Full Version: Canon EOS M6 II madness ...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
32 megapixels (APS-C):

I reckon if you run out of ideas, you just throw in more mp and hope for the best.
Something must have been cooking in Canon sensor R&D and not only megapixels.
Do you remember 5Div sensor where they tried dual pixel raw? It wasn't very handy for post shot autofocus but the data from the extra sensors hasn't been exploited, it can be used for other applications like increasing dynamic range as some have managed to do.
I am sure the hint "increased dynamic range" is about something really serious
With those specs EOS M is expected to continue leading mirrorless APS-C
(07-29-2019, 09:28 PM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]32 megapixels (APS-C):

I reckon if you run out of ideas, you just throw in more mp and hope for the best.
Typical, Klaus.

Canon offers a new camera (according to this rumour) with full sensor width 4K, 16 FPS high speed shooting, Eye-AF, focus bracketing, and you trip over a bit higher resolution? I think that 32mp for APS-C is a normal progression, in step with the Sony A7r IV.

So, what has Canon done? Apparently finally some big strides on the processor side, and a natural progression of the imaging sensor (read out speed, apparently "better DR", and a step up from 24MP). No idea what is "madness" (although I find the focus on silly high DR madness industry wide).
At least it's not worse than what most other manufacturers also do.

Now, which ideas are you missing, Klaus? Or are you just saying, you're disappointed about the lack of new ideas (without knowing which ones)?

If one manufacturer comes out with new ideas (like Sigma did with their weird fp) we look for reasons why this concept won't work. If manufacturers stick to normal business and call normal developments "innovations" just to get a bit more attention, we react like "booooring, that's sooo lame". I also miss a couple of things on modern cameras, like an arca-style bottom plate, exchangeable sensors and EVFs, some cooler parts in their menus and more, but hey, probably it won't sell to others.


It is still only rumor. There are many and contradiction rumors about M6 II and 90d/7d MK xx.
One thinks is common for all of them - the official announcement day is begin Augustus. Let’s wait and see.

In the mean time I can cool down and read another type of Canon news. I call them the moment of truth.

Well, they are just rumors still, so I'll wait and see before saying if there is or if there is not any improvement. That said, we have been using 24 megapixels APS-C sensors for close to a decade now, it is high time to take the step into 30+ mp territory, assuming, of course, that the IQ is not negatively affected.
"...it is high time to take the step into 30+ mp territory..."

May I ask "why"? It's possible, okay - but often I read "24 MP is by far enough" and I think for average use it really is. How about a very good 24 or 20 MP sensor which handles high ISO well and for higher resolution a pixelshift function?
Every time someone introduces a higher resolution sensor (be it FF or APS-C), every time, without fail, you see the same "Why?", ever since the 6mp CCD APS-C sensors used by Minolta-Konica, Nikon and Pentax.
True. It was really meant as a question, not as a statement "XX MP are enough!"

Questions are, when are we running out of structures and details fine enough to be recorded? In landscapes we often deal with haze and air pollution. And how dense can a sensor be without loosing the theoretical resolution to simple mechanical problems like shutter shock or shaky hands of the user? Some say theses limits are alredy reached with the 102 MP Fuji GFX 100 (same pixel density is in Fujifilm X-H1 and the new Sony α7 RIV - probably the sensor are cut of the same wafers). Sure, cropping is a nice thing - as long as lenses and AF accuracy are not the limiting factor.

Anyway, it's rumors - but there are also spec rumors which appear tobe more attractive than just getting more MP.
I can understand the desire for more DR. I can understand the desire for less high ISO noise. I can understand improved microlenses for better corner performance.
I can understand the desire for more megapixels to a certain point.

But at some stage, it's not anymore about diminishing returns on investment, it is about less return. The EOS 5Ds R was such a case favoring megapixels above everything.
Of course, maybe the M6 II can do everything - more megapixels, more DR and less noise, etc. If so I was wrong. Otherwise, it's just a bad idea.
Pages: 1 2