Has anyone heard more on the so-called Canon Camera with 46MP?


Yeah, I know that more MP is not always a better thing and that a higher end camera will not make me a better photographer 

I tried google and all I could find were outdated articles back in early October...

Hey Racephoto- I did hear that they are making new lenses for the ghost camera as well. Go figure! Just bring the checkbook to Canon- make sure you leave it blank for them to fill out...

lol! that lens will cost more than my car!

canon lenses seem so much bigger than Nikon's. I once got to use a 400mm prime - belonged to my teacher at college, and as I was one of a few Nikon students he let me use on an excursion, (plus me being the mature age student and owner of an X5 he may have trusted me more). I had to keep telling my classmates to get out of the way as I was shooting 4m behind them, lol. lovely lens.

A bird told me that will be an 3D X

As good as any other rumors and they are running out of numbers. 

Whatever it is, if it is, Tab62 was right, it will be very expensive. People who buy it will be happy that they paid a bundle to own the camera. Kind of like the 1Dx that's about four camera generations ahead of the rest of the line.

How big is a 46MB file? What kind of computer will it take to process these. Will Photoshop be able to manage them? If you load a roughly 36 megabyte JPG file, which each image will be and save, start thinking about how big those RAW files will be. And how big of a drive everyone will need just to save their photos. How much will the memory cards be to handle all that data? LOL

Like feeding a hungry pet lion, which will grow to be more and more as you own it.

Correct and I have some large stitched files and an old wheezing Pentium D XP computer. The limit for PS and Adobe products is 30,000 pixels on the longest side. When I stitch them I have to keep it under that or I can create, but I can't open them again. LOL

When I can fit 200 photos on a 4GB card now, that 50 starts to seem like a small number. Of course drives are bigger, cards are bigger, computers are faster, and all that, but I don't own all that expensive new equipment.

I'm just looking at if someone gets the camera, then what's it going to cost to feed and care for the images? The price starts to go up and up.

Oh and ps since you do the same, you'll understand having Microstock agencies and Alamy refuse an image for being "too large". SS has (at least last I checked?) a 25MB file size. That's funny when you consider IS still lists 2MP as the minimum size?

I've had 46MP or bigger files from stitching or shooting film. My computer is a wheezing four-year-old PC with HP branding that I bought for about $350. It and Photoshop CS4 are easily able to handle that file size. When I go over 100MP it begins to struggle. You'd probably get about 50 shots on a 4GB card shooting RAW. So the file size wouldn't be prohibitive but I think it would be a bit pointless and you would probably need to shoot with a tripod all the time if you wanted to keep things sharp.

Mind you, the detail you can see at that sort of size is amazing. I scanned a 4x5 film to about 80MP the other day and in "actual pixel" view (where a print would be 14 feet wide) you get company signs appearing on screen in 20pt size type, though you can barely even see the building they are on in the "fit to window" view.