Canon's new 22MP DSLR

Ron Mashrouteh

New member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX, US
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb. show (forgot the name of the show)?

I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
 
At the present speed of development Canon maybe in a position to create such a camera. However their is a technical problem, in that the 1Ds is capable of resolving more detail than most optics can provide at this format (so the boffins tell us). If this theory is correct a 22MP camera won't be able to produce any more detail than the 1Ds using the optics available now. If this is correct then any models introduced with higher resolution are a waste of time. Would love to hear some clarification on the above facts, Thom Hogan if your out there.........

Regards

Simon
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb.
show (forgot the name of the show)?
I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I
would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
 
At the present speed of development Canon maybe in a position to
create such a camera. However their is a technical problem, in that
the 1Ds is capable of resolving more detail than most optics can
provide at this format (so the boffins tell us). If this theory is
correct a 22MP camera won't be able to produce any more detail than
the 1Ds using the optics available now. If this is correct then any
models introduced with higher resolution are a waste of time.
I would say that a 1Ds can definitely tell the difference between optics. Whether or not we've reached the LIMITS of those optics is another question altogether. Keep in mind, for example, that a 10D has higher pixel densities than a 1Ds.

Some people say that a REALLY good lens can easily resolve 80lpmm. For a bayer-pattern DSLR to actually resolve 80lpmm you'd need (80*2) 1.7=272 pixels per mm. That gives a resolution of 6528x9792, or only 64MP.

I'd say we potentially have a ways to go yet... ;)
 
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb.
show (forgot the name of the show)?
I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I
would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
I haven't heard anything, but I am sure that it will be at a high dollar amount. The 1Ds is almost out of my consideration I can only imagine
what a 22mp could cost.

I wonder how many 1Ds's have been sold and what the profit margin is when compared to the D60 and 10D . I would love to have a camera from Canon that is better than the 6mp choices , I just don't want to sell any body parts to be able to afford it.
 
here's a suggestion for all the camera rumors... check out usa.canon.com... when its gonna happen, it'll happen there

every canon rep says something different... 8mp 1Dx, 6mp 1Dx, 4mp 1Dx at 10fps... and the list goes on and on and on

fuji is working on a digital back that has 20mp... i wouldnt expect much more than that
22 MP? That's not what I hear...
what do you hear?
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
--
i wonder what da Vinci would have done with a camera
 
I already have problems managing the large 16-bit tiff files converted from RAW files taken with my Canon D30. 22 megapixels will create 120Mbyte tiff files!
 
I already have problems managing the large 16-bit tiff files
converted from RAW files taken with my Canon D30. 22 megapixels
will create 120Mbyte tiff files!
that's the reason for the powermac G5 comes out. the fastest machine to
due with giant raw file.
What exactly are you guys whining about? You don't need a G5 or a P4 3ghz or anything else that powerful for those digital camera files. Problems with a 3mp file from a D30? What are you running a 286? I have a crappy 1.2ghz Celeron HP computer that I got at Walmart 2 years ago for cheap and it handles 645 film scans beautifully. Those are 300mb files for 16bit guys! It's slightly slow on those and quite fast on 35mm film scans of 120mb. A superfast computer would be nice for my big scans, but a waste of money for digital camera files.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Hi,

The 1Ds only has resolves silightly moe line than a 10D as the 1Ds is full frame. Basically you have more pixels, but over a larger area!

The short falls in DSLR tec. is less to do with res & more to with dynamic range. Putting more pixels on the 1Ds size sensor would reduce the size of each sensor and therefore lower quality pixels.

Canon would not need to make a worse quality camera with more pixels. No one else had a equiv. to the 1Ds so why bother?

It's more likely the the current 1D would be upgrade to compete with the Nikon D2h
Alex
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb.
show (forgot the name of the show)?
I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I
would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
 
... on the 1D, to keep up with Nikon. A bigger buffer ... better noise reduction ... both items that Canon has certainly either addressed or already has the technology to do. The WiFi box hanging on the bottom of the D2h could also be created ... but how many would really use it? In the studio, I don't really mind a wire (or the CF card!) and on location I'm not so certain I'd want to trust the WiFi!
Ken
The short falls in DSLR tec. is less to do with res & more to with
dynamic range. Putting more pixels on the 1Ds size sensor would
reduce the size of each sensor and therefore lower quality pixels.

Canon would not need to make a worse quality camera with more
pixels. No one else had a equiv. to the 1Ds so why bother?

It's more likely the the current 1D would be upgrade to compete
with the Nikon D2h
Alex
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb.
show (forgot the name of the show)?
I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I
would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
 
I don't have the patience. Secondly, digital files eat my hard disk space in no time. Thirdly, if you're using Capture One, its size grows and grows, unless you clean it up ever so often (that's why I stick to Yarcplus, although it is not supporting 10D yet, but fine for my D30).
 
I don't have the patience. Secondly, digital files eat my hard disk
space in no time. Thirdly, if you're using Capture One, its size
grows and grows, unless you clean it up ever so often (that's why I
stick to Yarcplus, although it is not supporting 10D yet, but fine
for my D30).
So burn them to CD or DVD. That's what I do; even the biggest HD will fill given the large size of digital photos. My files are much bigger anyway since I scan film.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Hi
I was think that Canon don't to just keep up!
Alex
The short falls in DSLR tec. is less to do with res & more to with
dynamic range. Putting more pixels on the 1Ds size sensor would
reduce the size of each sensor and therefore lower quality pixels.

Canon would not need to make a worse quality camera with more
pixels. No one else had a equiv. to the 1Ds so why bother?

It's more likely the the current 1D would be upgrade to compete
with the Nikon D2h
Alex
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb.
show (forgot the name of the show)?
I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I
would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
--
'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to
begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
 
At the present speed of development Canon maybe in a position to
create such a camera. However their is a technical problem, in that
the 1Ds is capable of resolving more detail than most optics can
provide at this format (so the boffins tell us).
I would say that a 1Ds can definitely tell the difference between
optics. Whether or not we've reached the LIMITS of those optics is
another question altogether. Keep in mind, for example, that a 10D
has higher pixel densities than a 1Ds.

Some people say that a REALLY good lens can easily resolve 80lpmm.
For a bayer-pattern DSLR to actually resolve 80lpmm you'd need
(80*2) 1.7=272 pixels per mm. That gives a resolution of 6528x9792,
or only 64MP.
Hey Michael.

You also have to consider that you don't just take an 80 LPM lens and an 80 LMP sensor and get 80 LPM.

The resolutions combine in a root sum of recoprocols of squares fashion.

So, for your example, the total resolution is

1/sqrt(1/80^2 + 1/80^2) = 56 LPM.

So, check this out. Holding the lens at a constant 80 LPM, and trying sensor resolutions of 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 LPM, you see the following.

20 -> 19.4
40 -> 35.8
80 -> 56.6
160 -> 71.6
320 -> 77.6

So, in your case the 64MP camera is pulling a nice 56.6 LPM, when a 11 MP (35.4 LPM) camera would only be getting a system resolution of 32.4.

Now, the neat thing is that raising the MP by a factor of 5 has increased

the system resolution 74%. It's not the 120% that we would have hoped for from such a big increase in resolution, but it is substantial. And we get it for free, just by waiting a little over 3 years (resolution doubles about every 19 months).

We're on the verge of the transition from "sensor limited" systems to "lens limited systems".

When the lens has several times the resolution of the sensor, the "system" resolution looks like that of the sensor. This is a great formula, when the sensor cost is what drives the system cost. It also means that the difference between "great" lenses and "so so" lenses is not as much as it would be on high res film, because even some pretty crappy lenses can exceed the 35 LPM of current cameras.

When the sensor has several times the resolution of the lens, the system resolution reflects only the resolution of the lens. That is the direction we are moving in. And it will literally take 100MP + cameras to get us there. But that's only 5 or 6 years away.

Digital camera folk are used to very fast changes, the whole landscape of photography changes overnight, every night. Film photographers are used to slow changes, a good new lens design or really major improvment in film comes along every few years.

We're seeing a convergence on a middle point, now.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
I already have problems managing the large 16-bit tiff files
converted from RAW files taken with my Canon D30. 22 megapixels
will create 120Mbyte tiff files!
It's not that hard to imagine. It's just hard to imagine doing it "this week". But you're talking abouta camera coming out next year...

When you start talking about years, look at it this way.

How fast was your PC, three years ago? How much RAM did it have? How big a hard disk.

How about 5 years ago? 10?

That's the pace of PC advancement.

That's also the reason we don't have 25 or 50 MP DSLRs today. THe technology is there to make the sensor, but not to move that much data around in the camera, store it, etc.

Here's an example. Say Nikon had put a 50 megapixel sensor in the D100. That's not hard, 150 M transistors on a die that size, it's a lot less then RAM (which puts a billion transistors on a die 1/4 the size of a D100 sensor) or a microprocessor, with a chip 1/2 the size of a sensor, but 100 million transistors clocking in the 2.4 gigahertz range, 100 times faster than the 24 megaherts of a camera sensor.

Now, what do you do with all that data? The fastest processor that Nikon could come up with for a prosumer D100 takes about 5 seconds to get 6MP processesd and stored safely onto the CF card. At that rate, it would take 45 seconds to store each 50MP picture. It could store 14 of them on a 1 gig CF card.

So, with todays tech, you could easily build the sensor, but you couldn't afford to feed it.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
You also have to consider that you don't just take an 80 LPM lens
and an 80 LMP sensor and get 80 LPM.
It's actually pretty close, as a lens that can easily do 80LPM, can probably get close to 100LPM at a given MTF. I also oversampled the bayer resolution at 1.7, when 1.4 is probably closer in reality, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

But you're absolutely correct in that sensor, lens, electronics, shutter, and tripod all combine to play a part in the total system resolution.

But I'm not sure I have enough disk space for very many 100MP files.... ;)
 
Now, what do you do with all that data? The fastest processor that
Nikon could come up with for a prosumer D100 takes about 5 seconds
to get 6MP processesd and stored safely onto the CF card. At that
rate, it would take 45 seconds to store each 50MP picture. It could
store 14 of them on a 1 gig CF card.

So, with todays tech, you could easily build the sensor, but you
couldn't afford to feed it.
Excellent points. I/O continues to be the bottleneck in PC advancement and we sometimes forget that our little digital wonders are nothing more than a PC with some optics!

--Loren
 
Sounds like nonesense to me. 22MP is only just becoming a reality with medium format camera backs that have sensors larger than the 35mm full frame.

Maybe Canon are entering the 645 arena, who knows, but I'd totally discount a 22mp DSLR.

RIL
Is it true that Canon is going to introduce a 22MP DSLR at Feb.
show (forgot the name of the show)?
I heard this today from someone that IS into photography and I
would say his information is very true.

Has anyone heard anything about this camera?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top