jhinkey: Step 1: Admit you have a problemStep 2: Close the Italian design officeStep 3: Fire whomever hatched such a plan and whomever supported itStep 4: Figure out what kind of Med. Format products you can sell to the masses through innovation & strategic partnershipsStep 5: Have lots of patience, 'cause it's gonna take a long time to right the Hassy ship back onto course
I would love to own a lightweight medium format system, but it's always been out of reach $$-wise.
@JordanAT You can buy a *new* Porsche Boxter for the price of a new Jeep Cherokee or Chevy Suburban with Options.
Hey Perry- don't insult my intelligence with the poor excuses (ridiculous tap dancing story that I refuse to believe) why Hasselblad come out with the hideous looking rebadged cameras. How 'bout Hasselblad spend more time making the H line weather sealed, and more reliable! How 'bout focusing on faster electronics, even better software, faster sync speeds/lenses, etc..
Want to wow people, then re-work the old 500 series with AF, metering, great electronics, a mirror that isn't trying to slap itself to death, that takes a re-worked modern FILM back as well as the updated CMOS 50mp digital back... that still looks like the old classic 503. If I owned Hasselblad, I would have fired you.
I don't give a flippity-flop about a "core values" story. I'm about end product, great results, and dollars & cents; core values or not. Create a camera that offers not only eye popping performance and IQ, but at a price point that compels me to reach deep into my purse at the same time!
garyknrd: Kinda curious why anyone would pick this over the new Sony?What are the advantages?
Better 3rd party support. You can walk into almost any camera store, in almost any country, and get things for a Nikon/Canon... One can't do that with Sony.
I my world, if someone in management sanctioned such an outing, I would fire them personally. Canon putting built-in extenders in all their superteles would be a far more interesting and exciting read in my opinion. I'm just not getting the point of this outing, and keep wondering how this outing will translate into dollars and cents gained.
Richard Franiec: Many critical comments are true, but they all are missing the point:Canon gear in "Guinness book of world records" - PRICELESS...
Honestly, only a relative few care about Guinness records today (unlike the 70's when kids would thumb through a Guinness book). Most young people today would rather be on the Forbes list than have an awesome feat recorded in Guinness... unless the feat was to be the first / youngest to amass a Trillion U.S. Dollars in personal, liquid assets. A whoppingly large photo... kinda, pales in comparison ;)
gregzz: Sadly the files are exactly what i've expected, i think it's time for me to switch to nikon.
Who really need 50 mpx?? D810's 36mpx are enough for everything and files are "hands down" better in all aspects, dynamic range, latitude exposure, sharpness, colors, noise,...
I'm afraid that for Canon it will be a long way to match sony sensor
I get the "art critics", curators, art directors, etc... and get the whole "viewing distance" thing, I just don't subscribe to it because museums, curators, art directors, or critics don't represent the general photography viewing public.
We're not talking about billboard prints or pixel peeping. What we're talking about is the obvious difference in size between 36 and 50mp before and after cropping which is especially noticeable when shooting small subject matter. We can agree to disagree. (what makes a cordial forum great!) :)
In my experience I appreciate the latitude that a D800(36mp) can give over my Canon 5D2 (20mp) in macro and portrait photography. Likewise the difference between 36 and 50mp.
What I'm focused on is not the benefits of the latitude that 50mp can offer over 36 for my needs, but rather the seemingly less-than-applaudable 50mp Canon sensor that concerns me.
@gregzz: So you're telling me that (even without ANY post processing at all), you can't tell the difference in a *20x30in* print of a macro of my iris using a 36mp camera, and the same shot done with a 50mp camera? How 'bout printing that same shot 40x50 in?
The problem I think so far with this Canon, is that the full-size samples aren't giving people a warm-n-fuzzy feeling about the camera's image quality. Looking at the samples, I expect something better than that in 2015. While I can easily make a practical case for 50mp in "5D" trim, I get the feeling that Canon put a 2nd-rate sensor in the camera just as it put a 2nd rate focus system in the 5D2 when it could've done a lot better in that case. I hope the 5Ds isn't a repeat of Canon taking the shoddy route as opposed to the high road.
A crop 39mp Hass does not come close to natively spitting out a 20x30in. print, which is the point for *many* (not all) fine art folks wanting to print large. I've been wanting a camera to print natively at 20x30 or larger; currently you can't get that without a digital back. The old 31/39mp Hass, produce beautiful files not much ahead of the D800. Each MF system (phase, Hass, Sinar) has it's own "look" baked in + due to software (focus, etc.)
People parrot "viewing dist." There is no such thing as a "correct distance" to view art. The distance to view art, is the distance most comfortable for the respective viewer to get the best visual experience of the piece which varies per viewer, per piece.
I don't pixel peep or fuss over at 100% crops and I'm not interested in, nor am I talking about tiny A4 prints.
I too have printed "nice" prints 20x30in from my 4mp Nikon & 20mp Canon; doesn't change the fact that size matters & same print looks better (per my goal) shot with 50-80mp.
Shiranai: Still missing the WOW-factor from this camera.But here we go again in the megapixel race rather than developing towards lower noise.Apparently some people need it to print silver screen-sized posters...I don't.
@Shiranai.. I'm not giving an "assertion", I'm stating fact based on posted samples across the web and my experience with 50-80mp.
Lens quality as a factor is stating the obvious. Comparing "an old" 5d2 to a D800 is VERY relevant as far as a comparative analysis on the benefit of pixels go, especially since the 5d2 and newer 5d3 offer practically the same overall image quality at the most frequently used ISOs. The reality that seems lost on you is the fact that size alone is a boon to many photographers. I'd rather have an 80mp version of my 5d2 over a D810 for large black/white prints assuming it had the same 5d2 IQ or better because for much work it's the sheer size that matters.
I do think a Canon massaged Sony sensor would've been better.
iShootWideOpen: LOL at anyone using the 5Ds with a glorified iPhone Photo app.
I'm not sure what the iPhone or iOS has anything to do with OS X being able to display raw files from a wide variety of cameras, but I like using my mac(s) to view, rate/mark, delete, and organize raw photographs before using software to actually process the files.
Wild Light: Oh my. This is horrendous. 50MP of slush, noise, banding and jagged edges, poor dynamic range and sick looking colour.
This is junk. How can they even bring this out?
To say this is in Medium Format territory is crazy. It's not even close. In my mind the sample images are a disaster.
Seeing how I occasionally shoot MF, I know how the Nikon D800 or Canon 5ds compares to the larger format, and is exactly how I know that for many jobs where the nuance of the larger format is not really noticed, (but rather the size of the result that matters) using this Canon instead of MF is very much a reality.
Please don't attempt to change what I said. I didn't say that this camera was like medium format. I didn't say it was like a Ferrari. What I did say was that the Canon was a viable alternative to shooting MF and that's fact. I also related that Ferrari isn't the epitome of "quality" (or common sense) and that is also fact... which I brought up because you asked how could Canon "even bring this out" and my comparison gave you an example of how Ferrari could bring out something ridiculous.
@greqzz... Actually the question is *whether or not* (aside from cropping) there's benefit to having more pixels; whether or not the viewer can discern and appreciate a slightly bigger representation of a subject.
The fact is that a macro shot of a small object (without cropping) does not look the same at the respective 4, 12, 20, 36, 50 and 80mp. Most of us realize that a macro shot of the "10,000" printed on a $10,000 bill will generally look better at 50mp vs. 36mp considering the size alone. If you wanted to make a 20x30in print of such, the use for the 50mp becomes even more obvious.
The difference would also be very easily discernible in teaching applications (vessels, eye tissue, etc.) and fabrication specifics (logic boards), etc.
Before cropping, an increase in size alone is beneficial in portraiture when shooting a group of people at once. Detail in faces between 12, 36, 50, and 80mp due to **size** alone benefits with increases in mp. 50mp is not huge.
Hardly- my example is about resulting detail. The fact of the matter is that I can see more smaller detail with a 36mp Nikon compared to my 4mp Nikon. The fact is that a macro of a bee's face looks better using a 20mp canon, than an 8mp one.
Stop with the "100% crop" bit. Just take a photograph of someone's iris at 24mp, and another at 50 or 60 (camera's format doesn't matter). Then show us that. The elephant in the room is that size matters even with more pixels crammed onto the same size sensor (of these calibre cameras, just like it matters in other camera formats in the exact same way.)
When I take a macro of a child's big colorful irises, the difference between using a 5d2 and D800 is evident in print... The size alone matters between these cameras. The same between the D800 & 5ds. There was no "stellar" quality difference between the 1Dx and older5d2; you honestly thought there might be one w/this new $3700 body?
@Shiranai I still use a 4mp Nikon D2hs occasionally for actual work, and am very familiar with the difference that a lot more mp makes in a print. The bottom line is that the 6-8 or even my 24mp 5d2 cannot resolve detail in the same way as this Canon or a medium format camera, 80mp back and macro lens. The difference isn't just slight. The difference is often between seeing mush or seeing detail, and if you're shooting a small object to begin with, the detail isn't just elementary, rather it's the entire point of shooting the item or subject matter in the first place.
If you want to show students tissue in the human iris, my 20mp Canon with macro lens will not even come close to showing the same detail as an 80mp digital back; too many photographers overlook the fact that a fine art print of a bees face does not look as nice at 24mp as it does at 80mp all else being equal. There is a LOT more detail using the larger sensor. The same is true between a 5d2 and 5ds.
The same way Ferrari can keep producing motorcars that can't even keep a battery charge worth a flip. You'd think by 2015 they'd have a better solution than a battery conditioner (tender).
That said, this 50mp Canon is firmly in MF territory; definitely as a strong alternative to renting MF camera, back, lenses, renter's insurance, deposits, travel, shipping time, shipping costs, etc.. This Canon can be a money saver on many fronts for many photographers. For many others, the reason to consider MF systems over a camera like the Canon, is rapidly shrinking as more photographers/shops look at cost/performance (as in income) ratio.
Aside from some of the mechanical advantages associated with some MF systems (much higher sync speed, larger format, etc), the image quality advantage in a practical sense (which is concerned mostly with financial performance) has been reduced to a quibble ** as far as most applications are concerned**. MF is still my favorite format but... (chuckle)
ArtAlt: I think you mean Adobe, not Apple, right?
That's one thing I really like about working on my macs, no matter which camera I'm using (usually Nikon/Canon) I can just pop a card into the card reader and scroll quickly through the raw files while viewing them, without having to load a program just to view raw files... when I find a file that I want to process- I just (what equates to a "right click" or tap) open the file in the desired program and viola!. Apple makes it easy.
I still have a mac on mavericks- looks like it's time to double-check the back ups, whip out the ethernet cord and upgrade.
I wish people would quit yip yapping about the "megapixel race' because in a practical sense, 50mp is not huge. It's not about bill board size prints, but rather getting silky results that one used to be able to marvel at when getting processed sheet film back from a lab when compared to the typical 35mm film. When I can print a 20x30 (almost there) and 30x40in. print straight from the camera, that will be wonderful... ideally, it would be even more inviting to be able to slightly *downsize* the file after processing and THEN print a silky smooth 30x40in black/white fine art print.
It's not that 50mp is huge, but rather 12, 18 and 24mp is still puny when it comes to being able to manipulate prints 'round the 20x30in and larger sizes.
To @kewlguy... equipment gives WOW factors just as well and in many cases more often. One reason a lot of budding photographers have trouble replicating shots is because of the lack of equipment (lighting, type of lens, resolution, filters, etc.)
On my Macs, I can view various raw files natively. I can't do that on my PC's. Whether I have an Adobe product installed or not (?)
QuantumPhysics: I think Canon makes too many engineering choices based on marketing considerations. For example, we pay for IS over and over, when Canon could just stabilize the sensor assembly as we see in the Sony A7 MII.
I love being able to use my 4 Hasselblad V-series lenses on the A7II. The high ISO performance is impressive, and the image is stabilized on three axes, perfect for working in low light. I can also mount FD lenses, notably the FD 300mm f/2.8L, which adapts very well to mirrorless rigs. This flexibility, not to mention sumptuous image quality, is just the ticket. 16:9 stills are glorious. In this camera I have a digital "X-Pan", that can also make motion panoramas of considerable size.
The 50MP Canon brings to mind an old saying. Twice nothing is still nothing. This is definitely true where limits of lens resolving power come into play! If we run out road, optically speaking, won't we get "empty" magnification?
Many years ago I had to have Canon replace the IS guts, etc. in a 300mm lens. No biggie, I just used another lens; I like not having IS in-camera; I want as little to go wrong with the camera as possible. Last thing I need is IS screwing up something in the camera if the IS goes off line or vice versa.
Danel: It's interesting that in the comparison chart of these new cameras versus the 5D MK 3, the 50MP versus the 22MP is not given a green color as an advantage indication. After all, the entire point of these two new cameras is the higher resolution. If dpreview doesn't consider that extra resolution worth an advantage indication then one has to assume that dpreview views these two new cameras as pointless.
Remember that preview doesn't pay most of our bills/mortgage, so what they do or don't think is an advantage is pure opinion vs. based on performance/income (or even performance/fun) ratio in context of your particular photography.