davidc wrote:It's not quite as simple as that though - the higher resolution lenses we have today are actually held back by the previous generation of sensors who didn't have the resolution to make full use of them. The D800/800e have noticeably better resolution than other cameras, for instance, and medium format digital cameras have been in this ballpark megapixel range for some time now. I think it's a fairly logical/sensible progression?
More megapixels allows for more opportunities to crop too. My only real concern at this stage is how DLA will be impacted, a direct consequence of squeezing more photosites onto the same surface area.
It's going to be interesting to see the first full reviews of these, moreso how they have fared after a year.
There has been an ongoing debate about whether the current crop of lenses have sufficient resolution to make the best of higher MP sensors. As you say. diffraction issues will probably also be a factor. A few years back there seemed to be a general trend to dismiss Canon lenses as substandard, which I never really understood. Maybe some of the older designs won't quite hack it, but a likely part of Canon's strategy is to prompt purchasers of the 5Ds/R to acquire newer lenses as well.
The question for me is what will people do with the extra resolution? That assumes Canon will deliver, which is unlikely given the company's track record. Even if you have one of the new and very expensive 5K monitors, pixel peeping remains the only way to see it. In respect of prints, 50 MP goes to 36" x 24" at 230 dpi, but how many people actually produce anything that big? That also ignores the effectiveness of resampling algorithms when making large prints from smaller files. It is generally reckoned that Photoshop Bicubic resizing, which is included in Photoshop Elements, can upsample an image to twice its original size without an adverse effect on image quality and there are other specialist applications out there which can do better.
A while back, I asked Damien McGillicuddy about the largest print he had produced from his 16 MP Olympus OM-D cameras. He said that none of his customers had ever complained about his shots being too small and that by the time a print shop had rasterised an image, they could be blown up really large. Bear in mind that McGillicuddy is sponsored by Olympus and gives presentations on their behalf, but I was left with the impression that as a professional photographer he would not use the cameras if they did not give the results he wanted.
Yes, more MPs give greater cropping opportunities, but that seems to me like the refuge of the incompetent who cannot get it right in camera. Based on Nikon D800/810 uers' experiences, higher resolution also seems to be more affected by camera shake, so either a tripod of higher shutter speeds will be required. That in turn means higher ISOs to keep shutter speeds at optimum levels, but the new Canon's are optimised for lower ISOs.
More MP does not seem to be either logical or progressive to me other than in a few specialist areas. Rather, it is Canon attempting to better Nikon and appeal to the aspirational "want" market as opposed to the much smaller one based on need.
davidc wrote:I did also chuckle when you deride Canon in one post for not including "enough" megapixels on the 7D2 in another thread, then tell them off for including too many in this one
I was commenting on the illogical progression of Canon's cameras in terms of MP, the main reason for which can only be marketing rather than technical. Nikon and Sony both have cameras with 24 MP APS-C sensors, so Canon better have an offering as well, especially when it is competing in a shrinking market. Meanwhile, the 7DII has "only" 20 MP, but wait, Nikon has never had an equivalent for either the new camera or its predecessor. The closest Nikon ever got was the D300, but the company has repeatedly and inexplicably ignored customer requests for a D400. Canon can afford to go with 20 MP while Nikon dithers. Mind you, fewer MP does not hurt when shooting at 10fps as it is 20% less data to process. Things get even crazier when you consider the 1D X, with a mere 18 MP, which is actually 3 MP less than the 1DsIII, one of the cameras it replaced in Canon's line-up. I am amazed that anyone with a 1D X can cope.
