PetaPixel

Canon Mentions Rumored High-Megapixel EOS Camera in Recent Interview

canon3d

In what we would call a semi-confirmation, Canon recently made mention of the high megapixel EOS camera that we had been hearing so much about the past couple of years before 7D Mark II rumors swept talk of any other Canon camera out of the public eye.

For those of you who don’t remember, the rumors revolved around a camera that would feature 46 megapixels of resolution and 3D capture capabilities, but as the years have rolled on rumors have remained rumors despite the camera being supposedly spotted in the wild.

The ‘confirmation’ of the camera’s existence was picked out of a recent DC Watch interview by Canon Rumors, and the exact (Google translated) wording is, “we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS.”

Of course, this isn’t exactly a press release stating that Canon is working on a megapixel war-ender of a camera, but we take what we can get. As CR points out, there was talk of three EOS cameras to be released this year. The first may have been the white Rebel SL1, the second should be the 7D Mark II, and the third… we’ll just have to wait and see.

(via Canon Rumors)


 
  • Mojo

    Unless you’re planning to print to billboard size, who needs more than 20 MPs?

  • TN

    perhaps your photographic needs, do not represent the needs of other photographers..

  • Mike

    One million pixels!

  • Henry Wang

    well… are we not counting the 1200D as an EOS camera?

  • Sir Stewart Wallace

    ^Says a person who’s never wanted to crop an image in a particular scene and still have it be usable for larger prints.

    This same tired statement has been said over and over since the dawn of digital photography. “Who needs more than [x] MPs”
    Apparently anybody who isn’t you.

    One vast benefit to having a lot of mega pixels is not requiring as long of a lens to get a particular shot.

  • Pachara Tongsrakoo

    EOS 3D ?

    I can’t help not to expect 3D Function. lol

  • Bill Binns

    I agree…mostly. More pixels do allow us a lot more freedom to crop or “re compose” an image. I take advantage of this myself quite a bit. However, this comes at a cost. Noise and poor low light performance. Also, at some point you are going to start running into the resolution of the glass rather than the sensor when making extreme crops. Ever try to heavily crop a 10+ megapixel cell phone image? Plenty of pixels but a cheap plastic lens = something that looks like it has been run through the watercolors filter on Photoshop.

    Bottom line is, I would not run right out an buy a camera because it had twice the resolution as my current body. I certainly would run right out and buy a camera that had double the low light performance. And after owning something like 10 Canon digital cameras over the years, I am thinking of doing just that with Fuji.

  • Mojo

    Ah ha, this makes sense. I was asking that question the way I did because I am pretty new to photography, and I’m trying to understand what’s important and what’s just a gimick. Thank you for a good answer, and not a snotty ones like some of the other’s I’ve recieved.

  • juan valdez

    I’m just about to become a photagrapher but i’m waiting for that new canon 40 or 50 megapixels camera becuase I want to have better pictures than most. But maybe I’ll wait a few more years just in case they make a 100 megapixels camera.

  • blp

    not sure if serious or trolling…

  • Jake

    Ask a snotty question, get a snotty answer. Nobody says “who needs…?” when they’re being inquisitive.

  • Jeff Allen

    My Canon 6d produces great photos except for abberations the lenses produce all of which are L type. Lateral & chromatic abberations not only produce colour fringing but make those edges appear soft adding more pixels will not stop this issue better dynamic range and smaller pixels also require better lens performance to see it.

  • Bolkey

    We don’t need more megapixies, we need better ones. That is: bigger ones. No lense will be able to deliver the required amount of detail for 40Mp on an aps-c sensor.

  • Sir Stewart Wallace

    Have you ever used the Nikon D800? It seriously looks as good as the Canon 5D MIII at comparable ISO. Generally speaking, the major problem with large megapixel sensors isn’t as much of a problem any longer. Though I wasn’t referencing cell phone cameras, even those look great in decent lighting conditions. Well, as long as the camera is designed well, which most of the popular phones cameras are.

    For instance, we’ve done prints from a cell phone at 20 inches by 7 feet. And aside from minor distortion and the typical blown out highlights that come with any cell phone camera, it looked great.

    “Bottom line is, I would not run right out an buy a camera because it had twice the resolution as my current body.”

    Well, of course not. You shouldn’t even do it if it gives you double the low-light performance until it is reviewed and vetted.

  • Amir

    Even with pics downsized, it’s painfully obvious which one was taken with 20MP, and 36MP. Maybe common folks don’t see it, but as a photographer you should.

  • agenius

    Frankly I’m not sure this is even the right question. Sony just released the a or alpha 7r, a camera that boasts a 36.3 megapixel res, and a full frame sensor to boot. Sure, it’s mirrorless, and it’s performance improvement over a less pixelled camera can be questioned, but at this point in the digital camera game, that may be irrelevant. There isn’t enough room in the market for all these manufacturers, let alone a manufacturer that can’t keep up with the competition.

  • Dude

    I am calling BS on this. Unless you are printing larger than 2×3 foot prints you won’t see it… also keep in mind 20 – 36 mp is not as big of a difference as it sounds. To double the resolution of a 20mp camera you need to go to 80mp, not 40. (also mp is only an indicator of potential resolution)