Something for the full frame enthusiast

[Emulator]

I see Canon have extended the 5D range with a 50.6 M pixel CMOS sensor full frame version.

http://email.parkcameras.com/_act/link.php?mId=AQ8381273767123405235266371713&tId=3993693

Do they make printers to sell the cameras or cameras to sell the printers? Either way it will be cheaper in you know where!

You'll need an SSD to load the images in and out of PS, what size would a tiff be, about 100 to 150 MB?

 

[Grandad35]

Sounds like Canon's (belated) answer to the Nikon D800/D810. Will this re-ignite the pixel count war?

Personally, I would rather have the high ISO capability of the 5DIII than the extra pixel count of the 5DS.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Pixels are one thing that the average consumer can fixate on and easily compare A to B. It's been asinine for a long time unless you are cropping the bejesus out of an image or you are using "35 mm" to shoot for billboards or a really big wide format printer. But you know the average ill-informed but with bulging Amex card will just have to have it.....because it's obviously better.

The other reason possible and maybe these monsters do this, is to have lots of extra pixels for low light. Nokia, believe it or not, has had this for a number of years in their 41mp PHONE cameras. So they combine - I'm hypothesizing with the numbers here - 41mp pixels to 8mp, amplifying the light by 5X. The Nokia PureView also seems to be very smart and think very fast and can compare nearby pixels to pick "the best" and throw away the not so good ones.

Further, I read some years ago from some authoritative source that consumer camera lenses have an effective maximum ability to define at around the 25mp level. Even if the lenses are getting better, they surely aren't near the ability of fixed focus military satellite lenses, are they?

The standard of "Photo Quality" in printing has long preceded inkjets. And that level is attained with 250-300 lines per inch, or what we would call today, dpi. A nominal 3mp camera will provide that on any 8x10 or similar sized sheet. And, of course, say you print that 3mp image onto a wide format, the image will be viewed from some distance more than arm's length, so the sins aren't as great as might be first surmised.

I did some tests a few years ago, the film was Kodak HD (High Definition, and it truly was), the subject was a pot of flowering chive plants. Plenty of detail available in the flowers. I scanned the negative on a consumer grade scanner with a native ability of 2400 dpi (to be honest and not the claimed 4800 overlay dpi). I scanned it at every setting from 600dpi to the interpolated 9600 dpi. I then selected portions of the high dpi images that would reflect what happens when you take a huge image and print it to something like letter size. Where the software throws away pixels.

The results were exactly what you'd expect: No differences in the real world of letter size printing.

 

[RogerB]

I think it's a good move by Canon. There must be lots of professionals using Canon full-frame cameras with "L" lenses that will jump at the chance to get more detail. And remember, at a body only price of around £3000 ($5000) this is not aimed at the consumer market.

As for the need when making real prints; the 5D MkIII at 22 Mpx gives a print at native resolution on an Epson printer of approximately 16" x 11". The 5Ds at 50Mpx will give a print about 24" x 16" without re-sampling. So, without re-sampling you go from A3 to A2. Now, A2 is not that big for a commercial landscape print, or even for a special wedding photo. Sounds good to me.