Canon New 40meg camera's

[Chloe and Aspen]

Anybody heard anything about when the New Canon 40meg camera will hit the shops ?

[ricktas]

Do you mean the 50MP ones : the 5Ds and the 5Ds-r ?

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?137667-Canon-announce-5Ds-and-5Ds-r

[Dug]

B&H are giving a date of Monday, June 29, 2015 at 12AM.
How's that for specific for something nearly 3 months away.

Unusually early prototype show release for Canon on these models (Feb 6th), they must have be worried someone might steal their thunder.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+eos+5ds&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

[I @ M]

Unusually early prototype show release for Canon on these models (Feb 6th), they must have be worried someone might steal their thunder.

I reckon the announcement date to release date gap is fairly consistent with Canon upper level bodies.

[Dug]

I reckon the announcement date to release date gap is fairly consistent with Canon upper level bodies.

It can seem forever if you want one :)

announcement - shipping date
5Dmk3 same month
7Dm2 about 1.5 months

5Ds & sr a week off 4 months

[Mark L]

Will it help you take better photos???;)

[Dug]

Will it help you take better photos???;)

At least twice as better than any other Canon, just do the maths. :)

[Chloe and Aspen]

I do not know if 50meg camera will help me take better pictures..But I am trying to visualize just what, a beautiful coloured bird taken with a 600mm or for that matter any sharp lens.in raw as to any 12 to 18 meg file would look like

[ricktas]

I do not know if 50meg camera will help me take better pictures..But I am trying to visualize just what, a beautiful coloured bird taken with a 600mm or for that matter any sharp lens.in raw as to any 12 to 18 meg file would look like

More MP does not help anyone take better photos. The photographer is what makes a photo good. Photos we took years ago with 10MP cameras are still good photos, it is about the subject, composition, light etc that make the photo good, not how many pixelsites a sensor has. A beautifully taken photo of a bird with a 10MP Nikon D200 will look just as good as one taken with a Canon 50MP camera.. if the photographer had the ability.

[mikew09]

Pet hate of mine - "People saying that is a beautiful photo, you must have a really good camera" Grrrr :-). With tht in mind - will the new 50mp bodies help my photography. Well, it wont make me a better photographer but it may:
Assist with shots I got a little wrong with exposure as I assume (and it is an assumption) should be able to recover more underexposed or shadow areas with more detail and less noise. I may make editing a less time consuming process in view of dynamic range and the above comment. It may assist with cropping and maintaining details.
Hmm, I could gone on and one about maybes and assumptions but I cannot see where the body would benefit me unless I wanted to print the size of a small home movie screen.

One major draw back that would be an issue in my space - the size of the files - more storage, bigger CF and SD cards, photoshop smashing my PC trying to deal with enormous raw files.

I am really keen to see how much benefit the 50MP body is in a real world overview so if you by one - mini reviews please.

Sometimes I cant (after processing) tell the different between a shot between my 50D and same lens 5D3 unless I start blowing it up to small poster size. But before processing OH yea - sure.

[I @ M]

With tht in mind - will the new 50mp bodies help my photography. Well, it wont make me a better photographer but it may

Mike, err on the side of will. There is one thing that bigger mega pickles will force you to do and that is one aspect of being a better photographer.

That one thing is --- concentrate on technique --- especially hand holding the camera and lens.
The slightest mistakes are magnified by a large factor, seemingly much larger than the % jump in pickles would indicate, when heading off into the higher numbers.
I reckon that correcting / improving technique will make you, I and many others better photographers. :)

[MissionMan]

Pet hate of mine - "People saying that is a beautiful photo, you must have a really good camera" Grrrr :-).

Damn right you should be annoyed. It should be "You must have really good lenses" :D

[ameerat42]

- Or even: That's a good photo. You just have a good photo.:cool:

[Bennymiata]

The problem with the new 5DS' s for me, is that they are low ISO cameras, and I do need high ISO's for many of the events I cover let alone processing a thousand or so shots for one event.

When people tell me that I must have a good camera, I say yes, and Picasso used good paints too.

[in2fx]

Will it help you take better photos???;)

of course LOL

[Babu]

Why aren't the pro bodies from Canon and Nikon endowed with as many megapixels as the enthusiast bodies from these companies?
There would seem that there is an anomaly here.
Canon's 1DX has 18Mp; the 5DIII has 22; the 5Ds/sr have 50 : Nikon's D4s has 16; most mids have 24; the D800 & D810 have 36.
Could it be that there are camera factors other than the sheer number of megapixels which facilitate the capture of great images ?
Otherwise, why would Joe Pro turn up with a 1DX or a 4Ds when his competitors bring a 5Ds or a D810?

[arthurking83]

The problem with the new 5DS' s for me, is that they are low ISO cameras, and I do need high ISO's for many of the events I cover let alone processing a thousand or so shots for one event.

......


Remember that output size is a very important factor in this too tho!

that is, as long as the camera has the capability to be set to a high ISO, the higher Mp camera may actually produce cleaner looking final images when set to a specific size compared to one with a lower Mp count at the same ISO.

eg. say you shoot at ISO12800 regularly with your 5DMvIII(22MP?) and now you shoot at the same ISO level with a 50Mp 5Ds(or 5Dr) .. if your output is always at 2000x3000 pixels .. there is a very good possibility that the 5Ds/r will produce cleaner looking images at 2000.3000 pixels than the 5DMkIII. Even tho at the pixel level(100% zoom) the 5DIII looks cleaner.

This is what Nikon have done with the D800 vs D600/750 vs Df/D4 etc.

Until the camera gets into the wild and sample images are analysed no one actually knows .. but I believe that for the same output level(eg. print size!) .. the 50Mp camera will almost certainly look better(and hence rate higher on many review site's scores).

If you want more Mp tho for the ability to crop tighter/more .. almost certainly you may end up being a bit disappointed once you start pushing ISO levels.

[ricktas]

Why aren't the pro bodies from Canon and Nikon endowed with as many megapixels as the enthusiast bodies from these companies?
There would seem that there is an anomaly here.
Canon's 1DX has 18Mp; the 5DIII has 22; the 5Ds/sr have 50 : Nikon's D4s has 16; most mids have 24; the D800 & D810 have 36.
Could it be that there are camera factors other than the sheer number of megapixels which facilitate the capture of great images ?
Otherwise, why would Joe Pro turn up with a 1DX or a 4Ds when his competitors bring a 5Ds or a D810?

design purpose!

Take the 1Dx you mention first. From Canon's site " the EOS 1DX is always ready for action ". It also makes a great photojournalism camera. When you consider most sport/journalism shots go into magazines, newspapers, or on the web, you do not really need 50mp

Canon designed the 1Dx for action..sport etc... what you need for sport is good high ISO results, fast shutter (12 FPS) with a high speed rate of 14fps. The 18mp allows good low noise at higher ISO's, and fast frame rate to catch all the action (in a sequence if you want).

Now lets look at the D810 from Nikon. 5fps. And whilst image noise at higher ISO improves as new tech comes along, the D810 as per Nikon's marketing info aims is squarely at the Landscapers. Thus the big MP count lets you print these babies huge to go on the wall.

So the difference in MP count is just simply, aiming a particular camera at a particular market at the top end of photographers/photography.

[freelancer]

I find the way many people cant wait for the next best camera or lens quite amusing. Will a client suddenly say I will only purchase your image if its from the latest greatest, or can you suddenly double your price as you double your pixels. For me Ive found I can still sell images from a compact and gopro so will stick there and not buy another slr ever again, not good for the economy but lets me spend more time at play and not working.

Most of the high end gear is just to big and heavy to lug around, by the time you get it out of the bag or box its to late.

Jon

[arthurking83]

I find the way many people cant wait for the next best camera or lens quite amusing. Will a client suddenly say I will only purchase your image if its from the latest greatest, or can you suddenly double your price as you double your pixels .....


So many variable ways to answer this question .. it's hard to even think of where(or how) to start.

But my first reaction to this comment is why does it have to be about 'the client'?

Who says every decision we make(not just in photography related life) have to be related to what clients want/need/expect.

The problem with your comment is that you're looking at other folks requirements, only from your specific point of view!

I have no clients, but I'm always interested in what new cameras the manufacturers come out with.
My decision to acquire the next 'latest and greatest' incarnation of a product therefore has nothing to do with what anyone's clients expect .. it's purely based on personal need/want/expectation.

I want a camera that does .. <insert capability here> .. so I get it, because my current one doesn't do that.

capability could be anything from more pixels(if I think there's an advantage), to better frame rates, to better focusing system, to a better operating environment ... or whatever!


What actually amuses me(more than the humour of people waiting anxiously for the next latest and greatest camera) .. is this incessant derision of the advantages of having more pixels in the next camera model.
It's as though ever since the invention of the smart phone, coupled with facebook ... that no one anywhere in the world now wants large prints of something that's been photographed .. ever again!

I find this argument that more pixels aren't what we need, intriguing at the least .. idiotic at worst.
Why?
Are these so called photography experts so well versed that no one anywhere in the world ever wants or needs more pixels ever again?

It's all come as a consequence of some ignorant perspective that all images are now placed on the net at 1024p wide and that's it. No more than that is required, so more pixels from the next camera is a waste.
I'd like to know which idiot on the net started this lowest common denominator point.

There's more to photography than just the one specific outlook and expectation of how it should be catered too.

If person A is happy with a go pro for all their work .. that's fine .
If person B needs 500Mp to afford them the ability to print at 10m and 300dpi resolution .. is this now not allowed because of the internet, or that Person A now has their preferred gear.

My low end gear with little to no resolution simply doesn't get used or just stays at home .. and I only have time to bring the bag with the high end gear.

Two different people, two entirely different needs.
Just because you have no need for it, doesn't mean that the other person also doesn't.
Why another person's requirements are amusing to you is something I can't ever imagine, I guess.

[freelancer]

I didn't mean the comment to come over as purely a professional point of view, more do we really need such high res cameras for general use. Do we need to then upgrade to a computer to be able to process the images not to metion how many lenses would be capable of taking advantage of it all.

Billboard posters have been made form the early d series cameras for quite some time, Ive had my images blown up to just under 3m for tourism events. I have an image from a canon G6 hanging above the counters in Batemans bay tourist office which was from a sub 2meg jpeg over 2.5m.

If I had eagles eyesight and planned printing 4-5m prints then I too might get excited.
Jon

[arthurking83]

Irrespective of whether the comment was made in a professional amateur or any other context .. it's the same flavour as all the so called experts on the net expressing the same viewpoint.

Yeah, you may not need 100Mp(or in this case 50Mp .. so move on.

But you are assuming that because you don't need it, or can't ever see a use for it .. that it's not something other people may want or need.

It's great that you've had your images blown up to 3m .. I've so far been restricted to 30" enlargements myself on two occasions .. both from requests of friends family.

But have you ever had your enlargements displayed in the main foyer of the main office of Kodak for over 20 or so years?

Have you ever seen the main foyer at this office .. to see what gets displayed at at what level of detail?

I've seen enough to know(now) that there is always a need for something else .. which may come to mean more(or less) .. so to dismiss what someone else may deem to be important as humourous ... just because YOU don't have the need for it is a limited outlook on life.

I'm positive that this new Canon camera will sell well. Whether people actually need it is not the question here tho ... that they will purchase it because they think they need it is more important.

FWIW: the prints I allude too in the Kodak office I used to regularly deal with back in the good ol days ... there used to be a 3 maybe 4 m print of a small section of Ayers Rock.
To see the detail within the image could only be described as astonishing ... especially at the printed size.

The size, FOV and level of detail, I suspect, would be near impossible to produce with a single image on any current digital camera .. and I reckon that would also include the top level 80Mp MF backs available.

I have a vague recollection that Kodak commissioned a photographer(maybe of Japanese descent) to create the print. (not specifically of Ayers Rock, but that this was what was chosen as their showcase for this particualr foyer.


As for this sub topic of updating the computer just so that we can manipulate the images .. it gets rehashed over and over again.
I bet you've updated your computer more times PRIOR to getting into digital imaging than you have since you got into it.

You don't NEED to upgrade your computer .. unless there is some specific reason to do so(hardware/software/etc).

I went from a dinky 12Mp/25-30Mb workflow to a 36Mp/80-100Mb file size workflow without being forced to update my PC.

Lenses .. whatever works. Some always work better, some are not so good .. this is a fact of life.
After updating from a D300(12Mp) APC-C camera to a D800E(36Mp 135 format) camera .. I still used my most used lens for my preferred photographic genre .. landscapes which was the same old sometimes maligned Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 .. which of course is APS-C only .. on a full frame camera!

There is no law against it, and the images still came out quite nice .. whether in APS-C format or 135 format. I used them and processed them at my discretion.

Did I make use of the D800 in the year or so whilst I decided which UWA lens to get .. you bet I did.
Lenses don't take advantage of anything, put a lens on a camera and watch it do nothing ..... until you force it to do something.

WE(the user) take advantage of the things we have at our disposal.

Again, your comments are simply reiterating what the so called professionals seem to be churning out ad nauseum via their blogs and other outlets.

The question of whether we need such hi res cameras for general use is actually quite funny!

Define general use.

Define need!

I can think of many situations where a 200Mp camera could be an advantage.

[Babu]

Apparently, when 5Ds and 5Dsr bodies begin shipping in adequate volumes, we will see announcements of the 5D IV (28 Mp, 9fps and 4K video) and a 1DX II.
I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what really eventuates and choose whichever body best suits our photographic genre.

[Tannin]

The 50MP models will sell strongly, and get a lot of professional use. One area that always has a big demand for max-res photographs is wedding photography. You take a shot with 20 people in it, then later you get asked for a blow-up of Steve and Auntie Jean. You want as much detail there as you can possibly get. This exact same reason is why the 5D II was such a success in that market segment. (It had more resolution than anything else worth mentioning back in its day.) Another example is school photography. Again, you take the whole class in one shot and people ask for prints of particular individuals. Doubtless there are other applications where similar logic applies.

[MissionMan]

I think the important thing about this camera is not just the camera, it's the additional of the 11-24 lens which has had a number of Canon users jumping ship in favour of the D800 14-24 Nikon combo. I think it was a smart move for Canon to bring out both at the same time.

[CandidTown]

I'm struggling to understand the logic behind a 50Mpxl SLR camera.
Apart from proving that anything Nikon does, Canon can do better.

Large format or billboard size commercial prints will continue to be shot with a medium format cameras like Phase1 or a Hasselblad.
Wedding photographers will not touch this monster as for them a 24Mpxl is already an overkill and many even shoot medium jpg size images to prevent coming home with half a terabyte of pictures of drunken people dancing the macarena... :)

Landscape photographers may take advantage of this... but those who "really" could take advantage of this kind of equipment probably still shoot film or medium format.
So, what's left is the army of pixel-counters who just must have the latest and the greatest...
Bless...

[MissionMan]

I'm struggling to understand the logic behind a 50Mpxl SLR camera.
Apart from proving that anything Nikon does, Canon can do better.

Large format or billboard size commercial prints will continue to be shot with a medium format cameras like Phase1 or a Hasselblad.
Wedding photographers will not touch this monster as for them a 24Mpxl is already an overkill and many even shoot medium jpg size images to prevent coming home with half a terabyte of pictures of drunken people dancing the macarena... :)

Landscape photographers may take advantage of this... but those who "really" could take advantage of this kind of equipment probably still shoot film or medium format.
So, what's left is the army of pixel-counters who just must have the latest and the greatest...
Bless...

You are of course assuming that everyone who wants medium format can afford it. What does a medium format go for these days? And the lens?

In conjunction to this, I would say that rational thinking and the consumer don't always go hand in hand.Whether you need 50MP and want it are two different questions. No one needs the ludicrous MP's they have in phones but for some odd reason people still want them.

One only has to look at the success of the D800 and D810 for proof that a 50MP camera will sell.

[CandidTown]

One only has to look at the success of the D800 and D810 for proof that a 50MP camera will sell.

I'm talking about commercial shoots which require high resolution images.
They will in most cases continue to be shot in medium format.
Photographers who don't own a Phase1, usually hire it for that day.
A photographer who rocks up on a $100K billboard shoot with an SLR would raise a few eyebrows.. :)

I have no doubt that Canon will sell a good number of these 50Mpx cameras. Just like Nikon was able to sell a good number of D800.
Which is why I couldn't find logic in it...
Because, in my opinion, most professionals will not buy it, and most amateurs will not need it... :)

[I @ M]

Wedding photographers will not touch this monster as for them a 24Mpxl is already an overkill and many even shoot medium jpg size images to prevent coming home with half a terabyte of pictures of drunken people dancing the macarena... :)


Never in my furthest mind could I disagree with a statement more I am afraid.
I think that you will find that accomplished wedding photographers will love this camera because they are not so inept to take more than 3 photos of drunken people dancing a macerena.


Because, in my opinion, most professionals will not buy it, and most amateurs will not need it... :)

My opinion is that the "professional" photographers who can make use of it and the amateur photographers who want ( not need ) the high megapixel yield will flock to it.
Don't shoot Canon responding to a market place opportunity as they are simply a company chasing profits the same as all other companies and to not offer the consumer a choice ( with well researched marketing ) would be simply disrespectful to their share holders.

[CandidTown]

Never in my furthest mind could I disagree with a statement more I am afraid.
I think that you will find that accomplished wedding photographers will love this camera because they are not so inept to take more than 3 photos of drunken people dancing a macerena.



I think that you will find that the accomplished wedding photographers know that images will not be printed on more than maybe 8x10".
Apart from a few formal portraits.
They also know how to compose and crop IN camera.
Only the inept ones will come to a wedding, machine gun for 10 hours and go home praying that there is a decent image somewhere in that 50mplx frame...
:)

[I @ M]

I think that you will find that the accomplished wedding photographers know that images will not be printed on more than maybe 8x10".
Apart from a few formal portraits.
They also know how to compose and crop IN camera.

I guess if you say so you must be right ---

Seeing as the average wedding album is already a larger size than 8x10 not counting double page spreads and that there is still a significant market for prints at much larger sizes than that I can only repeat that accomplished wedding photographers will welcome the body to their kit bag. That kit bag will also probably contain several lower resolution bodies for the less resolution demanding shots and of course you will find that they will all mount the same lenses rather than carrying differing brands /makes.


Only the inept ones will come to a wedding, machine gun for 10 hours and go home praying that there is a decent image somewhere in that 50mplx frame...
:)

Uh huh, you did read that which I posted didn't you?


I think that you will find that accomplished wedding photographers will love this camera because they are not so inept to take more than 3 photos of drunken people dancing a macerena.

[arthurking83]

I guess if you say so you must be right ---

......


:rolleyes:

Of course there is now no need to print any larger than the smallest mirrorless camera can safely handle.

small Mp mirrorless cameras seem to have redefined the photography market.



The argument put forward that commercial shoots requiring high resolution images is hilarious!


"they will, in most cases, continue to be shot in medium format"


And what of those that aren't?


So, according to this line of thinking:

We don't need high Mp count, non MF cameras as dictated by some folks.

Yet, the argument quoted above directly implies that there is an opening for just such a camera ... that is the minority of commercial shoots which are not shot with MF yet still require high resolution!



You struggle to see the logic for just such a camera, yet you just described one scenario for their need! :confused:

[swifty]

Relax guys.. I haven't seen this much kerfuffle since the announcement of the D800/E.

I can't see how an extra feature/ability would cause so much angst.
It's great to have your camera exceed your ability and needs. Do I need ISO 25600, not really but I sure wouldn't complain about it. Same for the extra pixels.

Those who want the extra pixels for enlargements will benefit.
Those who want pixel density will benefit, with appropriate crop mode.
Those that like to pixel peep will be satisfied.
Those that shoot large volumes as a pro should have appropriate computer upgrade regimes so if their systems aren't ready for upgrades yet, enjoy the drop in street price until they are ready to upgrade.
Those that need it now, sorry Canon gave you what you want/need but your system isn't ready yet.
Those that spray and pray won't like it. Oh well.

MF guys will continue to shoot MF out of need/want/arrogance/whatever. But I'd bet a few more might be adding this to their kit for situations where MF might be too cumbersome (where are those MF mirrorless cameras ;) ). Peter Coulson is a MF guy but uses Canon for some of his location shoots iirc. I can easily imagine he might add one to his kit.

Personally I'm quite excited to see how the files handle. Can't remember the source now but IIRC I read there's stronger colour filtration on the 5DS R pair. Whilst that might come at the expense of some high ISO performance, I'll bet the colour discrimination will be superb at low ISO. It'll be a fantastic studio camera in addition to being a generally great camera, I'm sure.

[arthurking83]

......


Those who want the .................. will benefit.
Those who want .......................... will benefit


............


There's the crux of the matter!

... and by implication ....


Those who DON'T want .... NEED NOT APPLY!

Something for everyone, and the world is a happy place.

(now, why is it taking so long for that 100Mp Nikon D850!) :p

[Unbound]

The important point about the 50mp camera is that is a further step forward in the development of digital photography technology - which is still very young. You might not want or need 50mp, but you might want the next development which will flow on from this step.