A high megapixel camera is coming [CR2]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
A very sensible choice.

I recently moved from a single 32" 4K display setup to a dual 32" 4K setup (essentially 7680 x 2160), as I found the single screen setup to be lacking when working with a lot of data or windows at the same time.

However, the two 32" screens side-by-side is somewhat over-the-top as it's hard to utilize both screens fully. I'd say that I'd be able to roughly use 1 2/3 screen.

But a "Full HD" is now officially relegated to "periscope" status (way too small viewing area) for me.
Another consideration for me in getting 5K:2K over straight 5K or 4K was a lower top height. The double windows behind my home office desk look out to the forest behind my house – passerines, raptors, deer and foxes are common, along with an occasional coyote or fisher cat.

3D00CB78-0688-45DF-A007-23A6D33ACEB9.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,376
1,059
Davidson, NC
Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....

I came across this the other day:

Dell 49" Monitor

Any thoughts out there about this? I had been thinking maybe a 4K 32" monitor, but this would be nice getting as much space as possible in one monitor....this says QHD...is that 4K?

What high quality monitors would ya'll be looking at for 4K....?

cayenne
I used dual monitors for over 20 years. Then in 2014 I got my 27" iMac. It is 5K, so 4K on a 32" monitor doesn't sound so great.

I left the 23" monitor that I used with my Mac Pro beside the iMac with the idea that I would get an adaptor for it and run as a second monitor. But I never hooked it up. The 27" has plenty of screen real estate, and I use the old Mac Pro sometimes as well. For example, in a project involving old 78rpm disks, I let the Pro digitize them while I was working on cleaning up audio on the iMac. I use default settings for display, where 100% view in Photoshop is really half size. So you have to go to 200% to pixel peep. Rumor is that the next iMac to come out will still have a 27" screen.

A friend uses a 32" monitor with his Mac mini, the new M1 model. He runs MacOS, Windows 11, and Linux simultaneously in different windows. (He's an amazing guy. Besides doing consulting in fields that I don't even understand the name of the fields, he plays a variety of woodwind instruments, and long ago appeared as the title character in a Spencer Tracy movie.) I'll decide after the next iMac comes out between it and getting the faster mini that might come out about the same time along with a larger monitor. But for now, my aged 5K iMac still runs everything well, though it won't run the latest Mac OS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,481
2,637
The Netherlands
[..]I'll decide after the next iMac comes out between it and getting the faster mini that might come out about the same time along with a larger monitor. But for now, my aged 5K iMac still runs everything well, though it won't run the latest Mac OS.
Same situation here, I find it to be an infuriating first world problem that getting a better screen than my 7 year old iMac involves spending >$5000. My hope is that 2023 will have a 2nd generation 27" iMac, new Minis and competitively priced 5k/6k monitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,808
741
That Dell is a 32:9 aspect monitor, so very, very wide. Resolution is 5120 x 1440. Compare that to the standard 3840 x 2160 resolution for 4K.

With such a wide screen, the curvature makes sense. I haven't looked into the panel, but for tog-heads like us on CR, color space, panel type (stay away from TN), good contrast and fidelity is quite important. Make sure to check up on reviews and look for color and linearity.

My screens are BenQ SW321C. Comes calibrated from the factory. Not exactly cheap, though.
I'd been eyeballing the BenQ stuff.....

That's actually likely what I'll pull the trigger on...just haven't figured which one yet.

I was larger than 27" Dell that I have now, I need something bigger for my eyes that are aging badly.

C
 
Upvote 0

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,808
741
Same situation here, I find it to be an infuriating first world problem that getting a better screen than my 7 year old iMac involves spending >$5000. My hope is that 2023 will have a 2nd generation 27" iMac, new Minis and competitively priced 5k/6k monitors.
I've got one of the newer Mac Pro machines, I pulled the trigger a couple years ago I think it was.
So, I've got plenty of video card power to run good monitor(s)....

I guess I"ll be looking at 32", but want to get a really good one to last me a long time....
 
Upvote 0

HenryL

EOS R3, R5
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
357
970
Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....

I came across this the other day:

Dell 49" Monitor

Any thoughts out there about this? I had been thinking maybe a 4K 32" monitor, but this would be nice getting as much space as possible in one monitor....this says QHD...is that 4K?

What high quality monitors would ya'll be looking at for 4K....?

cayenne
QHD is 2560 x 1440, not 4K. That display is, as they say, equivalent to 2 27" monitors side by side.

I just recently updated my display from a 27" Viewsonic 2785-4K to a 32" BenQ SW321c (also 4K). The Viewsonic is fantastic, but both of my Mac's think it is a TV not a computer monitor and won't put out the correct signal without jumping through hoops - and OS updates tend to make it crazy again.

The BenQ, while 2x the cost, is phenomenal. I was leary because for me, 4K at 27" is perfect. I work on a laptop 90% of my day job, a 13" MacBook Pro. I do have a tendency to hunch forward in my chair though while I'm editing and part of it comes out of habit with that small portable screen

With 4K at 32", I am learning to sit upright and the stress on my neck/shoulders is decreasing significantly. The display itself is super color accurate, easy to profile (hardware calibration in the monitor itself), and the matte screen seems to eat light. I have never in my 25+ year IT career seen a display with an anti-glare coating like this. I have strong sidelight in the mornings, and it's no problem now. Once I got this thing mounted and opened up a few images, any regrets I had over the cost disappeared. I kept a 30" Dell U3011 for over 8 years, I hope this one lasts that long.

I hope you find one that suits you...a great display makes a HUGE difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,808
741
QHD is 2560 x 1440, not 4K. That display is, as they say, equivalent to 2 27" monitors side by side.

I just recently updated my display from a 27" Viewsonic 2785-4K to a 32" BenQ SW321c (also 4K). The Viewsonic is fantastic, but both of my Mac's think it is a TV not a computer monitor and won't put out the correct signal without jumping through hoops - and OS updates tend to make it crazy again.

The BenQ, while 2x the cost, is phenomenal. I was leary because for me, 4K at 27" is perfect. I work on a laptop 90% of my day job, a 13" MacBook Pro. I do have a tendency to hunch forward in my chair though while I'm editing and part of it comes out of habit with that small portable screen

With 4K at 32", I am learning to sit upright and the stress on my neck/shoulders is decreasing significantly. The display itself is super color accurate, easy to profile (hardware calibration in the monitor itself), and the matte screen seems to eat light. I have never in my 25+ year IT career seen a display with an anti-glare coating like this. I have strong sidelight in the mornings, and it's no problem now. Once I got this thing mounted and opened up a few images, any regrets I had over the cost disappeared. I kept a 30" Dell U3011 for over 8 years, I hope this one lasts that long.

I hope you find one that suits you...a great display makes a HUGE difference.
Thank you for the info!!
I"ll take a look at that BENQ monitor you mentioned, sounds like it has what I"m looking for.

My old Dell U2711 is looking a bit long in the tooth, but I could use it as a 2nd monitor perhaps, to get some further use out of it....

Thank you again,

C
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Blue Zurich

The artist formerly known as slclick
Jan 22, 2022
219
342
Gaia
That Dell is a 32:9 aspect monitor, so very, very wide. Resolution is 5120 x 1440. Compare that to the standard 3840 x 2160 resolution for 4K.

With such a wide screen, the curvature makes sense. I haven't looked into the panel, but for tog-heads like us on CR, color space, panel type (stay away from TN), good contrast and fidelity is quite important. Make sure to check up on reviews and look for color and linearity.

My screens are BenQ SW321C. Comes calibrated from the factory. Not exactly cheap, though.
This is timely for me as my 11 year old Dell UltraSharp just failed on me (It was never that sharp anyway). Since I am staying at 27" and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I was thinking a 100% sRGB (Pantone approved marketing hype) IPS 2k panel might be a great option. Looking at Viewsonic ColorPro and others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
This is timely for me as my 11 year old Dell UltraSharp just failed on me (It was never that sharp anyway). Since I am staying at 27" and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I was thinking a 100% sRGB (Pantone approved marketing hype) IPS 2k panel might be a great option. Looking at Viewsonic ColorPro and others.
BenQ has a couple of 27" options with 2560 x 1440 resolution. Take a look at the PD, PV and SW series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

MrToes

Best camera? The one shooting when S#!+ hits
Feb 9, 2015
104
12
51
North West US
Hopefully sooner than later. My two 5DSr's are over the 100K mark and looking pretty ragged. It would be nice not to have to switch over to the Sony platform.

I would have no problems with larger file sizes (very less uncompressed CR files would be nice). Also closer to the 100 MP sensor size would be a delight to see from Canon.
 
Upvote 0

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,808
741
Hopefully sooner than later. My two 5DSr's are over the 100K mark and looking pretty ragged. It would be nice not to have to switch over to the Sony platform.

I would have no problems with larger file sizes (very less uncompressed CR files would be nice). Also closer to the 100 MP sensor size would be a delight to see from Canon.
I love my canon gear, etc....

But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.

The price is reasonable for Digital MF, and the resolution is amazing. I have the original GFX100 that I use for that niche...and it is pretty spectacular.

Again, not promoting anything over Canon, but if the new Canon doesn't get out in time for you, I'd suggest looking Fuji over for this over Sony...
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,376
1,059
Davidson, NC
I love my canon gear, etc....

But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.

The price is reasonable for Digital MF, and the resolution is amazing. I have the original GFX100 that I use for that niche...and it is pretty spectacular.

Again, not promoting anything over Canon, but if the new Canon doesn't get out in time for you, I'd suggest looking Fuji over for this over Sony...
If I bought a camera any time soon, I’d get the 100S. I really don’t shoot enough landscapes to justify getting it. It is not in stock, so not a good choice for an impulse purchase. I could afford two lenses with it, but don’t know which ones I would get. But as we move into spring, I won’t guarantee that I will continue to resist the purchase. Reality is that my 6D2 is still great for anything I do. And if I go to Norway this summer or next, the scenic shots will be made with my G5X II no matter how good the cameras and lenses are that I leave at home.
 
Upvote 0

MrToes

Best camera? The one shooting when S#!+ hits
Feb 9, 2015
104
12
51
North West US
I love my canon gear, etc....

But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.

The price is reasonable for Digital MF, and the resolution is amazing. I have the original GFX100 that I use for that niche...and it is pretty spectacular.

Again, not promoting anything over Canon, but if the new Canon doesn't get out in time for you, I'd suggest looking Fuji over for this over Sony...
I love my canon gear, etc....

But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.

The price is reasonable for Digital MF, and the resolution is amazing. I have the original GFX100 that I use for that niche...and it is pretty spectacular.

Again, not promoting anything over Canon, but if the new Canon doesn't get out in time for you, I'd suggest looking Fuji over for this over Sony...
Thanks for the reply, that looks like a promising camera also. I've also looked at the other Medium Format cameras in the 100 MP range. As with anything else, it's demoralizing when shortly after you purchase one, the full frame cameras come out in the same MP range at half the price. But you never know, the right situation might entice me enough to lug around a Medium Format box!
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,376
1,059
Davidson, NC
Thanks for the reply, that looks like a promising camera also. I've also looked at the other Medium Format cameras in the 100 MP range. As with anything else, it's demoralizing when shortly after you purchase one, the full frame cameras come out in the same MP range at half the price. But you never know, the right situation might entice me enough to lug around a Medium Format box!
The 100S is not that much bigger and heavier than the top end of Canon’s and Sony’s lines and not that much more expensive. And it is not just a matter of megapixels. The larger size sensor has other advantages over “full frame.” Whether those advantages will make a difference to your picture taking or show anything improved in your final product is a question to ponder before buying. For me the answer if rather obviously No. But I would like to have such a good camera for mostly aesthetic reasons. Reason has prevailed for me so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
There is an obsession regarding high megapixel cameras. A parellel in cars would be the Dodge Viper, which had a 1000 horsepower engine but bad handling on the road. Megapixels is only one aspect of sensors. Far more important is dynamic range, color sensitivity response, rendition, ability to raise shadows in post, etc. The higher the megapixel count, the more difficult to excel in these other areas. Let alone the ability to handhold a camera without shake, which becomes increasingly difficult with higher megapixels. Canon, even with the latest generation sensors, has had lower dynamic range and particularly the ability to raise shadows in post without banding and noise. The same applies to lenses like Sigma Art with the obsession on sharpness. Only one aspect of a lens performance. The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,504
17,256
There is an obsession regarding high megapixel cameras. A parellel in cars would be the Dodge Viper, which had a 1000 horsepower engine but bad handling on the road. Megapixels is only one aspect of sensors. Far more important is dynamic range, color sensitivity response, rendition, ability to raise shadows in post, etc. The higher the megapixel count, the more difficult to excel in these other areas. Let alone the ability to handhold a camera without shake, which becomes increasingly difficult with higher megapixels. Canon, even with the latest generation sensors, has had lower dynamic range and particularly the ability to raise shadows in post without banding and noise. The same applies to lenses like Sigma Art with the obsession on sharpness. Only one aspect of a lens performance. The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?
You have just joined CR and have not read the hundreds of posts that show that most of what you claim about the deficiencies of high megapixels is largely false when you view the output of the full frame at the same viewing size in inches or cm or what you will. Here is a website that measures dynamic range, ability to raise shadows in post, noise etc and you can play with various cameras there and see how you are wrong: photonstophotos.net. When it comes to shake from hand holding, the movement across the output image is independent of resolution - think about it. Here are the dynamic ranges of the 45 Mpx R5 and 20 Mpx 1DXIII and the shadow improvements from photonstophotos. The Nikon high resolution sensors are also similarly at least as good or better than their low resolution counterparts. Screenshot 2022-03-11 at 08.54.33.png Screenshot 2022-03-11 at 08.55.59.png Screenshot 2022-03-11 at 09.01.38.png Screenshot 2022-03-11 at 09.03.25.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Long live the Oligarchy!
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,611
2,065
USA
The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?
Which newer lenses are you using currently?
 
Upvote 0

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,808
741
There is an obsession regarding high megapixel cameras. A parellel in cars would be the Dodge Viper, which had a 1000 horsepower engine but bad handling on the road. Megapixels is only one aspect of sensors. Far more important is dynamic range, color sensitivity response, rendition, ability to raise shadows in post, etc. The higher the megapixel count, the more difficult to excel in these other areas. Let alone the ability to handhold a camera without shake, which becomes increasingly difficult with higher megapixels. Canon, even with the latest generation sensors, has had lower dynamic range and particularly the ability to raise shadows in post without banding and noise. The same applies to lenses like Sigma Art with the obsession on sharpness. Only one aspect of a lens performance. The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?
Well, as technology progresses, it can address the weaknesses as you describe.

The last Vipers to come out, had some really good electronic help on the suspension, etc...so as to keep the car on the road and it wasn't in as much danger of the driver losing control.
Of course you could turn those safety measures of if you wanted a bit of the raw power to toy with....

The Fuji GFX100 line has shown that a large sensor with high MP count....paired with IBIS, you can indeed hand hold at MUCH slower shutter speeds than you'd expect and come out with pristine images.

IMHO, the limitation with higher and higher MP is trying to stuff them into a FF sensor, rather than enlarging the sensor.

Larger sensors, IBIS and who knows what in the future, will allow ease in higher MP that are effective.

As for lenses, I do agree with you. Today's lenses are getting towards perfection....but they also have what many call a "clinical" quality.

One of the main things I like about modern mirrorless cameras is the ability to readily adapt the older, manual lenses that have character to your modern digital camera and use a bit of that 3D or bokeh magic you just don't get with modern lenses.

Sure they are full manual, but with digital focus adjust, there's really no problem catching focus with full manual lenses. Hell, I can even do it with my bad eyesight.
:)

Just my $0.02,

cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,504
17,256
IMHO, the limitation with higher and higher MP is trying to stuff them into a FF sensor, rather than enlarging the sensor.
If you want the best possible image, then sure, use as large a sensor as possible, but, the consequence is that you need to use larger and longer focal length lenses to maintain a field of view. If you want portable hand-holdable gear with long reach, you have stuff as many pixels as is necessary into a smaller sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0