# Patent: 83mp full-frame image sensor from Canon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 9, 2019)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent that shows an 83mp full-frame image sensor from Canon. If you scale up the new 32.5mp APS-C sensor to full-frame from the EOS 90D and EOS M6 Mark II, 83mp is what you’ll get.
> *Japan Patent: 2019-149607*
> 
> 20.75 MP sensor of 5575 x 3725 pixels in size
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## KirkD (Sep 9, 2019)

Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 9, 2019)

It was expected after the 32.5 MP-Sensor of the 90D/M6 II.
Too much MP and too big files for me, but good for all that need/want it.
I always welcome the possibility of choice.


----------



## Trey T (Sep 9, 2019)

Made for pixel peepers - literally!!!


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 9, 2019)

Combined with the ridiculously sharp RF lenses, this should really give medium format cameras a run for their money, especially given that it's likely a much better general-purpose camera than any MF body. Will probably directly challenge Fuji's "mediumish-format" GFX 100 (which, remember, costs almost ten grand!)


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

Yipee, let's hope they announce this soon so I don't have to buy yet another Sony A7r(IV) and can start buying some RF lenses. 

High MP with dual card slots is all I need and the rest of the specs I can live with so please Canon don't mess it up. 

This could possibly be the first camera I've ever pre-orderd.


----------



## uri.raz (Sep 9, 2019)

What, no 250MP? Canon is *******, ******* I say, is *******!


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 9, 2019)

So how many pixels will the 1Dx2 replacement have? My guess is 20.75MP because low light capability is more important than more pixels to a professional sport shooter shooting indoors. Or maybe both 83.06MP and 20.75MP, with a multiple gain sensor to improve DR.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

as we wrote today in our update, it's not a simple matter of taking a Canon APS-C sensor and simply "scaling it" to full frame unless Canon has updated their full-frame fabrication equipment yet again. Right now with what we know, for Canon to do an 83MP full frame sensor would involve some creativity on their part.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Combined with the ridiculously sharp RF lenses, this should really give medium format cameras a run for their money, especially given that it's likely a much better general-purpose camera than any MF body. Will probably directly challenge Fuji's "mediumish-format" GFX 100 (which, remember, costs almost ten grand!)


In terms of shallow depth of field, it can even outperform the Fuji GFX 100, given Canon’s significantly higher optical speed.


----------



## peters (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.


I personaly think its a nice upgrade. I do some weddings where I would love to have more options to crop. I also do landscapes where I like higher resolutions for big prints. Also our product shots could greatly benefit from a higher resolution where retouching and cutouts are way more exact


----------



## neurorx (Sep 9, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> So how many pixels will the 1Dx2 replacement have? My guess is 20.75MP because low light capability is more important than more pixels to a professional sport shooter shooting indoors. Or maybe both 83.06MP and 20.75MP, with a multiple gain sensor to improve DR.



It would be wonderful to have a 1dx replacement with about 30 mp so it would be competitive with Sony’s offerings ( A9 ii is rumored to be in the 30 mp range).


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Combined with the ridiculously sharp RF lenses, this should really give medium format cameras a run for their money, especially given that it's likely a much better general-purpose camera than any MF body. Will probably directly challenge Fuji's "mediumish-format" GFX 100 (which, remember, costs almost ten grand!)


but that camera has ibis and probably much better dynamic range. and of course more MP.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> but that camera has ibis and probably much better dynamic range. and of course more MP.


Rumours are Canon will have ibis next, dynamic range doesn’t make any difference to IQ and the difference between 80MP and 100MP is not that great. 

I know which camera and lenses I’d prefer to shoot......


----------



## Canon1966 (Sep 9, 2019)

When...? Maybe in 4 years...


----------



## Go Wild (Sep 9, 2019)

Cameras are good, better, top, bottom or not so good, depending on our kind of photo....If you need resolution this will be awesome! From this point, we don´t know yet the usability of this sensor, if its going to appear on a mirrorless camera, or dslr....It could be the sucessor of 5Ds, it can appear in a mirrorless EOS R. Guess we need to wait for see. I don´t think DSLR market is dead, but do think it will be less "important" in the future, so at this time, I think it will make sense to make a 5dsII, but only Canon can answer to this and decide to go on DSLR or fully on mirrorless.

From my needs, despite is great to have such a huge MP sensor, I would love to see the new 1dxIII soon, or a 1dxIII equivalent in mirrorless. 

If, and IF this sensor goes on a mirrorless really don´t know if i can see myself buying just because the huge number of pixels, that will increase the amount of data to cards, computer and external hard drives... 40/50 MP for me is kinda the limit...I even think 61mp from Sony A7rIV is too much, but this is for my needs. I prefer a fast and less noisy camera, than the amount of pixels. However....Pixels means resolution...its so nice to have a great resolution camera! I imagine to make a landscape photo with 83mp... 


Happy to see Canon is developing....NowI just hope they can deliver this faster that the last rumors....


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> but that camera has ibis and probably much better dynamic range. and of course more MP.



We don't know whether the coming Canon body is going to have IBIS or not. The ~10% difference in linear resolution isn't exactly massive. Whether the extra stop in DR is worth the 3x price and inability to use potential existing EF lenses… well, I guess YMMV.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 9, 2019)

A natural projection of the new 32.5 mpx 90D/M6 II sensor. If that sensor is as good as some are saying, then this will be a really nice body from Canon. They'll certainly have the top-notch glass for it.

Now, as for the 1-series, mirrorless or DSLR, I'm thinking that a new 30-32 mpx sensor will be coming out, a true update and step up from the already-good 5D4/R sensor, with an even better DR, an improvement at high ISO, full-frame 4K, and wickedly deep buffer.

I got scolded on another forum for suggesting it, but I think the next 7D will also come out at the same time as the new 1-series. Canon going full throttle with the sports cameras all at the same time.


----------



## edoorn (Sep 9, 2019)

Whatever the number of mpix will be, I just hope they also give us an mraw option with a higher fps


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.


I would imagine this would never be released without IBIS.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I would imagine this would never be released without IBIS.


Does IBIS really matter that much in an 80MP camera? 

To get the most out of 80MP, tripod of flash are the best methods from my experience with medium format digital.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Right now with what we know, for Canon to do an 83MP full frame sensor would involve some creativity on their part.



creativity?..


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 9, 2019)

(...no snark intended...) 

Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Rumours are Canon will have ibis next, dynamic range doesn’t make any difference to IQ



And here it goes...
That statement isn't exactly correct. DR does affect the IQ, especially when editing. However, if this sensor has the DR of 5DIV and no banding, I'll likely buy it.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> (...no snark intended...)
> 
> Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?


It makes the haters move onto other things that it doesn’t do that a that a Sony A7r does.


----------



## JGalicki (Sep 9, 2019)

For me as a nature photographer, the big deal breaker will be the camera's speed. With the D850 at 9 fps (with grip) and now the A7R4 at 10 fps you can have a high res camera that's versatile....meaning it can be used for landscapes as well as wildlife including action. I have the 5DS R and it's great but too slow for most wildlife at 5 fps. If this is anything less than 7 fps it's probably not going to work for most wildlife folks. I would love to be able to use this...especially for large prints.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> (...no snark intended...)
> 
> Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?



If the dynamic range isn't decreased, there's no downsides, apart from 2: a) longer in-camera processing times and therefore less fps, and b) larger raw file size, more storage required and worse editing software performance.
But for the image quality - no downsides, just benefits (again if the DR isn't degraded).


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> DR does affect the IQ, especially when editing.


Personally I’ve never had issues with DR effecting IQ (product and architecture) using Sony or Canon cameras unless i’d done something wrong at capture. 

I have however come across IQ and detail issues by not having enough resolution.


----------



## bellorusso (Sep 9, 2019)

So we will have to upgrade our Pcs as well because to edit those filed would be a massive challenge for a supercomputer.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Personally I’ve never had issues with DR effecting IQ (product and architecture) using Sony or Canon cameras unless i’d done something wrong at capture.
> 
> I have however come across IQ and detail issues by not having enough resolution.



Given the same resolutions and sensor sizes, a sensor with a lower DR will have more noise esp. in the shadows. When you work with controlled light, it's not that important.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Given the same resolutions and sensor sizes, a sensor with a lower DR will have more noise esp. in the shadows. When you work with controlled light, it's not that important.


I’ sure you are 100% correct however, using say a 21MP Canon vs a 42 MP Sony the DR (shadow noise) has never been a issue with my architecture work, only resolution/detail.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.


Good news! None of that will be impaired by a 83MP sensor camera, should you decide to get one. You can use it just like you use your current camera.


----------



## TominNJ (Sep 9, 2019)

At what point does the sensor resolution exceed the resolving power of the lens?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 9, 2019)

I wonder if the any of the camera companies have the tech to use this much resolution in a high performance, sports/action type camera, or if this will be long restricted to slower bodies intended more for product and landscape work.


----------



## TonyPM (Sep 9, 2019)

I get it!
It's one of two possible sensors.

One would be a Canon quad Bayer sensor. 83mpx on full Res mode, and 20.7mpx on Ai mode. This would be awesome.

Two and more possible, an 83 mpx sensor with 20.7 million phase detect points.

I would love the first option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2019)

TominNJ said:


> At what point does the sensor resolution exceed the resolving power of the lens?


As far as overall system resolution (which is really what matters), increased sensor resolution stops offering benefit at the point where you are using the sensor and lens to take pictures of pigs flying over snowbanks in Hell. Not before.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2019)

TominNJ said:


> At what point does the sensor resolution exceed the resolving power of the lens?


Never:



> Reposted yet again/again/again:-
> 
> System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.
> 
> ...


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Sep 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> but that camera has ibis and probably much better dynamic range. and of course more MP.



Why would it have to have IBIS?

My friend has IBIS on his A7R iii and he learned first day in the redwoods taking photos that IBIS was virtually useless compared to a tripod shot for print quality stuff.

Weddings or portraits is one story, but for landscape shooting, most photographers would shoot tripod and won't need IBIS or IS turned on in the lens.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Sep 9, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Could it be that Canon is going to do in both directions - an 1DxIII what 30 ish MP and lots of FPS, etc., AND a 5DsR replacement w/ lots of MP and not so many FPS? I did notice I had to up my technique - not hard, just pay attention - when I rented the 5Dsr over my 5DIII. 

I agree w/ those who think of being able to shoot a bit (fair bit) wider and crop down to the useful image for weddings, even some wildlife pics, etc. From my perspective more options = good thing. With focusing issues being resolved (pun not so intended) by on sensor focusing and the large supply of really high resolution 24/28/35/50 mm fast glass options, seems like a good thing to me.


----------



## boiseblake (Sep 9, 2019)

If this is true, as long as it has good weather sealing, dual cards, and similar DR to the 5D4 I'll buy it. I don't care if it has 4k or how many fps. For landscape this thing could be a dream.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.


But it's not just for huge prints, and it doesn't need a giant tripod...

I happily shoot hand held with the 5Ds and for studio use (product work) could sometimes do with the extra resolution.

Thing is that 50->83 isn't that big a jump. I went from 1Ds->1Ds3->5Ds going 11MP to 21MP to 50MP, all much bigger jumps. Going from 50->83 is similar to the 1Ds to 1Ds2 jump, which is why I waited for the 1Ds3...

After trying the S1R multishot mode (~187MP), and recently the H6D-50 I realised that I'd sometimes like 100MP (especially if IBIS Multishot gave 400MP) and other times 'just' 50MP with a lot better DR would help

A 80MP mirrorless is of itself not enough to make me ditch the 5Ds, it's what it comes with (IBIS, Multishot DR) that will nudge me - that and a range of new RF T/S lenses.


----------



## LensFungus (Sep 9, 2019)

I can't wait for the announcement because all the time people were crying "oh nooo, Canon has no professional R camera!" but with the 83mp R camera people will be crying " oh nooo, Canon has no professional R camera and the existing one is way too expensive!".


(My guess is that this 83mp R camera will be even more expensive than the 5D IV back in 2016.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2019)

boiseblake said:


> If this is true, as long as it has good weather sealing, dual cards, and similar DR to the 5D4 I'll buy it. I don't care if it has 4k or how many fps. For landscape this thing could be a dream.


Why would dual cards slots have any importance for a landscape shooter? This dual card slot meme is comical, it's like some kind of mass delusional hysteria foist upon us by marketing departments and 'influencers'.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Does IBIS really matter that much in an 80MP camera?
> 
> To get the most out of 80MP, tripod of flash are the best methods from my experience with medium format digital.


'Best' is a slippery term ;-)

Recent (architectural) experience hand held with a H6D-50 (and 1.5x T/S unit) definitely makes me question this...

Yes, i did use a tripod, but I've a whole lot of hand held stuff too that is suitably sharp


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> 'Best' is a slippery term ;-)
> 
> Recent (architectural) experience hand held with a H6D-50 (and 1.5x T/S unit) definitely makes me question this...
> 
> Yes, i did use a tripod, but I've a whole lot of hand held stuff too that is suitably sharp


Anything is possible but I’d still prefer a solid tripod if I was after the best that 80MP could deliver along with the reassurance I’d have no issues once I’d packed up and gone home.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> 'Best' is a slippery term ;-)
> 
> Recent (architectural) experience hand held with a H6D-50 (and 1.5x T/S unit) definitely makes me question this...
> 
> Yes, i did use a tripod, but I've a whole lot of hand held stuff too that is suitably sharp



Agreed

When you consider the angular movement and the pixel size, handholding a full frame 83mp with the exact same lens, should be no different than handholding a 32.5MP APS-C 90D or M6 Mark II.

The vector movement that would show up as motion blur would be the same in both cases.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would dual cards slots have any importance for a landscape shooter? This dual card slot meme is comical, it's like some kind of mass delusional hysteria foist upon us by marketing departments and 'influencers'.



You wait for several weeks for a proper weather forecast, then you get up at 3 am and drive 2.5 hours at night to catch the light, spend 2 hours on location, and drive back satisfied and excited. Or you travel several hours on a plane to your dream destination and spend there several days. Anyway, you arrive back home and your only card fails to read on your PC. 

To you it may sound comical and delusional, but once I had one of my cards failed in my dual card slot and I'm pretty happy I have it in my 5DIV. I understand if one's budged is limited, not everyone's able to get an expensive camera, but in no way it's delusional to want a dual card slot.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Why would it have to have IBIS?
> 
> My friend has IBIS on his A7R iii and he learned first day in the redwoods taking photos that IBIS was virtually useless compared to a tripod shot for print quality stuff.
> 
> Weddings or portraits is one story, but for landscape shooting, most photographers would shoot tripod and won't need IBIS or IS turned on in the lens.


Because some of us would use it for fashion and portraits. In that use case, IBIS would be a huge help as 99% of the time I never use a tripod.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Anything is possible but I’d still prefer a solid tripod if I was after the best that 80MP could deliver along with the reassurance I’d have no issues once I’d packed up and gone home.



I suspect anything over 3x focal would be fine. unless you downed 5 espresso's and a few Jolt colas (if they even still exist anymore).

but some trial and error would be advisable to find out what your shutter speed needs to be would be an important first step.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Agreed
> 
> When you consider the angular movement and the pixel size, handholding a full frame 83mp with the exact same lens, should be no different than handholding a 32.5MP APS-C 90D or M6 Mark II.
> 
> The vector movement that would show up as motion blur would be the same in both cases.



It's all correct but only when the resulting image is viewed at 1:1. 83mp one will cope better as you'll be able to downsize it more thus reducing the visible blur more.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Because some of us would use it for fashion and portraits. In that use case, IBIS would be a huge help as 99% of the time I never use a tripod.



But when shooting fashion or portraits, in what kind of situations do you need shutter speeds much slower than, say, 1/200s and _additionally_ don't have to worry about subject motion (which, of course, IBIS can do nothing about)? I guess if you shoot with unstabilized telephoto lenses, IBIS could come in handy.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Agreed
> 
> When you consider the angular movement and the pixel size, handholding a full frame 83mp with the exact same lens, should be no different than handholding a 32.5MP APS-C 90D or M6 Mark II.
> 
> The vector movement that would show up as motion blur would be the same in both cases.


Then I'd use a tripod if I was shoting with an 90D or M6 MKII.  

I always follow the rule - If in doubt don't go with out (a tripod). Then no unwanted movement, Vector or espress jitters come into play.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 9, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?



More resources required to handle the pixels all along the processing chain, from saving to memory card (read: fps & price of card), time to transfer from memory card to disk, disk space, and memory & CPU time required to process the image.

One might claim all of those are cheap, but for people who have never printed larger than poster, e.g. me, cheap is still more than nothing.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> More resources required to handle the pixels all along the processing chain, from saving to memory card (read: fps & price of card), time to transfer from memory card to disk, disk space, and memory & CPU time required to process the image.
> 
> One might claim all of those are cheap, but for people who have never printed larger than poster, e.g. me, cheap is still more than nothing.



I spend around 6,000 every 3-4 years on laptops. then there's all the SSD upgrades..
when I stop and think about it, it's probably more than cameras lately :/


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> But when shooting fashion or portraits, in what kind of situations do you need shutter speeds much slower than, say, 1/200s and _additionally_ don't have to worry about subject motion (which, of course, IBIS can do nothing about)? I guess if you shoot with unstabilized telephoto lenses, IBIS could come in handy.


Runway and other low light situations. At 80mp holding the camera still or having some sort of stabilization is very important. None of my lenses are stabilized. Didn't you, yourself, say a tripod would be necessary for such a camera doing landscapes? I don't know what your use case is, but I know mine like the back of my hand. My work is all hand held and models are often moving, not static. Flash is not always an option.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Runway and other low light situations. At 80mp holding the camera still or having some sort of stabilization is very important. None of my lenses are stabilized. Didn't you, yourself, say a tripod would be necessary for such a camera? I don't know what your use case is, but I know mine like the back of my hand.


How do you hold your camera still now then in these situations?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> How do you hold your camera still now then in these situations?


Comparing a 30 megapixel camera to the possible 80 mega pixel camera and the associated inherent difficulties is silly. I seem to remember people complaining about how the 50 mega pixel 5DSr had to be held very still. How do I hold the 30 mp camera still? Technique. That does not mean IBIS would not be useful. Why do you buy IS lenses?


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Comparing a 30 megapixel camera to the possible 80 mega pixel camera and the associated inherent difficulties is silly. I seem to remember people complaining about how the 50 mega pixel 5DSr had to be held very still. How do I hold the 30 mp camera still? Technique. That does not mean IBIS would not be useful. Why do you buy IS lenses?


So you hand hold at a higher ISO (and shutter speed) to avoid (your) motion blur and subject movement?


----------



## Jinfla (Sep 9, 2019)

This for the 1DX III perhaps?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would dual cards slots have any importance for a landscape shooter? This dual card slot meme is comical, it's like some kind of mass delusional hysteria foist upon us by marketing departments and 'influencers'.


Point taken but I usually travel to do landscapes and I wouldn't consider any single card slot camera acceptable for travel unless it can direct write to media through a port. Even if I'd never had a card failure, which I have, one copy of a file while traveling just doesn't work for me. Yes I could bring along a laptop or back-up gizmo but a second card slot takes up a lot less room in my bag and I can carry a copy of all my files in a card safe in my pocket. Less stress about what's going on back at the hotel with my gear which means I can relax and focus on tasks at hand.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 9, 2019)

If that 83 MPixel beast has a switch between full 83 MPix and the quarter of it, 20.7 MPix I am interested. ~21 MPixel is a good resolution for a lot of things. And it should provide very clean images due to the 1:1 mapping of the four R-G-B-G-Pixels into one final image pixel including good DR. No bayer decoding might make it a very fast format during viewing/postprocessing.

In some situations the full potential of this High Res sensor might be useful so I would accept giantic files and long processing time with ease. EDIT: And it would be interesting for use with EF-S lenses with very good res - thinking of 10-22 which is far from perfect but good enough for my ultrawide requirements.

Only thing I do not understand: Why not 3840 x 3 pixels wide for 4k material with no crop but 3x3 pixel binning. Or do they use crop in the size of super 35 with 2x2 pixel binning which would make sense.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 9, 2019)

DPAF? That is going to be a lot of intra-frame data to crunch.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Point taken but I usually travel to do landscapes and I wouldn't consider any single card slot camera acceptable for travel unless it can direct write to media through a port. Even if I'd never had a card failure, which I have, one copy of a file while traveling just doesn't work for me. Yes I could bring along a laptop or back-up gizmo but a second card slot takes up a lot less room in my bag and I can carry a copy of all my files in a card safe in my pocket. Less stress about what's going on back at the hotel with my gear which means I can relax and focus on tasks at hand.


any modern Canon allows you to backup a full sized jpeg to your phone, and thus to the cloud.
dual card slots won't save you if someone steals your camera/robs you.


----------



## boiseblake (Sep 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would dual cards slots have any importance for a landscape shooter? This dual card slot meme is comical, it's like some kind of mass delusional hysteria foist upon us by marketing departments and 'influencers'.



Aside from the above response (yes, I too have had cards fail) having dual card slots can be useful for high res (high file size) so you can keep shooting without having to swap cards in inclement weather. Granted you won't have back up in that circumstance but having the ability is nice.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Never:


The equation you use for system resolution is an inaccurate one - see http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
The important point in all of the formulas, however, is that the overall resolution of the system always contains components from both the resolution of the lens and and the sensor (and any other component, importantly diffraction is one of them). The overall resolution is never completely independent of the resolution of the sensor or resolution of the lens. But, that doesn't mean that the lens cannot outresolve the sensor or vice versa within the equation for the overall resolution.. A lens can have a higher resolution than a lens and vice versa.: see https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Didn't you, yourself, say a tripod would be necessary for such a camera doing landscapes? I don't know what your use case is, but I know mine like the back of my hand. My work is all hand held and models are often moving, not static. Flash is not always an option.



It was not me who said that. I was just curious, since naively it seems to me that in general, when shooting moving subjects (or indeed even living subjects trying to stay still) without flash you need a fast shutter speed anyway.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 9, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> (...no snark intended...)
> 
> Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?


There were some answers already but I haven't read one argument yet (maybe missed it):
Diffraction limit!
The more MP on the same area the smaller the pixels are.
the smaller they are, the closer they come to the wave lenght(s) of light, the less an aperture stop down can bring you an increase in resolution.
But as the resolution is increased by the number of pixels, maybe that's irrelevant to some


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> It was not me who said that. I was just curious, since naively it seems to me that in general, when shooting moving subjects (or indeed even living subjects trying to stay still) without flash you need a fast shutter speed anyway.


I expect the High rez R and maybe the 1dxiii to have ibis. I'll be surprised if the R mount didn't, with the lack of IS on the flagship 2.0 lens. We've seen the patents for several years now, and have had verification that they are going to add it in the future. Its by far the most logical choice. It's also very logical that it wasn't put on the current aps-c versions of this chip if it is the same, as the mount communication with the lens seems like it might be critical for maximum performance. I'm wondering if their implementation will use microfocus adjustments as well to counter z axis shifts.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 9, 2019)

I pulled up the patent and skimmed thru it. What the patent is about is a very complex method for improving the accuracy of DPAF. It involves changes in af accuracy when a subject color changes.

The effect is small. But, if we get into a high mp sensor where the dual pixels are spaced closely, we need more accurate focusing to get the full benefit of the higher pixel density. Thus, the more complex design. There are two ways given to accomplish the improvement which involves different pixel configurations.

This patent may very well be incorporated in the new 32mp APS-C sensor, and in a upcoming FF 83 MP sensor, but its about improving the AF accuracy.

"According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an imaging device in which a change in focus detection accuracy due to a color of a subject or a color shading is reduced. "

This is a more complicated version of the patent claims which discusses how its accomplished.

"
[Patent Claims]
[Claim 1]
An imaging element includes a plurality of imaging pixels on an imaging surface.
The imaging pixel
A plurality of divided photoelectric conversion parts for performing focus adjustment by the pupil division phase difference system ;
A lens for guiding light to the photoelectric conversion part ;
An internal lens arranged on the lens and the photoelectric conversion unit for the imaging pixel and arranged eccentrically toward the center of the imaging element group with respect to the center of the imaging pixel as it moves away from the center of the imaging element group, and focuses the incident light on the imaging pixel ;
A color filter for limiting a wavelength band of light guided to the photoelectric conversion part ;
It is an imaging pixel which **,
The first imaging pixel comprises a first color filter representing a first wavelength band and a first internal lens having a first eccentricity.
The 2 imaging pixel includes a 2 color filter which represents a 2 wavelength band longer than the first wavelength band, and a 2 internal lens which has a 2 eccentricity of which the first eccentricity is large.
The image sensor characterized by things.
[Claim 2]
An imaging element includes a plurality of imaging pixels on an imaging surface.
The imaging pixel
A plurality of divided photoelectric conversion parts for performing focus adjustment by the pupil division phase difference system ;
A lens for guiding light to the photoelectric conversion part ;
A color filter for limiting a wavelength band of light guided to the photoelectric conversion part ;
It is an imaging pixel which **,
A first imaging pixel ;
A first color filter expressing a first wavelength band and an internal lens between the lens and the plurality of divided photoelectric conversion parts are provided.
A 2 imaging pixel is provided with a 2 color filter which represents a 2 wavelength band longer than a first wavelength band and an internal lens between the lens and the plurality of divided photoelectric conversion sections.
The image sensor characterized by things. "


----------



## mpb001 (Sep 9, 2019)

I shoot with a 5DIV and I’m very happy with it. I would be more interested in a R Series camera in the 30-46 MP range with IBIS. As one person said, to get the most out of a system with 80 MP, you need the fast RF lenses and a really good tripod. At a time when many photographers, especially ones who travel are looking for lighter gear, I think that this high res system will benefit studio photographers the most and some landscape photographers. I am actually quite interested in the M6 II. If the DR is decent, I may go that route.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Anything is possible but I’d still prefer a solid tripod if I was after the best that 80MP could deliver along with the reassurance I’d have no issues once I’d packed up and gone home.


Sometimes I work in industrial environments where a tripod simply isn't an option - sure, I might like one, but getting the shot's what counts. 'Best' is an ill defined term for myself...

That and I've always regarded habitual use of tripods in landscape photography as a relic of the 19th century ;-) [YMMV ;-) ]


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> I shoot with a 5DIV and I’m very happy with it. I would be more interested in a R Series camera in the 30-46 MP range with IBIS. As one person said, to get the most out of a system with 80 MP, you need the fast RF lenses and a really good tripod. At a time when many photographers, especially ones who travel are looking for lighter gear, I think that this high res system will benefit studio photographers the most and some landscape photographers. I am actually quite interested in the M6 II. If the DR is decent, I may go that route.


It will also benefit bird photographers who are squeezing out every drop of resolution. We use shutter speeds of 1/3000s or faster for birds in flight and a tripod isn't required for that, and f/4 lenses are available. Also, for lighter travel, we can use shorter lenses than with lower resolution sensors.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It will also benefit bird photographers who are squeezing out every drop of resolution. We use shutter speeds of 1/3000s or faster for birds in flight and a tripod isn't required for that, and f/4 lenses are available. Also, for lighter travel, we can use shorter lenses than with lower resolution sensors.


Sometime in the next 20 years the average photographer will take one frame from a short video and refocus it/change the aperture using some future version of photoshop, lightroom or other software. Everything will be shot at f/16 or something ridiculous and all bokeh will be simulated. The google pixel and iPhones already do a limited version of this. What will be disturbing is that if every photo is essentially a deeply photoshopped version of a real scene, how would you ever spot deep fakes? [insert bad photo edit sleuthing scene from the judge dredd movie here]


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 9, 2019)

canonnews said:


> any modern Canon allows you to backup a full sized jpeg to your phone, and thus to the cloud.
> dual card slots won't save you if someone steals your camera/robs you.


Why would I keep my back-up with the camera? I keep a copy of every raw image on a card in a card safe in a secure location on my person at all times. I've been doing this for decades. I have a pretty good idea of what my requirements are. If your requirements are met by a single card slot that's up to you. Mine are not.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 9, 2019)

canonnews said:


> any modern Canon allows you to backup a full sized jpeg to your phone, and thus to the cloud.
> dual card slots won't save you if someone steals your camera/robs you.


it helps you can drop the camera and run. still have the photos in your pocket


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Sometime in the next 20 years the average photographer will take one frame from a short video and refocus it/change the aperture using some future version of photoshop, lightroom or other software. Everything will be shot at f/16 or something ridiculous and all bokeh will be simulated. The google pixel and iPhones already do a limited version of this. What will be disturbing is that if every photo is essentially a deeply photoshopped version of a real scene, how would you ever spot deep fakes? [insert bad photo edit sleuthing scene from the judge dredd movie here]


Art Morris in his birdsasart blog a few days ago showed how he had improved an image of a bird on a beach using PS to remove darker pebbles and other tricks and move a piece of greenery from close to he bird to further away to improve the composition!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 9, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Why would I keep my back-up with the camera? I keep a copy of every raw image on a card in a card safe in a secure location on my person at all times. I've been doing this for decades. I have a pretty good idea of what my requirements are. If your requirements are met by a single card slot that's up to you. Mine are not.


edit....this site has become increasing about telling long time investors in Canon's system that they really don't need something if Canon latest gizmo doesn't have it. That's a pretty odd way to look at the world IMO.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> So you hand hold at a higher ISO (and shutter speed) to avoid (your) motion blur and subject movement?


My goal is to keep ISO at 100 as much as possible. If I do bump it up, I try not to go above ISO 400. Sometimes my composition must be adjusted quickly and I may not be able to get completely stationary enough to get a shake free shot. Like I said, my use may be different from yours. Were I to get an 80 megapixel camera for this kind of work, I would find IBIS to be very useful just like I do with my Olympus. IBIS and IS is not a solution for subject movement. So again, why do you buy IS lenses if you are rock steady? If you are trying to suggest that IBIS would not be useful, though you buy IS lenses, I think the point of what I think you are trying to say is just B.S. Why do you buy IS lenses? I can answer that for you, because nobody can always be rock steady at slow shutter speeds.. I shot several images this past weekend with a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second at ISO 100 @ f/1.2 and a 6 stop ND filter as the sun was going down and shining straight into the camera. Ibis would have helped a great deal. I've been published twice, so I am getting fairly decent at what I do. You wouldn't balk at at lens with IS, so what is the problem with in camera image stabilization?

By the way, last November I did two model boot camps where the outdoor temps were below freezing. Being from Texas I don't have cold weather clothing. There was a whole lotta shakin' going on.


----------



## Bahrd (Sep 9, 2019)

canonnews said:


> any modern Canon allows you to backup a full sized jpeg to your phone, and thus to the cloud.
> dual card slots won't save you if someone steals your camera/robs you.


What's more probable? A camera robbery or a card failure?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 9, 2019)

At some point, we will have a monster chip and an insanely sharp prime that will allow digital zooming that is truly stunning.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I wonder if the any of the camera companies have the tech to use this much resolution in a high performance, sports/action type camera, or if this will be long restricted to slower bodies intended more for product and landscape work.



I would expect that you can use this for sports photography, but probably more staged/anticipated sports. I mean, you can shoot sports with a 5DS, it's not the best, but it works. I would not expect 1DX levels of action capturing performance though.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

KeithBreazeal said:


> At some point, we will have a monster chip and an insanely sharp prime that will allow digital zooming that is truly stunning.


And I will be looking forward to your always awesome air race photos. You are a master.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> What's more probable? A camera robbery or a card failure?


My phone being stolen, forgotten or failing.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> My phone being stolen, forgotten or failing.


My phone being stolen would be bad. My camera gear would be a disaster. I carry concealed in sketchy neighborhoods. I also have a GPS tracker in my bag/box. Insurance is also a requirement for me.


----------



## boiseblake (Sep 9, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> What's more probable? A camera robbery or a card failure?


In the remote and wild landscapes that I shoot in, the odds of card failure are exponentially higher than being robbed.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My goal is to keep ISO at 100 as much as possible. If I do bump it up, I try not to go above ISO 400. Sometimes my composition must be adjusted quickly and I may not be able to get completely stationary enough to get a shake free shot. Like I said, my use may be different from yours. Were I to get an 80 megapixel camera for this kind of work, I would find IBIS to be very useful just like I do with my Olympus. IBIS and IS is not a solution for subject movement. So again, why do you buy IS lenses if you are rock steady? If you are trying to suggest that IBIS would not be useful, though you buy IS lenses, I think the point of what I think you are trying to say is just B.S. Why do you buy IS lenses? I can answer that for you, because nobody can always be rock steady at slow shutter speeds.. I shot several images this past weekend with a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second at ISO 100 @ f/1.2 and a 6 stop ND filter as the sun was going down and shining straight into the camera. Ibis would have helped a great deal. I've been published twice, so I am getting fairly decent at what I do. You wouldn't balk at at lens with IS, so what is the problem with in camera image stabilization?
> 
> By the way, last November I did two model boot camps where the outdoor temps were below freezing. Being from Texas I don't have cold weather clothing. There was a whole lotta shakin' going on.


I just think photographers big up the IBIS necessity as the one stop solution to sharp pictures but as the poster above stated for fashion subject movement would kill sharpness long before IBIS (or IS) had a chance at lower shutter speeds. 

I have a Sony with IBIS but never use it and none of my glass has IS, instead using a mono or tripod. 

Its great you have been published a few times and must be good at what you do. IBIS will help eradicate your movement however, I feel a timing is the best way to avoid subject movement (as the models foot hits the runway) rather than IBIS at 1/60th second.


----------



## melgross (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Well, I'm glad to see this kind of technology, but I don't need to make wall-sized enlargements, nor see the bacteria in the pores of my subject, nor do I want to haul around a 300 pound tripod to keep cameral shake so small that even 83 mp is sharp (unless Canon comes out with the IBIS to be able to use this sort of hi-res sensor). I'm an outdoor photographer and shoot mostly hand-held. I get more excited by HDR than by hi-res. Still .... I'm a sucker for new tech, and I feel that old "I want the latest" urge.


Most landscape photographers who do sell their work want as many pixels as possible, which is why so many shoot medium format instead of 35mm. I know a few. They sell prints that measure in feet, the way most of us measure in inches.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> but that camera has ibis and probably much better dynamic range. and of course more MP.



If current cameras are any indication, the Fuji MF(ish) will provide 1ev more DR. That's a little better, not much better.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 9, 2019)

There is a majoy problem with such sensors, you can't use it hand heled. Every little shake of the hand will be visible. or you will need to take pictures in incrediably speed (shutter speed), or will have to set up a new means to read the sensor in an untra-sped, maybe parralel.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 9, 2019)

TominNJ said:


> At what point does the sensor resolution exceed the resolving power of the lens?



The final resolution of an imaging system will always be less than that of the weakest component. However, improving ANY component in the chain will improve the final result. (There's a formula for computing this but I would have to dig out a college textbook to post it.) Intuitively one would think that the lowest resolution component sets the resolution and improving anything else would have no effect, but in reality it does.

In Bob Atkins review of the 5Ds he shot the worst lens he had on a 6D and a 5Ds. It was a Coke bottle on the 6D. It was still poor on the 5Ds, but looked like it might make an OK 8x10. Along the same lines, I was sure that I would hate the 17-40L on the 5Ds based on struggling corner performance on a crop sensor 7D. To my surprise the edges/corners of the 17-40L seemed better on the 5Ds despite the 5Ds capturing an even worse part of the lens. (I still upgraded to the 16-35 f/4L IS, but I actually could have lived with the 17-40L.)

The better question would be "At what point do further improvements in sensor resolution become unnoticeable even while pixel peeping?" It has been years since I researched this, but if I remember correctly somewhere around 100-120mp for 35mm FF further improvements become negligible due to diffraction across all wavelengths.


----------



## Rixy (Sep 9, 2019)

2018 was the year of Sony
2020 will be the year of Canon, greats news


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 9, 2019)

masterpix said:


> There is a majoy problem with such sensors, you can't use it hand heled. Every little shake of the hand will be visible. or you will need to take pictures in incrediably speed (shutter speed), or will have to set up a new means to read the sensor in an untra-sped, maybe parralel.



Of course you can hand hold it. Especially with IS glass, and this new 83mp body may come with IBIS. Even without any kind of IS you just need to bump shutter speeds a bit. Or downsize in post.

I wonder if people making this complaint even realize that there are lower resolution RAW and JPEG settings on these cameras? If you're really worried about hand shake or file sizes, shoot MRAW most of the time and full RAW when you need it.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Of course you can hand hold it. Especially with IS glass, and this new 83mp body may come with IBIS. Even without any kind of IS you just need to bump shutter speeds a bit. Or downsize in post.
> 
> I wonder if people making this complaint even realize that there are lower resolution RAW and JPEG settings on these cameras? If you're really worried about hand shake or file sizes, shoot MRAW most of the time and full RAW when you need it.


+100


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 9, 2019)

masterpix said:


> There is a majoy problem with such sensors, you can't use it hand heled. Every little shake of the hand will be visible. or you will need to take pictures in incrediably speed (shutter speed), or will have to set up a new means to read the sensor in an untra-sped, maybe parralel.



That's like saying you can't shoot the 90D handheld. Or, heaven forbid, a compact or a cellphone camera. The PowerShot G7 X III has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns; on the 90D, or this theorized 83MP FF body, it is 3.2 microns.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> What's more probable? A camera robbery or a card failure?


depends on where you go. 

While I get the need for dual card slots, we can actually do full real-time "off-site" backups of image data these days. I mean we have effective disaster recovery. on person or in camera SD cards just protect you in the case where the SD card dies. SD cards are cheap enough for stills data that anyone should be replacing them every 1-2 years anyways, depending on how active you are.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 9, 2019)

Yikes let's hope SSD prices start falling fast as it looks like we are all going to need a lot more storage capacity

My system drive is a Samsung 970 pro and it's fabulously fast 

But the 970 currently costs £1000 for 2TB 

Let's hope Intel Optane comes to the rescue very soon ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 9, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> Yikes let's hope SSD prices start falling fast as it looks like we are all going to need a lot more storage capacity
> 
> My system drive is a Samsung 970 pro and it's fabulously fast
> 
> ...



I catalog and archive photos to HDDs. Only files I'm currently working on are on the SSD.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 9, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> (...no snark intended...)
> 
> Please enlighten...what are the downsides of more pixels?


For me that would be ...

Cost of storage

Lightroom processing time 

Not email-friendly !

So far this is outweighed by the thrill of stunning resolution 

but there has to come a point where diminishing returns become increasing overall net losses


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> For me that would be ...
> 
> Cost of storage
> 
> ...


Dropbox will be your best friend for getting high res images to your clients.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I catalog and archive photos to HDDs. Only files I'm currently working on are on the SSD.



I use my system SSD for processing raw files and a separate external 4TB SSD for storing the JPEG archives 

I have a 5TB cloud storage with my family office 365 subscription and sync it to the SSD

I actually have 2 PCs set up like this ... So when I archive to one SSD it is automatically uploaded to OneDrive and then the other PC automatically downloads it to it's SSD 

So I have two SSds kept in sync with OneDrive cloud backup 

It works well generally 

The reason I use SSds rather than external drives is noise reduction !!!

I used to use hard drives but they were very noisy and hot so I was always turning them off and on

Now I just use Intel NUCs which are practically silent and the external m.2 SSDs are silent too 

So I can leave the whole lot on day and night and it's silent and consumes very little power

I used to have a Windows 2008 file server and a home network but I find this arrangement is way better - much simpler administration and nearly-free cloud backup !


----------



## 12Broncos (Sep 9, 2019)

Release it in the Spring, I have to save up for it anyway. The announcement is what I'm looking for.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> I use my system SSD for processing raw files and a separate external 4TB SSD for storing the JPEG archives
> 
> I have a 5TB cloud storage with my family office 365 subscription and sync it to the SSD
> 
> ...


Interesting. I use OneDrive sparingly. I kind of detest it. lol

I use Amazon Prime storage - unlimited RAW CR2 storage. However, they do not support unlimited CR3's yet from my understanding.

My entire laptop SSD storage is getting a christmas gift with new SSD's..
So my laptop is going to 4TB SSD + 2TB NVMe. That should do me for a while.
I'm migrating my external HD's (backup and cold storage files) to SSD, with my only HDD being a 5TB for backups.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Sometime in the next 20 years the average photographer will take one frame from a short video and refocus it/change the aperture using some future version of photoshop, lightroom or other software. Everything will be shot at f/16 or something ridiculous and all bokeh will be simulated. The google pixel and iPhones already do a limited version of this. What will be disturbing is that if every photo is essentially a deeply photoshopped version of a real scene, how would you ever spot deep fakes? [insert bad photo edit sleuthing scene from the judge dredd movie here]


Fascinating - your suggestion provokes many thoughts, such as 

What is the point of photography anyway ?

I can't help wondering if we have simply lived through a time of staggering improvements and accessibility of imaging technology

Maybe such technology will plateau (eg the trains in the UK aren't much faster than they were 40 years ago ...) 

Maybe we will all get interested in something else if video and snapshot technology reaches it's zenith

Have we all just been riding the exciting innovation train ? 

Few artists want to replicate what the Masters of years gone by did .. in art it's innovate or die isn't it ?

Where are we all heading ? 

Personally im very excited about Google/Microsoft/Apple glasses and suspect that mixed reality might be the next big game in town once photography goes the way of stamp collecting and golf ...


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> It was not me who said that. I was just curious, since naively it seems to me that in general, when shooting moving subjects (or indeed even living subjects trying to stay still) without flash you need a fast shutter speed anyway.


That would be ideal, but not always possible. Hense my purchase of very fast glass.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> I just think photographers big up the IBIS necessity as the one stop solution to sharp pictures but as the poster above stated for fashion subject movement would kill sharpness long before IBIS (or IS) had a chance at lower shutter speeds.
> 
> I have a Sony with IBIS but never use it and none of my glass has IS, instead using a mono or tripod.
> 
> Its great you have been published a few times and must be good at what you do. IBIS will help eradicate your movement however, I feel a timing is the best way to avoid subject movement (as the models foot hits the runway) rather than IBIS at 1/60th second.


Yes, but I also must take into account my slight tremor. We all are not so steady. A mono pod or tripod is not an option for me. My situation is very fluid with many different angles at a fast pace. I never said IBIS is a one stop solution. Runway is never shot at 1/60th and I NEVER said so. What is strange to me is that you seem to want to pick apart my own situation without knowing a thing about it. The poster above also knows not about that which he speaks. You experts should just sit down, have a good beer, and contemplate your navels.

If I had an 80+ megapixel camera I would want some sort of image stabilization. That is my personal desire. Why you feel the need to try and convince me otherwise is just stupidity. You get what you want. I'll get what I want. It ain't none of your business. IBIS in my little Olympus works flawlessly. Sorry your Sony's IBIS under performs. Perhaps your technique is so bad that IBIS doesn't help you and a tripod is a necessity. Or maybe you shoot architecture/landscapes. Not the same challenges as fashion where composition is constantly changing. A mono pod is useless for that. Completely useless. A tripod is even worse.

You'd rather haul around a tripod or mono pod? Good for you.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2019)

JGalicki said:


> For me as a nature photographer, the big deal breaker will be the camera's speed. With the D850 at 9 fps (with grip) and now the A7R4 at 10 fps you can have a high res camera that's versatile....meaning it can be used for landscapes as well as wildlife including action. I have the 5DS R and it's great but too slow for most wildlife at 5 fps. If this is anything less than 7 fps it's probably not going to work for most wildlife folks. I would love to be able to use this...especially for large prints.



I'd definitely quibble this. A lot of wildlife work can be done <7fps. But each to their own...


----------



## Adelino (Sep 9, 2019)

boiseblake said:


> In the remote and wild landscapes that I shoot in, the odds of card failure are exponentially higher than being robbed.


But you travel to get there...


----------



## KirkD (Sep 9, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> Good news! None of that will be impaired by a 83MP sensor camera, should you decide to get one. You can use it just like you use your current camera.


Yes, except for the massive increase in photo storage requirements.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Yes, except for the massive increase in photo storage requirements.


Faster CPU, faster video card, much more storage = thousands of $ added to the price. 200 Terabytes? Ouch!


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 9, 2019)

Rixy said:


> 2018 was the year of Sony
> 2020 will be the year of Canon, greats news


2022 will be the year of Google


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 9, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Yes, except for the massive increase in photo storage requirements.


Actually...... we are jumping from 50 to 83, a 66 percent increase. Nowhere near as bad as when we jumped from 320x200 to 640x400 images, a 300 percent increase.... 5 times as much of a jump!


----------



## boiseblake (Sep 9, 2019)

Adelino said:


> But you travel to get there...


That's the beauty of living where I do. I don't have to travel far to get to these locations (or at least the trailhead). Once again the odds of card failure are significantly higher than being robbed where I shoot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> The reason I use SSds rather than external drives is noise reduction !!!


I prefer DxO Prime for noise reduction.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 9, 2019)

masterpix said:


> There is a majoy problem with such sensors, you can't use it hand heled. Every little shake of the hand will be visible. or you will need to take pictures in incrediably speed (shutter speed), or will have to set up a new means to read the sensor in an untra-sped, maybe parralel.



Which body were you using when you discovered this problem?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2019)

kraats said:


> Or the ridiculously Sharp ef lenses. Just as sharp as the rf lenses. No visible improvement at all.


Not true, and the RF hit rate is higher. Much higher. Out of pure curiosity, which RF lenses do you own and use?


----------



## syder (Sep 10, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> So we will have to upgrade our Pcs as well because to edit those filed would be a massive challenge for a supercomputer.



If you're using a pc from the mid 1990s, sure.

I really struggle to understand why so many 'pro' photographers are happy to spend tens of thousands of dollars on bodies and lenses but absolutely refuse to buy a modern computer to process all those images.

Compared to the storage and processing requirements of 4K raw video, high res stills are a doddle. And if you're computer is a little slow you just wait a moment, rather than failing to get real-time playback that is essential for being able to see what you're doing.

We've recently added 60TB of extra storage at work. It cost around NZD$5k. A similar amount to the RF 85 f1.2. Given that CR3 files are 40% smaller than CR2s, the file size of a 83mp image will likely be similar to the 5DS 50mp size. 60ish MB. So $5k (more like 3K USD) will get you storage for approximatley 1,000,000 shots, or about 800k with RAID 5 so a disk failing wont mean losing anything.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 10, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would dual cards slots have any importance for a landscape shooter? This dual card slot meme is comical, it's like some kind of mass delusional hysteria foist upon us by marketing departments and 'influencers'.


People who complain about not having 2 card slots are the same people that panic buy 14 cans of spam when a storm is forecast.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 10, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> So how many pixels will the 1Dx2 replacement have? My guess is 20.75MP because low light capability is more important than more pixels to a professional sport shooter shooting indoors. Or maybe both 83.06MP and 20.75MP, with a multiple gain sensor to improve DR.



Well Canon seems unable to exceed the 1DsIII but maybe just maybe they can at least give us 24MP. I have no doubt it will be more than the 1DXII but hopefully not 22MP, even Nikon D6 will be 24MP. Still 24MP would barely interest me unless it was astounding in other ways and had an all new AF system to exceed Nikon and Sony.


----------



## armd (Sep 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Combined with the ridiculously sharp RF lenses, this should really give medium format cameras a run for their money, especially given that it's likely a much better general-purpose camera than any MF body. Will probably directly challenge Fuji's "mediumish-format" GFX 100 (which, remember, costs almost ten grand!)


No it would never rival MF due to the read noise and DR.


----------



## DrToast (Sep 10, 2019)

Why would high pixel count sensors lead to more motion blur and require a faster shutter speed or a tripod to prevent it?

The image being projected on the sensor is the same size, isn’t it? Wouldn’t the blur just be spread across more pixels on a lower resolution sensor?


----------



## armd (Sep 10, 2019)

Will the d-mn thing focus better? I don’t need more MP, the 5dmkiv is sufficient but it’s af is sub par in many circumstances compared to the 1dxii. Just the other day I was trying to photograph a twitchy green heron with strong side lighting and it kept front focusing with a 500 f4 calibrated prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2019)

DrToast said:


> Why would high pixel count sensors lead to more motion blur and require a faster shutter speed or a tripod to prevent it?
> 
> The image being projected on the sensor is the same size, isn’t it? Wouldn’t the blur just be spread across more pixels on a lower resolution sensor?


The higher the pixel count for a given sensor size, the smaller the pixels. Pixel size determines the arc of image space captured by that pixel, smaller pixels subtend a smaller part of the image space.

Think of it this way – if the image of a moving subject crosses a 16 micron distance on the sensor while the shutter is open (or if your shaking hands move the camera 16 microns, same effect), a camera with 8 micron pixels (e.g. the original 5D) will show two pixels of blur, while a camera with 4 micron pixels (e.g. 7DII or 5Ds) will show 4 pixels of blur. If you double the shutter speed on the 7DII/5Ds (e.g., 1/500 s instead of 1/250 s), the moving subject will only travel half as far across the sensor while the shutter is open, and the blur goes down to two pixels. 

The additional blur is evident only at higher or maximal viewing size (i.e., viewing at 100% on a monitor). If you view the higher MP image at the same resolution as the lower, or for example you view both as ‘fill screen’ on the same display, the additional blur isn’t evident.


----------



## DrToast (Sep 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The higher the pixel count for a given sensor size, the smaller the pixels. Pixel size determines the arc of image space captured by that pixel, smaller pixels subtend a smaller part of the image space.
> 
> Think of it this way – if the image of a moving subject crosses a 16 micron distance on the sensor while the shutter is open (or if your shaking hands move the camera 16 microns, same effect), a camera with 8 micron pixels (e.g. the original 5D) will show two pixels of blur, while a camera with 4 micron pixels (e.g. 7DII or 5Ds) will show 4 pixels of blur. If you double the shutter speed on the 7DII/5Ds (e.g., 1/500 s instead of 1/250 s), the moving subject will only travel half as far across the sensor while the shutter is open, and the blur goes down to two pixels.
> 
> The additional blur is evident only at higher or maximal viewing size (i.e., viewing at 100% on a monitor). If you view the higher MP image at the same resolution as the lower, or for example you view both as ‘fill screen’ on the same display, the additional blur isn’t evident.



Okay, I think I follow. So if you matched the final resolution of the images, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference?

Edit: Specifically, if you down-sized the larger image to match the lower resolution sensor. Not the other way around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2019)

DrToast said:


> Okay, I think I follow. So if you matched the final resolution of the images, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference?
> 
> Edit: Specifically, if you down-sized the larger image to match the lower resolution sensor. Not the other way around.


Exactly.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 10, 2019)

Well... first it is just a patent.
However, whatever hi-res sensor they deliver, I would like to see lower res settings where pixels are binned so I can get potentially higher DR and lower noise while still getting a stout file.
Just noise free files would be nice as my 5DsR has visible noise at ISO 200.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 10, 2019)

JGalicki said:


> For me as a nature photographer, the big deal breaker will be the camera's speed. With the D850 at 9 fps (with grip) and now the A7R4 at 10 fps you can have a high res camera that's versatile....meaning it can be used for landscapes as well as wildlife including action. I have the 5DS R and it's great but too slow for most wildlife at 5 fps. If this is anything less than 7 fps it's probably not going to work for most wildlife folks. I would love to be able to use this...especially for large prints.


I agree. Hopefully it will not have the anemic buffer of the 5DSR.


----------



## motofotog (Sep 10, 2019)

armd said:


> Just the other day I was trying to photograph a twitchy green heron with strong side lighting and it kept front focusing with a 500 f4 calibrated prime.


I also have this problem, my Canon 500mm IS 1 even after calibrating suffers front focusing. Especially when shooting through bushes. Same lens same shooting scenario swapped with my friends 1Dx2 and no AF issue.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> That's like saying you can't shoot the 90D handheld. Or, heaven forbid, a compact or a cellphone camera. The PowerShot G7 X III has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns; on the 90D, or this theorized 83MP FF body, it is 3.2 microns.


When you hold you camera at hand, your hand shakes a little all the time, it is not something you can control. However, those little movements causes the camera to move also, and then, the narrow the field of vew, the larger displacement on the sensor pixel this will make. In the "film" age, the "rule" was that the minimal speed you shoudl use (hand held) with a certail lense is no smaller than the lens focal length. For example, a 200mm lense you should not (again - hand held) take pictures with shutter speed under 1/200sec. However, once the digital sensors went beyond the resolution of the film, it meant that you need to take pictures in a faster sutter to avode the "smear" cause by those little shakes. I could take pictures at 1/15 with the digital rebel (6.3MP), but that was impossible with the 7D. It depends on the sensor resolution and the angle of the lens, the wider the lens the less the effect. It is not a matter of "pixel size", it is a matter of the angular differnce they have in the picture, the smaller the angular differnces, the more those little shakes will be visible. You can test it yourself to see the effect on your own camera and what are your "body limits" in that field.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

masterpix said:


> When you hold you camera at hand, your hand shakes a little all the time, it is not something you can control. However, those little movements causes the camera to move also, and then, the narrow the field of vew, the larger displacement on the sensor pixel this will make. In the "film" age, the "rule" was that the minimal speed you shoudl use (hand held) with a certail lense is no smaller than the lens focal length. For example, a 200mm lense you should not (again - hand held) take pictures with shutter speed under 1/200sec. However, once the digital sensors went beyond the resolution of the film, it meant that you need to take pictures in a faster sutter to avode the "smear" cause by those little shakes. I could take pictures at 1/15 with the digital rebel (6.3MP), but that was impossible with the 7D. It depends on the sensor resolution and the angle of the lens, the wider the lens the less the effect. It is not a matter of "pixel size", it is a matter of the angular differnce they have in the picture, the smaller the angular differnces, the more those little shakes will be visible. You can test it yourself to see the effect on your own camera and what are your "body limits" in that field.


It is a matter of pixel size all else being equal - the same angle of shake spreads the movement over more pixels for a high density sensor. You can compensate in the absence of IS for the smaller pixels by increasing the shutter speed by the ratio of the size of pixels. For 6.3 Mpx Rebel and a 20 Mpx 7D, the difference in size is a factor of 1.8. So, shooting at 1/25 - 1/30s with the 7D will spread the shake over the same number of pixels in each linear dimension as 1/15s for the rebel. A 5DS has the same pixel size as a 7DII, and an 83 Mpx sensor has a pixel size only about 25% smaller. So, increase the shutter speed you would use for a 5DS by 30% and you will compensate for the smaller pixels in the 83 Mpx sensor. Add IS and IBIS into the equation and the effects may be less. Bottom line is that takes only modest increases in shutter speed to compensate for increasing the number of Mpx.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It is a matter of pixel size all else being equal - the same angle of shake spreads the movement over more pixels for a high density sensor. You can compensate in the absence of IS for the smaller pixels by increasing the shutter speed by the ratio of the size of pixels. For 6.3 Mpx Rebel and a 20 Mpx 7D, the difference in size is a factor of 1.8. So, shooting at 1/25 - 1/30s with the 7D will spread the shake over the same number of pixels in each linear dimension as 1/15s for the rebel. A 5DS has the same pixel size as a 7DII, and an 83 Mpx sensor has a pixel size only about 25% smaller. So, increase the shutter speed you would use for a 5DS by 30% and you will compensate for the smaller pixels in the 83 Mpx sensor. Add IS and IBIS into the equation and the effects may be less. Bottom line is that takes only modest increases in shutter speed to compensate for increasing the number of Mpx.


I wonder if 1/30 to 1/15 is such a "modest" change, but IS and IBIS does reduce the effect dramatically. I can take sharp pictures (at similar shppter speed) with the 400mm IS which I could not in the non IS 300mm.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> We don't know whether the coming Canon body is going to have IBIS or not. The ~10% difference in linear resolution isn't exactly massive. Whether the extra stop in DR is worth the 3x price and inability to use potential existing EF lenses… well, I guess YMMV.



I think the claim about inability to use existing EF lenses is speculative. The issue is optical IS not being coordinated with IBIS, which would be an issue only for lenses that have IS. For lenses with IS, there would probably be a choice to turn off either IS (AFAIK an option for all existing EF lenses with IS) and/or IBIS. Finally, some EF lenses might be made compatible with a firmware upgrade, depending on whether the coordination between IS & IBIS requires the bandwidth of the RF mount.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Sep 10, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I agree. Hopefully it will not have the anemic buffer of the 5DSR.



The 5DSR was never really intended for needing buffer. Most who use it shoot one shot on a tripod, with some exceptions. Talking about buffer and the 5DSR in the same breath is almost pointless. Buffer is discussion topic for the likes of the 1DX mk ii, 7D or maybe 5D mk iv.

It would be like saying the Ford F150 can't corner like a Corvette or Ford Fusion. Everybody in the room would stare at someone saying such things that don't correlate.


----------



## Joules (Sep 10, 2019)

I'm amazed at the number of people that seem angry about Canon giving us more options. Nobody forces you to make use of the full detail such a sensor could deliver, right? If you view your images at the same size as you do now, the motion blur will be the same regardless of resolution. And if you view them at larger sizes, you still at least have a chance of getting more sharpness / detail on a higher res model, while you are limited by the sensor on a lower res one.

For file sizes, there's always down scaling. An oversampled image should still look nicer. There's always so much praise about how good Canon is at making sure they only put out features that can be used in a practical way, unlike Sony who seem to put a lot of half baked stuff in their cameras. If that is true, I would assume we won't see a high res body unless Canon has options for making it practical if used in file size constrained scenarios.

As far as motion blur goes, there's also some room for finally introducing some computational photography in cameras, like a coded shutter or the method where you take a short exposure to get the desired shape and a long one to get the signal and then use deconvolution to get from the long exposure with less noise to the sharp image.

With Smartphones like the Google Pixel series already doing so much with this tech, it is hard to understand why 'real' cameras at much higher cost can't incorporate some software features. I still have to do a fair comparison with a trypod, but the Nightsight mode in the Pixel 3a beats anything I can get out of my 80D + 16mm 2.0 handheld. If that body had IBIS or the lens was stabilized, maybe the DSLR could catch up.


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 10, 2019)

Although high-resolution sensor has been mentioned in the patent, the idea of the patent is the improvement of DPAF. So all the excitement probably is premature.


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 10, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Interesting. I use OneDrive sparingly. I kind of detest it. lol
> 
> I use Amazon Prime storage - unlimited RAW CR2 storage. However, they do not support unlimited CR3's yet from my understanding.
> 
> ...



Well, online storages are not all that cheap, once you go over the TB, at least here. We've went with in-house Synology drive, which we use for multiple purposes, has two harddrives. So basically we keep our photos on the SD cards for several shoots, then few actual shoots on the notebook and a copy / archive on the Synology.

As we've got the 5DIV, we use 128 GB SD card for RAWs and 64 GB CF card for jpeg backups. For many years, owning just a 70D, I was thinking about some kind of live backup during the shoots. I wonder noone mentions Canon CS100 for e.g.? I never used it, but wonder if it would work? So e.g. during the wedding, moving the camera close to such wi-fi storage, would back-up your actual photos? If there would be some semless way of how to quickly back-up your photos on the go, the point of having a two cards camera would not be so strong.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 10, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I think the claim about inability to use existing EF lenses is speculative. The issue is optical IS not being coordinated with IBIS, which would be an issue only for lenses that have IS.



Oh, I meant that you can’t use EF lenses with the _Fuji _bodies (or other MF cameras for that matter, not without vignetting anyway).


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 10, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Sometime in the next 20 years the average photographer will take one frame from a short video and refocus it/change the aperture using some future version of photoshop, lightroom or other software. Everything will be shot at f/16 or something ridiculous and all bokeh will be simulated. The google pixel and iPhones already do a limited version of this. What will be disturbing is that if every photo is essentially a deeply photoshopped version of a real scene, how would you ever spot deep fakes? [insert bad photo edit sleuthing scene from the judge dredd movie here]



So if self-driving cars and Google glasses record just about everything we and our cars see around us (and storage becomes cheap enough for it to all be held in high resolution) then photography would be reduced to selecting frames which have already been captured and manipulating them away from "reality" ... Weird !


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> People who complain about not having 2 card slots are the same people that panic buy 14 cans of spam when a storm is forecast.


They are also the ones who are getting paid for their work, and sued for a lame excuse like having a defective memory card. If your work is not valuable enough to need a backup card or you can just do it over, that's fine, but some don't have that luxury and need belt and suspenders because they have a lot riding on getting and keeping a shot. Trying to make them seem stupid somehow works in reverse.


----------



## raistmaj (Sep 10, 2019)

Ok, Canon now:

* IBIS
* Dual card slot
* Improved DR

And I'll be happy drop 6-7k on that body.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> I'm amazed at the number of people that seem angry about Canon giving us more options.



If Canon gives us options, Canon is *******. If Canon does not give us options, Canon is *******. Ergo...*CANON. IS. *******.*

_Everyone who reads this hear's a ghostly voice crying in the distance: DOOOOOOOOMed._


----------



## peters (Sep 10, 2019)

neurorx said:


> It would be wonderful to have a 1dx replacement with about 30 mp so it would be competitive with Sony’s offerings ( A9 ii is rumored to be in the 30 mp range).


I think so too. I use the 1dx II as a second camera for weddings (though its shutter is pretty loud) and I would like to a have the resolution of my 5D IV. 
I personaly dont agree with the "lowlight over resolution for sports cameras" vibe. The Lowlight performance of the 5D is good and the 1D is not noteable better in my experience. I think the higher resolution would be a great option for event photographers, so we can crop an recompose easier.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 10, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They are also the ones who are getting paid for their work, and sued for a lame excuse like having a defective memory card. If your work is not valuable enough to need a backup card or you can just do it over, that's fine, but some don't have that luxury and need belt and suspenders because they have a lot riding on getting and keeping a shot. Trying to make them seem stupid somehow works in reverse.


I know mate I was joking!

I would too like dual card slots. I’ve had a few corrupt files before.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 10, 2019)

peters said:


> I think so too. I use the 1dx II as a second camera for weddings (though its shutter is pretty loud) and I would like to a have the resolution of my 5D IV.
> I personaly dont agree with the "lowlight over resolution for sports cameras" vibe. The Lowlight performance of the 5D is good and the 1D is not noteable better in my experience. I think the higher resolution would be a great option for event photographers, so we can crop an recompose easier.


Thom Hogan reviewed the topic of pixel count in a professional / sports camera just yesterday. Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html


----------



## peters (Sep 10, 2019)

i_SH said:


> Thom Hogan reviewed the topic of pixel count in a professional / sports camera just yesterday. Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html


Nice read, thank you


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

i_SH said:


> Thom Hogan reviewed the topic of pixel count in a professional / sports camera just yesterday. Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html


Thanks for the heads up. Another fine objective article by a consummate pro. And, it speaks volumes of why the 1DXs and Ds have low pixel counts. Their specs are not aimed at me and my needs. And I really appreciate why 10 fps is enough for him and for me personally - even as a semi-retired hobbyist, it is still too tedious to choose among so many similar images looking for the best shot, even though I might miss some winners.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> As far as motion blur goes, there's also some room for finally introducing some computational photography in cameras, like a coded shutter or the method where you take a short exposure to get the desired shape and a long one to get the signal and then use deconvolution to get from the long exposure with less noise to the sharp image.



Fwiw there is software that can distort an image in the opposite direction of linear motion blur in order to attempt to correct it; I tested a plugin for Affinity that does that, sometimes the results are pretty good (for rescuing a record shot, at least).


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2019)

As a general point, I'd be surprised if a high resolution body comes with a fast fps downsampled/cropped mode, even though I'd like it myself - why would they give us effectively two bodies in one? If they can sell a fast action body *and* a slower high res one, why would they do themselves out of a sale by making the latter ape the former? Just a thought. (I know some other companies do this(?) but it doesn't make business sense in Canon's lineup as far as I can see).


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 10, 2019)

While this is a nice MP camera if they don't have a decent Sraw or pixel binning option it'll stop a lot of people buying it. I'd like a dual carded joystick enabled R so I'd make do with this but I can't shoot a wedding at 83mp though especially as the max sized fast uhs-ii card are 128gb (based on 300mb/s speeds).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> The 5DSR was never really intended for needing buffer. Most who use it shoot one shot on a tripod, with some exceptions. Talking about buffer and the 5DSR in the same breath is almost pointless. Buffer is discussion topic for the likes of the 1DX mk ii, 7D or maybe 5D mk iv.
> 
> It would be like saying the Ford F150 can't corner like a Corvette or Ford Fusion. Everybody in the room would stare at someone saying such things that don't correlate.


Except people like AlanF, who uses the 5DsR to capture excellent bird images including BIF. I’m sure buffer is pointless for that application.


----------



## Sean C (Sep 10, 2019)

I'd love to see them add multi-iso pixel binning. Either dual in a diamond pattern or quad with four iso settings to demosaic like the bayer pattern. It'd be a life saver for stills/video in tough conditions like shooting a fire breathers act at night. i.e. It'd be neat to have four channel readout and a variety of capture time fancy features so the extra pixels can be easily used for things beyond large prints or heavy cropping.

This would require a sensor designed for it, but what about per channel electronic shutter? You could single frame focus stack.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except people like AlanF, who uses the 5DsR to capture excellent bird images including BIF. I’m sure buffer is pointless for that application.


Thanks Neuro. There are several of us birders in CR who use the 5DSR because of its spectacular resolution and really rather good AF. We tend to time our shots rather than spray and pray. It has 5 fps for a second or two without problems.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

scyrene said:


> As a general point, I'd be surprised if a high resolution body comes with a fast fps downsampled/cropped mode, even though I'd like it myself - why would they give us effectively two bodies in one? If they can sell a fast action body *and* a slower high res one, why would they do themselves out of a sale by making the latter ape the former? Just a thought. (I know some other companies do this(?) but it doesn't make business sense in Canon's lineup as far as I can see).


Sony does that with A7RIV. It's silly for a manufacturer to ignore the innovations of others. Sony certainly knocks off everything it can from Canon - its 100-400mm even has the same little window at the bottom of the hood for rotating filters. A $3000+ body with APS-C capabilities is not going to displace $1000+ APS-Cs to my naive thinking.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Sony does that with A7RIV. It's silly for a manufacturer to ignore the innovations of others. Sony certainly knocks off everything it can from Canon - its 100-400mm even has the same little window at the bottom of the hood for rotating filters. A $3000+ body with APS-C capabilities is not going to displace $1000+ APS-Cs to my naive thinking.



But would it impact the sales of other high-FPS bodies, like the 1D series or allrounders like the 5D?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> People who complain about not having 2 card slots are the same people that panic buy 14 cans of spam when a storm is forecast.



I have had a card fail in the middle of a shoot.... and the dual card saved my bacon.... but if they get backup to a smart device as you shoot working decently, that would be an even better solution.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> But would it impact the sales of other high-FPS bodies, like the 1D series or allrounders like the 5D?


Read Thom Hogan's article on why sports pros need a low pixel sensor Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html while others need high resolution - they target different audiences. It's quite possible that there is room for only one high spec high res all-rounder FF and one lower spec lower res FF in the line up. Canon knows better than me. Sony is very good at marketing, and that appears their strategy.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 10, 2019)

i_SH said:


> Thom Hogan reviewed the topic of pixel count in a professional / sports camera just yesterday. Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html


Thanks for sharing. I really love that one 


Thom Hogan said:


> _... A lot of the D5 ranks are filled with photographers who just took what they got from Nikon, and then grumble under their breath that they don't understand something or vaguely want "more," but can't enumerate that. ..._


Replace brand and camera model by whatever somebody just complains about.


----------



## BillB (Sep 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Read Thom Hogan's article on why sports pros need a low pixel sensor Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html while others need high resolution - they target different audiences. It's quite possible that there is room for only one high spec high res all-rounder FF and one lower spec lower res FF in the line up. Canon knows better than me. Sony is very good at marketing, and that appears their strategy.


For Canon, the lower spec lower res part of a two camera strategy would seem to require something with better specs than the current R, if not more mp. Of course, an upgraded R could meet the need, so to some extent, it is just a question of what label you put on the camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Read Thom Hogan's article on why sports pros need a low pixel sensor Http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html while others need high resolution - they target different audiences. It's quite possible that there is room for only one high spec high res all-rounder FF and one lower spec lower res FF in the line up. Canon knows better than me. Sony is very good at marketing, and that appears their strategy.



I read that article earlier today, so let me phrase my question a bit differently with that in mind: If an 83MP camera would have an 1.6x or more crop function that would give you both 10fps and small RAW/JPEG files, would that eat into 1D and/or 5D sales? For Thoms sake Canon could even bring back the voice memo feature and text-to-speech it.

So if you don't buy a 1D because it's an anvil with a shutter button, but for other reasons, like fps or the builtin ethernet, what would an 83MP need to entice you?


----------



## Diko (Sep 10, 2019)

i_SH said:


> In terms of shallow depth of field, it can even outperform the Fuji GFX 100, given Canon’s significantly higher optical speed.


Currently there's no FF optics for 85 MPs ;-)


----------



## BroncosFan (Sep 10, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Installed in a camera with 3 year old tech no doubt.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2019)

Diko said:


> Currently there's no FF optics for 85 MPs ;-)


I’m going to assume you are being sarcastic, because the alternative is that you really don’t understand optics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> So if you don't buy a 1D because it's an anvil with a shutter button, but for other reasons, like fps or the builtin ethernet, what would an 83MP need to entice you?


Personally, what would entice me is a high level of customizability, top notch AF for moving subjects, high frame rate and deep buffer, excellent weather resistance, and ergonomics that work for me (which includes the built-in grip of the 1-series cameras, putting a grip on a smaller body is not equivalent ).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 10, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I have had a card fail in the middle of a shoot.... and the dual card saved my bacon.... but if they get backup to a smart device as you shoot working decently, that would be an even better solution.


True, but transferring that much date to a smart device has gotta slow things down! Especially if they’re raw files. I can often spend like 2 minutes photographing one subject only to discover I fired off about 200-300 shots!


----------



## uri.raz (Sep 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I wonder if people making this complaint even realize that there are lower resolution RAW and JPEG settings on these cameras? If you're really worried about hand shake or file sizes, shoot MRAW most of the time and full RAW when you need it.



I process images with DxO PhotoLab. It does not process mRaw, and there are no plans to support it.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 10, 2019)

Diko said:


> Currently there's no FF optics for 85 MPs ;-)


It was necessary to pre-order on time!


----------



## Otara (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> True, but transferring that much date to a smart device has gotta slow things down! Especially if they’re raw files. I can often spend like 2 minutes photographing one subject only to discover I fired off about 200-300 shots!



It just keeps doing the backup of whats on the card till its done, so it doesnt really slow things down.


----------



## BillB (Sep 10, 2019)

BroncosFan said:


> Installed in a camera with 3 year old tech no doubt.


Or so some people will surely say.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 10, 2019)

Otara said:


> It just keeps doing the backup of whats on the card till its done, so it doesnt really slow things down.


Could be useful then! What about if you’re in an area with no internet though?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I read that article earlier today, so let me phrase my question a bit differently with that in mind: If an 83MP camera would have an 1.6x or more crop function that would give you both 10fps and small RAW/JPEG files, would that eat into 1D and/or 5D sales? For Thoms sake Canon could even bring back the voice memo feature and text-to-speech it.
> 
> So if you don't buy a 1D because it's an anvil with a shutter button, but for other reasons, like fps or the builtin ethernet, what would an 83MP need to entice you?


A crop mode, which I would use most of the time. An 83 Mpx without one and having 100-120 MB files would clog up my computing and storage systems. The 60-80 MB files from my 5DSR are a real pain.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> People who complain about not having 2 card slots are the same people that panic buy 14 cans of spam when a storm is forecast.



...or immediately go buy French Toast whenever snow is forecast (Bread, eggs, milk)


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> People who complain about not having 2 card slots are the same people that panic buy 14 cans of spam when a storm is forecast.


Nope, having a second card slot is a risk mitigation for those people. Some people understand risks better than others. That’s fine.
I work for a very large multinational and risk mitigation is natively inbuilt in every single business transaction. Complexity is a norm for an enterprise focused organisation. Risk taking isn’t an option. Therefore risk taking individuals are likely to seek employment elsewhere.
However, those lucky ones who are able to comprehend and embrace a complexity are very well remunerated in return.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Sep 10, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Yes, except for the massive increase in photo storage requirements.



Maybe, but mostly no.

The costs of storage and memory continue to decrease at a significant rate. When you consider that ongoing trend, the actual costs of storage don't really increase at all. It likely still costs about the same to store an 80MP image file as it cost to store a 50MP image file several years back — perhaps even a bit less.

And... for those who don't need or want higher resolution Canon continues to provide lower MP alternatives that are quite fine cameras, too.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Sep 10, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> ...or immediately go buy French Toast whenever snow is forecast (Bread, eggs, milk)



Well, no.

We are people who have experienced the loss of images from a damaged card, and we are people who find ourselves in situations in which we must make many hundreds or thousands of photographs before we can offload them to a computer and make a backup.

I agree that there is room for one-slot cameras at the lower end and perhaps in the mid-range. However, the added security of having a second copy of the files is well worth the slightly increased camera cost. It feels more like common sense than paranoia to me.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> Maybe, but mostly no.
> 
> The costs of storage and memory continue to decrease at a significant rate. When you consider that ongoing trend, the actual costs of storage don't really increase at all. It likely still costs about the same to store an 80MP image file as it cost to store a 50MP image file several years back — perhaps even a bit less.
> 
> And... for those who don't need or want higher resolution Canon continues to provide lower MP alternatives that are quite fine cameras, too.


What if 24Mp is too low and 83Mp excessive?


----------



## Bundu (Sep 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> What if 24Mp is too low and 83Mp excessive?


Aps-H crop ???


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2019)

Bundu said:


> Aps-H crop ???


No chance, it's dead and buried. 32Mpx APS-C is good.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Could be useful then! What about if you’re in an area with no internet though?


I believe that it would be paired directly to the cell phone, so no external wifi is needed. Of course, if you are going "to the cloud" you will need external wifi or cell coverage.


One flaw with this is if you are the type of person who is going to take enough shots to fill the phone (and I do this regularly) in which case you end up filling your backup device.

It would be interesting to see if this will work with a laptop.....

Also, in the Olympics, a lot of 1DX2 shooters were tethered to the internet, so when they took a picture it was automatically sent back to the office where someone else would edit and post the images. Same concept!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 10, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I believe that it would be paired directly to the cell phone, so no external wifi is needed. Of course, if you are going "to the cloud" you will need external wifi or cell coverage.
> 
> 
> One flaw with this is if you are the type of person who is going to take enough shots to fill the phone (and I do this regularly) in which case you end up filling your backup device.
> ...


I’ve always liked the idea of plugging an external 1TB hard drive into the side of a camera and storing to that. Like a seagate expansion or something.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’ve always liked the idea of plugging an external 1TB hard drive into the side of a camera and storing to that. Like a seagate expansion or something.


If you have the WFT for the 1DS MkIII you can plug low energy use or self powered USB devices into it for storage.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 11, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> I agree that there is room for one-slot cameras at the lower end and perhaps in the mid-range. However, the added security of having a second copy of the files is well worth the slightly increased camera cost. It feels more like common sense than paranoia to me.



I'd happily take a 'pro' camera with one slot, I paid $1,000's for the early 1 series that all had one card slot, you can pay $10,000's for current medium format digital cameras with one card slot.

I had way more issues back in the days of film with lost and damaged rolls than I have ever had with digital files.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 11, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd happily take a 'pro' camera with one slot, I paid $1,000's for the early 1 series that all had one card slot, you can pay $10,000's for current medium format digital cameras with one card slot.
> 
> I had way more issues back in the days of film with lost and damaged rolls than I have ever had with digital files.



(Full disclosure--everything I own has one slot) I suspect if my living depended on it, and I *ever* had a card go toes-up, or ever saw someone else go through it--I'd want that second slot.

But I think I'd want them to both be the same card type, to keep life simple. I'd hate to have to start buying Compact Flash (seriously? Bulky, with pins that bend if you look at them crosseyed?) just to use the feature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

SteveC said:


> But I think I'd want them to both be the same card type, to keep life simple. I'd hate to have to start buying Compact Flash (seriously? Bulky, with pins that bend if you look at them crosseyed?) just to use the feature.


In Canon-land, that’s only the 1D X (not prior 1-series nor the 1D X II).


----------



## SteveC (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> In Canon-land, that’s only the 1D X (not prior 1-series nor the 1D X II).



I'm glad to hear it. (My experience with anything greater than entry level is basically getting an hour with an R (presumably without the firmware update) Sunday, so I only have general impressions what the one-digit cameras are like/for.)

I was thinking of a comment I read today from someone who actually seemed to like two different card types.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 11, 2019)

kraats said:


> I use the rf 24-105 and the rf 85mm. I cannot really compare the 85mm to the ef equivalent because there is no equivalent. The rf 24-105 it is just a little ietsiepietsy better then the newest ef equivalent. Not visible. Then there is the rf 24-70 and the rf 15-35. They both have is and might be better when you need that because you are shaky. Optically these lenses will not be much better then their ef counterparts. That is just common sense because they are already so good. Then there is the rf 70-200 which will also be great just like the ef 70-200 III. You are not going to tell me that the new rf lens will be much better. I will buy that one because it is compact and fits better in my traveling bag. What I personally like about the 'r' is the drop in adapter. It will make the use of nd filters much easier allowing me to be more creative. So I will keep these great ef lenses for the next 8 years or so  i like the r and i like the adapter. The lenses are awesome but so are the latest ef lenses. Cheers !


I had: EF 35mm f/1.4L II, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and EF 400mm f/5.6L. All were great lenses. Every single one. I ran them on a 5D Mark III. I ordered the R and it came with the RF 24-105mm f/4L as the kit lens. I used my EF glass and the RF kit lens for about a week. No problems. But I rented the RF 28-70mm f/2L and was hooked. Then I sold my Mark III and all my EF glass, bought the RF 28-70 and the RF 85mm f/1.2. But yes, I will tell you the RF 28-70mm f/2 is better than my 24-70 was. I don't know about the RF 24-70 f/2.8L. I never had the old EF 85mm because people said it was slow to focus and the hit rate was poor. The RF 85mm f/1.2L? Wow! I'm hoping for a fast 135mm or fast 70-135mm zoom. Either one of those two would make me a very happy camper. I don't need any long lenses past 135mm. I'll skip the 50mm thanks to the short zoom. So I ended up with enough after my sell off (Sold some rifles too.) to wait and see what comes out next. Exciting times! Almost forgot, I sold the 24-105 f/4L. I just didn't like it for portraits.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 11, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd happily take a 'pro' camera with one slot, I paid $1,000's for the early 1 series that all had one card slot, you can pay $10,000's for current medium format digital cameras with one card slot.
> 
> I had way more issues back in the days of film with lost and damaged rolls than I have ever had with digital files.


I took your sage advice several months ago and got the Western Digital My Passport Pro. Then I got a dozen inexpensive SD cards and SD card labels. I write the models name on a fresh label. When done photographing her/him I just copy to that drive and shoot the next model. Works like a charm. So happy you told me about that.    The battery lasts all day and then some.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd happily take a 'pro' camera with one slot, I paid $1,000's for the early 1 series that all had one card slot, you can pay $10,000's for current medium format digital cameras with one card slot.


PBD, Sir, please read more and educate yourself. If you read the threads on the EOS R, you will understand that professional cameras require at least two card slots. Clearly, neither the early 1-series nor current MF cameras are intended for professional use. I mean, clearly.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> PBD, Sir, please read more and educate yourself. If you read the threads on the EOS R, you will understand that professional cameras require at least two card slots. Clearly, neither the early 1-series nor current MF cameras are intended for professional use. I mean, clearly.


Hey, that second slot is very useful for storing my spare SD card that I need for my point and shoots - I haven't lost a single one yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Hey, that second slot is very useful for storing my spare SD card that I need for my point and shoots - I haven't lost a single one yet.


Hey, me too! Even better, I’ve found that if I put three SD cards in the spare slot on my 1D X, they don’t rattle that much. I guess the 1D X is more professional that the 5DsR because it can store more extra SD cards.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> PBD, Sir, please read more and educate yourself. If you read the threads on the EOS R, you will understand that professional cameras require at least two card slots. Clearly, neither the early 1-series nor current MF cameras are intended for professional use. I mean, clearly.


lol... to the same logic Canon EOS 1V was not a pro camera either. and it is a recent camera. right


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 11, 2019)

The ONLY fil


neuroanatomist said:


> PBD, Sir, please read more and educate yourself. If you read the threads on the EOS R, you will understand that professional cameras require at least two card slots. Clearly, neither the early 1-series nor current MF cameras are intended for professional use. I mean, clearly.


This is the only film camera I could ever use that gave me any feeling of being a professional. Why don't we have four card slot cameras now? What happens if my backed up backup is stolen?


----------



## Pape (Sep 12, 2019)

you need card carrying pigeon to transport spare card to home before someone steals it


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> PBD, Sir, please read more and educate yourself. If you read the threads on the EOS R, you will understand that professional cameras require at least two card slots. Clearly, neither the early 1-series nor current MF cameras are intended for professional use. I mean, clearly.


I feel so inadequate. Only one slot. Now I know how a guy with just one testicle must feel. I guess I'd feel better if I went out and got a 1 terabyte card. Bigger is better, after all.  Seriously though, I would prefer two cards, but we can't have everything.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 12, 2019)

I had a few SD cards go bad. I wouldnt trust my life on an flimsy SD card especially for a wedding, something that happens once ever and cant be redone and i am able to be sued if i dont provide that is promised. I do a back up my phone when i do events. its hard to do at a wedding because the large number of photos taken and battery levels needing to last 8+ hours on my phone and camera


----------



## JGalicki (Sep 12, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I'd definitely quibble this. A lot of wildlife work can be done <7fps. But each to their own...


Yeah, I think for most portraits along with slower moving subjects. But if it comes down to a bird taking off, a mammal running or some sort of quick behavior you are more likely to miss THE moment.


----------



## uri.raz (Sep 16, 2019)

gdanmitchell said:


> The costs of storage and memory continue to decrease at a significant rate. When you consider that ongoing trend, the actual costs of storage don't really increase at all. It likely still costs about the same to store an 80MP image file as it cost to store a 50MP image file several years back — perhaps even a bit less.



Money not saved is money lost.



gdanmitchell said:


> And... for those who don't need or want higher resolution Canon continues to provide lower MP alternatives that are quite fine cameras, too.



DxO PhotoLab doesn't process mRaw / sRaw, and they have no plans to support those.

Choice is good. Having to buy larger disks and/or being forced to switch image processing software isn't.


----------

