Home Photography Canon's SECRET 250MP Camera! Photo Review: INTERESTING LIGHTING! (TC LIVE)

Canon's SECRET 250MP Camera! Photo Review: INTERESTING LIGHTING! (TC LIVE)

By
Fito Centore
-
8
37
Advertisement canpers.com

Our sponsor: http://squarespace.com/Tony, coupon ‘tony’ OR http://squarespace.com/Chelsea, coupon ‘chelsea’ Become a Patreon supporter to vote on the …

source

Facebook Comments
Advertisement canpers.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

37 COMMENTS

  5. The only sensible comment was by Chelsea when she said that this obsession with megapixels takes place right a the time when 99.99% of photographic images produced by both amateurs and professionals are seen on screens, often small screens. This megapixel race is obviously a marketing ploy by camera manufacturers in crisis because of the rise of smartphones. As for Tony's comment about having a camera that covers all basis, they exist already, they are the DSLR bought by most real full-time professionals, Canon EOS 1D Mark II and Nikon D5, and guess how many MP they have? 20!

  6. You missed it! 😉 the "Rushing" picture… no… the car is clearly NOT driving, it is still and the camera is picking up the movements of other cars (or moving lights?) In the sideview mirror 📸

  7. Here’s why (I think) more megapixels result in a cleaner photo with more details.

    Noise is random and as I understand, the noise cleaner algorithm removed artifacts that appear in one pixel but not in the neighboring ones. However, if there is real data that is very small and is captured only by one pixel, it might be identified as noise and cleaned as well.

    With more megapixels, while noise remain random as before, the same real data item can now cross two or more pixels and the noise reduction algorithm has a better chance of identifying it as such and not remove it.

    Does it make sense?

  9. I have a pending order for a shot of around 50×120 in (130×280 cm). I've said I'd like to wait until next year (there's no rush) just to see if I can get something more detailed than my 5DS/R will produce even if it will be a mixed photografic/graphical artwork on a glossy metalic surface which is less demanding of pixel desity. 250 MPIX would make a great difference. But probably more likely Canon will go for 70 MPIX or 75 MIX which will not make a lot of a difference even if it sounds impressive.

  10. Depending on what you do, if your camera only does 95% of what you need then you need a new camera. Tony is correct here, it needs to do 100%. If you are just a hobbyist, it really doesn't matter, just use what you have and/or what you can afford/justify. If you are an enthusiast that is wanting to transition into pro or even semi-pro, then you need a 100% setup. Pros already know what they need so that is that. At all levels be realistic in your approach to gear acquisition.

  12. So, when I get the 250MP camera, that means I can just shoot my tourist snaps of the Eiffel Tower and the Colosseum from my front porch and I don't have to do all that pesky traveling to Europe?

  14. Hi. What camera would you recommend for taking pictures of my toddler with his unpredictable moves? Can be used/new DSLR or mirrorles. Full frame, APS-C or MFT. Can you recommend 3 cameras for me please? Thank you! 😀👊🏼💪🏼

  21. Maybe this was commented on previously but I find discussions about how prints look with no mention of the distance from which they are viewed rather pointless. An 80 print on a gallery wall a long distance away might have more pixels but they’d be wasted. And an 8×10 might be in a magazine, where fine detail might be noticed. Not many of us expect viewers to be as close to the big prints.

    Otherwise, thanks for the info. And BTW, be interesting to see a discussion of crops with a super high res sensor. If I can get a bird image with a massive crop using say a 200mm lens that looks as good as what you’d get with a big old clunky 500mm I might buy a 250mp body.

  22. Hey Tony/Chelsea, I heard you read all your comments, so I thought I'd ask you this question here – given your nerdiness, this might be something you'd be interested in addressing in a future video. Here's the question: Why can't cameras just come with a built-in ND-filter? Ie, why can't you make sensors LESS sensitive then they are? Why is there a LOWER limit to ISO? I could imagine why there might be an upper limit to ISO, but the existence of a lower limit seems strange to me. The obvious use for something like this would be an ability to achieve arbitrarily long exposures in arbitrarily strong light without the whole ND filter/holder apparatus. Here's one "hack" I already sometimes use: Suppose the sun is setting quickly and you don't have the time to take out your filter apparatus, but you need a 60s exposure to really smooth out some moderately choppy water. By dropping your ISO to the minimum level and stopping down to the smallest aperture, you find that you can get a 10s exposure without blowing out the sky. In situations like this sometimes what I do is simply take 6 consecutive 10s exposures and average them in photoshop. This often gets the job done, but it seems unnecessarily clunky – why doesn't the camera just offer a mode to do this itself? Returning to the original question, admittedly this "hack" is different from a true 60s exposure (equivalently, having a 6x lower minimum ISO), since there is a small gap between exposures, which can sometimes be seen when there are stars/clouds which tend to move in a non-random manner. Given the obvious competitive advantages of allowing arbitrarily low ISO's, I'm guessing that there are fundamental engineering difficulties to overcome to go from this hack to a true lower minimum ISO. I'm guessing what's happening is that for whatever reason, the sensor cannot simultaneously take in light data and write their data to memory at the same time? Thus, I'm guessing that the time between shots is fundamentally limited by the rate at which the sensor can write their data to memory? Is this correct? (I'd love to hear more about this) Does this mean that if you had a lower resolution sensor then you should be able to achieve lower downtime between exposures? I think it would be fascinating if someone could design an N-megapixel sensor (for some value of N) such that the N pixels were evenly divided into two sets A and B (interlaced, so that an exposure of the A-pixels would result in almost exactly the same image as an exposure of the B-pixels) such that the pixels from set A could be operated independently of the pixels from set B. Then, you could achieve (N/2)-megapixel zero-downtime consecutive shots by exposing the pixels from A while reading pixels from B, then alternating for as long as you wanted. This would allow for (N/2)-megapixel long exposures as long as each individual exposure lasted longer than the required downtime for reading the other sensor. If this were implemented in something like the upcoming 60-megapixel 10fps Sony a7r4, then you could get true 30-megapixel arbitrarily long exposures without use of an ND filter as long as each individual exposure lasted at least 1/10 of a second. In fact if the a7r4 can write 60megapixels to memory at 10fps, then writing 30megapixels to memory should only take 1/20 of a second, so you ought to be able to get true long exposures w/o filters as long as each individual exposure lasts at least 1/20 of a second. This is very often possible in the times you'd want to take landscape photos anyway (ie golden hour/blue hour), and it would save everyone all the hassle of dealing with filters/holders and keeping them clean. While I'm at it, here's another question: Why the heck does Nikon/Sony still limit exposure times to 30s??? Yes I know I can get a timer to plug into my camera for $20, but not only is that an extra piece of gear+cable to deal with, but it's also super awkward to even plug in the timer if you're shooting in portrait orientation while locked into a tripod. Maybe this is related to something you mentioned in an earlier podcast, where you remark that camera companies are not software companies and aren't as focused on these software quality of life improvements, but man things like this really annoy me.

  23. I love you guys, but you really need to go back to doing some actual photography. This type of "studio" reviewing is starting to get old, sorry to say. So many photographers are going this route. People just don't want to sit and watch this kind of stuff for an hour. Your smart, great photographers, please do some actual teaching.

  24. The 250mp sensor has been in Canon's labs for a while. The fabrication costs of such a wafer will be considerable. Will Canon's noise issues especially when pushing the shadows, continue to be problematic?

  25. I love this set up sending pics in to learn more. I have been watching for about 2 years to get into manual mode but still forget everything I have learned and get info overloaded but this may gradually help so thank you for this I will be more vocal and join in more as I learn more

  29. Pease use PPI and not DPI. Digital images have never DPI, that is the measurement for prints, digital images have always PPI. Dots are produced by a printer, pixels are pictures elements and that is the correct term for digital content. (Scans would have Samples per Inch, SPI).

  33. Canon used to show laboratory technology.

    In the past,
    Canon showed breaking Mega Pixel sensor.
    However in reality world, Canon is the slowest runner at Mega Pixel competition. Sony is ahead Canon for 8 years.

    This is the reality. Laboratory technology does not help in the real competition.

    Again, Canon is the slowest runner in Megapixel competition.

  34. The best non traditional lighting I've ever seen is not an actual light… If you get 4 or 6 old LCD screens and strip the backlight off them, there is a videos on YouTube "false window with laptop screens" is really cheap and think this is a defo must have for a studio

  35. There is a limit to megapixel war. You can't deny that every colour has some fixed wavelength. After certain limit, there is diffraction even with wide open aperture of your lens. So 16 MP on APSC and 36MP on FF is all you need for optimum result. They must work on reducing the noise, increase dynamic range and more bits of colour into their pixels instead of increasing the megapixels to insane levels.
    People who are not aware of the science behind and only love the gadget run after such crazy specs.
    The disadvantages of having large megapixels are many such as high computing power needed, huge storage space in terabytes is needed by the professionals etc. It's not wise to buy such insane megapixel camera just for getting a very decent photo.
    I have 24.2 MP APSC camera and wished I could have 16 MP sensor with lesser noise and more DR. I could edit photos easily with old hardware.

  36. In 2008 I took photos at a wedding with 35mm film. I couldn't find any where locally in Union City to get the standard UK 6×9 inch prints. Nearest was for 6×8 if I could drive 60 miles. The costs were also much higher than in the UK. I had prints done at A1 size (594 x 841 mm / 23.4 x 33.1 in). I was told the negatives were scanned at 1200dpi and printed from the computer. That is 1150×1700 pixel not even 2Mp. I had been scanning negatives at 5400dpi to give 7650×3905 pixel, 39Mp and was told that would never be need even with any print size they could do. Other than wedding photos, at much less than 6×9 inch, in a book, I don't know anyone having prints made. They just have them on their phones. I guess they are happy with 5" and 6" screens.

Leave a Reply