The sensor is all-important for Astro results. Only looking at MPIX it will be an advantage to have more. But its much more about the sensor, so only tests will tell us.
Upvote
0
A high megapixel camera is coming [CR2]
- Thread starter canonnews
- Start date
Not everybody has to buy or require high resolution / high pixel density sensors for them to have a place in the Canon lineup.
Just as hopefully no reasonable user of a high pixel density body demands that lower resolutions be eliminated, no user that is fine with lower resolutions should insist that Canon offers only such resolutions.
A major strength of Canon's lineup has historically been their ability to recognize distinct segments in the market and offer solutions tbat fits their respective need and budget well.
In other words, one group of people getting what they want from Canon should not affect any aspect of the other groups they serve.
Upvote
0
I think you missed the point: the total available world-wide market, including all manufacturers, for MF bodies is 5-6000 units/year.
Canon isn't going to capture 100% of that market, so even if they were really successful, they'd sell maybe 1500 units (25% market share). Even with a price of $6K, that is $9M at the retailer. Retailers need their share, manufacturing takes its bite, and you aren't left with a lot of money for R&D and bottom line.
Upvote
0
When I used to use Lightroom, I used to do the rename and renumber on import....
Does that not still work with the new *rented* versions of LR?
Upvote
0
Well, part of my post was that I would be surprised that the digital MF market annually was only 506K units a year....
With the lowered cost of the GFX100S and the new GFX50 variants, I would guess the market annually was a bit more than 5-6K.
C
Upvote
0
Depends on how gullible you are to marketing bullish!t, the Leica M11 is a 60mp sensor, anything smaller is simply recalculated downsizing.
If you are happy to buy a 60mp camera and work with 18mp RAW files you'd be equally happy processing c-RAW files which give you around 50% file size saving.
Upvote
0
That's true today and I'm sure the mirrorless full frame camera market was 5-6000 units/year in its early days.
I think Canon would expand a Medium Formatt market if they entered it.
I've no idea if an RF lens could fit a medium format sensor or whether a teleconverter adapter would be required. (Maybe they could do a RF-H Crop Medium Format).
Camera's users can be very demanding. Full frame at some point will hit a limit like APS-C and micro 4/3.
Maybe medium formatt is the next step. They can be quite compact.
There is quite a market for the best.
This high MP camera will be interesting. I have a 5DSR. Originally I didn't like it. It's slow, poor buffer, not great at high ISO.
Overtime I've used it for what's its good for (studio, on a tripod landscapes).
I wonder will this high MP camera come with equivalent limitations. I hope if functions quicker than a 5DSR. Nothing worse that waiting for a buffer to clear.
Upvote
0
Perhaps you're misreading what I said. I never said sum and bit shift. I said sample at 12 bits instead of 14 and just sum them. It's faster than sampling at 14 bits and averaging them and will net basically the same thing. I'm not sure where you're getting bit shifting from.
Also, you must be confusing me with somebody else, because I rarely post anything here, so how exactly am I harping on anything?
Upvote
0
Correct, but I do not see that happening.
There are thousands of posts around claiming "no one" needs a camera with "that many" pixels and - to my knowledge - none saying that X camera should not have been made, because "no one" can work with so few pixels. Still, many of the same people behind "too many pixels" posts have have themselves since upgraded to 2x, 3x, 4x and even more pixels. Go figure.
More pixels is also more future proof. I sometimes suggest doubters to go to an older photo site such as pBase and have a look at how impossibly small lots of the older pictures are when viewing them on a modern screen. 8K screens are coming one day in the future. And I am happy that the pictures I took 10 years ago still will look great on those screens. I'm however not sure those I took 20 years ago will.
People should get the camera they want and take the pictures they like.
Upvote
0
People need (or want) what they need (or want). Canon will make cameras they believe people will buy, and history has shown they're very good at determining cameras people will purchase. I suspect Canon will continue to offer bodies across a range of MP counts.
Personally, I started with a 15 MP APS-C, then an 18 MP APS-C, then a 21 MP FF, then an 18 MP FF, then a 30 MP FF, and my main camera is now a 24 MP FF.
I think 'future proofing' is overrated. Content is king. My first child's birth was recorded on SD video, and her early years were captured with a 4 MP camera. If capturing future proof images is your main concern, you need to be shooting with the Hasselblad H6D-400C Multi-Shot that can produce composited images at 400 MP. Don’t settle for less, anything else is a compromise.
As for 8K displays, I'm sure they are coming. For a desktop monitor, increasing beyond a certain point is empty resolution. If your eyes cannot resolve the difference, it doesn't matter. In fact, it can be counterproductive – for example, MacOS doesn't have UI scaling, so with my 34" 5K:2K display at native resolution, the menus are small. On an 8K display, they'd be unusable.
Upvote
0
+1 on this. To my middle-aging eyes running the "100%" scaling on the 14" laptop screen with 2560x1440 resolution is just too small. Same with 4K on the 32" monitor. In both cases 120% seems much better for me.
My laptop is coming up to it's 3 years mark, and I am considered to replace it later this year. Originally I was looking to find a model with a 4K screen (X1 Carbon Gen 10 or T14), but the fact that a 2560 resolution is just too fine has made me stop and wonder if it makes any sense to go for 4K. I've always said that "you can't have too much screen real-estate" (which is extra true with Windows 10's* brain-damage regarding the GUI design), but going for 4K might just not be worth-while.
*) I tried Windows 11 for a few days and it didn't seem to make steps forward, but only backwards, so I restored Win10.
Upvote
0
I think it is important to future proof (within reason) and it wouldn't surprise me, if in 5 years time, 8K was available widely enough and affordably enough to oust 4K as the most popular monitor resolution. An image that at 100% fully occupies a 4K monitor now, will only occupy 50% of the area on an 8K screen. So IMO it's wise to go for high-res cameras now. Beyond 5 years it's fairly irrelevant to me, but it is relevant for younger photographers who'll want even more future-proofing.
As a Mac user I agree about the UI scaling problem. I use a 5K 27" monitor at the moment, and the text in the drop-downs is perfectly readable at normal viewing distances, but yes it will become more of a struggle at higher resolutions. However, I'd expect Apple to move to a new generation of OS that incorporates UI scaling, in due course.
Upvote
0
Unfortunately even worse: An image that occupies 100% fully a 4K monitor it will occupy 25% of a 8K pixelwise:
4K monitors: 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 8.3 Mpixel)
8K monitors: 7680 x 4320 pixels = 2x 3840 x 2x 2160 = 4 x 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 33 Mpixel) So a 8K monitor has 4 times the megapixels of a 4K monitor.
I really hope we will not use 8K monitors soon since only an image from a high megapixel camera will cover a 8K monitor. And if we want to show a bird which will occupy a small part of the photo then we will have to stand close to the monitor
or get even bigger lenses
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
