand-spanking new ones.
The lens I was referring to was the Mark II. Great lens. It was also introduced in 2012, before the monster-megapixels were around. So it being "designed" for higher MP sensors is moot.
I think you are both correct in your own ways. 'Envelope pushing' though, in most technologies has its purpose. F1 racing cars are not used by many people either but a few years down the road (no pun intended) we get better mass produced cars because of F1 racing technology that worked, of course we don't get that which didn't or had no relevance.
You raise a key point of course, larger formats require larger / better lenses and that is very expensive. I assume a lot of experimenting is going on to overcome the limitations of lenses using small format but higher pixel count sensors purely from the cost perspective - I am confident we will see continual advances. Meanwhile we have parallel research in multiple layer sensors and near field technology. I feel with are only years away from some paradigm shifts in photography as radical as a DSLR was when it arrived on the scene and Kodak went south.
Got it... cheap lenses gets you cheap shots.
I've come across a few posters claiming similar things, yet have not read one iota of official, professional, tested opinions from more established reviewers and/or manufacturers.
Please clarify what it means to have an SLR lens be "designed" for higher MP sensors? It's light traveling through a glass lens. It's all analog. The only thing I can "imagine" maybe is the glass lenses themselves being of some sort of higher quality... but when I read from people that there are lenses that are designed for higher MP, I just shake my head...
What you're saying is my Canon 50mm f/1.2 prime lens is "not designed for high MP sensors"?? Really?
Go to DxO. It's in the testing results. Latest generation lenses are designed to resolve higher resolution because we have higher MP sensors than even in 2007. Yes, that means higher quality, higher tolerances and designing for higher MP.
The 2007 Canon 50mm f1.2 is a 16MP lens when used on a 23MP 5D MkIII.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF50mm-f-1-8-II-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__795
In comparison the 2014 50mm f1.4 Sigma resolves to 21MP using DxO's MTF to MP formula.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__795
So if you can't resolve more than 16MP on a 23MP sensor using your 50mm what does a 50MP sensor buy you when using that lens?
Bigger file sizes.
Why the need to denigrate Canon? I'd suggest your 'hands down' statement is nonsense. Both Nikon and Canon are excellent. Personally I moved from Nikon to Canon because of the lenses but at the end of the day, at that level of quality, both make great gear. Anyone with a sizable investment in lenses in one would be wise to stick with that make IMHO.
Nikon often has better sensors. Canon often has better glass. But its not an absolute.
I long ago learned to take DxO with a grain of salt. The 2007 50mm f1.2 L easily causes moire pattern even on my 5D Mk II and that is more than 16 MP. IMO they far over-emphasize DR in overall IQ but I control the light at time of exposure (ND grads for example) and don't have DR issues.
As a landscaper I don't dream of the 645Z and the 16-35 will easily out resolve 50 MP. And don't put much faith in DxO's weird MP ratings that don't deal with reality. I already have a couple of pro landscaper friends that are the waiting list for the 5Ds.
"It may be true there aren't" = yes, it IS true.
This just goes back to the original post. That guy makes it sound that there are lenses specifically designed for high-megapixel cameras and that is flat-out wrong. He's posting nonsense and trying to pass it off as fact.
New lenses are always (usually) an improvement over the old. That is just regular product evolution. It has nothing to do with the pixel-count of the sensor. If they're able to improve the lenses, AF, etc... then it benefits all cameras, not just the brand-spanking new ones.
The lens I was referring to was the Mark II. Great lens. It was also introduced in 2012, before the monster-megapixels were around. So it being "designed" for higher MP sensors is moot.
I agree with you, but was trying to not let semantics get in the way. Yes, the lenses weren't "designed for"; but I'd also suggest that lens are designed with higher pixel counts in mind. Surely Canon has a product development roadmap for their camera bodies that informs their lens designers of what future sensor resolutions are coming and that then contributes to the design goals for the lens.
"Designed for" and "designed with it in mind" is splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. Only the marketing department would really care.
I long ago learned to take DxO with a grain of salt. The 2007 50mm f1.2 L easily causes moire pattern even on my 5D Mk II and that is more than 16 MP. IMO they far over-emphasize DR in overall IQ but I control the light at time of exposure (ND grads for example) and don't have DR issues.
Yes, you should take DxO with a LARGE grain of salt. However, unless you believe they completely screw up their testing methodology (and not just their weighting factors) the MTF charts should be a reasonable representative of system performance.
I recently got the 100-400mmL IS. It may not be the fastest but boy it is flexible for wild life and the images are amazing. Next I think I want the 70-200L f.2.8 do you have that one? If so what do you think?
Are you looking at the original non-IS or the mk ii? The ii is an incredible lens, but I have the non-IS. For the price, I get wonderful results out of it, and I rarely shoot low-light non-action, so I would get little benefit from the IS. There are serious optical improvements too, but as I said, the original 1997-design non-IS is impressive for me.
With my 1D3, the AF is lightning fast too. (click here for full size)
Canon still sells camcorders and even the most basic $199 model has an active optical image stabilizer that is similar to the gyrostabilizers found on the iPhone 6 Plus. In other words, a virtual tripod. But move up to the 5D Mark III and its shaky cam all over again. You're expected to use something like a Glidecam rig if you're going to use a DSLR for video.
Canon still sells camcorders and even the most basic $199 model has an active optical image stabilizer that is similar to the gyrostabilizers found on the iPhone 6 Plus. In other words, a virtual tripod. But move up to the 5D Mark III and its shaky cam all over again. You're expected to use something like a Glidecam rig if you're going to use a DSLR for video.
IS on Canon lenses works great for DSLR video though.
My IS lenses smooth out shake very well actually. Throw it into FCPro X and smooth more if required. Glidecams are almost superfluous for my needs since those two technologies entered my life.
Great picture. Did you take the bike racing shots too?
Yes, I have the one with IS but I got mine six months before the latest one came out wouldn't you know! Still no complaints and living in Florida I get pretty good light most days. The optics are truly amazing. I have even found I can do pseudo macro of plants and insects ... which is a distinct advantage in some cases lol ... by standing at minimum distance I can focus at 400mm and cropping in post (a 50 MP would be cool for this). The images still beat my non L, genuine Macro lenses for sharpness in most cases.