Canon EOS-1DX and pixel count

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon EOS-1D X professional DSLR announcement and overview: Digital Photography Review

 

Replacement for 1Ds cuts resolution from 21 to 18 Mpixels (while also increasing count for the 1D, and eliminating two separate 1D cameras).

 

So why a Canon thread on a Leica forum? Because:

 

a) Quite a few former R-camera users use their Leica R lenses on Canon bodies. Wonder if this new sensor will become the "standard" 24x36 FF Canon sensor (also to show up in a 5D Mk III)?

 

So much for the hypothetical "36 Mpixel" sensor coming soon to a camera near you. (Of course, Nikon may still have its own ideas). It is of note that the new Canon 1Dx has BIGGER pixels than the 1D VI or 1Ds III or 5D2 (thus presumably better noise performance, as well).

 

c) Any major development in digital photography changes the ocean in which Leica must swim (sharks or no). Canon seemingly has declared a (truce? retreat? victory?) in the pixel wars. Will Nikon abandon the D3s/D3x dichotomy in favor of a single D4 in the same 18-Mpixel range - coincidentally, the same resolution as the M9?

 

Does this move relieve pressure on Leica to bump the M10 into the 20-35 Mpixel range? And focus on noise, speed and other issues instead? Or open a door for Leica to become the undisputed high-res "king" - with higher res (24+ Mpixels) but less low-light capability?

 

Discuss - with reference to Leica wherever possible.....

[NZDavid]

But they won't reduce the weight of the beast -- a serous issue for many pros who suffer from back and shoulder injuries as a result of lugging hefty DSLR equipment around. It may be a very capable performer, but size and weight do matter.

[chris_tribble]

Couldn't agree more. I don't need the 21 MP on my 5D2 - and I certainly wouldn't have considered a successor on the basis of upping the MPs... Looks like manufacturers are taking image quality seriously (as Leica have done with the M8/M9) and any future M model will need to focus on the quality of the sensor, low light performance, focus assistance and other means for enhancing the performance of what is already a very good tool. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the image, stupid!"

[k-hawinkler]

James Carville It's the economy, stupid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ronan]

But they won't reduce the weight of the beast -- a serous issue for many pros who suffer from back and shoulder injuries as a result of lugging hefty DSLR equipment around. It may be a very capable performer, but size and weight do matter.

 

That's what assistants are for.

[bill]

and Lupins.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon EOS-1D X professional DSLR announcement and overview: Digital Photography Review

 

Replacement for 1Ds cuts resolution from 21 to 18 Mpixels (while also increasing count for the 1D, and eliminating two separate 1D cameras).

 

So why a Canon thread on a Leica forum? Because:

 

a) Quite a few former R-camera users use their Leica R lenses on Canon bodies. Wonder if this new sensor will become the "standard" 24x36 FF Canon sensor (also to show up in a 5D Mk III)?

 

I don't think so.

 

The 1Ds Mark III and D3x were not selling well. It is my impression. Sport/action/social/reportage/war photographers need something like the 1D Mark IV or the D3s: integrated grip, sealed body, ultrafast frame rate, sophisticated AF, long life shutter, etc, and no more resolution. But people working on a studio don't need that. They need resolution but not all those expensive to manufacture goodies. So they have bought the 5D Mark II or the D700 camera, instead of the 1Ds Mark III or the D3x.

 

So this design of the product is an adaptation to the market. The high resolution model will be the 5D Mark III. No grip, less complex AF, slower, smaller body, etc. But at more affordable prices. Aficionados will buy it, and many professionals with less demanding requirements for the hardware will but it too.

 

I would bet for a similar product design from Nikon: a new D4 professional model replacing the D3s, and a high resolution model replacing the D700. I believe they will present the D700 successor first.

 

Leica may be safe in the 18-24MP range (there is not significant difference in that range, I wouldn't obsessed with no increasing the pixel count), because the M is a reportage camera. 18MP is OK for me, but 21MP or 24MP is also correct (6 to 6.8 micron pixels). It depends on who makes the sensor for Leica, I suppose. I don't want 36MP, but I would like to see better image quality at high ISOs, live view, better dynamic range. I think we all agree with that.

[hamey]

First, I congratulate Canon for their brilliance, this will please the Canon pro's for the London Olympics.

 

A few months back I played around with the 1D-4 and was very impressed with it, coupled up my R 28-90

and was simply an awesome combination well balanced fitted in my hands beautifully.

 

The body is large campared to the M9 but to carry those hefty lenses you certainally need that.

These mean machines are work horses, designed to be used and abused, and the people who

use these beast know that, they want the BEST, they are not interested in special editions, black, silver

or what have you.

 

When it's released I will look at it, if it's mirror assembly is the same as the 1D all is well but if it's the

same size as the Canon 5D-2 then I wont be able to couple some of my Leica R lenses.

 

So before some of you criticise me, Remember you can only blame Leica, they discarded us R owners

with lies and contempt and therefore we have no choice but to look alsewere specially Canon or Nikon.

 

So if you're a range finder person don't bother with it, However because it's in the same price league as the M9, I would be interested to read Mr Puts and others comparison with this Beast.

 

Cheers.

[mmradman]

First, I congratulate Canon for their brilliance, this will please the Canon pro's for the London Olympics.

 

A few months back I played around with the 1D-4 and was very impressed with it, coupled up my R 28-90

and was simply an awesome combination well balanced fitted in my hands beautifully.

 

The body is large campared to the M9 but to carry those hefty lenses you certainally need that.

These mean machines are work horses, designed to be used and abused, and the people who

use these beast know that, they want the BEST, they are not interested in special editions, black, silver

or what have you.

 

When it's released I will look at it, if it's mirror assembly is the same as the 1D all is well but if it's the

same size as the Canon 5D-2 then I wont be able to couple some of my Leica R lenses.

 

So before some of you criticise me, Remember you can only blame Leica, they discarded us R owners

with lies and contempt and therefore we have no choice but to look alsewere specially Canon or Nikon.

 

So if you're a range finder person don't bother with it, However because it's in the same price league as the M9, I would be interested to read Mr Puts and others comparison with this Beast.

 

Cheers.

 

+1

 

With demise of R system Leica abandoned photography with focal length longer than 135mm, I don’t count S2 here as this is much specialised system selling in small numbers.

If forthcoming Canon 5D Mk 3 & Nikon D800 are 36Mp as rumours want us believe not sure where it leaves S2?

Both C & N with top primes and zooms are peerless systems.

I think M9 market is getting saturated, my evidence is seeing increasing number of M9’s on S/H market in UK, people are now buying M9P’s. So we will be seeing more special editions just to keep in the market until all singing and all dancing mirrorless solution serving M & R users is finally revealed. With or without AA filter it better has good high ISO performance or otherwise don’t bother.

[NZDavid]

That's what assistants are for.

 

and Lupins.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Lupin must be a redoubtable fellow! Early photographers had to have teams towing mobile darkrooms, so it's a lot easier for Lupin in these modern times. I trust he always packs adequate camera and laptop batteries along with the required gentleman's requisites.

[dickgrafixstop]

This announcement gives Leica some breathing room - but for the S2 not the M9. The M9

is a different beast - different mission, different limitations, different strengths. The Canon decision to concentrate its pro line cameras at less than 20 megapixels with better autofocus and low light performance is strategic. A 30 plus megapixel offering with the range of Canon primes would have meant real problems and probably the death knell for the S2.

[pgk]

Couldn't agree more. I don't need the 21 MP on my 5D2 - and I certainly wouldn't have considered a successor on the basis of upping the MPs...

Absolutely, in fact I still find that 5D images are more than adequate for the vast majority of purposes. Excess MPixels leads to a false sense of image 'quality' IMHO and waste time and computer drives.

[01af]

I'm flabbergasted at how quick people are at declaring 'the megapixel war' over ... just because one camera manufacturer has stepped back with one of his top models from 21 MP down to 18 MP. Strange how no-one made similar claims when Nikon launched the original D3 with 12 MP, a comparatively low pixel count for a 35-mm full-frame DSLR even back then.

 

I'm sure the rise of the curve that indicates megapixel over time has not come to an end; it just takes a small dip before it will rise on to yet unseen heights. Digital 35-mm full-frame cameras with 30+ MP are waiting just around the next corner. The Canon EOS 7D's pixel density (18 MP on APS-C format) corresponds to 46 MP on a 35-mm-format sensor.

 

Sure—for most photographers, 18 MP is more than they'll ever need. But for some, more is better. And even more is better still.

 

Maybe Canon's step back from 21 to 18 MP is an indication that they plan to launch a new camera system in the Leica S2 territory, with a super-35-mm-format sensor and 30, 40, or maybe even 50 MP. If they really did then they would want to set the new system clearly apart, in terms of resolution, from their 35-mm-format models. So the new EOS 1DX probably will take the role of the former EOS 1D series (moderate resolution at very high speed), and the new system will take the role of the former EOS 1Ds series (ultimate image quality at moderate speed). This, of course, is just my insubstantial speculation out of the blue ...

[Ivan Muller]

Adan,

 

I think the 5d3 will be the high res model for advertising photographers and the rest of us...The x I think is aimed squarely at the sports guys, seriously who else needs 12-14 frames per second! What makes the x technology attractive is the super clean images, the new 5's wont be as clean, High ISO, HDR, video, sensor clean, AF etc. I think most of those except maybe the full AF capibilities, will be found in the new 5, with the downside being more pixels wont give as clean an image specially high iso. The fact is that every new Canon has improved upon the old model in IQ, and I expect the same and I welcome it...what does this mean for Leica ?, well competition never hurt any body and without it I am sure the top M would have only have been a M8.3.......

[ho_co]

Another difficulty in continuing to increase the pixel-count is lens resolution.

 

Adding sensor pixels when your lenses don't support the higher resolution is useless.

 

Canon's 1D X and Leica's M9 have come to pretty much the same sensor resolution; that may be near the limit these companies want to ask of their lenses.

[pgk]

Another difficulty in continuing to increase the pixel-count is lens resolution.

 

Adding sensor pixels when your lenses don't support the higher resolution is useless.

 

Canon's 1D X and Leica's M9 have come to pretty much the same sensor resolution; that may be near the limit these companies want to ask of their lenses.

Precisely, its not just a numbers game, its about practical reality. And Canon have released new lenses over the last few years to try to provide the higher resolution needed by current cameras. Prices however are higher than those of the replaced lenses as the tolerances required are tight (I discussed exactly this problem some years ago with a lens designer friend - he foretold that the tighter tolerances to which lenses would need to be built would increase costs and that this might well limit the effective sensor resolution).

 

Personally speaking I cannot use smaller apertures when shooting macro subjects on the 5D2 because image quality drops off as diffraction kicks in noticeably beyond f/11~16 on the excellent 100mm macro lens. Sure there are improvements to be made in lens design but until manufacturers sort out improved lens assembly at lower cost there seems little point in trying to up the pixel density.

[01af]

Another difficulty in continuing to increase the pixel count is lens resolution.

No, it's not.

 

 

Adding sensor pixels when your lenses don't support the higher resolution is useless.

That's just a myth coming from fundamentally not understanding how lens resolution and sensor resolution interact. No matter which lens you're using—more pixels will always yield more detail in the final image ... just not in a linear way, i. e. twice the pixels won't lead to twice the effective resolution. On doubling the pixel count, the gain in effective resolution will be higher with better lenses and lower with worse lenses—but it will be always lower than 2× and always higher than 1×. So there is no absolute limit beyond which increasing pixel count (or lens performance) would become pointless.

 

Of course, higher-resolving lenses are always better—on any sensor. And lenses will improve. Modern lenses are better than older ones. Future lenses will be better than today's. But even images taken with older lenses will benefit from increased pixel counts. The reason why pixel counts aren't higher than they currently are is not lack of lens performance but the nasty real-world limits imposed on semiconductor manufacturing, signal-to-noise ratio, and in-camera processing power.

[pgk]

That's just a myth coming from fundamentally not understanding how lens resolution and sensor resolution interact.

I have come across this argument several times before but no one has been able to quantify precisely what the benefits of increasing the MPixel count beyond 16~20MPixels really has. Its obvious up to a point but on my 5D2 I can see already see the results of lens imperfections so clearly it is starting to 'stress' the lenses I'm using ('L' series mostly). No matter how finely you sample an 'inadequate' image you won't improve it, merely show the poorly defined details better, and perhaps this is the crux of the matter?

 

It seems to me that for practical applications something around 16~20MPixel for the 35mm format is something of a 'sweet spot' whereby both sensors and lenses can be built to the required standards, adequate for both, reasonably cost effectively, and will yield excellent and highly versatile image files. Surely boosting MPixels is irrelevant for the vast majority of practical 'small format' photography?

[gyoung]

 

 

 

Lupin must be a redoubtable fellow! Early photographers had to have teams towing mobile darkrooms, so it's a lot easier for Lupin in these modern times. I trust he always packs adequate camera and laptop batteries along with the required gentleman's requisites.

 

I did have an assistant once in my pro career, but then we were carting around a 1/2 plate Cambo, 5 lenses, 3 Kobols or a Bowens flash system, plus Rollei and Mamiya hand cameras.

We changed to 5x4 Sinar, much lighter, and got rid of the assistants

 

As I get older I get more fed up with the weight and bulk of much decent gear, any body which weighs more than 650 grams is too much for my taste, and the M lenses are lighter and more compact than most slr lenses of any quality.

 

Gerry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dseelig]

I hope Leica gets it and goes for a sensor that gets low light 18 mp is plenty dynamic range and low light is what is needed at this point.