Canon May Drop Nuke in Megapixel War with a 75+ Megapixel Pro DSLR


The megapixel war appears to be alive and well. The rumor mill has been churning the past weekend after a report emerged that Canon is in the process of field testing a DSLR camera that packs a whopping 75+ megapixels.

Eric Reagan over at Photography Bay writes that he received the tip this past Saturday from a trusted source:

[…] a pre-production high resolution Canon DSLR is currently undergoing field testing. The camera is a pro-sized body like the 1D X. The resolution of the sensor is greater than 75MP. Wow.

Rumors of prototype high-megapixel Canon DSLRs have been floating around for quite some time now. In September 2012, it was said that Canon was field testing a 46MP DSLR, but a report the following month suggested that there are prototypes packing “well over 50 MP.”

Canon's upcoming high-MP DSLR will reportedly have a "pro style" body like the 1D X

Canon’s upcoming high-MP DSLR will reportedly have a “pro style” body like the 1D X

Photography Bay‘s source is also saying that the uber-high-MP DSLR will have an ultra-high-resolution LCD screen on the back, and may have a frame rate that’s even speedier than the Canon 1D X (thanks to one or more new image processors found in the camera).

There may be an official announcement for this camera by the end of 2013, but the actual release may not come until sometime in 2014. Canon Rumors writes that they also believe that a high-MP Canon DSLR will be arriving sometime next year.

Image credit: Canon EOS-1 D by sukiweb

  • Chris Jackson

    cheap glass on an expensive camera? naw, if you buy this camera, buy better glass.

  • Dave

    Between a Ferrari and a Maserati maybe?

  • Jordan Butters

    Arguing on the internet. Who’d have thought it.

  • gasdive

    186 lines/mm is based on overlapping airy disks that have centres far enough apart for a human eye to detect that it’s not just one point. A 9% difference. Fine for a telescope that you are looking through. For a sensor to make sense of the overlapping disks they need to be separated further than that or you’ll simply have a muddy image. The airy disks need to be separated by about a full airy disk. At f/8 the airy disk is about 11 um across. Two pixels is enough to resolve that, so pixels smaller than about 5.5 um are pointless and that equates to about a 25 MP sensor (which is why I said what I said). A 75 MP FF sensor has 3.4 um pixels.

    Tilt shift can help with exactly the subjects I said you could photograph: flat ones. You can alter the focal plane to match up with the flat but tilted subject. That doesn’t alter the fact that the DoF is small and only flat (even if tilted which I didn’t mention because I thought it went without saying) subjects can be all in focus enough to make 75 MP worth while. Three dimensional subjects (even with TS) can’t be focused down to 3 um precision (or even 7 um to cover 2 pixels)

    You’re quite right that if you get away from the f/8 end and stick around f/2ish then you can get hundreds of MP worth of information, but the DoF becomes unreasonably shallow. You could use focus stacking to solve that issue but if you’re going to do that then why not use super-resolution stacking anyway? (or stitching or gigapan or any one of a dozen other systems that also only work for multi image capture of static subjects)

    As another poster said, if you are finding you want or need this sort of resolution then you need to be looking at large format (which can do your tilt/shift for less than a tenth the cost of a canon system). It can shoot at small apertures for good DoF without running into diffusion issues because the airy disks are very small compared to the huge film sheets. Then drum scan your 8 x 10 sheet film and get 1700 MP images that will blow you away.

  • decisivemoment

    Probably Canon is taking the Nokia approach to dealing with high ISO noise and dynamic range — shove a ridiculous amount of pixels in a small space, then downsample to get the best quality image. Nokia is doing it very successfully with cellphone cameras, and as computing power grows, it’s only a matter of time before a manufacturer like Canon, with all the trouble it has been having emulating Sony’s EXMOOR sensor technology, attain high ISO and dynamic range nirvana in a different way. Record 75, barf out the best 16 at the other end, and you’ll have a very nice looking file.

  • Bob Roberts

    It still won’t take a “better” picture than my Nikon F loaded with Tri-X.

  • Ryan Sebrasky

    1 image will be close to 100 mega bites in size…10 shots is a Gigabyte. As a wedding photographer this is ludicrous and unrealistic. If i cant get the image shot clearly using 16 mega pixels 60 more aren’t going to do anything other then make loading and editing take 5 times a s long. Not to mention the camera will have to write 5 times faster then it currently can in order to maintain the FPS of the camera. Perhaps for studio work or for editing purposes using raw pics this would be helpful…

  • Major_Boom

    Hi there. I’m a pro advertising shooter and yes, I need 75+ megapixels. In my industry, the more megapixels the better.


  • JAID

    And aside from the D800’s multiple crops if you reduce NEF size in post you still have a better 1MB image than one taken with a machine only capable of that. (Still much better than my old HTC phone would do for example)

  • Richard Smith

    No. I said (are you’re being intentionally obtuse?) “Art isn’t as simple as a popularity contest”.

  • Brian Cox

    The simple problem here is you are both looking at pixels instead of the final printed picture. In most cases, people are either viewing a smaller magazine image or a piece on a wall from a distance. In both cases, the ability to see ultra-fine differences in detail is rendered nearly meaningless. I had a couple of shots from an RZ67 that look amazing printed at 18×24 inches. The printer assured me I could go MUCH larger with little loss. He also assured me that the shots from both a D5100 (16MP) and a D600 (24MP) could go to the same sizes with functionally the same results. The point is: Unless you are covering a massive canvas (using the term very loosely here), no one will be able to really tell the difference unless they look so close that they’ll be missing the forest for the trees.

  • Raphael Bruckner

    Vlad you dont go out much do you?

  • jgeigerphoto

    wickerprints, you move the conversation to an entire new plane.

  • Mr Hogwallop

    There is more to the photography world than weddings…thank god.

  • Ryan Sebrasky

    Which is why I said “perhaps for studio work”, dickhead.