50.6 MP. That's a lotta pixels.

Can see it maybe for studio work, taking the place of Medium or Large Format. But it would be no good out in the field for those shooting on deadline. Can you imagine that workflow? No thank you.
 
This is good really. Like what Sony has done with the A7 line. Make variations for different folks.

The number of people who can really take advantage (need) this will be limited but they are most certainly out there and I'm sure they've been waiting for this announcement.
 
Dynamic range and file flexibility in post had better be a heck of a lot better than the 5D II or there will be a lot of loud sighs of indignation...

FWIW, I think Canon has done a good job updating many of their lenses with higher resolving versions in recent years. 24-70 f2.8 L II and the new 16-35 f4 come to mind, along with the stunningly sharp 40mm pancake, the new 35mm f2 IS etc. The trouble will always be with the wides and some killer slow wide angle primes might be a good idea. With long lenses, they are quite well set. 70-200 f2.8 L II, 135L etc.
 
I'd be a lot more excited if this were a medium format sensor with that pixel count. Give the Phase and Hasselblad/Leaf crowd some more competition. I'm also interested to see how the noise handling at high ISO is with this thing. I'd rather have twice as clean at half the pixel count, if you see what I mean.
 
They had to as most of the first versions of those lens were not able to follow more than 12 Mpix FF.

Turtle said:
FWIW, I think Canon has done a good job updating many of their lenses with higher resolving versions in recent years. 24-70 f2.8 L II and the new 16-35 f4 come to mind, along with the stunningly sharp 40mm pancake, the new 35mm f2 IS etc. The trouble will always be with the wides and some killer slow wide angle primes might be a good idea. With long lenses, they are quite well set. 70-200 f2.8 L II, 135L etc.
Click to expand...
 
In order to utilize that kind of resolution, I probably have to use a tripod, strobes and focus bracketing, and if I do that, I might as well use a real MF or even LF camera with a decent back. The idea behind "small format" (i.e. 35mm, which now called "full format") was to sacrifice some resolution in favor of speed and small size. Anyway, can you see that I am just wee bit jealous? ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom