Let the pixel wars reign. Canon to release 80mp unit in 2020.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, RichA wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...y-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I don't need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most pros
care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's resolution is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

On Sep 12, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-09-12, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution
mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...-eos-r-camera-
in-early-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I don't
need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about
cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most
pros
care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

Indeed. I think MP are better for wildlife photography and product photography
where there is much more scope for cropping. If I were a wildlife
photographer, something fast and hi-res like the D850 would be my choice.

While the D850 is undeniably one of the finest DSLR cameras available an
APS-C camera, the D500 has proven to be far more effective as a wildlife
camera than the D850. While I moved from Nikon to Fujifilm in 2015 if I had
to choose a camera for pure wildlife photography it would be the D500, not
the D850.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:15:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's resolution is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:22:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 12, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-09-12, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution
mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...-eos-r-camera-
in-early-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I don't
need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about
cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most
pros
care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

Indeed. I think MP are better for wildlife photography and product photography
where there is much more scope for cropping. If I were a wildlife
photographer, something fast and hi-res like the D850 would be my choice.

While the D850 is undeniably one of the finest DSLR cameras available an
APS-C camera, the D500 has proven to be far more effective as a wildlife
camera than the D850. While I moved from Nikon to Fujifilm in 2015 if I had
to choose a camera for pure wildlife photography it would be the D500, not
the D850.

When I got round to replacing my D300 I tried both the D810 and the
D750. I eventually settled on the D750 as it was more tolerant of
inadvertant camera movement.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Sep 13, 2019, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 13 September 2019 10:09:02 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:22:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 12, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-09-12, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution
mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held
shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...y-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I
don’t need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about
cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most
pros care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

Indeed. I think MP are better for wildlife photography and product
photography where there is much more scope for cropping. If I were a wildlife
photographer, something fast and hi-res like the D850 would be my choice.

While the D850 is undeniably one of the finest DSLR cameras available an
APS-C camera, the D500 has proven to be far more effective as a wildlife
camera than the D850. While I moved from Nikon to Fujifilm in 2015 if I had
to choose a camera for pure wildlife photography it would be the D500, not
the D850.

When I got round to replacing my D300 I tried both the D810 and the
D750. I eventually settled on the D750 as it was more tolerant of
inadvertant camera movement.

What's inadvertant camera movement ?.
Is that what in the past I and most call camera shake which is produced by
the users or is something esle going on.
Is the camera shaking itself ?

With wildlife photography there can be factors other than camera
movement/shake imparted by the photographer. Consider that a fair amount of
wildlife photography is shot from moving vehicles such the back of trucks
moving over rough ground, helicopters, or planes all while using long lenses
which accentuate camera movement at the long end. Fortunately many of these
photographers benefit from OIS/VR and stabilized gimbals.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 9/13/19 8:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 September 2019 12:10:41 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 13, 2019, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 13 September 2019 10:09:02 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:22:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 12, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-09-12, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution
mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held
shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...y-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I
don’t need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about
cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most
pros care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

Indeed. I think MP are better for wildlife photography and product
photography where there is much more scope for cropping. If I were a wildlife
photographer, something fast and hi-res like the D850 would be my choice.

While the D850 is undeniably one of the finest DSLR cameras available an
APS-C camera, the D500 has proven to be far more effective as a wildlife
camera than the D850. While I moved from Nikon to Fujifilm in 2015 if I had
to choose a camera for pure wildlife photography it would be the D500, not
the D850.

When I got round to replacing my D300 I tried both the D810 and the
D750. I eventually settled on the D750 as it was more tolerant of
inadvertant camera movement.

What's inadvertant camera movement ?.
Is that what in the past I and most call camera shake which is produced by
the users or is something esle going on.
Is the camera shaking itself ?

With wildlife photography there can be factors other than camera
movement/shake imparted by the photographer. Consider that a fair amount of
wildlife photography is shot from moving vehicles such the back of trucks
moving over rough ground, helicopters, or planes all while using long lenses
which accentuate camera movement at the long end. Fortunately many of these
photographers benefit from OIS/VR and stabilized gimbals.

it was the term inadvertant that I questioned, I'd assume someone in a car traveling and taking photos might know that the camera moves with the motion of what's holding it.
While I wouldn't have known that the camera can 'move itself' when on a tripod which is why I turn off the IS on my camon M3 when using a tripod.

People don't always realise that when they hold the camera still it might not be a still as they think. As a friend asked me why his video moved about so much, he was filming The Cure in France at a gig with a canon camera with 15X magnification on so he could get some good videos of Robert Smith.


When I was in college, my photography teacher studied my entrance
portfolio, and told me that I needed to immediately get a good tripod,
and use it.
That was over 40 years ago; I still have that tripod. While I don't use
it as much as I did then, I've learned the tricks of steadying against a
tree, sitting on the ground, etc. When I got my first 1200mm lens, I
graduated to a larger, heavier tripod.
It is amazing how much improvement in sharpness can be due to a steady
camera, especially with a longer lens.
--
Ken Hart

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's resolution is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:19:44 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's resolution is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

Not according to the mathematics.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 13 September 2019 12:10:41 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 13, 2019, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 13 September 2019 10:09:02 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:22:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 12, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-09-12, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution
mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held
shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...y-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I
don’t need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about
cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most
pros care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

Indeed. I think MP are better for wildlife photography and product
photography where there is much more scope for cropping. If I were a wildlife
photographer, something fast and hi-res like the D850 would be my choice.

While the D850 is undeniably one of the finest DSLR cameras available an
APS-C camera, the D500 has proven to be far more effective as a wildlife
camera than the D850. While I moved from Nikon to Fujifilm in 2015 if I had
to choose a camera for pure wildlife photography it would be the D500, not
the D850.

When I got round to replacing my D300 I tried both the D810 and the
D750. I eventually settled on the D750 as it was more tolerant of
inadvertant camera movement.

What's inadvertant camera movement ?.
Is that what in the past I and most call camera shake which is produced by
the users or is something esle going on.
Is the camera shaking itself ?

With wildlife photography there can be factors other than camera
movement/shake imparted by the photographer. Consider that a fair amount of
wildlife photography is shot from moving vehicles such the back of trucks
moving over rough ground, helicopters, or planes all while using long lenses
which accentuate camera movement at the long end. Fortunately many of these
photographers benefit from OIS/VR and stabilized gimbals.

it was the term inadvertant that I questioned, I'd assume someone in a car traveling and taking photos might know that the camera moves with the motion of what's holding it.
While I wouldn't have known that the camera can 'move itself' when on a tripod which is why I turn off the IS on my camon M3 when using a tripod.

Wind.

People don't always realise that when they hold the camera still it might not be a still as they think. As a friend asked me why his video moved about so much, he was filming The Cure in France at a gig with a canon camera with 15X magnification on so he could get some good videos of Robert Smith.


--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.