MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Canon 46MP Camera- Rumors  (Read 5327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tab62

« on: December 03, 2012, 12:33 »
0
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  :o



« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2012, 12:36 »
0
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  :o

Do you want us to Google it for you?

tab62

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2012, 12:47 »
0
I tried google and all I could find were outdated articles back in early October...

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2012, 14:37 »
0
I tried google and all I could find were outdated articles back in early October...


Did you search here? This rumor has been around a few years. All kinds of misinformation along with that like calling it a "medium format" when it's supposed to be another pixel packin full frame. Hey, the lenses won't work if it was a different sensor size that's larger than the image that the lens produces. Plain old physics.

August: http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-canons-medium-format-camera-tidbits-and-maybe-no-pro-i/

Weve had a couple of sources confirm that a 46mp prototype Canon DSLR is in the wild, though not claimed to be anywhere near production ready. Do not expect availability until well into 2013.

This has been discussed in the Canon section here, over and over, and you have replied to those posts? The reason you find outdated articles is they are nothing but rumors and misinformation.

tab62

« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2012, 14:55 »
0
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...

RacePhoto

« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2012, 15:00 »
0
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...

Not that's not a rumor! Expect if this phantom camera ever shows it will be a bank account breaker.

If you go to the site for Canon rumors it's good reading. They try to hold down the irresponsible gossip, but some get through. (like this camera was going to be announced a couple of times, according to "sources") On the other hand people are reporting dealers with the 6-D delivered, which I find interesting.

Now when do we see the 200-400 with built in 1.4x TC in stores?

tab62

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2012, 15:29 »
0
lol! that lens will cost more than my car!

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2012, 01:36 »
0
lol! that lens will cost more than my car!


I already owned one of those and sold it, I still have the same car.  ;)

Doing hand held, as a joke. 400mm f/2.8. Even on a monopod it would catch wind and try to sail. About 12 pounds and although it was super sharp and fast, just too much to carry around.


Hand Held ;)


Look at this collection?

Five guys, one photo hole and about $30,000 in lenses. I'd bet every one of them has a 1D of some sort.

ps I bought a 400mm f/5.6 which works just fine, packs easy and is almost as sharp. It will never be as fast focusing or bright.

Doesn't stop me from lusting for a 6-D full frame for inside work, macro, copying and large images that I can crop to a suitable size, and still have a big image.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2012, 04:57 »
0
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.

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2012, 06:04 »
0
A bird told me that will be an 3D X


RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2012, 23:31 »
0
A bird told me that will be an 3D X

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

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.

« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2012, 09:28 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 21:23 »
0
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.

« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2012, 03:50 »
0
There really isn't much point in offering huge files on Shutterstock, where there is no premium for larger sizes.

BTW, if anybody wants to get an idea of the detail you get in an 80MP shot, scroll down here http://fotoblogzone.com/2012/12/05/developing-tmax-100-in-13-fomapan-excel/ and look at the scan of the dhow and skyline, then see if you can find where exactly on the image the 72ppi crop beneath it is taken from (and, btw, that was taken with a lens and a camera that were both made in the 1960s).
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 03:53 by BaldricksTrousers »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
13299 Views
Last post February 01, 2007, 22:19
by epixx
4 Replies
3950 Views
Last post March 06, 2011, 01:11
by PaulieWalnuts
Canon 3D - 46MP ... maybe

Started by velocicarpo Canon

6 Replies
4566 Views
Last post September 10, 2012, 11:33
by tab62
8 Replies
4414 Views
Last post September 28, 2015, 14:44
by nadavgs4
6 Replies
2216 Views
Last post February 10, 2015, 18:27
by CQ

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle